Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Reignman]

Actually, there is, just look at the revenues the NHL has generated since their new CBA verses their previous CBA.

[ranger001]

He won't believe that evidence.

[ItsDanger]

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.

Attendance, TV ratings would increase in other markets. The current successful teams might decrease but its hard to say (hasnt affected the Leafs much). Overall, it should provide a net increase. But the players arent interested in this format and neither are a lot of the successful teams. Honestly, fans in the losing situations should tune out entirely and the league should contract to 20 teams. Thats what would happen in the real world. Look at the Raptors, 1 playoff win in 16 yrs. 16 yrs!

[Reignman]

I'll try and pull the numbers a little later this afternoon so there is some substance to my point.

Don't have the time right now.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You meant that there is no evidence that you believe.

I've seen a bunch of statements that aren't backed up by any numbers on these points, but nothing else. I've seen numbers supporting fairviews points. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, unless unfounded claims on the internet are passing as evidence nowadays. I mean, yeah, the NHL saw revenues increase recently, but so did the NBA without such an agreement. Why make the assumption that NHL revenues went up due to the CBA and not for whatever factors increase NBA revenues during that same time? Also, the NHL still has teams with financial difficulties who are moving to different cities despite their new CBA that the NBA is holding out for. And there hasn't really been a lot more parity in the NHL after the new CBA than they had before.

[Reignman]

You meant that there is no evidence that you believe.

I've seen a bunch of statements that aren't backed up by any numbers on these points, but nothing else. I've seen numbers supporting fairviews points. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, unless unfounded claims on the internet are passing as evidence nowadays. I mean, yeah, the NHL saw revenues increase recently, but so did the NBA without such an agreement. Why make the assumption that NHL revenues went up due to the CBA and not for whatever factors increase NBA revenues during that same time? Also, the NHL still has teams with financial difficulties who are moving to different cities despite their new CBA that the NBA is holding out for. And there hasn't really been a lot more parity in the NHL after the new CBA than they had before.

Two points:

- The NBA and NHL did not have linear growths when compared to each other. The NHL did much better (I'm talking about increase% not total $$$).

- Although the NBA recorded improved revenue, there is still a huge market share they haven't tapped into.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Of course the percentage increase was greater for the NHL. They tanked their revenues during the lockout and the NBA didn't. Also, they had much smaller revenues to begin with meaning there was more potential for growth.

The NHL also gives players 57% of BRI when league revenues exceed $2.7 billion, as they did this past season and at lowest 54% when league revenues are below $2.2 billion. If the owners suddenly caved and made an agreement with those kinds of principles, getting the players to give in on other demands wouldn't be so tough. Why on earth have the owners been holding out for the players to take 50% or less when the NHL gets by on a significantly higher % despite lower revenues. What expenses does the NBA have the the NHL doesn't? The owners still haven't explained that one away other than with leaked documents that include Zambonis, loans, paying relatives 8 figures, etc.

The NHL also took steps to increase revenue sharing and promoted smarter business decisions by making revenue sharing contingent on holding your franchise in a smart demographic location and overall management of the franchise. The NBA hasn't done anything of the sort and hasn't shown any inclination towards anything of the sort, either. They seem much more interested in paying their players a significantly lower % of revenue than the NHL despite much higher revenues overall with the eye on limiting any sorts of revenue sharing as much as humanly possible.

It's the disparity in incomes that is the problem in the NBA. If that isn't fixed, some new owner will buy a smaller market team with bigger loans based on a higher valuation with a new CBA and the NBA will be in the same position in 10 years or so crying poor once again. Unless there's a way to avoid having a massive majority of the revenue going to the Knicks, Lakers, Raptors, Bulls, etc., the cycle is going to continue.

[Reignman]

I do agree with revenue sharing, I just don't think it should be the fiscal backbone for many teams.

If you had 1 or 2 teams where they were struggling I'd agree to saying revenue sharing could be used to prop them up or they should be contracted. But in this case we're talking about more than half the league and that's a sign of an unhealthy business model.

So there needs to be some balance between revenue sharing and cost-certainty. 50/50 of the BRI seems like a great starting point in this economic climate as the owners would feel most teams could be viable with that split, while the players would still remain amongst the top earners in North American pro-sports.

[Indeed]

I do agree with revenue sharing, I just don't think it should be the fiscal backbone for many teams.

If you had 1 or 2 teams where they were struggling I'd agree to saying revenue sharing could be used to prop them up or they should be contracted. But in this case we're talking about more than half the league and that's a sign of an unhealthy business model.

So there needs to be some balance between revenue sharing and cost-certainty. 50/50 of the BRI seems like a great starting point in this economic climate as the owners would feel most teams could be viable with that split, while the players would still remain amongst the top earners in North American pro-sports.

Well, you can't look at the bright side of NHL, and leave the dark side of NBA.
The money problem has nothing to do with the players, why you want the players to bail out for the owners? There was a TV revenue sharing proposal, but owners refused.

And please explain or proof where you find "more than half the league". Again, NO ONE CLAIM THAT.

[Reignman]

I do agree with revenue sharing, I just don't think it should be the fiscal backbone for many teams.

If you had 1 or 2 teams where they were struggling I'd agree to saying revenue sharing could be used to prop them up or they should be contracted. But in this case we're talking about more than half the league and that's a sign of an unhealthy business model.

So there needs to be some balance between revenue sharing and cost-certainty. 50/50 of the BRI seems like a great starting point in this economic climate as the owners would feel most teams could be viable with that split, while the players would still remain amongst the top earners in North American pro-sports.

Well, you can't look at the bright side of NHL, and leave the dark side of NBA.
The money problem has nothing to do with the players, why you want the players to bail out for the owners? There was a TV revenue sharing proposal, but owners refused.

And please explain or proof where you find "more than half the league". Again, NO ONE CLAIM THAT.

Two points, you act like the owners just burned their money with bad decisions. Those bad decisions actually lined the pockets of the players.


If it was a case of the owners just burning money then I'd say the players have a point but in this case, the players were actually a benefactor of those bad decisions.

On top of that, those bad decisions weren't just made without any external factors, teams felt they had to keep Arenas or sign Shard to ridiculous deals to remain competitive and not lose fans. The current CBA encourages those bad decisions so don't make it seem like the owners are doing this for the hell of it.

These people have made hundreds of millions of dollars through successful business practises yet you think they became stupid when they bought teams? Again, the system is designed to do that and that's why the players are crying about going to a different system.

Notice how they talk about management making bad decisions yet they want to bring back the exact same system if they could? BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM AND THEY LOVE IT.


Lastly, the league has opened up their books along with personal income tax returns. They claim 22 teams lost money. Forbes claims 17 teams lost money. And you don't see the union really disclaiming that many team sare losing money. Fact is there is more than enough evidence to suggest the current system is broken. You can argue about the semantics of 22 teams vs 17 teams but the fact is we're talking about a large number of teams here, not 1, 2 or even 5. There's definitely a big problem and NOBODY has refuted that.

[whoknows]

...
The owners proposals will not do that. The leagues revenues have never been higher...

Again, total revenues means nothing, what it is important in any business it is the profit margin.
You keep saying that right now it is the best time for NBA and salaries does not matter for how well the teams will be doing...
Please read Aldridge's article and quote below, Jim Quinn is definitely not a supporter of Stern:

It was a different time. Salaries back then were a fraction of what they are now, and the battles between management and labor were more fundamental.
"When we were doing the Robertson case and, really, through the '70s and '80s into the '90s in football, the real focal point was free agency," Quinn said. "Ensuring that there would be a marketplace for players where they could move. That a player who truly was unhappy could go somewhere else.
"That was the focus of those fights, and obviously it led to significant increases in compensation because of competition. But that also was a factor of there being a hell of a lot more money around. Television injected all this money into the system and it had to go somewhere.
"Now this fight is much more about, effectively, the split. How much do the players get, how much should the owners get, what's fair -- and it's very complicated. How do you determine what's 'fair?' So you fight over it and ultimately you have to make a judgment about how long you're going to have to fight. And how much pain each side can endure."

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/s ... d=nba.2013

[McFurious1]

Union Wants Unrestricted Free Agency After Four Years For First Round Picks

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1boc4CXuo

Anyone else upset about this demand from the union? Sure we'll develop you for 4 years and then see you bolt to the Lakers, Knicks, Boston etc. Sure hope something like this doesn't get through.

[ranger001]

Well, you can't look at the bright side of NHL, and leave the dark side of NBA.
The money problem has nothing to do with the players, why you want the players to bail out for the owners? There was a TV revenue sharing proposal, but owners refused.

And please explain or proof where you find "more than half the league". Again, NO ONE CLAIM THAT.

Have you not been reading the news? TWENTY TWO teams lost money last year.

Eight NBA teams made a combined $150 million in profit last year, while 22 lost a combined $450 million, for a combined league-wide loss of $300 million

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71479 ... ources-say

Of course you will likely say you only believe Billy Hunter.

[Reignman]

Union Wants Unrestricted Free Agency After Four Years For First Round Picks

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1boc4CXuo

Anyone else upset about this demand from the union? Sure we'll develop you for 4 years and then see you bolt to the Lakers, Knicks, Boston etc. Sure hope something like this doesn't get through.

The union couldn't give 2 **** about small market teams, that's why they come up with ridiculous proposals that have failed in the past.

All they care about is getting the most money they can. If players could just up and leave their teams while maintaining their guaranteed deals they'd be even happier.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You keep talking about how you want the league to be more like the NFL, reignman, why on earth would you not want that aspect of it to come through if you want the other parts? Basically, the owners need the good parts of the NFL deal plus some additional bonuses? How much help do these owners need? Honestly, if there weren't max contracts, it wouldn't be a big deal, either, because if an opposing team steals a star, it won't be for $15 million a season, it will be for $30 million a season which doesn't have the same benefit. The NFL doesn't have maximum contracts, either.

Also, I'd like to hear your response to my previous post. The NHL still has over a billion dollars a year less revenue than the NBA. The NHL paid out 57% of BRI to the players based on their current collective agreement (same as the NBA right now and a LOT higher than the 50% max, and only 50% with conditions that the owners are offering right now). Basically, the NHL had less margin for profit between their salaries and their revenues, yet they still managed to grow revenue and are apparently a model you want the owners to pursue. How is it that the owners in the NBA are losing money with a greater margin for profit while NHL owners got what they want and aren't crying poor despite a smaller margin for profit?

Nobody has any way of knowing if the NBA expenses are smart expenses or not, but if the NHL is making it work under those conditions, then the NBA is either investing smartly and will see a big payoff from their investments down the line at which point this whole money losing cry is a sham, or the NBA is waaaaaaay less efficient than the NHL and aren't operating the business smartly, at which point solving those issues is way more important than slashing player salaries to cover them up. If parity (however you choose to define it) was the key issue rather than just plain money, the players would probably agree to a lot of rule changes if the owners caved on % of BRI. What has been the one thing the owenrs have been trying to fight for the most though? It's % of BRI. They've got those other issues on their wish list for added leverage as a potential bonus if the players decide to cave entirely.

[Indeed]

Well, you can't look at the bright side of NHL, and leave the dark side of NBA.
The money problem has nothing to do with the players, why you want the players to bail out for the owners? There was a TV revenue sharing proposal, but owners refused.

And please explain or proof where you find "more than half the league". Again, NO ONE CLAIM THAT.

Have you not been reading the news? TWENTY TWO teams lost money last year.

Eight NBA teams made a combined $150 million in profit last year, while 22 lost a combined $450 million, for a combined league-wide loss of $300 million

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/71479 ... ources-say

Of course you will likely say you only believe Billy Hunter.

Did you read the argument from Fairview and others on why we are only losing money last season, but not in the previous years?

And did you read the previous argument on why players don't get profit when the team got sold? If they are not entitled to, why they are responsible for paying off the arena loan, where players pay for it and not getting a piece back?

[Reignman]

Doesn't sound like the NLRB will be on the player's side. In fact, sounds like they are pretty toothless even if they did take a stand.

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssport ... 4/32918087

[Indeed]

Union Wants Unrestricted Free Agency After Four Years For First Round Picks

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1boc4CXuo

Anyone else upset about this demand from the union? Sure we'll develop you for 4 years and then see you bolt to the Lakers, Knicks, Boston etc. Sure hope something like this doesn't get through.

I am not mad at this, because competitive parity requires every team to over pay players.
But I am not happy with the MLE and other contracts maintain the contract length. I think MLE needs to cut a year, while max contracts may also shorten for a year.

When you have 70m in RBI, your average salary is 8m per players (you only need 8 - 10 players), so there is no way to stop players being paid more. The other options are:
1) have a farm team system, and produce more players / jobs (more supply)
2) have one player being paid in 3 times more than the others (which is what we had in KG's era).

[Reignman]

You keep talking about how you want the league to be more like the NFL, reignman, why on earth would you not want that aspect of it to come through if you want the other parts? Basically, the owners need the good parts of the NFL deal plus some additional bonuses? How much help do these owners need? Honestly, if there weren't max contracts, it wouldn't be a big deal, either, because if an opposing team steals a star, it won't be for $15 million a season, it will be for $30 million a season which doesn't have the same benefit. The NFL doesn't have maximum contracts, either.

Also, I'd like to hear your response to my previous post. The NHL still has over a billion dollars a year less revenue than the NBA. The NHL paid out 57% of BRI to the players based on their current collective agreement (same as the NBA right now and a LOT higher than the 50% max, and only 50% with conditions that the owners are offering right now). Basically, the NHL had less margin for profit between their salaries and their revenues, yet they still managed to grow revenue and are apparently a model you want the owners to pursue. How is it that the owners in the NBA are losing money with a greater margin for profit while NHL owners got what they want and aren't crying poor despite a smaller margin for profit?

Nobody has any way of knowing if the NBA expenses are smart expenses or not, but if the NHL is making it work under those conditions, then the NBA is either investing smartly and will see a big payoff from their investments down the line at which point this whole money losing cry is a sham, or the NBA is waaaaaaay less efficient than the NHL and aren't operating the business smartly, at which point solving those issues is way more important than slashing player salaries to cover them up. If parity (however you choose to define it) was the key issue rather than just plain money, the players would probably agree to a lot of rule changes if the owners caved on % of BRI. What has been the one thing the owenrs have been trying to fight for the most though? It's % of BRI. They've got those other issues on their wish list for added leverage as a potential bonus if the players decide to cave entirely.

Keep in mind, it took the NHL 5 years to get here. Remember, they had a $39 mil cap at one point coupled with 25% roll backs. The NHL balanced it's books pretty quickly with the new CBA, that **** was painful for the players.

Similarily, I think the NBA also wants to balance the books in one swift shot, and I would hope that the CBA will be designed in a way where the player salaries also increased as the revenue improves.

And with respect to the NFL, and clarify for me if I'm wrong, are there any teams that wouldn't be able to stand on their own 2 feet without revenue sharing? I would think the answer would be no or a couple of teams at most. That's my whole expectation here. There should be a business model in place where the majority of teams can stand on their own 2 feet without revenue sharing, that's a healthy business model.

You can't prop up over half the league with revenue sharing, that's not sustainable and isn't the sign of a healthy business.

[ranger001]

Did you read the argument from Fairview and others on why we are only losing money last season, but not in the previous years?

And did you read the previous argument on why players don't get profit when the team got sold? If they are not entitled to, why they are responsible for paying off the arena loan, where players pay for it and not getting a piece back?

The owners lost money last year also.

And again, the players are employees not shareholders. Employees are not entitled to a share of the profits when the owners make a profit. If they want to be shareholders thats fine but then they lose their guaranteed salaries which they would never accept.

If you employer sells a building and makes a profit do you get a share? If your employer takes a loss do you take a loss also?