JYD Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I blame the players in this one...Unlike the NFL. The owners are losing a lot of money...Many teams are considered a loss...that's a huge problem. The contracts are a big problem in the nba you got 100$mil guys not even getting out of their warm up's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hard cap at 50M floor 70M ceiling and call it a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerGuy Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I blame the players in this one...Unlike the NFL. The owners are losing a lot of money...Many teams are considered a loss...that's a huge problem. The contracts are a big problem in the nba you got 100$mil guys not even getting out of their warm up'sThe owners are the ones to blame for the bad contracts. Nobody was forcing them to sign them. Are the players and their agents part of the problem? Sure, but if owners stuck to their guns and didn't give out max contracts like candy on Halloween, then players would be forced to take a lower deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 According to most reports out there, and even ESPN tonight, the owners offered the 50/50, and the players declined. Before, I was against what the owners were doing...but if that really did happen, the players are ignorant. 50/50 is a terrible deal for the players when you factor they started at 57. Since the existence of the salary cap, players have never been below 53 but the league wants 50 after coming of record highs in revenues. It's worse when the owners disguise it as a 50-50 split when really they want to deduct an additional 350 million before and split the rest, meaning the players are really getting 47%. It's also bad when the players get nothing in return for going to 50. It's not like the owners are getting rid of the salary cap or giving them higher % increases in contracts in exchange, or any real trade off. Plus we don't know what gimmick the owners want with the salary cap at 50-50. They could still claim they'll allow the soft cap but they'll gimmick it up in essence working as a hard cap. From the players POV, they might as well not have a union where the CBA limits their earning power if they have to agree to a 50/50 split. The purpose of letting the players have a bigger share of revenues was because they implemented a salary cap. The players have already given up $350 million by going to 53% to help offset the 300 million the league is allegedly losing. The only reason the owners want 50 is so that they don't have to share revenue amongst themselves. If the issue is of disparity between small market vs big market, then that's something the owners need to figure out themselves, not have to take from the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Once again, I agree that the owners are at fault for their teams' respective financial struggles. However, with 22 teams losing money which can be linked to some basic problems in the league's system, the players are still the ones that will ultimately have to deal with the majority of the consequences. I seriously doubt 22 teams are losing money. No one would by a team under those circumstances, and not at the prices they've been going for. Those "losses" are mostly from the purchase from the team. They show up in a balance sheet but doesn't really mean it's actual money that they're losing. The players are only part of the product. The arenas, cheerleaders. merchandising, marketing and a huge amount of other things are generated by the owners. They give the proper platform for the players to perform and rake in the money. If players could have anywhere near the success the NBA has by creating their own league, you can bet your ass they would while taking in all that money the owners currently profit from. Thing is, they can't. The owners deserve more than 43% of the BRI. The most important part. Most fans don't go to the arena just to be in the arena. Most fans don't go to watch cheerleaders; they're nice to watch if they're there, but not necessary. The NBA is a marketing machine, but without the best players in the world to market, the brand is meaningless. A start-up league with the best players would actually have a chance of succeeding. The ABA was extremely popular and folded mostly because they couldn't get a national TV deal. The NFL is vastly more popular than the NBA, has a lower average salary, and a much harder cap system, and the players currently take in less than 50% of the football related income (the exact number is 48% I believe). There's also a lot of revenue sharing in the NFL. And the lower salaries are a result of the hugh roster spaces. Their popularity also has little to do with their CBA. We can go into all the reasons why the NFL is more popular, but lets just say that one of the biggest reasons is that the NFL is the perfect sport for TV. But also, this point is somewhat irrelevent. If you ask the NFL players which system they would prefer, a probably the majority would take the NBA's system or guranteed contracts. The players aren't negotiating for the best interest of the league and neither are the owners. Each are looking out for themselves. The NBA could overtake the NFL in popularity and it wouldn't necessarily benefit the players. Just like the owners don't care if the league is popular if they can make a profit (Lakers, Knicks, Clippers, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 13, 2011 Owner Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 50/50 is a terrible deal for the players when you factor they started at 57. Since the existence of the salary cap, players have never been below 53 but the league wants 50 after coming of record highs in revenues. It's worse when the owners disguise it as a 50-50 split when really they want to deduct an additional 350 million before and split the rest, meaning the players are really getting 47%. It's also bad when the players get nothing in return for going to 50. It's not like the owners are getting rid of the salary cap or giving them higher % increases in contracts in exchange, or any real trade off. Plus we don't know what gimmick the owners want with the salary cap at 50-50. They could still claim they'll allow the soft cap but they'll gimmick it up in essence working as a hard cap. From the players POV, they might as well not have a union where the CBA limits their earning power if they have to agree to a 50/50 split. The purpose of letting the players have a bigger share of revenues was because they implemented a salary cap. The players have already given up $350 million by going to 53% to help offset the 300 million the league is allegedly losing. The only reason the owners want 50 is so that they don't have to share revenue amongst themselves. If the issue is of disparity between small market vs big market, then that's something the owners need to figure out themselves, not have to take from the players.Sure, but the owners aren't reading your post, and they couldn't care less what the players want right now. The owners hold all of the cards, and the truth is, the NBAPA isn't going to win. They should've taken the 50/50 earlier, because now, they'll lose money AND will still be forced to take the 50/50, and because of the delays and the owners losing money as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the owners decided they weren't moving unless they get their hard cap, amnesty clauses every season, non-guaranteed contract rules, and much lower exceptions, possibly removing the MLE and LLE altogether.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Stern gave an extended interview to Mike Francesca on New York's WFAN radio station this afternoon, and after discussing the negotiations in depth, he was asked point blank whether the NBA would be playing basketball on Christmas Day. His answer? "It's time to make a deal. If we don't make it Tuesday, my gut ... is that we won't be playing on Christmas Day."http://www.sbnation.com/2011/10/13/2488602/nba-lockout-2011-david-stern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Sure, but the owners aren't reading your post, and they couldn't care less what the players want right now. The owners hold all of the cards, and the truth is, the NBAPA isn't going to win. They should've taken the 50/50 earlier, because now, they'll lose money AND will still be forced to take the 50/50, and because of the delays and the owners losing money as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the owners decided they weren't moving unless they get their hard cap, amnesty clauses every season, non-guaranteed contract rules, and much lower exceptions, possibly removing the MLE and LLE altogether.. Clearly they don't care since the owners were calling for a lockout beginning three years ago. As for the rest, I don't think it's really an either/or situation. If the owners get that hard set on their conditions, the union probably decertifies. The middle class would be the ones getting screwed and since they make up most of the union, they'd be better off then not having a CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 The most important part. Most fans don't go to the arena just to be in the arena. Most fans don't go to watch cheerleaders; they're nice to watch if they're there, but not necessary. The NBA is a marketing machine, but without the best players in the world to market, the brand is meaningless. A start-up league with the best players would actually have a chance of succeeding. The ABA was extremely popular and folded mostly because they couldn't get a national TV deal. My point is both sides are equally important. That last sentence of why the ABA folded is another huge reason owners are so important. Bottom line is no basketball league will ever bring in the kind of audience or revenue the NBA does. Partially because of organization, partially because of funds, partially because of tradition (a HUGE advantage the league has over a newly created league), etc... The owners give these players the platform to maximize their talents and profitability. The owners definitely deserve more than 43% of the BRI. Just because the players earned 57% of the BRI from the last CBA DOES NOT mean they deserve a similar cut this CBA, because ideally the new CBA is supposed to be made for the betterment of the entire league, owners and players included. Players receiving 57% is neither fair 'nor sensible. The owners are at fault for this lockout, but there are flaws in the system that benefit the players that don't benefit the league, and aid the league losing money. If the NBA wants to be more profitable and attain greater parity, the players are the ones who will suffer, especially since the owners have greater leverage in negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) My point is both sides are equally important. That last sentence of why the ABA folded is another huge reason owners are so important. Bottom line is no basketball league will ever bring in the kind of audience or revenue the NBA does. Partially because of organization, partially because of funds, partially because of tradition (a HUGE advantage the league has over a newly created league), etc... No doubt the owners are important, but they can be replaced. A new league may not be as popular as the NBA, but if it has the NBA talent it can be more easily sustainable than an NBA with replacement players. I'd rather watch Chris Paul play for Kitty Hawk Flight than Tierre Brown starting for the New Orleans Hornets. The owners give these players the platform to maximize their talents and profitability. By placing a salary cap and salary limits by definition they're not allowing them to maximize profitability. For every overpaid player in the league, there's also a handful that outplay their contracts. Derrick Rose should be getting a MAX contract, but that rookie scale the players agreed to a long time ago seems to have benefited owners that draft well. The owners definitely deserve more than 43% of the BRI. Just because the players earned 57% of the BRI from the last CBA DOES NOT mean they deserve a similar cut this CBA, because ideally the new CBA is supposed to be made for the betterment of the entire league, owners and players included. They got more. The players are giving them 47%. That's about 300-350 million per year. Players receiving 57% is neither fair 'nor sensible. I agree. But you can also argue that having a CBA is also not sensible when it limits how much a player can earn. A guy like LeBron could surely double or even triple his yearly salary without a CBA. The owners are at fault for this lockout, but there are flaws in the system that benefit the players that don't benefit the league, and aid the league losing money. If the NBA wants to be more profitable and attain greater parity, the players are the ones who will suffer, especially since the owners have greater leverage in negotiations. No doubt there are flaws in the system, but I disagree with the owners that the system as a whole is broken. San Antonio won 4 titles with this system, so clearly small market teams can win. IMO, the biggest flaw in this system is that there isn't enough revenue sharing among teams. The biggest disadvantage small market teams haves isn't how much they can spend for players or players not wanting to play there, it's that small markets can't compete with the local TV deals of the Lakers, Knicks, or Bulls. But revenue sharing up to this point is something that hasn't even been seriously discussed among owners, when that should be the biggest change to help teams make a profit. Between revenue sharing and the 4% of BRI the players are giving up, that makes up all of the owners' losses. The rest is up to them based on self control and putting a winning franchise on the floor. But instead, owners want to practically eliminate all risk because they assume they have the right to guaranteed profits. No business has a right to make a profit. For as much crap as the owners are giving the system with guaranteed contracts, it's had several benefits. This past season has been the most interesting because the system allowed the Big Three to team up in Miami. Also guaranteed contracts are like a fixed interest rate on a loan, rather than a variable one. Yeah sometimes owners lose by overpaying a stiff (Eddy Curry, Luke Walton, Rashard Lewis), but they also sometimes get gems on small deals (Billups when he first signed in Detroit, Arenas before he re-signed in Washington, Jason Kidd before re-signing with NJ) and those players don't hold out like the NFL because of the security of guanteed contracts. To me, both sides have a this obnoxious sense of entitlement. But at least the players own it. The owners are trying to BS me into feeling sorry them. I can't when I see teams like the Pistons and Bobcats with three head coaches on payroll, or teams like the Hornets and Grizzlies when they move to cities where people don't care about basketball just because they have a shiny new stadium they could never fill, and I see teams freely giving huge salaries to Rarshard Lewis, Elton Brand, Drew Gooden, Luke Walton, Joe Johnson, Darko Milicic, Tyrus Thomas, Brenden Haywood, Amir Johnson, etc. and then blame the players for their lack of self control. I honestly don't care how either side splits the millions they get, I just want to watch basketball again. Whether Kobe makes 20 million or 2 million or Donal Sterling makes 30 million or 10 millions, they don't pay my rent so I don't care. But to me the owners are the bad guys here because I honestly don't think they've negotiated in good faith as Billy Hunter put it. Edited October 16, 2011 by ?QuestionMark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted October 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2011 daldridgetnt David AldridgeWith the caveat that this is a much different kind of bargaining session, at 9 hrs, it is by far the longest since the start of the lockout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Another hour. KBergCBS Ken Berger#NBA mediation session has steamed past the 10-hour mark. Lookin like it's gonna be a while. How u. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerGuy Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 They've been in there for 12 hours. That has to be a good thing...right? Debdawg@debdawg007 Debdawg@uuords @HPbasketball Maybe they are celebrating Festivus & Stern\Hunter are engaged in the Feats of Strength? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 If there's one thing we learned from all of these labor meetings, it's that the number of hours they meet for means absolutely nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 They've been in there for 12 hours. That has to be a good thing...right? Doubt it. They met for something like 9 hours and all that came from that was them deciding to cancel the first 2 weeks of the season. For all we know, they mediator left and the two sides are just sitting there playing 2K12. That seems about as likely as a deal being reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) As if there wasn't enough incentive to get a deal done The city of Memphis is considering getting involved in the NBA owners' lockout of the players. Memphis taxpayers stand to lose a lot of money if game revenue doesn't come in to pay off the bonds used to build the FedExForum. http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/memphis-looks-to-sue-nba-over-lockout-mfo-20111018 Edited October 19, 2011 by ?QuestionMark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Reporters are having a blast waiting around for 15 hours. Some of these tweets are pretty awesome: Trying to figure out why Walt was so special in Lost#ReasonsforLongLockoutMeeting They're doing trust falls, but Stern keeps dropping Hunter#ReasonsForLongLockoutMeeting Gilbert Arenas has the NBA owners at gun point#ReasonsForLongLockoutMeeting David Stern promised to end the lockout just as soon as Derek Fisher can stop him from scoring a basket. KBergCBS Ken Berger"It just ... doesn't ... matter. It just ... doesn't ... matter." - Meatballs In a bit more serious news, Berger is doing an interview and he made these comments (paraphrased over at Real GM) -there has to be some progress for this meeting to be going on for so long -it's easier to say things and make a concession if the other side is not in the same room while you have a mediator -board of governors meeting is still on for tomorrow night - in his opinion, tonight's meeting should take a higher priority over the board of governors meeting tomorrow; a deal needs to be made first right now he's on the flex tax and the BRI... -need to have more revenue sharing, but you can't increase the luxury tax to teams that can't afford it, while at the same time you have to distribute the amount amongst all teams equally/proportionately -he's optimistic due to them being in the meeting for so long (and still going), and he's pessimistic because they still have a lot of 100 small details to fix... but it's feasible they can fit the season in a compressed schedule and get those games back, and the owners can use it as a negotiation chip (players can make back that $200mil lost) *Interesting* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamerGuy Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 WojYahooNBA Adrian WojnarowskiMeeting has ended after 16 hours and mediator, NBA and NBPA will be back later on Wednesday to talk more, source says. NBA spokesman says mediator has "asked both sides to refrain from making public comments." Neither side will talk to media tonight. The NBA, NBPA and mediator will be back at 10 AM to continue talks. NBA owners in town for Board of Governors ... m.tmi.me/hiA6n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Source who was in meeting on progress made in 16 hour talks: "Very little. Still not anywhere near a deal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 With the nation's leading federal mediator George Cohen presiding, the NBA and the players union met for approximately 16 hours in a marathon session that began Tuesday morning and ended in the early hours of Wednesday. The parties will resume talks at 10 a.m. EDT on Wednesday with Cohen again mediating. Neither side commented to the media officially, in compliance with a request by Cohen. Perhaps the largest remaining sticking point is the league's proposal to implement an escalating luxury tax that would penalize payroll over a certain amount. The union believes the proposed tax would result in the establishment of a de facto hard cap that no team would exceed. Both the league and the union have made previous public statements indicating that a compromise agreement on sharing revenues, known as basketball-related income, is within reach. Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216074/After_16_Hours_Of_Talks_Sides_To_Meet_Again_Wednesday#ixzz1bEzjR6HX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 So let's say the BRI goes from 57 for the players to an even 50-50 split, what does this mean? Does the cap/salaries go down? What are the direct results of the BRI being adjusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The NBA and NBPA met for over 24 hours on Tuesday and Wednesday. While no major breakthrough was made, two sources say progress was made in terms of the split of basketball-related income. The two sides have moved closer to a “50-50 split, give or take a point with ranges based on revenue performance,” one source said. 'System issues' have been at the forefront of the talks and have been cited as a bigger issue in getting a deal done. Included in this area of talks are the luxury tax and the limitation of Bird Rights. The players believe a strict luxury tax will create a de facto hard salary cap. George Cohen said that the 24 hours of talks over the past two days have been "direct and constructive." “I think everyone is expecting miracles. It is still going to take some time even with a mediator,” one league executive said. “I don’t think Cohen has solved disputes in two days.” The two sides will reconvene on Thursday at 2:00 PM EST. Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216100/Progress_Made_On_BRI_Split_Moving_Closer_To_50_50#ixzz1bHVext12 Still doesn't seem like a deal is very close, but any sort of progress could be considered good news based on the past meetings between the two groups. I actually think that there might be a season this year, albeit a 50 game one, but that is still more than I could say a week ago where I was sure no season would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I am nearly 100% sure there will be a season, even if it's only 50 games or so. The revenue lost and damage to the league from a lost season would far outweigh the differences being discussed in these negotiations over the course of x amount of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Another league source said that, despite Stern’s cancellation, there still is a possibility an 82-game schedule can be salvaged in a lengthened season that would stretch into July. That is, if progress continues to the point a deal is made this week.http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/20/chicago-tribune-82-game-season-could-be-salvaged?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 WojYahooNBA Adrian WojnarowskiTalks on a 50-50 BRI split broke down, and labor talks have ended, source tells Y! No new meetings scheduled. Huge setback in this lockout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.