PDA

View Full Version : Who should win, on principle?



mrblisterdundee
09-17-2011, 09:17 PM
I read an interesting article on the bargaining positions of the two sides (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/lockout-110916/why-owners-win-lockout).
NBA owners aren't poor and neither are the players they pay, but owners take all the risk. They spend the money to make the money, even in a recession.
NBA players have guaranteed profits. Those jobs that the owners provide them also promotes their brand and provides them with all those extra-curricular money-making opportunities through advertising.
For those reasons, I hope the owners win the argument, which seems likely. Owners are taking financial cuts every day in this recession, so the players should too.
What do you think?

TheNumber37
09-17-2011, 09:45 PM
The Fans should win.

Gators123
09-17-2011, 09:47 PM
The Fans should win.

llemon
09-17-2011, 09:56 PM
I read an interesting article on the bargaining positions of the two sides (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/lockout-110916/why-owners-win-lockout).
NBA owners aren't poor and neither are the players they pay, but owners take all the risk. They spend the money to make the money, even in a recession.
NBA players have guaranteed profits. Those jobs that the owners provide them also promotes their brand and provides them with all those extra-curricular money-making opportunities through advertising.
For those reasons, I hope the owners win the argument, which seems likely. Owners are taking financial cuts every day in this recession, so the players should too.
What do you think?

Do you really consider someone's salary to equate to "profit"?

Are wages "profit"?

What is your "profit" per year?

And what I think is that you are a member of the Tea Party.

Remember what happened during the first American Tea Party?

Kevj77
09-17-2011, 10:06 PM
Why do people think the owners take all the risk? Financially yes, but they don't put their health on the line. I'm a Lakers fan so I'll use Kobe as an example. Kobe has said his knee is almost bone on bone. It limited him in practice all last season he has had several surgeries on it in the past. He has broken fingers on his hands. He elected not to have surgery on his index finger because they told him it wouldn't help. He has arthritis in it and reports said it was like the finger of an 80 year old man. Kobe has to live with all this for the rest of his life.

Owners do not take all the risk. Not to mention even the owners that have lost money yearly have gained equity in the value of their franchises. Also they own the team a player career is 10-15 years if healthy. Owners should make a profit, but they have to share it with the players that are actually the product. IMO that makes the players partners in the NBA.

There should be enough money for everyone they just need to figure out how to divide the pie. The players reportedly were willing to give up 5% that might not sound like a lot, but we are talking about 2 billion dollar a year business. That equals 100,000,000 dollars a year they are willing to give back to the owners or a billion dollars over ten years.

gwrighter
09-18-2011, 11:34 AM
Do you really consider someone's salary to equate to "profit"?

Yes


Are wages "profit"?

& Yes.

gwrighter
09-18-2011, 11:45 AM
Why do people think the owners take all the risk? Financially yes, but they don't put their health on the line. I'm a Lakers fan so I'll use Kobe as an example. Kobe has said his knee is almost bone on bone. It limited him in practice all last season he has had several surgeries on it in the past. He has broken fingers on his hands. He elected not to have surgery on his index finger because they told him it wouldn't help. He has arthritis in it and reports said it was like the finger of an 80 year old man. Kobe has to live with all this for the rest of his life.

Owners do not take all the risk. Not to mention even the owners that have lost money yearly have gained equity in the value of their franchises. Also they own the team a player career is 10-15 years if healthy. Owners should make a profit, but they have to share it with the players that are actually the product. IMO that makes the players partners in the NBA.

There should be enough money for everyone they just need to figure out how to divide the pie. The players reportedly were willing to give up 5% that might not sound like a lot, but we are talking about 2 billion dollar a year business. That equals 100,000,000 dollars a year they are willing to give back to the owners or a billion dollars over ten years.

Kobe will also be a millionaire for the rest of his life. Players are compensated for their risk, hence why there are guaranteed contracts. Let's not forget health insurance & benefits that all of these players receive on top of their annual salary. they are treated VERY well.

your franchise is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. until a transaction is made, the figures that are tossed out there are all conceptual. you can ask for 1mil for your house but settle on 500 000.

In terms of sports teams you have a point, rich ppl are willing to pay a premium to own a sports franchise because of the prestigiousness that comes with the ownership. But that does not mean that their franchise is raising in value as once again the economy can tank & you can lose all the equity gained just like the past housing crisis.

These players get guaranteed profits. not dependent on anything but their play. thats a pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

they put their health on the line because they love what they do. I bet you Kobe would re-up this same life & risk career ending injury time & time again just to play in the NBA.

LakersIn5
09-18-2011, 11:57 AM
players are the reason why i watch the NBA so players should get 100% of the money. lolz

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Why do people think the owners take all the risk? Financially yes, but they don't put their health on the line. I'm a Lakers fan so I'll use Kobe as an example. Kobe has said his knee is almost bone on bone. It limited him in practice all last season he has had several surgeries on it in the past. He has broken fingers on his hands. He elected not to have surgery on his index finger because they told him it wouldn't help. He has arthritis in it and reports said it was like the finger of an 80 year old man. Kobe has to live with all this for the rest of his life.

Owners do not take all the risk. Not to mention even the owners that have lost money yearly have gained equity in the value of their franchises. Also they own the team a player career is 10-15 years if healthy. Owners should make a profit, but they have to share it with the players that are actually the product. IMO that makes the players partners in the NBA.

There should be enough money for everyone they just need to figure out how to divide the pie. The players reportedly were willing to give up 5% that might not sound like a lot, but we are talking about 2 billion dollar a year business. That equals 100,000,000 dollars a year they are willing to give back to the owners or a billion dollars over ten years.


actually- from everything Im reading. The financial number the players are willing to give back or forfeit is a reasonable number where "the owners can see a mutual agreement" according to david stern. The problem according to sources is how the money is distributed, and if exceptions are allowed... and ultimately hard cap vs soft cap.

(BTW- after tuesdays meetings when everyone was focused on the fact that the two sides had a disagreement.... it kind of got lost in the shuffle. The owners thought the players proposal to cut about 5% from their share of BRI was an offer they could agree on) A few weeks ago everyone was talking about how many billion dollars these teams were apart.... and to hear both sides say they can see a potential agreement on the BRI divide, well that is very signficant. Many have been saying that is the biggest problem.

My suggestion is that they keep a soft cap with exceptions and everything but they increase the luxury tax from 2-1 to 4-1. This will make spending a ton of money even more expensive, and this will double the amount of money going to the teams under the cap each year. This would be an agreement that is mainly decided amongst the rich owners and the not as rich owners. I'm not sure the players would have much leverage either way. They obviously would want teams to be able to give them big contracts with less consaquences for the teams....but if all the teams come to an agreement, its really their business on how much they are willing to pay for luxury tax.... as it isnt exactly a BRI issue.

BRI= basketball related Income....... for anybody wondering. Its the revenue being distributed and negotiated over for the cba.

da ThRONe
09-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Well on principle it should be a tie.

The owners would have no product if not for the players. The risk are even for all parties. Should the BRI split be shifted I think so, but the owners are far from the victims.

topdog
09-18-2011, 12:10 PM
On principle, the owners should lose the hard cap because they are offering these contracts when they simply can say "no." If Rashard Lewis turns down a 60M contract, who is greedy then?

On principle, the owners should win a greater share of revenues. It just doesn't make sense to me that players are guaranteed over 50% of revenues. The owners are putting up the money and taking on 90%+ of the risk, they should get at least 50% of the reward.

topdog
09-18-2011, 12:20 PM
My suggestion is that they keep a soft cap with exceptions and everything but they increase the luxury tax from 2-1 to 4-1. This will make spending a ton of money even more expensive, and this will double the amount of money going to the teams under the cap each year. This would be an agreement that is mainly decided amongst the rich owners and the not as rich owners. I'm not sure the players would have much leverage either way. They obviously would want teams to be able to give them big contracts with less consaquences for the teams....but if all the teams come to an agreement, its really their business on how much they are willing to pay for luxury tax.... as it isnt exactly a BRI issue.

I've had the same sort of thought. If owners want to and can spend tons of money, then let them, but keep "competitive balance" by forcing them to pay for it. It helps owners police themselves and the money can be redistributed to the small-market teams.

da ThRONe
09-18-2011, 12:27 PM
actually- from everything Im reading. The financial number the players are willing to give back or forfeit is a reasonable number where "the owners can see a mutual agreement" according to david stern. The problem according to sources is how the money is distributed, and if exceptions are allowed... and ultimately hard cap vs soft cap.

(BTW- after tuesdays meetings when everyone was focused on the fact that the two sides had a disagreement.... it kind of got lost in the shuffle. The owners thought the players proposal to cut about 5% from their share of BRI was an offer they could agree on) A few weeks ago everyone was talking about how many billion dollars these teams were apart.... and to hear both sides say they can see a potential agreement on the BRI divide, well that is very signficant. Many have been saying that is the biggest problem.

My suggestion is that they keep a soft cap with exceptions and everything but they increase the luxury tax from 2-1 to 4-1. This will make spending a ton of money even more expensive, and this will double the amount of money going to the teams under the cap each year. This would be an agreement that is mainly decided amongst the rich owners and the not as rich owners. I'm not sure the players would have much leverage either way. They obviously would want teams to be able to give them big contracts with less consaquences for the teams....but if all the teams come to an agreement, its really their business on how much they are willing to pay for luxury tax.... as it isnt exactly a BRI issue.

BRI= basketball related Income....... for anybody wondering. Its the revenue being distributed and negotiated over for the cba.

The luxury tax isn't 2 to 1 it's 1 to 1. Also there need to be a lower ceiling, and no exception.

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 12:28 PM
On principle, the owners should lose the hard cap because they are offering these contracts when they simply can say "no." If Rashard Lewis turns down a 60M contract, who is greedy then?

On principle, the owners should win a greater share of revenues. It just doesn't make sense to me that players are guaranteed over 50% of revenues. The owners are putting up the money and taking on 90%+ of the risk, they should get at least 50% of the reward.

well we are just talking about annual BRI revenue. Basjketball teams make money other ways, and NBA teams gain a ton of equity every single year. Just ask Chris Cohan. he owned one of the worse teams in the league (The warriors) for 16 years, and he made 330 million in equity alone during that time while doing an absolutely horrible job as an owner. Think how well an owner who actually CARED about his product could do. Also cohan sold his team in a less than great economy.

DenButsu
09-18-2011, 01:06 PM
In principle, they players, easily.

Problem is, the traditional models of labor disputes don't apply here very well. Take a coal miner strike, for example. The raw material is coal, and there's little risk that demand will drop off. So you have a product - coal - which will almost certainly sell, but to get it to the market you need workers to get it out of the ground.

Basketball is totally different. The raw material is actually the talent the players are endowed with. So they are irreplaceable. You can find a different person to dig rocks. you can't find a different person to be LeBron James. His value to the business is unique to him and him alone.

The shorter version of all this, of course, is no players, no game, no game, no business.

On the other hand, basketball, unlike coal, is not guaranteed to sell or be profitable. So the owners in this biz take on much higher risk of failure - especially in smaller markets - than standard company owners would. So even if there can't be a business without the players, there is a limit where the investment loses money, and part of that (usually a huge part of it) is due to payroll.

So as a matter of practicality, both sides should compromise. But the real question to me is how reliable the books, as they've been presented by the owners, really are.

If they truly are losing money, then to say to the players, "Look, if you don't take a pay cut, we no longer have a business" is a totally reasonable position.

But if they're actually running a profitable business and just cooking the books to make it appear falsely that they're in the red, then it would be appropriate for the players to take the gloves off

topdog
09-18-2011, 01:41 PM
well we are just talking about annual BRI revenue. Basjketball teams make money other ways, and NBA teams gain a ton of equity every single year. Just ask Chris Cohan. he owned one of the worse teams in the league (The warriors) for 16 years, and he made 330 million in equity alone during that time while doing an absolutely horrible job as an owner. Think how well an owner who actually CARED about his product could do. Also cohan sold his team in a less than great economy.

I know there are other means of revenue and turning a profit, but I'm saying that 50-50 is a pretty basic principle of sharing (ask little kids) and that I think working closer to that is fair considering the risk owners face when they put the money in (like Glenn Taylor).

Your second point is based upon owners selling their team and I never feel like it is a good argument for a system when you say it's fine and that you can making money by selling out of it. Owners should be able to make some decent money within the system.

By no means do I feel bad for billionaires, but I am in favor of reasonableness.

Trace
09-18-2011, 02:32 PM
Owners quite easily.

Opportunity costs. Athletes have very little value in the job market, without a league. Owners/Management, many of whom have MBAs, BBAs, muli-million (billion) dollar corporations could survive without this sporting enterprise.

llemon
09-18-2011, 03:26 PM
Owners quite easily.

Opportunity costs. Athletes have very little value in the job market, without a league. Owners/Management, many of whom have MBAs, BBAs, muli-million (billion) dollar corporations could survive without this sporting enterprise.

I think the rich guys should survive without this sporting enterprise.

Sandman
09-18-2011, 03:36 PM
The system is ****ed up.

I don't feel like its players vs owners as much as its probably owners vs owners. The owners want the players to take a pay cut so that they don't have to solve their own problems.

The main problem is that the league profits at the expense of its lesser teams. The answer is in a better form of revenue sharing.

Sandman
09-18-2011, 03:43 PM
Owners quite easily.

Opportunity costs. Athletes have very little value in the job market, without a league. Owners/Management, many of whom have MBAs, BBAs, muli-million (billion) dollar corporations could survive without this sporting enterprise.

Like you said, it's all about opportunity cost. These guys with MBAs and 9 figure bank accounts know that they're better off with a season than without.

Trace
09-18-2011, 06:05 PM
Like you said, it's all about opportunity cost. These guys with MBAs and 9 figure bank accounts know that they're better off with a season than without.

The money that they could save/earn from future salaries and a larger availability of FAs due to financial restrictions can potentially make up the losses generated from this season.

But in terms of CBA agreement, owners have leverage. They are contributing 100% of all assets, equity and are responsible for any risk that they may accure from liabilities garnered from this business.

As owners, they should have the right to control their employee's salaries. If this was Goldman Sachs, every employee would have been fired already. The owners know that future aspiring basketball players would KILL to have a chance to play a sport for money.Because of a few talented players, they feel that they have this protective cushion making them untouchable. The truth of the matter is that these current players, are ungrateful and are disillusioned of their worth, outside of a handful of players, few would find as many opportunities as they would in the NBA (or be as challenged for that matter).

llemon
09-18-2011, 06:17 PM
The money that they could save/earn from future salaries and a larger availability of FAs due to financial restrictions can potentially make up the losses generated from this season.

But in terms of CBA agreement, owners have leverage. They are contributing 100% of all assets, equity and are responsible for any risk that they may accure from liabilities garnered from this business.

As owners, they should have the right to control their employee's salaries. If this was Goldman Sachs, every employee would have been fired already. The owners know that future aspiring basketball players would KILL to have a chance to play a sport for money.Because of a few talented players, they feel that they have this protective cushion making them untouchable. The truth of the matter is that these current players, are ungrateful and are disillusioned of their worth, outside of a handful of players, few would find as many opportunities as they would in the NBA (or be as challenged for that matter).

Goldman Sachs employees have a union?

Sandman
09-18-2011, 06:22 PM
The money that they could save/earn from future salaries and a larger availability of FAs due to financial restrictions can potentially make up the losses generated from this season.
thats why they're locking out

But in terms of CBA agreement, owners have leverage. They are contributing 100% of all assets, equity and are responsible for any risk that they may accure from liabilities garnered from this business.
you could say that about any lockout or strike.

As owners, they should have the right to control their employee's salaries. If this was Goldman Sachs, every employee would have been fired already.
The players have an equal right to form a union.

The owners know that future aspiring basketball players would KILL to have a chance to play a sport for money. Because of a few talented players, they feel that they have this protective cushion making them untouchable.
Money aside, I would also kill to have the talent any of these guys have. The scarcity is what makes the union strong.

The truth of the matter is that these current players, are ungrateful and are disillusioned of their worth, outside of a handful of players, few would find as many opportunities as they would in the NBA (or be as challenged for that matter).
Nobody would find more money than they would in the NBA, but the NBA would be equally hard-pressed to find anybody more talented than the members of the players union.

Trace
09-18-2011, 06:45 PM
thats why they're locking out

you could say that about any lockout or strike.

The players have an equal right to form a union.

Money aside, I would also kill to have the talent any of these guys have. The scarcity is what makes the union strong.

Nobody would find more money than they would in the NBA, but the NBA would be equally hard-pressed to find anybody more talented than the members of the players union.



Goldman Sachs employees have a union?

For the idealistic purposes,in a workplace where no contract is smaller than 500K and working conditions are primadonna-esque, I do not find a labor union practical rather an exploitation of its original philosophies and purposes at the expense of outsider employees.

llemon
09-18-2011, 06:48 PM
For the idealistic purposes,in a workplace where no contract is smaller than 500K and working conditions are primadonna-esque, I do not find a labor union practical rather an exploitation of its original philosophies and purposes at the expense of outsider employees.

Honestly don't care what you find practical.

Trace
09-18-2011, 06:51 PM
Honestly don't care what you find practical.

:rolleyes:

Sandman
09-18-2011, 06:55 PM
For the idealistic purposes,in a workplace where no contract is smaller than 500K and working conditions are primadonna-esque, I do not find a labor union practical rather an exploitation of its original philosophies and purposes at the expense of outsider employees.

Without the players the owners don't make any money. With the players the owners make billions.

If they each made less than 500K, they'd be the ones being exploited.

Trace
09-18-2011, 07:07 PM
Without the players the owners don't make any money. With the players the owners make billions.

If they each made less than 500K, they'd be the ones being exploited.

Yes, but unions encourage deadweight loss and inflation, which doesn't benefit, me, the consumer. This is where smaller markets/unsuccessful organizations would accure losses.

The NBA, unlike other organizations is always in the eye of the media and have an international presence around the world, I doubt owners would have the audacity to mistreat their players at the risk of losing money in their other businesses as well (this is the age of self-righteous armchair activist). There are plenty of organizations and markets in America where unions do not exist and such employees earn competitive wages as well.

llemon
09-18-2011, 07:16 PM
Yes, but unions encourage deadweight loss and inflation, which doesn't benefit, me, the consumer.

But unions do help workers, such as myself, to be able to continue to be consumers, as they allow people to earn a decent wage, and not be screwed over at the whims of the rich and powerful.

And exactly how long do you think the NBA players would keep the rights that have been negotiated for them over the last 40 years if there wasn't a union?

Ever hear of the Chicago Black Sox?

Trace
09-18-2011, 07:33 PM
But unions do help workers, such as myself, to be able to continue to be consumers, as they allow people to earn a decent wage, and not be screwed over at the whims of the rich and powerful.

And exactly how long do you think the NBA players would keep the rights that have been negotiated for them over the last 40 years if there wasn't a union?

Ever hear of the Chicago Black Sox?

Demand and supply. NBA players with their scarce talents, do not need a governing body to coerce competitive wages or working conditions.

It's called social progress. Such rights and privileges, would have eventually came about with or without an union and would be stringently maintained especially in an organization heavily marketed around the world. Imagine the public criticism of the Miami Heat/NBA if Lebron came out and said that he wasn't being treated properly or faced unethical management practices.

llemon
09-18-2011, 07:46 PM
Demand and supply. NBA players with their scarce talents, do not need a governing body to coerce competitive wages or working conditions.

Of course they need a governing body. That governing body has put them into whatever position of power they have.

Union goes, Owners will piss on the players as hard as they can, because the rich and powerful are without soul nor conscience, and want the things they want when they want them, and want the peons to bow down before their power.

We are talking about men that would ruin peoples lives and have people killed, and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

Trace
09-18-2011, 07:56 PM
Of course they need a governing body. That governing body has put them into whatever position of power they have.

Union goes, Owners will piss on the players as hard as they can, because the rich and powerful are without soul nor conscience, and want the things they want when they want them, and want the peons to bow down before their power.

We are talking about men that would ruin peoples lives and have people killed, and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

Wow, that's a huge generalization.

Hmm, I guess the French have no souls then since only 5% of their private sector is unionized.

llemon
09-18-2011, 08:00 PM
Wow, that's a huge generalization.

Hmm, I guess the French have no souls then since only 5% of their private sector is unionized.

The rich and powerful French? Yes, they have no souls.

Russia have unions?

And even before Reagan starting breaking the unions, the rich and powerful had no souls. That's why they bought Reagan.

Trace
09-18-2011, 08:04 PM
The rich and powerful French? Yes, they have no souls.

Russia have unions?

Russia has trade unions yes, France, a social liberal nation, has the lowest rates of unionization of any democratic nation and yet employee satisfaction/benefits is among the highest of any democratic nation.

Trade Unions are simply not important in modern economics, especially in economically advanced countries. All modern economic studies point to this.

I don't see how a trade union would affect jobs with highly specific skillsets (sports) anyway. Fighters in the UFC are surviving just fine.

llemon
09-18-2011, 08:09 PM
Russia has trade unions yes, France, a social liberal nation, has the lowest rates of unionization of any democratic nation and yet employee satisfaction/benefits is among the highest of any democratic nation.

Trade Unions are simply not important in modern economics, especially in economically advanced countries. All modern economic studies point to this.

I understand your beliefs. You are anti-union.

But your opinion means nothing to me, as you really haven't got a grasp on what human beings are about.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Trace
09-18-2011, 08:12 PM
I understand your beliefs. You are anti-union.

But your opinion means nothing to me, as you really haven't got a grasp on what human beings are about.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I don't see how this is relevant for jobs that require a specific skill-set versus a job that can easily be outsourced.

Goldman Sachs, a fortune 500 company that requires very specific skill sets, gives out competitive wages and industry leading bonuses. Their workers aren't exactly being shot on the street. Their lives aren't being ruined.

In the same way, NBA players wouldn't be treated like dirt either if their union was disbanded.

llemon
09-18-2011, 08:21 PM
I don't see how this is relevant for jobs that require a specific skill-set versus a job that can easily be outsourced.

Goldman Sachs, a fortune 500 company that requires very specific skill sets, gives out competitive wages and industry leading bonuses. Their workers aren't exactly being shot on the street. Their lives aren't being ruined.

In the same way, NBA players wouldn't be treated like dirt either if their union was disbanded.

You simply don't understand. The rich and powerful thrive on corruption. They buy politicians so the can have their wishes done.

And you don't know if any employee for Goldman Sachs has been killed on orders from above.

The people killed are killed by VERY skilled assassins, or law enforcement that has been paid off, on orders from above.

Take a closer look at the world. You'll see some cruel and vile things going on.

I'm starting to get angry, so I'm now out of this thread.

Trace
09-18-2011, 08:24 PM
You simply don't understand. The rich and powerful thrive on corruption. They buy politicians so the can have their wishes done.

And you don't know if any employee for Goldman Sachs has been killed on orders from above.

The people killed are killed by VERY skilled assassins, or law enforcement that has been paid off, on orders from above.

Take a closer look at the world. You'll see some cruel and vile things going on.

LOL. :facepalm:

http://i.qkme.me/eb6.jpg

But err, enjoy your union while you can, after all, memberships are on a decline.

likemystylez
09-18-2011, 09:55 PM
so ummm what do we mean who should win on principle? define win?

Clearly the players are going to have to give up more than the owners... thus the purpose of the lock out. The players were fine with the way things were... and in order to end the lock out... the owners are going to have to get more than they had going in... and the players definitely are going to lose something.... I havent heard any proposal that that puts the players in a better situation on any issue.

They want it to be the same on a few, but on most issues they are willing to give up some of what they had to the owners.

llemon
09-18-2011, 10:05 PM
LOL. :facepalm:

http://i.qkme.me/eb6.jpg

But err, enjoy your union while you can, after all, memberships are on a decline.

Too late. Retired at 45. God bless the Unions.

France just had a MAJOR strike in 2010.

Germans have almost twice the Unionized work force than the post-Reagan USA, and they have a strong economy.

In other words you are an ignoramus and a stooge for the filthy rich. But hey, everyone has to make a living.

Having realized what a liar and a shill you are, I'm not so angry anymore.

Trace
09-18-2011, 10:10 PM
Too late. Retired at 45. God bless the Unions.

France just had a MAJOR strike in 2010.

Germans have almost twice the Unionized work force than the post-Reagan USA, and they have a strong economy.

In other words you are an ignoramus and a stooge for the filthy rich. But hey, everyone has to make a living.

Having realized what a liar and a shill you are, I'm not so angry anymore.

:rolleyes:

Oh great, now I have to hire an assassin to hunt you down now. O Whatever shall you do?

llemon
09-18-2011, 10:32 PM
:rolleyes:

Oh great, now I have to hire an assassin to hunt you down now. O Whatever shall you do?

LOL!!!! I can understand that you haven't the balls to do it yourself.

But you're just a shill. You've got no connections.

So knock yourself out, punk.

Trace
09-18-2011, 10:58 PM
LOL!!!! I can understand that you haven't the balls to do it yourself.

But you're just a shill. You've got no connections.

So knock yourself out, punk.

Aren't we a little sour?

gwrighter
09-19-2011, 12:54 AM
Aren't we a little sour?

if what you say isn't congruent with his philosophies you are a corporate shill/puppet/mastermind/greedy/tea partier who prides themselves on watching the poor & weak die from preventable diseases caused by your wrong doing.

I do think that the NBA union is necessary. Athletes suffer from health risks/injury & further degeneration of ligaments/bones/cartilage & what have you because of the physical stress that was placed on the body. Your an MD, correct me if i'm wrong.

without a union players would still enjoy high salaries but the benefits would be next to nothing. No guaranteed contracts, no health insurance/policies, no chartered flights etc. this would make the league more profitable but standardization would be lost. In effect team specific policies could be implemented to make certain destinations more attractive. This can be done by teams offering some of the aforementioned benefits. IMO we would have less parity then we do today.

Trace
09-19-2011, 01:23 AM
if what you say isn't congruent with his philosophies you are a corporate shill/puppet/mastermind/greedy/tea partier who prides themselves on watching the poor & weak die from preventable diseases caused by your wrong doing.

I do think that the NBA union is necessary. Athletes suffer from health risks/injury & further degeneration of ligaments/bones/cartilage & what have you because of the physical stress that was placed on the body. Your an MD, correct me if i'm wrong.

without a union players would still enjoy high salaries but the benefits would be next to nothing. No guaranteed contracts, no health insurance/policies, no chartered flights etc. this would make the league more profitable but standardization would be lost. In effect team specific policies could be implemented to make certain destinations more attractive. This can be done by teams offering some of the aforementioned benefits. IMO we would have less parity then we do today.

Yes, but they don't have to suffer these risks. Their salary (along with any occupation with high risks) reflects such risks and the opportunity costs from these risks, which is more than enough to buy a health-care plan. For the majority of these players, such concerns are not key, unfortunately. Their main concern is to collect and pile on debt from luxury SUVs, watches and other non-essential items.

It's a little sickening when individuals such as themselves argue that they're not being paid enough (granted the owners are richer, but consideration must be placed on their liabilities and equities that went into creating this business) and that a trust fund should be set up for retired players that become bankrupt.

In addition, while unions start off as a noble cause, union administration (in for profit sectors) capitalizes on such groups which ultimately becomes cancer or further bureaucracy, in ANY type of industry. In a sense, becoming a business within a business, which is far from its original purposes and philosophies.

As well, some corporations that do not have an union for its workers do provide benefits and are listed whenever they sign their contract. Goldman Sachs (I know I keep bringing up this company but it's one that I know the most about at firsthand), provides healthcare (USA), fitness facilities for employees, living allowances on top of signing bonus (relocation) etc.

Benefits of which, I currently do not have despite being and paying full membership to be apart a professional union which, ultimately, goes to show you that unionization is no longer considered a need in jobs that require specific skill-sets or have a high demand but low supply of.

But if disbanding an union is still such a controversial idea, I move that the Player's Union must change their standards, and move towards a form that's much more palatable like the one currently used by the SAG.

bmd1101
09-19-2011, 08:05 PM
Yes, but they don't have to suffer these risks. Their salary (along with any occupation with high risks) reflects such risks and the opportunity costs from these risks, which is more than enough to buy a health-care plan. For the majority of these players, such concerns are not key, unfortunately. Their main concern is to collect and pile on debt from luxury SUVs, watches and other non-essential items.

It's a little sickening when individuals such as themselves argue that they're not being paid enough (granted the owners are richer, but consideration must be placed on their liabilities and equities that went into creating this business) and that a trust fund should be set up for retired players that become bankrupt.

In addition, while unions start off as a noble cause, union administration (in for profit sectors) capitalizes on such groups which ultimately becomes cancer or further bureaucracy, in ANY type of industry. In a sense, becoming a business within a business, which is far from its original purposes and philosophies.

As well, some corporations that do not have an union for its workers do provide benefits and are listed whenever they sign their contract. Goldman Sachs (I know I keep bringing up this company but it's one that I know the most about at firsthand), provides healthcare (USA), fitness facilities for employees, living allowances on top of signing bonus (relocation) etc.

Benefits of which, I currently do not have despite being and paying full membership to be apart a professional union which, ultimately, goes to show you that unionization is no longer considered a need in jobs that require specific skill-sets or have a high demand but low supply of.

But if disbanding an union is still such a controversial idea, I move that the Player's Union must change their standards, and move towards a form that's much more palatable like the one currently used by the SAG.

The biggest flaw in your logic is your comparisons, none of the corps, nor Supply/demand models are even remotely applicible to a biz like this. NOT EVEN CLOSE. If you really wanted to analyze the supply and demand for players in the NBA, I would venture to say theres a shortage of quality players which the owners seem to think it's true. They have said time and time again they want superstars and/or star players on small market teams. I'm sorry but theres not enough to go around with the incredibly high washout rate from draftees.

That being said, since we are using models like that of Goldman Sachs (one of the corps directly responsible for the econ decline), are the players supposed to ignore how in demand their services are and just take it in the ***?

The usage of Goldman Sachs as the golden boy perfectly modeled corp is laughable at best. THEIR ETHICS ARE BEYOND QUESTIONABLE AND ARE BORDERING ILLEGAL. I can't undertstand why you would shoot yourself in the foot like that if you knew what you were talking about.

You talk about players that "waste" money on luxury SUV's and wtfever else you were spouting, what about the owners doing the same thing with the corps coffers? Do you know they aren't wasting money on questionable spending? NO YOU DONT, you are assuming they are perfect angels, let me tell you something, THEY AREN'T. In all the IP deals, with all the administration of corps in my professional experience (MS/Google/Oracle/Canonical/RH), they nearly wipe their ***** with 100$ bills for the pure fun of it. They don't care who the owner of that 100$ bill is either.

How about this, you walk into work tomarrow and they demand you take a 40% paycut or your going to be fired. Do you take it? With your logic its like you owe the administration some kind of misplaced loyalty and should take it. When the fact is they already betrayed your loyalty with the ultimatum, and you owe them nothing.

Trace
09-20-2011, 12:49 AM
The biggest flaw in your logic is your comparisons, none of the corps, nor Supply/demand models are even remotely applicible to a biz like this. NOT EVEN CLOSE. If you really wanted to analyze the supply and demand for players in the NBA, I would venture to say theres a shortage of quality players which the owners seem to think it's true. They have said time and time again they want superstars and/or star players on small market teams. I'm sorry but theres not enough to go around with the incredibly high washout rate from draftees.

Entertain me.


That being said, since we are using models like that of Goldman Sachs (one of the corps directly responsible for the econ decline), are the players supposed to ignore how in demand their services are and just take it in the ***?

Irrelevant.

The latter statement assumes that disbandment would deflate salaries, which would not be the case.

Shortage of Quality Players (low supply) and High Demand
^
How would the above equilibrium model be affected by the disbandment of NBPA?


The usage of Goldman Sachs as the golden boy perfectly modeled corp is laughable at best. THEIR ETHICS ARE BEYOND QUESTIONABLE AND ARE BORDERING ILLEGAL. I can't undertstand why you would shoot yourself in the foot like that if you knew what you were talking about.

High employee satisfaction rates, their business ethics are irrelevant in the scope of this argument. If you feel, ethics is somehow relevant to past arguments, replace GS with RBC, a financial company with both high satisfaction rates and high social responsibility scores.


You talk about players that "waste" money on luxury SUV's and wtfever else you were spouting, what about the owners doing the same thing with the corps coffers? Do you know they aren't wasting money on questionable spending? NO YOU DONT, you are assuming they are perfect angels, let me tell you something, THEY AREN'T. In all the IP deals, with all the administration of corps in my professional experience (MS/Google/Oracle/Canonical/RH), they nearly wipe their ***** with 100$ bills for the pure fun of it. They don't care who the owner of that 100$ bill is either.

Freedom of Information Act/Financial statements/Shareholder Equity/Liability->Shareholder activism->Corporate Democracy/BOD.


How about this, you walk into work tomarrow and they demand you take a 40% paycut or your going to be fired. Do you take it? With your logic its like you owe the administration some kind of misplaced loyalty and should take it. When the fact is they already betrayed your loyalty with the ultimatum, and you owe them nothing.

Labor is a flexible input, it is much harder for owners of large fixed capital investments to exploit labor than the reverse.

When corporations gets rents from monopoly power (NBA), unions share such rents with their employees. Thus employees already enjoy higher wages and great benefits. However, by raising labor costs, us, consumers receive the blunt end of such costs due to the monopoly power of the corporation. As well, through union&corporation collusion (as a result of mutual interest in rent distribution;transfer of wealth from non-union to union), prices remain high and cause practices that generate impractical salaries (no "free market" competition to keep union demands in line) and benefits that are not sustainable. The eventual outcome being a product that is less likely to be bought by consumers and an inefficient business (unprofitable in smaller markets); which harms future generations.

In the scope of the NBA,

Quality of teams are dependent on quality of players. Teams want to win, therefore salaries are competitive. The quality of a team, would therefore depend on it's financial success. Financial success depends on the demand in their respective geographic locations. The bigger the geographic location, the more revenue that can be made. Therefore, teams that are generally successful are in large-markets (exceptions are made for draft success; however exception proves the rule as players that win will seek higher salaries and are more likely to be in a larger market which generates more revenue).

As a result unions indirectly contribute to the lack of competition and franchise monopolization in the NBA. On top of that, not only do we, the consumers, suffer through delayed service but the cost is increased as well.

^I guess that'll be the scope of my argument in regards to NBPA. Unless of course, labor mobility is limited.

bmd1101
09-21-2011, 12:05 AM
Entertain me.



Irrelevant.

The latter statement assumes that disbandment would deflate salaries, which would not be the case.

Shortage of Quality Players (low supply) and High Demand
^
How would the above equilibrium model be affected by the disbandment of NBPA?



High employee satisfaction rates, their business ethics are irrelevant in the scope of this argument. If you feel, ethics is somehow relevant to past arguments, replace GS with RBC, a financial company with both high satisfaction rates and high social responsibility scores.



Freedom of Information Act/Financial statements/Shareholder Equity/Liability->Shareholder activism->Corporate Democracy/BOD.



Labor is a flexible input, it is much harder for owners of large fixed capital investments to exploit labor than the reverse.

When corporations gets rents from monopoly power (NBA), unions share such rents with their employees. Thus employees already enjoy higher wages and great benefits. However, by raising labor costs, us, consumers receive the blunt end of such costs due to the monopoly power of the corporation. As well, through union&corporation collusion (as a result of mutual interest in rent distribution;transfer of wealth from non-union to union), prices remain high and cause practices that generate impractical salaries (no "free market" competition to keep union demands in line) and benefits that are not sustainable. The eventual outcome being a product that is less likely to be bought by consumers and an inefficient business (unprofitable in smaller markets); which harms future generations.

In the scope of the NBA,

Quality of teams are dependent on quality of players. Teams want to win, therefore salaries are competitive. The quality of a team, would therefore depend on it's financial success. Financial success depends on the demand in their respective geographic locations. The bigger the geographic location, the more revenue that can be made. Therefore, teams that are generally successful are in large-markets (exceptions are made for draft success; however exception proves the rule as players that win will seek higher salaries and are more likely to be in a larger market which generates more revenue).

As a result unions indirectly contribute to the lack of competition and franchise monopolization in the NBA. On top of that, not only do we, the consumers, suffer through delayed service but the cost is increased as well.

^I guess that'll be the scope of my argument in regards to NBPA. Unless of course, labor mobility is limited.

Perhaps you assume i'm only talking about the quoted section? I'm sorry but i'm not going to quote every wall of text.

Ethics are irrelevant? So there are no ethical implications involved with this "employee satisfaction" of one of the most notorious corps in the US? I question the ethics of everyone on their payroll, and every "independant" company involved with them. You would be a fool not to.

The BS about the exception that proves the rule is beyond irrational, an idiom that has no basis in any objective analysis as if you do study further it will eventually be disproved.

Do you see scientists at the LHC claiming they found the higgs boson partical purely on the basis that their initial intended high energy collisions didn't produce it? Thats good logic right there........ SINCE IT DIDNT PRODUCE THE HIGGS BOSON, ITS AN EXCEPTION THAT PROVES ITS EXISTANCE IN THE STANDARD MODEL!!!~!!!*#)!@#($)(!#$%&!*)#%&!*)#@$ ALL HAIL THE GOD PARTICLE!!!!!

Thats about how stupid that sounds.

You proved nearly every point I was trying to make by side stepping them under the cloak of irrelevancy and droning on with points that have no basis on my counter points. Not to mention the "scope" of your argument changes to suit your current argument. It's more then just about the NBAPA dissolution. Dissolution of the NBAPA would only increase the likelyhood of the owners not bargaining in good faith, as shown by the agents pushing the dissolution and undermining the players by just bringing it up in the media. Does that sound like someone that has your best interests in mind? :facepalm:

In fact, i'm against most unions, however it doesn't fit this situation. Before I retired, I was just as involved with negotiating my contracts as any of my lawyers.

Ill give ya a simple one that you can understand:

I went to college at Univ. of Washington, of everyone that graduated in my class, how many of those do you think could get a job with someone like the golden boy Goldman Sachs?

I'll answer that for you, a couple just like every other major univ.

How many superstar NBA players came out of that class?

None.

How about other major universities?

Maybe one univ has a superstar, all the rest, none.

Take a step back and use logic, THE STANDARD CORP MODELS DO NOT ****ING FIT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK ****ING HEAD. Is that irrelevant too?

MY WHOLE ****ING POINT IS YOU CAN'T COMPARE THESE ****ING NBA FRANCHISES LIKE THEY ARE SOME ****ING STANDARD CORP. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. You want to be able to treat them like they are just a standard employee of a standard corp, they aren't. Their unique skillsets are a much smaller commodity then anything else in the world.

Trace
09-21-2011, 11:45 AM
Perhaps you assume i'm only talking about the quoted section? I'm sorry but i'm not going to quote every wall of text.

Ethics are irrelevant? So there are no ethical implications involved with this "employee satisfaction" of one of the most notorious corps in the US? I question the ethics of everyone on their payroll, and every "independant" company involved with them. You would be a fool not to.

They're irrelevant in the scope of this argument. I brought up employee satisfaction to prove a point to another user that dissolving an union wasn't the end of the world. There are some corporations that are able to get along with their employees and while Goldman Sachs may not have been the best example, I told you to stop considering GS and consider a much more responsible bank such as RBC to fulfill that point of that particular argument.


The BS about the exception that proves the rule is beyond irrational, an idiom that has no basis in any objective analysis as if you do study further it will eventually be disproved.

Gibberish. Your example is a straw-man and the latter part of your argument is wrong. Turner's Syndrome would be a great example of this in the medical field.

It is not an exception that changes the economic analysis that I've displayed, it only limits labor mobility, but because of the short rookie contracts and the NBA free agency/trades, its effects are negligible in the long-term, which is where the importance lies.


You proved nearly every point I was trying to make by side stepping them under the cloak of irrelevancy and droning on with points that have no basis on my counter points. Not to mention the "scope" of your argument changes to suit your current argument. It's more then just about the NBAPA dissolution. Dissolution of the NBAPA would only increase the likelyhood of the owners not bargaining in good faith, as shown by the agents pushing the dissolution and undermining the players by just bringing it up in the media. Does that sound like someone that has your best interests in mind? :facepalm:

:facepalm: ,the economic points weren't based off a corporate model, they were analysis by economists into sports franchises and the effect of its economic distribution on winning. Your emphasis on sidestepping such technical aspects suggests your inability to understand them.

How were you ever in the "industry"?


I went to college at Univ. of Washington, of everyone that graduated in my class, how many of those do you think could get a job with someone like the golden boy Goldman Sachs?

None. It's not a target school.



Take a step back and use logic, THE STANDARD CORP MODELS DO NOT ****ING FIT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK ****ING HEAD. Is that irrelevant too?

I'm beginning to doubt your maturity and ability to argue logically. This is the internet, unlike real life, you're not going to win by raising your voice, or in this case writing in all caps.


MY WHOLE ****ING POINT IS YOU CAN'T COMPARE THESE ****ING NBA FRANCHISES LIKE THEY ARE SOME ****ING STANDARD CORP. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. You want to be able to treat them like they are just a standard employee of a standard corp, they aren't. Their unique skillsets are a much smaller commodity then anything else in the world.

Economics 101.

Smaller Commodity+Higher Demand (i.e 20% increased revenue from tickets via NYT)

How would an union affect the above? Even Derek Fisher would tell you it won't.

An union may provide greater benefits in time of financial prosperity but at a great cost. The objectives of an union sacrifices future gains and cause future financial instability for the purposes of momentary gain.

Geargo Wallace
09-21-2011, 01:16 PM
Get emmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Da Knicks
09-21-2011, 02:32 PM
fans should win...

Tom Stone
09-21-2011, 02:55 PM
Owners for sure.....The system is broke.....kobe can lend all the money he wants....there is a few owners that won't rest until the system is on an even playing Field, and prevents the bidding match for Championships.....In the long run owners will win, smart billionares....beat (in general) foolish players .....of course there are some really intelligent players, but there is a huge majority, are just fools with alot of money.....on a personal note, Ive always thought athletes were (are) over paid....and it's insulting to the everyday man, who hates what he does everyday, gets under paid....goes home from work ....real work (brick laying)...and go do for fun ....what they concider work......If anyone really wants athletes to get paid insane amounts of money is life dumb...and probably has something to gain them selfs (an invested interest)

daleja424
09-21-2011, 03:13 PM
PLAYERS all the way. I do not watch the NBA for the owners... I watch for the players.

And the ratings suggest that the average fan loves to see the stars play together...

I support the players and a softish cap.

likemystylez
09-21-2011, 09:58 PM
Owners for sure.....The system is broke.....kobe can lend all the money he wants....there is a few owners that won't rest until the system is on an even playing Field, and prevents the bidding match for Championships.....In the long run owners will win, smart billionares....beat (in general) foolish players .....of course there are some really intelligent players, but there is a huge majority, are just fools with alot of money.....on a personal note, Ive always thought athletes were (are) over paid....and it's insulting to the everyday man, who hates what he does everyday, gets under paid....goes home from work ....real work (brick laying)...and go do for fun ....what they concider work......If anyone really wants athletes to get paid insane amounts of money is life dumb...and probably has something to gain them selfs (an invested interest)

1) all the owners dont have to agree, just majority

2) if you think the players who put their carreers on the line every game dont deserve to make a lot of money.... how could you support the billionairs who make foolish decisions running their company/team.