Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Reignman]

lol. This is hilarious. Look, I gave you the numbers. They are rough, but they are publicly available. You can choose not to believe me if you want, in which case I invite you to look them up for yourself.

What numbers? Just like your understanding of the economic climate your understanding of facts is fictional. Go back to the GB and stop wasting our time. 3 pages of absolute nonsense.

[floppymoose]

I bring facts. You bring bs. No surprise you want me to leave.

[Reignman]

I bring facts. You bring bs. No surprise you want me to leave.

What facts? the only fact I see is you can't understand that the owners signed off on a bad deal in the last CBA and they are trying to correct that.

This is the real world buddy, go "debate" with the people on the GB.

Actually, here's a little food for thought that might get you to understand. If the NBA were just formed today and the owners asked for a 50/50 split on last years revenue moving forward how would you feel? Be honest, would you thnk it's unfair?

don't respond right away, go ponder that and come back with an answer.

[floppymoose]

This is the real world buddy, go "debate" with the people on the GB.

Good luck with that.

If the NBA were just formed today and the owners asked for a 50/50 split on last years revenue moving forward how would you feel? Be honest, would you thnk it's unfair?

The answer to that question can be deduced from what I spelled out here:
viewtopic.php?p=29044370#p29044370

[Fairview4Life]

And here's my last point, 50/50 still keeps the NBA players amongst the highest paid athelets in North America.

You keep saying this as if it were relevant in some way.

750 mlb players in a league with $6.6 billion revenue
700 nhl players in a league with $3 billion revenue
1700 players in a league with $8 billion revenue
400 nba players in a league with $4 billion revenue

They are the highest paid because they are the most valuable. Your idea that they should be paid less because other, less valuable athletes are paid less.... is specious reasoning.

Reignman, what he is saying is a relatively simple point, and a rough estimate as to "value" being generated per player. MLB has around 750 players and generates 6.6 billion in yearly revenues. Therefore the revenue generated by each players is 6.6 billion / 750 = $8.8 million/player. Doing this for all the leagues:

MLB - 6,600,000,000/750 = $8,800,000
NHL - 3,000,000,000/700 = $4,285,714.29
NFL - 8,000,000,000/1700 = $4,705,882.35
NBA - 4,000,000,000/400 = $10,000,000

[Indeed]

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 am still waiting on this.
People here put a lot of numbers and references, even there are things that is unclear, but I would like to hear from the other side.

Please provide the number to support your argument, and numbers that counter the some of the references.

[Twinkie defense]

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!

I would expect a more healthy League, greater revenue, and greater profits would increase team values - although there is a question if values aren't already inflated right now, due to anticipation that a new CBA will be more favorable to team profitability than the last CBA.

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?

Last year I believe every NFL team made a profit - SF 49ers profited the least (for some reason), with a $1 mil profit. But of course that was under the interim year between their CBAs.

Regarding hockey, I'm not a fan but their salary structure does not at all approach that of the NBA does it? Are there hockey players making $17 or $18 mil per year?

And compared to (the very profitable) NFL: their biggest salaries, for superstar QBs, are south of $20 mil. NY Knicks have the equivalent of about 4 superstar QBs on their roster.

And again, the players are employees not shareholders.

This is basically at the heart of the disconnect. These players are very much unlike most employees. They are not replaceable.

And yet they are replaced all the time. I'm sorry but Michael Jordan is not the Grateful Dead, playing to sold out arenas for thirty years.

Like most unions, the NBAPA exists for the average and below average player. And the history of collective bargaining has shown that employees get more pay, more benefits, more protections under unions than without unions. LeBron doesn't need the Union, it's costing him money - he's subsidizing the Jamal Crawfords of the world. Without the union, LeBron would make much more, but total salaries - along with salaries of 90% of the players - would be much less. There is no shortage of the kind of stinky bench players you see clogging up the rosters of every team in the League, and tons of guys in every major city that would love to have those roster spots at $50k/year. Just last week there were a bunch of dudes balling up in Oakland for a chance at a tiny salary and having to live in Iowa. Iowa! So I would be interested to hear your rational about total compensation going up without the NBAPA - and if that is the case, I think the Union would be doing its clients a fiduciary benefit by disbanding - not one of those fake decertifications though, but each man for himself.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Without the union, LeBron would make much more, but total salaries - along with salaries of 90% of the players - would be much less. So I would be interested to hear your rational about total compensation going up without the NBAPA - and if that is the case, I think the Union would be doing its clients a fiduciary benefit by disbanding - not one of those fake decertifications though, but each man for himself.

Do you really believe if there was no union the league would spend less money? If that is the case why does the league need salary cap? Luxury Tax? The union is not the one fighting for these caps. You realize the owners need the restrictions to limit the competition in the market place?

Right now with all these restrictions (salary cap, luxury tax, max salaries, etc) the league spend close to the 57% of BRI. If you get rid of restrictions do you think the Knicks won't spend on 4 max contract players? How about the nets with their billionaire owner. You don't think he would put 5 all-stars in his starting lineup even if it cost $100M+? If you want to see what happens in the market without salary cap or restrictions, take a look at soccer in europe or mlb in the US.

It is actually my contention that if the owners are really going to push for 47% of BRI, the players would be better served without union.

[floppymoose]

Twinkie, NBA players are replaced all the time... with NBA players! They have the highest quality players in the world. If all the NBA players left and the league had to go with D league replacements, revenue would plummet.

[Indeed]

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!

I would expect a more healthy League, greater revenue, and greater profits would increase team values - although there is a question if values aren't already inflated right now, due to anticipation that a new CBA will be more favorable to team profitability than the last CBA.

That is their problem of over paying a team. Just like when you buy the stock at the highest, then the expectation went down, and you lose money. So you are asking that company to pay you back your lose? Oh please, that's their problem on buying something inflated; that's poor management, and should not be bailed out by anyone.

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?

Last year I believe every NFL team made a profit - SF 49ers profited the least (for some reason), with a $1 mil profit. But of course that was under the interim year between their CBAs.

Regarding hockey, I'm not a fan but their salary structure does not at all approach that of the NBA does it? Are there hockey players making $17 or $18 mil per year?

And compared to (the very profitable) NFL: their biggest salaries, for superstar QBs, are south of $20 mil. NY Knicks have the equivalent of about 4 superstar QBs on their roster.

Your believe is very wrong.
Please put a link where it shows all the NFL team made a profit.

As for hockey, their salaries are disclosed, and great players like Igina makes 6m - 7m, Crosby makes 9m and etc.

Then for NFL, their salary cap is around $105m. Michael Vick is making $14m, El Manning at $12m. A few QB might makes $18m. But if you just want to say NBA can afford 4 superstar QBs on the roster, yes, that is true.

And again, the players are employees not shareholders.

This is basically at the heart of the disconnect. These players are very much unlike most employees. They are not replaceable.

And yet they are replaced all the time. I'm sorry but Michael Jordan is not the Grateful Dead, playing to sold out arenas for thirty years.

Like most unions, the NBAPA exists for the average and below average player. And the history of collective bargaining has shown that employees get more pay, more benefits, more protections under unions than without unions. LeBron doesn't need the Union, it's costing him money - he's subsidizing the Jamal Crawfords of the world. Without the union, LeBron would make much more, but total salaries - along with salaries of 90% of the players - would be much less. There is no shortage of the kind of stinky bench players you see clogging up the rosters of every team in the League, and tons of guys in every major city that would love to have those roster spots at $50k/year. Just last week there were a bunch of dudes balling up in Oakland for a chance at a tiny salary and having to live in Iowa. Iowa! So I would be interested to hear your rational about total compensation going up without the NBAPA - and if that is the case, I think the Union would be doing its clients a fiduciary benefit by disbanding - not one of those fake decertifications though, but each man for himself.

Yes, the unions are there to protect below average players, but not average players.
Also, the league is protecting the owners as well. Can LeBron bolt after his first year to New York? No, but he would without CBA on rookie contract. Would Hedo Turkolu makes less on his preview contract year? Nope, but if there is no cap, he would make more (Blazzers would pay him more, or some other team).

Think of it this way.
There are 2 cases that owner will not lose money:
1) 47% or even 50% on RBI
2) Revenue sharing between owners, 57% on RBI

If you are concerned about owner losing money, then why not go with case 2? Why choosing case 1 to have some owners take more, and all players lose money?

[Twinkie defense]

Do you really believe if there was no union the league would spend less money? If that is the case why does the league need salary cap? Luxury Tax? The union is not the one fighting for these caps. You realize the owners need the restrictions to limit the competition in the market place

Certainly a small number of teams would increase spending further, but similarly teams could spend less. Remember that 57% is as much a minimum as a maximum. We could end up having four or five NY Knicks and twenty-five Sacramento Kings. The "cap" and luxury tax do moderate spending, but by doing that they also increase parity (aka as you say, limit competition ), and allow those Knicks to have an 82-game schedule without having to play the Lakers 25 times.

I love soccer - the world's most popular sport, with the most valuable franchise in all of sports - but only a couple teams compete for the top-level titles. And go to an Oakland A's game and tell me how no cap and no floor is helping the fans or the players.

[Indeed]

Do you really believe if there was no union the league would spend less money? If that is the case why does the league need salary cap? Luxury Tax? The union is not the one fighting for these caps. You realize the owners need the restrictions to limit the competition in the market place

Certainly a small number of teams would increase spending further, but similarly teams could spend less. Remember that 57% is as much a minimum as a maximum. We could end up having four or five NY Knicks and twenty-five Sacramento Kings. The "cap" and luxury tax do moderate spending, but by doing that they also increase parity (aka as you say, limit competition ), and allow those Knicks to have an 82-game schedule without having to play the Lakers 25 times.

I love soccer - the world's most popular sport, with the most valuable franchise in all of sports - but only a couple teams compete for the top-level titles. And go to an Oakland A's game and tell me how no cap and no floor is helping the fans or the players.

I think you misunderstand, 57% is the average. Owners, have no problem giving 57% when there is TV revenue sharing between owners.

And there is no proof that it can increase parity. It will increase parity, but at some point with the current system and contract length, it has its diminish return at some point without a proper system in place.

[Twinkie defense]

Your believe is very wrong.
Please put a link where it shows all the NFL team made a profit.

Two teams had negative operating income last season: Cleveland Browns -$2.9 mil and Detroit Lions -$7.7. link

Think of it this way.
There are 2 cases that owner will not lose money:
1) 47% or even 50% on RBI
2) Revenue sharing between owners, 57% on RBI

If you are concerned about owner losing money, then why not go with case 2? Why choosing case 1 to have some owners take more, and all players lose money?

I don't care if the owners lose money - in fact I wish some teams would contract. But I don't think it is correct to say "players lose money." The only sense in which they lose money is if you are talking about unrealized potential earnings - and well that's life huh? I am also fine with revenue sharing - there was revenue sharing under the last CBA and there will be revenue sharing under the next CBA.

[mihaic]

I don't care if the owners lose money - in fact I wish some teams would contract. But I don't think it is correct to say "players lose money." The only sense in which they lose money is if you are talking about unrealized potential earnings - and well that's life huh? I am also fine with revenue sharing - there was revenue sharing under the last CBA and there will be revenue sharing under the next CBA.

This is pretty much idiotic to say, twinkie schminkie. I am pretty sure that most owners care if they lose money hence the lockout.

Also please leave mr reign guy alone. You seem incapable to grasp the simple points he is making

Also your calculation of how much a player is worth, etc... is plain wrong, I am pretty sure the football players bring that revenue in lway ess games/events, hence less expenses, hence higher profits

[ItsDanger]

The financial analysis presented on this page is juvenille at best. Too simplistic. The relationships are not linear.

[ranger001]

There are 2 cases that owner will not lose money:
1) 47% or even 50% on RBI
2) Revenue sharing between owners, 57% on RBI

The league as a whole lose 300 million last year. So it might have been 250 million but certainly not a profit.

Not even the players believe that the owners will make money in case 2, they have agreed to go down to 53%, yet you persist with this nonsense that the owners are making money at 57%. You have not seen the financial data that the players have and yet you know more than them? Do you have any financial training at all.

[Fairview4Life]

There are 2 cases that owner will not lose money:
1) 47% or even 50% on RBI
2) Revenue sharing between owners, 57% on RBI

The league as a whole lose 300 million last year.

That's still more than likely not true though.

[ranger001]

There are 2 cases that owner will not lose money:
1) 47% or even 50% on RBI
2) Revenue sharing between owners, 57% on RBI

The league as a whole lose 300 million last year.

That's still more than likely not true though.

Why did you cut the rest of my quote? "So it might have been 250 million but certainly not a profit."

Again, the players themselves who have access to reams of financial data have acknowledged that the league lost money. Yet you think you know more than their legions of accountants poring over that data?

[Fairview4Life]

Why did you cut the rest of my quote? "So it might have been 250 million but certainly not a profit."

Again, the players themselves who have access to reams of financial data have acknowledged that the league lost money. Yet you think you know more than their legions of accountants poring over that data?

Because a 250 million loss is also almost certainly not true either. The players have said a small number of teams lost money, sure. I'm not sure why that is a bad thing though. Some teams should have lost money.

[Reignman]

Why did you cut the rest of my quote? "So it might have been 250 million but certainly not a profit."

Again, the players themselves who have access to reams of financial data have acknowledged that the league lost money. Yet you think you know more than their legions of accountants poring over that data?

Because a 250 million loss is also almost certainly not true either. The players have said a small number of teams lost money, sure. I'm not sure why that is a bad thing though. Some teams should have lost money.

If the union agreed with you they wouldn't have dropped from 57% to 52.5%. There's no way.