Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[anj]

I completely agree the owners gave up the most and actually looked like they were willing to get a deal done. The players are looking like they can't compromise.

That's because the owners began at an entirely absurd position, and have been slowly chipping away at it to appear more conciliatory. The players, on the other hand, began by offering significant concessions.

Yes but the owners backed off on a lot of the the stuff they were proposing like the hard cap, guaranteed contracts and opt out at year 7 in the deal etc. They also entertained a 50/50 split of BRI to the players, yet they out right rejected it. Now this could just possibly be a way for the owners to gain ground on the PR battle or they're really were trying to get a deal done.

You're kind of restating Schad's point. The owners aren't "giving up" the hard cap since it never existed in the first place. And it doesn't need to be said again that formally offering 47% (informally 50%) of BRI is a slap in the face when the players got 57% last year, a figure that, obviously, the owners agreed to during the last CBA negotiations. Not to mention that the owner's definition of BRI is slightly skewed.

If the owners are pumping this stuff out for PR purposes, they're doing a really poor job IMO. I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

I know you're not backing the owners outright, and I wouldn't want to assume what your stance is, but I have a hard time understanding anyone who sides with the owners in this.

[Vorticity]

a key tweet has been mangled here:

Hunter said owners wanted a 50-50 split with $300 million of expenses deducted, which makes it $ 47 percent.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern says from a negotiating standpoint, owners are at 47 for the players, and players are at 53.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern said this 50-50 offer was without the additional expense reductions Hunter described.

[C_Money]

a key tweet has been mangled here:

Hunter said owners wanted a 50-50 split with $300 million of expenses deducted, which makes it $ 47 percent.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern says from a negotiating standpoint, owners are at 47 for the players, and players are at 53.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern said this 50-50 offer was without the additional expense reductions Hunter described.

Wow so either one of them is lying to the media or they weren't paying attention during the meeting.

[knickerbocker2k2]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/m ... 3/32511287

Stern told the players and Kessler that he was bringing this proposal to his owners in an attempt to sell it, making no bones about the fact that he would. In fact, Stern said in the news conference, he did sell it. The owners were prepared to sign off on this 49-51 percent band, and with many of the most polarizing system issues resolved, the framework of a deal was in sight.

While the owners were caucusing, a member of the players' group returned with a counterproposal -- approximately 52 percent of BRI for the players with no additional expenses deducted. The players' counterproposal followed the format presented by the owners -- a 51-53 percent band with 51 percent guaranteed and a cap of 53. The league rejected the offer, the sources said.

With each percentage point of BRI worth about $40 million, the two sides -- who were at one time $8 billion apart over 10 years -- are now a mere $80 million apart on an annual basis. So you can see what the two sides saw Tuesday -- the road to a deal that both sides eventually can find a way to live with that is better than the alternative of missing a substantial portion of the regular season.

So actual progress. IMO before Monday deal is reached in the 51-52 range for players. No preseason but full regular season. With quick/exciting off-season, fans will forget and forgive.

[EventHorizon]

Thanks for the updates.

[Laowai]

The players have about 2 weeks until a doomsday scenario the players are being asked to give up 12.3% of there income. Going from 2,28 billion of a 4 billion $ pie to 2 billion. In other words they are giving up 280 million $.

Sorry the owners are being more than reasonable in there requests it still gives the average player 6.6 million and they aren't asking for roll backs in salary. Plus the players benefit from as income for the league increases. Right now the union is bending to egos of the star players and greedy agents.

If I was a player lets take Sonny as a example who might have 5 years in the league lose 20% or more of his total in come I would be pissed. ( Yes I know Sonny is playing in Lithuania ) Or Steve Nash on the last year of a 10 million contract. Alabi would make 800,000 this year which is likely his last pay check in the NBA. Please don't fool yourselves that this is a real union but just a bargaining group.

I know if I was a owner I would be unhappy giving in so much since I have much less to lose than the players.

[youngaffer]

I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

lol

So instead, the players get to keep their >$5m per year income at no risk. Poor players... boo hoo. There is so much money to go around, everyone should win. The players are so incredibly well paid; If we take the average Canadian family earns $60k per year, it would take nearly 100 years for that family to earn what a player earns in one year. Are you sure the players position is realistic?

[Fats Elmore]

new article on wages of wins: http://wagesofwins.net/2011/10/04/cut-cap-and-profit/

anyone else find this post fascinating? does the argument hold weight?

a teaser quote...

Although NBA ownership claims that 22 out of 30 teams are losing money in a system that includes one tenth of the revenue sharing of Major League Baseball, this lockout is based not on any relevant economic realities, but on political realities. In today’s America, every political and economic dispute is resolved in favor of the moneyed few. From the much ballyhooed deficit reduction deal that was composed 100% of cuts to services and government agencies while asking nothing of our wealthiest citizens and corporations, to the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that has passed in states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, and at a time when income inequality in America is at its highest levels in history, the United States is a country where in business and in politics, the very rich invariably get their way. This idea has finally reached the NBA, where the extremely wealthy individuals that populate NBA ownership have decided to use their muscle to change their financial relationship with players, in the image of the general American economy.

[DG88]

new article on wages of wins: http://wagesofwins.net/2011/10/04/cut-cap-and-profit/

anyone else find this post fascinating? does the argument hold weight?

a teaser quote...

Although NBA ownership claims that 22 out of 30 teams are losing money in a system that includes one tenth of the revenue sharing of Major League Baseball, this lockout is based not on any relevant economic realities, but on political realities. In today’s America, every political and economic dispute is resolved in favor of the moneyed few. From the much ballyhooed deficit reduction deal that was composed 100% of cuts to services and government agencies while asking nothing of our wealthiest citizens and corporations, to the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that has passed in states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, and at a time when income inequality in America is at its highest levels in history, the United States is a country where in business and in politics, the very rich invariably get their way. This idea has finally reached the NBA, where the extremely wealthy individuals that populate NBA ownership have decided to use their muscle to change their financial relationship with players, in the image of the general American economy.

Ah the greatness of Capitalism

[dacrusha]

I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

lol

So instead, the players get to keep their >$5m per year income at no risk. Poor players... boo hoo. There is so much money to go around, everyone should win. The players are so incredibly well paid; If we take the average Canadian family earns $60k per year, it would take nearly 100 years for that family to earn what a player earns in one year. Are you sure the players position is realistic?

Better the players making that money than the owners.

Last time I checked, those seasons tickets and corporate seats are being being purchased by people to watch the product on the court (the players), not to line the coffers of the MLSE executives.

I expect you think movie executives, rather than movie stars, should get the highest cut of movie revenues as well.

[Too Late Crew]

I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

lol

So instead, the players get to keep their >$5m per year income at no risk. Poor players... boo hoo. There is so much money to go around, everyone should win. The players are so incredibly well paid; If we take the average Canadian family earns $60k per year, it would take nearly 100 years for that family to earn what a player earns in one year. Are you sure the players position is realistic?

Better the players making that money than the owners.

Last time I checked, those seasons tickets and corporate seats are being being purchased by people to watch the product on the court (the players), not to line the coffers of the MLSE executives.

I expect you think movie executives, rather than movie stars, should get the highest cut of movie revenues as well.

Owners are not movie executives. They are "STUDIO OWNERS"

Executives are employees paid a salary by owners. Owners invest their OWN money. Players do not. Last time I checked no one is going to pay any players 5M$ to watch them play in the park.

[NH]

Owners are not movie executives. They are "STUDIO OWNERS"

Executives are employees paid a salary by owners. Owners invest their OWN money. Players do not. Last time I checked no one is going to pay any players 5M$ to watch them play in the park.

+1 Unless the players can make their own league and make money off of it, they need the Owners to foot the bill. Without basketball, Mark Cuban is still going to be rich. But what are guys like Nate Robinson going to do?

I laugh at guys like Kobe and agents offering loans to players.. how long will that last? People keep forgetting that in a union, everyone has equal representation in terms of votes, and only a small % of players make 'Kobe' money. Maybe for the average guy making $1million a year is great, but these players do not know how to save money and will be on the verge of bankruptcy if they miss a few pay checks.

A 50/50 split sounds fair give or take a few % points. The player union has to get over 'winning' these negotiations; the whole point is to get a reasonable deal for yourself; winning is only for the ego.

[DG88]

I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

lol

So instead, the players get to keep their >$5m per year income at no risk. Poor players... boo hoo. There is so much money to go around, everyone should win. The players are so incredibly well paid; If we take the average Canadian family earns $60k per year, it would take nearly 100 years for that family to earn what a player earns in one year. Are you sure the players position is realistic?

Better the players making that money than the owners.

Last time I checked, those seasons tickets and corporate seats are being being purchased by people to watch the product on the court (the players), not to line the coffers of the MLSE executives.

I expect you think movie executives, rather than movie stars, should get the highest cut of movie revenues as well.

Well that same product wouldn't exist if there weren't any owners willing to invest their own money in the NBA.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

If these owners are so damn important, then hey, maybe they ought to just restart the NBA with scabs. Lord knows that fans from New York would just love to pay $900 per courtside seat to watch D-League teams play in Madison Square Garden.

[Parataxis]

That's because the owners began at an entirely absurd position, and have been slowly chipping away at it to appear more conciliatory. The players, on the other hand, began by offering significant concessions.

Yes but the owners backed off on a lot of the the stuff they were proposing like the hard cap, guaranteed contracts and opt out at year 7 in the deal etc. They also entertained a 50/50 split of BRI to the players, yet they out right rejected it. Now this could just possibly be a way for the owners to gain ground on the PR battle or they're really were trying to get a deal done.

You're kind of restating Schad's point. The owners aren't "giving up" the hard cap since it never existed in the first place. And it doesn't need to be said again that formally offering 47% (informally 50%) of BRI is a slap in the face when the players got 57% last year, a figure that, obviously, the owners agreed to during the last CBA negotiations. Not to mention that the owner's definition of BRI is slightly skewed.

If the owners are pumping this stuff out for PR purposes, they're doing a really poor job IMO. I can't generate any pity for a businessman who wants to create a system where they're guaranteed not to lose any money. The owners love to refer to the NBA as a business, and no industry has such an airtight no-risk system. If you make bad choices (be it overpaying a stiff, locating your franchise in a bum market, etc.), you're going to suffer.

I know you're not backing the owners outright, and I wouldn't want to assume what your stance is, but I have a hard time understanding anyone who sides with the owners in this.

I wonder what some of the poster here would be saying if, instead of starting with consessions, the players had demanded 80% of BRI and personal escorts.

"Look, the players have moved significantly! Now they're only asking for 60% and they've given up their prostitutes! Why can't the owners be reasonable like that?" *guffaw*

[S.W.A.N]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32511287

Stern told the players and Kessler that he was bringing this proposal to his owners in an attempt to sell it, making no bones about the fact that he would. In fact, Stern said in the news conference, he did sell it. The owners were prepared to sign off on this 49-51 percent band, and with many of the most polarizing system issues resolved, the framework of a deal was in sight.

While the owners were caucusing, a member of the players' group returned with a counterproposal -- approximately 52 percent of BRI for the players with no additional expenses deducted. The players' counterproposal followed the format presented by the owners -- a 51-53 percent band with 51 percent guaranteed and a cap of 53. The league rejected the offer, the sources said.

With each percentage point of BRI worth about $40 million, the two sides -- who were at one time $8 billion apart over 10 years -- are now a mere $80 million apart on an annual basis. So you can see what the two sides saw Tuesday -- the road to a deal that both sides eventually can find a way to live with that is better than the alternative of missing a substantial portion of the regular season.

So actual progress. IMO before Monday deal is reached in the 51-52 range for players. No preseason but full regular season. With quick/exciting off-season, fans will forget and forgive.

After reading this, I am way more confident that a last minute deal can be made to save entire season.

And Fisher and Stern are being smart with all the leaks... I willing to bet that once the rank and file players see that they can play for 51% BRI they will text Fisher to get deal done.

I sure the agents and some of the start players who can afford to miss a season will squawk, but the rest of the guys will probably be a little more flexible

[C_Money]

With all these agents giving out loans to players now, they're basically trying to get them to keep their mouths shut. They know the amount of players that just want to play basketball heavily out numbers everybody else.

[OAKLEY_2]

A 50/50 split sounds fair give or take a few % points. The player union has to get over 'winning' these negotiations; the whole point is to get a reasonable deal for yourself; winning is only for the ego.

Great post. By my math going from 57 to 50 is a 12% wage cut. They are in a luxury commodity business and America amongst other things is an economic train wreck at the moment and sporting entertainment is a luxury not immune to social turmoil. I think many will be saying this isn't a bad enough deal to have no season and one of no income. All that just to hold out for what a 10% cut?

[YogiStewart]

If these owners are so damn important, then hey, maybe they ought to just restart the NBA with scabs. Lord knows that fans from New York would just love to pay $900 per courtside seat to watch D-League teams play in Madison Square Garden.

any argument that states that owners shouldn't be allowed to profit greatly off of players is a silly argument.

when you own a business, you usually do so by investing money, time or both. you inherit a risk and you deserve a return on investment.
I don't see Kobe or Carmello buying MSG or an arena or a team. they either don't have the capital or warewithal (or both).

yes, you're paying to watch the players play. but the arena or cable deal wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the owners' initial investment into the team and infrastructure.

if owning was so easy, why don't any current players or many former players own teams?

[J-Roc]

I don't believe yet that the players are ready for a long time out of the game. Just a lot of talk for now. But if they were.....this would be the end of Stern.

Remember when Kobe and LeBron thought they could make $30M or $50M playing in Europe (Greece can write off that money). If those players actually signed up to play next season in Europe.....with no out clause for the lockout....then that would be a sign for the Owners that the players are for real.