Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Too Late Crew]

Let me introduce you to Jeffrey Loria.

Getting a pisspot full of free cash doesn't mean it will get spent.

Jeffrey Loria isn't operating under the current NBA CBA with increased revenue sharing. Which is what I said would solve the problem of Donald Sterling.

Donald Sterling isn't the problem. Sterling is actually behaving properly (making $) The problem are the Cuban's Dolan's and Guess who have 100 million dollar payrolls which cause other teams to overspend (and lose money) simply to be able to give the appearance of competing.

Cuban et al already revenue share via the Luxury tax. You seem to have this idea backwards.

The idea isn't to make teams profitable by giving them all more revenue only to piss it away trying to compete with the teams with more revenue (lets not be so silly as to suggest revenue sharing means all teams get equal revenue for all sources)

A Hard cap however would even out the market and force "better" $ management which would result in in more even profitability. The Lakers would still get more revenue than the TWOLVES but the T Wolves could have a competitive product without having to overspend.

This isn't some socialist utopia where all teams get the same revenue and every team has a 1/30 chance of a championship

[Ponchos]

How to resolve the issue of players not trusting BRI?

The players absolutely trust BRI, it is easy to measure. Are you thinking about something else?

So BRI is not under dispute? So all revenue issues are fine, but the dispute is over actual expenses?

Correct. BRI is not under dispute as it is "almost" just gross revenues before expenses. The owners are claiming that the current system is unjust because after expenses they are supposedly losing 300 million dollars. There is a valid claim by the players that the 300 million dollar loss is not entirely a "real" loss, as it includes expenses that owners use purposely to lower taxable income.

The players do agree overall that the owners are losing money, and have proposed to cut the proportion of BRI that they receive.

Judging by the owners current proposals, they believe that the players should take a massive pay cut.

[Fairview4Life]

Let me introduce you to Jeffrey Loria.

Getting a pisspot full of free cash doesn't mean it will get spent.

Jeffrey Loria isn't operating under the current NBA CBA with increased revenue sharing. Which is what I said would solve the problem of Donald Sterling.

No it wouldn't. Forced expenditures will lead to bad signings.

It would solve the specific problem of an owner sitting on his money. Slight tweaks to make the luxury tax more significant or a harder cap or whatever solves the throwing around bad money so as to not make a profit that has to be shared issue.

[J-Roc]

Correct. BRI is not under dispute as it is "almost" just gross revenues before expenses. The owners are claiming that the current system is unjust because after expenses they are supposedly losing 300 million dollars. There is a valid claim by the players that the 300 million dollar loss is not entirely a "real" loss, as it includes expenses that owners use purposely to lower taxable income.

The players do agree overall that the owners are losing money, and have proposed to cut the proportion of BRI that they receive.

Judging by the owners current proposals, they believe that the players should take a massive pay cut.

Thanks. Sounds like you're up on all the info.

I do believe NHL owners were probably losing money when they cancelled their season. They must have decided they literally had no choice but to stay out of business until they had their "cost certainty".

Now in the case of the NBA, if you believe the owners are exaggerating their losses, would it be safe to say they wouldn't be as hardline as the NHL owners were, and therefore this lockout won't last as long?

[Ponchos]

Correct. BRI is not under dispute as it is "almost" just gross revenues before expenses. The owners are claiming that the current system is unjust because after expenses they are supposedly losing 300 million dollars. There is a valid claim by the players that the 300 million dollar loss is not entirely a "real" loss, as it includes expenses that owners use purposely to lower taxable income.

The players do agree overall that the owners are losing money, and have proposed to cut the proportion of BRI that they receive.

Judging by the owners current proposals, they believe that the players should take a massive pay cut.

Thanks. Sounds like you're up on all the info.

I do believe NHL owners were probably losing money when they cancelled their season. They must have decided they literally had no choice but to stay out of business until they had their "cost certainty".

Now in the case of the NBA, if you believe the owners are exaggerating their losses, would it be safe to say they wouldn't be as hardline as the NHL owners were, and therefore this lockout won't last as long?

Yep. I do not believe there will be a long lockout. They may miss games, but don't I think they will cancel a season.

[C_Money]

I'm all for the lockout taking as long as possible. All I care about is that by next season the Raptors have a fair shot like everybody else to win a title. The NFL is obviously doing something right when a team like the Green Bay Packers can win a superbowl.

[Ponchos]

I'm all for the lockout taking as long as possible. All I care about is that by next season the Raptors have a fair shot like everybody else to win a title. The NFL is obviously doing something right when a team like the Green Bay Packers can win a superbowl.

The NBA is obviously doing something right when a team like the San Antonio Spurs can win a championship.

Make no mistake, the primary aim of the owners and their lockout has nothing to do with giving teams like the Raptors a fair shot to win a title. So the amount of time the lockout lasts is basically irrelevant.

[J-Roc]

Yep. I do not believe there will be a long lockout. They may miss games, but don't I think they will cancel a season.

The way you break it makes sense. But essentially, there's no need to get on anyone's side. If the financial issues are real, we need major change. If the the financial issues are not real, the season will get going in due time anyway.

[C_Money]

Well that hard cap they're talking about would certainly help. The NFL has the same thing and all 32 teams have an equal oppertunity every single year.

[Ponchos]

Well that hard cap they're talking about would certainly help. The NFL has the same thing and all 32 teams have an equal oppertunity every single year.

Football and Basketball are apples and oranges. No hard-cap will ever give all 30 NBA teams an equal opportunity at a title.

Just look at this year. How did Dallas beat the Heat? By spending 30 million more on their roster. They beat them with depth.

Which team in the NBA has the most talent per dollar? The Heat. If you impose a smaller and harder cap on the NBA you will not have parity, you will have Heat dominance.

[Parataxis]

Regarding owners staying afloat and making money, hard-cap vs soft cap makes absolutely zero difference; people need to understand that. (It makes a difference to the players, and which ones make more money, but not to the owners' bottom lines.)

The only important thing from a cash perspective for the owners is the % of BRI that players recieve.

[Ponchos]

Regarding owners staying afloat and making money, hard-cap vs soft cap makes absolutely zero difference; people need to understand that. (It makes a difference to the players, and which ones make more money, but not to the owners' bottom lines.)

The only important thing from a cash perspective for the owners is the % of BRI that players recieve.

Actually it does make quite a big difference to individual owners bottom line. I think you mean collectively it makes no difference to the owners.

[Parataxis]

Regarding owners staying afloat and making money, hard-cap vs soft cap makes absolutely zero difference; people need to understand that. (It makes a difference to the players, and which ones make more money, but not to the owners' bottom lines.)

The only important thing from a cash perspective for the owners is the % of BRI that players recieve.

Actually it does make quite a big difference to individual owners bottom line. I think you mean collectively it makes no difference to the owners.

I think you'll find the apostrophe was after the S.

[Baconator]

question, with players currently under contract in the nba, are they allowed to sign/play overseas?

[Ponchos]

I think you'll find the apostrophe was after the S.

You're correct, my mistake.

[ccolaco]

Probably the best run down of the entire lockout situation and potential repercussions. http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/d ... ef:nbahpt1

Via David A.

[Parataxis]

Wow. Pretty impressed at the journalistic independence there - wasn't sure if the NBA would let their staff writers be critical of the owners.

[C Court]

This from twitter:

Ric Bucher says the six owners who have NBA & NHL teams have told other NBA owners that it's worth losing a season to get deal they covet.

MLSE is part of the gang of six. Not surprising they feel that way. The NHL hard cap caused the Leafs profits to sky rocket. Mind you, the NHL bottom feeders who were supposed to be protected by the hard cap are still losing money by the boat load.

[michaelc204]

Why dont they make a rule in place so that players`contracts cant go beyond the CBAs contract... That way the players WONT have 100 million+ legally owed to them while negotiating, and they`ll actually have to compromise.

[Parataxis]

Why dont they make a rule in place so that players`contracts cant go beyond the CBAs contract... That way the players WONT have 100 million+ legally owed to them while negotiating, and they`ll actually have to compromise.

Because then as the CBA comes close to completion, you'll only be able to sign stars for one year terms. That benefits absolutely nobody.