NBA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the information released by the union, which is now planning regional meetings Saturday in Miami and Monday in Los Angeles.

According to the union source, the league would agree to a meeting Monday -- the deadline set by commissioner David Stern for canceling the first two weeks of regular season games -- only if the players agreed beforehand to accept the NBA's offer of a 50-50 revenue split. The union declined, the source said.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32566143

ItalianStallion wrote:It was a bad idea to put a "take it" or "leave it" condition on further meetings. The players, agents etc... have gigantic egos. There's no way they can agree to that now. They would lose face. The idea is to get the negotiations going again and THEN get them to agree to 50-50. This was a gigantic tactical error by the owners unless they were trying to lose the first 2 weeks of the season to add more pressure and get an even better deal as players start losing checks.

That's the only way to look at it. The Ownwers HAD to know that the players would balk at such a demand. Owners are trying to play hardball now as money is already being lost due to no preseason games. Losing regular season games would really hit hard on the players. Just dirty pool man.

Childs2Dudley wrote:

nixluva wrote:Geez! This is just so ridiculous. Why do there have to be preconditions on a MEETING??? They're going to get together to talk anyway, why do the players have to agreed to a term of condition 1st before they even agree to meet? I personally don't have a problem with 50/50 if it's a real 50/50 split and not some convoluted thing that really means the players end up with less then 50% as they owners proposed before. The 2 sides are so close and the last I heard from the players was that they dropped down to and offer of 52.4-47.6. The players dropped down pretty far from the 57% they already had under the last CBA, so why can't the owners agree to accept a 52.4-47.6 split? We all know that once the owners deduct their expenses it'll end up being closer to 50/50 anyway.

The owners proposed a true 50/50 split that was rejected. Not sure why you haven't read that yet. They don't want 50/50.

I know that they proposed that and it wasn't an actual offer according to Stern. Also the issue was whether it was a pure 50/50 or in reality 47/53 in favor of the Owners. I've presented FAR more detailed facts on this argument than you have so don't come at me with you once in a blue moon comments. So once again let me educate you on the facts of what happened before this last demand from the owners:

Fisher said the players have agreed to reduce their share of the league’s basketball-related income from 57 percent in the previous collective bargaining agreement to 53. Union executive director Billy Hunter said the owners’ latest proposal has the players receiving 47 percent of the BRI, but Stern said the two sides discussed a 50-50 revenue split – “a concept, not an offer,” Stern said – that the players didn’t accept.

Here is where they are, according to multiple people involved in the negotiations: After the owners offered the players a 50-50 split of revenues that effectively was a 47 percent share with about $350 million in expenses deducted first, the two sides met in small groups in the hallway while each side's larger group caucused in separate rooms. As the hour grew late, the tension was rising and becoming palpable. Both sides recognized it was time to try everything possible to make a deal.

Freakin learn how to read before you challenge me again with nonsense!!!

Any hope for a last-second resolution to the N.B.A. lockout vanished Friday, as the owners drew a firm line on player compensation, driving a deep wedge in the already fragile labor negotiations.
Related

N.B.A. officials informed the players union that they would not increase their offer beyond a 50-50 split of league revenues, and that the subject was no longer negotiable. The declaration incensed union leaders, who accused the league of setting preconditions for further talks.

The standoff guaranteed that the N.B.A. would cancel the first two weeks of the regular season when its offices reopen on Monday. The season is scheduled to start Nov. 1.

There had been hope that negotiations could resume this weekend and that the cancellation of games could be averted. But there will be no talks this weekend, and maybe for the foreseeable future. There is disagreement over why.

Multiple people with ties to the union accused the league of setting preconditions — specifically, acceptance of the 50-50 split in basketball-related income, or B.R.I. League officials disputed that characterization, but confirmed the basic premise: that the owners will not move beyond 50-50.

“What we told the union was that we were not prepared to negotiate over the B.R.I. split beyond the 50-50 concept that had already been discussed,” the deputy commissioner Adam Silver said.

Union officials said they wanted to restart talks on other issues, like the salary cap, but believed the 50-50 ultimatum precluded it. Silver indicated that was not the case, saying, “We were prepared to continue negotiating over the many other issues that remain open” — such as the salary-cap system, the luxury tax and the length of contracts.

The N.B.A. has not lost games to a labor crisis since 1998-99, when a bitter lockout reduced the season to 50 games. The league did not open play until Feb. 6 that season.

Negotiations broke down Tuesday despite considerable movement from both sides. The players, who have been earning 57 percent of league revenues, offered to reduce their share to an annual average of 53 percent. The owners offered 47 percent, then moved to 50 percent in a last-ditch appeal, which the players refused.

The 50-50 concept — first floated by Commissioner David Stern in a sidebar discussion with union leaders — was framed as an informal proposal, one that each side would have to sell to its executive committee. Stern later told reporters that he had enough support to make a deal, which appears to be the case.

However, a number of owners, particularly those in struggling markets, were determined never to break the 49 percent barrier and are sure to oppose any movement beyond 50.

Both sides contend they have already moved enough. The players’ 53 percent proposal is a pay cut of at least $120 million a year. Dropping to 50 percent would mean a giveback of at least $280 million a year, notwithstanding any increase in league revenues.

The union has repeatedly hinted that it might come down as low as 52 percent, meaning the two sides may be just 2 percentage points apart. Each point represents about $40 million in today’s terms. When labor talks began last year, the gap was nearly 20 percent, with the owners seeking a giveback of up to $800 million a year.

The narrowing gap inspired some modest optimism even as the two sides parted Tuesday afternoon. Now it appears that the sides are digging in for a longer fight.

Union officials did not offer any comments on the record Friday.

With talks at a standstill, union leaders have instead scheduled two regional membership meetings, one in Miami on Sunday and the other in Los Angeles on Monday.

The union is referring to Monday’s event as a regional gathering, not a full membership meeting. No votes will be taken. However, the union is expecting larger numbers than usual because of the dire state of negotiations.

Just to be clear the Owners say they've moved enough, but really they haven't been asked to give up anything they already had! The demands they made and later backed off of, where just props!!! They put all those demands in there just to make it seem like they were being reasonable when they later gave up on them. The BRI split has always been the really important issue. The players had 57% so just cuz the owners came in with 46% and later moved to 50%, doesn't mean they've given in. They never had the players at 46% to begin with. The split was 57% for the players, so only the players are losing money in this negotiation.

nixluva wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/sports/basketball/nba-sets-condition-for-resumption-of-labor-talks.html?_r=1

Any hope for a last-second resolution to the N.B.A. lockout vanished Friday, as the owners drew a firm line on player compensation, driving a deep wedge in the already fragile labor negotiations.
Related

N.B.A. officials informed the players union that they would not increase their offer beyond a 50-50 split of league revenues, and that the subject was no longer negotiable. The declaration incensed union leaders, who accused the league of setting preconditions for further talks.

The standoff guaranteed that the N.B.A. would cancel the first two weeks of the regular season when its offices reopen on Monday. The season is scheduled to start Nov. 1.

There had been hope that negotiations could resume this weekend and that the cancellation of games could be averted. But there will be no talks this weekend, and maybe for the foreseeable future. There is disagreement over why.

Multiple people with ties to the union accused the league of setting preconditions — specifically, acceptance of the 50-50 split in basketball-related income, or B.R.I. League officials disputed that characterization, but confirmed the basic premise: that the owners will not move beyond 50-50.

“What we told the union was that we were not prepared to negotiate over the B.R.I. split beyond the 50-50 concept that had already been discussed,” the deputy commissioner Adam Silver said.

Union officials said they wanted to restart talks on other issues, like the salary cap, but believed the 50-50 ultimatum precluded it. Silver indicated that was not the case, saying, “We were prepared to continue negotiating over the many other issues that remain open” — such as the salary-cap system, the luxury tax and the length of contracts.

The N.B.A. has not lost games to a labor crisis since 1998-99, when a bitter lockout reduced the season to 50 games. The league did not open play until Feb. 6 that season.

Negotiations broke down Tuesday despite considerable movement from both sides. The players, who have been earning 57 percent of league revenues, offered to reduce their share to an annual average of 53 percent. The owners offered 47 percent, then moved to 50 percent in a last-ditch appeal, which the players refused.

The 50-50 concept — first floated by Commissioner David Stern in a sidebar discussion with union leaders — was framed as an informal proposal, one that each side would have to sell to its executive committee. Stern later told reporters that he had enough support to make a deal, which appears to be the case.

However, a number of owners, particularly those in struggling markets, were determined never to break the 49 percent barrier and are sure to oppose any movement beyond 50.

Both sides contend they have already moved enough. The players’ 53 percent proposal is a pay cut of at least $120 million a year. Dropping to 50 percent would mean a giveback of at least $280 million a year, notwithstanding any increase in league revenues.

The union has repeatedly hinted that it might come down as low as 52 percent, meaning the two sides may be just 2 percentage points apart. Each point represents about $40 million in today’s terms. When labor talks began last year, the gap was nearly 20 percent, with the owners seeking a giveback of up to $800 million a year.

The narrowing gap inspired some modest optimism even as the two sides parted Tuesday afternoon. Now it appears that the sides are digging in for a longer fight.

Union officials did not offer any comments on the record Friday.

With talks at a standstill, union leaders have instead scheduled two regional membership meetings, one in Miami on Sunday and the other in Los Angeles on Monday.

The union is referring to Monday’s event as a regional gathering, not a full membership meeting. No votes will be taken. However, the union is expecting larger numbers than usual because of the dire state of negotiations.

Just to be clear the Owners say they've moved enough, but really they haven't been asked to give up anything they already had! The demands they made and later backed off of, where just props!!! They put all those demands in there just to make it seem like they were being reasonable when they later gave up on them. The BRI split has always been the really important issue. The players had 57% so just cuz the owners came in with 46% and later moved to 50%, doesn't mean they've given in. They never had the players at 46% to begin with. The split was 57% for the players, so only the players are losing money in this negotiation.

So before it's "they didn't even offer 50%" but now that they offered 50% it's "they didn't even give back anything".

Nice save, but no.

The negotiations are not for public consumption in all detail. What we know at this juncture is the owners have drawn a line in the sand. This is not to demoralize the players, its math. Your sympathetic that you feel the players are the ones giving up things and the owners have been stupid and asking the players to foot the bill for it. Ok, we got you and thats your position. But its subjective. Very few if any are saying the owners have the same moral position as you do with the players. We don't hear the owners complaining nor feeling disrespected by a finger being pointed to. The owners are businessmen and the athletes are not in the same league as these guys when it comes to this.

Players don't have the leverage. The owners are clearly prepared to lose revenue over this and cancel games. They clearly have decided that the future of the league as a viable growing business depends on a better revenue split as expenses have not grown with revenue and an economic slow down is not the same as the previous CBA. This ain't the 1990's. Many of us are not making the same money as we did pre 2008. Nalod included!

don't forget the middle class workers for the team that are not making over $100,000 and have families to take care of. The food venders, the beer guys, the cute greeters at the arena, and front office staff. Ticket sales people, receptionists, secretaries, etc. Nix, they NEED raises and what is all known is if ticket prices still go up fewer people will buy tickets, fewer companies can spend on boxes, and those people don't get raises and get hurt. feeling bad for a buy who makes 12 million vs. 14 million is not all of what this is about. ITs far more reaching.

Shame of the owners for locking this down and making many of the common folk pained by this. Many were told over a year this would happen and many took pay cuts to keep there jobs during this.

Being "filthy" rich is not a moral justification to not lock out.

Also, since some teams will go over the cap then the small market clubs with lower salaries will receive additional income from the luxury tax paid by the teams over the cap. So the owners of the small mkt teams should be a little happier.

To protect the owners from themselves they need to cut the mid-level exception down to 2 or maybe 3 yrs max. And a lower salary. Maybe $4 - $5 mil max. After all, it is an "exception". No more 5 yr deals to the Jerome James, Jared Jeffries of the league.

Agree to the 50% split and lets get on with this.

Bonn1997 wrote:

To protect the owners from themselves they need to cut the mid-level exception down to 2 or maybe 3 yrs max. And a lower salary. Maybe $4 - $5 mil max. After all, it is an "exception". No more 5 yr deals to the Jerome James, Jared Jeffries of the league.

So the players are responsible for protecting the owners from themselves?

No, but the stronger the league the better for the players?

The real question is whats the best for all!

Nalod wrote:Nix, I can see a theme that your basing much on your own personal opinion and bias. Your entitled to. A moral values based position is not very debatable. You have your opinion, but "seems to me the owners who are already filthy rich outside of BB" is hardly a negotiating point. Its like playground talk. "You have all the candy and we have none, not fair"!

The negotiations are not for public consumption in all detail. What we know at this juncture is the owners have drawn a line in the sand. This is not to demoralize the players, its math. Your sympathetic that you feel the players are the ones giving up things and the owners have been stupid and asking the players to foot the bill for it. Ok, we got you and thats your position. But its subjective. Very few if any are saying the owners have the same moral position as you do with the players. We don't hear the owners complaining nor feeling disrespected by a finger being pointed to. The owners are businessmen and the athletes are not in the same league as these guys when it comes to this.

Players don't have the leverage. The owners are clearly prepared to lose revenue over this and cancel games. They clearly have decided that the future of the league as a viable growing business depends on a better revenue split as expenses have not grown with revenue and an economic slow down is not the same as the previous CBA. This ain't the 1990's. Many of us are not making the same money as we did pre 2008. Nalod included!

don't forget the middle class workers for the team that are not making over $100,000 and have families to take care of. The food venders, the beer guys, the cute greeters at the arena, and front office staff. Ticket sales people, receptionists, secretaries, etc. Nix, they NEED raises and what is all known is if ticket prices still go up fewer people will buy tickets, fewer companies can spend on boxes, and those people don't get raises and get hurt. feeling bad for a buy who makes 12 million vs. 14 million is not all of what this is about. ITs far more reaching.

Shame of the owners for locking this down and making many of the common folk pained by this. Many were told over a year this would happen and many took pay cuts to keep there jobs during this.

Being "filthy" rich is not a moral justification to not lock out.

GREAT POST NALOD... the bolded part sums it up very well. I think that is the problem with a lot of people.. the owners are filthy rich SOB's... and they deserve to lose money... One guy on another site said, I rather someone like eddy curry make the extra millions than give it to the owners...LOL.. really? you rather someone steal the money than a person who put up his capital to earn a few extra bucks(relatively speaking).. wow...just mindboggling...

And that a TV deal in 5 years will make the owners even richer!

Expenses keep going up and the revenue sharing will increase with that deal as would the owners ability to pass along price increases.

The players busting their tails to play and be professional will be just fine because they are doing their jobs. The Eddy's and their contracts have to have some recourse. The union has to also protect the integrity of its players.