Meeting Concludes Without Deal / Ongoing Lockout Negotiations Thread

[CaptainJackLee]

The players shouldn't accept none of these deals. Go on to the courts if the owners don't give up.

They only need to turn a handful of teams to join the already existent doves. That's very feasible, there are teams with so much debt to service that they can't stay afloat without the revenue stream from games. Sponsors will start getting restless. Agents are maneuvering to open more foreign quotas in Asian leagues, that will provide a few dozen additional jobs for the minimum salary crowd. The current NLRB is so pro-labour that they'll throw something cool to the union bosses. No need to hurry.

[StartOrien]

The players are in line to lose a huge PR war which could cost the players a great deal of money in endorsement and endorsement opportunities.

Not that they're necessarily wrong in their thoughts, but the court of public opinions is going to go heavily against the players.

[StartOrien]

Anyone find it weird that KG of all people was lobbying the players to hold their ground?

Seems like a guy who's made plenty of money, and is running low on miles left on his legs. You'd think he'd be dying to get back on the court.

[CaptainJackLee]

The players are in line to lose a huge PR war which could cost the players a great deal of money in endorsement and endorsement opportunities.

Not that they're necessarily wrong in their thoughts, but the court of public opinions is going to go heavily against the players.

1 - Why will they lose the PR battle? How do you know that?

2 - How much endorsements has LBJ lost due to his PR debacle last Summer?

3 - More importantly: players who make significant money from endorsements are a tiny minority of the union. Those guys don't count. That's why players will never accept a hard cap that would hurt supplemental players: they dominate the union. Do you think Josh McRoberts, Carlos Delfino or Chris Wilcox are that worried about their nation-wide image and commercial endorsements?

[StartOrien]

The players are in line to lose a huge PR war which could cost the players a great deal of money in endorsement and endorsement opportunities.

Not that they're necessarily wrong in their thoughts, but the court of public opinions is going to go heavily against the players.

1 - Why will they lose the PR battle? How do you know that?

2 - How much endorsements has LBJ lost due to his PR debacle last Summer?

3 - More importantly: players who make significant money from endorsements are a tiny minority of the union. Those guys don't count. That's why players will never accept a hard cap that would hurt supplemental players: they dominate the union. Do you think Josh McRoberts, Carlos Delfino or Chris Wilcox are that worried about their nation-wide image and commercial endorsements?

1. Walk down the street do an informal poll. The result is going to be the players are wrong.

2. Probably cost him a great deal of money.

3. When the 7 top agents are becoming involving things such as endorsements start to matter a lot.

[fairweatherfan]

Anyone find it weird that KG of all people was lobbying the players to hold their ground?

Seems like a guy who's made plenty of money, and is running low on miles left on his legs. You'd think he'd be dying to get back on the court.

Not really - KG is very loyal and very stubborn.  Part of why he stuck with a bad situation in Minnesota for so long.  He'll side with his fellow players over what might be best for him personally. 

Plus, if he is thinking practically, a short season might help the Celtics quite a bit.  82 games is a huge grind, 60-70 less so.

[Fafnir]

Anyone find it weird that KG of all people was lobbying the players to hold their ground?

Seems like a guy who's made plenty of money, and is running low on miles left on his legs. You'd think he'd be dying to get back on the court.

Not really - KG is very loyal and very stubborn.  Part of why he stuck with a bad situation in Minnesota for so long.  He'll side with his fellow players over what might be best for him personally. 

Plus, if he is thinking practically, a short season might help the Celtics quite a bit.  82 games is a huge grind, 60-70 less so.

Plus remember his first big contract was one of the ones that helped trigger the last lockout. He's been on this stage before, that has to effect how he views the current situation.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Ric Bucher making sure we all feel him, on Twitter, with the following analogy:

Example: Let's split a pizza. I'll split four slices with you, 50-50. The other 12 slices? Not pizza. Bruschetta. I keep the bruschetta.

[guava_wrench]

Ric Bucher making sure we all feel him, on Twitter, with the following analogy:

Example: Let's split a pizza. I'll split four slices with you, 50-50. The other 12 slices? Not pizza. Bruschetta. I keep the bruschetta.

16 slice pizza? What kind of nonsense is that? Pizza should have no more than 8 slices!

[elcotte]

The players are in line to lose a huge PR war which could cost the players a great deal of money in endorsement and endorsement opportunities.

Not that they're necessarily wrong in their thoughts, but the court of public opinions is going to go heavily against the players.

1 - Why will they lose the PR battle? How do you know that?

2 - How much endorsements has LBJ lost due to his PR debacle last Summer?

3 - More importantly: players who make significant money from endorsements are a tiny minority of the union. Those guys don't count. That's why players will never accept a hard cap that would hurt supplemental players: they dominate the union. Do you think Josh McRoberts, Carlos Delfino or Chris Wilcox are that worried about their nation-wide image and commercial endorsements?

1. Walk down the street do an informal poll. The result is going to be the players are wrong.

2. Probably cost him a great deal of money.

3. When the 7 top agents are becoming involving things such as endorsements start to matter a lot.

As long as Stern is heading up the owners and playing his games it's the owners who will look bad. How can the players look bad when it's the owners that want to drop the split from 57% to 46%?
Your informal poll is too narrow.

[wdleehi]

The players are in line to lose a huge PR war which could cost the players a great deal of money in endorsement and endorsement opportunities.

Not that they're necessarily wrong in their thoughts, but the court of public opinions is going to go heavily against the players.

1 - Why will they lose the PR battle? How do you know that?

2 - How much endorsements has LBJ lost due to his PR debacle last Summer?

3 - More importantly: players who make significant money from endorsements are a tiny minority of the union. Those guys don't count. That's why players will never accept a hard cap that would hurt supplemental players: they dominate the union. Do you think Josh McRoberts, Carlos Delfino or Chris Wilcox are that worried about their nation-wide image and commercial endorsements?

1. Walk down the street do an informal poll. The result is going to be the players are wrong.

2. Probably cost him a great deal of money.

3. When the 7 top agents are becoming involving things such as endorsements start to matter a lot.

As long as Stern is heading up the owners and playing his games it's the owners who will look bad. How can the players look bad when it's the owners that want to drop the split from 57% to 46%?
Your informal poll is too narrow.

Owners are at a 50/50 comment.  Players still want more money then the rest.  The agents want even more money.


Owners look better because they are ready to split the pie in half.  Players and agents want more then just half. 



No one looks good, but the owners PR machine is throwing out better looking numbers then the players PR machine. 

[Fafnir]

Don't forget though that 50/50 might not be 50/50 depending on the definition of BRI that the owner's are proposing. Currently the Owner's don't get to deduct all that much from BRI.

[Chris]

Don't forget though that 50/50 might not be 50/50 depending on the definition of BRI that the owner's are proposing. Currently the Owner's don't get to deduct all that much from BRI.

Well, Stern went on record (and sources have confirmed to several reporters) that the UNOFFICIAL 50/50 offer, which was made in the small group, after the formal proposal (which they called 50/50, but had expenses taken out first, making it 47%), was based on the old BRI calculations.

Of course it was a little more complicated than a simple 50/50 split.  It was 49% guaranteed to the players, and 51% max (which I am assuming it means that if the players get less than 49%, they get the money from the escrow account, and if if it goes over 51%, then they owners get it).

So, unless Stern, and the sources who leaked information were completely lying (and if he was, that would have leaked by now), the 50/50 offer was legit. 

And supposedly the players then countered with an unofficial 51-53% split offer, with the same framework as Sterns proposal.

The problem is, it clearly was NOT the 11th hour, therefore, neither side was motivated to take either deal yet.  The fact remains that the owners were willing to do 50%, and the players 52%...and they will likely meet on Sunday, with both sides ready to bridge that tiny gap, as the real deadline will finally be upon them...as long as someone (agents/hardline owners) don't mess it up before then.

[wdleehi]

Don't forget though that 50/50 might not be 50/50 depending on the definition of BRI that the owner's are proposing. Currently the Owner's don't get to deduct all that much from BRI.

Well, Stern went on record (and sources have confirmed to several reporters) that the UNOFFICIAL 50/50 offer, which was made in the small group, after the formal proposal (which they called 50/50, but had expenses taken out first, making it 47%), was based on the old BRI calculations.

Of course it was a little more complicated than a simple 50/50 split.  It was 49% guaranteed to the players, and 51% max (which I am assuming it means that if the players get less than 49%, they get the money from the escrow account, and if if it goes over 51%, then they owners get it).

So, unless Stern, and the sources who leaked information were completely lying (and if he was, that would have leaked by now), the 50/50 offer was legit. 

And supposedly the players then countered with an unofficial 51-53% split offer, with the same framework as Sterns proposal.

The problem is, it clearly was NOT the 11th hour, therefore, neither side was motivated to take either deal yet.  The fact remains that the owners were willing to do 50%, and the players 52%...and they will likely meet on Sunday, with both sides ready to bridge that tiny gap, as the real deadline will finally be upon them...as long as someone (agents/hardline owners) don't mess it up before then.

I get all that, but the average fan is going to just see the
"50/50" number thrown out there.

[StartOrien]

I would bet that the public opinion of David Stern is favorable. He's smart, and has always had a good media presence. Basketball-die hards tend to see things differently, but I'd bet your average sports fan has faith in him as a commissioner and trusts him.

On the other side - whether its right or wrong - I'm guessing the average sports fan sees your average basketball player as an Allen Iverson type. 300 man entourage, spending money as fast as it comes in.