Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[roundhead0]

But what is "their way"? Are the small market teams really only happy if they get 50% from the players? Or are they also happy if they get less from the players and more from the rich teams?

I think it's about the bottom line. There is going to be a lot of pressure on the rich teams to strike a deal with the poor ones.

I'm not sure they care which way they get it, just as long as they get something to make them more profitable.

[I_Like_Dirt]

But the owners aren't the ones calling that bluff. They don't want the union to decertify, they just want a system where the majority of teams can be financially viable. It's not too complicated. They opened their books, showed their losses and now they are trying to recoup.

You say this as though it's a fact. The facts are that the NBA and NHL have both functioned wonderfully for the past couple of decades with players salaries in the 53-57% of BRI range. Now, suddenly, the NBA is claiming that they can't make that work despite the fact that the NHL is still making it work at 57% right now. The league opened their books, but they don't spell out exactly where all the expenses go, just the amounts and general categories, and the players, upon seeing them, immediately started to question them, however are extremely limited in what they are able to say due to non-disclosure agreements that are generally counted in with things like this.

The league is either viable right now, or pretty darn close to viable. It just isn't viable for small market teams because bigger markets are pushing the spending limits on them. The only solution to that problem is revenue sharing. Anything besides that is just a band aid solution that will hide the problems for a few years and only resurface again come the next CBA negotiations. In the end, this is entirely about revenue sharing and the fact that the league hasn't already agreed to increased revenue sharing means the smaller markets are crying even poorer than they would be with revenue sharing and the league is holding out for a better deal, gutting their overall revenue in the process, all because large market teams are against revenue sharing.

And I get it, I wouldn't want to share revenues with guys like the Maloofs, to get nothing into Jordan's bungling ownership group in Charlotte or George Shinn (thankfully gone now). You've got to have a margin for failure for poor management groups rather than just have wealthy teams bail them out all the time, but if the league wants teams in smaller markets, then revenue sharing is the only solution to this particular impasse.

[C Court]

On Prime Time Sports it was pointed out that there are many ways that owners have leveraged their basketball teams into money-making opportunities which generate significant income which is not part of BRI. That said, without their NBA team - these opportunities would not exist.

Of course we know of the NJ/Brooklyn Nets land deals which led to hundreds of millions in profits. The PTS guys then pointed to Dan Gilbert's lucrative Ohio casino deals. While Gilbert may lose money on his team (unlikely), he potentially can earn a billion or more on casinos.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/20 ... %99-arena/

Ohio voters passed Issue 3, which was a measure to amend the state constitution to allow four casinos to be built. Gilbert, set to own two of them, and a casino company poured $35 million into the project and ran an intense and wide-ranging campaign. With victory secured, they were on the road to a windfall that some estimate could be in the billions. … LeBron James was invited but wasn’t there, though his presence hung in the room. After casino measures had failed four times over the previous 18 years in Ohio, Gilbert had pulled the sword from the stone with an all-encompassing deal that essentially gave him and his partners a monopoly on gambling in the state. He got there with an attractive plan and timing, plus his personal sterling reputation in Ohio. But mostly he got there on the back of the massive popularity of the Cavs at the time, which of course was powered by James.

[S.W.A.N]

Personally, I am doubtful that a 50% BRi will do it long term for Charlotte and other small market teams. The big market teams will find a way to put financial pressure on small market owners to force them to overspend in order to remain competitive with the big boys.

I've said before - small market owners will be crying poor again within five years unless there is a massive revenue share pool, which NY, LA, Chicago and others don't want.

I think you are going to see movement towards an actual revenue sharing plan saturday morning...

As this gets closer and closer to being a fully lost season the pressure on the big market teams to increase the revenue sharing agreement increases.

While small market teams can see the value of a missed season, the big markets don't. They make good money and will make even better money in the years to come with any deal in the 50-52 range.

Owners really need to get the revenue sharing plan worked out now.

[Indeed]

On Prime Time Sports it was pointed out that there are many ways that owners have leveraged their basketball teams into money-making opportunities which generate significant income which is not part of BRI. That said, without their NBA team - these opportunities would not exist.

Of course we know of the NJ/Brooklyn Nets land deals which led to hundreds of millions in profits. The PTS guys then pointed to Dan Gilbert's lucrative Ohio casino deals. While Gilbert may lose money on his team (unlikely), he potentially can earn a billion or more on casinos.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/20 ... %99-arena/

Ohio voters passed Issue 3, which was a measure to amend the state constitution to allow four casinos to be built. Gilbert, set to own two of them, and a casino company poured $35 million into the project and ran an intense and wide-ranging campaign. With victory secured, they were on the road to a windfall that some estimate could be in the billions. … LeBron James was invited but wasn’t there, though his presence hung in the room. After casino measures had failed four times over the previous 18 years in Ohio, Gilbert had pulled the sword from the stone with an all-encompassing deal that essentially gave him and his partners a monopoly on gambling in the state. He got there with an attractive plan and timing, plus his personal sterling reputation in Ohio. But mostly he got there on the back of the massive popularity of the Cavs at the time, which of course was powered by James.

Definitely, both owners and star players are the beneficial of these non-RBI.
I am sure owners can make more, but being greedy with RBI as well.

[Indeed]

But the owners aren't the ones calling that bluff. They don't want the union to decertify, they just want a system where the majority of teams can be financially viable. It's not too complicated. They opened their books, showed their losses and now they are trying to recoup.

You say this as though it's a fact. The facts are that the NBA and NHL have both functioned wonderfully for the past couple of decades with players salaries in the 53-57% of BRI range. Now, suddenly, the NBA is claiming that they can't make that work despite the fact that the NHL is still making it work at 57% right now. The league opened their books, but they don't spell out exactly where all the expenses go, just the amounts and general categories, and the players, upon seeing them, immediately started to question them, however are extremely limited in what they are able to say due to non-disclosure agreements that are generally counted in with things like this.

The league is either viable right now, or pretty darn close to viable. It just isn't viable for small market teams because bigger markets are pushing the spending limits on them. The only solution to that problem is revenue sharing. Anything besides that is just a band aid solution that will hide the problems for a few years and only resurface again come the next CBA negotiations. In the end, this is entirely about revenue sharing and the fact that the league hasn't already agreed to increased revenue sharing means the smaller markets are crying even poorer than they would be with revenue sharing and the league is holding out for a better deal, gutting their overall revenue in the process, all because large market teams are against revenue sharing.

And I get it, I wouldn't want to share revenues with guys like the Maloofs, to get nothing into Jordan's bungling ownership group in Charlotte or George Shinn (thankfully gone now). You've got to have a margin for failure for poor management groups rather than just have wealthy teams bail them out all the time, but if the league wants teams in smaller markets, then revenue sharing is the only solution to this particular impasse.

I am expecting the next CBA the owners will ask for 35% RBI to the players.
How hard it is to over spent and make owners side look bad? As long as they don't have to disclose the details, I can do spend the money for them too.

Anyway, I just think there is no proof of saying small market teams are losing tons of money. Not true to me, in terms of how they can avoid over spending. I just can't believe people easily trust one side without any proof.

[douggood]

so basically owners started off at 47 and moved up to 50, seemingly stern made that offer without backing/approval from the owners, and the players have stuck at 52.5 and haven't budged. do i have the basics right?

[Ponchos]

so basically owners started off at 47 and moved up to 50, seemingly stern made that offer without backing/approval from the owners, and the players have stuck at 52.5 and haven't budged. do i have the basics right?

Not quite. Players started at 57, moved down to 54, then 53, then 52.5.

[floppymoose]

Owners started at 39 or so, and have moved to 47. Or 50 if the players give up everything on system issues. But the offer that takes into account all the negotiating they did on system issues is supposedly 47.

[Cyrus]

This is a great article explaining where we currently at:

Parity is just PR!

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/718 ... ayers-cave

Personally this makes the decertification issue not an issue for the owners...

Because the thing is after this plays in court for a year...or longer, Players will have lost a year and half worth of checks. And even if they deem the locket illegal with no union, what will end up happening is LBJ and Wade and co will get 40 mill contracts, and all the middle class, will get like 2-3 mill, and who knows what rookies get.

Unions is about protecting the middle class...Superstars get less, but make it up in endorsements.

Anywho Owners are Rich, they got other sources of revenues, and none of them are hurting with no games being played now, or for a year.

[floppymoose]

What you don't mention is that the no-union no-CBA scenario doesn't work for the owners either. They will end up spending north of 60% revenues on the players.

That's why it's the "nuclear option". Owners will come back with a better offer before they allow that to happen.

[Fairview4Life]

The players can possibly win triple damages in an antitrust case against the league if they decertify and sue.

[Homer Jay]

I truly find it weird that the players are so focused on the percentage BRI and not on the definition of BRI. Like some people pointed out the owners are finding ways to turn that game against the players as well.

Example with the Raptors being owned by MLSE, which owns a network, does all that money that RAPTOR-NBA TV generates count as BRI? or does MLSE pay the Raptors (as a subsidiary) a fee for broadcast rights and only that fee is BRI? Does only ad revenue matter or ads and channel subscriptions?
Also, what happens if Rogers or Bell buy MLSE? That complicates things even more, with the network owning multi-sport channels. What if Rogers told advertisers that they will write up there ad buys as being for the Jays (with MLB not having a percentage payout they don't care), and the subsequent Raps ads being heavily discounted or even free? They just collected a ton of money they could exclude from BRI!

i have just never seen these issues spelled out so far...

[Cyrus]

What you don't mention is that the no-union no-CBA scenario doesn't work for the owners either. They will end up spending north of 60% revenues on the players.

That's why it's the "nuclear option". Owners will come back with a better offer before they allow that to happen.

No they won't...They won't sign anyone... Players will file an collusion lawsuit, and wil ltake another 2-3 years resolved everything,

Basically at min if they go this route, the players will lose like 3 years of paychecks...Assuming first they decertifiy, I say that'll take a year from Today or so to resolve...Then when they are open market and not getting offers, they'll file a collusion lawsuit, and who knows if there is appeals and such.

And you seem to think Owners with no rules, will Sign guys to team payroll of 200 mill...If for whatever reason all 30 teams agree alright lets do this for real, with any rules.. You'll have 4 teams pay up for big time players...The rest will offer relatively nothing for rest.

And again I see someone like Heat Owner paying 40 mill to LBJ, 35 to Wade or whatever, and the rest of the guys getting 1 mill...

Or Lakers payroll which is like 75 mill currently or whatever it was last season, they'll pay kobe 30 mill, Gasol like 15-17 mill, and the rest will get peanuts, with the wild card being bynum...But i'm not sure what kind of market in open market will Bynum get cash for being injury prone, and a 3rd bean type.

If they De certify, Owners will not improve their offer, till basically the board rules the lockout illegal, and even then, who knows.

Like basically everyone says, Players have NO leverage, never have. Till there is a rival league that can rival the NBA.

[Indeed]

I truly find it weird that the players are so focused on the percentage BRI and not on the definition of BRI. Like some people pointed out the owners are finding ways to turn that game against the players as well.

Example with the Raptors being owned by MLSE, which owns a network, does all that money that RAPTOR-NBA TV generates count as BRI? or does MLSE pay the Raptors (as a subsidiary) a fee for broadcast rights and only that fee is BRI? Does only ad revenue matter or ads and channel subscriptions?
Also, what happens if Rogers or Bell buy MLSE? That complicates things even more, with the network owning multi-sport channels. What if Rogers told advertisers that they will write up there ad buys as being for the Jays (with MLB not having a percentage payout they don't care), and the subsequent Raps ads being heavily discounted or even free? They just collected a ton of money they could exclude from BRI!

i have just never seen these issues spelled out so far...

I don't think the players can argue much regarding BRI.
And it is up to the team to decide hotdog or food revenue, arena sponsorship and etc. Then you have tons of expenses that can be claimed, such as arena maintenance (including cleanup after renting out in off season), press conference in a bar, and etc.

Definitely if I own a team and a bar/club next to it, I will pay for players food and drinks expenses in the bar/club (free food/drinks for players in basketball related expenses), and promote my place where people can find star players there. However, it is not basketball related income

[knickerbocker2k2]

Basically at min if they go this route, the players will lose like 3 years of paychecks...Assuming first they decertifiy, I say that'll take a year from Today or so to resolve...Then when they are open market and not getting offers, they'll file a collusion lawsuit, and who knows if there is appeals and such.

Why would it take 3 years? If they start desertification now there will be season next year. If there is no union, who are the owners locking out? At that point there is no one to negotiate with. I don't think even owners will contest starting next season. Why would they want to indefinite shut down their business?

And you seem to think Owners with no rules, will Sign guys to team payroll of 200 mill...If for whatever reason all 30 teams agree alright lets do this for real, with any rules.. You'll have 4 teams pay up for big time players...The rest will offer relatively nothing for rest.

Why wouldn't they? If this is the case, why do the owners want salary cap? Who are these restrictions protecting? Are they doing these for the benefit of the players?

And again I see someone like Heat Owner paying 40 mill to LBJ, 35 to Wade or whatever, and the rest of the guys getting 1 mill...

By your logic the NBA is doing the players a favor by signing them to these lucrative deals. I'm pretty sure they would love to sign middle/low end players on revolving year to year contract worth $1M. But if all 30 teams are bidding for their services, the players will get good offer based on supply/demand. Lets take someone like Paul Millsap, who is middle level guy in this league getting $7M per year. If team like Utah offers him $1M per year/3 year deal, he can offer his services to another team. If the market is truly free, than someone will pay him what he is worth.

If they De certify, Owners will not improve their offer, till basically the board rules the lockout illegal, and even then, who knows.

If they de certify, there is no offer to negotiate. The union doesn't exist. Who will the owners be negotiating with? Their options are

1) Liquidate their assets and enter another line of business
2) Setup a new system without player input and open themselves to lawsuits in the range of billions of dollars
3) Restart without any system and total new NBA that is totally wild west

Like basically everyone says, Players have NO leverage, never have. Till there is a rival league that can rival the NBA.

If they have no leverage how were the players able to get 57% in the last deal? Why did the owners improve their offer from 37% to 47%? Why don't the owners just offer 20% of BRI since that is more than they make anywhere else?

[The Duke]

Decertification is just a threat ... I dont think for a minute it will happen.

Everything going on right now is show in my opinion and positioning.

[BLKMASS]

Decertification is just a threat ... I dont think for a minute it will happen.

Everything going on right now is show in my opinion and positioning.

So do you think a deal will happen tomorrow?

[S.W.A.N]

Decertification is just a threat ... I dont think for a minute it will happen.

Everything going on right now is show in my opinion and positioning.

So do you think a deal will happen tomorrow?

50-50


I think the thing people need to talk about it the owners meeting in the morning has more implications towards success of a deal than the afternoon meeting with the players.

[ronleroy]

Decertification is just a threat ... I dont think for a minute it will happen.

Everything going on right now is show in my opinion and positioning.

i think they use it as a threat, but i still believe they are pretty far apart.