NBA Lockout: NBA, NBPA Reportedly Making Progress On Agreement After All
by Mike Prada on Oct 4, 2011 9:32 PM EDT
in Links
Email
PrintKen Berger of CBS Sports has been on top of the NBA lockout all summer and fall, so when he writes something like this, it holds a lot of weight with me:
There were no fireworks, no tantrums and no tirades. There was all the resignation and disappointment of doomsday, but none of the reality.
The reality is that the NBA owners and players, after showing most of their cards Tuesday in a bargaining session that failed to save an on-time start to the regular season, are approximately $80 million-a-year apart on the economics of a new collective bargaining agreement, multiple sources with knowledge of the negotiations told CBSSports.com.
Berger has more on how exactly that may have happened. According to his report, a small group of the top decision-makers, which included David Stern, Adam Silver, Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Peter Holt and Union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, met separately. In that group, the league threw out an offer (of sorts) that guaranteed the players 49 percent of Basketball-Related Income with a cap of 51 percent. As the league was trying to selling that offer (or "proposal," since it wasn't formal) to the owners, the players came back with a counterproposal of 51 percent BRI and a 53 percent cap. That's a lot closer than 47 percent and 53 percent.
This is the thing Stern was referring to when he mentioned in his press conference (aired on NBATV) that the league offered the players 50 percent of BRI. Granted, presenting that like it was a formal offer is pretty disingenuous because it makes the players look bad, but it wasn't from out of nowhere. Stern later referred to it as a "concept," which is probably more accurate.
Before we get too carried away, remember that eventually, the "concept" must become an "offer," the "offer" must be sold to the constituents and the constituents must vote. There's a lot still left. Nevertheless, it appears, despite the rhetoric, that there's legitimate progress being made. Sure, no meetings are scheduled, but with the owners publicly expressing a desire to meet and the players reportedly willing to as well, maybe this thing actually will get solved.
80 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don't play with my emotions Smokey!!!
There’s principalities to this whole thing.
by DavidDunn on Oct 4, 2011 9:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
In other words, please don't tease us.
Those Wall vids already have me on edge. And now there may actually be a season? They better not be playing games.
by DavidDunn on Oct 4, 2011 9:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I guess there is progress in every meeting,
and we are getting entertained with our emotions going back and forth after every move.
But 80 million is still 80 million assuming all concessions are made. And theoretically, everything that has been discussed has been a concept..
This deal is starting to be watered down from an owners perspective so I dunno and I don’t think they all can be as easily swayed to follow what Stern is negotiating. After all, the new owners want a deal that will address their immediate concerns too.
i thought stern said yesterday there would still be guaranteed contracts
and no rollback of existing salaries, and no hard cap…..so is bri split the only issue stopping a deal? He keeps saying there are so many other issues to decide, but it sounds like if bri is agreed to they can get a deal done
On to Yom Kippur...
The timing of the Day of Atonement could not have been better.
A piece from Henry Abbot at True Hoop- Rank and File Left Out (IMO)
“And here’s another wrinkle: Two sources in the room agree that the particular players present Tuesday (the list includes Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Theo Ratliff, Maurice Evans, Matt Bonner, Roger Mason Jr., etc.) were particularly strident, more strident than the average player.
Garnett, in particular, has been mentioned as among the uncompromising.
And these are the players who did not play ball with the NBA’s offer.
In other words, maybe if the rank-and-file of the players’ union were to fully understand the NBA’s best offer, the mood would shift."
Funny how Stern and Silver spun that at the news conference
Repeatedly saying he had the owners agreeing to a 50/50 split but the the players came back and said “No deal.” When questioned he would admit the owners hadnt agreed to 50/50, but then said if he and Silver were trying to sell something it would get done. Not once did he mention the players came back with a different proposal just that they ended the talks.
Garnett, in particular, has been mentioned as among the uncompromising.
Please don’t go all ‘attitude’ here mr. Garnet & friends. Please! This ain’t about you. Get ego’s out of the way and just be rational.
You know you have the deep pockets to sit out a season or the rest of your life, without working 1 minute ever again, for that matter. That isn’t the case for the majority of the players. Please don’t let ‘yo ego’ ruin 30% of someone else’s career earnings (or worse…).
You also know that onces paychecks are missed the owners are going to give you an even worse offer and the longer it takes, the worse the offer gets.
Please be rational about this!
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
Garnet probably has about $200million in his bank account
It’s easy for him to say “Don’t give up anything.”
But don't forget
Garnett was made into one of the villains of the ‘99 Lockout because of the big contract he got in Minnesota. Admittedly, I don’t remember all that much about the ‘99 lockout, so I don’t want to stick my foot too far up my mouth, but I think there could definitely be something to Garnett trying to repair his lockout negotiation image.
Bullets Forever: Waiting for the Fat Lady to sing since 2006. | @jakewhitacre
by Jake Whitacre on Oct 5, 2011 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
i thought the same thing when seeing KG was involved
owners need to hire Ben Wallace on their side, then Garnet wont utter a word
Question for Billy Hunter: Why would you bring an uncompromising individual like Kevin Garnett to a Negotiation Table?
When he’s not willing to compromise. How many on the executive committee did Garnett convince to not compromise? We may never know.
Time for Mr. Hunter to retire and let someone competent play with the big boys now.
I doubt Garnett's ego or greed had anything to do with his stance.
All the big names were brought in as a show of force by the union: they all sang the same song.
Let’s face it, the average Joes will want to (and have probably already wanted to) cave before they miss a paycheck.
Shouldn't the show of force have been done in July?
At the most crucial time of negotiations you then decide to bring in the Superstars, who have not been part of the process and discussions, into the equation.
Thus, you get a screaming match with Dwade, You have another player who decides, and let’s it be shown, KG, that he ain’t giving anything back. UNCOMPROMISING.
IT’S OCTOBER. No more time to show a “FORCE.”
That’s not going to get you on the court.
We don’t have a deal this week because the Players side decided to add new people into the dynamics. That’s my take in it.
So if there are games missed, you can thank Dwade and Kobe and KG for showing up at the last minute to screw things up. I’m glad their schedule opened up so they could grace the negotiations with their presence. Do they have a halo on their head?
If they wanted to be part of the process then they should have been active from the beginning like Chris Paul.
At this exact point in the NFL vs NFLPA where games are about to be missed
Demaurice Smith and Roger Goodell kept the exact same dynamics in place. They added no new players to the negotiations. The NFLPA Executive Committee did not change. They did not bring in Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson to join them at the last minute. They kept them out. They had enough problems just dealing with each others small team.
What does Billy Hunter do?
He makes it a circus. Ooh- KG’s here. Ooh- Kobe’s here. Please join us in the executive committe meetings. Really? You are about to lose games.
Yes, KG please make it be known to everyone that you are not willing to compromise. Yes, Dwayne, please have a shouting match with the Commissioner.
The NFLPA is probably laughing at the NBPA right about now. They just don’t get it.
If I were the commish and I wanted a deal done.
I’ll play the hard-ass card and make good on it.
You can either get a handshake deal done by this Friday, October 7 at 12 NOON and ZERO seconds, not a nanosecond more, or I’m canceling the season. I know the union will think I am posturing, but Charles Barkley said on NBA TV that the players are thinking that they can still try to hold off until January and they should not assume that or anything really. If a handshake deal isn’t done by then, or if the handshake is done one second too late on my watch, I cancel the season regardless and I don’t reverse that decision.
Yes, it’s not the best way to do business, but it is a way to show that I’m not joking.
Cut off their nose to spite their face?
Cancelling the season hits the owners hard too right?
its down to 80 mil
spread over 10 years. So what to do with that 8 mil a year.
by hambonejackson on Oct 5, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
so the owners have backed off the hard cap, non-guaranteed deals
and a roll back on existing salaries?? That would appear as if the writer who suggested having the league’s elite staring them in the face would cause the owners to back down. Nice work Big Ticket?
The owners budged on a lot of demands. What did the players do?
They moved on only 1 issue…. a 4% move. THAT’S IT.
My anger is towards the players if there ain’t a season. If there are rs games canceled, I would want the owners to push for a hard cap, non garuanteed contracts and all the other points that improve parity.
The players had their chance to get out of this with just a little scar. They’re about to blow it.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 5, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Dutch, I think you and I have both leaned toward the owners side
but with the owners essentially giving them the same system as before though with some tougher rules. I don’t think that system will make it any easier for us to compete to be honest.
I have been fully for the players on revenue sharing and not by rolling back salaries of current contracts drastically at least, but demanding the BRI AND the team cap AND all the exceptions to go their way plus the lack of a Gilbert Arenas rule is ridiculous.
I'm not for the owners or the players persé. I'm for good sports
I want continuity and a good competative balance. The owners demands are very much in line with that. In addition I would like to see more revenue sharing too and I think it would be unfair to not payout money already commited to players.
I can understand though why players go the distance to keep as much as possible. I think I would do the same in their position.
But even when they won and got it their way on allmost all points, the last % is still unacceptable to them. Thats just asking for to much. Its rediculous and greedy.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 5, 2011 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
How do the players win?
they are the ones who are negotiating for less money. The owners should be perfectly happy with sharing a few percentage points off the players share of the BRI. What this is about is a group of greedy owners, especially the new ones who are trying to extract as much value on their investment as they can. Its about investment returns; distributions to investors, depending on how they set up their company and tax considerations. They are not thinking about parity or basketball.
Whats the 1st thing a corporate raider does? Extract concessions from the Union. This immediately raises the value of the company. Most likely there is a whole group of investors involved in buying a team. Many of them are just in it for the quick profit. They have shares, their shares rise, they receive distributions and then sell. Quick money. You might say the owner is in it for the long haul, but he is dragging along with him a group of investors who are it for the quick profit.
Now, there are the owners who long ago got what they wanted and are simply profiting off the team and rising equity. They are more than happy to sit back and wait while the new corporate raiders attempt to loot the Union, but they still profit off the team playing basketball. They are now stepping in. They figure the raiders got as much as they are going to get from the Union. Stern is starting to think about their own interests in basketball, and its about time.
by hambonejackson on Oct 5, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
If the owners are telling the truth
why have they so easily dropped demands of a hard cap, non-guaranteed salaries, and all the rest? From what they claimed previously, without those things the league would basically die at some point. Yet just like that they are willing to do a 10yr deal that only changes the split?
Maybe they are full of shit and the entire fiasco was just a way to lower the players side of the split just as the league heads toward unprecedented profits? Just seems very odd that their life-and-death demands went away so easily
You can believe one of the these things or more
1. Perhaps the NBA anticipates that the revenues will soon go up to a point where they can retain much of the current system, and the league will be profitable, but only if the current system has more defined limits, and right now, there are none.
2. They could be bluffing, knowing that the players wouldn’t accept any deal without certain measures and the NBA knows what the measures are. After all, the owners are the ones who end the lockout, so after real money is lost, they can start hardening again.
80 mil for the 1st year
2 percentage points. If it doesn’t come from the players then it needs to come from revenue sharing, and that’s the battle Stern doesn’t want to fight.
yes. sometimes, as the custodian of a league, you have to make the hard move and teach everyone a lesson about bickering.
I’d do it. It’ll cost me my job, but I’ll do it. In my departure address, I will say that the failure of both the owners and the players union caused this to happen, and no one is to blame but themselves. Since I am the commish and was part of this, I will resign immediately.
that ship done sailed
The owners already blinked by giving up on demands they had illustrated as necessary for the league to survive….a threat to cancel the season now would be pretty empty, they wont do it.
Why not? Because they are making plenty of money and would lose money for real by cancelling the season. This whole thing is just to claw some money back to their side, money that’s not actually necessary for the league as a whole to prosper.
They are employers looking to increase their own profits by cutting their employees’ salaries- that’s it. IMHO anyway
I think the owners blinked more or less too.
now they want to play hardball because they probably thought that they gave too much. At least the NHL owners remained firm on the hard cap and got it. Flip flopping can only make the next CBA even nastier, but if there’s gonna be a nasty labor dispute, this might as well be the one because I don’t want a lockout after every CBA now.
My problem
is to understand hw Stern can make demands from the Union when they are willing to make concessions. Where is the problem? Apparently he wants to gut the whole Union. Wasn’t it enough they are willing to negotiate? I should think discussing the BRI is easy. Yet, it as hard as he could and what does he end up with? I spent months shaving 1% off the BRI. If that is what he did. I think Stern spent a lot of months doing nothing and I think there is a lot of owners who are angry at him.
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 5:05 AM EDT up reply actions
The owners offered 50-50 split of the CURRENT BRI and the players refused
This is from Fisher’s and Hunter’s latest letter to the players:
As the day progressed, no further formal proposals were made. We held several small group sessions, in which we each explored different scenarios that we thought our respective sides might consider. During those talks, the owners suggested that they might consider a BRI split likely to yield the players 50 percent of current BRI. After seriously considering whether we should proceed down this path, our group determined not to do so. Recognizing all the owners’ arguments about the state of the business and the condition of the economy, in our view, the owners can and should share more of the record revenues our players generate. Reducing our share of BRI by seven points to 50 percent – a level we have not received since the early 1990s – is simply not a fair split. We refused to back down. As we have done since the beginning, we again indicated a willingness to compromise, and asked the owners to do the same. They refused.
So, there you have it. The players don’t think a 50-50 split is fair. Even after getting it their way in terms of keeping the old soft cap system and benefits like the MLE and garuanteed contracts.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 5:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 5:54 AM EDT up reply actions
You mean the Union is negotiating?
Why shouldn’t the Union ask for 68%? How much more unreasonable is that than Stern asking for 46%? The owners are now offering 51%. I am sorry if the players are trying to retain as much of their salary as they can. Its the owners who are asking for concessions and the players are giving it to them. I realize we can’t watch basketball yet, but blame Stern. He is the one who asked for radical changes in the split. If he had offered 50 % from day 1, this whole thing would be over.
I think Stern expected some sort of disunion among the Union, but that didn’t happen. In fact, I think the agents helped the union to stay united in that they helped their players get jobs and stay busy and sent Bryant overseas.
Strangely, Kobe awoke to the sound of Italian voices outside a room he doesn’t remember falling asleep in.
I also think things like removing the MLE were simply attempts to split the Union. Docking 29 players 2 mil is hardly saving the owners a lot of money. Lets get the 5.5 mil guy. He is ruining cap structure.
We can argue until forever on NBA profits, I say there is ample evidence that the NBA is doing very well. Note the record amounts of income split between the players and owners. I could throw in Sterns record pay .Why doesn’t he take a salary rollback? Oh ya, he did. At least until he completes the deal and then we will see how much he makes.
The cap is a more esoteric issue. There is, for instance, the thought the cap forces salaries up for players like Lewis because it forces down salaries for players like Howard. James leaving Cleveland reduced the value of that franchise by 30% and raised the value of the Miami franchise by 17%. So, should James get paid more? Technically yes. if you raised net revenues for your bosses company a substantial amount but Joe Blow behind you ends making more money than you because of caps in your salary, you wouldn’t feel that is very fair.
But, my argument is the Heat case. I can think of 4 players on the Heat that make less than they could because they don’t need the money. How is a cap going to stop that? It can’t, unless the league imposes players to take more money.
My real argument is that parity is a myth. If a team drafts a Jordan, Oneal, Jabbar, where is the parity? Then there is the ,why can’t a team sign a Howard for 15 years if parity is what the league wants? As I don’t see anyone pushing that issue then parity is not what they want. Real parity is to allow team to spend as much as they want to achieve a title. There is no guarantee that a team that signs star players will win anything. Its better to have 6 teams with star players competing against an Oneal.
The only way to help small market teams is through revenue sharing and there would be more of that if large market teams were not so hamstrung by a cap. Its the nature of the business and they should be maximizing their markets instead of suppressing them. Does it really make sense to force the Knicks not to be a good team? The largest market in the US. How does that help small market teams? Lets make LA a lousy team so that big market Sacramento is not so bad. So revenues go down and not so bad Sacramento gets less money because LA sucks. Better to have a super star LA traveling around and filling up someones arena. Thats part of my case against salary caps.
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
15 yr contracts?!
That’s going to criple teams even more… Rebuilding would be imposible while the rich teams can just work around their mistakes by spending even more money.
Look, I agree that a hardcap isnt the holy grale either but that doest mean we therefore should be blowing the cap off completely. That makes things even worse.
To an extend we just have to accept that the big markets will always have a natural advandtage. To keep the sport worth watching their should be rules that favor smaller market teams in order to keep them competative. Otherwise we could just contract all but 6 teams and play a 1 month rs and 1month playoffs series. Nobody will watch anymore. Yeee!
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think a 15 year contract is crippling
Its really for 1 player like a Wall. Your franchise player. Thats what the Capitals did with Ovechkin. Now they don’t have to worry about going through a series of negotiations with him They can focus on other players. If 3 years is the rule, then how many times will the Wiz have to negotiate with Wall?
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
That's 7% decrease for the players right?
Why should they accept that? Because the owners CLAIM they are losing money but refuse to open their books? Why did the owners back off hard cap and guaranteed contracts so easily after making the case they were necessary changes needed for the league to be healthy? Could it be the truth is that stuff was standard negotaiting tactic, ask and demand for way more than you expect or even need then “compromise” to get what you really wanted from the beginning- smaller split for players.
The league has record profits and viewership and the owners say they have to cut player salaries but wont open their books….if you were the player’s rep, would you advise them to just trust the owners are being truthful?
The owners
1. know revenues will increase, and hope that the increase will be above cost raises.
2. know in six years, the new contracts will be in effect for almost all players, so that would be a better determining factor to see where we stand.
3. many want to start the season as quickly as the players do. Obviously guys like Sarver, Gilbert, Kroenke, MJ and our buddy Ted will be adamantly against these concessions but if the system does curb big spending by the Lakers, it may allay their fears.
My thoughts on Ted
For Ted, it seems that he wants to accelerate our rebuild, albeit methodically at all costs, which is what we want too as fans. He also wants to be profitable, which we can’t blame him for.
According to many sources, the Caps have been bleeding cash, though Ted has said “we’re doing just fine as a standalone team.” Maybe the Caps were really bleeding cash as a standalone team, but he already was a big minority partner with Mr. Pollin too, so his group was getting the revenues from suites, etc. in the Verizon Center anyway. Even then, Ted knows that the Wizards’ reputation as an NBA team is not that good, and without fundamental changes in the system, there is still a large likelihood that it will fail, and Ted will look like a complete doofus should we fail to reach at least Round 2 of the playoffs in any single year of the Wall era. I would think that he is against every single concession Stern made to soften the cap, though I think Ted is not too pissed on economics/BRI splits.
Pollin was a detriment to the Caps, treated them like an outsider
Its well documented that when Pollin sold the caps to Ted that he made life hell for Ted with regards to the Verizon Center with scheduling and what not.
Ted remaimed a gentleman and worked around Pollin and the Wizards.
by jmpalomo on Oct 6, 2011 11:20 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Funny thing about the Caps is that
Abe was still the owner when they went to the STanley Cup Finals I believe.
I guess the Caps’ woes came from the fact that Ted was being tested as eventual Wizards successor. But then again, Ted owned a big chunk of the Wizards too for 11-12 years so he knew our strengths and weaknesses. Ted has remained a gentleman through it all regardless by letting Mr. Pollin do the talking.
Lucky Leonsis
I take over the Caps and there is Ovechkin. I take over the Wizards and wow, there is Wall. Poor Pollin, he gets Kwame Brown.
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Why do the Wizards need "fundamental changes to the system"?
We got John Wall. If he is the best PG in the nba 2yrs from now, the organization should be able to (under current system) put needed talent around him for us to be a legit contender. Hell, ted is not even at the current CAP, why does he need more help than having the #1 pick in the draft?
Ernie re-signed Dray, drooled over Jan for 2yrs and drafted him, might sign Nick to a 5yr deal, and MIGHT extend Javale after next year. If that’s what happens and it doesnt pan out, it’s because Ernie is not good enough not because the system is stacked against us right?
If this all happens and our rebuild fails, it certainly is Ernie's responsibility.
He built this team, he knew the rules, he makes the moves available to him.
As for the system, it depends on who’s spending the most and making the biggest splashes to help the team positively. If it’s the Lakers and Knicks and Nets spending like crazy and they still grab good FA’s/robbery trades in the 1st and 2nd tier, and we can’t get them even by going to luxury tax levels, then the system is broken and pitted against us.
The Wizards are a team that stands to benefit from a hard cap. Same with Oklahoma, but Bennett will have to vote with the commish, if Stern is okay with this modified current system that was semi-proposed, since after all Stern did him a big favor by covering up collusion regarding the Supersonics and Storm basketball teams.
A hard cap won't benefit teams like the Wizards in OKC
Once all our young talent’s rookie contracts expire, due to a harp cap, we’re probaly not going to be able to resign some of them due to the harp cap. Same goes for OKC and other teams that are trying to rebuild and acquire assets. Just look at what happened to the Blackhawks in the NHL. Why should teams be punished for building a good roster the “right way?”
But all this is moot since the owners have already thrown the idea of a hard cap out the window. The main thing they’re trying to figure out is BRI.
Formerly know as iNFamous SWaGG
I think if the owners are doing the harder but not hard cap
then they’re doing the quick fix and closing in on the kill next time. But I think that if a lockout has to be nasty, this has to be the one.
@DCrez
Fisher himself said that the owners and players do not dissagree about wether the league is losing money. They differ about the ‘extend’ of the losses because they dissagree about particular costs factored in.
Also, we as fans dont have the books but the NBPA does. Again they admit the league is losing money but they feel the accounting tricks are exagarating it.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't control the color scheme
I guess I could ask someone about it – maybe once the season begins.
Meanwhile... That's GEE as in GDYNIA
Poland’s Euroleage squad, Asecco Prokom Gdynia just took a heartbreaking road Polish League loss, 79-78…
Gdynia had made up a ten point deficit in the last two minutes… Donatus Montejunas, hit a crucial 3-ball to tie it at 78 with less than 4 seconds left .. Off the inbounds from half-court following a timeout, however, the referee called a touch foul on an astounded Alonzo Gee, who had otherwise played a fine game.
Gdynia has some interesting players. In addition to Montejunas (who has an extremely nice three point touch for a big guy) and Gee, they feature Devin Brown at SF and Jerel Blassingame at PG.
so lets break this down for those very knowledgable about this.
1. Owners have said no roll back of current salaries and No hard Cap Correct.
2. Owners gonna let the Players have the same rules Bird exceptions and Mid level and Vet minimums right.
Now make me understand something here.
if its accepted that each percentage pt is worth 40 mill as I have heard
The owners are offering a 50/50 split.
please school me here why did the owners ever in the previous deal agree to the 57/43 split what money do they make thats not counted as the BRI.
I get why Stern doesn’t wanna talk revenue sharing he’d need to sell the big money making franchise on it in the middle of this collective bargaining mess thus giving the players another bargaining chip. Plus why wrestle with the big boys in the middle of this crap.
My question is this.
why are the players wrong for fighting for that last couple percent and why are the owners right.
from my understanding revenue growth is tied to players salary gorwth correct then why is all the burden on the players to give back so much. is the system really that broken with all the teams selling in the league for huge price tags.
The short awnser is yes and no
Yes, teams are losing money. Prices of franchises are still high because it gives the owners a status symbol and it opens doors which helps their other businesses. So even if they cost money like streaming water it still makes sense for them in the big picture.
Local tv deals and team specific sposorship income is not included or only partly included in the BRI. So for example, the Lakers make $200 million a yr (!!?) of their local tv deal. All that money is contributes to the profit they make each yr. Other, smaller market teams may also keep their local tv money but they dont get nearly as much out of it as the big market teams. So its harder for them to spend as much as the bigmoney teams do. The smaller market teams are losing money while trying to stay competative and only a select few are making money.
Stern said that, after adding up all the profits of the profitable teams and deducting all the losses of the improfitable teams, the league as awhole loses money. So, even if the owners would fully share all the revenue amongst eachother, they’d still be losing money. Tháts what Stern meant when he said that you can’t just revenue share your way to profitability.
Now, how much money does the league lose? Stern said its $350 million a yr, while the players say its much less because they don’t think its fair to include interest into the operating cost. That’s a debate in and of itself but even if you exclude interest there’s still a loss.
If revenue sharing alone doesnt solve the problem, you’ve got to cut costs. Thats why the players should accept a pay cut according to the owners.
The BRI split debate is about how much of a paycut the players are willing to take. So there you have it.
To me personally, the BRI split debate is the least interesting though. Whatever % split they’ll eventually agree on, that is the ammount of money the players are going get, garuanteed.
The interesting part is hów the players piece of the pie is going to be distributed amongst the players i.e. a hard or a soft cap? The softcap enables mediocre talent to still get a high salary since teams have a way to go over the cap. Dallas for example signed Haywood for starters money but since Cuban wants to win badly they spend another starters size contract on Chandler. Teams that cant afford that therefor have a competative disadvantage. Now, if all that spending adds up to more salary than the agreed player’s split, the players will give back that money to the owners via escrow. If the salaries are lower than the players split, the owners are paying the difference back in the same way.
A hardcap would force a guy like Cuban to spend starters money on starters and backup money for backups, regardless if he could pay more, he cant because of the cap. Gone is the competative advantage that money gave him and now it all comes down to making good descissions. That would mean that if Washington makes better descissions than LA, D.C. could win a ring! Dispite the obvious market differential. That is great for the sport imho.
Now, if you fucked up, you’ll want to rebuild as quickly as posible. Under the current CBA you’ll have a hard time trading players though (see Arenas, Gilbert). One look at Indiana and their frustrated fanbase and you know its to hard to do. It takes forever! So, if we could void Arenas because he committed a crime, it would help. If we could losen up the trade rules, trading Jamison for a future 1st would be possible. Etc etc.
If i’m wrong on something here, please correct me.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 5, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Caps don't work
They never stopped Boston, LA, or Miami and they are not stopping the Knicks. Super stars have so much money, they accept less in salary because they really don’t need it. You are not stopping the Super teams from building themselves. You are stopping teams who are willing to spend the money from rebuilding themselves. Most superstars are only going to play on big market teams. Some, like Durant and Duncan stay loyal to their team, but a lot of others don’t. The draft is the only parity in the NBA. Blow off the cap and let the owners decide how much they are willing to spend and get rid of rules regarding lengths of contract so teams have more financial flexibility. Let teams sign 15 year contracts to keep their superstars.
As far as the NBA losing money, The NBA is projected to grow 4% a year over the next 10 years. Thats not losing money. Teams value rising 400% is 12 years or so, is not losing money. Players contracts rising is not losing money, The growing pile in the CBA is not losing money.
2007, “The NBA will receive about $930 million a year for all its broadcast rights, an increase of more than 20 percent from the previous average of $767 million”, is not losing money.
The NBA is a growth business. David Stern is a disingenuous human being.
by hambonejackson on Oct 5, 2011 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tje big markets will allways have an appeal to the stars
That’s a disadvantage small and medium size market teams will always have. But then why make it even more difficult for them by blowing off the cap? Now the big markets are appealing ánd more lucrative. How are you gonna compete with that?
The draft you say? But you’ll be rebuilding forever since you got the young stars for the duration of their rookie deals as once their getting close to their prime, they’ll hit free agency and flee to NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, Miami or Orlando.
Its true that the NBA made a record revenue of $4.2 billion last yr. But did you ever think about the fact that it cost more money than ever to generate that revenue? For example, instead of selling 1 more seasonticket they had to sell four packages of 20 games. This generates roughly the same money but it took you 4 sales, more costs.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 5, 2011 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
*4 packages of 10 games (sorry)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 5, 2011 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I've read it
We as fans can’t never be sure about the numbers. We can be sure that each agenda determines the outcome of any analysis. This also applies to the owners.
I have a hard time that if the league would make a substantial profit, they’d skip a season over this. Are the loses as big as the league claims? probably no. But I do believe the league is losing money. The players don’t dispute that anymore either. They just don’t agree with some costs being factored in
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are a very stubborn man
And the league has hardly passed over this season.
I look at the BRI and remind you that it is income and not revenue. The main thing is, the BRI is at the highest it has ever been Its projected to pass a new billion dollar mark in a few seasons. Want more evidence? In the 1990s, Stern was making anywhere from 3.5 million to 10 million. Now? His salary is is in the 20 million dollar range. It seems like Stern has to give you the evidence you need. The NBA is making money. There is not a shred of evidence to say anything else. Nothing. At some point you have to believe that gravity exists. I have looked at many aspects of the NBA economy, and it is making money. There is no other way to think about it. It is better to think they are lying to the IRS. I think that is more likely.
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 5:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not disputing the record high revenue. Even Fisher admits there is a real loss
This is from Fisher’s and Hunter’s latest letter to the players:
Yesterday, however, was about the revenue split. The owners have long been pushing for significant economic relief and we have differences about the extent of the owners’ losses.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 6, 2011 5:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Revenue does not equal profit.
Some form of salary cap/floor/franchise tag makes a lot of sense. That way you can at least trade your superstar for some talent. Plus, you gain leverage. If you can tag him for say three consecutive years, then teams actually must give up value to get him.
Too early too say on Durant.
he’s only entering his first $100 million deal right now. If the Thunder fails to make the Finals at least once, he could easily take his talents to Koreatown.
I believe there were some fairly big (eg sponsorship stuff per above)...
chunks of change left out of BRI last time.
But the bottom line is that there has been a fair amount of turnover among owners since the last CBA and the new guys have more cojones, or more debt service, or both.
Plus, when the last CBA was done, everybody was much more flush with cash, riding the mortgage bubble, blah blah.
That said, the players are a pretty macho lot too, and the owners have to realize that there is no way they are going to get the players to back down from 57% of BRI to anything less than 51 or 52% (which is a 10 – 12% cut when you look at it on a percentage basis)… a cut of 10 points is up above the 20% range (if you take the new share as the denominator) and that is simply untenable to labor even in a bad economy.
It’s now getting down to a combination of short strokes (guaranteed contract length, mid-level exceptions, forgiveness — aka retroactive stupidity insurance) and face saving (the egos in the room are elephantine on both sides), which to me means it is just a matter of when and not if a deal is done and getting the lawyers and PR guys to wordsmith and spin it.
And when it is over, I hope President Obama nominates Derek Fisher as Labor Secretary. He is the only actor in this entire negotiation who has consistently earned respect.
Monday is D Day for the players
Thats when they learn that they have just lost a big paycheck and more lost paychecks will soon follow.
by jmpalomo on Oct 5, 2011 11:07 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
same goes for the owners
they are the ones who appear to be backing off their demands, apparently the financial hit of lost games scares them too
If 22 owners are actually losing money then why play. Players DEFINITELY will be losing money.
We may never really know about the owners position but we know the players.
by jmpalomo on Oct 6, 2011 11:10 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is what players might lose:
“Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.
Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages. In a league where the average career lasts fewer than five years, that’s going to be a problem."
—Larry Coon
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout
by MeToo on Oct 6, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And yet Stern and the owners seem desperate not to lose any games
since they are willing to cram training camps and free agency into a 3 week period.
That article alone should end the lockout
The players would be incredibly stupid to let this drag-on for a full season. Plus, the owners are going to always have the leverage, so why not just end it now?
The owners should offer the players 51/49 just to give them a sense of moral victory, and end the lockout this weekend.
Formerly know as iNFamous SWaGG
maybe the players truly do consider the guys who will come after them?
NBA is a players league, far moreso than football or baseball. One player changes your entire franchise in the nba, and people pay to see the players. The players are what drive the sport’s popularity, not David Stern, not the game itself (like nfl), and not 100yr old tradition like baseball. IMHO, they deserve a bigger split of the pie than either nfl or mlb players. NFL is below 50% for the players currently and I think MLB is at 53%….again, just my opinion, but I dont think the Union should accept less than 53%
Has the Monday deadline already passed?
Was noted today that most of the ownership side is jewish and will not work friday or saturday due to yom kippur which leaves only Sunday as a day to get things done….however what are the chances Union says they’ll be busy at church Sunday so as not to get out-faithed?
no offense intended to anyone, but as a non-religious person, i say they should all be working straight through if they want to legitimize their claim that there is “a public trust” with the fans that they are obligated to maintain
The NBA league higher ups are mostly Jewish
but I don’t know if most owners themselves are.
It’s one thing for some guys to point out racial differences between the league (mostly white, and Stern is White) and players (mostly black, even union leadership, Hunter is black), but adding religion just makes things more crazy……
How would Stern tell his owners to take a deal where some of the teams will lose money?
It aint happening.
50/50 or 51/49 with lower exemptions, a franchise tag (thanks to Lebron and Melo) and super high over the cap penalties in order to have a new CBA.
This is a new breed of owners with a dinosaur Commissioner.
by jmpalomo on Oct 6, 2011 4:06 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The reality is
51% BRI cut is the lowest for players of the 4 major sports. NBA players look at that. And, Stern is most likely the highest paid commissioner of the 4 sports.
by hambonejackson on Oct 6, 2011 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
