PDA

View Full Version : Do the owners really have everyone fooled?



Wade>You
10-05-2011, 03:05 PM
1) It was the owners that opted out of the current CBA to start the lockout, not the players. We would have a season right now if it not for the owners.

2) What about the reason for the last 2 lockouts in the NBA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_1_b_881409.html

On July 1, 1995, the owners locked out the players for 74 days during the offseason. The parties agreed to a new CBA in time to play a full regular season.

In 1998, after opting out of the 1995 CBA, the NBA owners locked out the players again.

The 1998 lockout lasted 204 days and led to the cancellation of 464 regular season games and the NBA All-Star Game. When the lockout finally ended in January 1999, the regular season was shortened to 50 games.

How many people here would sympathize with their bosses if they were told they couldn't get back to work unless they took a paycut --- 3 times!

llemon
10-05-2011, 03:08 PM
The answer to the title of your thread is, yes, the owners have many people fooled.

beasted86
10-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Not the owners, the media.

But basically, yes people have little idea of what's going on.

daleja424
10-05-2011, 05:53 PM
I was with you...until today.

Today...I blame both sides equally.

There is a fair deal sitting there at 51-49

If they hold out just one month for 2% they will never break even. That is the reality.

Time for both sides to come to an agreement...b/c right now both sides are the problem.

Bramaca
10-05-2011, 06:43 PM
I was with you...until today.

Today...I blame both sides equally.

There is a fair deal sitting there at 51-49

If they hold out just one month for 2% they will never break even. That is the reality.

Time for both sides to come to an agreement...b/c right now both sides are the problem.

The split on BRI isn't really what is holding up the process. Even if they come to an agreement on a 51-49 split there are still some major issues left to deal with such as hard cap/soft cap which is a much bigger issue then the actual split of revenue. Other things such as bird rights, exceptions, and max salaries could take time also.

Agreeing on the revenue sharing plan for the owners and the bri split are the easier ones to deal with.

llemon
10-05-2011, 06:53 PM
I was with you...until today.

Today...I blame both sides equally.

There is a fair deal sitting there at 51-49

If they hold out just one month for 2% they will never break even. That is the reality.

Time for both sides to come to an agreement...b/c right now both sides are the problem.

Okay, Oh Wise One.

Now breakdown the actual numbers over the next 10 years.

How much do owners get, how much do players get? And please, no percentages. I'd like actual numeric figures.

bmd1101
10-05-2011, 06:54 PM
1) It was the owners that opted out of the current CBA to start the lockout, not the players. We would have a season right now if it not for the owners.

2) What about the reason for the last 2 lockouts in the NBA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_1_b_881409.html


How many people here would sympathize with their bosses if they were told they couldn't get back to work unless they took a paycut --- 3 times!

Major media owns people that can't think for themselves, sad but true.

jimm120
10-05-2011, 07:29 PM
How would i feel if i was told to not report to work until i took a paycut?

Not happy.


But on the other hand, i understand tbat if where i work there are money problems, the owner of the business needs to do SOMETHING to not have those problems. If i'm a cafe owner and have opened up 30 different stores, but half of them are in the red...i take money FOR A WHILE from the other 15 stores that are in the black and help the struggling ones. But after a while, the ones that cant be saved are dumped. So nkw i have 20 stores only.

The nba, unfortunately cant do that. They just cant contract 10 struggling teams. This isnt a store. Its something much, much bigger.

So, lets say that i cant close any of the stores (cafes) that i have. Well, i start trimming costs. I get cheaper employees. I get less quality products.

In the nba, you really cAnt do that. There are only so many elite players.

So, i cant fold 10'out of my 30 stores. I cant replacethe players as easily. What do i do? I get my current employees to reduce their salaries/cut benefits/etc. My employees wont be happy but understand that these 15 stores will not only flounder, but might cause long term damage to the other 15 stores, which would then bankrupt everyone.


So if i'm that employee, am i happy? HELL NO.
so if i'm that employee, do i see that just maybe i need to be earning a bit less so that the business can thrive and i can continue to work there?...

And add in to that that we're talking about millions here, and i'd understand much more.
[B]
Earning 15 bucks an hour makes paying expenses difficult.
Lowering It to 11 bucks an hour would make paying expenses more difficult.

Earning 5 million a year makes paying expenses easy.
Earning 3.6 million a year makes paying expenses easy.

Earning 13 million a year makes paying expenses SUPER easy.
Earning 10 million a year makes paying expenses SUPER easy.
[\B]
This is where the difference is. These players CAN take a paycut so that whole teams That are struggling (which we can all agree are at least 10...maybe not the 22 that stern says) dont fold...which would make the league go defunct possibly.

daleja424
10-05-2011, 07:55 PM
The split on BRI isn't really what is holding up the process. Even if they come to an agreement on a 51-49 split there are still some major issues left to deal with such as hard cap/soft cap which is a much bigger issue then the actual split of revenue. Other things such as bird rights, exceptions, and max salaries could take time also.

Agreeing on the revenue sharing plan for the owners and the bri split are the easier ones to deal with.
That is incorrect. The owners have already taken the hard cap off the table and have already agreed to maintain a nearly identical system to the current one. That happened yesterday.


Okay, Oh Wise One.

Now breakdown the actual numbers over the next 10 years.

How much do owners get, how much do players get? And please, no percentages. I'd like actual numeric figures.

4.2 billion this year with 3% yearly growth (low end of projections) over a 7 year deal equals a total of 33.1 billion. If the players get 51% of that, they would get 16.88 billion total, or an average of 2.41 billion a year. And the owners part of the pie would be 16.22 billion, or an average of 2.31 billion per year.

llemon
10-05-2011, 07:57 PM
that is incorrect. The owners have already taken the hard cap off the table and have already agreed to maintain a nearly identical system to the current one. That happened yesterday.



4.2 billion this year with 3% yearly growth (low end of projections) over a 7 year deal equals a total of 33.1 billion. If the players get 51% of that, they would get 16.88 billion total, or an average of 2.41 billion a year. And the owners part of the pie would be 16.22 billion, or an average of 2.31 billion per year.

if.

daleja424
10-05-2011, 07:59 PM
huh?

llemon
10-05-2011, 08:02 PM
huh?

Wha?

Bramaca
10-05-2011, 09:19 PM
That is incorrect. The owners have already taken the hard cap off the table and have already agreed to maintain a nearly identical system to the current one. That happened yesterday.

Thats too bad because the current system is complete ****.

likemystylez
10-05-2011, 10:29 PM
Thats too bad because the current system is complete ****.

well at this point... anything as long as we have a full 82 gam season. thats the number 1 priority here.

TopsyTurvy
10-06-2011, 02:11 AM
The NBA lock out ends when the mistresses and baby mamas start making phone calls asking for money.

likemystylez
10-06-2011, 10:22 AM
The NBA lock out ends when the mistresses and baby mamas start making phone calls asking for money.

indeed, or when the rape trials start

Shmontaine
10-06-2011, 11:33 AM
1) It was the owners that opted out of the current CBA to start the lockout, not the players. We would have a season right now if it not for the owners.

2) What about the reason for the last 2 lockouts in the NBA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_1_b_881409.html


How many people here would sympathize with their bosses if they were told they couldn't get back to work unless they took a paycut --- 3 times!

What pay cuts do you speak of???... please enlighten me...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/db8a3f11af484822e4d075a662be4825.png

Average player Salary in 94-95: 1.8 mil
in 95-96: 2.0 mil... <--- do you consider this a pay cut???

97-98: 2.6 mil
98-99: 3.0 mil <--- Another Pay cut??

you have an odd definition of 'pay cut'...

Tony_Starks
10-06-2011, 05:58 PM
Yes the owners have everyone fooled. In part because most people don't understand the concept that it is totally unreasonable for them to demand a gauranteed profit regardless of how poorly they do their jobs, and in part because there's a very large amount of people blinded by their jealousy over how much the players were making in the first place and that it is more than they will ever make in a lifetime.......

jiggin
10-07-2011, 09:18 AM
1) It was the owners that opted out of the current CBA to start the lockout, not the players. We would have a season right now if it not for the owners.

2) What about the reason for the last 2 lockouts in the NBA?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_1_b_881409.html


How many people here would sympathize with their bosses if they were told they couldn't get back to work unless they took a paycut --- 3 times!

A legally binding contract can carry an expedition date at which time both sides can look over the past calculations and deceive if that same Union Contract is sufficient going forward, especially since these contracts tend to be years long and lots of changes (cost of living ect...) go up or down.

The players could opt out....but why would they, they are given an inch and they take a mile. They are making out like bandits and who blames them from wanting to continue taking advantage of the sorry SBA and the financial worse it causes the ownership groups.

Difference is...the owners have THIS SAME POWER. And because they look at basketball and the NBA as a BUSINESS, not a game for fun...they want it changed to give them a better return on their business investment.

Its really not that hard to figure it out, if you look past the boo hoo, players aren't making millions of dollars a month right now and their is no season on the books for fans.

I think the players have reaped the benefits for long enough...time to toughen up. Every sport that has a hard cap and NON guaranteed salaries is profiting and profiting BIG. Baseball is the exception and people CONSTANTLY including ownership groups, complain there SHOULD be a hard cap. A luxury tax is a contact loophole that allows big money teams to do what they want, just take extra cost considerations into account. It obviously isn't working in baseball and it won't work in basketball, as shown.

PS - Guaranteed contracts in the NBA is just plain DUMB. Player gets hurt, is useless for your team...DL him and bring up a rookie. IR him if you have to an say good bye to that salary and clear some cap space if that player is unable to perform the duties they are clearly paid to perform.

This isn't rocket science from a business standpoint...but when both negotiating parties include greed into the equation, it makes it long and drawn out and a stare off....who will blink first?

First time a NBA player / all-star is injured, you will see blinking from one side or the other....guaranteed.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 10:45 AM
Yes the owners have everyone fooled. In part because most people don't understand the concept that it is totally unreasonable for them to demand a gauranteed profit regardless of how poorly they do their jobs, and in part because there's a very large amount of people blinded by their jealousy over how much the players were making in the first place and that it is more than they will ever make in a lifetime.......

so the players can demand guaranteed income, but the owners can't?? double standard??

da ThRONe
10-07-2011, 11:27 AM
What pay cuts do you speak of???... please enlighten me...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/db8a3f11af484822e4d075a662be4825.png

Average player Salary in 94-95: 1.8 mil
in 95-96: 2.0 mil... <--- do you consider this a pay cut???

97-98: 2.6 mil
98-99: 3.0 mil <--- Another Pay cut??

you have an odd definition of 'pay cut'...

What you don't seem to be accounting for is the money is divided by percentage. So if the players made more the league made more.

da ThRONe
10-07-2011, 11:29 AM
so the players can demand guaranteed income, but the owners can't?? double standard??

This is the case in EVER business. Why should the NBA be different?

Jay
10-07-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't think the general sporting public has as great of an idea of what's going on in these proceedings as they did during the NFL's lockout. Otherwise, there would be intense media scrutiny, which there really hasn't been up until now.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 12:13 PM
What you don't seem to be accounting for is the money is divided by percentage. So if the players made more the league made more.

right, and if you're claiming the cost of doing business is the same percentage today as it was in '95 or '98, you'd be severely mistaken... the price of oil has almost quadrupled since then as well as ever increasing food costs and cost of living, etc...


This is the case in EVER business. Why should the NBA be different?

and every business owner has the option/possibility of closing the doors... do you think the nba should be any different??? I do...

beasted86
10-07-2011, 12:16 PM
and every business owner has the option/possibility of closing the doors... do you think the nba should be any different??? I do...

There are many major business that have been bailed out for the good of the public to continue operating... not one was bailed out by it's own employees.

Tony_Starks
10-07-2011, 12:41 PM
so the players can demand guaranteed income, but the owners can't?? double standard??


Its not a double standard because its the owners that evaluate a players talent and give him his contract in the first place. If he feels that player isn't living up to the contract he has the option of not offering him another one, or offering him a lesser contract next time around, or trading him and cutting his losses. Either way there are eventually repercussions for the player if he doesn't do his job.

The owners want a system with no repercussions for incompetence. They basically want the Donald Sterling treatment: continue to screw up and laugh all the way to the bank.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 12:48 PM
There are many major business that have been bailed out for the good of the public to continue operating... not one was bailed out by it's own employees.

so, are you suggesting they just raise ticket prices, and charge the customers more for concessions?? because that what government bailouts are, paid for by the taxpayers and the customers of said companies...

I, for one, pay enough for my season tickets and may not choose to renew if they increased them more per season than they already do... okay, i would, but i wouldn't like it... i'd rather have the players make a less so that i can still go to games at a somewhat reasonable price..

Jay
10-07-2011, 12:50 PM
Say whatcha' want, the players are the owners' pawns.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 12:51 PM
Its not a double standard because its the owners that evaluate a players talent and give him his contract in the first place. If he feels that player isn't living up to the contract he has the option of not offering him another one, or offering him a lesser contract next time around, or trading him and cutting his losses. Either way there are eventually repercussions for the player if he doesn't do his job.

The owners want a system with no repercussions for incompetence. They basically want the Donald Sterling treatment: continue to screw up and laugh all the way to the bank.

there are zero repercussions for the player.. what's RL or GA's repercussion for their lackluster performances and/or non play?? fully guaranteed money is their reward, and they don't have to earn it...

i'm not saying the owners were right to offer max contracts to either player, but if they feel they 'had' to in order to get/keep them, then that's the problem..

Tony_Starks
10-07-2011, 01:03 PM
there are zero repercussions for the player.. what's RL or GA's repercussion for their lackluster performances and/or non play?? fully guaranteed money is their reward, and they don't have to earn it...

i'm not saying the owners were right to offer max contracts to either player, but if they feel they 'had' to in order to get/keep them, then that's the problem..


In all fairness GA was a certified superstar and had returned the franchise to relevance when he got his deal, and RL was clearly an example of a last year of his contract player. For Gilberts deal hey thats just part of the game but for Rashard thats completely on the owner.

Non-guaranteed contracts is/was apparently off the table now though. Like most of their demands I doubt they ever believed they would get it anyway but just asked for the sky so when they finally agree to less it appears reasonable in comparison.....

SluggeR
10-07-2011, 01:29 PM
Yes the owners have everyone fooled. In part because most people don't understand the concept that it is totally unreasonable for them to demand a gauranteed profit regardless of how poorly they do their jobs, and in part because there's a very large amount of people blinded by their jealousy over how much the players were making in the first place and that it is more than they will ever make in a lifetime.......

You make a good point(s). You got alot of people jealous of the money the players make, but they don't say anything about how much the owners make..I WONDER WHY.

beasted86
10-07-2011, 01:33 PM
Yes the owners have everyone fooled. In part because most people don't understand the concept that it is totally unreasonable for them to demand a gauranteed profit regardless of how poorly they do their jobs, and in part because there's a very large amount of people blinded by their jealousy over how much the players were making in the first place and that it is more than they will ever make in a lifetime.......

On a roll today.

JLynn943
10-07-2011, 01:33 PM
so the players can demand guaranteed income, but the owners can't?? double standard??

Welcome to the business world. If it's going that poorly they have options regarding who to sign, how much to pay them, whether or not they want to move, or if they want to sell the team. It's not like they're trapped.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 01:56 PM
In all fairness GA was a certified superstar and had returned the franchise to relevance when he got his deal, and RL was clearly an example of a last year of his contract player. For Gilberts deal hey thats just part of the game but for Rashard thats completely on the owner.

Non-guaranteed contracts is/was apparently off the table now though. Like most of their demands I doubt they ever believed they would get it anyway but just asked for the sky so when they finally agree to less it appears reasonable in comparison.....

you seem completely biased against the owners... for them, 'hey that's just part of the game' and 'completely on the owner'... you know what else is part of the game? the owners restructuring the system the way they see fit... and the fact that there are too many overpaid contracts right now is the 'part of the game' that the owners want to fix...

sorry if the players don't like it, that's just part of the game...

see what i did there...

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:00 PM
You make a good point(s). You got alot of people jealous of the money the players make, but they don't say anything about how much the owners make..I WONDER WHY.

do you think i'm more jealous of the millionaire players opposed to the billionaire owners... i think most people hating the owners are jealous of the money the owners have...

i don't care for either side... the owners will get what they want, and they players are at the mercy of the owners as long as they play in the nba...

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:07 PM
Welcome to the business world. If it's going that poorly they have options regarding who to sign, how much to pay them, whether or not they want to move, or if they want to sell the team. It's not like they're trapped.

actually no, do the oil companies not guarantee themselves profit?? how about the precious metal/stone industry?? are they ever losing money?? how about banks? aren't they currently instituting rate hikes on customers to guarantee profit?? is this the business world you speak of??

and you're right, the owners do have options... and they have opted to lockout the players until they get a CBA that they approve of... fair or not, it's one of their options, and they are taking it...

beasted86
10-07-2011, 02:20 PM
actually no, do the oil companies not guarantee themselves profit?? how about the precious metal/stone industry?? are they ever losing money?? how about banks? aren't they currently instituting rate hikes on customers to guarantee profit?? is this the business world you speak of??

and you're right, the owners do have options... and they have opted to lockout the players until they get a CBA that they approve of... fair or not, it's one of their options, and they are taking it...

No industry or field has guaranteed profits just from holding an asset, period. Not even natural resources.... none. Just as crazy examples, if tomorrow a guy invents an "Arc reactor" (Iron Man fictional reference) or some other revolutionary fuel source, nobody will care about oil anymore. If global warming starts another ice age, nobody will care about gold anymore. Mere ownership of an asset, whether a business, a resource, or even cash does not guarantee profits.

If teams consistently have problems turning a profit from the inception of the CBA an alternative solution will have to be discovered other than continually asking the employees to giveback money 3 times in a row. I am still of the opinion that the owners will ask for another giveback at their next option of opting out of the CBA, regardless of where the economy is by then.

Mr. RaJ
10-07-2011, 02:27 PM
I think it'll hurt the owners more than they think. Especially when alot of stars are flexing to Euro and other places to play. Good they should realize they dont have Michael Jordan to save the league this time.

THE GIPPER
10-07-2011, 02:36 PM
owners have nothing to lose. 22 of them lost money last year anyway so why would they succombe to the players demands only to lose even more money? they'll just wait it out until the players realize the owners arent going to budge.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:37 PM
No industry or field has guaranteed profits just from holding an asset, period. Not even natural resources.... none. Just as crazy examples, if tomorrow a guy invents an "Arc reactor" (Iron Man fictional reference) or some other revolutionary fuel source, nobody will care about oil anymore. If global warming starts another ice age, nobody will care about gold anymore. Mere ownership of an asset, whether a business, a resource, or even cash does not guarantee profits.

If teams consistently have problems turning a profit from the inception of the CBA an alternative solution will have to be discovered other than continually asking the employees to giveback money 3 times in a row. I am still of the opinion that the owners will ask for another giveback at their next option of opting out of the CBA, regardless of where the economy is by then.

LOL... whatever man... i'm not going to even try convince you otherwise... do some research and you'll find the oil industry has killed inventions and slowed progress of many industry innovations in order to guarantee them profits...

but, i would imagine in your made up scenario, the oil industry bigwigs would terminate all involved in this 'arc reactor' project and keep all knowledge out of the public eye...

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:41 PM
I think it'll hurt the owners more than they think. Especially when alot of stars are flexing to Euro and other places to play. Good they should realize they dont have Michael Jordan to save the league this time.

what euro muscle?? the same muscle that says, "i'll be back day one of the nba season" ?? the euroleague has given the players no leverage at all IMO.. because of all the opt-out clauses, the owners lose nothing by players playing in the euroleague... they didn't have MJ to 'save' them after '98.. and look what happened... the nba survived and grew...

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:42 PM
owners have nothing to lose. 22 of them lost money last year anyway so why would they succombe to the players demands only to lose even more money? they'll just wait it out until the players realize the owners arent going to budge.

62 billion combined owner net worth... they can hold out much longer than people think...

yet people think the players can hold out longer.. yea right...

llemon
10-07-2011, 02:45 PM
62 billion combined owner net worth... they can hold out much longer than people think...

yet people think the players can hold out longer.. yea right...

We shall see. That $62 billion combined owner net worth has already made concessions, haven't they?

llemon
10-07-2011, 02:47 PM
owners have nothing to lose. 22 of them lost money last year anyway so why would they succombe to the players demands only to lose even more money? they'll just wait it out until the players realize the owners arent going to budge.

No way do I believe 22 teams lost money last year

ttam68
10-07-2011, 02:48 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32359/the-concessions-that-matter


Remember when this negotiation started and it was about a radical restructuring of the league, with owners sticking it to players so hard they'd never know what hit them?

That's all gone. No hard cap. Guaranteed deals. No rollbacks. An option to get out after seven years. Half of the old BRI, instead of a little more than a third ... that's all worth a fortune! Billions, over a 10-year deal.

The only normal response is to say, well holy moly players, can you do a little something for them? Can you meet the league in the middle, please? Can you just come down a percentage point or two and we can all go home happy?

But worth noting: You know how much the NBA has conceded compared to the old CBA?

Not one darned thing.

The concessions compared to the old CBA have come entirely from the players, who used to make 57 percent of BRI and will now make 53 percent or less.

Shmontaine
10-07-2011, 02:51 PM
We shall see. That $62 billion combined owner net worth has already made concessions, haven't they?

well yeah, they're business men... they didn't get 62 billion because the sat on their hands... wheelin' and dealin' my friend...

my point is the players combined net worth is miniscule by comparison... the two highest are kobe at 200mil and LJ at 120 mill.. a few around 60, a chunk around 10-20 and the majority below 5 mil..

we shall see, indeed...

Tony_Starks
10-07-2011, 02:55 PM
The owners have hundreds of millions to lose from a missed season, don't get it confused. Even Stern admits as much. Sure they can literally afford to wait it out longer than the players financially but the longer they lock the players out, the worse the perception gets, the more popularity the league loses, and thats something they can't afford long term.

Its not even about taking sides to me its about who is actually making an honest attempt to save the season and who isn't. If the players were making unreasonable demands, using shady skewed accouting, divided amongst themselves, and flatly refusing the owners offers for months at end before even attempting to negotiate then I would understand the owners side but thats clearly not the case.....

llemon
10-07-2011, 02:56 PM
well yeah, they're business men... they didn't get 62 billion because the sat on their hands... wheelin' and dealin' my friend...

my point is the players combined net worth is miniscule by comparison... the two highest are kobe at 200mil and LJ at 120 mill.. a few around 60, a chunk around 10-20 and the majority below 5 mil..

we shall see, indeed...

Indeed.

da ThRONe
10-07-2011, 05:02 PM
right, and if you're claiming the cost of doing business is the same percentage today as it was in '95 or '98, you'd be severely mistaken... the price of oil has almost quadrupled since then as well as ever increasing food costs and cost of living, etc...



and every business owner has the option/possibility of closing the doors... do you think the nba should be any different??? I do...

What does that have to do with your original point. You were saying that because the average salaries were increasing that the players weren't taking pay cuts. When in reality they gave up money.

llemon
10-07-2011, 05:13 PM
What does that have to do with your original point. You were saying that because the average salaries were increasing that the players weren't taking pay cuts. When in reality they gave up money.

Shmo obviously has an agenda, and he seems fascinated by powerful people and hopes someday to be one.

Shmontaine
10-10-2011, 12:14 PM
What does that have to do with your original point. You were saying that because the average salaries were increasing that the players weren't taking pay cuts. When in reality they gave up money.

a pay cut is a reduction in pay... the players actual pay has increased every year... just because percentage of pay went down, doesn't equate to a pay cut...


Shmo obviously has an agenda, and he seems fascinated by powerful people and hopes someday to be one.

I have no agenda, just what i believe...

Cosmic_Canon
10-10-2011, 12:34 PM
The owners have hundreds of millions to lose from a missed season, don't get it confused. Even Stern admits as much. Sure they can literally afford to wait it out longer than the players financially but the longer they lock the players out, the worse the perception gets, the more popularity the league loses, and thats something they can't afford long term.

Its not even about taking sides to me its about who is actually making an honest attempt to save the season and who isn't. If the players were making unreasonable demands, using shady skewed accouting, divided amongst themselves, and flatly refusing the owners offers for months at end before even attempting to negotiate then I would understand the owners side but thats clearly not the case.....

You're a fan of Mya, and constantly sonning dudes w/ facts on this lockout.
I love you, yes bromo. :)