Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[ranger001]

Suppose NFL stadiums where horrendously expensive to maintain compared to NBA stadiums. Then if revenues were similar 52% in the NFL wouldn't be the same as 52% in the NBA.

Yep I get that. I disagree on the facts of your example but it doesn't really matter for my point, so I'll give it to you (can't compare NFL to NBA).

How about the NHL? Exactly the same number of games, in regular season and playoffs. Exactly the same type of arenas (Often shared between the NBA and NHL).

So why is 53%-57% ok for the NHL but not the NBA?

Why do you think its ok for the NHL? The Coyotes and Stars are in bankruptcy and quite a few of the us teams are in trouble. Any league with 1 franchise in bankruptcy is in trouble, NHL has 2.

And NBA revenue is a lot higher than NHL revenue so an NBA 53% is a lot more per team than an NHL 53%.

[s_other]

Just give the players 53% and the owners 50%. Problem solved, everybody wins.

[Ponchos]

Why do you think its ok for the NHL? The Coyotes and Stars are in bankruptcy and quite a few of the us teams are in trouble. Any league with 1 franchise in bankruptcy is in trouble, NHL has 2.

Then inadequate revenue sharing is the problem in the NHL. The NHL as a whole is profitable.

And NBA revenue is a lot higher than NHL revenue so an NBA 53% is a lot more per team than an NHL 53%.

Right. So why do the players in the NBA have to take a lower share than 53%? By your logic they should get even more than 53%.

The NHL can be profitable at a 53-47% split, why can't the NBA? Why does the NBAPA have to concede to a 50-50 split?

[knickerbocker2k2]

My gut feeling is that if this doesn't get solved within this weekend/early next week, than it will really come down to the last hour in Dec/Jan.

As for the comparison between NHL/NBA. Both of their last CBA agreements were at the time perceived as players capulating and owners getting the upper hand. Lets compare the two leagues in terms of players/owners share of revenue

NBA Players: $2.1B
NHL Players: $1.6B
NBA Owners: $1.8B
NHL Owners: $1.3B

The NBA/NHL is almost the exact same model with NBA having more revenue. How is that NBA owners make $500M more net of player salaries, but somehow 22/30 teams lose money. If this was true how come more NHL teams are in the red? What extra expenses does the NBA have that the NHL owners don't?

And even if you go by the NBA owners statements about future growth (4% per year) and with more revenue coming from new tv deal/international growth, you would think they would not be so greedy and try get to "black" on the backs of the players, but rather growing out of their "problem"

Lets face it. This is the same scenario that is playing out in the real world. The 1% are just trying to get as much as the pie as they can. Over the last 30 years the super-rich have almost observed all the wealth generated. Only this time is not at the expense of the middle class but their fellow 1%.

[ranger001]

Why do you think its ok for the NHL? The Coyotes and Stars are in bankruptcy and quite a few of the us teams are in trouble. Any league with 1 franchise in bankruptcy is in trouble, NHL has 2.

Then inadequate revenue sharing is the problem in the NHL. The NHL as a whole is profitable.

The NHL has a ton of teams in bad markets, you are never going to get 100% revenue sharing. If you were the owners of the Leafs why would you be sharing most or all of your revenue with teams that cant attract fans in places like Phoenix or Florida? Even Forbes said that half the teams in the NHL were losing money.

And NBA revenue is a lot higher than NHL revenue so an NBA 53% is a lot more per team than an NHL 53%.

Right. So why do the players in the NBA have to take a lower share than 53%? By your logic they should get even more than 53%.
The NHL can be profitable at a 53-47% split, why can't the NBA? Why does the NBAPA have to concede to a 50-50 split?

If half the NHL is losing money I would not consider that profitable at their split. The NBA is trying to move to a model where every franchise is profitable with revenue splitting. If you think the NHL is in a good place wait till next year when they are negotiating their CBL, its going to be way more than a 7% giveback that they ask for.

[Ponchos]

If half the NHL is losing money I would not consider that profitable at their split. The NBA is trying to move to a model where every franchise is profitable with revenue splitting. If you think the NHL is in a good place wait till next year when they are negotiating their CBL, its going to be way more than a 7% giveback that they ask for.

It doesn't really matter if you deem it profitable or not based on some criterion you make up in your brain, the league is profitable. The top two teams in revenue could cover all the losses of the bottom 15, and still have millions to spare. The top two!!!

That's a revenue sharing problem, not a system problem.

Anyhow, you've avoided answering why the NHL makes money as a whole and yet the NBA cannot seem to. What magical expenses does the NBA have that the NHL does not.

[floppymoose]

Some people just have an intense desire to blame the players in any labor dispute. It's an emotional issue for some.

[C_Money]

KG and Pierce aren't even getting another contract. Why do they care?

[dacrusha]

My gut feeling is that if this doesn't get solved within this weekend/early next week, than it will really come down to the last hour in Dec/Jan.

As for the comparison between NHL/NBA. Both of their last CBA agreements were at the time perceived as players capulating and owners getting the upper hand. Lets compare the two leagues in terms of players/owners share of revenue

NBA Players: $2.1B
NHL Players: $1.6B
NBA Owners: $1.8B
NHL Owners: $1.3B

The NBA/NHL is almost the exact same model with NBA having more revenue. How is that NBA owners make $500M more net of player salaries, but somehow 22/30 teams lose money. If this was true how come more NHL teams are in the red? What extra expenses does the NBA have that the NHL owners don't?

And even if you go by the NBA owners statements about future growth (4% per year) and with more revenue coming from new tv deal/international growth, you would think they would not be so greedy and try get to "black" on the backs of the players, but rather growing out of their "problem"

Lets face it. This is the same scenario that is playing out in the real world. The 1% are just trying to get as much as the pie as they can. Over the last 30 years the super-rich have almost observed all the wealth generated. Only this time is not at the expense of the middle class but their fellow 1%.

You forgot to mention, in addition to the $1.8 billion the NBA owners take home, they also receive the following monies which are NOT calculated as part of BRI:

40% of proceeds from arena signage
40% of proceeds from luxury suites
50% of proceeds from arena naming rights

[Indeed]

KG and Pierce aren't even getting another contract. Why do they care?

Yea, kind of disappointed, I think they should take 52% if this is what the owner offers.
However, I don't think owners offer that neither, more like owners ask them to provide a proposal, and that would be 52%, so the owner can go further with a proposal at 51%.

Anyway, another 2 weeks of delay may be good for players to get ready. Hopefully they get a deal by Sunday.

[dagger]

You forgot to mention, in addition to the $1.8 billion the NBA owners take home, they also receive the following monies which are NOT calculated as part of BRI:

40% of proceeds from arena signage
40% of proceeds from luxury suites
50% of proceeds from arena naming rights

This is a dumb argument. Why should they be charged any more than they are now? NBA teams are rarely sole tenants of an arena. In many cities, there is an NHL tenant, college tenants, and lots of other events. Would you charge both the Lakers and Clippers 100% each for Staples Center signage, naming rights and luxury suite revenues? How about the portion of those revenues that the NHL Kings generate by their presence?

In Toronto, the Leafs drive MLSE revenues and profits. Take away the Leafs and would Air Canada pay the same amount for a Raptors-only arena? Not on your f-ng life. And yet the NHL charges the Leafs for 60% of the same arena signage and naming rights and 50% of luxury box proceeds in that league's cap calculations. Charging the Raptors 100% would be a form of double taxation. It's absurd, because the Raptors don't generate 100% of Air Canada Centre revenues. At best, when you factor in the Leafs and rental nights for the Rock, concerts, other sports events, they generate about 25% of overall arena revenues.

[Homer Jay]

Why do you think its ok for the NHL? The Coyotes and Stars are in bankruptcy and quite a few of the us teams are in trouble. Any league with 1 franchise in bankruptcy is in trouble, NHL has 2.

Then inadequate revenue sharing is the problem in the NHL. The NHL as a whole is profitable.

And NBA revenue is a lot higher than NHL revenue so an NBA 53% is a lot more per team than an NHL 53%.

Right. So why do the players in the NBA have to take a lower share than 53%? By your logic they should get even more than 53%.

The NHL can be profitable at a 53-47% split, why can't the NBA? Why does the NBAPA have to concede to a 50-50 split?

The NHL needs to contract 2 teams immediately, and maybe another 4 on top of that over the next 5 years if the teams cannot make a go of it and survive without revenue sharing. That league is suffering from a watered down product, and eliminating 120 or so players would do a world of good. The post 1993 expansion, aside from, Anaheim, Minny and maybe Columbus, has been a complete and utter disaster. It is also time to stop the charade in Miami as well.

[ranger001]

If half the NHL is losing money I would not consider that profitable at their split. The NBA is trying to move to a model where every franchise is profitable with revenue splitting. If you think the NHL is in a good place wait till next year when they are negotiating their CBL, its going to be way more than a 7% giveback that they ask for.

It doesn't really matter if you deem it profitable or not based on some criterion you make up in your brain, the league is profitable. The top two teams in revenue could cover all the losses of the bottom 15, and still have millions to spare. The top two!!!

That's a revenue sharing problem, not a system problem.

Anyhow, you've avoided answering why the NHL makes money as a whole and yet the NBA cannot seem to. What magical expenses does the NBA have that the NHL does not.

How do you know the league is profitable? ebitda data is NOT net profit.

Some people just have an intense desire to blame the owners in any labor dispute. It's an emotional issue for some.

[dacrusha]

If half the NHL is losing money I would not consider that profitable at their split. The NBA is trying to move to a model where every franchise is profitable with revenue splitting. If you think the NHL is in a good place wait till next year when they are negotiating their CBL, its going to be way more than a 7% giveback that they ask for.

It doesn't really matter if you deem it profitable or not based on some criterion you make up in your brain, the league is profitable. The top two teams in revenue could cover all the losses of the bottom 15, and still have millions to spare. The top two!!!

That's a revenue sharing problem, not a system problem.

Anyhow, you've avoided answering why the NHL makes money as a whole and yet the NBA cannot seem to. What magical expenses does the NBA have that the NHL does not.

How do you know the league is profitable? ebitda data is NOT net profit.

Some people just have an intense desire to blame the owners in any labor dispute. It's an emotional issue for some.

In the unprofitable NHL, 7-8 teams have been sitting for sale for the last 2-3 years, with no takers.

In the seemingly unprofitable NBA, sad-sack franchises like the Sixers, Warriors and Nets were recently sold to willing buyers... the Warriors topping out at 450 million.

Mikhail Prokhorov assumed $180 million of supposed debt to get in this unprofitable league.

[BorisDK1]

In the unprofitable NHL, 7-8 teams have been sitting for sale for the last 2-3 years, with no takers.

In the seemingly unprofitable NBA, sad-sack franchises like the Sixers, Warriors and Nets were recently sold to willing buyers... the Warriors topping out at 450 million.

Mikhail Prokhorov assumed $180 million of supposed debt to get in this unprofitable league.

Just because teams are selling regularly for high amounts does not mean that the teams themselves are profitable. I think it's fairly obvious that the teams are being purchased for reasons other than their profitability - the "cool" factor of owning a team, the possibility (howbeit dim) of breaking even in cash while generating a paper loss for tax purposes which can be carried forward, etc.

I think it's entirely too common for people to point to capital gains on resale of franchises and assume that the league is profitable; I think this is an obvious error. I think it's also foolhardy to project the same trend forward while the league is hemorrhaging cash: eventually those cash losses are going to catch up with franchise "values", and NBA franchises will be found to be no less of a bubble than various housing markets that were way overvalued. Just in order to protect the "values" of these franchises, I believe it's crucial for the league as a whole to turn yearly profit and a good CBA is obviously crucial to realizing that. We don't want franchises going bankrupt when their market values crash. I do think that if cash losses continue the way they are that it's only a matter of time for that to happen.

[dacrusha]

In the unprofitable NHL, 7-8 teams have been sitting for sale for the last 2-3 years, with no takers.

In the seemingly unprofitable NBA, sad-sack franchises like the Sixers, Warriors and Nets were recently sold to willing buyers... the Warriors topping out at 450 million.

Mikhail Prokhorov assumed $180 million of supposed debt to get in this unprofitable league.

Just because teams are selling regularly for high amounts does not mean that the teams themselves are profitable. I think it's fairly obvious that the teams are being purchased for reasons other than their profitability - the "cool" factor of owning a team, the possibility (howbeit dim) of breaking even in cash while generating a paper loss for tax purposes which can be carried forward, etc.

In other words, owning an NBA franchise is still an extremely viable investment.

[OAKLEY_2]

Stephen A Smith reported on ESPN radio that Fisher and Kobe are willing to accept 50%, while other players (KG & Pierce) would not

So this is what it all comes down to - the proverbial tail wagging the dog. Dancin' with the "stars". Sigh. Regardless of whether one sympathizes with the owners/Stern (God forbid) or the players who by the way are only as equal as they are not considered stars, until they reel in the run away train marketing trash that is the "stars" this league will hum along bowing and scraping to Lebron and KG and Kobe and stars wannabees like Bosh and Pierce and everybody will be spectators with nachos and a warm beer or worse sitting at home watching Marv call the final 4 with the same old teams driving the ad revenue.

[BorisDK1]

In other words, owning an NBA franchise is still an extremely viable investment.

Obviously you failed to understand what I wrote. The NBA is not a viable investment in the long-term if it's not generating positive cash. Eventually those losses are going to catch up with it:

I think it's entirely too common for people to point to capital gains on resale of franchises and assume that the league is profitable; I think this is an obvious error. I think it's also foolhardy to project the same trend forward while the league is hemorrhaging cash: eventually those cash losses are going to catch up with franchise "values", and NBA franchises will be found to be no less of a bubble than various housing markets that were way overvalued. Just in order to protect the "values" of these franchises, I believe it's crucial for the league as a whole to turn yearly profit and a good CBA is obviously crucial to realizing that. We don't want franchises going bankrupt when their market values crash. I do think that if cash losses continue the way they are that it's only a matter of time for that to happen.

[knickerbocker2k2]

If the league is not profitable now, than it never was. You have record revenues and players share of revenue is at a fixed and reasonable level.

Interesting article by Jason Whitlock with few Raptor connections..http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Whitlock-NBA-lockout-David-Stern-has-Derek-Fisher-in-back-pocket-Billy-Hunter-players-union-not-pleased-102811

This is fact: The belief that NBA Players Association president Derek Fisher has been co-opted by commissioner David Stern — and promised the commish he could deliver the union at 50-50 — caused NBPA executive director Billy Hunter and at least one member of the union’s executive committee to confront Fisher on Friday morning and make him reassess his 50-50 push, a source familiar with the negotiations told FOXSports.com Friday afternoon.

A veteran NBA player familiar with the negotiations characterized the concerns about Fisher’s allegiance as similar to the concerns about Michael Curry in 2005, the year of the league’s last collective-bargaining agreement.

According to my source, at least one five-time champion, NBA superstar with the initials K.B. was on board with Fisher’s push for a 50-50 split. Hunter is firm that the players should not accept less than 52-48. According to my source, Hunter and a member of the executive committee convinced Fisher to stand firm at 52-48 after they questioned the Lakers point guard about his relationship with Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver.

[floppymoose]

How do you know the league is profitable? ebitda data is NOT net profit.

Team sale price, for one.

Some people just have an intense desire to blame the owners in any labor dispute. It's an emotional issue for some.

Really? Have you checked out the comments sections on news stories about the lockout?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-nbalabor