What does "negotiating in good faith" mean to you?

[Chris]

  I was expecting that someone else had started this thread, and that you'd be chiming in with an opinion, or a brief explanation of the legal definition.

  I would say that, in this case, negotiating in bad faith would mean that they have no interest in negotiating. If you want to reach a settlement and are willing to compromise to some extent then you're negotiating in good faith, if you don't want to reach a settlement or are unwilling to make any compromises significant enough to lead to an agreement then you're negotiating in bad faith.

Yeah, this is how I would describe it too.  But I don't think either side has been negotiating in bad faith here.  Maybe at first both sides were, but thats expected at that point in a negotiation.  But, since things got serious, I think both sides have been negotiating, and working towards finding a solution.  The problem is, there is not enough trust, and they both want too much. 

[nickagneta]

I don't think the owners are "negotiating in bad faith". I think they are holding hard line negotiations in hopes of clearly changing the Collective bargaining Agreement into a contract that they find most favorable.

How is what they are doing any different than a player agent coming to a team or a group of teams and making the statement "if you want to sign my player the minimum acceptable contract is 'x' years at 'y' dollars. Any offer at less than this will not be considered."?

This isn't bad faith, it's just playing hardball.

Negotiating in bad faith to me means entering into negotiations with a clear intent not to finalize any contract but to use the negotiations as a whole for ulterior purposes. A clear example of this was Mark Texiera's negotiations with the Red Sox a few years back. He said afterward that he never had any intention of signing with the Red Sox. Clearly he negotiated in bad faith for the express purpose of getting a better offer from the only team he wanted to sign with, the New York Yankees.

As to the claims that the owners haven't been honest, well they gave legal profit and loss statement that adhered to general accounting principles and practices to the players that showed huge losses. Its debatable how as to which of those costs the players should be giving up money for(such as to why should players give up money because owners have to pay interest on loans they procured to purchase their teams in the first place). But that really isn't bad faith, that's just burying the other side in too much information to cloud the issue because the negotiations are going to have a very public forum where public opinion will be important. That was a negotiating tactic but I don't think it was done to prevent the negotiations from ever coming to a conclusion.

[greenpride32]

I think both sides want to get a deal done; that's why we are having all these last ditch talks at the the 11th hour; good faith.  Good faith doens't necessarily mean meeting in the middle; it just means making a deal that's best for all parities invovled.  The players have the better end of the deal and they have Michael Jordan to thank for that.  He individually raised the game to new heights, especially globally.  None of today's players have made as much of an impact as him.  Kobe is the closest, but I still cosider him a distant second.  While all of us on these boards are fans, you have to realize the game is not that popular overall.  The NFL Draft got higher ratings then the NBA Finals.  The NBA Draft could never beat the Super Browl pre-game show, nevermind the game itself.   

Now if the league is doing great financially, I'm all for the players reaping the rewards (which is what happened during the tail end of MJ's career and carried on afterwards).  But it's fairly obvious the league is not doing well and the players still want all the benefits.  They want no change when times are bad, and everything when times are good. 

The C's signed 2 HOF players in 2007-2008, sold out every game, played close to the maximum amount of home games you could for a season including playoffs, won the title, and still just broke even.  Just imagine how many KG and Ray Ray jersey and shirts they sold that year, and still couldn't turn a profit.  I think this is one of the reasons why Wyc is a hardliner in the negotations.  How much better could 07/08 have gone for it to be profitable?  What happens when the team rebuilds and goes back to 24 win seasons?  Could they even come close to turning a profit then?

[TheReaLPuba]

I think both sides want to get a deal done; that's why we are having all these last ditch talks at the the 11th hour; good faith.  Good faith doens't necessarily mean meeting in the middle; it just means making a deal that's best for all parities invovled.  The players have the better end of the deal and they have Michael Jordan to thank for that.  He individually raised the game to new heights, especially globally.  None of today's players have made as much of an impact as him.  Kobe is the closest, but I still cosider him a distant second.  While all of us on these boards are fans, you have to realize the game is not that popular overall.  The NFL Draft got higher ratings then the NBA Finals.  The NBA Draft could never beat the Super Browl pre-game show, nevermind the game itself.   

Now if the league is doing great financially, I'm all for the players reaping the rewards (which is what happened during the tail end of MJ's career and carried on afterwards).  But it's fairly obvious the league is not doing well and the players still want all the benefits.  They want no change when times are bad, and everything when times are good. 

The C's signed 2 HOF players in 2007-2008, sold out every game, played close to the maximum amount of home  you could for a season including playoffs, won the title, and still just broke even.  Just imagine how many KG and Ray Ray jersey and shirts they sold that year, and still couldn't turn a profit.  I think this is one of the reasons why Wyc is a hardliner in the negotations.  How much better could 07/08 have gone for it to be profitable?  What happens when the team rebuilds and goes back to 24 win seasons?  Could they even come close to turning a profit then?

I don't believe Wyc when he said that they broke even.

Plus the franchise's net worth increased and the C's were able to get a more reasonable TV deal.

[hwangjini_1]

it means that lawyers have taken over the conversation.

[barefacedmonk]

it means that lawyers have taken over the conversation.

 

[greenpride32]

I don't believe Wyc when he said that they broke even.

And you are basing that on what?  Just a hunch?  23 of 30 teams lost money last year.  Initially there was some disagreement on that, but the owners showed the players the numbers and it is not longer disputable.  They used GAAP accouting principles which is exactly what corporate America uses; Walmart, Google, IBM, Exxon-Mobil, all the largest companies in the US and world use GAAP.  The players only arguement was about GAAP, but it held no weight since the large majority of them do not have an accounting or business background.

When you have the owners of the NYK LAL CHI MIA OKC pushing for a season because they're doing well, why would Wyc be on the completely opposite side of the fence if his team was also doing well financialy?  I'll give you a clue; it's not.  The new TV deal will definitely help going forward. 

[nickagneta]

I don't believe Wyc when he said that they broke even.

The players only arguement was about GAAP, but it held no weight since the large majority of them do not have an accounting or business background.

This is completely not true and actually pushes a very poor stereotype. The players looked at the profit and loss statements and concluded there were costs that they felt should not have been included to show the real profitability of the teams since many were including the costs of interest payments on the loan used to purchase the team as well as depreciation of contracts.

GAAP practices are legal and used to determine tax liabilities and overall profit and losses of a business but in this specialized case, I think it fair to debate their usefulness in showing the TRUE and ACCURATE fiscal state of the game.

For instance, should players really give major monetary concessions to the owners to assist in paying off interest in loans the used to pay for the right to own the franchise in the first place? The owners knew what the loan payments would be, what the salary expectations from them were and the general fixed costs associated with owning the team. If they couldn't afford the loan payment then they shouldn't have purchased the team.

Second, if at the age of 23 Lebron James signs a 3 year $40 million contract is it really correct to depreciate his value of that contract in year three and two simply because he is older when in fact he may have improved as a basketball player, a marketeer of team jerseys, and a representative of the team?

Players are not capitol equipment and their contracts shouldn't be treated as such in accounting terms when showing the fiscal outlook of a team. At least, that is the players opinion.

[thirstyboots18]

Maybe someone can straighten me out.  I seem to remember some big brouhaha from the Michael Jordan years, where Jordon won a decision that the players likeness belonged to the player,and the team could no longer market it.  Is that wrong, or do the players now get the profits from items that they endorse or that  bear their likeness or name.  Before that, the players had to wear the team clothing (warm ups, etc.)  although I am not sure about shoes...not sure if the whole team wore Converse sneakers...if my recollection is correct, that would be a very large chunk of revenue...

[dtrader]

My understanding of "negotiating in good faith", is that it means both sides are trying to come to a conclusion that is acceptable (if not mutually beneficial) to both sides.  It means they aren't going into the negotiations with a their minds already made up, unwilling to compromise some of their wants, to make sure both sides leave on better terms than they started.

 When dealing with a negotiation between 2 sides that will continue to work close to each other after the negotiations, the aim needs to be as much about maintaining a good business relationship (based on mutual respect), as it is about getting what you want during the exchange.

It is similar in Washington.  Often, the relationships built during the negotiations can be as valuable as the outcome, as each side learns more about the other, and gets an idea of where they'll stand on future issues.

Taking a "hard line" stance, and opening your position with a "bottom line", would not be in "good faith", as they show that side to be uninterested in making any concessions (which are a necessary element for both sides to be willing to consider, if the aim of the negotiation is a mutually beneficial outcome).

[badax33]

Here's the legal definition. 

Good-faith bargaining generally refers to the duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable times with willingness to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation; however, neither party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal.

Good faith bargaining requires employers and unions involved in collective bargaining to:

■use their best endeavours to agree to an effective bargaining process
■meet and consider and respond to proposals made by each other
■respect the role of the other's representative by not seeking to bargain directly with those for whom the representative acts
■not do anything to undermine the bargaining process or the authority of the other's representative.

[BASS_THUMPER]

What does "negotiating in good faith" mean to you?


~just in case we figure this out ill do my best to do what i said i would~

[greenpride32]

GAAP practices are legal and used to determine tax liabilities and overall profit and losses of a business but in this specialized case, I think it fair to debate their usefulness in showing the TRUE and ACCURATE fiscal state of the game.

GAAP is used by every publicly traded company on the NYSE and NASDAQ to report earnings and financial statements.  It is used by every third party auditing firm.  I don't believe you can question its credibility.

Owners of NBA franchises are no different than owners of any other business, whether it be a small mom and pops corner store, or a major corporation.  In all cases everyone has legitimate business expenses.  And in many cases borrowing is one of them.  There are not many companies that are so cash rich they never have to borrow.  Now if expenses were due to owners expensing 5 star dinners every night that would be a different issue. 

[thirstyboots18]

means...ultimately accepting an arbitrator's settlement because you couldn't reach one yourself!

My disgust hasn't lessened yet....

[nickagneta]

GAAP practices are legal and used to determine tax liabilities and overall profit and losses of a business but in this specialized case, I think it fair to debate their usefulness in showing the TRUE and ACCURATE fiscal state of the game.

GAAP is used by every publicly traded company on the NYSE and NASDAQ to report earnings and financial statements.  It is used by every third party auditing firm.  I don't believe you can question its credibility.

Owners of NBA franchises are no different than owners of any other business, whether it be a small mom and pops corner store, or a major corporation.  In all cases everyone has legitimate business expenses.  And in many cases borrowing is one of them.  There are not many companies that are so cash rich they never have to borrow.  Now if expenses were due to owners expensing 5 star dinners every night that would be a different issue. 

I completely disagree in the special case of upper level professional sports and entertainment. If a studio wants to fund a movie or a producer wants to fund a musical or a play or a song, if the movie or play or musical or song bombs, the performers, in other words the product, doesn't give back money to the producer to make sure the producer doesn't lose money.

There is no guaranteed profit in America.

Sports entertainment should be no different. The players are the product. If an owner wants to get into ownership of a team, they should do it on their dime and not expect players to have to give money back so that the owners can better afford to own their teams because they can't and never could afford the initial loan payments to begin with. If the owners couldn't afford the initial payments, principal as well as interest, they should have bought the team. I am sure there is another ownership group behind them ready to but into the league.

I don't care one iota if GAAP practices are used across industries and businesses worldwide to show profitability, profit, loss or anything else. Sports and entertainment industries are different animals and should be treated differently. hence, the GAAP P&L's are useless in this case because people are not capitol equipment and their contracts shouldn't be depreciated and the product should have to pay for owners to have the right to own their teams.