As for Stern "leaking" things...thats bull. Hunter had the first press conference and announced what both sides offered before Stern even took the stage. If things were "hush, hush", Hunter would have said "Their number was acceptable to us" and left it at that. He said "They offered 47%". Stern at a press conference (not a leak) said we offered 47% but threw out 50% and they balked. Nobody leaked anything.
The union was livid because a 50/50 split was never formally offered in the meetings. That is what pissed off Hunter and Fisher.
"Reducing our share of BRI by 7 points to 50% -- a level we have not received since the early 1990's -- is simply not a fair split." Icehouse called that one. 50/50 isn't a fair split in bizarro world.
This is getting ridiculous now that they have scrapped the preseason. The owners need to budge: tell the players and each other that they will cut 4 teams before the season begins. Hopefully the real number is something like 2 but they should use 4 because it will get everyone's attention and could force the players to agree to a 52-48 share which is damn close enough to 50-50. I think the owners can take the 2% cut. If they don't cut any teams then what the hell kind of argument do they have to tell everyone "we are losing lots of money". If a business is losing money like the NBA says, then you cut workers and sell assets. But they aren't doing that and by not doing that they are telling the players "naw we're just fine, we just want that extra 6%".
No because Hunter said they werent budging from the 53% no matter what The owners were willing to negotiate on 51 or even 52, but the NBAPA wasnt having it they just left it Let them go ahead and decert, and watch them lose big time
This isn't unprecedented. We can look to the NHL or even the airline industry to see how companies have turned to intense labor negotiations to try and stay competitive.
The owners sure do take a lot of risk....buying an asset that they rarely have to sell for a loss, getting capital investments that taxpayers subsidize (HEAVILY) and making a good return in the meantime if they manage their team well. Oh, and they can cap labor costs as well. Yeah....hell of a risk.
Will be surprised if a deal doesn't get done by sometime this weekend. There really close and both sides know it. 51 to 52% is probably the number and the owners will come out smelling like a rose. The repercussions of losing regular season games are definetly weighing on both sides for sure.
Do the owners not realize who runs this league? 50-50 would be the ideal situation for the owners. Anything lower than that is just plain stupid to even offer.
ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix Tick, tock and I haven't heard a whisper about any meetings or calls between players and owners. Just can't see a deal getting done by Mon.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout For the players, the cost of saying “no” can be easily quantified. The owners have offered the players 50 percent of BRI. This season’s BRI is expected to be around $4 billion, so the owners are offering the players a $2 billion slice of the pie. The players are holding out for a 53 percent share, so they’re looking for $2.12 billion. The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages. In a league where the average career lasts fewer than five years, that’s going to be a problem. For players, holding out for a better deal simply doesn’t make sense.
Part of the concern from the players side is that, if they back down easily this time, the owners will be more likely to seek even more concessions next time around. Having 50% become the new "baseline" from which the next deal is negotiated is a lot worse than having 53% being that "baseline." So, while the deal only runs for 7-10 years and the average players' remaining career probably won't even last that long, the players are not just thinking about the $796 million or so to be lost under the current deal, but also the negotiation position and the money that may be lost by future generations. Now, this "future loss" won't be born by current union members, but I imagine there are enough of them who are sufficiently "unselfish" (for example: Kevin Garnett, who probably won't play more than 2 or 3 years more and made the bulk of his money already) when it comes to voting to approve a new CBA to make this an issue.
It's great that the NBA players are worried about the future of future NBA players but they need to also realize that there are gonna be tons of regular people without jobs if this lockout continues like arena workers, trainers, concession workers, janitors, etc. who probably won't be able to feed their families if they have no games. Just start the season on time fellas. Already these workers are effected because of no preseason games, don't make it worst on them.
Exactly. "Unselfish" players who care about future generations of players should also care about the low income people who depend on the season and will gain nothing no matter what the negotiation turns out. And if they were really "unselfish" they should also consider how we average Joe fans have an interest in all these.
Doesn't this go both ways? $120 million split between 30 owners is $4 million each. A highly profitable team like the Lakers or the Knicks isn't going to want to miss regular season games over that amount.
