[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

 

 

The moment the talks fell apart

By Henry Abbott

David Stern, Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher, Adam Silver, Spurs owner Peter Holt, union lawyers Ron Klempner and Jeffrey Kessler … with various others dropping in from time to time, that crew of seven had met more than 40 times and for untold hours over the last two years. None of them had had good summers. 

 

But all those hours in rented conference rooms, all those dishes of hotel mints, rows of water glasses and catered lunches had not been a total waste of time. They had led to some things. The league had dropped its insistence on a hard cap, for instance. The players had offered to hand over something close to a billion dollars in future earnings. 

And more importantly, by last Tuesday, there was a deal in the air. 

Both sides were still keeping their best offers secret … but those in the room say they were getting a sense where things were headed. You can tell a hell of a lot about where things are headed, Stern says, "if you listen." 

"We thought we could live," union head Hunter said later on WFAN, "with the deal we were close to making." 

On Oct. 4, the NBA’s negotiators entered a midtown Manhattan hotel with more than a little glimmer of hope. 

There would still be issues to deal with, like the luxury tax, cap exceptions and the length of contracts. But even the hardest-bitten journalists in the hallway allowed that it could, finally, be deal day. 

The league’s negotiators had four things going for them:

• A memory of Kessler suggesting, about a month earlier, in another hotel, at another meeting, that the players might go for something like a 50/50 split of basketball revenues.
• Out of a meeting with owners in Dallas, little consensus about what Stern could offer the players, but nevertheless an agreement among owners to empower the league’s labor committee to negotiate with players "on all points."
• The league’s labor committee, more than a third of the league’s owners, including those from the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics and Spurs, assembled in New York ready to deal.
• The scheduled November start of the regular season around the corner.

What happened next will one day be studied by students of labor, business, race relations and more. 

Nobody disputes that Stern and Silver talked to Fisher and Kessler in the hallway, bringing up what they thought would be music to Kessler’s ears. His offer, of splitting basketball-related income down the middle … maybe it was time to see if the two sides could sell that to their respective groups. 

Stern was confident he could talk enough owners into it, and as for the players … Kessler was their pit bull. And this was his idea! 

Having floated their big idea, the offer so sweet it just might get them in trouble with their owners, the league officials were excited to know they at least had a victory in the bag. They’d have a long night of dealing with systems issues ahead of them, but maybe, just maybe, this long summer of meetings could be wrapped up. Maybe the season would be intact. 

Denied 

As Stern has recounted a dozen times since, not long after what was supposed to have been the hallway conversation that saved the season, something odd and wholly unexpected happened. There was a knock on the door where Stern was selling his owners on the idea. The players wanted to talk. 

When they convened, instead of the union’s head, Hunter, or their negotiating committee of Maurice Evans, Matt Bonner, Roger Mason, Theo Ratliff, Etan Thomas and Chris Paul, representing the players were Fisher, Kessler, and three superstars who had been to very few of the meetings at all: Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Kobe Bryant. 

A bad sign: Pierce was still wearing his backpack. 

The players had two pieces of news that shocked the league: 50/50 was not good enough. And there was nothing further to discuss. 

"We had a large group of owners," remembers Silver, "who had flown in and were prepared to negotiate around the clock." 

More importantly, they had made an aggressively good offer, the NBA’s leaders thought, the one that might get them in trouble with their owners but surely not with the players. 

And players who hadn’t even been in the talks, and who seemed not to be on the same page with the crew that had endured more than 40 meetings, had been the ones to reject the best offer the league was likely to have, and to end the best day of negotiations prematurely. 

What in the hell was going on? How had they so misread the situation? And where was Hunter? Who spoke for the union? Should the league have been negotiating with Garnett all along? 

Later the league would suggest that the talks had fallen apart because the union happened to have some particularly strident players show up that day. 

Maybe it’s as simple as that. Or maybe it’s much more complicated. 

Patently false 

Here’s one explanation of why the players rejected that 50/50 offer: Perhaps they never made it.

Union vice president and Spurs forward Matt Bonner says "Kessler definitely didn’t offer 50/50. There’s no way." 

Bonner points out that it had been a "huge ordeal" to convince players to agree to take only 53 percent, after a dozen years of earning 57. "That was a huge point of contention. Talking to all these veterans and All-Stars, they were upset we went down to 53. We had to sell them on that. I’m pretty certain Kessler didn’t have the authority to offer 50, and nobody in the room would have agreed to that." 

Another union official allows Kessler may have said something in the weeks prior that could have been misunderstood as offering 50, but "it’s patently false," he says, that Kessler made anything like a proposal. "There’s a lot of discussion back and forth that takes place, particularly in the small group meetings. It’s a complete mischaracterization to say that whatever happened constituted any kind of formal proposal at that point." 

In either case, nothing here can be considered remotely good news for basketball fans. The moment when it seemed like negotiators may have been all together at the same number was the most optimistic of the entire process. That it may have always been a misunderstanding, or more importantly that owners seem to genuinely have no interest in going higher than 50, and players genuinely no interest in going below 53, makes this look bad — before even touching the thorny issues of the luxury tax, raises and cap exceptions. 

Stern said Friday that he’s not sure whether he can even get his owners to go for 50 anymore. Meanwhile, I asked Bonner if he thought the owners would to higher than 50, and he said "I hope so, for the sake of the season." 

Now it’s no longer a story of what Hunter and Stern may be able to hash out in a hotel. Now it’s about big groups of owners and players, all across the globe, who are not close to seeing eye-to-eye, but do have final say. 

"System changes" 

There’s another thing that could be happening, too. 

Remember The Decision? That night in July 2010, something happened that angered basketball fans like nothing else. It can be framed as LeBron James being egotistical, or cowardly, or whatever else. But it can also be framed as a young black man just being sick of doing what old white guys tell him to do. 

There was a playbook for free agency, a procedure, some decorum. And James tossed it. No, after earning Dan Gilbert the sun, the moon and the stars, he does not also owe him a phone call. No, he doesn’t have to let some other, whiter, older entity control the production of his announcement. No, he doesn’t have to stick to the storyline of local hero, or even player. He really does have the power to play GM, to assemble a super team, and that’s what he would do. 

The message to a lot of fans was that James just got it all wrong. But the message to a lot of players was that James did what 1,000 players have been dreaming of doing for years — he acted fully empowered — and it’s hard to say he failed at it. He made his millions, and the Finals. His team is intact. His business life is sound. He’ll be contending for championships for years. 

It’s a business revolution with young black men, basketball players, in the corner offices. A new way of doing things, long overdue, and happening now. 

And maybe that’s what Stern encountered in that hotel room in New York: a new generation of fully empowered players who no longer believe they have to conform to much of anything. 

Just three days earlier, with James in attendance, James’ teammate Dwyane Wade had yelled at David Stern. "You’re not pointing your finger at me," Wade said, sources told ESPN The Magazine’s Ric Bucher. "I’m not your child." 

On Friday, a role player for a middling team got a surprise phone call, from just about the biggest name in the sport — somebody who had never called him before. The message: Hold firm at 53. We’re not caving. Hang in there. It wasn’t the only call of its kind, and when you talk to players now there is religious fervor, around the number 53, and around not giving owners any freebies on the other issues. 

Owners are indignant that they have endured dreadful losses that must be righted. Players, meanwhile, are indignant that compared to the old CBA every concession to date has come from them. The issues are sounding more religious than ever, and it’s doubtful that, at the moment, anyway, either Hunter or Stern is capable of rallying his followers to build a bridge to the other side. 

And if it’s driven by players’ blossoming and deep-rooted self-determination, then they can’t be expected to budge. I just hope, for the NBA’s sake, that they chose the correct line to draw in the sand.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32504/the-moment-the-talks-fell-apart

[apb540Participant]

Don’t try and say LeBron’s decision was a race issue. That’s just plain stupid. We are all sick of having to deal with old, rich, white guys. If you have a job, the owner or CEO of that place is most likely an old, rich, white guy. Is what it is.

[omphalosParticipant]

Reading this frustrated the hell out of me; it reinforces the conception I’ve had that the players realise they have power, and are determined to throw it around just for the sake of it. Looks like I’m switching sides back to the owners’ side again after this article.

Players are being stubborn and immature in my opinion, not realising that the extra 3% will be nullified by a lost season or revenue regardless.

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

All of the concessions do indeed, come from the players. I think that you were WAY off on LeBron’s "Decision" being a race issue. Yes, he said in the article "a young black man just being sick of doing what old white guys told him to do". But, I think that was not as much about race as it was finally taking power and the same stance that owners and management have taken for years. They just happen to as a majority, be white and old, lol.

Do you really see a major problem with this though? I mean, every deal for YEARS on end has been in favor of the owners. They have all of the power and last lockout, they got the deal they wanted. Believe me, they will get what they want here. They are the ones being unreasonable, and believe me, the 3% will be worth it for future players in this league. The owners have more to lose than the players, averaging about 1 million per game. Players may make that every paycheck, but not every game. If the owners got together and shared the wealth, they would all make a profit. Instead, these guys who are already billionaires are holding out to make even more money.

Yes, I realize that the players are doing much of the same thing, but they have every right to do so. This 3% translates into a big deal for the future of the players in this league. To me, the lockout has been about the owners turning a profit trying to turn even more of one, so that they do not have to sacrifice anything to the owners claiming they are not turning a profit. I cannot support that. The players finally are taking some what of a stand on what is right for them as a group, not just giving in to what these owners are demanding to fatten their pockets. From a business stand point, I do understand where these owners are coming from, but I do not necessarily think they have any more of a case than the players. The owners always win these things, and while I want this to be over, I feel the players end up making much more of a concession than the owners in this case, or any of the scenarios I have heard. The players are only as stubborn and immature as these owners have been for the longest time, so I guess they take after "leadership".

[scliddiardParticipant]

I’m on the owners side, until the players make consescions sufficient that the owners won’t be losing money the owners  need to hold out. The last CBA proved to be a bad deal and needs to be changed, the players want things to remain the same and that just isn’t feasable. Yes the players are being asked to sacrifice and give back a bigger piece of the pie but that is what is necessary for all parties to be profitable.  It’s not as though the players won’t be making millions.  They need to look at the whole picture not just poor little ol me.  The longer this goes on the more distain for the players I get.  The owners and the league provide the forum for these premadona players to showcase their talents, with out the owners and the league the players wouldn’t have the opportunity to make the millions they are making. 

[uknationParticipant]

I’m with the players. First of all they need to get rid of these teams that aren’t making any money in the small market, those are the owners who hold things up because they just can’t make money in those markets. It would be different if a superstar wants to go there but they don’t. The NBA is always talking about expanding but the expanding has caused the owners of those small markets to lose money. On top of that they make bad decisions by over paying for players. If the owners would stay together and agree not to pay a player 100 million if they aren’t worth it that wouldn’t lead to a step in the right direction.

 

The old deal might not have been that great but it was a deal the owners made and the players agreed to just like the deals before that. When do the players put their foot down and say we aren’t just gonna accept a deal on you’re terms this time? Yes they are making millions but they are generating those millions not the owners. They players are the one’s who can’t be replaced not the owners. no matter what deal the owner’s want or get they will still end up losing money because they will continue to make horrible decisions and be in markets that won’t make money

[WestConfsOverratedParticipant]

Interesting article. This whole situation is a mess and kind of like a messy car crash that we saw developing from miles and miles away.

I think we all know that our country’s economy has been struggling for the past decade and a half almost, and it directly has affected the NBA.

We all know that certain teams in the NBA are doing a lot worse than the others and losing a lot of money. It all adds up though, and contributes to this.

So when it’s time for the players to get paid and sign contracts, they and their agents want to get their max value as a player in line with the rest of the league.

The big problem: the league is imbalanced financially yet players want to be treated fairly across the board.

The players are right and they deserve every penny that they’re worth, but the NBA is struggling to make this happen with teams who are losing money.

I know, crazy right? The NBA is losing money? Even with all the sponsorships, global marketing, merchendise and the many other ways the NBA makes money, somehow there’s not enough money.

I don’t believe that though, and it seems that David Stern and the owners side are not being totally truthful in the financial situation of the NBA.

There are outlying teams who are doing horribly financially and the NBA as a company is struggling to keep these teams in line with teams like the Lakers, Knicks, Heat, etc.

Competitive balance seems to be an issue in this. Obviously the league doesn’t have much parity, we’ve seen this for years. Teams losing money and who aren’t competitive are stuck in a huge hole especially in the bad shape of the USA and global economy hurting their profits.

So the NBA would like to spread the wealth around and hopefully help develop these teams financially so they’re not forced to contract them.

Unfortunately, spreading the wealth is a nice idea, but probably won’t work.

The NBA has been hit hard with public relations issues. As stupid as it sounds, many people in the USA dislike the NBA, calling it a thug league, dreaming of the days of the pre-tattoo era, saying this is "street ball" and not ‘real’ basketball. Some people will even say that they prefer college basketball to the NBA. I’d like to imagine that racial bias plays no part, but many in the USA desire a white American born NBA star. They can get that in college basketball but very rarely in the pros.

This has hurt the NBA overall and contributes to the poor revenue they’ve been experiencing. You can’t help but feel the scathaing undertones of racism when people criticize the league for being too, as they are basically trying to say, Black.

Oh yeah, who could forget LeBron’s decision special? What a PR hit, turning the NBA’s poster child into America’s villian. Is there a racial connection with this? Probably, but also, it was a dick move by LeBron to stack the Heat and leave a historically crappy team like Cleveland to be crappy and starless yet again.

But I do agree, that a large portion of the audience probably viewed that racially. LeBron was bigger than his boss. I think more people hated this because LeBron was being a primadonna than thinking he was going at his white boss. But was there a racial connection in this? I wouldn’t doubt it.

I’ll be happy to see this resolved, can we just get the NBA back, please?

[uknationParticipant]

Agreed except for the James dick move. He was in his rights to leave that team instead of staying there, that’s why they have free agency so players do have a choice if they wanna stay or not so there’s is nothing wrong with a player leaving just like it isn’t wrong when the owner trades or cuts a player that wants to stay. The way he went about it was a dick move though.

 

Personally I’ve gotten to the point where i wouldn’t mind if it lasted a year just so both sides can feel the sting of losing money when it does start again and the arena’s are half full. Also the fact that college basketball is gonna potentially be one of the greatest seasons ever this year helps with the lock out for me. The NBA has gotten away from team game and is more on the street ball level in a way and it show’s when the NBA players go to Europe and play and struggle because the game over there is more team and fundamentals (many NBA players lack very good fundamentals) and alot less one on one.

[WestConfsOverratedParticipant]

Totally agree with you, uknation. I think he was totally justified in chosing to go where he wanted to go. The ESPN special is partly why I thought it was a dick move, because he made a big spectacle of his situation, but that’s understandable because it was a huge move and for charity. Based on those remarks from Dan Snyder afterwards, I’d probably say it was totally justified to give an ‘in your face’ to Snyder because it seemed that he was the biggest dick in this (pause).

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

I do not think he was trying to say it was a race issue. "The Decision" was disliked by people because of the things he said besides race (people feeling he was egotistical, cowardly, etc.). I think the race thing was brought up as maybe where LeBron’s mind was at. I do NOT think people disliking LeBron is based that much on the issue of race, and if it is, than I feel sorry for the person who thinks that way. But, I would like to think, and I get the general impression, that "The Decision" was disliked due to many factors beyond race.

Beyond this though, I think that the players finally realized that they finally have some power in this whole negotiation process. Remember, the owners are locking them out, not the other way around. Even during the last CBA, which almost everyone at the time feel was won by the owners, the players were the group that sacrificed. We cannot see how much these owners make, but I think that if their was a better system of revenue sharing, they all come out very profitable. That is why the players are fighting to only LOSE (Yes, they are giving up something, as opposed to the owners) 4%.

If the owners really wanted a season, it would have started already. For those saying the players are losing more by not playing rather than settling, well the owners are as well. It works both ways, but from everything I have heard, the owners are being much more unreasonable than the players. They seem to be utterly divided and I for one cannot believe that we heard so little about them meeting individually to get on the same foot. If you are talking about throwing power around for the sake of it, well, that is what these owners have done every time they have locked out the players. The "dreadful losses" these owners have incurred, are due to their own lack of insight. I hardly feel how this is the players fault, and the fact that for the longest time I have heard the players willing to give up a fat 4% to the owners (been talked about since before July), while the owners have seemingly never gone over a 50/50 split, well, I have a hard time believing the players are truly at fault. This situation sucks, but I do not know how people feel the players are the ones at fault here with all of the evidence that the negotiations have been trying to give the players a pretty bad deal.

[uknationParticipant]

I think the owners lose big time in this. Yes some players lose as well (the one’s who haven’t been managing there money right but just like J.Dudley said " i don’t feel sorry for them because they were told to save").  I say the owners lose because when the season does start the players are gonna start to get pay checks but the owners will be losing money since they have to pay the players and have to deal with less fans showing up,Buying merchandise(make no mistake some die hards are still gonna show up but they will lose a lot of non die hard fans). The players salary isn’t dictated on how many people come to the game or buy jersey’s, shirts etc. They will get that check regardless. And once that deal is signed and the fans don’t show up as much as they used to the deal isn’t gonna seem so good for the owners yet again

[HitsterParticipant]

There must be a lot of NBA Season Ticket/Debenture holders who will have paid for this coming season and if they don’t get games, they will want some sort of compensation. Look at the season ticket holders from Memphis Tigers who got an out of court settlement from Coach Cal, D-Rose and Memphis’s Sporting Director recently due to the 2007/08 season being vacated as they claimed the value of their season ticket/debenture had gone down.

There are some rich NBA fans who have courtside seats/sky boxes and I could imagine them looking to issue writs against the owners or the players if the lockout goes on. Also TV companies could lose vital advertising money if no games are played and they have holes in their schedules again they could withold TV revenue from the teams and the NBA’s/players major sponsors will not be happy if their products cannot gain air time/exposure.

Another thing is that NBA only cities/states could also really lose out as they will not have other sports to support them during the lockout whilst multi sport cities will still have the NFL/NHL to fall back on if the lockout continues.

I saw an excellent article somewhere that said if there is still no NBA games by Christmas Day then they could lose a lot more fans as once the NFL regular season ends, a lot of more casual fans move over to the NBA and perhaps watch the Christmas Day games as their first major taste of NBA action that season.

Also with the MLB World Series going to be completed over the next couple of weeks a lot of baseball fans who may casually switch to NBA games will find no product there and may go to another sport or maybe college hoops etc.

[uknationParticipant]

Someone did a article about how much each city loses with no NBA games and each was over 10million if i’m not mistaken

[Author]

Posts