Who do you support?

[ATLTimekeeper]

Really it's hard to pick sides. Part of me just thinks Players are holding up the inevitable, so you get annoyed that they aren't accepting the deal, now that's not a very fair view point for them. Plus, you don't hear much of what the Players would like. Only that they want to preserve the present system as much as possible, and not concede any more than 53%. Seems like Players have just drawn their box and are letting the league come up with a deal that fits within it. Seems like Owners have moved off of non guaranteed deals, moved far off the initial BRI split (initial in these negotiations) came off roll backs, and came off of a hard cap. People paint the Sarver's and Gilbert's as no good hardliners, yet paint Garnet and Wade and LeBron as heroes standing up for the union for drawing the line in the sand at 53%. And then they say the league isn't negotiating in good faith, when it seems like they've gotten more concessions than they've given.

If I ask for a unicorn initially, moving off of that demand isn't really me compromising, it's being ridiculous at the start so I can later say I'm trying really hard to make a deal, and "I even gave up my unicorn demand". All optics and PR.

To me non guaranteed deal, hard caps were not unicorns, they were what I hoped would come out of this. What was so ridiculous about the owners offers?

^I think the owners are mostly going about it the wrong way. It's PR, in that they went into the previous negotiations putting an emphasis on BRI, which is just a money grab. They decided to change tactics this time and went with "system" issues, i.e. (issues relating to competition) before cancelling the games. The owners wanted to hurt the players in this negotiation. The players had way too much personal power over franchises. From de facto GMing, paid and retired (wtf was Baron Davis doing at the negotiations, the PA should have told him to stay away from any cameras), forcing buyouts, I think the owners just wanted to kick them in the teeth and let them know how fragile their bargaining power really is. We'll see if they're right or not.

[SDM]

Neither, I want both sides to fight in a cage. Once the players win by virtue of age, I expect them to get on the microphone and apologize profusely to the fans who have had to watch multi-millionaires bicker over who has a bigger slice, in the midst of a free falling economy. It's an embarrassment, both sides need to be reconstructed and personally, I couldn't care any less than I do right now. **** them both, **** the NBA.

[C Court]

I'm behind the players on this one.

The owners claims of $300 million in losses are exaggerated.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

It's funny to read people like Tom Ziller, act like the league is the bad guy for having it's position, and that it should be up to Stern to be "the best commish" of our generation and tell his owners "no, we're not going to miss games over a darn hard cap". why not have hunter and fisher lead the players and say, "no we're not going to lose games over a hard cap". It works both ways. You can fault Stern, for moving off the 50%, but it's not like Players ever agreed to it, they wanted they're 53. I guess demanding 53 is an unfair position from the owners side? But reasonable for the players....

I find all this talk about Stern, being a bully funny too. It's like there's this underlying belief that Stern can just do what ever he wants and is pushing people around. I won't even get into all the antisemitic comments I saw on twitter about Stern and the Owners, but there's this underlying belief that stern is just toying with them, rather than being a party to a negotiation. The NBPA RT'd that Ziller piece that paints that picture of Stern just pushing them around, I guess they don't mind being assumed to be incompetent negotiators when it fits their PR interest. There are two parties to this deal, both deserve the scorn, but both are just looking out for their interest. Why is it on Stern to be the guy who saves everyone. Why, are his demands evil, and the Players's altruistic? People see through it because it's crap, not because of a PR war. The reason the players have been giving from the jump is that the current deal is not good, and they know it. So don't be shocked that League wants to change it. and if they can't change the system, they'll try and change the BRI. If they don't get as much as they want from BRI, they'll change the system. That's their point of view, and their right to not agree to any deal they don't agree with, jsut like the players.

But I'm not shocked to see writers and blogger demonize the owners and stern, how ofter are Stern and Owners used as sources for their stories. their links are agents, gm's and players and friends of players, and that comes through in most of their pieces. It must piss off the players that they can get the media to back them but still not reach the fans. But they need to know that their stories of KG, LeBron and Wade, imploring the union to not go below 53% makes them every bit as unwilling to comprimise as the owners who are offering 47%.

[Death Knight]

I support myself. Where's my max contract?

I'm behind the players on this one.

The owners claims of $300 million in losses are exaggerated.

The union also claims $350 million in salary loses per month are exaggerated.

[Tenacious_C]

I'm behind the players on this one.

The owners claims of $300 million in losses are exaggerated.

They're the owners. Why do the players feel entitled to all the BRI? Like one poster had said the players have no problems taking a pay cut to play overseas.

If I had a business partner who I paid more than half of all revenues, without him paying any expenses; I would be the stupidest businessman on the planet.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

I'm behind the players on this one.

The owners claims of $300 million in losses are exaggerated.

I think they may be exaggerated to, but by how much? I know I've lost money on my investments, so I believe that they did too. These economic issues in US and the world was going to be their ace in hole in this process, I know that years ago. It didn't matter whether or not it came to be, it framed the context. No banner year, awesome finals, or FA frenzy was going to change it. Regardless on their losses, I look at football, which is THE BIG SPORT, and I look at Chris Johnson having to hold out to make Sammy Dalamebert Money, except Sammy has more guaranteed, I look at Jermaine Oneal making 23 million over three years where he hardly played, Look at Arenas, and I think NBA had the best deal in all of sports and it had gotten ridiculous.

Football players risk more health, have shorter career's make less money, and have far less guarantees, and the NFL is far more profitable. You don't have NFL players getting together and cherry picking their markets.

Regardless what the numbers are, I understand there's so much other business intertwined that it'd be hard to ever get a clear picture to say 300 mil is real or not. But I do think the current system leaves me scratching my head, and I don't think it works very well regardless of what the losses are. In fact the team I follow made money, but to me, they're screwed by this system as much or more than anyone.

[The_NeX]

I'm siding with the players.

The problem will never be solved, untill owners stop overpaying players. A hard cap wont solve this, will just screw the scrubs, which will be paid even less. Good players, will get their pay anyway, and stupid owners will continue to create new Arenas, Lewis.

In short : you make bad business decision? Don't be surprised you are losing money.

[Rhettmatic]

I'm firmly with the players.

But I'm not surprised that the poll is favouring the owners. Aside from more cynical concerns -- I find it odd that so many people seem to have such resentment for millionaire athletes but not billionaire owners -- I think Stern and co. have just had better rhetoric and a more focused, persuasive PR campaign.

[The_NeX]

I'm firmly with the players.

But I'm not surprised that the poll is favouring the owners. Aside from more cynical concerns -- I find it odd that so many people seem to have such resentment for millionaire athletes but not billionaire owners -- I think Stern and co. have just had better rhetoric and a more focused, persuasive PR campaign.

And the support of the media.

[Fairview4Life]

The NBA keeps bringing in more and more revenue every year. There is no recession in the NBA. NBA player salaries didn't even hit 57% this year and escrow money had to be paid out to them. Bad contracts are not what are causing the owners to claim poverty. A hard cap will not increase parity or competitiveness, and the owners are not out to increase parity and competitiveness.

I feel like the players should just decertify and force the owners to put up or shut up with revenue sharing.

[timdunkit]

I don't side with anyone but I know the owners are going to win. Someone on the GB made a good point, if your a fan of a small market team you tend to side with the owners and if your large market team, its easier to side with the players.

The league does have a broken system and there is an issue. The fact is large market teams have an inherent advantage of being a) in a large market and b) having owners who are willing to spend. It wouldn't be a problem if Mark Cuban was running the Grizzlies or the Suns or if Paul Allen was your owner buts thats just not the case.

The league is trying to make things more competitive by bringing the spending capabilities of larger market teams down. Thats not going to change who the contenders are but its going to result in more mediocore teams which the league needs to fill the arenas up.

[Fairview4Life]

I'm behind the players on this one.

The owners claims of $300 million in losses are exaggerated.

They're the owners. Why do the players feel entitled to all the BRI? Like one poster had said the players have no problems taking a pay cut to play overseas.

If the NBA did not exist, another league would step in and pay the players more than they'd make in Europe. There are over 4 billion in revenues sitting around. Since the NBA does exist, that's a massive barrier to entry and the players are better off popping over to Europe for less money for a few months. Taking a pay cut to play in Europe for a few months doesn't mean the players should take a pay cut in a league bringing in a lot more revenue. Paying the players significantly less is also a great way to drive more kids back into baseball and football.

[Fairview4Life]

I don't side with anyone but I know the owners are going to win. Someone on the GB made a good point, if your a fan of a small market team you tend to side with the owners and if your large market team, its easier to side with the players.

The league does have a broken system and there is an issue. The fact is large market teams have an inherent advantage of being a) in a large market and b) having owners who are willing to spend. It wouldn't be a problem if Mark Cuban was running the Grizzlies or the Suns or if Paul Allen was your owner buts thats just not the case.

The league is trying to make things more competitive by bringing the spending capabilities of larger market teams down. Thats not going to change who the contenders are but its going to result in more mediocore teams which the league needs to fill the arenas up.

The NBA sold over 90% of it's tickets this year and ratings went way up. The audience is already there. The system doesn't need to change to increase the audience.

[timdunkit]

The NBA keeps bringing in more and more revenue every year. There is no recession in the NBA. NBA player salaries didn't even hit 57% this year and escrow money had to be paid out to them. Bad contracts are not what are causing the owners to claim poverty. A hard cap will not increase parity or competitiveness, and the owners are not out to increase parity and competitiveness.

I feel like the players should just decertify and force the owners to put up or shut up with revenue sharing.

Exactly ... no matter how much you change the CBA, the nature of the game dictates that contenders are chosen by the top players in the league. It is extremely difficult to be a true contender without a top 10 player on your team and teams who accomplish it are usually exception to the rule.

But in a sense, by stripping down the spending of larger market teams and lowering the salaries of players, you allow for a greater pool of talent to be available to those small market teams. Which means more mediocore teams and thats better for the league as a whole. Simply put, its easier for fans to support a 40-50 win team then a 15-25 win team and when I mean support, I mean $$$ ...

[youngaffer]

That's great about record revenues but that doesn't equal profit. You still have to minus the expenses incurred plus other taxes on that revenue. The owners have lost over 300 million dollars in each of the last 3 years. What happened 3 years ago ya the huge global recession.

The owners said they lost 300 million over the last three years. That's a pile of nonsense.

That said, no, record revenues doesn't equal record profits. But the % of those revenues going to the players has remained constant. We're left with non player salary expenses. Are you really going to argue that the recession caused non player salary expenses to go through the roof?

I think you need to re-research this topic. The owners said, accurately it appears, that some of the owners (22?) lost $300million.

Here is another saying $300 from 22 teams: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/01/WP-After-Talks-Fail-NBA-Lockout-Begins.aspx#page1

Here is one report saying $450m http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/03/lockout-math-nbas-losses-at-heart-of-talks/

Secondly, isn't a large part of this negotiation about competitive balance? A more competitive league would depend on (at least):
- A more even distribution of stars (i.e. no more 3 amigos in Miami)
- All teams spending being roughly equal amounts of players (so that the smallest market can compete)
- Less player say in location

I believe from the latest reports, these are the issues that the parties are far apart on. If the owners truly are focused on these two sets of issues, I am wholly in their camp.

[SDM]

I'm firmly with the players.

But I'm not surprised that the poll is favouring the owners. Aside from more cynical concerns -- I find it odd that so many people seem to have such resentment for millionaire athletes but not billionaire owners -- I think Stern and co. have just had better rhetoric and a more focused, persuasive PR campaign.

There's commonality, basketball fans usually work for a billionaire owner too. They don't pay for operating costs either, but understand that this is a significant sum of money. If my boss wants to fly his private jet to Antigua and gamble money he could give to me, that's his business. I resent them both, but the reality is 99% of the public does the actual nuts and bolts work for their billionaire owners and makes a fraction of what NBA players make. There's zero difference, many of us work very hard in the front line for billion dollar industries too and simply refraining to go to work would also be devastating for business. It's impossible, from my table, to side with players. Sure, traditionally, their deal is better and they're being asked to give up a lot, but nearly the entire world has been asked to do more with less by their employers. When we get fed up with it don't like it, we start our own businesses. The players can go ahead and start the PBL and see exactly how far they get without serious money behind them.

[timdunkit]

I don't side with anyone but I know the owners are going to win. Someone on the GB made a good point, if your a fan of a small market team you tend to side with the owners and if your large market team, its easier to side with the players.

The league does have a broken system and there is an issue. The fact is large market teams have an inherent advantage of being a) in a large market and b) having owners who are willing to spend. It wouldn't be a problem if Mark Cuban was running the Grizzlies or the Suns or if Paul Allen was your owner buts thats just not the case.

The league is trying to make things more competitive by bringing the spending capabilities of larger market teams down. Thats not going to change who the contenders are but its going to result in more mediocore teams which the league needs to fill the arenas up.

The NBA sold over 90% of it's tickets this year and ratings went way up. The audience is already there. The system doesn't need to change to increase the audience.

But you have to ask, where that increase is. A large portion of that increase has to do with the Miami Heat. That benefits the league and Heat but not so much for the other owners.

I don't know if its accurate, but the report says that 22 teams are losing 300 mill a year (the way I'm reading it is, 8 teams aren't part of the equation). So while the Heat or Lakers or the Celtics might have a surge in audience, doesn't mean the other owners are.

Of course this just means, the owners also need to have a better revenue sharing model among themselves.

[Fairview4Life]

But you have to ask, where that increase is. A large portion of that increase has to do with the Miami Heat. That benefits the league and Heat but not so much for the other owners.

I don't know if its accurate, but the report says that 22 teams are losing 300 mill a year (the way I'm reading it is, 8 teams aren't part of the equation). So while the Heat or Lakers or the Celtics might have a surge in audience, doesn't mean the other owners are.

Of course this just means, the owners also need to have a better revenue sharing model among themselves.

TV ratings and the next TV deal that's coming up in a few years benefit all owners. As does that attendance #.

[ballocks]

it's not that i support the owners, but i know i don't support the players. i'm not a big fan of how the game has evolved over the past few years nor the direction where the players have taken it (individually and collectively), and out of principle i find it hard to side with them on any point.

the owners obviously have an agenda but at least it remains as transparent as ever. the players on the other hand seem to be getting more devious and self-serving every year, and 'their' doubletalk has worn me out. their appeals to the fans throughout this process have been especially irritating- "A lockout is not a strike! Let us play!"- as if they're on a constant bend to oversimplify the issues and curry political favour from fans who (hopefully) don't know any better.

i don't know when it happened but i've become tired of NBA player culture lately. their feeling of entitlement, how they take advantage of systems that don't work- and then complain about them viciously when the shoe's on the other foot... aaarrgh. everything.

the owners aren't exactly saints, mind you, but at least they've always been like this. the players have been getting worse and worse over the past few years, imo. i had to cancel my twitter account from all the crap they've been posting that doesn't make any sense. it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. watching them flip out over missing one paycheck reveals (to me) just how spoiled they've become and demonstrates their inability/unwillingness to relate to anyone's situation but their own- despite the political statements they release through the press.

it doesn't help that i'm not a big derek fisher fan.

peace