Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Fairview4Life]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

[redraptors]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

Contracting Teams Hurts the Players the Most... Less Jobs..Less competition for Contract offers.

By giving BIR up they are not on the hook. It is not really theirs to give up..Its a negotiation they do not own it.

[J-Roc]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

Sharing the pie with money losing teams artificially makes them "successful". If the players give up money to make those teams work, then it's not artificial. It's to the players benefit since they have more jobs. Well paid jobs, too.

[Fairview4Life]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

Sharing the pie with money losing teams artificially makes them "successful". If the players give up money to make those teams work, then it's not artificial. It's to the players benefit since they have more jobs. Well paid jobs, too.

They're already sharing the pie with the WNBA and declaring those losses. They use that as a marketing tool for basketball in general with women. Having teams spread around also helps market the NBA in those locations, meaning more potential revenue for everyone. The Lakers make a mint because they are in a relatively protected market. It's how Donald Sterling can mismanage a team for decades and still make money every year. If George Shinn could have moved NOH to LA, he would have. Or Chicago. LA needs a visiting team. I don't see what's unreasonable about splitting some portion of their giant local TV deal with every other team.

[YogiStewart]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

too many teams, not enough new markets. once you put teams in New Orleans and OKC, you're left with the dregs of the USA for a team.

Seattle still doesn't have a new arena, Vancouver is another maybe option and Kansas City or Vegas would be other choices?

kind of depressing

[Fairview4Life]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

too many teams, not enough new markets. once you put teams in New Orleans and OKC, you're left with the dregs of the USA for a team.

Seattle still doesn't have a new arena, Vancouver is another maybe option and Kansas City or Vegas would be other choices?

kind of depressing

I meant more like in Chicago, or Boston, or another NY or LA, team. Anaheim and/or San Jose could also work.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Contracting Teams Hurts the Players the Most... Less Jobs..Less competition for Contract offers.

Not really, because contracting those small market teams probably doesn't hurt BRI that much, meaning there is almost as much money to be spread about less players. The players who don't make it in the league will probably be the borderline players who are making the minimum regardless and the good players from those teams will be spread out amongst other teams. The lower-paid players can probably find contracts close to the NBA minimum in other countries if they really want to pursue it.

Contraction really hurts the owners, because right now they aren't really sharing much of the BRI so they're overall income is hurt, but only slightly. They're also paying various contraction fees and giving up on expanding the NBA meaning they lose out on the opportunity for increased revenues down the line by infiltration to other markets.

Contraction hurts both parties. The owners have been suggesting proposals that only hurt the players. And for all the talk of players making money to play a game, owners are being paid even more money to play a different game they love (managing a business) that they haven't proven very adept at since they're now claiming to have lost money despite decades of the NBA making money at comparable % salaries to what the players have been getting and record NBA revenues. Either they aren't very good, or they're just gambling that the public will believe them and the players will cave and they'll just make more money than they already are. Either way, the solution isn't just to let the go on doing what they're doing.

[Salted Meat]

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are going to throw around rhetoric, but to me it boils down to: the owners want to restructure their business model, and in order for them to be able to do that, the players need to agree. The players, and even some of the franchises, are replaceable. The important thing is the structure.

And we all know that the business model is, to an extent, broken. We've collectively spent years complaining about how lower and middle-market teams have no real shot at competing against the tax-spending teams, and that the league needs to address this lack of parity, and how only 8 teams have won the NBA Finals in the last 30 years. Some of us lament over the fact that certain teams spend year after year in the lottery, that players decide not to report to teams they're drafted or traded to due to their perception of the franchise, how it's ridiculous when players publicly demand trades, killing their value... all of these things, whether owner or player driven, are indicators that the structure needs to be fixed.

I think you're confusing business model with competitive model. The league as a whole is making record revenues and is asking the players to take at 15-25% reduction in salaries.

If this was about bottom teams wanting to win more games rather than money, the issue would already be resolved. I mean, the biggest issue to smaller market teams competing is revenue-sharing, which isn't part of these negotiations at all. Without revenue-sharing, you're still going to have small markets struggle and small market owners pocketing the extra cash. Other than the Green Bay Packers, there really aren't a lot of asmall market teams that succeed regularly in any pro-league. The other issue would be setting up a system where ownership needs to spend on the team rather than pocket money - again, not part of these negotiations. Other than that, a harder cap would help, but still won't fix the major competitive disadvantage if wealthy teams are simply making more money and smaller market teams don't spend as much to try to pocket as much money as they can.

Although I'm wont to say that revenues don't necessarily equal profits, it's absolutely true that some are making boatloads of cash. However, as a whole, the unsuccessful teams are weighing down the successful teams to the point where if structural changes aren't made to create parity, the credibility of the sport stands to suffer. It's that big a deal.

The league as a whole is suffering with producing an inconsistent product, where some teams have, and always will have a quantifiable advantage over others. The league needs to remove, or reduce as much of any perceivable quantifiable advantage as possible, and allow more teams to have an opportunity to compete year-in, and year-out, and I think the changes they're pushing for are going to go a long way in doing that.

To be honest, I think as much excitement as it created for the casual fan, a lot of hardcore NBA fans hated the Big-3's assembly in Miami. Not only did it reek of collusion, two franchises got screwed, and it left the fans of the rest of the league fearing the worst for their own teams: If Bosh and LeBron could leave the teams who drafted them (and in LeBron's case, after making it to the EC Semi Finals, and the NBA Finals the year before) then we could lose our players too. And you saw it happen. Utah traded Williams, Denver traded Melo (he basically forced a trade to NY) and this year might see NOH trade Paul, and Orlando trade Howard, (both of whom apparently want to play in NYC.) all because of what happened in Miami. The owners now want to drastically shorten max contract length and solidify the salary cap, in part to avoid an enormous consolidation of top-level talent to a select few teams. I think that, to an extent, such consolidation can actually have a positive short-term effect on league revenues (creating massive buzz, feuding superteam vs. superteam) but it damages the integrity of the league as a whole, and it cheapens the competitive aspect of 90% of the league's games. You can only play games on God Mode for so long until they become boring.

As it stands, the players have already begun to dictate where they play, and for fans of small-market franchises, it appears to be incredibly unfair. What's the incentive to invest your money and time into a franchise that simply cannot compete at the same level as its peers? At the very least, the league must make changes that appear to create and foster a more level playing field.

Now, I definitely believe that greater revenue sharing will help alleviate some of the economic disparity between markets, and help keep the small-market teams afloat, and out of the red, but those solutions won't carry over to the product (which is what I care about) unless a firmer cap is implemented.

[Parataxis]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

Sharing the pie with money losing teams artificially makes them "successful". If the players give up money to make those teams work, then it's not artificial. It's to the players benefit since they have more jobs. Well paid jobs, too.

Gotcha. So other owners giving money is articificial, players giving money is real.

[Parataxis]

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Because the owners could share local revenues to help those teams, like the players suggested. Or let them move to better markets.

Contracting Teams Hurts the Players the Most... Less Jobs..Less competition for Contract offers.

By giving BIR up they are not on the hook. It is not really theirs to give up..Its a negotiation they do not own it.

Surely then, by that logic, we could also say that the BRI is not the owner's to take - it's a negotiation.

You can't just blame one side for the breakdown in negotiations.

[redraptors]

No the Owners Own the Teams.. The players Own nothing/ Of Course BiR is negotiable that is what they are doing. The issue for me is where can the players earn what they earning now or even at 50 50 with the life style, environment, perks, merchandising etc?? You think the players care about the game??? Then have them earn their money and not gaurantee the money... Treat the players like any other employee.. But they are not treated like that, they have money cominig in NO matter what happens or how poorly they perform after they have a contract signed.

The Owners have more power because the Players have no where else to go. The NBA has a very fair and equitable offer on the table. But -- I see that if the owner sells and they make profit on the franchise that is not shared... Oh well that is business. Then the players can own teams and see ifthey are going to share those profits...

Retraction is not good for anyone. Who will buy out those franchises?? That is not free. It will hurt the players big time. You will have less players; 5 teams contracted is 75 players out of 450 that is huge. Players lose jobs and opportunity.. The Fans will lose out on better teams but players and owners lose on contraction. If it were that simple the NO Hornets would be gone.

[knickerbocker2k2]

The Owners have more power because the Players have no where else to go. The NBA has a very fair and equitable offer on the table. But -- I see that if the owner sells and they make profit on the franchise that is not shared... Oh well that is business. Then the players can own teams and see ifthey are going to share those profits...

1. Assumption that players have the most to lose is short-sighted. Sure long strike will hurt the players on individual level, but it hurts the owners investments just as much. People are willing to assume that owners could lose the whole season and they won't break a sweat. If owners are crying about "supposed" loses, how are they going to feel when their investment goes down 10-20%? We are talking about 20% of 400 = 50-80M. Most players don't make that in their whole career. How do you reconcile the two? Owners don't want to continue to lose money, but are willing to lose large junk of their investment?

2. You say fair and equitable, but how is it fair to the players when basketball related income has grown over the life of the current cba and player cost has being fixed, but owners are asking cut of 10-15%? On one hand you say that players should take on the burden of the purchase of franchise, but not participate in the profit of the sale of franchise. That maybe business (if owners get their way) but that is not fair or equitable.

People are confusing issues here. Is it within the owners right to ask for 100% of the income? Yes they own the business. However they have to get full agreement of the players. Owners are only entitled to what the players and they agree to. It is within their interests to find agreement that does the least amount of damage to their league, and honestly I don't see how the current position leads to this. They have taken approach where the only way to reach their goal is to essentially break the union and that will only damage the league.

[J-Roc]

Gotcha. So other owners giving money is articificial, players giving money is real.

Yeah McDonald's shares revenue from successful franchises with failing franchises to ensure everyone "succeeds".

[J-Roc]

1. Assumption that players have the most to lose is short-sighted. Sure long strike will hurt the players on individual level, but it hurts the owners investments just as much. People are willing to assume that owners could lose the whole season and they won't break a sweat. If owners are crying about "supposed" loses, how are they going to feel when their investment goes down 10-20%? We are talking about 20% of 400 = 50-80M. Most players don't make that in their whole career. How do you reconcile the two? Owners don't want to continue to lose money, but are willing to lose large junk of their investment?

The more costs are controlled, the higher franchise values go up with certainty. That's long-sighted.

[redraptors]

The Owners have more power because the Players have no where else to go. The NBA has a very fair and equitable offer on the table. But -- I see that if the owner sells and they make profit on the franchise that is not shared... Oh well that is business. Then the players can own teams and see ifthey are going to share those profits...

1. Assumption that players have the most to lose is short-sighted. Sure long strike will hurt the players on individual level, but it hurts the owners investments just as much. People are willing to assume that owners could lose the whole season and they won't break a sweat. If owners are crying about "supposed" loses, how are they going to feel when their investment goes down 10-20%? We are talking about 20% of 400 = 50-80M. Most players don't make that in their whole career. How do you reconcile the two? Owners don't want to continue to lose money, but are willing to lose large junk of their investment?

2. You say fair and equitable, but how is it fair to the players when basketball related income has grown over the life of the current cba and player cost has being fixed, but owners are asking cut of 10-15%? On one hand you say that players should take on the burden of the purchase of franchise, but not participate in the profit of the sale of franchise. That maybe business (if owners get their way) but that is not fair or equitable.

People are confusing issues here. Is it within the owners right to ask for 100% of the income? Yes they own the business. However they have to get full agreement of the players. Owners are only entitled to what the players and they agree to. It is within their interests to find agreement that does the least amount of damage to their league, and honestly I don't see how the current position leads to this. They have taken approach where the only way to reach their goal is to essentially break the union and that will only damage the league.

where to start with this
1) J Roc said it. Control wages and costs you increase your selling potential and year after year income.
If teams are losing money year after year are you willing to purchase that team? \right. who would buy the teams \billionaires who dont care about money not many of them out there.\
2)how can you say the players have fixed salaries??There salaries have increase they have 57% no, so if revenue increases so does their salaries right?? They aren't paid by the hour over the course of the contract. They just received a lump sum from the owners because salaries paid out did not match the 57%... so how is that fixed. Players take no risk in running a organization, they pay nothing to anyone, so if the owner makes profit on the sale of the franchise then that is the owners work to get to the point of sale. not all franchises are equal in value, even if they are in the same market, that is usually due to ownership

NO wrong once again. Owners just need 50% +1 to agree to the terms they desire not the entire body of players. Fair and equitable means people are not being abused, ripped off, able to earn a very good living with putting NO fiancial risk of their own,Most importantly what will they recieve any where else.\You and i can think we are getting ripped off but unless you can find another employer that pays more you are getting paid fairly, such as selling anything it is worth what people pay. How are garanteed contracts fair?? Eddy Curry, Alonzo Morning on the Raps, Arenas, Artest how is that fair..

[knickerbocker2k2]

1) J Roc said it. Control wages and costs you increase your selling potential and year after year income.
If teams are losing money year after year are you willing to purchase that team? \right. who would buy the teams \billionaires who dont care about money not many of them out there.

This summer with looming lockout, there were no problems in finding new owners. And it doesn't help your argument that franchise values have consistently gone up during the life of the current CBA.

2)how can you say the players have fixed salaries??There salaries have increase they have 57% no, so if revenue increases so does their salaries right?? They aren't paid by the hour over the course of the contract. They just received a lump sum from the owners because salaries paid out did not match the 57%... so how is that fixed.

It is fixed because player salaries are never more than 57% of BRI. Salaries have only gone up because the revenue has gone up. The ratio revenue/player cost is fixed.

Players take no risk in running a organization, they pay nothing to anyone, so if the owner makes profit on the sale of the franchise then that is the owners work to get to the point of sale. not all franchises are equal in value, even if they are in the same market, that is usually due to ownership

Ok. So don't include the cost of the purchase of your asset into these calculations. Owners can't have it both ways. Let ownership make all the "risky" stuff. Why should the players care if owner bought under debt and now that easy credit is gone, owners are sweating the interest payments. After all this is the price of being risk taker, aint it?

NO wrong once again. Owners just need 50% +1 to agree to the terms they desire not the entire body of players.

What did you think I meant? 100% of the players? You realize its the same scenario with the owners?

Fair and equitable means people are not being abused, ripped off, able to earn a very good living with putting NO fiancial risk of their own,Most importantly what will they recieve any where else.\You and i can think we are getting ripped off but unless you can find another employer that pays more you are getting paid fairly, such as selling anything it is worth what people pay. How are garanteed contracts fair?? Eddy Curry, Alonzo Morning on the Raps, Arenas, Artest how is that fair..

Fair/equitable has nothing do with this. If life was fair a teacher who spends 10+ hours a day teaching disabled kids who get more salary than the likes of Kim Kardashian. But this is about demand/supply. And you know what? These players could get someone to pay them more than 57% of BRI. The current system proves it. In fact if you get rid of the union, they will certainty get more than 57% of BRI. That is why the owners are locking them out. They are trying to use certain things like minimum salary, guaranteed contract, guarantee of certain % of income, to entice the average player. You think Kobe will have hard time getting someone to pay him $30M? Get rid of the union and most of the top tier guys will do better. What is unfair is how the owners are using the union to put down the players share of the pie. Kinda ironic but the union is actually being used by owners to restrict the free market.

[carlosey]

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are going to throw around rhetoric, but to me it boils down to: the owners want to restructure their business model, and in order for them to be able to do that, the players need to agree. The players, and even some of the franchises, are replaceable. The important thing is the structure.

And we all know that the business model is, to an extent, broken. We've collectively spent years complaining about how lower and middle-market teams have no real shot at competing against the tax-spending teams, and that the league needs to address this lack of parity, and how only 8 teams have won the NBA Finals in the last 30 years. Some of us lament over the fact that certain teams spend year after year in the lottery, that players decide not to report to teams they're drafted or traded to due to their perception of the franchise, how it's ridiculous when players publicly demand trades, killing their value... all of these things, whether owner or player driven, are indicators that the structure needs to be fixed.

But the players union will never admit publicly to turning a blind eye to their players misdeeds, and the owners will never admit publicly to mismanaging the league for years, each of which has helped foster the sort of environment that has created this level of disparity... so we end up with the owners crying poor (which they're not) and the players saying they "just want to play" (which they don't).

But the truth remains: the system is broken. They may have made a lot of money with this broken system, but it's not healthy or sustainable.

This is a good perspective on the matter. Kudos.

[redraptors]

\no problem getting owners HHMM whats up with the NO hornets?? NBA owns them for fun? MLSE placed the package for sales not many takers for the price they are asking. Owners dont have it both ways.. they risk their money..\any business that has unions/no unions have the right to negotiate with employees. If your company is losing money do you think you keep paying the same amount to your employees or do you try and a) remove positions or b) control costs by freezing or decreasing or minimizing increases?/
Why do employees or players have a sense of entitlement? If salaries increase that is not fixed, leases rent are fixed.\

haha Fair... players getting millions to play a game is fair?? Teachers, Dr's deserve more then some scrub athlete. Unions help these guys make money.. Players would make more if there was no Union? if you read above \i agree but that would be 12 players and the rest would make squat. Supply and demand is right. there a few people in the world that can perfom at their level. I never dispute they have saccrificed and made it to that league based on genetics and dedication. But if they feel it is so unfair then let them play in other leagues...Yet they all come back to the NBA.\Childress, \kleiza came back why? All I am saying is the players will lose a great chunk of money they will never get back and if you follow most labour negotiations rarely will there be a big shift in stance when they get to this point. I think the player will get 52ish but changes to contracts. I do not see how that is unfair in any which way

[redraptors]

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are going to throw around rhetoric, but to me it boils down to: the owners want to restructure their business model, and in order for them to be able to do that, the players need to agree. The players, and even some of the franchises, are replaceable. The important thing is the structure.

And we all know that the business model is, to an extent, broken. We've collectively spent years complaining about how lower and middle-market teams have no real shot at competing against the tax-spending teams, and that the league needs to address this lack of parity, and how only 8 teams have won the NBA Finals in the last 30 years. Some of us lament over the fact that certain teams spend year after year in the lottery, that players decide not to report to teams they're drafted or traded to due to their perception of the franchise, how it's ridiculous when players publicly demand trades, killing their value... all of these things, whether owner or player driven, are indicators that the structure needs to be fixed.

But the players union will never admit publicly to turning a blind eye to their players misdeeds, and the owners will never admit publicly to mismanaging the league for years, each of which has helped foster the sort of environment that has created this level of disparity... so we end up with the owners crying poor (which they're not) and the players saying they "just want to play" (which they don't).

But the truth remains: the system is broken. They may have made a lot of money with this broken system, but it's not healthy or sustainable.

This is a good perspective on the matter. Kudos.

yup very true. Owners have made a lot of mistakes and players on contracts they don't have to live up to or demand trades have hurt the league. The issue is to stay competitve and sell tickets you need to sign or keep players which leads to over paying players. Min a few years ago had to sign KG or let him go. They signed him to a huge contract which in turn hurt their ability to put competitve pieces around him and remain in business. So he goes to Boston where they are willing to pay the tax. If the wolves dont sign him their fans turn on them, if they sign him they are hooped. Sports is unique and it is hard or impossible to compare it to any other business because the success of your competitors helps you generate income. Teams over pay to keep fans interested.. Problem is contracts are garanteed regardless of results and effort which is hand cuffing teams and fans

[Haisan]

Nice to hear Amare Stoudamire talking about the players starting their own league, if only in the interim. If the players are will to do the work to run their own league, it might really change their relationship with the NBA.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_ ... own-league

I don't think a player-owned league is realistically going to happen or would produce better basketball, but at some point being willing to man-up and walk the walk would put the two sides on a more even footing.