De-certification explanation

[catalyst]

I am very confused how the "Union" can de-certify and sue. In that circumstance the PA pretends that it did not exist or have any agreements in the past. I didnt get it when NFLPA did it, and I do not understand how it happens now. Can someone who really gets it explain? Who do the owners then negotiate with in this circumstance? Billy Hunter would be the leader of an organization that, in the eyes of the law, never existed? Seems like lawyers making money at the expense of players.

[killbuckner]

This is the best explanation of the players legal strategy that I have seen. Please read this and if you have any questions I'll try to answer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a ... 81107.html

[catalyst]

Thanks. I was too lazy to google that.

Looks like all sports leagues should de-certify and go anyway. However, this is a two pronged agreement with player contracts and league operating terms. Tough stuff. Thanks for the help.

[ranger001]

Permanent decertification has its own set of problems for the players. First there would be no minimum salary so the half of the NBA that currently makes 2.33 million or lower would see their salaries drop precipitiously.

Second the weak NBA teams would likely be forced to contract. Without a draft they couldn't sell hope to their fans and without a salary cap they wouldn't be able to compete. That means less NBA jobs.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The low end salaries would probably drop. I'm curious to see what would happen with weaker NBA franchise. They might contract, but I'm not so sure the owners of those teams would be willing to take that kind of financial hit. I think at least some of those owners would try and avoid taking the entire thing as a loss by setting up some form of second division league, even if it was just to turn around and sell their franchise as a part of that league to recoup their losses.

The high end salaries probably go up and the low end salaries probably go down. I can see a few possibilities where decertifying actually leaves more franchises than there were initially just because suddenly other markets like Vancouver, Seattle, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc. could start up franchises without having to worry about the salaries they pay being dependent on the revenue generated by the Lakers and Knicks. There are a lot of much worse scenarios out there, but there is some possible for some good to come if it, too.

[d-train]

Greater revenue prospects and more competition in the labor market will force some small market teams to move to bigger markets. LA and New York can easily support more franchises.

The NBA would have to adopt a revenue sharing plan. If they don't, they will lose several small markets. That would leave the NBA with the same number of teams but less revenue. The big market owners will lose their revenue advantage one way or the other. So, they may as well give in to revenue sharing.

[d-train]

Another problem the NBA faces without a CBA is no luxury taxes to supplement the revenues of tax collecting teams. This will have the effect of making additional payroll dollars available to tax paying teams while at the same time reducing revenues to tax collecting teams and possibly putting downward pressure on their payroll budgets.

[DBoys]

Another problem the NBA faces without a CBA is ....

I'll wager a lot that the NBA will choose not to operate until there's a CBA, making all the what-if's quite moot.

[d-train]

Another problem the NBA faces without a CBA is ....

I'll wager a lot that the NBA will choose not to operate until there's a CBA, making all the what-if's quite moot.

The NBA wants a CBA but the chance to get one cheap is gone.

I don't believe the NBA wants the liability of an extended group boycott. First, the NBA will try to bargain for a CBA. If they can't get a CBA, they need a plan for playing games without a CBA. I think Stern and the owners will agree on a set of rules and open for business. NBA might adopt rules from the previous CBA they opted out of. Or, they might adopt rules from a proposed plan the players rejected.

If they open for business under rules from the prior CBA, it might be difficult for players to prove damages in their lawsuit. OTOH, imposing illegal rules on players might help the players establish better case law to operate without a CBA.

NBA is in a tough spot. They should have taken the best offer the players were willing to sign off on.

[DBoys]

Another problem the NBA faces without a CBA is ....

I'll wager a lot that the NBA will choose not to operate until there's a CBA, making all the what-if's quite moot.

The NBA wants a CBA but the chance to get one cheap is gone.

I don't believe the NBA wants the liability of an extended group boycott. First, the NBA will try to bargain for a CBA. If they can't get a CBA, they need a plan for playing games without a CBA. I think Stern and the owners will agree on a set of rules and open for business. NBA might adopt rules from the previous CBA they opted out of. Or, they might adopt rules from a proposed plan the players rejected.

If they open for business under rules from the prior CBA, it might be difficult for players to prove damages in their lawsuit. OTOH, imposing illegal rules on players might help the players establish better case law to operate without a CBA.

NBA is in a tough spot. They should have taken the best offer the players were willing to sign off on.

You missed plan A: Get all existing contracts voided.

As far as the concept of a boycott, if the league is not operating, then there is no boycott. You can't force people to run a business that they don't want to operate. If the league was playing games, while refusing to consider employing this set of potential employees, it would be a different matter - but they are not doing anything that pertains to basketball playing.

[ranger001]

The low end salaries would probably drop. I'm curious to see what would happen with weaker NBA franchise. They might contract, but I'm not so sure the owners of those teams would be willing to take that kind of financial hit. I think at least some of those owners would try and avoid taking the entire thing as a loss by setting up some form of second division league, even if it was just to turn around and sell their franchise as a part of that league to recoup their losses.

The high end salaries probably go up and the low end salaries probably go down. I can see a few possibilities where decertifying actually leaves more franchises than there were initially just because suddenly other markets like Vancouver, Seattle, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc. could start up franchises without having to worry about the salaries they pay being dependent on the revenue generated by the Lakers and Knicks. There are a lot of much worse scenarios out there, but there is some possible for some good to come if it, too.

i doubt that anyone starts up a franchise in a secondary market like Seattle when NY and LA can outspend them on any free agent or rookie. It would be business suicide. The best I can see happening is that big market teams revenue share or the NBA allows another franchise into a big market to make all the franchises have approximately equal revenue.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Who says they'd be competing with LA and New York? They can set up their own franchises and run them accordingly. I don't think things will get that far, but I do think if the drags on for a few years as it has the potential to do if the NBA doesn't relent in its stance then there will be teams starting up all over the place competing with each other and simply not scheduling games against franchises with payroll that high. Or even something like European soccer leagues could be set up. The NBA has been pretty much blocking any potential expansion unless those teams were wililng to compete directly with all of their teams. Get rid of the NBA and you have a free-for-all. It would start small and build. Things are never going to get that far because the owners will eventually wake up, but it could definitely happen.

I could even see various NBA players looking to set up their own teams at that point paying less at the start but working their way up. I suspect that's also the ultimate goal (that won't be achieved because the owners will eventually relent) of the anti-trust suit: to leverage a win into partial player ownership of franchises.

[ranger001]

if you can't compete for a championship why bother? Fans won't go to see the team if they just lose automatically .