Owners offered 46% BRI, Players Offered 54%

[HartfordWhalers]

So Espn is reporting that the last owner proposal had a 46 - 54 split, with the 54 to the owners. This follows the players 54% offer for them. So, an a 8% range that needs to be split.

50 - 50 is too obvious right? No reason to lose 2 months before ultimately coming to that.

Who wins 51 - 49? I added a poll with more options, from 54 each way.

[Dr Positivity]

I think we all know this is headed towards 51-49 on one side or the other (I think 51 players), 4 year contracts + amnesty agreement + increased revenue sharing. Done and done. I'm thinking we miss about 10 Gs

[UTJazzFan_Echo1]

I'm completely baffled at how they can't come to agree to terms on a 50/50 deal.

It's going to end up being 49/51 in favor of someone. My guess is that its going to be the owners on top after the whole season is missed.

[killbuckner]

I dont' think the owners will go over 50% so I think it will end with decertification.

[verbal8]

I'm completely baffled at how they can't come to agree to terms on a 50/50 deal.

It's going to end up being 49/51 in favor of someone. My guess is that its going to be the owners on top after the whole season is missed.

The players are starting at a 57% revenue share. Revenue has grown over the time period, with the labor costs being fixed at 57%. Any financial issues with NBA teams are due to overspending(outside of player salaries) and/or poor revenue sharing.

I think it is quite likely that 57% is not sustainable and even the players were pretty quick to admit that. However expecting them to give up 7% of the share, just because the owners can't manage other costs doesn't seem fair.

Something around 51 or 52% also puts them pretty close to other major league sports.

[DBoys]

Any financial issues with NBA teams are due to overspending (outside of player salaries) and/or poor revenue sharing.

I think it is quite likely that 57% is not sustainable and even the players were pretty quick to admit that. However expecting them to give up 7% of the share, just because the owners can't manage other costs doesn't seem fair.

Something around 51 or 52% also puts them pretty close to other major league sports.

"Overspending"? Not necessarily. I disagree with blind assumptions by you and others that the owners are doing a lousy job of managing other costs. What we do know is that their non-player costs are 50%. But costs of doing business and generating revenue are not necessarily cheap. It may be that they're doing a spectacular job of keeping those costs from being in the 60s. We just don't know.

In addition, if the players can get 50%, they should take it and be thrilled. Yes they've been getting 57%, and are spoiled by that, but that doesn't make that overpayment the norm or an entitlement. The NFL players get 47%, in a wildly profitable league. So if NBA owners are asking NBA players to take 50 or so, that's clearly not outside the box for sports leagues. The 57% the players were guaranteed under the 2005 CBA, which was followed by losses every year for the NBA, looks more like the outlier (and the problem) to me.

[DBoys]

I dont' think the owners will go over 50% so I think it will end with decertification.

In your world, EVERYTHING leads to decertification.

But I bet you're wrong. The owners may go over 50, but in any event the players will accept what is offered and there will be a deal.

[killbuckner]

I think that there should be a deal available. I think that something like a minimum BRI of 50% with a maximum of 53%, no rollbacks, and not many changes to the current cap structure would get it done. I just haven't seen anything to make me think that the owners will put forth a reasonable proposal and I think that the players would decertify before missing any paychecks to start the tally running for treble damages.

I don't think that decertification is inevitable- it just depends on what the owners put forward. I really don't think it matters if the union offers anything because I don't think that a 50/50 split would get ratified.

[DBoys]

There has always been a deal available. You think the owners haven't been reasonable, and I think the players haven't been reasonable, but it's more likely simply two sides negotiating to get the best deal - which is what they should do.

But decertification as the outcome, when BOTH sides already have a deal on the table better than they hoped for when they started? Get real. Don't believe the rhetoric - at this point there have been enough givebacks on both sides that everyone is going to win. There's no reason for either side to delay things further - just make a deal already.

[DBoys]

And given the choice of

(a) decertification and a protracted legal fight, during which time no one makes any money from what used to be the NBA, there may be $50M or more in legal fees for each side, they lose a year or two of pay (total about $4 Billion in salary lost), and there is absolutely no guarantee the players would get anything at the end of the fight (all they have is a CHANCE for damages), or
(b) taking a 50-50 deal agreed to by Hunter/Fisher, with no hard cap or contract rollbacks,

I think the players would ratify and end the lockout. In a heartbeat. By a wide margin.

[killbuckner]

I think the players would turn down 50%.I think there are many owners who wouldn't go above 50% without waiting until the players miss paychecks when they feel their negotiating position would be stronger. I think the players would certainly decertify before missing paychecks. I hope that I am wrong and that the owners will go above 50% this weekend to avoid it all.

[DBoys]

I hope that I am wrong and that the players will accept 50% this weekend to avoid it all.

FTFY.

[SO_MONEY]

Why would anyone agree to pay players based on revenue. We have all seen in our own lives how costs have risen and the "difficulties" in budgeting for this. Why wouldn't it be based off of profits from BRI as the profit margins may or have grown more thin in relation to income.

If you pay players based on revenue there are too many variables to factor in to whether it would be a workable and sustainable business model. Predicting future events/costs or their impacts is near impossible.

If BRI is a factor in how players want to get paid there needs to be a component within the language that calculates increasing, and even decreasing costs over the life of the contract, to mitigate added financial risk to the owners, not shared by the players.

I don't think players should be paid based on BRI they should receive a salary plus revenue from product or apparel with a players name or likeness. This can be split amongst the players or go directly to the individual it affects, but this BRI stuff is maddening.

I would never think the owners would go above 50-50 and I would expect this informal offer to be withdrawn if games are cancelled and moved back to the previous level, and then things will become more drawn out.

Perhaps the players come to these scenes and realize this is a pretty good deal given the economic climate, which assumes no risk, gives limited major concessions and protects the lower tier players...or they can decertify so that they can allow the market to dictate wages, but not have that or any of the protections and fringe benefits put in place by the union. Either way I am perfectly fine.

The players just have to make up their "collective" minds and form some action as the owners would not enter willingly into a system where there is uncertainty and the possibility unnecessary loss, and a system based on BRI is just that.

[I_Like_Dirt]

If you pay players based on revenue there are too many variables to factor in to whether it would be a workable and sustainable business model. Predicting future events/costs or their impacts is near impossible.

That is pretty much what being a business owner is supposed to be all about. You're supposed to take on certain risks in order to get the greater rewards. We've seen costs, rise, but we also haven't seen our revenues rise all that much (certainly not like the NBA has). Make it based on net income after expenses and suddenly it opens up a whole world of loopholes like owners paying their family members huge sums of money as 'employees' that suddenly become 'expenses.' Make a rule that the players can veto expenses like that and you've got a whole new can of worms. Plus, how many of those expenses weren't investments in the league with the idea that the owners make more money down the line.

What this comes down to, though, is that the owners know there are several teams that haven't been well-managed. The wealthy owners don't want to subsidize foolish owners who run losing franchises that don't sell tickets and have moved their teams to markets that can't support their franchise, and I bet poorer teams want some kind of say in how much Jeannie Buss gets paid before their cut of revenue sharing would come off. Instead of solving their problems amongst themselves first, the've figured out a better solution where both sides get to maintain as much of the status quo as possible, which is they can try to carve as much money out of salaries as the possibly can while only looking at revenue sharing and managerial solutions as an absolute last resort once the new CBA is ironed out.

[SO_MONEY]

If you pay players based on revenue there are too many variables to factor in to whether it would be a workable and sustainable business model. Predicting future events/costs or their impacts is near impossible.

That is pretty much what being a business owner is supposed to be all about. You're supposed to take on certain risks in order to get the greater rewards. We've seen costs, rise, but we also haven't seen our revenues rise all that much (certainly not like the NBA has). Make it based on net income after expenses and suddenly it opens up a whole world of loopholes like owners paying their family members huge sums of money as 'employees' that suddenly become 'expenses.' Make a rule that the players can veto expenses like that and you've got a whole new can of worms. Plus, how many of those expenses weren't investments in the league with the idea that the owners make more money down the line.

No, that isn't what a business owner is about. Being a business owner is about mitigating risk, risk isn't good. I never said anything about basing salaries on anything, or making guarantees to players their salaries will meet certain levels based on revenue. Nor did I mention net vs. gross revenue when calculating these salaries.

I only mentioned that a system for the players, where salary is determined by revenue is risk adverse, a luxury the owners wouldn't have in all fairness.

[floppymoose]

If the players settle for less than 53% they are nuts. Players: take the year off. Let the owners stew. Give them what they pretend they want: no games. Come back next season and see what they say... you'll get 53%.

[killbuckner]

If the players settle for less than 53% they are nuts. Players: take the year off. Let the owners stew. Give them what they pretend they want: no games. Come back next season and see what they say... you'll get 53%.

This is flat crazy talk. It doesn't make any sense at all to give up 2 billion in paychecks for 3% of BRI of a seriously weakened league. Put it this way- in a 7 year deal you would be giving up 14% of your paychecks to get an extra 3%.

To me the players either need to come to an agreement or decertify. By decertifying the players can have the threat of collectiong triple damages on all paychecks missed and the owners would be faced with a league with no cap of the BRI the players can receive, no salary cap to restrain spending, and no luxury tax to stop the biggest spending teams. GIven that threat I do think that the owners should see a maximum BRI of 53% as a good deal for them. In the end the owners are asking the players to accept all sorts of salary restrictions that would be illegal without their consent. The owners need to give the players enough incentive (Minimum percentage of BRI, minimum salary, etc) to get them to accept all those restrictions.

[DBoys]

And talk of decertification is crazy talk as well.

Things like a draft and caps are not necessarily forbidden. depending on the courts' view of what parts of the league are permissible single entity interests rather than needing to be competitive, because despite their independent natures, these franchises don't have an identity apart from each other (ie, the Lakers can't leave the NBA and be a basketball power on their own). The oft-cited American Needle case ONLY ruled on merchandising (where the NFL teams were truly competing AGAINST each other) and explicitly said that they were not ruling out the idea of legit single entity interests for the leagues in other areas.

As a result, a decert would almost certainly shut down the league indefinitely, until one lawsuit after another can make its way through the courts. There are no triple damages incurred until the league opens for business again, as an employer has no obligation to be in business, so it will be dead for a long long time while the league lets the courts determine what they can and cannot use as a league going forward.

Ultimately there would be an NBA under new rules once the legal issues were resolved, but this generation of players would have to earn their livelihood from a different employer for a few years, and no one pays them nearly as well as this employer. Shut it down? That's crazy talk. That's ego getting in the way of reality.

[floppymoose]

This is flat crazy talk. It doesn't make any sense at all to give up 2 billion in paychecks for 3% of BRI of a seriously weakened league. Put it this way- in a 7 year deal you would be giving up 14% of your paychecks to get an extra 3%.

That same reasoning then applies again next cba, and the one after that. If you are the players you have to go for a fair deal and screw the short term consequences. The stakes are higher than just these next 6 or 7 years.

And by the way, if it makes sense for the players to give up 3%, then it makes sense for the owners to give up that 3% too. Why aren't you calling *them* crazy?

[killbuckner]

That same reasoning then applies again next cba, and the one after that. If you are the players you have to go for a fair deal and screw the short term consequences. The stakes are higher than just these next 6 or 7 years.

Next CBA is an entirely different negotiation. Nothing says that the players can't negotiate back up in the next CBA. Sitting out a full year for a 3% raise is pretty crazy to me.

And by the way, if it makes sense for the players to give up 3%, then it makes sense for the owners to give up that 3% too. Why aren't you calling *them* crazy?

For the players the 2 billion is all profit. For the owners they lose 2 billion in revenue but their costs come out of that as well. I'm sure that the owners would lose money but its nothing close to what the players woulld lose.

Sitting out the year is a non-starter for the players. Like I said decertification is the far better avenue for them to take. If the owners have the choice between 53% and ending the lockout or keeping the lockout going and potentially owing the players triple damages for all missed paychecks then I do think they would be crazy to take that kind of risk over 3%.