PDA

View Full Version : Owners Will Push For $45 Million Hard Cap Once Lockout Begins



JordansBulls
06-29-2011, 12:36 PM
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/06/29/mike-monroe-it-only-gets-harder-for-owners-players/




According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut.

The concessions made in recent weeks, including the “flex cap” of $62 million and a guarantee of $2 billion in annual player payroll, will be off the table.

If this seems certain to guarantee the loss of the entire 2011-12 season, it is because there are owners who think it is necessary for the long-term viability of the league.

The players likely know this is coming because hints have been leaked for weeks. How they react to the old, hard line once the anticipated stoppage begins will determine the prospects for next season.

During the 1998 lockout, a settlement was reached the day before the NBA said it would cancel the entire season.

This would be the prudent course of action, but the anticipated hardening of the league’s stance may move the union to decertify, an action that has been called its “nuclear option” since under U.S. labor law, it would remove the antitrust exemption from the league.

Anyone who has followed the NFL’s labor impasse knows this is what the NFLPA chose. Jeffrey Kessler serves as outside counsel for the NFLPA and the NBPA, so it is clear which path he prefers


The two sides have been working on a new deal for the better part of two years, so you have to wonder how they’ve approached the 11th hour still miles apart from an agreement.

Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver will have us believe it is because the league’s business model is broken and requires a new system. The trouble with this argument is that owning a professional sports team is more of a hobby than business for many of the owners

Lloyd Christmas
06-29-2011, 12:38 PM
Haha. That would be great but will never happen.

VCaintdead17
06-29-2011, 12:44 PM
Thats soooo low!

koreancabbage
06-29-2011, 12:45 PM
i agree with the owners. i want this league to get more of a parity and setting a hard cap would be good. tired of seeing the same teams over and over again. its pretty evident that teams that spend money, will go far into the playoffs.

roll back on all salaries would be great as well

but alas, owners are smoking some strong stuff if they believe they will get anywhere close to what they want lol

yanks19791024
06-29-2011, 12:52 PM
I dont believe for a second these owners are not making money, Its the rich wanting to get even more rich, hello without the players there is no NBA.

Tmath
06-29-2011, 12:52 PM
i agree with the owners. i want this league to get more of a parity and setting a hard cap would be good. tired of seeing the same teams over and over again. its pretty evident that teams that spend money, will go far into the playoffs.

roll back on all salaries would be great as well

but alas, owners are smoking some strong stuff if they believe they will get anywhere close to what they want lol

This.

shen
06-29-2011, 12:53 PM
Unlike the NFL, the NBA actually wants a lockout. It is pretty clear there will be no 2011-2012 season. Most of the owners will gladly end basketball till the players come crawling back on hands and knees pleading for a pay check. Given the egos in basketball it will take a while.

jp611
06-29-2011, 12:54 PM
i agree with the owners. i want this league to get more of a parity and setting a hard cap would be good. tired of seeing the same teams over and over again. its pretty evident that teams that spend money, will go far into the playoffs.

roll back on all salaries would be great as well

but alas, owners are smoking some strong stuff if they believe they will get anywhere close to what they want lol

You do realize that your team would have to break up then right?

shen
06-29-2011, 12:55 PM
I dont believe for a second these owners are not making money, Its the rich wanting to get even more rich, hello without the players there is no NBA.

Many of the owners don't make money and actually lose millions a year because of their teams. Don't let the Lakers multi billion dollar tv deal blind you to fact that most teams only get 10-20million in tv deals.

Backstabber
06-29-2011, 12:56 PM
Come on, the owners would actually forcing a nuclear option. Hard cap @ $45M. I wonder if all the owners are on board with that. If that's the stance you definitely will see the union decertify, and it will be in the hands of the court. Look out for the NFL decision, that could change the whole dynamic.

Hawkeye15
06-29-2011, 12:56 PM
I am all for a hard cap, but that number is too low unless their is across the board restructuring of contracts. Even then, I don't think its fair to have a max deal of $10 million a year for the best players in the NBA when MLB, and NFL players make way more.

Make the hard cap $62 million, no exceptions going over, and give every team that is over it 2 years to get under. Set the revenue sharing at 53/47 owners. Take 1 year off the guaranteed deals. Take 15% off rookie scale contracts, and take the MLE away.

There, I just fixed the NBA

Tom Stone
06-29-2011, 12:57 PM
Take that player union.....What do ya have to say now!

NYKalltheway
06-29-2011, 12:58 PM
Unlike the NFL, the NBA actually wants a lockout. It is pretty clear there will be no 2011-2012 season. Most of the owners will gladly end basketball till the players come crawling back on hands and knees pleading for a pay check. Given the egos in basketball it will take a while.

and unlike the NFL, the players can easily migrate for a year or two overseas and get even more money... ;)

shen
06-29-2011, 12:59 PM
Come on, the owners would actually forcing a nuclear option. Hard cap @ $45M. I wonder if all the owners are on board with that. If that's the stance you definitely will see the union decertify, and it will be in the hands of the court. Look out for the NFL decision, that could change the whole dynamic.

NFL will have new CBA before courts ever rule. NBA lockout is going to be much longer, more brutal, and felt long after everyone has forgotten about the NFL lockout.

NYKalltheway
06-29-2011, 01:00 PM
I am all for a hard cap, but that number is too low unless their is across the board restructuring of contracts. Even then, I don't think its fair to have a max deal of $10 million a year for the best players in the NBA when MLB, and NFL players make way more.

Make the hard cap $62 million, no exceptions going over, and give every team that is over it 2 years to get under. Set the revenue sharing at 53/47 owners. Take 1 year off the guaranteed deals. Take 15% off rookie scale contracts, and take the MLE away.

There, I just fixed the NBA

almost :p

Add 2 teams in the mix so that 50% go to playoffs, not more than half!

Badluck33
06-29-2011, 01:01 PM
see you guys in january!

barreleffact
06-29-2011, 01:02 PM
Absurdity at its finest, and I personally don't believe it. Stern won't allow it. The major markets...you know, the ones that make the majority of the LEAGUES money...dont mind spending. Therefore, they will oppose such a low cap considering they already make money as it is and the others are just penny pinching. I seriously doubt Buss, Cuban, etc will be in favor of this.

Slimsim
06-29-2011, 01:03 PM
**** this **** the minute the Knicks become good this **** had to happen. Oh well there are more small market teams so i don't expect to see basketball for the next two years

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 01:08 PM
Absurdity at its finest, and I personally don't believe it. Stern won't allow it. The major markets...you know, the ones that make the majority of the LEAGUES money...dont mind spending. Therefore, they will oppose such a low cap considering they already make money as it is and the others are just penny pinching. I seriously doubt Buss, Cuban, etc will be in favor of this.

You can't have a league where the majority of the teams are losing money. Its either a hard cap, or revenue sharing (which the league doesn't want collectively bargained). I think the players have to insist revenue sharing be part of the new cba.

Sadds The Gr8
06-29-2011, 01:10 PM
lol 45m? wtf is that a joke?

thephoenixson28
06-29-2011, 01:13 PM
and unlike the NFL, the players can easily migrate for a year or two overseas and get even more money... ;)This. David stern would miss the players, more than the Players would miss the nba. Thats why a deal has to be done for both sides.

Chronz
06-29-2011, 01:14 PM
Hard cap wont fix anything, owners have to be held accountable for bad moves.

Setting a hard cap could just as easily make things worse, as low market teams with superstars will lose the 1 leverage they had over bigger markets, the extra cash.

Besides this sounds like horseshit, why would stern be in favor of a hard cap when he applauds the validity of Bird Rules?

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 01:18 PM
Hard cap wont fix anything, owners have to be held accountable for bad moves.

Setting a hard cap could just as easily make things worse, as low market teams with superstars will lose the 1 leverage they had over bigger markets, the extra cash.

Besides this sounds like horseshit, why would stern be in favor of a hard cap when he applauds the validity of Bird Rules?

Exactly that's what I'm saying. They made the mistakes but they want the players to pay for it. I'm not opposed to bring down salaries of marginal players that are overpaid but some of the things they are requesting is insane.

barreleffact
06-29-2011, 01:18 PM
Its BS like this that makes me hope the players all decide to jump ship. EFF the league and its inept owners.

FinsSuperBowl
06-29-2011, 01:19 PM
62 million hard cap is perfect. All this super team stuff is getting out of hand time for an even playing field.

Tmath
06-29-2011, 01:20 PM
lol 45m? wtf is that a joke?

Players aren't budging so the owners are playing hardball and going back to the original offer, either way it's not gonna happen.

The lockout begins :(

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-29-2011, 01:20 PM
They need to follow the NHL with the cap. Make it like the NHL cap and have it at 65 million.

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 01:26 PM
62 million hard cap is perfect. All this super team stuff is getting out of hand time for an even playing field.

how many super teams are there in the league though?

1

rapjuicer06
06-29-2011, 01:29 PM
And now the players will go overseas and make a **** load of money over there. Everyone say good bye to the NBA

allSUAVE
06-29-2011, 01:30 PM
I am all for a hard cap, but that number is too low unless their is across the board restructuring of contracts. Even then, I don't think its fair to have a max deal of $10 million a year for the best players in the NBA when MLB, and NFL players make way more.

Make the hard cap $62 million, no exceptions going over, and give every team that is over it 2 years to get under. Set the revenue sharing at 53/47 owners. Take 1 year off the guaranteed deals. Take 15% off rookie scale contracts, and take the MLE away.

There, I just fixed the NBA

this

but make it 70 Mill

camador22
06-29-2011, 01:31 PM
This article is dead wrong. There is no way owners and players would even be talking if this were true. They are scheduled to meet tomorrow to further discuss a deal. A $60M cap is far more realistic, however the players seem unwilling to do any form of a hard cap aka flex cap. When it's all said and done players will have to give up either guarenteed contract or thier soft cap.

YoungOne
06-29-2011, 01:32 PM
europe cant wait for the lock out :D

Tmath
06-29-2011, 01:33 PM
And now the players will go overseas and make a **** load of money over there. Everyone say good bye to the NBA

I doubt it.

NYman15
06-29-2011, 01:33 PM
I think its a bluff by the owners to get the players to agree to this deal with the 62 million flex cap. There is going to be a long lockout but i dont see a 45 million hard cap. Too many problems with teams too far over that cap. We'll end up with either a soft cap with much stronger rules in place or a hard cap with the cap going up like where it was reported at 62 million. If they want a hard cap, they probably would have to raise the cap like they proposed before to help teams that are way to far over this cap. No matter what, we will have a very long lockout.

Lloyd Christmas
06-29-2011, 01:39 PM
how many super teams are there in the league though?

1

Is that one team the Lakers at 91 million, the Mavs at 89 million, or the Magic at 90 million?

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 01:42 PM
Is that one team the Lakers at 91 million, the Mavs at 89 million, or the Magic at 90 million?


Are they super teams or teams that have acquired talent over the yrs and have a large payroll? Ppl make it seem like star players all over the league are joining new ones. How players switched teams during the summer 4-7 guys roughly.

dnewguy
06-29-2011, 01:42 PM
go ahead NBA owners and ruin the league. Foreign clubs can match or pay more for our players, why would they stay? It seems to be the end of the NBA as we know it.

The NBA is on the verge of been outsources to China, too many billionaires are killing this country. How is it that Cuban could afford it, spends money on the Mvas but everyone else is complaining. This fools don't think they're profiting unless they make more than 100 million.

Greed had ruined a once great country. Anyone notice that they are fighting on how to distribute our money but no one is talking about reducing ticket prices.

dnewguy
06-29-2011, 01:47 PM
If the owners refuse to budge and the 45 million hard cap is instituted, does that mean that many NBA players will rather play overseas for more money? And will that affect the talent level on the NBA.

The owners complain about parity in the league but a 45 million hard cap means parity among players. You could end up with the best players and d league talents on a team because the average players would rather play in Europe or China for more money.

MiamiWadeCounty
06-29-2011, 01:48 PM
They could push all they want it is more likely they will get a 65 million dollar hard cap than a 45 million.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 01:56 PM
Wow. NBA is going away for a long time.

JWO35
06-29-2011, 02:00 PM
Having a hard cap would potentially even out the talent, and end this potential Big 3 formations...and hurt ones that are already formed.

I don't see what the NBA Players want out of these negotiations? I mean as long as they keep their guaranteed contracts, what's the problem?

Seems to me its more of a owners vs. Owners debate

Geargo Wallace
06-29-2011, 02:06 PM
To think that a lot of these American basketball players would gladly go to Europe is funny. A lot of these guys think Toronto is too exotic.

AddiX
06-29-2011, 02:08 PM
There won't be a hard cap, the only teams that want a hard cap are the poor teams and the teams that suck.

The teams that carry the league want it raised if anything.

Guarantee there will be no hard cap.

Cal827
06-29-2011, 02:15 PM
You do realize that your team would have to break up then right?

Not as much as yours lol.. The Raptors are a little above 45 mil as of now.:D

This is such a low cap though, I think a hard cap at like 55 million would be better. I kinda feel for the players... some owners have ****** up their books, and now they want to make them take heavy pay-cuts. Maybe if people stopped offering massive deals to guys like Eddie Curry, their books would balance. I guess they want to avoid more big 3s. But the thing is, with a hard cap, they would be able to avoid it. (as the team would have basically nothing to add 9 other guys at least).

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 02:17 PM
I doubt that is valid. 45 hard cap is no where near reasonable and would force the players to go with the legal option which nobody wants.

Also for those that think a hard cap would break up the powerhouses, it wouldn't. The league basically said they would give teams over a reasonable amount of time to conform or otherwise just make concessions for them.

So if you were thinking hard cap (which probably will never fly anyway) means someone like MIA would have to trade one of the big 3 sorry it aint gonna happen....

NYtilIdie
06-29-2011, 02:19 PM
Its going to be a long lockout.......

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 02:23 PM
fyi Im not sure if this has been posted before but this is whats on the table so far from both sides.. I tend to think the players proposal is more reasonable but thats just me





Owners' proposal:


• "Flex cap" of $62 million: This would raise the cap from the current $58 million, thus allowing teams to exceed the cap subject to certain (undefined) restrictions. The exact levels of the salary floor and ceiling, as well as which exceptions would be part of the new system, have not been detailed. However, the basic idea is that the flex cap is similar to the current system but incorporates a firm upper limit (and thereby eliminates the luxury tax).

• $2 billion-a-year guarantee: Owners are proposing to guarantee players $2 billion a year in salary and benefits for the duration of a proposed 10-year CBA. This represents a modest decline from the current $2.17 billion but allows owners to capture most of the gains from a growth in income expected over the course of the next 10 years, especially when new television rights deals are signed in the next five years. This would net the players a declining share of basketball-related income (BRI), estimated (by the players) to go from the current level of 57 percent to about 40 percent in 10 years.


• Keep escrow money: Owners want to keep 8 percent of 2010-11 salaries that has been escrowed in case the players' BRI share went over the 57 percent limit. Players view this as unreasonable, since they consider it money already earned.


• Reduced contract length: Owners are proposing a maximum contract length of three years for players signing with new teams (reduced from five today) and four years for players remaining with their current teams (down from six today). This might be more palatable to the players now that the owners have backed off their demand for unguaranteed deals; the deals will be less crippling with fewer years.



• Removal of sign-and-trades: This is another measure aimed at keeping players on their current teams. Presently, players can take advantage of "Bird rights" by signing with their current team and leveraging a trade, allowing them to receive the six-year deal with 10.5 percent increase from their current team.



Furthermore, the team losing the player usually receives some sort of compensation. For example, both Toronto and Cleveland received late first-round picks and large trade exceptions from Miami for Chris Bosh and LeBron James, respectively. And New York received three players, a second-round pick and a trade exception from Golden State in David Lee's sign-and-trade. With a hard cap, there is no use for this.



• Reducing rookie contracts: This is a lower priority for the owners and certainly not the issue that it has become in the NFL. Owners will seek lower rookie contracts, most notably for first-round picks, but probably not push this too hard.



• The expensing of franchise acquisition costs in teams' operating budgets: The dispute over the fundamental state of the league is principally over how much of the league's claimed $380 million loss is a result of acquisition costs, debt service, etc.


• Length of the agreement: The owners want a 10-year deal, while the players want only five -- which would coincide with the league's new TV deals.



Players' proposal:


• $500 million pay cut: Players are proposing a reduction of their income by $100 million a year for the next five years. They have made this concession to reduce the percentage of BRI that is guaranteed to them. However, they do not want change to the fundamental features of the current system: a soft cap, long contracts and fully guaranteed deals.



• Enhanced revenue sharing: The players believe the owners' concerns about competitive balance can be addressed by reforming the revenue-sharing system. This is the age-old issue in labor disputes: Players believe that looking within, not at themselves, can solve a lot of the owners' issues.



Currently, big-market teams (such as the Knicks, Lakers, etc.) keep all the revenue from their ticket sales and local broadcast deals. The gap between the big and small markets is so large that players believe it undermines the stability of the league and the competitiveness of many of the teams.


• Enhance sign-trade flexibility: Currently, teams over the cap can trade players only when their salaries are within 125 percent and $100,000 of each other. Players want this amended to a range of 250 percent to make player movement easier. To ease this transition, the players are proposing a change to base-year compensation (BYC), a designation awarded to players who receive large raises after their rookie deals. BYC players' value in trades is halved, which makes trading them more difficult. As with the 125 percent rule, players are pushing to eliminate this rule because it impedes trades.



• Reduce the age limit to 18: Players want to revert back to the pre-2005 rules, where players only had to be 18 years old to declare for the draft. As of now, they must be 19 years old and one year removed from high school graduation.


• Restructure restricted free agency (RFA): Teams currently have one week to decide whether to match RFA offer sheets. Players believe this length paralyzes bidders during a frenzied free-agency period and provides disincentives to pursuing RFAs.



• Change/create exceptions: Players will not support a hard cap, but they are willing to make changes to various exceptions. They will shorten the length of the mid-level exception (MLE), the source of many misguided deals, from five years to four, in exchange for adding a second MLE for each team.

• Deduct arena/construction expenses from BRI pool: This is another concession by the players, who agree that they should take some part in the expenses of building and maintaining state-of-the-art arenas. This is also a key issue in the NFL labor negotiations.


• Provide a neutral arbitrator for all on-court discipline matters: Currently, players can appeal to a neutral arbitrator only when they have received suspensions longer than 12 games.



Notable topics not being discussed by either side: length of season/training camp/playoffs; retired player benefits; draft order; playing rules.

knickerbockerny
06-29-2011, 02:24 PM
To think that a lot of these American basketball players would gladly go to Europe is funny. A lot of these guys think Toronto is too exotic.

Its not so funny, it could be a real possibility. The world has become smaller. I live in New York, and if I wanted to go to Madrid and back in three days I can.

The world is run on dollars and cents. If the Spainish league could may milions more on average than the NBA players would glady go over there in waves if they change their foreign player rules.

The NBA pay would also keep future talent away from basketball/NBA. A lot of players start out playing more than one sport before they decide. If football could pay a player exponentially more, the NFL will drain the NBA of talent. The Lebron's, Wade's, and heck Glen Big Baby Davis' of the world could easily been on the gridiron than playing in the NBA.

metsfanssince05
06-29-2011, 02:30 PM
If there is going to be a lockout (which everything is leading that its 99% going to happen) how long is it going to be a year... 2??

mdm692
06-29-2011, 02:42 PM
Josh childress made 20million tax free in europe. Imagine how some of these other stars will fare. Lockout will hurt the league and lwners but players can still get fat pay checks tax free

Hugbees
06-29-2011, 02:48 PM
Wow impending doomsday incoming..

NYKalltheway
06-29-2011, 02:54 PM
Josh childress made 20million tax free in europe. Imagine how some of these other stars will fare. Lockout will hurt the league and lwners but players can still get fat pay checks tax free

idiot owners. Those guys left (for the time being) and now only 2 other teams have idiot owners :D

Wilson
06-29-2011, 03:07 PM
I am all for a hard cap, but that number is too low unless their is across the board restructuring of contracts. Even then, I don't think its fair to have a max deal of $10 million a year for the best players in the NBA when MLB, and NFL players make way more.

Make the hard cap $62 million, no exceptions going over, and give every team that is over it 2 years to get under. Set the revenue sharing at 53/47 owners. Take 1 year off the guaranteed deals. Take 15% off rookie scale contracts, and take the MLE away.

There, I just fixed the NBA

I think that's almost perfect. The only thing I would say is that teams either need a bit more time to get under the cap, or they need to be able to cut a player without having them count against the cap, like the last time a new CBA was signed. There are some teams that just won't be able to get under the cap within two years.

The thing that really bugs me about this is that the owners are unhappy about losing money, but they're still happy to throw huge contracts at average players. The owners are the ones setting the market. They've made the market increasingly expensive through their own decisions and now are complaining about it. The salary cap definitely needs changing but the owners have to take some responsibility and not screw it up again.

THE GIPPER
06-29-2011, 03:09 PM
To think that a lot of these American basketball players would gladly go to Europe is funny. A lot of these guys think Toronto is too exotic.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Kevj77
06-29-2011, 03:10 PM
Unlike the NFL, the NBA actually wants a lockout. It is pretty clear there will be no 2011-2012 season. Most of the owners will gladly end basketball till the players come crawling back on hands and knees pleading for a pay check. Given the egos in basketball it will take a while.The owners are counting on this. It won't be any stars like Lebron, Kobe ect. that cave they have the money to withstand a lockout just like the owners do. Owners are counting on the majority of players that aren't stars caving, it's damn expensive paying for a houses, sports cars and an entourage without a paycheck.

Mudvayne91
06-29-2011, 03:15 PM
NBA is a joke. If you're not a major market team, you have no chance. I'm fine with it going away for awhile.

THE GIPPER
06-29-2011, 03:18 PM
NBA is a joke. If you're not a major market team, you have no chance. I'm fine with it going away for awhile.

I agree. There's so many issues that a long lockout would help the league so much and maybe we would actually have a level playing field for once.

Bob_at_york
06-29-2011, 03:22 PM
Good threat by the league. Not sure if it will scare the players.

koreancabbage
06-29-2011, 03:23 PM
You do realize that your team would have to break up then right?

in what terms?

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:23 PM
lol... the owners have already backed off of all of those ideas... if they backtrack on that progress it will only make a deal less likely... b/c that is some serious bad faith negotiating.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:29 PM
I am all for a hard cap, but that number is too low unless their is across the board restructuring of contracts. Even then, I don't think its fair to have a max deal of $10 million a year for the best players in the NBA when MLB, and NFL players make way more.

Make the hard cap $62 million, no exceptions going over, and give every team that is over it 2 years to get under. Set the revenue sharing at 53/47 owners. Take 1 year off the guaranteed deals. Take 15% off rookie scale contracts, and take the MLE away.

There, I just fixed the NBA

how does that "fix the nba?"... a league that is growing exponentially and has never been more popular than it is right now

Lets honestly say it like it is... you are a small market fan so you support things that you perceive would give you an advantage over the current system... sorry to say this, but, nothing can cure idiotic management/coaching... NOTHING!

jiggin
06-29-2011, 03:29 PM
forgot to highlight an important part:


If this seems certain to guarantee the loss of the entire 2011-12 season, it is because there are owners who think it is necessary for the long-term viability of the league.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:31 PM
These owners are so effing greedy that I hope the players absolutely abuse them in negotiations. I hope the players hold out until we end up with the very same system b/c the owners have chosen to make ridiculous offer after ridiculous offer.

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 03:32 PM
You guys that keep crying about "leveling the playing field" do realize that regardless of the salary structure players will always go to teams like LA, New York, and Miami because they are preferred destinations right? Who doesn't want to win in the big city? Thats never going to change.

It actually hurts the small market teams with a stricter cap because if you have a choice of getting 10 million to play in Memphis or that same 10 milli to come to hollywood guess where they're going.......

Slug3
06-29-2011, 03:32 PM
I am not so sure if a hard cap would really fix much. I mean lets say they put it at 65-70 million and thats at the highest I am sure they would go. Teams would STILL spend 45 million on their payroll and then complain its not fair. Taking away the sign and trades will help or maybe making contracts not guarenteed after 2 or 3 years.

Also I just dont see all the owners wanting the same thing. Teams like LA,Miami, NY, NJ, Chicago, Orlando, Boston, Dallas are all going to want one thing while Minny, Sac, Washington and the so on are going to want another.

Crackadalic
06-29-2011, 03:35 PM
Maybe if they know how to spend money they wouldnt be in this situation. Rashard Lewis is making 20+ mil. Think about that for a second. Seriously think about that

JordansBulls
06-29-2011, 03:35 PM
Consider most teams are losing money, it makes sense for the franchises outside of the Lakers, Bulls, Heat, Knicks, Mavs to want a smaller cap so that there teams can get some revenue back otherwise if they are in the whole yearly, what advantage do they have?
Like how much do you think a team like the Pacers get in revenue yearly?

stipe1280
06-29-2011, 03:40 PM
Since this would lower salaries...how would the players afford to feed their children?

jiggin
06-29-2011, 03:42 PM
read yesterday that the owners wanted to meet more this week but the players said not until after the owners Tuesday meeting. When asked if they wanted to meet on wed. the players said no, Thursday, the day it locks out at midnight.

Players aren't acting too concerned, so I think the owners will go ahead with the lockout.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:42 PM
Consider most teams are losing money, it makes sense for the franchises outside of the Lakers, Bulls, Heat, Knicks, Mavs to want a smaller cap so that there teams can get some revenue back otherwise if they are in the whole yearly, what advantage do they have?
Like how much do you think a team like the Pacers get in revenue yearly?

no one makes them spend 60 million... in fact... a lot of them don't spend it...

Think about this for a minute... last year the Kings spent 45 million on salaries... and lost 10 million in operating income...

what is their excuse? That is just a bad franchise!

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:43 PM
read yesterday that the owners wanted to meet more this week but the players said not until after the owners Tuesday meeting. When asked if they wanted to meet on wed. the players said no, Thursday, the day it locks out at midnight.

Players aren't acting too concerned, so I think the owners will go ahead with the lockout.

players didnt want to meet b/c there was no point... the owners have not once made an offer that is even remotely reasonable...

jiggin
06-29-2011, 03:43 PM
Players have been making out like bandits...

...it will stop now.

Like all other sports that have a cap, this will be hammered into place whether you or I or the players like it or not...cause we don't own the teams. :)

In the end...this will be MUCH BETTER for the entire sport.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 03:45 PM
no one makes them spend 60 million... in fact... a lot of them don't spend it...

Think about this for a minute... last year the Kings spent 45 million on salaries... and lost 10 million in operating income...

what is their excuse? That is just a bad franchise!

you wouldn't be saying that if the team you followed hardly spent money to stay in the black and your favorite team had no star players and sucked every year.

easy to chastise them when you aren't thinking of the entire picture that is involved in pro sports and putting a product out there that attracts ticket sales and fans to your stadium and spending money at your games.


but I regress because you and I have gone around about this before and I know you just want the owners to suck it up and lose money for another couple years while they all stop offering big money they can't afford.

I say that won't work cause you know there will be a couple of the few that are making money that will still spend spend spend...then the league will suck and be less competitive.

Anyway...looks like I will have plenty of time to finish donaghy's book :)

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:46 PM
Players have been making out like bandits...

...it will stop now.

Like all other sports that have a cap, this will be hammered into place whether you or I or the players like it or not...cause we don't own the teams. :)

In the end...this will be MUCH BETTER for the entire sport.

Thats fine...

I agree the players need to give some money back... heck, even the players realize it.

But the owners are looking to embarrass the players here. They are looking to destroy them. They are looking to cut player cuts to 30%... That is just appalling by them.

They are saying, "the league isn't working b/c the players get an unfair share...and we would like to rectify that by taking an unfair share for ourselves."

Chupi
06-29-2011, 03:46 PM
The players giving up 100 million of the course of 5 years sounds like a lot but it isnt. Stern saying its a modest offer is correct.

That only shrinks the players split of the BRI from 57 to like 54. That needs to go at least to a 50 50 split. Then they can reconstruct their offer after the new television deal in 2016.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:47 PM
you wouldn't be saying that if the team you followed hardly spent money to stay in the black and your favorite team had no star players and sucked every year.

easy to chastise them when you aren't thinking of the entire picture that is involved in pro sports and putting a product out there that attracts ticket sales and fans to your stadium and spending money at your games.

Of course I would be saying that. My fandom doesn't change the facts.

If a team is holding its salaries 20 million below the cap to try to make money...and is still losing money... it is simply a bad franchise. Get rid of it. Or move it. or something...

Iceman05
06-29-2011, 03:49 PM
Many of the owners don't make money and actually lose millions a year because of their teams. Don't let the Lakers multi billion dollar tv deal blind you to fact that most teams only get 10-20million in tv deals.

Yes, the majority of owners are claiming to be losing money. But if this is the case, how the hell can they afford to lockout the players all season? No TV deals for anyone if that happens.

Theres no doubt the nfl owners are in a much better position than the NBA guys.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:50 PM
The players giving up 100 million of the course of 5 years sounds like a lot but it isnt. Stern saying its a modest offer is correct.

That only shrinks the players split of the BRI from 57 to like 54. That needs to go at least to a 50 50 split. Then they can reconstruct their offer after the new television deal in 2016.

I agree that 50-50 looks good... and the players would probably be okay with something close to that IF the owners weren't offering 30%.

You cannot make an offer like 50-50 when the other side is talking about 30% b/c then there is nowhere to bargain. Now if the owners got their act together and started talking about 45% or something... then I am sure the players would move towards the middle.

Most people agree that 50-50 is where this is heading... and if that is the case... it shows how badly the owners are treating the players in these negociations, b/c the players are offering something in that ballpark... while the owners aren't even close.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 03:51 PM
players didnt want to meet b/c there was no point... the owners have not once made an offer that is even remotely reasonable...

players showed up last Friday with no counter offer of their own. Just showed up in T-shirts that said "STAND" on them.

The owners were very disappointed that they didn't come with any negotiations at all...

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:53 PM
players showed up last Friday with no counter offer of their own. Just showed up in T-shirts that said "STAND" on them.

The owners were very disappointed that they didn't come with any negotiations at all...

Owners had no interest in negotiating...

They made fake concessions (concessions on things the players ALREADY HAD) to make the players look like the bad guys and then demanded nearly 70% of the pie.

It was the owners offensive "best offer" last week that stalled this thing. You cant make an offer like 30+%, say it is your best offer, and then expect the players to actually respond to it...

Iceman05
06-29-2011, 03:53 PM
I agree with you guys that say the hard cap with hurt smaller markets. Regardless of the climate in the desinations like LA and MIA, the big markets will still be able to woo the players by offering them more exposure to allow them to make more outside of basketball.

Raoul Duke
06-29-2011, 03:56 PM
It's a broken system and both sides should be giving up large amounts of money so as to price their product at a level that doesn't alienate the middle and lower class.

Have they made any statements regarding revenue sharing? They need to be sharing that **** pretty liberally considering that all 30 teams are part of the same business and depend on one another to stay in business. Also, this stuff about NBA franchises being "hobbies" is high comedy. Sure, theres some recreational value and status available to owners of major sports teams, but those guys didn't get rich by hemorrhaging money while their employees get filthy stinking rich.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:56 PM
yup... and with that hard cap and non guaranteed deals... the endorsement money of major markets and extra money earned in tax free states will be an even bigger factor to consider.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 03:58 PM
It's a broken system and both sides should be giving up large amounts of money so as to price their product at a level that doesn't alienate the middle and lower class.

Have they made any statements regarding revenue sharing? They need to be sharing that **** pretty liberally considering that all 30 teams are part of the same business and depend on one another to stay in business. Also, this stuff about NBA franchises being "hobbies" is high comedy. Sure, theres some recreational value and status available to owners of major sports teams, but that those guys didn't get rich by hemorrhaging money while their employees get filthy stinking rich.

I have to disagree strongly. This league would be just fine without about 66% of the teams. In fact the league would be highly in the black if it were just made up of 10 teams.

Not saying that we should contract or anything... but I assure you that Mark Cuban wouldnt lose any sleep over the disbanding of the Bobcats...

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 03:58 PM
The players giving up 100 million of the course of 5 years sounds like a lot but it isnt. Stern saying its a modest offer is correct.

That only shrinks the players split of the BRI from 57 to like 54. That needs to go at least to a 50 50 split. Then they can reconstruct their offer after the new television deal in 2016.



Thats true. From what I've heard and read the reduction of the 57% is really the heart of the deal. Everything else will really be a bi-product of that.

Owners want a 10 year deal that eventually reduces the players to 40% while at the same time letting them keep all the proceeds of the new TV deal which is expected to be a monster winfall.

Im not a rocket scientist but that seems pretty damn ridiculous!


edit*

I also find it funny that the NBA claims they're losing so much money but whenever the players bring up profit sharing they get real quiet. You would think with the game at a peak of popularity that profit sharing would solve of lot of their problems right?......

jiggin
06-29-2011, 04:00 PM
Owners had no interest in negotiating...

They made fake concessions (concessions on things the players ALREADY HAD) to make the players look like the bad guys and then demanded nearly 70% of the pie.

It was the owners offensive "best offer" last week that stalled this thing. You cant make an offer like 30+%, say it is your best offer, and then expect the players to actually respond to it...

wow you got an excuse for the players for everything.

the owners made a proposal, the players brought nothing back...and you defend them?

I think you will defend them any way shape or form. Its starting to show and be pretty obvious that you won't listen to any information from the owners and feel its them trying at all.

Lost cause...thanks for spreading your love on the topic in the thread OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN...same message: owners only want money and are greedy. Players are awesome and are being wronged. EVERYONE HATE THE OWNERS.

Lemmings, follow this message cause its cool to blame the man, even if the players have been benefiting from it for a long time...still complain!!! its the american thing to do!!!

PS - its wrong and does not include a TON of important information...but I am tired of arguing with a brick wall on this. You see, what you want to see. I am just glad you are not involved in managing or supporting any business venture that I am involved in.

PPS - If you have a business degree, you might want to hide it before its forcibly removed by your the institution you graduated from...


...that is all. Good day.

shep33
06-29-2011, 04:00 PM
i agree with the owners. i want this league to get more of a parity and setting a hard cap would be good. tired of seeing the same teams over and over again. its pretty evident that teams that spend money, will go far into the playoffs.

roll back on all salaries would be great as well

but alas, owners are smoking some strong stuff if they believe they will get anywhere close to what they want lol

Sadly its those same teams that make the NBA a lot of money.

KingPosey
06-29-2011, 04:01 PM
They arent going to get a hard cap that low. The players will never go for it.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:03 PM
Thats true. From what I've heard and read the reduction of the 57% is really the heart of the deal. Everything else will really be a bi-product of that.

Owners want a 10 year deal that eventually reduces the players to 40% while at the same time letting them keep all the proceeds of the new TV deal which is expected to be a monster winfall.

Im not a rocket scientist but that seems pretty damn ridiculous!

Thats not even the real percent TBH... they are talking about 38% of BRI

BRI is currently calculated as gross income minus 600 million (for owner expenses)... meaning that even though we are talking about 57%... players actually make about 50% right now.

The owners not only want to cut the number from 57% to 38%...but they also want to shrink the pie by changing the BRI formula to be gross income minus 1.5 billion (expanding the expense account by 900 million).

The NBA projects to have a gross around 7.75 the final year of the deal (aprox). The league will give the players 2 billion of that.... which is actually around 26%

shep33
06-29-2011, 04:04 PM
Players will start to go to Europe, and they'll be fine. Owners are gonna get screwed.

JPHX
06-29-2011, 04:04 PM
Being an NBA fan, I bet that the idea of making labor unions illegal has tempted Obama. No Labor Unions = No Lockout :p

Raoul Duke
06-29-2011, 04:04 PM
I have to disagree strongly. This league would be just fine without about 66% of the teams. In fact the league would be highly in the black if it were just made up of 10 teams.

Not saying that we should contract or anything... but I assure you that Mark Cuban wouldnt lose any sleep over the disbanding of the Bobcats...

I wouldn't lose sleep over the loss of the Bobcats, either, but if my Pistons left town or disappeared I'd be hating it.

But yeah, I never said the NBA wouldn't be fine with fewer teams in big markets where they can stay profitable no matter what. Thats another option, just not the one I prefer.

sixer04fan
06-29-2011, 04:06 PM
Is Adam Silver definitely the next commissioner in line? He really creeps me out. Anyone here watch The Office? He kind of reminds me of Gabe, in the creepy, boney, pedophile kind of way...

Kevj77
06-29-2011, 04:07 PM
I want to know if they get a 45 million dollar hard cap about a 30% reduction in player salary, will the price of a ticket go down? Will the owners still want taxpayers to fund new arenas or will the reduction help pay for new stadiums? Somehow I doubt it, the owners will pocket the money.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:07 PM
So to recap... the owners want more off the top AND a bigger percentage of what is left.

They claim to have a 300 million deficit... yet they want to take an extra 900 million off the top... AND they want a bigger percentage of what remains of the pie after they take their "expenses"

If we use this year as an example:

The NBA's gross was about 4.7 billion.

The owners took 600 million off the top. Then got 43% of the rest. The total for them was about 2.6 billion...

In their proposed system... they would have gotten 3.5 billion this year

So the owners basically want an extra billion dollars to cover a reported 300 million in losses.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 04:08 PM
I also find it funny that the NBA claims they're losing so much money but whenever the players bring up profit sharing they get real quiet. You would think with the game at a peak of popularity that profit sharing would solve of lot of their problems right?......

That is because the profit sharing portion all hinges on the salary structures and cap ect...I mean, you aren't going to give much on profit sharing if they aren't going to give much on reducing salaries...right?

NFL did it the same way. They are just now getting to the final stage of that profit sharing plan. The owners were allowed to take a "operating" cost off the top of the total profits...that was to stabilize and guarantee the teams would be able to keep the doors open. NOW...they are implementing where the players get a a cut of the overall profit without anything taken out. That's 3.4 billion dollars they will get a piece of.

See...its not all about instant gratification. The players and owners are going to have to take a step back or two before they can go forward. Its the nature of the beast...

Iceman05
06-29-2011, 04:09 PM
I wouldn't lose sleep over the loss of the Bobcats, either, but if my Pistons left town or disappeared I'd be hating it.

But yeah, I never said the NBA wouldn't be fine with fewer teams in big markets where they can stay profitable no matter what. Thats another option, just not the one I prefer.

If it wasnt for the OMAG, i could give a rat'sass about the NBA.

I believe the majority of America is the same way, unless they are bandwagon fans who like major market teams and the Heat.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 04:10 PM
I want to know if they get a 45 million dollar hard cap about a 30% reduction in player salary, will the price of a ticket go down? Will the owners still want taxpayers to fund new arenas or will the reduction help pay for new stadiums? Somehow I doubt it, the owners will pocket the money.

do you know how much a new stadium project costs?

of course they will want public funding if possible...it doesn't just make them money, having a NBA team makes the entire city money from tourism ect...

...got to think outside of the box man....this stuff is way bigger than most of you are considering.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 04:13 PM
They arent going to get a hard cap that low. The players will never go for it.

they will NEGOTIATE and meet somewhere in the middle, with my bet closer to the owners side...

of course, last friday when the players and owners had their last meeting, the owners though the players would show up with a counter-proposal for negotiation...and they didn't. It really was a ****** move on their part and it really bothered the owners and Stern. They grandstanded with t-shirts that read "stand" on them...and a TON of players showed up, unusual for most meetings they have had.

The players are grandstanding at this point and the owners will lock out. The owners have most of the control and power, as long as they are ok continuing to lose money in order to resolve this once and for all (or until the next CBA faceoff).

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:14 PM
I have to disagree strongly. This league would be just fine without about 66% of the teams. In fact the league would be highly in the black if it were just made up of 10 teams.

Not saying that we should contract or anything... but I assure you that Mark Cuban wouldnt lose any sleep over the disbanding of the Bobcats...

So you're saying that a 10 team league would offer up more profits for teams like Dallas than what we have now? That's rediculous. For one, TV deals would be no where near what they are now because people across the nation would not care about any of the teams. The reason people watch games now is because they feel like they're invested in the product through whatever team they root for, regardless if they win or not. All of that gets eliminated once fans are no longer investing. Second, merchandise sales would go down dramatically across the board.

30 teams may be too much, but you need a certain amount of expansion for the product to grow.

Chupi
06-29-2011, 04:14 PM
We are at a point were the players don't wanna give back more money. I mean Derek Fisher thought that 3% reduction is a lot lol. What needs to happen to save the season is expanding the BRI.

How to do this? By putting sponsors on the uniforms. I know its different and it will look weird, but a small sponsor on the shoulder of a player would get the league so much freaking money.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:20 PM
So you're saying that a 10 team league would offer up more profits for teams like Dallas than what we have now? That's rediculous. For one, TV deals would be no where near what they are now because people across the nation would not care about any of the teams. The reason people watch games now is because they feel like they're invested in the product through whatever team they root for, regardless if they win or not. All of that gets eliminated once fans are no longer investing. Second, merchandise sales would go down dramatically across the board.

30 teams may be too much, but you need a certain amount of expansion for the product to grow.

would dallas make more money... maybe not... would the league as a whole be more profitable... EASILY YES. It is generally not cost effective to have teams in small markets. And it is absurd for the bigger markets to have to support the smaller ones. Just move the teams. There are big markets out there dying for a team...

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Have a $45 million soft cap, with no exceptions other than a luxury tax. And have the hard cap at $68 million. Keep the luxury tax dollar for dollar for the first 10 mill over the cap, and 2 for 1 any amount over that, and that money gets shared with teams under the cap. This keeps the bottom feeders viable as they get compensated for the disparity ticket sales and local tv deals big market teams have over small market teams.

Muttman73
06-29-2011, 04:21 PM
I dont believe for a second these owners are not making money, Its the rich wanting to get even more rich, hello

without the players there is no NBA.


not true...there is no shortage of "players" available...
It won't be the ones you know, but there are thousands of "players" available to fill out the rosters and play a watered down, but interesting game at or below the $45 million cap.

Without owners...the ones who PAY the players and HAVE the money to buy stadiums there is no NBA.

What are NBA players without a team to play for, um...unemployed.

laughingjoe
06-29-2011, 04:21 PM
This is all part of the globalization of basketball. The lockout will force sme older stars to end their careers overseas, creating a viable option for some. You see they already play games over there. A London, Paris, Madrid, and Barcelona Division wont be that far off. Soon basketball will be the worlds game, every one can play. dont need as big a field, better for tv. smaller crowds breeds exclusivity and puts the rowdies at home instead of the stadium. Look at the movie Rollerball and just substitute basketball

jiggin
06-29-2011, 04:22 PM
One NBA agent who is very well regarded (Mark Bartelstein) puts it this way:


“I have so much respect for David Stern, and I know he wants to create the most competitive environment possible for the fans, but the current system is broken,” agent Mark Bartelstein said. “The luxury-tax concept is anti-competitive. We’ve created a system where in the midst of trying to sell tickets in the summer, we have teams admitting to their fans, ‘We’re not trying to win this year. …We’re waiting for 2010 or some year beyond.’

“We need to start from scratch and develop a system in which everything is designed about creating the most competitive environment possible so that we drive revenue.”

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:22 PM
Have a $45 million soft cap, with no exceptions other than a luxury tax. And have the hard cap at $62 million. Keep the luxury tax dollar for dollar over the cap and that money gets shared with teams under the cap. This keeps the bottom feeders viable as they get compensated for the disparity ticket sales and local tv deals big market teams have over small market teams.

you will be disbanding half of the league... not going to happen.

Chupi
06-29-2011, 04:23 PM
If the players want a 5 year deal and the owners want a 10, the players are gonna really have to pay up.

I think the players need to realize this and just give them the money they want and in return get your soft cap, guaranteed contracts, exceptions, etc.

What the owners are asking is rash but thats because they are trying to get so far off the status quo that returning to it will make it seem like the players won. Once the players give in and give them like 55% of the pie the owners will definitely take it. They aren't gonna be like " No, we want 70%". They dont want a lockout either, they know the consequences so they will pull the trigger on a good offer the second its given.

The players need to realize they arent giving up ****. Theyre only giving them 46% AND want a 5 year deal, thats just not gonna happen. The owners are being so rash because they want the players to realize they are also being a little stupid too.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:23 PM
not true...there is no shortage of "players" available...
It won't be the ones you know, but there are thousands of "players" available to fill out the rosters and play a watered down, but interesting game at or below the $45 million cap.

Without owners...the ones who PAY the players and HAVE the money to buy stadiums there is no NBA.

What are NBA players without a team to play for, um...unemployed.

owners do not pay players... we do...

owners generally do not buy stadiums... we do...

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:23 PM
There are big markets out there dying for a team...

who?

laughingjoe
06-29-2011, 04:24 PM
and the problem is not the number of teams it is the markets that they are in.

Some cities can only support one team financially, some cant support any.

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:25 PM
you will be disbanding half of the league... not going to happen.

i revised my proposal. How would that disband half the league?

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 04:25 PM
That is because the profit sharing portion all hinges on the salary structures and cap ect...I mean, you aren't going to give much on profit sharing if they aren't going to give much on reducing salaries...right?

NFL did it the same way. They are just now getting to the final stage of that profit sharing plan. The owners were allowed to take a "operating" cost off the top of the total profits...that was to stabilize and guarantee the teams would be able to keep the doors open. NOW...they are implementing where the players get a a cut of the overall profit without anything taken out. That's 3.4 billion dollars they will get a piece of.

See...its not all about instant gratification. The players and owners are going to have to take a step back or two before they can go forward. Its the nature of the beast...


Im talking about profit sharing amongst the owners. Right now owners get all of their gate money and TV deal money. Great for teams like the Lakers, bad for teams like Memphis. If the owners would agree to some sort of profit sharing it would wipe away a large amount of their "debt" before they even came to the players table.

But you think the Jerry Buss and Mark Cubans' of the world are going for that? Nuh uh. The real problem that is David Sterns best kept secret during these negotiations is its not really owners vs players its owners vs owners. The owners that have been doing a good job of running their franchises are just fine. The ones that have run them into the ground want a handout......

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:27 PM
Parity = more revenue for the league. Stern sees the NFL and thats what he wants to do.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:28 PM
who?

Vegas
Kansas City
San Diego
Mexico City
Seattle
St. Louis
Baltimore

all of those would be far better/bigger markets than exist in some NBA cities right now...

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:31 PM
Vegas
Kansas City
San Diego
Mexico City
Seattle
St. Louis
Baltimore

all of those would be far better/bigger markets than exist in some NBA cities right now...

not really at all. The only one i would say yes to are Seattle, who continued to lose money when they had a team,Vegas, where there are problems that we all know of, and Mexico City which is a wild card on every level. Dont see many solutions there.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 04:32 PM
Then if there are not 30 markets big enough to support NBA teams maybe we do have to contract...

Chupi
06-29-2011, 04:33 PM
Vegas
Kansas City
San Diego
Mexico City
Seattle
St. Louis
Baltimore

all of those would be far better/bigger markets than exist in some NBA cities right now...

Ill add Pittsburgh to that list

KingPosey
06-29-2011, 04:33 PM
not true...there is no shortage of "players" available...
It won't be the ones you know, but there are thousands of "players" available to fill out the rosters and play a watered down, but interesting game at or below the $45 million cap.

Without owners...the ones who PAY the players and HAVE the money to buy stadiums there is no NBA.

What are NBA players without a team to play for, um...unemployed.

That can get you buy for a short period of time. Baseball was terrible with strike players.

People will only watch for so long with talent that isnt even "draft-able".

Im not sure how it will all work out, but it peaks my curiosity and has me nervous at the same time. Chances are slim but can you imagine a year with no football AND no basketball?

Sandman
06-29-2011, 04:36 PM
Having a hard cap would potentially even out the talent, and end this potential Big 3 formations...and hurt ones that are already formed.

I don't see what the NBA Players want out of these negotiations? I mean as long as they keep their guaranteed contracts, what's the problem?

Seems to me its more of a owners vs. Owners debate

This would be a scaleback of salaries league wide.

Add up all the contracts already outstanding (doesn't include FAs or rookies) and divide them by 30. Does that number even touch 45m?

KingPosey
06-29-2011, 04:38 PM
Im talking about profit sharing amongst the owners. Right now owners get all of their gate money and TV deal money. Great for teams like the Lakers, bad for teams like Memphis. If the owners would agree to some sort of profit sharing it would wipe away a large amount of their "debt" before they even came to the players table.

But you think the Jerry Buss and Mark Cubans' of the world are going for that? Nuh uh. The real problem that is David Sterns best kept secret during these negotiations is its not really owners vs players its owners vs owners. The owners that have been doing a good job of running their franchises are just fine. The ones that have run them into the ground want a handout......

I mostly agree with this. I am a King's Fan, and I can tell you it is not the City's fault. It all falls on the Maloof's.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 04:50 PM
I mostly agree with this. I am a King's Fan, and I can tell you it is not the City's fault. It all falls on the Maloof's.

I think the problem is that there are too many cities (mine included) that will make bank as long as their team is winning, but there aren't enough fans to keep filling the arena if the team isn't relevant. The NBA still needs these teams to be successful as a whole, and the fans will still show up for those teams when the team is playing well. Answer = revenue sharing.

There's no reason to take money out of the players pockets. They should do away with guaranteed contracts but with it they should drastically alter the salary cap. Do away with max contracts as well. Let guys make the money they want to make from season to season, sort of like the NFL. You keep the overall money paid to players about the same, but in the end you avoid teams drastically overpaying players just to get them to stay or to stop the other team from matching. Players get overpaid because we never have a true open market.

kenzo400
06-29-2011, 04:51 PM
I dont believe for a second these owners are not making money, Its the rich wanting to get even more rich, hello without the players there is no NBA.

lol without owners there is no NBA either.

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 04:54 PM
Ill add Pittsburgh to that list

How are the Pirates doing as opposed to the Steelers? Pittsburgh wouldn't work in this system either.

JWO35
06-29-2011, 04:58 PM
Allowing HS Players to enter the draft would work well for the 2012 Draft, if there's a year-long lockout

KingPosey
06-29-2011, 04:58 PM
I think the problem is that there are too many cities (mine included) that will make bank as long as their team is winning, but there aren't enough fans to keep filling the arena if the team isn't relevant. The NBA still needs these teams to be successful as a whole, and the fans will still show up for those teams when the team is playing well. Answer = revenue sharing.

There's no reason to take money out of the players pockets. They should do away with guaranteed contracts but with it they should drastically alter the salary cap. Do away with max contracts as well. Let guys make the money they want to make from season to season, sort of like the NFL. You keep the overall money paid to players about the same, but in the end you avoid teams drastically overpaying players just to get them to stay or to stop the other team from matching. Players get overpaid because we never have a true open market.

True but that wasnt the case in Sacramento. We had exceptional sell out numbers from the late 80s all the way up until the short season where we finally had our first "good" team, and then sold out the arena for another 7 years after that till the Maloofs started doing things wrong.

This city was never fair weather in their "fandom".

Sandman
06-29-2011, 05:01 PM
True but that wasnt the case in Sacramento. We had exceptional sell out numbers from the late 80s all the way up until the short season where we finally had our first "good" team, and then sold out the arena for another 7 years after that till the Maloofs started doing things wrong.

This city was never fair weather in their "fandom".

True. That sucks. Definitely don't belong in that category then.

But when it comes to the Magic or Hornets, idk if I'd go as far as to say they're fair weather fans. Every team has fans like that. I just think that overall, we don't have enough fans to support a team through both good and hard times.

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 05:02 PM
I think the problem is that there are too many cities (mine included) that will make bank as long as their team is winning, but there aren't enough fans to keep filling the arena if the team isn't relevant. The NBA still needs these teams to be successful as a whole, and the fans will still show up for those teams when the team is playing well. Answer = revenue sharing.

There's no reason to take money out of the players pockets. They should do away with guaranteed contracts but with it they should drastically alter the salary cap. Do away with max contracts as well. Let guys make the money they want to make from season to season, sort of like the NFL. You keep the overall money paid to players about the same, but in the end you avoid teams drastically overpaying players just to get them to stay or to stop the other team from matching. Players get overpaid because we never have a true open market.


I kind of agree. I don't even think a reduction in player salary is a bad idea, but not a drastic one. I think the owners will eventually have to make some concessions, that hard cap to me is a joke. It's like giving your wife a $10,000credit card and she keeps maxing it out so to solve things you give her a $5,000 credit card instead. Still not solving the real problem.

But I do agree with cutting out the 6 year max contracts though. As sad as it is they have he actually has to save the owners from themselves on that one. One bad contract can literally screw you for years....

allvalleychamp
06-29-2011, 05:08 PM
I hope this means ticket, concession and parking will be ALOT cheaper!

RLundi
06-29-2011, 05:18 PM
According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut.

I heard the owners' main concern is revenue sharing and cutting that from 57% players advantage to around 52%. They'd be willing to drop the aspirations of a hard cap in exchange for the players agreeing to around a 50% split.

But if they really are pushing for both a hard cap AND a large reduction in player salaries, this lockout will last a very long time.

MacFitz92
06-29-2011, 05:21 PM
NBA scares me... Hopefully the NFL lockout ends soon and will put pressure on the players to make a deal...

We'll see, from what I've read and heard, the two sides are in different worlds and neither side has shown any signs of agreement whatsoever. I'd bet on no season next year, although I really hope it doesn't happen.

LeGacy is Music
06-29-2011, 05:25 PM
Come on, the owners would actually forcing a nuclear option. Hard cap @ $45M. I wonder if all the owners are on board with that. If that's the stance you definitely will see the union decertify, and it will be in the hands of the court. Look out for the NFL decision, that could change the whole dynamic.

This is how I feel You think Owners like Dolan in the biggest Basketball market in the world NYC wants to not have the means to get them. Trust me its like Yankees and Red sox trust me if there was a cap on Baseball Yankees would be the Mets

MTar786
06-29-2011, 05:27 PM
the nba will end up doing a 79 mil hard cap. watch.

MTar786
06-29-2011, 05:30 PM
why cant the players just agree to 50/50 on revenue? sounds selfish to me

SteBO
06-29-2011, 05:30 PM
I heard the owners' main concern is revenue sharing and cutting that from 57% players advantage to around 52%. They'd be willing to drop the aspirations of a hard cap in exchange for the players agreeing to around a 50% split.

But if they really are pushing for both a hard cap AND a large reduction in player salaries, this lockout will last a very long time.
You heard correctly. However, the players I'm pretty sure are willing to take a little reduction in salary, but the owners want more guaranteed money here, which is what one of the main sticking points here that is keeping a deal from getting done.

SteBO
06-29-2011, 05:31 PM
why cant the players just agree to 50/50 on revenue? sounds selfish to me
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are a lot of other factors that keep a 50/50 deal from being possible.

todu82
06-29-2011, 05:32 PM
Looks like there's going to be a lockout in the NBA, to bad but I really don't see the players agreeing to a cap that low.

jim51990
06-29-2011, 05:34 PM
go into any business and ask for 33% salary cut
athletes make to much yes but it is what you set you can not try to change what you did owners possibly 5-10% could happen there is no chance anything greater happens

RLundi
06-29-2011, 05:34 PM
the nba will end up doing a 79 mil hard cap. watch.

Wasn't the luxury tax this season at around $70m? How would a hard cap at $79m help the labor situation?

daleja424
06-29-2011, 05:37 PM
why cant the players just agree to 50/50 on revenue? sounds selfish to me

b/c no one has asked them to... if the owners were close to this figure... there would be a deal already

unfortunately the owners want 55+%

beasted86
06-29-2011, 05:37 PM
Can somebody explain something to me... How does lowering the cap help the teams who lost money?

Only 8 teams last year made a profit. The Thunder weren't one of those teams. I think the Thunder run a perfect business model for a small market team: Low cap number (only had $58M in total salaries), have an all-star draw for fans (Durant & Westbrook), have a successful team (Won 50+ games & made WCF).... and all that said, they STILL lost money.

The problem doesn't seem to be the cap number, it's the small markets. You might put butts in the seats, but you'll never sell the merchandise like the big markets, won't have fans come to the arena and spend $100+ on top of what they spent on the tickets themselves, and the won't have the overall media coverage like a big market team. With a low hard cap, the small market teams still won't make a profit. The big market teams will just make a SUPER profit.

JayAllDay
06-29-2011, 05:39 PM
Open up the books, do an independent audit, and show that you're losing money.

I will not accept an inferior product because some owners are crying.

Oh you need to fix your yacht? **** you give me my ****ing NBA!

Tom Stone
06-29-2011, 05:41 PM
I heard the owners' main concern is revenue sharing and cutting that from 57% players advantage to around 52%. They'd be willing to drop the aspirations of a hard cap in exchange for the players agreeing to around a 50% split.

But if they really are pushing for both a hard cap AND a large reduction in player salaries, this lockout will last a very long time.





I don't think there will be a long lockout......the players can't and shouldn't win anyways.....once the lockout starts....owners are saving money....you hear that fools.....saveing money by having this lockout.......While the players are losing Millions and millions......If there checks stop rolling in, I give it a month before they crack.....And all the young dudes coming in will lose a year off there basketball life...and they better not get hurt during the lockout and lose everything before there career starts......People wonder why the world is falling apart.....When some of our dumbest people on the planet are the richest....Ive always had a problem with athletes getting paid too much.

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 05:43 PM
A hard cap ensures parity. Parity = more revenue for the entire league. See the NFL. Who loses money in the NFL? They have small markets too.

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 05:45 PM
I don't think there will be a long lockout......the players can't and shouldn't win anyways.....once the lockout starts....owners are saving money....you hear that fools.....saveing money by having this lockout.......While the players are losing Millions and millions......If there checks stop rolling in, I give it a month before they crack.....And all the young dudes coming in will lose a year off there basketball life...and they better not get hurt during the lockout and lose everything before there career starts......People wonder why the world is falling apart.....When some of our dumbest people on the planet are the richest....Ive always had a problem with athletes getting paid too much.

Problem is the checks will only start stopping on Nov 1st. They're already paid for last season.

tonyd3b54
06-29-2011, 05:45 PM
good! the nba is the worst run league in sports. I hope they go into an impossibly long lock out. also the nba players are probably the dumbest and least educated of all the major sports so well see some of them bagging groceries in the near future.

Lo Porto
06-29-2011, 05:47 PM
The model didn't work so I'm glad they are fixing it. There's no reason any player should make more than $15 million in a year (Kobe gets $30 million one season in the future in his current contract). The last year of any contract 4 years or longer shouldn't be guaranteed (we all know how stupid the contracts of TMac, AK, Eddy Curry, and others just wasted everybody's time). A soft cap and hard cap should both exist. The hard cap should be around the $71 million luxury tax limit this year.

That should make everybody happy.

Southsideheat
06-29-2011, 05:53 PM
$45 mill Soft Cap

$46-52 mill taxed at 100%

$52-58 mill taxed at 150%

$58-64 mill taxed at 200%

$64-70 mill taxed at 300%

$70 mill Flex Cap

1 Bird Exception

2 Mid-level exceptions

All luxury tax monies are put in a pool. After every season, each team is audited, the monies get distributed per teams income.

valade16
06-29-2011, 06:06 PM
A hard cap ensures parity. Parity = more revenue for the entire league. See the NFL. Who loses money in the NFL? They have small markets too.

Except the NFL has revenue sharing, meaning a piece of the Dallas Cowboy's merchandise empire goes to the Buffalo Bills franchise.

The NBA doesn't have this, hence why only the biggest teams are turning a profit...

Tony_Starks
06-29-2011, 06:14 PM
Can somebody explain something to me... How does lowering the cap help the teams who lost money?

Only 8 teams last year made a profit. The Thunder weren't one of those teams. I think the Thunder run a perfect business model for a small market team: Low cap number (only had $58M in total salaries), have an all-star draw for fans (Durant & Westbrook), have a successful team (Won 50+ games & made WCF).... and all that said, they STILL lost money.

The problem doesn't seem to be the cap number, it's the small markets. You might put butts in the seats, but you'll never sell the merchandise like the big markets, won't have fans come to the arena and spend $100+ on top of what they spent on the tickets themselves, and the won't have the overall media coverage like a big market team. With a low hard cap, the small market teams still won't make a profit. The big market teams will just make a SUPER profit.



How do you know they lost money? With one of the lowest payrolls in the league that seems really hard to believe.

Also it should be noted that the players dispute that many teams lost money, they say the real number is less than ten and the Owners are being really creative with their accounting when it comes to what they are counting as a "loss."

canzano55
06-29-2011, 06:18 PM
45 million cap is a joke don't believe any of it.

jmoney85
06-29-2011, 06:25 PM
45 million sounds good to me... thats the only way you can get the nba out of debt...45 million with revenue sharing would be perfect for the nba..

45 million and raise it 2-3 million every year

Bishnoff
06-29-2011, 06:29 PM
You guys that keep crying about "leveling the playing field" do realize that regardless of the salary structure players will always go to teams like LA, New York, and Miami because they are preferred destinations right? Who doesn't want to win in the big city? Thats never going to change.

It actually hurts the small market teams with a stricter cap because if you have a choice of getting 10 million to play in Memphis or that same 10 milli to come to hollywood guess where they're going.......

Yes of course, but there's only so many $10 Million contracts a big market team can offer before they hit the cap. It will even the league out somewhat.

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 06:33 PM
Just wanted to post this for the people that believe players will go to Europe and the owners will be the ones getting screwed.

These are Eurolegue and Eurocap salaries for each team/club:

http://www.talkbasket.net/salaries.html

Top 30 Best Paid Players in Europe:

1.
Theodoros Papaloukas Olympiacos 3.500.000
2.
Juan Carlos Navarro Barcelona 2.800.000
3.
Matjaz Smodis CSKA Moscow 2.500.000
4.
Vasilis Spanoulis Olympiacos 2.400.000
5. Ramunas Siskauskas CSKA Moscow 2.000.000
-.
Dimitris Diamantidis Panathinaikos 2.000.000
7.
Romain Sato Panathinaikos 1.830.000
8.
Igor Rakocevic Efes Pilsen 1.800.000
-.
Fran Vazquez Barcelona 1.800.000
10.
Ioannis Bourousis Olympiacos 1.670.000
11.
Boniface Ndong Barcelona 1.600.000
--. Trajan Langdon CSKA Moscow 1.600.000
--.
Viktor Khryapa CSKA Moscow 1.600.000
14. Antonis Fotsis Panathinaikos 1.500.000
--.
Bostjan Nachbar Efes Pilsen 1.500.000
16.
Panayotis Vasilopoulos Olympiacos 1.400.000
--.
Felipe Reyes Real Madrid 1.400.000
18.
Sergio Rodriguez Real Madrid 1.300.000
19.
Terrell McIntyre Unicaja Malaga 1.200.000
--.
Michael Batiste Panathinaikos 1.200.000
--. Andrew Nicholas Panathinaikos 1.200.000
22. Bo McCalebb Montepaschi Siena 1.150.000
--. Yorgos Printezis Unicaja Malaga 1.150.000
24. Allen Iverson Besiktas 1.100.000
25. Thomas Kelati Khimki 1.000.000
--.
Radoslav Nesterovic Olympiacos 1.000.000
--. Kostas Tsartsaris Panathinaikos 1.000.000
--. Jorge Garbajosa Real Madrid 1.000.000
--. Yotam Halperin Olympiacos 1.000.000
--. Jaka Lakovic Barcelona 1.000.000
--. Raul Lopez Khimki 1.000.000

NBAfan4life
06-29-2011, 06:35 PM
Hard cap wont fix anything, owners have to be held accountable for bad moves.

Setting a hard cap could just as easily make things worse, as low market teams with superstars will lose the 1 leverage they had over bigger markets, the extra cash.

Besides this sounds like horseshit, why would stern be in favor of a hard cap when he applauds the validity of Bird Rules?

This ^^^^

The major super stars would be even more inclined to go to bigger markets for enorsements/

daleja424
06-29-2011, 06:38 PM
Just wanted to post this for the people that believe players will go to Europe and the owners will be the ones getting screwed.

These are Eurolegue and Eurocap salaries for each team/club:

http://www.talkbasket.net/salaries.html

Top 30 Best Paid Players in Europe:

1.
Theodoros Papaloukas Olympiacos 3.500.000
2.
Juan Carlos Navarro Barcelona 2.800.000
3.
Matjaz Smodis CSKA Moscow 2.500.000
4.
Vasilis Spanoulis Olympiacos 2.400.000
5. Ramunas Siskauskas CSKA Moscow 2.000.000
-.
Dimitris Diamantidis Panathinaikos 2.000.000
7.
Romain Sato Panathinaikos 1.830.000
8.
Igor Rakocevic Efes Pilsen 1.800.000
-.
Fran Vazquez Barcelona 1.800.000
10.
Ioannis Bourousis Olympiacos 1.670.000
11.
Boniface Ndong Barcelona 1.600.000
--. Trajan Langdon CSKA Moscow 1.600.000
--.
Viktor Khryapa CSKA Moscow 1.600.000
14. Antonis Fotsis Panathinaikos 1.500.000
--.
Bostjan Nachbar Efes Pilsen 1.500.000
16.
Panayotis Vasilopoulos Olympiacos 1.400.000
--.
Felipe Reyes Real Madrid 1.400.000
18.
Sergio Rodriguez Real Madrid 1.300.000
19.
Terrell McIntyre Unicaja Malaga 1.200.000
--.
Michael Batiste Panathinaikos 1.200.000
--. Andrew Nicholas Panathinaikos 1.200.000
22. Bo McCalebb Montepaschi Siena 1.150.000
--. Yorgos Printezis Unicaja Malaga 1.150.000
24. Allen Iverson Besiktas 1.100.000
25. Thomas Kelati Khimki 1.000.000
--.
Radoslav Nesterovic Olympiacos 1.000.000
--. Kostas Tsartsaris Panathinaikos 1.000.000
--. Jorge Garbajosa Real Madrid 1.000.000
--. Yotam Halperin Olympiacos 1.000.000
--. Jaka Lakovic Barcelona 1.000.000
--. Raul Lopez Khimki 1.000.000

So JCN is worth 4 million dollars there... more than he is worth here

Iverson is worth 1.6 million dollars there... more than he is worth here

you were trying to prove one point..and may have just done the opposite...

beasted86
06-29-2011, 06:41 PM
A hard cap ensures parity. Parity = more revenue for the entire league. See the NFL. Who loses money in the NFL? They have small markets too.

What does parity have to do with each individual team and their profits?

Like I just said, how does the Thunder suddenly make money when they've already lost money running a low salary total? Come on, you know that. If the Nuggets suddenly start making a profit, that doesn't help the Thunder make a profit.

Unless with that low cap is added REVENUE SHARING amongst the teams themselves, where the big markets who are now making even more profit will share with the smaller markets, it won't change anything.

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 06:45 PM
So JCN is worth 4 million dollars there... more than he is worth here

Iverson is worth 1.6 million dollars there... more than he is worth here

you were trying to prove one point..and may have just done the opposite...

No actually I didn't, my point is that teams there simply don't have that much money to spend on players (or nowhere near as much as NBA teams), I think the largest offer ever was like 6 million dollars a year for two years for Linas Kleiza (which I believe he turned down to make less in the NBA).

SteBO
06-29-2011, 06:46 PM
What does parity have to do with each individual team and their profits?

Like I just said, how does the Thunder suddenly make money when they've already lost money running a low salary total? Come on, you know that. If the Nuggets suddenly start making a profit, that doesn't help the Thunder make a profit.

Unless with that low cap is added REVENUE SHARING amongst the teams themselves, where the big markets who are now making even more profit will share with the smaller markets, it won't change anything.
I would just like to know where the parity was back then :shrug: Why is parity all of a sudden an issue now?

jmoney85
06-29-2011, 06:48 PM
What does parity have to do with each individual team and their profits?

Like I just said, how does the Thunder suddenly make money when they've already lost money running a low salary total? Come on, you know that. If the Nuggets suddenly start making a profit, that doesn't help the Thunder make a profit.

Unless with that low cap is added REVENUE SHARING amongst the teams themselves, where the big markets who are now making even more profit will share with the smaller markets, it won't change anything.

no pun but top 5 dumbest comment ive ever read

daleja424
06-29-2011, 06:49 PM
No actually I didn't, my point is that teams there simply don't have that much money to spend on players (or nowhere near as much as NBA teams), I think the largest offer ever was like 6 million dollars a year for two years for Linas Kleiza (which I believe he turned down to make less in the NBA).

Kleiza made 6+ mil a year in Europe... he makes an average of 5 mil a year in the NBA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linas_Kleiza

There have been several instances where NBA players have been offered lucrative contracts to go abroad

Josh Childress made almost 7 million a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Childress

and in Europe... the club pays the taxes!!!

SteBO
06-29-2011, 06:50 PM
no pun but top 5 dumbest comment ive ever read
How is what he said dumb exactly?

KingPosey
06-29-2011, 06:57 PM
No actually I didn't, my point is that teams there simply don't have that much money to spend on players (or nowhere near as much as NBA teams), I think the largest offer ever was like 6 million dollars a year for two years for Linas Kleiza (which I believe he turned down to make less in the NBA).

LBJ, Kobe, etc would be offered a King's ransom to play overseas.

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 07:03 PM
Kleiza made 6+ mil a year in Europe... he makes an average of 5 mil a year in the NBA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linas_Kleiza

There have been several instances where NBA players have been offered lucrative contracts to go abroad

Josh Childress made almost 7 million a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Childress

and in Europe... the club pays the taxes!!!

Yea Kleiza turned down a contract in Europe which would make him more than what he is getting paid in the NBA.

And you're right there have been "There have been several instances where NBA players have been offered lucrative contracts to go abroad."

However, the point is the team salaries there are much lower than they are here. They (few clubs like Olympiacos) can offer a single player something like 6 million Euros a year (7.8 million dollars) or 2-3 players 2-3 million Euros a year, but 4-5 players making at least 5 Million and a team salary of 68 million (for the middle of the pac teams spending wise) isn't going to happen.

daleja424
06-29-2011, 07:04 PM
Yea Kleiza turned down a contract in Europe which would make him more than what he is getting paid in the NBA.

And you're right there have been "There have been several instances where NBA players have been offered lucrative contracts to go abroad."

However, the point is the team salaries there are much lower than they are here. They (few clubs like Olympiacos) can offer a single player something like 6 million Euros a year (7.8 million dollars) or 2-3 players 2-3 million Euros a year, but 4-5 players making at least 5 Million and a team salary of 68 million (for the middle of the pac teams spending wise) isn't going to happen.

LOL... maybe not year one... but you don't think that euroleague revenue would sky rocket if NBA stars were there... it wouldnt take but 2-3 years before these guys could get more money in europe then they are offered here.

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 07:17 PM
LBJ, Kobe, etc would be offered a King's ransom to play overseas.

Probably, though these are some of the players that wouldn't need it. The fact is the league (nba) has at least 360 players (if it's only 12 per team), 150 starters, and 240 players that play significant minutes. So while some players like the ones you mentioned would likely get a good deal (though I doubt even Kobe would get 5 years 24 million per), you think 240 players would be able to get decent pay in Europe. The other thing is even if there are teams that could afford a 15 million a year player, there aren't too many of them (single digits, maybe as little as 5, possibly none for 15 million a year).

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 07:22 PM
LOL... maybe not year one... but you don't think that euroleague revenue would sky rocket if NBA stars were there... it wouldnt take but 2-3 years before these guys could get more money in europe then they are offered here.

What the **** are you talking about? Not in 9-10 years would these guys be getting more than they are getting in the NBA.

gotoHcarolina52
06-29-2011, 07:27 PM
What the **** are you talking about? Not in 9-10 years would these guys be getting more than they are getting in the NBA.

http://dimemag.com/2008/08/olympiakos-is-considering-two-year-100-million-deal-for-lebron/

jiggin
06-29-2011, 07:32 PM
LOL... maybe not year one... but you don't think that euroleague revenue would sky rocket if NBA stars were there... it wouldnt take but 2-3 years before these guys could get more money in europe then they are offered here.

and then you will see the same thing happen over there that you saw here.

See...you can't have the players making this much money...unless you have sell outs every night and you host 80,000+ fans.

The entire model they are working under DOES NOT WORK.

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 07:38 PM
http://dimemag.com/2008/08/olympiakos-is-considering-two-year-100-million-deal-for-lebron/

Again that's LeBron, the best player in the world. Secondly how many European teams would be able to afford anything close to that? Do you think that 240 NBA players (8 players from each NBA team) would be able to even get about 3-5 million dollars a player. Or 30 players making 13.5+ million a year (Brandon Roy 30th making 13.5, Kobe making 24 million). Do you think that there are 30 European teams that would be able afford 50 million dollar team salaries (50 million would be the second lowest salary for any NBA team, the teams in the middle spend about 68 million a year). The median NBA teams also have 200 million+ committed in salaries.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 07:41 PM
http://dimemag.com/2008/08/olympiakos-is-considering-two-year-100-million-deal-for-lebron/

considering is a big word.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 07:42 PM
What the **** are you talking about? Not in 9-10 years would these guys be getting more than they are getting in the NBA.

he hates the owners, completely bias and won't listen or look at anything that would support the owners in this.

Looking at everything except the business side...which of course is why this is all possible. LOL :facepalm:

knicksfan42
06-29-2011, 07:48 PM
Also wanted to add that many of the wealthier teams seem to be Greek and Greece's economy situation is horrible (and that's a huge understatement). http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/06/13/greece.debt.rating.ft/index.html

daleja424
06-29-2011, 07:59 PM
he hates the owners, completely bias and won't listen or look at anything that would support the owners in this.

Looking at everything except the business side...which of course is why this is all possible. LOL :facepalm:

Seriously dude... Get Off my jock. You have been pro owner this entire discussion... Do you see me acting like a 12 year old making idiotic remarks about you. If you can't have an intelligent discussion without flinging big words like bias around perhaps you shouldn't be posting...

Geargo Wallace
06-29-2011, 08:23 PM
Few of these guys actually would want to play in Europe. Euro teams wouldn't be able to offer everyone NBA money. Most of these American guys wouldn't have the personal success playing the Euro rules. I don't think the NBA owners are too scared of a 1 year lockout. The system definitely needs to change though. The cap needs to get lower, or a form of profit sharing will need to be introduced, because even though these teams are in competition with each other on the floor, it's not in any owner's interest to have a team go bankrupt.

Wilson
06-29-2011, 09:14 PM
They want the cap to be this low, and yet Greg Oden gets offered $8.8 million. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6717753) That's a head scratcher.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 09:21 PM
Also wanted to add that many of the wealthier teams seem to be Greek and Greece's economy situation is horrible (and that's a huge understatement). http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/06/13/greece.debt.rating.ft/index.html

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite5_1_27/06/2011_396166

Worse than you said - - the owners have already abandoned the team!

And this article has to be legit, its written by George Georgakopalous

jiggin
06-29-2011, 09:33 PM
They want the cap to be this low, and yet Greg Oden gets offered $8.8 million. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6717753) That's a head scratcher.

I would imagine that a multiyear deal is their actual desire, but want to put some stock out there to show they believe in him still.

Based on his health, a multiyear deal will be done before he is unrestricted in 2012 (or whenever basketball is played again).

They can rebuild him, they have the technology.

king4day
06-29-2011, 09:34 PM
I think that'll be the starting point. Make it 60 with non guaranteed contracts but where you can guarantee a certain amount of money like the NFL and you might have a deal.

king4day
06-29-2011, 09:35 PM
Also, the last time we heard about a potential hard cap, they seemed to indicate they would give teams a couple years to get where they need to be. It wouldn't start this coming season.

jiggin
06-29-2011, 09:36 PM
Speaking of the Blazers...this is from Paul Allens new book:



"By the end of the chapter, Allen is advocating for a more level playing field between small market and big market teams. "We're doing just about everything right, but we're still losing money," Allen writes. And, due to contract extensions for Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge, the Blazers "won't be turning a profit anytime soon, a fact that speaks volumes about the plight of smaller-market franchises in the NBA." He points out that the NBA has yet to address the "big market / small market discrepancy" in revenue generating potential and says that in his "perfect world" the NBA would be a place where "the most successful NBA teams wouldn't necessarily be those with the biggest local television markets or corporate-suite bases."

http://www.blazersedge.com/2011/4/18/2119508/highlights-from-portland-trail-blazers-owner-paul-allens-book

this is why they want a hard cap that is in the price range that every team can afford, no matter the location.

sixer04fan
06-29-2011, 09:39 PM
Say goodbye to next season...

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 09:54 PM
NBA is a joke. If you're not a major market team, you have no chance. I'm fine with it going away for awhile.

Why would you want that after they're coming off a yr when the league regained it's popularity.

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:09 PM
wow you got an excuse for the players for everything.

the owners made a proposal, the players brought nothing back...and you defend them?

I think you will defend them any way shape or form. Its starting to show and be pretty obvious that you won't listen to any information from the owners and feel its them trying at all.

Lost cause...thanks for spreading your love on the topic in the thread OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN...same message: owners only want money and are greedy. Players are awesome and are being wronged. EVERYONE HATE THE OWNERS.

Lemmings, follow this message cause its cool to blame the man, even if the players have been benefiting from it for a long time...still complain!!! its the american thing to do!!!

PS - its wrong and does not include a TON of important information...but I am tired of arguing with a brick wall on this. You see, what you want to see. I am just glad you are not involved in managing or supporting any business venture that I am involved in.

PPS - If you have a business degree, you might want to hide it before its forcibly removed by your the institution you graduated from...


...that is all. Good day.

you're insulting him because you don't agree with his stance on the subject. Why not just stick to the discussion instead of insulting the man's intelligence.

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
Then if there are not 30 markets big enough to support NBA teams maybe we do have to contract...

Stern still wants to put teams in Europe...contraction is not going to happen.

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:17 PM
I hope this means ticket, concession and parking will be ALOT cheaper!

Hell no

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:23 PM
I don't think there will be a long lockout......the players can't and shouldn't win anyways.....once the lockout starts....owners are saving money....you hear that fools.....saveing money by having this lockout.......While the players are losing Millions and millions......If there checks stop rolling in, I give it a month before they crack.....And all the young dudes coming in will lose a year off there basketball life...and they better not get hurt during the lockout and lose everything before there career starts......People wonder why the world is falling apart.....When some of our dumbest people on the planet are the richest....Ive always had a problem with athletes getting paid too much.

But you don't have a problem with billionaire owners throwing money at players that don't deserve it.

Hey Rashard Lewis isn't a star but we need to make a splash

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:24 PM
A hard cap ensures parity. Parity = more revenue for the entire league. See the NFL. Who loses money in the NFL? They have small markets too.

Weren't there small market owners in the NFL that claimed they loss money?


I would just like to know where the parity was back then :shrug: Why is parity all of a sudden an issue now?

Because Lebron and his buddies went to South Beach. Was there talk about parity when Shaq went to LA? When teams like the Kings were making the playoffs every yr did you ever hear anyone say the playing field needs to be leveled? Was there talk that there needs to be parity during the Jodran ERA? Ppl talk about bad teams at the bottom of the league today lol go look at some of the bottom feeders during the Bulls championship runs. Lebron and his buddies turned the bball world on it's head and guys like Dan Gilbert got their panties in a bunch.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 10:31 PM
Weren't there small market owners in the NFL that claimed they loss money?

I'm with you on this one. I don't remember if a team claimed they lost money, I thought it was teams complaining they don't make enough money. And they wouldn't show the players their books. :rolleyes:

Hard cap doesn't ensure parity. A soft cap ensures that players will be overpaid to switch teams. Furthermore, a soft cap with a luxury tax forces teams to spend money on players that doesn't even go to the players.

Kick the guaranteed contracts. Kick the max contracts. Let these guys make as much money as teams want to give them.

rwynyc
06-29-2011, 10:37 PM
I would love to know how many of these owners cook their book,and cheat on their taxes. You do not become a billionare without working the system.

I cant imagine how much money the players would make especially with the currency exchange

NBA_Starter
06-29-2011, 10:38 PM
Say goodbye to next season...

:nod:

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:42 PM
I'm with you on this one. I don't remember if a team claimed they lost money, I thought it was teams complaining they don't make enough money. And they wouldn't show the players their books. :rolleyes:

Hard cap doesn't ensure parity. A soft cap ensures that players will be overpaid to switch teams. Furthermore, a soft cap with a luxury tax forces teams to spend money on players that doesn't even go to the players.

Kick the guaranteed contracts. Kick the max contracts. Let these guys make as much money as teams want to give them.

Seems like we're on the same page. I don't want ppl to think players should make 200 million contracts or anything like that. There are players in the league that are overpaid. Guys like Reddick make 7 million a yr wtf. With that being said the owners are looking for blood and are shutting down a sport that has been trying for a decade to regain what they lost when Jordan left.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 10:52 PM
Seems like we're on the same page. I don't want ppl to think players should make 200 million contracts or anything like that. There are players in the league that are overpaid. Guys like Reddick make 7 million a yr wtf. With that being said the owners are looking for blood and are shutting down a sport that has been trying for a decade to regain what they lost when Jordan left.

Exactly. Max contracts make guys in the middle get overpaid. Open up the market, get rid of the soft cap, get rid of the max contracts, let these guys make the money they're worth. Anybody remember the article last year on how much money the city of Cleveland stood to lose if LeBron walked?

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 10:58 PM
Exactly. Max contracts make guys in the middle get overpaid. Open up the market, get rid of the soft cap, get rid of the max contracts, let these guys make the money they're worth. Anybody remember the article last year on how much money the city of Cleveland stood to lose if LeBron walked?

Hundreds of millions right or something along those lines?

Tmath
06-29-2011, 10:59 PM
What are the teams that are loosing money?

Sandman
06-29-2011, 11:02 PM
Hundreds of millions right or something along those lines?
Yup. It was a stupid number. I want to say it was 300+ but I don't know what kind of timeframe they were talking about.

BigCityofDreams
06-29-2011, 11:14 PM
Yup. It was a stupid number. I want to say it was 300+ but I don't know what kind of timeframe they were talking about.

Knowing this site someone will come up with the exact number

pd1dish
06-29-2011, 11:14 PM
$45 million hard cap is really low, but i dont think the owners actually think they can get that. i think they are using it basically as a starting point so that they can obviously negotiate with the players from there. you cant start at a realistic number or else the owners have no room to haggle with the players.

specialiststeve
06-29-2011, 11:28 PM
^^^
That is how you "bargain"! You don't put your best highest number out there.
With the "Haves" around 90 mil and the number at 45 a number in the mid 60's is rational.

As far as the "guaranteed" contract I hope they do something to fix that as that is one of the biggest problems. I suggest that it is a "scaled" guarantee with a 5 year contract being a maximum length.

The scale would be on the year length of the contract.
1 year contract 100% guaranteed
2 year - 1st year 100% 2nd year 50%
3 year - 1st year 100% 2nd year 66% guaranteed, 3rd year 33%
4 year - 1st year 100%, 2nd year 75%, 3rd year 50%, 4th year 25%
5 year - 1st year 100%, 2nd year 80%, 3rd/60%, 4th/40, 5th/20%

Would solve a lot of the "dead weight" out of the contracts but still assure that the player is getting paid.

Kevj77
06-29-2011, 11:41 PM
The scale would be on the year length of the contract.
1 year contract 100% guaranteed
2 year - 1st year 100% 2nd year 50%
3 year - 1st year 100% 2nd year 66% guaranteed, 3rd year 33%
4 year - 1st year 100%, 2nd year 75%, 3rd year 50%, 4th year 25%
5 year - 1st year 100%, 2nd year 80%, 3rd/60%, 4th/40, 5th/20%

Would solve a lot of the "dead weight" out of the contracts but still assure that the player is getting paid.Something along those lines could work. They have to be partially guaranteed or else you would be looking at NFL type contracts were players ask for upfront non-refundable signing bonuses. Which as far as I'm concerned makes the NFL salary cap a soft cap. Upfront money spread over the length of a long-term contract that has backloaded salaries players are likely to never see are loopholes in the NFL salary cap. The only sport in North America with a truely hard cap is the NHL and it has only had it for a few years. Parity in the NFL is not because of the salary cap, it's because of the size of the rosters.

However I just don't see how you can have a real hard cap with fully guaranteed contracts, especially one as low as the owners are offering. One mistake or even an injury to a top player could handcuff teams.

Sandman
06-29-2011, 11:44 PM
Which as far as I'm concerned makes the NFL salary cap a soft cap. Upfront money spread over the length of a long-term contract that has backloaded salaries players are likely to never see are loopholes in the NFL salary cap.
I don't think its that much of a loophole. Bonuses are spread over the length of the contract and, if a player gets cut or traded, the remaining balance gets tacked onto the current year's salary cap as a penalty.

Kevj77
06-29-2011, 11:59 PM
I don't think its that much of a loophole. Bonuses are spread over the length of the contract and, if a player gets cut or traded, the remaining balance gets tacked onto the current year's salary cap as a penalty.Wrong, it gets spread out over the length of the contract and is not all due the year after a player is cut. If a player signs a 7 year contract with a 21 million dollar signing bonus the bonus is spread over the length of the contract at 3 million per year. Usually the first year of the contract is very cheap, but the player just got a 21 million signing bonus upfront. If a player gets cut after the third year of his contract the remaining 12 million dollars of his signing bonus isn't added to the next years contract, but spread out over the last four years at 3 million per year.

It is definately a loophole so that teams can give what are in reality 3-4 year contracts worth much more than they are actually worth. It still counts against the cap, but it is spread out over 7 years instead of 3-4 years.

Not to mention the NFL actually has a salary floor of 80% of the maximum cap, which means owners must spend a certain amount even if they don't want to do so, which is another reason for the parity in the NFL.

Sandman
06-30-2011, 12:23 AM
Wrong, it gets spread out over the length of the contract and is not all due the year after a player is cut. If a player signs a 7 year contract with a 21 million dollar signing bonus the bonus is spread over the length of the contract at 3 million per year. Usually the first year of the contract is very cheap, but the player just got a 21 million signing bonus upfront. If a player gets cut after the third year of his contract the remaining 12 million dollars of his signing bonus isn't added to the next years contract, but spread out over the last four years at 3 million per year.

It is definately a loophole so that teams can give what are in reality 3-4 year contracts worth much more than they are actually worth. It still counts against the cap, but it is spread out over 7 years instead of 3-4 years.

Not to mention the NFL actually has a salary floor of 80% of the maximum cap, which means owners must spend a certain amount even if they don't want to do so, which is another reason for the parity in the NFL.
If the player gets cut, it gets tacked on to the salary cap in one lump sum.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=1743706
Salary-cap hits: The prorated part of a signing bonus will always count toward that year's cap. But because every dollar counts toward the salary cap, teams must add the remainder of a signing bonus if they cut or trade a player. They do this in two ways. The rules are different in 2009 because there is no cap scheduled for 2010 unless there is a collective bargaining extension within the next year. If a player is cut in 2009, the team takes the entire salary-cap hit in 2009. If a player is cut before June 1, the cap hit occurs this year.

Take that $4 million signing bonus example. If that player who accepted a $4 million signing bonus in 2008 is cut this year, the team is on the books for the $1 million proration in 2009 but also must take a $2 million salary-cap hit this season. Thus, the released player would count $3 million under the 2009 cap, even though he's no longer on the team.

Tom Stone
06-30-2011, 11:59 AM
Looks like the owners have offered a Little more to the players a... 50-50 BRI, among other things.....but still want an upper limit you can't exceed.....a hard cap, and players are still mad............The thing is about a hard cap is... Hard Cap means "Fair".....it means a chance for every team to win.....It means you won't have as many great players leaving small markets just because they feel the only way you can win is to join a super team, super team meaning, a team that spends more.... thus increasing chances of winning....and I personally don't blame team , it's they way it is in the soft cap system.......The Hard Cap would be so good for the sport people don't even realize it....And the players still are the highest payed union in the world, and will still make in one year more than most people can save your whole life.

LakersIn5
06-30-2011, 12:16 PM
i agree with the owners. i want this league to get more of a parity and setting a hard cap would be good. tired of seeing the same teams over and over again. its pretty evident that teams that spend money, will go far into the playoffs.

roll back on all salaries would be great as well

but alas, owners are smoking some strong stuff if they believe they will get anywhere close to what they want lol

FU to the whiny owners. every team started from scratch and only those teams dedicated to winning actually wins. it is the weak teams fault that they are weak because of bad front office decision. and whats so tiring to see same teams over and over again? so its tiring to see teams which are more dedicated to winning playing for the championship again and again?

hard cap wouldnt solve parity among teams. FO talent does. in the 60s cap wasnt a problem so it would seem like that most teams will have a chance but the celtics still dominated that decade. BECAUSE THEIR FRANCHISE HAVE BETTER MANAGEMENT THAN OTHERS AND THEY ARE SIMPLY BETTER.

the franchises moves are the road to success it doesnt really mean that you have to spend. the spurs are the best example.

some other proof.. out of the final 4 teams last season. 3 of which are in the bottom 15 of team salaries.

miami at 17th, oklahoma at 25th and chicago at 26th..

so yeah. owners suck dick!

DMasta718
06-30-2011, 02:37 PM
All of a sudden, parity is a issue? lol

BigCityofDreams
06-30-2011, 02:52 PM
All of a sudden, parity is a issue? lol

Right lol it wasn't an issue during the Jordan era but now they need to level out the league. Lebron and Bosh switch teams and all of sudden the league is full of super teams lmao

Tony_Starks
06-30-2011, 04:37 PM
I love that term "super team." I guess the Isiah Thomas Knicks were a super team cuz they had the highest payroll for years under his regime.....

Bruno
06-30-2011, 04:41 PM
Screw the owners. They want to be rewarded for making bad business decisions. Can you really blame them? It worked for the auto industry, wall-street, and big banking.

100% with the players. it's lock out time, and I'm pissed. 45 million dollar hard-cap? LmAo.

daleja424
06-30-2011, 05:58 PM
Right lol it wasn't an issue during the Jordan era but now they need to level out the league. Lebron and Bosh switch teams and all of sudden the league is full of super teams lmao


All of a sudden, parity is a issue? lol


I love that term "super team." I guess the Isiah Thomas Knicks were a super team cuz they had the highest payroll for years under his regime.....


Screw the owners. They want to be rewarded for making bad business decisions. Can you really blame them? It worked for the auto industry, wall-street, and big banking.

100% with the players. it's lock out time, and I'm pissed. 45 million dollar hard-cap? LmAo.

4 for 4!!!

specialiststeve
06-30-2011, 06:32 PM
22 of 30 teams losing money is the issue gentlemen. Let's make this clear that they are the owners and setting the rules eventually as they are paying the bill and you can't pay the bills if you are losing money. Don't be ignorant and think that it is not a buisiness and they are in it to make money and try to win.

The current system is clearly broke if you are rational and intelligent.
Hard cap (make it 70) and partially gauranteed payrolls and we play ball.
Sorry players you are not worth the money you make at this time and need to take a reality check.

shep33
06-30-2011, 06:38 PM
The owners got themselves into this mess. Don't get me wrong, the players are overpaid, but thats only because of the owners idiot moves.

12evolution 9
06-30-2011, 07:18 PM
Haha. That would be great but will never happen.


what are you talking about... That is not great....


.... how the hell is a 45 million salary cap great...


teams are still gonna pay the wrong players and are going to get themselves in more trouble... and

those small markets are going to become less appleasable.. .not good

12evolution 9
06-30-2011, 07:18 PM
The owners got themselves into this mess. Don't get me wrong, the players are overpaid, but thats only because of the owners idiot moves.


agree

Tuffgong4
06-30-2011, 09:19 PM
Europe is not and will not be the answer for a lot of these guys. The last round of players that left for Europe was a blip not something that is sustainable. From Michael McCann's article on CNN right now.

"9) But can't NBA players recoup their income by playing abroad?

To some extent, but teams abroad normally have roster limits on the number of U.S. players; it would be unrealistic to expect that all 450 (or so) NBA players would find jobs in other leagues. Even if they could, most would earn much less money than they earn playing in the NBA, where the average annual salary is around $5 million. Players also have to be worried about getting injured during a lockout, as their teams would no longer provide them healthcare. NBA teams could also seek to suspend or even void players' contracts if, after a new CBA is ratified, those players show up to work injured.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/06/30/nba.labor.talks/index.html#ixzz1QoOEbjfG "

knicksfan42
06-30-2011, 10:03 PM
Europe is not and will not be the answer for a lot of these guys. The last round of players that left for Europe was a blip not something that is sustainable. From Michael McCann's article on CNN right now.

"9) But can't NBA players recoup their income by playing abroad?

To some extent, but teams abroad normally have roster limits on the number of U.S. players; it would be unrealistic to expect that all 450 (or so) NBA players would find jobs in other leagues. Even if they could, most would earn much less money than they earn playing in the NBA, where the average annual salary is around $5 million. Players also have to be worried about getting injured during a lockout, as their teams would no longer provide them healthcare. NBA teams could also seek to suspend or even void players' contracts if, after a new CBA is ratified, those players show up to work injured.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/06/30/nba.labor.talks/index.html#ixzz1QoOEbjfG "

Almost verbatim what I said yesterday and I never read this article (it was released today). Some people just lack common sense.

LakersIn5
07-01-2011, 01:48 PM
22 of 30 teams losing money is the issue gentlemen. Let's make this clear that they are the owners and setting the rules eventually as they are paying the bill and you can't pay the bills if you are losing money. Don't be ignorant and think that it is not a buisiness and they are in it to make money and try to win.

The current system is clearly broke if you are rational and intelligent.
Hard cap (make it 70) and partially gauranteed payrolls and we play ball.
Sorry players you are not worth the money you make at this time and need to take a reality check.

THEN OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE OFFER THOSE HUGE GUARANTEED CONTRACTS! THEY KNOW THAt PLAYERS TALENTS ARENT GUARANTEED ALSO SO WHY OFFER THEM THAT CONTRACT IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND NOW THEY ARE COMPLAINING? WTF?

SteBO
07-01-2011, 01:56 PM
4 for 4!!!

Charles Barkely disagrees :rolleyes:

Witness06
07-01-2011, 02:20 PM
About The Wages of Wins
Reviews of The Wages of Wins
Our Writing for the New York Times
NBA Analysis: 2006 to the Present
Stumbling On Wins Promotion Week
COMMENTS POLICY
Frequently Asked Questions and Comments
RSS Subscribe: RSS feed
Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute

Posted on June 30, 2011 by arturogalletti

5


(Editor Dre’s Note: I took out an XKCD Comic here to insert my thoughts. This article is a great read with a ton of stuff to read over so I really wanted to insert some spoilers for those that may be scared of math)

Player’s salaries have stayed even with inflation. Essentially this means their pay has not been going up.
Owners have been increasing their spending. Management’s operating costs (per their own numbers) have been going up at five times the level of inflation (that’s a lot).
Even in the ideal case for the owners with the new CBA these problems will repeat themselves in 2020.
The Owners are asking the players to take a pay hit to make up for bad management practices.
(Editor Dre: Hope you’re still interested. Sorry for making you miss out on a comic. Enjoy the show!)
I’ve read/listened to a lot of stories recently about how the current NBA salary structure is threatening to put the NBA out of business. The system is broken these stories say and an out of control salary structure is threatening make small market teams extinct.

The stories are fairly easy to believe. All you have to do is close your eyes and think and very quickly a few examples of grossly overpaid player quickly come to mind.


Spoilers

As I was listening and reading an interesting thing happened. Massive warning bells went off in my head. My brain’s finely tuned financial bs detector, trained to spot where numbers don’t quite add up, called shenanigans. The owner’s claims that Player salaries are driving the NBA into the ground are simply not true. They’re hoping the people they’re bargaining with fail at basic math or aren’t paying attention.

Here, then, is my attempt at explaining what is actually going on. Before that you might want to peruse the following links for background:

I managed to source a link for:

Larry Coon’s collective barganing agreement (CBA) FAQ at cbafaq.com
Forbes list of NBA revenues by Team (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba08_NBA-Team-Valuations_Rank.html)
Wikipedia entry on the NBA Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#NBA_Salary_Cap_history)
US inflation (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx)
Back already? Good. Let’s get to the numbers.

The key fact to start with is the following: Players salaries are a fixed Cost at 57% of League Gross revenue.

Let’s repeat that: Players salaries are a fixed Cost at 57% of League Gross revenue!

Any and all cap nonsense is a bunch of hot air. By being fixed to league revenues, player salaries cannot balloon out of control. The league in fact has controls in place in the CBA to keep that number fixed. Those controls are:

The Luxury tax limit, which is simply set by taking the league’s estimate of gross revenue for the season dividing it by 30 and multiplying by 57% (and adjusted against actual revenue using Control #2).
The League holding back 8% of player salaries in escrow and using that money to make adjustments to guarantee the 57%. This is the fudge factor that allows them to keep Player Salaries at a fixed percentage of Revenue.
There is a simple equation then for determining how much money the league actually makes:

Profit Margin = League Revenue -Player salaries (a fixed cost) – Team expenses (Variable Cost)

The big problem with a lot of the analysis I’ve read is this is that not all of this information is public and it makes determining the truth somewhat hard. Writers and analysts are left scrambling for answers based on gut and feel because they don’t have all the facts.

This is a problem we can fix. After all in the advanced stats world we deal with complicated equations all the time and this one is much easier.

Let’s lay out the relevant information:

Using the Luxury tax limit numbers for each year we can figure out Player Salaries (Luxury Tax Limit times 30)
We can determine League revenue (Player Salaries/0.57).
We can assume the league made money in 2005 (say 14 million per team or about $420 Million total)
The League claims an operating loss of 300 Million this year.
Just by looking at those facts and without actually crunching the numbers, my contention is that If the NBA made money in 2005 and now they lose 10 million with a FIXED cost for salaries, then team Expenses are growing past the rate of inflation in a bad way. The problem then isn’t the players – it’s the owners, and they’re exploding their costs and spending money like drunken sailors. (Editor Dre’s Note: I wanted to replace this but I found the metaphor strangely appropriate)


The math does not disagree. Let’s illustrate it:

The simple takeaway from that table is that Player Salaries and NBA Revenues are growing exactly at the US inflation rate (score one for economists everywhere!). Team expenses are growing at a ridiculous five times that. The owners must know this. A new labor deal will not fix that.
Let’s illustrate this again:

Let’s operate under the following assumptions:
The owners get the 40% BRI number the union claims they want.
Player Salaries and revenues are locked in at 2.4% percent increases tied to inflation (with one notable exception)
TV rights go up 21% as they did when last negotiated (the exception)
Under this extremely favorable scenario, the owners will still start losing money by 2020 and looking again at player salaries with evil intent.

In fact, if the owners move to a percent of the Net revenue and not gross revenue (as they also want to do), they can then manipulate the bottom line to bilk the players by for example borrowing against the value of the teams and charging the debt servicing to the team expenses.
Let’s illustrate this as well:

Here I assume a Net Revenue split of 50/50 and that the owners curtail their spending to 2011 levels. This yields a stable business model for the owners but it does so by knocking player salaries down to $3.2 million per player on average from $5.2 million now (a 40% net drop and a steadily decreasing share of the pie over time).
Ok, maybe the math is not so simple but the conclusion is clear. The owners are looking to take the money from the talent. Funny that it all comes down to simple incentives in the end.

-Arturo

Share this:


Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Posted in: Arturo, Basketball Stories
← Just Desserts: 100 Greatest Wins Produced Players since 1978
LikeOne blogger likes this post.

5 Responses “Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute” →

mmotherwell

June 30, 2011

Wow – that is a story the player’s union really needs to get out there – especially in light of the fact that NBA teams surely make more revenue, because the 57% is based on only SOME of the things the NBA makes money from.

Basketball Related income (BRI)and some of the things not included: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q13

Some of the things specifically not included in BRI are proceeds from the grant of expansion teams, fines, and revenue sharing (e.g. luxury tax).

4 Trackbacks For This Post
Basketball: Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute » Stathead » Blog Archive →
June 30th, 2011 → 3:17 pm
[...] Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute: At the Wages of Wins, a detailed breakdown of the financial math behind the NBA’s current lockout situation. [...]

The NBA Lockout is Here and Some Links « Swarm & Sting | A New Orleans Hornets Blog →
June 30th, 2011 → 4:53 pm
[...] Galletti over at Wages of Wins takes a good look at the numbers behind the [...]

Friday Bullets: Der Lockout ist da! | FIVE Basketball-Magazin - NBA Blog →
July 1st, 2011 → 4:42 am
[...] keine Spiele sind, nehm ich den Fans noch die Artikel/Videos/Bilder, ich mach ja schließlich nur mein Geld mit den Leuten. Ist aber ja alles gar nicht so [...]

NBA Lockout: Men Lie, Women Lie, Numbers Lie? | Robert Littal Presents BlackSportsOnline →
July 1st, 2011 → 8:21 am
[...] reading multiple articles, “Taking a look at the NBA labor dispute” provides the best insight on the facts and figures behind the NBA lockout. There is a lot of data [...]

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Log In
Log In
Log In

Email (required) Your email address will not be published.

Name (required)

Website


Please log in to WordPress.com to post a comment to your blog.



You are commenting using your Twitter account. (Log Out)


You are commenting using your Facebook account. (Log Out)

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.



Looking for a Post?

Search for:
Buy the Books


Resistance is Futile


Recent Posts

Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute
Just Desserts: 100 Greatest Wins Produced Players since 1978
2010-2011 Top Underpaid Players
Quick Takes: Atlantic Division Draft Grades
Just Desserts: The Greatest Wins Produced Seasons and The Wins Produced All NBA Teams
Wages of Wins Podcast: Ultimate and Underrated Drafts
Second Guessing the Knicks
Quick Takes: 2011 NBA Draft Winners and Losers
Wages of Wins Network Busted Fantasy Draft
Defending Allen Iverson: 1996 Draft Flashback
A Wages of Wins Network

Arturo Silly Little Stats
Courtside Analyst
Hickory High
Hitting The Glass
Miami Heat Index
NBeh?
Nerd Numbers The Blog
NYK Mistakes
Pistons by the Numbers
Red Wall and Blue
Shut Up and Jam
Sport Skeptic
Team Sports Analysis (Stacey Brook)
The NBA Anti-Expert
The NBA Geek
AA Wins Produced Numbers

Frequently Asked Questions
Glossary of Terms — from NBeh?
Guide to Calculating Wins Produced
Wins Produced Numbers from Andres Alvarez
Buy Our Books

Buy Stumbling on Wins: Amazon
Buy Stumbling on Wins: Barnes and Noble
Buy Stumbling on Wins: Borders
Buy Wages of Wins: Amazon
Buy Wages of Wins: Barnes and Noble
Buy Wages of Wins: Borders
Stumbling on Wins Website
Wages of Wins Website
General Links

Baseline Scenario
Brendan Nyhan
Dan Ariely
Dan Hamermesh’s Economics Thought of the Day
DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal
Econ Academics Blog
Economist's View
Economix
Freakonomics
Greg Mankiw’s Blog
Hawkonomics
Malcolm Gladwell
Marginal Revolution
Mark Martinez
Market Power
Matthew Yglesias
Nudge
Paul Krugman–Conscience of a Liberal
Undercover Economist
voluntaryXchange
WordPress
Site Meter

Site Meter
Sports Links

3 Shades of Blue
48 Minutes of Hell
8 Points, 9 Seconds
82games.com
Advanced NFL Stats from Brian Burke
At the Hive
Baseball Codes
Basketball Reference
basketball-analysis.com
BasketballValue.com
Bucksketball
Cavs the Blog
Celtics Hub
Clipperblog
Cowbell Kingdom
Daily Thunder
Dan Shanoff
DC Sports Bog
Denver Stiffs
Doc's Head Games
Draft Express
Feinstein on the Brink
Fields of Green
Freehling Baseball Business
Full-Court Press
Hardwood Paroxysm
Harvard Sports Analysis Collective
Hoopinionblog
Hornets247
Hot Hot Hoops
Howlin' T-Wolf
Huffington Post Sports
International Journal of Sport Finance Blog
Khandor's Sports Blog
Knickerblogger
Mathletics
NetsAreScorching
North American Association of Sports Economists
Philadunkia
PistonPowered
Pistonscast
pro-football-reference.com blog
PSU Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research
QueenCityHoops
RaptorsHQ
Sabernomics
Skeptical Sports
Sports Biz with Darren Rovell
Sports Economist
Sports Labor Relations
Sports Law Professor
SportsBiz
Starting Five
The City: A Warriors-Centric NBA Blog
The Painted Area
The Two Man Game
Tiger Blog
TigerTales
TrueHoop
Truth About It
twocentssports
Valley of the Suns
WaitingForNextYear
Warriors World
Whoop-De-Damn-Do: Nets Blog
This Last Month

June 2011
M T W T F S S
« May
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Every Post We’ve Written


CC license

Effort was expended for your enjoyment. Feel free to use it but only if you: share, give credit and don't try to sell it.


Wages of Win Journal by David Berri, Andres Alvarez and Arturo Galletti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
In case you get lost, push this button


Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Inuit Types by BizzArtic.

Raps26
07-01-2011, 02:25 PM
i think any sort of a hard cap would be a win for the owners...this lockout looks like it may take a long time to be resolved ...may be no season next year at all....the owners will do this for their long term benefit

Raps26
07-01-2011, 02:26 PM
In my opinion the current system doesn't make sense...why should the employees (players) earn more than their employers (owners). Also, a hard cap would be great for small market teams and better for overall competition.

SteBO
07-01-2011, 02:27 PM
i think any sort of a hard cap would be a win for the owners...this lockout looks like it may take a long time to be resolved ...may be no season next year at all....the owners will do this for their long term benefit
And they won't get their way. That's the unfortunate part, at least for them. They're the ones at fault here for this garbage.

AddiX
07-01-2011, 02:42 PM
i think any sort of a hard cap would be a win for the owners...this lockout looks like it may take a long time to be resolved ...may be no season next year at all....the owners will do this for their long term benefit

The owners don't really want a hard cap, its just posturing on there part. All the good franchises and profitable franchises are completely against it.

It's the poor and crappy franchises pushing this mess and when push comes to shove the top teams will get cap flexibility.

Blame the stupid gms, owners, executives, for this, players have done nothing wrong here. If these teams aren't profitable it's because they don't know WTF they are doing.

SteBO
07-01-2011, 02:46 PM
In my opinion the current system doesn't make sense...why should the employees (players) earn more than their employers (owners). Also, a hard cap would be great for small market teams and better for overall competition.
No it wouldn't because at the end of the day players are going lean toward the bigger markets anyway. A hard cap won't solve anything, especially competition. The Spurs and Thunder are doing well with the current system, so why can't other small markets do the same? It's just a matter of smart business decisions, whether it's trades or drafting. Period.

Wade>You
07-01-2011, 02:50 PM
I can't imagine EVERY owner wanting a hard cap. The Mavs, Lakers, Celtics, and a few others have double that amount in salaries and would have to dismantle their teams if that were the case. It's just the crappy owners stuck with crappy GMs that want a $45 mil hard cap.

KnicksR4Real
07-01-2011, 03:01 PM
o please no.

KingPosey
07-02-2011, 02:46 AM
What the **** are you talking about? Not in 9-10 years would these guys be getting more than they are getting in the NBA.

http://dimemag.com/2008/08/olympiakos-is-considering-two-year-100-million-deal-for-lebron/

Jeffy25
07-02-2011, 04:40 AM
Caps are ridiculously stupid in sports



Also,

http://deadspin.com/5816870/

Jeffy25
07-02-2011, 04:41 AM
I can't imagine EVERY owner wanting a hard cap. The Mavs, Lakers, Celtics, and a few others have double that amount in salaries and would have to dismantle their teams if that were the case. It's just the crappy owners stuck with crappy GMs that want a $45 mil hard cap.

They want a cap because it controls player salaries and increases their profit margins.

It has nothing to do with on the court success.

Crzycjunx76
07-02-2011, 04:54 AM
The owners don't really want a hard cap, its just posturing on there part. All the good franchises and profitable franchises are completely against it.


Actually Mark Cuban was talking favorably about a hard cap earlier in the season. He does not mind shared revenues being split amongst the teams but what really angered him was the revenue sharing to small market teams that spent more than they could, and revenue sharing through the luxury tax. Basically he felt a hard cap would solve both and if big spender Mark Cuban is on board you better believe most if not all of the big franchises are.

John Walls Era
07-02-2011, 06:28 AM
No way it will be 45 Million. The avg salary is about 5+ Million right now. So on a team of 12 will be way over 45 million. That means there will be a huge discrepancy between players who got contracts last year vs. players that will get contracts this year.

Lockout here we come... only losers are the fans here. Most high profile athletes still have those huge endorsements and doesn't give a rat's *** about us.

John Walls Era
07-02-2011, 06:29 AM
The owners got themselves into this mess. Don't get me wrong, the players are overpaid, but thats only because of the owners idiot moves.

Yeah I agree but its never that simple. Fans always want to keep stars that they drafted. Stars won't sign unless they get the maximum amount they can get.

JordansBulls
07-07-2011, 11:14 PM
How close is this to happening now?

beasted86
07-08-2011, 12:50 PM
No way it will be 45 Million. The avg salary is about 5+ Million right now. So on a team of 12 will be way over 45 million. That means there will be a huge discrepancy between players who got contracts last year vs. players that will get contracts this year.

Lockout here we come... only losers are the fans here. Most high profile athletes still have those huge endorsements and doesn't give a rat's *** about us.

To add to this, owners think they are saving money not having an NBA season. They'd rather try and stick it to the 15 players on the team, not realizing they are screwing over the hundreds of team officials, and arena employees in the process who are counting on an NBA season.

Super.
07-08-2011, 04:21 PM
So the heat are ****ed?

Tony_Starks
07-08-2011, 04:59 PM
Thinking a hard cap and players giving up money will "level the playing field" of the league is the biggest lie since weapons of mass destruction......

Da Knicks
07-08-2011, 05:17 PM
Thinking a hard cap and players giving up money will "level the playing field" of the league is the biggest lie since weapons of mass destruction......

:clap::laugh2:

JordansBulls
07-09-2011, 04:48 PM
Thinking a hard cap and players giving up money will "level the playing field" of the league is the biggest lie since weapons of mass destruction......

:clap:

smith&wesson
07-09-2011, 05:33 PM
owners wont have many players left to negotiate with by the end of summer.

godolphins
07-09-2011, 07:01 PM
So the heat are ****ed?
How so?

As of now the highest our cap will be(current players under contract) is $71 million in 2013-2014.

This upcoming season: $65 million
Next year: $65 million
13/14: $71 million
14/15: Wade, Lebron, Bosh, Haslem, Miller and Anthony will all have player options.

If it comes down to taking a paycut I'm sure Lebron wouldn't mind doing so since Nike will most likely cover the rest.

Dade County
07-09-2011, 07:11 PM
So the heat are ****ed?

I am going to put this out their...

If they are dramatically going to lower the cap, and create a hard cap system;
don't you think they might make it legal to lower players contracts (if that player would like to stay with their old team of course?)

I am not saying that all players would go for this, but the nba can't expect teams to quickly get under a new hard cap, without rewriting some rules.

"note" 2yrs is still to short for teams to get under a new hard cap (lets say anything under 60mil)

So the Heat trio might be able to lower their contract if the cap gets too low; not saying this is going to happen, just putting it out their.

HuRRiCaNeS324
07-09-2011, 07:22 PM
I know a lot of you are scared of the HEAT so your hoping and praying it breaks up, buuuuuuuuuuuut its not happening.

Whatever new CBA they make, it wont force teamS (not just the HEAT because a lot of you like to only point out of this might damage the HEAT but no one else lol) to trade away stars. David Stern already said this, im not even talking out of my ***.