Pierce trying to save the day again

[quidinqui33]

Apparently stern and silver don't like working with a laker exclusively at the negotiating table. Pierce was singled out as bringing substance to the table and is now involved in the smaller discussions. 

Gotta love pierce!

http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=7055649

[Bahku]

Here's hoping for that "handshake" agreement ... time is growing short. Can't go wrong when speaking "The Truth", though.

[pearljammer10]

Apparently stern and silver don't like working with a laker exclusively at the negotiating table. Pierce was singled out as bringing substance to the table and is now involved in the smaller discussions. 

Gotta love pierce!

http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=7055649

I thought you meant he was drinking or doing drugs at the table! I was like, wait, this is not a good thing.

[Chris]

Here's hoping for that "handshake" agreement ... time is growing short. Can't go wrong when speaking "The Truth", though.

This is going to be a scary day, because if the players don't like the owners proposal, I think everything could really blow up, and we could be looking at radio silence for a couple weeks.

I am really glad Pierce is in the room though...and more importantly that he was there yesterday, as they set the stage for today.  I don't think there are many other guys as well respected by other players, and able to calm the other players down and put things into perspective than Pierce. 

Hopefully he can keep guys like Wade from blowing up, and prematurely ending the talks.

[Roy H.]

I have no hope for a resolution any time soon.

Agents are telling their clients not to vote for any deal that has *any* reduction in BRI.  The owners are still offering 46% to the players.  The union itself doesn't want to go below 53%.

The "simple" solution seems like a 50/50 split, increased revenue sharing, and a more punitive luxury tax.  However, nobody seems all that interested in getting there.

[Interceptor]

However, nobody seems all that interested in getting there.

They'd be pretty crummy negotiators if they did, tipping their hand like that.  This is what brinksmanship looks like, and by and large it makes no sense to the people like us who have no vested interest in the details of the final outcome.

If you ask me, I say that the owners and player know full well that your simple solution above there will be acceptable for both parties, but are just delaying until the 11th hour in order to get as close to their best-case as possible.

[Roy H.]

However, nobody seems all that interested in getting there.

They'd be pretty crummy negotiators if they did, tipping their hand like that.  This is what brinksmanship looks like, and by and large it makes no sense to the people like us who have no vested interest in the details of the final outcome.

I hear what you're saying, but I've been involved in both types of negotiations.  In my experience, there's nothing crummy about putting conceptual offers on the table (i.e., "What if we offered 50%?), and building toward common ground.  I've generally found that negotiations based upon brinksmanship lead to hurt feelings, higher costs, and either failed settlements or settlements that aren't any better than what could have been done much earlier.

Of course, I've never negotiated billion dollar claims, but I have negotiated cases containing upward of $100 million in claims.  I have definitely seen $600 per hour attorneys telling their clients to hold out for a better deal, and I've seen that advice cost $3 million in attorney fees for a $500k adjustment in the settlement amount.  I guess what I'm saying is, brinksmanship isn't always a winning strategy.

Look at it this way:  The difference in 2% of BRI is around $100 million, I believe.  That's obviously a ton of money, but it amounts to about $3.3 million per team.  Isn't it a viable solution for ownership to swallow that $3.3 million in return for other concessions, in order to generate good will with the fan base and the players?  I would think that it could be seen as a good investment, without the need for brinksmanship.

[Chris]

However, nobody seems all that interested in getting there.

They'd be pretty crummy negotiators if they did, tipping their hand like that.  This is what brinksmanship looks like, and by and large it makes no sense to the people like us who have no vested interest in the details of the final outcome.

I hear what you're saying, but I've been involved in both types of negotiations.  In my experience, there's nothing crummy about putting conceptual offers on the table (i.e., "What if we offered 50%?), and building toward common ground.  I've generally found that negotiations based upon brinksmanship lead to hurt feelings, higher costs, and either failed settlements or settlements that aren't any better than what could have been done much earlier.

Of course, I've never negotiated billion dollar claims, but I have negotiated cases containing upward of $100 million in claims.  I have definitely seen $600 per hour attorneys telling their clients to hold out for a better deal, and I've seen that advice cost $3 million in attorney fees for a $500k adjustment in the settlement amount.  I guess what I'm saying is, brinksmanship isn't always a winning strategy.

Look at it this way:  The difference in 2% of BRI is around $100 million, I believe.  That's obviously a ton of money, but it amounts to about $3.3 million per team.  Isn't it a viable solution for ownership to swallow that $3.3 million in return for other concessions, in order to generate good will with the fan base and the players?  I would think that it could be seen as a good investment, without the need for brinksmanship.

I agree completely.  And I think owners will do that, if they get their harder cap (escalating luxury taxes, whatever).  I think the problem is that the players might hold out for 52% AND no escalating luxury taxes (which they see as a hard cap). 

I think the owners are willing to give in on one of those, but not both...and the agents are trying to push that the players hold out for both (and more). 

However, perhaps the owners are ready to offer movement on ONE of those today, and if the players can keep cool heads, and not get all worked up that they are not getting both, then they could be back at the table tomorrow, and continue working towards a solution. 

However, if the owners do not offer movement on either one of those issues, or the players respond to movement on just one of them as a slap in the face, and explode in there, then I think we could be looking at decertification, and things will get VERY ugly.

[Interceptor]

It is true that brinksmanship in negotiations can backfire, leading to a poor resolution, or none at all.  There are people who are irrational, or don't look at the real costs of their intransigence, and that makes it a bad move.

But that is for negotiation tactics in general, not for the NBA vs. NBPA situation specifically.  In THIS scenario, there are factors at play that make it an arguably good strategy to hold out as long as possible.  What upside is there to an early settlement that is far from your ideal case, for either side on this issue?  There's nothing serious at stake until the season starts losing games.  Good will does not last.  Also complicating matters, is that this isn't some one-off settlement:  not only will this be a multi-year CBA, but it is undoubtedly setting the table for all future CBA negotiations as well.  The players are being asked to come down mightily from the status quo, and they have a great incentive to limit the bleeding even ten years out from today.

So sure, I agree with what you say in principle, but I think that for this particular situation that certain things don't necessarily apply.  Sometimes when you have negotiations where the "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to" mantra holds sway, you can be loose with ideas and conceptual proposals.  But I'd bet you a TP against a shiny nickel that the mood in there is more of the "two strange cats in the same room" variety, and both sides rightly assume that any hypothetical concessions will be viewed as a new baseline for negotiation, as they are 1) distru****l of each other, and 2) really pretty far apart to begin with.

My one and a half cents, negotiated down from two cents at the last minute.

EDIT:  that is a really funny wordfilter on "full of distrust".

[celticinorlando]

please God...save the season

[Chris]

Blind optimism time...It has been about 2 hours, and we have not heard a report of anyone storming out of the room yet.  So far, so good.

[StartOrien]

Metta World Peace reports that the lockout is over... so, ya know, there's that.

[get_banners]

part of the problem is the NBA's business model is all screwed up. some teams are really losing a lot of money (TV money redistribution would help), and ticket prices are geared for the uber-rich, which is why games don't sell out as often. actually...everything re: the nba is geared to the very wealthy fan. this was stern's move to try and go ultra-corporate, but the problem is, its not a sustainable model. i posted this elsewhere, but here's a link to a really cool and informative podcast i listened to on the nba and nfl lockouts: http://www.nospoonshow.com/2011/09/podcast-episode-7-sports-lockouts-and.html

[barefacedmonk]

No deal yet...and no timetable for next meeting.  

Some four hours after players and owners convened a meeting to try to save the start of the 2011-12 NBA season, the players emerged from their Manhattan meeting room reporting little or no progress toward a new labor agreement.

"Today was not the day to get this done," said Derek Fisher, the president of the National Basketball Players Association and a guard for the Los Angeles Lakers.

Fisher said he has no expectations of another meeting on Thursday or anytime soon.

"There has been no discussion about next meetings. Maybe a month. Two months," NBPA executive director Billy Hunter said. "Your guess is as good as mine.

"As of this moment, we've broken off the negotiations..."

The league did not immediately announce any alterations to the start of the season. But it is widely believed that the season -- which is to tip off with three games on Nov. 1 -- cannot start on time without a deal in the next few days.

One of the biggest sticking points -- if not the biggest -- remains the split of revenue known as basketball-related income. Fisher said the players have dropped their offer to 53 percent of BRI -- it was 57 percent in the agreement that expired on July 1 -- but that the offer was not acceptable to owners.

Link

[GreenEnvy]

No deal yet...and no timetable for next meeting.  

Some four hours after players and owners convened a meeting to try to save the start of the 2011-12 NBA season, the players emerged from their Manhattan meeting room reporting little or no progress toward a new labor agreement.

"Today was not the day to get this done," said Derek Fisher, the president of the National Basketball Players Association and a guard for the Los Angeles Lakers.

Fisher said he has no expectations of another meeting on Thursday or anytime soon.

"There has been no discussion about next meetings. Maybe a month. Two months," NBPA executive director Billy Hunter said. "Your guess is as good as mine.

"As of this moment, we've broken off the negotiations..."

The league did not immediately announce any alterations to the start of the season. But it is widely believed that the season -- which is to tip off with three games on Nov. 1 -- cannot start on time without a deal in the next few days.

One of the biggest sticking points -- if not the biggest -- remains the split of revenue known as basketball-related income. Fisher said the players have dropped their offer to 53 percent of BRI -- it was 57 percent in the agreement that expired on July 1 -- but that the offer was not acceptable to owners.

Link

Ugh. I guess that's that for awhile. Let's hope for a Christmas Opening Day with a 60 game season.