The compromises that need to be made

[DBoys]

You can believe what you choose. But you're flat wrong by thinking this is somehow unresolved to everyone's satisfaction. Those issues have already been negotiated long ago (maybe a month or more) and are done. It was an issue that the owners were committed to - because it's an owner-to-owner thing and has nothing to do with the money going to players.

I think you are wrong there. The owners want to see how much money they can transfer from the players first. Revenue sharing will not be finalized until that has happened. Everything that the owners have done so far point to that.

The fact that it was reported a month or so ago that rev sharing was decided by the owners, disclosed t the players, met their satisfaction, and no longer an issue of negotiation, you simply ignore that and look for hidden signs of some sort and conclude that it's really an issue still? Okayyyyy, if you say so.

[floppymoose]

Let me put it this way: I don't believe those reports mean that the RS situation is ironed out. I'm not ignoring them, I'm examining them in context and finding them wanting. In short: don't believe everything you read.

If the players decertify and we lose the season with no deal in place for next season, they owners will be back to Square One on revenue sharing.

[WC NBA Fan]

I started this thread but forgot all about it.

I'm curious as to what 3 amendments the players will make regarding their supposed amended proposal that they will vote for then take to the owners. Stern has threatened ultimatums before only to see more negotiating so I'm betting that there's still wiggle room for at least one more concession. I'm hoping that the amendments that are made will be small enough for the owners to let go.

If I'm the owners, I'm willing to cave a bit on the S & T thing. I still don't see why it's such a big deal. As Berger pointed out last week, there were only 5 S & T's involving tax payers over the course of the last CBA. The players seem to think it's important and knowing what I know from an owner standpoint, I really hope that this is one of the player amendments that we'll see tomorrow.

As for the other 2, I hope they are more minor. Maybe increase the amount of raises in a contract. The owner proposal has it at 6.5 & 3.5. Let the players have 10 & 5. It's better than the last cba and it's easy for us fans to figure in our heads since 10 & 5 around round numbers.

I also heard that the owners want to lower the rookie scale. That's lame. The rookie scale is great for the owners and they shouldn't be jerking around with it. Let the players have it where it is now.

So that's it. The final 3 compromises should be lay off on the sign & trade limitations, increase the raises to 10 & 5 and keep the rookie scale as is.

Thoughts?

[light_xx]

http://kezdo5.hu/index.php/nbakueloenve ... reasonable

My thoutgh on all this situation. (bit long, so I don't want to copy it)
Compromises need to be made by both sides but come on... What are the points they are really fighting on? This new CBA offer looks like acceptable. Owners are greedy and they have a very bad point of view (if you think, restrictions will punish good GMs, you are wrong, there will be a greater margin between team than there is now). But players have to asks themselves: do they want to have payhecks? Or do they want to lose a lot of fans? It's not the real deal for them but it's good enough to live with. They can fight back against hardliner owners in their next free agencies...

[WC NBA Fan]

http://kezdo5.hu/index.php/nbakueloenvelemeny/1997-time-to-be-reasonable

My thoutgh on all this situation. (bit long, so I don't want to copy it)
Compromises need to be made by both sides but come on... What are the points they are really fighting on? This new CBA offer looks like acceptable. Owners are greedy and they have a very bad point of view (if you think, restrictions will punish good GMs, you are wrong, there will be a greater margin between team than there is now). But players have to asks themselves: do they want to have payhecks? Or do they want to lose a lot of fans? It's not the real deal for them but it's good enough to live with. They can fight back against hardliner owners in their next free agencies...

I have no clue what the players are waiting for. The more and more I look at this, the more and more I see how it opens things up to player movement. Amnesty included in the cap and the stretch provision are things that will open up cap space in ways that you couldn't do in the most recent CBA.

If the union is really going to make 3 amendments then like I said in my last post, I'm fine if they want to get rid of the new S & T rule and if they want to increases the raises and keep the rookie cap and minimum wage scale where it was before then I'm fine with that too. Those aren't big deals and when you get down to it, those are financial issues that don't change competitive balance. The owners will still get their 50% either way so who cares where the minimum salary and raises are?

On a side note, if the rookie scale is lowered, it may look bad for the players on the surface but again, lower salaries mean a better shot at creating cap space or getting under the new lux tax penalties so it's not a total loss.

[Norm2953]

The players seen upset about player salaries for guys sent down the the D league
but the league is winning the public relations battle and it's going to be hard
for the players to flatly reject the offer. If the amendments are small and
reasonable, the league might just say deal and we might have games starting
next month.

[floppymoose]

The "public relations battle" doesn't affect the players negotiations much at all.

[writersblock]

The "public relations battle" doesn't affect the players negotiations much at all.

Anyone who ignores the public relations battle is missing the whole point of public relations. In this case, Public Relations is posturing and gaining the favorability of stakeholders. Those stakeholders in this situation include other businesses (promotional), media, fans, and even the courts. The whole point is to use the media to show who's right and who's wrong. The court of public opinion may have nothing to do with what the courts decide, but it certainly affects everything else going forward. In business, reputation influences, and even often determines, revenue. As NBA fans and businesses come to realize that the season is really at jeopardy (most media have been saying this thing would end before December) they're going to start looking to place blame. Blame determines reputation, and the number of NBA players taking to Twitter this last few weeks arguing their cause tells me that the players know this is all about reputation.

Back to the main point: If reputation determines value, then this "PR battle" DOES affect negotiations. If reputation didn't, the players would have simply caved a long time ago. Instead, they've been arguing based on principle for weeks. The more the NBA has tried to bully the players, the less likely were likely to agree to a deal.

At the end of the day, this thing is ALL about PR: it's posturing, reputation, and blame.

[floppymoose]

I took "public relations battle" to mean the opinion of the public and fans, not of the stakeholders.

[writersblock]

I took "public relations battle" to mean the opinion of the public and fans, not of the stakeholders.

Ahh...but if a stakeholder is considered "any public that can affect or be affected by an organization" or one that has "a stake in the organization's success or failure," then fans are stakeholders.

[floppymoose]

And if we specifically mean the fans, then my original point stands. That public relations battle is basically net neutral in the negotiations, even if the public is heavily favoring one side.

[floppymoose]

Let me put it this way: I don't believe those reports mean that the RS situation is ironed out.

Ken Berger with another good article:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/m ... 3/33470190

It has some quotes from an independent anti-trust lawyer:

Himes, co-chairman of Labaton's antitrust group and former antitrust bureau chief in the New York attorney general's office, pointed out another complicating factor for the owners that has flared up to varying degrees throughout the 2 1-2 years of bargaining talks: dissension among high-revenue and low-revenue teams. According to a person with knowledge of ownership activities, the owners recently held another internal discussion about how more money will be diverted to help struggling teams in small markets. Even at this late date, with another month of games and quite possibly the entire season in jeopardy, the owners still were not able to reach agreement among themselves on revenue sharing, the person said.