Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Also, the players collectively are guaranteed that they'll get their % of BRI, whether there's a hard cap or soft cap. So no matter hard or soft cap, punitive tax or not, if the BRI split is 50% and and revenue is 5 billion players will collectively get 2.5 billion? So what is the source of their opposition? Teams will still need to sign players and try and compete, more parity may even increase The total BRI and make more money for everyone.

If you look at the history of the CBA negotiations over the past couple decades, the soft cap has driven the BRI split up out of control, from below a 50-50 split, to an effective split of 65% at one point because of overspending (I feel driven by the cap exceptions the players fought to have put in place), and has driven the agreed upon BRI split (defined in the original salary cap) up from below 50, to 51.8% to 55%, to 57%... Where does it stop?

The players want a soft cap so they can keep ballooning that BRI split through the system. If they accept a hard cap, they will only grow their salaries proportionally to the revenues. And they are not satisfied with that. Both sides are greedy folks, not just the owners.

But even then, part of the players salary goes to escrow, so if the salaries are higher than 57% of BRI, owners will get the difference right back at the end of the year, would they not? So either way, whatever % of BRI is agreed upon is what the players get.

[dhackett1565]

Also, the players collectively are guaranteed that they'll get their % of BRI, whether there's a hard cap or soft cap. So no matter hard or soft cap, punitive tax or not, if the BRI split is 50% and and revenue is 5 billion players will collectively get 2.5 billion? So what is the source of their opposition? Teams will still need to sign players and try and compete, more parity may even increase The total BRI and make more money for everyone.

If you look at the history of the CBA negotiations over the past couple decades, the soft cap has driven the BRI split up out of control, from below a 50-50 split, to an effective split of 65% at one point because of overspending (I feel driven by the cap exceptions the players fought to have put in place), and has driven the agreed upon BRI split (defined in the original salary cap) up from below 50, to 51.8% to 55%, to 57%... Where does it stop?

The players want a soft cap so they can keep ballooning that BRI split through the system. If they accept a hard cap, they will only grow their salaries proportionally to the revenues. And they are not satisfied with that. Both sides are greedy folks, not just the owners.

But even then, part of the players salary goes to escrow, so if the salaries are higher than 57% of BRI, owners will get the difference right back at the end of the year, would they not? So either way, whatever % of BRI is agreed upon is what the players get.

True. But the escrow is limited to 8% of the players`salaries. Twice during the '99 agreement and once during this past agreement (and it would have been more if the economy hadn't scared owners into cutting costs at expense of competitiveness) the overage actually exceeded the escrow, by amounts up to 100 million dollars (and was as such not recovered by the owners), and the pattern over time has shown that that excess will drive future agreements to a higher and higher BRI split for the players.

[Indeed]

After reading hunters interview tonight and listening to stern's interview all I can say is poor union.

I know they both lie like rugs and spin the stories to their advantage, but damn Stern is just so much better at it that Hunter.

As much as I dislike the agents sticking their noses in, after tonight I feel sorry for them. They are probably all thinking that they could do a better job than hunter. And some of them are probably right.


Hunter totally lied about where the 50/50 came from, so Stern called his bluff and put the whole conversation on the record and named all the participants in the room so they all have to pretty much admit it now.

Stern even gave the information on what proposed luxury taxes they want.
Hunter has been vague and un-informing, does he actually have a proposed luxury tax that the players think will be fair and yet punitive enough to be effect?

You already have a distinct disadvantage (the whole millionaire vs billionaire thing) but to start losing the media war is a disaster for the players. They had two years to prepare for this fight and have done a lowsy job so far.

I think the owners are dirty rotten crooks trying to take every penny they can, but I sure think they doing a better job of things than the union.

Regardless of how much the union loses this go around I will be glad when its over.

Yes, the union doesn't know how to make the game better, which is pretty sad.
I suppose if it is a BRI based, they should help on increasing revenue. I think the owners can take a step back if players show more intention to help making the league better and more profitable.
Very disappointed with both sides.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Well, he's basing the entire financial picture on franchise value. He's not looking at the operating reality of the franchise. His logic is sound based on the data he's considering, but when the data considered increases, I think the interpretation has to change.

Just for clarity's sake, Boris, do you think George Shinn did a good job of managing that franchise or not? Do you think it was a smart move for him to move the team from Charlotte to New Orleans, of all places? Do you think that despite the way he managed his franchise, couldn't pay for things because he was indebted to the eyeballs and tried to force local governments to try and build him an arena and moved the team from one poor market to an even worse one, he should make money on his investment? If he should make money on that investment what kind of risks do you think investors should actually face? Plus, the league gets left on the hook a little bit for it because those owners approved a lot of the moves Shinn tried to do including moving the team and loaning him money so he could pay salaries, and approved his purchase of the team to begin with.

If you cut players salaries so that the team still makes money despite all that, what happens when the next owner buys up the team based on an increased valuation due to the new CBA and winds up in exactly the same situation Shinn was in, only worse, because the purchase price and overall numbers/expected returns are even bigger. The NBA needs rules to prevent owners like George Shinn, not rules to allow owners like that to turn a profit thus encouraging them.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Simmons on the negotiations.

[url]http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7100999/avoiding-lockout-red-sox
[/url]

Should someone who's earned over $300 million (including endorsements) and has deferred paychecks coming really be telling guys who have made 1/100th as much as him to fight the fight and stand strong and not care about getting paid? And what are Garnett's credentials, exactly? During one of the single biggest meetings (last week, on Tuesday), Hunter had Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce and Garnett (combined years spent in college: three) negotiate directly with Stern in some sort of misguided "Look how resolved we are, you're not gonna intimidate us!" ploy that backfired so badly that one of their teams' owners was summoned into the meeting specifically to calm his player down and undo some of the damage. (I'll let you guess the player. It's not hard.) And this helped the situation … how? And we thought this was going to work … why?

Congratulations, players — you showed solidarity! You showed you wouldn't back down! You made things worse, and you wasted a day, but dammit, you didn't back down! Just make sure you tell that to every team employee who gets fired over these next few weeks, as well as to all the restaurant and bar owners near NBA arenas who are taking a massive financial hit through the holidays. I'm sure they will be proud of you.

This is what Hunter meant when he said "stars get it done on the court and get it done in the negotiating room." And apparently the owner's aren't negotiating in good faith.

[carlosey]

Everything that Simmons said there was pretty funny. The annecdote about Garnett trying to intimidate stern was hilarious. I wonder if he got into his dog stance or if he started rubbing his forehead against stern?

One thing stands out for sure and it is what stinks the most out of this whole situation: This is clearly affecting negatively anyone that is not in the top 20 salaries in the L right now. Its like 400 people. Sure these guys can talk about sitting out two years and all that BS but its the other guys that are really paying for this whole thing. Its like they are using the little guys for the exclusive financial gain of the guys that already have more money that the little guys ever will.

[JC16]

Everything that Simmons said there was pretty funny. The annecdote about Garnett trying to intimidate stern was hilarious. I wonder if he got into his dog stance or if he started rubbing his forehead against stern?

One thing stands out for sure and it is what stinks the most out of this whole situation: This is clearly affecting negatively anyone that is not in the top 20 salaries in the L right now. Its like 400 people. Sure these guys can talk about sitting out two years and all that BS but its the other guys that are really paying for this whole thing. Its like they are using the little guys for the exclusive financial gain of the guys that already have more money that the little guys ever will.

Well said! and as hunter says..some team wont survive and will force contraction. This seems like some players better plan their future cuz they might be jobless.

[CPT]

Interesting part from that Simmons article:

I have been writing this for three months and I will write it again: The fair and logical compromise if we're not contracting (and we should) would be a 50/50 BRI split, four-year max deals for contracts, the elimination of sign-and-trades, a reduced midlevel exception (I think it should be chopped in half), some sort of luxury tax to penalize anyone who spends 15 percent more than the cap and one Larry Bird exception per team (so that teams have a built-in advantage to keep their best player). I promise you, that's where we will end up — there's no real imagination to it, either. We're missing games to get there. Possibly an entire season. And it's playing out that way for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the players can't accept that owners are terrified about where attendance revenue is going (the whole reason this is happening); owners can't accept that players simply don't trust their numbers, intentions or judgment; and both sides waited too long to get serious.

To me that doesn't sound that far off from what the owners are looking for, but sounds like something the players would scoff at. Am I missing something?

[BorisDK1]

Just for clarity's sake, Boris, do you think George Shinn did a good job of managing that franchise or not? Do you think it was a smart move for him to move the team from Charlotte to New Orleans, of all places? Do you think that despite the way he managed his franchise, couldn't pay for things because he was indebted to the eyeballs and tried to force local governments to try and build him an arena and moved the team from one poor market to an even worse one, he should make money on his investment?

But that's not true: interest was not the reason that New Orleans was losing money. For example, in 2008, their net interest cost was $7,114,442 (interest expense - interest income, Source, Statement of Operations, Pg 10); that represents only 9.2% of their total cost of salary and benefits, to put that in perspective. It's less than their administrative costs, for crying out loud. The only reason that the debt is a problem at all is because the franchise is losing money off the top. I don't think it was the move to New Orleans per se was the problem; moving to New Orleans and having it get devastated with a massive hurricane is probably the biggest problem. There just aren't the revenues there.

If he should make money on that investment what kind of risks do you think investors should actually face? Plus, the league gets left on the hook a little bit for it because those owners approved a lot of the moves Shinn tried to do including moving the team and loaning him money so he could pay salaries, and approved his purchase of the team to begin with.

"What kind of risks"? Check out their statement of cash flows: where do you think the -$7.4 million in net cash came from in 2008? It didn't grow on trees; it came out of the partnership's wallets.

If you cut players salaries so that the team still makes money despite all that, what happens when the next owner buys up the team based on an increased valuation due to the new CBA and winds up in exactly the same situation Shinn was in, only worse, because the purchase price and overall numbers/expected returns are even bigger. The NBA needs rules to prevent owners like George Shinn, not rules to allow owners like that to turn a profit thus encouraging them.

If the league can create a context in which owning a team is profitable, that's good. Why wouldn't they do that? What's the problem with doing that?

[Fairview4Life]

They have already done that. It is possible to turn a profit in the NBA. It might not be possible to turn a profit in New Orleans post Katrina, but that doesn't mean the system is broken.

[BorisDK1]

They have already done that. It is possible to turn a profit in the NBA. It might not be possible to turn a profit in New Orleans post Katrina, but that doesn't mean the system is broken.

It's "possible" that money might grow on trees tomorrow, too. But when the entire league loses $300 million in aggregate and only 7 or 8 out of 30 teams post a profit, it's not bloody likely.

[Fairview4Life]

They have already done that. It is possible to turn a profit in the NBA. It might not be possible to turn a profit in New Orleans post Katrina, but that doesn't mean the system is broken.

It's "possible" that money might grow on trees tomorrow, too. But when the entire league loses $300 million in aggregate and only 7 or 8 out of 30 teams post a profit, it's not bloody likely.

Those numbers are not an accurate reflection of real profits and losses. A lot of them are paper only losses and meaningless when discussing what the players should give up, or if the league can or can't make money.

[BorisDK1]

Those numbers are not an accurate reflection of real profits and losses. A lot of them are paper only losses and meaningless when discussing what the players should give up, or if the league can or can't make money.

The league has opened their books to the NBAPA, and they have yet to refute it. So let's drop this conspiratorial thinking: even the union isn't resting its arguments on the whole "cooked books" logic any more.

[Reignman]

Those numbers are not an accurate reflection of real profits and losses. A lot of them are paper only losses and meaningless when discussing what the players should give up, or if the league can or can't make money.

The league has opened their books to the NBAPA, and they have yet to refute it. So let's drop this conspiratorial thinking: even the union isn't resting its arguments on the whole "cooked books" logic any more.

Agreed, this has got to be the weakest argument yet. The problem is that people just can't separate themselves from the last CBA. They need to realize that this CBA has NOTHING to do with the last CBA. New economic climate, new deal.

What happened in the past is the past. The players got great deals in the last CBA because the economy allowed. The owners now realize that those CBAs (or anything close to them) aren't realistic now and just like the NFL switched in the 90s and just like the NHL switched a few years ago, the NBA will also change.

And the sad thing is the players will fold and the longer they wait the more owner-friendly the deal will get.

At this point I think the owner's current proposal is extremely reasonable. The players won't be taking a massive hit; however, the longer this drags that deal is going to get harsher and harsher.

In fact I hope the players hold out longer, I want to see the a true hard cap and non-guaranteed deals. The longer they wait the higher the chances of the owners moving back to their original proposal.

[BorisDK1]

Agreed, this has got to be the weakest argument yet. The problem is that people just can't separate themselves from the last CBA. They need to realize that this CBA has NOTHING to do with the last CBA. New economic climate, new deal.

What happened in the past is the past. The players got great deals in the last CBA because the economy allowed. The owners now realize that those CBAs (or anything close to them) aren't realistic now and just like the NFL switched in the 90s and just like the NHL switched a few years ago, the NBA will also change.

And the sad thing is the players will fold and the longer they wait the more owner-friendly the deal will get.

At this point I think the owner's current proposal is extremely reasonable. The players won't be taking a massive hit; however, the longer this drags that deal is going to get harsher and harsher.

In fact I hope the players hold out longer, I want to see the a true hard cap and non-guaranteed deals. The longer they wait the higher the chances of the owners moving back to their original proposal.

I don't think the negotiations are going to go backwards at this point: I think both sides are just going to have to come up with a deal that works. The owners aren't going to tread backwards from their position as of today. I think Stern scored a public relations coup with his revelations about where the negotiations are and where they've gone.

Your point about economic climate is well-taken. It's akin to the deals that the management of the Big Three auto manufacturers signed in Ontario in their CBAs in the late 90s, when their unions decided they wanted no outsourcing and the mangement caved in. They survived for a couple of years that were economic salad days in many regards, but just a couple of years later the federal and provincial governments had to spend billions of our dollars bailing them out from a mess they themselves created with bad CBAs. A CBA is only a good one if it creates an economic context in which both sides prosper: if the union gets too much and the employer suffers, it's a bad deal. If labour gets a deal in which they are not being paid commisserate with their production, it's a bad deal and will not be sustainable. The last CBA did not create a favourable economic climate, and therefore a new one which is less favourable for the labour must be reached.

Ultimately, it's in the fans' best interests if the franchises for which they cheer are profitable financially.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Those numbers are not an accurate reflection of real profits and losses. A lot of them are paper only losses and meaningless when discussing what the players should give up, or if the league can or can't make money.

The league has opened their books to the NBAPA, and they have yet to refute it. So let's drop this conspiratorial thinking: even the union isn't resting its arguments on the whole "cooked books" logic any more.

Agreed, this has got to be the weakest argument yet. The problem is that people just can't separate themselves from the last CBA. They need to realize that this CBA has NOTHING to do with the last CBA. New economic climate, new deal.

What happened in the past is the past. The players got great deals in the last CBA because the economy allowed. The owners now realize that those CBAs (or anything close to them) aren't realistic now and just like the NFL switched in the 90s and just like the NHL switched a few years ago, the NBA will also change.

And the sad thing is the players will fold and the longer they wait the more owner-friendly the deal will get.

At this point I think the owner's current proposal is extremely reasonable. The players won't be taking a massive hit; however, the longer this drags that deal is going to get harsher and harsher.

In fact I hope the players hold out longer, I want to see the a true hard cap and non-guaranteed deals. The longer they wait the higher the chances of the owners moving back to their original proposal.

Rightly or wrongly, and I now believe wrongly, the focus of the last CBA seemed to be doing something about the massive contracts the elite players were getting. The NBA accomplished that by circumventing David Falk's clients in the Executive of the union and appealing directly to the entire union with a here's the deal you vote on it, after a lockout. The after affect of that, was the average players is now not worth the current average salary, and length and guaranteed nature of the contracts have backfired on teams. Now, in these negotiations NBA has a different objective. There are two main, to rein in costs so teams have a very good shot at a profit, they wold prefer guaranteed obviously who wouldn't, but they know that's not reasonable in business, and to quell this trend of a few strong teams and the rest with no chance, especially the teaming up of stars. I'm sure ideally for them there'd be 30 tops stars with each team having on. however the with the last CBA, and max deals, it's allowed some teams to double and triple up on those players, without drafting them. With players looking to set themselves up in those situations in setting up their free agency. I think a few teams like that, I think most don't. I think fan interest in the short term peaked with that and made for profit, but long term owners don't like the idea of only selling out the conseco field house when the Heat and Lakers come to town. Hell, we've got Wade and Lebron on one team, both those guys would be selling out most arenas, in MIA where combined they don't even sell it out most nights. TV money may be good, but long term, it may have an adverse effect.

I could be wrong, but that's my impression. The players feel like they're being screwed by the owners, and i can understand that. If you look at where they were, they are taking a loss. If you look at it from the fact they'll still be guaranteed over 2 billion to share among them to play ball, they could do a lot worse. Personally, i'll be upset with Stern and the owners if all they do is shave some money, and basically get bought off on the system changes. If anything, I don't understand why the players are giving the money and fighting the system. Give in on the system and keep more of the money, would be my strategy. Seems like the Union is being run by Garnet and Wade at times. And I don't get it. There going to lose alot more than they are holding out for.

I wish they'd try and take their difference in $, divert it to some retirement fund, and some community relations to help rebuild image and make good with fans, even to help out arena workers. I'll state it again the given that % of BRI is guaranteed, I don't get the resistence to the punitive luxury tax or cap provisions the league wants. Seems to me a group of 400 players, would be better served by making it more competitive for everyone then in helping Chris Paul and Dwight get NY addresses. In following this lockout, I know all 30 owners have met and discussed what they want, has the union ever brought all 400 players together? I bet they know if they did, they'd have a deal, although.....Hunter may be fired shortly after.

[Tofubeque]

I could be wrong, but that's my impression. The players feel like they're being screwed by the owners, and i can understand that. If you look at where they were, they are taking a loss. If you look at it from the fact they'll still be guaranteed over 2 billion to share among them to play ball, they could do a lot worse. Personally, i'll be upset with Stern and the owners if all they do is shave some money, and basically get bought off on the system changes. If anything, I don't understand why the players are giving the money and fighting the system. Give in on the system and keep more of the money, would be my strategy. Seems like the Union is being run by Garnet and Wade at times. And I don't get it. There going to lose alot more than they are holding out for.

I wish they'd try and take their difference in $, divert it to some retirement fund, and some community relations to help rebuild image and make good with fans, even to help out arena workers. I'll state it again the given that % of BRI is guaranteed, I don't get the resistence to the punitive luxury tax or cap provisions the league wants. Seems to me a group of 400 players, would be better served by making it more competitive for everyone then in helping Chris Paul and Dwight get NY addresses. In following this lockout, I know all 30 owners have met and discussed what they want, has the union ever brought all 400 players together? I bet they know if they did, they'd have a deal, although.....Hunter may be fired shortly after.

Thank you. I've never understood the position of a 400 player union fighting for the elites among them to continue forming super teams. Are they worried about certain guys being put out of jobs, or having smaller contracts to sign? That's going to happen with or without a hard cap.

[lucky777s]

I firmly believe that 80% of the players would vote in favour of a 51% BRI cut and any tax system the owners want right now. But the union would fight that because of the stars and the agents.

That deal is there to be made today and its the union holding it up. I dont' think the owners would keep the lockout going for that 1% difference. They've put 50 on the table.

If it goes longer I could see the owners insisting on 49 just for the symbolism that it now puts them ahead of the players and is below their best offer of a week ago. Even 49.9% would be a major slap in the face to the union. That would force Hunter out for sure which is the ultimate sign of undisputed victory for Stern.

[Fairview4Life]

Those numbers are not an accurate reflection of real profits and losses. A lot of them are paper only losses and meaningless when discussing what the players should give up, or if the league can or can't make money.

The league has opened their books to the NBAPA, and they have yet to refute it. So let's drop this conspiratorial thinking: even the union isn't resting its arguments on the whole "cooked books" logic any more.

The NBAPA has refuted that 22 teams lost money and the league lost $300 million in total, since that figure includes all kinds of expenses and paper losses that while fine under GAAP standards, are not indicative of real losses that the players should give a **** about.

[MEDIC]

Thank you. I've never understood the position of a 400 player union fighting for the elites among them to continue forming super teams. Are they worried about certain guys being put out of jobs, or having smaller contracts to sign? That's going to happen with or without a hard cap.

It's like that in a lot of unions. The union is "supposed" to be about everyone standing together. There are always "second class" members though.

I'm not sure how union dues work in the NBA, but in most you pay a % of your pay. In this case, guys like Garnett, LBJ, Wade, etc contribute most financially to the union. They are the power players within the union. What they say holds a lot of weight, because the union (like most organizations) is a business & money talks.

These guys will sell out fringe players or future draft picks in a second to get what they want out of the CBA. Look at one of their proposals. They were willing to give multiple draft picks to all of lower level teams in order to be able to maintain their own flexability. So the new guys should all have to go to **** teams, but it's not cool for veteran stars to have to do it.

It's not a all for one & one for all type situation like unions lead people to believe. People are definitely not treated equally.

The funny thing is if you look at the NBPA player representatives, most of them are nobody's. Few of them are stars.

James Jones is the player rep for the Miami Heat & they don't even have a backup representative (like most organizations do).

http://www.nbpa.org/player-representatives

If LBJ & D-Wade are so interested in this CBA, why aren't they part of the executive committee, or at least a player rep? They could have been involved in negotiations over the past 2 years.