nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years! It really doesn't fit into other categories of labour disputes. The other issues are very different as well.

Bonn1997 wrote:

I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.

That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years! It really doesn't fit into other categories of labour disputes. The other issues are very different as well.

Bonn1997 wrote:

I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.

That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.

I've certainly seen it in my own industry, although like in the NBA, in mine too it is rare. There are many jobs that are not considered "at will" forms of employment, and what you're describing will occasionally happen in any of them.

nykshaknbake wrote:That's what I'm saying. It's a pretty unusual setup. The issues they argue about are very different. The union here isn't pushing for better hours, working conditions, healthcare, pensions and viagra.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years! It really doesn't fit into other categories of labour disputes. The other issues are very different as well.

Bonn1997 wrote:

I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.

That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.

I've certainly seen it in my own industry, although like in the NBA, in mine too it is rare. There are many jobs that are not considered "at will" forms of employment, and what you're describing will occasionally happen in any of them.

93BUICK wrote:I dont like Stern because he's short and fat with an annoying voice. And no basketball. If you're short and fat you should be nice, and insure there is always basketball.

This may be the deepestmost coherent/cogent, most salient point ever made on this subject. Thank you, Buick.

Hopefully this will all be settled soon and you can go back to threatening to leave UK after the next 3 game losing streak.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

93BUICK wrote:I dont like Stern because he's short and fat with an annoying voice. And no basketball. If you're short and fat you should be nice, and insure there is always basketball.

This may be the deepest, most salient point ever made on this subject. Thank you, Buick.

Hopefully this will all be settled soon and you can go back to threatening to leave UK after the next 3 game losing streak.

Short, fat, bald, and he doesn't even have George Costanza's sense of humor.

And he obviously doesn't even like sports.

Both players and owners have legitimate issues...while owners are guilty of grossly over playing players, its hard to see how fisher and hunter can sit there and say its the owners fault for signing a player to a lucrative deal and watch the player not live up to 1/5th of what he's worth..if your not playing up to your capabilities for what ever reason..it should be voided with less penalties..I shouldn't have to pay eddy curry 80 to a 100% of his salary for him to get loss

Deals should be no more then 4 or 5 years in most cases...we living and world that changes rapidly and in some cases with out warning..why sit and try to negotiate a 10 year deal..it makes little sense when you have such little time..
...
Like the article said..these owners seem to alway walk away from these deals thinking they got the better part of the deal only to start crying they got screwed when the deal expires.

nixluva wrote:Let's back up a bit. The players didn't start this and were happy to exist under the current CBA. The owners are the ones who are pushing the envelope to swing things far over to their benefit. In every instance the players are only playing defense and it's the owners who are looking to take ground. The players aren't making new demands, the owners are the ones lookin for bigger splits, shorter contracts, hard caps etc. The players aren't even saying that they won't budge on the split, in fact they've agreed to take less, but the owners have pushed it WAY too far. I just don't see how the players can be bashed in this argument. Would you like it if your boss said you had to take a huge pay cut, less vacation days and put a cap on your salary?

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nixluva wrote:Let's back up a bit. The players didn't start this and were happy to exist under the current CBA. The owners are the ones who are pushing the envelope to swing things far over to their benefit. In every instance the players are only playing defense and it's the owners who are looking to take ground. The players aren't making new demands, the owners are the ones lookin for bigger splits, shorter contracts, hard caps etc. The players aren't even saying that they won't budge on the split, in fact they've agreed to take less, but the owners have pushed it WAY too far. I just don't see how the players can be bashed in this argument. Would you like it if your boss said you had to take a huge pay cut, less vacation days and put a cap on your salary?

For most us, we'd have two options:
(1) take the reduction
(2) fight the redution tooth and nail, and then help the guys you eat lunch with take their personal belongings to the car after the layoff

of course you wouldn't like it. who would? but I don't know anyone who has both job security and gets paid competitively. Teachers get job secuirty but they get paid on tenure. The rest of the procurement team and myself, well we're mercenaries. And then they make more than all of us combined at a significant basis.

Their situation couldn't be more different from mine or yours, so I don't understand why you think the players should have impunity from bashing (I think both sides stink). Management/Ownership and Labor combine to provide the content we all enjoy. Both could be bashed and/or praised as the situation dictates

Your argument appears to be that, "The players currently have a good situation. So they should be willing to make dozens of concessions while getting no concessions in compensation from the other side." Maybe you can clarify if that is your argument or not before I point out how crazy an argument it appears to be.

No, I'd prefer to respond after you do what you do oh so well

At the end of the day the business of basketball is a business of entertainment and not a consumer staple. The recession has hit teams hard and most are unable to pass along substantial price increases to keep up with inflation and other rising costs. NBA competes with other sports, theatre and other events for the entertainment dollar. If no NBA, the dollar will be spent.

The palaces built for the teams also are the stages by which the players perform on. The platform called "the NBA" also provides the players with countless opportunities to make money thru endorsements. Every game is televised and star players are shown on a national and international stage which builds their brand. Star players can earn more in endorsements.

Jordan made his uber salary at a time when he was both a box office superstar and almost guaranteed to place the Bulls deep in the finals. The NBA in the playoffs were prime time and HIS ratings were great. If a sitcom like Seinfeld which was on for 26 half hour episodes drew crazy numbers think about Jordans star power to deliver ratings thru the season. A Thanksgiving day game? Christmas day game? Allstar game? Say 5-6 marquee matchups in the season, and then the playoffs. The finals if goes 5 games is prime time. Thats 14 national games right there. Games are 2 hours a piece. The ratings are not "seinfeld" like but you get the picture. That's 4 times longer than a half hour game. I am leaving out other games of course on like TNT and WGN had that national presence in that time broadcasting games on cable nationwide. Jordan was worth all of his 30 million. BTW, he got paid 30 33mil on his last two years with the Bulls. Championships 5 and 6! Lebron has yet to deliver one nor the interest that was Jordan. By colluding and moving to Miami he reduced his brand and hurt the image of the NBA. He hurt the value of one franchise by moving. Much like Shaq did when he left Orlando.

Players step into a league already in place that they did not have to pay into to join. They can earn substantial wealth with no financial risk out of pocket. With no alternative in place they are not in a position of power.