Who do you support?

[Fairview4Life]

That's great about record revenues but that doesn't equal profit. You still have to minus the expenses incurred plus other taxes on that revenue. The owners have lost over 300 million dollars in each of the last 3 years. What happened 3 years ago ya the huge global recession.

The owners said they lost 300 million over the last three years. That's a pile of nonsense.

That said, no, record revenues doesn't equal record profits. But the % of those revenues going to the players has remained constant. We're left with non player salary expenses. Are you really going to argue that the recession caused non player salary expenses to go through the roof?

I think you need to re-research this topic. The owners said, accurately it appears, that some of the owners (22?) lost $300million.

Here is another saying $300 from 22 teams: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/01/WP-After-Talks-Fail-NBA-Lockout-Begins.aspx#page1

Here is one report saying $450m http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/03/lockout-math-nbas-losses-at-heart-of-talks/

Secondly, isn't a large part of this negotiation about competitive balance? A more competitive league would depend on (at least):
- A more even distribution of stars (i.e. no more 3 amigos in Miami)
- All teams spending being roughly equal amounts of players (so that the smallest market can compete)
- Less player say in location

I believe from the latest reports, these are the issues that the parties are far apart on. If the owners truly are focused on these two sets of issues, I am wholly in their camp.

I know what the owners are saying. I just don't particularly care. Mark Cuban "lost" money this year. he doesn't care. Why should we? Why should the players? Most owners get a ton of ancillary benefits and profit from owning businesses near the arena, or other non BRI profits that don't show up on the audited books. Ratner when he owned NJ, for example, made billions (or will be soon) off of the Atlantic Yards project, despite "losing" millions on the Nets. They are also able to funnel profits around to their various owned companies in order to maximize their tax savings. Orlando also put a zamboni on the Magic's books. Clearly that's the tip of the ice berg. The audited financials are fine for GAAP purposes, but utterly irrelevant when we're talking actual profit and loss.

[Coach Smiley]

it's not the players fault that the owners don't know how to make money off of a billion dollar industry, the owners are asking for protection from their own stupid decisions

[Laowai]

MLSE for all its warts is a model of what a NBA should ideally be on a financial footing.
1. They own the building in which they play and didn't get public funding.
2. They have never went into the luxury cap
3. They have treated the players fairly in negotiations ( maybe to fairly)
4. They have turned a profit for both the teachers and Larry.

Yes they haven't been successful in winning but again that has a lot to do with the over spenders like Boston, Orlando, LAL, Dallas, NYKs, Miami & Portland, I fiscally fair environment the Raptors will be a extremely solid elite team in 3 years.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Why does there always need to be a "right and wrong". Old deal is up. So two sides need to agree on a new deal. So far they haven't. Neither should be expected to sign a long term deal they don't agree with. You can call them greedy, but the longer they wait, they lose some too. Now who you side with, I side with the owners, because I think the sooner the players read the writing on the wall we'll be back to basketball. It's not about right and wrong to me. I love the game, and I want to watch the game.
It takes two sides to make the deal. I just think it's easier for 30 billionaires, to wait out 400 millionaires. And personally, some of the changes the owners want to make to the system, i'd like to see them make. As much as you think owners don't give a crap about fans, it's the owners who have the interest to ensure they can put out a product to satisfy their fans, long term. The Players only invested as long as he's in the league, owners will be the ones stuck with it long term. It's exactly why the agents care so much, to them, this affects their future commissions on future clients.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

it's not the players fault that the owners don't know how to make money off of a billion dollar industry, the owners are asking for protection from their own stupid decisions

Easy to point the finger. How many agents would have had their players take less than the market dictated or sign a non guaranteed deal? I don't recall how many agents and players were applauding the Clippers for their frugality. When I take a piece of crap back to the store, I understand I may not get my money back, but I expect that the store has the humility not to laugh in my face for my patronage.

Any owner would have loved to sign a short term non guaranteed deal for less, would the players and agents have signed it? Do they not see that owners are competitive and are trying to win? Just because and argument feels good off the tongue, doesn't make it a good one.

I wonder if all the owners got together and said, okay, none of us offer guaranteed deals, or deals longer than three years, how long it would take agents to file a collusion charge. They play this game of exploit the system, and then blame the owners, and have the nerve to call Stern the bully?

[Geddy]

greedy billionaires vs greedy millionaires...


I think I would tend to side with players a little more than the owners, but both are at fault.

[The_NeX]

Why does there always need to be a "right and wrong". Old deal is up. .

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

[The_NeX]

it's not the players fault that the owners don't know how to make money off of a billion dollar industry, the owners are asking for protection from their own stupid decisions

Easy to point the finger. How many agents would have had their players take less than the market dictated or sign a non guaranteed deal? I don't recall how many agents and players were applauding the Clippers for their frugality. When I take a piece of crap back to the store, I understand I may not get my money back, but I expect that the store has the humility not to laugh in my face for my patronage.

Any owner would have loved to sign a short term non guaranteed deal for less, would the players and agents have signed it? Do they not see that owners are competitive and are trying to win? Just because and argument feels good off the tongue, doesn't make it a good one.

I wonder if all the owners got together and said, okay, none of us offer guaranteed deals, or deals longer than three years, how long it would take agents to file a collusion charge. They play this game of exploit the system, and then blame the owners, and have the nerve to call Stern the bully?

Are you for real ? Why should anyone ask for less than what the market is offering him ? Might be im not understanding you, but i can't see how this make sense.

[DreamTeam09]

I'm with a few ppl. I'm not with the players for many reasons, so I guess that would make me with the owners. But some owners lose money for making dumb mistakes, and thats no1s fault but the owner. At the sametimes there can't be 22 stupid owners. If you run a corp, and although your employees are getting fed, and the business looks good as a whole, but a lot of your individual assets or small deals / businesses are losing money, tanking badly, i'd try and work out a new deal too. The main reasons i'm with the owners are because I wanna see a better league. A more even based league. Thats the only the Toronto Raptors will ever win the championship. Why can't the players take a smaller peiece of the pie, but then grow the pie? And its way easier for the players to grow the game than anything else, a better tv deal needs to happen, theres endless of online revenue out their, not to mention merchandise, ect ect ect. So I unno, f*&# Lebron tho....

[Tenacious_C]

Why does there always need to be a "right and wrong". Old deal is up. .

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

This is how negotiation works and the players want to maintain the status quo. This tells me that they know that the previous CBA was a gravy train.

I think the owners are prepared to lose a season if it changes the current formula, because small market teams (along with Canadian teams) can't survive on the current model.

[I_Like_Dirt]

And personally, some of the changes the owners want to make to the system, i'd like to see them make. As much as you think owners don't give a crap about fans, it's the owners who have the interest to ensure they can put out a product to satisfy their fans, long term. The Players only invested as long as he's in the league, owners will be the ones stuck with it long term. It's exactly why the agents care so much, to them, this affects their future commissions on future clients.

What changes that the owners want to make do you want to see made, and what result do you think they will have?

The owners are clearly not out for huge changes here. Honestly, it's in the owners' interests to at least maintain some of the semblance of the status quo regarding the standnigs. It isn't in their interest to have some bottom feeders always bottom feeding - they probably want more teams winning 35-40 games, but it's still in their interest for teams like the Lakers and Bulls and Knicks to win more than the other teams because that's where the major revenue is, just like with baseball.

The owners aren't out to stop the Lakers from winning more often than other teams, they're out to set up a system whereby owners of other teams that don't win as much also make a profit. Many of those owners want to make money more than they want to win. What the owners are proposing is that the small market teams make lots of money, the rich teams make even more money, and the players make less money. If all the teams were truly equally competitive, the money they'd be sharing would be less. Make no mistake, there will still be Donald Sterlings and George Shinns and Herb Kohls and even MLSEs out there using their teams as investment funds or their own private banks.

If the owners were just out to increase parity, all they need to do is change the rules slightly so as not to benefit superstars so much. Presto, not so much parity and teams without stars can compete a lot easier. They don't even need a new CBA to do it. They could do it at any time. They don't. Clearly the owners aren't out for parity here.

[Fairview4Life]

Why does there always need to be a "right and wrong". Old deal is up. .

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

This is how negotiation works and the players want to maintain the status quo. This tells me that they know that the previous CBA was a gravy train.

I think the owners are prepared to lose a season if it changes the current formula, because small market teams (along with Canadian teams) can't survive on the current model.

Why can't the Raptors survive? Haven't they been making a considerable amount of money?

[The_NeX]

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

This is how negotiation works and the players want to maintain the status quo. This tells me that they know that the previous CBA was a gravy train.

I think the owners are prepared to lose a season if it changes the current formula, because small market teams (along with Canadian teams) can't survive on the current model.

So hypothetically, i'm your boss and your contract is up. Next day i come to you with a new contract which im the only beneficiary and say "sign or bye".

Thats negotiation for you ?

[Indeed]

Neither deserves more.

Will it be a better league if we reward the players? No
Will it be a better league if we reward the owners? No

Giving more to the owners, will they do something good to the game? No
Giving more to the players, will they do something good to the game? Maybe

Giving more to the players, will it be a fair league? No
Giving more to the owners, will it be a fair league? Maybe

Did the players step back to make the deal? Yes, BRI from 57% to 53%
Did the owners step back to make the deal? No

[DreamTeam09]

^^ Putting themselves in a position to make more of a profit, will put them in a position to have a better team. It is in their best interest to try and put the best product on the court because they know thats where the money is. Miami was horrible 2,3,4 yrs ago. Last yr they got some big names and their stock instantly doubled over night. The NBA would have no problems if the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, were 7th 8th or 9th seed yr in yr out.

[Reignman]

I know what the owners are saying. I just don't particularly care. Mark Cuban "lost" money this year. he doesn't care. Why should we? Why should the players? Most owners get a ton of ancillary benefits and profit from owning businesses near the arena, or other non BRI profits that don't show up on the audited books. Ratner when he owned NJ, for example, made billions (or will be soon) off of the Atlantic Yards project, despite "losing" millions on the Nets. They are also able to funnel profits around to their various owned companies in order to maximize their tax savings. Orlando also put a zamboni on the Magic's books. Clearly that's the tip of the ice berg. The audited financials are fine for GAAP purposes, but utterly irrelevant when we're talking actual profit and loss.

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do. Maybe we should bring player endorsements into the conversation then? Of course not, it would be stupid.

Fact of the matter is the owners are losing money on their primary investment (the team) and they do their accounting using GAAP, the same principles the Union accountants used to say the owners numbers are accurate.

Anyway, glad to hear the owners are still going after a hard cap (in an indirect way). The 4 to 1 lux tax, the loss of bird rights for tax teams, the 3 mil / 2 years MLE and only allowing teams to go in the tax 2 out of every 5 years would really level the playing field.

It worked in the NFL, it worked for the NHL and it'll work for the NBA>

[vini_vidi_vici]

I wish I could vote neither.

I dont understand the argument that the NBA players are employees, I look at them as the product. Im not there to see the millions of dollars they spent over the season for between break in play/halftime shows. Im not there for the 10 dollar beers, or the overpriced trinkets. I came to watch Demar Derozan. If the drew league or any of the other leagues were here id go watch, because of the skill level of the players involved, I even attend some canadian school games HS/UNI.

This notion that they allowed the contracts to skyrocket, by a true employee on the team (GMs/Management) for whatever reason, and then chastisize the player for getting the most for themselves is crazy. And I want to say again, the hard cap doesnt ensure parity, it ensures the owners make more. People resent the Heat, in the end they all took less to make it happen, why is that a sign of players greed? because they are greedy for winning? I hate them for much different reasons. So the owner wants to win, and that justifies all stupid contracts? Man I cheer for the Red Sox (Top 2 league payroll) with no salary cap, they cant spend enough to fix that rotation, yet Tampa (Bottom 2 league payroll) will let go of David Price possibly, and replace him with Matt Moore and still be better, its about great decisions.

In the end its the ticket prices that go up, the concessions will go up, parking, etc.. and yet these poor billionaires everyone sides with, will directly take more of your money while you resent the product for trying to be paid. Enough of the NFL structure, 16 games, less playoff teams (1 and done format), etc.. Teams are failing because theres too many teams, and not enough markets to sustain them, like Hockey, like Baseball. Whos fault is that? again its these owners for taking these franchise fees in dilluting the game. You loved Stern then, now you have a league run hornets, and numerous other teams that only get attendance when they are good, if at all. Sorry im tired, if it didnt make much sense, happy thanksgiving all.

[Tenacious_C]

Because there is a wrong. Owners are saying "you don't get to play, receive your money, unless you accept our conditions".

Edit : spelling xD

This is how negotiation works and the players want to maintain the status quo. This tells me that they know that the previous CBA was a gravy train.

I think the owners are prepared to lose a season if it changes the current formula, because small market teams (along with Canadian teams) can't survive on the current model.

So hypothetically, i'm your boss and your contract is up. Next day i come to you with a new contract which im the only beneficiary and say "sign or bye".

Thats negotiation for you ?

If you were my Boss and I was earning more than half the business related income without any expenses, I would try and walk all over you to get more.

[Reignman]

I wish I could vote neither.

I dont understand the argument that the NBA players are employees, I look at them as the product. Im not there to see the millions of dollars they spent over the season for between break in play/halftime shows. Im not there for the 10 dollar beers, or the overpriced trinkets. I came to watch Demar Derozan. If the drew league or any of the other leagues were here id go watch, because of the skill level of the players involved, I even attend some canadian school games HS/UNI.

This notion that they allowed the contracts to skyrocket, by a true employee on the team (GMs/Management) for whatever reason, and then chastisize the player for getting the most for themselves is crazy. And I want to say again, the hard cap doesnt ensure parity, it ensures the owners make more. People resent the Heat, in the end they all took less to make it happen, why is that a sign of players greed? because they are greedy for winning? I hate them for much different reasons. So the owner wants to win, and that justifies all stupid contracts? Man I cheer for the Red Sox (Top 2 league payroll) with no salary cap, they cant spend enough to fix that rotation, yet Tampa (Bottom 2 league payroll) will let go of David Price possibly, and replace him with Matt Moore and still be better, its about great decisions.

In the end its the ticket prices that go up, the concessions will go up, parking, etc.. and yet these poor billionaires everyone sides with, will directly take more of your money while you resent the product for trying to be paid. Enough of the NFL structure, 16 games, less playoff teams (1 and done format), etc.. Teams are failing because theres too many teams, and not enough markets to sustain them, like Hockey, like Baseball. Whos fault is that? again its these owners for taking these franchise fees in dilluting the game. You loved Stern then, now you have a league run hornets, and numerous other teams that only get attendance when they are good, if at all. Sorry im tired, if it didnt make much sense, happy thanksgiving all.

A hard cap doesn't guarantee parity but it'll be a hell of a lot better than the current system.

[Fairview4Life]

Why do you keep bringing up side projects? These guys are businessmen, that's what they do.

I bring it up because they are making a lot of money due in part to their basketball teams existing. So when they say they are losing $300 million/year, and MLSE is making a mint on condos situated near the ACC, or Prokharov is into Atlantic Yards for 20%, I'm not sure why we should take them all that seriously. In addition, the fact that different owners have different goals is a big deal. Mark Cuban is one of the owners losing money, and he doesn't care. But he`s part of the $300 million/22 teams. There's a disconnect there.