Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[dacrusha]

.....
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.

Then every player on the Nets team is entitled to the profits that are tied to the Atlantic Yards project in New York.

And every Lakers and Celtics player is entitled to a direct cut of their teams' respective billion dollar local TV deals.

And every Raptor player should receive a check related to MLSE's condo ventures.

And every Knicks player should have a stake in MSG Network.

and on and on...

[whoknows]

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.

First of all I say "free market salary" - where the total expense for the team is limited to say 70 mills/year. This means that some players can still make 30 mills/year and rest is divided between other team mates. Without that cap the small market teams don't stand a chance - much like today.

When you say that NBA would be destroyed, are you thinking that instead of playing basketball for a minimum $70,000 (could always earn a lot more), the scrubs will instead decide to practice medicine, engineering, etc. for a higher salary?

[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.

First of all I say "free market salary" - where the total expense for the team is limited to say 70 mills/year. This means that some players can still make 30 mills/year and rest is divided between other team mates. Without that cap the small market teams don't stand a chance - much like today.

When you say that NBA would be destroyed, are you thinking that instead of playing basketball for a minimum $70,000 (could always earn a lot more), the scrubs will instead decide to practice medicine, engineering, etc. for a higher salary?

I think they'll go play another sport, since they are still genetic freaks with strong work ethics.

Small market teams also don't have to be small market teams, except the NBA won't let them move to bigger markets like LA, Boston, or Chicago. That would be a free market solution. Instead of letting the Bulls keep all of their profit from their protected large market, let other teams compete in Chicago for that money. Or just share more revenue.

[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.

Then every player on the Nets team is entitled to the profits that are tied to the Atlantic Yards project in New York.

And every Lakers and Celtics player is entitled to a direct cut of their teams' respective billion dollar local TV deals.

And every Raptor player should receive a check related to MLSE's condo ventures.

And every Knicks player should have a stake in MSG Network.

and on and on...

you want to be difficult now.... Are you saying that MLSE will only sell the Raps only if the new owner buys the condominium as well, etc...

Of course under this profit sharing environment both players and owners would have an independent accounting company making sure that the team revenue, expenses & profits are properly monitored.

[Tenacious_C]

Then every player on the Nets team is entitled to the profits that are tied to the Atlantic Yards project in New York.

And every Lakers and Celtics player is entitled to a direct cut of their teams' respective billion dollar local TV deals.

And every Raptor player should receive a check related to MLSE's condo ventures.

And every Knicks player should have a stake in MSG Network.

and on and on...

If that's the case, the players should be on the hook for losses. They aren't partners. The Owners own the teams and the players are the employees.

There aren't poor working conditions.

There aren't poor wages.

There is no political interference (see Air Canada)


The players have zero risk, yet 57% BRI.

That's wrong.

[Fairview4Life]

Then every player on the Nets team is entitled to the profits that are tied to the Atlantic Yards project in New York.

And every Lakers and Celtics player is entitled to a direct cut of their teams' respective billion dollar local TV deals.

And every Raptor player should receive a check related to MLSE's condo ventures.

And every Knicks player should have a stake in MSG Network.

and on and on...

If that's the case, the players should be on the hook for losses. They aren't partners. The Owners own the teams and the players are the employees.

There aren't poor working conditions.

There aren't poor wages.

There is no political interference (see Air Canada)


The players have zero risk, yet 57% BRI.

That's wrong.

If they decertified I'm willing to bet they'd end up with more than 57% of BRI.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

If I'm the league, first move after decertification is to move to void all current deals. I'd guess not have a second party to the deal, would open the door to voiding the deal. Make the current players take it on the chin.

[redraptors]

Then every player on the Nets team is entitled to the profits that are tied to the Atlantic Yards project in New York.

And every Lakers and Celtics player is entitled to a direct cut of their teams' respective billion dollar local TV deals.

And every Raptor player should receive a check related to MLSE's condo ventures.

And every Knicks player should have a stake in MSG Network.

and on and on...

If that's the case, the players should be on the hook for losses. They aren't partners. The Owners own the teams and the players are the employees.

There aren't poor working conditions.

There aren't poor wages.

There is no political interference (see Air Canada)


The players have zero risk, yet 57% BRI.

That's wrong.

If they decertified I'm willing to bet they'd end up with more than 57% of BRI.

ha ha. What does one thing have to do with another. Owners Own more then one business. So all he busisness money should be shared. WHO's money is put into those ventures?? Basketball related is baskeetball related. Anymoney made after is none of their issue. The companies I work for have multiply organizations that help one another but profit, bonuses etc are all seperate.

If they decertify you will have 10 players making money, the rest will not. Not to menton you can kiss gauranteed contracts good bye. If you can not perform you are out. Then the players will be happy??

Owners need the players but the players are acting like they do not need he owners or the league. THE players will never make the money they make playing else where. Who says the players deserve 57% Because they had it last time? If the owners want to make more money who cares?? The players are not poor, they get meal money, first class travel, food provided to them What is so bad with their lives??

[redraptors]

To go back to that thought. So every owner should receive a refund of players salaries because players are making money from the money/popularity they earned playing in the NBA. Shaq should refund the Lakers all the money he made making movies as a player, or Jordan from all the money he made from Nike. How many players invested in clubs, restaurants, etc. Should Magic share his Starbucks profit with the lakers because without that money he probaly couldnt afford to be a player in Starbucks.

Give me a break. NBA promotes, pushes, places their players every where to increase the games popularity and now players have taken this to mean they are the game. Players are offered 50 50.
Think about that 50 50 with no financial risk. That is not fair... STAND UNITED because losing out a year of wages and then signing off a worse offer is a better deal.

[dacrusha]

If that's the case, the players should be on the hook for losses. They aren't partners. The Owners own the teams and the players are the employees.

There aren't poor working conditions.

There aren't poor wages.

There is no political interference (see Air Canada)


The players have zero risk, yet 57% BRI.

That's wrong.

If they decertified I'm willing to bet they'd end up with more than 57% of BRI.

ha ha. What does one thing have to do with another. Owners Own more then one business. So all he busisness money should be shared. WHO's money is put into those ventures?? Basketball related is baskeetball related. Anymoney made after is none of their issue. The companies I work for have multiply organizations that help one another but profit, bonuses etc are all seperate.

So, then you're in agreement: any operational expenses incurred by management is none of the players' concern.

And since player salaries have had no bearing on NBA owner profits over the past CBA, it's clear that the owners need to go elsewhere (ie curb their wild spending habits) to make up for lost profits.

[redraptors]

Are you serious?? So if we own a business and I give you 57% of the revenue that wont hurt my bottom line?
Curb expenses is not all up the owners. Owners can not control cost of gas,oil, fights, hotels, food, advertsing costs, property tax, recessions which hurt ticket sales, box sales etc etc. Yes some things they can control. They can also fire employees, offer packages to offset costs...but with the current state of NBA contracts they can not.

I can not understand why this is so hard for you to comprhend?? If you make $100 but offer your employees 57 dollars out of that no matter what happens, regarding increase of costs or lack of effort or production from your workers HOW does that NOT affect your bottom line?

What have the players done to deserve the amount of money they receive?? Why are they willing to play in China or Europe for Less?? Why do most players run back to Play in North America?? Because the League isBETTER, Better money, Better service, less issues with pay, safety etc...

[Fairview4Life]

The NBA is a legal cartel. The players are unionized only so long as it continues to make financial sense. it only makes financial sense if they are getting a large portion of the BRI.

There are a lot of disjointed thoughts there, but they are playing overseas for less because it's a short term thing. If the NBA ceased to exist, another league will immediately take it's place. There are over 4 billion in revenues on the table. Maybe the new league would allow for more teams in NY, LA, Miami, Chicago, etc. instead of expanding to Charlotte too, who knows. But saying "why are they playing for less now?" is silly.

[redraptors]

The NBA is a legal cartel. The players are unionized only so long as it continues to make financial sense. it only makes financial sense if they are getting a large portion of the BRI.

There are a lot of disjointed thoughts there, but they are playing overseas for less because it's a short term thing. If the NBA ceased to exist, another league will immediately take it's place. There are over 4 billion in revenues on the table. Maybe the new league would allow for more teams in NY, LA, Miami, Chicago, etc. instead of expanding to Charlotte too, who knows. But saying "why are they playing for less now?" is silly.

A new league would swoop in and make the same money... and I am being Silly. How did tey get to 4 Billion in Revenue?? Because the Players/? or Because the League expanded the game, market the players across the globe,pushed for global expansion, etc etc... If a union pushes and business start losing money guess what happens... NO more jobs.. Same as Chrysler, GM's etc. All those companies had the same issues unitl things changed and the government came and saved them. My point is every one is in business to make money... I think the players deserve a big portion because they are the product.

My point about the plaers playing over seas and making less is this: If the players are standing United because they are not being fairly treated or they are being taken advantage of then why go some where else and make less for the exact same trade?? 1 Year of a players Salary is Huge, they only have 10 years to play. What are the players truely fighting for? Are they underpaid? Do they not have gauranteed income while on cntract? Do they not have first calss treatment..

[Fairview4Life]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (ie the owner buys the team predominantly on credit, claims interest on the balance sheet as a legitimate expense, uses that expense to claim an overall loss and demand concessions from the players, increases profitability while still owning the team on credit due to the players giving up a chunk of BRI, and then keeps the entire sale price of the team a few years later). But it's all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (ie the owner buys the team predominantly on credit, claims interest on the balance sheet as a legitimate expense, uses that expense to claim an overall loss and demand concessions from the players, increases profitability while still owning the team on credit due to the players giving up a chunk of BRI, and then keeps the entire sale price of the team a few years later). But is all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

If it's so profitable, and there are no real losses incurred, why are the owners missing games? If they're greedy, the old system works, and they are making good profits why do the majority of owners want to disrupt the gravy train?

Is it your point that the owners are going after splitting 3% of the BRI 30 ways, to make up for all there poor business deals, and losses they've incurred on investments during the economic downturn?

[Fairview4Life]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (ie the owner buys the team predominantly on credit, claims interest on the balance sheet as a legitimate expense, uses that expense to claim an overall loss and demand concessions from the players, increases profitability while still owning the team on credit due to the players giving up a chunk of BRI, and then keeps the entire sale price of the team a few years later). But is all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

If it's so profitable, and there are no real losses incurred, why are the owners missing games? If they're greedy, the old system works, and they are making good profits why do the majority of owners want to disrupt the gravy train?

Because they want more gravy, and some of them are having gravy issues with their businesses outside of basketball, and the rich people don't want to spare any of their local gravy with the poorer people. I'm also not saying there aren't some losses, there are. Some teams, like NO, Charlotte, Indiana, Milwaukee, etc. are probably not be doing well. Let them move to Chicago, or make the Bulls, Lakers, and Celtics share their local TV deal and sponsorship money if you want to keep them in those locations.

[redraptors]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (But it's all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

Hold on their skippy... THE Players are Players NOT true partners... What are they on the Hook For? Are they paying money to the owners?? Are their salaries being cut in half when ever the owners feel like it. How many players are making over 5 Million per season and not even playing or are over weight or are constantly hurt?? What are they on the Hook For?? IF the owners offered them 1% of BIR you know what the players could do is walk and play in Europe or China. Simple. Ahh but the problem is that the Bad NBA owners pay them very fairly, provide a good work environment excluding Sterling THE players are not owed anything but what the sign for. If the owner makes profit on selling the team great. He/She bought the team took the risks and sold it. What did New Orleans Sell for?? Do you think the NBA is unique with the above description?? The players are able to earn a living like no one else

[dacrusha]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (ie the owner buys the team predominantly on credit, claims interest on the balance sheet as a legitimate expense, uses that expense to claim an overall loss and demand concessions from the players, increases profitability while still owning the team on credit due to the players giving up a chunk of BRI, and then keeps the entire sale price of the team a few years later). But is all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

If it's so profitable, and there are no real losses incurred, why are the owners missing games? If they're greedy, the old system works, and they are making good profits why do the majority of owners want to disrupt the gravy train?

Is it your point that the owners are going after splitting 3% of the BRI 30 ways, to make up for all there poor business deals, and losses they've incurred on investments during the economic downturn?

If things were so desperate, there's no way that teams like the Warriors, Nets and Sixers could have found new ownership groups to purchase them at inflated rates. Obviously, there are still many billionaires out there who see an NBA franchise as a sound investment. Reality is, maybe 5-6 teams are losing money in the league... but each and every one of those teams (minus Dallas and Portland who don't give a damn) should not have franchises in their respective markets in the first place.

But anyway, for proof that forcing players to their knees with massive salary cuts and hard caps doesn't work, look at the NHL: the same teams are encountering the same financial hardships only 5 years into the most recent deal that crushed the players... and there will most certainly be a lockout come next year.

[Fairview4Life]

They are fighting to not be on the hook for owners' mistakes, or owner losses outside of basketball, or paper loss depreciation on an arena for the full value of the arena despite the city/state/province the arena is in covering a lot of the initial expense, or amortized player salaries from the time of purchase through 10 years (or whatever it is), or owners in protected markets not sharing some of their local TV revenue with smaller markets despite the need for a visiting team in order to play the game shown on local TV, or a zamboni, or owners who don't care about taking a loss but are included on the bottom line in order to make the number larger, or the owners using the team as their personal bank, or interest charges on the purchase price despite the players getting nothing out of a franchise sale (But it's all GAAP! Yeah! Completely legit!

Hold on their skippy... THE Players are Players NOT true partners... What are they on the Hook For? Are they paying money to the owners?? Are their salaries being cut in half when ever the owners feel like it. How many players are making over 5 Million per season and not even playing or are over weight or are constantly hurt?? What are they on the Hook For?? IF the owners offered them 1% of BIR you know what the players could do is walk and play in Europe or China. Simple. Ahh but the problem is that the Bad NBA owners pay them very fairly, provide a good work environment excluding Sterling :) THE players are not owed anything but what the sign for. If the owner makes profit on selling the team great. He/She bought the team took the risks and sold it. What did New Orleans Sell for?? Do you think the NBA is unique with the above description?? The players are able to earn a living like no one else

They will be on the hook if they give up part of the BRI they already have. That was the gist. They will be paying, by giving up hundreds of millions of dollars now and over the course of this CBA, so the owners can continue to do, or not do, all of those things in my list, and more.

What did Golden State sell for? The point of the sale price/interest comment is that the owners use interest and debt servicing to report a loss, then extract more of the BRI from players during these negotiations because "losses" are so high, then don't share any of the sales price with the players later. So the players share in the expense with none of the benefit of the sale.

The "they earn so much money for playing a game" stuff doesn't mean they should just capitulate during every negotiation. if you're really that pissed about genetic freaks making lots of money by throwing a ball through a hoop, stop paying attention to the NBA. Your money is what pays their salary.

If the owners offered up 1% of BRI, another league would pop up in the US pretty quickly and would force changes in the NBA. Just like the ABA and WHA did in the 70's.

[J-Roc]

Reality is, maybe 5-6 teams are losing money in the league... but each and every one of those teams (minus Dallas and Portland who don't give a damn) should not have franchises in their respective markets in the first place.

But anyway, for proof that forcing players to their knees with massive salary cuts and hard caps doesn't work, look at the NHL: the same teams are encountering the same financial hardships only 5 years into the most recent deal that crushed the players... and there will most certainly be a lockout come next year.

So everyone agrees that 5 or 6 teams are actually losing money? In that case, why don't the players work with the owners to contract those teams.

Regarding the NHL, no system will make fans interested in a game they don't care about. Apples and oranges.