Something since nothing has been posted for a while.

Billy Hunter used to prosecute Hell’s Angels members back in the day. Maybe he should’ve stuck to that, or moved onto see if he can finally get those Sons of Anarchy guys to shut down SAMCRO (kill Clay to start with?). What he certainly should not have been is the leader of the NBPA, because he’s done a sure as shit job of managing that. Right now, everybody hates him. Even Chris, who everybody hates. There’s talking of the union disbanding, more NBA players getting demoted to the NBDL, a massive slash in the percentage of BRI that goes to the players, and a system that’ll prevent teams from splurging on players. This has all happened under his watch, and worst of all for him, this is now considered a decent deal for the players.

You have to admire David Stern and his tactics, he’s dangling a 72-game season (only one missed pay cheque for the players instead of two) in front of the players, and it’s going to test their resolve to the utmost. If they don’t bite, he’s going to go back to 47% BRI and we’re back to square one, and this saga descends to its ugliest stage. Time is, of course, on the side of the owners. The players have a limited window to make their money, the owners don’t. That’s the question thing that every player is going to be asking themselves. Is it worth losing money in the relatively short career they have. Stern has proven in the past that he’s willing to let the season slip away (see the 50-game season from a decade ago), so when Stern says he’ll be cancelling more games, he’s not bluffing. He’s got a track record of following up on his threats.

It was evident from the start and it’s becoming even more clear now. Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter are out of their league when dealing with a man like Stern.

As for that resolve I talked about, the latest deal is likely to be rejected. Do you honestly think Stern is going to come back with a better deal for the players if they do that?

  • K.J.P

    Such a big mistake if they don’t take it. From my understanding they didn’t even get to vote on the last deal. I think majority will want to take it. 

    I like the line about the short career of a basketball player against a life long business men. 

  • cesco

    The majority of players must be thinking that the likely hood that they could achieve a better deal than the one being offered is about zero . So they will accept it via their team rep .

  • Wahgwan
  • Wahgwan

    ….dont need the nba. fuck em.

  • Edvinaspuskorius

    We need an new betting option in betting points 😀
    Reject, accept ;D

  • j bean

    It was evident from the start and it’s becoming even more clear now. Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter are out of their league when dealing with a man like Stern.——————————————————————————————–
    The question is, do the players not see this?

  • drizz

    Start a new ABA

    • NEWS FLASH

      Don’t let Isiah Thomas hear that

  • Paradigm Shift

    Yes they may be out of their league, but it is not in relation to Stern. They are out of their league negotiating with a group of billionaire business people who have made their money squashing others to get to the top. They have far more experience in this game than the players do…. and a major aspect of that experience is placing someone like Stern between them and the public, thereby creating a discourse (the one above being one minor example) around Stern as the villain.

    Make no mistake about it, while Stern is unquestionably intelligent and good at his job, he is simply the mouth piece. There is a strong and vocal group of owners who are in these negotiations with no regard for what is best for anyone or thing but themselves. They certainly no have no consideration for basketball or the fans in their current actions.

    Most of the discourse on basketball web sites and even underneath the surprising number of mainstream articles and blogs critical of the owners (see, Berger, Wojnarowski, Abbott, Berger…) decries the whiny millionaire players and/or Stern, while the billionaires slide under the radar (If my partner wasn’t due back soon to kick me off of the computer, I would deal with relatively mild shots to MJ).

    Let’s put some scale back into this discussion. I can’t imagine anyone who visits this site who would not trade in their current job to play in the NBA for the league minimum. I get it. But why are NBA player not entitled to what they have earned. We may not think they have worked hard to get to where they are; riding on g-d given talents and freakish bodies. Why does everyone assume, however, that the owners have worked harder the average RR reader to earn exponentially more? More important, why do they need a guarantee to profits on their “fantasy” basketball investments? The Blazers do not represent all of  Paul Allen’s, business interests, for example. He’s not relegated to eating cat food if the team loses millions a season. This is one of his toys and it costs him to have it. Five years ago my wealth allowed me to buy a brand new Honda Civic with power steering, windows and locks. I haven’t made a dime on the thing since. In fact, I have probably lost, relative to my total annual income, more on it than Allen has lost on his Blazers.

    So don’t begrudge the players, who are the only ones who have given anything up so far in this negotiation, if they have a limited time to get a piece of the pie. Are they all completely innocent and beyond reproach in this dispute? Of course not ,but don’t mistaken them for the real villains in the lockout; those who have imposed it. At least the players all want to get the season going. There a vocal radical minority owners who could care less if there is any basketball this year as long as they win at all costs.

    • Theswirsky

      +1

    • p00ka

      1. To suggest owners should be happy to accept losses year after year is preposterous.
      2. Aside from the BRI split, the owners appear to be trying to fix a system that currently will not sustain more than 8-10 teams, that the stars choose to gather in, for much longer. Apparently the players’ big sticking points are the “sign-and-trade” rules and the use of MLE. What are the players giving on those issues, or what alternative are they offering to try and level the playing field?
      3. The current model is broken. What are the players offering that helps the cause?

      • Paradigm Shift

        1) I’m not suggesting they accept the situation. I am wondering why so many people seem to think the players should accept that it is their responsibility to fix what the owners have broken.

        2) Do confuse owners attempts to secure their financial investments with an attempt to fix the game.

        3) Again the owners are not trying to fix basketball, they are trying to make more money. Why should the players offer to feed that process at their expense?

        • p00ka

          Rhetoric aside, what parts of the owners’ proposal do you feel is unacceptable to the players? What should they scuttle the season over?

          • j bean

            There is nothing in the offer that can legitimately be pointed to by the players as justification for not going back to work. 
            The minimum salaries of the bench warmers still makes them millionaires. The average salary will still be higher for NBA players than any other sport. The superstars will still earn hundreds of millions over their careers.    
            The owners are at least attempting to level the playing field so more teams can be profitable and financially competitive. That is a good thing for fans, the ones who ultimately pay the bills. 

          • Paradigm Shift

            LOL is there anything more rhetorical, than telling someone they are being rhetorical?  That said I will now openly skirt your question.

            I am not trying to argue that the players are unfairly compensated for the “work” they do. Compared to you and me (I am assuming that you are not among the 1% of RR readership who are millionaires) it’s ridiculous. However, compared to the “compensation” received by the people they are negotiating with ???? This is a negotiation between two groups who are unfairly compensated, when compared to the rest of us. My question is why does everyone think it is up to the millionaire players to give up more and more to the billionaire (or multi-millionaire) owners.

            So I will throw your question back at you:

            “What parts of the [player’s] proposal do you feel is unacceptable to the [owners]? What should they scuttle the season over?

            • p00ka

              I might be able to present well founded opinions if we knew what the players’ counter proposal is. They haven’t spelled that out like the owners have. Based on incomplete information, there are a couple of things:
              1. Fully guaranteed contracts. The owners should have some degree of “out” in the Eddy Curry or Hedo type contracts. Sadly, the players already won that battle, but there may be hope yet. The players have now refused the latest offer, so this may get back into play.
              2. The owners have attempted to implement measures to level the playing field against the big spenders that small markets can’t compete against under the current deal being abused by players and agents. You may be able to argue against the effectiveness of these measures, but the players simply refuse to accept them, yet offer no alternative to help that factor in the long term viability of the league. The system needs fixing. What do the players offer to address that? Nothing?

              • Paradigm Shift

                Interesting observation. the players certainly seem to have been in reactive mode. That probably could be added to the list of things that the league has managed much better during the lockout.

                Re. 1) As basketball fan, OMG are you kidding?! I would have dumped Hedo before training camp ended. I won’t list the contracts I would like to have torn up from under BC’s signature pen. What about Grant Hill, though? He was to have been the next MJ, before the Pistons pushed him to play in a meaningless opening round series on a knee injury probably ruined his career. I know he is still playing but he was never the player he was becoming. should his longterm contract have been torn up too? there was a period in which he was horribly overpaid given his PT and production.

                Players earned guarantee contracts and while it has produced many Hedos and Lewis situation it is a protection for people in a very risky short money making career. The owners signed on for good reason and it is a risk built into business….but would I like to tear up Calderon’s contract and resign him for what he is worth? You betcha!

                Re. 2) Thanks for the out on this one I don’t have the time and to be truthful the energy to “argue against the effectiveness of these measures” but I think those arguments made, elsewhere on this site, belie the fact that the owners are not trying to fix the system, though it serves great cover. They are trying to fix the financial aspect to maximize their profits. It just so happens that some of these proposals seem, prima facie, like they could level the playing field in terms of basketball dealings.

      • Paradigm Shift

        Check out this article. It argues that the players should give up, not because it’s right, nor because they are being selfish. On the contrary, the article points out the obvious. They should give up because the owners don’t care about anything but their money and so they will not blink. The players should accept this deal because it is over. They have no power and they never did. The sad thing about it is that so many are willing to believe the players are the bad guys here. So even when they cave they will still be regarded by most as the villains in this strike (sorry, lockout).

        http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-Players-Association-s-not-so-tough-choice?urn=nba-wp10526

        • OwnerRules

          Can’t wait to see the players sign a 53 ( owners)-47 ( Players) with the hard Cap and restriction in player movements. 

          Sick and tired of this Trio BS in the big cities and bullying the young small market teams. Man up and compete instead of Ganging up on the weak.

          Cancel the season so the TV networks can sign deals with College teams and show us college games.

          I even heard the TNT guys would be covering some of the college games when the season is over , yayyyyyyy.

          Imagine Thursday night watching college games with Chuck and the crew.

          • Theswirsky

            “Sick and tired of this Trio BS in the big cities”

            this happened, what, once (Miami)?  And don’t forget it needed an owner to make it happen…….

            • Guest

              Boston before it. Now, we have NY which is going to do that too and basically take 3 super stars from other cities into the big town and the list continues and …

              • Theswirsky

                Paul Pierce was already under contract.

                Ray Allen was a FA signing (sign and trade I believe)

                KG was a straight trade.

                All done by the organization… not by the players ganging together.

                Yes Bosh, LBJ and Wade seemingly planned on teaming up… but the Big 3 in Boston was a significantly different story.

                NYK, years prior to the ‘the summit’ (or whatever LBJ, Bosh and Wade called it), talked about wanting to sign atleast 2 max contract guys.  The organization has been planning to do this.

                It still takes an owner for the players to group up with. 

                • p00ka

                  It certainly does take an owner, and there are certainly a few owners quite willing to gather such flocks. Would anybody be surprised if D12 and CP3 orchestrate their “trade” next year? Perhaps there’s a few other big stars ready to jump on that wagon too? This is precisely why the majority of owners are trying to re-shape the system to protect the long term interests of the league from the few teams with the deeper pockets willing to go even deeper. They’re also trying to put some cost on the player in making such choices, by restricting the abuse of sign and trade provisions. Freedom comes with costs, just like the real world.

                • Theswirsky

                  listen to what you just said

                  “Would anybody be surprised if D12 and CP3 orchestrate their “trade” next year”

                  D12 and CP3 can’t ‘orchastrate’ a trade without an owner to facilitate it.  By all means people can be mad at the players for ganing up.  But it still takes the help of the owners to do it.

                  If people want to be mad about players ganging up… get mad at ALL the stakeholders.   Not just a few of them.

                • p00ka

                  Well, if the topic was who to get mad at over what caused this, I’d be right there with you. There’s plenty of blame to go around. My issue is what’s needed to move forward and get an NBA season underway. The NBA’s proposal is now available for all to see. What parts of that do you feel are worth the players quite possibly scuttling the season over?

                • Theswirsky

                  This is a lockout not a strike.

                  What possible offers/desires that the players made is worth the owners scuttling the season over?

                • p00ka

                  hahaha, I love how you keep resorting to the “lockout not a strike” meaningless argument.
                  Well, I’m not quite sure what the hell the players’ counter proposal is. Do you? All I hear about is a bunch of whining about what they don’t want, which are all the owners’ attempts to create a more even playing field. The system is broken, and they haven’t offered any alternatives. The players haven’t accepted any of these provisions to try and level the field. That’s plenty of reason for the owners to scuttle the season. The current system doesn’t work, but the players demand maintaining the status quo, without offering up alternatives to help any cause but their own. 

                • Theswirsky

                  lockout vs strike is NOT meaningless.  The only reason they are not playing basketball right now is because the owners are preventing it from happening.  The two sides could still play basketball while dealing with the negotiations.  But the owners have chosen to forgo this option.

                  This is ALL the owners doing.

                • j bean

                  So if there was no lockout there would be games played under what agreement? The old one? There would be no urgency on the players part to get a new deal done and how long would they go on without a new deal? All year? If the players won’t accept the new offer there has to be a lockout. 

                • jimmie

                  Two years. That’s how long both sides have known this (or something like it) was coming. The actual, physical lockout just signalled the beginning of “formal” negotiations. This should have been under discussion informally for the past 2 years. Both sides are at fault for that, but blaming the owners because the players are now locked out is silly. Both sides knew this was coming.

                • Johhny

                  perfectly Said.

                • Johhny

                  I don’t think you get it !!! This is not about Owner or Players for fans. Fans want the stars of this league to compete. They want a  more balanced league. They want the small market teams to have a chance of winning as well and ….

                  This over spending, star player united supported by big market teams needs to stop. Lets face it, if Paul goes to NYU and play along side Anthony and Amare and on the other hand we have Miami with their big 3, the NBA finals is set for next 6 years in the East !!!

                  What is the point of competing for small markets if all they can do is get passed the first round ?

                  The system is broken and needs to be fixed. I will be happy with College games for a year if it means a more balanced league and I think many fans feel the same.

                  So Screw Owners and Players  :)

                • TheFame

                  There will never be parity in the NBA, stop being a n00b, it’s the way it has been and always will be, and even perhaps more interesting. Would you rather watch a small number of greats teams, or a larger amount of pretty good teams?

                • p00ka

                  Do you really think the NBA would sustain anywhere near the current levels of revenues with only 10 teams? The last thing the stars should want is a drastically reduced number of teams. They’ll make less $$$. If they insist on maintaining the status quo on system issues, that’s what will eventually happen.

            • Bendit

              One team succeeded in that go around. New York and Chicago had pared down their cap and were in the hunt for same lot.

              The point really being that teams (especially those with large pockets and in attractive locations) would try the same given the old cba. As it stands NY has taken a slightly longer view to achieving the same end…with Amare (having missed on the LBJ sweepstakes) then poached on Carmelo and is actually able to I believe add Deron Williams or Chris Paul under the new cba within the next 2 years.

              Is this the type of league a Raptor fan aspires to? …where all the superstars congregate on about 4 teams and play in effect exhibition games during the season and then get serious for the playoffs?

              • Theswirsky

                the NBA is a league where just a few guys make a difference.  A dynasty is common place in this league.  Has been for as long as I can remember watching basketball.  That is simply not going to change

                Those same ‘4 teams’ will disappear soon enough and new bunch of teams will arise.   As long as an organization has a good management team, they can overcome it.  In this last decade, Detroit and San Antonio had the two longest ‘dynasty teams’ of anyone besides LA.   Those are hardly the ‘to be’ markets in the NBA. 

                Raps fans anger is being misplaced…. it should be focused squarely on the Raptors management and ownership for doing a shitty job.  Drafting Bargnani, resigning Bargnani, signing Hedo, building around Bosh, not trading Bosh, trading for Jermaine O’neal.  These are the things that has set this team back … not Amare going to NY or what Dwight Howard will do next.  

                • Bendit

                  I used the Raptors as a stand-in. To in effect logicize why approx 15-20 teams perennially do not sniff either the playoffs or are standins as fodder in the first round is to somehow legitimize the canard that their collective problem is solely mismanagement and that the system in place is of no consequence…the recent history of pro basketball notwithstanding. Sorry.

                • Bendit

                  I may have exxagerated on the 15-20 stat.!!

                • Theswirsky

                  No worries. 

                  Not all of the 15-20 (we’ll keep using that number to keep it simple) failures will be solely due to mismanagement.   A large portion of those teams failures/success will also be due to simple luck.  But thats no different for Dallas or LA as it is for Milwaukee or Toronto. An unfortunate injury, the right draft pick at the right time etc.  And that won’t change in any system.  When you draft a D.Rose, a DHoward, a Kobe Bryant, a LBJ etc. you will end up having success. 

                  Where management becomes extremely important is recognizing when you actually have one of those guys (ie. not a Bosh) and surrounding those players with the right guys (ie. not a Bargnani, Hedo, Kapono and Jermaine O’neal).

                  What too many of these GMs and owners have been doing is just trying to make the playoffs.  They’ve created cycles of mediocraty, in order to bring in short term playoff revenue without recognizing the importance of real ‘building’ for long term success.  We’ve seen that very clearly here in Toronto for the past 3 or 4 years.

                  We hear it all the time…. use the ‘OKC model’ for team building.  But when you actually look around the league, very few teams have been doing that.  Really it seems that only in the last couple years have teams started to try and duplicate what Seattle/OKC was able to do.  Don’t take on big salaries, collect draft picks and valuable assets… then make your move when you have a strong core (and particularily a legit star)

                  MJ seems to be one of the hardliners in this negotiations… but look at what he did in Charlotte.  Wasted 4-5 years just trying to squeak into the playoffs, with a middle age to veteran team… and now the team has to start from scratch.  They are finally starting to do things the way they should have a long time ago…. but Stephen Jackson and Gerald Wallace, for as good of players as they are, are not going to bring in fans and aren’t going to make your team elite.  They never were.  They were good #3 and #2 guys… the entire league, except for maybe MJ himself, new that.  Jordan never gave himself that opportunity to create that luck for himself.  He made an investment, wanted to create immediate returns on that investment and sacrificed the long term well being and profitablity of the organization.

                  Simple fact is… going forward, it doesn’t matter what the CBA rules are.  If teams aren’t willing to go the OKC route, if they don’t get lucky or put themselves in a position to get lucky with a draft pick, they will continue to be the feeder team for the rest of the league.  One only has to look as far as the Chicago Bulls from the Jordan to Rose.

                • Bendit

                  You make some valid points re “luck” and MJ as either gm or owner. I continue to be unconvinced that a system overhaul central to the movement of especially the very good players is not required in order to avoid a drastically skewed 2 tiered league.

                  A central theme of your post is luck and that there are only so many superstar type players. Truisms indeed. As we all know, such a player in basketball more so than any sport, is crucial and central to the success of the team. 

                  That a system allows for a few certain teams to accumulate multiples of such rare creatures and leave the rest of the lodge brothers to fight over comparative dregs and hence paying many inflated/mistaken worth salaries just doesn’t seem to be a prudent way to conduct a sports league where the fundamental tenet should always be (without sarcasm or tongue in cheek)…every team has a decent chance given the rules to participate and win. 

                  I do not think this is utopic though obviously difficult but it’s well worth the struggle to correct that part of the system which has not existed in the NBA for a long while. And yes I am aware that Stern was the architect of that very system to glorify the star in the big market for tv in order to raise the league’s profile and popularity. That 15-20 team number needs to be decreased to a single digit. Bad management like bad picks will always exist. Minimizing that number is the intent in my position where any fan of any team can clearly point to the execs of the team as the reason for failure…not the system.

                • p00ka

                  Very well said!

          • TheFame

            You make it sound as if these announcers are your friends, and you seem to share their opinions…hmm interesting. Subconsciously conforming to be part of a group is my guess.

  • Guest

    Screw the players. Can’t wait for the season to be canceled and then maybe some of these TV channels will start to show more college basketball and this way, we will get our basketball fix. Mean While NBA players can listen to likes of Garnet and Pierce :) 

  • Kevin

    Players need to hurry up and take the deal as long as the age limit isn’t raised.  They’re foolish if they think they can get a better deal…

  • Wahgwan

    demars just fine working at footlocker…i hope the nba is disbanded forever so these losers can all go get a fucking 9 to 5 and bust their asses like the rest of us.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DANSRO43XQD3CLQZ2JFM5JZRQI 2damkule

      why are you posting on an NBA website if you ‘hope the nba is disbanded forever?’  or are you just being hyperbolic?

    • TheFame

      Hahaha you’re just a bitter person aren’t you? Your life must suck.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DANSRO43XQD3CLQZ2JFM5JZRQI 2damkule

    re. hunter & his ‘ability’ to deal with stern…just to play devil’s advocate (of course).  this could get wordy…

    who was it that was the executive directior of the NBPA during the last work stoppage…the work stoppage that resulted in what is (almost) universally accepted as the most pro-player CBA in major sports?  that was so good for players, that owners  are now willing to throw away an entire season of revenue in order to not merely tweak it, but DRASTICALLY overhaul it?  was that hunter?

    look, hunter was/is in a complete no-win situation.  if he takes (or rather, pushes for) an early deal, it’s going to be shit, because he & the players have no leverage.  EVERYONE KNOWS that the previous CBA was ridiculously slanted in the players’ favour, EVERYONE KNOWS that concessions will be required by these players, and EVERYONE KNOWS that the owners are willing (and able) to hold out much longer than the players.  at the same time, EVERYONE KNOWS that the players CANNOT accept an early end to a deal, because an early end = major concessions…even though EVERYONE KNOWS that those same MAJOR concessions will happen eventually, they simply cannot happen RIGHT NOW, as it would appear to be too drastic a capitulation. 

    the players – as a whole – don’t want to come across as being beaten down by the owners…the biggest roadblock to getting a deal done has little to do with finances, and more to do with getting around the psychological hurdle that the players will need to ‘lose’ this negotation.  losing it NOW – while it makes the most sense in every regard – just isn’t psychologically manageable.  it doesn’t ‘look good’ if they settle now for this deal, when they could wait a few more months, take the same (or slighly worse) deal, but at least claim that they fought as long & as hard as they could, and only settled ‘for the fans.’

    back to hunter – as stated, he’s in a no-win situation.  whether he lays down & accepts this ‘poor’ deal, or holds firm & extends the lockout (needlessly), he’s coming out looking like shit, either to the players (settle now) or everyone (settle later).  he’s out as Exec. Dir. regardless once this ends…but he still has a little bit of (misguided) belief that he’ll be able to get a deal done that doesn’t totally blow for the players, & that will allow a season to be played, which may save his job (and really, it’s the only way to do so).

    IMO – part of the owners’/stern’s hardline stance may stem from wanting to teach hunter a lesson.  they know they got taken in the last deal, and hunter was steering the ship on that one, and now they want a little payback.  hardballing now pretty much guarantees that hunter will be ousted by the players.  what the players should be considering is…if the owners/stern want hunter out, then the players should want him to stay.

    just my $.02

  • Ottytoohotty

    its Bargnani”s fault thats there’s a lockout

  • Theswirsky

    J-bean

    “So if there was no lockout there would be games played under what agreement? The old one? There would be no urgency on the players part to get a new deal done and how long would they go on without a new deal? All year? If the players won’t accept the new offer there has to be a lockout”

    yes it could be under the old CBA.  And there would be no urgency by the players to get a new deal done.  And thats is EXACTLY why the owners are locking out the players.  Their ‘leverage’ on the players is to with hold paycheques.  That is, no basketball.

    It is the OWNERS who are using a season of basketball as leverage against the players… not the players against the owners.

    But simply put, there does not HAVE TO be a lockout… but no lockout greatly weakens the owner’s position.  However, we as fans may have to sacrifice a season of basketball for billionaires to gain leverage against millionaires. 

    One can side with whoever they choose in these negotiations…. but the basketball that is being missed is squarely on the owners shoulders.  No one elses.

    • p00ka

      I’m not sure what you’re harping on this about. Isn’t the more significant question whether or not the lockout is justified or not, rather than simply that it exists? Besides, we’re past the point of who created the lockout. There’s a clear proposal in front of the players now. I see it as pretty reasonable. Perhaps you can share what you feel is unreasonable about it, and justifies the players rejecting it and going the decertification route. The ball’s in the players’ hands right now, and they’ve chosen a route that will virtually guarantee the season is lost. The lockout didn’t do that. The players’ refusal to accept the owners’ best offer is now what holds the season up.

      Actually, at the end of the day, I don’t really give a damn who started it. The more relevant point is who is holding things up now. I care about a CBA that’s best for the long term viability and competitiveness of the NBA. I could be wrong, but I’m seeing no movement or counter proposals from the players in this regard. Just refusals of everything the owners are trying to do to level the field.

      • Theswirsky

        The lockout could end just as easily right now if:

        1) the owners gave in to the players demand

        2) the owners decided to continue to negotiate but play under the rules of the old CBA.

        Just because the owners “made an offer” does not change that this is still an owners lockout or that the lockout prevents basketball from being played.

        • p00ka

          Yup, if only the owners would accept a bad deal for their investment, and the long term prospects of the league, us fans would be happier. I see your point.

          • Theswirsky

            so you are happier with the NBA based on how much money an owner does or doesn’t make in any given year? 

            I doubt that.  Not once did I ever see a fan complain about how little money their team’s ownership was making.  Suddenly its so important? (have you happened to notice that the BRI is expected to increase every year, and has every year for around 25 years now…. this past year being the best ever.  The league is not in any financial trouble what so ever.)

            And more to the point… this was all about your comments of ‘scuttling’ a season.  The season will be ‘scuttled’ due to ownership, not the players. 

            • p00ka

              Is there a reasonable offer on the table? If so, the players are holding up the season at this point. If not, what would make it reasonable?

              • Theswirsky

                no they are not.  You keep acting as if as soon as an offer, that YOU see as reasonable, is on the table… that the face of the lockout changes.

                It doesn’t.  Its still a lockout.  The only thing that is still preventing this season from happening, is the lockout itself regardless of whether an offer is given, received, accepted, rejected or none of the above. 

                • p00ka

                  lmao, precious. you go swirsk