Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[S.W.A.N]

I didn't think I could hate Kobe any more, but surprise surprise... he made it happen.

Why ? Because Kobe one of the smart ones that is saying make a deal.... I think Kobe and Steve Blake are voices of reason and are a couple of the reasons this season will hopefully be saved.

Irrational hardliners on both sides are trying to destroy the game in the name of victory... Its so sad that it is almost like reading a book on the history of religion

[Reignman]

I still find it extremely suspect how the Union is avoiding putting up the latest proposal for vote.

It's like they are purposely trying to muzzle the majority. I'm not suggesting the vote would be in favour of the deal, just that the majority hasn't been heard.

If the deal is as bad as the Union makes it out to be then a vote would easily yield a "no" majority and the union can flip some pressure back on the owners.

[Homer Jay]

I didn't think I could hate Kobe any more, but surprise surprise... he made it happen.

Why because he figures the deal is so close, just get it done, and back playing? Blow up everything over 1%? I could see it if the sides were 10% or even 5% off. But the fact is its not about money anymore, its all ego, as neither side wants to be the one to move the last 1% and be called the "loser". The owners have already moved the players 5%... they won... get over it, Paul Pierce.

[anj]

I still find it extremely suspect how the Union is avoiding putting up the latest proposal for vote.

It's like they are purposely trying to muzzle the majority. I'm not suggesting the vote would be in favour of the deal, just that the majority hasn't been heard.

If the deal is as bad as the Union makes it out to be then a vote would easily yield a "no" majority and the union can flip some pressure back on the owners.

I think you can see, inherently, what's wrong with putting it to a vote. The union would lose any leverage if the vote was close because some of the rank and file players are missing their cheques. If the results of the vote leaked, or if the vote itself triggered some incendiary, ill-advised tweets, the union would lose a lot of agency in the owners' eyes.

On the other hand, they could put it to a vote with the caveat that everyone vote "no" for reasons of "solidarity" and it would wind up looking like a Cuban election.

Either way the union can't win.

[Courtside]

Either way the union can't win.

How does the union win, if stalling over 1% costs players more in salary than they could make back over the rest of their careers?

How does the union win if their 'saving face' forces the players to de-certify?

The union wins when it represents and acts upon the will of its members.

[Reignman]

Bottom line, the union works for the majority. If the majority want the deal at 50% or 30% or 80% then you go with their wishes, that's the job of the negotiators.

[S.W.A.N]

I still find it extremely suspect how the Union is avoiding putting up the latest proposal for vote.

It's like they are purposely trying to muzzle the majority. I'm not suggesting the vote would be in favour of the deal, just that the majority hasn't been heard.

If the deal is as bad as the Union makes it out to be then a vote would easily yield a "no" majority and the union can flip some pressure back on the owners.

At this point they have not avoided anything. They are in a meeting right now to decide what next step is... be it vote or decertification or another attempt to negociate before 'deadline'

That is why this is a player rep meeting and not just the union negotiating team. The player reps are supposed to have gauged their teammates desires and forward them to the union so that they know where everyone stands before making this next big decision. Its slow and painful at times but the union is doing what it needs to ....

Hopefully they smart enough to see the end game is now..

[Ponchos]

Bottom line, the union works for the majority. If the majority want the deal at 50% or 30% or 80% then you go with their wishes, that's the job of the negotiators.

The owners present an offer on Monday that 51% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators refuse to take the deal to a vote.

Then the owners up their offer on Tuesday that 65% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators take the vote to their constituents and it passes. CBA done.

Were the negotiators negligent in their duties for not having a vote on the Monday proposal?

[Rapsfan07]

I think you can see, inherently, what's wrong with putting it to a vote. The union would lose any leverage if the vote was close because some of the rank and file players are missing their cheques. If the results of the vote leaked, or if the vote itself triggered some incendiary, ill-advised tweets, the union would lose a lot of agency in the owners' eyes.

On the other hand, they could put it to a vote with the caveat that everyone vote "no" for reasons of "solidarity" and it would wind up looking like a Cuban election.

Either way the union can't win.

See, I think that it's because Fisher and Hunter is thinking like this that there is no deal done yet.

Their purpose has shifted from representing the Players to "winning". And if they're not careful, it could really screw them. Their worry should not be about "saving face" and trying to win. They have a duty to the Players and that is to represent them. If the majority feels that this is the deal they like (barring a few tweaks) then they should be forced to hold a vote. If the majority wants to decertify, then they should hold a vote for that.

I actually believe that Stern's voice is losing weight in that room with each passing day that the players procrastinate and once the deadline passes, the small market owners will lake the lead and then we are definitely going to lose the season and players will lose more money.

The rank and file need to be given a chance have their voices heard. And I'm not sold that the rank and files will be willing to lose this season of paychecks AND compete in an open market, Wild West scenario where they are also guaranteed to lose more money all for the sake of 1%. But Fisher and Hunter's ego has gotten in the way.

[floppymoose]

There is always a tension between being a leader, and doing what the membership wants. In this case the membership does not have the same level of insight into whether this is a good deal as the union leadership does. Also, the leadership likely feels a duty to future players that the membership may not feel.

You can say that they should put it up to a vote, but really it comes down to your opinion on what it means to lead the union. If Hunter really believes this is a bad deal, and especially if he believes he will get a better offer if he waits, then it is at least arguable that he should resist presenting the current offer to the membership.

[Reignman]

Bottom line, the union works for the majority. If the majority want the deal at 50% or 30% or 80% then you go with their wishes, that's the job of the negotiators.

The owners present an offer on Monday that 51% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators refuse to take the deal to a vote.

Then the owners up their offer on Tuesday that 65% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators take the vote to their constituents and it passes. CBA done.

Were the negotiators negligent in their duties for not having a vote on the Monday proposal?

But there is no 65% offer coming their way. It's 51% or they go to 47%. And that's the way this entire negotiation has been for the players and they should've known what was coming when Stern gave them the head's up 2 years ago.

All that has happened throughout this negotiation is the deal has gotten worse and worse for the players. I mean, honestly speaking, forget 65%, do you even see the owners going up to 53% for the players? I don't.

[anj]

Bottom line, the union works for the majority. If the majority want the deal at 50% or 30% or 80% then you go with their wishes, that's the job of the negotiators.

The owners present an offer on Monday that 51% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators refuse to take the deal to a vote.

Then the owners up their offer on Tuesday that 65% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators take the vote to their constituents and it passes. CBA done.

Were the negotiators negligent in their duties for not having a vote on the Monday proposal?

But there is no 65% offer coming their way. It's 51% or they go to 47%. And that's the way this entire negotiation has been for the players and they should've known what was coming when Stern gave them the head's up 2 years ago.

All that has happened throughout this negotiation is the deal has gotten worse and worse for the players. I mean, honestly speaking, forget 65%, do you even see the owners going up to 53% for the players? I don't.

You completely misread his post.

[S.W.A.N]

There is always a tension between being a leader, and doing what the membership wants. In this case the membership does not have the same level of insight into whether this is a good deal as the union leadership does. Also, the leadership likely feels a duty to future players that the membership may not feel.

You can say that they should put it up to a vote, but really it comes down to your opinion on what it means to lead the union. If Hunter really believes this is a bad deal, and especially if he believes he will get a better offer if he waits, then it is at least arguable that he should resist presenting the current offer to the membership.

Stop saying bad deal.

It was always going to be a bad deal. This is about getting the best deal possible period.

Hunter may well believe that he can get a deal by waiting... but Hunter is somewhat compromised because he was so unwilling to use decertification earlier in the process. Now it is a bluff or a desperation move.

It very well could be a bluff by Stern and next week the same or better deal is available. But I think that is not the case at all. All the rumblings point to a very hardline group of owners being held back by stern and a slim majority of owners. If this deadline passes with no deal those owners will have the green light to go for the kill. Hard Cap etc etc.

[S.W.A.N]

meeting just ended. ...

[floppymoose]

Stop saying bad deal.

It was always going to be a bad deal. This is about getting the best deal possible period.

Sometimes I think people respond to my posts without even reading them.

[floppymoose]

Fisher at press conference say there is no deal.

[bboyskinnylegs]

Hunter: "The players are saying we understand (hardliners) positiion, but we're not intimidated..."

Hunter repeating Fisher: Essentially, players want to keep negotiating, keep working on system issues. This is what most expected to happen.

Hunter: "Having us walk them through (owner's proposal), the players are clearly of a mind that it's an unacceptable proposal."

Fisher: "We're open-minded about potential compromises on our (BRI) number, but there are things in the system that we have to have..."

Is it just about the use of exemptions by taxpaying teams? What other system issues are they looking to work in their favour?

[Ponchos]

Bottom line, the union works for the majority. If the majority want the deal at 50% or 30% or 80% then you go with their wishes, that's the job of the negotiators.

The owners present an offer on Monday that 51% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators refuse to take the deal to a vote.

Then the owners up their offer on Tuesday that 65% of the union would vote yes on. The lead negotiators take the vote to their constituents and it passes. CBA done.

Were the negotiators negligent in their duties for not having a vote on the Monday proposal?

But there is no 65% offer coming their way. It's 51% or they go to 47%. And that's the way this entire negotiation has been for the players and they should've known what was coming when Stern gave them the head's up 2 years ago.

All that has happened throughout this negotiation is the deal has gotten worse and worse for the players. I mean, honestly speaking, forget 65%, do you even see the owners going up to 53% for the players? I don't.

Yeah you didn't read what I wrote very closely.

[floppymoose]

Hunter: "I anticipate we will have a meeting (with NBA) before 5 o'clock tomorrow."

[bboyskinnylegs]

Hunter now saying there was little talk of decertification, and he's hearing that games will be cancelled through Christmas if there's no deal tomorrow.

Looks like he's trying to save his job now?