Lockout Remains: NBAPA Files Disclaimer of Interest

Published: November 14, 2011

The Players Union immediately stops representing the Players. Boom goes the collective bargaining process. To litigation we go. There was no vote amongst all players, just player reps, who this reportedly still hadn’t even made contact with all of the players they represent.

The unions lawyers are “stellar” according to Billy Hunter. One of them, David Boies, argued on behalf of Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election fight. The other big one, Kessler, recently made comments claiming to that the owners are treating players “like plantation workers”.

Just saying. It’s not like they have Johnny Cochran (RIP).

On the bright side, a disclaimer of interest gets the next step moving a lot faster than the players voting on decertification and all the nonsense. Still, in all likelihood, boom goes the dynamite.


  1. 42

    November 14, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Let’s clarify a few points.

    The disclaimer of interest leaves the union intact, it just removes them from the collective bargaining process. This matters, I think, because it still leaves the possibility for an injuction against the lockout to have a snowball’s chance in hell of happening.

    Also, their lawyers are fantastic, all humor aside. The guy’s may not be svelte on all fronts, but they are fantastic. I’m sure the NBA lawyers are also fantastic, but this no marked difference in kind. The players’ economist was better, as well.

    They are well-armed and have been underestimated, and, in their mind, underappreciated.

    It’s not time to see if the owners have the resolve they claim, or if the threat of courts interveningn in the decision-making processes make them agree to changes the players want.

    This is not David vs. Goliath yet. The players have a bag of items to use, and one of them may be magic. Once those are gone, it’s David and sling redux.

  2. thechosenuno

    November 14, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    I’m surprised they didn’t put it to a vote. As an article I read somewhere said, the mid-level exception affects 10 players max a year. They’re going to flush a whole season for something that affects 10 of the better-paid players?

    If I were a player that’s not a team rep, I’d be furious that they didn’t let me vote this yea or nay.

  3. James Online

    November 14, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Carmello and Kobe standing up for the union which basically refused a deal that would have made it tougher on the top end of the salary scale, but brought greater balance into the league as a whole.

    In video from Friday, Fisher’s butt boy Mo Evans was on the podium goofing off and laughing during the announcement that no agreement was reached.

    It is hard to stomach that in the midst of the economic crisis, with the 99% struggling to make ends meet, all these fools can manage is a standoff that seems to be more about male posturing than anything else.

    Bottom line for me is reasonable competitive balance: the players are NOT interested in teams, only individual salaries and mobility.

    Seems that the

  4. paul

    November 14, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    I have repeatedly said here that this is a negotiation controlled by a very select few…Agents and top big money players.
    THEY are the ones fighting for their special deals. The false use of “brotherhood” in this union makes me laugh, and cry.

    There was no way 30 or 40 representations out of 400 plus NBA players can make this judgment.
    It should have been allowed to go to a vote.

    Perhaps legally or by union procedure it did not.
    But to hell with that when you start using brotherhood/one for all and all for one garbage.
    If you use these terms, then also speak to the spirit of the league union.
    Let the people have their say.

    40 cannot tell the 400 they cannot vote.

    Agents have taken over the league.
    To hell with all….

  5. Chris

    November 15, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Legal guys on espn & nbatv say this type of legal action can take yrs to work its way out in the courts. Are we really looking at a loss of 2 or more seasons, i cant believe the players are prepared to lose more then they can gain, this must be some sort of scare tactic surely! Also iam sick of the players taking to twitter to get support for fans, maybe they should check out the sportsnation polls on espn. 35% blame players, 30% blame both, 18% blame owners. Who should get more BRI? 42% say 50/50, 37% say Owners & 21% say players. Lastly how does this effect Hornets obtaining ownership & lease agreement?

    • 42

      November 15, 2011 at 10:20 am

      Let me try to help you out a bit, if you don’t mind.

      As far as duration goes, other legal guys say this will lead to a 50-game season. This is all complicated, but I think the idea is to force the owners back to table to get a little more on the system side by setting a line on the calendar that’s framed by typical times to get X done in the legal system . . . a time frame that allows a 50-game season. They did what they could as a union and now are using their last tactic to get the last bits of victory in their overwhelming defeat overall. So far, their concessions gained are significant compared to the 47% that was the ownerships position before going to 50%.

      This should not affect the Hornets one way or another as long as this doesn’t drag on past a season AND we continue to make the Hornets uncontrollable by making it a money-maker.

      Also, polls of fans about technical points tie loosely, maybe, to revenue projection, not `correctness’. That poll is insane if you really think about it . . . at any rate, no group large enough to matter financially is clearly going to be upset about the BRI split enough to cause a flinch on either side.

      What do you think?

      • paul

        November 15, 2011 at 4:08 pm

        42…I think the owners are always willing to come back to the table. It is just that they will bring a deal that brings the added losses from the players refusing that last proposal and causing more team losses.
        The whole idea that the union will go to court and argue the owners would not negotiate is, well….stupid.
        They would, but would not give a deal the players wanted.
        This logic will never get far in court.
        It was a player with status vs everyday player.
        And the very fact, and please correct me if you know better, that the union reps took an open vote, NOT a private vote, shows me that once again, the intimidation factor looms large in this entire madness.

        Powerful agents and players are taking over the entire union with intimidation. No way they would have a secret ballot and allow for a league wide vote. No, they will force the younger players to tow(toe?) the line and go along.

        As I have always said…madness.

        Nothing has changed, in my opinion, to force owners to be afraid.

  6. cjcclarke

    November 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    I know this is off topic a bit, but I’m a huge fan of NO and obviously the Hornets as well; I’ve never been to NO (shame, I know) but I’m just booked my trip for 2012 Mardi Gras and couldn’t be more excited!

    Any tips or suggestions on where I MUST go/eat/see etc?

    Thanks! <3

    • Bug Marley

      November 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm

      Awesome! Grab a beer with the Hornets247 crew! They need a distraction from the lockout. LOL

  7. Seattle Needle

    November 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Some great back and forth on this thread. Kudos to everyone who has participated in a positive way.

    I will say that there’s one thing that I’ve seen over and over in the media and I think they are wrong. It’s the notion that the owners were “winning by 40” and kept pouring it on. This just isn’t true but unfortunately for us fans, it set the concept of a lawsuit in motion. The players are saying that since they were “giving up too much”, they felt it was time to fight back and this was their only option. Had that actually been the case, I would have no problem agreeing with them and I actually started out on their side as this is a lockout as opposed to a strike. But in my mind, the owners made more than enough concessions to the point where it would qualify as negotiating fairly and not running up the score.

    The fact of the matter is that they started out asking for the majority of BRI, no more guaranteed contracts, contract length at 3 years, a hard cap and a lot of other things that didn’t have much chance.

    Slowly but surely, they gave up on those concepts for things like a flex cap, only allowing one bird free agent to re sign per season per team and taking away the MLE from tax payers.

    By the time we got to last week, they gave up on all of that and on top of it, starting throwing in concessions to the players on things that didn’t even exist in the last cba. The owners were willing to raise the floor from 75% to 90%, add an MLE to teams with cap space that they could use as soon as they capped out, an extra MLE to non taxpayers assuming they could fit one in the $58 to $70 million window and give incentives to players on the rookie scale. On top of that were “win win” mechanisms like the stretch provision and the amnesty clause which allow players to get paid in full AND become free agents all the while creating cap space for other free agents to take advantage of.

    Of course, this was countered by a lot of negatives including the stricter tax scale and the taking away of the full MLE for tax payers as well as no S & T’s for tax payers. There was also the issue of lessening guaranteed deals by one year but even there, that helps because expected bad contracts would be coming off the books a year earlier which again, creates cap space for free agents.

    You can go back and forth arguing whether or not the players were getting a good deal but to say that the owners kept pouring it on is just flat out wrong. The fact that a good chunk of them didn’t even want this deal tells me that they are legit concessions even if I’m not a capologist and don’t understand the system issues.

    Throw in the fact that the union didn’t even give a counter offer or take this to a vote would make me even more suspicious. They say that the rank & file would vote emotionally as opposed to knowing the facts isn’t a good excuse. They had 3 days to get the rank & file fully up to date on the issues. Media members were predicting that they would vote favorably for the deal so the fact that this didn’t get to a vote tells me that the player reps felt the same.

    • Chris

      November 17, 2011 at 12:30 am

      I think the players are kicking shit up hill and I dont see the NBA/Owners rushing back to negotiate because they are scared of the players law suits. The League has good reason to want to make changes based on teams losing money and the economy taking a majory hit, I think the players are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that they have been treated unfairly when their average salary was going to raise from 5.5mil to 8mil over the life of the nba’s proposal. The hardline Owners are prepare to lose a season to get what they need, and i expect that they will let this run its course in court. I guess we will find out more after the owners conference call on thursday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.