The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[Bendit]

This fast track decertificaton...did the all the players have a vote on it...were there more than half the membership signatures gathered?

[Bendit]

Not sure why the players waited so long to fire their only bullet. They should have done this on July 2. Hopefully, this will lead to further attempts at a deal.

As a sidenote, if I'm Buss/Dolan/Cuban right now I'm on the phone to David Stern making sure that Paul Allen, Sarver, Jordan and Leonsis or the NBA are going to be indemnifying me for any costs associated with the anti-trust suit. Seems fair. They wanted to play chicken with the players confident the PA would fold, they should pay for it. Especially if armageddon happens and I have to cut a check for $200,000,000.

I am sure there are a few players wanting to play/take the deal. You are not suggesting that those for decertification indemnify the former for missed pay cheques or a lesser deal should they lose their law suit?

[mcHAPPY]

Not sure why the players waited so long to fire their only bullet. They should have done this on July 2. Hopefully, this will lead to further attempts at a deal.

As a sidenote, if I'm Buss/Dolan/Cuban right now I'm on the phone to David Stern making sure that Paul Allen, Sarver, Jordan and Leonsis or the NBA are going to be indemnifying me for any costs associated with the anti-trust suit. Seems fair. They wanted to play chicken with the players confident the PA would fold, they should pay for it. Especially if armageddon happens and I have to cut a check for $200,000,000.

It should be noted the players have refused to negotiate on a number of 'blood' issues.

I'm not going to pretend I know what the outcome of a legal dispute concerning anti-trust would be. However, one thing that seems to be fairly certain is this case for the players is far from a slam dunk. Their case is based on the league not negotiating in 'good faith'. The league can come right back with the same argument. Plus the league can claim this is a negotiating tactic. If I am a player I am starting to sweat.


I really do hope the league and the players have one more conversation before the A-bomb is detonated.

[mcHAPPY]

Stern: NBA has negotiated in good faith; season in jeopardy

Posted Nov 14 2011 3:35PM

NEW YORK, November 14, 2011 -- NBA Commissioner David Stern has issued the following statement:

"At a bargaining session in February 2010, Jeffrey Kessler, counsel for the union, threatened that the players would abandon the collective bargaining process and start an antitrust lawsuit against our teams if they did not get a bargaining resolution that was acceptable to them.

"In anticipation of this day, the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board asserting that, by virtue of its continued threats, the union was not bargaining in good faith. We also began a litigation in federal court in anticipation of this same bargaining tactic.

"The NBA has negotiated in good faith throughout the collective bargaining process, but -- because our revised bargaining proposal was not to its liking -- the union has decided to make good on Mr. Kessler's threat.

"There will ultimately be a new collective bargaining agreement, but the 2011-12 season is now in jeopardy."

Source


League issues short reply to NBPA decision today.


Stern interview with ESPN after NBPA announcement today:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=723...goryid=2459788

"Nuclear Winter"

[GarbageTime]

The restrictions are on teams AFTER free agency. The restrictions on a team AFTER it uses a full MLE for the season that directly follows is they cannot go in to luxury tax zone - a zone which 7 of 30 teams went in to. Come July 1st the next year, the restriction is gone unless they wish to give another full MLE. If they give a mini-MLE there is no issue.


The players have as much choice as before and probably more. There are 3 exemptions (full MLE, mini-MLE, and the new $2.5M) for the middle class - plus the bi-annual exemption still for non-tax payers. Players can play where ever they want - they just might not get as much money in one place versus another. For just about every other professional in the world, that is a reality - clearly it is a reality NBA players should not have to face in their opinion.

The new CBA has a much greater tax which limits both a teams willingness and ability to sign FAs... and thereby limits a players movement.

Players can not, and never could, play wherever they wanted. They have always been limited by an owners decision to take on a player. The new CBA is forcing the owners to, at a certain point, make greater sacrifices than ever before in order to make that decision, and thereby putting greater limitations on the player.

This is not a statement on the hard cap, or the harder tax, system or the rightness of wrongness of it. But this is the reality of the new CBA as is... players will have less choice, not more.

[slaw]

I'm not going to pretend I know what the outcome of a legal dispute concerning anti-trust would be. However, one thing that seems to be fairly certain is this case for the players is far from a slam dunk. Their case is based on the league not negotiating in 'good faith'. The league can come right back with the same argument. Plus the league can claim this is a negotiating tactic. If I am a player I am starting to sweat.


I really do hope the league and the players have one more conversation before the A-bomb is detonated.

I'm pretty sure that any anti-trust suit filed by NBA players would be far more comprehensive than the lockout issue. I assume they would challenge the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions much like the NFL suit. What kills me is that there has been vertical collusion for decades between the PA and the NBA supported by the NBA cartel. Now, the players are going to use federal law, which gave them all the benefits of being able to collude with the owners, to punch the owners in the face. Bah, again, a pox on both their houses.... Neither deserve any sympathy.

On your last point, I can't imagine even the lead lawyers are confident of what will happen in litigation. I do believe that this will lead to further talks and a deal. I can't see either side risking the potential earthquake.

[mcHAPPY]

The new CBA has a much greater tax which limits both a teams willingness and ability to sign FAs... and thereby limits a players movement.

Players can not, and never could, play wherever they wanted. They have always been limited by an owners decision to take on a player. The new CBA is forcing the owners to, at a certain point, make greater sacrifices than ever before in order to make that decision, and thereby putting greater limitations on the player.

This is not a statement on the hard cap, or the harder tax, system or the rightness of wrongness of it. But this is the reality of the new CBA as is... players will have less choice, not more.

There were numerous teams already unwilling to go in to the tax. Those who did often did not pass $75M. We are talking 3-4 teams here: NYK, LAL, DAL, and eventually MIA.

Read the full CBA proposal - it is only 7 pages.

What the 450 players are fighting for that will effect maybe 5 players per season is RIDICULOUS and will come down to a choice between the most money possible for a player and the place he wishes to earn it.

[Tim W.]

That is not true. There are huge restrictions on player movement in Free Agency, greater than ever.... not on the players themselves, but on the teams. And that in turn restricts the players ability to move to a team.

And the 2nd line is the exact opposite of what the players and owners are seeking. The players want as much choice as possible... the owners want to limit that choice by players by an amount that they see as reasonable.

This notion that the proposal limits the ability for players to choose where they want to go is completely bogus. I wrote a blog post about it, but basically, they need to learn the difference between and incentive and restriction. If a player wants to make top dollar, then there are restrictions on where he can go, which is how the NBA is trying to level the playing field. Absolutely nothing is stopping players from going where they want to go except their desire to combine that with making as much money as they can. They have to choose between making top dollar and freedom of choice. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for guys whining that they have to take a few million less (yet still MAKE millions) to be able to choose where they want to go. Especially when their ability to choose can completely devastate teams that aren't sought after destinations. THAT is why I don't side with the players at all on this.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm pretty sure that any anti-trust suit filed by NBA players would be far more comprehensive than the lockout issue. I assume they would challenge the draft, salary cap and free agency restrictions much like the NFL suit. What kills me is that there has been vertical collusion for decades between the PA and the NBA supported by the NBA cartel. Now, the players are going to use federal law, which gave them all the benefits of being able to collude with the owners, to punch the owners in the face. Bah, again, a pox on both their houses.... Neither deserve any sympathy.

On your last point, I can't imagine even the lead lawyers are confident of what will happen in litigation. I do believe that this will lead to further talks and a deal. I can't see either side risking the potential earthquake.

I agree with the sympathy. All the points you made are realities of pro-sports. WIthout the collusion there is no league of 30... maybe a league of 6.


The problem with the bolded section is seen in the very last thing Stern says in the ESPN interview I have linked in post 1579:

There is no one to negotiate with now (or as soon as the players follow through on threat). This goes to the courts to be resolved. The league is not budging. The players are going to lose '11-12 season and quite possibly much more with the very real possibility they come back to 47% (or less!) of BRI and a flex cap.

I am pro-owner because my wants as a fan align with theirs as owners but what the players are looking at doing is ridiculous.

As Stern said, Kessler is taking the same argument which he LOST with the NFL on appeal. The players are nuts.


I do hope you are right and it leads to a negotiation in the next day or two before the players dissolve the union because, if not, this goes to the lawyers and what is a bad situation will only get much worse.

[Joey]

I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.

[jimmie]

Not to mention that *where* a player plays has an impact not only on the team he's leaving and the one he's going to, but also on the system as a whole. For elite players, that impact is large, for role players, it's smaller. But collectively, the uneven dispersal of talent matters a great deal in the long-term health of the league.

The owners are counting on the disincentives to player movement aiding in a more equal talent dispersal among teams. That's what's meant by "competitive balance" -- not that 'all teams have an equal chance to win a championship', but rather that they have an 'equal chance at acquiring the talent to compete for a championship'.

Chris Paul will still have his choice of any team in the league that can afford to pay him under the rules of the new CBA. It might just not include NY, Miami, LA or Dallas, who have already paid through the nose for their chance to win a championship, and in the process, diluted the talent pool available, and increased the asking price for the remaining players, for everyone else. Which means CP will -- shudder -- have to choose from one of the other 20-25 teams offering him multimillions. In which case, the criteria for his choice will have to be some combination of variables: best chance to win x best salary offered x city he likes x best place to market himself, etc...

There's plenty of choice. It's just not 'open market' choice. Because that doesn't work for all teams in a collective that relies on overall health vs. individual franchise health. Yes, the Miami fiasco DID push fant interest in the NBA to much higher levels than recent history, but it's not the kind of interest that is sustainable over time. Better competitive balance (as defined above) is needed.

[mcHAPPY]

I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.

If you believe the league was not bargaining in good faith then they certainly did a good job of covering their tails. Read the CBA there were some things (such as rookie wages, cap holds, trade requirements, a new exemption that promotes teams to spend up to and above the soft cap, qualifying offers, wait periods for RFA - off the top of my head) that did improve things for players. The league also came very far from their initial proposals which would be concessionary.

Both sides started with unrealistic expectations and moved towards each other.

There seems to be confusion from fans, media, and players: the players do not own the league or the business.

It took Bill Guerin a lost year and $9M to figure out "It is their league."

[mcHAPPY]

Something just popped in to my head:

Look at HoopsHype.com and read the number of players who are openly tweeting dissatisfaction with the union and the desire to accept the proposal. The union executives and player reps would not even let the membership vote on it.

I'm sure the league will make note of this.


*EDIT*

As soon as I typed this, this article popped up on ESPN from TrueHoop.

The last time the NBA and the players association met, the meeting ended early Friday morning with an offer from the league. The NBA then sent that offer in writing to every player, and quietly prayed that the union would let the players vote on it, expecting it would pass and the NBA season would begin.

It never happened, however. Instead of putting the decision to 450 players, the union put the decision to 30 player representatives who, the union says, were unanimous in rejecting the deal and taking new legal action.

As soon as that decision was announced, I asked union spokesman Dan Wasserman, who was standing in the back of the room next to attorney Jeffrey Kessler, why the union was turning to the group of 30 representatives.

The union has three player bodies it can consult: The executive committee, the 30 elected representatives and the full membership. Why that middle body?

I was asking what I thought was a fairly boring question. I would have been satisfied with a response about by-laws or somesuch. But Wasserman and Kessler blew up. I couldn't even finish the question before both were loud, gruff and dismissive.

The gist of the response was that you cannot give your adversary direct access to the membership. "That's not how any union in America, that I'm aware of, operates," said Kessler. If the NBA is just going to send offers straight to the players, why even have a union? The idea is that the union is savvier, and knows a good deal when it sees one. And only when the union is sure that the deal is in players' best interests will they present it to the workers.

Rockets guard Kevin Martin, by text on Monday morning, said he didn't care to represented that way: "I think it's fair for every player to have a vote, because we're all grown men and its time for the players to control their career decisions, and not one player per team. If it comes down to a final decision, you got to be fair."
He added that other players he had talked to may or may not have voted for the deal the NBA had on the table, but "most feel like we're entitled to a vote!"


To hear David Stern tell it, skipping that vote was a key misstep. Speaking to ESPN's "SportsCenter" he said: "The union decided in its infinite wisdom that the proposal would not be presented to membership. Obviously, Mr. Kessler got his way and we are about to go into the nuclear winter of the NBA."

SOURCE: Union Makes Big Decision Without Polling Members

[Joey]

If you believe the league was not bargaining in good faith then they certainly did a good job of covering their tails. Read the CBA there were some things (such as rookie wages, cap holds, trade requirements, a new exemption that promotes teams to spend up to and above the soft cap, qualifying offers, wait periods for RFA - off the top of my head) that did improve things for players. The league also came very far from their initial proposals which would be concessionary.

Both sides started with unrealistic expectations and moved towards each other.

There seems to be confusion from fans, media, and players: the players do not own the league or the business.

It took Bill Guerin a lost year and $9M to figure out "It is their league."

Good faith does not mean making your initial ridiculous proposal, slightly less ridiculous Matt.

The players using the Expiring CBA as a Benchmark was NOT unrealistic. Thats Union Bargaining.
And this is also where 'Good Faith' is measured from.
And using the Expiring CBA as a benchmark, the Owners have NOT given up anything.

[Tim W.]

I disagree that the NBA has been bargaining in good faith.
I also disagree that the NBA could claim the NBAPA has not been.

This has been concessionary bargaining to the 'T' by the NBA, and they haven't given anything up, relative to the expiring deal.
Any new CBA that comes about, will ONLY reflect what the players gave up.

By having the players on the 'defense' from Day-1, it is not on them to provide the 'good faith'.

I don't really know what "good faith" is. Both teams had issues that were non-negotiable and it now seem to have come to a head. The owners are the only ones at the table that can actually LOSE money through these negotiations, rather than just receive less. And if the players had their way, then major markets in warm climates would get the best players, and the smaller, colder cities would fight for the dregs the other teams didn't want.