[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Dave Krieger: NBA Not Likely To Declare Impasse
Doomsday option not likely path
NBA not apt to declare impasse, open camps
By Dave Krieger
News Staff Writer
-----------------------------------------------------------
With talks in the NBA labor dispute suspended once more,
both sides acknowledged Wednesday the possibility the
league could exercise a doomsday option that would end the
lockout, open camps and force players to choose between
their union and their league.
A top league official said declaring an impasse in
negotiations and imposing work rules unilaterally is an
option for club owners but that they are more likely to
cancel the entire 1998-99 season.
"Certainly, there is an impasse right now," said Jeff
Mishkin, the NBA's chief legal officer. "There's no doubt
about that. Legally, there's an impasse. We have the right,
therefore, to open up and unilaterally implement new terms.
It is not our present intention to implement new terms."
To cancel the season would cost the league an estimated $2
billion in revenues and do unpredictable damage to its
image. No major sports league in America ever has canceled
an entire season because of a labor dispute. Faced with
that reality, some owners are likely to want to explore
declaring an impasse and opening for business.
"There's always that possibility," union director Billy
Hunter said. "I think the commissioner has said that he's
not inclined to implement that, that what he would do is he
would cancel the season before he would implement that."
Indeed, one union official said NBA commissioner David
Stern has said that won't happen while he's in charge. The
tactic would instigate a war with players and their union,
which Stern, known for his liberal political views, would
not want as a legacy.
On the other hand, shutting down the league he made so
successful is hardly a desirable legacy, either.
"Those are questions that the owners obviously have to
decide," Mishkin said. "I don't know where the owners would
be on that. I can tell you that the present intention is to
not operate until we have a deal we can live with."
Players continued to believe it would not come to either of
these options, even as the latest framework for a deal was
falling apart. Hunter expressed optimism an agreement can
be reached and criticized league officials for canceling a
negotiating session scheduled for Saturday.
League officials said the union had, for the second time,
backed off a framework it had agreed to at the bargaining
table, prompting deputy commissioner Russ Granik to
conclude there was no point in holding the bargaining
session.
"I've known (union outside counsel) Jeff Kessler a long
time, and I have great respect and admiration for him,"
Mishkin said. "I'm not calling him names or anything. But
it couldn't have been clearer, what we were talking about.
And Kessler said -- his words were -- 'We accept your tax
proposal."'
The reference was to a 200 percent luxury tax on owners
proposed by the league to back up an escrow tax on players,
all designed to achieve the labor cost certainty the owners
have been seeking since the dispute began. Hunter disputed
Miskin's account.
"Those were not our exact words," Hunter said. "Our exact
words were that we agreed with the framework ... we said,
'We agree with the framework, we don't particularly agree
with the numbers."'
When Kessler informed Granik on Tuesday the union did not
agree to the 200 percent backup luxury tax, Granik drafted
a letter listing what Hunter called "preconditions" for the
negotiating session. Hunter wouldn't agree, and the session
was canceled.
The heart of the dispute remained the league's effort,
through a variety of mechanisms, to impose a hard cap on
the percentage of revenues devoted to player salaries. The
union has tried to maintain loopholes that would allow
owners to pay higher salaries. Each scheme the two sides
have entertained has come to a point at which the league
attempted to close the lid. The players have walked away
each time.
"The problem in this whole negotiation is the completely
different perspective of the two sides," Mishkin said. "The
players view the owners as 29 independent competitors who,
if they don't want to spend the money, shouldn't spend it.
If they want to give Kevin Garnett (a big contract), then
they should, and there should be no limits on them.
"We view the NBA as a business in competition with
baseball, football, hockey and everything else you can
watch on television, and we have to have a league that we
can promote. We don't view the teams as 29 independent
competitors who, if they wanted to, could just knock each
other off competitively, the way Ford could knock of
General Motors."
Mishkin cited teams losing money in baseball and hockey and
said the NBA will not accept a labor agreement that would
allow its teams to suffer the same fate.
The union remains unalterably opposed to a hard salary cap,
which, in one form or another, is what the league is
demanding.
"I had agreed we would try the escrow system, but we're not
going to try it in such a way that, in fact, it becomes a
hard cap, which is something we agreed we wouldn't do,"
Hunter said.
Still, union leaders remained hopeful of a settlement, with
some players suggesting the league has its own timetable
and is still a couple of weeks from wanting a deal. Asked
Wednesday whether he believed Stern would cancel the
season, Hunter said:
"He's obviously threatened to do it, but whether or not he
will do it, I guess, has yet to be seen. I think with all
of the concessions that we've made and restraints that
we've put in and the fact that we're not really that far
apart -- I'm convinced that we can probably get a deal if
they want one. To me, it just doesn't make sense. I think
the odds are against it."
November 26, 1998
[An E.W. Scripps Co.] © Copyright, Denver Publishing Co.