Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[Haisan]

The system is not working. The NBA had set record numbers last year and teams still lost money.

Please, the NBA owners lost money the way Hollywood loses money on its hits. (As many others have cited) Malcolm Gladwell's article on Grantland was a useful look at the dubious numbers the owners throw around:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/702 ... -economics

If you put together the 30 top businesses in any field, would you expect them all to make money? Would you expect them all to be well run? Of course not. And the United States is in the midst of a brutal recession, so it is not surprising the numbers are hurting. But the owners should have revenue and cost certainty already (43% of BRI, guaranteed, plus all that non-BRI) -- their problems are mostly self-inflicted are more about spiraling operating expenses (like executive pay) than player salaries.

[ATLTimekeeper]

The optimist in me is disappointed. Common sense and business savy dictate that a deal should of gotten done.


But seeing how the majority of NBA owners have run their businesses I should of known those two things were not part of the equation.

I am now squarely in the decertify camp. F U greedy owners, see you in court

Well good luck finding entertainment value in that, the rest of us will just watch college hoops and other sports. The bottom line is that both these factions will be rich as hell when this is over.

[J-Roc]

As per usual you are out to lunch.

Hard cap is a no go, will not happen... This about maximizing the amount of money owners make. And reducing the number of games played reduces owners profits.

So grabbing as much player money as possible while maintaining 82 games has always been the goal for Stern.

By all accounts Stern is more concerned with instituting a hard cap, or a system that essentially acts as a hard cap, and he's willing to give up regular season games to get there.

[J-Roc]

The system is not working. The NBA had set record numbers last year and teams still lost money.
How does that not sink into peoples heads??? Franchise Values?/ Why is NO owned by the NBA if it is so easy to sell off a team and make great profit??

If you owned a home and the interest rates increased to the point where you couldnt afford it is that good just because the value of your home increases?? who is going to come a buy that house.

People this is not a normal business. What other place has a chance to get 50/50 with owners without putting up their own money?? Please tell me. THE LEAGUE makes the money for the players... Its funny how the players are willing to play in Europe for Half of what they will make in the NBA yet the NBA is not fair... Come on now

The league has done a great job of cooking the books, that is for sure. Owners have done a very good job of decreasing actual income from franchises into other revenue streams. Look at the huge tv deals that New York LA Chicago and Philly have gotten in the last few years. Oh and none of that income counts against BRI...

The only thing different in the nba now from 10 years ago is the owners have gotten smarter about accounting and pr.

With the exception of the bottom few franchises that really don't make money (minus the fancy accounting tricks) it is not hard to see the glaring miss management that happens with them

If the NBA were such a great moneymaking business, do you really think the league would be going through what they're going through? They've already eliminated preseason revenue, and now they're looking to eliminate regular season revenue. You can't have it both ways? Either it's a good business, or it's not.

And what does fair really mean or matter? If the players were only getting 30% BRI, they would all still be rich. A helllavu a lot more rich that members of other "unions" out there who fight real battles.

[Parataxis]

Believe me I want to see NBA Basketball as much as any fan but I also want the system fixed.
I'm surprised the owners compromised as much as they did especially on a middle salary exemption.

The fans on real GM who are on the players side forget the players take no risks they get paid whether the owner makes money or not. I'm also tired of the canard that no one made them pay the stupid salaries. How many times have I heard the mantra on this site by the same people MLSE is too cheap to go into luxury tax?

I hope the majority of the teams now take a hard stance.
1. 45 players 55 owners
2. 10 to 15% rollback
3. Hard Cap in 60 million range
4. No exemptions
5. Longer rookie contracts only 2 years guaranteed
6. NBA pension plan 20% of player salary into a well run pension plan like the teachers.
7. Luxury tax 1 to 1 on 1st 5 million, 2 to 1 on next 5 million, 3 to 1 on next 5 million 5 to 1 above that
8. 35% of team cable deals into a revenue sharing pool.
9. Minimum 40 million in salaries by teams.
Maximum deals 4 years with team options on 4th year.

You realize you can't have luxury tax and a hard cap don't you...

Actually you can since many teams will still be above the hard cap till contracts expire.

Then it's not a hard cap.

You're right in that you can have both a lux tax and a hard cap (eg: lux starts at 50mil, hard cap at 60) but by definition, if you can be over the hard cap, it's not a hard cap.

[Fairview4Life]

So you are advocating destruction for the sake of destruction, because you think the athletes are over paid.. You are just the kinda fan that I am talking about the NBA losing because of this lockout. You have no problem switching to another sport and may or may not come back when lockout over (well in your case its pretty likely that you are more of a basketball fan than you are admitting to)

No. I want a sustainable and profitable NBA...for all the teams. If the fans and owners are taking a hit, the players should too. Player salaries have increased much faster than owner returns on investment AND even your salary (assuming you're not in school).

It's actually the players that are advocating the destruction of the NBA, not me. They want their unsustainable salaries and benefits and they don't care about the reality of the economy, the state of the NBA or the state of their respective teams.

Player salaries might have increased quickly, but only because BRI increased just as quickly. Owners returns increased at the exact same pace. That's the whole idea behind pegging salary to BRI. Calling something unsustainable doesn't actually make it unsustainable. If you want a sustainable and profitable NBA, then start talking about more revenue sharing, not letting owners buy teams on massive debt, and not letting owners relocate or expand in terrible locations.

[Fairview4Life]

I'm also tired of the canard that no one made them pay the stupid salaries.

I'm tired of it too, since bad contracts aren't why owners are crying poverty. They didn't even sign contracts up to the 57% this year, and had to fork over escrow money to the players to split evenly. Despite record revenues, and player salaries chugging along at 57% like they have for over a decade now, all of a sudden the owners say it's impossible to make money? Obviously it's other expenses that are driving their claims, not bad contracts.

[Cyrus]

I'm also tired of the canard that no one made them pay the stupid salaries.

I'm tired of it too, since bad contracts aren't why owners are crying poverty. They didn't even sign contracts up to the 57% this year, and had to fork over escrow money to the players to split evenly. Despite record revenues, and player salaries chugging along at 57% like they have for over a decade now, all of a sudden the owners say it's impossible to make money? Obviously it's other expenses that are driving their claims, not bad contracts.

It's because of that, not despite...They didn't even hit the 57% target, had to fork over extra cash, that they are holding a hard line.

Plus it doesn't help that in NFL, their players union just accepted 47 or 48% if i recall of their BRI, so i'm sure they are looking for similar like NFL like deal.

And they'll state hey, we aren't pushing for non guarantee contracts, etc. like they do in the nfl.

It's obvious the losses, no matter how it was "Cooked" up, or sliced is semi real, the number the owner made up or whatever may not be accurate. But the players definitely recognize it's a problem, hence their lowering of the BRI.

Hence why they negotiated yesterday, to lower the MLE from 10% or whatever it is of the salary cap to 5 mill start, with only 4-5 year max attachment, and shorter overall contracts...5 year Bird rights, 4 years for teams who don't own their bird rights...owners wanted 4 years and 3.

[dhackett1565]

I'm also tired of the canard that no one made them pay the stupid salaries.

I'm tired of it too, since bad contracts aren't why owners are crying poverty. They didn't even sign contracts up to the 57% this year, and had to fork over escrow money to the players to split evenly. Despite record revenues, and player salaries chugging along at 57% like they have for over a decade now, all of a sudden the owners say it's impossible to make money? Obviously it's other expenses that are driving their claims, not bad contracts.

I don't necessarily take sides in this. And I understand (as I'm sure everyone does) that the main driver for both sides is exorbitant greed. However, the logic behind the owners' claims isn't all that flawed. They claim they are seeing a higher expense-to-revenue ratio due to economic conditions - ie they need to spend more now to make the same amount - for example needing twice the advertising just to keep interest on a slight rise, or cutting ticket prices to keep the seats full - which would mean a big jump in cost compared to revenues. This cuts into the owners profits without impacting the players, even though, if the owners simply kept expenses consistent, both parties would be punished equally (and more than either are now). So the BRI cut would be to recover that additional cost and distribute it to the players as well as the owners. This is why their original idea was to incorporate expenses into the BRI calculation. And that makes sense to me.

Of course, it is difficult to see the difference between shoddy management and economic issues without having more information about the how the teams operate, so that is a factor. And of course the owners want the new system (which they have backed off of, since the players REALLY didn't like the idea of being impacted by expenses) AND the BRI drop, but that's just greed. Of course, now that the owners can't rejig the BRI system to provide some protection from a fluctuating market, they are still demanding a big cut of the BRI - which is partially motivated by greed and partially by the need to protect themselves from a declining economy.

[Salted Meat]

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are going to throw around rhetoric, but to me it boils down to: the owners want to restructure their business model, and in order for them to be able to do that, the players need to agree. The players, and even some of the franchises, are replaceable. The important thing is the structure.

And we all know that the business model is, to an extent, broken. We've collectively spent years complaining about how lower and middle-market teams have no real shot at competing against the tax-spending teams, and that the league needs to address this lack of parity, and how only 8 teams have won the NBA Finals in the last 30 years. Some of us lament over the fact that certain teams spend year after year in the lottery, that players decide not to report to teams they're drafted or traded to due to their perception of the franchise, how it's ridiculous when players publicly demand trades, killing their value... all of these things, whether owner or player driven, are indicators that the structure needs to be fixed.

But the players union will never admit publicly to turning a blind eye to their players misdeeds, and the owners will never admit publicly to mismanaging the league for years, each of which has helped foster the sort of environment that has created this level of disparity... so we end up with the owners crying poor (which they're not) and the players saying they "just want to play" (which they don't).

But the truth remains: the system is broken. They may have made a lot of money with this broken system, but it's not healthy or sustainable.

[dacrusha]

So you are advocating destruction for the sake of destruction, because you think the athletes are over paid.. You are just the kinda fan that I am talking about the NBA losing because of this lockout. You have no problem switching to another sport and may or may not come back when lockout over (well in your case its pretty likely that you are more of a basketball fan than you are admitting to)

No. I want a sustainable and profitable NBA...for all the teams. If the fans and owners are taking a hit, the players should too. Player salaries have increased much faster than owner returns on investment AND even your salary (assuming you're not in school).

It's actually the players that are advocating the destruction of the NBA, not me. They want their unsustainable salaries and benefits and they don't care about the reality of the economy, the state of the NBA or the state of their respective teams.

Their salaries ARE sustainable.

As has been repeated a million times here, the owners losses have zero to do with player salaries and everything to do with their operational expenditures: private jets, terrible arena leases, poor investments in communities which do not want NBA basketball, huge executive salaries, no revenue sharing, zambonis, etc.

Player salaries have remained steady in relation to revenues since 1998.

[whoknows]

for the ones hoping to have this done soon, you should read this:

Billy Hunter repeated that players won't cave once they start missing pay checks next month.
"I think it goes back to a comment that David made to me several years ago when he said, 'Look, this is what my owners have to have.' And I said, 'The only way you're going to get that is if you're prepared to lock us out for a year or two, and (this) indicated to me that they're willing to do it," Hunter said. "So my belief, my contention is that everything he's done has kind of demonstrated that he's following that script."...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/10/labo ... d=nba.2013

There is no way NBA owners will give up and since they want at least a similar deal as NFL team owners.
The idiot player union and superstar (who implore players to not give up) do not get it that besides the lower tier players missing salary, they also hurt the thousands of people and businesses depending on these games.

Now I wish they decertify and have a chance to properly rebuild this league from ground up, and hopefully get rid of powerful unions who have no place in this environment.

[whoknows]

.....
Player salaries have remained steady in relation to revenues since 1998.

Question is do you think expenses have been steady since 1998?
To be realistic, the players salaries have to be a percentage of profits, not revenue.

Given that players have no risk into this with guaranteed contracts and no money of their own invested, why should they get to make more money than the owners?

[Indeed]

So you are advocating destruction for the sake of destruction, because you think the athletes are over paid.. You are just the kinda fan that I am talking about the NBA losing because of this lockout. You have no problem switching to another sport and may or may not come back when lockout over (well in your case its pretty likely that you are more of a basketball fan than you are admitting to)

No. I want a sustainable and profitable NBA...for all the teams. If the fans and owners are taking a hit, the players should too. Player salaries have increased much faster than owner returns on investment AND even your salary (assuming you're not in school).

It's actually the players that are advocating the destruction of the NBA, not me. They want their unsustainable salaries and benefits and they don't care about the reality of the economy, the state of the NBA or the state of their respective teams.

Player salaries might have increased quickly, but only because BRI increased just as quickly. Owners returns increased at the exact same pace. That's the whole idea behind pegging salary to BRI. Calling something unsustainable doesn't actually make it unsustainable. If you want a sustainable and profitable NBA, then start talking about more revenue sharing, not letting owners buy teams on massive debt, and not letting owners relocate or expand in terrible locations.

Exactly, how would owners are taking a hit? The revenue sharing part (BRI - basketball related income) has benefits both owners and players. As for why some owners are losing money, it is up to them on how they spend their expenses, nothing to do with the players.

[redraptors]

Even if the NBA is cooking the books... which if you read they already had an external audit done and the Players association has also looked at them.. the revenues you are talking about only help large market teams such as LA NY etc. How much "extra" revenue does Mil, Char, or NO receive???

Like I said previously this is not a normal business. I read some one say that salaries do not affect the bottom line because if you pay more you will have better service, producton etc... What a load of bull that is. Yes you increase your chances of recruiting better tallent but that does not mean you receive the best quality either. YOUR business decides strategy, policies... Economics is something that is out of your hands for the most part... What about material costs etc.. When margins of profit shrink due to the aforementioned reasons then your hig salarys can put you out. what % of revenue is salary? 57% BIR does not cut in to profit??? ha ha . I degress.

The NBA makes money.. The league. Not just players but the league it self. Why are players willing to play for peanuts now?? Who here can walk up to the owners of their business demand 53% of profits yet not put in ONE red Cent?? Players have "0" Zero financial risk. What is their concern 5 million average per year is not good enough. Why doesnt the union fight to have better retirement plans in place? They are the highest paid athletes per average. The have 15 players on a the roster and payrolls of 65 Million

By the way in situations where people go on strike/ or decide they will not accept the "final" offer they will NEVER get back what they lost and in most cases they recieve almost exactly what the last offer is.

[dacrusha]

for the ones hoping to have this done soon, you should read this:

Billy Hunter repeated that players won't cave once they start missing pay checks next month.
"I think it goes back to a comment that David made to me several years ago when he said, 'Look, this is what my owners have to have.' And I said, 'The only way you're going to get that is if you're prepared to lock us out for a year or two, and (this) indicated to me that they're willing to do it," Hunter said. "So my belief, my contention is that everything he's done has kind of demonstrated that he's following that script."...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/10/labo ... d=nba.2013

There is no way NBA owners will give up and since they want at least a similar deal as NFL team owners.
The idiot player union and superstar (who implore players to not give up) do not get it that besides the lower tier players missing salary, they also hurt the thousands of people and businesses depending on these games.

Now I wish they decertify and have a chance to properly rebuild this league from ground up, and hopefully get rid of powerful unions who have no place in this environment.

Without the union and CBA, players like LBJ, Kobe and Durant would, as true free agents, command $40-50 million per year or ask for a percentage of team profits or a piece of ownership.

Or just start their own league.

You think the owners are willing to go down that road?

[Fairview4Life]

.....
Player salaries have remained steady in relation to revenues since 1998.

Question is do you think expenses have been steady since 1998?
To be realistic, the players salaries have to be a percentage of profits, not revenue.

Given that players have no risk into this with guaranteed contracts and no money of their own invested, why should they get to make more money than the owners?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... accounting

Great plan.

[I_Like_Dirt]

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are going to throw around rhetoric, but to me it boils down to: the owners want to restructure their business model, and in order for them to be able to do that, the players need to agree. The players, and even some of the franchises, are replaceable. The important thing is the structure.

And we all know that the business model is, to an extent, broken. We've collectively spent years complaining about how lower and middle-market teams have no real shot at competing against the tax-spending teams, and that the league needs to address this lack of parity, and how only 8 teams have won the NBA Finals in the last 30 years. Some of us lament over the fact that certain teams spend year after year in the lottery, that players decide not to report to teams they're drafted or traded to due to their perception of the franchise, how it's ridiculous when players publicly demand trades, killing their value... all of these things, whether owner or player driven, are indicators that the structure needs to be fixed.

I think you're confusing business model with competitive model. The league as a whole is making record revenues and is asking the players to take at 15-25% reduction in salaries.

If this was about bottom teams wanting to win more games rather than money, the issue would already be resolved. I mean, the biggest issue to smaller market teams competing is revenue-sharing, which isn't part of these negotiations at all. Without revenue-sharing, you're still going to have small markets struggle and small market owners pocketing the extra cash. Other than the Green Bay Packers, there really aren't a lot of asmall market teams that succeed regularly in any pro-league. The other issue would be setting up a system where ownership needs to spend on the team rather than pocket money - again, not part of these negotiations. Other than that, a harder cap would help, but still won't fix the major competitive disadvantage if wealthy teams are simply making more money and smaller market teams don't spend as much to try to pocket as much money as they can.

[whoknows]

for the ones hoping to have this done soon, you should read this:

Billy Hunter repeated that players won't cave once they start missing pay checks next month.
"I think it goes back to a comment that David made to me several years ago when he said, 'Look, this is what my owners have to have.' And I said, 'The only way you're going to get that is if you're prepared to lock us out for a year or two, and (this) indicated to me that they're willing to do it," Hunter said. "So my belief, my contention is that everything he's done has kind of demonstrated that he's following that script."...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/10/labo ... d=nba.2013

There is no way NBA owners will give up and since they want at least a similar deal as NFL team owners.
The idiot player union and superstar (who implore players to not give up) do not get it that besides the lower tier players missing salary, they also hurt the thousands of people and businesses depending on these games.

Now I wish they decertify and have a chance to properly rebuild this league from ground up, and hopefully get rid of powerful unions who have no place in this environment.

Without the union and CBA, players like LBJ, Kobe and Durant would, as true free agents, command $40-50 million per year or ask for a percentage of team profits or a piece of ownership.

Or just start their own league.

You think the owners are willing to go down that road?

First of all there is no chance they'd start their own league, they would then know the "joy" of being an owner...

Also, there are no players lining up to own their team once they retire (MJ being an exception), so I don't see them wanting to have shares being realistic either.

I do support a true free market salary, since people come in to see the superstars, let them make as much as the teams can support to pay them - with a hard cap to protect the smaller markets.
To balance, I don't feel bad for scrubs/fillers if they make $70,000 instead of millions, do you?

[Fairview4Life]

I do support a true free market salary, since people come in to see the superstars, let them make as much as the teams can support to pay them - with a hard cap to protect the smaller markets.
To balance, I don't feel bad for scrubs/fillers if they make $70,000 instead of millions, do you?

A free market with a hard cap. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. And 70K/year for scrubs? Scrubs being relative of course, since they're still in the top 400 people in their profession and beat out millions of other people for those jobs. But limiting their salary that way is a great way to destroy the NBA.