Well, I was rather concerned about a potentially compressed 82 game season for our team, so this may be a blessing in disguise.
No, there's no blessing in disguise. There isn't going to be a full season and for the fans that really su*ks.
If they don't bother to start until January or February, not only will I not even bother to watch, I'll never watch basketball again.
Then Stern, the players and owners can come to my house and negotiate BRI with me so I can start watching again.
Well, that's fine if you choose to do that (Not watch basketball again).
But after this latest breakdown, I'm a bit more convinced that the owners seem to be trying to fleece the players.
Just my take.
For the players to come down from 57 to 52.5? Now the owners want 50-50?
Someone here may be more knowledgeable about how much money lost that would mean for the players, but now it seems as if David Stern and Co may be asking for a bit too much, IMO.
Why don't they get to 51-49, lol....this is getting ridiculous.
But for me I'd be perfectly comfortable with the games starting a week or two before Christmas, with 60-70 games total in the season.
That would set our Celtics up quite nicely, I think. For our older team that would, to me, be a blessing in disguise.
That would probably help LA, too. They are just about as old as Boston.
Hmmm...well it's up to personal interpertation. To be quite honest, in my opinion, I don't think the owners are being that unreasonable. I think 50/50 split is actually quite fair. This is a partnership between players and owners. Aren't the players making enough money from their contracts? Why do they also need more than 50 percent of the BRI split?
As for the season starting around Christmas time, I also wouldn't mind that either. But at this point, I think both sides are clearly dug in for the long-haul. If they wouldn't come to terms on a full season, I just don't see how on earth they come to terms after lost revenue from missed games.
And your statement (aren't the players making enough money?) is where I have the most heartburn, admittedly.
I feel the same way as you do, gpap.
As a fan, if you told me that an NBA player would be making "just" 6 million per year vice 9 million (if the owners get their way)....yeah that part seems ridiculous to me.
I have no clue about how the average NBA player spends their money.....if they have charity ventures that they are involved with, then I have no idea why they aren't introducing that into the meetings...or maybe they are, behind closed doors.
Maybe if the players spun this towards the media in a different light, then maybe they'd get some momentum.
But from what I've seen, David Stern is winning the media war hands down. He'd probably have a lucrative career in Hollywood if he chose to, lol.
