Skip to content

Reports: Lockout talks break down over BRI split

Oct 28, 2011, 4:53 PM EDT

David Stern AP

According to multiple sources, the lockout talks between the player’s union and the owners have hit an impasse over the BRI split. The players want 52%, the owners want to give them 50%, and neither side is budging.

Talks for the day are reportedly over, and according to ESPN’s Brian Windhorst, no future talks have been scheduled yet.

Reports from multiple sources say more games will be cancelled today (or in the next 24 hours).

The issue was more than just BRI, the two sides got stuck on the final details of the system issues as well.

If you want to see basketball soon, there’s no good way to spin this — each side wants what it wants, and each side is willing to sacrifice games in order to try to get it. After a brief window of hope, things are looking grim once again.

  1. thoff1525 - Oct 28, 2011 at 4:58 PM

    Really, are we surprised?

  2. stayhigh_247 - Oct 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    This sucks, but ncaa starts nov 11, and the HS tournys have been good so far.

  3. dcipher80 - Oct 28, 2011 at 5:27 PM

    This is kinda good news actually. BRI isn’t the issue I’ve been beating the drum about but the system needs to change considerably. I wish the owners would give the players the BRI and institute a hard or much much harder cap system.

  4. bjtmeyer - Oct 28, 2011 at 5:54 PM

    With having NFL and NCAA basketball, I could care less about the NBA right now.

  5. mojosmagic - Oct 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM

    Judging by the amount of comments(2) NO ONE CARES! Lol

  6. thetooloftools - Oct 28, 2011 at 6:51 PM

    Do not give the players any more then 50% of B.R.I. Some of us middle income people would like to see a game once in awhile too.

    • dadawg77 - Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM

      What, do you really think how much the players make has any effect on what ticket cost? Supply and demand dictate the price, if the players made less it just be more profit for the owners instead of cheaper tickets

  7. bearsandjazz - Oct 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

    I dont know about anyone else but I think its pretty damn funny that they cant agree on a 51% to 49% split. Owners want 50% 50% players want 52% 48%….they really cant budge 1%. As far as Im Concerned cancel the games, 60% of the players will need the paychecks in 2 or 3 months and they’ll be screaming for Derek Fisher to accept the 50% sot hey can pay the payment on their jewelry and 6 cars.

  8. danielcp0303 - Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM

    The comments Stern made about being profitable at 50% is absurd. So if the players get 52.5% you’re not profitable? You’re talking about 100 million dollars a year, divided by 30 teams. So the extra 3 million dollars helps the owners make money, get out of here. Stop the dumb spending and do a better job building a larger fanbase. Having 2 shortened seasons in 12 or 13 years doesn’t help that. This whole situation is so stupid. Neither side are right, they are both wrong.

  9. sportsinhd - Oct 28, 2011 at 7:21 PM

    It’s hard to be on the side of the owners in this one. The players were getting 57% under the old deal, and they’ve gone down 5 percentage points already. I think they understand the meaning of “compromise.”

    What still confuses me is why anyone would be on the owners side. The NBA has a much different business model than the NFL, MLB, or even the NHL. While marquee teams go a long way (Boston, New York, Chicago, LA Lakers), the NBA is a star driven league. No one ever said “I’m going to watch the Cavs” game when Lebron played there, we were tuning in to watch King James. In other sports people are loyal to the team, in the NBA it’s the players that drive business.

    The NBA was on top of the world during the Jordan-era, an era when one of its marquee teams was at a low ebb: the Boston Celtics. Did that make one bit of difference? Nope. Heck, think about it, the Celtics never played the Bulls in a Conference Final, and Jordan only caught the Lakers on their way out. Jordan played Phoenix, Portland, Utah, and Seattle, obviously it’s a star driven league.

    The only sympathy I feel for owners is that they should be able to ‘franchise” a player. A team shouldn’t be held hostage by a player (C. Anthony), nor should they be forced to gamble in free agency, putting all of their chips on a current player who then walks away (James of course).

    • danielcp0303 - Oct 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

      I don’t know how anyone can side with the owners either. Irresponsible spending and negotiating bad deals for themselves, they’ve been digging their own grave.

  10. berto55 - Oct 28, 2011 at 7:48 PM

    Easy, because the system causes a lot of the irrational spending. Look at Orlando, if they weren’t trying to somehow convince Howard (and their fans) they are trying to put a team around him, they wouldn’t have taken the huge risks they have been taking. I know all the Lebron defenders will come out, but Lebron caused this. The people who have billions wrapped up in this will not be held hostage by three kids who can hoop again. Lebron and Wade made them all look bad (I’m in Chicago and they clowned management here) and they won’t take it. Frankly, if I had all that cash wrapped up in it and I was a successful person (which all owners are), I doubt very much if I’d let kids (relative to the owners) make me look foolish again. The big three basically said they would decide what team would win the most championships over the next stretch and now the owners are saying no you won’t. Plus teams want to punish Miami for getting away with it and handcuff them to make it as difficult as possible to improve their roster. If you owned any team other than Miami (who is probably saying, yeah, lets do away with the cap entirly) you’d be on the other end of the spectrum than say Chicago, Boston, Atlanta.

    • danielcp0303 - Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM

      A counter to that would be that the system has been mostly agreed upon. It’s the revenue that’s a problem. So if the owners haven’t tried to take away the power from the Lebrons and other players wanting to leave, doesn’t that just add to the list of things they’ve screwed up?

      • yournuts - Oct 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM

        I can understand how everyone can side with the owners! They are the OWNERS! The players and owners agreed upon a contract where most of the owners lost money, and gave to much power to the players association. No matter how the deal was agreed to before that deal is over now! So now the owners want to take over ownership and protect their interest and make small market teams more profitable and have a better and more profitable product.
        If you don’t see this danielcp0303 then I have a problem with you supporting the players here! Your reasoning is putting the blame on the last contract squarely on the owners and their management. Well, that deal is over now and their is a new day. Your reasoning is to start the bidding where it ended at 57/43! No way, why should the owners even consider that as a starting point? It makes no sense! The owners are negotiating from a standpoint of strength. A BMI of 50/50 is more than a fair split. The players association should be more than happy with this, because they players have nothing to lose. Nothing! The owners pay all the bills, salary, and have the arenas? The players will miss a few months of salary and eventually cave in. If the players don’t settle now I would lower the BMI to the players to 47% next month.

      • berto55 - Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 PM

        Doesn’t sound like the system is going to help the players much. From the sounds of it the hard cap stays, teams are going to share revenue and luxury tax has more teeth. This hurts Miami (who can now only sign guys at the vet minimum basically) and the players because teams can’t go over the cap to pay them which further restricts their mobility. Don’t forget, Miami had a few built in advantages, mostly no state income tax. In essence they were able to pay 5% more than the Bulls who would subject LBJ to an additional 5% hit to the State of Illinois.

    • dadawg77 - Oct 28, 2011 at 8:55 PM

      So what you are saying is: owners are being driven by the fool who famously wrote a childish comic sans letter; helped destroy the housing market (Quicken Loans); indirectly causing the current economic environment which is causing less demand for NBA product and reduction is sponsorship money requiring the NBA claw back BRI in order to run a profitable business and thus this lockout. And their need to rig the system in the owners favor is why we should support them.

  11. crazyfootballfun - Oct 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM

    Personally i do not know why the players get anything more than their salaries. They are paid humongous amounts and are employees. How many of other employees get their salaries and a split of the profits. If they want the profits too, they should have their salaries reduced significantly. I know, i know, it is sports and should be different. But why? the players get paid whether the teams make 1 cent. they have zero risks..owners have it all. players invested nothing into the business. Not 1 dime, but they should share the profits after making 6, or 7 or 20 million ? Give me a break!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

What players stood out at World Cup?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (2970)
  2. L. James (2653)
  3. K. Irving (2366)
  4. R. Rondo (2305)
  5. K. Bryant (2221)
  1. J. Valanciunas (2014)
  2. D. Ferry (1916)
  3. R. Gay (1814)
  4. N. Batum (1742)
  5. D. Favors (1654)