In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

The players did not give back anything. They will all still be paid and their average pay will go from $5 million a year to over $7 million a year.

Do not fall for that rhetoric, this is all about the owners having lost some money, their valuations falling, and a chance to get the system reset so that even if they can not have total competitive balance, they can at least make a buck.

Check mate by them.

DD

 

NEW YORK, November 14, 2011 -- NBA Commissioner David Stern has issued the following statement:

"At a bargaining session in February 2010, Jeffrey Kessler, counsel for the union, threatened that the players would abandon the collective bargaining process and start an antitrust lawsuit against our teams if they did not get a bargaining resolution that was acceptable to them.

"In anticipation of this day, the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board asserting that, by virtue of its continued threats, the union was not bargaining in good faith. We also began a litigation in federal court in anticipation of this same bargaining tactic.

"The NBA has negotiated in good faith throughout the collective bargaining process, but -- because our revised bargaining proposal was not to its liking -- the union has decided to make good on Mr. Kessler's threat.

"There will ultimately be a new collective bargaining agreement, but the 2011-12 season is now in jeopardy."

 

Yeah, many of them do, if he by "hard way" you mean hoodwinking cities into subsidizing their business and then shutting it down behind shady, incomplete book keeping.

I mean, I'm sure its not easy (to sleep at night) to put people out of work because you feel like your vanity project isn't brining in enough money.

Name one? Sure. The owner of the Heat, ****in Arison or whatever his name is. There's one.

 

How did they not give up anything if even you say their average pay decreases $2M per season? They were willing to shift $3B back to the owners, period. If you feel like they are making millions anyway so just be happy, then say that. But let's not post untrue stuff like they didn't give back anything, and then call it rhetoric. They offered $3B back...FACT!! The only rhetoric is the spin of competitive balance, as it will never exist in a league where 1 player has such a huge impact...when only 5-10 of those players exist per era.

 

not that i didn't think they had the sack, more i didnt think they were dumb enough to do so.

what the hell is so bad about this deal that its worth missing a season over ?

do they really think doing this is going to get them a better deal than whats offered next year ?

i honestly do not understand what they think they are doing. it makes no sense at all. again, HOW ARE THEY THIS STUPID ? or is it just none of them had the sack to stand up to fisher and hunter ?

 

Giving up over 10% of bri isn't a concession according to DD.

Come on, man. I'm usually a DD defender, but he's jumping the shark. Did OHMSS get his password and start trolling?

 

Wrong, they did not offer to give anything BACK which was NEVER THEIRS to begin with...the CBA expired, a new deal was needed to right the ship.

And where do you get that the average salary would decrese when I said it would INCREASE from $5 million to $7 million over the next 7 years.

Sometimes this place is bizzare....

DD

 

DD, the players gave back 13% of their salary. How did they not give up anything?

 

Don't forget the owners of the Sacramento Kings. Can't remember their names, but they inherited daddy's money and bought the Kings with a chunk of it.

 

The new deal had no rollbacks at all.....in salary, the one they just now turned down.

DD

 

What's dumb about it if they feel like they are giving up too much?

They feel like giving back $3B and not getting the system breaks they want isn't fair. What the hell is so bad about their proposed 50% split with their system breaks, as far as it being worth the owners not accepting it and missing a season over? The owners cover their "losses" in that deal.

Yes, because I think the owners were trying to go for overkill because they assumed players wouldn't miss checks.

They are not willing to sign a 10 yr bad deal (in their eyes) to simply get paid this 1 year. It's not that complex. The only thing is no one thought they had the gall to do it.

 

Are you arguing that the players have't given back anything when they agreed to go from 57% to 50% of BRI, which equates to $3B over the course of 10 years??

Yes, sometimes this place is bizzare....

 

No.

The amount of money players actually receive is dependent on BRI and not their contract.

So even if players sign a 5 million dollar per year contract, the amount of money they receive will be a percentage of the BRI.

 

When the 10% escrow nails them in the fallback from 57% to 50%, there absolutely is a rollback, even though David Stern isn't calling it that.

You've gone incredibly establishment during this lockout.

 

Anyone have any indication or any examples of a class action lawsuit timeframe?

I know it took the NFL nearly 4 months, but does anyone have an educated guess on the quickest, hypothetically speaking, this could get settled in court?

Not that there is even a chance of having a season or anything. Im wondering now, if the 2012/2013 season is in jeapordy as well.

 

There was no deal, it expired, they gave NOTHING up, the economy changed, the costs of running a business changed, and the players did not like that the new deal was going to be different.

Newsflash - it still will be different, and probably MUCH different than what they just turned down, much worse.

And I do not believe the players think a season will be completely missed, nor do I believe most owners want that....I think it was irresponsible of the players to wait until now to do it, probably had to because of the idiot Kessler and his email that threatened this in 2010, they had to make a good show to help support the case that the NBA filed against them.

Either way, this will all eventually end, and I would bet the HOUSE that the players end up losing big time....

DD

 

According to Dakotas definition, there's no such thing as a concession if they're negotiating a new CBA. Nothing is relative to the old one.

Its a silly rhetorical trick and intellectually dishonest in a discussion. The only concessions, by definition, are relative to the old CBA.

 

Players' new legal leaders speak


Excerpt:

 

Correct, a percentage of each players' salary is held in escrow by the NBA, as a buffer to prevent the total salaries from getting above the agreed BRI percentage the players are supposed to get. If the total amount is above the percentage, then the NBA will keep a chunk of the escrow.

 

A better deal with tighter controls favors the teams with better management, at the end of the day, I want what is best for the Rockets and a new deal that hampers the bigger markets is good for the us Rockets fans.

If the players are greedy, and they are, and the owners are greedy, and they are.....I am going to be greedy and want what is in my own best interests...

A new more restrictive deal !!

GO OWNERS !!

DD