Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[lucky777s]

Decertification will cause problems for the players also. No draft and no salary cap means small markets team cannot compete. Without any promising rookies and with no chance to win fans will stop going to teams in small markets and a few teams will fold. That means less jobs for players.

The big name players will get more money but everyone else will get less.

I agree. This type of Wild West system will ultimately end up in many teams going under or being forced to move to bigger markets where local TV could support a bigger payroll. Toronto is a 'big' market city but I don't think broadcast rights for the Raps bring in much money.

DaCrush is right when he says there is no way the richer teams will be able to control their own egos and not spend whatever it takes to get the big stars. That is why the league needs a restrictive CBA to prosper.

The big national TV contracts will shrink considerably if the nba is not represented in as many cities across America and becomes a 15-20 team league. There would be a lot of negativity toward the NBA if it abandoned 7-10 cities.

And ultimately it would be players taking the biggest hit of all with possibly 100 or more jobs being lost from a pool of only 450.

The superstars and their agents are the only ones holding up this deal now imo. Plus Hunter wanting to save his job and reputation.

The fact that a vote on 50/50 BRI split would likely get approval by the 450 members today tells me the union is fighting a losing battle here and I don't see the courts bailing them out.

[dacrusha]

Just because there is competition does not mean all salaries go through the roof. Capital is not unlimited.

The top tier players will make a lot more, middle and lower tiers will make less. A guy now making the minimum is going to get less. Guys making the midlevel are also going to get less.

And isn't this exactly as it should be?

I'm not watching a basketball game to see Linus Kleiza and his $5 million salary. I'm watching to see what Durant, Rose and LBJ will do next.

Half the interest this league garners is because of the exposure that the top 15-20 players bring and they should be compensated as such.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I'm not sure that the players lose the most. Some players will gain. Others will lose. On the whole, players will be big losers in that scenario, though.

Will they lose more than the owners, on the whole? I'm not so sure. Owners who fold their franchises will lose out on hundreds of millions and big market franchises will have smaller revenues from smaller tv contracts and less revenues in areas outside of their regional markets. Owners of big market teams will also face added pressures in that there will be less restrictions on other teams popping up in their currently extremely protected markets and if they lose and ultimately see competition pop up in their markets they can ultimately lose a lot of money if they don't run things properly and produce losers year after year after year (I'm thinking of Donald Sterling specifically here, but MLSE also qualifies).

All this because the owners are holding out for a % of revenues greater than any league has had for the last several decades rather than looking at why their expenses are so much higher on a % basis than any other league and negotiating a revenue sharing deal that wouldn't require these kinds of outrageous labour negotations in the first place.

What happens when the small market teams set up their own league with a high degree of revenue sharing and look for potential buyers to set up franchises in New York, LA, Chicago and Toronto who agree to their revenue sharing terms? The fallout is not at all likely to be that extreme, but there are a LOT of risks for owners of both big and small market taems with decertification.

[ranger001]

Just because there is competition does not mean all salaries go through the roof. Capital is not unlimited.

The top tier players will make a lot more, middle and lower tiers will make less. A guy now making the minimum is going to get less. Guys making the midlevel are also going to get less.

And isn't this exactly as it should be?

Depends on what kind of league you want. If you want to see around a 20 team league where only 4 or 5 teams realistically have a chance then ok. I don't see that as the way it should be.

I like the NFL model where small market teams like Green Bay can win a championship.

[Consequence]

The league is facing an equivalent threat from a trenchant group of owners, who are vowing to oppose any deal that gives players more than 50 percent of revenue.

The owners’ faction includes between 10 and 14 owners and is being led by Charlotte’s Michael Jordan, according to a person who has spoken with the owners. That group wanted the players’ share set no higher than 47 percent, and it was upset when league negotiators proposed a 50-50 split last month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/sport ... ref=sports

[Rhettmatic]

Michael Jordan is apparently trying to rally the other hard-line owners to reject a deal at 50/50:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/sport ... ref=sports

The owners’ faction includes between 10 and 14 owners and is being led by Charlotte’s Michael Jordan, according to a person who has spoken with the owners. That group wanted the players’ share set no higher than 47 percent, and it was upset when league negotiators proposed a 50-50 split last month.

According to the person who spoke with the owners, Jordan’s faction intends to vote against the 50-50 deal, if negotiations get that far. Saturday’s owners meeting was arranged in part to address that concern.

And hey, remember this, from the last lockout?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-10 ... rs-wizards

You don't want to be a Washington player if Michael Jordan plays against the Wizards this season. During the mass owner-player meeting yesterday, Jordan engaged in a heated exchange with Wizards owner Abe Pollin.

Jordan's showdown with Pollin and fellow Bull Steve Kerr's verbal battle with David Stern were the highlights of the 11/2-hour meeting, according to several players.

According to players, Pollin said about his fellow owners, "You just have to trust us."

Jordan fired back, saying, "You've got to trust our negotiators." Jordan also blasted owners for not bargaining in good faith in the offseason and said to Pollin, "If you can't make a profit, you should sell your team."

[Reignman]

Decertification isn't a realistic proposition, it's just laughable that some of you think it is.

The NBA has done everything in the correct fashion and made the UNPRECEDENTED move of opening up their books along with Owner personal tax returns.

They are showing massive losses based on GAAP and what they are asking for in the negotiations is to cover those losses and allow teams to be profitable moving forward.

You don't have to agree with the numbers because it doesn't make a damn difference, that's why the union has stopped harping on losses vs paper losses. Fact is those numbers come from accepted accounting principles.

The owners have a leg to stand on while the union only has "it's not as much as last time!". GTFO, they'd lose a lot by going the decertification route. In fact, if they decertify and then continue negotiations the deal is going to start to look extremely ugly for them.

The players lost this battle a long time ago, probably 2 or 3 years ago when many owners started realizing their massive investment just isn't profitable.

[knickerbocker2k2]

I like the NFL model where small market teams like Green Bay can win a championship.

As others have argued NBA/NFL are total different type of sports. In NBA one player can make or break team. If there are only 3-5 transformational players in the league, how can you make the other 27 teams to be competitive? Shifting money from players to owners is not going to fix this issue.

Secondly you realize San Antonia is smaller market than Green Bay and it has being dominate team last decade? Utah another market smaller than Green Bay, but yet they have being western powerhouse for most of the last decade and even prior to that. It is not that small markets can't compete in the NBA but fewer teams can be competitive and thus drafting/management is huge factor.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Decertification isn't a realistic proposition, it's just laughable that some of you think it is.

The NBA has done everything in the correct fashion and made the UNPRECEDENTED move of opening up their books along with Owner personal tax returns.

They are showing massive losses based on GAAP and what they are asking for in the negotiations is to cover those losses and allow teams to be profitable moving forward.

You don't have to agree with the numbers because it doesn't make a damn difference, that's why the union has stopped harping on losses vs paper losses. Fact is those numbers come from accepted accounting principles.

The owners have a leg to stand on while the union only has "it's not as much as last time!". GTFO, they'd lose a lot by going the decertification route. In fact, if they decertify and then continue negotiations the deal is going to start to look extremely ugly for them.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/dec ... ng-message

Please read the article above because I don't think you understand the consequences of decertification. For one if they decertify, there is no more negotiations because their is no one for the NBA to negotiate with. Secondly their losses or book values make no difference at that point. Each team will spend according to their means (unless owners get together and create new system, which would than cause anti-trust lawsuits because that is collusion). So in this scenario if the Lakers want to spend $200M per year, than they'll be able. If $100,000 is all Cleveland is able to afford, than its within their right to spend $100,000 and the talent that buys.

[ranger001]

I like the NFL model where small market teams like Green Bay can win a championship.

As others have argued NBA/NFL are total different type of sports. In NBA one player can make or break team. If there are only 3-5 transformational players in the league, how can you make the other 27 teams to be competitive? Shifting money from players to owners is not going to fix this issue.

Secondly you realize San Antonia is smaller market than Green Bay and it has being dominate team last decade? Utah another market smaller than Green Bay, but yet they have being western powerhouse for most of the last decade and even prior to that. It is not that small markets can't compete in the NBA but fewer teams can be competitive and thus drafting/management is huge factor.

I agree that it is harder in the NBA for small market teams to compete but the point is that a decertification will not improve the situation, it will make it worse.

[knickerbocker2k2]

I agree that it is harder in the NBA for small market teams to compete but the point is that a decertification will not improve the situation, it will make it worse.

Not only harder but nearly impossible. Only way small market teams will be able to compete is if they have sugar daddy who is not interested in profits and is willing to take huge losses to see the team succeed. Case in example European football where in each league only 3-4 teams have realistic chance of winning.

This is why small market/cheap owners should be very afraid of this possibility, even if it is remote. If players decertify than every small market team owner will essentially lose huge chunk of their teams value.

[dacrusha]

Just because there is competition does not mean all salaries go through the roof. Capital is not unlimited.

The top tier players will make a lot more, middle and lower tiers will make less. A guy now making the minimum is going to get less. Guys making the midlevel are also going to get less.

And isn't this exactly as it should be?

Depends on what kind of league you want. If you want to see around a 20 team league where only 4 or 5 teams realistically have a chance then ok. I don't see that as the way it should be.

I like the NFL model where small market teams like Green Bay can win a championship.

Once again, it doesn't matter what CBA model the NBA adopts, teams will only have a chance to compete if they draft the next Durant, Rose or LBJ. Come to think of it, if the league REALLY wanted parity, they would not allow a team to have more than one #1 overall pick every 30 years.

And, BTW, Green Bay isn't competitive because of any sort of salary cap considerations; they're competitive because they drafted the best QB in the NFL.

[Reignman]

Decertification isn't a realistic proposition, it's just laughable that some of you think it is.

The NBA has done everything in the correct fashion and made the UNPRECEDENTED move of opening up their books along with Owner personal tax returns.

They are showing massive losses based on GAAP and what they are asking for in the negotiations is to cover those losses and allow teams to be profitable moving forward.

You don't have to agree with the numbers because it doesn't make a damn difference, that's why the union has stopped harping on losses vs paper losses. Fact is those numbers come from accepted accounting principles.

The owners have a leg to stand on while the union only has "it's not as much as last time!". GTFO, they'd lose a lot by going the decertification route. In fact, if they decertify and then continue negotiations the deal is going to start to look extremely ugly for them.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/dec ... ng-message

Please read the article above because I don't think you understand the consequences of decertification. For one if they decertify, there is no more negotiations because their is no one for the NBA to negotiate with. Secondly their losses or book values make no difference at that point. Each team will spend according to their means (unless owners get together and create new system, which would than cause anti-trust lawsuits because that is collusion). So in this scenario if the Lakers want to spend $200M per year, than they'll be able. If $100,000 is all Cleveland is able to afford, than its within their right to spend $100,000 and the talent that buys.

There is a lot wrong with this post. A) You can continue negotiating while you petition for decertification (see NFL). B) The books will ALWAYS matter, that's how people will determine if something is "fair" or not.

The only thing you're right about is your last sentance but again, it's not even close to being realistic because under those parameters, the NBA would be a 10 team league (AT BEST).

BTW, you really should go find out why decertification would be mornonic for the players at this point in the negotiation. This is a very different situation than the NFL decertifying and the books had a lot to do with it.

[ranger001]

small market/cheap owners should be very afraid of this possibility, even if it is remote. If players decertify than every small market team owner will essentially lose huge chunk of their teams value.

Both sides have to be afraid of a decertification. First of all the NLRB is going to block a decertification until the NBPA lawsuit before the NLRB is settled. The players then have to wait 45 days before the decertification vote. After decertification they would file an antitrust lawsuit. The lawsuit then has to be settled and it could take years. During this time they are losing salary.

The midlevel and lower level players are also going to lose salaries if the win the anti trust lawsuit, guys like Lebron will make more and everyone else less. I expect Hunter to fight the decertification.

[ranger001]

Once again, it doesn't matter what CBA model the NBA adopts, teams will only have a chance to compete if they draft the next Durant, Rose or LBJ. Come to think of it, if the league REALLY wanted parity, they would not allow a team to have more than one #1 overall pick every 30 years.

And, BTW, Green Bay isn't competitive because of any sort of salary cap considerations; they're competitive because they drafted the best QB in the NFL.

In a decertification there would be no draft since that would be a restraint of trade. Green Bay in the NFL or small market teams in the NBA would never be competitive without a CBL.

[floppymoose]

Both sides have to be afraid of a decertification. First of all the NLRB is going to block a decertification until the NBPA lawsuit before the NLRB is settled.

Aside from Katz saying so, I can't find anything to suggest this is true. Do you have a source other than Katz?

The players then have to wait 45 days before the decertification vote.

My understanding is that 45 days is a maximum, not a minimum. The NLRB basically uses that time to investigate whether any foul play is going on. Typically, that means that ownership is coercing union members to decertify. Obviously that's not a factor here. If there is a decertification vote, it really is because 30+% of the players want it. No owner is pressuring them to decert, quite the opposite. The NLRB could give the go ahead a lot sooner than 45 days.

After decertification they would file an antitrust lawsuit. The lawsuit then has to be settled and it could take years. During this time they are losing salary.

After decertification, the players have won. The lawsuit doesn't matter. The owners cannot move to a system with no cap and no union, it's an unsustainable model for them that will destroy them. The owners will improve their offer and come back to the negotiating table with something real.

None of the court stuff after decert matters because the owners aren't going to let it matter.

[ranger001]

Both sides have to be afraid of a decertification. First of all the NLRB is going to block a decertification until the NBPA lawsuit before the NLRB is settled.

Aside from Katz saying so, I can't find anything to suggest this is true. Do you have a source other than Katz?

Katz is a lawyer with years of litigation and labour experience. His legal opinion carries a lot of weight. Do you have any source contradicting Katz? I'll take his legal opinion over yours.

The players then have to wait 45 days before the decertification vote.

My understanding is that 45 days is a maximum, not a minimum. The NLRB basically uses that time to investigate whether any foul play is going on. Typically, that means that ownership is coercing union members to decertify. Obviously that's not a factor here. If there is a decertification vote, it really is because 30+% of the players want it. No owner is pressuring them to decert, quite the opposite. The NLRB could give the go ahead a lot sooner than 45 days.

Unlikely, there is bound to be factions within the players arguing for and against. The NLRB will give them time to hear both sides.

After decertification they would file an antitrust lawsuit. The lawsuit then has to be settled and it could take years. During this time they are losing salary.

After decertification, the players have won. The lawsuit doesn't matter. The owners cannot move to a system with no cap and no union, it's an unsustainable model for them that will destroy them. The owners will improve their offer and come back to the negotiating table with something real.

None of the court stuff after decert matters because the owners aren't going to let it matter.

Why have the players won after decertification? The NFL decertified and they didn't win a thing. After decertification the lockout will continue.

[Reignman]

yeah, need some clarification on how the players "win" after decertification? If anything, 20 players would "win", 300 players would "lose" and the remaining 150 players would be out of a job because teams would fold up shop.

And that's only after they've successfully won their anti-trust lawsuit and the league doesn't file for bankcruptcy.

Actually, let me rephrase, I don't see how the players "win" anything with decertification. Either they'll really lose or they'll lose more than they already have when they form a union again.

[dacrusha]

Both sides have to be afraid of a decertification. First of all the NLRB is going to block a decertification until the NBPA lawsuit before the NLRB is settled.

Aside from Katz saying so, I can't find anything to suggest this is true. Do you have a source other than Katz?

Katz is a lawyer with years of litigation and labour experience. His legal opinion carries a lot of weight. Do you have any source contradicting Katz? I'll take his legal opinion over yours.

The players then have to wait 45 days before the decertification vote.

My understanding is that 45 days is a maximum, not a minimum. The NLRB basically uses that time to investigate whether any foul play is going on. Typically, that means that ownership is coercing union members to decertify. Obviously that's not a factor here. If there is a decertification vote, it really is because 30+% of the players want it. No owner is pressuring them to decert, quite the opposite. The NLRB could give the go ahead a lot sooner than 45 days.

Unlikely, there is bound to be factions within the players arguing for and against. The NLRB will give them time to hear both sides.

After decertification they would file an antitrust lawsuit. The lawsuit then has to be settled and it could take years. During this time they are losing salary.

After decertification, the players have won. The lawsuit doesn't matter. The owners cannot move to a system with no cap and no union, it's an unsustainable model for them that will destroy them. The owners will improve their offer and come back to the negotiating table with something real.

None of the court stuff after decert matters because the owners aren't going to let it matter.

Why have the players won after decertification? The NFL decertified and they didn't win a thing. After desertification the lockout will continue.

I think the idea is that the players, after decertification, can then sue the league for running a monopoly and propagating unfair labor practices... and every other anti-trust violation that union-backed, collective bargaining currently shields the owners from.

[Reignman]

The players already suck with managing their finances and you think they are going to last years (potentially) in the court system battling the league with anti-trust suits? LOL.

And here's the kicker, even if they manage to win, the owners already have the books/paperwork to declare bankruptcy.

Actually, it would funny to see them go down that path.

Edit: BTW, anyone miss that video game Lemmings? popped in my head for some reason.