Meeting Concludes Without Deal / Ongoing Lockout Negotiations Thread

[thirstyboots18]

Stern to cancel more games this evening sources are saying.....oh geez

you know ive about had it and can care less wether or not there is basketball at this point

Getting the feeling that those "missed games" are meaningless, as it seems as if sides want an 82 game season.

The only problem with the cancelled games is that arena owners start to fill their venue with other gigs on those dates.  That makes things tricky in terms of scheduling.

Ya, but you could extend things out. You could argue there's enough motivation too, even though you'd be going further in the summer you'd be minimalizing the amount of time you go against the NFL

...and extending the time you go up against baseball, which plays a lot more games than football.  It also shortens your summer off...

[Fafnir]

I'm sure that sounds silly at first, but apply it to real life:

If you made plenty of money, and had no concerns about paying the essentials and then some, would you take a pay cut to only have to work 4 days instead of 5? I'd certainly consider it.

Have you thought about this very much StartOrien?

Going to 70 games from 82 would reduce overall BRI by a large amount. So it'd be a double whammy, they'd be shrinking the pie of overall revenue in order to "secure" a smaller share of the pie than they'd otherwise accept?

That makes no sense, especially when you look at this from the standpoint of a collective group of employees all at various points in their careers rather than one person in their own situation.

KG might be all for a 70 game season to ease things up and save his legs. But does a guy like John Wall want to limit his career earnings by this sort of maneuver?

[StartOrien]

KG might be all for a 70 game season to ease things up and save his legs. But does a guy like John Wall want to limit his career earnings by this sort of maneuver?

From a players stand point alone, I could certainly see the interest in it. Owners, obviously not.

The NBA has a pretty hectic schedule. I'm sure there's a decent amount of players (young, old, healthy or not) that would give a certain net back if it caused a reduction of games in the schedule. Get out of back to backs, 4 out of 5's.

Why is that so hard to believe?

EDIT: Again, to be clear I don't think that's what's holding things up or playing any part. Just a thought I had.

[jarufu]

Do you know the way you say you aren't getting your hopes up but, secretly, you're allowing yourself to get your hopes up? 

Yeah?

Well I'm sick of that ..

[Roy H.]

Do you know the way you say you aren't getting your hopes up but, secretly, you're allowing yourself to get your hopes up? 

Yeah?

Well I'm sick of that ..

Like I said earlier, it's like this:

[Fafnir]

KG might be all for a 70 game season to ease things up and save his legs. But does a guy like John Wall want to limit his career earnings by this sort of maneuver?

From a players stand point alone, I could certainly see the interest in it. Owners, obviously not.

The NBA has a pretty hectic schedule. I'm sure there's a decent amount of players (young, old, healthy or not) that would give a certain net back if it caused a reduction of games in the schedule. Get out of back to backs, 4 out of 5's.

Why is that so hard to believe?

EDIT: Again, to be clear I don't think that's what's holding things up or playing any part. Just a thought I had.

Because if you reduce the amount of product to 70 games they'd lose 15% of their games played.

So now all the networks offer less money for the NBA games, local TV deals are for less money, and they make less money per team as there are 6 less home games for each and every team.

Maybe they only lose 7.5% of their overall revenue due to the fixed nature of some of their revenues.

The players would be negotiating to cut that 4.3 billion dollar pool down around $300 million dollars so they could then take less money from that reduced pool?

Its hard to believe because I don't think you've thought the financial implications through. Right now the negotiations are being held up by a 2% difference, less money than your idea would cos t the league easily.

[StartOrien]

KG might be all for a 70 game season to ease things up and save his legs. But does a guy like John Wall want to limit his career earnings by this sort of maneuver?

From a players stand point alone, I could certainly see the interest in it. Owners, obviously not.

The NBA has a pretty hectic schedule. I'm sure there's a decent amount of players (young, old, healthy or not) that would give a certain net back if it caused a reduction of games in the schedule. Get out of back to backs, 4 out of 5's.

Why is that so hard to believe?

EDIT: Again, to be clear I don't think that's what's holding things up or playing any part. Just a thought I had.

Because if you reduce the amount of product to 70 games they'd lose 15% of their games played.

So now all the networks offer less money for the NBA games, local TV deals are for less money, and they make less money per team as there are 6 less home games for each and every team.

Maybe they only lose 7.5% of their overall revenue due to the fixed nature of some of their revenues.

The players would be negotiating to cut that 4.3 billion dollar pool down around $300 million dollars so they could then take less money from that reduced pool?

Its hard to believe because I don't think you've thought the financial implications through. Right now the negotiations are being held up by a 2% difference, less money than your idea would cos t the league easily.

I think  you're over thinking a really simple statement.

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering that if the players don't mind missing a few games. That at the end of the day they wouldn't mind making 85% of their scheduled salary if it meant they played 85% of the games scheduled.

Not making a labor argument, or a suggestion on moving forward. Just a simple statement. 

[JSD]

Can the union have an effect on contraction? If the owners are really losing money, which I imagine some are, then maybe it's time to start thinking about dissolving some teams rather than continuing this fight.

[houseonfire09]

I feel like I got punched in the stomach.  I hate these people.  Losing games after one of the most successful seasons ever is the stupidest thing to ever happen in the history of sports.  Also, Adam Silver looks like Mini Me.

[jarufu]

Do you know the way you say you aren't getting your hopes up but, secretly, you're allowing yourself to get your hopes up? 

Yeah?

Well I'm sick of that ..

Like I said earlier, it's like this:

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

I missed that earlier . . .

[Redz]

Do you know the way you say you aren't getting your hopes up but, secretly, you're allowing yourself to get your hopes up? 

Yeah?

Well I'm sick of that ..

Like I said earlier, it's like this:

I always hated Lucy for that.

[j804]

yawns

what time is the world series game 7? lol

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

KG might be all for a 70 game season to ease things up and save his legs. But does a guy like John Wall want to limit his career earnings by this sort of maneuver?

From a players stand point alone, I could certainly see the interest in it. Owners, obviously not.

The NBA has a pretty hectic schedule. I'm sure there's a decent amount of players (young, old, healthy or not) that would give a certain net back if it caused a reduction of games in the schedule. Get out of back to backs, 4 out of 5's.

Why is that so hard to believe?

EDIT: Again, to be clear I don't think that's what's holding things up or playing any part. Just a thought I had.

Because if you reduce the amount of product to 70 games they'd lose 15% of their games played.

So now all the networks offer less money for the NBA games, local TV deals are for less money, and they make less money per team as there are 6 less home games for each and every team.

Maybe they only lose 7.5% of their overall revenue due to the fixed nature of some of their revenues.

The players would be negotiating to cut that 4.3 billion dollar pool down around $300 million dollars so they could then take less money from that reduced pool?

Its hard to believe because I don't think you've thought the financial implications through. Right now the negotiations are being held up by a 2% difference, less money than your idea would cos t the league easily.

I think  you're over thinking a really simple statement.

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering that if the players don't mind missing a few games. That at the end of the day they wouldn't mind making 85% of their scheduled salary if it meant they played 85% of the games scheduled.

Not making a labor argument, or a suggestion on moving forward. Just a simple statement. 

There is no way the players want less games, that's their life, you see them playing pickup games right now! The young ones want to play as much as possible... it's all they know! You think KoMe will play over seas cuz he needs the money?

[BASS_THUMPER]

[Adelaide Celt]

Another Charlie Brown quote that I feel sums things up