Official Lockout Discussion Thread VOL 1

[Glide2keva]

:smh: Riiiiight. The players aren't greedy? Pot meet kettle bud, both sides are absolutely greedy. Greed isn't the problem here.

This whole lockout is about a hard cap. Not x/x BRI, not union busting. It's the move to a hard cap to make things easier for small market teams to compete and generate revenue. Anyone who hasn't read between the lines and figured that out by now, even after a hard cap was anticipated years ago, really doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

For the record, I am not for a hard cap. Hell, I don't like salary caps whatsoever. I'm all about market rates, basically adjustable rate salaries in % of BRI, not set cap.

How can the players be greedy, when they are willing to give back 4% which comes out to about a BILLION dollars back tot he owners?

 

[Crystallas]

How can the players be greedy, when they are willing to give back 4% which comes out to about a BILLION dollars back tot he owners?

First off, you ignore the substance of my post. The players would agree to a 45/55 BRI split if the hard-cap was off the table. That 4% doesn't matter for jack squat. It's phoney math, accounting wizardry that applies to numbers that don't even exist. It's a PR stunt that relies on people to have a poor understanding of finance and economic mathematics. You can prove their numbers right with theoretical numbers and not actual numbers because we don't know what the numbers will be in the upcoming years.

Athletes making millions is not greedy? Seriously? LOL

 

[Glide2keva]

First off, you ignore the substance of my post. The players would agree to a 45/55 BRI split if the hard-cap was off the table. That 4% doesn't matter for jack squat. It's phoney math, accounting wizardry that applies to numbers that don't even exist. It's a PR stunt that relies on people to have a poor understanding of finance and economic mathematics. You can prove their numbers right with theoretical numbers and not actual numbers because we don't know what the numbers will be in the upcoming years.

Athletes making millions is not greedy? Seriously? LOL

So, if someone paid you millions to do your job, would you classify yourself as greedy? The owners decided to pay them ridiculous money, they can't pay themselves.

 

[Glide2keva]

Commissioner David Stern has long warned that once games are missed, both sides might stiffen their proposals in hopes of recovering what’s been lost, which is why he said last week he feared games could be lost through Christmas without a deal this week.

After three days and 30 hours of meetings with a federal mediator, negotiations fell apart when union officials said they were told they must commit to a 50-50 split of revenues before owners would agree to discuss the salary cap system.

“Right now, they’re saying it’s got to be a precondition. If we’re going to meet, you’ve got to agree to accept 50-50. So as long as that edict is out there, then when are we going to meet?” Hunter said. “We’re saying we’re unwilling to meet unless we can talk about the system independent of the number.”

There is no indication owners will be prepared to go beyond a 50-50 split, and with players currently at 52.5 or 53, the sides are about $100 million apart on an annual basis.

Players seem willing to give on one of the issues if they scored concessions on the other—they’ve already offered to reduce their guarantee of revenues from 57 percent—but management has made it clear it must have both. That doesn’t leave much room for compromise.

Or a season.

Yet, the players are being painted as greedy while the owners get no blame for this situation at all.

 

[Crystallas]

So, if someone paid you millions to do your job, would you classify yourself as greedy? The owners decided to pay them ridiculous money, they can't pay themselves.

....and then I saved my money, invested it well, and bought a team of my own. Now apparently I'm somehow more greedy than young, million dollar athletes. Michael Jordan is one greedy motherfucker, it had nothing to do with him earning what he got and making wise decisions to become an owner... Oh no, it was all greed. :lmao:

Great logic. Why don't you put that shoe on the other foot before you pick a side.

 

[Crystallas]

Yet, the players are being painted as greedy while the owners get no blame for this situation at all.

Seriously, you need to answer this question. Is greed only one sided?

I mean, really. Is it possible at all that BOTH sides are being greedy?
When you go to McDonalds and buy yourself a McDouble, do you tell McDonalds that they are McGreedy because you are the one willing to give them $1, but their deep pockets(which probably happened by sheer magic) should give it to you for free?

 

[Glide2keva]

Seriously, you need to answer this question. Is greed only one sided?

I mean, really. Is it possible at all that BOTH sides are being greedy?
When you go to McDonalds and buy yourself a McDouble, do you tell McDonalds that they are McGreedy because you are the one willing to give them $1, but their deep pockets(which probably happened by sheer magic) should give it to you for free?

Crys, you misunderstand me.

Greed can definitely be on both sides. I just feel the players are being unfairly labeled as such because some people (not saying you or anyone here) are jealous of the money that they make.

People seem to forget that it was the owners that negotiated the last CBA. They agreed to it, so if they don't manage their money it isn't the players' fault. They are supposed to be smart businessmen, yet I don't see anyone coming down on them. All the criticism is one-sided and biased against the players.

That isn't fair. So someone has to speak on the players side since people want to unfairly jump on them, like they are the ones who locked themselves out and holding out for more money.

 

[Glide2keva]

....and then I saved my money, invested it well, and bought a team of my own. Now apparently I'm somehow more greedy than young, million dollar athletes. Michael Jordan is one greedy motherfucker, it had nothing to do with him earning what he got and making wise decisions to become an owner... Oh no, it was all greed. :lmao:

Great logic. Why don't you put that shoe on the other foot before you pick a side.

We all know mike made most of his money outside of basketball. he didn't make (serious) money through the league until his last three years here in Chicago.

It's good that he did great with his money, but his situation is different than other people.

And you didn't even make repsonse that made sense to what you quoted from me.

 

[Crystallas]

Crys, you misunderstand me.

Greed can definitely be on both sides. I just feel the players are being unfairly labeled as such because some people (not saying you or anyone here) are jealous of the money that they make.

People seem to forget that it was the owners that negotiated the last CBA. They agreed to it, so if they don't manage their money it isn't the players' fault. They are supposed to be smart businessmen, yet I don't see anyone coming down on them. All the criticism is one-sided and biased against the players.

That isn't fair. So someone has to speak on the players side since people want to unfairly jump on them, like they are the ones who locked themselves out and holding out for more money.

I really don't take the side of the owner or the player here. I wrote about it here a few times, coming clean, that I take the side of the fan. You know, lower ticket prices, venue upgrades/updates, more games on local TV to bring in more fans... that is what matters to me.

But I get a good laugh when people essentially say......
The greedy owners pay players more than than they can afford.

 

[Glide2keva]

I really don't take the side of the owner or the player here. I wrote about it here a few times, coming clean, that I take the side of the fan. You know, lower ticket prices, venue upgrades/updates, more games on local TV to bring in more fans... that is what matters to me.

But I get a good laugh when people essentially say......
The greedy owners pay players more than than they can afford.

I don't call them greedy because of them overpaying players. I call them greedy for what they are trying to do and that is fuck the players royally.

That's where their greed is coming in for me. I agree with you though about being on the side of the fans. I do see however what the players are being backed into or almost being forced into and it just isn't fair, to me at least.

 

[Crystallas]

I don't call them greedy because of them overpaying players. I call them greedy for what they are trying to do and that is fuck the players royally.

That's where their greed is coming in for me. I agree with you though about being on the side of the fans. I do see however what the players are being backed into or almost being forced into and it just isn't fair, to me at least.

Well here is my problem. I see teams like Sacramento with a loyal fanbase that can't compete with the Knicks as far as revenue. I remember teams like the Sonics that were unable to generate the revenues to comply with the NBA's venue policies. Teams like Cleveland that loses a key player, and now the entire city went into a deeper economic limbo. If I had to choose between the players and the cities that cater to these teams, I have to apologize to the players. The fans and cities are more important. In order for those markets to survive, is if the small market owners win out here.

But at the same time, I don't want to see the NBA revenue share so much, that the league removes the incentives for teams to profit and win. I don't want to see more Minnesotas and Torontos pop up. I don't want Washingtons and Portlands to anchor players and blow up their teams because they find loopholes in a scenario that promotes non-guaranteed contracts.

The only real way to do this, would be to liquidate the debts or change the salary cap and structure. Liquidating debts means that a lot of teams would eventually move(or cease to exist), and even big market teams could take risks that destroy them. Changing the salary cap structure would make the players upset initially, but how much are they looking to lose? We would prevent the NBA from contracting 2-4 teams in the long run, and that is a lot of revenue that gets lost from the athletes as well.

The players are going to lose this lockout battle. I would rather see the player lose some money off their million dollar contracts, than the fans lose their team. I would rather see everyone able to afford to see NBA games, and not just the wealthier side of the fans. I also want the owners to have no excuses to provide the best entertainment possible, and if they can't, then they shouldn't get special treatment like Donald Sterling. Get rid of them.

 

[Glide2keva]

Well here is my problem. I see teams like Sacramento with a loyal fanbase that can't compete with the Knicks as far as revenue. I remember teams like the Sonics that were unable to generate the revenues to comply with the NBA's venue policies. Teams like Cleveland that loses a key player, and now the entire city went into a deeper economic limbo. If I had to choose between the players and the cities that cater to these teams, I have to apologize to the players. The fans and cities are more important. In order for those markets to survive, is if the small market owners win out here.

The Kings are owned by the Maloofs, so it's not like they are hurting for cash. They just need a new stadium, they have the fanbase and they will support the team. The Sonics moved for a similar reason. It wasn't because players were making too much money.

But at the same time, I don't want to see the NBA revenue share so much, that the league removes the incentives for teams to profit and win. I don't want to see more Minnesotas and Torontos pop up. I don't want Washingtons and Portlands to anchor players and blow up their teams because they find loopholes in a scenario that promotes non-guaranteed contracts.

I don't either, but at the same the NBA shouldn't have expanded so much in the late 80's and 90's. The league itself is too big and at least 4 teams need to go. I would nominate, the Wolves, Raptors, Clippers and Bobcats.

The only real way to do this, would be to liquidate the debts or change the salary cap and structure. Liquidating debts means that a lot of teams would eventually move(or cease to exist), and even big market teams could take risks that destroy them. Changing the salary cap structure would make the players upset initially, but how much are they looking to lose? We would prevent the NBA from contracting 2-4 teams in the long run, and that is a lot of revenue that gets lost from the athletes as well.

I agree for the most part, my only problem is the owners are basically saying it's the players fault that the league is in the situation that it is in. This type of hyperbole and misinformation gets the casual fans against the players when they are who they come to see. Do they need a new salary cap structure? Maybe, but not the way the owners want it. Something more fair spread out, yeah, but not just royally fucking the players with no lube.

The players are going to lose this lockout battle. I would rather see the player lose some money off their million dollar contracts, than the fans lose their team. I would rather see everyone able to afford to see NBA games, and not just the wealthier side of the fans. I also want the owners to have no excuses to provide the best entertainment possible, and if they can't, then they shouldn't get special treatment like Donald Sterling. Get rid of them.

You say the players million dollar contracts (that they deserve btw), like it's a bad thing they get so much. No one says anything about the owners BILLIONS of dollars that they have and continue to make. If the fans don't come to support the teams, they don't deserve to have one. IMO. I'd lie to see more Joe Work-a-jobs at the games, but tell the owners to lower ticket prices a little bit.

 

[Crystallas]

The Kings are owned by the Maloofs, so it's not like they are hurting for cash. They just need a new stadium, they have the fanbase and they will support the team. The Sonics moved for a similar reason. It wasn't because players were making too much money.

The Sonics moved because Clay Bennett didn't want to stay in Seattle, never did. He had the investors, stadium and everything lined up and ready for a move. The only similarity that the Kings have, is the Maloofs didn't make enough revenue to be able to upgrade venues. Now the city of Sacramento, even behind their ex-NBA all-star mayor(Kevin Johnson) can't get an agreement to get tax revenues to build a new venue. This is my personal beef with the owners, they need to set themselves up to run their business and maintain loyalty. Stern also plays a big part in this, because he is the one that pushed for NBA venues to all be a certain way, and the NBA doesn't have the luxuries of MLB where you can have the classic stadiums like Wrigley.

I don't either, but at the same the NBA shouldn't have expanded so much in the late 80's and 90's. The league itself is too big and at least 4 teams need to go. I would nominate, the Wolves, Raptors, Clippers and Bobcats.

That's easy to say. You can always say, cut any team, just don't cut mine.

I agree for the most part, my only problem is the owners are basically saying it's the players fault that the league is in the situation that it is in. This type of hyperbole and misinformation gets the casual fans against the players when they are who they come to see. Do they need a new salary cap structure? Maybe, but not the way the owners want it. Something more fair spread out, yeah, but not just royally fucking the players with no lube.

You say the players million dollar contracts (that they deserve btw), like it's a bad thing they get so much. No one says anything about the owners BILLIONS of dollars that they have and continue to make. If the fans don't come to support the teams, they don't deserve to have one. IMO. I'd lie to see more Joe Work-a-jobs at the games, but tell the owners to lower ticket prices a little bit.

The owners earned their billions of dollars too. If you think they made their money by owning a basketball team, you're greatly mistaken. If anything, the league should weed out bad owners, but at no point, does an owner or a group of owners have an obligation to give charity to million dollar basketball players. They have many other obligations, as well as employing a great deal more people than anything the players do with their money.
Not that is any of our business as to how they spend their money. The economic law(not theory or concept) of cardinal utility explains how the owners are no more greedy than the players. If anything, the players give far less value than the owners do. If every NBA player was paid per hour of playing time at 1million per hour, per avg viewer(end user), they make over $190 per user and per hour of play(based on a 82 game season+16 floating games pre/post). Not even actors make that much per hour. Nobody makes that kind of money per utility. Per person, per the same utility curve, and per end-user, the owners make $4.44 per hour(pooling from Cuban, Allen, and Rheinsdorf to get an avg to make it fair for comparison.) I only added the actual value, but if you want to give the players a 40 hour work week for training, each fan would spend $21 per hour to have NBA basketball. Where does this money come from? Do you not understand how much of an advantage the players are at, and they should be no doubt for being the athletes that they are. But I have concluded that it is absolutely impossible for the owners to be more greedy than the players. Not to mention, the players do make excellent money, there is no reason for them not to compile their earnings as well.

 

[Glide2keva]

Paying the players is not charity.

 

[zack54attack]

There was a meeting today... crossing my fingers for something positive.

 

[Glide2keva]

Well they seem to be making progress with the being that they are going to try and get it done by the weekend.

Here's to hoping they do.

 

[zack54attack]

There's some hope!!!

 

[Diddy1122]

Really crossing my fingers that the NBA & NBPA can settle the BRI stalemate by the end of their meeting tomorrow. All the other ducks seem to be in a row, except for this one. He's got his head under water & ass in the air.

 

[85Bears4life]

PER ESPN: Stern to announce more games to be canceled later today

 

[85Bears4life]

Rumor: Isiah Thomas wants to replace Billy Hunter - CBSSports.com