Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

bigdirty · Post #241 » by **bigdirty** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 12:34 pm

Article on NBA.com about the trade exceptions in case it hasn't been posted: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/30/clev ... index.html

Haven't checked back to previous pages.

Meursault · Post #242 » by **Meursault** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 12:51 pm

first NBA player during the lockout to do something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ADD9kOP7A

dagger · Post #243 » by **dagger** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 2:12 pm

NBA websites, Raptors.com included, have removed pics and text of players.

bstein14 · Post #244 » by **bstein14** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 2:21 pm

dagger wrote:NBA websites, Raptors.com included, have removed pics and text of players.

I wonder if the NBA is still allowed to make and sell jerseys with players names on the back?

J-Roc · Post #245 » by **J-Roc** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 2:38 pm

For comparison, NFL.com seems to list all the players. I don't know how much it's changed since their lockout, if at all. This is surely a sign from the NBA to the players that the NBA has been preparing for a lockout and are therefore prepared.

I have respect for the older players like KG who are willing to give up ten of millions of dollars to prove a point. As long as this goes on, the older players lose money they may never recoup. Meanwhile a few years down the road, these guys could be part of ownership groups, considering how rich they are.

bstein14 · Post #246 » by **bstein14** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 3:26 pm

J-Roc wrote:For comparison, NFL.com seems to list all the players. I don't know how much it's changed since their lockout, if at all. This is surely a sign from the NBA to the players that the NBA has been preparing for a lockout and are therefore prepared.

I have respect for the older players like KG who are willing to give up ten of millions of dollars to prove a point. As long as this goes on, the older players lose money they may never recoup. Meanwhile a few years down the road, these guys could be part of ownership groups, considering how rich they are.

Or its a sign from the players to the NBA... if you're not paying us, you can't use us to make money.

I'd bet that's the case.

J-Roc · Post #247 » by **J-Roc** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 3:33 pm

bstein14 wrote:
J-Roc wrote:For comparison, NFL.com seems to list all the players. I don't know how much it's changed since their lockout, if at all. This is surely a sign from the NBA to the players that the NBA has been preparing for a lockout and are therefore prepared.

I have respect for the older players like KG who are willing to give up ten of millions of dollars to prove a point. As long as this goes on, the older players lose money they may never recoup. Meanwhile a few years down the road, these guys could be part of ownership groups, considering how rich they are.

Or its a sign from the players to the NBA... if you're not paying us, you can't use us to make money.

I'd bet that's the case.

Interesting angle. But most sources are reporting this as though it was a move by the NBA. But it would be funny if Derek Fisher or some player came out and took responsibility.

HSOB SIRHC · Post #248 » by **HSOB SIRHC** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 4:31 pm

This was probably posted already but I'll post it again. It's about what happens to the nba websites.

Does it really matter if there's an extension of the CBA in July or a lockout? After all, there aren't any games nor do players get paid during this summer.

But for the guys who are in charge of those team websites and NBA.com, the pending deadline is a huge deal.

That's because the moment the clock strikes midnight on the current CBA, all those images and videos of NBA players have to disappear off NBA-owned digital properties. Depending on how you interpret "fair use," the prohibition could include the mere mention of a player's name on an NBA-owned site, though different teams have different interpretations of this particular stipulation.

Over the past few weeks, NBA website administrators and support staff have endured two-hour conference calls and countless planning sessions to figure out how to eliminate all these photos, highlights, articles and promotional features from the sites.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/30755/back-to-the-internet-stone-ages-for-the-nba

HSOB SIRHC · Post #249 » by **HSOB SIRHC** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 4:32 pm

Btw, if the lockout is a full season, that's going to be one big rookie class the following year. The Rookie Sophomore game might get crazy too.

lilneige · Post #250 » by **lilneige** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 4:48 pm

I had learn something really cool on the Operation Statements of 2004 New Jersey Net....

found it here http://tinyurl.com/43g98qv

on that Statements of Operation,
players salaries can be on the expanse column twice.....
no wonder many NBA teams are having a lost on the balance sheet

Nevertheless, the IRS not only agreed with Veeck but allowed any owner claiming the write-off to deduct roster expenses twice — first under "player salaries," in the case of the Nets' documents, and then under "loss on players' contracts

HSOB SIRHC · Post #251 » by **HSOB SIRHC** » Fri Jul 1, 2011 11:28 pm

Question. If there is a full season lockout, what happens to the length of player contracts? Is it just put on hold and continues once the lockout is over or do they lose a year of their contract?

bboyskinnylegs · Post #252 » by **bboyskinnylegs** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 12:08 am

http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/07/0 ... g-lockout/

yikes.

lemons321 · Post #253 » by **lemons321** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 12:50 am

bboyskinnylegs wrote:
http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/07/0 ... g-lockout/

yikes.

God damn, thank god for Dwane Casey not having a Twitter account. This lockout sucks.

Yoga · Post #254 » by **Yoga** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 2:38 am

HSOB SIRHC wrote:Question. If there is a full season lockout, what happens to the length of player contracts? Is it just put on hold and continues once the lockout is over or do they lose a year of their contract?

I think they lose a year of their contract

Yoga · Post #255 » by **Yoga** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 2:40 am

bboyskinnylegs wrote:
http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/07/0 ... g-lockout/

yikes.

That's too much. I do side with the owners, but a potential loss of picks (1st rounders?) over a twitter re-tweet? Ouch.

TGM · Post #256 » by **TGM** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 4:17 am

Players. Are being way to greedy. The mle used to be split amongst multiple players now a day any scrub is basically getting thrown that kind of money.

A soft and hard cap must be implemented. No team should have a total payroll of over 75 million, with inflation increases annually.

lilneige · Post #257 » by **lilneige** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 2:42 pm

TGM wrote:Players. Are being way to greedy. The mle used to be split amongst multiple players now a day any scrub is basically getting thrown that kind of money.

A soft and hard cap must be implemented. No team should have a total payroll of over 75 million, with inflation increases annually.

I am on the opposite side.
It is the owners who are been greedy, especially after reading the following articles....

Exclusive: How An NBA Team Makes Money Disappear

Is the NBA really losing money? by Larry Coon

Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute

OAKLEY_2 · Post #258 » by **OAKLEY_2** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 3:48 pm

Players. Are being way to greedy. The mle used to be split amongst multiple players now a day any scrub is basically getting thrown that kind of money.

Sorry but if i have to put a target on any players it is the CB1's and Rashard's not Matt Bonners IMHO.

Believe me, while the players are greedy there is no greed that can rival the American billionaire. Bill and Belinda included. They'll sell out the middle as fast as you can say cooked books. I will be completely surprised to see a hard cap when all is said and done. A certain Deadspin article called “Exclusive: How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss.” says U.S. based teams are allowed to declare profits as losses. Raptors obviously operate under different tax laws and declare a profit. In America those few hundred thousand of 300 million that store half of the nations wealth pay virtually no tax. Getting close to a no tax payable is not only the goal of most NBA teams but of multinational giants GE and Exxon Mobil as well.

It is not the NBA's business model that is at issue but the way in which American corporations will willfully squeeze the employees cut to manufacture better ROI for the investor when by rights real growth was both misrepresented and mismanaged. These newly minted millionaires are small fry minnows next to the billionaires.

The league doesn't really lose money (David Stern stop lying to us) and the owners do but are only out a few trinkets when they do. But this critique of the Deadspin article sort of implies that an NBA franchise is a bad investment in terms of ROI under the current CBA. It remains to be seen if you can compare owning a sports team to other investments when owning an a franchise that has such a large brand promotional profile doesn't mandate value in itself. Value reflected in franchise Forbes value. That on paper value allows owners to capitalize other deals even more so if the franchise value is artificially inflated. Think Standard and Poors phony investment ratings.
http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2011/ ... -analysis/

J-Roc · Post #259 » by **J-Roc** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 4:01 pm

lilneige wrote:
TGM wrote:Players. Are being way to greedy. The mle used to be split amongst multiple players now a day any scrub is basically getting thrown that kind of money.

A soft and hard cap must be implemented. No team should have a total payroll of over 75 million, with inflation increases annually.

I am on the opposite side.
It is the owners who are been greedy, especially after reading the following articles....

Exclusive: How An NBA Team Makes Money Disappear

Is the NBA really losing money? by Larry Coon

Taking a look at the numbers behind the NBA labor dispute

Yeah the unfortunate consequence of ALL 30 NBA teams being profitable, is the next step would be expansion to 32 teams. Or a division in Europe. Some way of just expanding. Player like expansion because it means more jobs. But then by the next CBA expiration, the league needs to lockout the players because a team in Calgary is losing money. There really is no system where everyone will be happy forever and ever.

Salted Meat · Post #260 » by **Salted Meat** » Sat Jul 2, 2011 5:41 pm

J-Roc wrote:Yeah the unfortunate consequence of ALL 30 NBA teams being profitable, is the next step would be expansion to 32 teams. Or a division in Europe. Some way of just expanding. Player like expansion because it means more jobs. But then by the next CBA expiration, the league needs to lockout the players because a team in Calgary is losing money. There really is no system where everyone will be happy forever and ever.

Another unfortunate consequence of every team being profitable, is that there's no significant incentive for teams to be competitive. The dangled carrot inherent in free-market capitalism disappears. If every team can sit back after a 15 win season and say "well, hey, at least we made money" what does that say about the competitive nature of the league, and how hypocritical is it of the owners to insist that a new CBA include performance-based contracts, wherein only a portion of a player's deal is guaranteed?

The owners want guaranteed money across the board, but won't extend the same courtesy to players?