PDA

View Full Version : Support for striking workers?



JasonJohnHorn
07-01-2011, 08:15 AM
I personally find it hard to support either side of the labour talks because both sides make so much money, but I do appreciate the players side and understand some of their points. Coupled with the fact that the OWNERS are the cause of the lock-out (it is a Lock-Out after all, not a Strike, meaning the players are willing to show up, but the owners have locked them out).

But that said, I think I would be more supportive of the players if THEY had been supportive of the officials when they went on strike.

When the officials went on strike a couple years ago, the players essentially crossed picket lines and kept right on working with scab workers replacing the regular officials. I remember when I went to university some profesorts refused to hold classes when the university support staff (janitors, cafeteria staff, security, ect) went on strike. They took a pay cut to support other workers on strike. So when they went on strike themselves (or rather were locked out by the university) I was more kean on lending my support to the faculty because at least some of them had offered their support to the university support staff.

But when the officials went on strike, not one single NBA player even sat out a single game to support the officials, so it does make it hard for me the support the players.

That said, I still think the NBA's owners are the ones responcible for the economic landscape of the NBA. They are the ones who offer rediculous contracts to players like Turkaglu, Arenas, Lewis and others while actually paying players NOT to play via buyouts. You cant expect to have a successful business model when you pay people to NOT work for you. And the soft cap exceptions are continually exploited by the owners. Not every team needs to use the MLE every year, but most still do. If they are willing to overpay to win and pick up mid-level talent, then they are essentially the ones responcible when they end up losing money.

Thoughts?

likemilk
07-01-2011, 10:22 AM
I can't support any of them. When millionaire players are fighting with millionaire/billionaire owners it's just a crying shame. If this lockout does produce a hard cap or whatever middle ground they come up with I'll be glad to watch the NBA games again, but I don't support any of them considering the amount of money I have to pay for a seat at a game.

Hellcrooner
07-01-2011, 10:26 AM
i ally with the players.

THEY ARE THE ONES BRINGING up the show so i find disgusting that owners try to disown them and balme on them their own poor judgemente and mistakes when offering stupid contracts..

In teh end if players were smarter they could

A ) Found their OWN league and fry the nba.

B) Massively sign in europe ( creating an increasing market that soon woudl be able to pay them the same salarys they are earning, with all the ADVANTAGES of free market) and fry the Nba.

C) Negotiate with one of American lower leages like the New Aba owners a shared venue and start a new american league and Fry the Nba.

Crucis
07-01-2011, 10:44 AM
i ally with the players.

THEY ARE THE ONES BRINGING up the show so i find disgusting that owners try to disown them and balme on them their own poor judgemente and mistakes when offering stupid contracts..



If the owners all tried to show "good judgement", the players union would probably just call it "collusion" and drag the owners into Federal Court.

I'm with the owners 100%.

chris34
07-01-2011, 10:48 AM
Sure crooner, you are right they could do that. And the NBA owners should show their value by pushing them to research that cause I guarantee that they would say "Good luck making an avg of $5M apiece doing that"

NBAfan4life
07-01-2011, 10:50 AM
IF and when this lockout ends they will be in the same position 5 or 10 years from now. The real problem is revenue sharing.

The issues I side with owners for are length of fully guaranteed contracts.

utahjazzno12fan
07-01-2011, 11:20 AM
The thing is, the owners are now trying to correct their past mistakes. When they created the last CBA, they apparently felt that the growth in sales would allow them to make money. Owners are losing money. No one is disputing this. That is where the problem is. The question is, where and how do they make the cuts to make the league profitable.

JasonJohnHorn
07-01-2011, 11:52 AM
IF and when this lockout ends they will be in the same position 5 or 10 years from now. The real problem is revenue sharing.

The issues I side with owners for are length of fully guaranteed contracts.

OMG YES! The NFL does it. Teams like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, they can afford to go over the cap, compete (well, NY hasnt competed for a while, but that is beside the point) and still make money, whilst teams like Phoenix, NO, and Detroit stuggle to make money even when they arent that far over the cap. Profit sharing among owners would smooth things over a great deal.

But one of the core problems is owners over paying for mid level talent. I like Turk, but there is no reason he should be making THAT MUCH MONEY! Same with Stephan Jackson, Arenas and others, and the same could be said in the past about a great many players. Why are owners always overpaying for mid-level talent and score-first PGs? And then turning around and paying players to NOT play? Of course this league is losing money.

NBAfan4life
07-01-2011, 12:06 PM
OMG YES! The NFL does it. Teams like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, they can afford to go over the cap, compete (well, NY hasnt competed for a while, but that is beside the point) and still make money, whilst teams like Phoenix, NO, and Detroit stuggle to make money even when they arent that far over the cap. Profit sharing among owners would smooth things over a great deal.

But one of the core problems is owners over paying for mid level talent. I like Turk, but there is no reason he should be making THAT MUCH MONEY! Same with Stephan Jackson, Arenas and others, and the same could be said in the past about a great many players. Why are owners always overpaying for mid-level talent and score-first PGs? And then turning around and paying players to NOT play? Of course this league is losing money.

Honestly I know this has no chance in hell of ever happening, but if teams were allowed to get out of some contracts when players are not living up to them that would be awesome. Excluding injuries. Players like Baron Davis are notorious for getting their big pay day and coasting. Again I know this could and would never happen but if you could cut players who were not injured it would make the league better.

Witness06
07-01-2011, 12:09 PM
I side with the players for a couple of reasons.
1. MOST players have a very short career and make closer to the minimum (the stars arent really affected they will command $$$)
2. Free agency is simply an open market like e-bay. The OWNERS create the market. If a player demands money hes not worth DONT PAY HIM
3. Accountants can make numbers say whatever you want them to say ( i dont believe they are loosing that kind of money) Ratings, team sales, licensing, international interest, ARE ALL AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. If they are losing money its their fault.
4. the players are willing to give back some, just not 35% thats just crazy
5. Lastly the salaries are a FIXED cost they are losing money because of poor spendinghttp://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/taking-a-look-at-the-numbers-behind-the-nba-labor-dispute/

reemy
07-01-2011, 02:57 PM
I side with the players for a couple of reasons.
1. MOST players have a very short career and make closer to the minimum (the stars arent really affected they will command $$$)
2. Free agency is simply an open market like e-bay. The OWNERS create the market. If a player demands money hes not worth DONT PAY HIM
3. Accountants can make numbers say whatever you want them to say ( i dont believe they are loosing that kind of money) Ratings, team sales, licensing, international interest, ARE ALL AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. If they are losing money its their fault.
4. the players are willing to give back some, just not 35% thats just crazy
5. Lastly the salaries are a FIXED cost they are losing money because of poor spendinghttp://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/taking-a-look-at-the-numbers-behind-the-nba-labor-dispute/


Why don’t the players threaten to start an exhibition season? –I would expect some cable network would be more than willing to buy insurance and book locations. Basketball is an easy sport to set up–and this threat will scare the NBA robber barons

A comment I seen from that article, what is the chance of something like this happening. Would be a very good scare tactic

Crucis
07-01-2011, 03:41 PM
OMG YES! The NFL does it. Teams like LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, they can afford to go over the cap, compete (well, NY hasnt competed for a while, but that is beside the point) and still make money, whilst teams like Phoenix, NO, and Detroit stuggle to make money even when they arent that far over the cap. Profit sharing among owners would smooth things over a great deal.

But one of the core problems is owners over paying for mid level talent. I like Turk, but there is no reason he should be making THAT MUCH MONEY! Same with Stephan Jackson, Arenas and others, and the same could be said in the past about a great many players. Why are owners always overpaying for mid-level talent and score-first PGs? And then turning around and paying players to NOT play? Of course this league is losing money.


JJH, since obviously all teams can't be composed of superstars, you have to fill out your roster with non-star players. And teams try to get the "best" of these non-stars. And because there will be a competitive market for even these non-stars, supply and demand will drive up what teams will pay for those more-desirable non-star players.

And if a number of teams either agree or even seem to agree to hold down the salaries that they pay to non-stars, the players union would take them to federal court in a heartbeat on charges of collusion.

I don't think that it's really fair to come down too hard on teams for seemingly overpaying non-star type players. Of course, there will always be examples of players who ingloriously fail to perform up to expectations when they sign a new contract, regardless of the sport.




Sports leagues aren't like free markets in the "real" world. In the real world, if some of your competitors go out of business, it's no big deal. But in sports leagues, you don't want competing teams going out of business. Issues of how poorly run some franchises may be aside, you don't want your league's underlying financial structure to be so bad that it can drive franchises into bankruptcy. After all, while teams may compete on the field or on the court, and their front offices may "compete" for talent in the off-season, as corporate entities, they really shouldn't be seen as competitors in the same way competing companies would in the real world. The franchises in a sports league are very much like divisions of a larger corporation, though with each "division" being separately owned. Frankly, I think that sports leagues and their franchises should be allowed to work together to reasonably manage personnel costs without the player's unions running to the courts crying "collusion".

blahblahyoutoo
07-01-2011, 04:07 PM
I side with the players for a couple of reasons.
1. MOST players have a very short career and make closer to the minimum (the stars arent really affected they will command $$$)


what's the average salary for a scrub or bench warmer in the NBA?
$250k/yr? probably more than that, but i'll be generous.

lets say they have a short career because they suck, so 10 years. after 10 years, they've made over $2M, which is more than the average person in the US makes in a lifetime, and that's doing real work for 40 years.
not playing a game that us normal folks do for fun.

so "working" for 10 years, if you're careful with your spending, you're set for life.
sympathy not found.

Tom Stone
07-01-2011, 04:27 PM
With owners barely getting by, and players making what they do....it's kind of like the NBA is like a charity for the players.....Here we'll make you a league, give you millions of dollars, and make nothing in return.....And the players are like, hey you have lost money before , you should be used to it......For me it's not about the money....even though I always thought players were way over paid.....It's just about everyone having the chance to win if managed properly= Hard cap......The players don't want fairness in the league...not if it's going to cost them money......Players are choosing money over doing the right thing , doing what's good for our sport.

Crucis
07-01-2011, 04:39 PM
what's the average salary for a scrub or bench warmer in the NBA?
$250k/yr? probably more than that, but i'll be generous.

lets say they have a short career because they suck, so 10 years. after 10 years, they've made over $2M, which is more than the average person in the US makes in a lifetime, and that's doing real work for 40 years.
not playing a game that us normal folks do for fun.

so "working" for 10 years, if you're careful with your spending, you're set for life.
sympathy not found.


Agreed. Exactly where is it written that a mediocre player (in any sport) should be able to make an entire working lifetime's worth of income during a short sports career?

Atticus Finch
07-01-2011, 05:44 PM
With owners barely getting by, and players making what they do....it's kind of like the NBA is like a charity for the players.....Here we'll make you a league, give you millions of dollars, and make nothing in return.....And the players are like, hey you have lost money before , you should be used to it......For me it's not about the money....even though I always thought players were way over paid.....It's just about everyone having the chance to win if managed properly= Hard cap......The players don't want fairness in the league...not if it's going to cost them money......Players are choosing money over doing the right thing , doing what's good for our sport.

The players already agreed to lower their salaries by $500 million over the next 5 years.

lucchesicourt
07-02-2011, 12:26 PM
Let's get real here. The players are NOT the ones bringing the show. It's the owner's. Without the owner's, there is NO SHOW. The owner's take ALL the risk (so they should reap some rewards from this). The player's only risk is injury, but they still lget paid. The players do NOT support anyone else's union, only their own. If you went on strike, say at a grocery store, they would still go in and shop. They do not support anyone. For that matter, few unions really support other unions anymore. That is why unions are failing the American worker. The rich players and owners do NOT care about the fan, other than that he pays the bill so they can be rich.

Storch
07-02-2011, 12:45 PM
So what's the lesson learned through all this? Both sides are greedy rich people.

LakersIn5
07-02-2011, 12:53 PM
i ally with the players.

They are the ones bringing up the show so i find disgusting that owners try to disown them and balme on them their own poor judgemente and mistakes when offering stupid contracts..

In teh end if players were smarter they could

a ) found their own league and fry the nba.

B) massively sign in europe ( creating an increasing market that soon woudl be able to pay them the same salarys they are earning, with all the advantages of free market) and fry the nba.

C) negotiate with one of american lower leages like the new aba owners a shared venue and start a new american league and fry the nba.

i want them to fry the nba! They should start a league with a fantasy draft! :d

Raoul Duke
07-02-2011, 01:14 PM
Both sides need a better system that will partially serve to save them from themselves.

The more I read about the situation, the less sympathy I have for the owners. They're factoring things like relocation fees and the cost of the team into their overall losses, which is fine from an accounting standpoint but not so much for labor negotiations. Didn't Golden State sell recently? How much was the sale price and how much did the previous owner pay for it? It seems to me that when these things sell, they never sell for less than the previous owner paid for them. If that is the case, where the **** do they get off claiming a loss from the get-go?