Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[knickerbocker2k2]

I take 'good faith' to mean making an honest effort to get a deal done.

I take it to mean the same thing. Both parties trying to reach comprise that will work for both without losing any games. However it is clear that owners are willing to take the risk of losing games/season to get the "best" deal possible. I think their negotiating tactics have shown that they will wait to see what deal they can get once players miss pay checks and "feel pain". If this is their approach players are essentially negotiating with themselves.

If the owners truly believe the need 50% BRI to have a healthy, growing league then I do not think they need to offer any more than that to players to be acting in 'good faith'.

Last year during one of the worst economic times in the past 50 years NBA revenues grew 5%. They are projected to grow in the next decade and also increase in next tv contract. Players have essentially so far given back $300M they said they lost in the last year.

[J-Roc]

"Good faith" also means get a deal done that you can live with. 5yrs from now, you'll read that the owners should be happy because the last deal was collectively bargained in good faith. If the owners want x, y AND z, then wait until you get it.

If the players need a, b and c, then they should also hold out.

[Fairview4Life]

So you have not reviewed the 05 & 06 financial statements or did you just not understand them?

Not in detail yet, no. I'm at work. I'm busy, can't do it now. I've already hashed this out once with Fairview, anyway.

I pointed out the same thing about 04 and 05/06 then too, and you agreed and moved on to looking at the Nets actual losses in those years.

[Sleepy51]

[/time wasting]

[Sleepy51]

So you have not reviewed the 05 & 06 financial statements or did you just not understand them?

Not in detail yet, no. I'm at work. I'm busy, can't do it now. I've already hashed this out once with Fairview, anyway.

I pointed out the same thing about 04 and 05/06 then too, and you agreed and moved on to looking at the Nets actual losses in those years.

So he was just wasting my time? You could have warned me.

[Fairview4Life]

Must have been some bad hash, because you were talking down to me thinking that the 2004 statement was the only data in the conversation. Your information was incorrect.

As I informed you, I'm at work and kind of swamped. I've had a very disjointed (and one-sided) conversation with Fairview on that very data before. I note that you couldn't be bothered to go back and look. (If you can accuse me of laziness, the opposite is certainly up for discussion.)

Nice. It's also nice that you say he couldn't be bothered to go back and look at all 100 pages of our old thread...a thread where you said "I'm not going to wander into another thread on another board and challenge some other guy: I'm telling you how it is.". Jesus, tone it down a notch.

[Fairview4Life]

So he was just wasting my time? You could have warned me. :evil:

Probably not, we've gone all over the place in 3 or 4 different threads, including a 100 page one. I assume he just forgot about it. Unlike me, I don't think he spends 16 hours a day here.

[C Court]

The owners want the players to give up a bunch of BRI they currently receive in order to cover interest expenses. Interest expenses that can come from the use of lines of credit and loans in the purchase of a team. So the owner is getting the players to in effect pay off their loans used to purchase the team, by giving up BRI. The other 29 owners get their franchise values to go up, and sell at a higher price since the players are paying off loans (in a sense), and they reap all of the benefit, while the players see nothing out of the sale of a team.

Months ago when the NBAPA had their first look at the books, they challenged the inclusion of interest expense to purchase franchises.

Billy Hunter said early on that if the owners want the players to take massive cuts in BRI to cover owner losses as a result of interest expense, to be fair, the league needs to establish a pool whereby the players would then share in the proceeds of the sale of franchises at a later date. Or include profits from the sale of franchises as BRI.

[youreachiteach]

I think the argument people on the player's side are making is a little whiny.

Fact 1: A few owners have made mistakes in running their franchises (overspending in weak markets).
Fact 2: The players get a disproportionate amount of the funds (in terms of percentage).
Fact 3: The cow has been milked to the tune of a 300 million dollar loss of value last year alone.
Fact 4: Over 17 teams in the league are unhappy about the way the league is run (not just "a Few")
Fact 5: The players are only willing to give back money right now, not change the system in any way that will sacrifice "where they've fought to get to" (which is the whole point of the lockout from the owners perspective).

So who's really negotiating here? The players, who have moved a whole 0.5 percentage points? Yes, the owners want a new system--they've made that clear.

Which is the worse argument?

That a few incompetent owners ( considering these are all billionaires who have successfully run other franchises quite well--not totally incompetent individuals here) MIGHT get a break from a new system while the players will have to stop trying to run the franchises themselves with their threats to leave?

OR

That MANY MORE franchises are given a more fair opportunity to succeed in a system that is clearly stacked against them?

Of course, arguing a few franchises should be contracted because they simply aren't viable is fine. But 17 of them? Doesn't that tell you something?

It's like saying that welfare should be outlawed because a few people cheat or get lucky with a loophole. Who cares? A system is not meant to be perfect--it's meant to give the best opportunity to the most teams. It's not meant to drive up prices for average filler players on small markets and provide ultimate power to the top players. It shouldn't mean players get more than half of the revenue in a league in which they undertook no financial risk in the first place (their contracts are ALWAYS guaranteed).

It's ridiculous to assert that only smart management would resolve all the league's problems. It's evident that most teams require at least a few great players and of course, have to try to remain competitive. It's ludicrous to pretend they can just suck forever while their turnstiles are empty and they are hemorrhaging money for lack of competition. Owners have to try to spend to compete--and they all can't sell "wait till next year" in most markets. If you accept this reality, it's harsh to call spending on large contracts in small markets "mismanagement" and "incompetence".

The world is in worse shape than ever before financially. Do the players not get this? Hell, in the last recession my father's salary was frozen for 10 years. The owners are not saying they didn't overspend--they're saying it's time to give the cow a rest before it keels over. Of course, the players didn;t have anyone holding a gun to their heads to take it, either. And if you didn't think they knew it was too much money for their services, I have some swampland in Florida for you.

Other leagues have been quite successful in changing their systems over. The NHL has been booming since its changeover. The NFL is the most profitable league in the US. Baseball is doing okay--but it's a sucker bet unless you are in a "baseball" city and is entirely propped up by revenue sharing. The NBA will be more profitable and more competitive with a hard cap.

It needs to get done.

[youreachiteach]

The owners want the players to give up a bunch of BRI they currently receive in order to cover interest expenses. Interest expenses that can come from the use of lines of credit and loans in the purchase of a team. So the owner is getting the players to in effect pay off their loans used to purchase the team, by giving up BRI. The other 29 owners get their franchise values to go up, and sell at a higher price since the players are paying off loans (in a sense), and they reap all of the benefit, while the players see nothing out of the sale of a team.

Months ago when the NBAPA had their first look at the books, they challenged the inclusion of interest expense to purchase franchises.

Billy Hunter said early on that if the owners want the players to take massive cuts in BRI to cover owner losses as a result of interest expense, to be fair, the league needs to establish a pool whereby the players would then share in the proceeds of the sale of franchises at a later date. Or include profits from the sale of franchises as BRI.

That sounds reasonable.

[Indeed]

I think the argument people on the player's side are making is a little whiny.

Fact 1: A few owners have made mistakes in running their franchises (overspending in weak markets).
Fact 2: The players get a disproportionate amount of the funds (in terms of percentage).
Fact 3: The cow has been milked to the tune of a 300 million dollar loss of value last year alone.
Fact 4: Over 17 teams in the league are unhappy about the way the league is run (not just "a Few")
Fact 5: The players are only willing to give back money right now, not change the system in any way that will sacrifice "where they've fought to get to" (which is the whole point of the lockout from the owners perspective).

So who's really negotiating here? The players, who have moved a whole 0.5 percentage points? Yes, the owners want a new system--they've made that clear.

Which is the worse argument?

That a few incompetent owners ( considering these are all billionaires who have successfully run other franchises quite well--not totally incompetent individuals here) MIGHT get a break from a new system while the players will have to stop trying to run the franchises themselves with their threats to leave?

OR

That MANY MORE franchises are given a more fair opportunity to succeed in a system that is clearly stacked against them?

Of course, arguing a few franchises should be contracted because they simply aren't viable is fine. But 17 of them? Doesn't that tell you something?

It's like saying that welfare should be outlawed because a few people cheat or get lucky with a loophole. Who cares? A system is not meant to be perfect--it's meant to give the best opportunity to the most teams. It's not meant to drive up prices for average filler players on small markets and provide ultimate power to the top players. It shouldn't mean players get more than half of the revenue in a league in which they undertook no financial risk in the first place (their contracts are ALWAYS guaranteed).

It's ridiculous to assert that only smart management would resolve all the league's problems. It's evident that most teams require at least a few great players and of course, have to try to remain competitive. It's ludicrous to pretend they can just suck forever while their turnstiles are empty and they are hemorrhaging money for lack of competition. Owners have to try to spend to compete--and they all can't sell "wait till next year" in most markets. If you accept this reality, it's harsh to call spending on large contracts in small markets "mismanagement" and "incompetence".

The world is in worse shape than ever before financially. Do the players not get this? Hell, in the last recession my father's salary was frozen for 10 years. The owners are not saying they didn't overspend--they're saying it's time to give the cow a rest before it keels over. Of course, the players didn;t have anyone holding a gun to their heads to take it, either. And if you didn't think they knew it was too much money for their services, I have some swampland in Florida for you.

Other leagues have been quite successful in changing their systems over. The NHL has been booming since its changeover. The NFL is the most profitable league in the US. Baseball is doing okay--but it's a sucker bet unless you are in a "baseball" city and is entirely propped up by revenue sharing. The NBA will be more profitable and more competitive with a hard cap.

It needs to get done.

The reason why NHL is being successful, is because they focus on `the game` instead of `money`.
Owners don't care anything, but just the money. No matter the RBI is at 5%, 10%, 50% or 60%, same problems will occur.

The owners never care about the system, they want to cut cost. Exception of reducing contract length, there is nothing much that the owner proposed is helping the game.

I am not object to hard cap, but I think they need arbitration to ensure teams are equally talent. Also, they need to change the rookie contract, so you won't see OKC nor Chicago with all their great rookie contract players getting into the playoffs without under paying them, which every team are being fairly equal for getting a championship ring.

[MEDIC]

I think the argument people on the player's side are making is a little whiny.

Fact 1: A few owners have made mistakes in running their franchises (overspending in weak markets).
Fact 2: The players get a disproportionate amount of the funds (in terms of percentage).
Fact 3: The cow has been milked to the tune of a 300 million dollar loss of value last year alone.
Fact 4: Over 17 teams in the league are unhappy about the way the league is run (not just "a Few")
Fact 5: The players are only willing to give back money right now, not change the system in any way that will sacrifice "where they've fought to get to" (which is the whole point of the lockout from the owners perspective).

So who's really negotiating here? The players, who have moved a whole 0.5 percentage points? Yes, the owners want a new system--they've made that clear.

Which is the worse argument?

That a few incompetent owners ( considering these are all billionaires who have successfully run other franchises quite well--not totally incompetent individuals here) MIGHT get a break from a new system while the players will have to stop trying to run the franchises themselves with their threats to leave?

OR

That MANY MORE franchises are given a more fair opportunity to succeed in a system that is clearly stacked against them?

Of course, arguing a few franchises should be contracted because they simply aren't viable is fine. But 17 of them? Doesn't that tell you something?

It's like saying that welfare should be outlawed because a few people cheat or get lucky with a loophole. Who cares? A system is not meant to be perfect--it's meant to give the best opportunity to the most teams. It's not meant to drive up prices for average filler players on small markets and provide ultimate power to the top players. It shouldn't mean players get more than half of the revenue in a league in which they undertook no financial risk in the first place (their contracts are ALWAYS guaranteed).

It's ridiculous to assert that only smart management would resolve all the league's problems. It's evident that most teams require at least a few great players and of course, have to try to remain competitive. It's ludicrous to pretend they can just suck forever while their turnstiles are empty and they are hemorrhaging money for lack of competition. Owners have to try to spend to compete--and they all can't sell "wait till next year" in most markets. If you accept this reality, it's harsh to call spending on large contracts in small markets "mismanagement" and "incompetence".

The world is in worse shape than ever before financially. Do the players not get this? Hell, in the last recession my father's salary was frozen for 10 years. The owners are not saying they didn't overspend--they're saying it's time to give the cow a rest before it keels over. Of course, the players didn;t have anyone holding a gun to their heads to take it, either. And if you didn't think they knew it was too much money for their services, I have some swampland in Florida for you.

Other leagues have been quite successful in changing their systems over. The NHL has been booming since its changeover. The NFL is the most profitable league in the US. Baseball is doing okay--but it's a sucker bet unless you are in a "baseball" city and is entirely propped up by revenue sharing. The NBA will be more profitable and more competitive with a hard cap.

It needs to get done.

Well said. Good post.

[floppymoose]

Fact 2: The players get a disproportionate amount of the funds (in terms of percentage).

You call that a fact, but it's not.

Your "Fact 5" is also completely wrong.

[Laowai]

I think if this could be resolved is the dispute just go to binding arbitration.
Get it away from the bull crap of emotion from both sides.

If I were an arbitrator look at the factors so both parties could benefit in the long term and minimize the hurt to the over spenders.

BRI at 50/50
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

Its not perfect but fair.

[Fairview4Life]

Fact 2: The players get a disproportionate amount of the funds (in terms of percentage).

You call that a fact, but it's not.

Your "Fact 5" is also completely wrong.

Fact 3 is a pretty debatable fact too.

[Indeed]

I think if this could be resolved is the dispute just go to binding arbitration.
Get it away from the bull crap of emotion from both sides.

If I were an arbitrator look at the factors so both parties could benefit in the long term and minimize the hurt to the over spenders.

BRI at 50/50
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

Its not perfect but fair.

If the RBI is 50/50, I doubt the hard cap is at 73m, but perhaps 60m.
As for the TV profit sharing, if they got 50/50, most likely the share would be 10% of local TV rights and 0% of ticket revenue. They can argue that given a hard cap, teams should be competitive enough to make their own revenue through ticket sales and TV rights, therefore, it is the franchise's responsibilities to earn their own money.

[Laowai]

I think if this could be resolved is the dispute just go to binding arbitration.
Get it away from the bull crap of emotion from both sides.

If I were an arbitrator look at the factors so both parties could benefit in the long term and minimize the hurt to the over spenders.

BRI at 50/50
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

Its not perfect but fair.

If the RBI is 50/50, I doubt the hard cap is at 73m, but perhaps 60m.
As for the TV profit sharing, if they got 50/50, most likely the share would be 10% of local TV rights and 0% of ticket revenue. They can argue that given a hard cap, teams should be competitive enough to make their own revenue through ticket sales and TV rights, therefore, it is the franchise's responsibilities to earn their own money.

A hard cap could be at 73 million easily since many teams will pay below like the Raptors in there current state.
Sharing is required LAL make 150 million in local rights whether gate revenue is included is likely debatable.

[Cyrus]

This is good, the NBA is gonna break the union...Only way the players avert it, is if court somehow deem what the nba is doing is illegal (But it didn't occur in the nfl either ,so doubt it does).

[Rapsfan07]

I think if this could be resolved is the dispute just go to binding arbitration.
Get it away from the bull crap of emotion from both sides.

If I were an arbitrator look at the factors so both parties could benefit in the long term and minimize the hurt to the over spenders.

BRI at 50/50
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

Its not perfect but fair.

If the RBI is 50/50, I doubt the hard cap is at 73m, but perhaps 60m.
As for the TV profit sharing, if they got 50/50, most likely the share would be 10% of local TV rights and 0% of ticket revenue. They can argue that given a hard cap, teams should be competitive enough to make their own revenue through ticket sales and TV rights, therefore, it is the franchise's responsibilities to earn their own money.

Something like this is okay. Not completely satisfying but a deal both sides can live with.

And that's why I don't understand why both sides are claiming to need to know the exact percentage of BRI before attempting to construct a hypothetical system. We know that both sides aren't going to agree on a split past 47% - owners and 53 % percent players so we know that there won't be a greater deviation than 3 going either way...so why not attempt to construct a system based on all three of those hypothetical numbers?! That way, although it would likely be up for debate and fine tuning, we do have a skeleton of what we're looking at AND we'd be tackling both issues at the same time.

Like for example:
BRI Split: 53% - Players, 47% - Owners
Flex Cap system: Teams can only go over the cap if they are; a) signing rookies, extending or b) Exceptions (MLE or Injury). Franchise Tag, one player per team and would not count against cap. Max salary rollback. Cap set at 58 million. Teams over the cap pay a 2-1 tax and becomes harsher the longer you stay in the tax (3 years =2-1; 4yrs+ = 4 -1)Elimination of the S&T. Minimum spending is 45 mil
MLE: Rolled back to about 4.7 - 5 mil/yr. 3 years + Team Option
Contracts: Elimination of 6 year contracts. Longest is 5 years. Rookie contract scales stay the same except for a slight roll back and more incentive ties. Slight rollback on existing contracts.
Amnesty: Gilbert Arenas rule . Another amnesty clause. The amnestied player won't count against the cap but must be paid in full over a period of 5-8yrs maximum.
Length of CBA: 6 Years

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

Something in this mould I think would help to bring a competitive balance by distributing talent around the league. A competitive league is a profitable league so the numbers would obviously need some tweaking but something like this I think is fair for both sides. Players and owners stand to make money or break even.

[Ted Lasso]

Must have been some bad hash, because you were talking down to me thinking that the 2004 statement was the only data in the conversation. Your information was incorrect.

As I informed you, I'm at work and kind of swamped. I've had a very disjointed (and one-sided) conversation with Fairview on that very data before. I note that you couldn't be bothered to go back and look. (If you can accuse me of laziness, the opposite is certainly up for discussion.)

Nice. It's also nice that you say he couldn't be bothered to go back and look at all 100 pages of our old thread...a thread where you said "I'm not going to wander into another thread on another board and challenge some other guy: I'm telling you how it is.". Jesus, tone it down a notch.

Well, dagger has been missing lately. Somebody has to talk down to people with smug yet often misplaced certainty.