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.

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?

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

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???

IRepNY said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kiyaman said:

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???

Click to expand...

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."

MusketeerX said:

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."

Click to expand...

There's a bit more to it, but this pretty much sums it up.

nyk_nyk said:

There's a bit more to it, but this pretty much sums it up.

Click to expand...

the above quote from musketeer x shows why the players did what they did.

the owners pushed them too far

ronoranina said:

the above quote from musketeer x shows why the players did what they did.

the owners pushed them too far

Click to expand...

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

<<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?

CoolClyde said:

<<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?

Click to expand...

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.

paris401 said:

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

Click to expand...

Idk about that.. Difficult to for me to see it that way when the players were already whittled down to 50/50 split..

ronoranina said:

Idk about that.. Difficult to for me to see it that way when the players were already whittled down to 50/50 split..

Click to expand...

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....

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.

all i can do is SMH

nyk_nyk said:

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.

Click to expand...

The reason this move by the nbapa was not done back in july is because both sides wanted to use the threat of the season coming closer as leverage. Because of this 1 can easily come away w the notion that neither side really gives a s*** about us fans.

ronoranina said:

The reason this move by the nbapa was not done back in july is because both sides wanted to use the threat of the season coming closer as leverage. Because of this 1 can easily come away w the notion that neither side really gives a s*** about us fans.

Click to expand...

Of course. They know we'll still watch and go to the games. This is why (if there is a season) all fans should not pay for NBA League Pass or go to any game for at least the first month. They need to respect the fact that we are a big part of them even having billion dollars of BRI.

it appears that some of the owners would not mind losing the whole season.. and i guess if a franchise is going to lose 10m playing 82 games, or 10m not playin what's the diff... to the owners (ofcourse there is the alienation of the fans)... b u t ... to the player he is totally out of pocket...

it will be interesting who blinks 1st....

Thank god for the NFL!

Never been a huge NFL fan, but now with the NBA lockout still in place, I'm really voracious for NFL games!

I'm seriously considering to replace my NBA League Pass with an NFL League Pass.....NFL players are for real, sticking their bones out every week, not just a bunch of spoiled dickheads.

I'm at the point where I actually don't give a damn anymore whether there is an NBA season or not.

NFL sucks, of course I tried to watch some Giants stuff, however it's getting boring when the game stops every few seconds and both teams have to discuss their next play... but sill we have some top-level rugby and football (soccer) over here (gonna watch Arsenal London vs Borussia Dortmund tonight).