Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Laowai]

Many of the teams are losing money if they don't play most of buildings are city owned no expenses. Yes they must pay some staff.

Think the owners made a decent offer at least they moved now time for the players.

[DG88]

Not sure how much the owners are making money from a lockout.
There are maintenance contacts, tax for buildings, marketing, and etc. I don't see why owners are better that way.
As for players, they may have revenue from sponsorship, however, that limited to the star players.

At the end of the lock out, the rich are always the winner, but the poor ones (fans, rookies, borderline players) are there to suffer. So I am not in favor of neither side, since they are rich and want to be richer, they never want to do it for the poor.

Well the owners have to making money from some where right. Most of these owners are billionaires that own companies that makes millions every year. By not having to pay for players in a lockout they'll see less red lines and more black lines because of an expense that they no longer have to pay for.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Everyone is worked up about July 1st, but the owners don't have to lock out the players yet. I don't know that they'll even lock them out - we could just see the owners push to get a deal done. The players seem to want to negotiate too since many of them showed up today. That's encouraging.

A lockout is done to put different pressure on the negotiations by one side. If a lockout is not done, the status quo continues, the players continue to get their salaries and nothing really gets done. It is not in the owners favor to do an extension. Keep in mind that if there is a lockout, negotiations will still continue but in a different light.

The players say they want to negotiate, but it seems they really don't. All they do is re-iterate the same stand. They say they will negotiate but won't accept any (significant) changes, well that's not really negotiating. It seems the show up by players is more for player solidarity than to accept change.

The league is dysfunctional and needs major changes. The players will have to accept concessions to help put it right and will eventually have to realize that.

I thought the players won't start missing cheques until Oct/November for some reason.

[Too Late Crew]

Not sure how much the owners are making money from a lockout.
There are maintenance contacts, tax for buildings, marketing, and etc. I don't see why owners are better that way.
As for players, they may have revenue from sponsorship, however, that limited to the star players.

At the end of the lock out, the rich are always the winner, but the poor ones (fans, rookies, borderline players) are there to suffer. So I am not in favor of neither side, since they are rich and want to be richer, they never want to do it for the poor.

Well the owners have to making money from some where right. Most of these owners are billionaires that own companies that makes millions every year. By not having to pay for players in a lockout they'll see less red lines and more black lines because of an expense that they no longer have to pay for.

That's exactly my point. Salary expenses are by far the biggest expense for most owners. Most don't won the areans. Those that do can recoup some of the money by putting other events there. Maybe they can't recoup 41 games a year of rental revenue but surley some of it.

A team like the Twolvesd which lost money all of a sudden has 55M dollarsin expenses they don't have to pay anymore. How much in other expenses can they have? Surley not 55m worth?

[Dr Positivity]

I didn't even realize until yesterday that there'll be no free agency and trade July. Makes me a sad panda. Especially considering I have a blog to fill

[S.W.A.N]

I didn't even realize until yesterday that there'll be no free agency and trade July. Makes me a sad panda. Especially considering I have a blog to fill

You going to have lots of Jonas time in your future...


Its going to be very interesting what happens at this next meeting. Do the players come back with a new proposal, or do they believe a lockout is coming no matter what so don't show your hand too soon. The fact that they stayed and negotiated last meeting without giving a return proposal leads me to think that they will in fact give a new proposal at next meeting. But I suspect it will be a slightly better version of last offer, perhaps one or two concessions that bring the players % of revenue lower.

At which point there it will be in the owners hands. Which is good optics for the union as they can say 'hey we have offered to reduce our salaries X amount, if owners include revenue sharing this is a good deal'

At some point owners are going to have to back off their demands (even a reasonable amount) or this is going to be a very long (and in my opinion unneccessary) lockout.

Big week ahead

[RapsFanInOhio]

A lockout is done to put different pressure on the negotiations by one side. If a lockout is not done, the status quo continues, the players continue to get their salaries and nothing really gets done. It is not in the owners favor to do an extension. Keep in mind that if there is a lockout, negotiations will still continue but in a different light.

The players say they want to negotiate, but it seems they really don't. All they do is re-iterate the same stand. They say they will negotiate but won't accept any (significant) changes, well that's not really negotiating. It seems the show up by players is more for player solidarity than to accept change.

The league is dysfunctional and needs major changes. The players will have to accept concessions to help put it right and will eventually have to realize that.

I thought the players won't start missing cheques until Oct/November for some reason.

I think you're right.

I know that the purpose of a lockout is to put pressure on the sides but lockouts usually occur when hard feelings are involved. The owners can vote to push back the date of a lockout, which is what I think might happen if the sides feel they're making progress in negotiations.

[OAKLEY_2]

With two sides having entrenched positions normal labour history dictates some necessary bleeding to up the stakes. You can kiss training camp and the pre-season good bye but they will try to salvage most of the season. One of things I saw that was interesting was that the impasse comes down to one thing: percentage of the pie from gross revenue. The owners want the players to have a smaller piece. I am surprised that there isn't a trade off for lower percentage in exchange for profit sharing. From players to ballboys there should be an incentive for teams to actually make money. If only a cap can bring health then the players need to give on this as it seems to work in other leagues. It seems suicidal to hold out for a position that isn't in sync with either the economy or other leagues. If they have a better sharing of riches and spoils and a team always loses money that might be systemic of a market problem and the league may need to step in if a market just plain out sucks. The problem with revenue sharing is you might be propping up shtty markets. The players need to make clear that their concessions are not the medicine for propping up financial losers. If that means a 25 team North American tier league and a handful of Euro tier teams then so be it because parity in this, a rich and poor man's league, really is trouble and is not easily fixed by a CBA. Take the 5 biggest money losers and put them on notice.

[BorisDK1]

I thought the players won't start missing cheques until Oct/November for some reason.

True, but with a lockout, the league immediately stops paying benefits and denying players access to team facilities and assets (i.e. coaching expertise).

[RomaniaLuvTR]

I didn't even realize until yesterday that there'll be no free agency and trade July. Makes me a sad panda. Especially considering I have a blog to fill

what`s your blog ?

[22haytham22]

I have a question that I dont think was answered correctly or im not understanding it....lets say the lockout is a full year and the nba starts in the 12-13 season would that count agaisnt a contract for a player. So if the NBA starts in 12-13 will that mean Derozan will be a restricted free agency or would he have to play out his contract for that one year? Can someone please clarrify this for me I would appreciate it!

[Ditchweed]

I didn't even realize until yesterday that there'll be no free agency and trade July. Makes me a sad panda. Especially considering I have a blog to fill

You going to have lots of Jonas time in your future...


Its going to be very interesting what happens at this next meeting. Do the players come back with a new proposal, or do they believe a lockout is coming no matter what so don't show your hand too soon. The fact that they stayed and negotiated last meeting without giving a return proposal leads me to think that they will in fact give a new proposal at next meeting. But I suspect it will be a slightly better version of last offer, perhaps one or two concessions that bring the players % of revenue lower.

At which point there it will be in the owners hands. Which is good optics for the union as they can say 'hey we have offered to reduce our salaries X amount, if owners include revenue sharing this is a good deal'

At some point owners are going to have to back off their demands (even a reasonable amount) or this is going to be a very long (and in my opinion unneccessary) lockout.

Big week ahead

If the players just make a minor change, the owners then just say it is primarily the same offer the players made before and that the players aren't willing to budge except for peanuts. The owners then show they made a bigger move than the players just on the contracts. It keeps the owners in a positive light with the public. The owners have shown all the positive PR so far.

[knickerbocker2k2]

The main problem is not the revenue sharing between players/owners but rich owners/poor owners. The league as whole is making money. The lakers recently signed 20year/3B tv contract for local games. I'm pretty sure Knicks/Bulls and other top markets have similiar deals that smaller markets don't have. Suggesting hard cap is not going to be level the playing field in terms of revenue generation. It will just make the richer owners more rich while slightly improving the fate of smaller markets. The real issue is how to make sure smaller markets are getting more of the pie in the growing revenue.

I think owners have being putting this strong front but at end of day I think they realize they can't afford lockout. Despite what people say about they can afford shutdown because they have other revenue streams while players are broke without pay checks, you have to consider future revenue/opportunity cost of lockout. Not only do they lose the traditional revenue stream but there is no way of gauging what effect the lockout will have on the fans. NBA realizes heavily on its tv contract and currently ratings/league interest is gaining momentum. How long, if it all will it take fans to come back? With some many options out there for fans, it is dangerous game that NBA would be playing.

Just as its becoming evident with NFL, there is tough talk by both parties, but as the momentum of no return comes closer, a deal will me made by both parties. There is just too much money at stake for personal/irrational feelings to get in the way.

[S.W.A.N]

I didn't even realize until yesterday that there'll be no free agency and trade July. Makes me a sad panda. Especially considering I have a blog to fill

You going to have lots of Jonas time in your future...


Its going to be very interesting what happens at this next meeting. Do the players come back with a new proposal, or do they believe a lockout is coming no matter what so don't show your hand too soon. The fact that they stayed and negotiated last meeting without giving a return proposal leads me to think that they will in fact give a new proposal at next meeting. But I suspect it will be a slightly better version of last offer, perhaps one or two concessions that bring the players % of revenue lower.

At which point there it will be in the owners hands. Which is good optics for the union as they can say 'hey we have offered to reduce our salaries X amount, if owners include revenue sharing this is a good deal'

At some point owners are going to have to back off their demands (even a reasonable amount) or this is going to be a very long (and in my opinion unneccessary) lockout.

Big week ahead

If the players just make a minor change, the owners then just say it is primarily the same offer the players made before and that the players aren't willing to budge except for peanuts. The owners then show they made a bigger move than the players just on the contracts. It keeps the owners in a positive light with the public. The owners have shown all the positive PR so far.

I don't know how you can say that. The players are the only ones that have actually moved from original stance. The latest owners proposition just gave their stance a fancy name 'flex cap'.

Players have already offered to reduce salaries 500 mill, which isn't enough but its headed in the right direction. Owners are not admitting what the rest of us already know, that overall revenues have been going nowhere but up and are going to get a healthy bump when next TV deal gets signed.

The biggest issue as pointed out by others is the difference between rich and poor. Big Market teams like the Lakers,Knicks, Bulls all have very healthy revenues and have big time local TV contracts.

[dagger]

I don't know how you can say that. The players are the only ones that have actually moved from original stance. The latest owners proposition just gave their stance a fancy name 'flex cap'.

Players have already offered to reduce salaries 500 mill, which isn't enough but its headed in the right direction. Owners are not admitting what the rest of us already know, that overall revenues have been going nowhere but up and are going to get a healthy bump when next TV deal gets signed.

The biggest issue as pointed out by others is the difference between rich and poor. Big Market teams like the Lakers,Knicks, Bulls all have very healthy revenues and have big time local TV contracts.

The $500 million you refer to is over five years and still leaves the players with just under 55% of revenues.

The "bump" from national TV revenues you point to won't come untll the current agreement expires - in 2015-16!

Who knows if the ratings will be higher in 2015-16. It's like saying I should pay higher real estate taxes because the assessed value of my house has doubled, when in fact it might fall back in three, four or 10 years when I am ready to sell. I will in fact have been taxed on an illusory value that has no correlation to what I get when I sell. That's why a lot of senior citizens on fixed incomes are forced to sell their bungalows. The same applies to a correlation between the salaries players get now and a presumption of what NBA ratings - and therefore national TV revenues - will be in 2015-16.

[S.W.A.N]

I don't know how you can say that. The players are the only ones that have actually moved from original stance. The latest owners proposition just gave their stance a fancy name 'flex cap'.

Players have already offered to reduce salaries 500 mill, which isn't enough but its headed in the right direction. Owners are not admitting what the rest of us already know, that overall revenues have been going nowhere but up and are going to get a healthy bump when next TV deal gets signed.

The biggest issue as pointed out by others is the difference between rich and poor. Big Market teams like the Lakers,Knicks, Bulls all have very healthy revenues and have big time local TV contracts.

The $500 million you refer to is over five years and still leaves the players with just under 55% of revenues.

The "bump" from national TV revenues you point to won't come untll the current agreement expires - in 2015-16!

Who knows if the ratings will be higher in 2015-16. It's like saying I should pay higher real estate taxes because the assessed value of my house has doubled, when in fact it might fall back in three, four or 10 years when I am ready to sell. I will in fact have been taxed on an illusory value that has no correlation to what I get when I sell. That's why a lot of senior citizens on fixed incomes are forced to sell their bungalows. The same applies to a correlation between the salaries players get now and a presumption of what NBA ratings - and therefore national TV revenues - will be in 2015-16.

But the owners are looking for a 10 year deal so half of it would occur under a new TV deal, which is pretty significant.

I do think that the players need to bring their percent of revenues closer to 50 % which if I am not mistaken is what the NFL is going to agree to.

[Macho]

I can't imagine the winter without having NBA games to keep me sane, Obama needs to intervene and make them come to an agreement.

[[SJJ]]

This is going to take a month to sink in. Pathetic but I can't fathom an NBA-less academic year.

[OAKLEY_2]

http://www.businessinsider.com/revenue- ... ems-2011-1

What seems to be emerging is that some owners are willing to declare big losses to go for it. In conglomerate capitalism it is big fish swallows little fish. Deeper pockets better financing. Walmart. Blockbuster. Team Cuban. What is needed is a hard cap and a revenue sharing bonus system for teams that make a profit. Teams that spend to dominate free agency losing money should pay lavishly into that fund. Tax teams need to be shackled or there will never be anything resembling parity. The NHL is miles ahead of the NBA on this. The article says revenue sharing isn't the answer but we just witnessed a situation where 2 of the leagues biggest stars and one quasi allstar decided to come together and shape the market by going to one of the leagues bigger market teams. They exposed a weak set of rules regarding how players could operate on the open market. This is why I think it will be a long lockout. Only the big stars and the few big spenders like the status quo. The NBA is in a Yankees Bosox state of existence and many owners want to squeeze their employees when it is some employers that pss on parity and damn fiscal responsibilty.

[tecumseh18]

The main problem is not the revenue sharing between players/owners but rich owners/poor owners. The league as whole is making money. The lakers recently signed 20year/3B tv contract for local games. I'm pretty sure Knicks/Bulls and other top markets have similiar deals that smaller markets don't have.

It was interesting (for several reasons) listening to Simmons' new podcast with David Kahn. Kahn said that he had been talking to Donnie Walsh, who was gushing to him about how much easier it was to run a franchise with all the revenue streams available to the Knicks. Kahn was like "yeah, thanks for letting me know, Donnie".

But the rich franchises need the poor ones, like the Harlem Globetrotters needed the Washington Generals. So the owners will maintain solidarity. The T-Wolves will never be as profitable as the Lakers - that's why the Lakers moved out of Minnesota in the first place - but at least they'll be able to offer credible competition (OK - bad example).

It's hard to see revenue sharing (on the NFL model?) coming in. But the lux tax was always a back-door way of sharing revenues, and without it then maybe something else will have to be devised.