Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[C Court]

The NBA is different than other sports because the success of the NBA as a whole is more closely tied to a handful of star players than in any other sport.

That's why the players hold more leverage than did the NHLPA back in 2003 or even the NFLPA does in their dispute.

Without the combination of superior skill and the power of the personalities of Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Magic, Shaq, Bird and others - the NBA would not be as profitable as business as it is.

[J-Roc]

I don't see how popular players actually equals more leverage.

[dagger]

Without the combination of superior skill and the power of the personalities of Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Magic, Shaq, Bird and others - the NBA would not be as profitable as business as it is.

Forbes says it's not

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/201 ... ive-years/

[OAKLEY_2]

This will be a long and nasty battle which in the end the small market & corporate owners will win.

Not sure I totally agree with this speculation. The league has a vested interest in having their TV ratings continue. After extracting some cost certainty provisions I could see them back in time to have the playoffs. I think it is the big markets that will drive this along with their flagship star personalities sick of bleeding serious money. I will be very surprised to see small markets, many of whom would not have big league franchises in other pro sports, come out like a "winner". While NO and OKC have been competitive franchises recently if either were to falter how before big media market sharks come looking for Chris Paul and Kevin Durant?

[WhatsaTDot]

There is no way New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland, Miami, Chicago walk out of these negotiations as losers.

Which is why it's ludicrous to make assumptions of outcomes of these negotations based on the premise that the new CBA will cripple these franchises from being able to make moves, or even crazier assumptions like them having to shed star players.

Dolan - "Sorry Melo, we thought it was in the Knicks best interest to agree to the new CBA. You're heading to New Orleans."

Melo - "Imma kill Derek Fisher."

[Laowai]

There is no way New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland, Miami, Chicago walk out of these negotiations as losers.

Which is why it's ludicrous to make assumptions of outcomes of these negotations based on the premise that the new CBA will cripple these franchises from being able to make moves, or even crazier assumptions like them having to shed star players.

Dolan - "Sorry Melo, we thought it was in the Knicks best interest to agree to the new CBA. You're heading to New Orleans."

Melo - "Imma kill Derek Fisher."

Math is obviously not your strong point the corporate owners and small and mid market owners outnumber the have teams.

Also Melo would say haven't a check in 18 months LaLa can't make a dime my Bentley is being taken settle or I'm smack you.

[J-Roc]

There is no way New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland, Miami, Chicago walk out of these negotiations as losers.

Which is why it's ludicrous to make assumptions of outcomes of these negotations based on the premise that the new CBA will cripple these franchises from being able to make moves, or even crazier assumptions like them having to shed star players.

Dolan - "Sorry Melo, we thought it was in the Knicks best interest to agree to the new CBA. You're heading to New Orleans."

Melo - "Imma kill Derek Fisher."

Math is obviously not your strong point the corporate owners and small and mid market owners outnumber the have teams.

Also Melo would say haven't a check in 18 months LaLa can't make a dime my Bentley is being taken settle or I'm smack you.

For some reason these negotiations never do work out the way they should....for the lower end teams/players. The mid-level and lower paid players make up the majority of the NBPA, so you'd think they want to settle faster and keep their pay. What would Reggie Evans care about max contracts..... But for whatever reason the higher end players (and higher end teams) do hold more sway.

[WhatsaTDot]

There is no way New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland, Miami, Chicago walk out of these negotiations as losers.

Which is why it's ludicrous to make assumptions of outcomes of these negotations based on the premise that the new CBA will cripple these franchises from being able to make moves, or even crazier assumptions like them having to shed star players.

Dolan - "Sorry Melo, we thought it was in the Knicks best interest to agree to the new CBA. You're heading to New Orleans."

Melo - "Imma kill Derek Fisher."

Math is obviously not your strong point the corporate owners and small and mid market owners outnumber the have teams.

Also Melo would say haven't a check in 18 months LaLa can't make a dime my Bentley is being taken settle or I'm smack you.

Haven't you already been warned about thrusting yourself into adult conversations? I created some threads of interest to you in the OT section. Look for:

Which food group is paint chips?
Asbestos is just another name for AWESOME!
When I use my left hand, it feels like someone else.
Engrish: How to fake it.
Punctuation is for suckers

Enjoy!

[ranger001]

I think there's more to the flex cap or the union would not be so against it. But even if its just exactly the same as the current system except its a total dollar limit it'd limit salaries just as effectively as a hard cap.

So hard cap!

edit: I'm out for a while. I'll answer more of your hard cap questions tomorrow.

It is quite difficult to debate with someone with such a moving target for that they're arguing for.

Now your position is "The union is super against it so it must be a hard cap!". No.

If the owners proposed the current system, but changed player salaries so they were set at 40% BRI, the union would be just as against it.

There are a few reasons the 2 billion dollar deal is terrible for the players, and excellent for the owners.

1) It is 10 years long. The players would be locked into 2 Billion a year with no chance to improve it regardless of how popular the league gets or how much revenue the owners receive. There are few things that are nearly certain in life, but 2 billion dollars in 2021 will be a lot less valuable than 2 billion in 2011.

2) As I stated, the amount the players get has no chance of improving and both the players and the owners are estimating that revenues will continue to grow. At the end of the deal the players will likely be receiving less than 45% of BRI. Which is, a total screw job.

even if its just exactly the same as the current system except its a total dollar limit it'd limit salaries just as effectively as a hard cap.

Just like the current system does. The salaries are limited.

So then the soft-cap is a hard-cap. And the sky is again purple.

I look forward to addressing your misinformation again tomorrow.

So you agree that the players would have an upper limit of 2 billion a year.

In the current system total salaries go up as BRI goes up. Under the "flex" cap total salaries are capped at a hard limit. Its a league hard cap. Call it something else if you want.

[wfnshow316]

In many ways the whole dispute is the definition of BRI - under the current system BRI creates a soft cap (with it being a percentage and what is included and what is excluded) - most importantly it does not included local TV revenue - Under the NBA proposal it is set hard at $2 billion a year max -

The players don't want to change - they want NBA teams to share that TV revenue - LA signed a $150 million a year TV deal with Comcast for 20 years - they don't share it - MSLE have fairly lucrative deals with TSN, Sportsnet and Score - and they don't share that either -

So the owners proposal is to guarantee costs - and more important to eliminate BRI and allow the owners to create an equitable way to create profit sharing (which would be aimed at minimize the amount needing to be shared from local TV revenue's) (If all teams have a rigid salary structure - then teams it is easier to determine if the team is viable in that location and b) what level of revenue sharing would be required on average to make nonviable teams viable)

[OAKLEY_2]

For some reason these negotiations never do work out the way they should....for the lower end teams/players. The mid-level and lower paid players make up the majority of the NBPA, so you'd think they want to settle faster and keep their pay. What would Reggie Evans care about max contracts..... But for whatever reason the higher end players (and higher end teams) do hold more sway.

It is called TV. The "product" which supports advertising is delivered through this medium. Controlling the means of distribution is where the power truly is. Dolan is a big media guy. Coincidence? The league is really made up of a handful of strong media operators and all other teams are there to give the league credibility. That it is something big. The CBA will have to pass the big media market smell test. Everyone else is a minor shareholder.

[Ponchos]

So you agree that the players would have an upper limit of 2 billion a year.

In the current system total salaries go up as BRI goes up. Under the "flex" cap total salaries are capped at a hard limit. Its a league hard cap. Call it something else if you want.

Ok, since you have a very hard time understanding simple concepts this will be my last post on the issue.

A hard-cap is not a hard-cap just because you say it is. Here are the definitions of a hard-cap and a soft-cap:

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-cba-glossary/g/soft-cap.htm

The NBA's salary cap is described as a "soft" cap; that is, there are a variety of methods teams can use to exceed the cap in any given season.

And this is what a hard-cap is:

The owners' initial proposals for a new collective bargaining agreement reportedly ELIMINATE ALL OF THESE EXCEPTIONS in favor of a "hard" salary cap that cannot be exceeded for any reason. The National Hockey League employs a hard cap, as did the National Football League, until their collective bargaining agreement lapsed.

A hard-cap is a set number for an INDIVIDUAL TEAM, that cannot be exceeded by exceptions such as the Bird-exception or MLE's. A hard cap is not something you can just make up an arbitrary definition for.

Here is another website proving my point:

http://www.sportscity.com/NBA/Salary-Cap/

The NBA institutes a 'soft cap' as appose to a 'hard cap' like the NHL and NFL. 'Soft Cap' meaning that their are several Exceptions and loop holes to exceed the salary cap. Hard Cap meaning their is little or no circumstances on which teams may exceed the Salary cap.

The Flex-cap is a type of soft-cap as there is a set cap for each team, then each team can go beyond it (into luxury-tax) with EXCEPTIONS.

You're fixated on the "CAP" part of hard-cap and soft-cap which does not adequately highlight the differences between the two systems.

Anyhow, in summation, I'm right and you're wrong (yet again). Respond if you like, call soft-caps hard-caps if you like. This post is primarily so that readers on this site with at least a lower level grasp of the English language will not be misinformed by you.

[OAKLEY_2]

Cap schmap.
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/d ... ndex.html#

"It will be difficult. Rich men are capable of doing just about anything to remain rich. This new generation of NBA owners, many of whom are leveraged up to their ears and who have tens of millions of annual debt service to pay before they pay a single coach or player their gargantuan salaries, has among its ranks those who are fully ready to sacrifice all of next season if it means a sea change in the league's financial system. The new generation didn't pay $1 million for his franchise (like the late Abe Pollin, who bought the Baltimore Bullets in 1964), or $6 million (the late Bill Davidson, who bought the Pistons in 1974). Having been in the game for decades, the old guard was more likely to be willing to cut a deal.

Today's NBA is filled with owners who paid through the nose for their teams, and have years of red ink in front of them before they ever see a return on their investment.

The list includes Joe Lacob and Peter Guber (Golden State, purchased in 2010 for $450 million), Robert Sarver (Phoenix, 2005, $400 million), Dan Gilbert (Cleveland, 2005, $375 million), Wyc Grousbeck and Steve Pagluica (Boston, 2002, $360 million), Ted Leonsis (Washington, 2010, $300 million -- an estimated price that does not include another $250 million in debt on Verizon Center and the Wizards that Leonsis also has to assume) and Mikhail Prokhorov (New Jersey, 2009, $200 million for 80 percent of the team and 45 percent of the new Barclays Center in Brooklyn in which the Nets will play beginning in 2013).

Add to that NBA owners who also own NHL teams -- a group including Leonsis (Capitals), Stan Kroenke (Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche) and Philip Anschutz (part-owner of the Lakers and owner of the NHL's Kings) and who survived the cancellation of the 2004-05 season in that sport after a lockout lasting nearly a year -- and you have a strong cross-section of owners who are emboldened to do whatever it takes to create a system that ensures profitability. That's something you have heard from Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver over and over again during the past 18 months.

"The old guys, they'd made a lot of money already," said a longtime and former senior executive of an NBA team who's been involved in previous collective bargaining sessions with the players. (Like just about everyone quoted in this piece, he obviously cannot be named.).

"Now you have guys saying 'I'm losing money, and I have to find a way to make this team that I bought for $350 million worth $500 million.' "

Players, of course, don't want their paychecks to finance profit certainty when no other business has that kind of arrangement with its workers."

Debt might be one of the many tough problems here. Profit certainty? The only way they could come close is very generous revenue sharing, hard cap, pay cuts. My guess is the owners are more divided than the players because the biggy - revenue sharing - hurts some owners so lets see who blinks first.

If you don't like Euro ball this just in, that is where the best players will be playing.

[from24ft]

Without the combination of superior skill and the power of the personalities of Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Magic, Shaq, Bird and others - the NBA would not be as profitable as business as it is.

Forbes says it's not

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/201 ... ive-years/

Those aren't numbers from Forbes dagger, they are the numbers from a negotiator for the league who gracefully passed on the propaganda memo to Forbes so that it could be disseminated.


There are reason's for running businesses at a loss. For instance, if I have many of them, or I have other interests, and I know I will be dinged by capital gains. I can choose to run one business at a loss, by pumping up charges to that company account, increasing expenditures therefore showing net operating loss. Than I get my capital gains bill from something unrelated, I use my losses from my NBA ownership to wipe out that bill.

So by showing a profit, in A, and than having to pay capital gains on B - I lose the capital gains money. But, if I spend the money as an expenditure on A, and cover it with B, I am ahead. Hence I can expense out fast cars, condos, and anything else in the name of the business.


The other aspect that is not talked about is that operational expenses mean little to a business whose core asset value increases over its duration. Is the NBA brand worth more than it was 20 years ago, of course. It is more global. So often businesses show operational losses but their base value increase outstrips those losses. This does not mean you can't use those losses as a bargaining chip to your unions or suppliers.


Anyway, without the real books, and without seeing how much debt the owners took on (basically used their franchises as credit cards... remember it was easy credit in the last few years), there is no way of knowing if the losses are self inflicted or caused by the lack of revenues.

Again there are tricks to showing losses, or even making your enterprise break even, these all can be strategic.


The players have done absolutely everything that was asked of them on the last CBA which the owners locked them out for until they signed. It was the best one the league ever had, and now you are trying to tell me that while revenues increased substantially, the CBA is the problem?


I can be an irresponsible owner, and use my franchise like a credit card. If I get the players to go off the NET, I can screw them for any share of the pie I want. As I control the net, I can increase expenditures, and show any profit I want. This means taking loans and making the players pay interest payments on them from their side of the pie. It's very easy to do.

(If the PA accepts the net proposal, they essentially are allowing the owners to pay them whatever share the owners deem they should pay. Only a fool would take that deal. Stern putting that deal on the table should be taken as an insult to anyone with any knowledge of business and finance.)

[Laowai]

There is no way New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Portland, Miami, Chicago walk out of these negotiations as losers.

Which is why it's ludicrous to make assumptions of outcomes of these negotations based on the premise that the new CBA will cripple these franchises from being able to make moves, or even crazier assumptions like them having to shed star players.

Dolan - "Sorry Melo, we thought it was in the Knicks best interest to agree to the new CBA. You're heading to New Orleans."

Melo - "Imma kill Derek Fisher."

Math is obviously not your strong point the corporate owners and small and mid market owners outnumber the have teams.

Also Melo would say haven't a check in 18 months LaLa can't make a dime my Bentley is being taken settle or I'm smack you.

Haven't you already been warned about thrusting yourself into adult conversations? I created some threads of interest to you in the OT section. Look for:

Which food group is paint chips?
Asbestos is just another name for AWESOME!
When I use my left hand, it feels like someone else.
Engrish: How to fake it.
Punctuation is for suckers

Enjoy!

Queen of Snark.......never contribute

[Laowai]

Without the combination of superior skill and the power of the personalities of Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Magic, Shaq, Bird and others - the NBA would not be as profitable as business as it is.

Forbes says it's not

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/201 ... ive-years/

Those aren't numbers from Forbes dagger, they are the numbers from a negotiator for the league who gracefully passed on the propaganda memo to Forbes so that it could be disseminated.


There are reason's for running businesses at a loss. For instance, if I have many of them, or I have other interests, and I know I will be dinged by capital gains. I can choose to run one business at a loss, by pumping up charges to that company account, increasing expenditures therefore showing net operating loss. Than I get my capital gains bill from something unrelated, I use my losses from my NBA ownership to wipe out that bill.

So by showing a profit, in A, and than having to pay capital gains on B - I lose the capital gains money. But, if I spend the money as an expenditure on A, and cover it with B, I am ahead. Hence I can expense out fast cars, condos, and anything else in the name of the business.


The other aspect that is not talked about is that operational expenses mean little to a business whose core asset value increases over its duration. Is the NBA brand worth more than it was 20 years ago, of course. It is more global. So often businesses show operational losses but their base value increase outstrips those losses. This does not mean you can't use those losses as a bargaining chip to your unions or suppliers.


Anyway, without the real books, and without seeing how much debt the owners took on (basically used their franchises as credit cards... remember it was easy credit in the last few years), there is no way of knowing if the losses are self inflicted or caused by the lack of revenues.

Again there are tricks to showing losses, or even making your enterprise break even, these all can be strategic.


The players have done absolutely everything that was asked of them on the last CBA which the owners locked them out for until they signed. It was the best one the league ever had, and now you are trying to tell me that while revenues increased substantially, the CBA is the problem?


I can be an irresponsible owner, and use my franchise like a credit card. If I get the players to go off the NET, I can screw them for any share of the pie I want. As I control the net, I can increase expenditures, and show any profit I want. This means taking loans and making the players pay interest payments on them from their side of the pie. It's very easy to do.

(If the PA accepts the net proposal, they essentially are allowing the owners to pay them whatever share the owners deem they should pay. Only a fool would take that deal. Stern putting that deal on the table should be taken as an insult to anyone with any knowledge of business and finance.)

So you are saying a owner shouldn't make a profit and that the employees should run the ship?
I think MJ would disagree at this point in time with you now that he is a owner and is bleeding. Whether it was a good business decision to buy the team is another matter.
If the players wish to take their services elsewhere great but I can't see Kobe playing for 2 million.
Or they can form there own league buy building negotiate television contracts highly unlikely.
The middle class players will start to revolt at about the 6 month mark most do not have long term contracts and are looking a 3 to 5 year careers, do you really think they care about the stars who will be OK no matter what. If the CBA remains the same 5 or 6 teams will likely fold in the next 5 years.

[from24ft]

I am saying you should eat your veggies and not deprive yourself of physical activity.

[OAKLEY_2]

(If the PA accepts the net proposal, they essentially are allowing the owners to pay them whatever share the owners deem they should pay. Only a fool would take that deal. Stern putting that deal on the table should be taken as an insult to anyone with any knowledge of business and finance.)

Hence why the players are digging in their heals. The owner debt issue is different for every team yet the CBA is the same set of rules for everyone. Over leveraging a franchise based on what are likely to be over inflated franchise evaluations is a prescription for financial failure. The players have every right to give the league the middle index. Many owners will have thought that the investment was a nice short sell and that they can incur the loss for a time and then dump the asset in whole or in part for a profit. But maybe the market doesn't exist for that so now they need a player bailout. Sounds like Wall Street going cap in hand to the federal government for corporate welfare when they were responsible for inventing the problem in the first place.

[DG88]

Ken Berger shares part 2 of his plan to end the lockout

months in the making. In the never-never-land of NBA trades, the deal would've been nearly impossible to pull off without a very real $11.3 million contract being traded to Minnesota in the form of an imaginary player named Eddy Curry.

Curry, who hasn't appeared in an NBA game since Dec. 17, 2009, possessed one of the most valued and peculiar assets in the sport: not a low-post game, and certainly not rebounding ability, but rather a hefty expiring contract. Curry's salary, plus a 15 percent trade kicker, was tossed into the machine like dirty socks into the laundry to help the glamour-market Knicks -- who regrettably had given Curry a $60 million contract in 2005 -- acquire one of the game's marquee players.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1530 ... tional-cap

For part 1 here's the link
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1527 ... a_txt_0001

[Orsk]

I don't really understand America and all of the union BS. I've always been a firm believer of the guy who pays the bills is th guy who makes dictates everything else. If you dont like the pay, GTFO and find another job... why should the players have ANY decision in the league rules and how much they get paid? They arent the ones putting up the capital to make the league work, nor doing anything but play the game. There are people behind the scenes that are more important than the players. If they dont like the rules they should get out and go play in Europe or somewhere else imo...