Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Maddogfromto]

The owners should give them 52 percent and only book best western motels with continental breakfasts while on the road

[carlosey]

Something is seriously wrong here. Is the union corrupt or something? It seems to me they are looking after the top paid players but not for the average guy. The longer they hold out the less they will obtain because now that games are looking to be cancelled the owners will have no incentive to accept anything.

I mean they are playing a game of chicken against someone that can hold out far far longer. A players career span is 10 years more or less, the time to make their money is very limited. Any paycheque they do not get is one they will never see again.

[douggood]

Something is seriously wrong here. Is the union corrupt or something? It seems to me they are looking after the top paid players but not for the average guy. The longer they hold out the less they will obtain because now that games are looking to be cancelled the owners will have no incentive to accept anything.

I mean they are playing a game of chicken against someone that can hold out far far longer. A players career span is 10 years more or less, the time to make their money is very limited. Any paycheque they do not get is one they will never see again.

the unions isnt corrupt or anything, its just that the media interviews the big players so it seems the union is represented by the big names. but thats not true, players like matt bonner are in the room. and in interviews he is much more reasonable and expects a deal done.

and in the end this will be won by the owners and the bottom 60% of the players. for a player on his last few years or making minimum or close to it, they rather get a cutback of 8%-10% in salary versus losing half the season with a lockout.

what i found hilarious was the letter sent by the gang of agents to the players, that letter seriously only represented the interested of the big name players.

[dhackett1565]

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.

It would have been a good article two months ago. As of now, however, the owners long ago dropped that 2 billion flat rate and returned to the revenue dependent model - and have even entertained the possibility of sticking with the standard BRI calculation, instead of adding some expenses they wanted before. So as interesting as the article is, it has no value in the scope of the current negotiations.

[youngaffer]

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.

Not that I am suggesting this is a reasonable course of action, however, if the NBA went down this path how long would it take for the league to "turn-over"? That is to say, the quality of play would be equivalent? 3 years, 4 years? In the mean time, some of the star players would return while others would play in Europe and Asia. Of course, that just will not happen, just as the NFL found out in 1987, but it is a scenario that the owners might consider.

[Too Late Crew]

[UPDATE: The owners’ discussion of a 50% split was reportedly based on the current BRI formula. Hunter has, in previous interviews, spoken of sizable write-offs the league makes on BRI which gave the players a lower true percentage than 57%.

If that’s Hunter’s perspective and the players were already getting a 53% share after deductions, then the drop would be from 53% to 47% . . . not all the way from 57%.

If the owners were truthfully offering a 50% share less the same deduction (say roughly $300 million), the players would be going from $2.1 billion under the old deal to $1.85 billion or about $259 million back from the players.

In other words it’s either 53% to 47% from Hunter’s view or 57% to 50% from Stern’s, but either way it’s in the six to seven point range . . . not a full 10.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/no-labor-deal ... -jeopardy/

[Fats Elmore]

It would have been a good article two months ago. As of now, however, the owners long ago dropped that 2 billion flat rate and returned to the revenue dependent model - and have even entertained the possibility of sticking with the standard BRI calculation, instead of adding some expenses they wanted before. So as interesting as the article is, it has no value in the scope of the current negotiations.

Appreciate the reply my man. Haven't followed the CBA news for awhile.

[Laowai]

Frankly it looks like the players have drank the koolaid and I feel sorry for the bottom 25 to 30 and huge decrease in earnings for the bottom 80%.

The realities
1. The owners control the venues
2. They have the marketing and organizational skills and the infrastructure.
3. Many own buildings.
4. Not every owner is a spendthrift billionaire and to some the teams have become a primary source of income ( Phoenix & Charlotte good examples )
5. Corporate owners who want a return on investment.

If the rank and file players do not revolt against the union, agents and stars they face a very murky future.The nice nice of the agents lending money you can bet your ass they are secured and they would take the players gold tooth to be repaid.

This summer the agents tried to get a players league going and couldn't get corporate support the few games that were organized were to the star players benefit not the average player.

Guys on the Raptors who will be badly hurt Alaibi who will miss his last NBA contract, Barbosa who will lose his last segment of his last big contract. The winners Dorsey and Weems who signed overseas.

If I was a owner I would have been pissed at Stern giving in to such a large degree and now would demand a scorched earth scenario.

[Fairview4Life]

The players should always give the owners whatever they want. That would be great for the league. As long as franchise values never go down, and players are kept in their proper place, what could possibly go wrong?

[J-Roc]

This is an unfortunate side effect of scam monopolistic businesses like pro sports leagues. If all 30 teams were doing well, teams would raise ticket prices until the last few teams weren't. Then with a few teams struggling, the owners go after more money for the next CBA.

Maybe it's time government stepped in a created a more viable model. You shouldn't have struggling teams with so much money to go around.

[Fairview4Life]

If all 30 teams were doing well, teams would raise ticket prices until the last few teams weren't. Then with a few teams struggling, the owners go after more money for the next CBA.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Laowai]

The players should always give the owners whatever they want. That would be great for the league. As long as franchise values never go down, and players are kept in their proper place, what could possibly go wrong?

Don't do the slave and master crap.

Most on the board have never run a business and had to make a payroll in bad times. When you end up taking money out of your own pocket to keep it afloat. I have and when things turn around and money flows in you recoup build your nest egg but are still fair to the people who helped you succeed.

Under a 50% deal the average salary is 6 plus million on 4 billion income even low paid players like Weems and Albai make 10 to 15 times as a average family . If the agents really cared they would be helping players plan for life after B Ball. The fact is that 60% of NBA players will be bankrupt within 5 years of leaving the league.

[Fairview4Life]

The players should always give the owners whatever they want. That would be great for the league. As long as franchise values never go down, and players are kept in their proper place, what could possibly go wrong?

Don't do the slave and master crap.

Most on the board have never run a business and had to make a payroll in bad times. When you end up taking money out of your own pocket to keep it afloat. I have and when things turn around and money flows in you recoup build your nest egg but are still fair to the people who helped you succeed.

Under a 50% deal the average salary is 6 plus million on 4 billion income even low paid players like Weems and Albai make 10 to 15 times as a average family . If the agents really cared they would be helping players plan for life after B Ball. The fact is that 60% of NBA players will be bankrupt within 5 years of leaving the league.

I'm not doing "slave and master crap." I am sarcastically mocking your backing of the owners and alluding the unintended consequences of what would happen if the players just caved because the owners are the owners. If your argument is that the players should cave because they aren't the owners, then they should cave every time. They should give the owners whatever they want all the time. Since the owners have all of those important points you listed.

Just as an FYI, you know that NBA revenues hit record highs this year, right? What "bad times" for the NBA are you talking about?

The owners cry poverty in every league during every strike or lockout. That people keep buying this nonsense is laughable.

[J-Roc]

If all 30 teams were doing well, teams would raise ticket prices until the last few teams weren't. Then with a few teams struggling, the owners go after more money for the next CBA.

That doesn't make any sense.

Just think about it a bit more.

[C_Money]

Good on Richard Hamilton for standing up to his agent. I wish more players would do this. This "Super Seven" is trying there hardest to make sure there's no season this year.

[whoknows]

I really despise the cocky attitude of some of these players and their agents. And of course I don't understand the sympathy for the "poor" players from some posters on this board.

Do you realize that most of the players if not for the NBA owners business acumen, they would either be in trouble (some are anyway) or at best making a minimum pay?
Their life is a sweet dream than anybody wishes for himself.
Also in this economy when most of US population struggles to make ends meet, they complain for not making enough money
I'm surprised to see any public support for these spoiled brats. Most of them end up poor anyway after blowing them in Vegas, drugs, etc. Easy come, easy go...

[dacrusha]

I really despise the cocky attitude of some of these players and their agents. And of course I don't understand the sympathy for the "poor" players from some posters on this board.

Do you realize that most of the players if not for the NBA owners business acumen, they would either be in trouble (some are anyway) or at best making a minimum pay?
Their life is a sweet dream than anybody wishes for himself.
Also in this economy when most of US population struggles to make ends meet, they complain for not making enough money
I'm surprised to see any public support for these spoiled brats. Most of them end up poor anyway after blowing them in Vegas, drugs, etc. Easy come, easy go...

Owner's business acumen? What acumen?

While player salaries have remained constant since the last unanimously approved CBA agreement, owners have buried themselves in operational debt due to their terrible investments, poor stadium leases and over-zealous spending habits... but as you say 'easy come, easy go'.

If they could figure out how to curb their wild spending habits and share revenues equally amongst each other, there would be no talk of lost seasons in this day of record revenue attainment.

[lobosloboslobos]

Under a 50% deal the average salary is 6 plus million on 4 billion income even low paid players like Weems and Albai make 10 to 15 times as a average family . If the agents really cared they would be helping players plan for life after B Ball. The fact is that 60% of NBA players will be bankrupt within 5 years of leaving the league.

I think this is a hugely overlooked point. If the union - instead of focusing on getting as much money out of the owners as possible - was instead focused on ensuring the financial well-being of all players for their entire lives, which could be totally achievable if they were smart and aggressive about it, then the whole equation could change. 47%, 50%, 57% - these numbers are meaningless if you're broke in 5 years. But if the union said we are going after this money while also committing to say - player revenue sharing, massive pension development and other stuff, then the players could still come out ahead in the long run regardless of whether they end up with 46 or 57. But no. It's just pure greed on both sides without any care for fans, the game, each other, or even their families, since all that money is just going to be wasted and lost in many if not most cases. The whole thing is wretched really. I care about the game and my team but I don't care about any of these rich guys selfishly fighting over their millions. Screw them all is my personal feeling.

You said this about the owners:

If they could figure out how to curb their wild spending habits and share revenues equally amongst each other, there would be no talk of lost seasons in this day of record revenue attainment.

but it is exactly true of both sides...

[I_Like_Dirt]

you inherit a risk and you deserve a return on investment.

I think you need to reread this sentence and understand the paradox. Either you 'deserve' a return on your investment or you are inheriting a risk, not both. The owners don't want any part of any risk whatsoever based on their proposals. They want guaranteed returns with the risks belonging to the players, because whenever the owners spend even more money despite revenues continually rising, the owners will just look to slash their salaries. And I really don't understand the idea of deserving a return on your investment. You don't deserve anything from an investment. Instead, you have the right to be smart about where you invest and wisely manage the investments you make and you have the responsibility to do so in a manner that isn't just lining your pockets at everybody else's expense. Sadly, we've lost track of the whole responsibility aspect of things decades ago.

[HSOB SIRHC]

Hmmm...

@SeanDeveney Sean Deveney
Would be good news: I am told we will see a 51-49 BRI agreement this weekend. And 82 games this year.