Lockout!!!

[TheItinerantSon]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

 

[sirkickyass]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

My impression is that it's solely a question of time-frame impacts.

There's also a redistributional element to what happens when salary limits are removed that's probably scary to middle of the road players.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Can someone explain to me why they believe the owners when having no substantiated evidence of these supposed losses?

They don't believe the losses are as large as the NBA claims, but they have provided "substantiated evidence" by submitting audited financial reports:

"The NBA has shared with the players' union audited financial reports for all 30 teams which unequivocally demonstrate why Mr. Hunter favors the expiring agreement and why it does not work for us," spokesman Tim Frank said.
https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6243850

So, establishmentarians, why do you believe the owners claims with no real evidence?

Well, I haven't seen the evidence, but apparently the NBPA has. They saw enough to immediately, before negotiations really began, offer up a 3% concession of BRI worth $100 million a season. There is NO DOUBT that the NBA has been losing money. They players didn't offer this concession out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't think it's wrong that the players are trying to get as much as they can, but most would agree that the owners have all the leverage right now. Meanwhile, we have NBA players tweeting that 1/2 the revenue is going into owners pockets as if they have no other employees or expenses to run the league.

No, fans don't go the arena to watch the owners. However, the players don't have to pay the salaries and expenses of thousands of other employees, pay for the arena, player's travel expenses, player's food and hotel expenses, medical staff, insurance, etc. That all comes out of the owner's "cut". And apparently, that cut is lower than all the other expenses combined.

I understand both sides. The players want to keep as much money as they can, and the owners want to end their losses and start making some profit. You can see each side's point, but the owners have the leverage. Why do they have the leverage? Because they are operating at a loss, and the player's are all making a profit.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Sure glad this clown no longer represents the Jazz. Decert pretty much destroys the league as we know it. The greedy *** players have no leverage in this and look retarded. Read that another unnamed player said "we are going to blow this to the moon." I'm not so sure these players have any idea what they are talking about.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiret...y_To_Sign_Decertification_Petition_Since_July

At least he would have done it in July. I would appreciate if anyone made any attempt at something that early.

 

[gregbroncs]

honest question - why would the players be hurt by decertification? Isn't the worst case scenario a removal of salary cap and a removal of guaranteed contracts? Isn't that better for the players than accepting whats on the table?

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

Good insight! Rep.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Moral of the story: Rich people get their way.

 

[margodydek]

I'm going to be bold and predict that the players take the deal. Oh who am I kidding? These guys are idiots. Nevermind. But in all honesty I find it amusing that the players are saying they won't sign this deal because they want to protect not only themselves but future players as well. Doesn't everybody (including the players) realize that the deal they will end up signing will be far worse for not only themselves (not to mention a missed season) and for future players?

On a side note, I just went over the deal proposed to the players, and to be honest, as Jazz fan, I like it.

 

[margodydek]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

I like the post, but I disagree with the bolded statement. I think the owners main motivation is to gain back control of player movement. Here are people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and they have quite limited control as to when their employees (products) will decide to skip town. This isn't something I necessarily agree with, but I think it's the owners' current mindset. I think things swung too far w/ Lebron/Bosh, Melo & DWill to a certain degree. Basically the players were the ones now building their teams. I think the owners feel like they've lost power and this is more about getting that power back than it is about money.

 

[billyshelby]

The owners have leverage because they have leverage. Period. That the NBPA was willing to give 3% to prevent the lockout more illustrates that innate leverage than it does show the players trying to cut the owners a break out of the goodness of their hearts. The owners have banging lockout war-drums for years and considering their massive advantage in negotiation, the players knew they weren't getting anything. And as it stands, the players will continually be put in this position unless a viable competing league starts up.

And on these presented documents to the NBPA (remember, none of us have seen them for ourselves), what is defined as a loss is at it's greatest legal parameters. This includes asset amortization (even though to date absolutely NO franchise has ever shown depreciation on a sale [shooting from the hip here]) and things like the Knicks including their sexual harassment issue as a relevant expense.

I firmly believe the owners stance to be 100% financially motivated, and that this lockout is simply them flexing their muscles to get even more of what they don't remotely need. Until I see evidence to the contrary, which of course we won't. Or at least it will never be purposefully disclosed, and there's a really good reason for that.

The owners have leverage precisely because they're not making a profit. They would never forego the profit of staging professional basketball games just to squeeze out a few more pennies. In the previous two CBA negotiations, the players had leverage for that exact reason. In the recent NFL standoff, everyone knew it would get resolved because the owners stood to lose too much money.

This time around, the owners are willing to take the operating losses. Yeah, they're looking to get fat on this deal. They ate 2008. NBA Attendance declined in at least 2009. The players are simply negotiating at the wrong time. Presuming the economy fully rebounds (huge presumption), they would have been a lot better off negotiating next year or the year after. They're not. So they need to figure out how to lose this and stop crying about fair.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

1. They decertify this season is done. Almost guaranteed.

2. Their decertification is much more likely to be found illegal than the NFL's was. Thereby making it much more likely that they gain nothing by doing it. They have already proven by playing overseas that their are other options for basketball player where football players have far fewer options.

3. If they believed decertification was going to work they should have done it on the day the lockout was announced like they did in the NFL.

There are good reasons for them to try and decertify and hope it goes through. I find it very hard to believe that any of these players will see a dime this year if they go this route though. So their decision comes down to if they believe that decertifying will scare the owners into a deal. The reports I saw quoting owners seem to indicate they don't believe the decertification will hold up in court. Meaning they are unlikely to scare the owners into a deal.

Time is on the owners side here. They have a long time to make their money in the NBA the players have a very limited time to do the same thing. Decertification to me is going to shut down talks and force the owners into a hard line stance, IMO.

So no you don't have the worst case senario. Worst case senario for them is their decertification is found to be illegal and they lose all of their bargaining power putting them in a situation where they are going to lose all of the ground they have gotten the owners to move.

If their decertification fails then the owners are going back to the deal from 2 months ago and waiting for the players to cave. Hard cap, Non-guaranteed contracts and 47% BRI. If the players believe this is the best deal they will willingly get from the owners they should take it. Otherwise I believe the season is lost.

Again I believe if the union decertifies this season is done. ONce the courts get involved this process will drag out even more. Remember it took months for the hearing on the NFL decertification to even be looked at. Then it was quickly appealed and reinstated. That is with a judge who was pretty much hand picked by the NFLPA. No other judgement in the courts fell on the side of the players. And NFL players really have very few other options.

my understanding is that the nfl decertification was overturned because it was ruled to be fake...as in the players were still interested in negotiating.

My understanding is that the NBA players have a much better chance because they have proven through negotiation that the owners aren't offering any concessions.

Also the NBA has already filed to maintain their exemption from anti-trust laws even if the players decertify. Can somebody explain to me why the anti-trust exemption doesn't mandate profit sharing? Isn't the whole rationale of an anti-trust exemption that hte league is composed of teams who are not competing business entitities? At that point shouldn't that logic dictate that the teams split net profits evenly (ending this bizarre notion that the league is losing money just because some teams are located in inadequate markets)?


Only in this country do people seem to think teams from 2nd and 3rd tier locales have some divine right to be competitive for championships. If there isn't parity in this league, thats not because the rules are unfair - its because the world is unfair. New York and LA are bigger and better than utah and milwaukee at every single thing in the world. Why should basketball be any different?

Would you expect the top opera singers in the country to live and work year round in charlotte and minnesota, just so that you could enforce parity in opera perfomances with megalopolis like new york?

Small market teams like indiana and sacremento should simply be thankful that they have a team and get to see great teams visit their town to perform. That they're trying to rig the system to dilute the product to the point that they can compete is bad for the quality of the game.