It's interesting whether it will be considered a sham (like the NFL's assertion) or not. It's also interesting that the disclaimer of interest may preclude a full decertification--which is what the agents allegedly wanted. Yes, since there is no collective bargaining possible (since there's no union) the owners locking out their players is an anticompetitive act that is illegal in antitrust terms. At least that's the players' position. Ed O.
I think that's a pretty dumb quote... both sides could be acting entirely reasonably based on what they know, even though one side will necessarily be the loser. The courts and/or the collective will of each side will decide which side ends up better than they would have been by not waiting. They might be idiots, but I don't buy Hollinger's logic here. Ed O.
Amick In letter from NBPA obtained by SI.com, they inform players that "guarantee shortfall payment" checks worth $58K are ready for distribution.
Amick Money paid out b/c NBA fell short of hitting 57% of BRI last season & is paid 2 players who were on roster 4 at least half of last season.
Amick Players who played less than half the season on a roster get a pro-rated amount. Sock that money away gents. You're gonna need it.
The Timbers announce today that they have sold out of season tickets for 2012, capping season ticket sales at 14,750 seats.
It would be interesting to see the owners unlock the players and then refuse to deal with a union. They would then agree as a collection of owners to set any rules they saw fit in making a competitive game. I have no problem with that as a fan.
I'm not sure it follows that one side will win and one side will lose. They might both lose (in fact that seems highly likely to me). barfo
You mean no one wins a pissing match? What if Stern or Hunter drink a Big Gulp and turn the other ones hair yellow?
Perhaps they could agree to cap pay at 30k per year per player and then keep all the money themselves? Sweet, Paul Allen can get a 3rd helicopter for his yacht!
This keeps being portrayed as "The Owners" vs. "The Players" and I suspect that's too simplistic of a view. A big part of what's going on behind the scenes on the owners side has to be a battle between the big market teams vs. the small market teams. It's a lot easier to decide that you'd rather sacrifice a season where you know you're going to lose money than it is to sacrifice one where you know you're going to make big dollars. It's also easier to sacrifice a season where you know you don't have a shot at a title than it is to give up, say, a major shot by the Heat with their "Big Three" or the Lakers with the last productive year or so of Kobe's career. If the rich teams would crack on sharing profits with the small market teams, then it would seem to me that there'd be a lot less pressure being put on holding the players' feet to the fire on every single negotiating point. On the players side, there has to be significant dissension developing between the stars who will be playing for many years at the upper end of the pay scale and the run-of-the-mill guys who will be lucky to play for 5 years at MLE money or less. It's not surprising that Billy Hunter and the former union guys weren't willing to let this go to a vote. I don't know how this will play out, but with $4 billion on the line this year, it seems to me that something will give sooner rather than later.
Perhaps, but I don't think so. The BRI will be at a certain level, and that level will be either higher or lower (or the same) as the latest/last proposal. The system will be either more friendly or less friendly to one side or the others. Revenues will dip if/when the season is lost, but over the long run that should prove to be a blip relative to the changes that will take effect for the remainder of the CBA and its successors. Ed O.
I wouldn't mind, either, but any restriction on payment or benefits that the owners (as a group) imposed on the players individually would be anticompetitive, monopolistic behavior. The courts would be much more likely to reward players triple damages for any imposition of a salary cap, a maximum salary, or restrictions on free agency (including the NBA draft). I don't see the owners doing that; they're better shutting things down until there's clarity one way or the other. Ed O.
