PDA

View Full Version : David Stern Live on WFAN 4PM......



oak2455
10-13-2011, 03:50 PM
NBA Commissioner David Stern talks NBA lockout with Mike Francesa on WFAN at 4 p.m

http://player.radio.com/player/RadioPlayer.php?version=1.2.12495&station=62


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/category/sports/


Enjoy should be good:D

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 04:33 PM
-Soft cap with 1.75 penalty for first 5 over, 2.25 for next 5 over. Then after a few years, the offending teams cannot go over at all.

-Revenue sharing among all teams

-Contract length: 4 years veterans max

-Oppose 10% annual increases in individual salaries

-If mediator fails, deals will get worse on both sides, window for deal slipping away

-1 month from date of settlement to play

-Stern denies cancelling season to 'send a message': 'I love the game blah blah blah'

-Owners are united; big markets on board to share revenue; more parity generates more interest in league

-10 year CBA with mutual outs at 7

-Federal mediator will give reality check

-Tuesday is time to make the deal, or nba won't be playing on christmas

---

Radio jock thinks Stern wants to make a deal, players' position is inexplicable.

oak2455
10-13-2011, 04:36 PM
sayin Tuesday is huge, btw seems like someone is lying

Cal827
10-13-2011, 04:37 PM
So how many death threats were made to Stern during the interview lol

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Mike Francesa had Billy Hunter on yesterday and just had Stern on today. I have to say I am totally on the owners side from what I heard. Everything Stern said sounded reasonable, not so much with Hunter.

Francesa did a good job interviewing them and came away on the owners side as well.

The owners are not proposing a hard cap and are willing to do a 50/50 split. Their big thing is they don't want teams like LAL, NY & CHI to be able to go over the luxury tax without bigger consequences, which is understandable.

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Stern also said Tuesday is key and they need to make the deal that day. Said things could spiral out of control if they don't get that deal done Tuesday.

ink
10-13-2011, 04:41 PM
Mike Francesa had Billy Hunter on yesterday and just had Stern on today. I have to say I am totally on the owners side from what I heard. Everything Stern said sounded reasonable, not so much with Hunter.

Francesa did a good job interviewing them and came away on the owners side as well.

The owners are not proposing a hard cap and are willing to do a 50/50 split. Their big thing is they don't want teams like LAL, NY & CHI to be able to go over the luxury tax without bigger consequences, which is understandable.

I actually think the luxury tax the owners are proposing is far softer than it should be. Those markets will still grossly overspend to stockpile talent. But if that's the best they can get any kind of agreement on I guess that's all we can hope for. From what I've heard from the players' side, it sounds like they're completely clued out on the issues of systemic change that need to happen. To be that out of touch puts their credibility in a really bad position.

oak2455
10-13-2011, 04:42 PM
Stern also said Tuesday is key and they need to make the deal that day. Said things could spiral out of control if they don't get that deal done Tuesday.

It sounds like the players are lost:confused: also like the waiving the player ie Eddie Curry:facepalm: another good thing we shall see

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 04:47 PM
It sounds like the players are lost:confused: also like the waiving the player ie Eddie Curry:facepalm: another good thing we shall see

Yea the Eddy Curry rule sounds like a great idea. Curry still gets paid, but a team can recover from the bad contract.

I honestly thought EVERYTHING Stern said was completely logical and reasonable. It seems the players union doesn't want any changes even though they admit the league lost AT LEAST $150m if not more. They actually want 10% raises.

Stern is offering guaranteed contracts, no hard cap, and a 50/50 BRI split.

Muttman73
10-13-2011, 05:10 PM
Just for the record, Chicago while a big city team does not routinely exceed the salary cap.

J4KOP99
10-13-2011, 05:18 PM
While listening to Francesa these past two days, one thing is obvious:

Stern is about 10x the business man/negotiator that Billy Hunter is. Stern seemed reasonable and even somewhat understanding. He obviously has his beliefs and ideas that he does not want to budge on, but it seems like he has already given up a little.


Billy Hunter and the players seem like they are just disagreeing and not offering any other options.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 05:23 PM
Billy Hunter offers attitude and belligerence.

David Stern offers specifics and intelligence.

Owners FTW.

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 05:26 PM
While listening to Francesa these past two days, one thing is obvious:

Stern is about 10x the business man/negotiator that Billy Hunter is. Stern seemed reasonable and even somewhat understanding. He obviously has his beliefs and ideas that he does not want to budge on, but it seems like he has already given up a little.


Billy Hunter and the players seem like they are just disagreeing and not offering any other options.

100% agreed. Hunter was not well spoken at all during his interview. Francesa routinely called him out several times and Hunter's comebacks were mumble jumble and did not seem well thought out or well spoken at all. I was very surprised that this is the guy that represents the players union.

Stack_NJNets
10-13-2011, 05:53 PM
All of the owners proposals were reasonable.

oak2455
10-13-2011, 05:56 PM
Yea the Eddy Curry rule sounds like a great idea. Curry still gets paid, but a team can recover from the bad contract.

I honestly thought EVERYTHING Stern said was completely logical and reasonable. It seems the players union doesn't want any changes even though they admit the league lost AT LEAST $150m if not more. They actually want 10% raises.

Stern is offering guaranteed contracts, no hard cap, and a 50/50 BRI split.

Could you imagine in times like now they the players are asking for 10% raises they are sooooooooooo lost its comical:facepalm:

oak2455
10-13-2011, 05:59 PM
While listening to Francesa these past two days, one thing is obvious:

Stern is about 10x the business man/negotiator that Billy Hunter is. Stern seemed reasonable and even somewhat understanding. He obviously has his beliefs and ideas that he does not want to budge on, but it seems like he has already given up a little.


Billy Hunter and the players seem like they are just disagreeing and not offering any other options.

Sad but seems like the players dont really know what's going on at all....when listening to both sides I would say the owners seem like they're really trying to get something done...

Fresno
10-13-2011, 06:05 PM
Stern is the master of deception.

There is a reason why hes now in his 4th decade(80's, 90's, 00's, 10's) as the NBA commisioner.

69centers
10-13-2011, 06:06 PM
100% agreed. Hunter was not well spoken at all during his interview. Francesa routinely called him out several times and Hunter's comebacks were mumble jumble and did not seem well thought out or well spoken at all. I was very surprised that this is the guy that represents the players union.

I heard it is Hunter's last year as exec for the NBPA. Not so sure his focus is sound. He may already be looking forward to retirement in Florida or something. The players are getting a fight from someone who isn't even going to be around for what they are fighting for.

I was all for the players when this went down, but lately, the way Hunter's been acting and the surprising way Stern has been leaning toward lately, I may be swaying toward the owner's now. Stern is making sense and genuinely appears to want a season. Hunter doesn't appear sincere enough about saving a season.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 06:08 PM
No doubt Stern knows how to do business far better than Hunter. If Stern was on the players side, and Hunter on the owners...we would be playing by now. Stern is so friggin precise with every word he says man.

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 06:23 PM
No doubt Stern knows how to do business far better than Hunter. If Stern was on the players side, and Hunter on the owners...we would be playing by now. Stern is so friggin precise with every word he says man.

Stern is definitely better at public speaking. But all that aside, was there anything he said or proposed that wasn't reasonable? I thought some of his suggestions were really good, especially the "Eddy Curry" rule...lol

daleja424
10-13-2011, 06:35 PM
Stern is definitely better at public speaking. But all that aside, was there anything he said or proposed that wasn't reasonable? I thought some of his suggestions were really good, especially the "Eddy Curry" rule...lol

Ya... b/c he only tells you one side of every story.

For instance... he mentions that players salaries will rise over the next 7 years... but makes no mention of the fact that the players would need to take a cut for the next three years in his system before they started seeing increases...and that mean time the owners will be pocketing the extra money.

He is a good spin artist... he does a great job of never ever mentioning what the owners hope to gain out of this... he only seems to mention irrelevant figures that mislead people in to believing that the NBA is actually giving back to the players and they want more.

Come on. Do you ever hear him say... "our owners want the players to take an 18% paycut this year?" NO. You hear him say, "Our system will increase player salaries over 7 years."

He really lays the spin on hard...but anyone who knows the details of the most recent talks has to be scratching their head when he talks.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 06:40 PM
My favorite spin of the day from his was the point that the money is guaranteed to the players no matter what, so why do they care about the system.

Hey moron...they could ask you the same question to you!

He makes it seem like the players are the ones fighting the system...when it is in fact the owners that want to completely change the system... THE OWNERS are the holdup with the system issues!!!

xXmoe.ronXx
10-13-2011, 06:57 PM
My favorite spin of the day from his was the point that the money is guaranteed to the players no matter what, so why do they care about the system.

Hey moron...they could ask you the same question to you!

He makes it seem like the players are the ones fighting the system...when it is in fact the owners that want to completely change the system... THE OWNERS are the holdup with the system issues!!!

Hey moron owners money is NOT guaranteed and the players money is. So good question.:rolleyes:

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 06:58 PM
Ya... b/c he only tells you one side of every story.

For instance... he mentions that players salaries will rise over the next 7 years... but makes no mention of the fact that the players would need to take a cut for the next three years in his system before they started seeing increases...and that mean time the owners will be pocketing the extra money.

He is a good spin artist... he does a great job of never ever mentioning what the owners hope to gain out of this... he only seems to mention irrelevant figures that mislead people in to believing that the NBA is actually giving back to the players and they want more.

Come on. Do you ever hear him say... "our owners want the players to take an 18% paycut this year?" NO. You hear him say, "Our system will increase player salaries over 7 years."

He really lays the spin on hard...but anyone who knows the details of the most recent talks has to be scratching their head when he talks.

An 18% pay cut on $4 billion in revenue is a good deal. It's an improvement over zero pay due to a cancelled season. It's common sense.

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 07:05 PM
My favorite spin of the day from his was the point that the money is guaranteed to the players no matter what, so why do they care about the system.

Hey moron...they could ask you the same question to you!

He makes it seem like the players are the ones fighting the system...when it is in fact the owners that want to completely change the system... THE OWNERS are the holdup with the system issues!!!

Owners take the risk and their money is not guaranteed. Yes the players need to take cut backs because even if you believe Hunter the owners lost at least $150 million. If Hunter agrees to that much its probably quite a bit more. Obviously both sides will spin things to a degree, but the owners stance looks more and more reasonable.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 07:16 PM
Hey moron owners money is NOT guaranteed and the players money is. So good question.:rolleyes:

You clearly missed the point of my post.

Stern said basically that the players shouldnt make a fuss about the system b/c they get their % either way...

My point is that the players could say the same thing to the owners... "If we get 50% anyways...why are you fighting over how we get it"

It cuts both ways...

daleja424
10-13-2011, 07:17 PM
An 18% pay cut on $4 billion in revenue is a good deal. It's an improvement over zero pay due to a cancelled season. It's common sense.
Again... I could take this same stance from the other side. Isn't it better for the owners to play for 52% and break even than to lose a ton of money this year by not playing.... :eyebrow:


Owners take the risk and their money is not guaranteed. Yes the players need to take cut backs because even if you believe Hunter the owners lost at least $150 million. If Hunter agrees to that much its probably quite a bit more. Obviously both sides will spin things to a degree, but the owners stance looks more and more reasonable.
The owners look more reasonable b/c they are better at spinning... in reality, the player stance is FAR more defensible...they just suck at defending it.

nycericanguy
10-13-2011, 07:24 PM
The owners look more reasonable b/c they are better at spinning... in reality, the player stance is FAR more defensible...they just suck at defending it.

Fisher is very well spoken, but I never heard him really talk about what they want in depth so I can only go by what Hunter said.

To me the NBA is a business, and if that business lost at least $150m then the players need to take cuts, because their money is guaranteed no matter what and being paid by the owners who are losing money. Owners aren't going to want to own teams and give out guaranteed deals if they are losing money...no one would.

You keep talking about "spinning things", that's just the way negotiations work, you try to make yourself look good. But what did Stern say that was unreasonable? You can't make unreasonable demands look reasonable no matter how well spoken you are.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 07:44 PM
Again... I could take this same stance from the other side. Isn't it better for the owners to take 52% and break even than to lose a ton of money this year by not playing.... :eyebrow:

Wrong. 17 teams are losing money. Those teams are better off not having a season at all. The other billionaire owners make the equivalent of an annual season in profit in the time it takes to brush their teeth. They want a good deal in principle. 30 strong teams elevates the value of the entire league and hence of each individual franchise.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 07:50 PM
Wrong. 17 teams are losing money. Those teams are better off not having a season at all. The other billionaire owners make the equivalent of an annual season in profit in the time it takes to brush their teeth. They want a good deal in principle. 30 strong teams elevates the value of the entire league and hence of each individual franchise.

WRONG BIG TIME. Many of the regular expenses of running a team still have to be paid.

Employees need to be paid, season ticket holders need to be reimbursed plus interest, stadium upkeep and bills keep on coming, etc etc etc

If there is no season the owners don't just break even...there are a lot of expenses they are coming their ways in the coming weeks and months...and all of those expenses fall on them personally b/c right now there is no revenue.

The losses they incurred last year will look like chump change when compared to this years losses without a season.

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 08:19 PM
What employees? They're being laid off left and right. They can all be re-hired if and when play begins.

But let's say hypothetically there are zero layoffs. 50 full time employees at $40K is $2 million.

Add to that refunds on season tickets.

ALL OF THAT and then some, is offset by saving, oh say, $50-100 MILLION in player's salaries.

This is all before their creative accountants come in with their tax write-offs, that is.

Then there is the appreciation in the value of their franchises.


WRONG BIG TIME. Many of the regular expenses of running a team still have to be paid.

Employees need to be paid, season ticket holders need to be reimbursed plus interest, stadium upkeep and bills keep on coming, etc etc etc

If there is no season the owners don't just break even...there are a lot of expenses they are coming their ways in the coming weeks and months...and all of those expenses fall on them personally b/c right now there is no revenue.

The losses they incurred last year will look like chump change when compared to this years losses without a season.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 08:32 PM
What employees? They're being laid off left and right. They can all be re-hired if and when play begins.

But let's say hypothetically there are zero layoffs. 50 full time employees at $40K is $2 million.

Add to that refunds on season tickets.

ALL OF THAT and then some, is offset by saving, oh say, $50-100 MILLION in player's salaries.

This is all before their creative accountants come in with their tax write-offs, that is.

Then there is the appreciation in the value of their franchises.

Try more like 200 people making on average well over 100k... and most of them are not laid off (especially the highest earners...like GMs, coaches, trainers, etc)

And you are seriously confused... That 50-100 million in player cost doesn't come out of their pocket ever... that comes from revenue. There is no revenue and no salaries...so from a players standpoint they do nothing but break even.

Look at it this way... Last year owners made 4.3 billion and had 4.6 billion in expenses (so they were in the hole 300 million...according to the league)... this year they will likely have over 1 billion in expenses but 0 dollars of revenue...

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 08:45 PM
There's only one head coach and one GM, and one head trainer. There are 3 or 4 assistant coaches. The teams losing money all pay at the lower end of the scale. Whatever their losses, they will be much lower than continuing with a bad deal, i.e., paying more than 50%.

This is before creative accounting deducting for losses, plus the appreciation on the value of their team. The owners can afford a short term loss, esp. if it is much smaller than what they've had to deal with in paying out nearly 60% of the revenue over the last 12 years.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 08:58 PM
I never said they can't afford it... just that they are not by any means "breaking even by not playing"... that is simple not true.

And there will not be appreciation if the teams do not play...

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 09:11 PM
I never said they can't afford it... just that they are not by any means "breaking even by not playing"... that is simple not true.

And there will not be appreciation if the teams do not play...

The bottom line is that the vast majority of teams cannot continue paying out 57% of revenue. They have no choice but to hold out for a better deal.

The owners are slashing costs with layoffs and pay reductions in the meantime. It's likely that they will write off some percentage of their losses at tax time as well.

Also, not all season ticketholders will demand refunds. Many, perhaps most will roll over their tickets for games that are actually played or until the next season, so I doubt that this would count as a loss.

You figure 10K in season ticket holders @ $50 average over 40 games. That's $20 million. Divide it in half to be conservative. Subtract another 20% for disgruntled fans. You still have many $8 million left over to tide an owner over for many months.

If the entire season is cancelled, bring in the accountants to write off the losses. Then sell the franchise.

Very few NBA owners sell for less than they bought. The minimum asking price right now is $300 million. Twenty years ago, franchises were selling for a third of that, or less.

daleja424
10-13-2011, 09:15 PM
Oh I know... NBA franchises have appreciated immensely in recent times... but I highly doubt that they would appreciate in value if the NBA lost a season...

hard_candy
10-13-2011, 09:18 PM
Oh I know... NBA franchises have appreciated immensely in recent times... but I highly doubt that they would appreciate in value if the NBA lost a season...

My guess is that they will. Especially since the owners are negotiating a much more favorable deal for themselves.

The NHL owners are not at all displeased after having a lost a season. The NBA owners likewise are thinking long term and that is wise.

As far as the players, most will piss away everything a few years into retirement anyway. It's almost inconsequential what the final deal is from that vantage point.

iggypop123
10-14-2011, 12:11 AM
this mediator has the same amount of power as you and i. he can say so here is what i suggest. then the owners can say lol, nice try dude. Jordan can say in private remember what i said in the last lockout, well just the opposite now than im a poor owner.

oak2455
10-14-2011, 12:25 AM
this mediator has the same amount of power as you and i. he can say so here is what i suggest. then the owners can say lol, nice try dude. Jordan can say in private remember what i said in the last lockout, well just the opposite now than im a poor owner.

The mediator is the same guy the NFL used:D

OldSchool
10-14-2011, 01:18 AM
I dont agree with the owners. The losses they are talking about aren't "real" losses. Its accounting tricks. They are counting depreciation as a loss. The owners don't lose that money in actuality. That is an accounting deduction made that the IRS has approved. The players have agreed to take less than the 57% they originally had... They are down to 53% and might even go down more! The 57% to 53% reduction would save the owners around 200 million!!! If the players take less the 200 million amount will be higher! Stern is making it like the players are ridiculous but in actuality the players are saying: We will take less but keep the same system! We have actually seen one of the best seasons because of the previous system (with a hard cap no way does Miami form that team). Im sorry but Stern is a master manipulator and he does have a way to flip things around. The owners are the ones that are locking out the players! Remember that!

bears88
10-14-2011, 01:19 AM
I don't get why the player don't like the 50/50 split to me that sounds fair.

bears88
10-14-2011, 01:20 AM
IMO the NFL handled their lockout better then these bozos.

OldSchool
10-14-2011, 01:24 AM
I don't get why the player don't like the 50/50 split to me that sounds fair.

I'll tell you why... dropping from 57% to 50% means that the players lose around 350 million per year! Its a big amount! Considering that the NBA said they had losses around 300 million I think it would be stupid for the players to agree to guaranteeing profits for all owners. No business on the planet gets a guaranty like that.

bears88
10-14-2011, 01:30 AM
by all means am not on no ones side; I just want some basketball, lets say both of the parties are greedy and Stern is a *****.

OldSchool
10-14-2011, 01:34 AM
by all means am not on no ones side; I just want some basketball, lets say both of the parties are greedy and Stern is a *****.

Yeah... Im with you bro! BRING BACK BASKETBALL!!!

hard_candy
10-14-2011, 01:39 AM
I'll tell you why... dropping from 57% to 50% means that the players lose around 350 million per year! Its a big amount! Considering that the NBA said they had losses around 300 million I think it would be stupid for the players to agree to guaranteeing profits for all owners. No business on the planet gets a guaranty like that.

The players lose $2 billion by turning down a 50/50 split. Their only leverage is either playing in turkey or working at home depot.

bears88
10-14-2011, 01:47 AM
The only victims in this stupid lockout its us. The NBA and its player don't seem to care about us fans. What they don't realize is we are the one that pays their salary ( ticks sales, merchandise etc...)

hard_candy
10-14-2011, 02:13 AM
The only victims in this stupid lockout its us. The NBA and its player don't seem to care about us fans. What they don't realize is we are the one that pays their salary ( ticks sales, merchandise etc...)

Most of the NBA's revenue is from national network and cable tv deals, advertising sponsors, and corporate and luxury suite ticket buyers. Joe blow buying a six game package in row 300 is a lesser priority.

Sactown
10-14-2011, 02:39 AM
WRONG BIG TIME. Many of the regular expenses of running a team still have to be paid.

Employees need to be paid, season ticket holders need to be reimbursed plus interest, stadium upkeep and bills keep on coming, etc etc etc

If there is no season the owners don't just break even...there are a lot of expenses they are coming their ways in the coming weeks and months...and all of those expenses fall on them personally b/c right now there is no revenue.

The losses they incurred last year will look like chump change when compared to this years losses without a season.

The interest is that of what you would get with a bank... so it's not like they're losing additional money.. and can't they just fill the stadiums up with events? not saying they would make up a full seasons worth with a few events, but I agree that if a business is losing money cut backs need to be made, especially when the athletes are grossly overpaid


I'm also tired of hearing the argument that players don't have the longevity that most careers have.. well you can't be a ditch digger for 20+ years either, but they aren't payed millions...

Heediot
10-14-2011, 09:28 AM
Try more like 200 people making on average well over 100k... and most of them are not laid off (especially the highest earners...like GMs, coaches, trainers, etc)

And you are seriously confused... That 50-100 million in player cost doesn't come out of their pocket ever... that comes from revenue. There is no revenue and no salaries...so from a players standpoint they do nothing but break even.

Look at it this way... Last year owners made 4.3 billion and had 4.6 billion in expenses (so they were in the hole 300 million...according to the league)... this year they will likely have over 1 billion in expenses but 0 dollars of revenue...

GTFO... You mean each team losses around 30-35 mil?

daleja424
10-14-2011, 09:36 AM
GTFO... You mean each team losses around 30-35 mil?

With no season? At least that...

Teams have a lot of obligations and expenses even with no basketball going on... The owners will do their best to limit these expenses... but many of them are unavoidable.

My point is that neither side benefits here...and the idea that the owners will do better financially by not playing is a fantasy.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 10:45 AM
Can somebody post the link to the podcast like I did in the Billy Hunter thread? This thread only has a link to the live internet radio station.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 10:46 AM
Could you imagine in times like now they the players are asking for 10% raises they are sooooooooooo lost its comical:facepalm:

The players aren't asking for anything new... they were already receiving 10% raises.

beasted86
10-14-2011, 10:52 AM
Most of the NBA's revenue is from national network and cable tv deals, advertising sponsors, and corporate and luxury suite ticket buyers. Joe blow buying a six game package in row 300 is a lesser priority.

TV deals are driven by "Joe Blow" driving up ratings, and buying the sponsor's products. Corporations buying up the 50-60 suites, and buying the very bottom 2000 seats that are out of the price of "regular people" aren't what drives the league. It's the middle class and upper middle class who can afford to spend $40-$150 a ticket and buys up the other 15,000 season tickets as well as regular box office tickets and buys up the jerseys and go to the concession stands.

oak2455
10-14-2011, 11:40 AM
Can somebody post the link to the podcast like I did in the Billy Hunter thread? This thread only has a link to the live internet radio station.

http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/mike-francesa/id386002669

oak2455
10-14-2011, 11:42 AM
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/mike-francesa/id386002669

beasted86
10-14-2011, 12:24 PM
Yeah, I didn't get why Stern made it seem like 10% was some new concept. The players for the longest time have received 10.5% raises on Bird Rights contracts, and 8% on outside free agent contracts.

The Players offer (in Stern's own words) was to come down to 8% Bird Rights contracts, and 7% outside free agents in comparison to the old CBA.

oak2455
10-14-2011, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I didn't get why Stern made it seem like 10% was some new concept. The players for the longest time have received 10.5% raises on Bird Rights contracts, and 8% on outside free agent contracts.

The Players offer (in Stern's own words) was to come down to 8% Bird Rights contracts, and 7% outside free agents in comparison to the old CBA.

still though 10% raises in this economy :confused:

smith&wesson
10-14-2011, 12:49 PM
50/50 is very reasonable. the players are dumb if they dont accept that. or they just dont get whats going on.

daleja424
10-14-2011, 12:51 PM
still though 10% raises in this economy :confused:

"This economy" has nothing to do with this. The NBA has not suffered with the economy. Listen to Stern. He will tell you that they have based all of their projections on 4% growth... same as they have in previous years...b/c despite a bad economy...people continue to spend on the NBA and the NBA continues to make more and more money every year.

Stern says the stupidest things and no one calls him out. He literally said in one interview... "We project to continue to grow 4% every year" and "The players are asking for a raise in a bad economy."

Those two things prove that Stern is relying entirely on rhetoric...b/c he just admitted that the economy has not, and is not projected to, impact the NBAs books. He just wants ignorant fans to be outraged at players by drawing a parallel to their own economoic down times. But make no mistake about it...the NBA has not been hit by the bad economy AT ALL.

Also, players get a flat rate percentage that does not change over time. So individual players may or may not have raises built into their contracts...but the players as a whole get the same amount of money each year (57% of BRI). AND raises are OPTIONAL. NBA owners are not required to build raises into anyone's deal!

hard_candy
10-14-2011, 05:25 PM
The bottom line is there won't be any nba basketball until january 2012 at the earliest. Both sides are dug in, and unwilling to concede at this point.

The last time around, an agreement was only reached a day before the entire season was to be cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens here.

In the meantime, we've got a lot of extra free time. Go make some money! Stop being fat sitting on the sofa! Get a girlfriend!

iggypop123
10-15-2011, 12:38 AM
The bottom line is there won't be any nba basketball until january 2012 at the earliest. Both sides are dug in, and unwilling to concede at this point.

The last time around, an agreement was only reached a day before the entire season was to be cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens here.

In the meantime, we've got a lot of extra free time. Go make some money! Stop being fat sitting on the sofa! Get a girlfriend!

im not fat but i have youjizz a click away

Anilyzer
10-15-2011, 01:35 AM
This is a really tough negotiation. We don't have all the information, obviously, but I'm quite sure that Stern is driving a fantastically hard bargain right now, AND acting like he is totally willing to pull the trigger on cancelling the whole season.

The owners are demanding a 7% increase in the revenue split, which is huge... I doubt 50/50 was their target number, but who knows maybe they get that.

The salary cap / luxury tax stuff is purely to mollify the "Tea Party" small market owners, who are disgruntled because their teams suck and they're not profitable, and they just feel that if they could just stop the Lakers from signing a Steve Blake or a Matt Barnes using an MLE, or that if the Laker payroll tax went up a few million so that they can keep Pau Gasol signed, then that will magically make Toronto, the Clippers or Milwaukee more "competitive."

It's just a time waster. Just settle on the revenue split, that's the only number that matters. Things should just continue on as they were, with the soft cap. I'd even suggest eliminating the luxury tax. It's just a way of subsidizing weak teams, and big market teams are already paying in HUGE amounts of TV and revenue sharing, AND those top 8 teams contribute all the value of the league in the first place. There's no league without those teams.

Take away the Lakers, Celtics, 76rs, Spurs, Knicks, Nets, Mavs, Heat and Hawks and the rest of the league is like the CBA or something, the "Espana Bologna League" or something. Clippers wouldn't be worth a DIME, except for what they could sell those blue and red uniforms for on Ebay or whatever.

likemystylez
10-15-2011, 11:19 AM
The bottom line is there won't be any nba basketball until january 2012 at the earliest. Both sides are dug in, and unwilling to concede at this point.

The last time around, an agreement was only reached a day before the entire season was to be cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens here.

In the meantime, we've got a lot of extra free time. Go make some money! Stop being fat sitting on the sofa! Get a girlfriend!

Good advice.... but one problem. For a lot of us married guys, THE nba is the girlfriend.

Tony_Starks
10-15-2011, 04:33 PM
Basically it boils down to a game of chicken with the owners betting it all that the players will blink first. Thats a bad gamble for them. If you think teams like Sacramento and Charlotte can afford to miss a season or two you're insane. They were barely selling tickets with the nba at its peak, missing a season would be a death sentence for them.....

oak2455
10-15-2011, 05:02 PM
"This economy" has nothing to do with this. The NBA has not suffered with the economy. Listen to Stern. He will tell you that they have based all of their projections on 4% growth... same as they have in previous years...b/c despite a bad economy...people continue to spend on the NBA and the NBA continues to make more and more money every year.

Stern says the stupidest things and no one calls him out. He literally said in one interview... "We project to continue to grow 4% every year" and "The players are asking for a raise in a bad economy."

Those two things prove that Stern is relying entirely on rhetoric...b/c he just admitted that the economy has not, and is not projected to, impact the NBAs books. He just wants ignorant fans to be outraged at players by drawing a parallel to their own economoic down times. But make no mistake about it...the NBA has not been hit by the bad economy AT ALL.

Also, players get a flat rate percentage that does not change over time. So individual players may or may not have raises built into their contracts...but the players as a whole get the same amount of money each year (57% of BRI). AND raises are OPTIONAL. NBA owners are not required to build raises into anyone's deal!

I'm sayin all these ppl who out of work could give a ratsass what the owners or players are fighting over its pure BS especially in times like these to play a kids game....

3mikee_
10-15-2011, 05:30 PM
**** Stern and his owners.. I'm so tired of their BS.