Who's side are you on? (Lockout)

[TerryTate]

Definitely Owners....

Its just like real life, your CEO/Top bosses, get paid probably 10 times more than the average employee in that company. It is no different in the NBA, just billions to millions. The owners made their money, whereas players make money and blow on stupid **** like bling$ and cars and mansions. The owners treat the team as an investment and the players treat it like a job. If you can save over a period of time, like the owners want to do, then why the hell not. The players are just greedy.... they get millions playing a game they love and have the ability to play.

Still in the end the fans suffer....
They should all know strikes ruins league... Baseball, Hockey, and now Basketball.... of course many of these players probably don't care to read anything about the past and what strikes traditionally do to sports. Fans lose interest and begin to watch other sports.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Definitely Owners....

Its just like real life, your CEO/Top bosses, get paid probably 10 times more than the average employee in that company. It is no different in the NBA, just billions to millions. The owners made their money, whereas players make money and blow on stupid **** like bling$ and cars and mansions.

Right, because we all know owners don't spend their money on stupid ****.

Paul Allen has a yacht that costs over $50K/day.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

(a) 'System issues' was all the players had left after they gave the owners everything they wanted in terms of money.

What system issues were teh players having a problem with? The proposal i saw wasn't overwhelmingly unfair. It was worse than the last CBA, but again no matter the outcome today or a year from today, this CBA will not be as beneficial to the players.

(b) Why would the owners take a different stance at the next round of negotiations if they'd already proven they could get everything they wanted if they just refused to negotiate and forced the players to accept everything they wanted?

We didn't have a lockout in 2005. Why? Cause times were good and owners didn't mind giving out more in salaries.

(c) How can the players use an improved economy to their advantage? Who says the economy will be better by that time?

(d) How exactly is a bad economy something the NBA should be worrying about? The NBA is coming off record revenues, increased ratings and is starting to see the tip of the iceberg when it comes to TV revenues being renegotiated upwards. How much of a better situation in terms of revenues can the NBA possibly improve where the owners would suddenly feel generous enough to change that BRI split?

Most likely it will be better than it is today. And you're delusional if you don't think that the state of unemployment in the US has nothing to do with how Americans spend their entertainment dollars. Everybody's saving and no one's spending. The state of the economy is extremely important. And the BRI went up in the last CBA. So the owners have done this before.

(e) This ultimately has nothing to do with the NBA not having enough revenues, it has everything to do with them wanting as much as they can get, along with the NBA having an absolutely awful distribution of revenues amongst its owners. The Lakers, Raptors, Celtics, Bulls and Knicks have all seen their revenues and profits skyrocket recently. This adds a lot of pressure on small market teams as BRI goes up meaning salaries go up while only a few teams are reaping the benefits of increased BRI. The players spread the wealth around as increase BRI increases the amount of all of their contracts. For the owners, BRI going up doesn't mean they make more money unless they're the ones responsible for that increased BRI.

Same could be said about the players, except players carry no risk. Their contracts and money are guaranteed. And with a proper revenue sharing system, the small market teams should also benefit.

(f) The likely outcome if the players just take the offer isn't that they get to negotiate things upwards the next time around, it's that the profits of the richest clubs will continue to grow which will continue adding pressure to small market teams which will mean the owners will be back next time asking for even more and taking the sam hardline stance since they have precedent that such tactics work. Eventually, the union has to stick up for itself a little bit or there is absolutely no sense in spending all that money on union dues and legal fees.

The union should absolutely stick up for the players. Again, with a proper revenue sharing system, hopefully some of the revenue differences between small and big market teams can be nullified.

(g) Just because system issues sunk negotiations here, what guarantees were there that the owners wouldn't have presented more 'terms' after the players accepted the system issues up for discussion? It's happened several times in negotiations, most recently with the owners offering up the 50% and the players saying that might be acceptable if certain system issues went their way only to have the owners back off and say that if the system issues went the players' way they needed the players to take 47% of BRI.

This was teh deal, take it or leave it. Everything else was on the 'B' list, items both the union and the owners decided wasn't important enough to get in the way of the deal. Unfortunately, now we'll never know since the union didn't even bring the proposal up to a vote.

(h) While the players certainly could have accepted it, why on earth do you think the owners were willing to make such minor details deal-breakers? If the owners are willing to do that, it definitely suggests that they haven't really wanted an agreement all along and have been hoping to escalate things further, which also suggests that (g) would have been the case even had the players caved.

I don't think any of the items to be voted on were minor. I just fail to see what was so egregious about them that the union wouldn't even bring them up to a vote.

[Pchu]

Initially, I wasn't on anyone's side. After all, this is just a fight between two groups of rich people, with no clear 'win' for the average fan.
Now, after the disclaimer of interest, the players are starting to piss me off. They should've taken this deal and we could've still had a 72 game season.

You know if David Stern didn't pull the "you have to agree to this deal by Wed or else it's get worse" card, the players may accept or at the very least, they will still be negotiating.

The PA wants to save face at this point, they already lose the BRI front, they still want to have something. Something that they could sell to the players and say "Look we still got this." But Stern bullys them and they don't feel like being bullied.

When you look at it the deal now, they are not that far apart. They settled the BRI issue which is a big issue, and the system issue is pretty easy, owners just need to throw NBPA a bone and they will go away.

But what if Stern and the Owners don't like being bullied either, and instead of being a voice agaisnt his hardliners in order to offer more concessions to players, Stern becomes as emboldened as they hardliners, and other owners as well. All we've heard from is the plantiff's lawyer, and because he's new and shiny, you had the media simply posting his diatribe verbatim, and people looking at it at statements of fact, instead of what it is; their argument. I'm sure Stern's lawyers have their arguments too, and who knows what type of maneuvuer or counter suit they have planned. And if this move fails, players will have lost a year or more, and have no leg to stand on, then the owners will really get what they want. Owners may have asked for a lot of concessions in light of the old CBA, but they still came a far way off of their position and their official offers to the players were progressively better. Had the players even made an offer to the union, no. Oh because Stern said they wouldn't accept it? Didn't Hunter tell Stern, the players would never agree - how is it that Hunter can Say "players would never agree to that" and then say the other side wasn't willing to bargain.

And Players can't say they did all they could to try and get a deal, when they wouldn't even put a deal to their membership, or make a formal offer to the league.

If Boies thinks Stern is going to fear the consequences and call him to negotiate with him the guy who called him a plantation owner, after he worked for 25+ years lifting the league to never before seen limits, and partnered with the players to make them some of the most sought after spokespersons. No. If Stern is calling anyone it's more lawyers, and other owners like Paul Allen and the like to Boost up the war chest. Now, outside of NBPA rhetoric, it won't be his fault when young layers families hurt, or have their houses foreclosed on, so he won't worry a bit. To Stern, I'm sure he feels they submitted their best shot at a deal, and the failure is on Billy. He gave him something to take to his membership, and instead, they did this, hoping this gives them leverage. I doubt Kessler and Boies hear from Stern at all, unless it's counter suit. The Union, already has a detailed version of the Leagues next offer, it was included with the last offer.

I am not saying that Billy Hunter is not at fault, both of them are at fault. But again, the rhteroic from Stern isn't helping the situation. He doesn't have to say accept this or else a worse deal is coming.

Again, they are not that far apart in reality. They could still mend this if they want to. But if a season is cancelled then both Stern and Hunter should be fired.

[Pchu]

Initially, I wasn't on anyone's side. After all, this is just a fight between two groups of rich people, with no clear 'win' for the average fan.
Now, after the disclaimer of interest, the players are starting to piss me off. They should've taken this deal and we could've still had a 72 game season.

You know if David Stern didn't pull the "you have to agree to this deal by Wed or else it's get worse" card, the players may accept or at the very least, they will still be negotiating.

The PA wants to save face at this point, they already lose the BRI front, they still want to have something. Something that they could sell to the players and say "Look we still got this." But Stern bullys them and they don't feel like being bullied.

When you look at it the deal now, they are not that far apart. They settled the BRI issue which is a big issue, and the system issue is pretty easy, owners just need to throw NBPA a bone and they will go away.

Here's the thing. the players aren't going to get as good a deal as the last cba. considering the utter lack of leverage the players have, this was actually a decent deal. Instead, the players decide to kick the fans in the balls thinking they'll still be there when the lockout ends.
I already had a really bad taste in my mouth with what happened with Lebron and Bosh to Miami, then Carmelo to NY. Then Chris Paul slowly starting his whining.....something like this does not endear players to their fans.
If we're going to lose a season because of this bullsh*t, I hope the players get publicly butt fu*ked into a 30/70 BRI deal with a hard cap and unguaranteed contracts.

The players are not getting as good a deal already, they lose 7% of the BRI. They probably will lose on some of the system stuff. But my point is that Stern's rhetoric isn't helping. They should be negotiating right now instead of suing each other.

The players feel like they were being bullied. Sometimes you pushed someone too hard, they are going to respond irrationally, and this is what's happening here.

I don't agree with what NBPA is doing, and I think that all players should have a vote on the latest offer from Stern, but I understand where they are coming from.

Again, I don't think they are too far apart. Right now it's the Extend & Trade and Mid Exception stuff, can you imagine canceling a season because of that?

There is still time and they can still negotiate if both Hunter and Stern can drop their egos or better yet remove themselves from the negotiation, a deal can be done. Will it happen? I don't know.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

If the owners are really willing to throw away the season because they don't want extend-and-trades, then they are absolute morons. It's a 2 way street. Sure, extend-and-trades mean that the player has some influence on what team he gets traded to. On the other hand, if I'm trading for a guy who's a free agent at the end of the season, and I happen to be giving up quite a bit, there's no way I pull the trigger unless I know for sure that I'm not just renting the guy for half a season. This rule will be circumvented by owners/GMs anyhow, with wink-wink deals. Eg. Colangelo receives a call from Otis Smith, offering you guys Dwight Howard, in exchange for Bargnani, Ed Davis, and Valanciunas. Do you think Colangelo feels comfortable about making this trade, not knowing whether Dwight Howard sticks around?

[MEDIC]

Hmmmm.......let's see......who do I actually respect/ like in the group of todays stars:

Like:

- Kobe
- Nash
- Duncan
- Dirk
- Rose
- Deron Williams
- Bogut
- Durant
- Westbrook
- Roy
- Gasol

Neutral:

- Bosh
- Amare
- Howard
- Joe Johnson
- Wall
- Paul
- Griffin
- Carter
- Gay
- Granger

Dislike:

- Lebron
- D-Wade
- Garnett
- Pierce
- Melo
- T-Mac

Alright, so it's not quite as bad as I thought. It just seems that way because the guys that I could care less for happen to be the biggest names in the league.

When you look at that list though, that's a pretty watered down talent base. That's only 27 players & some of the guys that I listed are either young & establishing themselves, completely over the hill, or aren't truly "stars".

No wonder there are so many sh*tty teams....

[Parataxis]

Initially, I wasn't on anyone's side. After all, this is just a fight between two groups of rich people, with no clear 'win' for the average fan.
Now, after the disclaimer of interest, the players are starting to piss me off. They should've taken this deal and we could've still had a 72 game season.

You know if David Stern didn't pull the "you have to agree to this deal by Wed or else it's get worse" card, the players may accept or at the very least, they will still be negotiating.

The PA wants to save face at this point, they already lose the BRI front, they still want to have something. Something that they could sell to the players and say "Look we still got this." But Stern bullys them and they don't feel like being bullied.

When you look at it the deal now, they are not that far apart. They settled the BRI issue which is a big issue, and the system issue is pretty easy, owners just need to throw NBPA a bone and they will go away.

But what if Stern and the Owners don't like being bullied either, and instead of being a voice agaisnt his hardliners in order to offer more concessions to players, Stern becomes as emboldened as they hardliners, and other owners as well.

Everybody here has been saying the owners have all the leverage - so they CAN'T be bullied.

This is like saying that the fat kid at school is bullying the mean kids because, after months of having his lunch money taken, he finally tries to fight back.

[Crazy-Canuck]

I dont think the owners are getting bullied either.

Its more like the NBAPA is being stubborn like a spoiled child. They kept saying no to everything to the point where saying no is the only thing they know how to do.

Both sides are still at fault, but tor me the owners have been the lesser of the 2 evils.

Also, it isnt just the owners bullying the NBAPA, everyone got in that show. PP, KG, Agents etc.. have all bullied Hunter and the NBAPA.

[Greg Stink]

The owners didn't care about things going this far, that's why they didn't negotiate- demanding both BRI and system issues, giving nothing? They haven't made a real offer yet.

The players need to find their leverage, the NHL result is not a given. Time can't take a side. That makes no sense.

[BorisDK1]

The owners didn't care about things going this far, that's why they didn't negotiate- demanding both BRI and system issues, giving nothing? They haven't made a real offer yet.

The players need to find their leverage, the NHL result is not a given. Time can't take a side. That makes no sense.

Of course it can: it's squarely on the owners' side, because most of them will lose less money by not playing than they will by playing. They are financially advantaged by not playing this year. On the other side of the fence is the players, who average only 5 years in the NBA and who aren't getting paid. As every week goes by, these guys are losing not only a big chunk of their lifetime income, but if they don't play this year they also lose a year of pension contributions as well.

Ceteris paribus time is neutral, but in this context one side has a distinct advantage.

[ATLTimekeeper]

The owners didn't care about things going this far, that's why they didn't negotiate- demanding both BRI and system issues, giving nothing? They haven't made a real offer yet.

The players need to find their leverage, the NHL result is not a given. Time can't take a side. That makes no sense.

They agreed with 5 of 6 compromises suggested by the mediator. And then compromised beyond that. The only pulled their ultimatum because they knew the union was always going to pull this bs.

[Greg Stink]

The owners didn't care about things going this far, that's why they didn't negotiate- demanding both BRI and system issues, giving nothing? They haven't made a real offer yet.

The players need to find their leverage, the NHL result is not a given. Time can't take a side. That makes no sense.

Of course it can: it's squarely on the owners' side, because most of them will lose less money by not playing than they will by playing. They are financially advantaged by not playing this year. On the other side of the fence is the players, who average only 5 years in the NBA and who aren't getting paid. As every week goes by, these guys are losing not only a big chunk of their lifetime income, but if they don't play this year they also lose a year of pension contributions as well.

Ceteris paribus time is neutral, but in this context one side has a distinct advantage.

That's messed up, because If the players don't have any leverage now, they never did, because it could always get to this point with zero effort. The owners could have offered a dollar and they could still be offering a dollar. How have they ever signed a good deal? Did Patrick Ewing used to beat Stern?

Look, there is a demand and the players are the supply. They have leverage, these are not garbage men you could train in a morning. As long as other markets offer basketball they can go elsewhere to work. The owners are in this for the re-sale value. I think the longer this lockout goes, like a missed year and beyond, the owners will take a hit on appraisals and that's real money. Maybe people will actually stop buying teams, too.

[BorisDK1]

That's messed up, because If the players don't have any leverage now, they never did, because it could always get to this point with zero effort. The owners could have offered a dollar and they could still be offering a dollar. How have they ever signed a good deal? Did Patrick Ewing used to beat Stern?

Not necessarily: the shoe would be on the other foot if the league were in a profitable position, at which point the owners see dollar bills flying out of their pocket every hour the players would be in a strike position.

Did the league ver sign a good CBA? I don't know. I do know that the last one was not a balanced one.

Look, there is a demand and the players are the supply. They have leverage, these are not garbage men you could train in a morning. As long as other markets offer basketball they can go elsewhere to work.

And how's that working out for them? Europe isn't quite the untapped gold mine some people thought it was, is it?

The owners are in this for the re-sale value. I think the longer this lockout goes, like a missed year and beyond, the owners will take a hit on appraisals and that's real money. Maybe people will actually stop buying teams, too.

Money should not be in "re-sale": that is a situation akin to the housing market bubble in the USA. You can't have increasing franchise re-sale costs when the franchise is hemorrhaging cash. Smart investors won't let their money ride only to have cash fly out the door every year; in other words, hoping that franchise values irrationally increase is a sucker's bet and you could lose the shirt off your back taking it. Businesses need to show operating profit in order to be a good investment.

[mapko81]

I support owners as far they support system changes (the whole percentage of BRI argument is greed on both side, and I hope it doesn't compromise the pushing through of serious system changes).

[Parataxis]

The owners didn't care about things going this far, that's why they didn't negotiate- demanding both BRI and system issues, giving nothing? They haven't made a real offer yet.

The players need to find their leverage, the NHL result is not a given. Time can't take a side. That makes no sense.

Of course it can: it's squarely on the owners' side, because most of them will lose less money by not playing than they will by playing.

Do you have a source for that?

Everything I've read up until this suggests that the owners are also taking a financial hit by there not being NBA. Sure they may have been losing money when the NBA was playing (if you ignore capital gains) but they're losing even more now with no revenue.