Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Indeed]

100% year 1, 80% year 2, 60%year 3, 40% year 4, 20% year 5. fair and resonable imo.

However the idea lacked motivation for the player. From a management perspective, it will discourage players challenging themselves.

You try give that to DeRozan, and see if he wants to come back next year.

Where's Demar going to go? Europe?

If contracts weren't guaranteed he'd have no choice. Anyway, you used a bad example, Demar doesn't seem like the type of guy that would ease up after receiving his deal.


Now Bargs? There's a guy that would likely be scared of non-guaranteed pay-for-performance type deals. He'd probably go back to Europe.

What if DeRozan ended up like Roy or Brand or Arena? You never know.
Yes, maybe you like all contracts to be non-guaranteed, but you sure that will ensure competitive parity? Would DeRozan ended up in LA instead of Toronto next season?
A guaranteed contract means he is locked as an asset to the club, you can trade him for picks. A non-guaranteed contract can be terminated by player, since it is not guaranteed, you cannot sue them for not playing with your team, therefore, it goes both way.

[Reignman]

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

If guesstimates = neutral trusted source then sure, use Forbes. But both you and I know the Forbes numbers have been debunked many times over the past few months.

We're either talking about $300 mil in losses or we're talking about Billy Hunter's $160 mil in losses.

And again, if selling NBA teams was such a tempting proposition why did the NBA take ownership of NOH?

[floppymoose]

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.

NBA had offers for NOH. But the offers were lower than the NBA liked, because NOH is a pretty crappy location for an NBA team. The league (ie, the other owners) decided to buy Shinn out and hold the team themselves until after the next CBA, when it could be sold at a higher price.

When a team sells for a low price it hurts the value of the other teams. Just like a forclosed home in your neighborhood can hurt the value of your house. The owners would rather hold it for a while until they can pump up the value.

[Reignman]

However the idea lacked motivation for the player. From a management perspective, it will discourage players challenging themselves.

You try give that to DeRozan, and see if he wants to come back next year.

Where's Demar going to go? Europe?

If contracts weren't guaranteed he'd have no choice. Anyway, you used a bad example, Demar doesn't seem like the type of guy that would ease up after receiving his deal.


Now Bargs? There's a guy that would likely be scared of non-guaranteed pay-for-performance type deals. He'd probably go back to Europe.

What if DeRozan ended up like Roy or Brand or Arena? You never know.
Yes, maybe you like all contracts to be non-guaranteed, but you sure that will ensure competitive parity? Would DeRozan ended up in LA instead of Toronto next season?
A guaranteed contract means he is locked as an asset to the club, you can trade him for picks. A non-guaranteed contract can be terminated by player, since it is not guaranteed, you cannot sue them for not playing with your team, therefore, it goes both way.

I'm ok with that.

BTW, injuries are typically covered by insurance.

Also, I've read your posts throughout the CBA threads and you keep asking the same damn question, "you sure that will improve competitive parity?". Honestly, start thinking for yourself and start proposing some solutions rather than always questioning other people's opinions with a "you sure that will improve parity?"


If you don't think something will improve parity explain why.

[RapTelligence]

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.

NBA had offers for NOH. But the offers were lower than the NBA liked, because NOH is a pretty crappy location for an NBA team. The league (ie, the other owners) decided to buy Shinn out and hold the team themselves until after the next CBA, when it could be sold at a higher price.

When a team sells for a low price it hurts the value of the other teams. Just like a forclosed home in your neighborhood can hurt the value of your house. The owners would rather hold it for a while until they can pump up the value.

That does not change the fact that NOH was in financial trouble.

[floppymoose]

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.

Thanks for filling in the specifics. I was overstating the case. Fortunately, it doesn't affect the argument. They've averaged at least 55% over the last 12 seasons and done well until recently (let's pretend - to me they've done fine even recently but I'll concede that point for the sake of discussion).

So why is it such a heartache now for them to do 50% when they made good money for years at 55?

[Reignman]

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.

NBA had offers for NOH. But the offers were lower than the NBA liked, because NOH is a pretty crappy location for an NBA team. The league (ie, the other owners) decided to buy Shinn out and hold the team themselves until after the next CBA, when it could be sold at a higher price.

When a team sells for a low price it hurts the value of the other teams. Just like a forclosed home in your neighborhood can hurt the value of your house. The owners would rather hold it for a while until they can pump up the value.

So we agree that under the previous CBA NBA teams didn't have the best valuation?

[floppymoose]

That does not change the fact that NOH was in financial trouble.

So NOH in financial trouble means that we should take $3 billion from the players?

[floppymoose]

So we agree that under the previous CBA NBA teams didn't have the best valuation?

We can agree that shifting billions form players to owners will do WONDERS for team value, yes.

[Reignman]

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.

Thanks for filling in the specifics. I was overstating the case. Fortunately, it doesn't affect the argument. They've averaged at least 55% over the last 12 seasons and done well until recently (let's pretend - to me they've done fine even recently but I'll concede that point for the sake of discussion).

So why is it such a heartache now for them to do 50% when they made good money for years at 55?

Spiraling global economy and inflation. I should just copy and paste this response.

[dhackett1565]

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.

Sure, some teams deserved to. And some teams still will under the new agreement, quite possibly even with revenue sharing. But the league as a whole must be financially viable, and the article presented revenue sharing as a way to make that happen, which it clearly is not.

The blame isn't being assigned to the players. The blame for any losses that (may or may not) exist should be placed on the structure of the league (too many teams), the cost of travel and accommodations, and of course the rising costs of player salaries over the past 2 decades, along with the current economic crisis, wherein owners presumably have to spend more in advertising to maintain the revenue growth we've seen recently.

Unfortunately, the only thing there that the owners can control is player costs. The league could reduce the number of teams, but then there would be unhappy owners ousted, and unhappy players because there would be 15 less jobs per team lost. The players could agree to fly coach and stay in motels, but that's not going to happen. The owners could stop spending on advertising and branding, letting the revenue levels fall or level off, but that would only hurt the players and owners alike.

So the player revenue share has to decrease. Sure, there are incidents of bad spending in the various teams, like overpaying executives and some shady family member employees, but that wouldn't cause the losses the league is seeing by itself. Plus, good luck on cutting down on corruption in the business world. So the players are the only cost the owners can/will cut down on.

[Rhettmatic]

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.

NBA had offers for NOH. But the offers were lower than the NBA liked, because NOH is a pretty crappy location for an NBA team. The league (ie, the other owners) decided to buy Shinn out and hold the team themselves until after the next CBA, when it could be sold at a higher price.

When a team sells for a low price it hurts the value of the other teams. Just like a forclosed home in your neighborhood can hurt the value of your house. The owners would rather hold it for a while until they can pump up the value.

So we agree that under the previous CBA NBA teams didn't have the best valuation?

Or we agree that the NBA shouldn't have put a franchise in New Orleans.

[S.W.A.N]

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.

NBA had offers for NOH. But the offers were lower than the NBA liked, because NOH is a pretty crappy location for an NBA team. The league (ie, the other owners) decided to buy Shinn out and hold the team themselves until after the next CBA, when it could be sold at a higher price.

When a team sells for a low price it hurts the value of the other teams. Just like a forclosed home in your neighborhood can hurt the value of your house. The owners would rather hold it for a while until they can pump up the value.

You (rainman) can't use NOH as an example of whats wrong with NBA...

New Orleans was a small market team devastated by an act of nature. The nba chose to commit to help rebuilding the community by not allowing team to move. They had numerous offers from people wanting to buy and move the team. NBA said no, and has worked hard to build up the team so that it can be sold and kept in New Orleans. If it were puerly a business decision they would of sold and moved the team months ago.

[Indeed]

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.

No doubt about that, I am not saying you don't need owners, but where do you draw a line between revenue split? NBA is a low risk business, since it is dominated on the basketball related business (no competition in basketball), so how much should the owners are not having any risk?

Let me know what is the risk of the owners, and why they deserve more than 50% of the BRI alone without including non-BRI (renting out arena and etc.).

[floppymoose]

Reignman, I'm hoping you will adress this question:

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?

[Reignman]

So we agree that under the previous CBA NBA teams didn't have the best valuation?

We can agree that shifting billions form players to owners will do WONDERS for team value, yes.

Ok, I get it, there's no middle ground for you. A) You believe the last CBA was a good CBA even though the NBA and NBAPA both agree that the league lost hundreds of millions of dollars B) Actually, NVM, since you believe A there's really no point in continuing the conversation.

[RapTelligence]

That does not change the fact that NOH was in financial trouble.

So NOH in financial trouble means that we should take $3 billion from the players?

They are not taking anything. The players are free to start their own league with their own stadiums and their own telivision networks and then earn whatever they want. Until then they have to play for whatever the owners decide they want to pay.

[floppymoose]

Hey, I'm willing to discuss a middle ground. I just need to know what the landscape looks like first. Can you answer the question I posted twice before?

[dacrusha]

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?

There wouldn't be a problem in Sacramento if the Malloofs had invested their massive profits from the early 00s into a new arena rather than squandering it on casinos and hotels.

Yet another example of poor management decisions made by the bottom 10 franchises during the past decade of riches.

[Reignman]

Reignman, I'm hoping you will adress this question:

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?

Increase in marketing costs to get people to keep coming out to games and for corporations to continue with their sponsoships. Increase in fuel, accomodations and the fact that no pro-sports team is going to get a publically funded arena in at least the next decade.

Remember, in a good economic climate people have more money to spend on entertainment and corporations dump more money into marketing / sponsorships.