Blog Entry

First decertification step coming this week?

Posted on: November 6, 2011 3:25 pm
Edited on: November 6, 2011 3:27 pm
Posted by Royce Young

The campaign to decertify is heating up.

While the league has set a deadline for Wednesday to accept the latest proposal or the offers get worse, the players are trying to hit back with that big nasty d-word.

The whole process is complicated. But it only starts with an initial petition that would allow a vote on decertification. In order to even be allowed to vote on it, there has to be a minimum of around 130 players -- or 30 percent -- sign it. Will they get that far along? A report from says yes.
Sources close to the process say leaders of the decertification movement -- with Boston Celtics star Paul Pierce most noticeably at the forefront -- can and will find the required 130-ish players needed to sign a petition to vote on decertification by Monday or Tuesday. And that's when the clock would really start in terms of saving the season … unless you believe that the league is truly prepared to take the villainous step of canceling the season if there’s no deal by Wednesday.
The report says the players aim to get around 200 signatures and not just the low number of 130. If the petition passes, only then does the actual process of decertifying happen. Then the National Labor Relations Board has to rule if the vote can even take place. That window though is for 45 days and that's the whole plan for this decertification: The players want those 45 key days of negotiating where the owners actually fear the prospect of decertification. That's where they think they can make up ground.

But understand this: The petition the players are expected to sign this week only means that potentially a decertification vote could take place. And if it ever gets that far, a majority -- some 230 players -- would have to vote to decertify. Would they really do it though? That's the question the players want the owners asking.
Category: NBA
Since: Nov 5, 2011
Posted on: November 7, 2011 11:14 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Sep 5, 2006
Posted on: November 7, 2011 10:29 am

First decertification step coming this week?

,  When I was growing up, there were only 24 teams in the NBA to begin with.  The teams added since (Miami, Charlotte, Memphis, Toronto, Minnesota and Orlando) have COMBINED for 1 title in 4 trips to the NBA finals (all coming from Florida).  The league is fine without 24 teams.

Small market owners should NOT be fighting against the salary cap (which hurts them when they are good), but fighting against the minimum which and the player minimums which hurt them when they are bad.  A team like Toronto would do well to have a veteran point guard to help mentor the young guys they ALWAYS have there.  But they cannot afford to pay the league minimum for a ten year vet if the guy is the 13th man on the roster (last I heard, that minimum is worth between 1.1 and 1.8 million - ridiculous.)  They probably would not get a lot of push back from the players on this one - guys like Antoine Walker cannot get back into the league because they CANNOT work for less than that minimum, and no one is investing that in him.

A team that is "losing money"  (and if the owners really are losing money, then why would they even bother to have a season this year - absence of a negative is a positve in accounting, but that is a different discussion), why not let them function with a payroll of $30 million (Sacramento had a $45 million payroll last year, which was the smallest in the league).  The Kings could win 23 games next year developing their young core (Evans, Ferdette, Cousins and Thompson) surrounded by a bunch of older guys hanging around to get a check.  As their core gets better, they could begin to spend money again. 

Lets stick with the Kings for a second here.  With a salary cap, are they MORE or LESS likely to stay in Sacramento when free agency arrirves?  Let's say the cap dictates that Evans can make a max of 8 million per year in his next deal?  Will that make the addtional $2 million he can make in sneaker deals if he plays in a bigger market MORE appealing or LESS appeallng?  Heaven forbid Jimmer Fredette would be locked into that money.  Fredette has to pay taxes, agents, lawyers, and if I am not mistaken, tithe (10% to the church).  With his Tebow-esque following, imagine how much more he could make in a big market.  The salary cap works AGAINST the small market teams.  If the Kings can pay Evans and/or Fredette 14-15 million per, they would be far less tempted to move. Not saying they WOULDN'T go, but there would be a stronger argument to stay.

Since: Aug 11, 2008
Posted on: November 7, 2011 9:38 am

First decertification step coming this week?

Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me meYell

Since: Sep 25, 2008
Posted on: November 7, 2011 6:06 am

First decertification step coming this week?

A lot of the threads here keep talking about why the big owners help or are letting the small markets run or ruin the show.  Well, think about how much money they would lose if there were only a handful of teams.  How many times could you play the same teams.  Charlotte may not have a very good team but the NBA, players and owners, may stand to lose several million customers throughout the Carolina markets.  Multiple that times several small market areas and you cannot stand to continue to lose them.  People will lose interest even more than they do now.  If you continue to read the comments you see all writers refer to Dallas, New York, Boston, LA and the Thunder with Durant.  Well, that would make for a very short season.  Those 7 or 8 teams play each a dozen times (ho hum) and then a half dozen times in a playoff.  Decertification is not going to throw the NBA into anymore of an unbalanced mess than it is now.  All the good players are spread over a half dozen team and after decertification those same teams are going to dominate.

I fully realize that the players are the product but I simply don't get the comment people make about the slave owners.  General Motors, the steel industry and the coal industry truly are like that but you can hardly say that about players making MILLIONS of dollars when they have no financial investment to lose.  If the team loses the game or money, they still get paid even if they suck at playing or don't put forth any effort.  A player signs a huge contract for several years and then quits putting efforts forward and the owners are stuck with the contract.  That happens whether it is a large or small market.

Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: November 7, 2011 1:49 am

First decertification step coming this week?

I don't think it matters a single bit to me. It does not matter a single bit to you. It only matters that decertification transfers a couple hundred million to the lawyers (seriously - see antitrust law cases in the past) and blows off 4 billion dollars for this year for the players and owners. Because the decertification step is a desperate step. Jeffrey Kessler makes tons of money. And he is there at the negotiating table and the podium afterward rattling the war drums. People think Kessler is looking out for the players? The players that only average 4 years in the league and are now out one of those four? The big agents stand to lose millions per year if the NBA restores sanity to this CBA. They are the ones in Hunter's ear. They are the ones egging on the decertification. They are the parasites that make millions for a couple hours work every 4 or 5 years.

So decertify if they want to. It will not solve a thing. Last summers' NFL case should be a caution. The players court shopped until they found an ultra-liberal judge to rule against the NFL. Twenty-four hours later the 8th Circuit Court overruled and stopped the District Judge's order, first temporarily and then permanently while noting that decertification in the face of labor negotiations is a sham. The owners did not get it all and the court warned them to negotiate the contract or both parties would be dissatisfied so they did. In the NBA case the league has already filed a preemptive action against decertification in New York. A venue where they understand business and big business. Much different that Minnesota (a fine state but tending to be liberal in their judiciary). The union have been trying to get that judge to throw the case out so they can trot back to Minnesota or California or wherever they perceive they (union) has an advantage. But once this route is taken it is going to the circuit court or higher and will take much of 2012 to be closed. So goodbye NBA. See you next year. Decertification or not there will not be basketball this year and maybe not in the Spring next year. Or the union could get their head out and take the best offer they are going to get before it disappears Wednesday.

Since: Oct 23, 2008
Posted on: November 7, 2011 12:49 am

First decertification step coming this week?

I think to decertify at the beginning would have been a mistake, but at this point if the players really believe that they can get that 52% - which I don't think they can, then the threat of doing it basically means that the players are prepared to blow the entire season up in order to get what they think is fair. The biggest question then will be if the owners are prepared to blow up the entire season in order to fix the NBA and bring it from a deficit to a profitable organization. 

I still believe that the players should take the deal because in the end, they will lose even more by blowing up the entire season

Since: Aug 25, 2011
Posted on: November 6, 2011 11:09 pm

First decertification step coming this week?

If the players decertify the owners will decide whether or not they want to challenge the existing contracts. Any team that has a star will NOT want to void exisiting contracts. No way Miami wants to put Lebron, Wade and Bosh on the market, nor the Knicks want to put Amare and Melo on the market, or Chicago puts Rose on the market, or Dallas puts Nowitski, or OKC put Durant, or LA puts Kobe on the open market to the highest bidder. You will start to see the large market owners, who have thus far been quiet, step up and start to be more vocal. That is a good thing and for the NBA. The NBA should stop letting the worst owners tell the best owners how to do business.

Since: Jan 22, 2007
Posted on: November 6, 2011 10:44 pm

First decertification step coming this week?

Voting for decertication makes all the guarenteed contracts null and void. Good luck with that!

Since: Aug 25, 2011
Posted on: November 6, 2011 10:29 pm

First decertification step coming this week?

I think it is interesting how some people are against the union and against the decertification of the union.

Since: Aug 25, 2011
Posted on: November 6, 2011 10:26 pm

First decertification step coming this week?

I don't look at decertification as a scam. I would like to see it happen. I hope the courts recognize it as such and do not allow price fixing and collusion by the owners, once their is no union. It would mean that many teams in the NBA would not survive. But, I really don't care to watch Charlotte, Toronto, Cleveland, New Orleans and Milwakee play anyone. Not even my beloved Celtics. I think it would be the best thing for the league and the players to decertify. It would mean some lost jobs and lower pay for the bottom players in the NBA and I feel bad about that. But the NBA will eventually be a more competitive more exciting league after some of the small markets die off. It will also mean less teams in the playoffs and shorter more exciting playoffs. I think it is a huge win for the fans, players and well run teams.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or