What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

TheItinerantSon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think for every player who would benifit from decertification (ie: Wade, James, Garnett, Pierce, Rose) there are atleast two players who would be hurt (ie: Areanas, Lewis, Barganni, Miller, Billups, Davis, Brand, Memo, Jefferson, Jamison, Roy, Iggy, Hamilton, Joe Johnson?, M. Williams, Maggette, etc)

Much has been said about the owners income gap, but not enough has been said about the differences between the handful of superstars and the rank and file of the NBAPU.
 
billyshelby said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. The leverage they have is not inherent or automatic. They have this leverage because they have so little to lose. It can't get much worse than losing $300 million (or less depending on who your speaking to), so cancelling the season is the right move.

If they are just a bunch of cheap and evil owners, why wouldn't they have demanded these changes back in 2005's CBA negotiation? Players had a lot of leverage then, and the new CBA was quickly agreed to without missing games.
 
I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that by missing games both sides are losing more revenue than the difference between a 53-47 split or 50-50 split would make for either side. So, some people are saying the owners stand to make butt loads off the players even if the BRI split was 43-57 (in favor of players) but because the owners are so ultra 1% greedy they are actually losing more money then they'll ever get back on the sweetest deal just so they can make even more at the expense of the players.

You guys saying that (TIS, NUMBERICA) realize the flaw in your logic, right?
 
Gameface said:
I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that by missing games both sides are losing more revenue than the difference between a 53-47 split or 50-50 split would make for either side. So, some people are saying the owners stand to make butt loads off the players even if the BRI split was 43-57 (in favor of players) but because the owners are so ultra 1% greedy they are actually losing more money then they'll ever get back on the sweetest deal just so they can make even more at the expense of the players.

You guys saying that (TIS, NUMBERICA) realize the flaw in your logic, right?
Click to expand...

The owners are willing to lose a season because the increase in sales value for a franchise will rise with a more favorable CBA.

Also, some owners are tired of big name Free Agents having the freedom to chose their place of work.

Also, franchises in tiny markets that probably can't sustain teams in the long run are taking nominal yearly losses and the owners of these franchises feel that its easier to steal money from the talent than it is to negotiate revenue sharing from the big market owners.
 
TheItinerantSon said:
The owners are willing to lose a season because the increase in sales value for a franchise will rise with a more favorable CBA.

Also, some owners are tired of big name Free Agents having the freedom to chose their place of work.

Also, franchises in tiny markets that probably can't sustain teams in the long run are taking nominal yearly losses and the owners of these franchises feel that its easier to steal money from the talent than it is to negotiate revenue sharing from the big market owners.
Click to expand...

Define "stealing" please.
 
NUMBERICA said:
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.
Click to expand...

.....of course, NBA players are struggling big time to support there families and pay even the most basic of monthly bills on time, while still finding just a tad bit of money for there favorite charities. Then there's the child support payments that have skyrocketed......and do you know how much it costs to slap those "can't do without" tattoo's that must cover every square inch of flesh so you can "look cool!"
 
...correct me if I'm wrong but the general consensus is that decertification won't work for the players because they would have to prove to the judge/courts that they are being deprived of making a living playing basketball by the owners......but in-fact that is not the case since already a number of them are playing basketball for a living in the European leagues and overseas?
 
Kobe Bryant is urging the NBA's owners to meet with the players before Wednesday.

“We need for the two sides to get together again before Wednesday, because we’re too close to getting a deal done,” Bryant told Yahoo! Sports on Monday. “We need to iron out the last system items and save this from spiraling into a nuclear winter.”

A league source says the two sides are organizing a meeting for Tuesday.
Click to expand...



Read more: https://basketball.realgm.com/wiret...es_Meet_To_Avoid_Nuclear_Winter#ixzz1d4b7oDSI

Sports Illustrated's Sam Amick spoke to two agents who represent a combined 19 NBA players.

The agents said all 19 players are in favor of taking the owners' current offer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top