Good News. Labor deal is 95.632% complete

[Roy H.]

There’s a growing belief that Stern doesn’t have the ownership support to pass the very proposal he’s been pushing all weekend, and that owners would ultimately kill this deal with the list of non-negotiable B-list issues the players would oppose. This way, the league can say it worked hard to cut a fairer deal with players, but in the end, the owners will get the draconian ‘reset’ proposal that many of them have wanted all along.

“A lot of teams – more all the time – don’t like the deal on the table,” one high-ranking league official said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411

Hopefully that's just misinformation aimed at getting the players to take the deal while it's still on the table.

[fairweatherfan]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

- League wants the right to contract teams without consulting union, and cut player BRI if contraction occurs.  Again, might not happen but what a slap in the face.  Why do they need to give a smaller % to players if they ditch two small-market, unprofitable teams?

- The D-League consignment thing according to the league was never proposed at all, but players are saying it was brought up multiple times as a "must-have" change.  I tend to believe the players - my guess is the league is mincing words because it was never officially in a formal proposal.  I seriously doubt it was invented out of thin air.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7231908/nba-lockout-players-union-note-sticking-points-owners-proposal-sources-say


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411

*Apparently some of these are those "B-List" issues that aren't in the official proposal but the owners are demanding. 

[mkogav]

There’s a growing belief that Stern doesn’t have the ownership support to pass the very proposal he’s been pushing all weekend, and that owners would ultimately kill this deal with the list of non-negotiable B-list issues the players would oppose. This way, the league can say it worked hard to cut a fairer deal with players, but in the end, the owners will get the draconian ‘reset’ proposal that many of them have wanted all along.

“A lot of teams – more all the time – don’t like the deal on the table,” one high-ranking league official said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411

Hopefully that's just misinformation aimed at getting the players to take the deal while it's still on the table.

It may work the other way.

This may be more anti-deal/pro-decert propaganda. Scare the players away from a DOA deal. Although, the leak could be real. Some of the small market owners ARE trying to kill the deal. I would not be surprised.

In any event, I doubt this deal gets approved by the players. I hope it does b/c as Eddard Stark would say, 'Winter is coming', as in 'NBA nuclear winter'.

Mk

[nickagneta]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

- League wants the right to contract teams without consulting union, and cut player BRI if contraction occurs.  Again, might not happen but what a slap in the face.  Why do they need to give a smaller % to players if they ditch two small-market, unprofitable teams?

- The D-League consignment thing according to the league was never proposed at all, but players are saying it was brought up multiple times as a "must-have" change.  I tend to believe the players - my guess is the league is mincing words because it was never officially in a formal proposal.  I seriously doubt it was invented out of thin air.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7231908/nba-lockout-players-union-note-sticking-points-owners-proposal-sources-say


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411

*Apparently some of these are those "B-List" issues that aren't in the official proposal but the owners are demanding. 

I tend to believe the players on this one too because of Stern's unprecedented public sell on the proposal and because the owners already included a "we will tell you later"provision in their own proposal regarding revenue sharing.

Well if you already told the union what the revenue sharing plan was, put it in the proposal, otherwise you are being misleading and possibly dishonest.

[Chris]

There’s a growing belief that Stern doesn’t have the ownership support to pass the very proposal he’s been pushing all weekend, and that owners would ultimately kill this deal with the list of non-negotiable B-list issues the players would oppose. This way, the league can say it worked hard to cut a fairer deal with players, but in the end, the owners will get the draconian ‘reset’ proposal that many of them have wanted all along.

“A lot of teams – more all the time – don’t like the deal on the table,” one high-ranking league official said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_111411

Hopefully that's just misinformation aimed at getting the players to take the deal while it's still on the table.

At this point, the only guys I really trust to be impartial in this are Ken Berger, Chris Sheridan, and the guy from the NY Times (forget his name).  Bucher is a terrible journalist, and a mouthpiece for players, and Wojo is a sensationalist who only cares about headlines.

So, I am going to stick with that, and think this is just more misinformation...or at least an exageration.

Now, this stuff about the escrow could be a legit stumbling block, and that could really hold this up.  But, I don't believe the conspiracy theories that this is all a ruse by the owners, who are just going to pull the rug out from under the players once they agree to this part of the deal.

[Roy H.]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

[Chris]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

Agreed.  I also hate the fact that players (through Bucher) are claiming this escrow thing is new in the new deal, making it a worse offer.  It isn't.  In the offer presented on November 6th, the owners proposed the same thing with the escrow, but instead of explicitly saying that the "unlimited escrow" would come out of fund for retired players, they just said that it would be "made up through other mechanisms".  And it doesn't take a genius to know that those other mechanisms would be coming from the players cut in some way.

My guess is that Hunter and Fisher negotiated that it come from that 1%, rather than coming from the players salaries (or a larger escrow).

[BuckeyeCelt]

Chris Duhon just became one of my favorite players...

Chris Duhon: Orlando Magic will accept deal

[fairweatherfan]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

I don't mind the escrow system in and of itself; but this again seems to be the owners trying to idiot-proof the system for themselves at the players' expense. 

Holding aside a percentage of current salaries to do this is one thing - and they're moving from 8 to 10% in this deal because in the past they paid up to 57.2% (gasp!) in BRI even after all the escrow was taken.  But reserving the right to raid the pension for retired players and escrow of future salaries is another thing.  Especially with the harder cap it's unlikely they'll ever overpay by that much, but it's that same theme of the owners wanting control over the players' money to protect them from their own poor decision-making.

[nickagneta]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

I agree there should be a mechanism to pay back the owners if the salaries turn out to be a higher percentage of the BRI but I don't like taking it from the retired players or players benefits fund.

I say scale back salaries the next year to accommodate any amount above and beyond the escrow amount. If that means every player has to have their guaranteed salary reduce by 2% the following year, so be it. Leave the retired players and players benefits fund alone.

Also, it wouldn't hurt the owners to learn a huge lesson from all this and actually practice some good business sense and restrain themselves from giving out ridiculous contracts while at the same time not colluding to keep contract salaries down.

[nickagneta]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

I don't mind the escrow system in and of itself; but this again seems to be the owners trying to idiot-proof the system for themselves at the players' expense. 

Holding aside a percentage of current salaries to do this is one thing - and they're moving from 8 to 10% in this deal because in the past they paid up to 57.2% (gasp!) in BRI even after all the escrow was taken.  But reserving the right to raid the pension for retired players and escrow of future salaries is another thing.  Especially with the harder cap it's unlikely they'll ever overpay by that much, but it's that same theme of the owners wanting control over the players' money to protect them from their own poor decision-making.

If you had finished typing this only seconds earlier it would have saved me the time of writing virtually the exact same thing. TP.

[Chris]

Couple more proposal* details:

- In addition to raising the escrow % (money set aside to ensure salaries don't exceed BRI) to 10%, the owners want the right to take from the 1% of BRI set aside for retired players.  In other words, if the owners overspend in spite of themselves, they get to literally raid the pension.  Seems unlikely that this would actually happen but no wonder players are ticked.

Regarding BRI, the escrow mechanism isn't a great one; I hate the idea of taking funds set aside for retired players.  At the same time, if BRI is truly "capped", then there needs to be a mechanism to cap it.  In the event that the players got too much via their salaries, they should need to give it back somehow.  I'm not sure if that means a larger percentage is put into escrow, or what, but if the "cap" is 50%, and the players (via individual team contracts) end up with 53%, the teams need a mechanism to get that 3% back.

I agree there should be a mechanism to pay back the owners if the salaries turn out to be a higher percentage of the BRI but I don't like taking it from the retired players or players benefits fund.

I say scale back salaries the next year to accommodate any amount above and beyond the escrow amount. If that means every player has to have their guaranteed salary reduce by 2% the following year, so be it. Leave the retired players and players benefits fund alone.

Also, it wouldn't hurt the owners to learn a huge lesson from all this and actually practice some good business sense and restrain themselves from giving out ridiculous contracts while at the same time not colluding to keep contract salaries down.

I agree that it doesn't seem great taking that money from the retired players.  But I really think that suggestion was coming from the players side (who want to keep as much up front money as possible), and not the owners. 

As far as the owners "learning a lesson from all of this", I think the only time this rule will come into play based on bad contracts will be in the first two years, and teams still have bloated contracts from the old CBA, and Amnestied players still count towards the players cut of the BRI.  Beyond those couple of years, once the new system is really in place, the mechanisms to limit luxury tax payers will prevent the owners from overpaying too much, and the only way this will kick in is if the BRI takes a sudden drop.

Where the players probably have the biggest problem though, is that this escrow is going to end up essentially being a rollback in salaries over the first few years.  It is going to be very tough for the owners to get below 50% right away, because of things like the Amnesty provision...means that the players can pretty much count on that 10% of their salary going into escrow the first couple years, going to the owners.

Now, for players not under contract right now, it is a good thing, because it allows more space for them to get paid, but the guys who signed contracts on the old CBA are going to be angry, since their salaries will end up being cut, in order to make space for the new guys.

[nickagneta]

I agree that the first two year will be tough on the players. No doubt. But I tend to think that certain teams will pay the tax to compete because they have the revenues to do so, especially if the owners are not going to install a significant revenue sharing system. Dolan, Buss, Cuban, Arison, Prohkorov, Reinsdorf and maybe even Grousbek, after he closes this new deal with the local broadcasting rights that is rumored to be so much more than previous deals, will pay the tax to have the chance to win a ring.

And there will be a ton of teams that will pay over the cap and remain just under the tax to stay competitive as they do already or have in the recent past. Teams like Phoenix, Denver, Houston, Portland, Orlando, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Utah, San Antonio, Milwaukee and Indiana have all shown a history of being over the cap but under the tax threshold.

I just don't see that this system with a higher minimum team salary, an only slightly lower MLE to teams not in the tax, and no reduction of maximum salaries for Bird rights player will significantly keep the owners from spending over that 50% of BRI every single year. They just don't have the self discipline for it. Never have shown it and I don't think they will if they are assured of a $300 million giveback.

[fairweatherfan]

I believe 50% BRI doesn't kick in til Year 3 - the salary cap stays at the 10-11 season level (in $ not BRI) for this year and next. 

I just don't see that this system with a higher minimum team salary, an only slightly lower MLE to teams not in the tax, and no reduction of maximum salaries for Bird rights player will significantly keep the owners from spending over that 50% of BRI every single year. They just don't have the self discipline for it. Never have shown it and I don't think they will if they are assured of a $300 million giveback.

They actually for the first time ever underpaid the players last year, giving them all their escrow money back.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/07/12/labor-update/index.html

But with the lower BRI and higher cap floor, yeah I don't see it either.

[Chris]

I believe 50% BRI doesn't kick in til Year 3 - the salary cap stays at the 10-11 season level (in $ not BRI) for this year and next. 

The salary cap stays the same as it was previously, but the BRI being paid to the players will be at the 50% level immediately.