When do you think the lockout will end?

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:51 pm

As an offshoot of the lockout discussion thread, today's meeting is expected to go a long way in determining when (if?) the 2011/2012 season. With that in mind...when do you see the lockout ending? Or do you anticipate that we will indeed lose the entire season?

Even though the possibility of losing the entire season seems very real at the moment, I'm still holding out some very small hope that they'll be able to make progress to the point where they can start on time, or perhaps a couple of weeks late (in which case they could feasibly reschedule games if they wanted). However, I'm going to go with a January tipoff at this time.

by **The X** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:09 pm

I voted for December start with full 82 game, condensed season. I've always thought it'd either be 82 game season or none at all. Am hoping for former.

by **Stress Fracture** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:29 pm

So much negative comments on the article.

Anyways, I hope it would start anytime before February. No to a 50-game season again.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:41 pm

I'd still rather a 50 game season than nothing at all myself, but hopefully it won't come to either of those options.

YouTube · by **shadowgrin** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:05 am

What, no funny option? This is a sham of a thread.

by **_Steve_** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:29 am

I hope season will start in November but I expect it to be cancelled. As it already has been said, it really depends on the outcome of today's negotiations.

by **[Q]** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:52 am

when did it tip off in 99 for a 50 game season?

by **Lamrock** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:52 am

Early February

YouTube · by **George7** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:05 am

I would say a December tip off...
Both sides would sooner or later have to agree in order not to lose many of the estimated profit. The TV broadcasters and the sport companies(especially the first ones) are going to push some more in order to fasten progression of the talks...

by **NovU** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:31 am

I voted for December. Precisely December 7th.

by **Fresh8** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:52 am

I voted 'no season'.

But I am thinking there will be a January tipoff.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:16 pm

Seems we can kiss the idea of the season starting on time goodbye.

shadowgrin wrote:What, no funny option? This is a sham of a thread.

Eh, too much of a good thing and all that.

Completely forgot about that tradition. :oops:

by **Patr1ck** on Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:50 pm

Thanksgiving day. It's a perfect time for whichever side gives in.

by **Mavs4Life** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:52 am

January, in time for a February tipoff

I hope

YouTube Channel · by **RedPhazon8** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:35 pm

I thought Derrick Rose said it best with, "Right now, it's looking pretty tough, but to me I think the lockout is unnecessary," he said. "There's no reason why billionaires and millionaires should be arguing about money. There's other things in this world that we should be arguing about, but money shouldn't be the problem." I have no idea when it will end, but I have a feeling the season will not happen.

by **formx** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:38 pm

I hope it will end December or January, but just like RedPhazon8, I have a feeling there would be no season.

by **Axel The Great** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:06 pm

I can wait no longer to watch NBA basketball and hope that tipoff starts on November. I voted December, though. If it indeed starts in December, I hope NCAA basketball will keep me busy in the meantime.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:22 pm

RedPhazon8 wrote:I thought Derrick Rose said it best with, "Right now, it's looking pretty tough, but to me I think the lockout is unnecessary," he said. "There's no reason why billionaires and millionaires should be arguing about money. There's other things in this world that we should be arguing about, but money shouldn't be the problem."

And folks claim he's not intelligent. :scold:

Actually, I'm sure a lot of players are aware how bad the squabbling looks to the rest of us Joe Everymen, but at the end of the day they've got to look out for their best interests. Still, I can't agree with the union's assertion that a 50-50 split on BRI is unfair. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't think a split can get much fairer than 50-50.

by **NovU** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:44 pm

It definitely makes Derrick more likeable. Though it isn't possible in real life...

But a great point that both parties just should STFU and reach an agreement sooner than later.

by **Stress Fracture** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:00 pm

Tell that to the great Derek Fisher.

by **The X** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:20 pm

Andrew wrote:
RedPhazon8 wrote:I thought Derrick Rose said it best with, "Right now, it's looking pretty tough, but to me I think the lockout is unnecessary," he said. "There's no reason why billionaires and millionaires should be arguing about money. There's other things in this world that we should be arguing about, but money shouldn't be the problem."

And folks claim he's not intelligent.

Actually, I'm sure a lot of players are aware how bad the squabbling looks to the rest of us Joe Everymen, but at the end of the day they've got to look out for their best interests. Still, I can't agree with the union's assertion that a 50-50 split on BRI is unfair. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't think a split can get much fairer than 50-50.

I was under the impression that it was 49-51 in favour of the players. Under the concept, players would be guaranteed a minimum of 49% of BRI if teams spent less than that & a maximum of 51% of BRI if teams spent that. Given that teams like Lakers, Knicks & so on are going to spend big, I think it's safe to assume that they'd end up with 51%.

I wonder if moving it to 50-50 where players can earn up to 52% will be enough to get it done.

by **_Steve_** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:03 pm

I think 50-50 together with a so called soft cap should be a good solution. As I've read owners also made an opt out proposal which would allow the union to get out of the agreement after 7 years plus an offer not to touch any existing contracts...
What more do players want?

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:19 pm

The X wrote:I was under the impression that it was 49-51 in favour of the players. Under the concept, players would be guaranteed a minimum of 49% of BRI if teams spent less than that & a maximum of 51% of BRI if teams spent that. Given that teams like Lakers, Knicks & so on are going to spend big, I think it's safe to assume that they'd end up with 51%.

I wonder if moving it to 50-50 where players can earn up to 52% will be enough to get it done.

You could be right, in which case it's still fair to the players in my view but seems they're not budging from 53%. I understand being reluctant to concede too much, but they're still getting the (slightly) bigger share at 51-49 along with guaranteed millions even in the case of injury or laziness. It's not that I side with the league and owners on all these matters, but I have trouble believing that players are too hard done by.

by **_Steve_** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:39 pm

I still think players should take the 50-50 offer and play. 50-50 seems to be a very fair split of the BRI, considering the risks on both sides.
On the one hand the players who get paid even if they are infured/ not in shape and on the other hand the owners who have to pay players even when their teams are losing money. Because of dumb-ass-decisions (think about last summer) owners just don't deserve a bigger slice of the cake... :wink:

Btw. I really want to know what's that new solution which is supposed to replace the hard cap...

by **benji** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:23 pm

Andrew wrote:And folks claim he's not intelligent.

Uh, his statement is pretty stupid. He doesn't seem to understand what the point of collective bargaining is.

Andrew wrote:Still, I can't agree with the union's assertion that a 50-50 split on BRI is unfair. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't think a split can get much fairer than 50-50.

Andrew wrote:but they're still getting the (slightly) bigger share at 51-49 along with guaranteed millions even in the case of injury or laziness.

They currently get 58% of BRI. Why would they want to give up salary to enrich their opposition? 53% is their CONCESSION to the horrible plight of the owners who just can't find any self-restraint in overpaying everyone in sight.

SteveHTOWN wrote:proposal which would allow the union to get out of the agreement after 7 years plus an offer not to touch any existing contracts...
What more do players want?

Most important? To re-negotiate in five years when the new TV contract is signed. Seven years undercuts them from two years of riches when the league gets a boost from the new contract.