Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: CBA .. 16 hours negotiating a compromise.....

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Nba Logo CBA .. 16 hours negotiating a compromise.....

    16 hours negotiating a compromise....then 8 hours later they are back at
    negotiating a compromise....now thats how a bussiness deal gets completed.

    I'm sure "progress" was made. That said, the not talking to the media. Not
    tweeting to the fans. Not lambasting the other side....after 16 hours....GREAT!
    We shouldve got Federal mediator George Cohen two weeks after he settled
    the NFL.

  2. #2
    Nein, Mann! Lercher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Posts
    3,058
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Yesterday I was listening to Aldridge's recap on the talks and he said the mediator isn't there to get a deal done, but to make both sides realize they're not far apart on many issues and it seems what Cohen does simply works. I don't expect any deal this week, but some progress has certainly been made.

    edit: talks are done for today (7:00 PM), we will pick up Thursday at 2:00 PM - Cohen.
    Last edited by Lercher; Oct 19, 2011 at 18:01.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,585
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Both sides have agreed not to talk to the media but there is alway the anonymous source that is willing to leak something, what I heard was they made some progress on some of the secondary issues but not the major ones.

    If there is no agreement this week does Stern cancel games through Xmas?

  4. #4
    Nein, Mann! Lercher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Posts
    3,058
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    He said he will, but earlier he said he's going to cancel next two weeks of the season if no deal is done within two weeks counting from the day the first cancelation has been announced, so I think all that talk about no games until Christmas was meant to push the union toward an agreement on owners' condition, so further consequences can be avoided.

  5. #5
    Quiet Storm New New York's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,431
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    16 hours negotiating a compromise....then 8 hours later they are back at
    negotiating a compromise....now thats how a bussiness deal gets completed.

    I'm sure "progress" was made. That said, the not talking to the media. Not
    tweeting to the fans. Not lambasting the other side....after 16 hours....GREAT!
    We shouldve got Federal mediator George Cohen two weeks after he settled
    the NFL.
    He did not settle the the NFL

    But yes the media negotiating was really getting old

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Originally Posted by New New York
    He did not settle the the NFL

    But yes the media negotiating was really getting old
    Cohen 16 days with the NFL resolved the conflict between the two parties,
    plus stop all the media negativity pointing blame on any of the parties so the
    two sides could get down to bussiness at ending the lockout before the start
    of the NFL season. BIG PROPS

    With Stern 30 years of experience plus the 1998-99 lockout under his belt,
    we all thought he had the power to end this lockout a week or two before
    training-camp. But Stern (Dictatorship) showed he have conflicting-interest
    in a hardcap agreement with the players losing 7% interest in the revenue
    so owners could afford to pay a new "super luxury tax" for the next decade.
    He said he will, but earlier he said he's going to cancel next two weeks of the season if no deal is done within two weeks counting from the day the first cancelation has been announced, so I think all that talk about no games until Christmas was meant to push the union toward an agreement on owners' condition, so further consequences can be avoided.
    When Stern made that strong comment on cancelling games till Christmas,
    Memphis let it be known quickly of filing a lawsuit vs the NBA of the city
    lost investment. And Memphis is not the only city ready to file a lawsuit
    vs the NBA if games are canceled untill the new year.

  7. #7
    Superstar nuckles2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,172
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    Cohen 16 days with the NFL resolved the conflict between the two parties,
    plus stop all the media negativity pointing blame on any of the parties so the
    two sides could get down to bussiness at ending the lockout before the start
    of the NFL season. BIG PROPS

    With Stern 30 years of experience plus the 1998-99 lockout under his belt,
    we all thought he had the power to end this lockout a week or two before
    training-camp. But Stern (Dictatorship) showed he have conflicting-interest
    in a hardcap agreement with the players losing 7% interest in the revenue
    so owners could afford to pay a new "super luxury tax" for the next decade.


    When Stern made that strong comment on cancelling games till Christmas,
    Memphis let it be known quickly of filing a lawsuit vs the NBA of the city
    lost investment. And Memphis is not the only city ready to file a lawsuit
    vs the NBA if games are canceled untill the new year.
    After Cohen left the NFL talks, the union decertified and the players sued the owners in anti-trust lawsuit...so...not quite.

    But I also look at the lack of pandering to the public as progress. But, equally as important, I want to see what happens during these owner meetings that got pushed back. That's where they'll discuss the revenue sharing among the franchises, and where the "big market owners vs small market owners" issues need to be worked out. If there's better revenue sharing among teams, then the owners can possibly ease up on some of their demands.

    Concessions with the players can be made if teams like the Knicks and Lakers shared a bit of their tv contracts, and if visiting teams got a cut from the box office when they visit another team's arena. I believe the cut in the NFL is 60/40 in favor of the home team. If the NBA had that, then the T'wolves, Pistons, and Bucks would make a decent amount of money when they visit the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, etc. As far as I know (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the only monies divvied up between the teams right now is the luxury tax collected.

    Follow me for a min, there are roughly 18,500 seats in MSG for a Knicks game....let's multiply that by...$200 (for a nice even number) as the average price per ticket when all the levels are taken into account, that's $3.7 million per game the Knicks sell out. As it is right now...the Knicks would bank that, but with the NFL's system...the Knicks would get $2,220,000 and the visiting team....say...the T'wolves, would get $1,480,000 from that night's box office. Multiply that by all the times they'd have to play the Lakers, Thunder, Spurs, Golden State (they almost alway sell out), then their games against the Knicks, Celtics, Miami Skeet, Bulls, etc. and they're a ****ty team that doesn't have to solely rely on their team to make money, they can leech off of the strength of the good teams/good attendance arenas/big markets.

    Obviously the issue with the players has to be taken care of, or there's no NBA...but don't for a second think that the issue of how money is shared amongst teams is "second rate." There's a reason for that report that Gilbert and Sarver were the owners who were up in arms and pissed that the league "considered softening" their stance on the hard cap a few weeks ago. Hard cap = restrict spending on players, restricted spending on players = "even" playing field for all teams, which helps small market teams compete with the powerhouses. Which side of the fence do you think Cleveland and Phoenix fall on? Would they have the same viewpoint if they get a cut of another team's game related BRI when they're in town?

  8. #8
    Nein, Mann! Lercher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Posts
    3,058
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    No deal, progress made on some smaller issues, no sessions scheduled and Cohen probably won't be involved when the talks resume - deputy commissioner Adam Silver.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
    After Cohen left the NFL talks, the union decertified and the players sued the owners in anti-trust lawsuit...so...not quite.

    But I also look at the lack of pandering to the public as progress. But, equally as important, I want to see what happens during these owner meetings that got pushed back. That's where they'll discuss the revenue sharing among the franchises, and where the "big market owners vs small market owners" issues need to be worked out. If there's better revenue sharing among teams, then the owners can possibly ease up on some of their demands.

    Concessions with the players can be made if teams like the Knicks and Lakers shared a bit of their tv contracts, and if visiting teams got a cut from the box office when they visit another team's arena. I believe the cut in the NFL is 60/40 in favor of the home team. If the NBA had that, then the T'wolves, Pistons, and Bucks would make a decent amount of money when they visit the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, etc. As far as I know (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the only monies divvied up between the teams right now is the luxury tax collected.

    Follow me for a min, there are roughly 18,500 seats in MSG for a Knicks game....let's multiply that by...$200 (for a nice even number) as the average price per ticket when all the levels are taken into account, that's $3.7 million per game the Knicks sell out. As it is right now...the Knicks would bank that, but with the NFL's system...the Knicks would get $2,220,000 and the visiting team....say...the T'wolves, would get $1,480,000 from that night's box office. Multiply that by all the times they'd have to play the Lakers, Thunder, Spurs, Golden State (they almost alway sell out), then their games against the Knicks, Celtics, Miami Skeet, Bulls, etc. and they're a ****ty team that doesn't have to solely rely on their team to make money, they can leech off of the strength of the good teams/good attendance arenas/big markets.

    Obviously the issue with the players has to be taken care of, or there's no NBA...but don't for a second think that the issue of how money is shared amongst teams is "second rate." There's a reason for that report that Gilbert and Sarver were the owners who were up in arms and pissed that the league "considered softening" their stance on the hard cap a few weeks ago. Hard cap = restrict spending on players, restricted spending on players = "even" playing field for all teams, which helps small market teams compete with the powerhouses. Which side of the fence do you think Cleveland and Phoenix fall on? Would they have the same viewpoint if they get a cut of another team's game related BRI when they're in town?

    A great thought up plan.....I had this same type of discussion months ago
    in another forum on team-shared tv revenue. One member put it all to rest
    with an arguement on the Chicago Bulls owner/management wasnt doing
    something right when the departure of coach Jax, Jordan, Pippin, and
    Rodman wanting no part of the Bulls organization after their 3 straight
    seasons of selling-out every stadium they played in (100% profit to 1% profit).
    This member also mention numbers of when the Chicago Bulls were a small
    market team, before coach Jax, Jordan, and Pippin made the Chicago Bulls
    owner one of the NBA top-3 big market owners to own tv network and
    stadium.....plus he mention small-market teams are to greedy to share
    their packed house stadium with a big-market team (Miami at Cleveland)
    the return of Lebron was standing-room only in Cleveland.

    The small-market vs big-market owners has been the biggest issue the
    past 2 decades in the NBA, this same issue prolong the previous CBA
    lockout in 1998-99 which lead to the agreement of a soft-cap to lock
    superstars to a team (KG, Duncan).
    The wealthy-billionairs crying of losing money after the stock-market crashed
    in 1929 was a helluva cry, but their billionair-grandchildren crying today of
    losing money after another economic market crash that lead to a decade of
    recession in this country b/c they want to be as powerful or on equal grounds
    in the NBA market as the next billionair....is insaneful crazy.

    We all watch Knicks owner James Dolan "BAIL-OUT" so many NBA owners by
    trading for their high expensive contracts within the past decade to average
    a $100M Knicks cap plus paying the highest luxury tax in the NBA throughout
    a decade while making a profit each season. How many small-market and big-
    market teams could do what Dolan did for so many NBA teams and show no
    tears after a decade?
    Dolan gave every team a 2 year advance notice that the Dolan "BAILOUT"
    bussiness is closed. Its a big waste of time, energy, and the NBA season
    trying to figure a new CBA rule to make any small market-team half as equal
    as Dolan's Knicks.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Cool Damn! this 50-50 split

    Via Yahoo

    After three days of mediation, labor talks between NBA owners and players once again broke down, further jeopardizing the league’s 2011-12 season. No future meetings are currently scheduled.

    “We understand the ramifications of where we are,” NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said. “We’re saddened on behalf of the game. …Ultimately, we were unable to bridge the gap that separates the two parties.”

    While federal mediator George Cohen spent three days trying to keep the talks amicable and moving, it was clear after the latest impasse that the level of trust between the two sides has deteriorated. Players Association Derek Fisher accused league officials and owners of lying to the media and fans.

    “They’re interested in telling one-sided stories that are not true,” Fisher said.

    Silver didn’t announce any further cancellations to the schedule, but league officials planned to meet on Friday with NBA commissioner David Stern.

    Nevertheless, talks once again broke down on the proposed revenue split. Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said the league’s owners delivered the players an ultimatum that they must agree to a 50-50 split of the basketball-related income. Hunter said the players had proposed a band that would see them receive a minimum of 50 percent and a maximum of 53 percent each year, depending on how the league did financially.

    When the owners didn’t budge off their 50-50 demand, Hunter said he and Fisher suggested the two sides table the revenue split and resume negotiations on other system issues.

    Hunter said the owners then made clear they wouldn’t continue talks unless the players accepted the 50-50 proposal – a precondition the league has previously tried to attach to negotiations. “Take it or leave it,” Hunter said of the offer.

    “We’ve made concession after concession,” Hunter said. “…”They knew when they presented what they were presenting to us that it wasn’t going to fly.”
    Union officials think the league’s hardline owners – most of them in small markets who aren’t on the labor relations committee – are making it difficult for the two sides to reach a compromise. Hunter cited the Los Angeles Lakers’ Jerry Buss, the New York Knicks’ Jim Dolan, the Miami Heat’s Micky Arison and the Dallas Mavericks’ Mark Cuban as owners who are willing to make a deal.

    “But I think there are a group of small-market owners who are dug in, and they’re carrying the day,” Hunter said.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Unhappy Keep all fingers crossed

    I tend to side with the players in more than just one regard, and that is
    that the players should not have their potential revenue capped if the
    owners, themselves, are not capped in their potential revenue as well.
    There's no way the owners would ever cap their own potential revenue, and,
    as the CBA acknowledges that both parties are sharing in the revenue (i.e.,
    partners in the business), the argument that they are the ones taking the
    'risk' is not even particularly valid.

    Honestly, I think this is a situation that could go until one side is made to
    fall. The players may have to fall if this drags out for too long simply
    because they cannot bankroll their unemployment forever. But the owners, if
    they truly care about the long-term viability of the league, may have to fall
    soon, as well, lest they suffer the potential ruination of their product.

    If something isnt settled soon FA and missing paycheck players will throw
    hostilility toward corporate.......I dont want that to happen.

  12. #12
    Veteran Sprewell-Houston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany/Mount Vernon NY
    Posts
    1,357
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Poor Iman Shumpert, hasn't earned a ****ing dollar yet but is already considered jobless.....despite working his ass off in the summer.

    Those are the guys I feel for.

    **** Fisher and the rest of the multi-millionaire club....**** the owners, **** Stern.

  13. #13
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Where are we?

    I know I am repeating myself at least to some extent, but I still believe that the BRI split is -- or should be -- the principal issue. The anticipated BRI was in the $4 billion area. Each BRI percentage point would amount to $40M.

    The BRI is a pie. There is only one pie. If the players end up with 50%, the share of the $4 billion pie is $2 billion. If the players get 53% of the BRI $4 billion pie, their share is $2,120,000,000, Of course that is each year for the length of the contract. I know the owners want a 10 year contract, but I read that they would give the players an opt-out after 6 years. Even if it were a ten year contract, the difference between 50% and 53% would amount, for the full ten years, to a total of $1.2 billion. This is a bit skewed, of course, because there is likely to be growth in the BRI over the next ten years so that the difference between 50% and 53% with a reasonable growth rate might add another couple of hundred million to the $1.2 billion total.

    The current players, the majority of whom are not likely to be around for the full ten years,will take a full hit if there is no season. If the BRI would have been $4 billion, even at 50% there is a total loss in one year of $2 billion. That is substantially less than the $1.2 billion to perhaps $1.6 billion that agreeing to 50% would mean.

    All the other stuff besides the BRI split inevitably involves distribution of the the players' share of the pie among themselves. If they get the percentage, does it really matter whether there is a hard cap? It does to some players because it appears to squeeze at the top -- the stars are likely to suffer.

    I think the owners are being unreasonable, but they will not lose as much as the players if the season is lost. I think they can outlast the players. What happens next year? Does anyone think the players will have a better bargaining position than they do now?


  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,932
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Originally Posted by Oldtimer
    The current players, the majority of whom are not likely to be around for the full ten years,will take a full hit if there is no season. If the BRI would have been $4 billion, even at 50% there is a total loss in one year of $2 billion. That is substantially less than the $1.2 billion to perhaps $1.6 billion that agreeing to 50% would mean.

    All the other stuff besides the BRI split inevitably involves distribution of the the players' share of the pie among themselves. If they get the percentage, does it really matter whether there is a hard cap? It does to some players because it appears to squeeze at the top -- the stars are likely to suffer.

    I think the owners are being unreasonable, but they will not lose as much as the players if the season is lost. I think they can outlast the players. What happens next year? Does anyone think the players will have a better bargaining position than they do now?

    I agree 100%, this negotiation does not effect players like Derik Fisher who will probably be an assistant coach in two years. It also does not effect Carmelo & Zach who contracts were negotiated before July 1st., and we all know it does not effect Kobe Bryant.
    This negotiation is more about "principle" of old players looking-out for the young players future in the next 8 to 10 years.

    The 50-50 split with a hardcap will cripple teams tremendously in a 82 game season. Adding this to the new CBA will stunt the growth of the teams with the majority of "sell-out" crowds in away-games....Miami, Knicks, Boston, Orlando, Bulls, Lakers, Mavs, OKC, Spurs, Blazers, and now the Memphis Grizzlies. What is the average of long-term and short-term injuries per season in the NBA were a strong topic in the previous 1998-99 NBA lockout which lead to keeping the soft-cap.

    The lost of this 2011-12 season is estimated to financially hurt 350 players out of the 450 players in the NBA. Old superstar players Duncan, KG, Dirk, Amare, Melo, Pierce, Ray Allen, Zach, Boozer, Nash, Kidd, and Kobe are already financially established and could use a season vacation.
    What will a lost season do to the huge fan-base of the 2010-11 season?
    Lets say, a 15% drop in attendance in the majority of the small-market teams will do more damage to the league and owners than the $2 billion lost to players.....if the 2011-12 season wouldve started on time the NBA had a chance to make equal or more of lastseason BRI $4 billion, but now after all the bad (negative) publicity on the players greed for not wanting a 50-50 split with the owners when in "REAL-TALK" the 57% of the BRI to the players were really for the "TEAM" incase of season injuries to star-players or star role-players like the WCF was missing Gay and Butler.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I'm sure most of the players in the league are not gripping as most fans think they are. Rookies and FA's can just get some temp work and work on their game in the mean time. Everyone wants the games to start...but none more then the fans...that's what the owners and Stern is banking on.

    You just have to make your money makers happy or they will become disgruntled and not play to their worth. It is very important to the prosperity of the league that the players get what they worked so hard for. The fan sittingback watching the tube with a bowl of chips and pepsi has no true right to dictate what these players deserve.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 161
    Last Post: Jun 24, 2011, 07:59
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sep 29, 2010, 14:31
  3. McCain-Palin
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Sep 10, 2008, 11:52
  4. Compromise Larry
    By Blumatic in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Jan 10, 2006, 11:26
  5. NEGOTIATING KNICKS TRADE
    By kevin in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Jun 28, 2004, 15:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •