Who do you support?

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

As for who's been negotiating and who hasn't been, I think the owners have been. Hunter even said they were close to a deal. I think when I read about that deal, and I think of what the owners would ideally like to see, there's significant movement. The players are guilty too, of simply saying some points re: cap, or defacto cap are non starters, and in drawing a line in the sand at 53%. Goes both ways, but I think both are negotiating, but also putting a lot of rhetoric out there that clouds the issue.

[Greg Stink]

The owners are demanding a reset at a stupid time, the league is trending upward all over the place and teams are selling to successful people who see an advantage in owning an NBA team. They're trying to throw away years of negotiating and that's not how the world works.

Terrible bluffing everywhere and the players have already agreed to re-up on worse terms AGAIN. I'd feel sorry for Stern if he weren't so well paid to represent "the man".

[TdotO]

lol, the revenue is highest ever, your dad can afford more than that, but he just being greedy on his own plan (I want to buy a new cars, get a cottage), the interest rate is the lowest ever in US and Canada.

The players NEVER drive up the cost of the salaries, it has always been a RBI at 57%. And if the players are the sales/marketing of the company, what are the owners contributing? Just money?

I think you have a lot of mis-understanding here.

record revenue doesn't equal record profit!

The players by way of their agents drive up their own market cost making themselves only available to the teams that have the money leaving smaller markets out in the cold. thus contributing to teams losing money.

The owners were stupid in agreeing to 57% BRI, if it was 50/50 split from day one, there would never be a lockout!..but the owners agreed to the stupid number of 57% and that's the reason we're here today! The owners take ALL the risk, while the players sit back and collect

Players never drive up their own market, but supply and demand do.

RBI is pretty fair, while owners did nothing, unlike other business, owners are specialist in some area, but NBA owners just sit back and collect (what did they do? Sales and Marketing? The players did all that, what else?).

The owners were stupid to have long contract, but not 57% BRI. The reason we are today, because of long contracts like Hedo, Brand and etc. The players also takes risk on injuries (Roy) and the owners take the risk of having a bad GM. Unlike NHL, the supply on good players are very limited and can influence a lot on the team's revenue (Rudy Gay for example).

Not saying the players are right, but neither are the owners deserve 50% of the revenue.

Edit: By the way, you can't share profit, because the expense is controlled by the owners. What if they said they need a big parking lot next to the arena? It means more expense to the players, but more assets to the owners alone. Record profit should NEVER be used!!

so do the players put up money (at least a portion of money) to build new arenas? Do the players sign cheques for the employees? How many employees of the franchise are on the players payroll? Do the players make decisions like who does the accounting for the franchise or marketing to get season ticket customers....the point I'm making is that ALL the players do is play the game and make an appearance every now and then....sure the player may get injured, but guess what...their contract is garaunteed!!! So again where is the risk?!?!

The owners provide the stage for the players to earn a living and the owners take all the risk in providing this stage! Sure players can go to other leagues and play, but are they getting paid anywhere close to what the NBA pays them?!?! Even the ones that play overseas, do they get BRI from their teams?!?!...NO...regardless of the amount of people that fill their arena because Kobe is playing for a month there, Kobe doesn't get additional money from that Euro league does he?!

Supply and demand to a point has some control over the market, but if the player and agent continously hold out for the highest bidder, and another player demands more than the first, and then another player demands more, and another player demands more...you see where I'm going with this....the players have a sense of entitlement and because they feel the NBA is a bottomless pit when it comes to money, they drive the market higher and higher!!

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

http://www.denverpost.com/krieger/ci_19101316

This article sums up my point of view as a Raptors fan in this lockout pretty well. (Except for part about the Kmart twitter rants, I'm all for him wishing death on his haters and threatening them. They probalby are rotten people and the world would be better off without them.). I'm not with the agents, and the agents are with the players. Many of the reporters and blogger use agents as sources. So it's no surprise Bball writers tend to support their sources. Even if the public sees through it for the most part anyway.

[dacrusha]

Kings couldn't afford to spend 100 mil if they did want to. And it's in that system that they find it best not to try and compete, maybe in a new system, like one in which the owners have wanted and the players have been fighting, teams may not have to give up before the season begins. Anyone can throw together a blog piece supporting any side of the debate, doesn't make it definitive. For example, counter his NFL example with how many different teams have one championships in the NBA?

I'm not saying Owner's a 100% right, players 100% wrong. But for me as a fan, the system looks broken, whether the CBA was up or not. I don't blame the owners for wanting to fix or for the players for trying to protect thier wallets. But, personally, I care more about improving the system than the players wallets.

Using the Kings is a lousy example of the CBA's current system of revenue distribution hurting a team and a great example of more ownership mismanagement.

If the Maloofs had invested in new arena in the early 2000s with the massive profits they garnered at the time from playoff revenues (rather than blowing hundreds of millions on ill-fated Vegas ventures) the team would probably be doing just fine.

Why should the players now pay for the Maloof's blunders in Vegas?

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

That's one team, there are many more losing money, like the majority of them, I think 23 team? or 22.
If the losses are all lies, then the owners are just giving away money by not playing. If the majority made a profit, they'd want to keep making in. Obviously, they feel somethings broken. They have every right to try and get all they can out of this negotiation just like the players.

And if there owners are such poor business men, how'd they ever get there teams. they can run companies to make billions, but are too stupid to make money in the NBA. Maybe there's a system that's currently imperfect and making it difficult to be profitable.

[TdotO]

That's one team, there are many more losing money, like the majority of them, I think 23 team? or 22.
If the losses are all lies, then the owners are just giving away money by not playing. If the majority made a profit, they'd want to keep making in. Obviously, they feel somethings broken. They have every right to try and get all they can out of this negotiation just like the players.

And if there owners are such poor business men, how'd they ever get there teams. they can run companies to make billions, but are too stupid to make money in the NBA. Maybe there's a system that's currently imperfect and making it difficult to be profitable.

+1

[Indeed]

That's one team, there are many more losing money, like the majority of them, I think 23 team? or 22.
If the losses are all lies, then the owners are just giving away money by not playing. If the majority made a profit, they'd want to keep making in. Obviously, they feel somethings broken. They have every right to try and get all they can out of this negotiation just like the players.

And if there owners are such poor business men, how'd they ever get there teams. they can run companies to make billions, but are too stupid to make money in the NBA. Maybe there's a system that's currently imperfect and making it difficult to be profitable.

There are many more losing money? You got the number (but I got the opposite number for you)?
I see a lot of owners are making money simply bought the team. The total investment they made in these recent sale, showed how much owners made as compare to the time they bought the team.

And buying a team is way more profitable than own any kind of business. The arenas are funded by tax payer (government provides tax return, except for Canada, I believe). You can trade players for players or picks or cash (tell me which corporation can trade their employee? Google and Microsoft?). Which team's value has decreased?

And look at the team value in the Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _rank.html
vs
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0217/072tab.html
Every team went on 5% - 10% increase each year (Milwaukee was 168m and is 258)

And you can see the Cleveland has its value changed by -26% in 2010, why? Because of LeBron. Does LeBron deserves some of those value? Absolutely!

[knickerbocker2k2]

That's one team, there are many more losing money, like the majority of them, I think 23 team? or 22.

This is according to their accounting.

If the losses are all lies, then the owners are just giving away money by not playing. If the majority made a profit, they'd want to keep making in. Obviously, they feel somethings broken. They have every right to try and get all they can out of this negotiation just like the players.

Of course they are allowed to negotiate for the best terms. However they are the ones locking out the players. The owners play is that they have leverage over the players and the only way they can exercise this leverage is long lockout to break them. This is their strategy. So yeah they can say we don't mind losing money in the short term because we will gain in the long term, but I'm sure not one of them wants to see no season. The fact they are willing to stand long lockout is that they believe this will benefit them in negotiations with players..

And if there owners are such poor business men, how'd they ever get there teams. they can run companies to make billions, but are too stupid to make money in the NBA. Maybe there's a system that's currently imperfect and making it difficult to be profitable.

For one I don't give these owners as much credit as everyone else. Not every billionaire is astute businessman. They all have diverse background. In addition brilliance in one area doesn't necessarily translate to brilliance in owning sports/nba team. For instance Paul Allen is computer genius and doesn't necessarily have any expertise in running franchise. You can go down the list. In fact there are few of them who made their money in sports, so I would hold off giving them credit as basketball owners.

Secondly the system as it is now is to the advantage of owners. Before 1999 there were no salary caps. No player restrictions. Jordan was playing for $30M per year. How were owners making any money than? The system has progressively protected owners from the competition of free market. Now players have also benefited from the system because the league grew. You can credit owners/players for this. But to say the system is broken when 20 years the league was operating with less revenue and owners had less protections. And the thing is most of the new owners complaining bought into this system. So were they stupid for not considering the system they were entering when they bought the team?

[basketball royalty]

I side with me, the fan. I don't care who comes out on top I want NBA basketball. As far as I am concerned get 'er done or F off.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Dennis Rodman thinks NBA players need to lower their demands if there is hope of ending the ongoing lockout.

While stating Thursday that the owners are to blame, Rodman said “the players should bow down.”

The Hall of Fame forward was in the league the last time the NBA was locked out in 1999, when the schedule was reduced to 50 games.

Already the NBA has cancelled the first two weeks of the regular season and postponed training camps indefinitely.

Rodman said the players are only concerned with money and not the good of the game.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/rodman-players-should-bow-down/

I agree with Dennis. I see nothing from the players actions that tell me they are concerned with anything with the system or good of the game, and totally concerned about keeping the status quo as much as possible.

[Reignman]

The owners have a vested interest in actually seeing the league flourish and the way that will happen is if they can get 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night-in-night-out.

The players only give a **** about 1 thing, how much coin they can rake in during their 10 year careers.

Very few NBA owners get in to the business just to flip it a short time later, most are in it for the long haul and they want to see the entire league doing well (see NFL) because they know they'll get more coin in the long run if that happens.

More excitement, more gate receipts, more TV revenue, more merchandise sales and ultimately more $$$ for the.

The goal of the owners is a lot closer to the goal of the fans than that of the players.

[Fairview4Life]

The owners have a vested interest in actually seeing the league flourish and the way that will happen is if they can get 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night-in-night-out.

There is a lot wrong with this. A lot of different people have looked into the actual numbers and getting 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night in and night out is not how the NBA makes the most money. That said, even if that was true, which it isn't, but if it was (it isn't) they made record revenues last season, sold over 90% of their tickets, and had some of the highest TV ratings ever (and heading into a new TV deal in a few years this is very important). So the fanbase was apparently excited and tuning in, right?

Some light reading, and I think you'll enjoy the Bargs reference in the first link:

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-o ... e-balance/
http://wagesofwins.net/2011/09/23/nba-p ... mpossible/
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/13/ ... wners-hook

[Reignman]

The owners have a vested interest in actually seeing the league flourish and the way that will happen is if they can get 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night-in-night-out.

There is a lot wrong with this. A lot of different people have looked into the actual numbers and getting 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night in and night out is not how the NBA makes the most money. That said, even if that was true, which it isn't, but if it was (it isn't) they made record revenues last season, sold over 90% of their tickets, and had some of the highest TV ratings ever (and heading into a new TV deal in a few years this is very important). So the fanbase was apparently excited and tuning in, right?

Some light reading, and I think you'll enjoy the Bargs reference in the first link:

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-o ... e-balance/
http://wagesofwins.net/2011/09/23/nba-p ... mpossible/
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/13/ ... wners-hook

But here's the deal, the bulk of that revenue is generated by about 10 teams (if that). These negotiations aren't about those 10 teams, it's about the 20 other teams.

And then numbers are great and all but it could MUCH better, that's the whole point. Again, look at the NFL, it's a beast compared to the NBA and that's what the NBA is looking towards.


The NBA isn't just about the here and now, it's about the future and growth and bringing in more viewers and there's definitely room for that. Basketball is likely the fastest growing sport in the world (my guess) and there's an untapped market share that they are looking to tap into. They are trying to design a system where they tap into that market share and even though the primary motivation is more money, it's just a coincidence that it's also what the fanbases of the majority of teams want.

I've never denied the owners want money, I just think a symptom of that is a better league/product and as a fan that's what I want.

[J-Roc]

The owners have a vested interest in actually seeing the league flourish and the way that will happen is if they can get 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night-in-night-out.

The players only give a **** about 1 thing, how much coin they can rake in during their 10 year careers.

Very few NBA owners get in to the business just to flip it a short time later, most are in it for the long haul and they want to see the entire league doing well (see NFL) because they know they'll get more coin in the long run if that happens.

More excitement, more gate receipts, more TV revenue, more merchandise sales and ultimately more $$$ for the.

The goal of the owners is a lot closer to the goal of the fans than that of the players.

Straight up. The goal for the NBA and NHL is to become as big as the NFL. Are they big because of their cap, or their unguaranteed contracts? Who knows. But the blueprint is there.

[Fairview4Life]

Straight up. The goal for the NBA and NHL is to become as big as the NFL. Are they big because of their cap, or their unguaranteed contracts? Who knows. But the blueprint is there.

That is hilarious. Well done.

[Reignman]

The owners have a vested interest in actually seeing the league flourish and the way that will happen is if they can get 30 fanbases excited and tuning in night-in-night-out.

The players only give a **** about 1 thing, how much coin they can rake in during their 10 year careers.

Very few NBA owners get in to the business just to flip it a short time later, most are in it for the long haul and they want to see the entire league doing well (see NFL) because they know they'll get more coin in the long run if that happens.

More excitement, more gate receipts, more TV revenue, more merchandise sales and ultimately more $$$ for the.

The goal of the owners is a lot closer to the goal of the fans than that of the players.

Straight up. The goal for the NBA and NHL is to become as big as the NFL. Are they big because of their cap, or their unguaranteed contracts? Who knows. But the blueprint is there.

They are big because they designed a system 20+ years ago that allowed most teams in the league to compete. That allowed fanbases to have hope that "this year could be our year". That lead to more people tuning in, which lead to a HUGE tv deal with amazing gate receipts which the NFL used to market their product on a large scale.

You can go to the boondocks anywhere in North America and you will find NFL fans because they've used their strenght of market share to market their product on a grand scale.

[J-Roc]

Straight up. The goal for the NBA and NHL is to become as big as the NFL. Are they big because of their cap, or their unguaranteed contracts? Who knows. But the blueprint is there.

That is hilarious. Well done.

I know. Stern should just pull out the NFL CBA and throw it on the table and say "final offer".

[Fairview4Life]

They are big because they designed a system 20+ years ago that allowed most teams in the league to compete. That allowed fanbases to have hope that "this year could be our year". That lead to more people tuning in, which lead to a HUGE tv deal with amazing gate receipts which the NFL used to market their product on a large scale.

You can go to the boondocks anywhere in North America and you will find NFL fans because they've used their strenght of market share to market their product on a grand scale.

That bolded part does not follow and is not what happened. Local fanbases hoping this year is the year is not why people started watching football on TV in huge numbers. Gate receipts are also only a small fraction of the TV deal in the NFL. They could play in front of an empty stadium and still not worry about profit.

[Reignman]

They are big because they designed a system 20+ years ago that allowed most teams in the league to compete. That allowed fanbases to have hope that "this year could be our year". That lead to more people tuning in, which lead to a HUGE tv deal with amazing gate receipts which the NFL used to market their product on a large scale.

You can go to the boondocks anywhere in North America and you will find NFL fans because they've used their strenght of market share to market their product on a grand scale.

That bolded part does not follow and is not what happened. Local fanbases hoping this year is the year is not why people started watching football on TV in huge numbers. Gate receipts are also only a small fraction of the TV deal in the NFL. They could play in front of an empty stadium and still not worry about profit.

How do you think the NFL got that monster TV deal in the first place? A lot of it is history with football and America, but the NFL did a great job of getting the masses excited. It wasn't always like that, I watched the NFL in the 80's.

The hard cap played a huge role in the NFLs success. If you look at the contenders prior to 1990 and then the turnover of contenders post-1990 there's an obvious difference.