As active as Paul Allen has been on the owners-side of the negotiations, you have to wonder if that wasn't a significant reason why they decided not to offer Oden an extension. He thought that the landscape of finances was going to change significantly. I think PA thought he was going to be able to change the finances such that Oden's next contract was going to be very small compared to the extension that he would have demanded. While I would hate to see Oden bolt and produce somewhere else, I can't say that Allen's strategy is a bad one. LMA and Roy were worth the risk, Oden was not.
nba players association officials have summoned player reps from all 30 teams to nyc for mandatory meeting:
Broussard League source tells me , "If players don't accept 50 (BRI) by Wednesday, they'll never see it again - at least not for a few years."
Unless it's court aided. They could still decertify and win a court battle. They are pushing hard for 1 more bargaining session before the Wednesday deadline, but are the owners going to give them one? Many, many players are ok with 50/50, so it will be interesting
Chris Sheridan with the latest.... As for the NBA lockout, here is where we stand: The union is having conference call today and a meeting of its player reps tomorrow in Harlem, after which they will presumably ask the league or mediator George Cohen for another sitdown with the owners before the close of business on Wednesday — the deadline NBA commissioner David Stern has set for accepting the offer that is on the table. If the offer is rejected, the owners will revert to their previous offer of 47 percent of revenues and a flex cap. The union isn’t happy about the ultimatum, but the players’ hands are somewhat tied. The only trick play they have in their arsenal is being driven by forces outside of the union, with agents attempting to secure signatures from 130 players to initiate an involuntary decertification of the union. So we’ve got a little more than 48 and a little less than 72 hours to see how things play out. Let’s have a look around the Web or the latest lockout interpretations, shall we? Ian Thomsen, SI.com: “The stance of the union can be changed if a majority of players is willing to force that change. This much needs to be understood: Stern probably isn’t bluffing when he says the offer to players will plummet after Wednesday. Stern has been seeking a deal to save the season ever since the negotiations began. The union has taken note of his willingness to seek compromise during the small-group meetings, with him and deputy commissioner Adam Silver sitting across from the union’s executive director Billy Hunter, president Derek Fisher and economist Kevin Murphy. They have made consistent progress in those low-key talks, only to see that progress reversed when the larger group of owners (and players) brought its diversity of needs into the negotiations. … The larger markets will always have an advantage in contending for championships regardless of any system that may arrive from these negotiations. Think about it: If the best players are suddenly prohibited from fishing for extra salary from the bigger markets, and they realize their NBA paycheck is limited no matter where they choose to play, then guess where they’re going to go? They’re going to seek employment with large-market franchises like the Knicks, the Lakers, the Bulls or the Mavericks, because those markets will offer superior earning opportunities off the court. The goal of preventing the best players from swarming to the biggest cities is bound to backfire on the less-rich teams. The smaller-market franchises may become profitable across the board, but will that make them more attractive to the best players? … I don’t believe a majority of the players can pull this off. They may want to play, in order to rescue this season and their incomes and avoid the long-term, self-destructive harm to the NBA that will certainly follow a canceled season. But they aren’t the leaders of their teams or their league, and they have been headed off by the bloc of decertifiers. My best guess is that the players will refuse the proposal offered by Stern. On Thursday, the owners will reduce their offer, making it more difficult than ever for the players to reach a deal. The abject failure of the two parties to find unity among themselves — for if they can’t agree among themselves, then how can they ever create enough room to compromise with the opposition — will lead to a greater push to decertify, resulting in murkiness and uncertainty amid one probable outcome. More likely than not, there will be no NBA season in 2011-12. Brian T. Smith of the Salt Lake City Tribune: ”You would have to have been a real, real, real optimist to think that both sides were going to move enough at this point to get a deal done in a couple of days,” Jazz guard Raja Bell told The Salt Lake Tribune. He added: “I’ve [said] from the beginning that I really felt that was going to be the eventuality — it was going to be take it or leave it. And that’s OK. But that’s not negotiating in good faith. That’s just giving someone an ultimatum. And we kind of felt like that was going to be their stance the whole time.” Ken Berger of CBSSports.com, via Twitter: “For those baffled why there’s no deal: Guess how many sign-and-trades were executed by tax payers during previous CBA? No, really, guess. … Your answer, from union source: FIVE sign-and-trade deals were done by tax-paying teams during previous six-year CBA. … This is something season could be canceled over, folks. FIVE sign-and-trades in six years. And wait until you hear what they were … Three in ’05-’06: Knicks-Eddy Curry; Memphis-Marko Jaric; Lakers-Kwame Brown and Laron Profit. Destroyers of competitive balance, all. … Two in ’09-’10: Suns-Hedo Turkoglu (basketball-driven deal); Mavs-Shawn Marion. … So one could argue, the season could be canceled over an issue that doesn’t matter that much to either side. … Also, who couldn’t love the irony that of the five sign-and-trades by tax-payers during previous CBA, two were done by Sarver and Heisley? Steve Bulpett, Boston Herald: “Somewhere along the way, the bait and switch was pulled. To wit: We came to Manhattan to cover a basketball labor negotiation, and a session of Congress broke out. The NBA: Where Washington happens. For those still paying attention to the details here — those who’ve resisted the “wake me when it’s over” siren song — the latest break in the NBA’s collective bargaining talks might seem particularly perplexing. The players got 57 percent of defined revenues in the last CBA and had been trying to squeeze out 52.5 percent this time. But on Saturday, the players took what they believed would be a giant step toward peace, harmony and mid-winter trips to Minneapolis by coming down to 51 percent. They even stated that funds from the last percentage point would be dedicated to retired player programs, also known as “CSI: Where the Hell Did All the Money I Made Go?” The NBA countered with a band that would give the players as little as 49 percent and as much as 51 percent, though union attorney Jeffrey Kessler later cited fuzzy math and called the higher number “a fraud.” The league said its offer is good until the close of business on Wednesday, at which time if it is not accepted the NBA will revert to an offer of 47 percent and a highly restrictive flex cap. In other words, take a deal you don’t like or take a long vacation. … The NBA and Players Association have essentially drawn lines in the sand here. And while the numbers would appear to be close, they may not, in fact, be on the same beach. That’s because of the Washington Effect. While commissioner David Stern and union president Derek Fisher may have their personal opinions as to what constitutes a fair and equitable arrangement, they are not speaking for themselves. Like D.C. party leaders, they negotiate with the Damoclean sword of ‘Can I get the votes for this?’ hanging over their heads. And as in Congress, they are being tugged toward the strong-minded edges. Bill Rhoden of The New York Times: “Shame on the league for not pushing for true partnership, but shame on the players for not insisting that equity in the league become a nonnegotiable plank in the labor talks. Instead, the currently stalled negotiations have involved the same wage-based scuffles between employer and employees: we give you a piece of the pie, and we’ll fight over the size of the slice every few years. … The N.B.A. and the players are engaged in another season-threatening battle over the distribution of what has become about $4 billion a year in revenue. This is not what a partnership looks like. If the N.B.A. and the players were actually partners, with players having an ownership stake in the league, we might be watching basketball instead of owners against players, owners against owners and players against players. Shortly after the N.F.L. and its players ended their feud earlier this year, DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the players association, said he had made an equity proposal to owners. “One of the proposals we had was, ‘O.K., if you want money back, fine; just give us a share of the National Football League,’ ” he told a group of black lawyers in Baltimore in August. The proposal went nowhere, but Smith said that equity-based relationships could be “one of the more creative models going forward in sports.” This new model would involve a drastic change of thinking by players and owners. For all of the talk about player-owner partnerships and owners’ platitudes about the importance of the players, the one thing owners will never easily give up is something they cherish: total ownership.” Chris Broussard of ESPN.com., via Twitter: “Interesting: sources from each side told me players & owners only spent “about 15 minutes” together during Saturday’s 8 1/2 hour meeting. … Federal Mediator George Cohen shuttled back & forth between the two rooms before bringing them together at the end for owners proposal.” Howard Beck of the New York Times: “A movement to decertify the union, which would shift the battle to the courts and probably imperil the season, is proceeding, although its strength remains unclear. ESPN.com reported Sunday that organizers believe they can get at least 130 signatures — enough to force a decertification vote — by Tuesday. However, two prominent agents with large client lists said that no signature drive had begun. They expressed skepticism that anything could be done in the next few days. If 30 percent of the union signs a petition, it is up to the National Labor Relations Board to approve a vote by the full membership. That could take up to 45 days — and during that time the union could resume negotiations with the N.B.A., but with the threat of decertification as added leverage. … A contract squeeze is already under way. A record 160 players were on minimum contracts last season, according to one agency’s accounting. An additional 107 players were on rookie contracts, and 63 were on midlevel exception deals. That means that only 90 to 100 players were on negotiated contracts that were not bound by a salary slot. If the midlevel exception is curtailed as the N.B.A. proposes, that number would surely continue to drop, and the number of players on minimum salaries would increase. No bargaining sessions are expected before the N.B.A.’s deadline, which Stern described as the close of business Wednesday. The union regards the deadline as artificial and believes the N.B.A. will return to the table.
Amick decertify? careful players on what you wish for. A vote among the 450 players would be a great tell on what side players are really on!
Sterns letter to Union....... In Letter to Union, Stern Details His Ultimatum By HOWARD BECK Published: November 7, 2011 The ultimatum issued by the N.B.A. to its players over the weekend not only threatens them with a worse labor deal, but also a massive pay cut if they do not make a deal by Wednesday afternoon. A letter sent by David Stern, the commissioner of the N.B.A., to the players union Sunday contrasts the proposal on the table — highlighted by a 50-50 split of revenues — with a “reset” proposal that would cut the players’ share to 47 percent, roll back current contracts, impose a hard salary cap and reduce contract lengths. The salary rollback, which was part of the N.B.A.’s first controversial proposal in 2010, had not been included in any league proposal for many months, and it was not publicly mentioned by Stern when he announced the ultimatum Saturday night. But the rollback was included in the letter Stern sent to Billy Hunter, the union’s executive director. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times. The union has until 5 p.m. Wednesday to accept the N.B.A.’s last proposal or have it replaced by the reset proposal, Stern wrote. “Rather than simply proceeding, as we could have, to offer a less favorable proposal at this time, the N.B.A. is providing an additional period of time for the players association to consider our 50/50 proposal,” Stern wrote. “We are hopeful that the prospect of a less favorable outcome for the players will prompt the players association to realize that the best deal that can be reached is the one the N.B.A. is prepared to make right now.” Stern closes, “Billy, I sincerely hope that we can reach an agreement over the next few days.” The N.B.A.’s current proposal to the players includes a soft salary cap, a 50 percent share of revenues for players and these features: ¶ Salary-cap and luxury-tax levels in Years 1 and 2 of the new agreement will be no less than they were in 2010-11. By Year 3, they will be adjusted downward to conform to the new system. ¶ Sign-and-trade deals and the biannual exception will be available only to nontaxpaying teams. ¶ Extend-and-trade deals, such as the one signed by Carmelo Anthony last season, will be prohibited. ¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $5 million for nontaxpaying teams, with a maximum length between three and four years (alternating annually). The value of the exception will grow by 3 percent annually, starting in Year 3. ¶ The midlevel exception will be set at $2.5 million for taxpaying teams, with a maximum length of two years, and cannot be used in consecutive years. Its value will also grow at 3 percent annually. ¶ A 10 percent escrow tax will be withheld from player salaries, to ensure that player earnings do not exceed 50 percent of league revenues. An additional withholding will be applied in Year 1 “to account for business uncertainty” stemming from the lockout. ¶ Maximum contract lengths will be five years for “Bird” free agents and four years for others. ¶ Annual contract increases will be 5.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others. ¶ Players will be paid a prorated share of their 2011-12 salaries, based on the number of games played once the season starts. ¶ Team and player contract options will be prohibited in new contracts, other than rookie deals. But a player can opt out of the final year of a contract if he agrees to zero salary protection (i.e., if it is nonguaranteed). The “reset” proposal features a flex-cap system that contains an absolute salary ceiling — to be set $5 million above the average team salary. In addition, the N.B.A. would roll back existing contracts “in proportion to system changes in order to ensure sufficient market for free agents.” The other major differences in the “reset” proposal are: ¶ The midlevel exception would be set at $3 million in Year 1, with a maximum length of three years, and would grow at 3 percent annually. ¶ Maximum salaries would be reduced. ¶ Sign-and-trade rules would remain consistent with the 2005 labor deal. ¶ Contracts would be limited to four years for “Bird” free agents and three years for others, but each team could give a five-year deal to one designated player. ¶ Raises would be limited to 4.5 percent for “Bird” players and 3.5 percent for others. ¶ Changes requested by the union on restricted free agency rules and salary-cap holds would not be included. Both proposals include an “amnesty” provision that will allow every team to waive one player and have 100 percent of his salary removed from the cap.
Wow. Unless they are 95% sure they can win in court, the players should probably take that deal. What kills me is that it's not really going to limit the money they make all that much. I mean they will still be the highest paid athletes as a whole in the world
Woj Before Paul Pierce conducted call on decert w/ players and anti-trust lawyer Thursday, he informed Hunter and Fisher of plans, sources say.
I tend to agree with you MM. This proposal seems pretty fair to me. BRI split at 50/50 with not a lot of changes in structure from the past CBA from what I can tell except no trade and extend deals allowed.
If you're a player who thinks that the 2005 deal should be the baseline, then you're going to be pissed. If you're a player who understands that Nov 2011 is different than July 2005, then you take this and run. Couple of interesting bits there...under-the-tax teams can spend 5M a year on MLEs, while taxpayers only get (basically) the current BAE. The escrow is smart from the owners' perspective, but I can see how a player sees it as some kind of tax.
