Meeting Concludes Without Deal / Ongoing Lockout Negotiations Thread

[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.

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

Well yeah.  I was just disputing the suggestion that the 50/50 number wasn't accurate.  While it wasn't truly 50/50 in the official offer, the owners did in fact offer a true, 50/50 split.  So, the average fan would be right to notice the 50/50 number.

As for the perception, I think this is bad for the players, mainly because people already hate the owners, and they always will.  It is hard for the Billionaires to come out of any negotiation looking good.  The players on the other hand had more to lose.  There are a lot of people who have been on their side, simply because of the perception of the owners (and Stern) as bullies.  So, they had a lot more room for the perception to turn around on them.

[LB3533]

How is 50/50 fair?

The players lose 7% and the owners gain 7%.

That isn't fair.

[Chris]

How is 50/50 fair?

The players lose 7% and the owners gain 7%.

That isn't fair.

That is based on the old system...which is not really relevant, because that system ended on June 30th.

Like I said before though, there is nothing having to do with "fair" here.  No matter how it works out, both sides are getting rich off it.  So, its not a matter of fair, it is a matter of negotiation. 

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

All I want is basketball, I don't care who gets what!!! I'm losing my mind with NO real basketball news!! I don't want to see LeBron and Wade playing pick-up games (I'm not a fan)... I want CELTICS news!!!!!! I'm dying got-wham-it!!! I (sort of) digress!! UGH

[LB3533]

How is 50/50 fair?

The players lose 7% and the owners gain 7%.

That isn't fair.

That is based on the old system...which is not really relevant, because that system ended on June 30th.

Like I said before though, there is nothing having to do with "fair" here.  No matter how it works out, both sides are getting rich off it.  So, its not a matter of fair, it is a matter of negotiation. 

Then the players could negotiate for 67% of the BRI, but they haven't.

Owners are greedy SOBs!

[StartOrien]

How is 50/50 fair?

The players lose 7% and the owners gain 7%.

That isn't fair.

That is based on the old system...which is not really relevant, because that system ended on June 30th.

Like I said before though, there is nothing having to do with "fair" here.  No matter how it works out, both sides are getting rich off it.  So, its not a matter of fair, it is a matter of negotiation. 

Then the players could negotiate for 67% of the BRI, but they haven't.

Owners are greedy SOBs!

[Chris]

How is 50/50 fair?

The players lose 7% and the owners gain 7%.

That isn't fair.

That is based on the old system...which is not really relevant, because that system ended on June 30th.

Like I said before though, there is nothing having to do with "fair" here.  No matter how it works out, both sides are getting rich off it.  So, its not a matter of fair, it is a matter of negotiation.  

Then the players could negotiate for 67% of the BRI, but they haven't.

Owners are greedy SOBs!

Of course they could.  But they would need some basis for it to have any chance.  The owners had numbers that showed they were losing money on the current system, so they had a leg to stand on in the negotiation.

Now, you can not believe the numbers, but the fact that the players have been negotiating with them, and have even acknowledged the losses, shows that there was reason for them to lower the players percentage.

Now, if the players can come up with some plausible evidence that the league could be financially viable (which would include being profitable for the owners) with them at 67%, have at it.  But given that they started negotiating by going less than 57%, it is pretty clear that they understood that they needed to give back some money.

[mgent]

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.  

So if we were to compare what the players are asking for to the other big sports how would that look?  50/50 might sound fair, but I believe it's pretty unheard of in major sports.  I don't know the exact numbers, but I thought 53% was either lesser than or equal to what other professional athletes are getting.

I wouldn't exactly call stuff like that irrelevant.  Players have as much of a right to fight for their money as owners' do.  It's not a baseless claim to say players deserve more than half.

[StartOrien]

NBA will remain the highest salary average of all sports. And I'm fairly sure the NFL just settled for something around 50/50.

[Roy H.]

For anybody who missed the link on the front page, Larry Coon lays out why the players pretty much have to accept the owners' offer, if they use any common sense at all:

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. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

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. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.

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.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout

[StartOrien]

Man, getting in that mode again:

Trying to stay negative, trying to stay negative. Can't take crushing news. Trying to prepare.

[BASS_THUMPER]

Man, getting in that mode again:

Trying to stay negative, trying to stay negative. Can't take crushing news. Trying to prepare.

not crushing news for me

jus takes away the fun and love from the game...

what nba star gonna try and shine for less cash?

[TheReaLPuba]

For anybody who missed the link on the front page, Larry Coon lays out why the players pretty much have to accept the owners' offer, if they use any common sense at all:

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. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

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. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before  were cancelled.

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.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout

Players are willing to lose it all to get a fair deal.

They're not in it just for the money. They're thinking about the future players that are going to be in the NBA as well.

The owners just want some idiot proof system so they can make money.

[GreenEnvy]

For anybody who missed the link on the front page, Larry Coon lays out why the players pretty much have to accept the owners' offer, if they use any common sense at all:

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. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

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. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before  were cancelled.

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.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout

Players are willing to lose it all to get a fair deal.

They're not in it just for the money. They're thinking about the future players that are going to be in the NBA as well.

The owners just want some idiot proof system so they can make money.

Which players are? The Fisher's and Kobe's and Garnett's and Pierce's of the NBA? They can afford that luxury because they have made the majority of their money already.

But what about the fringe players who make up the majority of the NBA. The minimum players, the newer draft picks, etc. Those guys would rather keep their paychecks than worry about the state of the league in 10 years, for which most won't even be playing.

The union seemingly got a sweet deal the last time around, especially with Jordan retiring and the NBA taking a dive (which wasn't all that unexpected). Now that the league is doing well again, the players are the one's who are reaping the most benefits, and have been for some time now. Whether it is 5 teams losing money or 20, too many teams are in bad shape. Fans are polarized by "superpowers," but the majority of owners do not like it (unless they own one).

Come down on the BRI split, get a deal done, improve the state of the game, and get the owners next time like you did the last time.

[The Walker Wiggle]

For anybody who missed the link on the front page, Larry Coon lays out why the players pretty much have to accept the owners' offer, if they use any common sense at all.

Interesting argument, although as has been pointed out, Coon's doesn't consider the players to follow or the next collective bargaining agreement - both clearly concerns important to the Union.

I wonder what ownership's break even point is? Certainly Buss and Dolan stand to lose large sums in a lockout.