Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Ponchos]

Yes, they get BETTER salaries and benefits (as it is a powerplay designed by employees to put pressure on management to settle disputes before they mushroom)

I am part of union and worked at the largest corporation in Korea where i saw legal documentation as to the "obligations" they are required to adhere to. Not much different. There are no "safety" regulation issues in playing basketball (see insurance).

All it means is that there are better opportunities and benefits. Which legal right allows employees in a union to decide on the financials of the owners?

I think you have completely misunderstood my original post because you keep posting things that are true but totally irrelevant.

[youreachiteach]

It's true...I'm not really getting your point.

In what way, vis a vis the players deciding on the financials of the owners, is a regular employee different from a unionized employee?

Perhaps you are referring to "unfair labor practices" or "unfair negotiation"? If so, I am not a lawyer, so I am not at liberty to comment. But I have seen contracts to unionized employees and they are mainly to do with how they are treates and cared for while on the job. There are mandatory laws with respect to vacation days, medical treatment, working hours, and the like.

i do know that the players have launched a suit against the owners--we will see how that turns out.

I don't see what this has to do with what I have been arguing about the players being employees.

[Ponchos]

In what way, vis a vis the players deciding on the financials of the owners, is a regular employee different from a unionized employee?

I never said anything about "deciding on the financials of the owners" so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can an owner unilaterally decide the salary of a non-unionized employee? Yes. Can an owner unilaterally decide the salary of a unionized employee? No. Why not? Because the owners have voluntarily given up their right to do so. Unionized employees have legal rights, governed by the CBA, beyond employees that are non-unionized.

My problem with conflating unionized and non-unionized into the singular term "employee" is because it spawns all sorts of (Please Use More Appropriate Word) analogies.

People in this thread have tons of silly analogies (such as the "house" one) to try and prove the supposed implicit fact that owners can and should be able to dictate whatever terms they want to their "employees".

My simple point is that any analogy or example that does not include an owner/union relationship is invalid. Why? Because the owners have CHOSEN to give up their rights for the privilege of working with this particular union. If the owners find the situation unsatisfactory, they can fire the union at any time.

[knickerbocker2k2]

In what way, vis a vis the players deciding on the financials of the owners, is a regular employee different from a unionized employee?

I think it is too simple to say the players are just employees. I think in this scenario the better term is that they are business partners. Essentially for the system to work both players/owners have to come to agreement. Without this agreement the NBA doesn't exist in its current form. For instances without the union there is no maximum/minimum salaries, nba draft, restricted free agency, etc. The structure/system of the NBA doesn't exist without players agreeing to it. So when you take this into account, the owners need the players buy in for any changes they make. They can't arbitrarily force changes unto the players.

[NH]

Who is the Raptor's owner (or representative) at these talks, and how come we have not heard anything about that person; do they attend the meetings? Are they with Cuban/Buss or with Sarver/Holt?

[ranger001]

The "they are employee's" justification is so stupid. Mostly because they're not. The players are a union.

The owners have CHOSEN to deal with the union. If owners wanted to get rid of the union they are completely in their rights to fire all the players and find replacements. The owners have voluntarily given up their right to unilaterally impose ANYTHING on the players.

As a result of the owners choice, the union and the owners are well within their rights to bargain for whatever they want.

And the owners are bargaining. Why is it that people are claiming that interest on debt should be off the table? It is a legitimate expense and should account against revenue like any other expense.

[Ponchos]

The "they are employee's" justification is so stupid. Mostly because they're not. The players are a union.

The owners have CHOSEN to deal with the union. If owners wanted to get rid of the union they are completely in their rights to fire all the players and find replacements. The owners have voluntarily given up their right to unilaterally impose ANYTHING on the players.

As a result of the owners choice, the union and the owners are well within their rights to bargain for whatever they want.

And the owners are bargaining. Why is it that people are claiming that interest on debt should be off the table? It is a legitimate expense and should account against revenue like any other expense.

Lets say for instance that interest expense across all teams is 20,000,000 per year. If players agree in these CBA negotiations that interest expense is a valid expense and players acknowledge that they should give concessions to the owners to pay for it, what happens?

1) What happens to the 20,000,000 per year interest expense over the course of the next CBA?

Does it:
a) Decrease
b) Stay the same
c) Increase a slight amount
d) Increase by an exponential amount.

If you picked d), you're a rational thinker. If you picked a) b) or c) you're a moron.

Now, if you picked d) do you understand why players cannot accept interest expense as a valid loss?

[Indeed]

The "they are employee's" justification is so stupid. Mostly because they're not. The players are a union.

The owners have CHOSEN to deal with the union. If owners wanted to get rid of the union they are completely in their rights to fire all the players and find replacements. The owners have voluntarily given up their right to unilaterally impose ANYTHING on the players.

As a result of the owners choice, the union and the owners are well within their rights to bargain for whatever they want.

And the owners are bargaining. Why is it that people are claiming that interest on debt should be off the table? It is a legitimate expense and should account against revenue like any other expense.

I think you missed the previous conversation. Should the players share a piece of the arena? If they should, then they should share the interest debts.
Where are the debts came from? They are from the owner who doesn't bought the team in full, then should that be player's money to bail them out?

[AllEnergy]

I don't know if this counts, but I fell asleep and had a dream the lockout was over tomorrow!

[bassmastert]

Another way to think about this is how it affects team value. Ownership debt affects team value not at all. If I owe $50K on a $200K house, it's still worth $200K and will sell for that.

But a more favorable BRI split for the owners affects team value directly. It goes straight to the bottom line for every team and makes them all more valuable.

More finance and accounting classes are in order for anyone who thinks the players should be paying for owner purchase debt.

Nonsense. The players are employees, if the owners of the company want to cut salaries to pay interest on debt they are perfectly entitled to do that. If your employer decided not to give you a raise because they got into debt they are at liberty to do so.

I disagree.

I see the players more as independant contractors offering their services to the team.

-If you worked at an accounting firm, you won't be traded to a competitor for one of their staff.
-All contracts are temporary and contractually binding. If there is a provision in the contract that allows the owner to do as you suggested then it makes sense, otherwise it's more of a breach of contract on the owner's parts.

[J-Roc]

Who is the Raptor's owner (or representative) at these talks, and how come we have not heard anything about that person; do they attend the meetings? Are they with Cuban/Buss or with Sarver/Holt?

The Doug said Tanenbaum is there, and MLSE is somewhere in the middle.

[ranger001]

The "they are employee's" justification is so stupid. Mostly because they're not. The players are a union.

The owners have CHOSEN to deal with the union. If owners wanted to get rid of the union they are completely in their rights to fire all the players and find replacements. The owners have voluntarily given up their right to unilaterally impose ANYTHING on the players.

As a result of the owners choice, the union and the owners are well within their rights to bargain for whatever they want.

And the owners are bargaining. Why is it that people are claiming that interest on debt should be off the table? It is a legitimate expense and should account against revenue like any other expense.

I think you missed the previous conversation. Should the players share a piece of the arena? If they should, then they should share the interest debts.
Where are the debts came from? They are from the owner who doesn't bought the team in full, then should that be player's money to bail them out?

The players are not shareholder who own part of the team, they are not entitled to revenues. There is no such thing as player's money. When the public pays for tickets it goes to the owners who then give some of their money as a salary to the players.

[bboyskinnylegs]

Who is the Raptor's owner (or representative) at these talks, and how come we have not heard anything about that person; do they attend the meetings? Are they with Cuban/Buss or with Sarver/Holt?

The Doug said Tanenbaum is there, and MLSE is somewhere in the middle.

I found it interesting that in Stern's radio interview earlier he had mentioned that teams that would be big revenue sharers -- NY, LA, Boston, Chicago, Houston -- were all onboard with the new plan.

While in an ESPN piece it was mentioned that the top 5 revenue sharing teams were NY, LA, Boston, Chicago, and Toronto.

Could it be that Toronto was perhaps not in agreement with the new revenue sharing plan?

[ranger001]

Another way to think about this is how it affects team value. Ownership debt affects team value not at all. If I owe $50K on a $200K house, it's still worth $200K and will sell for that.

But a more favorable BRI split for the owners affects team value directly. It goes straight to the bottom line for every team and makes them all more valuable.

More finance and accounting classes are in order for anyone who thinks the players should be paying for owner purchase debt.

Nonsense. The players are employees, if the owners of the company want to cut salaries to pay interest on debt they are perfectly entitled to do that. If your employer decided not to give you a raise because they got into debt they are at liberty to do so.

I disagree.

I see the players more as independant contractors offering their services to the team.

-If you worked at an accounting firm, you won't be traded to a competitor for one of their staff.
-All contracts are temporary and contractually binding. If there is a provision in the contract that allows the owner to do as you suggested then it makes sense, otherwise it's more of a breach of contract on the owner's parts.

It has to be bargained as someone said, its not a unilateral decision. But the point is if the owners want to reduce salary due to higher expenses then they are entitled to bargain for reduced salaries. Even if part of their expenses are interest on debt.

[Fairview4Life]

The players are not shareholder who own part of the team, they are not entitled to revenues. There is no such thing as player's money. When the public pays for tickets it goes to the owners who then give some of their money as a salary to the players.

The players are being asked to give up salary in order to finance the purchase of teams on credit. If an owner buys a team using a line of credit or other debt, and then turns around and tells the players they have to give up salary because of the interest on that debt, that effectively means the owners are asking the players to finance the purchase of the team. The players get nothing out of the sale of the team. The players are now taking the risk with no reward, and they don't even have a say in who can or can't buy a team. All of this leads to owners buying teams on larger and larger amounts of credit (the other owners have no problems with this since it pushes franchise prices higher so they make more when they decide to sell), and the players keep having to give up more and more salary to finance that debt. This is an unsustainable model. There are two options, the league can voluntarily set up acceptable debt levels for prospective new owners, or the players can refuse to pay for the interest accumulated by purchase price financing debt without getting a cut of the sale.

We went over all of this a few pages ago as well:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1134836&start=15

[Fairview4Life]

It has to be bargained as someone said, its not a unilateral decision. But the point is if the owners want to reduce salary due to higher expenses then they are entitled to bargain for reduced salaries. Even if part of their expenses are interest on debt.

I don't believe anyone has ever said they aren't entitled to try and get it, even by using the leverage of a prolonged lockout to try and break the players. That is a completely legal and usually effective bargaining tactic. All we are doing here is calling bull on some of the owners claims, and blaming them for us having to miss an exciting year of Raptors basketball. This year was going to be the year! Bargs was going to start defending and rebounding and Derozan was going to turn into Kobe. The owners **** all that up.

[itbobby007]

This year was going to be the year! Bargs was going to start defending and rebounding and Derozan was going to turn into Kobe. The owners **** all that up.

QFT.

[Indeed]

And the owners are bargaining. Why is it that people are claiming that interest on debt should be off the table? It is a legitimate expense and should account against revenue like any other expense.

I think you missed the previous conversation. Should the players share a piece of the arena? If they should, then they should share the interest debts.
Where are the debts came from? They are from the owner who doesn't bought the team in full, then should that be player's money to bail them out?

The players are not shareholder who own part of the team, they are not entitled to revenues. There is no such thing as player's money. When the public pays for tickets it goes to the owners who then give some of their money as a salary to the players.

The players are not shareholder, but it is a partnership between the owners and players (NBAPL), therefore, there is a revenue share, and they are entitled to revenues.

As long as the contract is written (eg. CEO, CFO), then you are entitled for shares or revenue split.

[ranger001]

The players are not shareholder who own part of the team, they are not entitled to revenues. There is no such thing as player's money. When the public pays for tickets it goes to the owners who then give some of their money as a salary to the players.

The players are being asked to give up salary in order to finance the purchase of teams on credit. If an owner buys a team using a line of credit or other debt, and then turns around and tells the players they have to give up salary because of the interest on that debt, that effectively means the owners are asking the players to finance the purchase of the team. The players get nothing out of the sale of the team. The players are now taking the risk with no reward, and they don't even have a say in who can or can't buy a team. All of this leads to owners buying teams on larger and larger amounts of credit (the other owners have no problems with this since it pushes franchise prices higher so they make more when they decide to sell), and the players keep having to give up more and more salary to finance that debt. This is an unsustainable model. There are two options, the league can voluntarily set up acceptable debt levels for prospective new owners, or the players can refuse to pay for the interest accumulated by purchase price financing debt without getting a cut of the sale.

We went over all of this a few pages ago as well:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1134836&start=15

In that scenario at some point with franchise values going up and up and the players getting less and less then at some point the players will get more money by going to Europe or the conditions will be right for a new league.

That would be good. The players would then be paid at a market rate and the price of franchises would level out.

[floppymoose]

Another way to think about this is how it affects team value. Ownership debt affects team value not at all. If I owe $50K on a $200K house, it's still worth $200K and will sell for that.

But a more favorable BRI split for the owners affects team value directly. It goes straight to the bottom line for every team and makes them all more valuable.

More finance and accounting classes are in order for anyone who thinks the players should be paying for owner purchase debt.

Nonsense. The players are employees, if the owners of the company want to cut salaries to pay interest on debt they are perfectly entitled to do that. If your employer decided not to give you a raise because they got into debt they are at liberty to do so.

Hey, teams already do that. They decide they can't afford player X because of their finances. And you know what happens? Player X takes a better deal from a different team.

Businesses in real life that get in a position where they can't afford to pay their employees a competitive rate... lose their employees to a company that isn't screwing the pooch.

The only reason teams are arguing for having players pay off purchase debt is because if they can get away with it, then there is no competition. It will be in the CBA agreement for all NBA teams/players. Sweet deal if you can get it, which maybe they can. They never would in a million years if there was a true free market for players.