Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[DG88]

More from Woj and David Aldridge

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Despite fact Fisher said there were no new proposals, you get idea someone may have moved on issues. Also, NBPA economist wasn't here today.
9 minutes ago

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Stern: no one walked out. Possible mtgs on Fri if there is progress Wed . Both sides need to discuss "concepts" discussed today.
15 minutes ago

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
My experience (!) w/short labor meetings: there's a new proposal on table or one side walked out. Efforting answer.
38 minutes ago

That last tweet from Aldridge is a good sign that things might be moving faster now in the labour talks and that the NBPA economist weren't at the meeting either.

[J-Roc]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

Why don't teams who aren't selling out just lower their ticket prices until they do?

[Fairview4Life]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

Why don't teams who aren't selling out just lower their ticket prices until they do?

Why don't you ask them.

[dagger]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

Why don't teams who aren't selling out just lower their ticket prices until they do?

Because they will lose more money than they gain, and when they start playing better and want to raise prices will have a harder, slower slog getting prices back up to where they felt they should have been all along. Only the Knicks would have the gall to put through a 40% price increase for next season.

[dagger]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

Why don't teams who aren't selling out just lower their ticket prices until they do?

Because they will lose more money than they gain, and when they start playing better and want to raise prices will have a harder, slower slog getting prices back up to where they felt they should have been all along. Only the Knicks would have the gall to put through a 40% price increase for next season.

[S.W.A.N]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... ing_092711



Owners finally make a move...

Its a small thing, going from 'hard cap' to 'severe luxury tax' but it creates ground for movement and gives the union a win.They can go back to the players and say okay its not perfect but its not a hard cap.

This is a big step, tomorrow is going to be a very important day. If they can get closer (don't have to make a deal yet) then the chance of having a full season increases dramatically

[DG88]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_meeting_092711



Owners finally make a move...

Its a small thing, going from 'hard cap' to 'severe luxury tax' but it creates ground for movement and gives the union a win.They can go back to the players and say okay its not perfect but its not a hard cap.

This is a big step, tomorrow is going to be a very important day. If they can get closer (don't have to make a deal yet) then the chance of having a full season increases dramatically

Was about to post this. This is huge, the players get the win but just slightly.

[C_Money]

As Russell Peters would say..."Take it and go"


The writer does mention at the bottom though that a deal has to be made soon for there to be a chance at a full 82 game season.

[whoknows]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

You prove my point.
The result would be no season interruption, happy owners, happy fans. And since all ticket pricing and players pay would be rightfully be dictated by free market (demand and supply), some top players would make more than they make right now. So don't feel sorry for the deserving players, they would get paid even more in a non-union environment.

Let's hope that the owners smart decision to scrap the cap and today's meeting will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Fairview4Life]

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

You prove my point.
The result would be no season interruption, happy owners, happy fans. And since all ticket pricing and players pay would be rightfully be dictated by free market (demand and supply), some top players would make more than they make right now. So don't feel sorry for the deserving players, they would get paid even more in a non-union environment.

Let's hope that the owners smart decision to scrap the cap and today's meeting will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

How are you drawing these conclusions? I think you are very confused. Ticket prices are already dictated by the free market (and branding concerns, etc.). That is the point, and it wasn't your point. Lower player salaries will not mean lower ticket prices. Your utopian free market solution to ticket pricing and fan happiness is already here, and the fans aren't going to be any more happy with their ticket prices if the owners are keeping more of the profits.

[Too Late Crew]

Smart PR move by the owners.

The workers get their "blood issue" and "win" but ultimately still lose.

If they put a super luxury tax in say $100 for every dollar then even the richest owners start to be effected and it becomes a hard cap under a different name. Its like you saying "I won't accept a hard cap on the temperature in this room I want to be able to go over 20C its a "blood issue"

So I say "fine the thermometer can go over 20 C no hard cap but if you do go over you need to give me 10,000 cash for every degree over."

See no hard cap but unless you have 20 K cash in your pocket it might as well be.

[DG88]

More on what the owners want changed

•The "Larry Bird exception," which allows teams to exceed the cap to retain their own free agents regardless of their other committed salaries, is limited to one player per team per season.

•The mid-level exception, which the league valued at $7.4 million last season and could be extended by as many as five years, is reduced in length and size.

•The current luxury tax, the $1-for-$1 penalty a team must pay to the league for the amount it exceeds the salary cap, is to be severely increased.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/70278 ... cap-demand

[whoknows]

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

You prove my point.
The result would be no season interruption, happy owners, happy fans. And since all ticket pricing and players pay would be rightfully be dictated by free market (demand and supply), some top players would make more than they make right now. So don't feel sorry for the deserving players, they would get paid even more in a non-union environment.

Let's hope that the owners smart decision to scrap the cap and today's meeting will be the light at the end of the tunnel.

How are you drawing these conclusions? I think you are very confused. Ticket prices are already dictated by the free market (and branding concerns, etc.). That is the point, and it wasn't your point. Lower player salaries will not mean lower ticket prices. Your utopian free market solution to ticket pricing and fan happiness is already here, and the fans aren't going to be any more happy with their ticket prices if the owners are keeping more of the profits.

Lower players salaries = less expense = potential lower ticket price (unless market allows you to crank it up)
The owners need a profit to function. Since cost of running a business is lower, the profit starts at lower revenue so owners can afford to lower ticket price.
Of course places like NY & LA would be stupid to lower their prices. However places like MN, WI, etc could bring more people in their seats with lower prices (while still making a profit).

[Fairview4Life]

Lower players salaries = less expense = potential lower ticket price (unless market allows you to crank it up)
The owners need a profit to function. Since cost of running a business is lower, the profit starts at lower revenue so owners can afford to lower ticket price.
Of course places like NY & LA would be stupid to lower their prices. However places like MN, WI, etc could bring more people in their seats with lower prices (while still making a profit).

But that is not reality. The owners might be able to afford lower ticket prices in that scenario (putting the lie to their claims of poverty, by the way), but that doesn't mean ticket prices will lower. Ticket pricing is only tangentially related to player salaries, if at all. And it's basically all optics for the team and not even close to a direct relationship.

[Too Late Crew]

Lower players salaries = less expense = potential lower ticket price (unless market allows you to crank it up)
The owners need a profit to function. Since cost of running a business is lower, the profit starts at lower revenue so owners can afford to lower ticket price.
Of course places like NY & LA would be stupid to lower their prices. However places like MN, WI, etc could bring more people in their seats with lower prices (while still making a profit).

But that is not reality. The owners might be able to afford lower ticket prices in that scenario (putting the lie to their claims of poverty, by the way), but that doesn't mean ticket prices will lower. Ticket pricing is only tangentially related to player salaries, if at all. And it's basically all optics for the team and not even close to a direct relationship.

Have to agree with Fairview. Ticket prices are driven by what the market will bear. They may fluctuate with the economy (down when people have less to spend up when they have more) or by team success..if your team sucks you lower prices to get crowds in if you win a ring you jack prices because you know you can sell out.

Baseline ticket prices are already LONG established under the old CBA. Don't forget that tickets are a limited product. You only have so many seats to sell. If you are already at capacity or near then lowering ticket prices have 0 benefit. Don't forget either than there are TWO teams playing. If the Heat come to town and you will sell out because people want to see wade and Lebron what difference does how much you pay your own players.
Ticket prices work within a fairly narrow band dictated by what the market will pay. If costs go down prices will stay relatively the same but they will just reap more profit.

[whoknows]

Lower players salaries = less expense = potential lower ticket price (unless market allows you to crank it up)
The owners need a profit to function. Since cost of running a business is lower, the profit starts at lower revenue so owners can afford to lower ticket price.
Of course places like NY & LA would be stupid to lower their prices. However places like MN, WI, etc could bring more people in their seats with lower prices (while still making a profit).

But that is not reality. The owners might be able to afford lower ticket prices in that scenario (putting the lie to their claims of poverty, by the way), but that doesn't mean ticket prices will lower. Ticket pricing is only tangentially related to player salaries, if at all. And it's basically all optics for the team and not even close to a direct relationship.

Have to agree with Fairview. Ticket prices are driven by what the market will bear. They may fluctuate with the economy (down when people have less to spend up when they have more) or by team success..if your team sucks you lower prices to get crowds in if you win a ring you jack prices because you know you can sell out.

Baseline ticket prices are already LONG established under the old CBA. Don't forget that tickets are a limited product. You only have so many seats to sell. If you are already at capacity or near then lowering ticket prices have 0 benefit. Don't forget either than there are TWO teams playing. If the Heat come to town and you will sell out because people want to see wade and Lebron what difference does how much you pay your own players.
Ticket prices work within a fairly narrow band dictated by what the market will pay. If costs go down prices will stay relatively the same but they will just reap more profit.

Agree, but the whole argument was based on the premises that there is no union and no CBA.
Of course any business will increase their price for as much as a market would support it. But if there is a team that makes a huge profit, the laws of free economy will take care of it by bringing another competing team in the same market (to meet demand sooner than later).
Show me demand (aka huge margins) and soon you'll have competitors for that market/business.

My argument is that low income teams would not be forced to pay a minimum $500k for bench players and play by union rules (where players are in a better position than their coach). When operating on a higher margin, a poor team can afford to lower the cost of seats in their arenas if they need to do it.

[Fairview4Life]

You still haven't explained why teams would lower the price of their tickets if players made less. You just keep saying they could. Well, they could lower the price of their seats if players made more money too. The two values aren't tied together. It's just a meaningless statement. They could lower or raise their ticket prices however they want yesterday, today, and tomorrow, no matter what happens with player salaries in this CBA, or even in a non union world. Ticket prices and player salaries are not linked in any real way.

The players union also isn't what is stopping 5 teams from playing in NY or LA, and I really have no idea why you think they are. The players are not keeping teams from competing for the same markets.

[Eating a Book]

The point you're missing, Fairview, is that we must crush the bourgeoisie.

[HSOB SIRHC]

Meeting just ended and it looks like Friday is the big day. Kobe and Lebron are supposedly going to be there as well.

Ken Berger
@KBergCBS Ken Berger
Derek Fisher: Two sides agreed to meet again Friday, with full committees coming to NY.

Ken Berger
@KBergCBS Ken Berger
In addition to negotiation committees for both sides, some "key players" and as many as 15 owners will be present.

@KBergCBS Ken Berger
The weekend has been blocked out to continue negotiating, Fisher said.

@alanhahn Alan Hahn
Union president Derek Fisher said sides broke to respect Jewish holiday for some involved and they will reconvene on Friday afternoon. #NBA

Alan Hahn
@alanhahn Alan Hahn
The plan right now is to leave the weekend open to more talks, tho Fisher said it was more to urgency of calendar than progress made. #NBA

[OvertimeNO]

Meeting just ended and it looks like Friday is the big day. Kobe and Lebron are supposedly going to be there as well.

Kobe will be there for $18 million. Lebron will be there, but only for the first three quarters.

Okay, back to work.