• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NBA Lockout: NBPA Rejects Deal, Announces It Will File For Decertification

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The NBA Players Association has announced its intention to file a disclaimer of interest, essentially announcing it will decertify and file an anti-trust lawsuit against the league instead of accepting the league's proposed deal and continuing the NBA lockout. The news comes after all 30 player team representatives and a number of other players met on Monday to address the NBA's most recent proposal, which is outlined here.

It's one hell of a strategy. The union has decertified itself, and is now going to file an antitrust action against the NBA.

IMHO, both the union and the team owners have bargained in bad faith, and the result is going to be that basketball players who are now in college are going to become used car salesmen, instead of pro ballplayers. The team owners will then be forced to recruit players from prisons, mental institutions, and Texas. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
 
Here is a thought. Maybe the college basketball players should use there degree and get a job. Being a pro player is never a sure thing.

Here is my stance. I feel the taxpayers should no longer fund any sort of sports facility. If the sport thinks they can make a go in city X, then by all means build a complex out of your own funds.

I feel sorry for the small business that rely on games to sell their products (bars,restruants, parking, etc). I feel sorry for the towns that are stuck with arenas that have no games scheduled.
If I could do it, I would terminate the building agreements for all basketball complexs, when the strike is over, I would say guess what, you have no home or if you want to play here, it just got a whole lot more expensive for rent.

With this I am now done with the NBA. May they never come back into existence. Maybe then the owners and players will see what they lost in fans.
 
The NBA did nothing wrong. The NBA was moving until it hit its wall and instead of taking notice of that fact the NBA players actually thought that not moving and filing some lame excuse of a case against the NBA was a better option.

Saying this however, this kind of action just proves what I said last week. The employers ARE forced to bargain the way the union members want or face things like this. If anyone here didn't bargain in good faith it was the players.
 
Ugh I wish the Thrashers were still here, this situation would have really helped them out down here. Atleast the jackasses that own the Hawks are bleeding money, I do feel sorry for all the business's around the arena that are probably also bleeding money.
 
Let us hope this marks the end of the NBA. Put the NHL on TV more!
 
I looked at the contract. The owners were unreasonable in demanding significant reductions in pay, while the players were unreasonable in not allowing rule changes to make the league more competitive. The legal issue is not over unions, but rather antitrust rules. As the sole professional basketball league, the NBA has a monopoly. Monopolies have special restrictions that limit certain behaviors considered anti-competitive. Court rulings in the past however have often given professional sports franchises special treatment. The players are banking on court ruling in their favor, hoping to use precedents from the NFL lockout.
 
Big babies. Ungrateful. Luckily, they live in a country that rewards entertainers handsomely.

As opposed to those who actually have important jobs.
 
billionaires crapping on millionaires

owners pay excessively to acquire the top talent and then blame the same players they were throwing money at for letting that happen

it looks like a ripe moment for another ABA pro basketball league to form and sign the players
 
I hope next year gets cancelled also.
 
I looked at the contract. The owners were unreasonable in demanding significant reductions in pay, while the players were unreasonable in not allowing rule changes to make the league more competitive. The legal issue is not over unions, but rather antitrust rules. As the sole professional basketball league, the NBA has a monopoly. Monopolies have special restrictions that limit certain behaviors considered anti-competitive. Court rulings in the past however have often given professional sports franchises special treatment. The players are banking on court ruling in their favor, hoping to use precedents from the NFL lockout.

You do understand why the pay decreases were offered yes? As for the NBA being a monopoly, that is bogus. They compete against other sports for many of the same fans.
 
Ugh I wish the Thrashers were still here, this situation would have really helped them out down here. Atleast the jackasses that own the Hawks are bleeding money, I do feel sorry for all the business's around the arena that are probably also bleeding money.

...is that you in your avatar? because if so...:shock:
 
The NBA did nothing wrong. The NBA was moving until it hit its wall and instead of taking notice of that fact the NBA players actually thought that not moving and filing some lame excuse of a case against the NBA was a better option.

Saying this however, this kind of action just proves what I said last week. The employers ARE forced to bargain the way the union members want or face things like this. If anyone here didn't bargain in good faith it was the players.

Bull****. What the owners did was give the players the equivalent of a ****ty deal. When the players backed away from it, the league painted the players as unreasonable. Stern and his media office are master manipulators of media perception.

In a battle between millionaires and billionaires, it's the billionaires that always win out. The players are just playing hardball at this point. The fact that you make comments like this tells me just how ill-informed your perception of the economics of the sport is. No matter how this ends, it's the owners that always win out.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could put some sympathy out there for the parties involved or the fans, but I can't.
 
You do understand why the pay decreases were offered yes? As for the NBA being a monopoly, that is bogus. They compete against other sports for many of the same fans.

C'mon, let's not act like the NBA and the other leagues cater to the same market/viewership/fanbase. It is in essence a monopoly. But that's not really the problem here, the players aren't really against the NBA being a monopoly, it's simply a convenient tactic to expedite the decertification.
 
You are so mean!!!

:2razz:

Actually, his comment isn't that far from the truth. The average NBA career only lasts a few years. Athletes should make use of the education that they receive in college, because becoming a professional athlete these days is not a sure path to economic or financial stability.
 
Bull****. What the owners did was give the players the equivalent of a ****ty deal. When the players backed away from it, the league painted the players as unreasonable. Stern and his media office are master manipulators of media perception.

In a battle between millionaires and billionaires, it's the billionaires that always win out. The players are just playing hardball at this point. The fact that you make comments like this tells me just how ill-informed your perception of the economics of the sport is. No matter how this ends, it's the owners that always win out.

They are forced to bargain in exactly the way the union wants. If that wasn't true it wouldn't matter what kind of deal they put on the table. It does though, doesn't it? You even admitted it. The deal was **** according to you, for what I assume is nothing more than they got less money then before. Is it a bad deal when the owners get less money? No. Why would it be? Oh I don't know, because they own everything. It would piss me off enough if they were just forced to bargain(they are) but they also have to give in to what the union wants and that just throws me off the deep end of pissed. Freedom just goes right out the window so hard only because they own the business and that is it. Its bull****.

And don't tell I don't understand the economics. I do. The deal they made last time bit them in the ass and they needed to get some money back from the unions, but the entire time the players were playing stupid. At first it all was a lie, and then it was kind of a lie, and now they just don't want to talk anymore. Yeah, they showed a real ability to bargain in good faith. Bull****.
 
Last edited:
They are forced to bargain in exactly the way the union wants. If that wasn't true it wouldn't matter what kind of deal they put on the table. It does though, doesn't it? You even admitted it. The deal was **** according to you, for what I assume is nothing more than they got less money then before. Is it a bad deal when the owners get less money, no, why would it be? Oh I don't know, because its the exact same thing. It would piss me off enough if they were just forced to bargain(they are) but they also have to give in to what the union want and that just throws me off the deep end of pissed. Freedom just goes right out the window so hard only because they own the business and that is it. Its bull****.

And don't tell I don't understand the economics. I do. The deal they made last time bit them in the ass and they needed to get some money back from the unions, but the entire time the players were playing stupid. At first it all was a lie, and then it was kind of a lie, and now they just don't want to talk anymore. Yeah, they showed a real ability to bargain in good faith. Bull****.

Wow. Just wow. Do you even realize how the power relationships in these negotiations works? It's the OWNERS that ALWAYS have more leverage than the players. It's the owners that can survive the cancellation of a season, while many players can't. To paint the owners as victims in these bargaining sessions is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant on your part. To say that the league has to bargain on the union's terms is complete BS.

As for the last contract "biting them in the ass." The players made large concessions in that deal as well. The players ALWAYS lose. Used to be that sports franchise ownership was about the love of the sport, and that owners would be willing to operate them at a loss because their other assets would offset the costs. Now, the owners want guaranteed profits, and in many ways the deal they are asking for is essentially one that shields owners and managers from suffering the consequences of their own dumb mistakes.
 
It's one hell of a strategy. The union has decertified itself, and is now going to file an antitrust action against the NBA.

IMHO, both the union and the team owners have bargained in bad faith, and the result is going to be that basketball players who are now in college are going to become used car salesmen, instead of pro ballplayers. The team owners will then be forced to recruit players from prisons, mental institutions, and Texas. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Actually, I foresee that at most there will the cancellation of this year's season. The players in college right now are safe. It's the players that were just drafted in the draft of 2011 that might have to make some hard decisions. Many of them are working regular jobs, or playing overseas.
 
Wow. Just wow. Do you even realize how the power relationships in these negotiations works? It's the OWNERS that ALWAYS have more leverage than the players. It's the owners that can survive the cancellation of a season, while many players can't. To paint the owners as victims in these bargaining sessions is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant on your part.

So because they can afford to lose a season and the players can't, which btw has very little to do with bargaining process but how long a side can hold out, the owners have more leverage at the table? Lol, keep going.

To say that the league has to bargain on the union's terms is complete BS.

What just happened? What happened with the NFL a few months ago?

As for the last contract "biting them in the ass." The players made large concessions in that deal as well. The players ALWAYS lose. Used to be that sports franchise ownership was about the love of the sport, and that owners would be willing to operate them at a loss because their other assets would offset the costs. Now, the owners want guaranteed profits, and in many ways the deal they are asking for is essentially one that shields owners and managers from suffering the consequences of their own dumb mistakes.

Any kind of business model that runs at a loss is a bad business model. You just want them to run at a loss. There should be money on the side if you make mistakes anyway. Not having it there is dumb when you otherwise could.
 
You do understand why the pay decreases were offered yes? As for the NBA being a monopoly, that is bogus. They compete against other sports for many of the same fans.

That's like saying that the only electric company in town isn't a monopoly because their customers receive running water from the water works.
 
Back
Top Bottom