PDA

View Full Version : Owners lose $1mil/gm, Players lose $350/mo during lockout



Wade>You
10-12-2011, 02:47 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449711/lockouts-real-pain-felt-beyond.html
NBA owners will lose $1 million on average for every game canceled because of the lockout, and players will lose an estimated $350 million a month. The pain, though, may be more acute for thousands of people with no seat at the bargaining table.So the owners are gonna lose $1mil per game, that's $82mil for each team for the season.

Owners:
82mil x 30 teams = 2,460,000,000 ($2.46bil)

Players:
350mil x 6 months = 2,100,000,000 ($2.1bil)

(note: I'm guessing that this is under the former CBA, and not the proposed CBA by the players where the owners actually make more money and the players make less).




And the small market cities that the owners are supposedly fighting for?


A lengthy lockout will be felt strongest in the NBA's small-market cities. In Salt Lake City, a Marriott hotel was taking cancellations Tuesday for about 40 rooms previously booked by the Memphis Grizzlies the night of Nov. 2. Tyson Lybbert, director of sales and marketing for the Salt Lake Marriott City Center, said each game brings between $5,000 and $10,000 to the chain.

.....


Jim Couch, city manager of Oklahoma City, was concerned for restaurants, hotels and volunteer groups in his city. The Thunder are coming off their most successful season since relocating from Seattle, reaching the Western Conference finals last year behind NBA scoring champion Kevin Durant, and have developed one of the league's most passionate fan bases.

"What I'm more concerned about than anything else is the momentum that the city has gotten, disrupting the momentum with the Thunder. It was a special year last year with the Thunder, and I think everybody was looking forward to continue that," Couch said. "I think it's almost a love affair between the community and the team, and you hate to disrupt that."



But wait, the owners won't stop there. They plan to force the players hand by compensating for their losses during the lockout in the new CBA.


But owners might be the lucky ones. They can still recoup some of their losses, and that's what Stern said they could attempt by toughening their future proposals for a new collective bargaining agreement.

"Well, what we have to do is we have to account for the losses that we're suffering, so those losses will be factored in as we move forward," he said Monday night.

Wade>You
10-12-2011, 02:51 AM
I can see this lockout lasting the entire season, perhaps longer. The Owners won't stop until they have it all, and they've suggested that purposely sabotaging the season is to their benefit in achieving their goals.

abe_froman
10-12-2011, 02:53 AM
half a season.your pointing out why owners will start giving in first

JNA17
10-12-2011, 02:55 AM
I don't care how mean this sounds but good. Players need a reaility check and Owners need to stop being idiots.

JNA17
10-12-2011, 02:58 AM
I expect the lockout to last a full NBA season as well. And only having a half a season next season. The situation is THAT BAD.

bholly
10-12-2011, 02:58 AM
Your math is wrong. There are two teams in each game, so there's only 82 * 30 / 2 = 1230 regular season games. You've doubled the owners losses.

I'd love to know where those numbers come from and what they actually represent, but the article doesn't say.

Wade>You
10-12-2011, 03:01 AM
note: title should read players lose $350mil/mo

PinnacleFlash
10-12-2011, 03:05 AM
I say half the season will be lost, I expect to have one though, check your PM btw, OP.

Badluck33
10-12-2011, 07:02 AM
Who loses $ in Charlotte when they fill up 20% of stadium?

players or owners?

should the owners send a bill to the players?

Who pays for the $10,000/game(hotel expenses) x ~44 away games = $440,000.00?

should the owners send another bill to players?

Who pays for the ~$10,000,000 lease for stadium leases?

do the players have to pay a dime of that?

bholly
10-12-2011, 07:25 AM
41 away games.

and what's your point? employees don't pay for business expenses out of their pockets. that isn't exactly a unique state of affairs.

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 07:48 AM
41 away games.

and what's your point? employees don't pay for business expenses out of their pockets. that isn't exactly a unique state of affairs.

What he's saying is that the owners cut their losses for things kind of expenses that they'd otherwise be paying for if there was a season. But who knows, this may have been taken into consideration already in these calculations.

And someone mentioned that this why the owners will cave first... Not true at all. The owners are losing a much smaller portion of their wealth, and will still be billionaires even if we miss an entire season. They also have other means of income. None of these owners are totally dependent on the income they get from their teams. This is really more of a luxury for them. On the other hand, for the majority of the players, this is their only means of income. Once they start missing paychecks, they will cave first. I guarantee it.

bholly
10-12-2011, 08:53 AM
Oh, yeah, the "but who knows..." bit was pretty much what I was getting at, and what I meant when I was saying I'd love to see where the numbers come from - whether it's revenues or profits and what costs it takes into account and how they're calculated. I really don't know, and of course neither does anyone else.
I don't think we can say anything about how much the absolute loss or gain for owners is from missing games, mostly because we have no idea about how different things factor in. Hotel costs they might save on, but they aren't saving anything on stadium leases. The million things in between we have no idea about even under normal circumstances.
Given how tightly guarded the books and financial info have been, that $1m has to be a pretty broad estimate - so it's silly to do calculations like people were doing and think you're getting to meaningful figures.

And yeah, the owners have all the leverage. It's what a lot of people have been saying for months - there won't be a deal until games (and thus paychecks) start getting missed. Same as '99 - it got to the point where the season was going to be cancelled, but the players couldn't take that so they caved. The owners totally have the leverage.

bholly
10-12-2011, 08:54 AM
double post. psd's software/servers/whatever are the worst and most buggy i've ever seen.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 10:45 AM
Owners who have major FA will lose them for nothing... Losing a good year on rookie deals will hurt small market teams as well. Especially with that supposed amnesty clause big market teams can erase a mistake and snatch a good player for cheap .. Then what???

Muttman73
10-12-2011, 10:57 AM
The players have the talent, the owners the money. Guess what, that talent doesn't last forever, but the rich generally stay rich.

Whoever is right or whoever is wrong doesn't really matter...the money always wins.

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 10:57 AM
Owners who have major FA will lose them for nothing... Losing a good year on rookie deals will hurt small market teams as well. Especially with that supposed amnesty clause big market teams can erase a mistake and snatch a good player for cheap .. Then what???

And players will lose AN ENTIRE YEAR'S SALARY. I guess we have different values, and that's fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I think the player's have much more to lose here. Much more. It's not even close.

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 11:03 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449711/lockouts-real-pain-felt-beyond.htmlSo the owners are gonna lose $1mil per game, that's $82mil for each team for the season.

Owners:
82mil x 30 teams = 2,460,000,000 ($2.46bil)

Players:
350mil x 6 months = 2,100,000,000 ($2.1bil)

(note: I'm guessing that this is under the former CBA, and not the proposed CBA by the players where the owners actually make more money and the players make less).

how can the owners be losing that much money?? i don't think your math is right... that means (under the old CBA), there's no way the owners can profit... if your math is right, this further explains why the owners are taking so much back... your math is basically saying there's 4.56 billiion going out for both parties... with the owners paying out 53.9% of total expenses... maybe their offer of 47% player BRI makes sense then (but i think your math is wrong)

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 11:04 AM
The players have the talent, the owners the money. Guess what, that talent doesn't last forever, but the rich generally stay rich.

Whoever is right or whoever is wrong doesn't really matter...the money always wins.

this

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 11:48 AM
And players will lose AN ENTIRE YEAR'S SALARY. I guess we have different values, and that's fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I think the player's have much more to lose here. Much more. It's not even close.

So Orl losing Dwight doesn't hurt the Magic more in the long run. The loss of a megastar can take a decade to fix in some cases. See the Celtics,Knicks,Bulls, Minny (after Garnett) and now the Cavs. Losing a megastar will cripple a team 4 years. Players can recoup , Franchises can't as easily.

mightybosstone
10-12-2011, 12:19 PM
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I honestly think this thing will get worked out soon and we'll miss somewhere between two weeks to half a season, I'm thinking maybe a month/month and a half. Both sides have already made concessions, and the fact that there is some compromise means that they realize what's at stake and nothing is completely set in stone.

Do I think the players will have to compromise more of what they want than the owners? Definitely, but they need the money more than the owners do, I think most players are bluffing about playing overseas or starting their own league and I think losing an entire season won't do veterans any favors in terms of their status and young guys any favors in terms of development.

Is it unfair that the owners get what they want? Of course it is. They're the ones offering the ridiculous contacts, not the players. But at the end of the day, whether this gets done now or a year from now, the owners are likely going to get what they want. Why not get it done now and still get a season out of it?

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 12:23 PM
So Orl losing Dwight doesn't hurt the Magic more in the long run. The loss of a megastar can take a decade to fix in some cases. See the Celtics,Knicks,Bulls, Minny (after Garnett) and now the Cavs. Losing a megastar will cripple a team 4 years. Players can recoup , Franchises can't as easily.

You're using the extreme side of the spectrum to make your point though. The Magic are likely to lose Dwight with or without the lockout, unfortunately for them. And how many "megastars" are we talking about here? Next year we're looking at Dwight, CP3, and Deron possibly leaving their teams... Three guys. Well, Deron might end up staying anyways, and the Hornets aren't going anywhere with just CP3.

I'm talking about the majority of the players who don't have major endorsement deals and things of that nature, that depend on their NBA salary to support themselves, their family, and their friends. With the lifestyles that these guys are used to living, and the number of people they have to support, their wealth usually gets spread pretty thin, and missing paychecks is going to hurt them a lot. They have much more to lose than the owners.

The overwhelming majority of NBA players aren't superstars. They are very dependent on the owners. Much more so than the owners are dependent on them.

avon_barksdale
10-12-2011, 12:39 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449711/lockouts-real-pain-felt-beyond.htmlSo the owners are gonna lose $1mil per game, that's $82mil for each team for the season.

Owners:
82mil x 30 teams = 2,460,000,000 ($2.46bil)

Players:
350mil x 6 months = 2,100,000,000 ($2.1bil)

(note: I'm guessing that this is under the former CBA, and not the proposed CBA by the players where the owners actually make more money and the players make less).




And the small market cities that the owners are supposedly fighting for?





But wait, the owners won't stop there. They plan to force the players hand by compensating for their losses during the lockout in the new CBA.

i understood that a lil diff... the owners as a union lose $1m per game. not each owner loses a mil per game.... no? cuz its not like them players can lose $350m each per month. the players as a union loses that money not individual

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 12:50 PM
i understood that a lil diff... the owners as a union lose $1m per game. not each owner loses a mil per game.... no? cuz its not like them players can lose $350m each per month. the players as a union loses that money not individual

this seems more accurate to me. the owners expenses last year were like 1.6- 2.0 billion total... but now they lose an 0.5-1 billiion? doesn't add up..

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 01:31 PM
Those mid tier level players were warned years in advance of what was coming. This wasn't a surprise and these guys aren't the backbone of the NBA in the Cba negotiations. These rules and caps are to fatten owners pockets. Every issue concerning them have been conceded. This is def about the extremes. These negotiations is about the contracts of the Iggys and Brand type contracts. The little guys in the NBA have a small voice . They want guys like Iggy and brand to command 8 million yr type contracts. Ok will they lower ticket prices after they successfully lower those contracts. Will this create parity. Lowering a budget for every1 doesn't create parity. It just means players make less.. I can't believe you guys think this will make teams be on level playing fields.. The big market owners would Neva accept that deal let alone the players.. My point about those teams losing their stars is these owners knowing they are gonna lose players for nothing will not let a season go by if the players hold.

Off topic- Clev has cap space. Are they gonna be players for any major FA anytime soon. Will this new parity system help them. Plez tell me how? The hornets as well?





You're using the extreme side of the spectrum to make your point though. The Magic are likely to lose Dwight with or without the lockout, unfortunately for them. And how many "megastars" are we talking about here? Next year we're looking at Dwight, CP3, and Deron possibly leaving their teams... Three guys. Well, Deron might end up staying anyways, and the Hornets aren't going anywhere with just CP3.

I'm talking about the majority of the players who don't have major endorsement deals and things of that nature, that depend on their NBA salary to support themselves, their family, and their friends. With the lifestyles that these guys are used to living, and the number of people they have to support, their wealth usually gets spread pretty thin, and missing paychecks is going to hurt them a lot. They have much more to lose than the owners.

The overwhelming majority of NBA players aren't superstars. They are very dependent on the owners. Much more so than the owners are dependent on them.

Kashmir13579
10-12-2011, 01:36 PM
The first game will be Knicks - Heat on christmas.

beliges
10-12-2011, 01:48 PM
I can see this lockout lasting the entire season, perhaps longer. The Owners won't stop until they have it all, and they've suggested that purposely sabotaging the season is to their benefit in achieving their goals.

I think you got it backwards. The owners have compromised and agreed to a 50/50 split. Its the players that want it all, and the will never have it. As soon as the players realize how wrong they are in this, the lockout will be over. Until then, its the players that are sabotaging the season.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 02:27 PM
I think you got it backwards. The owners have compromised and agreed to a 50/50 split. Its the players that want it all, and the will never have it. As soon as the players realize how wrong they are in this, the lockout will be over. Until then, its the players that are sabotaging the season.

It's not a 50/50 split if the owners ask for an additional 350 million in expenditures... That was made to anger the public in making the players look greedy. So it's still close to 47%. you have arguably one the best seasons in league history and ur gonna sign a deal for 7 to 10 years where u lose 10% in year 1.. Do your homework on the topic and not just follow what the owners say. Plenty of articles out there to educate on the negotiations

beliges
10-12-2011, 02:35 PM
It's not a 50/50 split if the owners ask for an additional 350 million in expenditures... That was made to anger the public in making the players look greedy. So it's still close to 47%. you have arguably one the best seasons in league history and ur gonna sign a deal for 7 to 10 years where u lose 10% in year 1.. Do your homework on the topic and not just follow what the owners say. Plenty of articles out there to educate on the negotiations

Excuse me? It was actually a clear 50/50 split. Its not 47% as you stated so dont tell me to educate myself on the topic when you have your numbers wrong. And furthermore, the owners have the right to demand more if they are losing money. Its their team. They risk their own capital and investments to own a franchise. If their business is losing money, they need to change things up. The players are their employees. They work for the owners. They make millions of millions of dollars for playing a game. While the owners risk billions of dollars of their own money to keep their franchise rolling. In my estimation, a 50/50 split is more than fair to the players. So ya, the players are the ones being greedy here if they dont accept a 50/50.

llemon
10-12-2011, 02:39 PM
I think you got it backwards. The owners have compromised and agreed to a 50/50 split. Its the players that want it all, and the will never have it. As soon as the players realize how wrong they are in this, the lockout will be over. Until then, its the players that are sabotaging the season.

The players have gone down from the 57% they got last season to a proposed 53%.

Owners have gone to a proposed 50%, up from the 43% they got last season.

Are you really that mathematically challenged?

beliges
10-12-2011, 02:43 PM
The players have gone down from the 57% they got last season to a proposed 53%.

Owners have gone to a proposed 50%, up from the 43% they got last season.

Are you really that mathematically challenged?

Ummm...last time I checked, 50/50 meant even. And are you challenged in how a business works? Owners = bosses. They put up all the money to start a franchise. Players = employees. They have nothing at risk and they earn millions playing a game. Obviously owners want to protect their investment as they are entitled to do so.

Again, 50/50 means even. You can divide 50 by 50 on a calculator if you dont understand. That 1 that will show up will tell you that its even.

llemon
10-12-2011, 02:51 PM
Ummm...last time I checked, 50/50 meant even. And are you challenged in how a business works? Owners = bosses. They put up all the money to start a franchise. Players = employees. They have nothing at risk and they earn millions playing a game. Obviously owners want to protect their investment as they are entitled to do so.

Again, 50/50 means even. You can divide 50 by 50 on a calculator if you dont understand. That 1 that will show up will tell you that its even.

So it should be 50% for owners and 50% for employees?

And how much more do players get for being 'The Product'?

Why wasn't the last CBA figured by your 'genius' calculations, Einstein?

ink
10-12-2011, 02:56 PM
So it should be 50% for owners and 50% for employees?

And how much more do players get for being 'The Product'?

If there is a "product" it's the team. The owners hire the GMs and coaching staff to create the "product". The players are the "talent". It's entertainment. It's like saying that actors in a film are the product. No, they're not. The film is the product. Without the film, the actors don't get seen. It has to be a symbiotic relationship to work, so 50/50 is very fair. Actually anything near 50/50 is fair. Again, I can't see how this affects you personally so why take such a frustrated approach with the topic. It's out of our hands.

beliges
10-12-2011, 02:59 PM
So it should be 50% for owners and 50% for employees?

And how much more do players get for being 'The Product'?

Why wasn't the last CBA figured by your 'genius' calculations, Einstein?

The players dont deserve more. The owners have provided a way for these players to play a freaking game and earn millions upon millions of dollars. Once again, the players have NOTHING invested in the team from their own pockets. The owners risk everything to own a franchise. 50/50 is beyond fair for the players.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Like I said b4 , educate yourself on the topic. The owners built in stipulations on That supposed 50/50 split. In actuality it would be closer to the orig offer the owners proposed. Talk what you know not what's dictated to you. Multiple articles state this. And your tone sounds like one who is jealous of some1s wealth. Yes people have worse situations than them. But if u worked your whole life to get to this point in a highly competitive industry to get into why would u lay down an accept whatever. Plenty of owners were born into money and never had to do legitimate hard work in their life. See how both sides can be spun.. Talk facts and leave the emotions @ the door . Your posting false info as fact and getting upset about being corrected . I didn't attack ur intellect, I said educate urself on the topic .. Good day sir



Excuse me? It was actually a clear 50/50 split. Its not 47% as you stated so dont tell me to educate myself on the topic when you have your numbers wrong. And furthermore, the owners have the right to demand more if they are losing money. Its their team. They risk their own capital and investments to own a franchise. If their business is losing money, they need to change things up. The players are their employees. They work for the owners. They make millions of millions of dollars for playing a game. While the owners risk billions of dollars of their own money to keep their franchise rolling. In my estimation, a 50/50 split is more than fair to the players. So ya, the players are the ones being greedy here if they dont accept a 50/50.

Da Knicks
10-12-2011, 03:00 PM
Ummm...last time I checked, 50/50 meant even. And are you challenged in how a business works? Owners = bosses. They put up all the money to start a franchise. Players = employees. They have nothing at risk and they earn millions playing a game. Obviously owners want to protect their investment as they are entitled to do so.

Again, 50/50 means even. You can divide 50 by 50 on a calculator if you dont understand. That 1 that will show up will tell you that its even.

This isn't a regular business though, its more like owning a band. Sure you can get rid of all your workers (bandmembers) but as soon as people know its not really the same band how will your results be? 50/50 is not even when only one party is giving up alot.

llemon
10-12-2011, 03:02 PM
If there is a "product" it's the team. The owners hire the GMs and coaching staff to create the "product". The players are the "talent". It's entertainment. It's like saying that actors in a film are the product. No, they're not. The film is the product. Without the film, the actors don't get seen. It has to be a symbiotic relationship to work, so 50/50 is very fair. Actually anything near 50/50 is fair. Again, I can't see how this affects you personally so why take such a frustrated approach with the topic. It's out of our hands.

How would you have any idea whether 50/50 is a fair split, when there are some many figures that have to be calculated, and figures that haven't even been determined whether they are relevant to the calculations?

beliges
10-12-2011, 03:03 PM
Like I said b4 , educate yourself on the topic. The owners built in stipulations on That supposed 50/50 split. In actuality it would be closer to the orig offer the owners proposed. Talk what you know not what's dictated to you. Multiple articles state this. And your tone sounds like one who is jealous of some1s wealth. Yes people have worse situations than them. But if u worked your whole life to get to this point in a highly competitive industry to get into why would u lay down an accept whatever. Plenty of owners were born into money and never had to do legitimate hard work in their life. See how both sides can be spun.. Talk facts and leave the emotions @ the door . Your posting false info as fact and getting upset about being corrected . I didn't attack ur intellect, I said educate urself on the topic .. Good day sir




Ya, the articles you are reading are inaccurate then if thats the case. Im very well educated on this issue actually, and the owners have not only proposed a 50/50 deal (which is beyond fair for the players), but have actually rescinded their demand for a hard cap. And yet the players dont accept the deal. Its always very awkward when someone whose lacking in knowledge on a topic tells someone else to educate themselves on the same topic. Here, learn something, the owners have proposed a 50/50 split of all revenue. Thats teh bottom line. Now its whether the players are ok with an even split or if they want more and more money.

ink
10-12-2011, 03:04 PM
How would you have any idea whether 50/50 is a fair split, when there are some many figures that have to be calculated, and figures that haven't even been determined whether they are relevant to the calculations?

Anything close to 50/50 is fair. That was in my last post.

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 03:04 PM
If there is a "product" it's the team. The owners hire the GMs and coaching staff to create the "product". The players are the "talent". It's entertainment. It's like saying that actors in a film are the product. No, they're not. The film is the product. Without the film, the actors don't get seen. It has to be a symbiotic relationship to work, so 50/50 is very fair. Actually anything near 50/50 is fair. Again, I can't see how this affects you personally so why take such a frustrated approach with the topic. It's out of our hands.

Ok so who's going to pay to watch GM's make deals or coaches draw up plays?

If the players weren't the product than the league would replace them and would start the season with the actual "product".

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:06 PM
If there is a "product" it's the team. The owners hire the GMs and coaching staff to create the "product". The players are the "talent". It's entertainment. It's like saying that actors in a film are the product. No, they're not. The film is the product. Without the film, the actors don't get seen. It has to be a symbiotic relationship to work, so 50/50 is very fair. Actually anything near 50/50 is fair. Again, I can't see how this affects you personally so why take such a frustrated approach with the topic. It's out of our hands.

This is why Will Smith / Brad Pitt gets enormous amounts of money while the others get substantially less dollars. The consumers pay to see the talent not the help no matter what they bring to the table. U can easily replace the help. Nobody is watching blockbuster movies with mediocre talent.

llemon
10-12-2011, 03:07 PM
Ya, the articles you are reading are inaccurate then if thats the case. Im very well educated on this issue actually, and the owners have not only proposed a 50/50 deal (which is beyond fair for the players), but have actually rescinded their demand for a hard cap. And yet the players dont accept the deal. Its always very awkward when someone whose lacking in knowledge on a topic tells someone else to educate themselves on the same topic. Here, learn something, the owners have proposed a 50/50 split of all revenue. Thats teh bottom line. Now its whether the players are ok with an even split or if they want more and more money.

You know that the union feels the luxury tax issues that owners are proposing equates to a hard cap, right?

beliges
10-12-2011, 03:08 PM
Ok so who's going to pay to watch GM's make deals or coaches draw up plays?

If the players weren't the product than the league would replace them and would start the season with the actual "product".

If the players think they can make an average salary of $5million/year they can go play anywhere else. If they think they can get lucrative Nike deals or other commercials playing elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do that. Hell, best of all, the players should each put up $500million of their own money and start a brand new league that can generate as much money as the NBA. You know what the problem is with that? The NBA generates the most money, they give these players the best opportunity in the world to play bball and making the most possible money. The players can always go play overseas if they want. But it wont happen because either way, the NBA will give you more money than any other league.

The players are the product but without the billions of dollars owners invest from their own pockets, the players would be making $60k/YEAR instead of $5mil

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:10 PM
Once smaller market fans realize that the owners are not after parity , they are after the $$$ they will stop defending them. If the players say deal to 47 % all the crap u think they were fighting for would be out the window. Sheesh

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:14 PM
You know that the union feels the luxury tax issues that owners are proposing equates to a hard cap, right?

I don't think he does or cares. Seems like he feels they make enough as it is for a game. The NBA is an entertainment industry and they are paid as such .

ink
10-12-2011, 03:20 PM
Ok so who's going to pay to watch GM's make deals or coaches draw up plays?

If the players weren't the product than the league would replace them and would start the season with the actual "product".

Even if the players are the product, they are the product of coaching and the team they're on. The product on the floor is inseparable from the team. We've seen how far uncoachable players get in the NBA. Don't kid yourselves. Why do you think so many college stars have mediocre careers in the NBA? Because they can't actually do it alone. They need the coaching and the development their teams provide.

We're not starstruck casual fans here, we should know the value of all aspects of the franchise.

We don't have to buy into the BS that pits the players against the owners. We're not that naive are we?

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 03:21 PM
This is why Will Smith / Brad Pitt gets enormous amounts of money while the others get substantially less dollars. The consumers pay to see the talent not the help no matter what they bring to the table. U can easily replace the help. Nobody is watching blockbuster movies with mediocre talent.

The players don't assume any of the risk associated with owning a franchise. They get a guaranteed salary with the possibility of bonuses.

split it 50/50 & let the players figure out how much of the 50% should be split among the top/mid/bottom tier players.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:25 PM
Ya, the articles you are reading are inaccurate then if thats the case. Im very well educated on this issue actually, and the owners have not only proposed a 50/50 deal (which is beyond fair for the players), but have actually rescinded their demand for a hard cap. And yet the players dont accept the deal. Its always very awkward when someone whose lacking in knowledge on a topic tells someone else to educate themselves on the same topic. Here, learn something, the owners have proposed a 50/50 split of all revenue. Thats teh bottom line. Now its whether the players are ok with an even split or if they want more and more money.

Funny bcuz ur talkin about urself In ur post. They rescinded the hard cap and made a luxury tax that makes it a hard cap. I will no longer engage in this back n forth with u bcuz it's obvious you are clueless. Enjoy the last word. U can have it. Stern was successful in fooling u with his strategy. If the fine print says u owe me extra money even tho the BRI is split 50/50 it is not 50/50...

ink
10-12-2011, 03:29 PM
Funny bcuz ur talkin about urself In ur post. They rescinded the hard cap and made a luxury tax that makes it a hard cap. I will no longer engage in this back n forth with u bcuz it's obvious you are clueless. Enjoy the last word. U can have it. Stern was successful in fooling u with his strategy. If the fine print says u owe me extra money even tho the BRI is split 50/50 it is not 50/50...

Why does it matter to you whether it's 50/50 or something close to 50/50? Who cares? It's someone else's argument.

Frankly we're all fools if we let either side convince us that the other is the problem. They are both the problem and only they can work it out.

beliges
10-12-2011, 03:34 PM
Funny bcuz ur talkin about urself In ur post. They rescinded the hard cap and made a luxury tax that makes it a hard cap. I will no longer engage in this back n forth with u bcuz it's obvious you are clueless. Enjoy the last word. U can have it. Stern was successful in fooling u with his strategy. If the fine print says u owe me extra money even tho the BRI is split 50/50 it is not 50/50...

They rescinded the hard cap in order to appeal to the players. But dont know if you were aware or not but there already was a luxury tax in place. You dont need to engage back and fourth with me any longer but you keep throwing around statements like you know what youre talking about and at the same time calling others names. The fine print doesnt state anything about owing extra money. The players earned 57% of BRI in the past and now the owners are asking for an even 50/50 split. Thats what the terms of the latest deal offered were. You can say im not educated and all that other non-sense but the fact of the matter is, an absolute 50/50 was proposed by the owners and the players refused to accept it.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:36 PM
Even if the players are the product, they are the product of coaching and the team they're on. The product on the floor is inseparable from the team. We've seen how far uncoachable players get in the NBA. Don't kid yourselves. Why do you think so many college stars have mediocre careers in the NBA? Because they can't actually do it alone. They need the coaching and the development their teams provide.

We're not starstruck casual fans here, we should know the value of all aspects of the franchise.

We don't have to buy into the BS that pits the players against the owners. We're not that naive are we?

Aren't these coaches earning Millions of dollars. Isn't low level staff making triple figures. Aren't they compensated fairly for their contribution in comparison to the avg worker. So the players should give up more than the 4 % they offered to pay every1 else while they compete for their jobs and minutes on a daily basis. Keeping in shape and performing at a high level. Doesn't seem fair to me. 53% seems fair to me. The extra they get from the players should help with losses and big markets also kick in to help small markets already. It the owners being greedy. The owners can always sell their franchise . Players compete to have a solid 10 -13 year career.

beliges
10-12-2011, 03:39 PM
Aren't these coaches earning Millions of dollars. Isn't low level staff making triple figures. Aren't they compensated fairly for their contribution in comparison to the avg worker. So the players should give up more than the 4 % they offered to pay every1 else while they compete for their jobs and minutes on a daily basis. Keeping in shape and performing at a high level. Doesn't seem fair to me. 53% seems fair to me. The extra they get from the players should help with losses and big markets also kick in to help small markets already. It the owners being greedy. The owners can always sell their franchise . Players compete to have a solid 10 -13 year career.

Dude, thats because the owners put up billions of dollars of their own money. How do you not understand that? They take money from their own pockets, a substantial sum at that, and buy a franchise in order to make a profit. The players can always go elsewhere and earn a marginal paycheck playing someplace else.

ink
10-12-2011, 03:44 PM
Aren't these coaches earning Millions of dollars. Isn't low level staff making triple figures. Aren't they compensated fairly for their contribution in comparison to the avg worker. So the players should give up more than the 4 % they offered to pay every1 else while they compete for their jobs and minutes on a daily basis. Keeping in shape and performing at a high level. Doesn't seem fair to me. 53% seems fair to me. The extra they get from the players should help with losses and big markets also kick in to help small markets already. It the owners being greedy. The owners can always sell their franchise . Players compete to have a solid 10 -13 year career.

Why wouldn't a coach make millions if a player is making multiple millions? It's a different scale altogether. Most of these coaches are ex players anyway so they expect to remain somewhere in the same pay bracket as they used to be. I'm not sure what your point is with that.

Seems to me the players are the only employees who are grossly overpaid in this situation. Sure they have to compete. It's a privilege to play in the best league in the basketball world, it's not a right. They have to make the cut to earn the massive salaries they are able to pull down. If they can't cut it, they're gone. That's how it is. I think you were the one who just said you wouldn't watch a blockbuster film without talent in the cast.

They have to earn their role on the team regardless of who they are (i.e. something players like Starbury had to learn the hard way, where players like JKidd and GHill learned the right way), and there is a lot of fat in the players' salaries. I have no problem with them taking a pay cut. They're not entitled to any more than roughly half of the revenue. They can work out the nickels and dimes, it doesn't concern us.

The bigger issue is how to control the system from bloating like it has in the past few decades. How to prevent the inequity that exists in the league.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:46 PM
They rescinded the hard cap in order to appeal to the players. But dont know if you were aware or not but there already was a luxury tax in place. You dont need to engage back and fourth with me any longer but you keep throwing around statements like you know what youre talking about and at the same time calling others names. The fine print doesnt state anything about owing extra money. The players earned 57% of BRI in the past and now the owners are asking for an even 50/50 split. Thats what the terms of the latest deal offered were. You can say im not educated and all that other non-sense but the fact of the matter is, an absolute 50/50 was proposed by the owners and the players refused to accept it.

Incorrect.. The hard cap was rescinded and a luxury tax 2 times worse is the concept in it's place ultimately serving as a hard cap. I'm fully aware of the old luxury tax. U spreading false info off word off mouth is not fact. Multiple sources quote this. And again, owners wanted players to shell out money in this split. Taking a 10% cut in the most successful season and masking it as a 50 split is what Stern wants u to see. Do ur research and tell me if I'm wrong. I will post multiple sources to combat ur theory if u can find a credible source go support ur arguement

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 03:57 PM
If the players think they can make an average salary of $5million/year they can go play anywhere else. If they think they can get lucrative Nike deals or other commercials playing elsewhere, then they can go ahead and do that. Hell, best of all, the players should each put up $500million of their own money and start a brand new league that can generate as much money as the NBA. You know what the problem is with that? The NBA generates the most money, they give these players the best opportunity in the world to play bball and making the most possible money. The players can always go play overseas if they want. But it wont happen because either way, the NBA will give you more money than any other league.

The players are the product but without the billions of dollars owners invest from their own pockets, the players would be making $60k/YEAR instead of $5mil

The league need the players and the players need the league. Sure the league has more leverage, but doesn't mean they should get everything. It's naive to think the owners can just wash their hands and move on. They also have a bunch invested into the league and stand a great deal to lose when games aren't played.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 03:58 PM
I agree with what you say. All entertainers are grossly overpaid. It's the nature of the business. I have no problem with a cut. But owners aren't sacrificing anything in the deal and there is a difference in a fair pay cut and getting trashed in a 10 year deal. You don't work ur whole life to accept a garbage deal either. Actors,sports figures, musicians all make huge money. So after a great year I should accept a 10 year deal making 10 percent less while u still raise ticket prices and make money off my jerseys. The owners are being ridiculous. A 52/48 deal is best the owners should get


Why wouldn't a coach make millions if a player is making multiple millions? It's a different scale altogether. Most of these coaches are ex players anyway so they expect to remain somewhere in the same pay bracket as they used to be. I'm not sure what your point is with that.

Seems to me the players are the only employees who are grossly overpaid in this situation. Sure they have to compete. It's a privilege to play in the best league in the basketball world, it's not a right. They have to make the cut to earn the massive salaries they are able to pull down. If they can't cut it, they're gone. That's how it is. I think you were the one who just said you wouldn't watch a blockbuster film without talent in the cast.

They have to earn their role on the team regardless of who they are (i.e. something players like Starbury had to learn the hard way, where players like JKidd and GHill learned the right way), and there is a lot of fat in the players' salaries. I have no problem with them taking a pay cut. They're not entitled to any more than roughly half of the revenue. They can work out the nickels and dimes, it doesn't concern us.

The bigger issue is how to control the system from bloating like it has in the past few decades. How to prevent the inequity that exists in the league.

ink
10-12-2011, 04:01 PM
The league need the players and the players need the league. Sure the league has more leverage, but doesn't mean they should get everything. It's naive to think the owners can just wash their hands and move on. They also have a bunch invested into the league and stand a great deal to lose when games aren't played.

No doubt. That's true for both sides.

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:02 PM
Incorrect.. The hard cap was rescinded and a luxury tax 2 times worse is the concept in it's place ultimately serving as a hard cap. I'm fully aware of the old luxury tax. U spreading false info off word off mouth is not fact. Multiple sources quote this. And again, owners wanted players to shell out money in this split. Taking a 10% cut in the most successful season and masking it as a 50 split is what Stern wants u to see. Do ur research and tell me if I'm wrong. I will post multiple sources to combat ur theory if u can find a credible source go support ur arguement

Ya youre wrong. Its not a 10% cut they are getting. The BRI is going down from 57% to 50% which is completely fair. Its freaking 50/50. And yes, there is a proposal of a higher luxury tax but that doesnt stop the players from earning the same magnitude of money. The hard cap would have crippled the players' abilities to earn substantially high salaries. Now, if the player is worth it to the owner, they will be given a high pay check and the owner will take the responsibility of paying a higher luxury tax. If the player is not worth it for the owner, then there will be no contract. Thats how capitalism works. So again, youre a little misinformed about this.

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:03 PM
The league need the players and the players need the league. Sure the league has more leverage, but doesn't mean they should get everything. It's naive to think the owners can just wash their hands and move on. They also have a bunch invested into the league and stand a great deal to lose when games aren't played.

Youre completely right. Thats why there was a 50/50 split proposed. THe league is not trying to get everything, they are ok with a half and half split. This seems beyond fair for the players to accept, but they are not doing so.

ink
10-12-2011, 04:06 PM
I agree with what you say. All entertainers are grossly overpaid. It's the nature of the business. I have no problem with a cut. But owners aren't sacrificing anything in the deal and there is a difference in a fair pay cut and getting trashed in a 10 year deal. You don't work ur whole life to accept a garbage deal either. Actors,sports figures, musicians all make huge money. So after a great year I should accept a 10 year deal making 10 percent less while u still raise ticket prices and make money off my jerseys. The owners are being ridiculous. A 52/48 deal is best the owners should get

Even if it were 10% (I believe it's actually 7%) would you call $13.05M instead of $14.5M garbage?? I know I wouldn't. It's still a ridiculously high paycheque.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 04:07 PM
Dude, thats because the owners put up billions of dollars of their own money. How do you not understand that? They take money from their own pockets, a substantial sum at that, and buy a franchise in order to make a profit. The players can always go elsewhere and earn a marginal paycheck playing someplace else.

And the owners can invest In a less risky business. The players are the product. The actual product always gets the larger share. The jerseys that says James & Bryant generate money that goes to each and every owner. The owners haven't opened the books for a reason. The players can take a cut but to give everything is bad business . The 50 split and the new Luxury tax idea are illusions used to make fans who don't undersatnd the contract language upset . Soon as the deal wasn't reached the owners went back to 47 % to make 50 look like a concession to the public. It's mind games bro

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 04:13 PM
Dude, thats because the owners put up billions of dollars of their own money. How do you not understand that? They take money from their own pockets, a substantial sum at that, and buy a franchise in order to make a profit. The players can always go elsewhere and earn a marginal paycheck playing someplace else.

Agreed. I think it's ridiculous that the players get over 50% of the revenue, when they don't invest any money themselves, and the owners invest billions of their own. It's just a concept I don't understand.

If the players want to take more than 50% of the generated revenue, then maybe they should take 50% or more of the losses as well. Let's see them "Stand United" for that...

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:16 PM
Agreed. I think it's ridiculous that the players get over 50% of the revenue, when they don't invest any money themselves, and the owners invest billions of their own. It's just a concept I don't understand.

If the players want to take more than 50% of the generated revenue, then maybe they should take 50% or more of the losses as well. Let's see them "Stand United" for that...

this is exactly it. they get guaranteed profits. Sonny Weems made more money then the majority of franchises this past season.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 04:16 PM
Even if it were 10% (I believe it's actually 7%) would you call $13.05M instead of $14.5M garbage?? I know I wouldn't. It's still a ridiculously high paycheque.

No I wouldn't .. But does any1 know how much an owner makes as a result of that cut. Opening the books would solve a lot of issues. But the rich don't get rich by playing fair . So y should the players (money makers) shoulder most of the burden. The owners get tv deals and BRI as well. And the whole roster would be taking cuts nit just that 1 player. How is that a fair deal??

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:16 PM
And the owners can invest In a less risky business. The players are the product. The actual product always gets the larger share. The jerseys that says James & Bryant generate money that goes to each and every owner. The owners haven't opened the books for a reason. The players can take a cut but to give everything is bad business . The 50 split and the new Luxury tax idea are illusions used to make fans who don't undersatnd the contract language upset . Soon as the deal wasn't reached the owners went back to 47 % to make 50 look like a concession to the public. It's mind games bro

See, thats how capitalism works though. The owners invest billions of dollars in a risky business with a potential for a large profit. The players on the other hand decide to play for the NBA only because the NBA will offer them more money than they can receive anywhere else. Thats how it works. ANd the 50/50 is not an illusion. Its what actually is occuring. The owners proposed a 50/50 split for the players which the players refused because in the last CBA, the players were receiving 57% of all BRI and they dont want to go down from that number. Believe me, once the players start losing out on games and their paychecks dont come, they will agree to a fair 50/50 split. The owners are in this for the long haul because they have too much invested in this for them not to get a fair deal. The players on the other hand have a limited amount of time where they can generate huge contracts and make money. The more games they miss, the more money they miss out on. Believe me, once games are missed, the pressure will get to the players.

You can keep saying its an ilusion or act like you have some insider information about these negotiations, but the fact remains that this is the situation. I guess we will see what happens when the players can no longer afford to pay off their 14 cars and 8 mansions.

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:17 PM
No I wouldn't .. But does any1 know how much an owner makes as a result of that cut. Opening the books would solve a lot of issues. But the rich don't get rich by playing fair . So y should the players (money makers) shoulder most of the burden. The owners get tv deals and BRI as well. And the whole roster would be taking cuts nit just that 1 player. How is that a fair deal??

Because they split everything 50/50. Sounds fair.

llemon
10-12-2011, 04:17 PM
Youre completely right. Thats why there was a 50/50 split proposed. THe league is not trying to get everything, they are ok with a half and half split. This seems beyond fair for the players to accept, but they are not doing so.

Again, how can you proclaim absolutely that 50/50 is a fair split? There are just too many issues and interpretations of issues and new rules that owners want to implement for anyone on the outside of the negotiations, and plenty of people on the inside of the negotiations to know exactly what the facts and figures are.

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:18 PM
No I wouldn't .. But does any1 know how much an owner makes as a result of that cut. Opening the books would solve a lot of issues. But the rich don't get rich by playing fair . So y should the players (money makers) shoulder most of the burden. The owners get tv deals and BRI as well. And the whole roster would be taking cuts nit just that 1 player. How is that a fair deal??

Risk. The owners have all of it, the players have none of it. the owners can lose, the players can't.

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:20 PM
Again, how can you proclaim absolutely that 50/50 is a fair split? There are just too many issues and interpretations of issues and new rules that owners want to implement for anyone on the outside of the negotiations, and plenty of people on the inside of the negotiations to know exactly what the facts and figures are.

Like what? Please let me know. From my understanding, when the players and owners share all their revenue in a 50/50 split, it sounds fair to me. So the owners drop their hard cap demand and ask for a higher luxury tax, again sounds fair to me. Because if the player is worth it for the owner, the owner will pay the tax. It happens now and it will happen with this new agreement.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 04:22 PM
this is exactly it. they get guaranteed profits. Sonny Weems made more money then the majority of franchises this past season.

U really believe that. What billionaire would invest in annually losing profit. Owners want guaranteed profit of the strength of the players who generate the revenue. And owners dint shoulder the burden alone. Sponsors ,advertising, high food prices, merchandise. Funny people feel sorry for the owners when players don't make a tenth of what they make over the course of their career.

ink
10-12-2011, 04:25 PM
U really believe that. What billionaire would invest in annually losing profit.

Mark Cuban for one. He wanted a championship. Now that he's got one he will want another. That's how it works; that's how the game is driven.

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 04:25 PM
Like what? Please let me know. From my understanding, when the players and owners share all their revenue in a 50/50 split, it sounds fair to me. So the owners drop their hard cap demand and ask for a higher luxury tax, again sounds fair to me. Because if the player is worth it for the owner, the owner will pay the tax. It happens now and it will happen with this new agreement.

50/50 is 3 points higher than what NFL players settled for. And NBA salaries are at least twice as high as NFL salaries to begin with. The players had their chance for a fair deal. Not a surprise the owners are no longer interested in negotiating.

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:26 PM
U really believe that. What billionaire would invest in annually losing profit. Owners want guaranteed profit of the strength of the players who generate the revenue. And owners dint shoulder the burden alone. Sponsors ,advertising, high food prices, merchandise. Funny people feel sorry for the owners when players don't make a tenth of what they make over the course of their career.

Dude, thats because the owners are the OWNERS and the players are the PLAYERS. lol. No **** the players arent gonna make anything close to the owners. If they want, they could put up every single cent they have ever earned, borrow even more money and invest half a billion dollars to own a franchise, and if ran successfullly, the player can make as much as an owner. But its too much for a player to invest, so it wont happen. Its ridiculous you think players should make as much as the owner. Its good to be the boss. And when you invest that much money in an enterprise, you deserve to be the boss.

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 04:29 PM
U really believe that. What billionaire would invest in annually losing profit. Owners want guaranteed profit of the strength of the players who generate the revenue. And owners dint shoulder the burden alone. Sponsors ,advertising, high food prices, merchandise. Funny people feel sorry for the owners when players don't make a tenth of what they make over the course of their career.

all of what you mentioned go into BRI, and the players have been getting 57% of sponsors, advertising, high food prices, and merchandise...

i don't feel sorry for anyone here... i guess i just understand the strength of the owners, and the reality is the sooner the players concede, the sooner we have basketball, which is all i want... i don't care if it's "fair"... everyone is still richer than 99% of america...

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:30 PM
U really believe that. What billionaire would invest in annually losing profit. Owners want guaranteed profit of the strength of the players who generate the revenue. And owners dint shoulder the burden alone. Sponsors ,advertising, high food prices, merchandise. Funny people feel sorry for the owners when players don't make a tenth of what they make over the course of their career.

money makes money. the more you have, the more you will make at face value. A player can make 5-10x more than what they had initially when they entered the league. while owning a franchise won't compound 5-10x the purchase price.

there is a coolness that comes with owning a sports franchise, its a rich guy's dream & so they pay a premium for it. owners don't necessarily only want profit, they want to make competing for a championship profitable. that is what they are fundamentally fighting for.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Risk. The owners have all of it, the players have none of it. the owners can lose, the players can't.

The owners can sell their business and make profit. The players have 1 maybe 2 good contracts in their career. An NBA franchise can sell itself. Always another millionaire willing to invest. What do the players have. Every percent counts and I don't blame em for fighting. They have to live off that long after their careers are over.

ink
10-12-2011, 04:38 PM
money makes money. the more you have, the more you will make at face value. A player can make 5-10x more than what they had initially when they entered the league. while owning a franchise won't compound 5-10x the purchase price.

there is a coolness that comes with owning a sports franchise, its a rich guy's dream & so they pay a premium for it. owners don't necessarily only want profit, they want to make competing for a championship profitable. that is what they are fundamentally fighting for.

Agreed. There's a huge ego fix for each side in pro sports, and there's a corresponding ego issue involved when they're squabbling over money, profits, and salaries. Sadly for the players, as big as their egos might be (and they're considerable), they don't actually own the team and they wouldn't be half what they are without a top level league like the NBA. They're not even the product, unless you're talking about the top 15 (at most) in the league. The players can't win this, nor should they. All that's being asked is for them to take a pay cut that still makes them hugely overpaid for their services, and because of the luxury tax, consider staying with their current team when they become FA eligible because there likely won't be quite as much mobility. I have ZERO ZERO problems with any of that. In fact, it's in my interest to see players stay with their franchises and play for marginally less. What the owners do with their profits is their business. If anyone wants to buy them out and reap their profits, go right ahead.

ink
10-12-2011, 04:39 PM
The owners can sell their business and make profit. The players have 1 maybe 2 good contracts in their career. An NBA franchise can sell itself. Always another millionaire willing to invest. What do the players have. Every percent counts and I don't blame em for fighting. They have to live off that long after their careers are over.

Then get a good investment portfolio going early.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 04:42 PM
Mark Cuban for one. He wanted a championship. Now that he's got one he will want another. That's how it works; that's how the game is driven.

For every Cuban there is about 3 Sarvers. Profit over winning

Shmontaine
10-12-2011, 04:43 PM
The owners can sell their business and make profit. The players have 1 maybe 2 good contracts in their career. An NBA franchise can sell itself. Always another millionaire willing to invest. What do the players have. Every percent counts and I don't blame em for fighting. They have to live off that long after their careers are over.

LOL.... every nba player has the opportunity to retire at 35 and live the rest of their life in luxury... and god forbid they actually do something useful with their money like invest it and, gasp, try to earn more...

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:45 PM
The owners can sell their business and make profit. The players have 1 maybe 2 good contracts in their career. An NBA franchise can sell itself. Always another millionaire willing to invest. What do the players have. Every percent counts and I don't blame em for fighting. They have to live off that long after their careers are over.

its not as easy to flip a franchise as is a house. the owners need to build equity or else they will end up selling it for what they bought it for or less. so they need to hold it for years which could end up being a crapshoot & destroying the franchises name & value in the process. once again, Risk. the players have none, the owners have all.

llemon
10-12-2011, 04:47 PM
its not as easy to flip a franchise as is a house. the owners need to build equity or else they will end up selling it for what they bought it for or less. so they need to hold it for years which could end up being a crapshoot & destroying the franchises name & value in the process. once again, Risk. the players have none, the owners have all.

How long did Ratner hold the franchise?

beliges
10-12-2011, 04:49 PM
I can see you're too simple to comprehend the complications of labor negotiations.

And if you think the owners are trying to be fair, you just don't know much about life.

Since youre so smart and have inside information in this why dont you just enlighten me and everyone else coming to the same consensus here. Instead of calling people names while claiming you are all knowing please simplify it with some facts. Please let us know. I guess Im too simple to comprehend that an equal 50/50 split of all revenue is somehow unfair to the players. So please do go on...

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:58 PM
Agreed. There's a huge ego fix for each side in pro sports, and there's a corresponding ego issue involved when they're squabbling over money, profits, and salaries. Sadly for the players, as big as their egos might be (and they're considerable), they don't actually own the team and they wouldn't be half what they are without a top level league like the NBA. They're not even the product, unless you're talking about the top 15 (at most) in the league. The players can't win this, nor should they. All that's being asked is for them to take a pay cut that still makes them hugely overpaid for their services, and because of the luxury tax, consider staying with their current team when they become FA eligible because there likely won't be quite as much mobility. I have ZERO ZERO problems with any of that. In fact, it's in my interest to see players stay with their franchises and play for marginally less. What the owners do with their profits is their business. If anyone wants to buy them out and reap their profits, go right ahead.

Exactly. If they want to move around at will & form super-teams, make them take an uncomfortably low amount of money. It's either/or, not both.

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 04:59 PM
How long did Ratner hold the franchise?

Is this a guessing game? Who is Ratner, & what franchise did he hold? I need facts to form opinions.

llemon
10-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Since youre so smart and have inside information in this why dont you just enlighten me and everyone else coming to the same consensus here. Instead of calling people names while claiming you are all knowing please simplify it with some facts. Please let us know. I guess Im too simple to comprehend that an equal 50/50 split of all revenue is somehow unfair to the players. So please do go on...

I have no inside information.

But I can tell you through my life experiences, and having been involved in labor negotiations, that the owners are not trying to be fair. They are trying to make as much money as they can, and will use deception, intimidation and misinformation to get what they want. Welcome to America, and the world, for that matter.

llemon
10-12-2011, 05:08 PM
Is this a guessing game? Who is Ratner, & what franchise did he hold? I need facts to form opinions.

It seems you are not interested enough to google 'Bruce Ratner', but you believe you have the answer to what is the right deal in these labor negotiations.

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 05:14 PM
It seems you are not interested enough to google 'Bruce Ratner', but you believe you have the answer to what is the right deal in these labor negotiations.

it seems your tactic for getting peoples attention is to bait them into an argument instead of presenting what you already know. you obviously already know who Ratner is and are trying to prove a point, then get on with it.

beliges
10-12-2011, 05:16 PM
I have no inside information.

But I can tell you through my life experiences, and having been involved in labor negotiations, that the owners are not trying to be fair. They are trying to make as much money as they can, and will use deception, intimidation and misinformation to get what they want. Welcome to America, and the world, for that matter.

Alright dude, thats what youre basing your argument on? Its public knowledge that the owners have agreed to a 50/50 split of ALL revenue. Its also public knowledge that the players refused and want more. This is undisputed.

And ya through my life experiences and having been involved in labor negotiations i know that the owners here have offered a fair deal. Gimme a break with this nonsensical arguments people make on these forums.

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 05:18 PM
Youre completely right. Thats why there was a 50/50 split proposed. THe league is not trying to get everything, they are ok with a half and half split. This seems beyond fair for the players to accept, but they are not doing so.

I'm not overly opposed to 50/50. What I think people are forgetting is these meetings are suppose to be negotiations. Negotiations are give and take what we are seeing here is one side doing all the giving and one side doing all the taking. For all the "greedy players" talk if we were in their shoes we would be doing the same exact thing faced with situation that's suppose to be a negotiation. Like I have said dozens of time how much as a union can you concede without getting anything in return before you draw a line. If the owners push the players around it won't stop here. They'll opt out in 5 years when it time to renew the tv deal for a bigger share and a out right hard cap.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 05:23 PM
Im an avg. Worker fighting to survive just like the rest. But just because that's the case I'm not going to say just take what the owners give you just bcuz ur still going to be rich . Rival sports fought for their rights as should the NBA. Ill miss bball just as much as the rest of u but that deal is horrible for the players for 10 years. If our employers said we provide u with healthcare and salary for u but u have to take cuts for 10 years in order for us to make profit . Mind you they are rich already from another business and this is ur only livelihood. What would u do? You should be paid in the same range of your peers when it comes to entertainment. Players are overpaid but thats the biz. Takin a cut is fair but being slaughtered in a deal just bcuz u want to see your favorite sport is exactly the picture Stern painted to force the players hand. Owners care nothing of parity. Profit is all most of these guys see. U think players are spoiled. Most of these owners had the silver spoon in their mouth from birth. Lets hand them more Money bcuz we want Basketball. Stern never wanted a deal. He wanted players to miss checks and fans to get impatient. Manipulation is his job and he's playing it well. When they do come to a deal see if all these parity rules come into effect . It's a strategy to get more of a bigger slice of the BRI.

llemon
10-12-2011, 05:25 PM
Alright dude, thats what youre basing your argument on? Its public knowledge that the owners have agreed to a 50/50 split of ALL revenue. Its also public knowledge that the players refused and want more. This is undisputed.

And ya through my life experiences and having been involved in labor negotiations i know that the owners here have offered a fair deal. Gimme a break with this nonsensical arguments people make on these forums.

Again. the 50/50 'proposal' was a tactic that backfired.

But Stern did achieve getting some of the fans with simple minds to start thinking, "Hey 50/50 is fair. It always worked back in 4th grade"

This ain't 4th grade, this is the real world where greed is king, and all that matters to the rich and powerful.

Has Stern produced any of those bodies he buried yet?

Again, please look at the world around you.

Mitt Romney on eliminating some of the corporate tax breaks......"Corporations are people too"

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 05:28 PM
Alright dude, thats what youre basing your argument on? Its public knowledge that the owners have agreed to a 50/50 split of ALL revenue. Its also public knowledge that the players refused and want more. This is undisputed.

And ya through my life experiences and having been involved in labor negotiations i know that the owners here have offered a fair deal. Gimme a break with this nonsensical arguments people make on these forums.

Even at 50/50, it's likely a lot of owners will still lose money and only hope that they make it back at resale.

The player's position is completely ridiculous. But they'll learn the hard way, I suppose.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 05:31 PM
I'm not overly opposed to 50/50. What I think people are forgetting is these meetings are suppose to be negotiations. Negotiations are give and take what we are seeing here is one side doing all the giving and one side doing all the taking. For all the "greedy players" talk if we were in their shoes we would be doing the same exact thing faced with situation that's suppose to be a negotiation. Like I have said dozens of time how much as a union can you concede without getting anything in return before you draw a line. If the owners push the players around it won't stop here. They'll opt out in 5 years when it time to renew the tv deal for a bigger share and a out right hard cap.

Exactly.. Im not against it but it wasn't even offered. A hard cap or a luxury tax with insane penalties is still a hard cap. Owners haven't negotiated on a single issue. Players dropped 4% of the BRI. Agreed to shorter contracts, less on the MLE. Owners offer a bs Hard cap despite all this then paint the players as the bad guys for not accepting a crappy deal named a 50 split whrnits actually below that. They can demand even more if u accept bully tactics. Oh all we really care about is parity tho. U can't fool anybody who follows the facts.

Ill21
10-12-2011, 05:42 PM
Not sure if this was posted but they are meeting again.

Billy Hunter announced that the NBA and NBPA will meet with a federal mediator on Monday during an interview with WFAN in New York.

Via @AlexKennedyNBA

llemon
10-12-2011, 05:44 PM
Even at 50/50, it's likely a lot of owners will still lose money and only hope that they make it back at resale.

The player's position is completely ridiculous. But they'll learn the hard way, I suppose.

Again, still not sure owners lost money in '10-'11

Ill21
10-12-2011, 05:45 PM
Billy hunter justed told @MikeFrancesaNY that he would reject 55% BRI and a hard cap. He proposed 65% if there were to be a hard cap.

Via Alex Kennedy

Ill21
10-12-2011, 05:45 PM
"It could facilitate the process. There are directions a mediator would push, and things they wouldn't let the two sides do," - @LarryCoon.

Via @AlexKennedyNBA

da ThRONe
10-12-2011, 05:51 PM
Even at 50/50, it's likely a lot of owners will still lose money and only hope that they make it back at resale.

The player's position is completely ridiculous. But they'll learn the hard way, I suppose.

The players are giving back approximately 200million in revenue. The owners are claiming losses of 300 million(which the union disputes). On top they have to accept salary cap changes they don't want. How is that being unreasonable?

llemon
10-12-2011, 05:54 PM
Billy hunter justed told @MikeFrancesaNY that he would reject 55% BRI and a hard cap. He proposed 65% if there were to be a hard cap.

Via Alex Kennedy

Billy Hunter posturing now.

Ah, the beauty of labor negotiations.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 05:55 PM
It seems you are not interested enough to google 'Bruce Ratner', but you believe you have the answer to what is the right deal in these labor negotiations.

Debating with people who dont understand labor tactics or follow the nba on the business level makes it 10 times harder to explain simple logic i guess.

daleja424
10-12-2011, 05:57 PM
Billy hunter justed told @MikeFrancesaNY that he would reject 55% BRI and a hard cap. He proposed 65% if there were to be a hard cap.

Via Alex Kennedy

LOL... It is actually funny... b/c I was just saying the players should have opened at 65% and free market since the owners opened at 45% and hard cap.

Then they could compromise and meet at 65% and hard cap OR 45% and free market. LOL

ink
10-12-2011, 06:02 PM
Debating with people who dont understand labor tactics or follow the nba on the business level makes it 10 times harder to explain simple logic i guess.

No need to insult people just because they don't agree. You've been pretty cool with me and we haven't agreed. The poster you're referring to is quite informed about business practices and the NBA so the comment you've made is unjustified.

I'm cautioning a few people in this thread to debate respectfully please.

ewmania
10-12-2011, 06:09 PM
Who loses $ in Charlotte when they fill up 20% of stadium?

players or owners?

should the owners send a bill to the players?

Who pays for the $10,000/game(hotel expenses) x ~44 away games = $440,000.00?

should the owners send another bill to players?

Who pays for the ~$10,000,000 lease for stadium leases?

do the players have to pay a dime of that?

who fills up the 1,000 seats, owners or the players?

do fans buy bulls jersey's with owners name on it?

is kids going to foot locker buying the new james dolan sneakers

so actually players are putting money into the pockets of the owners who buy all this stuff for the players

ink
10-12-2011, 06:11 PM
who fills up the 1,000 seats, owners or the players?

do fans buy bulls jersey's with owners name on it?

is kids going to foot locker buying the new james dolan sneakers

so actually players are putting money into the pockets of the owners who buy all this stuff for the players

That's simplistic. Obviously the answer is that BOTH contribute to ticket and merchandise sales.

llemon
10-12-2011, 06:12 PM
No need to insult people just because they don't agree. You've been pretty cool with me and we haven't agreed. The poster you're referring to is quite informed about business practices and the NBA so the comment you've made is unjustified.

I'm cautioning a few people in this thread to debate respectfully please.

Excuse me, but this poster with all the supposed business acumen wasn't curious enough about the Ratner/Nets situation to look into the actualities of Ratner buying and selling the franchise

There is a tale to be told in those circumstances, and they relate to the NBA labor negotiations that are going on right now

ewmania
10-12-2011, 06:12 PM
people complain and boo hoo about the "so-called" system that made owners broke

what about the f'd up system that made old 50 and 60's nba playeers broke

antoine walker is broke as we speak, so are we suppose to blame the soft cap for that... or just bad handling of money

owners stop blaming the system because you want to pay ramon sessions 7mil a year... nobody told u to give players like that all that money

ink
10-12-2011, 06:13 PM
Excuse me, but this poster with all the supposed business acumen wasn't curious enough about the Ratner/Nets situation to look into the actualities of Ratner buying and selling the franchise

There is a tale to be told in those circumstances, and they relate to the NBA labor negotiations that are going on right now

Good, then lay the facts on the table as you see them without the insults and baiting. Thanks.

ewmania
10-12-2011, 06:14 PM
That's simplistic. Obviously the answer is that BOTH contribute to ticket and merchandise sales.

exactly, that was my whole point of that response

it goes both ways... people make it seem like as if players don't contribute to anything they receive

llemon
10-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Good, then lay the facts on the table as you see them without the insults and baiting. Thanks.

Geez, you don't really get this at all.

I have NO IDEA what the financial circumstances are.

I know well enough not to believe anything the owners say. They are just looking to get richer, and they will do anything they have to, up to and including murdering certain people to achieve that.

But your friend with the business acumen and his '50/50 is fair' stance seems to know possibly less than I do, and I would hope that you are smart enough to realize that the '50/50 is fair' stance is MUCH TOO simplistic.

These are VERY complicated negotiations.

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 06:29 PM
What a joke. The owners are SAVING AT LEAST million dollars a game in expenses while we're at it.

ink
10-12-2011, 06:30 PM
Geez, you don't really get this at all.

I have NO IDEA what the financial circumstances are.

I know well enough not to believe anything the owners say. They are just looking to get richer, and they will do anything they have to, up to and including murdering certain people to achieve that.

But your friend with the business acumen and his '50/50 is fair' stance seems to know possibly less than I do, and I would hope that you are smart enough to realize that the '50/50 is fair' stance is MUCH TOO simplistic.

These are VERY complicated negotiations.

Then I'll ask again that you refrain from insinuating that people aren't smart enough. Probably only a handful of NBA CBA specialists and Larry Coon would really understand every point in the negotiations. lol. So, let's assume we all know roughly the same amount and have a respectful conversation among ourselves here.

Bishnoff
10-12-2011, 06:31 PM
The owners don't lose money, they lose potential revenue. Owners still receive revenue from contracts which aren't voided by the lockout such as deals with the stadiums, and they don't have to pay out their biggest expense (player salaries). When 22 out of the 30 teams ran at a loss last season, it's a much better situation financially for the owners.

The players however are losing money in the form of lost salary. The owners will be hurting less financially than the players the longer this lockout continues. There is a huge difference between company profit and personal salary which isn't being discussed here.

llemon
10-12-2011, 06:31 PM
What a joke. The owners are SAVING AT LEAST million dollars a game in expenses while we're at it.

If this is a by-product of the lockout, then the owners are being smart.

But let's see how it plays out.

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 06:36 PM
Then I'll ask again that you refrain from insinuating that people aren't smart enough. Probably only a handful of NBA CBA specialists and Larry Coon would really understand every point in the negotiations. lol. So, let's assume we all know roughly the same amount and have a respectful conversation among ourselves here.

NBA owners have gone public with their tax returns proving their losses.

Meanwhile, Billy Hunter doesn't even know how to use a calculator.

llemon
10-12-2011, 06:52 PM
NBA owners have gone public with their tax returns proving their losses.

Meanwhile, Billy Hunter doesn't even know how to use a calculator.

NBA owners books haven't really been open to the public.

But considering Hunter's intelligence limitations (as per your knowledge), we may never see another NBA basketball game.

I can live with that if I have to.

Evolution23
10-12-2011, 07:10 PM
I can't relate to billionaires so I'm with the players because most of them came up being poor.

#OccupyWallstreet lol

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 07:21 PM
NBA owners books haven't really been open to the public.

But considering Hunter's intelligence limitations (as per your knowledge), we may never see another NBA basketball game.

I can live with that if I have to.

According to Forbes magazine, 17 of 30 teams lost money as of 09-10.

In other words, the majority of owners benefit by holding out indefinitely.

The players will cave, at 50% or below, which is still a phenomenal deal, preserving an average salary well north of $5 million annually.

Anyone who thinks an average salary at $5 million is a bad deal, all of it guaranteed, with zero financial and near zero physical risk for the players, is completely delusional.

This is all on the player's shoulders. Primarily on the highest paid players' who can best afford to hold out.


http://undergroundsportsnetwork.net/site/2011/07/06/forbes-magazine-vs-nba-forbes-says-nba-owners-overstating-losses-nba-claims-forbes-is-wrong/

sixer04fan
10-12-2011, 07:42 PM
people complain and boo hoo about the "so-called" system that made owners broke

what about the f'd up system that made old 50 and 60's nba playeers broke

antoine walker is broke as we speak, so are we suppose to blame the soft cap for that... or just bad handling of money

owners stop blaming the system because you want to pay ramon sessions 7mil a year... nobody told u to give players like that all that money

What the hell are you talking about here? How does overpaying athletes make them go broke later? "The f'd up system that made 50's and 60's NBA players broke?" What does that have anything to do with... Anything?

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 08:01 PM
Taking cuts when revenue is only rising makes profit ONLY for the owners. You are the ones performing and entertaining. Taking the lower end of the spectrum is bad business especially when your shelf life is prob the length of the CBA . There is nothing phenomenal about it to people who regularly make that money . It's phenomenal to the avg working person. ITS sorta like spousal support. If ur ex wife was used to a certain status you are required to maintain that status if you are a money making celeb. She could've been a bum on the street when u met her. Now u have to maintain that Lobster appetite.


According to Forbes magazine, 17 of 30 teams lost money as of 09-10.

In other words, the majority of owners benefit by holding out indefinitely.

The players will cave, at 50% or below, which is still a phenomenal deal, preserving an average salary well north of $5 million annually.

Anyone who thinks an average salary at $5 million is a bad deal, all of it guaranteed, with zero financial and near zero physical risk for the players, is completely delusional.

This is all on the player's shoulders. Primarily on the highest paid players' who can best afford to hold out.

The problem is that salary doesn't go up when the popularity of the sport is at an all time high since the Jordan era. Takin a cut and watching revenue rise for ONLY the owners benefit is a bad deal.

http://undergroundsportsnetwork.net/site/2011/07/06/forbes-magazine-vs-nba-forbes-says-nba-owners-overstating-losses-nba-claims-forbes-is-wrong/

hard_candy
10-12-2011, 08:09 PM
Taking cuts when revenue is only rising makes profit ONLY for the owners. You are the ones performing and entertaining. Taking the lower end of the spectrum is bad business especially when your shelf life is prob the length of the CBA . There is nothing phenomenal about it to people who regularly make that money . It's phenomenal to the avg working person. ITS sorta like spousal support. If ur ex wife was used to a certain status you are required to maintain that status if you are a money making celeb. She could've been a bum on the street when u met her. Now u have to maintain that Lobster appetite.

Fo' realist do. You sho noze yo' stuff. You de been making da lotsa senze wif yo' monstah post. Ya mang, da spousal suppo't be du good way of making senze outsda all a' dis. wurd.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-12-2011, 08:12 PM
Fo' realist do. You sho noze yo' stuff. You de been making da lotsa senze wif yo' monstah post. Ya mang, da spousal suppo't be du good way of making senze outsda all a' dis. wurd.

That was clever.. Do u feel special now..

blastmasta26
10-12-2011, 08:28 PM
I expect half a season, but I know of the likelihood of no season at all.

llemon
10-12-2011, 08:30 PM
Fo' realist do. You sho noze yo' stuff. You de been making da lotsa senze wif yo' monstah post. Ya mang, da spousal suppo't be du good way of making senze outsda all a' dis. wurd.

That was wonderful. Do some more.

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 09:21 PM
Taking cuts when revenue is only rising makes profit ONLY for the owners. You are the ones performing and entertaining. Taking the lower end of the spectrum is bad business especially when your shelf life is prob the length of the CBA . There is nothing phenomenal about it to people who regularly make that money . It's phenomenal to the avg working person.

but it doesn't make guaranteed profits for the owners because there is risk involved with owning a franchise. Look at when Gilbert got injured... The Wizards are still recovering from that devastating blow. While Agent 0 is getting paid his max contract in full even though his production has steadily decreased since his return to the hardwood. His impact is felt over two organizations, The Magic & Wizards are both suffering from this.

the owners do not pay themselves a salary to own the team. They recoupe whatever amount of $$ is left after they pay all of their costs. Scaling back player salary is 1 way of making the franchises more profitable. Another is distributing talent more evenly among franchises which is done by a harder cap = higher tax = larger penalty for overspending = less spending on aggregate.

llemon
10-12-2011, 09:36 PM
but it doesn't make guaranteed profits for the owners because there is risk involved with owning a franchise. Look at when Gilbert got injured... The Wizards are still recovering from that devastating blow. While Agent 0 is getting paid his max contract in full even though his production has steadily decreased since his return to the hardwood. His impact is felt over two organizations, The Magic & Wizards are both suffering from this.

the owners do not pay themselves a salary to own the team. They recoupe whatever amount of $$ is left after they pay all of their costs. Scaling back player salary is 1 way of making the franchises more profitable. Another is distributing talent more evenly among franchises which is done by a harder cap = higher tax = larger penalty for overspending = less spending on aggregate.

I would imagine 79-86% of knowledgable NBA fans knew, as it was happening, that the Wiz giving Gilbert that last contract was absolute incompetence.

Here was the opportunity to just rid yourself of an on-court AND lockerroom cancer at no cost at all, yet Wiz decided to not only reatain Mr. Arenas' services, AND offer him the max.

Gilbert, team-oriented being that he is, decided to turn down the max, and settle for a few million less over the (what seems to be neverending) length of the contract, so that Wiz could spend on FAs, in an attempt on Gilbert's part to not look like a greedy, self-centered individual.

That last sentence is there to let everyone know that EVEN Gilbert knew he wasn't worth the max.

Big time management screwup that management wants the union to pay for.

gwrighter
10-12-2011, 11:28 PM
I would imagine 79-86% of knowledgable NBA fans knew, as it was happening, that the Wiz giving Gilbert that last contract was absolute incompetence.

Here was the opportunity to just rid yourself of an on-court AND lockerroom cancer at no cost at all, yet Wiz decided to not only reatain Mr. Arenas' services, AND offer him the max.

Gilbert, team-oriented being that he is, decided to turn down the max, and settle for a few million less over the (what seems to be neverending) length of the contract, so that Wiz could spend on FAs, in an attempt on Gilbert's part to not look like a greedy, self-centered individual.

That last sentence is there to let everyone know that EVEN Gilbert knew he wasn't worth the max.

Big time management screwup that management wants the union to pay for.

It's more than on court performance. Marketing(branding, jersey sales, international media attention, US Nationally broadcasted games, etc) Gil's agents negotiated for that contract & convinced the GM that he was worth the max. If he didn't get the deal there he would have gotten it from the next owner in line to sign him.

The owner was betting that Gil was worth more then his contract in the long run. He took a risk & it didn't pay off. Gil took less because he was getting guaranteed money. Now he is a toxic asset to both teams, the Wiz & Magic.

llemon
10-12-2011, 11:38 PM
It's more than on court performance. Marketing(branding, jersey sales, international media attention, US Nationally broadcasted games, etc) Gil's agents negotiated for that contract & convinced the GM that he was worth the max. If he didn't get the deal there he would have gotten it from the next owner in line to sign him.

The owner was betting that Gil was worth more then his contract in the long run. He took a risk & it didn't pay off. Gil took less because he was getting guaranteed money. Now he is a toxic asset to both teams, the Wiz & Magic.

Who was that next owner in line to offer Arenas a max contract?

At the exact time it happened, did you think it was a wise move for Wiz to sign Arenas to that contract?

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Who was that next owner in line to offer Arenas a max contract?

At the exact time it happened, did you think it was a wise move for Wiz to sign Arenas to that contract?

doesn't matter who was in line. The point is that a person wouldn't offer someone that kind of money unless there was somebody else offering similar amounts. Same reason why Rudy Gay & Joe Johnson got the max.

I don't think Gil was worth that much money, but the system allowed for it & that is partly the reason why there needs to be a change in the system.

ink
10-13-2011, 12:27 AM
doesn't matter who was in line. The point is that a person wouldn't offer someone that kind of money unless there was somebody else offering similar amounts. Same reason why Rudy Gay & Joe Johnson got the max.

I don't think Gil was worth that much money, but the system allowed for it & that is partly the reason why there needs to be a change.

Exactly.

BuddhaMONK
10-13-2011, 12:33 AM
owners shouldn't give in, I want a hard cap after this lockout is over. Enough of these ******** superteams, the NBA sucks now, it's time to make it competitive.

blahblahyoutoo
10-13-2011, 09:26 AM
Once smaller market fans realize that the owners are not after parity , they are after the $$$ they will stop defending them. If the players say deal to 47 % all the crap u think they were fighting for would be out the window. Sheesh

why do you talk like you know exactly what's going through their minds.

the fans (except those in big markets) want parity. that's why i'm for the cap or a system that penalizes overspending.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 10:52 AM
why do you talk like you know exactly what's going through their minds.

the fans (except those in big markets) want parity. that's why i'm for the cap or a system that penalizes overspending.

Because its a simple tactic used in business. It's called misdirection. I want parity as well but cutting players salary doesn't create parity. That creates money for the owners. The hard cap is a ploy for the owners. Making harsher penalties won't make much a difference to free agents unless it's substantially more money staying with ur small market team. If its 14mill to stay in Minny and 9 mill for ny who do u think the players will choose. Clev has loads of cap space as well as Indy . Let's see if they snag stars. Making rules like extra picks for small market lottery teams or a smaller luxury tax for smaller markets make more sense IMO

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 11:51 AM
why do you talk like you know exactly what's going through their minds.

the fans (except those in big markets) want parity. that's why i'm for the cap or a system that penalizes overspending.

Why do u believe everything the owners are saying without ?
If it was such a fair deal nba beat writers would be ripping the players for not taking the deal.

ink
10-13-2011, 12:05 PM
Why do u believe everything the owners are saying without ?
If it was such a fair deal nba beat writers would be ripping the players for not taking the deal.

Why do you just repeat the players script without giving it any critical thought?

sixer04fan
10-13-2011, 12:13 PM
why do you talk like you know exactly what's going through their minds.

The fans (except those in big markets) want parity. That's why i'm for the cap or a system that penalizes overspending.

+1

rhymeratic
10-13-2011, 12:55 PM
It'll be half a season. Can't see them risking going any further out than that... not that the NHL holds a candle to any of the major sports but look how BADLY that set them back from losing 1 year. For the NBA losing 1 year will cause several teams to dissolve.

ink
10-13-2011, 01:02 PM
It'll be half a season. Can't see them risking going any further out than that... not that the NHL holds a candle to any of the major sports but look how BADLY that set them back from losing 1 year. For the NBA losing 1 year will cause several teams to dissolve.

Actually missing a full year BENEFITED the NHL. They took the time during the lockout to overhaul the rule book and deal with chronic problems that affected the quality of play. The systemic change they made has forced GMs to work with roughly the same budgets and has not in any way hampered the best of the best. The good franchises are still good, because they're well run. But the small market teams that are well run also have a shot at the playoffs and championships. Most importantly no franchise has the financial ability to monopolize on talent. There's no doubt at all that the NBA sees the positive effect systemic change had on another sports league and wants to modify their own system accordingly. The NHL went from no cap to soft cap, while the NBA would be going from soft cap riddled with loopholes and trade exceptions to a firmer cap with more punitive hits on franchises that traditionally overspend. If the NBA is as successful as the NHL in making this transition, I'd welcome them taking a year off to do it.

llemon
10-13-2011, 01:58 PM
doesn't matter who was in line. The point is that a person wouldn't offer someone that kind of money unless there was somebody else offering similar amounts. Same reason why Rudy Gay & Joe Johnson got the max.

I don't think Gil was worth that much money, but the system allowed for it & that is partly the reason why there needs to be a change in the system.

Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson are not cancers.

I know Knicks might've went after Joe Johnson, and Nets wanted Rudy Gay, but who is the mystery team that wanted to take Arenas away from the Wiz for the max?

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 02:19 PM
Rudy Gay and Joe Johnson are not cancers.

I know Knicks might've went after Joe Johnson, and Nets wanted Rudy Gay, but who is the mystery team that wanted to take Arenas away from the Wiz for the max?

Be that as it may, Gil being a cancer didn't force down the price of his services around the league. We've seen players whom are cancers get bounced out of the league even though they were still serviceable, Iverson would be a notable example.

Why are you holding on to this irrelevant detail? Neither you nor I know or will ever know because it doesn't matter who the next person in line was. When you buy stocks do you know the next person in line whom forced the price up? No, you just pay the price because you know there is somebody there waiting to buy the stock for a marginally lesser amount if you don't make a move first. It's how these types of markets work.

But it was well known that Johnson & Gay were not franchise players, yet they got franchise money, the problem here is overspending, & that is the thing the owners are trying to limit.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 02:30 PM
Why do you just repeat the players script without giving it any critical thought?

I'm not following the players script ... There are plenty of sources stating the owners stance in the media. I understand small market fans want desperately to believe owners want parity. I would too. But its clearly not the case and I'm gonna be labeled the bad poster for stating facts then so be it. Small market owners know they will more likely than not attract major FA or retain the ones they draft. So they are trying to get the biggest cut of the BRI to soften the blow

llemon
10-13-2011, 02:31 PM
Be that as it may, Gil being a cancer didn't force down the price of his services around the league. We've seen players whom are cancers get bounced out of the league even though they were still serviceable, Iverson would be a notable example.

Why are you holding on to this irrelevant detail? Neither you nor I know or will ever know because it doesn't matter who the next person in line was. When you buy stocks do you know the next person in line whom forced the price up? No, you just pay the price because you know there is somebody there waiting to buy the stock for a marginally lesser amount if you don't make a move first. It's how these types of markets work.

But it was well known that Johnson & Gay were not franchise players, yet they got franchise money, the problem here is overspending, & that is the thing the owners are trying to limit.

Iverson's game was gone. Joe Johnson's contract is ridiculous, and that was pretty well agreed upon when he signed it.

Gay's worth is unknown, and is why Grizz were willing to spend that money, although it was not actually a maximum contract.

And if owners want to limit their spending, I guess they should LIMIT THEIR SPENDING.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 02:44 PM
Funny how no small markets pursued any major free agents in the biggest bonanza in years. Could it be that they knew that a lockout was inevitable and didn't want any big contracts b4 the hard cap that was promised arrives. Big Markets grabbing what they can b4 new restrictive rules prevent them from making moves. I guess dozens of NBA writers with connections who do this for a living has less know how than you guys. Every1 including me we be against the players to take a fair deal. Owners yell parity and u guys ignore facts..

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 02:45 PM
Iverson's game was gone. Joe Johnson's contract is ridiculous, and that was pretty well agreed upon when he signed it.

Gay's worth is unknown, and is why Grizz were willing to spend that money, although it was not actually a maximum contract.

And if owners want to limit their spending, I guess they should LIMIT THEIR SPENDING.

Exactly

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Iverson's game was gone. Joe Johnson's contract is ridiculous, and that was pretty well agreed upon when he signed it.

Gay's worth is unknown, and is why Grizz were willing to spend that money, although it was not actually a maximum contract.

And if owners want to limit their spending, I guess they should LIMIT THEIR SPENDING.

Iverson was still serviceable, that is undisputed. the point is that Iverson didn't know his worth to a team & thus was a cancer & couldn't be considered a reliable asset. his value was reflective of that, which was none.

Working within your context that is called collusion & is illegal under the anti-trust act, they can't price fix without it being reinforced by common rules that allow for price fixing. That's why they are trying to institue a hard-cap to force lower spending. is this all coming together now?

llemon
10-13-2011, 03:14 PM
Iverson was still serviceable, that is undisputed. the point is that Iverson didn't know his worth to a team & thus was a cancer & couldn't be considered a reliable asset. his value was reflective of that, which was none.

Working within your context that is called collusion & is illegal under the anti-trust act, they can't price fix without it being reinforced by common rules that allow for price fixing. That's why they are trying to institue a hard-cap to force lower spending. is this all coming together now?

Wait, not signing a player that is not worth the money he is asking for is now collusion?

As far as collusion, are we talking about how a few years ago when none of the owners spent the full MLE on any one player? Remember that big collusion lawsuit by the players.

As for Iverson, he is obviously now collecting the right amount of money from his contract, which is none. Any collusion involved there?

GiantsSwaGG
10-13-2011, 03:17 PM
There won't be an NBA season!

beliges
10-13-2011, 03:20 PM
There won't be an NBA season!

Not if the players remain ridiculous. The owners are eventually going to win out on this because they can afford a missed season. They will sacrifice a whole season in order to save their investments. The players on the other hand will realize how unfair they are being once they miss out on their huge paychecks. Its just unfortunate that we will probably miss out on a season as a result.

llemon
10-13-2011, 03:22 PM
Not if the players remain ridiculous. The owners are eventually going to win out on this because they can afford a missed season. They will sacrifice a whole season in order to save their investments. The players on the other hand will realize how unfair they are being once they miss out on their huge paychecks. Its just unfortunate that we will probably miss out on a season as a result.

I'd go with owners being ridiculously greedy.

beliges
10-13-2011, 03:23 PM
I'd go with owners being ridiculously greedy.

Ya because offering a 50/50 even split of all revenue is ridiculously greedy. Especially since the owners actually invest billions of their own money in the business. Get real.

llemon
10-13-2011, 03:27 PM
Ya because offering a 50/50 even split of all revenue is ridiculously greedy. Especially since the owners actually invest billions of their own money in the business. Get real.

Yes 50/50 is very simple. As are you.

beliges
10-13-2011, 03:30 PM
Yes 50/50 is very simple. As are you.

Yes it is pretty simple. 50/50 of all revenue is more than fair. The players wanting a larger share than 50% of all revenue and refusing to come to a collective bargaining agreement as a result is greedy. Especially since the players have zero dollars of their own money invested in this. I get that you have so much insider info on this entire subject but everyone that known anything on this topic is in agreement that the 50/50 split was more than fair and the players are being too greedy.

llemon
10-13-2011, 03:31 PM
Yes it is pretty simple. 50/50 of all revenue is more than fair. The players wanting a larger share than 50% of all revenue and refusing to come to a collective bargaining agreement as a result is greedy. Especially since the players have zero dollars of their own money invested in this. I get that you have so much insider info on this entire subject but everyone that known anything on this topic is in agreement that the 50/50 split was more than fair and the players are being too greedy.

Once again, if 50/50 is so fair, why wasn't that the figure agreed upon for the last CBA?

SteBO
10-13-2011, 03:33 PM
Not if the players remain ridiculous. The owners are eventually going to win out on this because they can afford a missed season. They will sacrifice a whole season in order to save their investments. The players on the other hand will realize how unfair they are being once they miss out on their huge paychecks. Its just unfortunate that we will probably miss out on a season as a result.
False. Do you understand the business of sports in genereal? And how are the player being unfair? By agreeing to a deal the owners themselves offered years ago? Now, they're just lying to themselves and trying to blame their shortcomings on the players. That, my friend, is unfair. The owners as a collective group are an utter joke because they refuse to take any responsibility for any problems they caused for themselves. When the players concede to the owners by beginning to accept the fact the system needs a change by agreeing to reduce their BRI by 4-6%, that means they're being the reasonable ones. The owners and Stern on the other hand are just trying to win over the public eye by spewing utter crap that they tried to be reasonable. How? By not budging on their original stance? Sorry, not buying it......The owners are in the wrong, not the players.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 03:35 PM
Yes it is pretty simple. 50/50 of all revenue is more than fair. The players wanting a larger share than 50% of all revenue and refusing to come to a collective bargaining agreement as a result is greedy. Especially since the players have zero dollars of their own money invested in this. I get that you have so much insider info on this entire subject but everyone that known anything on this topic is in agreement that the 50/50 split was more than fair and the players are being too greedy.
It's called taking baby steps. You can't expect the players to just bend over to a bunch of inept owners that don't know how to run teams effectively, who all of sudden want a complete overhaul. That's being unfair and not being in tune with reality.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 03:40 PM
False. Do you understand the business of sports in genereal? And how are the player being unfair? By agreeing to a deal the owners themselves offered years ago? Now, they're just lying to themselves and trying to blame their shortcomings on the players. That, my friend, is unfair. The owners as a collective group are an utter joke because they refuse to take any responsibility for any problems they caused for themselves. When the players concede to the owners by beginning to accept the fact the system needs a change by agreeing to reduce their BRI by 4-6%, that means they're being the reasonable ones. The owners and Stern on the other hand are just trying to win over the public eye by spewing utter crap that they tried to be reasonable. How? By not budging on their original stance? Sorry, not buying it......The owners are in the wrong, not the players.

Finally another voice of reason. Stern has a lot of the public in his hands

ink
10-13-2011, 03:44 PM
The owners as a collective group are an utter joke because they refuse to take any responsibility for any problems they caused for themselves.

Are you certain they aren't taking responsibility? There's a tacit acknowledgement of responsibility in their drive for a hard cap. You don't think there aren't disagreements among the owners about the way ridiculous bidding wars start over questionable talent? It's the GMs that will have to live by the CBA they draw up just as they had to deal with the previous CBA. They know they got involved in bidding wars, often for inferior players, just so they could take advantage of an MLE or the Bird rights to a player. Often those players were not that great but they still had to bid on them to try to improve the team. By insisting on a tougher cap system they are actually restraining management from making those bad signings. It's not an issue of blame as some of you are hung up on; it's about trying to improve the business practices of the league. There are ridiculous loopholes in the previous CBA. The players want status quo so they can continue to exploit them; the owners want to get rid of the loopholes so they can restore some sanity to the business of talent acquisition.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 03:50 PM
Are you certain they aren't taking responsibility? There's a tacit acknowledgement of responsibility in their drive for a hard cap. You don't think there aren't disagreements among the owners about the way ridiculous bidding wars start over questionable talent? It's the GMs that will have to live by the CBA they draw up just as they had to deal with the previous CBA. They know they got involved in bidding wars, often for inferior players, just so they could take advantage of an MLE or the Bird rights to a player. Often those players were not that great but they still had to bid on them to try to improve the team. By insisting on a tougher cap system they are actually restraining management from making those bad signings. It's not an issue of blame as some of you are hung up on; it's about trying to improve the business practices of the league. There are ridiculous loopholes in the previous CBA. The players want status quo so they can continue to exploit them; the owners want to get rid of the loopholes so they can restore some sanity to the business of talent acquisition.
Yet it was the owners and stern who agreed to that last CBA deal. They aren't going to get a complete overhaul now and just expect the players to bend over. Funny thing is, I get what you're saying. Someone had mentioned that the stars are getting the benefit of both worlds in regards to playing in a bigger market and getting max dollars in the same breath. I know the owners personally hate that, but at the end of the day it's up them if they want to pay them that money. They themselves can restore some sanity by making better business decisions. Right now, they're pinning everything on the players and the system. That's what I have a problem with.

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 03:51 PM
No, I understand you perfectly.

You are a mook.

You don't understand anything about business.

No, you clearly don't understand me perfectly because you fail to read between the lines & understand how everything fits together on the aggregate. I understand enough to know that you haven't formed any arguments based on anything besides your own biased accounts that are derived from your past experiences. Good day sir.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 04:09 PM
Yet it was the owners and stern who agreed to that last CBA deal. They aren't going to get a complete overhaul now and just expect the players to bend over. Funny thing is, I get what you're saying. Someone had mentioned that the stars are getting the benefit of both worlds in regards to playing in a bigger market and getting max dollars in the same breath. I know the owners personally hate that, but at the end of the day it's up them if they want to pay them that money. They themselves can restore some sanity by making better business decisions. Right now, they're pinning everything on the players and the system. That's what I have a problem with.

Exactly.. I don't agree with INk but I see where he's coming from. I just Don't like when people blame the players when they have conceded and the owners are being stubborn

llemon
10-13-2011, 04:13 PM
No, you clearly don't understand me perfectly because you fail to read between the lines & understand how everything fits together on the aggregate. I understand enough to know that you haven't formed any arguments based on anything besides your own biased accounts that are derived from your past experiences. Good day sir.

48.5% & 51.5% also fits together on the aggregate, so you have no point.

ink
10-13-2011, 04:20 PM
Yet it was the owners and stern who agreed to that last CBA deal. They aren't going to get a complete overhaul now and just expect the players to bend over. Funny thing is, I get what you're saying. Someone had mentioned that the stars are getting the benefit of both worlds in regards to playing in a bigger market and getting max dollars in the same breath. I know the owners personally hate that, but at the end of the day it's up them if they want to pay them that money. They themselves can restore some sanity by making better business decisions. Right now, they're pinning everything on the players and the system. That's what I have a problem with.

What they created before was untested. They didn't set out to create a flawed CBA full of loopholes, but all the holes were quickly found or created. It's not really up to the owners to decide whether they want the stars or not, or whether they want to overpay mediocre talent with the MLE. The flawed CBA forces their hand into bidding wars. Of course, they could just say no and watch their attendance drop off because fans now expect the MLE to be filled, the Bird rights to be picked up, etc, etc. What a hard cap or a heavily punitive luxury tax does is prevent the loopholes that existed before from being exploited by ANYONE -- players, bad GMs, and agents alike. You watch, nobody will be completely happy with those restrictions. But it will make it much much harder for teams to stockpile talent and create a roster that monopolizes all the best players available. I'd rather watch that league than the one dominated by all the usual suspects every season.

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 04:20 PM
48.5% & 51.5% also fits together on the aggregate, so you have no point.

Ok, so why are those #'s feasible?

llemon
10-13-2011, 04:26 PM
Ok, so why are those #'s feasible?

They are the compromise.

However, something has to be done about the luxury tax, MLE and parity situations.

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 04:28 PM
They are the compromise.

However, something has to be done about the luxury tax, MLE and parity situations.

what do you suppose has to be done to the luxury, MLE & parity situation?

llemon
10-13-2011, 04:35 PM
what do you suppose has to be done to the luxury, MLE & parity situation?

Luxury tax and MLE have to be adjusted in a way to create more parity in the league.

The players are fighting this, as they really should be, as they are in labor negotiations.

This lockout could be awhile.

arkanian215
10-13-2011, 04:38 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449711/lockouts-real-pain-felt-beyond.htmlSo the owners are gonna lose $1mil per game, that's $82mil for each team for the season.

Owners:
82mil x 30 teams = 2,460,000,000 ($2.46bil)

Players:
350mil x 6 months = 2,100,000,000 ($2.1bil)

(note: I'm guessing that this is under the former CBA, and not the proposed CBA by the players where the owners actually make more money and the players make less).




And the small market cities that the owners are supposedly fighting for?





But wait, the owners won't stop there. They plan to force the players hand by compensating for their losses during the lockout in the new CBA.
I think you got your numbers wrong. Each owner will lose that supposed million per game, but each owner won't host 82 games. They'll each have 41 games. Players will lose more at first. Eventually, the entire league and each franchise takes a hit and the owner's burden for locking out the players will be greater.

gwrighter
10-13-2011, 04:46 PM
Luxury tax and MLE have to be adjusted in a way to create more parity in the league.

The players are fighting this, as they really should be, as they are in labor negotiations.

This lockout could be awhile.

lol this is what I was saying in my posts earlier. the way to create more parity is to restrict the ability to overspend by penalizing the owners that overspend more harshly. we fundamentally agree on these concepts, where we may differ is BRI distribution, but not by much. Why were you fighting me so hard earlier?

& no doubt the players will fight this, & yes we could be in a lockout for a while.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 04:53 PM
What they created before was untested. They didn't set out to create a flawed CBA full of loopholes, but all the holes were quickly found or created. It's not really up to the owners to decide whether they want the stars or not, or whether they want to overpay mediocre talent with the MLE. The flawed CBA forces their hand into bidding wars. Of course, they could just say no and watch their attendance drop off because fans now expect the MLE to be filled, the Bird rights to be picked up, etc, etc. What a hard cap or a heavily punitive luxury tax does is prevent the loopholes that existed before from being exploited by ANYONE -- players, bad GMs, and agents alike. You watch, nobody will be completely happy with those restrictions. But it will make it much much harder for teams to stockpile talent and create a roster that monopolizes all the best players available. I'd rather watch that league than the one dominated by all the usual suspects every season.
Alright. I think I can agree with you here. I just hate it when small market owners get coddled by many after they're the ones making bad deals. People are aguing out of sympathy as opposed to logic. 22 of 30 lost money this past year, so what? No ****, that's what happens when you handcuff yourself by overpaying the Darko Milicic's of the world. Same could be said for Rashard Lewis, AK47, Travis Outlaw, Joe Johnson, Anderson Varejeo, etc.......As a result, you get noone to go to your games, you're already in a small market so their's no glammour or attraction for FA's, and since you haven't shown you can build to win you've just added another factor into reasons why you can't attract good players. That's why you don't have the same overall product as you did in the middle of last decade when you had Phoenix going to deep in the playoffs, San Antonio, Cleveland, Detroit, and even Washington making some noise from time to time. Still, this falls on the owners.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 04:56 PM
lol this is what I was saying in my posts earlier. the way to create more parity is to restrict the ability to overspend by penalizing the owners that overspend more harshly. we fundamentally agree on these concepts, where we may differ is BRI distribution, but not by much. Why were you fighting me so hard earlier?

& no doubt the players will fight this, & yes we could be in a lockout for a while.

The players are fighting the luxury tax that makes the system a hard cap. A hard cap means every1s earning potential lower so if they go that route they want a bigger slice of the BRI. Revenue is on the rise and they won't get the benefits of that under a hard cap. It has to be one or the other. Im not sure if I'm explaining it clearly but a hard cap of 60 mil over 10 years and revenue rising means the players don't get the proper compensation . Let's hope both sides figure it out

SteBO
10-13-2011, 04:59 PM
Exactly.. I don't agree with INk but I see where he's coming from. I just Don't like when people blame the players when they have conceded and the owners are being stubborn
Yeah, I didn't mean to totally disregard Ink's point. I just don't like how the owners are negotiating here and how they're not admitting to their mistakes. They're just coming off as petty to me. I mean, how is it the players fault that they want to play in a big city and win a title in the same breath? This applies to Chris Paul to. If he really wants to win, he'd take a paycut to play in NY. So how does a system change make that big of a difference, and how would that greatly improve the NBA? Especially when it's been proven that super teams make the league great in the eyes of many.

ink
10-13-2011, 05:01 PM
Alright. I think I can agree with you here. I just hate it when small market owners get coddled by many after they're the ones making bad deals. People are aguing out of sympathy as opposed to logic. 22 of 30 lost money this past year, so what? No ****, that's what happens when you handcuff yourself by overpaying the Darko Milicic's of the world. Same could be said for Rashard Lewis, AK47, Travis Outlaw, Joe Johnson, Anderson Varejeo, etc.......As a result, you get noone to go to your games, you're already in a small market so their's no glammour or attraction for FA's, and since you haven't shown you can build to win you've just added another factor into reasons why you can't attract good players. That's why you don't have the same overall product as you did in the middle of last decade when you had Phoenix going to deep in the playoffs, San Antonio, Cleveland, Detroit, and even Washington making some noise from time to time. Still, this falls on the owners.

I'm past blame or excuses. I just want the system to improve. If that's not going to happen I won't be on anyone's side because I honestly think the NBA is sucking pretty badly these days. :( No offence but I really didn't like the melodrama those three (mainly Bosh and LBJ) generated in Miami last year. I know it's your team and you have a right to support your team. I just found those personalities and the way they came together (some would call it collusion) reflected everything that is wrong with the league and the current CBA. It's not just them though, it's Amare and Melo in NY too. Since there doesn't seem to be any integrity left in some of these players, there needs to be a more bulletproof CBA to help re-instill it in the league from the ground up. I'm seriously sick and tired of the spoiled millionaires and have basically no sympathy whatsoever for them. I bet there are others that feel the same way. They just don't post on NBA message boards because they probably stay as far away from the league as they can. I think the league has a huge image problem and it stems from the spoiling of the stars.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 05:01 PM
Alright. I think I can agree with you here. I just hate it when small market owners get coddled by many after they're the ones making bad deals. People are aguing out of sympathy as opposed to logic. 22 of 30 lost money this past year, so what? No ****, that's what happens when you handcuff yourself by overpaying the Darko Milicic's of the world. Same could be said for Rashard Lewis, AK47, Travis Outlaw, Joe Johnson, Anderson Varejeo, etc.......As a result, you get noone to go to your games, you're already in a small market so their's no glammour or attraction for FA's, and since you haven't shown you can build to win you've just added another factor into reasons why you can't attract good players. That's why you don't have the same overall product as you did in the middle of last decade when you had Phoenix going to deep in the playoffs, San Antonio, Cleveland, Detroit, and even Washington making some noise from time to time. Still, this falls on the owners.

Excellent post !!!!! I'm in 100% agreement. Mia has the 16th largest tv market pre big 3 and had an finals appearance and years of solid rosters !!

llemon
10-13-2011, 05:03 PM
The players are fighting the luxury tax that makes the system a hard cap. A hard cap means every1s earning potential lower so if they go that route they want a bigger slice of the BRI. Revenue is on the rise and they won't get the benefits of that under a hard cap. It has to be one or the other. Im not sure if I'm explaining it clearly but a hard cap of 60 mil over 10 years and revenue rising means the players don't get the proper compensation . Let's hope both sides figure it out

But aren't the players guaranteed proper compensation by the sharing of the BRI?

I think this is more about player movement.

ink
10-13-2011, 05:05 PM
Yeah, I didn't mean to totally disregard Ink's point. I just don't like how the owners are negotiating here and how they're not admitting to their mistakes. They're just coming off as petty to me. I mean, how is it the players fault that they want to play in a big city and win a title in the same breath? This applies to Chris Paul to. If he really wants to win, he'd take a paycut to play in NY. So how does a system change make that big of a difference, and how would that greatly improve the NBA? Especially when it's been proven that super teams make the league great in the eyes of many.

They're probably not going to admit to their mistakes in a negotiation though. They're working their strength not their weakness, and the same goes for the players. This isn't going to be a time where they admit much.

In my post above I talked about spoiled stars. Spoiling goes two ways right? The players are obnoxious because they're spoiled; the owners are annoying because they spoil the players. Neither side is right. They just need to clean up the mess and get a new deal done. Hopefully it won't be as full of holes as the last one was.

In a way I hope the lockout lasts for a year. It might humble some of these huge egos and make them realize they aren't bigger than the game.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 05:09 PM
I'm past blame or excuses. I just want the system to improve. If that's not going to happen I won't be on anyone's side because I honestly think the NBA is sucking pretty badly these days. :( No offence but I really didn't like the melodrama those three (mainly Bosh and LBJ) generated in Miami last year. I know it's your team and you have a right to support your team. I just found those personalities and the way they came together (some would call it collusion) reflected everything that is wrong with the league and the current CBA. It's not just them though, it's Amare and Melo in NY too. Since there doesn't seem to be any integrity left in some of these players, there needs to be a more bulletproof CBA to help re-instill it in the league from the ground up. I'm seriously sick and tired of the spoiled millionaires and have basically no sympathy whatsoever for them. I bet there are others that feel the same way. They just don't post on NBA message boards because they probably stay as far away from the league as they can. I think the league has a huge image problem and it stems from the spoiling of the stars.
This I understand and can completely agree with. I know that's why there was a huge uproar when Wade said NBA stars are underpaid even though I got where he was coming from. It's kinda why I hate the whole lockout in general. It's millionaires and billionaires arguing over money :pity: Come to resolution already, but I'm not convinced that the owners have been fair in these negotiations.

I didn't like what Carmelo was doing with Denver either, and there was a rule that was proposed that would prevent that from happening ever again. Amare made his own move, and rightfully so because Robert Sarver was a cheap bum as usual(sorry for being so harsh, but that's how I feel about him). I get both sides of this, but the players from what I've seen have at least conceded. I haven't seen that from the owners yet. Overall, I'm glad we came to an agreement on this Ink.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 05:10 PM
Now I can agree. The formation of super teams left a bad taste in my mouth as well. I love Melo now that he is a knick but I loved the old team more. Grabbing FA in the offseason was my preference. But buddyin up does seen wrong if it happens this way rather than growing together like the old days. San An tanked for Duncan. Chi lucked out on Rose. There will always be holes in any system . Lakers and Celtics both got assists from small market teams which started the super teams. I've never seen all stars trades to teams for scraps twice



I'm past blame or excuses. I just want the system to improve. If that's not going to happen I won't be on anyone's side because I honestly think the NBA is sucking pretty badly these days. :( No offence but I really didn't like the melodrama those three (mainly Bosh and LBJ) generated in Miami last year. I know it's your team and you have a right to support your team. I just found those personalities and the way they came together (some would call it collusion) reflected everything that is wrong with the league and the current CBA. It's not just them though, it's Amare and Melo in NY too. Since there doesn't seem to be any integrity left in some of these players, there needs to be a more bulletproof CBA to help re-instill it in the league from the ground up. I'm seriously sick and tired of the spoiled millionaires and have basically no sympathy whatsoever for them. I bet there are others that feel the same way. They just don't post on NBA message boards because they probably stay as far away from the league as they can. I think the league has a huge image problem and it stems from the spoiling of the stars.

SteBO
10-13-2011, 05:15 PM
Now I can agree. The formation of super teams left a bad taste in my mouth as well. I love Melo now that he is a knick but I loved the old team more. Grabbing FA in the offseason was my preference. But buddyin up does seen wrong if it happens this way rather than growing together like the old days. San An tanked for Duncan. Chi lucked out on Rose. There will always be holes in any system . Lakers and Celtics both got assists from small market teams which started the super teams. I've never seen all stars trades to teams for scraps twice
As a Heat fan, I've benefited from those holes too. Don't worry, enjoy having Amare and Melo on your team. It should be a fun ride for both our teams.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 05:32 PM
What did Melo do? Not sign an extension.. Refuse to sign an extension to teams he wouldn't stay on



This I understand and can completely agree with. I know that's why there was a huge uproar when Wade said NBA stars are underpaid even though I got where he was coming from. It's kinda why I hate the whole lockout in general. It's millionaires and billionaires arguing over money :pity: Come to resolution already, but I'm not convinced that the owners have been fair in these negotiations.

I didn't like what Carmelo was doing with Denver either, and there was a rule that was proposed that would prevent that from happening ever again. Amare made his own move, and rightfully so because Robert Sarver was a cheap bum as usual(sorry for being so harsh, but that's how I feel about him). I get both sides of this, but the players from what I've seen have at least conceded. I haven't seen that from the owners yet. Overall, I'm glad we came to an agreement on this Ink.

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 05:35 PM
But aren't the players guaranteed proper compensation by the sharing of the BRI?

I think this is more about player movement.

Not when owners control ur contracts with a hard cap. Superstars will be lucky to make a few mill over the avg if ur team is trying to win. And that still doesn't guarantee parity

SteBO
10-13-2011, 05:54 PM
What did Melo do? Not sign an extension.. Refuse to sign an extension to teams he wouldn't stay on
Not that side. I mean having the Nuggets in the handcuffs for more than half the season. I don't blame him for not wanting to sign the extension, I was just a little turned off at how he handled the media side of it all. He didn't have to tell the media anything regarding his situation at all.....It is good that he kept in touch with the front office though. I liked what he did there......

PlezPlayDKnicks
10-13-2011, 05:57 PM
Not when owners control ur contracts with a hard cap. Superstars will be lucky to make a few mill over the avg if ur team is trying to win. And that still doesn't guarantee parity

The smaller the owners % is the smaller the cap in a soft system . I believe. Don't hold me to that.. In a harder cap the players percentage should be larger.

apocalypse15
10-13-2011, 06:24 PM
What he's saying is that the owners cut their losses for things kind of expenses that they'd otherwise be paying for if there was a season. But who knows, this may have been taken into consideration already in these calculations.

And someone mentioned that this why the owners will cave first... Not true at all. The owners are losing a much smaller portion of their wealth, and will still be billionaires even if we miss an entire season. They also have other means of income. None of these owners are totally dependent on the income they get from their teams. This is really more of a luxury for them. On the other hand, for the majority of the players, this is their only means of income. Once they start missing paychecks, they will cave first. I guarantee it.

Playing basketball is most players only means of income yes you are correct BUT, Basketball is global. It has been rumored an Italian team offered Kobe $1-$2 Mil. for "ONE GAME"!!! The NBA is not the players only options.