Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[anj]

Moral of the ESPN story is that tanking is the way to build a contender. Whatever system created that should go.

No, I would say the point is closer to this:

Stern strives for a hard cap (or a punitive luxury tax disguised as one) and claims his pursuit is for the good spirit of competitive balance, but a closer examination shows that payroll and winning are not directly correlated.

As far as drawing a "moral" from that, you might want to look at the last sentence:

But if there’s a disparity of haves and have-nots in the NBA, the real disparity can be found in management, not dollars.

[Indeed]

The nets lost 100 million over 2 years. Even if there was some kind of RDA it wont turn that 100 million loss into a profit. I said it before and I will repeat it till I get an answer from you.

THE PLAYERS ADMIT THAT TEAMS LOST MONEY LAST YEAR. Why do you know more than the players?

Some kind of RDA might change the claim of $300m league loss to zero at 57%.
The players admit that teams lost money, but did they say why? Is it because of player salaries? And why NHL doesn't have that problem?

What I am blaming is, the lockout is caused by the owners neither taking option 1 nor option 2, which the proposed options are fine if not because of greed.
Option 1 - Owners revenue share (NHL does that and give players 57% RBI, only difference is hard and soft cap, which shouldn't really matter if tripling luxury tax and adding more rules)
Option 2 - 51% RBI (assume they lost $300m, 6% drops from player salary would give them 4-5% in profit on average).

[ranger001]

The nets lost 100 million over 2 years. Even if there was some kind of RDA it wont turn that 100 million loss into a profit. I said it before and I will repeat it till I get an answer from you.

THE PLAYERS ADMIT THAT TEAMS LOST MONEY LAST YEAR. Why do you know more than the players?

Some kind of RDA might change the claim of $300m league loss to zero at 57%.

The players admit that teams lost money, but did they say why? Is it because of player salaries? And why NHL doesn't have that problem?

What I am blaming is, the lockout is caused by the owners neither taking option 1 nor option 2, which the proposed options are fine if not because of greed.
Option 1 - Owners revenue share (NHL does that and give players 57% RBI, only difference is hard and soft cap, which shouldn't really matter if tripling luxury tax and adding more rules)
Option 2 - 51% RBI (assume they lost $300m, 6% drops from player salary would give them 4-5% in profit on average).

No, the nba's figures to the players do not include rda.
http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-cba- ... owance.htm

So far you still haven't given me a reason why you don't believe the players when they say that the owners are losing money. The players have reams of financial data, why do you know more than the players? Or are you just guessing?

[floppymoose]

Some teams are losing money. I very much doubt that the league as a whole is losing money. I also don't trust the info from the union, because they got their info from the owners.

I think independent sources for the financials are our best bet.

[Indeed]

The nets lost 100 million over 2 years. Even if there was some kind of RDA it wont turn that 100 million loss into a profit. I said it before and I will repeat it till I get an answer from you.

THE PLAYERS ADMIT THAT TEAMS LOST MONEY LAST YEAR. Why do you know more than the players?

Some kind of RDA might change the claim of $300m league loss to zero at 57%.

The players admit that teams lost money, but did they say why? Is it because of player salaries? And why NHL doesn't have that problem?

What I am blaming is, the lockout is caused by the owners neither taking option 1 nor option 2, which the proposed options are fine if not because of greed.
Option 1 - Owners revenue share (NHL does that and give players 57% RBI, only difference is hard and soft cap, which shouldn't really matter if tripling luxury tax and adding more rules)
Option 2 - 51% RBI (assume they lost $300m, 6% drops from player salary would give them 4-5% in profit on average).

No, the nba's figures to the players do not include rda.
http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-cba- ... owance.htm

So far you still haven't given me a reason why you don't believe the players when they say that the owners are losing money. The players have reams of financial data, why do you know more than the players? Or are you just guessing?

1) No matter they include RDA or not, $300m is about 1-2% of RBI, where 51% RBI to the players mean 4-5% profit to the owners, correct?

2) I am not arguing there is team losing money, but the question is, is the average of all teams are losing money. They claimed $300m, but players never confirm that part.

As I argued, there is no point for players to solve the owners problem. If the problem is the owners themselves, perhaps they can deal with it first, rather than transfer the problem to the players.

And my question is, why NHL can have 57% share for the players?

[Indeed]

Some teams are losing money. I very much doubt that the league as a whole is losing money. I also don't trust the info from the union, because they got their info from the owners.

I think independent sources for the financials are our best bet.

Exactly, this is my response. The players admit there is at least one team losing money, but there is strong evidence that there are teams making huge profit. So why the percentage has to go down and not up?

[ATLTimekeeper]

Zimbalist is a consultant for the PA. His work has already had some holes poked in it on the general board, when his stuff first circulated a few weeks ago.

The article isn't based around his arguments, though -- that line is the only reference to his work in the story. So I don't see how his presence there discredits Haberstroh's analysis. It's not like Zimbalist supplied the numbers, or even contextualized them -- they didn't even interview him directly for the story. So is the fact that his name is dropped all that relevant?

Fair enough. I believe the 7% is a reference to Zimbalist's work, but you're right, this is more about Haberstroh's point. Drafting is more important than spending lots of money, but how do you ensure better drafting? Bump up the age limit? Stern did it once, didn't go over well with the PA. Improve minor leagues? NBA players don't want to play there and teams don't think it's worth it.

I also don't see the folly of pursuing a hard cap, or a stiff luxury tax. Even if it removes the 7% or 1%, the advantage is gone. The biggest flaw is the max salary within the cap, but it doesn't look like either party wants to take it out of the CBA. If they don't, then it's up to the teams to show some discipline and not give your best player the max just because he happens to be your best player.

[floppymoose]

In a sport where there is really only room for 180 or so players to make a big difference for their team, there isn't really any way to not have the draft be a dominant factor in success*. Of all the team sports, NBA has the fewest guys in the game at any one time. It is going to be more star dominated as a result, and that means more reliant on the draft.

*at least, as long as the drafting team has the rights to that player for a number of years. We could just get rid of the draft and have everyone be a free agent immediately, but while that takes the draft out of the equation, it doesn't solve the underlying problem: there are only a few rookies who can affect team fortunes, and you can't have every team get one.

[Indeed]

Zimbalist is a consultant for the PA. His work has already had some holes poked in it on the general board, when his stuff first circulated a few weeks ago.

The article isn't based around his arguments, though -- that line is the only reference to his work in the story. So I don't see how his presence there discredits Haberstroh's analysis. It's not like Zimbalist supplied the numbers, or even contextualized them -- they didn't even interview him directly for the story. So is the fact that his name is dropped all that relevant?

Fair enough. I believe the 7% is a reference to Zimbalist's work, but you're right, this is more about Haberstroh's point. Drafting is more important than spending lots of money, but how do you ensure better drafting? Bump up the age limit? Stern did it once, didn't go over well with the PA. Improve minor leagues? NBA players don't want to play there and teams don't think it's worth it.

I also don't see the folly of pursuing a hard cap, or a stiff luxury tax. Even if it removes the 7% or 1%, the advantage is gone. The biggest flaw is the max salary within the cap, but it doesn't look like either party wants to take it out of the CBA. If they don't, then it's up to the teams to show some discipline and not give your best player the max just because he happens to be your best player.

Yea, there is problem changing the max contract.
Some players deserve that, and some players don't.
Some teams want to have the option to franchise players in lock long term, and some teams use it on non-franchise players.

So I don't think the max contract has any problem, but it is the person who issues the contract.
Not only you want to avoid multi stars on one team (Miami super team), you also want to avoid non-star players hurting the team (Arena, Lewis, Brand contracts).

[Indeed]

In a sport where there is really only room for 180 or so players to make a big difference for their team, there isn't really any way to not have the draft be a dominant factor in success. Of all the team sports, NBA has the fewest guys in the game at any one time. It is going to be more star dominated as a result, and that means more reliant on the draft.

Yea, this is why I previously suggested to limit stars playing time by more back-to-back games.
Someone suggested to change the foul limits to 5 as well.

But for sure, to have competitive parity, the league needs to change hero approach to team approach. Just like hockey, super team might not dominate the game, and fans recognize the team instead of players as an icon. So that team value will maintain even LeBron bolt to other team to play.

[ranger001]

Some teams are losing money. I very much doubt that the league as a whole is losing money. I also don't trust the info from the union, because they got their info from the owners.

I think independent sources for the financials are our best bet.

Exactly, this is my response. The players admit there is at least one team losing money, but there is strong evidence that there are teams making huge profit. So why the percentage has to go down and not up?

The reasoning that the players got the data from the owners so it cant be trusted is bogus. Falsifying tax statements to the IRS has heavy penalties. Audited statements are conducted by independent accounting firms.

Forbes does not have access to audited finanical statements for the 30 nba teams, the players do. Forbes can only guess at net profit, in fact they don't even try to show it. They show ebitda data. The players have access to these financial data and can examine statements on a line by line basis.

If you guys don't even agree with the players who have access to audited financial figures then how can there can be a discussion? You're only going on your own opinions.

[Rhettmatic]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Two sources -- one on ownership side, one union -- with direct knowledge of latest proposals are encouraged with movement on both sides.

[floppymoose]

Falsifying tax statements to the IRS has heavy penalties.

I don't think tax statements need to be falsified in order for the owners to create a financial mirage.

[anj]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Two sources -- one on ownership side, one union -- with direct knowledge of latest proposals are encouraged with movement on both sides.

There was an unusual positivity among media on Twitter today. Maybe the Raps and Lakers knew something when they hired Stefanski and Darvin Ham, or maybe I should adjust my aluminum helmet?

[ranger001]

Falsifying tax statements to the IRS has heavy penalties.

I don't think tax statements need to be falsified in order for the owners to create a financial mirage.

Hunter said the league lost money. Why do you know more than him? Do you have access to better financial data? Do you get an accountant to go over audited financial statements? Surely the players accountants would have seen through this mirage.

[floppymoose]

I've already said that I don't trust Hunter to have it right. We just have a fundamental disagreement on this point that we are unlikely to bridge. I don't believe the league is really losing money. Pointing me at data that ultimately came from the owners is not going to change my mind on that issue.

[ranger001]

I've already said that I don't trust Hunter to have it right. We just have a fundamental disagreement on this point that we are unlikely to bridge. I don't believe the league is really losing money. Pointing me at data that ultimately came from the owners is not going to change my mind on that issue.

I understand you disagree with the players findings, but my question is why don't you trust the players' accountants to figure out the financial mirage?

I'm sure they hired competent accountants who are good at their jobs.

[floppymoose]

I'm not sure that it is possible to figure it out when all they have is source material provided form the owners. There are also other factors here that affect my view:

• The record sale prices of several teams during the most recent CBA.
• Ticket sales and tv viewership exceeding expectations in the last two years during a down economy.
• The timing of the CBA expiration and the down economy (which makes it a good time to negotiate for the owners, and bad for the players)
• The reported large bump in value of the most recently signed tv deals.
• The temptation which must have been there for the owners to use perfectly legal accounting choices to shift losses forward into the years just before the negotiation.
• The fact that the owners believed this last CBA was a profitable deal for them in 2005.
• That MLB seems to be doing fine with a revenue split around 55% despite having more difficult stadiums to maintain, more away games to travel to, and more players to travel.
...
this is just off the top of my head. The leagues losses just aren't passing the smell test to me.

[Ponchos]

"There might not be any losses at all. It depends on what accounting procedure is used," -Billy Hunter.

[TiKusDom]

I've already said that I don't trust Hunter to have it right. We just have a fundamental disagreement on this point that we are unlikely to bridge. I don't believe the league is really losing money. Pointing me at data that ultimately came from the owners is not going to change my mind on that issue.

So you don't trust the owners and thier accountants because obviously they will try to corrupt the numbers. You dont trust the accountants and evaluators from the NBPA , because they are weak minded and wont see through accounting schemes of the owners. The league isnt really losing money in one of the worst recessions in American history, that is unbelievable to you. Everyone and everything is incompetent , false, or disguised , and you have a clear pulse on what is happening to the league .Bravo!