Anyway, see you next year.

OasisBU wrote:I am a little surprised, I never thought it would come to this.

Never underestimate the combined powers of greed and stupidity.

smackeddog wrote:Hunter did hint that the NBA could settle out of court, but they'd need to do that via the lawyers- basically to stop this, they have to reach a new system agreement with Kessler- if you've been following the lockout, he's the union's most hated, most hardline lawyer, who Stern said was divisive and the reason for no agreement having been reached.

How could Stern let everything he's built over the years get destroyed this close to the end of his career?- was the MLE for tax paying teams really worth it? Was insisting on high luxury tax penalties worth it? They'd won on the economics, couldn't they have conceded on the system- if the small market owners had just accepted their crappy management was the reason their teams sucked, they wouldn't have pushed such a hardline.

Whatever the outcome now, the NBA's pretty much finished- we miss a season, and I don't think the quality of play will recover from a year off. Regardless of who wins, so many fans will have been alienated, niether side will ever make up the money.

While I agree this is a hasty move and both sides have been stupid, lets remember that baseball went on strike too and they eventually recovered. Sure it took a while, but the fans came back.

Now the NHL is another story, but I think basketball fans are more passionate about the sport and it will eventually come back strong. At least I hope.

I wonder just how educated the players are top to bottom as to what decertification means.

Some of these guys are not very smart and rely on others for business matters.

Some of these players have never been told "no" since they were in the 6th grade.

Its not for me to say whats fair or not, but I just don't know if these guys financially can handle missing a year or the fact they can never make up the money.

The owners, I suppose they crunched the numbers and figured it out. They have lines of credit waiting for them.

I do feel bad for the guys like Billups set to make 14mil and does not have much time left.
Grant Hill who is not playing for money anymore, Nash whose clock is ticking, and KG who might be driving his wife nuts being around the house and perhaps yelling at his fish tank!

Hockey had a complete set of problems stemming mostly form the lack of a national contract and a salary structure that was completly nuts. That league lacks stars and came back strong because of the team concept.

The owners want more, the players want as much as they can. Both are at fault.

Maybe in a court of law it gets figured out.

OasisBU wrote:

While I agree this is a hasty move and both sides have been stupid, lets remember that baseball went on strike too and they eventually recovered. Sure it took a while, but the fans came back.

Now the NHL is another story, but I think basketball fans are more passionate about the sport and it will eventually come back strong. At least I hope.

Yes, but what worries me is that the nba requires a higher level of athleticism than baseball and hockey- a whole year off may ruin a lot of these players, they'll never get their game back.

The union, by disclaiming have also ensured that the players cannot cave in- there's no union anymore for them to cave in with- it really is all or nothing now. I don't know why people say they're being greedy- they are set to lose a shed load of money and had already given up 7% of BRI. It all came down to they system and it was all totally avoidable. So frustrating!

Also I wonder about how much of the owners position was posturing- many of the struggling owners don't actually have that much money- I think Sarver and also the Spurs owner were only valued at the same amount as their team- they don't have endless reserves. The top teams didn't want the lockout either. Were there really 15 who were willing to go this route, or did they think they players would never opt for this response?

tkf wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Players letting their pride get the best of them. They about to get the NHL treatment. SMH.

I agree.

Yep. I agree with this as well.

Here's a link that discusses the difference between a notice of disclaimer and decertifcation:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/33174769?source=rss_blogs_NBA

Rather than waiting for the players to get the necessary signatures to dissolve the union by seeking a time-consuming decertification vote, Billy Hunter could advise commissioner David Stern that, if no further negotiations occur before the Wednesday deadline to accept the owners' deal, he will have no choice but to step aside as executive director of the union.

The legal term for this would be a disclaimer of interest, which would only require a letter from Hunter to Stern advising him that the National Basketball Players Association no longer exists as the bargaining unit for the players.

The advantage of this for the players would be that, once the letter is sent, their attorneys would not have to wait 45-60 days for the National Labor Relations Board to authorize an election to formally dissolve the union. With a disclaimer of interest, the players could almost immediately commence an anti-trust lawsuit against the NBA, said Gabe Feldman, director of the Sports Law Center at Tulane University.

BasketballJones wrote:The union served a "notice of disclaimer", which is different from decertification. I'm just pointing this out because of the title of this thread, and I see guys continuing to refer to decertification.

Here's a link that discusses the difference between a notice of disclaimer and decertifcation:

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/33174769?source=rss_blogs_NBA

Rather than waiting for the players to get the necessary signatures to dissolve the union by seeking a time-consuming decertification vote, Billy Hunter could advise commissioner David Stern that, if no further negotiations occur before the Wednesday deadline to accept the owners' deal, he will have no choice but to step aside as executive director of the union.

The legal term for this would be a disclaimer of interest, which would only require a letter from Hunter to Stern advising him that the National Basketball Players Association no longer exists as the bargaining unit for the players.

The advantage of this for the players would be that, once the letter is sent, their attorneys would not have to wait 45-60 days for the National Labor Relations Board to authorize an election to formally dissolve the union. With a disclaimer of interest, the players could almost immediately commence an anti-trust lawsuit against the NBA, said Gabe Feldman, director of the Sports Law Center at Tulane University.

Oh.nice so the majority of the players who would get screwed by this don't even have a say do in the decertification! Wasn't aware the union heads could force this without consulting the players.