Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[floppymoose]

There's no point in arguing with people that actually believe the last CBA was a viable one.

The revenue split has been basically the same (57.5%) since 1999. TWELVE SEASONS!

It was renegotiated in 2005 and not changed!

It's so amazing how well the owners have hoodwinked you and just about everyone else.

[YogiStewart]

The players are partners. Just like music singers, they are unique, not like a manufacture employees where they are replaceable. LeBron James cannot be replaced like manufacture employees. It doesn't work that way.

yeah, that reminds me of bands like REM, who, to fulfill their multimilliondollar contracts with their labels, release a live CD and a greatest hits CD to bring their release total up to snuff. or Remy Shand, who was paid $1 million, released his only CD, then disappeared.

record labels are going bankrupt thanks to that model.

so, um, bad example.

Yea, a bad example on a negative risk. How about positive risk? Some company is still collecting copy rights from Beatles. And did the singer take a risk to do business? They do, they take a low risk low reward approach, while record companies take big risk big reward approach. Who's wrong here? It is fair to take low risk big reward? Who doesn't want that?

also a bad example.
The Beatles were nothing if it wasn't for Capital Records and EMI and Ed Sullivan. The players are nothing without ESPN/NBC/YES/MSG. Those are all owner or league-negotiated contracts.

look at the NFL. the players are the starts. but they'd be nothing if owners didn't build behemoth stadiums and negotiate killer contracts with the TV networks and if Las Vegas's gambling didn't exist.

[dacrusha]

I beginning to think it's no use arguing. There's nothing much you can do with someone who actually believes the league lost $300 million last year. With that wide a gap on the facts, it's pretty hopeless.

Then even if we agreed on the financial situation for last season, that isn't the right question to ask. The correct question is how do we expect the league to do in the coming years of the next CBA? Even if we changed the CBA *not at all*, the coming years would not look like this last year.

There's no point in arguing with people that actually believe the last CBA was a viable one.

That's the whole problem here, you guys don't even realize how bad that CBA was (Great for the players though) so it's hard for you to fathom why the owners are asking for a CBA that looks nothing like the old one.

Honestly, all that matters to me is that MLSE makes tonnes of money, our executive team and management sucks and there's nothing in the proposed new CBA that will change a thing for the roster going forward.

Except that DD will soon jump ship to play in Southern California because the Raptors won't be able to offer him enough differentiators to play in Canada any more.

[ranger001]

I beginning to think it's no use arguing. There's nothing much you can do with someone who actually believes the league lost $300 million last year. With that wide a gap on the facts, it's pretty hopeless.

Even Billy Hunter acknowledged that the league was losing around 160 million. And his accountants had access to line by line financial statements which they could verify any way they wanted.

The stranger thing is that people with no verifiable data whatsoever thinks that only 2 or 3 teams are losing money.

Then even if we agreed on the financial situation for last season, that isn't the right question to ask. The correct question is how do we expect the league to do in the coming years of the next CBA? Even if we changed the CBA *not at all*, the coming years would not look like this last year.

If the CBA was not changed at all then more franchises would go bankrupt.

[carlosey]

Things are too in favour for players to come in to any franchise, sign their rookie deal and guarantee financial stability and then twist arms to go somewhere under the promise of glamour, glitz and additional advertisement and merchandise revenue. The maverick carter model of turning any team outside of NY, LA, and Chicago a into a farming affiliate. Its good for any talented player but its bad for the league as a whole.

Also the fact that guys like Bosh, LBJ and Wade were able to conspire behind the scenes (as early as when they signed their previous deals!) to get together was a complete spectacle that Im sure anyone outside of the Heat did not like to see develop. The system obviously needs fixing but I dont know. I dont see that happening today.

[anj]

1) The players are giving back 280 million. The league lost 300 million. Therefore the league will still lose 20 million per year. And therefore revenue sharing will fix the rest? You can say you don't believe the owners' monetary claims, but say that, don't ignore that and claim that the players have actually already met the owners' suggested needs. News flash - the league as a whole does NOT want to lose money. And they sure aren't going to give in on the system issues for the privilege of getting a financial system that doesn't address their cost concerns.

You're willfully ignoring his point on revenue sharing. He says the give-back of $280 million "coupled with" revenue sharing. Which isn't at all unreasonable.

[floppymoose]

Even Billy Hunter acknowledged that the league was losing around 160 million.

Why aren't you quoting the huge amount of money the league made in twelve years at that rev split? What's wrong with that number? Why isn't more relevant than the worst year of the deal? (A year that was likely cherry picked to hold whatever losses could be pushed into it.)

It's just unbelievable. My god people, stay out of the business world. You are going to get eaten alive!

[Reignman]

There's no point in arguing with people that actually believe the last CBA was a viable one.

The revenue split has been basically the same (57.5%) since 1999. TWELVE SEASONS!

It was renegotiated in 2005 and not changed!

It's so amazing how well the owners have hoodwinked you and just about everyone else.

You might not realize this but the world economy has changed drastically since 2005. The owners may have hoodwinked me but life seems to have hoodwinked you into believing that circumstances always remain the same.

Also, there is no doubt the owners signed a bad deal in 99, that's why they are correcting it, is that really that difficult to understand?

Have you ever made a decision that you thought was good at the time but with hindsight you realize it wasn't?

THis is common sense folks, people make bad decisions all the time but the smart ones correct their mistakes and don't make them again.

[Reignman]

Even Billy Hunter acknowledged that the league was losing around 160 million.

Why aren't you quoting the huge amount of money the league made in twelve years at that rev split? What's wrong with that number? Why isn't more relevant than the worst year of the deal? (A year that was likely cherry picked to hold whatever losses could be pushed into it.)

It's just unbelievable. My god people, stay out of the business world. You are going to get eaten alive!

Please don't talk about other people's business accumen when you don't even know the difference between revenue and profit. I won't even get into inflation because that would clearly fly over your head.

[floppymoose]

Also, there is no doubt the owners signed a bad deal in 99, that's why they are correcting it, is that really that difficult to understand?

Oh yes, the deal has been horrible for them. The emperors clothes look beautiful, I tell you. Beautiful!

And I WAS talking profit, above. The league has made a good profits in those twelve years.

[dhackett1565]

1) The players are giving back 280 million. The league lost 300 million. Therefore the league will still lose 20 million per year. And therefore revenue sharing will fix the rest? You can say you don't believe the owners' monetary claims, but say that, don't ignore that and claim that the players have actually already met the owners' suggested needs. News flash - the league as a whole does NOT want to lose money. And they sure aren't going to give in on the system issues for the privilege of getting a financial system that doesn't address their cost concerns.

You're willfully ignoring his point on revenue sharing. He says the give-back of $280 million "coupled with" revenue sharing. Which isn't at all unreasonable.

No, I'm recognizing that sharing the total revenue between the teams differently does not change the fact that the total revenues would still result in a net loss for the league as a whole. Revenue sharing cannot improve league viability - only individual team viability. If the whole is losing money, no amount of spreading the wealth will result in a net gain.

[Reignman]

Also, there is no doubt the owners signed a bad deal in 99, that's why they are correcting it, is that really that difficult to understand?

Oh yes, the deal has been horrible for them. The emperors clothes look beautiful, I tell you. Beautiful!

And I WAS talking profit, above. The league has made a good profits in those twelve years.

Of course the deal was bad, they started losing money based on the parameters of the last CBA.

I still don't get what's so difficult to understand here.

[floppymoose]

Is there anything we agree on, factually? Do you at least acknowledge the league made good money for years and years until recently? And if you do agree with that, what is it that changed recently?

[YogiStewart]

Is there anything we agree on, factually? Do you at least acknowledge the league made good money for years and years until recently? And if you do agree with that, what is it that changed recently?

why not use a different measuring stick for league or team value.

other than the Nets - whose value is skewed due to the area project and their move to Brooklyn - how many teams are having true financial difficulties or are for sale? and what was their sale price?
has to be within the last 2 years, with more recent #s being more accurate.

[Reignman]

Is there anything we agree on, factually? Do you at least acknowledge the league made good money for years and years until recently? And if you do agree with that, what is it that changed recently?

The downward spiral of the global economy and inflation.

And I'll add one more thing here, owners should forget about public funding for arenas in 90% of the NBA cities once their current arenas have met their shelf life. Where is the half a bil going to come from to build these things in the future?

Trust me, there isn't a politician stupid enough to propose a public funding for a new arena in most cities for the next decade or more. Just watch what happens with KJ proposing this new publicly funded arena in SAC. It ain't happening, so where will that money come from?

[anj]

1) The players are giving back 280 million. The league lost 300 million. Therefore the league will still lose 20 million per year. And therefore revenue sharing will fix the rest? You can say you don't believe the owners' monetary claims, but say that, don't ignore that and claim that the players have actually already met the owners' suggested needs. News flash - the league as a whole does NOT want to lose money. And they sure aren't going to give in on the system issues for the privilege of getting a financial system that doesn't address their cost concerns.

You're willfully ignoring his point on revenue sharing. He says the give-back of $280 million "coupled with" revenue sharing. Which isn't at all unreasonable.

No, I'm recognizing that sharing the total revenue between the teams differently does not change the fact that the total revenues would still result in a net loss for the league as a whole. Revenue sharing cannot improve league viability - only individual team viability. If the whole is losing money, no amount of spreading the wealth will result in a net gain.

That's a good point. But isn't it reasonable to believe that certain teams deserved to lose money? Revenue sharing can correct the imbalance slightly, while ultimately rooting out the owners that continue to make mistakes or try to function in markets that flat out aren't viable. Once other owners have to foot the bill for their "colleagues'" mistakes they might sing a different tune. I just don't believe that placing the blame solely on the players for the league's overall losses is fair.

[floppymoose]

Yogi, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. We know the sale prices for teams. That gets leaked. But we don't know what teams are losing money, because we don't have a trustworthy source. If yo are willing to accept a neutral third party estimate, we have these Forbes numbers:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... n_US#gid=0

[Reignman]

Is there anything we agree on, factually? Do you at least acknowledge the league made good money for years and years until recently? And if you do agree with that, what is it that changed recently?

why not use a different measuring stick for league or team value.

other than the Nets - whose value is skewed due to the area project and their move to Brooklyn - how many teams are having true financial difficulties or are for sale? and what was their sale price?
has to be within the last 2 years, with more recent #s being more accurate.

Also, where are all these billionaire playboy owners that want to buy a team for "fun"? If people really wanted teams then the NBA wouldn't have taken over ownership of NOH.

[floppymoose]

Is there anything we agree on, factually? Do you at least acknowledge the league made good money for years and years until recently? And if you do agree with that, what is it that changed recently?

The downward spiral of the global economy and inflation.

Ok, run with me here. How would you expect that to affect the league. Lower revenues?

[dhackett1565]

There's no point in arguing with people that actually believe the last CBA was a viable one.

The revenue split has been basically the same (57.5%) since 1999. TWELVE SEASONS!

It was renegotiated in 2005 and not changed!

It's so amazing how well the owners have hoodwinked you and just about everyone else.

The BRI split was 53% in the '95 agreement, but grew to 58% in '98 through the exception system. The owners canceled the CBA at that point because they felt that was too high.

The resulting CBA had a 55% BRI split negotiated starting in 2001, and only increased to 57% in the final year of the deal.

At no point in NBA history has the CBA had an agreed upon BRI split of 57.5% or higher.

It was renegotiated in 2005 and was changed somewhat drastically, if you know where to look. In the '99 agreement, the escrow was limited, and the players were earning close to 60% of BRI in a couple years of that agreement. In 2005, they established a year-after unlimited escrow correction system, wherein the owners could adjust the following years' salaries to make sure they didn't exceed 57%. The players effectively took a 3% (or more, as the pattern was showing an increase in overspending) pay cut last time. The current negotiations are asking for a 7% cut (about twice what they took last time), and in this economic climate, with costs of travel rising quickly, that is not all that shocking.