Hunters Fault?

[BballTim]

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.

  I somewhat agree with this, although if the owners were capable of conspiring on keeping players salaries in line we would never see half the contracts we do.

[thirstyboots18]

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.

I certainly don't hold the owners blameless, either.  I just don't feel that bad business practices in the past should not be mandatory  in the present or future.  The owners tried it the players' way in the last contract and it didn't work too well.  They don't want the League to fail either, and won't re-commit past mistakes if they can possibly help it.  (In the same circumstances, I would try to correct my mistakes...even if it was the unpopular decision.)  

[indeedproceed]

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.

I'm not sure how you get to 'insulting to the pioneers of the sport'. Giving more back to the owners than the players feel is right because of a lack of resolve or unity seems more along the lines of what you're saying.

[thirstyboots18]

The earlier players in the league had to fight for legitimacy, and a livable wage.  They had summer jobs to get them through the off season.  They needed a union to sort through the inequities and stand up for them on a league wide basis. 

Remember, it was a different time back then (early 60's ).  Basket ball was not the popular sport it is today.  No regular tv...radio where you could get reception.    Communication was not instantaneous...no cell phones, no tweeting.  Travel was mostly by bus.  I am not sure, but I think the players got their sneakers for free from Converse in exchange for the advertising.  (Players didn't get revenue for their likeness on products until Michael Jordon's lawsuit, if I remember correctly).  Basketball was only mentioned briefly in the news, if at all.

In the end, though, the players and the owners settled their issues doing what was in the best interest of basketball.  If they don't straighten out a broken system this time, how can anyone say it is for the good of basketball. This time it is not a matter of medical coverage or living wage...This time it is purely about money.  Being for the good of the owners, or the good of the players is not the same thing, and could cause the collapse of the whole sport as we know it.

 That is why I am not really interested in these negotiations so far...it is all about the individuals and not about the sport as a whole.  If I were not a rabid member of this blog, I would probably not follow the NBA news at all, and if they don't get this straightened out, I may not follow the NBA anyway. Evidently am not stating my feelings clearly, but I am thoroughly disgusted.

[indeedproceed]

The earlier players in the league had to fight for legitimacy, and a livable wage.  They had summer jobs to get them through the off season.  They needed a union to sort through the inequities and stand up for them on a league wide basis. 

Remember, it was a different time back then (early 60's ).  Basket ball was not the popular sport it is today.  No regular tv...radio where you could get reception.    Communication was not instantaneous...no cell phones, no tweeting.  Travel was mostly by bus.  I am not sure, but I think the players got their sneakers for free from Converse in exchange for the advertising.  (Players didn't get revenue for their likeness on products until Michael Jordon's lawsuit, if I remember correctly).  Basketball was only mentioned briefly in the news, if at all.

In the end, though, the players and the owners settled their issues doing what was in the best interest of basketball.  If they don't straighten out a broken system this time, how can anyone say it is for the good of basketball. This time it is not a matter of medical coverage or living wage...This time it is purely about money.  Being for the good of the owners, or the good of the players is not the same thing, and could cause the collapse of the whole sport as we know it.

 That is why I am not really interested in these negotiations so far...it is all about the individuals and not about the sport as a whole.  If I were not a rabid member of this blog, I would probably not follow the NBA news at all, and if they don't get this straightened out, I may not follow the NBA anyway. Evidently am not stating my feelings clearly, but I am thoroughly disgusted.

Yeah I'm not really getting what you're saying here. You're mad because they're arguing about money, and you don't care who gets it?

[hpantazo]

The earlier players in the league had to fight for legitimacy, and a livable wage.  They had summer jobs to get them through the off season.  They needed a union to sort through the inequities and stand up for them on a league wide basis. 

Remember, it was a different time back then (early 60's ).  Basket ball was not the popular sport it is today.  No regular tv...radio where you could get reception.    Communication was not instantaneous...no cell phones, no tweeting.  Travel was mostly by bus.  I am not sure, but I think the players got their sneakers for free from Converse in exchange for the advertising.  (Players didn't get revenue for their likeness on products until Michael Jordon's lawsuit, if I remember correctly).  Basketball was only mentioned briefly in the news, if at all.

In the end, though, the players and the owners settled their issues doing what was in the best interest of basketball.  If they don't straighten out a broken system this time, how can anyone say it is for the good of basketball. This time it is not a matter of medical coverage or living wage...This time it is purely about money.  Being for the good of the owners, or the good of the players is not the same thing, and could cause the collapse of the whole sport as we know it.

 That is why I am not really interested in these negotiations so far...it is all about the individuals and not about the sport as a whole.  If I were not a rabid member of this blog, I would probably not follow the NBA news at all, and if they don't get this straightened out, I may not follow the NBA anyway. Evidently am not stating my feelings clearly, but I am thoroughly disgusted.

Yeah I'm not really getting what you're saying here. You're mad because they're arguing about money, and you don't care who gets it?

I agree with thirstyboots. They are arguing about how to divide a huge amount of profit between two sides that are both very well off, and they are arguing about a couple of percentage points in that division, and that's it, which makes me not care at all who gets the advantage in the BRI split as long as it's over. They are not arguing anymore about how to make a CBA that allows for fair competition between all teams in the league, or any important changes that are needed to maintain or improve the viability of the league as a whole, they are damaging the viability of the league as a whole for a dissagreement on how to divide what is in the long run a small amount of money.

[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!

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.

Yes its kind of fair.. Its the players that play the games not the Owners. The Owners aint sh*t without the players..
But i still think that the players should accept the 50/50 and get this season started.

[thirstyboots18]

Maybe the league should be siphoning "some" of the profit of the successful teams to try to solve the fan base problem of the weaker teams, rather than giving it to either the owners or the players.  I don't mean give it out to stack or stock the teams, I mean actually try to help them develop a fan base and make them successful so that they can solve their own problems keeping and attracting players.  I don't know how to do it, but if the NBA  and Stern can develop a fan base around the world in places that never heard of basketball, they have some  experience in fan development, and should be able to do it in the U. S. with an actual team...

[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.

Yes its kind of fair.. Its the players that play the games not the Owners. The Owners aint sh*t without the players..
But i still think that the players should accept the 50/50 and get this season started.

I agree that the players are essential, but the league was also in very poor condition money wise for a long time. Great organization by Stern and the owners created a system that allows for all of these profits. Long ago, as others said, back when Bill Russell and co. won all those banners, players made peanuts and there was not much interest in the league in general even though the players were amazing, and the competition was imo much better than now. The owners and the league officials created the market that allows for the profits that exist today, not the players.

The players were fine with all of the changes Stern and co implemented to make the league what it is today. Stern messed up and overexpanded imo, resulting in some teams losing money, and the solution has to be either contract a few teams (and in turn fire a number of players that shouldn't be in the league to begin with) or change the income split to keep some teams afloat. Players aren't going to like either solution, but the change in the BRI split will save them more in the long run.

Are owners greedy? Yes. Are they in part at fault for this lockout? Definitely Yes, but so are the players. They aren't exactly going from paycheck to paycheck or worrying about their mortgage here either. 50-50 is a fair split imo.

[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!

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.

Yes its kind of fair.. Its the players that play the games not the Owners. The Owners aint sh*t without the players..
But i still think that the players should accept the 50/50 and get this season started.

I agree that the players are essential, but the league was also in very poor condition money wise for a long time. Great organization by Stern and the owners created a system that allows for all of these profits. Long ago, as others said, back when Bill Russell and co. won all those banners, players made peanuts and there was not much interest in the league in general even though the players were amazing, and the competition was imo much better than now. The owners and the league officials created the market that allows for the profits that exist today, not the players.

Are owners greedy? Yes. Are they in part at fault for this lockout? Definitely Yes, but so are the players. They aren't exactly going from paycheck to paycheck or worrying about their mortgage here either. 50-50 is a fair split imo.

True

[thirstyboots18]

I think 50/50 is too much.  49/49 with the left over 2% going toward fan development here in the U. S. in the locations (Cleveland, Charlotte, etc.) so that they can become profitable, too.  I don't mean give those teams money, I   mean the League should commit  the PR required to do it.  The  League managed to make basketball popular on a multi global plain, which is something that football has not accomplished, and baseball has only accomplished on a limited basis.  They have the expertise to do it and should concentrate on it....or, as has been mentioned, shrink the league to insure profitability.

(global plain, lol...not yet on Mars...)

[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.

Yes its kind of fair.. Its the players that play the games not the Owners. The Owners aint sh*t without the players..
But i still think that the players should accept the 50/50 and get this season started.

I agree that the players are essential, but the league was also in very poor condition money wise for a long time. Great organization by Stern and the owners created a system that allows for all of these profits. Long ago, as others said, back when Bill Russell and co. won all those banners, players made peanuts and there was not much interest in the league in general even though the players were amazing, and the competition was imo much better than now. The owners and the league officials created the market that allows for the profits that exist today, not the players.

Are owners greedy? Yes. Are they in part at fault for this lockout? Definitely Yes, but so are the players. They aren't exactly going from paycheck to paycheck or worrying about their mortgage here either. 50-50 is a fair split imo.

True

Too bad we are not the ones negotiating the actual CBA, we would be done already!

[indeedproceed]

These owners are playing a long-term game. The players are playing a short-term one. It would be easy to cave on this and take the 50/50 or the 51% (which seems like a more likely scenario), but the thing is, the owners have been pushing them around this entire thing. The players are caving on all sorts of places, and giving up hundreds of millions of dollars already.

At some point there needs to be a line in the sand, and the owners want to make sure that 100 million they're giving up this season (and the next 5, so that half a billion or more) is critical to the deal. The players know that, and they know the owners won't believe that the players are resolute until they see them bleed.

[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.

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.

I'm not sure how you get to 'insulting to the pioneers of the sport'. Giving more back to the owners than the players feel is right because of a lack of resolve or unity seems more along the lines of what you're saying.

I don't get this either.

The union did for the players what they did which lead them ton the position they are now. But you asked why they are still necessary. Well they are still necessary because if the union isn't there you can bet that the NBA players would soon be the lowest paid professional athletes in the world as well as the most taken advantage of.

Perhaps the unions aren't 100% needed anymore but they still serve a very valuable purpose.

I also don't get your insistence that the players should take exceedingly less because of a broken system. have you seen what changes are coming? Its essentially the same system with some tweaks and the players getting less of the BRI. If they settle at 51/49 split, which it seems the owners would, then their idea of fixing the system is making sure the entire game is still losing big money(upwards of 4130 million a year if recent numbers are to be believed). How is that fixing the system?

I've said it before and will say it again, the owners numbers on the losses they have sustained is just not credible, especially given how much each franchises escalates in value every year and the fact they write off interest on payments to purchase the team and they depreciate the players contracts as assets over time.

[thirstyboots18]

I will try to be perfectly clear this time.   You say the players are the product.  I say the players are very well, and more than fairly, paid.  The players and the owners are NOT partners.  If any player thinks he is unfairly paid he is free, as anyone in the country, to try his luck at another field,  or   maybe become the first owner/player and do it his own way.