No deal!!!

[Glide2keva]

If a company is losing money, usually that company has to either introduce pay-cuts or have redundancies, how is an NBA franchise any different?

I don't think it's a particularly greedy thing to do to just want to break even on your investment. NBA players invest nothing but time to play basketball and there is zero risk of not getting payed if your contract guarantees it.

NBA owners on the other hand are losing money and they shoulder all the risk when it comes to the economic side of things. Honestly it's just simple economics in my eyes, if a team is losing money then they have to cut back and that is a fact.

Most NBA owners to my knowledge are independently wealthy outside of their teams and just use it as a hobby. I suppose the argument you could hold is that most NBA owners don't rely on their team to actually financially support themselves and that they are just greedy and want all the money and I respect that view.

But the fact is that the players are currently paid obscene amounts of money already and going 50/50 is hardly an unrealistic ask. Does a player really need to make $300k PER game?

Given the revenue that the NBA generates (despite the BS they tell you), the players deserve their obscene paychecks.

No one would watch the NBA to see the owners own the team, they come to see the players play. It's not the players' fault the owners can't manage their teams' financial shortcomings. And as DC said, them losing money has nothing to do with player salaries.

 

[Crystallas]

OMG, you guys fall for every smoke screen in the book. The 50/50 BRI is a pawn.

This whole lockout is about having a hard-cap. 21 teams want a hard cap, because they can not compete with big markets. 4 owners do not want a hard cap, and the rest can go either way. The split changes based on the cap. If the soft cap allows for teams to outspend total revenue, they would take a 40/60 split! Only 4 owners are capable of outspending revenues, thus they don't want a hard-cap. Once you place a hard cap in, the players want 60/40, but they are willing to negotiate to 53/47 out of their own desperation. The players do not want a hard cap, but from what is reported, NOBODY has offered a structure that reaches in between the NHL structure and the luxury/bird laws of the old/existing structure.

 

[Glide2keva]

OMG, you guys fall for every smoke screen in the book. The 50/50 BRI is a pawn.

This whole lockout is about having a hard-cap. 21 teams want a hard cap, because they can not compete with big markets. 4 owners do not want a hard cap, and the rest can go either way. The split changes based on the cap. If the soft cap allows for teams to outspend total revenue, they would take a 40/60 split! Only 4 owners are capable of outspending revenues, thus they don't want a hard-cap. Once you place a hard cap in, the players want 60/40, but they are willing to negotiate to 53/47 out of their own desperation. The players do not want a hard cap, but from what is reported, NOBODY has offered a structure that reaches in between the NHL structure and the luxury/bird laws of the old/existing structure.

I thought the hard cap was off the table because the owners knew they weren't getting it. They also want it to be more like the NFL with mostly non-guaranteed contracts, which we all know they aren't going to get.

They want to put all the risk on the players and assume very little for themselves.

 

[Crystallas]

The hard-cap is off the table, as far as the players association is concerned. It's on the table as far as the owners are concerned. That is the stalemate!

 

[houheffna]

I just read this from Wojnarowski.

Blazers' Allen sets fire to labor talks - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

I think the BRI is the most important issue. The cap was somewhat resolved. The owners would probably take some variation of the cap as is if they could get a guaranteed bigger piece of the pie.

The article I posted lays out what the true intentions of a lot of owners is.

And I would appreciate if some would cite references on some of the claims made in your arguments...it makes for good reading material. I am not talking about opinions, I am talking about facts. It would be nice to read some of this stuff because I don't know about what's going on...

 

[Runnin with the Bulls]

Believe me, they realize now what they are missing. Most of them have very high operating costs, not just mortgages but the entourage, cars, drivers, etc.

 

[Glide2keva]

For the past 15 years, Allen’s been the wildest of wild spenders, the salary cap-buster hell-bent on buying an NBA title. Outrageous contracts, $3 million a pop to purchase late draft picks. And now, the NBA’s board of governors found him the perfect candidate to be the bearer of gloom and doom in Thursday’s meeting, even when a union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said: “I thought we were making progress toward a deal.”

Like I was saying, the owners want to punish the players for their out of control spending habits.

It's an interesting article. Another piece to it:

The season’s in genuine jeopardy now because powerbrokers like Allen are uniting with nickel-and-dimers like Sarver in a common cause: How do I get out of NBA ownership with maximum profit, minimal pain? These are simply men gutting costs to eventually get the best price and sell those franchises. In his life, Allen has a history of disengaging people and things once he loses interest, and that appears to be happening now.

“The worst thing for the Blazers are not the injuries, but Paul losing interest,” said a league official connected to the organization. “And once he loses interest in anything, he doesn’t want to deal with it anymore. He can’t win anymore, so he’s going to literally take his ball and go home.”

This is the NBA left to Stern, the players and the fans: Owners like Allen, who are done with it. Over the league, over the love of owning teams. Those aren’t the overwhelming agendas in the room, but it’s a part now. Paul Allen’s made it a huge part.

Can we nominate Paul Allen for scumbag of the year?

 

[Crystallas]

I just read this from Wojnarowski.

Blazers' Allen sets fire to labor talks - NBA - Yahoo! Sports

I think the BRI is the most important issue. The cap was somewhat resolved. The owners would probably take some variation of the cap as is if they could get a guaranteed bigger piece of the pie.

The article I posted lays out what the true intentions of a lot of owners is.

And I would appreciate if some would cite references on some of the claims made in your arguments...it makes for good reading material. I am not talking about opinions, I am talking about facts. It would be nice to read some of this stuff because I don't know about what's going on...

Well, the problem is, there are no real facts going on. Its analysis from both sides. The details wont be made public until they agree to a deal.

My point is, the BRI is the 2nd most important issue because the cap issues are not resolved entirely. But if you have a relaxed cap, while stricter than what we have seen in the past, the BRI goes down for the players. But if you get a tighter cap, the BRI goes up for the owners. The cap issue is #1 because while the mediation found common ground between the players and owners, the small market teams wont survive their operations and remain competitive if teams are capable of going 40-50% above the salary cap without losing money.

We're going to see a series of talks that solve one problem at a time, then blow the progress all up if the small markets can't find alternate ways to reach their goals. I think if the NBA can absorb the revenue losses of 9 teams, then we'll see an agreement. That is the only way the math actually adds up, and this would result in a luxury hard cap of 65m and no Bird exceptions above that(based on last season's numbers). But with any economic calculation, it will always be done in realtime due to it's ever evolving climate, so using past numbers to justify will never be accurate. The teams have the figures, and the lockout itself changes a lot of what happens in the future. There is no win-win situation. One side is going to lose.

 

[Glide2keva]

Well, the problem is, there are no real facts going on. Its analysis from both sides. The details wont be made public until they agree to a deal.

My point is, the BRI is the 2nd most important issue because the cap issues are not resolved entirely. But if you have a relaxed cap, while stricter than what we have seen in the past, the BRI goes down for the players. But if you get a tighter cap, the BRI goes up for the owners. The cap issue is #1 because while the mediation found common ground between the players and owners, the small market teams wont survive their operations and remain competitive if teams are capable of going 40-50% above the salary cap without losing money.

We're going to see a series of talks that solve one problem at a time, then blow the progress all up if the small markets can't find alternate ways to reach their goals. I think if the NBA can absorb the revenue losses of 9 teams, then we'll see an agreement. That is the only way the math actually adds up, and this would result in a luxury hard cap of 65m and no Bird exceptions above that(based on last season's numbers). But with any economic calculation, it will always be done in realtime due to it's ever evolving climate, so using past numbers to justify will never be accurate. The teams have the figures, and the lockout itself changes a lot of what happens in the future. There is no win-win situation. One side is going to lose.

I agree with you that one is going to lose. I think the players will ultimately lose in this one, but the degree in which they lose is where I'm coming from.

The owners can't just completely **** the players like they want to do. That wouldn't be good for the league.

 

[Glide2keva]

More on Allen:

The union had its suspicions over that meeting, over the hardliners ruling the day again. This conspired to set a terrible tone for Thursday’s talks, where the owners marched Allen into the room like he was the biggest swinging bat in the room. Allen’s awkward sometimes, hates public discourses and hadn’t come to articulate a case. He was a presence to stand there, the richest American owner in sports warning the players that he was now an ally of the dark side. The owners knew Allen carried a symbolism with him, an unspoken sense that even the biggest, wildest, most reckless of spenders wanted a system to save themselves from themselves. And now, they wanted it completely out of the players’ take. More than a billion dollars in givebacks by the players isn’t enough to even keep talking for some of these owners, and that’s a problem here.

Seems to back up what I was saying earlier.

 

[Fredsmooth21]

I agree with you that one is going to lose. I think the players will ultimately lose in this one, but the degree in which they lose is where I'm coming from.

The owners can't just completely **** the players like they want to do. That wouldn't be good for the league.

While it wouldn't be good for the league, the owners can do it. And from the way it looks, the owners/stern aren't budging on their demands.

 

[Glide2keva]

While it wouldn't be good for the league, the owners can do it. And from the way it looks, the owners/stern aren't budging on their demands.

Then the players need to stand strong.

If we lose the season, oh well. Life does go on.

 

[Crystallas]

More on Allen:

Seems to back up what I was saying earlier.

That is why the league needs to weed out wreckless owners. But it doesn't solve the problem of all these small market teams being unable to compete in a game where just a few stars make all of the difference.

We were able to weed out bad owners in the 90s, but this new handful of asshats, and the leftover Sterling are getting a free pass. All at the expense of their fan loyalty. If you take away their consequences, you have bad owners. Never once did I say that the league screw the players, and let the owners slide. This has to come from both sides, but as a fan, I want the brackets to shift into a position where the owners have no excuse, but to upkeep on their venues and obligations to the cities they represent. Stern was great 25 years ago, but now, he has become a league tyrant and he takes the side of money every time. That needs to change, along with the players taking a cut, the commish needs to retire and the owners have to extend more to their community. That's the bottom line. And the owners are getting a pass from the fans on this simple fact, but get nailed on locking out the players... that is beyond me!

But then again, the owners need to stop looking at the NHL and NFL for ideas, and work on using a system that works for them. I hate trend followers, because they follow the safe risk and those safe risks don't pan out. Trend setting is what we need to see.

 

[Glide2keva]

That is why the league needs to weed out wreckless owners. But it doesn't solve the problem of all these small market teams being unable to compete in a game where just a few stars make all of the difference.

We were able to weed out bad owners in the 90s, but this new handful of asshats, and the leftover Sterling are getting a free pass. All at the expense of their fan loyalty. If you take away their consequences, you have bad owners. Never once did I say that the league screw the players, and let the owners slide. This has to come from both sides, but as a fan, I want the brackets to shift into a position where the owners have no excuse, but to upkeep on their venues and obligations to the cities they represent. Stern was great 25 years ago, but now, he has become a league tyrant and he takes the side of money every time. That needs to change, along with the players taking a cut, the commish needs to retire and the owners have to extend more to their community. That's the bottom line. And the owners are getting a pass from the fans on this simple fact, but get nailed on locking out the players... that is beyond me!

But then again, the owners need to stop looking at the NHL and NFL for ideas, and work on using a system that works for them. I hate trend followers, because they follow the safe risk and those safe risks don't pan out. Trend setting is what we need to see.

I agree with you man. I think we are coming from the same point of view. My gripe is with the public's perception of the situation and not the reality.

 

[prashant11]

The season better start soon or it's gonna be along and depressing winter. Basketball is about the only sport I follow religiously. Come on guys, work this shit out and get back to business. So many people working at the arenas and surrounding areas depend on bball to survive.

 

[WindyCity7]

just lost 2 more weeks :smh:

 

[BNB]

just lost 2 more weeks :smh:

Gonna lose a lot more than that :crying:

 

[zack54attack]

NBA Lockout 2011 -- League to cancel two more weeks of regular season, according to report - ESPN

 

[scottiepippen1994]

Get used to these kind of announcements people.

 

[Fredsmooth21]

The players responsible for generating revenue deserve more than 50-50 split - ESPN New York

But in the end, there's nothing fair about awarding 50 percent of BRI to the people who amount to 100 percent of the reason there's any BRI in the first place.

LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose -- they don't play in the NBA. They are the NBA.

The entire league. The workforce and the product.

The owners? They're just along for the ride.

Couldn't have said it better myself.