Tag:David Stern
Posted on: November 13, 2011 10:57 pm

NBA says it could void all existing contracts

By Matt Moore 

There's been a quiet response to all the decertification talk this weekend, and in a fairly embarrassing Twitterview, the NBA presented it front and center Sunday night. The league has given the players a choice between a proposal they obviously find unacceptable, and even worse deal which will be the owners' new starting point for negotiations should the players reject the current offer. In response, the players have pushed even closer to decertification or potentially a disclaim of interest to dissolve the union and pursue antitrust lawsuits against the league.  The league has answered every move the players have tried to make. So their response to the threat of decertification?

They will pursue voiding all existing contracts.

It's not as simple as just saying "your contracts are void," there's a legal process. It involves the suit currently filed by the league against the players which they filed months ago, and even if that didn't go through, they'd file again post-decertification in pursuit of the same goal. It's a complex, and messy situation that could take years to resolve if it came to that. But much like decertification, it works better as a threat than as a legitimate weapon. 

If you're a max player, say, Carlos Boozer, and you just landed that last big contract to set you up guaranteed for the next four seasons, and the league says it can nullify that contract and set you back, how do you consider the proposal tomorrow as player reps meet in New York? If you're Joe Johnson, and you know there's no freaking way you get the deal you got in 2010 in a wide-open free agency, how do you respond? Every player earning more than he probably would in an open market would pause. Yes, you have your Derrick Rose's, your Blake Griffins, but there are far more players playing on longer-term contracts with considerable value than there are young players bucking for an open market.

And the threat works both ways for the owners. If you're Donald Sterling, how do you feel about the idea that Blake Griffin could be a free agent? Or Clay Bennett with Kevin Durant? How about Ted Leonsis and John Wall? But still, much like the CBA debate itself, it's not about the stars, it's about the rank and file guys, and those guys would be devasteated financially to lose their current contracts, especially if they also lose the ability to negotiate a guaranteed contract in the next agreement. 

It's a hefty threat, the kind of nuclear weapon for the owners that decertification is for the players. Both sides continue to get closer to the button and there appears to be no cooler head to walk things back.  
Posted on: November 13, 2011 2:20 am
Edited on: November 13, 2011 2:28 am

Report: Hunter says player reps to vote Monday

Posted by Ben Gollivernba-lockout

Representative democracy has arrived to the NBA lockout. Sort of.

National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter told SI.com on Saturday that the NBPA's player representatives will vote on a modified version of the NBA's most recent proposal to the players during a meeting scheduled for Monday morning.
When reached on Saturday night, however, Hunter told SI.com that his intention was to have the player representatives vote on a revised version of the NBA's latest proposal before moving forward.

"We will vote on the NBA's proposal," Hunter wrote in a text message. "The proposal will be presented with some proposed amendments."

When the most recent negotiating session broke on Thursday night, NBPA president Derek Fisher said the proposal made by the NBA did not sufficiently address the NBPA's desires on system issues.

"We have a revised proposal from the NBA," Fisher said. "It does not meet us entirely on the system issues that we felt were extremely important to close this deal out."

The plan here, it seems, is to work in the desired system changes, secure enough votes to ensure that the players as a whole are reasonably happy, and then present the modified version of the league's offer back to the league for further negotiations and/or their approval.

(There's also the possibility that the proposal -- even an amended version -- is voted down. In that case, the process is stalled at the same place it is right now.)

It's a plan born of desperation. The NBPA realizes that if the players reject the NBA's current proposal outright the NBA is prepared to revert to a significantly worse proposal that they have said publicly will include a 47 percent revenue split and a flex camp system. But, if the players vote to accept the NBA's current proposal they will, well, be stuck with what Hunter admitted on Thursday was not a favorable deal. 

"It's not the greatest proposal in the world," Hunter said. "But I owe that, I have an obligation to at least present it to membership."

Based on recent public statements from both sides, it's likely the players will focus their amendment efforts, at least in part, on system issues that they believe will allow for freer player movement. Those line-item issues could include the luxury tax structure and penalty system as well as the mid-level exception.

NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver specifically singled out the player movement issue as a point of "philosophical difference" between the owners and players. The owners believe a rigid luxury tax system and a restricted mid-level exception for luxury tax payers will increase competitive balance in the league, while the players believe that those changes would unnecessarily tie players to franchises and thereby limit their free agency options.

So how will this new plan of the union's br received? That will depend on the quantity and scope of their proposed amendments, of course. But NBA commissioner David Stern said in a Friday night interview that the league's most recent offer is effectively a final one.

"The owners have moved to wherever they are going to move to," Stern said. 

Still, if faced with the possibility of hitting a home run the revenue split by reducing the players' share from 57 percent to 50 percent, winning numerous, major concessions on system issues, entirely avoiding any potential court battles or union decertification, enjoying a 72-game schedule that starts in a little more than a month and getting the league back on track, Stern and the owners likely have a measure of motivation to make some final, minor concessions to close out this seemingly endless labor battle.

That would be logical. But logic, as we've learned recently, has no place here.
Posted on: November 12, 2011 7:52 pm
Edited on: November 12, 2011 10:06 pm

President Obama 'won't intercede' in NBA lockout

Posted by Ben Golliverbarack-obama-jacket

Ask not what your country can do for the NBA. Seriously. Because it plans to do nothing.

United States President Barack Obama has said recently that the ongoing NBA lockout has left him "heartbroken" and that he is "concerned" that the league will lose the entire 2011-2012 season. Nevertheless, he does not plan to help the league's owners and players reach a compromise in their current labor struggle.

The New York Times reports that Obama, speaking from a high-profile college basketball game on Friday, says that he is staying out of it.
Asked about the impasse between the NBA owners and players, Mr. Obama quipped, “It’s killing me.” But he said, “I’m not going to intercede. I’ve got some bigger fish to fry.”

“In a contest between billionaires and millionaires,” Mr. Obama said, “they should be able to figure out how to divvy up their profits in a way that serves their fans, who are allowing them to be making all this money — not to mention all the folks who work in the concession stands and in the parking lots of facilities all across the country.”
Aside from his fish frying point -- and there's no question that there are more important issues than professional basketball facing the world today -- entering the lockout morass represents a lose/lose/lose situation for Obama.

If he's been following the day-by-day non-progress carefully, he realizes that he would be dealing with two sides that are fairly well dug in and dead set on their visions of the sport's economics. Crafting a miracle compromise is unlikely. Guess who takes the blame if there's a lost season in that situation? Not the players, not the owners, not even NBA commissioner David Stern. Obama does. The buck always stops there.

But let's say there is a deal. However it's crafted, there are bound to be winners and losers. In all likelihood, the owners will be winners and the players, already having promised billions in concessions, will be losers. Obama, the people's champion, would then open himself up to criticism that he co-signed a new collective bargaining agreement that favored big money interests and not the common man. He does have a presidential re-election campaign to run after all.  

Lastly, entering the NBA mess would take real commitments of time and, likely, money. Given his reputation as a well-known hoops head, critics would jump at the opportunity to say that Obama is putting basketball ahead of (pick your favorite issue out of a list of thousands that people passionately care about). A President, of course, must appear to be of, by and for the people, not just himself or his friends.

Put it all together and Obama is damned if he tries, damned if he succeeds and damned if he fails. As Commander in Chief, he has the luxury of picking his battles. It makes sense that he would run from this one.
Posted on: November 11, 2011 9:16 pm
Edited on: November 11, 2011 9:23 pm

Stern: Decertification will backfire on agents

Posted by Ben Golliverdavid-stern-asleep

NBA commissioner David Stern's talking points have crystallized: the league has officially made its best offer to the players, the 2011-2012 season rests in the hands of the NBPA, the possibility of a canceled season is unthinkable, and the potential decertification of the union is a negotiating tactic that will backfire on the agents who are reportedly pushing for it.  

During a nationally-televised ESPN interview on Friday night, Stern laid out his arguments, point by point, explaining first why he chose to extend the deadline on the league's current offer past its original date of Wednesday.

"Well, we stopped the clock so that we could negotiate," Stern said, "and we came out of last night with a proposal [that is] as far as the owners could possibly reach to the players. That [proposal] provides a 72-game season starting Dec. 15. I'm very, very hopeful that the players and the union will say 'yes, let's have the season, let's begin it on Dec. 15.'"

Stern characterized the current proposal as possessing the largest concessions the NBA plans to make.

"The owners have moved to wherever they are going to move to," Stern said. "This is the proposal that's on the table. If it's not accepted, then we'll be substituting the proposal [with one] that the union knows about when the clock starts again, and it will be very far from where this proposal is."

The fall-back proposal is said to include a 47 percent revenue share for the players -- down from 50 percent contained in the current proposal -- and a flex cap system.

NBPA president Derek Fisher said on Thursday that the owners' current proposal doesn't do enough to compensate the players on system issues for their potential $3 billion concession on the revenue split, thus opening up the possibility of a lost season.

Stern would have none of that. 

"I refuse to contemplate the loss of a season," he said. "It's going to be too painful for the players and the owners alike. But [if it happened] we'll still be here, we'll pick up the pieces and do the best we can under the circumstances. That's not an eventuality that I anticipate or look forward to. It's all in the hands of the players."

For months, player agents have been pushing for the decertification of the union, a cry that drew more support following Thursday's negotiating session, when it became clear that the NBA's current offer was not substantially better than its previous one, which was rejected by an NBPA group meeting on Tuesday. Stern said the threat of decertification is a strategic ploy that would jeopardize the 2011-2012 season.

"[it's a move] actually calculated to, one, [serve] as a tactic to improve their bargaining position and, two, as making it even more likely that there won't be a season," Stern said.

If the union did decertify, Stern predicted the move would backfire. 

"If the union is not in existence, then neither are 4 billion dollars worth of guaranteed contracts that are entered into under condition that there's a union, Stern said. "So if the agents insist on playing with fire, my guess is that they would get themselves burned."

Asked if the NBA would employ "scab" players if the NBPA decertificed, Stern said simply: "I don't want to go there now."

Hat tip: IAmAGM.com 
Posted on: November 11, 2011 12:18 pm
Edited on: November 11, 2011 3:02 pm

NBA Lockout: The league's 'last, best offer'

By Matt Moore 

David Stern denied that the offer presented to the players on Thursday night was the league's "last, best offer" to Howard Beck of the New York Times. Beck attempted to follow up, because, well, if the players reject the offer and the league follows through with its threat to revert back to the so-called "cap reset" offer (47 percent BRI, a flex-cap, dragons, a dungeon, no cupcakes, etc.), they're not taking it, as Beck said, but Stern again dodged it. That was the point of this approach. The league's not threatening to cut off talks (they can't for fear of a lack-of-good-faith-barganing charge). This puts the onus on the players. "We're not giving you the worst offer, we're giving you a better offer than the worst offer. So you should take it, otherwise we'll only offer the worst offer." And they try and pass this off as benevolent. 

But the reality is that this is their last, best offer. The players can't accept 47 percent with a flex-cap, not without a court fight. They'll take that deal when the battle is truly lost, as opposed to mostly lost, which it is now. Consider that the players are surrendering $3 billion in their position which was extremely close to what the owners have proposed in the last week, but it's the systemic changes that continue to hamper the odds of a deal. The players have given so much, and the league wants just a little more. And at some point it's either surrender or fight. Talking is over. Deal or no deal. 

Decertification sounds great when pitched by an agent, I'm sure, but the realities are pretty dark for that course of action. It only really works as a leveraging tactic, considering that with the appeals process and the likely drag from the courts in proceedings as they would want this to be settled outside of their courtrooms and would encourage the parties to do just that, it would take years to complete. But if your options are that or lay down to be stepped on, a lot of players, especially stars with money in the bank, will opt for just that.

And so, like I said, this is the league's last, best offer. Or maybe its "last, not-nearly-as-sucky-as-what-comes-n
ext" offer.  So what exactly does it entail and where do we go from here? Here's the rundown of where the sticking points of a deal stand Friday morning according to reports. 

Everything in the proposal is based on a 50/50 revenue split which the players have finally conceded to if they feel the systemic changes are swallowable (indications are that they don't, but we'll get to that). It winds up costing the players close to $3 billion over the length of the deal compared to the prior deal which gave them 57 percent. That's a heck of a give-back, and yet still not enough for the owners. 

Mid-Level Exception

Ken Berger of CBSSports.com reports that the owners have "agreed to increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million. The exception, which was for two years starting at $2.5 million under the previous proposal, would be available every year for teams above the tax threshold." But there's a catch.
(T)he league's proposal would restrict teams from using a full mid-level exception -- four-year deals starting at $5 million -- if the signing itself pushed the team over the tax. Union negotiators want the mid-level restriction to kick in only if the team already is above the tax line before it uses the exception. The league's version is the one that is in the current proposal, according to a person who has seen it.
via Stern offers 72-game season, few alternatives - CBSSports.com.

So they've settled how much the MLE will be, but not whether you have to be over the tax already to be barred from using the full version, or if you would be barred from using it if using it would put you into the tax. If this sounds like an obnoxiously small detail, it is, but it also affects a great deal of teams and in particular serves as a disincentive from teams spending more to win, which obviously the players don't want for multiple reasons.

Super-Tax and Repeater tax

The luxury tax is being revamped as the "super-tax," in order to serve as a spending deterrent, either for restriction of player movement, cost reduction, or competitive balance purposes, depending on what side you're on. The previous structure was a simple dollar-for-dollar tax. So if you were $5 million over the luxury tax threshold, you paid $5 million in luxury tax.

The league's latest offer proposes an increase of .50 cents on the dollar for the first $5 million over, then increasing penalties. Here's the breakdown, courtesy of Berger: 

First $5 million in salary spent over luxury tax threshold: $1.50 tax on every dollar.
Second $5 million: $1.75 on every dollar.
Third $5 million:  $2.50 on every dollar.
Fourth $5 million and above: $3.25 on every dollar.

It's not know at this time if the union has accepted this rate, though it's clear they're not happy with that idea (or any of these, really). 

Then there's what's being called the "recidivist tax" or "repeater tax." The idea is that if a team spends above the luxury tax threshold in three out of a five-year span, it needs to be taxed additionally. The league has proposed the following structure: 

First $5 million in salary spent over luxury tax threshold (including standard tax listed above): $2.50
Second $5 million: $2.75
Third $5 million: $3.50
Fourth $5 million: $4.25

That's an incredibly steep tax for repeat offenders. To put this in perspective, Storyteller's Contracts shares this information: in the past ten years, the Knicks, Lakers, Mavericks, Celtics, Cavaliers, Suns, and Pacers all paid the tax in at least three consecutive years. Due to no tax being collected in 2005, another five teams (the Timberwolves, the Blazers, the Nets, the Sixers and the Raptors) would have narrowly ducked it. That's a huge percentage of teams this would have impacted, and the corresponding impact on spending would have been significant.

That's why the union wants the following structure:

First $5 million: $2.00
Second $5 million: $2.00
Third $5 million: $3.50
Fourth $5 million: $3.50 

That's a huge gap, considering in the last "stanchion" (as David Aldridge of NBATV described it Thursday night) would make for over a $9 million differential if the team spent all the way to $20 million over the tax threshold (the Lakers, for example, were $30 million over the threshold last season and would have been in the repeater tax. Close to $10 million from one team on just one level. That's a lot of dough.

So clearly this remains a big dividing point.


Berger reports that the league may have softened on the limitations on teams in the tax using the sign-and-trade, but there is still some sort of structure in the current offer that deals with it. For the players, this was a big issue, and it's surprising the league didn't just concede on this considering it has been used just three times in the past decade by teams in the tax. But then, the league isn't conceding something. What else is new? 

ESPN.com reports that the owners have relented on the issue and that teams in the tax will be able to sign-and-trade players. That had to have been a concession for the big-market owners as well as playrs. 

Player contract length

This issue has been agreed upon. Previous limits were five years without Bird rights and six years with.  The new proposal which the players have agreed to is four years for non-Bird and five years with Bird. So it's a minor win for the players that they only lost a year, really.


Via SI.com, the league wants the escrow pushed to 10 percent, where it was five years ago, up from 8 percent last year and the last few prior years.  The players want an 8-10 percent band. 

Salary floor

The salary floor under the previous deal was set at 75 percent. The owners have agreed to raise it to 85 percent, according to multiple reports.

Length of CBA deal

The league has granted a concession to the players to allow them to opt-out of the proposed deal after the sixth year, which is notable for its coincidance with the end of the NBA television deals. 


The amnesty clause,  "stretch" exception," and length of time a team can match an offer in restricted free agency for a player have all been agreed to. 

There's more to discuss, including Bird rights, age limit, etc. Some are huge issues, some are small. But the reality is that while the two sides appear very close together, in reality, the players consider themselves very far apart. Reports flooded in Thursday night and Friday morning about upset agents and players, livid with the deal, saying nothing was granted of substance. If that proves to be the mood of the entire union, it's unlikely a vote will even see the light of day, much less an acceptance of the deal. That means decertification, that means lawsuits, and that means the loss of the entire 2011-2012 season. 

There's no more room to give, and it would appear the gap is still too wide.  
Posted on: November 10, 2011 11:58 pm
Edited on: November 11, 2011 12:06 am

Stern: Current proposal provides 72-game season

By Matt Moore 

Following the eleven-hour meeting between the NBPA and NBA Thursday, we entered a new phase. The owners have presented an offer they won't describe as their "last, best offer," but with the threat of the "cap reset" offer looming as David Stern says the owners would revert to that proposal without acceptance of the current offer, it's effectively do or die time for the NBA season and the labor negotiations. And during his comments to the press afterwards, David Stern presented details on what the season would look like if the current deal is accepted by the union. From our recap of comments from both sides:
"I would not presume to project or predict what the union will do. I can hope, and my hope is that the events of next week will lead us to a 72-game schedule, starting on December 15."

NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said that the 72-game schedule would be made possible by pushing the NBA playoffs back one week.
via Community - CBSSports.com.

This little nugget provides three very important elements.

NBA Labor

The first is that this is a very concerted effort on the part of Stern to put the onus and pressure back on the union. By dropping this information into the presser, fans will only see the idea of losing just ten games after over a month and a half of lost time. They'll react strongly with the carrot in front of them of a 72-game season. It allows for most of a season, makes ticket holders and league-pass-watchers happy. 

Second, it's a carrot for the players as well. They're paid a prorated amount this year depending on how many games are lost. Only losing ten games means quite a bit of money for the players. Those players that are thinking short-term, who are hurting for cash with paychecks lost, are likely to isolate that bit of information as important and it may push them towards voting to accept the deal, if a vote is held.

And finally, it's not a bad plan. It doesn't cram too many games into a limited space, especially with both the playoffs and Finals moved a week back. It gets the fans, players, teams most of the games, it controls the damage from the lockout. It coincides with the most games won in NBA history, and it's a symbol that the two sides are so close to a deal, it's painful.

It's up to the players to decide if it's time to end the fight and accept the loss they've taken in a brutal series of negotiations they were handicapped from the start in, or if the choice is to detonate the remaining 72-games on the table.

As always, we continue to wait.

Today is day 133 of the NBA Lockout.
Posted on: November 10, 2011 11:00 pm
Edited on: November 11, 2011 12:57 am

NBPA says NBA's revised offer is not good enough

Posted by Ben Gollivernba-lockout

The NBA and the National Basketball Players Association met for nearly eight hours on Thursday in New York City, emerging at 11 p.m. Thursday evening to inform the assembled media that they still have not yet reached a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The day's major news, though, came when NBA commissioner David Stern met with the NBA's labor relations committee and was authorized to make the NBPA a revised offer. Ken Berger of CBSSports.com reported that the new offer is not the significantly worse offer featuring a 47 percent BRI share for the NBPA and a flex cap system threatened by Stern last Saturday, but instead is a new, slightly improved proposal based on the last two days of negotiations.

NBPA president Derek Fisher said after the meeting adjourned that the league's revised offer was not good enough for the players to accept immediately.

"We have a revised proposal from the NBA," Fisher said. "It does not meet us entirely on the system issues that we felt were extremely important to close this deal out."

Fisher said that the union would confer with its player representatives to determine their next course of action and is hoping to continue negotiations after that process takes place.

"At this point we've decided to end things for now, take a step back," Fisher said. "We'll go back as an executive committee, as a board, and confer with our player reps and additional players over the next few days and then we'll make decisions about what our next steps will be at that point. Obviously, we still would like to continue negotiating and find a way to get a deal done but right now is not that time."

Fisher called it "another long day" of negotiations and admitted that "a litany of issues" still remain unresolved. However, he did acknowledge that the NBA's revised offer was an improvement from its previous offer.

"On a couple of the issues there was some revision, some change since the last proposal that we saw," Fisher said, "but at this time it's not enough to entice us to try to finish this out tonight."

NBPA executive director Billy Hunter said the player representatives would meet on "Monday [or] Tuesday at the latest," but he made it clear that there is still plenty of ground to be covered between the two sides.

"It's not the greatest proposal in the world," Hunter said. "But I owe that, I have an obligation to at least present it to membership."

In addition to the six major economic and system issues -- including the mid-level exception and luxury tax structure -- that have been discussed this week, Hunter said, "another 30 or 40 issues" remain unresolved, including the age limit, player discipline issues, days off for players, and others. 

While Fisher and Hunter didn't get into too many specifics of the league's new offer, Berger reports that it includes a 50/50 split of BRI, as expected, but does not include significant concessions on system issues. The owners did improve their luxury tax mid-level exception offer by increasing its value $500,000 and extending its length for one year. These are generally considered minor adjustments.

Stern's account of the current situation was virtually identical to that presented by the NBPA, although he provided additional logistical specifics.

"We've had another couple of intense days," Stern said. "We made a revised proposal to the union which attempted to meet their concerns as best as we and the labor relations committee could. We did that in the context of the possibility that we could have a 72-game season starting on December 15."

Stern confirmed the NBPA's stated timeline for the next steps in these talks, saying that he was extending his previous deadline of Wednesday through to next Tuesday.

NBA Labor

"We understand that the revised proposal will be presented to the board of the union on Monday, or if travel is difficult, no later than Tuesday," Stern said. "Just as the clock had stopped on Wednesday as we negotiated through to today, it would remain stopped through [Hunter's] meeting with his board. Then, at that time, if we don't get a positive response the revised offer starting at 47 percent and based upon a flex cap would be our revised negotiating position."

He then struck somewhat of a conciliatory tone, thanking the union's executive staff for their efforts and attempting to paint the league's current offer as a compromise between the desired outcomes from both sides. 

"We don't expect them to like every aspect of our revised proposal," Stern said of the players. "I would say that there are many teams that don't like every aspect of our revised proposal. But I did tell Billy that that proposal has the support of the chairman of the labor relations committee, Adam, me and the labor relations comittee itself."

The talks between the two sides would be suspended until after the NBPA meets next week, Stern said, because talks would not be fruitful until the players have time to consider the merits of the offer in full.

"It doesn't make any sense to keep going here [because] we have made our revised proposal and we are not planning to make another one," Stern said.

The commissioner, when asked directly, refused to offer a prediction on whether the NBPA would approve of the offer.

"I would not presume to project or predict what the union will do. I can hope, and my hope is that the events of next week will lead us to a 72-game schedule, starting on December 15."

NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said that the 72-game schedule would be made possible by pushing the NBA playoffs back one week.

Thursday's talks began at noon and marked the second consecutive day of negotiations between the two sides. The chatter throughout the day was minimal, except for a brief moment of optimism caused when former New York Knicks executive Dave Checketts told a Salt Lake City radio station that he heard an agreement had been reached, before later back-tracking.

The ongoing NBA lockout has now lasted for 133 days.
Posted on: November 10, 2011 9:52 am
Edited on: November 11, 2011 12:19 am

NBA Lockout Buzz: Latest Updates

Posted by EOB

Another eleven hours of meetings... another disappointing ending with both sides saying there is no reason to be optimistic. So glad they're productive in these things. You have to wonder just what they're doing in there. Do they just stare at each other for long periods of time? Do they keep getting distracted with the danish? Anyway, we'll keep you updated with the latest developments leading up to and during the meeting at noon today here. 

For previous Buzz posts to see how this thing has unfolded over the past two days, click here and here.

Friday 12:04 a.m.
  • First off, read what happened after the meetings here. In short: union's not happy with it but will take it to membership to consider, it's not "last, best offer" but the owners will revert back to "cap reset" offer if the players don't accept, and if they do take it, it's a 72-game season. Three days to consider, then NBPA meets Monday or Tuesday.
  • Yahoo Sports reports that agents in pursuit of decertification have the 200-plus votes necessary to file their petition for a vote on "involuntary decertification." This is not a doomsday move, as the petition will take 45 days to be reviewed by the National Labor Relations Board. Additionally, it's likely the NLRB will want resolution to the NBA's complaint to the NLRB and subsequent lawsuit pertaining to the NBPA's "good faith" bargaining and decertification before ruling on any effort to decertify. While that process is ongoing, both sides are free to continue bargaining, even if the NBA says it's done bargaining. If the petition is ratified by the NLRB, a vote would be held with a simple majority needed to dissolve the union, clearing the way for lawsuits and signaling the end of any hope for the 2011-2012 season and possibly beyond.
NBA Labor

Thursday 10:49 p.m.

  • The "revised" offer the NBA is making tonight could be significant. The players could love it, or they could say "that's it?" ESPN.com reports: "Ownership source says revised offer will give players "meaningful stuff" while staying at 50/50 BRI. Called talks 'complicated.'" That seems to be important. The BRI remaining at 50/50 is key and if the players can finally win some on the system, that could be enough to push things over a bit.
Thursday 10:12 p.m.
  • Ken Berger of CBSSports.com confirmsYahoo Sports report that after a conference call with the BOG's labor relations committee, David Stern will present the union with a revised offer. It is not a reversion to the "cap reset" offer the league threatened earlier this week with a 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline. If it's closer to what the players are looking for and talks continue, well that doesn't mean anything, but it's not bad. If it's a "take it or leave it" repeat of what we saw two weeks ago, well then make sure to tip your waitstaff, folks.
Thursday 9:15 p.m.
  • NBPA executive board member Roger Mason, Jr. sent a Twitter message in response to a question from T.J. Ford, who wanted to know whether the lockout was over. "No bro. Still a ways away..," Mason wrote.
  • Ken Berger of CBSSports.com with his latest dispatch, which notes that an apparent compromise has been reached on a new mid-level exception for luxury tax payers but that other issues have arisen.
Thursday 5:40 p.m.
  • And on the flip side of the Checketts report, we have this from a source via Howard Beck of the New York Times: "Nothing has changed between last night and today." That's pretty terrible if on point. Granted, reps would be spinning this as such until it's actually agreed upon, but if that quote is wholly accurate, it's damning. Both sides could be thinking they're making progress and could really just be spinning their wheels. Wouldn't be the first time. 
  • Yahoo Sports reports that Stern hasn't brought a completed deal, or even a framework, to the labor relations committee. Until that happens, this is all unicorns and rainbows. It's like a Lisa Frank binder, with BRI.
Thursday 4:54 p.m.
  • Ken Berger of CBSSports.com though says not so fast. He tweets: "Person in the room assures me that no agreement has been reached. They're about to hit the five-hour mark here in New York."
Thursday 2:23 p.m.
  • Are the two sides targeting a Friday deal? From ESPN.com: "Next big hurdle in NBA labor dispute: Sides finally agreeing on restrictions for tax teams on use of mid-level exception and sign-and-trades. Bigger hurdle after that: If (NBA commissioner David) Stern/(union executive director Billy) Hunter strike deal by Friday, as sources say they're targeting, will their owners and players vote in favor?"
  • Well, that didn't take long. Reports are already starting to trickle in about things not going well at the meeting which started at noon EST. Alan Hahn of Newsday reports that inside of an hour in, he's not hearing positive feedback. Apparently the small-market owners have shown back up to bully and prod again, including reportedly Peter Holt, owner of the Spurs. SI.com reports that things sound "stalled." It's like we all keep waiting for the owners to blink in this game of chicken they're playing with themselves, and they just push the pedal harder.
Thursday 1:12 p.m.
  • So if a deal is reached today, how many games could we be looking at? The NY Post previously reported 78 games would be an option and now is saying 76 could be what the league goes for. "If a deal is reached today, there is a possibility of a 76-game season. The Post has reported if a deal was hatched by last weekend, a 78-game season was possible. Sources said the number of games would have to be an even number." Obviously it has to be an even number so that all teams have the same amount of home and away games.
Thursday 9:31 a.m.:
  •  Let's begin with Ken Berger of CBSSports.com who pulled the Lockout Hotel residency once again last night. It's clear that the biggest issue that remains is the players want the league to make systemic concessions in exchange for the bigger cut of the BRI pie. The league responds that the two elements are independent, and as long as that's the case, we're not getting a deal. 
  • Yahoo! Sports reports that three of the five system issues included in the league's proposal had movement taken on them. SI.com reports that one of the remaining two elements under fire is the use of the Mid-Level Exception by teams in the luxury tax. Owners wanted a provision to prohibit teams in the luxury tax from being able to use the MLE, but reportedly have softened to only halve the amount teams in the tax can use on the MLE relative to non-tax-paying teams. So the MLE has had movement and is still a ways away, since players remain opposed to any provision which limits teams' use of the MLE, for reasons outlined by SBNation's Tom Ziller Thursday morning. That's what the fight may come down to, the MLE. David Aldridge of NBA.com reported on both the three issues which gained movement and the MLE still being an issue. 
  • Brian Mahoney of the AP notes an interesting element in the pressers last night. Billy Hunter said the two sides had not even touched BRI. While it's true what Mahoney notes about both sides spending most of the time apart (a relatively childish image to conjure up about what is a huge and very serious negotiation, like junior high girls passing notes between huddles), the reality is that BRI doesn't need to be discussed because if the players wouldn't move to 50/50 with the provisions being discussed, there'd be no point in continuing talks. 50/50 is assumed, which is, in itself, a massive concession for the players and yet still not enough for the owners. 
  • ESPN.com has a particularly noteworthy anecdote to share. It's not a game-changer, it could be nothing, but it's worth discussing. On his way out, David Stern talked with the union's economist Kevin Murphy, who has another job andfo course is juggling his committments to attend the meetings. According to Henry Abbott of ESPN.com, Stern "encouraged Murphy to show up, saying 'it will be a good day to be here.' That could be nothing, it probably is nothing, but it's still a sign of hope from the biggest doomsday machine of all, whose 5 p.m. deadline that was supposed to bring the harbinger offer of doom came and went without even any property damage. 
  • We remind you, once again, to not get your hopes up. The two sides are still far apart, still entrenched, and every minute that goes by makes it more and more likely the owners will decide it's time to increase their leverage to get one final element which could get the union to walk, knowing that in the long-run they'll get a better deal, and every minute makes it more likely the union will elect to decertify and fight than lay down any more to the league's incessant demands.
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com