What's new
By:
Filters

Lockout!!!

NUMBERICA said:
I would make the comparison that you don't call someone that is occasionally lying a "liar", per se.

Just jump back to page 24. There is a lot of discussion on what exactly the meaning of "good faith" is. So either I have too loose a definition on what trolling is, or KEK still doesn't know what 'good faith' means.
Click to expand...

Please provide your definition of good faith.
 
SalmonHobo said:
Please provide your definition of good faith.
Click to expand...

GOOD FAITH BARGAINING. Defined by § 7114(b) as the duty to approach negotiations with a sincere resolve to reach a collective bargaining agreement, to be represented by properly authorized representatives who are prepared to discuss and negotiate on any condition of employment, to meet at reasonable times and places as frequently as may be necessary and to avoid unnecessary delays, and, in the case of the agency, to furnish upon request data necessary to negotiation.
Click to expand...

https://www.opm.gov/lmr/glossary/glossaryg.asp

Does the Employer Have to Bargain with the Union? An employer is required to bargain in "good faith" with the certified labor organization representing the employees. Collective bargaining can be divided into three separate areas: the duty to meet and confer; the duty to bargain in good faith; and the duty to cover certain subjects. The employer is not required to agree to any particular contract provision, no matter how reasonable or fair it appears to the union. However, refusing to meet at reasonable times; refusing to discuss grievances; refusing to discuss wages, benefits, or other mandatory subjects of bargaining; "take it or leave it" bargaining; or attempts to make deals behind the backs of the negotiating committee would be unfair labor practices.
Click to expand...

https://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html#Q10

"take it or leave it" is a pretty good summary of the owners' position, i'd say.
 
So it's wrong to state your position outright? You have to ask for a little more than you want and back off a little for it to be in good faith?
 
Gameface said:
So it's wrong to state your position outright? You have to ask for a little more than you want and back off a little for it to be in good faith?
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is my issue. Whoa, the players came down a lot so even though the new CBA may still **** the owners, they should just concede and agree to the terms because hey, the players have acted in good faith. ****ing stupid.
 
SalmonHobo said:
Exactly. This is my issue. Whoa, the players came down a lot so even though the new CBA may still **** the owners, they should just concede and agree to the terms because hey, the players have acted in good faith. ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...
The players have not taken a "take it or leave" it attitude, the owners have. That seems to have changed in the last week or so, as both sides seem to be trying to get something finalized that's fair.

And where did anyone say that the owners should just concede because the players have acted in good faith?

In all seriousness, before this past week or two, you struck me as a reasonably intelligent dude; someone who could assimilate new information adequately. Have you had a head injury recently?
 
GVC said:
The players have not taken a "take it or leave" it attitude, the owners have. That seems to have changed in the last week or so, as both sides seem to be trying to get something finalized that's fair.

And where did anyone say that the owners should just concede because the players have acted in good faith?

In all seriousness, before this past week or two, you struck me as a reasonably intelligent dude; someone who could assimilate new information adequately. Have you had a head injury recently?
Click to expand...

It's lockout fever.
 
GVC said:
The players have not taken a "take it or leave" it attitude, the owners have. That seems to have changed in the last week or so, as both sides seem to be trying to get something finalized that's fair.

And where did anyone say that the owners should just concede because the players have acted in good faith?

In all seriousness, before this past week or two, you struck me as a reasonably intelligent dude; someone who could assimilate new information adequately. Have you had a head injury recently?
Click to expand...

Wait, what?
 
GVC said:
The players have not taken a "take it or leave" it attitude, the owners have. That seems to have changed in the last week or so, as both sides seem to be trying to get something finalized that's fair.

And where did anyone say that the owners should just concede because the players have acted in good faith?
Click to expand...
Hobo and others, I'm not convinced that an agreement at 50% to 53% is really "conceding" on the owners' part.

Given that advertisers are looking elsewhere to spend their money, and fans might be looking elsewhere to spend their hard-earned entertainment dollars, methinks that it would be in the owners' best economic interest also to warm up a little bit more to a deal, if the financial numbers work (which I think that they do in the low 50's).
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/nba_lockout_loot_jEHwokQTvDsD2RL96dK1rN?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

In an eerie parallel to the owners' threat to the players that the deal will get worse if they do not agree, the deal to the owners might get worse on the top line (revenue) when they try to negotiate advertising, etc. if they drag this out longer--not just losing $$$ for part or all of this season but also not getting as high of ad rates if advertisers think that the NBA brand has been tarnished with the passing of time (and/or with the irrational snobbery or bickering of the owners) or if the advertisers have already allocated it elsewhere. The NBA is probably decent advertising, but so is college basketball, college football, NFL, etc.--which is where these ad dollars are drifting to.
 
Gaining is conceding in the backwards world that the aristocracy has created and duped fools into believing.

On another note, thanks for the jobless recovery, record profit margineers.
 
InGameStrategy said:
Hobo and others, I'm not convinced that an agreement at 50% to 53% is really "conceding" on the owners' part.

Given that advertisers are looking elsewhere to spend their money, and fans might be looking elsewhere to spend their hard-earned entertainment dollars, methinks that it would be in the owners' best economic interest also to warm up a little bit more to a deal, if the financial numbers work (which I think that they do in the low 50's).
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/nba_lockout_loot_jEHwokQTvDsD2RL96dK1rN?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

In an eerie parallel to the owners' threat to the players that the deal will get worse if they do not agree, the deal to the owners might get worse on the top line (revenue) when they try to negotiate advertising, etc. if they drag this out longer--not just losing $$$ for part or all of this season but also not getting as high of ad rates if advertisers think that the NBA brand has been tarnished with the passing of time (and/or with the irrational snobbery or bickering of the owners) or if the advertisers have already allocated it elsewhere. The NBA is probably decent advertising, but so is college basketball, college football, NFL, etc.--which is where these ad dollars are drifting to.
Click to expand...
The biggest buffoon I ever knew absolutely loved using the word "methinks." Why do you like using that word so much?
 
InGameStrategy said:
Hobo and others, I'm not convinced that an agreement at 50% to 53% is really "conceding" on the owners' part.

Given that advertisers are looking elsewhere to spend their money, and fans might be looking elsewhere to spend their hard-earned entertainment dollars, methinks that it would be in the owners' best economic interest also to warm up a little bit more to a deal, if the financial numbers work (which I think that they do in the low 50's).
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/nba_lockout_loot_jEHwokQTvDsD2RL96dK1rN?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

In an eerie parallel to the owners' threat to the players that the deal will get worse if they do not agree, the deal to the owners might get worse on the top line (revenue) when they try to negotiate advertising, etc. if they drag this out longer--not just losing $$$ for part or all of this season but also not getting as high of ad rates if advertisers think that the NBA brand has been tarnished with the passing of time (and/or with the irrational snobbery or bickering of the owners) or if the advertisers have already allocated it elsewhere. The NBA is probably decent advertising, but so is college basketball, college football, NFL, etc.--which is where these ad dollars are drifting to.
Click to expand...

Good thing you know what's in the owner's best interests economically.

That clears things up.
 
r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t said:
maybe so? where is Kicky the lawyer when we finally need him?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a particularly good argument that either side is negotiating in bad faith at the present time. That was probably less true in earlier periods when it appeared that the owners were planning on moving the finish line backwards as time went on. Presently the negotiations do not appear extortionate.

Also for SerpicoNJ: You're getting tooled around pretty badly in this thread. Not certain what's going on with you lately.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I don't think there's a particularly good argument that either side is negotiating in bad faith at the present time. That was probably less true in earlier periods when it appeared that the owners were planning on moving the finish line backwards as time went on. Presently the negotiations do not appear extortionate.

Also for SerpicoNJ: You're getting tooled around pretty badly in this thread. Not certain what's going on with you lately.
Click to expand...

How's that? I've simply said what you did. No one has negotiated in bad faith. I've focused more on the owners but still.
 
SalmonHobo said:
Exactly. This is my issue. Whoa, the players came down a lot so even though the new CBA may still **** the owners, they should just concede and agree to the terms because hey, the players have acted in good faith. ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...

...look, I think most are missing the whole point! The owners are not going to budge an inch! Why? They are simply tired of paying a group of employees huge sums of money, much of which is spent at "strip clubs" and who's only claim to fame is producing numerous illegitimate babies by multiple women, while tattooing their bodies from head to toe, and trashing the game of basketball with their pathetic lack of team play. None of which will change by the players if and when a new CBA is reached....but by golly they will be doing it on half the money they were making before hand!
 
SalmonHobo said:
How's that? I've simply said what you did. No one has negotiated in bad faith. I've focused more on the owners but still.
Click to expand...

What in the hell?

Not two days ago you stated in no uncertain terms that you thought the players were negotiating in bad faith.

You also apparently totally missed the second sentence where I said owners were probably closer to the bad faith line (and perhaps over it) when they were threatening that their offers would get worse as time went on rather than better. The idea that you and I were saying the same thing, that no one has negotiated in bad faith, is doubly wrong because you didn't say that and I didn't say that. I think there was probably a legitimate case for bad faith negotiations on the part of the owners during an earlier period of the process.

You've been getting killed in this thread by GVC and IGS because you apparently either don't understand or refuse to conceptualize that that someone can actually look at the total level of BRI ($3.817 billion in 2010-2011) and make estimates as to how changes in share affect the total $300 million operating deficit alleged by the NBA owners, retreating instead to some idea that no one can ever make fairly educated guesses as to the magnitude of the concessions by one side.

It doesn't take a genius to see that if we move from a 57% player share of BRI to a 50% share of BRI that the owners are netting approximately $267 million on the transaction. Nor does it take a genius to understand why cost-structures and profit margins of other sports leagues, especially those that share many of the same markets, are relevant to determining the potential profitability of the league on a going-forward basis. You've been in weird fundamental denial of these things as whole ideas and spicing up your posts with a weirdly aggressive tone, including one post reading only "**** you." That's why I said you're getting tooled around. It makes you look like the guy who doesn't understand and is getting unduly hostile towards those who are discussing the issue in non-abstract terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top