Author Topic: Meeting Concludes Without Deal / Ongoing Lockout Negotiations Thread  (Read 49272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2011, 02:30:32 AM »

Offline The Walker Wiggle

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 758
  • Pretend Hinkie
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.

I'm not sure that's the case. Here's one NBA journeyman anonymously quoted in Woj's afternoon article on Garnett.

Quote
“What he’s doing now, to me, it says a lot about K.G.,” says a younger NBA player who made about $5 million last season. “He’s willing to sit out the year, and give up $21 million at the end of his last big contract, and probably his last really good chance to win another ring. For him, this is about the principle.

“I don’t want to hear this stuff from our guys saying, ‘Oh, he can afford to sit out. He’s made a lot of money.’ I respect the [expletive] out of those guys standing up for us right now, him, Kobe, all of them.”

And then I have to highlight my own favorite quote:

Quote
When the Wolves had little else, they had Garnett. He covered for a bad owner, and a mediocre front office. When Glen Taylor was pinched for a secret contract with Joe Smith, the Wolves paid a steep price in Garnett’s prime. He never demanded a trade, never asked out. In good times and bad, Garnett was a franchise player. He understood the burden of it: Even when it wasn’t easy, K.G. knew that he was paid to carry it all.

He was the reason those Wolves sold out games, the reason they made the playoffs, the reason they had relevancy in the NBA. Once he left, the Wolves fell apart. Taylor hired an unqualified general manager, David Kahn, to run the franchise, and the Wolves kept slipping further and further. Small markets have a tiny margin for error, and Taylor obliterated it.

Only in this twisted NBA ownership culture, could Taylor – who lorded over what Stern declared was “one of the most far-reaching frauds we’ve seen” in the Smith scandal – become the chairman of the NBA’s board of governors.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2011, 02:39:25 AM »

Offline The Walker Wiggle

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 758
  • Pretend Hinkie
Yes, I did manage to quadruple post by accident. How u

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2011, 02:40:03 AM »

Offline The Walker Wiggle

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 758
  • Pretend Hinkie
-314 Tommy Points

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2011, 05:07:51 PM »

Offline CaptainJackLee

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 173
  • Tommy Points: 21
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.

1. What you call an informal poll is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I actually think the players would easily win a PR battle if they wanted to invest on it. Not win, because nobody can ever win this, but lose by less than the owners. They're not on strike, they're being locked out from working. And the public would be very sensible to the kind of abuse one can find in NBA franchises: from the nepotism to the owners borrowing money from their franchise at a lower interest rate than the franchise is borrowing to itself and then crying they aren't profitable. They won't because it's not worth the investment.

2. Probably? That makes your insight look questionable. Here are some facts:
Quote
Business has only improved for James since he moved to the Heat. No sponsors have dropped him as they did with Tiger Woods when he faced a media firestorm. James added a watch deal with Audemars Piguet to his endorsement portfolio in April. His jersey was the NBA’s best seller this season and his latest Nike shoe is the No. 1 basketball sneaker on the market.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/06/06/the-nbas-endorsement-stars/

3. Apparently they don't. But even if they did, superstars still only have 1 vote. Have you ever wondered why most of the NBA underpaid players are either stars or rookies? Because future rookies don't have a vote and stars are rare. It's those guys that couldn't care less about endorsements that dominate the union.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2011, 06:19:33 PM »

Offline StartOrien

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12961
  • Tommy Points: 1200
Talks to meet on Monday broke off. Owners said they will only meet under the conditions the players accept a 50-50 BRI split.

I'm not sure what the players are balking at - or perhaps this is just posturing - but I hope they don't let their pride get in the way. They've everything to lose here.  
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 06:49:45 PM by StartOrien »

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2011, 07:33:01 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
Uhh, the players are probably balking at giving up 7% BRI.

That is a classic dirtbag move, only agreeing to meet if the other side concedes the core of what you were negotiating about in the first place.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2011, 07:55:55 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!
me and my homies will make a dill at that 50/50...

they dont want the dough..ill take it~


have cbs and espn set up at the north park rec and it's on a poppin

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2011, 08:10:19 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

That is a classic dirtbag move, only agreeing to meet if the other side concedes the core of what you were negotiating about in the first place.

Why is it a dirtbag move?  If the owners are really unwilling to go beyond 50/50, then why should they meet?  Thats negotiation.  The players did the exact same thing earlier in the process when the owners asked for a meeting, but had not countered the players offer yet.  The players told them they would not meet with them until they countered...and then the sides did not meet for about a month.


Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2011, 08:34:39 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
It is fine to have preconditions for a negotiation, such as "you need to formally respond to my offer first" or "these are the topics that will be under discussion" or "Dwayne Wade brings the pizza".  It is something else entirely to require, as a condition for negotiation, that one party concede the very subject to be negotiated on in the first place.

If that's not clear, I am at a loss, I don't know how  better to explain that.  I could give an example, except it's one of those Don't Even Think About Posting This Outside of Current Events things.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2011, 08:35:15 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!

That is a classic dirtbag move, only agreeing to meet if the other side concedes the core of what you were negotiating about in the first place.

Why is it a dirtbag move?  If the owners are really unwilling to go beyond 50/50, then why should they meet?  Thats negotiation.  The players did the exact same thing earlier in the process when the owners asked for a meeting, but had not countered the players offer yet.  The players told them they would not meet with them until they countered...and then the sides did not meet for about a month.




the owners and the players should do a royal




last man standing for either side get what they want..

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2011, 11:23:53 AM »

Offline elcotte

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 438
  • Tommy Points: 52
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. 

The starting point is 57%-43% in favor of the players. It's too much give up for nothing to get to 50%-50%.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2011, 11:26:56 AM »

Offline elcotte

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 438
  • Tommy Points: 52
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. 

No way  is Stern perveived that positively. And Robert Sarver is an owner who is perceived as nothing but a rich guy trying to get richer.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2011, 12:02:02 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58537
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
It is fine to have preconditions for a negotiation, such as "you need to formally respond to my offer first" or "these are the topics that will be under discussion" or "Dwayne Wade brings the pizza".  It is something else entirely to require, as a condition for negotiation, that one party concede the very subject to be negotiated on in the first place.

If that's not clear, I am at a loss, I don't know how  better to explain that.  I could give an example, except it's one of those Don't Even Think About Posting This Outside of Current Events things.

I'm not sure it's a "dirtbag move". 

If the owners have reached their bottom line, what's the sense in spending tens of thousands of dollars (presuming attorneys are involved) for a meeting that will go nowhere?

This is the league statement:

Quote
"We told the union today that we were willing to meet as early as Sunday," Frank said. "We also advised them that we were unwilling to move above the 50-50 split of revenues that was discussed between the parties on Tuesday but that we wanted to meet with them to discuss the many remaining open issues. The union declined."

If that's the case -- essentially, "We've gone as far as we can on revenues, but we're willing to discuss other matters" -- then I don't see anything wrong with that.  Heck, I don't see anything wrong with "We've gone as far as we can go on revenues, so it doesn't make sense to meet right now, period".  Sometimes, negotiators just get to a point where they won't compromise any further.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2011, 02:49:16 PM »

Offline jdpapa3

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3884
  • Tommy Points: 85
I'd be all for some sort of shirt sponsorship idea where the team gets 65% and revenue shares the 35%(rough example) to close the gap.

Re: Meeting Concludes Without Deal, Negotiations Broken Off Indefinitely
« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2011, 04:20:26 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
It is fine to have preconditions for a negotiation, such as "you need to formally respond to my offer first" or "these are the topics that will be under discussion" or "Dwayne Wade brings the pizza".  It is something else entirely to require, as a condition for negotiation, that one party concede the very subject to be negotiated on in the first place.

If that's not clear, I am at a loss, I don't know how  better to explain that.  I could give an example, except it's one of those Don't Even Think About Posting This Outside of Current Events things.

I'm not sure it's a "dirtbag move". 

If the owners have reached their bottom line, what's the sense in spending tens of thousands of dollars (presuming attorneys are involved) for a meeting that will go nowhere?

This is the league statement:

Quote
"We told the union today that we were willing to meet as early as Sunday," Frank said. "We also advised them that we were unwilling to move above the 50-50 split of revenues that was discussed between the parties on Tuesday but that we wanted to meet with them to discuss the many remaining open issues. The union declined."

If that's the case -- essentially, "We've gone as far as we can on revenues, but we're willing to discuss other matters" -- then I don't see anything wrong with that.  Heck, I don't see anything wrong with "We've gone as far as we can go on revenues, so it doesn't make sense to meet right now, period".  Sometimes, negotiators just get to a point where they won't compromise any further.

Exactly.  It really is not going to take very long for them to work out the other details.  So, why waste everyones time, when you know that you can't agree on the BRI?

Of course, its likely all just a negotiating tactic anyways, but still, this is a very reasonable response by the owners.