Hunters Fault?

[TA9]

Whats Up!

If this is true.. Then i really hate Hunter right now!;
"According to my source, at least one five-time champion, NBA superstar with the initials K.B. was on board with Fisher’s push for a 50-50 split. Hunter is firm that the players should not accept less than 52-48. According to my source, Hunter and a member of the executive committee convinced Fisher to stand firm at 52-48 after they questioned the Lakers point guard about his relationship with Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver. According to reports, Hunter ended Friday's negotiating session, telling Stern the union would not budge on 52-48."

I dont think its fair that the players should go (If i remember correctly) 7% down from the old deal (57-43) But its killing me waiting for the season to start!

[indeedproceed]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to say this is hunters fault at all. It is the owners who poorly managed teams and forced this situation. But, if the players are ready to take 52% and the owners want that extra little bit, I see why the players are so frustrated.

[Kane3387]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to say this is hunters fault at all. It is the owners who poorly managed teams and forced this situation. But, if the players are ready to take 52% and the owners want that extra little bit, I see why the players are so frustrated.

It's still insane to me though that the players would be willing to lose more money by losing all of November then they would if they went to 51% or 50% BRI for the next 6 years...

I understand pride and principal but if those reports are true then that strength becomes weakness and stupidity. I think the players will fold soon though. A lot of these guys have to be more then ready to start playing. I think we will see games played in December. It' too close now for  a deal to not get done.

[nickagneta]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to say this is hunters fault at all. It is the owners who poorly managed teams and forced this situation. But, if the players are ready to take 52% and the owners want that extra little bit, I see why the players are so frustrated.

It's still insane to me though that the players would be willing to lose more money by losing all of November then they would if they went to 51% or 50% BRI for the next 6 years...

I understand pride and principal but if those reports are true then that strength becomes weakness and stupidity. I think the players will fold soon though. A lot of these guys have to be more then ready to start playing. I think we will see games played in December. It' too close now for  a deal to not get done.

If the players gave into the 50/50 split this past week they would have given up over $480 million over 6 years of a CBA. Also, there was no way the season was starting before Dec 1st so this 1st month was lost money anyway. Why throw away almost a half billion dollars over 6 years to save the $300 million from November games that was already lost anyway.

If they settle this week they can still get up and running by Dec 1st. And if they end up getting more than 51% saying no to the owners yesterday saved them hundreds of billions over 6 years.

[hpantazo]

Whats Up!

If this is true.. Then i really hate Hunter right now!;
"According to my source, at least one five-time champion, NBA superstar with the initials K.B. was on board with Fisher’s push for a 50-50 split. Hunter is firm that the players should not accept less than 52-48. According to my source, Hunter and a member of the executive committee convinced Fisher to stand firm at 52-48 after they questioned the Lakers point guard about his relationship with Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver. According to reports, Hunter ended Friday's negotiating session, telling Stern the union would not budge on 52-48."

I dont think its fair that the players should go (If i remember correctly) 7% down from the old deal (57-43) But its killing me waiting for the season to start!

What is fair is all relative. Was it fair for the players to have 57% in the previous CBA? They should take 50-50 imo and get this over with before everyone loses a ton of money and whatever respect they still have left from the fans.

[greenpride32]

I will guarantee you if the players voted on the 50/50 split it would pass by an overwhelming margin.  I wouldn't necessarily pin all the blame on Hunter, but he is a big part of it.  Also you have to look at the younger players and the rank and file types; they aren't going to speak up against the superstars who wanted to hold firm at 52-53.  These are the guys who would certainly vote to take the deal.

Asking for more than 50% of revenue as risk free salary is ridiculous when the league loses money.  If the league was growing profits then they can make a case. 

[Interceptor]

Asking for more than 50% of revenue as risk free salary is ridiculous when the league loses money.  If the league was growing profits then they can make a case.

Uhh, what's risk free about player salaries?

[thirstyboots18]

I am still trying to figure out why a player who pays an agent more than most people in the country make in a years salary needs a union.  Why should they be able to negotiate individually and then again as a union?  To mix metaphors, deal or get off the pot!

[nickagneta]

I am still trying to figure out why a player who pays an agent more than most people in the country make in a years salary needs a union.  Why should they be able to negotiate individually and then again as a union?  To mix metaphors, deal or get off the pot!

Having lived through the 60's and seen that players had to get jobs as regular people in the off season because they got paid so little while owners were making gigantic money, do you really have to ask this TB?

Without a union I could see owners purposely blackballing players, conspiring on keeping player salaries within a much lower scale than they currently are, looking to only offer incentive laden and non-guaranteed contracts, and other things that would make the owners much, much richer and the players much poorer.

While I think some unions have outlived their purposes, and maybe sporting athlete's unions are some of them, I could also see were sports owners would do everything they could to take advantage of athletes if they could.

[Roy H.]

Asking for more than 50% of revenue as risk free salary is ridiculous when the league loses money.  If the league was growing profits then they can make a case.

Uhh, what's risk free about player salaries?

I think he means that if somebody blows out their knee in the first year of a six year deal, they still see 100% of that money.  That's risk free.

[Interceptor]

I think he means that if somebody blows out their knee in the first year of a six year deal, they still see 100% of that money.  That's risk free.

Sure, presuming that the world ends after the six years is up, and the loss of earning potential is irrelevant due to the lack of need for currency.

[thirstyboots18]

I am still trying to figure out why a player who pays an agent more than most people in the country make in a years salary needs a union.  Why should they be able to negotiate individually and then again as a union?  To mix metaphors, deal or get off the pot!

Having lived through the 60's and seen that players had to get jobs as regular people in the off season because they got paid so little while owners were making gigantic money, do you really have to ask this TB?

Without a union I could see owners purposely blackballing players, conspiring on keeping player salaries within a much lower scale than they currently are, looking to only offer incentive laden and non-guaranteed contracts, and other things that would make the owners much, much richer and the players much poorer.

While I think some unions have outlived their purposes, and maybe sporting athlete's unions are some of them, I could also see were sports owners would do everything they could to take advantage of athletes if they could.

Yes I did live through the 60s, Nick.  Do you really think this is the same thing as unions in the 60s?  That would seem to me to be insulting to the pioneers of the sport.

[nickagneta]

I think he means that if somebody blows out their knee in the first year of a six year deal, they still see 100% of that money.  That's risk free.

Sure, presuming that the world ends after the six years is up, and the loss of earning potential is irrelevant due to the lack of need for currency.

Heck I have been pro-players from the start in this lockout and even I have to admit that the players have 0 risk involved.

You get hurt in the first year of a 6 year deal and still receive the next 5 years pay there's no risk there. If the player is so afraid of injuring himself and losing future earnings, he can simply not play professional basketball and go flip burgers for a living. He'll be able to flip burgers until he's 100 years old but he'll never earn as much in his life as he does in that six year deal.

[Interceptor]

Heck I have been pro-players from the start in this lockout and even I have to admit that the players have 0 risk involved.

You get hurt in the first year of a 6 year deal and still receive the next 5 years pay there's no risk there. If the player is so afraid of injuring himself and losing future earnings, he can simply not play professional basketball and go flip burgers for a living. He'll be able to flip burgers until he's 100 years old but he'll never earn as much in his life as he does in that six year deal.

I can take any position, argue any angle, be a recognized Nobel laureate, and I'd still be wrong if I said that two plus two equals five. Your choice there, is a false one. Players putting themselves at personal risk, are certainly entitled to negotiate for a way to ensure that they are fairly compensated for it.

The idea that the owners bear all of the risk in this arrangement, is absurd. You need some creatively naive and/or heartless definition of "risk" to even begin to make the argument in the first place.

[JBone4eva]

I honestly don't buy any of these "reports" that pop up online.  After every meeting someone in the players union is looked to be at fault, it just seems a bit too convenient.  I think the Owners have been playing the PR game very well.