PDA

View Full Version : Who has NBA fans more in mind - players or owners?



mrblisterdundee
11-06-2011, 03:10 PM
We have seen the owners' and NBA's ultimatum: a 50-50 split of revenues, "mini-midlevel" exceptions of $2.5 million, a limit of two years on those mid-level exceptions, banning sign-and-trade deals for teams paying the luxury tax and an additional "repeater" tax for teams exceeding the luxury tax threshold for more than three years in a five-year span. I reference this article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sports/basketball/nba-lockout-talks-with-mediator.html), the United State's newspaper of record.
The players want 51 percent (with one percent aiding retired players), a mid-level exception of $5 million without the two-year restriction, lesser taxes on teams entering the luxury tax threshold and no ban on sign-and-trades. They're threatening to dissolve their union and turn the lockout into anti-trust litigation that could take years — NBA seasons — to resolve, since you can endlessly appeal in American courts.
So who has the fans' interests more in mind?
For my part, it's the owners and the NBA. The 50-50 split is fair, considering the owners' investments, along with our tax dollars for arenas, is what makes the NBA — and the players' paychecks — happen.
Their deal amounts to trust-busting — penalizing teams that stack up on talent year after year — and keeping the entire league competitive, even if the players don't like it. The players want to make this into ant-trust litigation, but the deals they're fighting for would protect trusts, which in the NBA are teams that spend bunches of money to be more competitive.
Why shouldn't luxury tax teams be further penalized? The NBA is supposed to be about the fans, who should be able to believe that any team can compete, whether it be small- or large-market.

itsripcity32
11-06-2011, 03:16 PM
do we really need more threads about the lockout. none of them care!!!!! otherwise, we'd already have a deal!!!!!

Tony_Starks
11-06-2011, 03:25 PM
In all fairness I would say neither. Basically the owners want a guaranteed profit regardless of management, and the players want to keep things the way they are. If you take the emotion out of it a legit argument can be made for both sides.

On one end you can say "hey these guys are business men, why shouldn't they be guaranteed a profit for their investment?"

Then on the other end you can argue "how can you possibly see it as reasonable to be assured you will make money even if you're mismanaging your team? AND at the players expense no less?"

Regardless of which side sounds more reasonable to you what can't be argued is that neither has been willing to cave for the sake of the fans.....

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 04:09 PM
I give a slight edge to the owners. I keep coming back to the Lakers spending less than 50% of their revenue on players & the Hornets spending more than 70%. The Hornets are operated by the NBA so this clearly shows the economic disparity of the league. The rules have to bring those #'s closer together.

But at the same time, fans like the comfort of knowing their favorite players on their favorite teams are there to stay. At least until they stop producing. So the rules have to increase those odds. Those teams need leverage to keep those players over teams wanting to get them. The NHL has a hard cap, but still allows teams to ink their players to very lengthy deals. I think the NBA needs that as well.

Gilbert can complain all he wants, but if the NBA had an NHL like system he would've offered LBron a deal twice as long when LBron was gung ho on bringing a championship to Cle. The Mia coup never happens then. So I'm not in favor of the max deal. I think that's the wrong way to run a league. It's not a part of the NHL, NFL, or MLB.
I'm also not in favor of S&T but if you get read of the max deal, S&T goes as well.

I think MLB has the best system despite the worst economic disparity. All of the rules basically penalize the strong when they spend. Whether it comes from the tax system, the compensation picks, or the supplemental draft. In exchange the strong are free to spend whatever they want. They keep a close eye on competitive balance & tweak the system to improve it as much as they can in each CBA period.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/mlb/mlb-analysis-looking-towards-next-cba
After reading this you should come away with how negotiations should be conducted.
Problem: the rising cost of signing high picks has led to weak teams trading down.
Solution: Create a luxury tax system for the draft. The Bigs will basically help fit the bill for these teams to sign their picks. The MLBPA will likely push this alternative to hard cap on draftees.

Big Zo
11-06-2011, 04:47 PM
Neither. Both of them are of the thought that the NBA will always have fans no matter what. They're probably right, too.

Raph12
11-06-2011, 06:08 PM
Neither really care, but owners over players...

gwrighter
11-06-2011, 06:15 PM
why don't we ever get a 'neither' option on a poll?

N technically the owners do because if they lose fans then they are screwed but the players still have those nice guaranteed contracts.

VillaMaravilla
11-06-2011, 06:39 PM
its easy to be a fan of a big market team but what about the fans of the small ones you need to think of those guys a more competitive league is good for everyone and it seems the owners are the only ones trying to get that while the players just want to be able to jump ship and join forces

Reversed86Curse
11-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Neither do, which really sucks

daleja424
11-06-2011, 06:44 PM
Neither do... but who cares...

This is business...

ink
11-06-2011, 09:04 PM
Neither care about the fans.

Take a look at the ticket prices. If they cared about the fans they'd be driving down costs to give their fans a decent price break. By driving down costs, I'm specifically pointing at player salaries on the players' side and profit margin on the owners' side. Both could take a hit for the fans.

I know the league's finances are weak and franchises are bleeding red ink, but if both sides set an objective to lower ticket prices, even by 5-10% as a gesture toward loyal fans, I'd start to believe that they actually give a damn about the people that follow the sport.

They don't, which is why above all, you need to stay free of the negotiating rhetoric from BOTH sides. It is their problem and they have no concern whatsoever for their fanbase.

ChiSoxJuan
11-06-2011, 09:17 PM
Actually I don't mind the ticket price that much. I hate the way the parking fees have risen. I feel like I'm getting raped every time I see it rise.

beasted86
11-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Where is "neither" on this poll?

ink
11-06-2011, 09:22 PM
Actually I don't mind the ticket price that much. I hate the way the parking fees have risen. I feel like I'm getting raped every time I see it rise.

Most ticket prices are set at a price point the league's demographic can't afford.

ink
11-06-2011, 09:31 PM
I give a slight edge to the owners. I keep coming back to the Lakers spending less than 50% of their revenue on players & the Hornets spending more than 70%. The Hornets are operated by the NBA so this clearly shows the economic disparity of the league. The rules have to bring those #'s closer together.

But at the same time, fans like the comfort of knowing their favorite players on their favorite teams are there to stay. At least until they stop producing. So the rules have to increase those odds. Those teams need leverage to keep those players over teams wanting to get them. The NHL has a hard cap, but still allows teams to ink their players to very lengthy deals. I think the NBA needs that as well.

Gilbert can complain all he wants, but if the NBA had an NHL like system he would've offered LBron a deal twice as long when LBron was gung ho on bringing a championship to Cle. The Mia coup never happens then. So I'm not in favor of the max deal. I think that's the wrong way to run a league. It's not a part of the NHL, NFL, or MLB.
I'm also not in favor of S&T but if you get read of the max deal, S&T goes as well.

I think MLB has the best system despite the worst economic disparity. All of the rules basically penalize the strong when they spend. Whether it comes from the tax system, the compensation picks, or the supplemental draft. In exchange the strong are free to spend whatever they want. They keep a close eye on competitive balance & tweak the system to improve it as much as they can in each CBA period.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/mlb/mlb-analysis-looking-towards-next-cba
After reading this you should come away with how negotiations should be conducted.
Problem: the rising cost of signing high picks has led to weak teams trading down.
Solution: Create a luxury tax system for the draft. The Bigs will basically help fit the bill for these teams to sign their picks. The MLBPA will likely push this alternative to hard cap on draftees.

Good insights. Thanks for the link.

Ill21
11-06-2011, 09:34 PM
Neither. They want whats best for them and that is all.

Longhornfan1234
11-06-2011, 09:38 PM
I say the players start their own league and the owners get new players. Let's see what happens.

Chronz
11-06-2011, 09:40 PM
FAN$ arent what they care about, they already got the fans. The problem is nobody is making what they are suppose to because of some idiotic cap system that serves no purpose in actually helping smaller markets, even worse there is no way to correct bad moves when you make them, players can get paid 5 years pay for 1 good year. Teams forced to live with their mistakes and some people think star players are expected to stay put despite this.

Its unrealistic to think you can control player movement or that you can prevent rich teams from using their assets. I really dont know what else can be done, I honestly thought the system worked well before if only they could make it easier for teams to correct their mistakes.

The problem has never been stars leaving, Bron gave Cleveland 7 solid years and TRANSFORMED a doormat into a power. When they finally had that window of opportunity to use the "Cap Space" they couldnt sign Bron the help he needed because all the stars they contacted (Ray Allen, Michael Redd) STAYED WITH THEIR TEAMS. Bron only left because Cleveland could not use any of their resources (which his presence permitted them) due to the very system meant to help smaller markets.

Again you cant FORCE players to play where they dont want to. That will never change, if thats a tipping point then the only solution is to contract and make it so there are less smaller markets in the league, its obvious they lack the appeal to field a team.

Chronz
11-06-2011, 09:40 PM
Actually I don't mind the ticket price that much. I hate the way the parking fees have risen. I feel like I'm getting raped every time I see it rise.

If only the world were as lucky as you are.

Jeff559
11-06-2011, 09:54 PM
If you want either side to care about fans, then fans should start their own union. If 20% of season ticket holders cancelled there season tickets tomorrow in response to the lockout i guarantee that both sides will suddenly care very deeply.

Anilyzer
11-07-2011, 12:33 AM
We have seen the owners' and NBA's ultimatum: a 50-50 split of revenues, "mini-midlevel" exceptions of $2.5 million, a limit of two years on those mid-level exceptions, banning sign-and-trade deals for teams paying the luxury tax and an additional "repeater" tax for teams exceeding the luxury tax threshold for more than three years in a five-year span. I reference this article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sports/basketball/nba-lockout-talks-with-mediator.html), the United State's newspaper of record.
The players want 51 percent (with one percent aiding retired players), a mid-level exception of $5 million without the two-year restriction, lesser taxes on teams entering the luxury tax threshold and no ban on sign-and-trades. They're threatening to dissolve their union and turn the lockout into anti-trust litigation that could take years — NBA seasons — to resolve, since you can endlessly appeal in American courts.
So who has the fans' interests more in mind?
For my part, it's the owners and the NBA. The 50-50 split is fair, considering the owners' investments, along with our tax dollars for arenas, is what makes the NBA — and the players' paychecks — happen.
Their deal amounts to trust-busting — penalizing teams that stack up on talent year after year — and keeping the entire league competitive, even if the players don't like it. The players want to make this into ant-trust litigation, but the deals they're fighting for would protect trusts, which in the NBA are teams that spend bunches of money to be more competitive.
Why shouldn't luxury tax teams be further penalized? The NBA is supposed to be about the fans, who should be able to believe that any team can compete, whether it be small- or large-market.

Well, if that's the "ultimatum", then it does in fact appear that the owners are trying to do away with free agency, as some have suggested.

It's clear that this is less about the 1 pct point of BRI (although actually owners aren't offering 50/50, they're offering a 47-50% range of some kind)
but rather it is hung up on the sign and trade regulations.

This is clearly a type of Lebron Rules for the league they are trying to pass--the obvious hope being that the next time a young phenom comes into the NBA who totally overshadows the entire league, that he'll be "locked" onto whatever team drafted him and won't be able to destroy the whole franchise, the way Lebron destroyed Cleveland.

The owners won't be happy with these rules... it makes it too much about luck. If we have these rules, then every team should be allowed into the lottery. Plain and simple.

If the owners really want to protect themselves from Lebrons, they should ban the top 10 players in the league. It's the Kobes, the Dwights, the Wades, the Dirks and the Lebrons that unbalance the whole league.

and the refs.