Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Twinkie defense]

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

I don't know how "the players are paying" for anything. The owners, fans, advertisers, and network TV are paying. The players are the ones who are cashing checks, not writing them out.

If as a company you have interest payments, those payments are part of your costs and they are impacting profitability. As a result, you will look to decrease costs/increase revenues in order to build up profitability. And one extremely common way of doing that is renegotiating your labor costs when those contracts come back up for negotiation.

The players are right to bargain as hard as they can to get whatever is most important to them to get in these negotiations. In that, I would recommend that they argue about the value they are creating for the League though, and not harp on some naive belief that they are making interest payments and which would only go to show how little they understand about business.

[floppymoose]

The justification being peddled for lower BRI share is league losses. The losses don't pass the smell test without counting interest on team purchase financing. This has all been covered. Nothing you say above changes any of that.

This will soon all be moot. The players will probably cave and get no better than 50% BRI. And team values will go up dramatically over the life of the next CBA. I'm sure plenty of you will make some nonsense excuses for why that happens, because I've never seen a bigger group of apologists for the owners anywhere.

Anyone who doubts my take on the team value over the next CBA can put their money where their mouth is and make a wager with me.

[Indeed]

The owner did not specify they are from leasing nor the reason to go into debt. But at least many people believe it is not because of player salaries. No one admit nor denied those financial information, but as we can believe, players lowed to 54%, the argument of owner losing money was not being mentioned.

As we continue to discuss, I still don't think both sides are being honest and negotiating for the good of the game (one side for money, one side for guarantee contract length). So whatever, don't think neither side are right.

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.

1) The owner does not own the reputation neither, and in NBA, the players are more recognizable than the team itself. As this is proven by LeBron, Raptors, Nets and etc. When there is no marketed players, no one is going to watch the game.

2) The recession proved that NBA has been benefiting from it.

3) It is just YOU claiming "most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money", owners themselves failed to prove that. They did not use this argument on the negotiation.

4) Don't jealous the players for making those money, I think it is a fair game between the owners and players. And neither did the owners do much, they only hire and fire people whenever they want without a reason (not all the owners are nice, some are jerks, same for the players).

5) The reason of businesses have gone bankrupt has nothing to do with the players, there is no proof on that. And there is no reason to bail them out like those bankers, where they get bonus from those bail out money (or tax payer's money). The time they bought the team, they know the financial situation, revenue has been up, and there is no reason for saying they are making less or the cost are higher, they are compensated.

6) You are very unreasonable, this is the nature of business, and it seems you are bias to the owner simply believing their words with the proof goes the other way. Eg. the reason Sacramento Kings is on sale has nothing to do with the NBA, the owner himself needs the money to finance his casino business, and etc.

[C_Money]

What are the odds of this labor board ending the lockout? Anybody know?

[Twinkie defense]

The players will probably cave and get no better than 50% BRI. And team values will go up dramatically over the life of the next CBA. I'm sure plenty of you will make some nonsense excuses for why that happens, because I've never seen a bigger group of apologists for the owners anywhere.

Excuse for what? Is it bad if franchise values go up?

[floppymoose]

If they had $300 million in losses last year (all of a sudden, after a nice run of profitability until - surprise! - it's CBA negotiating time) and then the next CBA gives them $300 million more (7% of the BRI) why should the values go up? The league will be breaking even.

It's amazing that so few ever see the contradictions. It's Emperor's New Clothes all over again!

Meanwhile, Tom Ziller beats up on Simmons:
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/24/ ... dship-hook

[Fairview4Life]

Salaries do not hinge on profit. Nor should they. The owner also does not "have" to bear these costs. That's kind of the point. Over inflating the value of a franchise by buying it on credit and asking the players to pay for it is not a necessity. It is what the owners are happy with since their franchise values will increase and make them more money the players can't touch, as long as they can get the players to agree to it. I do not believe the players should agree to that, or that it is in the leagues best interest to let the Robert Sarvers, Bruce Ratner's, or Clay Bennett's of the world buy in.

Look up profit-sharing and gain-sharing. Welcome to the 21st century. Also look up pay for performance salary plans.

I'm referring to the NBA. I went ahead and looked up Hollywood Accounting for you (an industry fairly similar to the NBA), so you'll have some idea why the players should absolutely not be paid out of "profits".

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... accounting
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201007 ... 0122.shtml
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/245134/

Welcome to the 20th century.

Also, if revenues increase, the players get more money. If it decreases, they get less. The players are the primary drivers of revenue. They do, in a sense, already share in the success or failure of the NBA. Paying them out of "profits", as the last several months of arguing over what NBA teams actually made or lost has shown, is completely foolish.

[Laowai]

The owner did not specify they are from leasing nor the reason to go into debt. But at least many people believe it is not because of player salaries. No one admit nor denied those financial information, but as we can believe, players lowed to 54%, the argument of owner losing money was not being mentioned.

As we continue to discuss, I still don't think both sides are being honest and negotiating for the good of the game (one side for money, one side for guarantee contract length). So whatever, don't think neither side are right.

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.

1) The owner does not own the reputation neither, and in NBA, the players are more recognizable than the team itself. As this is proven by LeBron, Raptors, Nets and etc. When there is no marketed players, no one is going to watch the game.

2) The recession proved that NBA has been benefiting from it.

3) It is just YOU claiming "most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money", owners themselves failed to prove that. They did not use this argument on the negotiation.

4) Don't jealous the players for making those money, I think it is a fair game between the owners and players. And neither did the owners do much, they only hire and fire people whenever they want without a reason (not all the owners are nice, some are jerks, same for the players).

5) The reason of businesses have gone bankrupt has nothing to do with the players, there is no proof on that. And there is no reason to bail them out like those bankers, where they get bonus from those bail out money (or tax payer's money). The time they bought the team, they know the financial situation, revenue has been up, and there is no reason for saying they are making less or the cost are higher, they are compensated.

6) You are very unreasonable, this is the nature of business, and it seems you are bias to the owner simply believing their words with the proof goes the other way. Eg. the reason Sacramento Kings is on sale has nothing to do with the NBA, the owner himself needs the money to finance his casino business, and etc.

Please take Economics 101 and quit babbling BS

[Thelonious]

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.

It's well said, and let's not forget that this is also about the fans, as the recession hits everyone.
The Players' Union eventually agreeing to less money cannot benefit solely the owners. Fans have to see ticket prices drop in some fashion.

[Fairview4Life]

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.

It's well said, and let's not forget that this is also about the fans, as the recession hits everyone.
The Players' Union eventually agreeing to less money cannot benefit solely the owners. Fans have to see ticket prices drop in some fashion.

That isn't going to happen, and the recession has not hit the NBA. Revenues have never been higher, ratings are huge with the TV deal about to be renegotiated (and if local tv deals are any indication, the national deal is going to be massive), and over 90% of tickets were sold last season. The owners have no incentive to lower ticket prices. Ticket prices are not affected by the cost of labour in the NBA, but on the supply and demand of tickets. Fans are willing to pay a lot of money to watch the NBA in person, that is why ticket prices are high. Paying players less is not going to affect that at all.

[Thelonious]

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.

It's well said, and let's not forget that this is also about the fans, as the recession hits everyone.
The Players' Union eventually agreeing to less money cannot benefit solely the owners. Fans have to see ticket prices drop in some fashion.

That isn't going to happen, and the recession has not hit the NBA. Revenues have never been higher, ratings are huge with the TV deal about to be renegotiated (and if local tv deals are any indication, the national deal is going to be massive), and over 90% of tickets were sold last season. The owners have no incentive to lower ticket prices. Ticket prices are not affected by the cost of labour in the NBA, but on the supply and demand of tickets. Fans are willing to pay a lot of money to watch the NBA in person, that is why ticket prices are high. Paying players less is not going to affect that at all.

No kidding. I wasn't expecting owners to give anything away. I would just advocate that fans show their support in other ways than spending money on stuff like food and expensive seats, start watching the games on alternative media etc.. But I guess there is a demand to spending ridiculous amounts of money on basketball.

[ItsDanger]

Using a 90% tickets sold number is totally meaningless. You need to outline the hard numbers by line and compare to salaries and capital costs. Not much actual detail here.

I read that the union wants a 4 yr UFA status for 1st rounders. It seems they do not have a grasp of the real issue here. For the perennial losers, you should take that as a sign your situation will not improve if up to the players. Vote with your wallet.

[Reignman]

The justification being peddled for lower BRI share is league losses. The losses don't pass the smell test without counting interest on team purchase financing. This has all been covered. Nothing you say above changes any of that.

This will soon all be moot. The players will probably cave and get no better than 50% BRI. And team values will go up dramatically over the life of the next CBA. I'm sure plenty of you will make some nonsense excuses for why that happens, because I've never seen a bigger group of apologists for the owners anywhere.

Anyone who doubts my take on the team value over the next CBA can put their money where their mouth is and make a wager with me.

And yet, the players will STILL remain one of the highest earners in pro-sports in North America.

Kind of funny how that works, over the last 2 CBAs the NBA has been the 3rd highest revenue generator after the NFL and MLB (well behind those two) and just ahead of the NHL yet their players have on average made some of the highest salaries.

It seems some of you are just having a hard time with the fact that owners agreed to a LOUSY deal in 99 that just isn't sustainable in this current economic climate.

Think about this, nowadays you'll be hard pressed to find public funding for new arenas. How many owners under the previous CBA could actually build their own arenas? There's a reason why a great basketball fanbase in Seattle lost their team and why teams in basketball hotbeds like Indiana can't remain viable.

The old system was broken and this new CBA will hopefully look nothing like the old one.

[Fairview4Life]

I read that the union wants a 4 yr UFA status for 1st rounders. It seems they do not have a grasp of the real issue here. For the perennial losers, you should take that as a sign your situation will not improve if up to the players. Vote with your wallet.

What's the "real" issue here? Because the owners think the real issue is them making more money.

[Reignman]

I read that the union wants a 4 yr UFA status for 1st rounders. It seems they do not have a grasp of the real issue here. For the perennial losers, you should take that as a sign your situation will not improve if up to the players. Vote with your wallet.

What's the "real" issue here? Because the owners think the real issue is them making more money.

And bringing in more competitive balance to the league so that their revenue can increase further year over year.

Remember, unlike the players, the owners actually have a vested interest in seeing the league prosper. Owners aren't buying teams just to flip them a year later, most are in it for the long haul.

[ItsDanger]

I read that the union wants a 4 yr UFA status for 1st rounders. It seems they do not have a grasp of the real issue here. For the perennial losers, you should take that as a sign your situation will not improve if up to the players. Vote with your wallet.

What's the "real" issue here? Because the owners think the real issue is them making more money.

Too many franchises who lose money and have no realistic long term opportunity for success in an artficially competitive environment.

[Fairview4Life]

I read that the union wants a 4 yr UFA status for 1st rounders. It seems they do not have a grasp of the real issue here. For the perennial losers, you should take that as a sign your situation will not improve if up to the players. Vote with your wallet.

What's the "real" issue here? Because the owners think the real issue is them making more money.

And bringing in more competitive balance to the league so that their revenue can increase further year over year.

Remember, unlike the players, the owners actually have a vested interest in seeing the league prosper. Owners aren't buying teams just to flip them a year later, most are in it for the long haul.

The owners proposals will not do that. The leagues revenues have never been higher. The players get paid based on BRI, which means they absolutely do have a vested interest in seeing the league prosper.

[Reignman]

Why wouldn't the owners do that? Are you telling me the owners don't like the revenue the NFL is generating? Or how the NHL has drastically increased their revenue over the last few years on their CBA?

Aren't you guys always saying the owners just want more money? Improving competitive balance will increase revenues even further so the owners do have a vested interest in improving the quality of the league.

There's a ton of room for improved revenues from where the NBA stands, they make only a slight bit more than the NHL and quite a bit less than the NFL/MLB. The 50/50 split in BRI will help but there's WAY more room for improvement with systemic changes.

[Fairview4Life]

Improving competitive balance will increase revenues even further so the owners do have a vested interest in improving the quality of the league.

There is no evidence of that. You have repeatedly said that the NFL and NHL make more money because of their hard caps, for example, but there is no evidence, correlation, or statistics backing you up.

[ranger001]

You meant that there is no evidence that you believe.