Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: What Do The Players (NBPA?) Really Want?

  1. #1
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,477
    Rep Power
    20

    Default What Do The Players (NBPA?) Really Want?

    we've seen what the owners have been offering. they've laid it out pretty damn clear online, in print, in video, on twitter etc.

    what do the players really want? what are the real issues they are concerned with that they are willing to forfeit an entire season to get what they feel they deserve? what is worth losing billions of dollars over in BRI? what is it that's keeping thousands of arena/concession people out of work, who are only trying to make ends meet?

    does anyone really know exactly what the players want? enlighten me.

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

    Default

    That's why I think the union has never really been bargaining in good faith. They rejected every offer the owners brought saying they want a fair deal and the league's proposals didn't met their demands, but, what are their demands actually?

  3. #3
    Newbie IRepNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    But didn't David Stern offered a 50/50 deal?? Or I only was listening to bad rumors from my co workers?

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,955
    Rep Power
    18

    Angry How does the owners hardcap proposal effect the NBA after 5 seasons?

    Im on the players side, oposite of the poster (and others)

    The players first proposal was for a Flexable-Cap with a 53% BRI.
    The league/owners first proposal was a hard-cap with a 49% BRI.
    The league/owners called their hardcap proposal a Flex-cap. LOL
    As the negotiation went on the league/owners kept adding more
    hardcap rules (a Carmelo Anthony rule?) which kept extending the
    offseason lockout pass training-camp, preseason, into regular season.

    The league/owners justification for adding extra-rules to their Hard-cap
    proposal throughout the lockout was a great PR speech by Stern, "We are
    negotiating a new CBA where every NBA team would have an equal chance
    at getting a championship trophy". LOL!
    Stuff like that sounds good to all the fans of small-market (lottery) teams.
    But back to reality....ratings make money....super-stars make high ratings.
    Two young stars vs two old stars in a series (OKC vs Mavs) make money.
    The underdog Mavs vs the powerhouse Miami Big-3 makes money.
    Under the league/owners CBA hardcap proposal the Mavs will have financial
    difficulty resigning the FA on their championship roster.
    Does that effect the championship Mavs competitiveness in the league???

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,955
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Originally Posted by IRepNY
    But didn't David Stern offered a 50/50 deal?? Or I only was listening to bad rumors from my co workers?

    Stern strong-arm controll has the media/press focus only on the BRI %....
    when the union main focus is on the owners hard-cap rules, and how it will
    have total controll over the players movement in the next 10 years.

    The players agreeing to 47% of the BRI will not stop superstars (CP3, Deron,
    or D.Howard) from getting $20M per. It also wont stop star role-players (31
    year old David West) from getting $12M per or more.
    It is a fact....NBA agents has always out-smart the majority of NBA GM.

  6. #6
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    Im on the players side, oposite of the poster (and others)

    The players first proposal was for a Flexable-Cap with a 53% BRI.
    The league/owners first proposal was a hard-cap with a 49% BRI.
    The league/owners called their hardcap proposal a Flex-cap. LOL
    As the negotiation went on the league/owners kept adding more
    hardcap rules (a Carmelo Anthony rule?) which kept extending the
    offseason lockout pass training-camp, preseason, into regular season.

    The league/owners justification for adding extra-rules to their Hard-cap
    proposal throughout the lockout was a great PR speech by Stern, "We are
    negotiating a new CBA where every NBA team would have an equal chance
    at getting a championship trophy". LOL!
    Stuff like that sounds good to all the fans of small-market (lottery) teams.
    But back to reality....ratings make money....super-stars make high ratings.
    Two young stars vs two old stars in a series (OKC vs Mavs) make money.
    The underdog Mavs vs the powerhouse Miami Big-3 makes money.
    Under the league/owners CBA hardcap proposal the Mavs will have financial
    difficulty resigning the FA on their championship roster.
    Does that effect the championship Mavs competitiveness in the league???

    The Players didn't want a flex cap at all. A flex cap = a masked hard cap. If a flex cap of 70 million (flex being 7 million in either direction) the hard cap becomes 77 million. Flex cap = no exceptions.

    Players wanted a 57/43 split in players favor. 7 million MLE (no matter if they are tax teams or non paying tax teams), sign and trade for tax payers, and less punitive measure sfor go over the soft cap.

    The owners want a 53/47 split in owners favor. They want an MLE of 3 million dollars for tax payers, and 5 mle for non-tax players. They want extraordinary punitive measures for teams that go over the cap.

    Negotiations.
    • We start at 43/57 (players favor)
    • Players said we will do 54/46. Owners said 47/53 (owners favor).
    • Players came down to 53. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 52.5. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 52. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 51. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 50, but with concessions on the "system" issues (mle/punitive taxes/sign and trades).
    • Owners said, "no," we will not concede.
    • Players said, "fine," we are decertifying.
    That was essentially the negotiations. Owners have all the leverage, but they overplayed their hand. The Players made the significant moves here, and were asking for something. The Owners didn't give it to them, and they said, "we will not be strong-armed."
    Last edited by MusketeerX; Nov 19, 2011 at 21:27.

  7. #7
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    The Players didn't want a flex cap at all. A flex cap = a masked hard cap. If a flex cap of 70 million (flex being 7 million in either direction) the hard cap becomes 77 million. Flex cap = no exceptions.

    Players wanted a 57/43 split in players favor. 7 million MLE (no matter if they are tax teams or non paying tax teams), sign and trade for tax payers, and less punitive measure sfor go over the soft cap.

    The owners want a 53/47 split in owners favor. They want an MLE of 3 million dollars for tax payers, and 5 mle for non-tax players. They want extraordinary punitive measures for teams that go over the cap.

    Negotiations.
    • We start at 43/57 (players favor)
    • Players said we will do 54/46. Owners said 47/53 (owners favor).
    • Players came down to 53. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 52.5. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 52. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 51. Owners said 50.
    • Players said 50, but with concessions on the "system" issues (mle/punitive taxes/sign and trades).
    • Owners said, "no," we will not concede.
    • Players said, "fine," we are decertifying.
    That was essentially the negotiations. Owners have all the leverage, but they overplayed their hand. The Players made the significant moves here, and were asking for something. The Owners didn't give it to them, and they said, "we will not be strong-armed."
    There's a bit more to it, but this pretty much sums it up.

  8. #8
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by nyk_nyk
    There's a bit more to it, but this pretty much sums it up.
    the above quote from musketeer x shows why the players did what they did.

    the owners pushed them too far

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    the above quote from musketeer x shows why the players did what they did.

    the owners pushed them too far
    or looking at it another way, the players pushed the owners too far...

  10. #10
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,477
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    <<Players said 50, but with concessions on the "system" issues (mle/punitive taxes/sign and trades).>>

    OK, so what concessions on the "system" issues did the players want to happen? how much did they want?

  11. #11
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by CoolClyde
    <<Players said 50, but with concessions on the "system" issues (mle/punitive taxes/sign and trades).>>

    OK, so what concessions on the "system" issues did the players want to happen? how much did they want?

    Comes down to owners not wanting to budge on issues that paled in comparison to what they already got from the players. Seems like adding insult to injury to me. You be the judge..

    A disclaimer was the one weapon at the union's disposal that causes the most chaos the fastest, so maybe there is legal genius in that alone. Once the players file their antitrust lawsuit, the league presumably would follow through on its threat to void all player contracts. Technically, the league would be free to start over -- with new rules, a new draft, and new ways of assigning players to teams. The players would bargain individually, and they wouldn't be considered scabs since they are no longer represented by a union.

    But a disclaimer isn't a stronger hand than decertification, and unlike decertification, bargaining talks cannot continue between the league and union. All that can result is a settlement reached by the attorneys -- which at some point would take the form of a collective bargaining agreement if a simple majority of players voted to reinstate the union and the owners decided to recognize it. But that eventuality is a long way off, and it would be a moot point if a federal judge rules that the union's disclaimer tactic is a sham.

    How and why a deal didn't get done to avoid all of this is the biggest sham of all.

    Among a list of six key system items the players had asked last week to be negotiated further, the league moved modestly on several -- agreeing, for example, to allow tax-paying teams to use sign-and-trades for the first two years of the deal. The remaining list of issues of the highest concern to players heading into Monday hardly seemed worth losing a season over.

    A 12 percent reduction in rookie wages and minimum salaries was simply a function of the reduction in salaries from 57 percent of revenues to 50 percent -- and the union's unwillingness to touch max contracts or agree to across-the-board rollbacks. The money had to come from somewhere. As an example, a 12 percent pay cut for the No. 1 pick in the draft would've decreased his rookie salary from $4.4 million to $3.9 million. The 10-year veteran's minimum salary would've gone from $1.4 million to $1.2 million.

    The players also objected to the proposed 10 percent escrow withholding and a new mechanism to account for the likely overage in the players' 50 percent guarantee -- especially in the first two years of the deal. Again, if max contracts remained intact and there were no rollbacks, how else was the players' reduced share of revenues going to be accounted for in a new system?

    Similarly, the hills where the owners chose to die were equally minimal compared to the powder keg that was blown up Monday at the Westin. They're getting $3 billion from the players over 10 years, and they allowed the season to be threatened over making sure that the Lakers can sign only a $3 million backup point guard instead of a $5 million one?


    How could the owners look at the key things the players wanted after they already got the 50/50 split and say "nah, no deal.. **** em"??

    The above reads like the players were looking out for rooks and mid level guys. The owners are A-holes. I can't blame the players for doing what they did.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Nov 21, 2011 at 14:58.

  12. #12
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by paris401
    or looking at it another way, the players pushed the owners too far...
    Idk about that.. Difficult to for me to see it that way when the players were already whittled down to 50/50 split..
    Last edited by ronoranina; Nov 21, 2011 at 14:58.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Idk about that.. Difficult to for me to see it that way when the players were already whittled down to 50/50 split..
    i can sit and listen to someone explaining the players side , and come away agreeing, and 5mins later listen to the owners side explained and nod in agreement...

    now its back to watching reruns of the happy days....

  14. #14
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    All this is a moot point to me when I think about back in July when both sides weren't taking this seriously. They met once and it took them a few weeks to get back at it. They did it again and neither side was seriously negotiating. As soon as it got closer to training camp that's when these boneheads want to start meeting more frequently and trying to get serious. It was only a few weeks ago that they finally decided to meet for those loooong hours all through the night. Seriously WTF took so long????

    These idiots (Hunter/Fisher/Stern/Owners) should have been trying hard to get this deal done immediately after the season! Sure, take your vacation BUT make sure your billion dollar cash cow is taken care of first you nitwits! Disclaimer or decert should have been done in June/July if that was really an option.

    This is what happens when you don't take things seriously. Each side was probably confident that they'd get their way in a matter of weeks just in time for training camp. FAIL! Have serious discussions early, show respect for what the other side is looking for and there is a better chance a good deal gets worked out sooner.

  15. #15
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,477
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    all i can do is SMH

Similar Threads

  1. Where do u stand on the NBA Lockout issues
    By Kiyaman in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Nov 12, 2011, 11:11
  2. Players Knock Back A Proposed 50/50 Split Of BRI
    By Crazy⑧s in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: Oct 18, 2011, 11:04
  3. Probably a stupid question on BRI
    By finestrg in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 10, 2011, 15:46
  4. 2011 Lockout: Players vs Owners vs Fans
    By NYallDay in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jul 21, 2011, 13:18
  5. Replies: 31
    Last Post: Dec 22, 2010, 22:24

Posting Permissions

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