PDA

View Full Version : NBA Offers Players Up to 51 Percent of Revenue



ewmania
11-06-2011, 02:58 AM
By BRIAN MAHONEY AP Basketball Writer
NEW YORK November 6, 2011 (AP)
NBA players have an offer that could get them up to 51 percent of basketball-related income.

They rejected it Saturday, and if they don't take it by the close of business Wednesday, they'll get a proposal that would guarantee them just 47 percent and call for a flex salary cap.

While refusing to characterize his proposal as an ultimatum, Commissioner David Stern said his owners are ready to make a deal.

"We want to allow the union enough time to consider our most recent proposal, and we are hopeful that they will accept," he said.

As for the Wednesday deadline, he added that it "doesn't aid the negotiating process to just leave it hanging out there."

Union president Derek Fisher said players proposed a deal with a fair system at around 51 percent for themselves. He characterized the NBA offer as "a system that is not a fair system" and a revenue split that was really 50 percent.

"We made the moves that we needed to make to get this deal done on the economics," he said.

Fisher said the NBPA will be in constant communication with players through Wednesday but there's not enough of an offer to merit calling a vote.


"Today was another sad day for our fans, for arena workers, our parking lot attendants, our vendors. Very frustrating, sad day," Fisher added. "We, for sure, unequivocally, made good faith efforts to try to get this deal done tonight. And we're at a loss for why we could not close it out."

Though Stern refused to say the offer was an ultimatum, that's exactly how it appeared to Fisher: "That's the end of the road for them. There is no more negotiating."

Players and owners met with federal mediator George Cohen for more than eight hours, and Stern said Cohen offered six "what if?" recommendations relating to the BRI split and the salary cap system.

Stern said owners accepted the first five and would put them in writing in a formal proposal to the players, hopefully Sunday. But it wasn't acceptable Saturday, with Stern saying players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler rejected it.

"I think it's fair to say that speaking on behalf of the union, Mr. Kessler rejected the mediators' recommendations and our proposal," Stern said. "But hope springs eternal and we would love to see the union accept the proposal that is now on the table."

Though insistent on no more than a 50-50 split, owners will offer the players a band that would allow them to receive between 49 percent and 51 percent.

Fisher was not impressed.

"There'd be no way in the world we'd ever get to 51 percent, so it's not a band," he said.

Players have been seeking to receive 52.5 percent of revenues after they were guaranteed 57 percent in the old collective bargaining agreement.

After "frank and open dialogue" at an owners meeting earlier Saturday, Stern said he believes owners would support this deal.

He would not speculate as to the odds on whether players will take the deal.

"I'm not going to make percentage guesses or anything like that. We want our players to play. We'd like to have a season," Stern said. "These are the terms upon which we're prepared to gear up and get in as many games as possible."


http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/nba-owners-players-close-money-gap-14889577#.TrYviPQr2so

Litchris12
11-06-2011, 03:27 AM
Derek fisher is a d••k. Lets take the deal and play some ball. Why is so stubborn

Dade County
11-06-2011, 03:27 AM
I just stop by to shack my head... good night

Litchris12
11-06-2011, 03:34 AM
They really should decertify if they take this long for a deal man.

Dade County
11-06-2011, 03:46 AM
Fisher says, we would have stayed their until the sun came up, to try to reach a deal...

All that tells me is that the players are like, as long as we don't end the meetings, it looks like we are still trying to close a deal, and the Nba is the one that is ending the meeting.. blah, blah, blah

You F'in children!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should the owners stay their until the sun comes up, when nothing is going to change. Are you just going to look at each other the entire night.

Wade>You
11-06-2011, 03:57 AM
Matt Winer (NBATV) said Derek Fisher said the players went down to 51%, but the owners balked.

But I guess it's the players fault a deal didn't get done.

Litchris12
11-06-2011, 04:05 AM
I dunno what to believe nowadays

Bruno
11-06-2011, 04:07 AM
51%? Players should take it.

Wade>You
11-06-2011, 04:08 AM
51%? Players should take it.It's not 51%, according to the players. It's in the article.

abe_froman
11-06-2011, 04:11 AM
51%? Players should take it.

there's more to it than just bri split and its a bind,not true hard split.51 would be the cap that could only be gotten from rounding up.there's system issues that are keeping players from taking(no s+t deals for lux teams,reduced mle).but that aside,probably should take and see what owners say then

ink
11-06-2011, 05:39 AM
I think this guy nails it, and I think his last point is very good. I hope Stern is shrewd enough to be able to leverage a few more system concessions by raising the BRI split for the players at the last minute. The system improvements are far and away the most essential part of any deal, not the pennies or millions they're going to save or spend:


NBA ENDGAME ...

Basically, the NBA wants to do as much as it can to avoid anything similar to LeBron James’ “Decision” — and what it did to Cleveland — again.

And the NBA will get it, I believe.

The set of 10 to 15 hard-line owners might push for more, but I think Stern has the consensus (by a vote or two) to settle this on slightly conciliatory terms.

The players have their own hard-liners who don’t want to budge from their demand to get at least 52.5 percent of the revenue, but that’s now pie-in-the-sky.

The players aren’t going broke here, of course.

Last season, the league’s gross basketball revenue was $3.8 billion; presuming the revenues go up or stay the same, a straight-up split guarantees the players at least $1.9 billion per season of a potential long-term deal.

Not horrendous. Also better than zero, which is what the players are getting now, having lost at least two paychecks for the 2011-12 season.

But the players have the right to seek more from a league in which franchises have never been more valuable.

They have the right to ask why they have to make every concession when the Warriors just sold for $450 million.

The players have the rights — but Stern has the hammer: His coalition of owners can wait out the players.

Even new Warriors owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber, who clearly want the season to start, have to love the idea of increased profitably due to major player concessions.

That’s the Stern coalition: Hold steady for the chunk of games the owners can afford to lose, then cut the deal when the players are weakest.

That might not be this weekend, but maybe soon after that. If Stern bumps the offer up to 50.5 percent, with system limitations for free agents, there’s a deal there, and everybody knows it.

The NBA will come alive again, this time entirely on Stern’s terms.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/11/04/nba-endgame-stern-and-the-owners-have-won-now-theyll-decide-when-and-how/

Anilyzer
11-06-2011, 05:46 AM
Honestly, at this point, Stern is just grandstanding, fighting for a single percentage point for his legacy, his memoirs, etc.

"wow, what a fantastically tough negotiator Stern was!"

"yes, let me tell you how I defeated the NBA players union in 2011"

abe_froman
11-06-2011, 05:53 AM
I think this guy nails it, and I think his last point is very good. I hope Stern is shrewd enough to be able to leverage a few more system concessions by raising the BRI split for the players at the last minute. The system improvements are far and away the most essential part of any deal, not the pennies or millions they're going to save or spend:



http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/11/04/nba-endgame-stern-and-the-owners-have-won-now-theyll-decide-when-and-how/

the thing is it wont stop it.the heat were so massively under the cap(something this new cba would reward ,not punish)they would still be able to pull it off.cle at the time was massively over the cap,it would have hurt them in chances to keep lebron as it wouldnt have allowed them to even try getting him help.

Mishmin
11-06-2011, 06:03 AM
Honestly, at this point, Stern is just grandstanding, fighting for a single percentage point for his legacy, his memoirs, etc.

"wow, what a fantastically tough negotiator Stern was!"

"yes, let me tell you how I defeated the NBA players union in 2011"

Yeah at this point.. as much as I am praying for a season, theres a part of me that wants decertification just to sting Stern a little bit.

Overall, outlook not good. Ncaa looking good this year.

beasted86
11-06-2011, 10:06 AM
If people don't understand what Fisher & Kessler were saying... "Up to 51%" is based on revenue projections that are unlikely.

For ex: the NBA owners might have offered a band that had them at 49% for 3-5 billion, 50.2% for 5-8 billion, and 51% for 8+ billion. So in reality it's a 50.2% offer because both sides know the NBA wont generate $8 billion in the next 10 years.

More posturing... decertification is next for players. Bye to the NBA season.

KnicksorBust
11-06-2011, 10:15 AM
If people don't understand what Fisher & Kessler were saying... "Up to 51%" is based on revenue projections that are unlikely.

For ex: the NBA owners might have offered a band that had them at 49% for 3-5 billion, 50.2% for 5-8 billion, and 51% for 8+ billion. So in reality it's a 50.2% offer because both sides know the NBA wont generate $8 billion in the next 10 years.

More posturing... decertification is next for players. Bye to the NBA season.

Great post. We never actually get the true details of the negotiations and are left to speculate. I have a feeling you are spot on. The owners have created a scenario where the plays can get the split they want but won't.

oak2455
11-06-2011, 10:23 AM
It's strange and its weird that Stern isn't trying to get a deal done....strange bc he's gonna go out like a dicccck

Heediot
11-06-2011, 10:25 AM
Looks like the next nba rookie class is going to be sooo sick with the '11 & 12 classes most likely merging.

Back to topic. Give the players 40 percent! jk jk

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2011, 10:30 AM
I want David Stern to step and say the following in front of every media outlet in the world that wants to stand in front of him, heck live stream and keep afterwards on the front page of nba.com (because its all he can really do and it would force both sides to get something done):

"I am imposing a deadline of December 25, 2011 for a new CBA to signed or I am canceling the entire season. The 2 sides should have been negotiating well before the expiration of the CBA and had a deal ready. As a league we dropped the ball and need to get this down out of respect for our fans, venders, security people, ticket sellers, sports bar owners and everyone else who depends on this league. As commissioner I cannot force a deal or force negotiations but I will say if the owners and players care about the league and respect you fans and all those that depend on the NBA to pay there bills, this cannot be about egos from millionaires and needs to be about those making a normal wage. If the owners and players care about and respect ANY of those affected by this they will get a deal done by December 25 and play half a season or they will have cost all of you a season. I will do everything I can to ensure this happens but I can't force these negotiations only encourage."

Heediot
11-06-2011, 10:33 AM
I want David Stern to step and say the following in front of every media outlet in the world that wants to stand in front of him, heck live stream and keep afterwards on the front page of nba.com (because its all he can really do and it would force both sides to get something done):

"I am imposing a deadline of December 25, 2011 for a new CBA to signed or I am canceling the entire season. The 2 sides should have been negotiating well before the expiration of the CBA and had a deal ready. As a league we dropped the ball and need to get this down out of respect for our fans, venders, security people, ticket sellers, sports bar owners and everyone else who depends on this league. As commissioner I cannot force a deal or force negotiations but I will say if the owners and players care about the league and respect you fans and all those that depend on the NBA to pay there bills, this cannot be about egos from millionaires and needs to be about those making a normal wage. If the owners and players care about and respect ANY of those affected by this they will get a deal done buy December 25 or they will have cost all of a season. I will do everything I can to ensure this happens but I can't force these negotiations only encourage."

Hahaha why would he when he knows most fans are sheep. I'm a sheep for the nfl, I admit it and I ain't going to lie. As for the nba its just meh with me. I could give a rats *** for an apology from any league. I watch because I find it entertaining. Who ever makes more, it is what it is and not my problem.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 10:34 AM
Players and owners met with federal mediator George Cohen for more than eight hours, and Stern said Cohen offered six "what if?" recommendations relating to the BRI split and the salary cap system. Stern said owners accepted the first five and would put them in writing in a formal proposal to the players, hopefully Sunday. But it wasn't acceptable Saturday, with Stern saying players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler rejected it.

I'd say the NBA did enough there to protect itself from the threat of an anti-trust suit once the NBAPA decertifies. That's all their interest was in this. The longer the lockout drags on the more the losses build for the teams. They will go to court with last yr's losses, this yr's projections, & future yr's projection based on a model of attendance using the NHL as a base when they resumed operations. The #'s of course will be bigger, but the % drop will be comparable.

Of course, that's only on the slim chance the courts even decide to take this on. They didn't in the NHL's case.

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2011, 10:38 AM
Hahaha why would he when he knows most fans are sheep. I'm a sheep for the nfl, I admit it and I ain't going to lie. As for the nba its just meh with me.

Good question, its because he needs to make a strong statement and get the press to be strongly against the owners and players if something does not get done.

If a deal doesn't get done after a statement like that it hurts players images and makes them less marketable thus less appealing for endorsements.

Some owners have businesses and it may have some back lash in there other businesses saying they don't care about their customers. Best case scenario they look horrible in there social circles and are not what they where in it.

The type of statement I suggest is the type of thing that is using and controlling the media to force an issue and the owners and players can only lose failing to do that, and using but not saying Christmas is also important because the league being canceled on Christmas because of owners and players unwillingness to get a deal done is a big deal to many people. Also the statement I propose talks about the little people and fans being hurt by all this so it could actually help change Stern's image a bit.

ink
11-06-2011, 01:31 PM
Honestly, at this point, Stern is just grandstanding, fighting for a single percentage point for his legacy, his memoirs, etc.

"wow, what a fantastically tough negotiator Stern was!"

"yes, let me tell you how I defeated the NBA players union in 2011"

Not really sure what you base your posts on. Certainly not anything that's happening. Stern REPRESENTS the owners. He is managing THEIR interests and directives. You do understand that right? I know you're not alone but he doesn't act alone; he has to synthesize all of the divergent interests of his group and present them. Just like the heads of the union do. It's just business negotiation and he is their rep.


the thing is it wont stop it.the heat were so massively under the cap(something this new cba would reward ,not punish)they would still be able to pull it off.cle at the time was massively over the cap,it would have hurt them in chances to keep lebron as it wouldnt have allowed them to even try getting him help.

I hear what you're saying. The thing is though, with a different CBA that doesn't reward that behaviour we may not see the same behaviour from clubs lining up to exploit the old loopholes. I'm not convinced they've done enough to repair the CBA and we may even see more loopholes come out of this flawed compromise, but they are doing everything they can to prevent the 2010 FA and Melo fiascos from repeating themselves the way they did. Yes to free agency, because it benefits everyone when controlled properly, but no to player-driven acquisition wars between teams. The league does not want its teams put in a position to go to war to obtain/extract talent from each other. 2010 FA did a lot of damage internally.

ink
11-06-2011, 01:37 PM
If people don't understand what Fisher & Kessler were saying... "Up to 51%" is based on revenue projections that are unlikely.

For ex: the NBA owners might have offered a band that had them at 49% for 3-5 billion, 50.2% for 5-8 billion, and 51% for 8+ billion. So in reality it's a 50.2% offer because both sides know the NBA wont generate $8 billion in the next 10 years.

More posturing... decertification is next for players. Bye to the NBA season.

Not posturing, it's called incentive. The same thing exists in other leagues. The goal may not be reached but what you have are rewards for financial growth that are shared. If the league does better than it's currently doing the owners will divert MORE of the profits to the players. In other words, it will pay to work together to make the league more profitable. It's not some evil trick, it's incentive.

Personally I wish the BRI wasn't the focus of the negotiations. I would rather see smart innovations to the system. The more the players make this about the money, and fail to recognize the point in the built-in incentives, the more the discerning fan will be alienated from the players' singular focus on their salaries and split of BRI.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 01:46 PM
I disagree. Lebron, Wade, & Bosh made that decision under the terms of the old CBA. The likelihood that Mia would be able to surround them with adequate talent for their championship run was much higher than it is now. There was belief that if any of the 3 were to get hurt & be lost for the season, they would still be a playoff team. That's not likely to happen under the proposed CBA. They are basically a deadbeat team come the trade deadline. They have no chips to bargain with.

A similar situation now exists for the Knicks. Do they make the moves to fit Paul in knowing how fated the team will be to their Big 3's health? The Knicks FO has a history of high roll moves so maybe they will.

The growth band was not that high. I read that in the yr the NBA experienced 20% rev growth from the inception of the deal, the BRI would move to 51%. So if rev grew by 5% a yr, after the 4th yr the players would be looking at 51%.

clsmoovman
11-06-2011, 01:53 PM
Derek fisher is a dk. Lets take the deal and play some ball. Why is so stubborn


Are you serious?? :confused: :facepalm:

beliges
11-06-2011, 02:03 PM
With the owners offering a more than fair 51% deal in favor of the players, i would like to think there will be nothing stopping the players from agreeing to this and we have a season. The fact that the players are offered above 50% is a victory for them as I for one do not believe they even deserve that much. Now agree to this deal and get back to work.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Just so everyone's clear, the 20% rev growth is based on last yr's rev. Not this yr's. The BRI portion of rev came to about $3.9B, so as soon as it neared $4.7B they would reach the 51%. I think that is very doable if the Bulls were to get Howard :)

You just can't put a price on the value of a Rose-Howard combo in the NBA. The interest that would pull would greatly exceed that of Wade, Bron, & Bosh. Rose-Howard would not just be a national story. Thanks to MJ spreading Bulls influence across the globe, every BB fan in the world would take notice.

PhillyFaninLA
11-06-2011, 02:23 PM
Just so everyone's clear, the 20% rev growth is based on last yr's rev. Not this yr's. The BRI portion of rev came to about $3.9B, so as soon as it neared $4.7B they would reach the 51%. I think that is very doable if the Bulls were to get Howard :)

You just can't put a price on the value of a Rose-Howard combo in the NBA. The interest that would pull would greatly exceed that of Wade, Bron, & Bosh. Rose-Howard would not just be a national story. Thanks to MJ spreading Bulls influence across the globe, every BB fan in the world would take notice.


Really your going to turn this topic into a Bulls or Derick Rose topic you Bulls fans spent 2 months doing that before mods finally stepped in. You seriously going to start this again.

Make an on topic point so you can cover up trying to highjack the topic the way Bulls fans did for 6+ weeks a few months ago.

mrblisterdundee
11-06-2011, 02:28 PM
Matt Winer (NBATV) said Derek Fisher said the players went down to 51%, but the owners balked.

But I guess it's the players fault a deal didn't get done.

David Stern just offered a deal where players get 51 percent. It's the players that balked.
They need to give up and take the 51 percent the NBA is offering. The owners spend the money (along with taxpayer money) and build the infrastructure to make the NBA happen. The players make good money only because of that investment. They're a bunch of disorganized children pretending do be "business professionals" who don't realize how fragile their deal is.

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 02:31 PM
That pretty much means a cancellation of the season for me. With the season on the line they basically came with yet another take it or leave it deal.

Then as if the tomfoolery they're pulling on the split isn't enough they insisted on a deal with no sign and trades and very limited mid-level signings for the tax paying teams. In effect it would basically take the big market teams out of the free agency equation and force players that wanted to get a decent contract to either re-sign with their teams or go to a undesirable team with cap space. So pretty much a hard cap.

The message the nba is sending is pretty clear: the large market teams are going to be penalized for their success and broken up so we can compensate the small market teams and force stars to area's that aren't making money.

No way the players go for that.

mrblisterdundee
11-06-2011, 02:34 PM
Honestly, at this point, Stern is just grandstanding, fighting for a single percentage point for his legacy, his memoirs, etc.

"wow, what a fantastically tough negotiator Stern was!"

"yes, let me tell you how I defeated the NBA players union in 2011"

Yes; and the players are grandstanding for their pride and smug sense of self-importance.

mrblisterdundee
11-06-2011, 02:37 PM
That pretty much means a cancellation of the season for me. With the season on the line they basically came with yet another take it or leave it deal.

Then as if the tomfoolery they're pulling on the split isn't enough they insisted on a deal with no sign and trades and very limited mid-level signings for the tax paying teams. In effect it would basically take the big market teams out of the free agency equation and force players that wanted to get a decent contract to either re-sign with their teams or go to a undesirable team with cap space. So pretty much a hard cap.

The message the nba is sending is pretty clear: the large market teams are going to be penalized for their success and broken up so we can compensate the small market teams and force stars to area's that aren't making money.

No way the players go for that.

Oh no; the NBA wants to keep the entire league competitive, instead of letting certain teams stack up on talent! That seems so unfair to all the fans who would like to believe that their team — small- or large-market — really has a chance to compete.
The owners' and the NBA's deal is better for the fans.

ink
11-06-2011, 02:39 PM
That pretty much means a cancellation of the season for me. With the season on the line they basically came with yet another take it or leave it deal.

Then as if the tomfoolery they're pulling on the split isn't enough they insisted on a deal with no sign and trades and very limited mid-level signings for the tax paying teams. In effect it would basically take the big market teams out of the free agency equation and force players that wanted to get a decent contract to either re-sign with their teams or go to a undesirable team with cap space. So pretty much a hard cap.

The message the nba is sending is pretty clear: the large market teams are going to be penalized for their success and broken up so we can compensate the small market teams and force stars to area's that aren't making money.

No way the players go for that.

You've put a heavy negative spin on it, but at least we're not just talking about money now. :) If only the players would get that, they would understand that this is not "tomfoolery". It's about trying to create a system that can't be abused as badly as it has been BY ALL PARTIES over the last decade or so. For all but the most elite stars, most of these players should appreciate the privilege they have of playing basketball for a living. And over time the culture of entitlement might even wear off for the elite players. It's insane that a league would want its top players to refuse to play anywhere except the big markets. You can't run a league that way.

So, the league's position in these negotiations isn't being miserly and difficult. They've already compromised well beyond what they need to in order to improve their struggling league.

ink
11-06-2011, 02:41 PM
Yes; and the players are grandstanding for their pride and smug sense of self-importance.


Oh no; the NBA wants to keep the entire league competitive, instead of letting certain teams stack up on talent! That seems so unfair to all the fans who would like to believe that their team small- or large-market really has a chance to compete.
The owners' and the NBA's deal is better for the fans.

Pretty much summed it up with both posts.

KnicksorBust
11-06-2011, 02:42 PM
It's a joke that the owners need to put these rules in place to protect them from their own stupidity.

ink
11-06-2011, 02:46 PM
David Stern just offered a deal where players get 51 percent. It's the players that balked.
They need to give up and take the 51 percent the NBA is offering. The owners spend the money (along with taxpayer money) and build the infrastructure to make the NBA happen. The players make good money only because of that investment. They're a bunch of disorganized children pretending do be "business professionals" who don't realize how fragile their deal is.

I hope they DO understand the damage they could do if they de-certify. They'd be cutting their noses off to spite their faces. The damage they'd do to themselves and to the league would be pretty substantial, and the season would definitely be lost. In case they think emulating the NFL de-certification will yield the same results they should think again. The NFL was making money and the owners wanted to continue making money; the NBA was losing money and running really poorly for a majority of teams, so they are not going to automatically rush back to recreate that same mess. The players have to be smart here; if they detonate the union because they refuse to accept the already watered-down deal, they will almost certainly lose a whole season or more. Things will only get worse if they take a step that reckless. Sadly, they haven't shown a lot of common sense for a few years living in the wealth bubble they have been in.

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 02:49 PM
It's a joke that the owners need to put these rules in place to protect them from their own stupidity.


Pretty much. Its kind of like me calling my credit card company and saying "you know I've been having problems spending so can you impliment a system where the following stores are only allowed to accept so much of my money? Also I know I've ran my FICA score down over the past few years but is there any way you can just remove all that and give me a total reset? I basically want a system in place that makes it as difficult as possible for me to mess up in the future....."

ink
11-06-2011, 02:49 PM
It's a joke that the owners need to put these rules in place to protect them from their own stupidity.

That's simplistic. The player agents work the angles to push management into competition for often mediocre players. With adequate rules in place the league can prevent that from happening. You have to look at both sides of the situation. Agents push for insane deals, play GMs against each other, GMs eventually have to either cave in or lose the player their fan base wants them to pick up. In the end, no one benefits except the player who gets a contract they often don't deserve for it's full term. Sometimes the player doesn't ever deserve the new deal their agent brokered for them, and the team and league suffers for it. It's a broken system. That's why they're trying to fix it now.

ink
11-06-2011, 02:53 PM
Pretty much. Its kind of like me calling my credit card company and saying "you know I've been having problems spending so can you impliment a system where the following stores are only allowed to accept so much of my money? Also I know I've ran my FICA score down over the past few years but is there any way you can just remove all that and give me a total reset? I basically want a system in place that makes it as difficult as possible for me to mess up in the future....."

lol, you've actually just described how credit cards work. That's why they have spending limits on most cards. The difference is that credit card companies WANT to drive up your spending in a controlled fashion, where the league wants to curtail spending so that the league can be managed more evenly. It's not that radical a concept, it's just that the league system has been so badly ****ed for so long that fans think this is normal. It's not.

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 02:58 PM
You've put a heavy negative spin on it, but at least we're not just talking about money now. :) If only the players would get that, they would understand that this is not "tomfoolery". It's about trying to create a system that can't be abused as badly as it has been BY ALL PARTIES over the last decade or so. For all but the most elite stars, most of these players should appreciate the privilege they have of playing basketball for a living. And over time the culture of entitlement might even wear off for the elite players. It's insane that a league would want its top players to refuse to play anywhere except the big markets. You can't run a league that way.

So, the league's position in these negotiations isn't being miserly and difficult. They've already compromised well beyond what they need to in order to improve their struggling league.


I was pretty sure at some point someone would eventually revert to the old basic "these guys are getting paid to play a game" thinking. Thats very simplistic thinking. Thats like saying Denzel Washington gets paid to "play make believe" or The Beatles got paid to "sing folk songs."

To put it mildly I think you seriously underestimate the value of entertainment in our society. To belittle the performers by basically saying they should be grateful is to not acknowledge the time and skill they put into their craft.....

ink
11-06-2011, 03:02 PM
I was pretty sure at some point someone would eventually revert to the old basic "these guys are getting paid to play a game" thinking. Thats very simplistic thinking. Thats like saying Denzel Washington gets paid to "play make believe" or The Beatles got paid to "sing folk songs."

To put it mildly I think you seriously underestimate the value of entertainment in our society. To belittle the performers by basically saying they should be grateful is to not acknowledge the time and skill they put into their craft.....

Come on. They are making multiple millions. There is absolutely no hardship of any kind here. I work in the entertainment industry and am very familiar with its value. And that's exactly why I understand that the league can't continue the way it has been going.

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 03:05 PM
lol, you've actually just described how credit cards work. That's why they have spending limits on most cards. The difference is that credit card companies WANT to drive up your spending in a controlled fashion, where the league wants to curtail spending so that the league can be managed more evenly. It's not that radical a concept, it's just that the league system has been so badly ****ed for so long that fans think this is normal. It's not.

Missed my point. If you told you're company "I know I have a limit but can you make it so I can only spend Xamount at the mall, Xamount at school, a little bit less than that for recreational activities like the movies and dinner, and a specific amount for miscellaneous?" they would look at you like you are a total idiot. You have a limit but its not up to them to help you control how and where you spend it.

Thats what the owners want, a system that helps babysit them where they can't run themselves into the ground anymore....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on. They are making multiple millions. There is absolutely no hardship of any kind here. I work in the entertainment industry and am very familiar with its value. And that's exactly why I understand that the league can't continue the way it has been going.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is talking hardships. The fact that they're making multiple millions lets you know that its a multi billion dollar industry. You can't blame the entertainers who are actually putting on the show for wanting the lions share....

ink
11-06-2011, 03:08 PM
Missed my point. If you told you're company "I know I have a limit but can you make it so I can only spend Xamount at the mall, Xamount at school, a little bit less than that for recreational activities like the movies and dinner, and a specific amount for miscellaneous?" they would look at you like you are a total idiot. You have a limit but its not up to them to help you control how and where you spend it.

Thats what the owners want, a system that helps babysit them where they can't run themselves into the ground anymore....

That's only seeing one side. The rules are also for the agents, who do everything in their power to exploit specific weaknesses or loopholes in CBAs. The rules need to be specific in order to prevent known weaknesses from being milked. Pretty reasonable and the only recourse possible. NBA or pro sport economies are a LITTLE BIT more complicated than your average personal spending budget. lol.

beliges
11-06-2011, 03:09 PM
Missed my point. If you told you're company "I know I have a limit but can you make it so I can only spend Xamount at the mall, Xamount at school, a little bit less than that for recreational activities like the movies and dinner, and a specific amount for miscellaneous?" they would look at you like you are a total idiot. You have a limit but its not up to them to help you control how and where you spend it.

Thats what the owners want, a system that helps babysit them where they can't run themselves into the ground anymore....

I think the owners just want a fair return on their investment. Giving the majority of their profits to the players is not fair in my opinion. Not only do these owners sign the players for very lucrative and player friendly guaranteed contracts committing themselves to making huge payments for multiple years, but they are forced to give away the majority of the profits they bring in. Thats not fair and since the owners are the ones putting up the money and making it possible for these players to make so much playing a game they love, they should be entitled to a fair return on their investment. And one way or another, this is whats going to happen.

ink
11-06-2011, 03:13 PM
No one is talking hardships. The fact that they're making multiple millions lets you know that its a multi billion dollar industry. You can't blame the entertainers who are actually putting on the show for wanting the lions share....

Another fallacy. The owners are putting on the show. The players are the performers. Get used to it. The entertainment industry does not simplistically give the performers the majority of the money. And this isn't like making a movie where you have one product sold; this is a complex league of products where competitiveness and balance are vital to the overall success of that league.

The reason I bring up hardship is because during a deep recession people are rightfully shaking their heads at athletes complaining about % points of millions. It's actually a little sickening. They have absolutely nothing to complain about. It would be good for everyone if they would get over themselves.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 03:21 PM
The small market owners want to reduce the % they spend on players down from 75.
The mid owners want to raise the % the bigs spend up from 40.
That is why there is solidarity between them.

Fisher, Hunter, & the bulk of the players completely misread this. They got 57% last time, because mids were siding with the bigs. This time they are siding with the smalls. The only leverage the players ever have in these negotiations is owner vs owner. The bigs don't even have solidarity amongst themselves. That's why this amounts to a FUBAR decision by the players union.

Decertification only works if it's early enough to get an injunction to end the lockout & force a season on the owners. That time has past. Doing in now only sets them up the battle over next season.

It doesn't matter what TS thinks in terms of fairness. Judge Nelson who sided with the NFLPA on the injunction gave firm support for league's to impose rules to promote competitve balance. She specifically gave support to both the franchise & transition tags.
Her decision then sets a precedence for the NBA. The league made their case of the economic impact of ending the lockout & the Appelate courts stayed her decision.

So legally, the owners have the right to impose rules to promote competitive balance. This is a business & naturally they are going to steer those rules towards producing profits as well.

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 03:40 PM
Missed my point. If you told you're company "I know I have a limit but can you make it so I can only spend Xamount at the mall, Xamount at school, a little bit less than that for recreational activities like the movies and dinner, and a specific amount for miscellaneous?" they would look at you like you are a total idiot. You have a limit but its not up to them to help you control how and where you spend it.

Thats what the owners want, a system that helps babysit them where they can't run themselves into the ground anymore....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on. They are making multiple millions. There is absolutely no hardship of any kind here. I work in the entertainment industry and am very familiar with its value. And that's exactly why I understand that the league can't continue the way it has been going.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one is talking hardships. The fact that they're making multiple millions lets you know that its a multi billion dollar industry. You can't blame the entertainers who are actually putting on the show for wanting the lions share....


Another fallacy. The owners are putting on the show. The players are the performers. Get used to it. The entertainment industry does not simplistically give the performers the majority of the money. And this isn't like making a movie where you have one product sold; this is a complex league of products where competitiveness and balance are vital to the overall success of that league.

The reason I bring up hardship is because during a deep recession people are rightfully shaking their heads at athletes complaining about % points of millions. It's actually a little sickening. They have absolutely nothing to complain about. It would be good for everyone if they would get over themselves.



You have emotion in your reasoning. I don't. One can read the majority of you're post which have the common theme of "players ego's.... they should grateful.... they need to get over themselves.... its sickening" and so forth and summize that you seem pretty bitter that they are making the amount of money they are. Im actually shocked you didn't throw in the old "look at what they make compared to a Doctor that saves lives!" argument in there for good measure.

Im not mad at the players at all for their enormous salaries, I wish it was higher. I simply believe the ones that actually play the game should be getting the most financial benefit out of the situation.

nyanks79
11-06-2011, 04:28 PM
Oh no; the NBA wants to keep the entire league competitive, instead of letting certain teams stack up on talent! That seems so unfair to all the fans who would like to believe that their team small- or large-market really has a chance to compete.
The owners' and the NBA's deal is better for the fans.

I think the idea that all this will create a huge change in competitive balance is wrong. In the NBA, you have to be good/lucky in the draft. Teams, whether small or big markets are mismanaged in the draft and FA is when they get in trouble. Plus big market teams are still the most atracitve and will find ways to make space. Also I believe there will be some sort of tax on MLE and such and owners like Buss and Dolan will pay. I dont think all this means competitive balance, thats just not realisitc.

Anilyzer
11-06-2011, 05:45 PM
Yes; and the players are grandstanding for their pride and smug sense of self-importance.

It's in the hands of the negotiators now. (Price-Line-Negotiator!)

If you've ever read any books on negotiation, then you know what a big game it is. It's all about applying pressure the other side and bluffing; it's all about who can take more pain and who gives in first.

That's the game they're playing. The players have entrusted Hunter and Fisher and their negotiating team... beyond that it's not up to the players at all. And Stern is clearly playing hardball with them as well--although I do think that Stern would do the deal actually quite quickly, if not for the pressure from "hard-line" owners.

rules of negotiation (rule 1 = "Don't negotiate" ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0MD2nsZVs&feature=related

Raph12
11-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Well if you're turning down the offer, sign the damn decertification petition and let the courts decide...

Garrett2010
11-06-2011, 06:18 PM
If players were smart they would try and go back to the owners 50/50 offer from last week. Yes they would lose another 1% from the current offer BRI, but they would do much better in the system issues. Those system issues are worth far more than 1% of BRI...

MJ-BULLS
11-06-2011, 06:19 PM
**** the NBA

JWO35
11-06-2011, 06:25 PM
The sad part is, if they decline this offer(signs point to) the chance of an NBA Season will be all but gone....both sides go to court, and they come to an agreement somewhere close to this deal(if not the same deal) :pity:

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:34 PM
It amazes me how misinformed people are...

I can't believe this is even a thread... what a misrepresentation of the truth

In reality... the only group that conceeded anything yesterday was the players... who reduced their BRI demand from 52.5% to 51%...

And the owners responded by not meeting them on that issue OR on any of the others.

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:36 PM
I wish there was a rule on this site that you have to actually know what you are talking about before spouting your mouth off...

The leagues offer yesterday was the same as it has been for over a month... 50%...take it or we go back to 47%.

The only side that has done any negotiating at all is the players...

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 06:40 PM
Not true on either case. The owner's offered a flex BRI range on 49-51. To reach 51, the league had to see 20% growth in revenue over last yr. Based on revenue growth in the last CBA, that mark figured to be reached no later than the 5th yr. The player's offer is sort of 51%. They were at 52.5% and their coming down to 51% active, 1% retired. The owner's would still be paying out 52% each yr, but the max player deal would be determined on the 51%.

likemystylez
11-06-2011, 06:41 PM
If players were smart they would try and go back to the owners 50/50 offer from last week. Yes they would lose another 1% from the current offer BRI, but they would do much better in the system issues. Those system issues are worth far more than 1% of BRI...

there were still question marks in the system last week. there was no complete offer on the table, just a proposed bri split.

the system issues arent that bad though as they are. I mean its hard for teams over the cap to just live over the cap... but there should be incentives to getting under the cap and competing.

Switching back and forth on the mid level wasnt a bad idea... and was as good a compramise as.

The system issues dont favor the 5 or 6 super teams... bu when you think about it... 80% of the players dont play on those teams so... LOL it just gives them a better chance at competing right?

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:43 PM
there were still question marks in the system last week. there was no complete offer on the table, just a proposed bri split.

the system issues arent that bad though as they are. I mean its hard for teams over the cap to just live over the cap... but there should be incentives to getting under the cap and competing.

Switching back and forth on the mid level wasnt a bad idea... and was as good a compramise as.

The system issues dont favor the 5 or 6 super teams... bu when you think about it... 80% of the players dont play on those teams so... LOL it just gives them a better chance at competing right?

But those 80% would probably like to one day... :rolleyes:

likemystylez
11-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Not true on either case. The owner's offered a flex BRI range on 49-51. To reach 51, the league had to see 20% growth in revenue over last yr. The players came down to 51%, but Fisher suggested 1% go to a retirement fund for players. He would not need to suggest that to owners if it were coming out of the player's side. That leaves me to believe Fisher's real offer is 51% active, 1% retired, 48% owners.

If you look at the revenue growth over the last CBA, even conservative estimates put that mark being reached no later than the 5th yr of the deal.

with the tv deal coming up... it might be realistic to expect nba revenue to double by the next cba talks.... which makes this bickering over 1% very interesting.

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:46 PM
Not true on either case. The owner's offered a flex BRI range on 49-51. To reach 51, the league had to see 20% growth in revenue over last yr. The players came down to 51%, but Fisher suggested 1% go to a retirement fund for players. He would not need to suggest that to owners if it were coming out of the player's side. That leaves me to believe Fisher's real offer is 51% active, 1% retired, 48% owners.

If you look at the revenue growth over the last CBA, even conservative estimates put that mark being reached no later than the 5th yr of the deal.

Actually... from what I have read... the 1% for retired guys is actually coming out of the players cut.

It was a way for the players to accept 50% for themselves... but call it 51% to appease the pro-decert players and make it feel like a win.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 06:52 PM
The wording is not clear enough to assume that. If it were an NBAPA only action, then why would Fisher need to suggest it to owners? It makes more sense to me that they are asking owners to pay for that in exchange for a lower max deal resulting in the 51% active. Again That Yahoo! report wrote it as 51% + 1%. If it were coming out of the player's side then I think they would have written it as 50% + 1%.

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:54 PM
In Fisher's press conference last night it was worded as extra benefits for retired players... which, like all benefits, would come out of the players cut.

PacersForLife
11-06-2011, 06:54 PM
I would honestly rather have the players decertify than for this to keep happening. Both sides come out saying the same things every time. Stern says "we hope the union will accept this offer" and Derek fisher says "Its a sad day for everyone, we want our players to play, this deal is unacceptable..." Its always the same and is always disappointing. I would rather see Stern get what he has coming at this point.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 07:02 PM
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/06/stern-issues-ultimatum-as-lockout-continues/
It's definitive here as it is written as 50% + 1%. So the owner's would get 49% & the max deal would be based on 50%.

daleja424
11-06-2011, 07:04 PM
thanks for the link. That is what I thought.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 07:17 PM
He really puts where things stand in perspective. Are they really willing to lose paychecks over about $40M/yr gap in BRI, MLE restrictions on tax-payers, & tax payment structure?

Don't they understand that their lastest proposal is evidence in an anti-trust suit? How can they win an anti-trust suit on the basis of system issues designed to improve competitive balance that apply to less than 10% of all players over a 5 yr period?

Their side is getting ridiculous. Yes, they caved, & caved, & caved but that just provides more evidence for the NBA that these concessions are required for a productive & profitable league.

TheRomanGod
11-06-2011, 07:30 PM
so is the NBPA leaning towards accepting or not?

daleja424
11-06-2011, 07:33 PM
He really puts where things stand in perspective. Are they really willing to lose paychecks over about $40M/yr gap in BRI, MLE restrictions on tax-payers, & tax payment structure?

Don't they understand that their lastest proposal is evidence in an anti-trust suit? How can they win an anti-trust suit on the basis of system issues designed to improve competitive balance that apply to less than 10% of all players over a 5 yr period?

Their side is getting ridiculous. Yes, they caved, & caved, & caved but that just provides more evidence for the NBA that these concessions are required for a productive & profitable league.

Well their stance is enough is enough. The players have given in every step of the way...and the owners have't really made many moves...

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 07:58 PM
I'm still hopeful. I mean the $ gap is down to $40M! C'mon!
Player's at 50% + 1%, Owner's at 49-51%
system issues taxed: no S&T, no MLE, $5M/2 MLE ev other yr

None of us saw those system issues coming. They've got a few days to think it over & I think JR will try to talk MJ down.

Maybe the compromise then is:
Owner's 49-52% with 1% to the retirement fund if the operating loss declines that $ value
sys issues taxed: S&T once ev 4 yrs, $20M/4 MLE once ev 3 yrs, $4M/2 MLE ev yr

gotoHcarolina52
11-06-2011, 08:17 PM
Sign the damn thing and let's go

beasted86
11-06-2011, 08:30 PM
Not posturing, it's called incentive. The same thing exists in other leagues. The goal may not be reached but what you have are rewards for financial growth that are shared. If the league does better than it's currently doing the owners will divert MORE of the profits to the players. In other words, it will pay to work together to make the league more profitable. It's not some evil trick, it's incentive.

It is a trick when its presented in a misleading way to the media.

I'm not going to propose the owners were being completely disingenuous just to be able to say "we offered 51%" in the media, but they know what they are doing offering a band with a high revenue projection. Both sides have economists working for them, so they both have an idea of realistic projections and nobody is going to be fooled. Setting a band projection that won't be reached until the the last year of a 10 yr deal or possibly not at all can mislead the media and fans.


Personally I wish the BRI wasn't the focus of the negotiations. I would rather see smart innovations to the system. The more the players make this about the money, and fail to recognize the point in the built-in incentives, the more the discerning fan will be alienated from the players' singular focus on their salaries and split of BRI.
You think thats the singular focus because thats the primary point the media chooses to report about and more than anything ask about.. We aren't in negotiations, so who knows who is more adamant about which sides of negotiations.

Confusious
11-06-2011, 08:31 PM
They rejected 51%?

****ing morons. Fire Hunter, kick Fisher in the ***, agree to it, and consider yourselves ****ing lucky. Holy hell. End this ****.

gotoHcarolina52
11-06-2011, 08:42 PM
The players should propose accepting the current deal, but only for a 5-year term.

Come back to the table in 2016 and see where things stand then.

KnicksR4Real
11-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Take it!

jetsfan28
11-06-2011, 08:45 PM
I honestly hope the players don't take this deal. I love the NBA, and miss watching it, but I really don't want to see the owners, who created this situation by themselves by overpaying and mismanaging their teams, win by tricking misinformed fans and trying to intimidate the guys who bring in the money.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 08:46 PM
League rev rose 22% from '05 to '10. The high end could be reached by the end of the 5th yr. Negotiations for new TV deals will begin in '15. The NBA is coming off record ratings & revenue so those TV deals figure to be much higher. It could get there faster. Rumors are surfacing that the big markets are considering boosting revenue sharing with their local media revenue in order to convince MJ to move the hardliners toward a deal.

If an opt out after 5 yrs can get it done, the owners should give the player's that. The TV deals expire 2015-2016, so the new deals will be in place before the end of that deal. That would be the right time for the players to ask for a higher BRI.

ink
11-06-2011, 08:59 PM
It is a trick when its presented in a misleading way to the media.

It's not misleading in any way. It's easy to see that it's an incentive driven percentage.


I'm not going to propose the owners were being completely disingenuous just to be able to say "we offered 51%" in the media, but they know what they are doing offering a band with a high revenue projection. Both sides have economists working for them, so they both have an idea of realistic projections and nobody is going to be fooled. Setting a band projection that won't be reached until the the last year of a 10 yr deal or possibly not at all can mislead the media and fans.

The players can't have it both ways. On the one hand they're saying there's nothing wrong with the league's finances; on the other they're saying the projections (which are modest at best) associated with the 51% are unattainable. Well, dudes, if the league's finances are in decent enough shape that no change is needed to the old CBA it shouldn't be a problem hitting the incentive markers at all. lol at the players not having the confidence in the league's finances when it DIRECTLY affects them and THEY are the ones that finally have to take on some of the risk. :laugh:

beasted86
11-06-2011, 09:05 PM
It's not misleading in any way. It's easy to see that it's an incentive driven percentage.



The players can't have it both ways. On the one hand they're saying there's nothing wrong with the league's finances; on the other they're saying the projections (which are modest at best) associated with the 51% are unattainable. Well, dudes, if the league's finances are in great shape it shouldn't be a problem hitting the incentive markers at all. lol at the players not having the confidence in the league's finances when it DIRECTLY affects them and THEY are the ones that finally have to take on some of the risk. :laugh:
Modest at best? Has David Stern come out in a press conference and said exactly what the projections were?

If not, then don't speculate whether they are modest or not. The facts we have right now are players said 51% of band was unrealistic revenue goal, and on the flipside Stern never responded with exactly what the offer was... so at this point I'm leaning towards believing the players until Stern disputes otherwise. Omitting the facts is the same as lying in many peoples eyes... and I notice Stern and other NBA officials are very smart in never giving details and spinning questions.

And you are way off on laughing at anything, and spin everything the same way to fit your agenda that has no logic or basis behind it. If the players thought the league was prospering and in "great shape", why would their first offer be to take less money?

Yeah, I think I'm through with responding to your posts as you are on the extreme of pro-owner bias without the ability to see level headed and angles from both sides.

ink
11-06-2011, 09:10 PM
The facts we have right now are players said 51% of band was unrealistic revenue goal, and on the flipside Stern never responded with exactly what the offer was... so at this point I'm leaning towards believing the players until Stern disputes otherwise. Omitting the facts is the same as lying in many peoples eyes... and I notice Stern and other NBA officials are very smart in never giving details and spinning questions.

Again, you need to be called on it when you do this. The players' view on this is not a "fact", it is a statement of their views and suspicions, nothing more. Very little in these negotiations is actually factual since so much is conjecture and speculation. No one knows what any of the system measures will yield. tbh the deal is so watered-down I don't see it taking very long at all before the exploiting agent-desperate GM dance starts again and players begin to receive ill-advised contracts again.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 09:13 PM
The high end of the band is 20% revenue growth over the course of the CBA. That's why I said if growth continues like it did from '05-'10 they should reach that in the 5th yr. Likewise it is not a leap from 50 to 51%. It rises in increments of 0.2 for every 4% revenue growth. Perhaps you should stop taking everything Fisher says as gospel truth & start looking at the details.

ink
11-06-2011, 09:16 PM
And you are way off on laughing at anything, and spin everything the same way to fit your agenda that has no logic or basis behind it. If the players thought the league was prospering and in "great shape", why would their first offer be to take less money?

Yeah, I think I'm through with responding to your posts as you are on the extreme of pro-owner bias without the ability to see level headed and angles from both sides.

I am not pro-owner. I know the owners are business people and will do whatever it takes to make a profit. I question their ethics and I question whether they take their fanbase for granted. I also question the price gouging they practice. But at the same time their interest is in making the league viable across the board, which serves the majority of franchises, so on that point they are giving me what I want to see. The players are giving nothing except money that really isn't theirs. But they are incapable of seeing that.

It's hilarious that you say that the view that contrasts yours has "no logic or basis behind it". That in itself is very weak logic and I think you can see that.

It is funny that the first time the players are being asked to take a risk on the financial health of the league (i.e. with an incentive driven BRI) they balk. This is what many of us have been saying all along. The thing that distinguishes the players from the owners is that the owners own the teams, put up all the money, and take ALL THE RISK. These players aren't even willing to take on the smallest bit of risk, they want everything guaranteed.

beasted86
11-06-2011, 09:19 PM
The high end of the band is 20% revenue growth over the course of the CBA. That's why I said if growth continues like it did from '05-'10 they should reach that in the 5th yr. Likewise it is not a leap from 50 to 51%. It rises in increments of 0.2 for every 4% revenue growth. Perhaps you should stop taking everything Fisher says as gospel truth & start looking at the details.

My only question to you is who relayed this information?

If it wasn't Stern, or another NBA executive... or Fisher or another NBPA member... then I really don't care, because it's speculation from "sources".

Longhornfan1234
11-06-2011, 09:32 PM
I say the players start their own league and the owners get new players. Let's see what happens.

ink
11-06-2011, 09:34 PM
I say the players start their own league and the owners get new players. Let's see what happens.

Both fail. No matter how long they wait they will inevitably have to work together.

SteBO
11-06-2011, 09:50 PM
I honestly hope the players don't take this deal. I love the NBA, and miss watching it, but I really don't want to see the owners, who created this situation by themselves by overpaying and mismanaging their teams, win by tricking misinformed fans and trying to intimidate the guys who bring in the money.
I feel the exact same way to be honest......

daleja424
11-06-2011, 09:52 PM
I feel the exact same way to be honest......

I agree to. I won't be too heart broken if they tale the deal and I get to see some basketball... but it is clear the players are getting railroaded and I understand if they want to fight this (even if that decision is financially illogical)

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 09:58 PM
Sources. Found it on a blog on si I believe. Unfortunately ESPN & Yahoo! didn't print the details. ESPN simply described it as confusing. But try using common sense for a change. If the high end is really unrealistic why would Fisher not divulge it? When people have something to hide they use doublespeak & that's what I see in his & Kessler's comments.

I've shown that the league saw a 22% jump in rev over a 5 yr period, so it's definitely realistic especially when you consider new TV deals kicking in after 2015-16. If the union is thinking of this as a 6 yr deal & projecting fan attrition from the lockout, then maybe 20% is unrealistic. I think it all depends on how many games can be saved for this season & the effect that will have on the fanbase.

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/bulls-talk/post/NBA-players-given-ultimatum-?blockID=589086&feedID=627 If Stern really thinks all 82 gms can still be played then obviously his revenue projections are going to be substantially higher.

daleja424
11-06-2011, 10:00 PM
But that would mean 5-6 years at 50% before the players get MAYBE one year at 51%...

So the offer is for something like 50.1% as an average...

and all of that is based on the idea that the league hasn't already damaged future returns with this lockout.

SteBO
11-06-2011, 10:04 PM
I agree to. I won't be too heart broken if they tale the deal and I get to see some basketball... but it is clear the players are getting railroaded and I understand if they want to fight this (even if that decision is financially illogical)
Either way, I'd win. If they take the deal, so be it. We'll get to see our Miami Heat play some of the leagues best. I just don't think I can stand seeing these incompetent owners get their way after failing at doing their jobs well. It really sickens me........I almost hope this goes to the NLRB. If it does, I have no doubt in my mind they'd rule in favor of the players.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 10:12 PM
No. It's not 50 to 51%. And Stern's own comments support that. That's why I believe the source that indicated 0.2 for every 4% growth. If you accept that then it's really about the length of the deal. If the union is thinking 6 yrs, then the best projection is probably a 50.5% avg. The league is clearly thinking 10 yrs, so that figure is much closer to 51%. Keep in mind we are talking about $40M for 1%, so arguing over 0.5% seems ridiculous.

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/bulls-talk/post/NBA-players-given-ultimatum-?blockID=589086&feedID=627 Stern still thinks 82 gms is possible.

Whether anything over 50.5% is possible really depends on what you think the lockout impact will be. If Stern is looking at 82 gms still, then he still thinks the NBA can see rev growth this yr. If the union is looking at a typical lockout rev effect, then it's likely going to be 3 yrs before the league sees rev growth over last yr. With that projection a 50.2% avg is more realistic. But can you really argue for anything greater than 50% if the league is about to see less rev than last yr for the next 3 yrs?

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 12:49 AM
Sources. Found it on a blog on si I believe. Unfortunately ESPN & Yahoo! didn't print the details. ESPN simply described it as confusing. But try using common sense for a change. If the high end is really unrealistic why would Fisher not divulge it? When people have something to hide they use doublespeak & that's what I see in his & Kessler's comments.

I've shown that the league saw a 22% jump in rev over a 5 yr period, so it's definitely realistic especially when you consider new TV deals kicking in after 2015-16. If the union is thinking of this as a 6 yr deal & projecting fan attrition from the lockout, then maybe 20% is unrealistic. I think it all depends on how many games can be saved for this season & the effect that will have on the fanbase.

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/bulls-talk/post/NBA-players-given-ultimatum-?blockID=589086&feedID=627 If Stern really thinks all 82 gms can still be played then obviously his revenue projections are going to be substantially higher.

Think about it:

The players have an offer on the table, and if the owners accept it (51% + MLE and sign and trade) then the lockout is OVER and everything is fine.

But the owners counter with a very complex counterproposal, the 47%-50% band, whatever, as well as strategic restrictions on free agency.

Bottom line: you CAN'T say that it is equal value for the players either way, that the players should "take the deal", because they'll hit those max projections anyway and the value is the same.

If the value was the same, then owners would insist on THIS deal instead of the other one. And if it IS the same, and the owners still insist on it, then they are just being stupid. Fact is, owners haven't budged a millimeter, but are just changing their language.

Players have given in enough. If the owners are trying to break the union, then hey, decertify, go for it. I think the owners are full of **** anyways, as soon as they see some judges get involved they will panic and be BEGGING to take the 51% deal. The NBA is already trying to preemptively sue the players union to prevent decertification... but they're full of **** too, because there's no way the courts don't come down hard on the NBA's antitrust violations, if they don't have the union support.

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 12:56 AM
and one thing some people don't understand, is that in this lockout the baseline for revenue was 57%.

And the owners are trying to grind them down to 47%.

So... in 10 years when the owners lock the players out AGAIN, the starting point is 47% of BRI... and remember last lockout we got a 10% boost in our overall BRI share... a 20% paycut for the players.

So now it's 2021 and there's another lockout and we want ANOTHER paycut, only now we're starting at 47% and working down from there.

So what begins as a 14%-20% revenue reduction for the players becomes a 28%-40% reduction for the players in 10 years. And why would it stop there?

Each POINT of BRI is actually very significant to the players, and there's no way the players should just roll over.

Decertify, and put a NEW deal on the table. 57% + existing CBA. Take it or leave it. I'll bet you half the owners would freak out and panic. They still think they're going to have a season. David Stern is still banking on a 74 or 80 game season right now. Strike stops and everything starts again like nothing happened, owners win! owners win! Best negotiators ever!

Call that bluff

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 12:58 AM
The complexity within their revenue scheme is only to distribute risk over towards the players.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 01:04 AM
and one thing some people don't understand, is that in this lockout the baseline for revenue was 57%.

And the owners are trying to grind them down to 47%.

So... in 10 years when the owners lock the players out AGAIN, the starting point is 47% of BRI... and remember last lockout we got a 10% boost in our overall BRI share... a 20% paycut for the players.

So now it's 2021 and there's another lockout and we want ANOTHER paycut, only now we're starting at 47% and working down from there.

So what begins as a 14%-20% revenue reduction for the players becomes a 28%-40% reduction for the players in 10 years. And why would it stop there?

Each POINT of BRI is actually very significant to the players, and there's no way the players should just roll over.

Decertify, and put a NEW deal on the table. 57% + existing CBA. Take it or leave it. I'll bet you half the owners would freak out and panic. They still think they're going to have a season. David Stern is still banking on a 74 or 80 game season right now. Strike stops and everything starts again like nothing happened, owners win! owners win! Best negotiators ever!

Call that bluff

there are a lot of factors that play in to the reasons why but the owners have an economic argument right now....long story short, because the owners are losing money. Later on down the line if the owners are rollin in the $$$ then players will have a strong argument for a change in the BRI split, & they will most likely get a raise. The recession hit almost 3 years ago n the NBA athletes are finally feeling its wrath.

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 01:21 AM
there are a lot of factors that play in to the reasons why but the owners have an economic argument right now....long story short, because the owners are losing money. Later on down the line if the owners are rollin in the $$$ then players will have a strong argument for a change in the BRI split, & they will most likely get a raise. The recession hit almost 3 years ago n the NBA athletes are finally feeling its wrath.

We'll see. But remember: in an open, free market, players like Lebron, CP3, Wade and Dwight are worth 3x-4x what they are currently being paid.

So if the owners (any owner) is willing to pay that for one of the top tier players, AND the owners are granting themselves an amnesty clause to dump existing longterm contracts of mediocre players (but still pay them out of pocket) and use that cap space to sign MORE players at the same price, then I have to say that the owners are full of ****.

They just want a hammer to use against the agents, and they just want to be able to prevent the movement of top flight free agents.

Because, hey, if you've got a Lebron, then *who needs a salary cap*. Look at Cleveland, they had Lebron so they spent $100M + a year in salary and still made a huge profit. But without Lebron, they can't make a dime and they in fact lose $10M and have the worst record in the league.

So this is all BS. The owners just want something to protect them from themselves, and to make the whole NBA just about the draft lottery, just about luck.

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 01:23 AM
so what you'll get is the best most talented players (the Iversons, the Blake Griffins) on crummy teams with small media exposure.

the big market teams will still be better, just based on coaching, teamwork and tradition--but you won't have as much superstar time in the televised games.

And hopefully you don't wind up with a Portland vs Milwaukee Finals or something like that, because the ratings will be the lowest in history

Corey
11-07-2011, 01:30 AM
I'm with Anilyzer. Pretty much completely agree with everything you posted.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 03:42 AM
We'll see. But remember: in an open, free market, players like Lebron, CP3, Wade and Dwight are worth 3x-4x what they are currently being paid.

So if the owners (any owner) is willing to pay that for one of the top tier players, AND the owners are granting themselves an amnesty clause to dump existing longterm contracts of mediocre players (but still pay them out of pocket) and use that cap space to sign MORE players at the same price, then I have to say that the owners are full of ****.

They just want a hammer to use against the agents, and they just want to be able to prevent the movement of top flight free agents.

Because, hey, if you've got a Lebron, then *who needs a salary cap*. Look at Cleveland, they had Lebron so they spent $100M + a year in salary and still made a huge profit. But without Lebron, they can't make a dime and they in fact lose $10M and have the worst record in the league.

So this is all BS. The owners just want something to protect them from themselves, and to make the whole NBA just about the draft lottery, just about luck.


most owners aren't willing to pay free market prices for talent because they simply can't afford it.

The owners want to be able to compete & thats what the Amnesty clause is for. Being able to get rid of 1 bad contract to free open a roster spot is a good idea. The contract can be a large 1, there is nothing that leads one to assume what type of player the owners will use it on. player still gets paid(2 salaries if signed), while the team gets an extra roster spot. win-win.

Ultimately winning sells. Owners want a way to be able to turn their franchise around after a bad signing, or a terrible injury, or something financially(salary cap) devastating, so they aren't crippled for a fair amount of seasons.

Yeah they want to make it harder for the players to move,& this is a good thing. star players have too much control now a days. When you're trying to please a star you are bound to make some bad moves.

I hear a lot of people blaming bad mgmt, while a big part of managing your team is trying to please your star player.

Teams need to win now because they are scared of their players leaving. -> MGMT tries to put a championship team around the star player in an effort to win now. -> They need to win but how can you put a team around them now without taking risks? -> But taking big risks is a huge gamble because if they don't pay off you are a bad manager. -> therefore blame incompetent management for not winning & thus star player leaves. See the circular argument here?

You either don't listen to your star player & they leave. Or, you listen to them & most likely don't win a championship. The star player walks with guaranteed cash in hand usually leaving the franchises with a bunch of bad contracts(risks that didn't pay off). Lose-Lose

Having your cash cow or "franchise player" more solidified as less of a flight risk allows for mgmt to put a team together that suits the franchise, & not only the franchise player. Teams don't have to rush by taking risks & cave in to every franchise player's demands on trades & signings.

If you factor in player preferences & a flexible cap then the hill becomes even steeper to climb for an average owner. As players prefer historically winning franchises. Flexible cap allows ways for players to move to these teams that are over the cap more easily & it also allows for overspending on mediocre talent.

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 06:11 AM
most owners aren't willing to pay free market prices for talent because they simply can't afford it.

The owners want to be able to compete & thats what the Amnesty clause is for. Being able to get rid of 1 bad contract to free open a roster spot is a good idea. The contract can be a large 1, there is nothing that leads one to assume what type of player the owners will use it on. player still gets paid(2 salaries if signed), while the team gets an extra roster spot. win-win.

Ultimately winning sells. Owners want a way to be able to turn their franchise around after a bad signing, or a terrible injury, or something financially(salary cap) devastating, so they aren't crippled for a fair amount of seasons.

Yeah they want to make it harder for the players to move,& this is a good thing. star players have too much control now a days. When you're trying to please a star you are bound to make some bad moves.

I hear a lot of people blaming bad mgmt, while a big part of managing your team is trying to please your star player.

Teams need to win now because they are scared of their players leaving. -> MGMT tries to put a championship team around the star player in an effort to win now. -> They need to win but how can you put a team around them now without taking risks? -> But taking big risks is a huge gamble because if they don't pay off you are a bad manager. -> therefore blame incompetent management for not winning & thus star player leaves. See the circular argument here?

You either don't listen to your star player & they leave. Or, you listen to them & most likely don't win a championship. The star player walks with guaranteed cash in hand usually leaving the franchises with a bunch of bad contracts(risks that didn't pay off). Lose-Lose

Having your cash cow or "franchise player" more solidified as less of a flight risk allows for mgmt to put a team together that suits the franchise, & not only the franchise player. Teams don't have to rush by taking risks & cave in to every franchise player's demands on trades & signings.

If you factor in player preferences & a flexible cap then the hill becomes even steeper to climb for an average owner. As players prefer historically winning franchises. Flexible cap allows ways for players to move to these teams that are over the cap more easily & it also allows for overspending on mediocre talent.

Wow, ok. That's a lot of stuff for us to worry about. Take the Clippers for example.

Anyways, so your saying that this is all a backdoor way to prevent players from using their free agent rights?

Cosmic_Canon
11-07-2011, 07:31 AM
I'm with Anilyzer. Pretty much completely agree with everything you posted.

Yep, he's killing it. :cool:

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 08:26 AM
He's not killing crap. All he's advocating is the same crap as TS which amounts to 10 contenders & 20 teams to scrimage against. You can't run a profitable business that way! That shouldn't be hard to understand. What's happened in the past doesn't apply because the avg NBA salary far exceeds the yrs when Magic played or even MJ. You have to deal with the reality of now.

Three new owners in the past year! Another 6 want to sell soon! All of them paying a price well above what the teams roster is worth on the PROMISE of the new CBA! Just because YOU don't understand amoritization doesn't mean it isn't real & legal. The court sees that as a tangible loss which means they won't discount the full $380M reported in losses like the players have.

The only argument the players have with respect to a handful of owners is their media enterprises. They hide revenue the team generates there. But that happens in businesses across the country that have similar relationships & trying to prove that is nearly impossible. You like the players seem to think these owners are stupid. They are very good at what they do & in this case that's hiding revenue.

Once again the ONLY leverage the players ever have is the desire of the profitable owners to operate their business & this year more so than any other that desire is low. The least profitable are fine with shutting it down. About 1/2 of the mid profit group are as well, & yes some of the most profitable are too. That deck is stacked against the players & that is the reality of the business.

To suggest that they are somehow going to be successful in a suit against that deck is both laughable & clueless. The courts clearly want the leagues to hammer out a CBA & they will slow the legal process down as long as it takes to get that done. Call it owner's influence on the judicial system or what not, but again that is the reality of the situation. You are NEVER going to win an anti-trust suit against a league where 22 teams are reporting OPERATING losses & the lockout only pads those losses!

nycericanguy
11-07-2011, 09:23 AM
there are a lot of factors that play in to the reasons why but the owners have an economic argument right now....long story short, because the owners are losing money. Later on down the line if the owners are rollin in the $$$ then players will have a strong argument for a change in the BRI split, & they will most likely get a raise. The recession hit almost 3 years ago n the NBA athletes are finally feeling its wrath.

Agreed, again, if even Billy Hunter admits the NBA lost AT LEAST $150m, then obviously the players needed to give back. Come 2021 the economic conditions should be different. And the owners aren't going to have support at anything less than 50/50. That 50/50 split just looks fair to the public, now if they start saying 40/60 sentiment would grow for the players.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 09:50 AM
I'm sick of hearing the whinning arguments in favor of the super 10! The product of the NBA is the GAME. The players are the ACTORs on the stage. The courts have NEVER recognized their right to play for another team on the sole basis of personal preference. Free agency grew out of the recognition by the courts that player's should have the right to play elsewhere for MORE $! So no, the players have ZERO rights to chose to go elsewhere for LESS $!

The economics of the league are dire not just with respect to markets but also & in some cases more so the QUALITY of the ACTORS on the stage. The avg career length for an NBA player is 6 yrs. The avg $ for a typical player is $5M. This is not MLB where a guy making $5M/yr plays in over 800 innings of gms. This is the NBA where guys making $5M/yr are playing less than 15 min/gm!

So obviously then the ONLY solution to improve the GAME is to spread the talent BETTER across teams.

Wrt to the 49-51 band, both sides are telling the truth depending on one's perspective.
Stern's: he still sees 82 gms this yr so he's still seeing an increase in rev this yr.
Based on reports of 51 being reached with 20% growth, that band can be achieved in 5 yrs. The NBA showed a 22% increase in the last 5 yrs. From that point it would be 51%.
So in the best case scenario for Stern's band the players would earn an avg of 50.75% over 10 yrs.

Fisher's: If you assume that the next 3 yrs will see declining revenues because of the fallout of the lockout, then the best the player's can hope for is 50.25% over the 10 yrs.

That difference is about $20M/yr or $200M. That's about 1/2 of what the player's are losing each month of the lockout now. The player's should take the deal if the owner's give them an opt out after 6 yrs. Again, the TV deals expire in 2015-2016. The new deals should increase the revenue. That's the best time for the player's to go after higher BRI.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 10:18 AM
Tell me... do you really think there is enough talent in the NBA to make 30 good teams? Do you really?

Here is a project. You want 30 competitive teams? Try to build them.

Go ahead. Good luck. There are only a handful of real superstars... and the best role players will always want to play with those guys.

Please propose a system that will allow for 30 good teams to be formed.

ink
11-07-2011, 10:30 AM
The complexity within their revenue scheme is only to distribute risk over towards the players.

Yup, and faced with risk the players balk. They want the owners to take all the risks and take none themselves.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Aren't you the one who has been preaching for months about how the owners are the investors and the risk is theirs?

Since when do employees take on the risk of the business succeeding?

Hypocrite!

3XDouble
11-07-2011, 10:34 AM
ChiSox,

You are arguing a handful of individuals who simply want to retain the current decided advantage their team/market has under the current system. They love the notion of a few competitive teams and the rest of the league fighting over scraps. Screw the rest of us fans. They are entitled, especially if they are from NY.

Where the BRI split is concerned, here is the NBA system applied to a mock business. Let’s make it a roofing business.

Owen (owner) goes out and buys a bunch of equipment and starts selling roofing jobs. Over time his business grows and he hires 3 roofers. (Paul, Pete, and Phil) He so values their services that he pays them not as employees but as partners. At the end of the year the business generated $400K in revenue. His expenses are $200K, leaving $200K to be split. Now in any business where the owner was willing to take the same amount as the employees would have to be considered really fair right. Well, in the case, the employees position is that they want the entire $200K and by the way Owen, not only do you get none of the available revenue, you need to find another $10K because 100% of the available revenue after expenses is not enough. We deserve even more.

All of you who side with the players need to put yourself in Owens shoes and explain to me how the players should not feel as if they are getting a fantastic deal.

ink
11-07-2011, 10:35 AM
We'll see. But remember: in an open, free market, players like Lebron, CP3, Wade and Dwight are worth 3x-4x what they are currently being paid.

Which open market is that? Fantasy leagues?

There are two markets as far as I know. One is the NBA and the other is the Euroleague. If they can make more money playing in Europe more power to them. This is what this league pays.

tbone2171
11-07-2011, 10:37 AM
I just stop by to shack my head... good night

?

daleja424
11-07-2011, 10:38 AM
Which open market is that? Fantasy leagues?

There are two markets as far as I know. One is the NBA and the other is the Euroleague. If they can make more money playing in Europe more power to them. This is what this league pays.

and they haven't complained about that... in fact... they have shown a willingness to take a 10% paycut as a group...

ink
11-07-2011, 10:41 AM
Aren't you the one who has been preaching for months about how the owners are the investors and the risk is theirs?

Since when do employees take on the risk of the business succeeding?

Hypocrite!

lol.

I love people misusing the word hypocrite.

There isn't even anything contradictory or hypocritical in pointing out that the owners are giving the players the opportunity to make more money, but to do that they have to take on some of the risk of the business either making or losing money. Share in the profits, share in the risk. It's a sensible model. It's actually quite innovative.

What it would actually do that's very positive would be to open the players (and some fans) eyes to the real financial challenges the league faces. If the league is as lucrative as some seem to insist it is then the deal will be a home run for the players because they'll get a bigger share in the profits.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 10:48 AM
Get off your high ****ing horse.

It is hypocracy when in one post you go on an on about how the owners take all the risk in a business to try to prove your point.... and then in another post you latch on to the exact opposite idea, about how the players should take on risk. Do the players get any of the benefits of owning the team? NO. Then why on earth would they assume the risk involved with owning a business?

You are anti-player. Period. And you could care less if you contradict yourself to try to make the players out as the bad guys. What was it ink? What was it that pissed you off so much?

ink
11-07-2011, 10:50 AM
and they haven't complained about that... in fact... they have shown a willingness to take a 10% paycut as a group...

I was responding to someone making a statement about how much the players are worth on an "open market".

What market? There are only two in reality. There is no "open market" so it is irrelevant how much they "should" be paid in fantasy earnings. That's the point, these are business discussions about a real league. If they want to play in another league they should go ahead.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 10:54 AM
Well the European system is an open market and there is no doubt the top stars would be paid significantly better over there is they wanted to leave.

Hell Marc Gasol is reportedly going to be offered a deal 133% larger than the NBA max...

Actual superstars would break the bank over there.

beasted86
11-07-2011, 10:55 AM
Get off your high ****ing horse.

It is hypocracy when in one post you go on an on about how the owners take all the risk in a business to try to prove your point.... and then in another post you latch on to the exact opposite idea, about how the players should take on risk. Do the players get any of the benefits of owning the team? NO. Then why on earth would they assume the risk involved with owning a business?

You are anti-player. Period. And you could care less if you contradict yourself to try to make the players out as the bad guys. What was it ink? What was it that pissed you off so much?

The HEAT teaming up. Point blank period.

I recall a slew of posts by him claiming the team was inherently broken and doomed to fail, and pages long worth of text saying the HEAT should have never signed LeBron and he would be surprised if they made it out of the 2nd round when the team started off 9-8.

He's also pissed that the Raptors have the market to support it, but cannot get a relevant free agent to sign there if their life depended on it, so he feels that system changes are necessary to force players to stay and also free agents to explore franchises like Toronto's because all other options have dried up.

ink
11-07-2011, 11:03 AM
Get off your high ****ing horse.

It is hypocracy when in one post you go on an on about how the owners take all the risk in a business to try to prove your point.... and then in another post you latch on to the exact opposite idea, about how the players should take on risk. Do the players get any of the benefits of owning the team? NO. Then why on earth would they assume the risk involved with owning a business?

You are anti-player. Period. And you could care less if you contradict yourself to try to make the players out as the bad guys. What was it ink? What was it that pissed you off so much?

Relax. The players just don't have a strong case and just about everyone acknowledges that. There is no contradiction in any way. I said that the reason the owners call the financial shots is because they own the businesses and take all the risk. It's completely consistent to say to the players, "fine if you want more profit, then take on some of that risk". How you see that as contradictory I have no idea.

ink
11-07-2011, 11:05 AM
The HEAT teaming up. Point blank period.

I recall a slew of posts by him claiming the team was inherently broken and doomed to fail, and pages long worth of text saying the HEAT should have never signed LeBron and he would be surprised if they made it out of the 2nd round when the team started off 9-8.

He's also pissed that the Raptors have the market to support it, but cannot get a relevant free agent to sign there if their life depended on it, so he feels that system changes are necessary to force players to stay and also free agents to explore franchises like Toronto's because all other options have dried up.

You guys are taking this way too personally. You're fans of a team that used the old system. It's well known that the point of these negotiations is to prevent some of the things that went down in FA 2010 from ever happening again. I can see why you're defending your team, but it's not aimed at you and you don't need to take on their issues. The point is that the league is fragile because of the damage done by the previous CBAs and now there is an opportunity to re-balance it.

Slug3
11-07-2011, 11:07 AM
The HEAT teaming up. Point blank period.

I recall a slew of posts by him claiming the team was inherently broken and doomed to fail, and pages long worth of text saying the HEAT should have never signed LeBron and he would be surprised if they made it out of the 2nd round when the team started off 9-8.

He's also pissed that the Raptors have the market to support it, but cannot get a relevant free agent to sign there if their life depended on it, so he feels that system changes are necessary to force players to stay and also free agents to explore franchises like Toronto's because all other options have dried up.

Well when all the teams have the same money to use, pretty much everyone is goign to be playing with their friends. And I dont think that will be on teams like the Raptors.

MrfadeawayJB
11-07-2011, 11:13 AM
ChiSox,

You are arguing a handful of individuals who simply want to retain the current decided advantage their team/market has under the current system. They love the notion of a few competitive teams and the rest of the league fighting over scraps. Screw the rest of us fans. They are entitled, especially if they are from NY.

Where the BRI split is concerned, here is the NBA system applied to a mock business. Lets make it a roofing business.

Owen (owner) goes out and buys a bunch of equipment and starts selling roofing jobs. Over time his business grows and he hires 3 roofers. (Paul, Pete, and Phil) He so values their services that he pays them not as employees but as partners. At the end of the year the business generated $400K in revenue. His expenses are $200K, leaving $200K to be split. Now in any business where the owner was willing to take the same amount as the employees would have to be considered really fair right. Well, in the case, the employees position is that they want the entire $200K and by the way Owen, not only do you get none of the available revenue, you need to find another $10K because 100% of the available revenue after expenses is not enough. We deserve even more.

All of you who side with the players need to put yourself in Owens shoes and explain to me how the players should not feel as if they are getting a fantastic deal.

this explains it pretty well

beasted86
11-07-2011, 11:13 AM
You guys are taking this way too personally. You're fans of a team that used the old system. It's well known that the point of these negotiations is to prevent some of the things that went down in FA 2010 from ever happening again. I can see why you're defending your team, but it's not aimed at you and you don't need to take on their issues. The point is that the league is fragile because of the damage done by the previous CBAs and now there is an opportunity to re-balance it.

Whatever you say.... but everything I said was accurate. You were indeed a hater of the HEAT team and were self assured they would fail... and you do indeed think the Raptors get the short end of the stick in FA.

So, I'm not just grabbing at straws here.

How much of those 2 things weigh into your logic that the league needs drastic change... I don't know, but like I said, I'm not just making things up as I go.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 11:26 AM
You guys are taking this way too personally. You're fans of a team that used the old system. It's well known that the point of these negotiations is to prevent some of the things that went down in FA 2010 from ever happening again. I can see why you're defending your team, but it's not aimed at you and you don't need to take on their issues. The point is that the league is fragile because of the damage done by the previous CBAs and now there is an opportunity to re-balance it.

And yet not a single thing in this new CBA would prevent the HEAT from being formed exactly as they were last year.

The HEAT made all if their FA additions and S/T additions UNDER THE SALARY CAP.

The HEAT did not rely on some kind of loophole (or on spending massive amounts of luxury tax dollars) to build that team. That team was built in a way that could be repeated this offseason with a new CBA.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Wow, ok. That's a lot of stuff for us to worry about. Take the Clippers for example.

Anyways, so your saying that this is all a backdoor way to prevent players from using their free agent rights?

Basically the owners are trying to take the league back from the star players. The owners want to incent these very star players to stay with their team by trying to artificially create loyalty. When you know your star player isn't going anywhere you can relax and make better long term decisions rather than swing for the fences in hopes of pleasing your star player.

beasted86
11-07-2011, 11:40 AM
And yet not a single thing in this new CBA would prevent the HEAT from being formed exactly as they were last year.

The HEAT made all if their FA additions and S/T additions UNDER THE SALARY CAP.

The HEAT did not rely on some kind of loophole (or on spending massive amounts of luxury tax dollars) to build that team. That team was built in a way that could be repeated this offseason with a new CBA.

But that's why he thinks there wasn't enough changes.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 11:53 AM
Where the BRI split is concerned, here is the NBA system applied to a mock business. Lets make it a roofing business.

Owen (owner) goes out and buys a bunch of equipment and starts selling roofing jobs. Over time his business grows and he hires 3 roofers. (Paul, Pete, and Phil) He so values their services that he pays them not as employees but as partners. At the end of the year the business generated $400K in revenue. His expenses are $200K, leaving $200K to be split. Now in any business where the owner was willing to take the same amount as the employees would have to be considered really fair right. Well, in the case, the employees position is that they want the entire $200K and by the way Owen, not only do you get none of the available revenue, you need to find another $10K because 100% of the available revenue after expenses is not enough. We deserve even more.

All of you who side with the players need to put yourself in Owens shoes and explain to me how the players should not feel as if they are getting a fantastic deal.

read this. it sums up the position that the players & owners are in.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 11:59 AM
Players have backed themselves into a corner their huge ego's cant back out of. If ever there was a group of people showing their lack of inteligence its the NBAPA. What a bunch of selfish men with no concept of reality. If they fail to undrstand that the Owners HAVE to make money or the NBA machine just doesn't work, then they are just plain stupid.
When Micheal Jordan became an owner, he did so to make money, not "flash" an NBA VIP card. He already had the biggest brightest star the NBA has ever seen. He was a player, he saw the other side, and now he understands that Ownership is entitled to a profit when star players are making almost 20 million per year.
Let the Union decertify. Then lets let the players decide what they really want. Give the players a date that they must decide to play or sit. Then fill the rest of the rosters with the guys who really want to play. And believe me, there are thousands and thousands of them.
Billy Hunter played his hand too soon, and with no bullets left in the gun, he is looking like a fool. I will promise you, most players just want to play and are happy to have a job that pays millions. Kobe Bryant is just the tip of the iceberg of players who will acecpt this deal.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 12:26 PM
I've skimmed through many of these posts, & I would really like fans to stop trying to compare the NBA or any sports league's economics or business to their own work experiences. There is no relation. Your boss does not pay you to compete against your co-worker to make them perform worse. That is in essence the NBA game.

Do I think there is enough talent in the NBA to field 30 competitive teams? Let me ask you this. If you were to blow it up by voiding all the deals & then rebuild it with a draft of all 450 players, do you think you would end up with 30 competitive teams?

ink
11-07-2011, 12:52 PM
Whatever you say.... but everything I said was accurate. You were indeed a hater of the HEAT team and were self assured they would fail... and you do indeed think the Raptors get the short end of the stick in FA.

So, I'm not just grabbing at straws here.

How much of those 2 things weigh into your logic that the league needs drastic change... I don't know, but like I said, I'm not just making things up as I go.

I'm not a "hater" of the Heat. If I dislike anything it's a star-driven league. I've said again and again that players should play and management should manage. Work to their respective strengths. Next. And I have never once said that the Raptors get the short end of the stick in FA. Many Raptors fans do but I'm not one of them.


And yet not a single thing in this new CBA would prevent the HEAT from being formed exactly as they were last year.

The HEAT made all if their FA additions and S/T additions UNDER THE SALARY CAP.

The HEAT did not rely on some kind of loophole (or on spending massive amounts of luxury tax dollars) to build that team. That team was built in a way that could be repeated this offseason with a new CBA.

Which is exactly why I would rather see this compromise deal fall through and see the NBA miss a season to achieve a system that serves the interests of talent acquisition and retention best for all franchises across the league. A hard cap would be a good start and I'm confident in that given the success I've seen achieved with similar systems in other leagues. Now you may say that nothing is like the NBA, and I would counter that that may be exactly what's WRONG with the NBA: it has become too star-centric. For the sake of the game we need the league to change this focus in all respects, especially in terms of marketing. Believe in the game itself, otherwise the alternative is having the stars dictate the way the game and the league operate.

ink
11-07-2011, 12:54 PM
But that's why he thinks there wasn't enough changes.

You're right. :)


Basically the owners are trying to take the league back from the star players. The owners want to incent these very star players to stay with their team by trying to artificially create loyalty. When you know your star player isn't going anywhere you can relax and make better long term decisions rather than swing for the fences in hopes of pleasing your star player.

Three excellent points starting with the bolded one. These plans/proposals are not perfect but this is a transition period. After a few draft classes the old feeling of entitlement in the players would hopefully subside and they would begin to support the league rather than try to dictate terms.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Again I strongly disagree. If there is no S&T, no MLE, & just a mini MLE available to the Heat at the time of The Decision, does Lebron & Bosh still make that move? Remember they had to move pieces just to get that deal done. Bosh has the most education of the 3, but I think Wade is the smartest when it comes to these things.

Does Wade even stay at MIA under those terms? Wade knew MIA would have to gut it's picks to get a 6th yr for those guys & he knew they weren't coming w/out it. So he was clearly banking on the MLE making the difference for them in yrs to come. Take that away, & he might have signed with the Bulls & gotten his 6th yr from Mia in a S&T instead.

ink
11-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Well the European system is an open market and there is no doubt the top stars would be paid significantly better over there is they wanted to leave.

Hell Marc Gasol is reportedly going to be offered a deal 133% larger than the NBA max...

Actual superstars would break the bank over there.

Then they should play in Europe if money is what they're looking for. Seems straightforward doesn't it?? :shrug:

beasted86
11-07-2011, 01:23 PM
ChiSox,

You are arguing a handful of individuals who simply want to retain the current decided advantage their team/market has under the current system. They love the notion of a few competitive teams and the rest of the league fighting over scraps. Screw the rest of us fans. They are entitled, especially if they are from NY.

Where the BRI split is concerned, here is the NBA system applied to a mock business. Lets make it a roofing business.

Owen (owner) goes out and buys a bunch of equipment and starts selling roofing jobs. Over time his business grows and he hires 3 roofers. (Paul, Pete, and Phil) He so values their services that he pays them not as employees but as partners. At the end of the year the business generated $400K in revenue. His expenses are $200K, leaving $200K to be split. Now in any business where the owner was willing to take the same amount as the employees would have to be considered really fair right. Well, in the case, the employees position is that they want the entire $200K and by the way Owen, not only do you get none of the available revenue, you need to find another $10K because 100% of the available revenue after expenses is not enough. We deserve even more.

All of you who side with the players need to put yourself in Owens shoes and explain to me how the players should not feel as if they are getting a fantastic deal.

Your analogy doesn't apply to the NBA for a number of reasons:

1) Owners of teams have a majority of their 'equipment' purchased by taxpayer dollars to the tune of 80%.
2) Owners didn't invent the NBA, establish viewership & fanship, and are only franchisees.
3) Without NBA players, there is no NBA.

Most important final points...

4)The NBA is not like any other business.


a. If you are trying to compare the NBA to Owen's roofing, then he would have competition as in any business field. The NBA monopolized American basketball for the most part back when they bought the original ABA and killed the CBA by way of D-League.

b. Coupled with the monopoly factor.... if Owen can no longer pay wages that his employees are willing to work for, in the real world of all other businesses he would either meet their demands or close his business. If "ABC roofing" can afford to pay their employees $200k, they would remain in business, but "Owen's roofing" would close. In the NBA while many teams in other markets made money or break even at 57% let alone 52% like the players wanted , then comparing it to the real world they should remain open for business, and the others should close.

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 01:33 PM
Anyone else notice the trend of people that are siding with the players generally sticking to the facts and people that side with the owners making emotional arguments based on resentment of players salaries and big market teams success.........?

smith&wesson
11-07-2011, 01:39 PM
"Players and owners met with federal mediator George Cohen for more than eight hours, and Stern said Cohen offered six "what if?" recommendations relating to the BRI split and the salary cap system.

Stern said owners accepted the first five and would put them in writing in a formal proposal to the players, hopefully Sunday. But it wasn't acceptable Saturday, with Stern saying players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler rejected it.

"I think it's fair to say that speaking on behalf of the union, Mr. Kessler rejected the mediators' recommendations and our proposal," Stern said. "But hope springs eternal and we would love to see the union accept the proposal that is now on the table."

I think this stands out more then anything. this should show how difficult the nbpa is being. to me it seems the owners are putting in more effort and the players are just shooting ideas down when they really have no leverage.

smith&wesson
11-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Anyone else notice the trend of people that are siding with the players generally sticking to the facts and people that side with the owners making emotional arguments based on resentment of players salaries and big market teams success.........?

i dont think any one should be taking sides. it seems pretty silly considering that you dont know the facts. i dont know the facts. all we have is smoke screens from either side and what the media is feeding us. we have no idea whats going on in those meetings behind closed doors.

but doesnt it seem to you that the players have rejected more deals then the owners have ? even with a mediator ?

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 01:55 PM
[QUOTE=beasted86;19704595]Your analogy doesn't apply to the NBA for a number of reasons:

1) Owners of teams have a majority of their 'equipment' purchased by taxpayer dollars to the tune of 80%.

In some cases this is true only because of the revenue the NBA brings to certain markets. Lets use MLB and the Rockies as an example. Lower Downtown Denver known as LoDo was a mess. Homeless people were squatting everywhere. There were no restaurants, very few businesses, and living down there was a death wish. Along come the Rockies. They work with the community, and in essence the entire LoDo area was redeveloped, dozens of awesome restaurants opened, businesses including all on the 16th street mall are profitable because of Coors field. The Rockies could never have afforded such an awesome palace, but the fans come, and come in droves because of what the Rockies and their owners helped create. They didn't open restaurants because Larry Walker or Dante Bichette were there, more restaurants didn't open because Mike Hampton signed a ridiculous deal. The area exploded because they wanted MLB. The problem with the players is that they think they are the NBA. They are just the entertainment no more than actors in Hollywood. They dont own the studio, they work for the studio. Once these selfish players get that, they will understand that playing basket ball is a privelege for them.

2) Owners didn't invent the NBA, establish viewership & fanship, and are only franchisees.

"Only franchisee's? Theyt are the NBA. They own a part of the NBA the players dont. Players come and players go, the NBA and it's "Franchisee's are what we root for. I am a Knicks fan. I have suffered alot rooting for this team. I hated seeing certain players get traded, but in the end I always rooted for whoever was donning a Knicks uniform. By stating "Only Franchisee's" it shows how much you don't understand business at all.

3) Without NBA players, there is no NBA.

Wrong again, players are everwhere that want to become NBA players. If every player in the league would suddenly retire today are you telling me there would be no more Knicks? Lakers? Jazz? Bulls? There would be, the front of the jerseys would still be the same only the names on the back would change.

Most important final points...

4)The NBA is not like any other business.

Wrong, business is business. The NBA is Entertainment and a Business. You make it sound like it doesn't matter if the NBA owners turn a profit. If you really feel that way your thinking process is neanderthal.

[INDENT]a. If you are trying to compare the NBA to Owen's roofing, then he would have competition as in any business field. The NBA monopolized American basketball for the most part back when they bought the original ABA and killed the CBA by way of D-League.

b. Coupled with the monopoly factor.... if Owen can no longer pay wages that his employees are willing to work for, in the real world of all other businesses he would either meet their demands or close his business. If "ABC roofing" can afford to pay their employees $200k, they would remain in business, but "Owen's roofing" would close.

There are so many factors wrong with your example, I will just touch on one. In your example, Owens roofing was at one point a viable business that turned a profit because it had employees in the first place. If ABC roofing is paying 200K to it's employees, how is it making money? Yet you think Owens roofing will close down? Why? Actually the business with the lower payroll would stay open, because it can afford to make payroll and pay the business over-head while keeping a couple bucks for itself.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 02:00 PM
Anyone else notice the trend of people that are siding with the players generally sticking to the facts and people that side with the owners making emotional arguments based on resentment of players salaries and big market teams success.........?

You see only what you want to see and don't listen to anything the owners have to say. Is there one thing the owners are fighting for that you agree with? Just one thing?

beliges
11-07-2011, 02:03 PM
This is the final straw before the entire season is cancelled in my opinion. This will be as fair a deal that will be given to the players. If they do not accept 51%, I dont think they will or should be offered anything as high as that again. Its so sad how selfish and ridiculous the players have been during this ordeal. It seems they have forgotten they do not own the teams but rather just play for the teams. Again, if the players want to make more money, then stop playing and buy a franchise. Its simple, players will not make more than the owners.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 02:08 PM
This is the final straw before the entire season is cancelled in my opinion. This will be as fair a deal that will be given to the players. If they do not accept 51%, I dont think they will or should be offered anything as high as that again. Its so sad how selfish and ridiculous the players have been during this ordeal. It seems they have forgotten they do not own the teams but rather just play for the teams. Again, if the players want to make more money, then stop playing and buy a franchise. Its simple, players will not make more than the owners.

I'm afraid you are dead on here. The NBA season will indeed be lost. And at some point the players will come crawling back after missing out on millions. Just wait until it really hits their wallets hard, sokme guys like Kobe are starting to see the end of the road in the next 5-6 years and don't want to miss out on a season. Sad

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 02:10 PM
You guys are wasting your time with TS & his like. They have on several occasions expressed their desire for 10 supers & 20 teams fit to scrimage them to define the NBA season.

You can't win that argument because it's ridiculous to begin with. The only way a league like that can survive is for the 10 supers to fit the cost for the 20. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing of the 4 majors & it's a huge gap between the NBA and the rest.

Even if the 10 were willing to fit that cost, who's going to care beyond the fan base of the 10 teams?

I imagine TS was nodding his head if he read that article commenting about the joy of the experience of watching the charity games so packed with superstars & if only the NBA could be like that. Of course the author gave his list of teams to contract.

The NBA is NOT a *(#@ public service like C-SPAN! It's a private for-profit organization. How do they grow revenues through contraction?

ink
11-07-2011, 02:12 PM
This is the final straw before the entire season is cancelled in my opinion. This will be as fair a deal that will be given to the players. If they do not accept 51%, I dont think they will or should be offered anything as high as that again. Its so sad how selfish and ridiculous the players have been during this ordeal. It seems they have forgotten they do not own the teams but rather just play for the teams. Again, if the players want to make more money, then stop playing and buy a franchise. Its simple, players will not make more than the owners.

Exactly.

The players aren't able to see that the money is not theirs. The 57% is not theirs. It is a figure in a now defunct deal. All they can see is that the money they once had is not going to be theirs anymore and they're blinded by that.

The focus on money is also in lieu of actual progress on system change. They are clinging to the status quo system and making the negotiations about money so the owners are going to try to repair some of their losses crudely through BRI percentages. Really that is just a patchwork, makeshift approach that will not improve things that much. No one wins as the deal is currently negotiated.

king4day
11-07-2011, 02:14 PM
"Players and owners met with federal mediator George Cohen for more than eight hours, and Stern said Cohen offered six "what if?" recommendations relating to the BRI split and the salary cap system.

Stern said owners accepted the first five and would put them in writing in a formal proposal to the players, hopefully Sunday. But it wasn't acceptable Saturday, with Stern saying players' attorney Jeffrey Kessler rejected it.

"I think it's fair to say that speaking on behalf of the union, Mr. Kessler rejected the mediators' recommendations and our proposal," Stern said. "But hope springs eternal and we would love to see the union accept the proposal that is now on the table."

I think this stands out more then anything. this should show how difficult the nbpa is being. to me it seems the owners are putting in more effort and the players are just shooting ideas down when they really have no leverage.

Good post.
I'm with you on this one.

I was originally on the players side as of a few weeks ago but if the owners are offering 51% then I no longer feel this way. The players are at full blame unless we're not being told something.

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 02:20 PM
You see only what you want to see and don't listen to anything the owners have to say. Is there one thing the owners are fighting for that you agree with? Just one thing?


I agree with many things they are fighting for. I agree contracts should be shorter as a better incentive for players. I agree there should be a increased financial penalty for those that exceed the luxury tax so if you're going to do that then you have to pay the piper. And I totally agree with amnesty and the stretch exemption where they can drop a "bad contract" and spread the salary over years and get cap relief.

But there are many things I disagree with. And I disagree with the idea of a "negotiation" where you're saying you want to save the season on one side, and on the other end say this is our deal take it or leave it or things will get worse.

But I can be objective. How many people siding with the owners are objective about any of the players points or are they just going on and on about "the nerve of these greedy players......super teams are ruining the nba!..........." and blah blah blah blah?

beliges
11-07-2011, 02:23 PM
I agree with many things they are fighting for. I agree contracts should be shorter as a better incentive for players. I agree there should be a increased financial penalty for those that exceed the luxury tax so if you're going to do that then you have to pay the piper. And I totally agree with amnesty and the stretch exemption where they can drop a "bad contract" and spread the salary over years and get cap relief.

But there are many things I disagree with. And I disagree with the idea of a "negotiation" where you're saying you want to save the season on one side, and on the other end say this is our deal take it or leave it or things will get worse.

But I can be objective. How many people siding with the owners are objective about any of the players points or are they just going on and on about "the nerve of these greedy players......super teams are ruining the nba!..........." and blah blah blah blah?

There should be no circumstance where the players make more than the owners. None at all. When the players refuse any deal where they do not make more than the owners, they are being greedy. They do not deserve a bigger percentage of the profits than the owners.

smith&wesson
11-07-2011, 02:26 PM
Good post.
I'm with you on this one.

I was originally on the players side as of a few weeks ago but if the owners are offering 51% then I no longer feel this way. The players are at full blame unless we're not being told something.

also the players need to keep in mind that stern has made it clear that this is the deal that is on the table now. its not an ultumatum because it will be followed by another deal proposal but it will be "worst" then the on being offered now, where the split will start at 47% for the playrs. that is a full 10% drop down from the previous deal. why would the players even want it to get to that point ?

the players have fought a good fight but they need to know that the light at the end of the tunnel is getting more dim and they need to take the best offer they can get at this point because its only going to get worst. again they have no leverage. whats stopping the owners from saying screw it its 47% now.. live with it or see us in court. or somthing outragous like that. i think the owners have been pretty fair but if it goes to court it the gloves will come off.

iggypop123
11-07-2011, 02:27 PM
the writers should really do their homework. if it was 51 % the deal would have been signed by now. the players offered to go downt o 51. this is conditional and impossible to get 51% and 1% of that goes to a retirement fund. its 50 50

ink
11-07-2011, 02:30 PM
also the players need to keep in mind that stern has made it clear that this is the deal that is on the table now. its not an ultumadum because it will be followed by another deal proposal but it will be "worst" then the on being offered now.

the players have fought a good fight but they need to know that the light of at the end of the tunnel is getting more dim and they need to take the best offer they can get at this point because its only going to get worst.

I think for some players it has become a macho thing where they will not be "intimidated". It's an extension of their on-court personas. Unfortunately stare-downs do nothing in negotiations and they don't need to frame the disagreement that way. This is business and they have to look at things objectively like you're doing. The offers will get worse from here on. Do they want worse, or do they want to detonate everything? The second option is really reckless. Unfortunately some of these players are going to think "all or nothing" and that may mean detonation -- i.e. decertification, etc.

Chi City23
11-07-2011, 02:35 PM
I blame the owners from the 1999-2005 seasons who basically gave everything the players wanted and created this most current CBA that is ****ing them over now. How in the world did they agree to the 57% back then is beyond me!

It's like me giving my kid 10 cookies a day (and he loves his cookies) even though I know it's too much sugar for him to eat and I shouldn't really give him that much but whatever.. then the next year I realize I can't afford giving him 10 cookies a day so I drop it down to 4 and I expect him to be happy?? (I hope I made a little bit of sense :D )

Basically the players should have never gotten the 57% in the first place and they know it and yet they don't want to give it all up. I agree with the owners but they are the ones who put themselves in this position in the 1st place.

SteBO
11-07-2011, 02:37 PM
also the players need to keep in mind that stern has made it clear that this is the deal that is on the table now. its not an ultumatum because it will be followed by another deal proposal but it will be "worst" then the on being offered now, where the split will start at 47% for the playrs. that is a full 10% drop down from the previous deal. why would the players even want it to get to that point ?

the players have fought a good fight but they need to know that the light at the end of the tunnel is getting more dim and they need to take the best offer they can get at this point because its only going to get worst. again they have no leverage. whats stopping the owners from saying screw it its 47% now.. live with it or see us in court. or somthing outragous like that. i think the owners have been pretty fair but if it goes to court it the gloves will come off.
I don't think 50/50 is as bad as they make it seem at times, but how have the owners been fair up to this point? I don't get it.....

smith&wesson
11-07-2011, 02:45 PM
I think for some players it has become a macho thing where they will not be "intimidated". It's an extension of their on-court personas. Unfortunately stare-downs do nothing in negotiations and they don't need to frame the disagreement that way. This is business and they have to look at things objectively like you're doing. The offers will get worse from here on. Do they want worse, or do they want to detonate everything? The second option is really reckless. Unfortunately some of these players are going to think "all or nothing" and that may mean detonation -- i.e. decertification, etc.

i trully think this is the best deal the players will be offered. im crossing my fingers and hoping the nbpa comes to the same conclusion and takes the deal on wensday. if this thing goes to court the owners are gonig to want to give the players a metaphorical beat down, an arse whoping if you will lol because they will want to be compensated for the loss of a season. they hold more leverage and will use it when push comes to shuv. so far i think they are still negotiating in good faith, but it can go down hill fast after wensday if the deal isnt taken by the players.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 02:45 PM
I blame the owners from the 1999-2005 seasons who basically gave everything the players wanted and created this most current CBA that is ****ing them over now. How in the world did they agree to the 57% back then is beyond me!

Basically the players should have never gotten the 57% in the first place and they know it and yet they don't want to give it all up. I agree with the owners but they are the ones who put themselves in this position in the 1st place.

There was euphoria in the NBA during the MJ era. That clouded the owner's judgment. They thought they would be operating franchises in Europe by now.

mdm692
11-07-2011, 02:49 PM
Broussard posted that if the players dont take the current 51% they may not get over 50% for a couple years meaning if players are really going to be d0u(he bags the season could be gone for 2 years

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 02:52 PM
I don't think 50/50 is as bad as they make it seem at times, but how have the owners been fair up to this point? I don't get it.....


From what they're saying its not so much the numbers but the owners ultimatum stance and the system stuff they are throwing in and trying to force down their throats as the main issues.

You have to give it to David Stern though, he is a master manipulator. Either that or people are just really naive. Just think about it: you have one side that is willing to give up 6% of the profits and over $240 dollars. In 10 years over $2 Billion dollars. You have another side that stands to gain $240 million dollars. Yet somehow they have spinned it to where people are seriously truly convinced that the side giving up the most money is being greedy.

Thats some David Blaine stuff right there!

mdm692
11-07-2011, 02:55 PM
^^^^Reason for that is i think we can all agree that in no business a worker/employee should make more profit than the owners/bosses

SteBO
11-07-2011, 02:57 PM
From what they're saying its not so much the numbers but the owners ultimatum stance and the system stuff they are throwing in and trying to force down their throats as the main issues.

You have to give it to David Stern though, he is a master manipulator. Either that or people are just really naive. Just think about it: you have one side that is willing to give up 6% of the profits and over $240 dollars. In 10 years over $2 Billion dollars. You have another side that stands to gain $240 million dollars. Yet somehow they have spinned it to where people are seriously truly convinced that the side giving up the most money is being greedy.

Thats some David Blaine stuff right there!
You're right, and I'm sure the players have been warned about this. Stern is very, very savvy to the point where I can't even stand looking at him. I really do think it is more people being naive than it is Stern being that good with the media. In the back of the minds of others, they're comparing the NBA business to any other regular business. I get that a business is a business, but to compare the NBA or professional sports in general to a regular business is absurd. The players have made more than enough concessions, but at the same time, the fan in me wants them to take this current deal. We'll see.....

SteBO
11-07-2011, 02:59 PM
^^^^Reason for that is i think we can all agree that in no business a worker/employee should make more profit than the owners/bosses
That's true, but this is pro sports man. And let's not act as if the owners didn't put themselves in this hell-hole to begin with. To punish the players like this is absurd and egotistical.

mdm692
11-07-2011, 03:07 PM
That's true, but this is pro sports man. And let's not act as if the owners didn't put themselves in this hell-hole to begin with. To punish the players like this is absurd and egotistical.

That is true, some owners like my suns robert sarver cant make a good nba decision to save their life. On the other hand i read an article on espn stating that even with this new deal at 51% the players would still have a way better deal than any other group of athletes in any of the major professional sports. Either way the owners have basically said " 51% deadline is wednesday, take it or we wont go over 50 for a LONG time"

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 03:09 PM
Think about what you're saying. If you agree that 57% for the players was fantasyland & has helped wreck the league then 50% isn't punishing them but rather reigning them back into reality. In otherwords, avg it out over 20 yrs, & they would be making 53.5% since the MJ era. Would you consider that punishment considering the growth in rev since MJ retired?

SteBO
11-07-2011, 03:11 PM
I get what many here have said about the owners "owning" the teams and that they should recieve the bigger slice of the BRI for that reason alone. I understand that, but if the big reason you get your dollars is linked to the players and the players alone, why can't they the get 51-52%? No owner has a right to profit, they have a right for the "opportunity" to make one.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 03:13 PM
Wrong. Every employer has the right to manage the payroll to insure a profit as best they can. No employer would grow payroll if they knew it meant greater losses. They have to have a sizeable profit incentive to take that risk.

SteBO
11-07-2011, 03:14 PM
Think about what you're saying. If you agree that 57% for the players was fantasyland & has helped wreck the league then 50% isn't punishing them but rather reigning them back into reality. In otherwords, avg it out over 20 yrs, & they would be making 53.5% since the MJ era. Would you consider that punishment considering the growth in rev since MJ retired?
Like I said, 50/50 isn't a crime. I don't agree with it, but it isn't as bad as the earlier proposals. I was generally speaking on what would happen if the players end up rejecting it again on Wednesday. I guess I wasn't too clear on that....

Heediot
11-07-2011, 03:16 PM
Wrong. Every employer has the right to manage the payroll to insure a profit as best they can. No employer would grow payroll if they knew it meant greater losses. They have to have a sizeable profit incentive to take that risk.

It might be as simple as this....

beliges
11-07-2011, 03:16 PM
Like I said, 50/50 isn't a crime. I don't agree with it, but it isn't as bad as the earlier proposals. I was generally speaking on what would happen if the players end up rejecting it again on Wednesday. I guess I wasn't too clear on that....

If players dont agree by Wed, it could mean no season for a few years. It has been clearly stated that if there is no agreement by Wed, the owners will not offer anything over 50% to the players again. So this is the best deal the players will get and frankly it is beyond fair for the players.

SteBO
11-07-2011, 03:17 PM
Wrong. Every employer has the right to manage the payroll to insure a profit as best they can. No employer would grow payroll if they knew it meant greater losses. They have to have a sizeable profit incentive to take that risk.
Thank you for reiterating my point. "Manage" is the key word here. Unfortunately, owners haven't "managed" theirs properly. There is no business model here where owners are guaranteed profits. If you want a profit, make good business decisions. Period.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 03:22 PM
You guys are wasting your time with TS & his like. They have on several occasions expressed their desire for 10 supers & 20 teams fit to scrimage them to define the NBA season.

You can't win that argument because it's ridiculous to begin with. The only way a league like that can survive is for the 10 supers to fit the cost for the 20. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing of the 4 majors & it's a huge gap between the NBA and the rest.

Even if the 10 were willing to fit that cost, who's going to care beyond the fan base of the 10 teams?

I imagine TS was nodding his head if he read that article commenting about the joy of the experience of watching the charity games so packed with superstars & if only the NBA could be like that. Of course the author gave his list of teams to contract.

The NBA is NOT a *(#@ public service like C-SPAN! It's a private for-profit organization. How do they grow revenues through contraction?

They post what they post because they want to see NBA action. They just have ZERO concept of what it actually takes to produce NBA basketball

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 03:23 PM
I think people fail to put the numbers and negotiations into perspective. The owners started by demanding a 10% paycut, no more guaranteed contracts, rollbacks on existing contracts, and a hard cap. And now they have "conceded" to a 7% cut, shorter contracts, they can keep existing contracts, and what will essentially still be a hard cap. Can you see the spin?

It would be like if a wife asked her husband for a Maybach and a 20 room mansion. She's serisouly asking for it like its a reasonable request. Then gradually she gets down to "just" a Rolls Royce Phantom and a 10 bedroom house. Then after a long hard stance over that she finally says she will settle for just a top of the line new car and a million dollar house. When the husband looks at her like she's insane she says "but look at all the sacrifices I made? Look at what I wanted in the beginning? I've made some major concessions here!" When in reality what she was asking for was so ridiculous it wasn't even considered.

Thats what happened here in a nutshell.

Rosh
11-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Take the deal. TAKE THE DEAL.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 03:32 PM
But I can be objective. How many people siding with the owners are objective about any of the players points or are they just going on and on about "the nerve of these greedy players......super teams are ruining the nba!..........." and blah blah blah blah?[/QUOTE]

I actually do understand the NBAPA and their point. There are some things that I agree with, but overall they are indeed just looking for more money out of this deal.
This whol thing is simple. If the owners are not making a profit on something as profitable as NBA basketball, the system has to change. Billy hunter understands that to some degree, After all he is not asking for 55%. But at 50/50 the owners are semi happy, The players are still getting paid.
What bothers Fisher and Hunter is that guys like Jared Jefferies will no longer be getting 9 million a year.
The superstars will still get their money, Its the fringe guys that will take the paycut. But that is capitalism right? If you want more money, get bigger stronger fasterbetter. Then someone will pay you. But Jerome James? Eddy Curry? wow those guys should be working for Owens Roofing or for that matter McDonalds.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Thank you for reiterating my point. "Manage" is the key word here. Unfortunately, owners haven't "managed" theirs properly. There is no business model here where owners are guaranteed profits. If you want a profit, make good business decisions. Period.

Check my post #99, I went into detail on mgmt issues.

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 03:38 PM
But I can be objective. How many people siding with the owners are objective about any of the players points or are they just going on and on about "the nerve of these greedy players......super teams are ruining the nba!..........." and blah blah blah blah?

I actually do understand the NBAPA and their point. There are some things that I agree with, but overall they are indeed just looking for more money out of this deal.
This whol thing is simple. If the owners are not making a profit on something as profitable as NBA basketball, the system has to change. Billy hunter understands that to some degree, After all he is not asking for 55%. But at 50/50 the owners are semi happy, The players are still getting paid.
What bothers Fisher and Hunter is that guys like Jared Jefferies will no longer be getting 9 million a year.
The superstars will still get their money, Its the fringe guys that will take the paycut. But that is capitalism right? If you want more money, get bigger stronger fasterbetter. Then someone will pay you. But Jerome James? Eddy Curry? wow those guys should be working for Owens Roofing or for that matter McDonalds.[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




At the end of the day its not about the split right now as much as the possibilities as the league grows in popularity ( or would've grown before this debacle ). To me the idea that the players proposed about a band that would go as low as 49% if the league wasn't doing so good and as high as 52% if the league is doing great was as reasonable as it gets. They're still taking a substantial cut but there's room for everyone to be happy if the league keeps growing.

Conversely what the owners want is a system with the possibility of a 51% limit that would be damn near impossible to achieve. So essentially 50% no matter what. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-07-2011, 03:39 PM
I blame the owners from the 1999-2005 seasons who basically gave everything the players wanted and created this most current CBA that is ****ing them over now. How in the world did they agree to the 57% back then is beyond me!

It's like me giving my kid 10 cookies a day (and he loves his cookies) even though I know it's too much sugar for him to eat and I shouldn't really give him that much but whatever.. then the next year I realize I can't afford giving him 10 cookies a day so I drop it down to 4 and I expect him to be happy?? (I hope I made a little bit of sense :D )

Basically the players should have never gotten the 57% in the first place and they know it and yet they don't want to give it all up. I agree with the owners but they are the ones who put themselves in this position in the 1st place.

Dead on. exactly what has happened here.
I have a Brother in law that used to work for Sprint. He was with the company for 16 years. The last 5 years of his job, he was making $290K a year. Sprint about three years ago, layed off alot of its top brass. My Brother in Law lost his job. It took him over 2 years to get another job. There were Jobs to be had, but he would not work for $150K a year. Insulted he used his savings, borrowed on his house, and finally took a Job for $125K. This is a true story. But the reality is that $125K is a pretty hefty income. Once he got $290K out of his head, reality finally broke through.

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 04:14 PM
You want objectivity? No less than 53.5% BRI over the 20yrs since the MJ era has ended. What is unfair about that?

Slug3
11-07-2011, 04:36 PM
What I want to know if after this is all said and done, are any of the players going to want to go play for the Cavs, Bobcats and any other small market team's that were driving a hard hand to begin with? I mean are some of these players now going to take it personal against some of these teams for how this is starting to end up?

Tony_Starks
11-07-2011, 04:49 PM
What I want to know if after this is all said and done, are any of the players going to want to go play for the Cavs, Bobcats and any other small market team's that were driving a hard hand to begin with? I mean are some of these players now going to take it personal against some of these teams for how this is starting to end up?


Thats actually a very good question that hasn't been brought up. You know the players talk amongst themselves, and some have already made negative comments about Sarver, Gilbert, and MJ. I could see some players taking it personal. Cleveland and Charlotte will probably be the biggest losers though. Cleveland because Gilbert already made a jerk out of himself with the Lebron debacle so his role in this probably just puts the nail in his coffin. Then MJ for obvious reasons.

ClippersE.G
11-07-2011, 05:00 PM
I do not think the players will accept. As you can tell my their twitter updates cited in related articles, or by looking at them yourself....you can tell they do not care. They have their millions right now, but as soon as they have to resort to getting 30 inch rims instead of 40 inch rims..and stuff of that nature they will budge. By then I think the damage will be too great to recoup and who knows how long it will take to get this thing to the year it had this past season....

I have a feeling when this does get fixed, the players will have to resort to making Promotional Ads apologizing to the fans for this debacle and why they should come out and watch them play again and this and that...but by that time I think it will be too late.

ClippersE.G
11-07-2011, 05:01 PM
What I want to know if after this is all said and done, are any of the players going to want to go play for the Cavs, Bobcats and any other small market team's that were driving a hard hand to begin with? I mean are some of these players now going to take it personal against some of these teams for how this is starting to end up?

At the end of the day I dont think any of them will care. They will go with whoever gives them a check...if its The Cavs Bobcats...or Lakers, Heat...

ChiSoxJuan
11-07-2011, 05:22 PM
Exactly. The Bobcats are never going to attract a marquee FA until they build enough of a roster to where they are considered a borderline contending team. That means the FA's that sign there will be making the decision almost entirely on $. If MJ gets his way it will be a more difficult decision for any player to leave there as long as the Bobcats can afford them.

Arch Stanton
11-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Thats actually a very good question that hasn't been brought up. You know the players talk amongst themselves, and some have already made negative comments about Sarver, Gilbert, and MJ. I could see some players taking it personal. Cleveland and Charlotte will probably be the biggest losers though. Cleveland because Gilbert already made a jerk out of himself with the Lebron debacle so his role in this probably just puts the nail in his coffin. Then MJ for obvious reasons.

Unless of course MONEY comes into play.

ink
11-07-2011, 05:37 PM
You're right, and I'm sure the players have been warned about this. Stern is very, very savvy to the point where I can't even stand looking at him. I really do think it is more people being naive than it is Stern being that good with the media. In the back of the minds of others, they're comparing the NBA business to any other regular business. I get that a business is a business, but to compare the NBA or professional sports in general to a regular business is absurd. The players have made more than enough concessions, but at the same time, the fan in me wants them to take this current deal. We'll see.....

What do you hate about him? He's doing a job, just as Hunter is. He's just an extremely tough negotiator. If he squandered the great hand he had in these negotiations he would have been fired. The players had no chance in this economy for any sympathy at all.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 06:12 PM
What I want to know if after this is all said and done, are any of the players going to want to go play for the Cavs, Bobcats and any other small market team's that were driving a hard hand to begin with? I mean are some of these players now going to take it personal against some of these teams for how this is starting to end up?

Eventually, yes. Its pretty obvious that the players only drive is money. All things being equal financially, the players should want to play for those teams that have $$ to spend. If they so happen to be any of the teams mentioned then that is the way it will be. & no they won't take it personal.

ink
11-07-2011, 06:20 PM
I think people fail to put the numbers and negotiations into perspective. The owners started by demanding a 10% paycut, no more guaranteed contracts, rollbacks on existing contracts, and a hard cap. And now they have "conceded" to a 7% cut, shorter contracts, they can keep existing contracts, and what will essentially still be a hard cap. Can you see the spin?

Actually, that IS the spin that most people are using.

The situation is: the CBA expired, which means there is no CBA, no actual terms at all. The players aren't giving up anything since the terms they keep referencing are those of the old, defunct deal. Their spin is to say that they're giving up so much when in fact, it's the owners money they are claiming as theirs. The 57% is from the old deal, now expired.

daleja424
11-07-2011, 09:00 PM
ink, in response to an earlier post:

even if the NBA got the hard cap they were looking for that still would not prevent a team from doing what Miami did last year (Get way under the cap and sign essentially a whole new team)

and chicagojuan,
The HEAT were not aided by the mle or bird rights last summer... and the S/T were after thoughts (They were agreed to after lebron and bosh had already committed to Miami).

Miami fit Wade, Bosh, Lebron, Haslem, and Mike Miller all under the cap before signing a bunch of vet min deals.

ink
11-07-2011, 09:16 PM
ink, in response to an earlier post:

even if the NBA got the hard cap they were looking for that still would not prevent a team from doing what Miami did last year (Get way under the cap and sign essentially a whole new team).

That may or may not be true. Again, it's not specifically the Heat that are the problem. It's the idea that players can bail on their teams to play with their BFFs. That goes for other players than LBJ and Bosh.

Slug3
11-07-2011, 10:23 PM
That may or may not be true. Again, it's not specifically the Heat that are the problem. It's the idea that players can bail on their teams to play with their BFFs. That goes for other players than LBJ and Bosh.

and nothing is going to keep players from bailing to go play with their friends.

gwrighter
11-07-2011, 10:27 PM
and nothing is going to keep players from bailing to go play with their friends.

then if they want to play with their friends, at least the owners would want to make a profit. Hence lower BRI.

ink
11-07-2011, 10:30 PM
and nothing is going to keep players from bailing to go play with their friends.

I wouldn't be too quick to come to that conclusion. For generations players' sense of competition prevented collusion like that (despite the claims people have attempted to the contrary about earlier athletes who wanted out of their cities). When all is said and done, maybe this is just a bunch of guys from the Olympic team who got the misguided notion that the lesson of the Games was that you need to collude to win.

ClippersE.G
11-07-2011, 11:16 PM
They will not take this. Who woulda thunk after one of the most exciting seasons ever with the emergence/exciting Blake Griffin, The Heat Drama, Dirk Finally winning etc etc....they are going to throw it all away. We will talk from Wednesday forward ..."Remember the NBA? You remember when (insert play/moment."

And woah...who knows what will try to take its place...maybe a league the players form that ultimately fails and by the time they try to form an NBA again or something of the sorts everything will be gone. People will have moved on to other sports, or playing basketball instead of watching it.

beliges
11-07-2011, 11:58 PM
They will not take this. Who woulda thunk after one of the most exciting seasons ever with the emergence/exciting Blake Griffin, The Heat Drama, Dirk Finally winning etc etc....they are going to throw it all away. We will talk from Wednesday forward ..."Remember the NBA? You remember when (insert play/moment."

And woah...who knows what will try to take its place...maybe a league the players form that ultimately fails and by the time they try to form an NBA again or something of the sorts everything will be gone. People will have moved on to other sports, or playing basketball instead of watching it.

Believe me, the NBA will be there. There is no other arena around the world like the NBA, there is no other place these players can go and make near the amount of money they can make in the NBA. A deal is going to happen soon because every player is going to be out millions unless they stat playing.

Rocco Gandolfo
11-08-2011, 05:27 PM
What I want to know if after this is all said and done, are any of the players going to want to go play for the Cavs, Bobcats and any other small market team's that were driving a hard hand to begin with? I mean are some of these players now going to take it personal against some of these teams for how this is starting to end up?

Won't make a bit of difference, when all the big city teams have spent their full cap money, players will gravitate to teams that have money to spend. Its that simple, and its that NFL parity that the NBA owners are looking for.
Are you suggesting that Dwight Howard will sit out the season because Cleveland or Charlotte will be the only two teams that can pay him his Max? It would be "GO BOBCATS" in the Howard home.

Kevj77
11-08-2011, 06:54 PM
Players have rejected this deal. They have asked for another meeting before the deadline on Wednesday.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7209093/nba-lockout-players-reject-david-stern-ultimatum-offer-want-further-talks

algreek3
11-08-2011, 06:58 PM
Players have rejected this deal. They have asked for another meeting before the deadline on Wednesday.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7209093/nba-lockout-players-reject-david-stern-ultimatum-offer-want-further-talks

But they publically stated they would go to a 50/50 split.

ink
11-08-2011, 07:20 PM
Players have rejected this deal. They have asked for another meeting before the deadline on Wednesday.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7209093/nba-lockout-players-reject-david-stern-ultimatum-offer-want-further-talks

I guess they prefer 47%, a hard cap, and rolled back salaries. I know I do.

SteBO
11-08-2011, 09:23 PM
I guess they prefer 47%, a hard cap, and rolled back salaries. I know I do.
Pretty sure it's already been decided that there won't be a hard cap. Unless I'm missing something......

ink
11-08-2011, 10:09 PM
Pretty sure it's already been decided that there won't be a hard cap. Unless I'm missing something......

They have said that if the deal is turned down, this is what the next offer is going to be.