In This Thread Every Post Must Contain A Lockout Update

That is what I tjought as well, but some other folks said that was not possible, i am no lawyer though, but you are Bima.

The question is who really knows here?

DD

 

1) I doubt 8 teams will survive a season - not an 82 game season. Even though baseball can get away with playing teams many times a year, basketball is too demanding to play a series so you have to scatter the games but play the same teams. I don't think you will win the fans back if you sell them that many reruns.

2) Over 2/3rds of the NBA players would be out of work. Not sure you'd get the union to agree to that. And you'd have guys like Scola (or better) riding the bench hoping for garbage time - earning a 12th man salary.

 

COME ON SEASON HOW U

 

uhhh, The first half of the 1960s was an NBA of 8-teams with 80 game schedules.

"Reruns" lols.

TV would absolutely LOVE seeing the best teams play much more frequently. They would LOVE IT.

We are discussing a nuclear event...yes. A union-less scenario where the players want to split -- survival of the fittest. I'm saying 8 teams is all you would need to succeed in the first season. 8 of the biggest market teams could secure a significant TV contract. Once that is done, the NBA is dead. And then the new league invite other owners to join -- it would get up to 20 teams quickly.

You don't think the eight biggest market teams from the NBA could survive on their own and crush the NBA? All they would have to do is get out of their franchise license agreements (see my suggested scenario for that) and get the star players to follow them.

 

I thought every post in this thread was supposed to contain a lockout update... All I'm seeing is a lot of bull****.

 

While I haven't given up hope for the season---neither side wants to lose a full year of revenue, with the exception of ownership/management of your Memphis and Indiana and Charlotte and Cleveland type teams----Stephen A. Smith (excuse me, correction: STEPHEN A SMITH!!! WHO'LL WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR? WHY NOT NEW YAWK?) doesn't inspire confidence.

 

The NBA owners held a conference call on Thursday to discuss their next steps in the lockout.

The owners are showing no urgency to resume negotiations and are waiting on Billy Hunter to call David Stern. No new dialogue is expected before Thanksgiving.

The owners will spend the interim period reviewing lawsuits and waiting for players to miss another check on December 1st, according to sources.

The resolve of the players remains in doubt by the owners.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports (via Twitter)

 

The players are still getting paid by the extra money from the BRI split, when does that run out?

DD

 

Looks like a repeat of the 98/99 lockout, but with the added lawsuits there to create leverage for the players. However, I have a hard time believing that the players would file all these lawsuits and put more than one season in jeapordy if they didnt have the resolve to miss one more paycheck.

The NBA owners must really think their players are truely mentally handicapped if one more paycheck is all it takes. I think if the players were going to cave because of missing paychecks they would have already caved. Will they cave eventually, yes, but by then the case might already be in the hands of the judge and jury.

Stern made this a pissing contest and your picked a personal fight with some of the most natural born competitors on this planet. Just make the call David you douchebag.

 

I read somewhere this morning that the average is like 58K per player this month and that doesnt include the escrow money. I would assume the majority of the players probably have enough to wait till the case goes to court in February, and have been more than prepared for this moment by the Union and their agents.

 

Some of the players do not make that much $$$, but that extra $168 million the players association got as a rebate on the BRI is going to go a long way.

I think it will sustain the players long past when they would usually go broke, but I need confirmation on this thought by someone that actually has that data.

Bima?

DD

 

DD, remember, we are discussing a future where the players have not yet agreed to anything, and you are wondering if the owners can force them to go back to work with no CBA:

1. Employers cannot force employees to work. Players can quit/retire at will.
2. There aren't any "non-compete" clauses in the Uniform Player Contract, nor any penalties for failure to fulfill contract without a CBA*. And you as an employer should know that non-competes would be challenged in several states, anyhow.
3. FIBA would have no jurisdication or control over a new league. They only have jurisdiction over FIBA-affiliated leagues.

* Here's my news link for the thread. This is from the arbitrators ruling in 1998 regarding whether the NBA can withhold pay during a lockout:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tml+nba+breach+of+contract&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

The Arbitrator ruled that without a CBA the salary provisions in the Uniform Player Contracts do not have to be fulfilled (paid). Surely, this means the reverse as well: Without a CBA, the players also don't have to fulfill the contracts by being forced to accept pay and perform either. For instance, they can go on strike...or as individuals, just walk away.

 

They still are under contract, if the lockout ends, I think they would go back to work, CBA or not.

Yeah, but I think the players would be fine going back to work for the $$$ they were getting that is where you are missing the point.

* Here's my link for the thread. From the arbitrators ruling in 1998 regarding whether the NBA can withhold pay during a lockout:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tml+nba+breach+of+contract&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk



Wish I had the actual opinion article. The Arbitrator ruled that without a CBA the salary provisions in the Uniform Player Contracts do not have to be fulfilled (paid). Surely, this means the reverse as well: The players also don't have to fulfill the contracts by being force to accept pay and perform either.[/QUOTE]

Good link - but I still think that the players would happily go in, and the owners would pay them.....while they worked it out.

DD

 

I agree. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a scenario where the players DO NOT want to go back to work, rather they wanted to start their own league.

that's what I thought we were talking about.

BimaThug's "best guess" is the owners could "scuttle" an attempt to start a competing league by ending the lock out and forcing the players to come back to work.

My best guess is the owners cannot force players to work without a CBA. My link shows legal precedence.

 

HP,

If they started their own league they would not be able to make the same $$$, as soon as the NBA started up, the other league would fold.

That is why it is not a viable option at this point.

1. The players are not smart enough to manage a league on their own.
2. The businessman that are smart enough are not dumb enough to start one when they could lose the players in a heartbeat.

DD

 

We weren't discussing whether it was viable or not. We were discussing whether the league could prevent it if it posed a big threat.

We should take this offline to the Reaction thread. I'll end with saying that I wrote a scenario in this thread that would be a huge threat to the NBA. Feel free to go back and read my posts on the prev page that describes an owner revolt scenario. But let's not reply here. Move it to Reaction.

 

Back to the updates after HP and DD littered this thread.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Owners showing no urgency to return to talks, waiting on Hunter to call Stern, league sources say. No dialogue expected before Thanksgiving.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
For now, owners will review lawsuits, wait for players to miss checks on Dec. 1, sources say. They're still doubting resolve of players.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
One thing seems certain: Stern, owners want to meet with Hunter to negotiate, not anti-trust lawyers. Appears league will wait for call.

 

Sorry, but I did post one link...really.

And here's another:

For those looking for a lawyer's take on the players options, with a description of difference between disclaimer and decert:

<a href="http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/lockout-111114/nba-lockout-players-owners-union-rejects-deal">Larry Coon has a recent piece with a Houston lawyer.</a>

Man, this sounds like Stern is trying to get Hunter to negotiate as a tactic to use in a court case to say he didn't really disclaim. Hunter better not call him.

 

Not sure exactly when that money will run out. It depends on how many players we're talking about, what their individual pro rata share are (I think anyone who was on a roster for at least half of last season get a full share, and anyone with less time on a roster gets a prorated portion of a full share), and what the union's expenses have been thus far and going forward.

Hell, I'm not even sure what authority a "trade association" has (as opposed to an actual union) to handle that stash of money for the players. I suppose it's the same authority; but I'd be curios to see what would happen if some player challenged their trade association, claiming that they are entitled to a larger share or that the trade association has no authority to hold that money in the first place.

Bingo! Is that your "best guess", though? :grin:

If I were the player agents, I would organize a large conference call of all agents currently representing more than X number of players. On the conference call, I would hold a vote to appoint a team of 1-3 agents to speak on behalf of all agents. Then, announce to the press that this "Negotiating Team" is ready, willing and able to discuss the final details of a new CBA with Commissioner Stern whenever he is ready. Hell, I'd even rent out a hotel conference room and station myself there until the NBA either elects to meet or rejects the offer publicly.

 

Not sure the question Tyrus Thomas Tweeted to the NBA but this was their response just minutes ago



@TyrusThomas Salaries incl. 100% escrow to plyrs grew@ same rate as revenues(BRI). Problem is salaries+other biz expenses = huge losses.




-not sure exactly what this means, but Im pretty sure its a very vague way of explaining to the players how their escrow checks werent what players thought they were getting.