PDA

View Full Version : The Owners Lost in this Sense



Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 03:03 AM
that since the almost-deal a month or so ago, when MJ and the "hardline" owners supposedly stepped in, the owners gained basically nothing. You could say they maybe gained 1 point of BRI but they actually went backward on some system issues. They insisted on losing 16 games of the season and realy didn't gain much.

Credit David Stern with pushing the panic button and managing to do a deal before the whole ponzi scheme collapsed and took a few banks wth it.

Also, it looks to me like the smal market teams dint improve their positio much: for one thing, the minimum salary number is higher now, so even though the BRI split is more favorable resulting in a lower cap number, every team has to spend a larger percentage of hat number, meaning team salaries will actually increase. The revenue sharing is rather weak, and if league revnues go way up, small market teams will have much larger payrolls. Add in some bad contracts, and that spels trouble.

Additionally, the small teams ****ed themselves out of future Lebron-type sweepstakes, because a Cleveland now canot spend $100M to "surround" Lebron with pieces, without paying huge luxury tax--something that is an even more exclusve, pricier club now.

The luxury tax for eams over the BRI split (aka cap) is the only teeth of this deal... and if Lebrons chose to go to big market cities to cash in on marketing for less salary (see:Miami, 2010), the big teams won't get hit by that tax. Meanwhile, the small market teams are handcuffed by it.

Owners should've took the pre-Jordan, pre-hardlind deal...

THE MTL
11-27-2011, 03:21 AM
The only thing the owners lost in was the amnesty clause. While it may be true that they get to shed horrible contracts like Arenas and Lewis. Now, teams such as the Lakers, Mavs, Heat, etc will be able to sign these guys on the cheap which furthers builds their teams. These amnesty free agents are going to: Miami, Boston, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles.

Owners still won though! When you get the other side to decrease by 7 percentage points which saves you over THREE BILLION dollars over the length of the new CBA deal....its a win!

itsripcity32
11-27-2011, 03:24 AM
Go read the espn winner and loser article

bears88
11-27-2011, 03:29 AM
I really dont care who lost or who won, I'm just happy that basketball is back.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 03:29 AM
The only thing the owners lost in was the amnesty clause. While it may be true that they get to shed horrible contracts like Arenas and Lewis. Now, teams such as the Lakers, Mavs, Heat, etc will be able to sign these guys on the cheap which furthers builds their teams. These amnesty free agents are going to: Miami, Boston, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles.

Owners still won though! When you get the other side to decrease by 7 percentage points which saves you over THREE BILLION dollars over the length of the new CBA deal....its a win!

Yes, overrall its an owners win. But everything they won, they won a month ago. They didn't win anything by hardlining and dragging it out for another month. Round two they ikdnt win anything, lost ticket revenue, and went backward on system issues. So since the almost-deal, they've won nothing.

Also, there is no hard cap, which means that theoretically player salaries are unlimited. And the plyer salary cap is still tied to BRI, which was the central player issue. League makes more, salry cap goes up. And higher miinimum pct is a huge giveback.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 03:38 AM
Actually, my hats off to David Stern. He showed in the end true sportsmanship, and extended the spirit of partnership and fairness in the NBA.

The NBA is clearly the most democratic sports league, and the one that most empowers its players, which is good and fitting given the cultural significance and origins of the sport as it now exists.

Bravo David Stern. I think the league will prosper in the new economy and new media

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 03:43 AM
Go read the espn winner and loser article

Big media always has to say that the establishment, the authority, the "boss", won.

But a 50/50 split on gross revenue, in the face of determined billionaire monopoly owners, almost amounts to something like enlightened free market socialism.

Again, hats off to David Stern. He is a good guy.

Bramaca
11-27-2011, 03:45 AM
Also, it looks to me like the smal market teams dint improve their positio much: for one thing, the minimum salary number is higher now, so even though the BRI split is more favorable resulting in a lower cap number, every team has to spend a larger percentage of hat number, meaning team salaries will actually increase.

I don't think this is going to be an issue at all. Out of the last 4 years at the higher BRI split do you know how many teams spent below 90% of the cap in a season? One time, the Kings last season. Thats 30 teams per year for 4 years or a total of 120 chances that a team could have spent under that and only once did it happen. Team salaries will not increase in any way because of this.


The revenue sharing is rather weak, and if league revnues go way up, small market teams will have much larger payrolls. Add in some bad contracts, and that spels trouble.

Revenue sharing may be weak. Non-tax teams will split 50% of a much stricter luxury tax and there is also another form of revenue sharing that the details have not been released on. I'm sure it is more than the previous arangement where non-tax teams got around 3-4 million a piece though.


Additionally, the small teams ****ed themselves out of future Lebron-type sweepstakes, because a Cleveland now canot spend $100M to "surround" Lebron with pieces, without paying huge luxury tax--something that is an even more exclusve, pricier club now.

It's possible but the luxury tax is going to be very expensive even for the Knicks and Lakers and will be damn near impossible to maintain above it significantly for more then a year or two.


The luxury tax for eams over the BRI split (aka cap) is the only teeth of this deal... and if Lebrons chose to go to big market cities to cash in on marketing for less salary (see:Miami, 2010), the big teams won't get hit by that tax. Meanwhile, the small market teams are handcuffed by it.

Owners should've took the pre-Jordan, pre-hardlind deal...

To do that they will have to take less years and lower raises, even with a sign and trade or an extend and trade. And once again, even the big market teams are going to think long and hard before going too far over the cap and for too long.

THE MTL
11-27-2011, 03:46 AM
Yes, overrall its an owners win. But everything they won, they won a month ago. They didn't win anything by hardlining and dragging it out for another month. Round two they ikdnt win anything, lost ticket revenue, and went backward on system issues. So since the almost-deal, they've won nothing.

Also, there is no hard cap, which means that theoretically player salaries are unlimited. And the plyer salary cap is still tied to BRI, which was the central player issue. League makes more, salry cap goes up. And higher miinimum pct is a huge giveback.

When it came down to the 'almost' deal.....the owners were fully on board, it was the players who voted it down.

Btw, I think the luxury tax line is a 'phantom' hard cap. The penalties are HARSH for crossing that line. Starting at $1.50 for each dollar you go over the tax line. Including a fine for being above the tax multiple years. Including restrictions on ability to acquire players. Seriously if the NBA does bad under this new deal then look for that luxury tax to start resembling a hard cap even more.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 04:26 AM
When it came down to the 'almost' deal.....the owners were fully on board, it was the players who voted it down.

Btw, I think the luxury tax line is a 'phantom' hard cap. The penalties are HARSH for crossing that line. Starting at $1.50 for each dollar you go over the tax line. Including a fine for being above the tax multiple years. Including restrictions on ability to acquire players. Seriously if the NBA does bad under this new deal then look for that luxury tax to start resembling a hard cap even more.

I aree the LT is harsher than I initially thought.

U can forfesee a situation though, where a team with a Kobe or a Lebron "loads up" at $20M over the cap for a three year run, then unloads under the cap after their 3peat.

Most deals are now 4 years max, and 3 years for LT teams, if I'm not mistaken, so it can be done.

Not saying it's not harsh, but NYK or LAL have the option, while other teams don't. Capped out smal market teams with bad players will be stuck.

For instance, NYKs can have $60M + $20M over payroll and pay $40M LT for $120M total payroll, and make a good profit. But minnesota can't do that, they can't afford to go over even $5M.

Since the escrow as I understand it pays back the excess salary to the owners, only bigmarket teams will be able to play in that territory of extra value--when it suits them.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 04:31 AM
In other words, big market teams get compensated for revenue sharing by getting to sign players for over and above salary that comes back to the league. Again, wen it suits them.

And if small market teams try to fight back salary wise, they give back the revenue sharing. Also big teams have the option to not evenue share at all, like the Clippers. U only revenue share in exchange for extra pieces.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 04:36 AM
Also just one more thing. By setting the LT so high, the small market teams limit revenue sharing in favor of "competitve fairness"; and yet again, LT is now so expensive that only elite big market teams can do it, without huge losses. So it's lose/lose

beliges
11-27-2011, 04:50 AM
The players gave in and we can finally have some NBA now. The owners held out longer than the players could and they got what they wanted. This was bound to happen but unfortunately it took longer than it should have. Either way the players had no case here. Time to move on and get to work.

TopsyTurvy
11-27-2011, 05:00 AM
The players deserved to lose on a deal. They were the highest compensated professional athletes in the world -- and Stern and his group of owners let them get there.

Anilyzer
11-27-2011, 06:13 AM
The players gave in and we can finally have some NBA now. The owners held out longer than the players could and they got what they wanted. This was bound to happen but unfortunately it took longer than it should have. Either way the players had no case here. Time to move on and get to work.

The players ARE the NBA. Stern knows that, and respects the entertainment value. That's why he brought them back to the table--fast. And the low-budget hardline owners that hoped to put the players on a fixed income and be on an equal par withb elite cities can go suck it, at least according to the new CBA. Don't like it watch hockey or NASCR

Law25
11-27-2011, 06:46 AM
The players deserved to lose on a deal. They were the highest compensated professional athletes in the world -- and Stern and his group of owners let them get there.

So becuase they make more than other athletes in other sports they deserve to lose on the deal? That shouldnt matter. That just sounds like foolish jealousy. Threw this lockout i realized that the players and owners need each other equaly and need to do whats best for the game. One tryin to stick it to the other costed us games this year and could have possibly weaken its fan base.

Tom Stone
11-27-2011, 07:38 AM
Also just one more thing. By setting the LT so high, the small market teams limit revenue sharing in favor of "competitive fairness"; and yet again, LT is now so expensive that only elite big market teams can do it, without huge losses. So it's lose/lose




Yes the big Market teams, can go over if they feel it's there season....but is much tougher for them with the new LT ......remember it starts at 1:50... if a team like the knicks go 20 mill over, the tax will be like 45 mill back into into the league.....and that's without repeater tax......also if teams wish to avoid repeater tax, the big markets will have to come under the salary cap, every few years, it's going to be nice seeing the Lakers spending 60 mill from time to time........it's not a perfect system, but it is way better.

justinnum1
11-27-2011, 09:14 AM
Heat win!

Heediot
11-27-2011, 10:06 AM
Nobody can say for certain who won or loss the CBA. Who really knows what the owners really wanted. They may have said they wanted blah blah and such and such but what if their real goal WAS attained? Sometimes you gotta state one position in order to attain your true desire. The same can be said for the players, we do not really know. Only the leaders of the union and the Owners really know. Even forming a splinter group like Jordan and Allen did could have been a strategic and scare tactic. One of the vital elements of strategy is deception. We may all be deceived and would not even know it.

cooters22
12-05-2011, 04:34 PM
How does shedding amnesty contracts work? You still pay the player 100% correct?

Hawkeye15
12-05-2011, 04:59 PM
The owners lost in the sense that they have preached Parity, and being able to keep your star players, and 3 minutes after its agreed upon, we get to read how Dwight and Paul are forcing trades.

SteBO
12-05-2011, 05:01 PM
The owners lost in the sense that they have preached Parity, and being able to keep your star players, and 3 minutes after its agreed upon, we get to read how Dwight and Paul are forcing trades.
Hilarity at it's finest! But that's more of a fan/media driven thing though...

mdm692
12-05-2011, 05:07 PM
.:facepalm:. Leave it alone already the season is back who gives a flying f##### what the owners and players lost ALL EVERYBODY ON PSD WANTS TO SEE IS SOME BASKETBALL AND FORGET THE LOCKOUT OCCURED.

cooters22
12-05-2011, 05:29 PM
How does shedding amnesty contracts work? You still pay the player 100% correct?

Anybody?

bholly
12-05-2011, 05:42 PM
You play the player 100%, unless part (or all) of their contract gets picked up by another team in the waiver process, in which case you don't pay that part any more. The player doesn't count towards your cap figure, though.

iggypop123
12-05-2011, 05:43 PM
since when is getting 3 billion losing? just because they wont get to control their property?

ink
12-05-2011, 09:24 PM
since when is getting 3 billion losing? just because they wont get to control their property?

When the losses will start compounding again as soon as the next round of FA signings commences.

ChiSoxJuan
12-05-2011, 09:44 PM
You couldn't be more wrong! In addition to the BRI gains & LT gains, they got major concessions in contract lengths, & waiver conditions. You obviously don't understand the leverage they gained. If they waive a player signed prior to Jul 1, 2011 they get to strike that player's full contract from their cap & get savings on the pay out through the bid process. The player does not become a FA. If they waive a player signed after that date, they get to cut stretch the players contract to twice it's original terms + 1 yr, paying them less than 1/2 of their annual salary. They get more than 50% cap savings on these players.

What has yet to be resolved is whether teams can demote players that clear waivers. That is a B-list issue. Also on the B-list is whether a player can skip waivers & become a FA if they agree to a buyout with the team.

So if your MJ your looking at potential buyouts, & waived players to quickly improve your team. It won't make you a contender but it will help you improve your wins.