Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Cyrus]

Basically at min if they go this route, the players will lose like 3 years of paychecks...Assuming first they decertifiy, I say that'll take a year from Today or so to resolve...Then when they are open market and not getting offers, they'll file a collusion lawsuit, and who knows if there is appeals and such.

Why would it take 3 years? If they start desertification now there will be season next year. If there is no union, who are the owners locking out? At that point there is no one to negotiate with. I don't think even owners will contest starting next season. Why would they want to indefinite shut down their business?

And you seem to think Owners with no rules, will Sign guys to team payroll of 200 mill...If for whatever reason all 30 teams agree alright lets do this for real, with any rules.. You'll have 4 teams pay up for big time players...The rest will offer relatively nothing for rest.

Why wouldn't they? If this is the case, why do the owners want salary cap? Who are these restrictions protecting? Are they doing these for the benefit of the players?

And again I see someone like Heat Owner paying 40 mill to LBJ, 35 to Wade or whatever, and the rest of the guys getting 1 mill...

By your logic the NBA is doing the players a favor by signing them to these lucrative deals. I'm pretty sure they would love to sign middle/low end players on revolving year to year contract worth $1M. But if all 30 teams are bidding for their services, the players will get good offer based on supply/demand. Lets take someone like Paul Millsap, who is middle level guy in this league getting $7M per year. If team like Utah offers him $1M per year/3 year deal, he can offer his services to another team. If the market is truly free, than someone will pay him what he is worth.

If they De certify, Owners will not improve their offer, till basically the board rules the lockout illegal, and even then, who knows.

If they de certify, there is no offer to negotiate. The union doesn't exist. Who will the owners be negotiating with? Their options are

1) Liquidate their assets and enter another line of business
2) Setup a new system without player input and open themselves to lawsuits in the range of billions of dollars
3) Restart without any system and total new NBA that is totally wild west

Like basically everyone says, Players have NO leverage, never have. Till there is a rival league that can rival the NBA.

If they have no leverage how were the players able to get 57% in the last deal? Why did the owners improve their offer from 37% to 47%? Why don't the owners just offer 20% of BRI since that is more than they make anywhere else?

Let address one point, One They de-cretify, it'll take a couple of months, cancel this season. Based on what I read, they have to get 50 people to sign petition, which then takes 45 days, then its taken to vote, and you have to 50% +1 vote in favor to do it, and why would the majority of middle class players do it, but lets say they do.

Then the players will file a lawsuit against the nba for anti-monopoly laws, which will take anywhere fro 8 to 12 months to decide on... Which at the point whoever loses has the ability to appeal.

LEts say it gets settle by next year Sept/Oct... The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players? They'll likely collude to keep prices down, which then in turn the players who don't have union anymore, will have to make individual lawsuits, that owners are colluding, and again will take time to go through courts.

[Ponchos]

The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players?

There is no way in hell there are 20 hardline owners.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Let address one point, One They de-cretify, it'll take a couple of months, cancel this season.

Agreement here. If they decide on this path they can pretty much kiss the season goodbye. I don't think players will entertain this unless it becomes clear the season will be cancelled because they can't come to agreement with owners. Something owners need to think about because if season ends (meaning players haven't caved in) than this is most likely path. I don't see players sitting on their hands and waiting for next season without taking any action.

Based on what I read, they have to get 50 people to sign petition, which then takes 45 days, then its taken to vote, and you have to 50% +1 vote in favor to do it, and why would the majority of middle class players do it, but lets say they do.

If season is lost, than we are at impasse. Players will obviously be standing their ground for reasons other than financial (principle, ego, etc). I don't think its far fetch for the players to think they can do better in open/free system than one which owners dictate all the terms.

Then the players will file a lawsuit against the nba for anti-monopoly laws, which will take anywhere fro 8 to 12 months to decide on... Which at the point whoever loses has the ability to appeal.

Only depending on what owners do. If they decide to collude together to setup a system that violates anti-trust laws, than yes they will sue. But you have to remember that players would be receiving wages and playing basketball while this plays out in court.

LEts say it gets settle by next year Sept/Oct... The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players? They'll likely collude to keep prices down, which then in turn the players who don't have union anymore, will have to make individual lawsuits, that owners are colluding, and again will take time to go through courts.

If they collude than there is strong possibility of NBA being on the hook for billions of damages to players in the future. Secondly I don't think owners splinter and go after each other. That would make no sense. Why would small time owners punish big markets like Lakers/Knicks/etc? These are the primary earners in the league. I don't think this is even possible but lets say they decide to punish big markets by not playing against them and essentially kick them out of the league. Guess what we have another NBA league. Give audience choice between Knicks/Lakers/Dallas/Chicago and league consisting of cheap owners/lesser players in Milwaukee/Cleveland/Charlotte/etc and you have owners who's investment is worth $0 within 5 years.

[floppymoose]

What you don't mention is that the no-union no-CBA scenario doesn't work for the owners either. They will end up spending north of 60% revenues on the players.

That's why it's the "nuclear option". Owners will come back with a better offer before they allow that to happen.

No they won't...They won't sign anyone... Players will file an collusion lawsuit, and wil ltake another 2-3 years resolved everything,

You lost me right there. The owners are not sitting out 2 or 3 years. Not happening. They will improve their offer before they do that.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Decertification is just a threat ... I dont think for a minute it will happen.

Everything going on right now is show in my opinion and positioning.

I agree. There are now further reports of that conference call that make it seem more moderate and less unified. Woj is just completely untrustworthy when it comes to anything but basic facts. Whatever power agent/s gives him his dope must be very happy with his spin this week.

They're two percent off of a deal.

[Indeed]

Like basically everyone says, Players have NO leverage, never have. Till there is a rival league that can rival the NBA.

If they have no leverage how were the players able to get 57% in the last deal? Why did the owners improve their offer from 37% to 47%? Why don't the owners just offer 20% of BRI since that is more than they make anywhere else?

I think they might and want to offer 20%, but it doesn't make sense, because they can go to arbitrator.
I think their finance books can show 47% being a fair deal with perhaps 10% - 20% profit.

[whysoserious]

I may have missed or maybe it hasn't been mentioned in the negotiations so far but has there been any movement on the whole team A acquiring player X from team B, buying out player X and then player X returning to sign with Team B?

[Laowai]

The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players?

There is no way in hell there are 20 hardline owners.

The only teams that might accept 52% are LAL, NYK, Dallas,Chicago, Boston ( maybe ) Miami, Brooklyn, ( maybe) GS ( maybe) and Orlando

Think rest are no`s and NO doesn`t count.

[Indeed]

The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players?

There is no way in hell there are 20 hardline owners.

The only teams that might accept 52% are LAL, NYK, Dallas,Chicago, Boston ( maybe ) Miami, Brooklyn, ( maybe) GS ( maybe) and Orlando

Think rest are no`s and NO doesn`t count.

I think those teams can even accept 57%, and including Toronto, which makes 20m in operating income, and always trys to spend just below the luxury tax.
I think teams like Denver, Toronto, Utah, Houston, Washington, Detroit and etc are content with 53%.

Of course, they would say no if they can ask for 50%, let alone 47%, which owner wouldn't? And which owner would disclose their bottom line?

[Snakeyes]

When does the meeting start?

[dacrusha]

The hardline owners, who apparently is like 20 strong, why would they agree to play the Lakers or team X who goes buck wild signing players?

There is no way in hell there are 20 hardline owners.

The only teams that might accept 52% are LAL, NYK, Dallas,Chicago, Boston ( maybe ) Miami, Brooklyn, ( maybe) GS ( maybe) and Orlando

Think rest are no`s and NO doesn`t count.

Eh, MLSE is profiting hand over fist at 57% share for the players.

They're laughing if the CBA ends up at a 52% share for the players.

And how is Boston a maybe? They just signed a local TV deal with Comcast that beings in over $40 million annually... an which they won't have to share one penny of with the other owners.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Eh, MLSE is profiting hand over fist at 57% share for the players.

They're laughing if the CBA ends up at a 52% share for the players.

And how is Boston a maybe? They just signed a local TV deal with Comcast that beings in over $40 million annually... an which they won't have to share one penny of with the other owners.

Every single one of these owners would love it if they can get 99% owner/1% players BRI split. The real question is to which length would they fight to get that? Look at NFL. They are swimming in profits but they still lockout players out for more money. Owners will always be testing to see how much they can get. In the case of NFL the owners weren't willing to risk lost games so they settled for modest increase in profits. You can bet your mortgage they will try to do the same thing next time regardless of their profit level.

In the case of NBA there are different levels each owner group is willing to go. Some owners say they are willing to miss the whole season to get what they want. I would imagine small group didn't even want miss games and would have settled for figure that would have prevented loss of games. I think majority are in the camp of settling for what is currently realistic offer players will accept, and right now they are trying to maximize their leverage prior to coming to agreement.

[Homer Jay]

I don't see how the players could sue for damages under the old CBA. Is there any evidence the owners colluded? I don't think the fine points of a 47% vs. 52% BRI split constitute bad faith negotiating at all. We're not talking about livable wages here like you would in a regular labour negotiation.. we're again talking about millionaires vs. billionaires and the courts will take that into account. If they decertify how could they sue for damages going forward? If there no longer a contract to measure things against.

In fact no Union means that the NBA doesn't even need to hire these guys to play their games anymore. The exclusive labour provision of the NBAPA to the NBA would no longer exist. We're talking replacement players.

[Ponchos]

Negotiating in "good faith" has a strict legal definition. It does not matter if you think it isn't bad faith, or it doesn't seem like it to you personally.

[Reignman]

LOL @ some of you.

These are the same owners that signed off on 57% for the last 12 years. Get your collective heads out of your ass. When things are good the owners have proven to be extremely fair. Things are now bad in a down economy and they are making adjustments.

The owners aren't the evil greedy bastards you guys make them out to be, just look at the last CBA (that they extended) for proof.

The players are going to have to eat it (and by eat it I mean taking a paycut that keeps them amongst the highest paid athletes in the world) this time and once things are better they can negotiate a deal like they had for the last 12 years.

Suck it up, the players will lose and you guys need to come to grips with that.

[Reignman]

LOL @ some of you.

These are the same owners that signed off on 57% for the last 12 years. Get your collective heads out of your ass. When things are good the owners have proven to be extremely fair. Things are now bad in a down economy and they are making adjustments.

The owners aren't the evil greedy bastards you guys make them out to be, just look at the last CBA (that they extended) for proof.

The players are going to have to eat it (and by eat it I mean taking a paycut that keeps them amongst the highest paid athletes in the world) this time and once things are better they can negotiate a deal like they had for the last 12 years.

Suck it up, the players will lose and you guys need to come to grips with that.

[knickerbocker2k2]

I don't see how the players could sue for damages under the old CBA. Is there any evidence the owners colluded?

The past agreement was definitely collusion and violation of anti-trust laws. However union agreed to these terms so there is no basis for NBAPA to sue for this.

If they decertify how could they sue for damages going forward? If there no longer a contract to measure things against.

It depends on what the owners. If they sit together and come to agreement on system that says salary cap is x, owners as group will pay max of 40% of bri to players, etc, than players will have clear cut case of anti-trust violation. If things are not as clear cut as that, but all of sudden players share of revenue drops to like 30% BRI, they will make the case they are doing something to depress player salaries. If owners let the free market reign, than players will have no case for a suit.

In fact no Union means that the NBA doesn't even need to hire these guys to play their games anymore. The exclusive labour provision of the NBAPA to the NBA would no longer exist. We're talking replacement players.

Currently no one is forcing owners to hire players. The current players would be the replacement players because they are the best players in the world. If all of sudden Lebron or Wade can't get a job in the NBA, than obviously there is some collusion going on among the owners to discriminate against certain players. They would and clearly win in court.

[Homer Jay]

I don't see how the players could sue for damages under the old CBA. Is there any evidence the owners colluded?

The past agreement was definitely collusion and violation of anti-trust laws. However union agreed to these terms so there is no basis for NBAPA to sue for this.

If they decertify how could they sue for damages going forward? If there no longer a contract to measure things against.

It depends on what the owners. If they sit together and come to agreement on system that says salary cap is x, owners as group will pay max of 40% of bri to players, etc, than players will have clear cut case of anti-trust violation. If things are not as clear cut as that, but all of sudden players share of revenue drops to like 30% BRI, they will make the case they are doing something to depress player salaries. If owners let the free market reign, than players will have no case for a suit.

In fact no Union means that the NBA doesn't even need to hire these guys to play their games anymore. The exclusive labour provision of the NBAPA to the NBA would no longer exist. We're talking replacement players.

Currently no one is forcing owners to hire players. The current players would be the replacement players because they are the best players in the world. If all of sudden Lebron or Wade can't get a job in the NBA, than obviously there is some collusion going on among the owners to discriminate against certain players. They would and clearly win in court.

Thanks for clarifying the first two points. However I think the third issue is still a bit muddy so to speak. Because no other industry in bound to hire any specific person to fill any specific position. The Mayo Clinic does not have to hire the best oncologist in the world, they can hire any doctor they want. They can hire the best if they want, they just don't have to.

Now a potential class action lawsuit makes things even more complicated. Essentially the owners could say that due to ongoing litigation, we have chosen to not have any contact between our employees (Coaches, Gms, hell the ushers too) and Mr. James and Mr. Wade without lawyers present and due to the nature of our business that makes it impossible to employ them.

[Ponchos]

The Mayo Clinic does not have to hire the best oncologist in the world, they can hire any doctor they want. They can hire the best if they want, they just don't have to.

Your example would be more relevant if it was every hospital in the united states.

No individual team has to hire anyone, but collectively they can't bar someone.

[floppymoose]

These are the same owners that signed off on 57% for the last 12 years. Get your collective heads out of your ass. When things are good the owners have proven to be extremely fair.

They didn't rob me yesterday, so they must not be robbing me today. I should just ignore the loaded gun they point at me and the request for a "wallet inspection".