Who do you support?

[J-Roc]

Anyway, the more games that get cancelled the more owner-friendly the deal will be and based on the what we've heard the owners are looking for some variation of a hard cap and as a Raps fan I love it.

Totally on point. The last system didn't do us any favours. We can keep spinning our wheels with our current ingenius plan of tanking and hoping for a draft pick, or we can try a new system. I'll choose the new system.

[darew9392]

owners. players get payed over a million to do somthing the like doing and they cry about not getting more so to bad 5 million isnt enough? to bad....

i dont see how people can even support the players in this regard

[J-Roc]

owners. players get payed over a million to do somthing the like doing and they cry about not getting more so to bad 5 million isnt enough? to bad....

i dont see how people can even support the players in this regard

True say. The purpose of unions should be to protect the middle class from being sent to a lower class. Not from sending multi-millionaires to milionaires in the entertainment industry.

[DG88]

People are saying that the owners are asking the players to save them from themselves but you have to look at the system to see why they over spend. Every team is competing for talent. When GMs are in negotiations on contracts the agents have this ultimatum either my player gets this contract or he's gone. So teams overpay for that talent so they can keep it on their team, but it hurts them financially. Because of the over payments it becomes harder to amass talent especially when some owners do not have the cash to pay luxury tax. Then that talent leaves for another team. This causes lower fan interest which means less money at the gates. Added with the recession on top of everything else and you have a problem on your hands.

[Fairview4Life]

People are saying that the owners are asking the players to save them from themselves but you have to look at the system to see why they over spend. Every team is competing for talent. When GMs are in negotiations on contracts the agents have this ultimatum either my player gets this contract or he's gone. So teams overpay for that talent so they can keep it on their team, but it hurts them financially. Because of the over payments it becomes harder to amass talent especially when some owners do not have the cash to pay luxury tax. Then that talent leaves for another team. This causes lower fan interest which means less money at the gates. Added with the recession on top of everything else and you have a problem on your hands.

The players have earned between 53-57% of BRI for something like 20 years. Possibly even going back into the 80's I believe. Everything was fine until a few years ago. Players have to give back money if it exceeds 57%. Bad contracts aren't driving the losses. Non player expenses eating up the owners 43% are driving the losses.

The NBA sold over 90% of it's tickets last year, ratings were huge, and revenues have never been higher. There is not a recession in the NBA, despite the crap the rest of us are dealing with. Make the owners share more local revenue, sign at 53%, cut a year off guaranteed deals to let teams fix mistakes quicker, and play the damn season.

[Hendrix]

I really don 't know, because I can't see the books.

The players deserve money because they perform a service that consumers are willing to spend $ to see. I don't believe in any of the "players are millionaires playing a game as a job, they should be happy with "x" amount of money". If the NBAPA consists of the top 300 basketball players and fans are willing to generate $1+ billion in revenue then they deserve to be paid accordingly.

On the owners side, the owners are putting up significant chunks of capital and taking on risk in their investments. I don't not buy into the "Owners are billionaires that treat this as a hobby" talk. If you put up money as an investment you deserve to be compensated.

So I guess it comes down to what the books say (if the owners are actually loosing money, or if it's accounting manipulation of the books), and what you think is "fair" compensation for the services provided by both sides if you did know those figures. I would hazard a guess with the economy the last few years that the revenue has decreased at a higher rate then the expenses (other then players salaries), so there would be less money left over for the players if the owners are to see a profit.

I guess my gut instinct is that the players deserve to take a pay cut, however I really don't know without seeing the books so my opinon isn't really that well informed. I suppose I think the owners deserve something in the ballpark of an average of ~10% ROI, so working backwards I guess the players deserve whatever compensation would provide that ROI for the owners.

[theSkinny]

I support the fans, and wish they could have avoided this entire clusterfunk in the first place.

[Fairview4Life]

I support the fans, and wish they could have avoided this entire clusterfunk in the first place.

Our cut of BRI should definitely be higher.

[theSkinny]

Or lower ticket prices... either or.

[Indeed]

I really don 't know, because I can't see the books.

The players deserve money because they perform a service that consumers are willing to spend $ to see. I don't believe in any of the "players are millionaires playing a game as a job, they should be happy with "x" amount of money". If the NBAPA consists of the top 300 basketball players and fans are willing to generate $1+ billion in revenue then they deserve to be paid accordingly.

On the owners side, the owners are putting up significant chunks of capital and taking on risk in their investments. I don't not buy into the "Owners are billionaires that treat this as a hobby" talk. If you put up money as an investment you deserve to be compensated.

So I guess it comes down to what the books say (if the owners are actually loosing money, or if it's accounting manipulation of the books), and what you think is "fair" compensation for the services provided by both sides if you did know those figures. I would hazard a guess with the economy the last few years that the revenue has decreased at a higher rate then the expenses (other then players salaries), so there would be less money left over for the players if the owners are to see a profit.

I guess my gut instinct is that the players deserve to take a pay cut, however I really don't know without seeing the books so my opinon isn't really that well informed. I suppose I think the owners deserve something in the ballpark of an average of ~10% ROI, so working backwards I guess the players deserve whatever compensation would provide that ROI for the owners.

What do you mean by ~10% ROI? Do you consider increase in assets are ROI?
For example, you are buying $10,000 gold (XUA) with an interests rate of -5%, after a year, your gold went to $12,500 value and you make from interest $-500. Do you call that a good investment?

[thenew_momo124]

Here is more detail on what the owners are offering:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7085089/nba-labor-david-stern-cancels-first-two-weeks-nba-season

Sources told ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard that the primary stumbling block in Tuesday's talks centered around a punitive luxury-tax system being pushed by the owners that the union views as a virtual hard salary cap.

But sources told Bucher and Broussard that owners proposed system changes this week that included a luxury tax of $2 for every $1 that teams strayed above the tax threshold -- doubling the tax that was applied in the previous collective bargaining agreement -- and didn't stop there.

The owners, sources said, also want teams that stray beyond the tax line three times in a five-season span to pay $3 for every $1 over the tax limit. Sources said that the proposed tax penalties would rise to $4 for every $1 dollar over the threshold for any team that crossed into tax territory in five straight seasons.

sources said that owners also pushed for contract limits of four years for free agents re-signing with their current teams and three years for free agents joining new teams, with the union proposing five years and four years, respectively.

Sources say that the league, as ESPN.com reported last week, likewise continues to push for tax-paying teams to be denied the use of their Larry Bird and mid-level exceptions and is still pushing for the mid-level exception to be reduced from a maximum of $5.8 million annually over five years in the previous CBA to a two- or three-year maximum contract that can't exceed $3 million annually.

the players continue to hold out for a 53 percent share of BRI, down from 57 percent in the previous labor agreement. The owners last week unexpectedly proposed a 50-50 split, but Stern said after Monday's breakdown in talks that the league has reverted to its previous position of offering the players just 47 percent of BRI in a new deal.

I'm starting to doubt there is going to even be a season

[lobosloboslobos]

I am for neither but I am definitely against the players more for the following reasons:

1) I expect the owners to be greedy fuc*s only interested in making money. I don't cheer for them. I don't invest in them emotionally. I assume they are totally peckerheads, so I can't really be particularly mad at them for doing what they do, i.e. trying to screw the players. I don't like them, but I always knew I didn't like them.

2) I DO invest emotionally in the players, whom i expect to be motivated somewhat by their love of the game, their pride in their team ('my' team) and their ambitions to be champions as much as by money. I know this is naive, but it is also not insane. Most of the people I know and respect are motivated by factors like these in their respective professions, and money is only one part of their reward. Social workers, artists, teachers and many others tend to share those values. Basketball players, however, appear not to give the slightest crap about the fans, about the game, or about anything other than money. I not only dislike them for being so crass but it totally makes me feel ashamed and like a patsy for investing emotionally in players who really, truly do not give a crap about us the fans. To the point where they can't even be bothered to do any spin or find a fan-friendly issue to promote or even just say something believable about their love of the game and their respect for the fans who support them.

So again, owners are greedy jerks by definition. NBA players, we now know, are just as bad. But for suckering me into caring about them and believing they cared about the game and the team and maybe even just a bit about the fans, truly naive as that may be, I give them the finger and hope they get squashed by the owners. Let them all go back to making 50k a year or something, like athletes did before free agency. I'd be thrilled with that.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Just out of curiousity, lobos, where do you draw the line. Obviously this is an entirely subjective exercise and there is no right or wrong answer, but you say that the players need to be motivated by pride and team spirit. If the owners decided to cut BRI to the players to 45 percent like they were intially holding out for until very recently, is that something the players have a right to fight against? If the owners decide to cut their salaries by half, do they then have a right to stand up for themselves?

I mean, not every NBA player is making millions. If the minimum salary gets rolled back, a player being paid the minimum rookie salary to play for the Warriors, for instance, might be making more than me, but probably isn't making an outrageous amount of money given all the cost of living expenses and much shorter career span. If you were making $300,000 a year and you were likely to need to look for another career in a few seasons, it makes a huge difference to you if you lose 15-25% of your salary. Granted, you might be less likely to strike because personally, long-term isn't your thing, but on average all those players making those small salaries also stand to lose in these kinds of deals.

I'm not sure which/if any players care about the fans, but I think it's pretty clear that they do care about the fans. They aren't stupid. The owners themselves don't really do any promotional events or anything. They always get the players to do that for them. The players just also happen to care about themselves. I mean, in your own job, I assume you care about your customers/clients or whoever, however you'd probably get pretty pissed off with your employer if they approached you with the intention of slashing about a quarter of your salary off their payroll.

[Hendrix]

What do you mean by ~10% ROI? Do you consider increase in assets are ROI?
For example, you are buying $10,000 gold (XUA) with an interests rate of -5%, after a year, your gold went to $12,500 value and you make from interest $-500. Do you call that a good investment?

I'm not really sure what you are saying with those #'s.

I'm saying I think owners deserve ~10% on their investment. They should get more then what their money could do in a passive bond, or other passive low risk investments becuase here they actually have to perform work, and there's greater risk.

So for example with made up #'a.

$300,000,000 <---- investment put up by owner.
10%
$30,000,000<----- budgeted profit.

So That leaves $270,000,000 left over. So lets say from past experience they forcast/budget the other expenses (other then players salaries) @ $110,000,000. That would leave $160,000,000 left for players, or 53% of the total revenue pie.

Again those #'s are completly fictional, and I really have no idea what the real #'s are.

[Buyaka]

Neither. I want a hard salary cap and severe penalties for players demanding trades and a percentile salary reduction for not producing consistently, once a long term deal is signed by a player. I also want owners to pay severe penalties for mismanagement of funds and surpassing the salary cap.

Most importantly, I demand a 25% tickets and concession price reduction to reward fan loyalty. A further 20% reduction of season ticket prices for teams unable to produce a minimum of 70 wins combined, within 2 consecutive years. RISE UP!!! it's time to demand a voice for the fans from these greedy bastards.

[Indeed]

What do you mean by ~10% ROI? Do you consider increase in assets are ROI?
For example, you are buying $10,000 gold (XUA) with an interests rate of -5%, after a year, your gold went to $12,500 value and you make from interest $-500. Do you call that a good investment?

I'm not really sure what you are saying with those #'s.

I'm saying I think owners deserve ~10% on their investment. They should get more then what their money could do in a passive bond, or other passive low risk investments becuase here they actually have to perform work, and there's greater risk.

So for example with made up #'a.

$300,000,000 <---- investment put up by owner.
10%
$30,000,000<----- budgeted profit.

So That leaves $270,000,000 left over. So lets say from past experience they forcast/budget the other expenses (other then players salaries) @ $110,000,000. That would leave $160,000,000 left for players, or 53% of the total revenue pie.

Again those #'s are completly fictional, and I really have no idea what the real #'s are.

Why would you put `expenses` into account for players? What if the owner said he wants a fake lake beside the stadium, and put that as an expense? Would that be fair to the players? Does it help getting more revenue by adding a fake lake beside the stadium?

Besides, you missed this
$300,000,000 <---- investment put up by owner
-10% <----- BRI lose
-$30,000,000 <---- budgeted lose
$60,000,000 <---- non BRI (non-basketball related income), eg. land value, brand value, and etc.
$330,000,000 <---- but total investment becomes (owner gains 10%)

Would this be a good investment? You are gaining 10% in other income?

[JN]

i wish i can walk into my office and demand my boss give me 53%, i don't think i even get .53%, nah... definitely not.

What would you say if your boss walked into your office and said 'how about you take a 20% pay cut and I going to reduce your benefits, oh and if you don't like it don't bother showing up tomorrow'

Most people are not upper management or that have not been an employee at a company for five years:
a) Have no employment contracts
b) Can get terminated at any time with minimal severance.

Many people in 2008 and 2009 were told to take a few extra "unpaid" weeks of vacation and a significant pay cut. If you didn't like it you could leave, and there was no union to protect you. (Not that I am for unions either) But to act like this is a unique situation faced by basketball players is puzzling since many faced at the beginning of the recession.

I am fine with the players negotiating what they are worth. But their general framework (not even considering the amount of $) provides more certainty then most have.

[lobosloboslobos]

Just out of curiousity, lobos, where do you draw the line. Obviously this is an entirely subjective exercise and there is no right or wrong answer, but you say that the players need to be motivated by pride and team spirit. If the owners decided to cut BRI to the players to 45 percent like they were intially holding out for until very recently, is that something the players have a right to fight against? If the owners decide to cut their salaries by half, do they then have a right to stand up for themselves?

I mean, not every NBA player is making millions. If the minimum salary gets rolled back, a player being paid the minimum rookie salary to play for the Warriors, for instance, might be making more than me, but probably isn't making an outrageous amount of money given all the cost of living expenses and much shorter career span. If you were making $300,000 a year and you were likely to need to look for another career in a few seasons, it makes a huge difference to you if you lose 15-25% of your salary. Granted, you might be less likely to strike because personally, long-term isn't your thing, but on average all those players making those small salaries also stand to lose in these kinds of deals.

I'm not sure which/if any players care about the fans, but I think it's pretty clear that they do care about the fans. They aren't stupid. The owners themselves don't really do any promotional events or anything. They always get the players to do that for them. The players just also happen to care about themselves. I mean, in your own job, I assume you care about your customers/clients or whoever, however you'd probably get pretty pissed off with your employer if they approached you with the intention of slashing about a quarter of your salary off their payroll.

I don't know where I draw the line, and I admit to ranting and likely overstating my case, such as it is, and no doubt the guys getting 300k will suffer more than the guys getting 3 mil, but if we take a look at our Raptors, a team without any stars at all, there are very few guys who will not take home quite a few millions in their careers, short though they may be. I mean Amir is getting 25-30 mil for crissakes, and so are lots of other guys on the team, so I find it very very difficult to sympathize with them when they are making so little effort to do anything other than bargain to protect their salaries here.

Years ago I worked for an internationally known art centre that was in a small town. Hell, no need to be coy, it was the Banff Centre for the Arts, an extraordinary facility that had a 60 year history. But when I started working there I couldn't understand that with all the incredible talent that they brought in from all over the world, that so little effort was made to spread the creative wealth locally. For example, I started lobbying right away for every visiting artist to have to do a brief talk or workshop or performance or something in the local elementary and high schools. This would have been easy for them to do and been an incredible enrichment for local kids. But nobody listened. And so when Ralph Klein was elected and proceeded to cut the budget of this public institution by 50% (yep 50%!!!) there was no outcry from the townspeople whatsoever. Nobody local cared. And so there was no real resistance no rooted protest against this ignorant act. And so the cuts went through. And my point is that on some level I felt that the Centre deserved what they got for being so uncaring about anyone other than themselves. And that is pretty much how I feel about this strike and the players. That's about as clear as I can be.

[JN]

Neither. I want a hard salary cap and severe penalties for players demanding trades and a percentile salary reduction for not producing consistently,

So then if a player performing consistently is traded, he should also expect the team to make him a significant compensating payment.

[Kohanz]

Neither. Both are being excessively greedy.

I support the fans.