Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

dacrusha · Post #741 » by **dacrusha** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:47 pm

One thing that no one talks about as an option (and that neither the owners or players want) is the issue of contraction. Lopping off the bottom 4-6 money losing teams in the league would do far more for the health of the league than exchanging a couple percentage points of BRI or forced revenue sharing.

Why the hell should rich markets in NY, Chicago, LA and even Toronto subsidize dieing franchises that don't have major league fan bases and corporate support in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Memphis?

100% guaranteed that these teams will again be looking for handouts, concessions and increased financial support when the next agreed upon CBA nears its end.

sauga_raptor · Post #742 » by **sauga_raptor** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:53 pm

NBA calls off 43 preseason games, postpones training camps:

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/09/23/nba-closes-camps-indefinitely.ap/index.html

Parataxis · Post #743 » by **Parataxis** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:27 am

dacrusha wrote:One thing that no one talks about as an option (and that neither the owners or players want) is the issue of contraction. Lopping off the bottom 4-6 money losing teams in the league would do far more for the health of the league than exchanging a couple percentage points of BRI or forced revenue sharing.

Why the hell should rich markets in NY, Chicago, LA and even Toronto subsidize dieing franchises that don't have major league fan bases and corporate support in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Memphis?

100% guaranteed that these teams will again be looking for handouts, concessions and increased financial support when the next agreed upon CBA nears its end.

You realise that contraction isn't free, right? You don't just tell the owners of those bottom 6 franchises 'thanks for coming out, have a great day'. You need to actually buy them out - and they're going to want fair market value (or better) for those teams.

Half a dozen teams, you're probably looking at 250mil per, so 1.5 billion dollars. That's about 62.5 million dollars, per remaining team. Even if the big market teams thought it was a good investment, do you think the other small market teams just have 60 million bucks laying around?

Homer Jay · Post #744 » by **Homer Jay** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:55 pm

Parataxis wrote:
dacrusha wrote:One thing that no one talks about as an option (and that neither the owners or players want) is the issue of contraction. Lopping off the bottom 4-6 money losing teams in the league would do far more for the health of the league than exchanging a couple percentage points of BRI or forced revenue sharing.

Why the hell should rich markets in NY, Chicago, LA and even Toronto subsidize dieing franchises that don't have major league fan bases and corporate support in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Memphis?

100% guaranteed that these teams will again be looking for handouts, concessions and increased financial support when the next agreed upon CBA nears its end.

You realise that contraction isn't free, right? You don't just tell the owners of those bottom 6 franchises 'thanks for coming out, have a great day'. You need to actually buy them out - and they're going to want fair market value (or better) for those teams.

Half a dozen teams, you're probably looking at 250mil per, so 1.5 billion dollars. That's about 62.5 million dollars, per remaining team. Even if the big market teams thought it was a good investment, do you think the other small market teams just have 60 million bucks laying around?

But subtracting the number of teams, means upping the percentage of shared revenue the remaining teams keep. You figure shared revenue for each team was around 60 million, eliminating 6 teams puts 360 million back into the pot or 12 million per team. Even with interest you could have that 60 million per team, paid out to the contracted owners, paid back to the bank in only 6 years and then going ahead you are pocketing an extra 12 million a year.

S.W.A.N · Post #745 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:31 am

Homer Jay wrote:
Parataxis wrote:
dacrusha wrote:One thing that no one talks about as an option (and that neither the owners or players want) is the issue of contraction. Lopping off the bottom 4-6 money losing teams in the league would do far more for the health of the league than exchanging a couple percentage points of BRI or forced revenue sharing.

Why the hell should rich markets in NY, Chicago, LA and even Toronto subsidize dieing franchises that don't have major league fan bases and corporate support in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Memphis?

100% guaranteed that these teams will again be looking for handouts, concessions and increased financial support when the next agreed upon CBA nears its end.

You realise that contraction isn't free, right? You don't just tell the owners of those bottom 6 franchises 'thanks for coming out, have a great day'. You need to actually buy them out - and they're going to want fair market value (or better) for those teams.

Half a dozen teams, you're probably looking at 250mil per, so 1.5 billion dollars. That's about 62.5 million dollars, per remaining team. Even if the big market teams thought it was a good investment, do you think the other small market teams just have 60 million bucks laying around?

But subtracting the number of teams, means upping the percentage of shared revenue the remaining teams keep. You figure shared revenue for each team was around 60 million, eliminating 6 teams puts 360 million back into the pot or 12 million per team. Even with interest you could have that 60 million per team, paid out to the contracted owners, paid back to the bank in only 6 years and then going ahead you are pocketing an extra 12 million a year.

Any talk of contraction is completely unrealistic. Zero chance of it happening, especially with a waiting list of viable cities just waiting for the opportunity to have a franchise.

Post #746 » by **Harry Palmer** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:32 am

Homer Jay wrote: You figure shared revenue for each team was around 60 million, eliminating 6 teams puts 360 million back into the pot or 12 million per team.

Why on earth are you assuming a constant?

Laowai · Post #747 » by **Laowai** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:37 am

Obviously some teams don't belong in the league and will likely never be viable. However as mentioned contraction has a cost factor. I would suggest expansion rather than contraction but at the same time eliminate the weak links.

Teams that aren't viable Carolina, Indy, NO, Memphis, Atlanta ( major market but draws like flies ), Bucks, Cleveland ( rich owner but not really a viable market ), Sac, LAC, OKC ( they are doing great now but long term not viable ).

Have 4 divisions 3 in North America adding Van City and Seattle and a European Division with 8 teams.

Why the European Teams will buy out the weak sisters or give current owners to own a European teams. The reason would be a huge TV contract in Europe and be placed in major cities such as London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Rome etc. The combination of new TV and big markets would be ideal for both players and the league.

Fairview4Life · Post #748 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:24 pm

dacrusha wrote:Why the hell should rich markets in NY, Chicago, LA and even Toronto subsidize dieing franchises that don't have major league fan bases and corporate support in cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Memphis?

To protect their markets and to advertise in other areas of the country. Loss leader, in a way.

Firesphere · Post #749 » by **Firesphere** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:24 pm

Why don't the owners get together and create their own agreement.. have it governed by someone they appoint, and just all agree to never pay beyond x amount for any player, etc, etc... they could let current contracts run at what they are, and start new ones at whatever price they want and agree is fair. The players make far too much for playing a game. I am not talking about dialing it back to really low numbers, but something reasonable... players don't have to agree, but if clubs won't offer more on contracts than the next guy, they can't complain and will have to take the offers from the owners.

Fairview4Life · Post #750 » by **Fairview4Life** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:31 pm

Firesphere wrote:Why don't the owners get together and create their own agreement.. have it governed by someone they appoint, and just all agree to never pay beyond x amount for any player, etc, etc... they could let current contracts run at what they are, and start new ones at whatever price they want and agree is fair. The players make far too much for playing a game. I am not talking about dialing it back to really low numbers, but something reasonable... players don't have to agree, but if clubs won't offer more on contracts than the next guy, they can't complain and will have to take the offers from the owners.

That sounds like it's against the law to me. Probably the reason they don't do that.

Salted Meat · Post #751 » by **Salted Meat** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Firesphere wrote:Why don't the owners get together and create their own agreement.. have it governed by someone they appoint, and just all agree to never pay beyond x amount for any player, etc, etc... they could let current contracts run at what they are, and start new ones at whatever price they want and agree is fair. The players make far too much for playing a game. I am not talking about dialing it back to really low numbers, but something reasonable... players don't have to agree, but if clubs won't offer more on contracts than the next guy, they can't complain and will have to take the offers from the owners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Homer Jay · Post #752 » by **Homer Jay** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:22 pm

S.W.A.N wrote:
Homer Jay wrote:
Parataxis wrote:You realise that contraction isn't free, right? You don't just tell the owners of those bottom 6 franchises 'thanks for coming out, have a great day'. You need to actually buy them out - and they're going to want fair market value (or better) for those teams.

Half a dozen teams, you're probably looking at 250mil per, so 1.5 billion dollars. That's about 62.5 million dollars, per remaining team. Even if the big market teams thought it was a good investment, do you think the other small market teams just have 60 million bucks laying around?

But subtracting the number of teams, means upping the percentage of shared revenue the remaining teams keep. You figure shared revenue for each team was around 60 million, eliminating 6 teams puts 360 million back into the pot or 12 million per team. Even with interest you could have that 60 million per team, paid out to the contracted owners, paid back to the bank in only 6 years and then going ahead you are pocketing an extra 12 million a year.

Any talk of contraction is completely unrealistic. Zero chance of it happening, especially with a waiting list of viable cities just waiting for the opportunity to have a franchise.

The problem is not with viable cities, its with viable players. There is not enough top tier players (maybe a total of 50 in the league now) to field 30 semi-competitive teams. Eliminating 6 teams, means getting rid of 90 players, and making sure the remaining top players are still basically 2 per team. I mean the Raptors right now don't have a single top tier player (Bargs and DD being alright 2nd tier players... but just that 2nd tier), while Miami has 3. You keep 2 stars on every team, then basically every team has a chance to win, the variety coming in how they make up the other 10 roster spots with the resources available to them.

S.W.A.N · Post #753 » by **S.W.A.N** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:42 pm

Homer Jay wrote:
S.W.A.N wrote:
Homer Jay wrote:
But subtracting the number of teams, means upping the percentage of shared revenue the remaining teams keep. You figure shared revenue for each team was around 60 million, eliminating 6 teams puts 360 million back into the pot or 12 million per team. Even with interest you could have that 60 million per team, paid out to the contracted owners, paid back to the bank in only 6 years and then going ahead you are pocketing an extra 12 million a year.

Any talk of contraction is completely unrealistic. Zero chance of it happening, especially with a waiting list of viable cities just waiting for the opportunity to have a franchise.

The problem is not with viable cities, its with viable players. There is not enough top tier players (maybe a total of 50 in the league now) to field 30 semi-competitive teams. Eliminating 6 teams, means getting rid of 90 players, and making sure the remaining top players are still basically 2 per team. I mean the Raptors right now don't have a single top tier player (Bargs and DD being alright 2nd tier players... but just that 2nd tier), while Miami has 3. You keep 2 stars on every team, then basically every team has a chance to win, the variety coming in how they make up the other 10 roster spots with the resources available to them.

You do not need a top 50 player to be a successful NBA franchise. Toronto as you say has 2nd tier players yet makes a lot of money for MLSE. The clippers constantly lose their top tier players due to Ownership yet make boat loads of money. Redistribution of top talent is a function of the draft and free agency.

You have to look at the fact that half (or more ) of the ownership groups really don't care about winning championships, they worry about maximing profits. The smaller the league is the smaller the total revenue pot. Contraction does not grow the sport nor does it grow revenue. Its never going to happen

arbsn · Post #754 » by **arbsn** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:09 am

this lockout sucks i feel so hapless

does anyone know if lockouts ever happen in the big soccer leagues like premier league and such..

rapaholic · Post #755 » by **rapaholic** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:15 am

arbsn wrote:this lockout sucks i feel so hapless

does anyone know if lockouts ever happen in the big soccer leagues like premier league and such..

for starters the EPL doesn't have salary caps or collective bargaining agreements, so I don't think it can happen for that reason.....unless there is a players strike! Over there the money from television is split up between clubs and also they have tier systems so bottom feeders go to away and get recycled....

whoknows · Post #756 » by **whoknows** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:41 pm

arbsn wrote:this lockout sucks i feel so hapless

does anyone know if lockouts ever happen in the big soccer leagues like premier league and such..

That's a good point.
I don't think Euro soccer leagues have union/collective agreements.
Anybody knows if South America soccer and others have unions for players?

It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Fairview4Life · Post #757 » by **Fairview4Life** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:43 pm

whoknows wrote:It might sound simplistic, but If there would be no unions there would be no problems.
The result would a lower ticket price (happy customers) to reflect the true value of market.
Same for our cars, without the fat union cats, there would be much better pricing for automotive market (and less jobs losses overseas).

Not only does that sound simplistic, it also sounds completely wrong. MLSE prices tickets to make the most money possible. They aren't going to lower their prices if players make less. they will charge whatever the fans are willing to pay, and make even more money than right now.

BLKMASS · Post #758 » by **BLKMASS** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:15 pm

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/rosen/ ... ed-season/

Fear not, NBA fans. Even though both sides are still posturing, and numerous preseason games have been cancelled, there’s virtually no chance that the entire 2011-12 goes down the drain. That’s because David Stern will never permit such a doomsday scenario to occur during his watch.

Indeed, the very worst possibility is a return to the 1998-99 schedule that comprised 50-games in twelve weeks.

Post #759 » by **CPT** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:19 pm

BLKMASS wrote:http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/rosen/2011/09/24/thunder-time-in-shortened-season/

Fear not, NBA fans. Even though both sides are still posturing, and numerous preseason games have been cancelled, there’s virtually no chance that the entire 2011-12 goes down the drain. That’s because David Stern will never permit such a doomsday scenario to occur during his watch.

Indeed, the very worst possibility is a return to the 1998-99 schedule that comprised 50-games in twelve weeks.

That's not news, that's an article about which teams/players would benefit from a compressed season, based on Charley Rosen's (apparently writing for Hoopshype now? yikes) opinion that Stern won't allow a lockout.

Post #760 » by **Rhettmatic** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:10 pm

First updates dribbling out from today's meeting, which was over very quickly, but they're meeting again tomorrow -- I'm choosing to take that as a positive sign.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
David Stern: "spent some quality time discussing concepts..." and decided to return to respective offices and discuss among themselves.

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern keeps suggesting that Wednesday's meeting will be telltale on where these talks stand, and where they go next.