Quantcast
Friday, August 5th, 2011 at 11:20 am  |  12 responses

Polladaday: Owners or Players?

These days, the NBA owners and NBA players are negotiating as the League remains locked out. Whose demands do you think are fair, and who do you think needs to give in?

Who's side are you taking in the NBA owners vs. NBA players square-off?

Loading ... Loading ...

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags:

  • LA Huey

    I believe the players’s recently expired deal was in their favor but are trying to compromise. I don’t think the owner’s are bargaining in good faith and the reform they’re seeking is unnecessary.

  • zach

    The 32 idiots in favor of the owners: kill yaselves!

  • Yesse

    Players, but the way they keep behaving is not looking good in the owners eyes.

  • izum

    I just got Rick Rolled…

  • Hat

    In the uk, this wouldn’t be tolerated… If the football association got into a situation where the was going to be an effective strike over pay, the press and public would tear them to pieces. millionaires arguing with millionaires also never looks great. Sure, they’re amazing at what they do and they work hard, but there are a lot of people who do that and don’t go on strike irrespective of labour despiutes (ie soldiers)

  • seriousblack

    Hal, you should learn the difference between a strike and a lockout before you comment on the situation. Also, your football teams over there treat players like paid slaves with the way they “buy” and “sell”them, as if they weren’t human. Clearly worker’s rghts mean nothing over there.

  • Hat

    Erm… I don’t think footballers see themselves as slaves or that they are forced to be traded, ‘like they are not human’ lets not go overboard… they have powerful agents who regularly press for transfers and demand wage increases (see Wayne Rooney) They too are also fabulously paid. ‘Paid slaves’ also seems a slight contradiction in terms. Most people have employers who aren’t too great, and lots of people get the offer of being transferred or losing there job. Fact of life no? Doesnt mean it results in a year long dispute over cash and no ball. (also several of the big British clubs have gone bust over the need to pay huge wage bills to players whose ‘star’ power can’t deliver the goods). Surely this entire afair is damaging? You have a national sport, that has stopped playing twice in recent history? How much longer will the fans put up with it?

  • seriousblack

    I don’t know if it’s because you’re British or what but like I said, you need to learn the difference between a strike and a lockout, and furthermore you need to educate yourself on the details of this situation. The players didn’t stop working, the owners stopped paying them. A lockout can only be implemented by the employers, not the employees. A strike is not the same as a lockout. The owners want an unfair and improperly balanced compensation structure for the employees who generate the overwhelming majority of the income. Frankly, that type of thing doesn’t fly over here in the U.S without a fight, and I guarantee you the structure of Europe’s football pay structure would change if those league’s were American.

  • seriousblack

    *leagues

  • http://slam.com Chris Mullin’s Accent

    Players make lots and most owners lose money = fair?

  • http://slam.com Chris Mullin’s Accent

    I believe there’s been a lot of bias against the owners throughout this whole debacle. Just because they’re used to rooting for the players during the season most people are rooting for them during the lockout. The owners need to restructure the system so everybody can profit, and they are going to.

  • seriousblack

    Chris: Im not sure if it’s because you guys are be intentionally ignorant, but people who are on the side of the players happen to know at least the bare minimum details of what’s going on. I notice that people like you, bike and Hal are extremely deficient in knowledge of the situation. Your best argument is that the owners are losing money. You don’t even know why they are. How can you take a position with no knowledge of the situation?

Advertisement