NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[DBoys]

Hartford, Unfortunately, on examination, none of that supports what you are claiming. To be specific:

YOU SAID: 1) The league said it uses GAAP which includes purchase debt.

The league didn't actually say "which includes purchase debt." That's your insertion, but it's not their assertion.

The context of the quote was to counter a charge by Nate Silver that they had employed "unusual accounting treatment related to depreciation and amortization when a team is sold," replying that they were using "conventional and generally accepted accounting (GAAP) approach" and it "does not include purchase price amortization from when a team is sold." Whether they included debt service related to team acquisition or not, it did not address (and it was not a charge that had been leveled in the article by Silver they were responding to).

We can say that such a statement about GAAP would otherwise be broad enough to include "team-purchase-related debt." While so, that does not mean it has necessarily been included, and the context was about a different item, amortization, obviously focusing on the concept of "generally accepted" to underscore that they didn't have anything squirrelly in the numbers.

YOU SAID: 2) The union did say it included Purchase costs. See my previous links:
"Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves."

I had already read that article many times. Unfortunately it doesn't say what you think it does. The quote you offered, if you read it carefuly and within its context, was (a) Coon's thesis, not Hunter's words, and (b) was referring specifically to RDA, not interest. He based his analysis and conclusion on team financial documents he had, a similar thesis to that of Nate Silver and which (like Silver's) purported to show the league's losses as a clever fiction.

It was to those charges that the losses were due to RDA write-offs that the NBA responded in detail, debunking their claims with specifics on the documents that the league had given to the union proving their losses. (Both issued retractions of the claims.)

Pertaining to our discussion in this forum, if that's your smoking gun on the union supposedly claiming that the "interest" losses were purchase related, you're shooting blanks. I believe you thought you read it. I accept there is room for it to have been within a GAAP-compliant financial document. But despite your assertions, neither the union nor the league is actually CLAIMING that it's in there, and it doesn't necessarily have to be, inasmuch as other GAAP-related items were backed out of the financials being used before they were submitted to the union.

If it's the union's claim that the interest is purchase related, I'd expect it to be something we'd see them touting early and often. Instead, at best we're left with "it has room to have been included" as our evidence. I don't find that to be very compelling evidence of the union having that stance.

[HartfordWhalers]

Hartford, Unfortunately, on examination, none of that supports what you are claiming. To be specific:

YOU SAID: 1) The league said it uses GAAP which includes purchase debt.

The league didn't actually say "which includes purchase debt." That's your insertion, but it's not their assertion.

The context of the quote was to counter a charge by Nate Silver that they had employed "unusual accounting treatment related to depreciation and amortization when a team is sold," replying that they were using "conventional and generally accepted accounting (GAAP) approach" and it "does not include purchase price amortization from when a team is sold." Whether they included debt service related to team acquisition or not, it did not address (and it was not a charge that had been leveled in the article by Silver they were responding to).

We can say that such a statement about GAAP would otherwise be broad enough to include "team-purchase-related debt." While so, that does not mean it has necessarily been included, and the context was about a different item, amortization, obviously focusing on the concept of "generally accepted" to underscore that they didn't have anything squirrelly in the numbers.

YOU SAID: 2) The union did say it included Purchase costs. See my previous links:
"Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves."

I had already read that article many times. Unfortunately it doesn't say what you think it does. The quote you offered, if you read it carefuly and within its context, was (a) Coon's thesis, not Hunter's words, and (b) was referring specifically to RDA, not interest. He based his analysis and conclusion on team financial documents he had, a similar thesis to that of Nate Silver and which (like Silver's) purported to show the league's losses as a clever fiction.

It was to those charges that the losses were due to RDA write-offs that the NBA responded in detail, debunking their claims with specifics on the documents that the league had given to the union proving their losses. (Both issued retractions of the claims.)

Pertaining to our discussion in this forum, if that's your smoking gun on the union supposedly claiming that the "interest" losses were purchase related, you're shooting blanks. I believe you thought you read it. I accept there is room for it to have been within a GAAP-compliant financial document. But despite your assertions, neither the union nor the league is actually CLAIMING that it's in there, and it doesn't necessarily have to be, inasmuch as other GAAP-related items were backed out of the financials being used before they were submitted to the union.

If it's the union's claim that the interest is purchase related, I'd expect it to be something we'd see them touting early and often. Instead, at best we're left with "it has room to have been included" as our evidence. I don't find that to be very compelling evidence of the union having that stance.

Sorry, maybe I should spell it out more slowly for you.

GAAP includes purchase related debt servicing.
The league said it uses GAAP.
...
...
...
...
...
...
(The league never once denied including debt servicing related to the purchasing of a franchise, a statement you made and have never once backed up.)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...


Are you there yet?

{And yes, the article about Hunters quote said that it was purchase related but was not directly in a quote from Hunter, so who knows, mabe it was speculation based upon the journalists susceptibility to the lunar cycle? Or maybe it followed directly after Hunter saying it was purchase related.}

Seriously, your posts have amounted to saying I'm wrong and when asked to provide one shred off proof trying to duck and hide behind 'well who knows it may be vague'. It really wasn't. You were wrong.

At the very least you should stop telling other people they are wrong when you clearly have nothing to back it up.

[The Rebel]

Hartford, Unfortunately, on examination, none of that supports what you are claiming. To be specific:

YOU SAID: 1) The league said it uses GAAP which includes purchase debt.

The league didn't actually say "which includes purchase debt." That's your insertion, but it's not their assertion.

The context of the quote was to counter a charge by Nate Silver that they had employed "unusual accounting treatment related to depreciation and amortization when a team is sold," replying that they were using "conventional and generally accepted accounting (GAAP) approach" and it "does not include purchase price amortization from when a team is sold." Whether they included debt service related to team acquisition or not, it did not address (and it was not a charge that had been leveled in the article by Silver they were responding to).

We can say that such a statement about GAAP would otherwise be broad enough to include "team-purchase-related debt." While so, that does not mean it has necessarily been included, and the context was about a different item, amortization, obviously focusing on the concept of "generally accepted" to underscore that they didn't have anything squirrelly in the numbers.

YOU SAID: 2) The union did say it included Purchase costs. See my previous links:
"Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves."

I had already read that article many times. Unfortunately it doesn't say what you think it does. The quote you offered, if you read it carefuly and within its context, was (a) Coon's thesis, not Hunter's words, and (b) was referring specifically to RDA, not interest. He based his analysis and conclusion on team financial documents he had, a similar thesis to that of Nate Silver and which (like Silver's) purported to show the league's losses as a clever fiction.

It was to those charges that the losses were due to RDA write-offs that the NBA responded in detail, debunking their claims with specifics on the documents that the league had given to the union proving their losses. (Both issued retractions of the claims.)

Pertaining to our discussion in this forum, if that's your smoking gun on the union supposedly claiming that the "interest" losses were purchase related, you're shooting blanks. I believe you thought you read it. I accept there is room for it to have been within a GAAP-compliant financial document. But despite your assertions, neither the union nor the league is actually CLAIMING that it's in there, and it doesn't necessarily have to be, inasmuch as other GAAP-related items were backed out of the financials being used before they were submitted to the union.

If it's the union's claim that the interest is purchase related, I'd expect it to be something we'd see them touting early and often. Instead, at best we're left with "it has room to have been included" as our evidence. I don't find that to be very compelling evidence of the union having that stance.

Interest is included in GAAP, as is seen as a necessary expense of doing business. I don't believe the argument from either side has said that the interest expenses were not included in the financials, but whether or not they should count.

The GAAP, the Irs, the owners, and most accountants all agree it is a viable business expense and should be included in the balance sheet and profit and loss. The union and a handful of others disagree and think that it should not be included because it was used to purchase the business, and not an operating expense that comes from day to day operations.

[DBoys]

Hartford, you've read way more into Coon's article than was there. You can be dismissive, or you can take a closer look and see that what I'm saying is accurate. The quote "Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves" isn't even a statement about interest, it's addressing amortization (which was the jumping off point of his thesis).

And I don't buy that the owners' stated use of GAAP accounting in relation to purchase amortization and depreciation issues necessarily tells us they included, or excluded, purchase-related interest or any other unspecified category in what they put on the table. Their public disclosures - to address pointed questions aimed at depreciation and amortization - revealed GAAP compliance on those issues while also noting that they had excluded what was otherwise a GAAP-compliant write-off, the RDA. Making assertions that they had to have included or excluded other unmentioned items can be nothing more than a guess, absent other specific clarifying statements.

But I'll meet you halfway. My claims ("it's clearly been excluded") may have been a bit overly broad, and yours ("it's been in all the books I've seen from the owners") too.

On my end, I'll concede what the league actually said "none of the league losses are related to team purchase or sale accounting" but didn't actually address interest related to the purchase in those statements.

On your end, wouldn't you concede the union has not said the interest they've objected to is actually purchase-related, and neither have the owners, and you haven't seen anything saying it was actually in the books on the table in this negotiation.

Fair enough?

[HartfordWhalers]

^^ I appreciate the remark and the tone. Personally, I think based off the comments by Coon, Hunter, the NBA itself, Forbes, etc it seems clear that all team debt is included.
But to the extent that it moves towards meeting you half way, how about I concede:

"Even EBITA wise teams are losing money". We are talking about reducing loses by 150-200 million or so out of 350 million in losses (very rough number as I don't care to look up a good approximation). But to the point Wizenheim raised earlier, either way you need to be able to carry losses (in general) when buying an nba franchise nowadays.

"The distinction is a theoretical one." Although if I were worth a billion and wanted an nba franchise I would lever to the break even point.

"The distinction doesn't matter a lic for negotiations." Cause it doesn't.

Maybe it isn't 50%, but that is 47% for you which should be fair.

[DBoys]

No prob, but one pushback.

Coon and Silver (aka "Forbes" I presume) may have written at length about NBA accounting, but I still don't find either of them making much if any mention of purchase-related-interest, but rather to RDA. That having been said, aren't they guessers at best, based on what they think might be in there pushing the losses? Ultimately they totally whiffed on their RDA assertions, and the problem in relying on them is It's a set of numbers not seen by them (or any outsiders) and uniquely prepared for that specific purpose.

Hunter/union and Stern/owners obviously would be reliable, but they look silent to me. Maybe you are better at divining than I am. I've never had ESPN.

Oh, and I'm thrilled at getting 47% as long as you pay all the expenses ... that will still retain my status as far and away the highest paid Professional Bloviator on the forum, by quite a wide margin!

[floppymoose]

I don't think Hunter and Stern etc are reliable. I don't trust the owners to tell the whole story, and I don't trust Hunters info because he got it from the owners. I think the safest course is to use independent data, which, while incomplete, is likely to be less biased.

[DBoys]

I don't think Hunter and Stern etc are reliable. I don't trust the owners to tell the whole story, and I don't trust Hunters info because he got it from the owners. I think the safest course is to use independent data, which, while incomplete, is likely to be less biased.

This is a non-sequitur. There is no "independent data" that can tell which items have been included in a unique set of numbers and which haven't, unless you have access to Miss Cleo of course

[turk3d]

That's why you'd need an independent auditor to review all the data in order to come to a fair and unbiased conclusion. In the midst of negotiations (which to say the least have been quite heated at times) you can't really expect full disclosure from either side more than likely which is why taking sides although ok, can't be totally conclusive as to who's right and who's wrong.

The NLRB will take a totally independent approach and their findings I believe will have more validity to them (at least am hopeful). All the activity starting to take place seems to have begun to occur once it was announced that they're planning on making a review. I don't think that's a coincidence. I'm going to take what they say more seriously than what the owners and their lawyers and the players and their agents say and am looking forward to their results. I take what everyone else says with a grain of salt.

[Wizenheimer]

That's why you'd need an independent auditor to review all the data in order to come to a fair and unbiased conclusion. In the midst of negotiations (which to say the least have been quite heated at times) you can't really expect full disclosure from either side more than likely which is why taking sides although ok, can't be totally conclusive as to who's right and who's wrong.

The NLRB will take a totally independent approach and their findings I believe will have more validity to them (at least am hopeful). All the activity starting to take place seems to have begun to occur once it was announced that they're planning on making a review. I don't think that's a coincidence. I'm going to take what they say more seriously than what the owners and their lawyers and the players and their agents say and am looking forward to their results. I take what everyone else says with a grain of salt.

there have apparently been independent audits of every season except for the last season. I'm assuming that's not completed because of time constraints.

IIRC, those audits did confirm the NBA's claimed losses, for instance 370 million in 08/09 and 340 million in 09/10.

Now, of course there is debate about exactly how much access to data the auditors had, but since the audits included the tax returns of the NBA and each team, I'd conclude there was a fairly thorough inclusion of data.

Even the union, which has had legal representatives examine the NBA's books, tax records, and audit reports has not disputed the actual numbers. What they have disputed is that some of those numbers should not be germane to the negotiations. In the context of that dispute, I think it's pretty clear the union has been pumping out some misinformation, some intentional and some not. And before you come at me about that assertion, keep in mind that I assume the NBA has been pumping out misleading information as well

Anyway, I don't think an independent examination of the records would show any significant variation in what the audits have shown.

I do think owners are definitely gaining ancillary financial benefits from their ownership. For instance, while it seems to be the case that the NBA books do not include Roster Depreciation Allowances (RDA), that's likely not the end of the story. In one of the articles I read about this, the Seattle Supersonics were highlighted. Essentially, the Sonic's books reflected the NBA's current status claims...no RDA. However, the ownership group apparently slid the RDA credit to a LLC they operated and used it to shelter income earned by that LLC and claim a loss. Presumably, they may have slid any allowance left to another LLC. Who knows. And I'd assume that's true for just about all the RDA teams are eligible for

In other words, just because the owners are smart enough to not use RDA in their NBA books because of their anti-trust exemption and the leverage they'd lose in CBA negotiations, there's no reason to expect them to get suddenly stupid and not use it at all.

But the owners aren't the only side gaining an ancillary benefit. It's probably impossible to say which is bigger: the amount of money owners make from those benefits or the total aggregate endorsement money NBA players make both during and after their careers. For chrissakes, Michael Jordan is still raking in millions for Hanes underwear commercials, and Charles Barkley has been commercials every year since he retired. My guess is that player endorsements might even be larger.

[turk3d]

All good points Wise. I think that a very important one you made is "relevant to the negotiations" which is really what it's all about. On paper, you can do a lot of things to endorse whatever your point of view is (depends on who you're trying to convince and what), but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, that's what's going to make or break your case as far as the negotiations go. It's the nuts and bolts that I see which may be starting to get unraveled.

I think that maybe there is more of a question regarding the information that the league has supplied (which I think the NLRB will be looking at) is 1) did they give them everything that the union asked for (part of what is referred to as "discovery" in legal terms) and 2) whether or not they did it in a timely manner. These are a few of the kinds of questions which would be looked at regarding the issue of "good faith". Disclosure is a key element in that scenerio.

As for your point on ancillary benefits to both sides, that's one point I totally agree with you on. The players side earnings is one area that I think the owners should have had to harp on and I'm surprised they haven't, instead choosing to ramrod the union into complying with all their demands (some of which I think are pretty ridiculous). One of the problems with player endorsements is that it really only benefits a select few players (namely superstars) so that the rest of the players really don't get any benefit (as neither do the owners).

Considering the players are using their logos, their marketing and all the buildup they receive, I think that the owners/league should be entitled to some of that, and I wouldn't be averse ti throwing that into the pie. I think it's wrong when certain players wind up making more than the owners do when it's all said and done. Put that in the pot and stop trying to make the players give up so much of the percentage.

I've said all along that the problem is systemic and that's the real crux of the matter, not the BRI as the league has been portraying to be. Make the correct systemic changes and then figure out what the appropriate BRI should be. Up until now maybe, the BRI has been nothing more than a smokescreen used by the league imo with their main goal/objective being to crack the union,

[Wizenheimer]

I think that maybe there is more of a question regarding the information that the league has supplied (which I think the NLRB will be looking at) is 1) did they give them everything that the union asked for (part of what is referred to as "discovery" in legal terms) and 2) whether or not they did it in a timely manner. These are a few of the kinds of questions which would be looked at regarding the issue of "good faith". Disclosure is a key element in that scenerio.

I'm really not sure what the thresholds are for the NLRB presentations. You mention if the NBA has supplied all the information the union asked for. The other side of that, and I've heard NBA reps speak to this, is that the union was over-reaching. In essence, asking for documents they were not entitled to. Obviously, that's pretty common in dispute so it's not a condemnation. But expecting it to yield an unfavorable ruling from the NLRB seems unrealistic

Somebody posted a link to a podcast of an interview with an expert on the NLRB process. The things he was saying led me to believe that the union was really a long shot to get a favorable ruling out of this process:

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918087

it's worth a listen if you have about 17 minutes, and if you're at work, I'm sure you do...

As for your point on ancillary benefits to both sides, that's one point I totally agree with you on. The players side earnings is one area that I think the owners should have had to harp on and I'm surprised they haven't, instead choosing to ramrod the union into complying with all their demands (some of which I think are pretty ridiculous). One of the problems with player endorsements is that it really only benefits a select few players (namely superstars) so that the rest of the players really don't get any benefit (as neither do the owners).

as to players other then superstars earning endorsement money: obviously, role player aren't going to be winning any national endorsement deals. But they do get local endorsement deals. In Portland, for years regular players have been appearing in commercial. Even Joel Przybilla had a string of commercials for a big local car dealer. I don't know how much he made but I would not be surprised at all if it was more then I could make in a year, and I don't do bad

Considering the players are using their logos, their marketing and all the buildup they receive, I think that the owners/league should be entitled to some of that, and I wouldn't be averse ti throwing that into the pie. I think it's wrong when certain players wind up making more than the owners do when it's all said and done. Put that in the pot and stop trying to make the players give up so much of the percentage.

I think perhaps the owners are smart enough to not open up that can of worms. In the first place, the recognize that national ad campaigns featuring NBA superstars do tend to elevate the NBA image. So indirectly, they do get a benefit

But probably more important is that they just don't want to subject their own personal tax statements and the records of all their businesses open to scrutiny. And that would likely be the result if the players' total income records were open to scrutiny. It would end up being a blood-in-the-water-take-no-prisoners battle. neither side wants that, especially seeing as how this limited theater war about the CBA has drug on and become pretty nasty. And yes, that's a lot of metaphor for one paragraph...excuse me!

I've said all along that the problem is systemic and that's the real crux of the matter, not the BRI as the league has been portraying to be. Make the correct systemic changes and then figure out what the appropriate BRI should be. Up until now maybe, the BRI has been nothing more than a smokescreen used by the league imo with their main goal/objective being to crack the union,

if you talk to people in the Blazer forum they'd tell you I've been obnoxiously predicting a CBA meltdown for a year. And that the meltdown would be more about the salary cap stucture then the BRI split. That's not to say that the BRI isn't important. But I still think the underlying battle is about the type of cap structure the NBA ends up with. Fisher and Hunter have repeatedly called a change in the cap a "blood issue". And the owners have been pushing really hard on a change in cap. I tend to think the two sides could reach agreement on the BRI split and still end up crashing on the cap.

Hopefully, I'm wrong and a deal does get done.

[turk3d]

What I'm speaking towards is the legal aspects should it go there (which I'm sure it will ultimately if no settlement is reached) and the unions submission the the NLRB is the first step in that process and according to what I've read, the NLRB does have the power to issue an injunction depending o their findings (whether they do or not at this particular juncture is besides the point).

If it does go to court, then it becomes a disclosure issue and at that point discovery comes into play and when discover is introduced (and lawyers on both sides take over) then pretty much anything goes. You can ask just about any question you want to the opposing side and they almost always have to answer. In addition, whatever you say will become public record which anyone can use against you. This gets very nasty and I think most want to avoid this at all costs.

You don't necessarily even have to have a strong case but you'll have every right to get answers to whatever questions asked that you deem to be relevant to your case. The opposing attorneys of course can argue the relevance but sooner or later they will likely be forced to give it up and if they don't or if they delay too long the judge will likely issue sanctions against them.

So you see this is a place I'm sure that neither side wants to go (which it seems many don't realize). The ones that will get their pockets lined are the attorneys who'll be litigating this while both the league and the players will continue to lose money. Just look at the collusion case and Major League Baseball and how long it took for the court to render a decision on it. Ultimately though it was the players who wound up with a huge windfall. Hopefully both sides will put their egos aside and cooler heads will prevail.

[DBoys]

What I'm speaking towards is the legal aspects should it go there (which I'm sure it will ultimately if no settlement is reached) and the unions submission the the NLRB is the first step in that process and according to what I've read, the NLRB does have the power to issue an injunction depending o their findings (whether they do or not at this particular juncture is besides the point).

If it does go to court, then it becomes a disclosure issue and at that point discovery comes into play and when discover is introduced (and lawyers on both sides take over) then pretty much anything goes. You can ask just about any question you want to the opposing side and they almost always have to answer. In addition, whatever you say will become public record which anyone can use against you. This gets very nasty and I think most want to avoid this at all costs.

You don't necessarily even have to have a strong case but you'll have every right to get answers to whatever questions asked that you deem to be relevant to your case. The opposing attorneys of course can argue the relevance but sooner or later they will likely be forced to give it up and if they don't or if they delay too long the judge will likely issue sanctions against them.

So you see this is a place I'm sure that neither side wants to go (which it seems many don't realize). The ones that will get their pockets lined are the attorneys who'll be litigating this while both the league and the players will continue to lose money. Just look at the collusion case and Major League Baseball and how long it took for the court to render a decision on it. Ultimately though it was the players who wound up with a huge windfall. Hopefully both sides will put their egos aside and cooler heads will prevail.

I keep being taken aback by much of what you say the parties would worry about from the NLRB, and I'm left to wonder ....What do you think the NLRB is doing right now in evaluating "bargaining in good faith"? As in, what is it you think they would consider doing, and what do you think they see as their role? And what do you think the potential down-side is, that should have the sides scared to death?

Because, the types of things you're saying, don't fit at all with my understanding of their potential role and involvement, at all.

For example, they are not a deal maker ... and they don't evaluate offers as to who's negotiating position is more fair and whose is less ....and so on ....

[floppymoose]

First off, let me say I have no knowledge or insight (or opinion) on this question...

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

[NyCeEvO]

First off, let me say I have no knowledge or insight (or opinion) on this question...

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

I was wondering the exact same thing too. I could be wrong but maybe the owners were tipped off that they better go ahead and work on a deal.

[Wizenheimer]

First off, let me say I have no knowledge or insight (or opinion) on this question...

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

I'm more inclined to think that the way the union characterized the owners' position was misleading, and that media ran with that mis-characterization

my take is that owners had no intention of budging off their 50-50 split position but were willing to discuss system issues

meanwhile the players weren't willing to discuss system issues until they knew what the BRI split was going to be. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Derreck Fisher and Billy Hunter said. They had tabled the BRI split discussions but when they came back to them, the owners were fairly adamant that their position hadn't chnged, so the union seemingly backtracked on system issues

that 50-50 split "pre-condition" was leaked by the union before the last round of negotiations, yet the owners agreed to participate in the arbitrated meetings.

no doubt the owners are playing some hardball here, but I seriously doubt they have modified their positions because of the NLRB's supposed impending ruling

[DBoys]

First off, let me say I have no knowledge or insight (or opinion) on this question...

Do you think the NLRB situation had anything to do with the owners dropping the 50/50 BRI split pre-condition to negotiations? The timing seems a little suggestive.

Absolutely none. It's not something that would really matter. Hard aggressive "make the other guy have to make hard choices" bargaining is not only allowed, it's expected.

Not as a point being made to address your question, but rather because it's the topic - I see a linkage (although not exactly sure what it is) between "if you don't want to give us 50-50, why talk" now and "if you won't give us 53%, why talk" issued a couple weeks ago. Tit for tat? An orchestrated charade by both sides, just filling time? Lesson sent, lesson replied? Hard ball? I have a hard time accepting "coincidence" as the answer ...and I have a hard time getting worked up by any of it, when looking at it under that light.

After the ultimatums get issued,a few days later they're talking again. I am left to conclude that it's simply a game of some sort, and we the observers who want to take it seriously, are the ones being played.

[DBoys]

PS - What would make the NLRB issue a "complaint" against the NBA, would be if they found (or thought they found) evidence that the NBA really doesn't want a deal made. I see that as laughable. That's why I don't think the NLRB's possible answer is anywhere near the issue some want to make of it, and why I don't think the NBA would be worried in the least.

In that context, "we have to have 50-50" is nothing more than one side pushing hard for the deal they are seeking.

[JrueTheFuture]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST PLZ END THIS LOCKOUT ALREADY