Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • slaw wrote: View Post
    Well, the owners don't really have the final say. The NBA is just a cartel. The NBAPA will only exist so long as it makes financial sense for the players (i.e. they are getting a big chunk of the BRI). Once you get to a certain number, it will no longer make financial sense. At that point, there won't be a NBAPA. And the NBA as we know it won't exist. In the unlikely event the owners all threw in the towel, a new league(s) will spring up two minutes later looking for a cut of the $4 billion.

    Also, sports unions have historically won major battles with ownership. Free agency is the best example. And don't forget competitive leagues (WHA/ABA/AFL) that forced major changes to the dominant players.

    My point is, both sides have an interest in doing a deal here. The owners may have more leverage in the short term but they have to consider the long term implications of a strategy that relies on breaking the union. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
    I think you misunderstand what "cartel" means. If for example the NBA was in cahoots with FIBA then they collectively would be a cartel. If NBA is just one fish in the seas. The sea is large.

    The NBA does have final say. If the players could find an option even close to what the NBA offers them there would be no lockout because there would be no one to lock out. Fact of the matter is the player will make pennies elsewhere in comparison but the option is always there for them to go that route.

    Comment


    • man I'm bummed.

      All these meetings have just been about digging their trenches and settling in for a long, cold winter, a bloody, muddy Spring and in the end no one is going to walk away better off than they were before all this started.

      And why the hell does LeBJ think his opinion matters in this? Has he made a single wise, well thought out decision ever? The hummer, the Chosen One Tatt, The Decision... his entire crew of advisors are his buddies... dude just doesn't see past the end of his own HGH'd chin and he's pressing his peers to stand firm on the 53%?? Why? What for? As games are lost so is revenue that they'll NEVER get back. Take a deal and make sure the NBAPA has an out clause and be happy.

      Like Clay Davis said: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.
      LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

      Comment


      • "Like Clay Davis said: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit."

        What we need now is a good old "Omar comin'..." to get things moving.
        Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

        Comment


        • haha, so true! But he's too busy over on Community.

          Side note: I heard a rumour that they considered doing an Omar mini series.
          LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

          Comment


          • Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

            I've got a few dozens unwatched movies, 2K12, GTAIV (freshly bought for 20 bucks), the newest seasons of Breaking Bad and Futurama...and I'm going through the 5th season of The Wire. 1000+ unlistened songs, a ton of anime, college ball is starting soon, and I could still watch Jonas play and develop before he comes in (the pick is looking even better with how things are right now)...the whole going to university thing...and....I'd still rather watch the Raptors speed that tank towards another high draft pick.

            This is going to get ugly for the players. The owners incentive to save games is going to drop exponentially until the halfway point of the season. I think Stern even has the balls to cancel all of it. The owners are being unreasonable ("guaranteed profitability", are you kidding me?) and the players are being greedy. I'm only on the Raptors' side.

            I still find it amazing that they could meet for so long and still be reportedly very far on a lot of issues.

            Comment


            • I have been resigned to the fact that the season will be gone since the summer, this lockout was always going to be ugly. I honestly think there is a better shot at losing a season and a half than saving half of this one. At no point has there been any sort of agreement on anything, the thing about the new format for the Mid-level exception has been the closest thing but that's it and I think all the talk that things might come together all of a sudden is just a media creation, what else are they supposed to talk about? .......If you can't sell success you sell hope right?

              Comment


              • Hall of Famers split, agree lockout hurts NBA

                Players of the past weight in (Cousy and Co.)

                In 1957, two years after becoming the first president of the NBA players union, Boston's Bob Cousy helped negotiate a major breakthrough.

                Per diem had been $5. The union got it up to $7.

                More than a half-century later, per diem is more than $100. And salaries have increased a tad since Cousy said he was highest-paid player in the NBA at $35,000 annually when he retired from the Celtics in 1963.

                But the Hall of Fame point guard still sees some similarities between the NBA of his day and today's league, embroiled in a lockout that has led to the first two weeks of the regular season being canceled. And surprisingly, what Cousy sees now leads him to actually gravitate toward management.

                "If all the information I read in the newspapers is accurate, I think in this case I would lean on the side of management," said Cousy, retired in Worchester, Mass., and one of five Hall of Famers whom FOX Sports interviewed regarding the lockout. "If 22 teams are losing money,” as commissioner David Stern has said.

                Cousy's take is these are trying times for the NBA and the economy, and players must recognize that. If so many teams are indeed losing money, players need to appreciate the opportunity provided by the league.

                "Our approach 50 years ago was we knew there were six or eight owners who were in danger, most of them not making any money," said Cousy, who remembers it was "like pulling teeth" getting players to pay their $10 annual union dues. "And we knew six or eight owners were willing to put up their money that allowed us to play a child's game and earn a pretty good living as opposed to selling insurance like everyone else. So when we started the union in this league, our demands were very modest."

                Under Cousy's presidency, the players also were able to cut down the number of preseason games, from the days when the Celtics "went all over New England playing 21 games in like 24 days." Now, teams play a maximum of eight.

                But don't count Cousy's former Boston teammate John Havlicek as leaning toward management. He's solidly behind the players.

                "The owners put themselves in this position with all the things they were doing, and now they want the players to protect them from themselves," Havlicek, retired in Weston, Mass., said about owners claiming losses after handing out excessive contracts in recent years.

                But there's one thing all these Hall of Famers agree upon. Cousy, Havlicek, Lenny Wilkens, David Thompson and Rick Barry all say the lockout, which began July 1, can do nothing but hurt the NBA.

                Wilkens, a Hall of Famer as both a coach and a player, coached Atlanta when the NBA lost games for the first time during a 1998-99 lockout that shortened the season from 82 to 50 games. But Wilkens believes this second work stoppage could lead to more damage due to the depressed economy.

                "I'm a little disappointed it got to this point," Wilkens said from Seattle, where he coached the SuperSonics to the 1979 NBA title and has had aspirations of bringing another team to the city since the franchise bolted to Oklahoma City in 2008. "I thought last year was a great year (in the NBA). There were a lot of young players developing, a lot of young teams developing. (The lockout) hurts both sides.

                "I thought we were fortunate (in the last lockout) to recapture the fans' attention. This could hurt a little bit more. I think with the economy, people will have to make tough choices."

                Cousy believes the lockout could do "irreparable harm" because people "have busy lives" and will move on if it lingers. Thompson agrees.

                "When you get into November and December and there are no games being played, people will forget about the NBA," said Thompson, who lives in Charlotte and makes regular public appearances in the area. "When you have millionaires and billionaires bickering over dollars, that will turn fans off.

                "Hopefully, they get this resolved and there aren't any more games lost other than first two weeks of the season. But I would like to see them starting talking again rather than take a week off. Both sides need to get in and get this resolved and everybody get back to work."

                Owners and players met Monday in New York but could not reach an agreement to end the work stoppage. There are no plans to meet this week.

                With the NBA claiming losses of $300 million annually, a key element in negotiations has been how much of the league's basketball-related income players will get. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received 57 percent. The NBA wants to cut that to 50 while the players are remaining steadfast at 53 percent.

                "The players are getting bad advice," Barry said from his home in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I'm not a big fan of (union executive director) Billy Hunter. What are they going to get if they lose 30 games and get zero concessions? What are they going to get if owners are going to hold their position? Owners screwed up their finances the last time (with collective bargaining agreements of 1999 and 2005). They want a chance now to break even and that's not unreasonable."

                Barry's belief is not only will players lose money due to lost games, but also future revenue will be diminished due to the NBA declining in popularity because of the lockout. While such a dip would hurt the owners as well, Barry believes he has a solution for the lockout that would help the players.

                "There is chance where they could go in and look like heroes," Barry said. "They could salvage their game."

                Barry believes players should agree to the proposed 50-50 split and say they're doing it to "help the game." But Barry said the players then should request that they receive 60 percent of revenue past a certain point at which the owners break even.

                "If they let the lockout continue, revenues aren't going to go up and the popularity is not going to be there," Barry said, arguing that players are hurting themselves more than owners by not settling now. "It's insane. It's so stupid. (The players) need to minimize the negative effect by doing a deal now."

                Thompson, though, believes players already "have moved quite a bit and have given up a lot." Referring to the 57 percent, Havlicek said it's "hard to give something back you already had in negotiations."

                Somehow, there has to be point for compromise.

                "People don't like to see lockouts," Havlicek said. "They don't like to see people making a lot of money (on both sides) negotiate the way it has come down to. People who are paying the ticket prices think it's unfathomable there would be a lockout."

                Cousy, at 83 one of just seven living players who played in the NBA's first All-Star Game in 1951, wishes today's players could adopt some of the spirit possessed by the NBA's pioneers.

                "We were as happy as pigs in mud that people actually paid us money to play," he said.
                http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/10/1...%3bfeedID=3682

                Comment


                • "Our approach 50 years ago was we knew there were six or eight owners who were in danger, most of them not making any money," said Cousy, who remembers it was "like pulling teeth" getting players to pay their $10 annual union dues. "And we knew six or eight owners were willing to put up their money that allowed us to play a child's game and earn a pretty good living as opposed to selling insurance like everyone else. So when we started the union in this league, our demands were very modest."
                  Thank god Cousy pointed it out. I thought i was going crazy thinking getting paid millions to play a bloody game in itself was reason enough to show up to work.

                  Comment


                  • okay, so im kinda dumb... and this BRI stuff is a little above my head..

                    somebody explain to me why the players are entitled to ANY of the revenue. Call me silly, but isnt contractually sharing your revenue with your employees a STUPID way to conduct business?

                    Comment


                    • Apollo wrote: View Post
                      I think you misunderstand what "cartel" means. If for example the NBA was in cahoots with FIBA then they collectively would be a cartel. If NBA is just one fish in the seas. The sea is large.

                      The NBA does have final say. If the players could find an option even close to what the NBA offers them there would be no lockout because there would be no one to lock out. Fact of the matter is the player will make pennies elsewhere in comparison but the option is always there for them to go that route.
                      The NBA is a classic example of a bilateral cartel made up of club owners, on the one hand, and unionized players, on the other. Owners exercise monopoly power in the product market and monopsony power in the input market and the players attempt to countervail the monopsony power. They agree to fix prices (e.g. tv deals), marketing and production, allocation of customers and territories, bid rigging (e.g draft), division of profits (e.g. revenue sharing, BRI split), limit number of teams, etc. The whole point of union decertification would be have the NBA declared an illegal cartel in violation of anti-trust laws.

                      Comment


                      • slaw wrote: View Post
                        The NBA is a classic example of a bilateral cartel made up of club owners, on the one hand, and unionized players, on the other. Owners exercise monopoly power in the product market and monopsony power in the input market and the players attempt to countervail the monopsony power. They agree to fix prices (e.g. tv deals), marketing and production, allocation of customers and territories, bid rigging (e.g draft), division of profits (e.g. revenue sharing, BRI split), limit number of teams, etc. The whole point of union decertification would be have the NBA declared an illegal cartel in violation of anti-trust laws.
                        Nobody forces the players to play in the NBA.

                        There is the NBADL. There is the new league in Canada. Many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia have their own professional leagues. The players can take their talents elsewhere.

                        But they don't because no other league has salaries that compare to the NBA, facilities that compare to the NBA, training staff and coaches that compares to the NBA, meals/travel/perks that compares to the NBA, marketing that compares to the NBA, and back to where we started salaries that compare to the NBA.

                        The point of owning a team is to run it as you see fit. If you don't like how the boss is running things, find another job - or in this case, play in another league.

                        Comment


                        • heinz57 wrote: View Post
                          okay, so im kinda dumb... and this BRI stuff is a little above my head..

                          somebody explain to me why the players are entitled to ANY of the revenue. Call me silly, but isnt contractually sharing your revenue with your employees a STUPID way to conduct business?
                          There are many things you are, Heinz, but dumb is not one of them - in my opinion.

                          Good point on the revenue sharing. However the alternative (free market) does not help the struggling franchises achieve competitive balance. If the goal of the NBA and the NBAPA is to have 30 franchises for owners and 450 players employed a free market is not going to fly. If the goal is to have a strictly capitalistic enterprise, then the league will have about 6-10 teams and 90-150 players employed - it would be some crazy basketball though. Based on revenues, Toronto would still have a team though!

                          Comment


                          • slaw wrote: View Post
                            The NBA is a classic example of a bilateral cartel made up of club owners, on the one hand, and unionized players, on the other. Owners exercise monopoly power in the product market and monopsony power in the input market and the players attempt to countervail the monopsony power. They agree to fix prices (e.g. tv deals), marketing and production, allocation of customers and territories, bid rigging (e.g draft), division of profits (e.g. revenue sharing, BRI split), limit number of teams, etc. The whole point of union decertification would be have the NBA declared an illegal cartel in violation of anti-trust laws.
                            It has not been decided if the decertification would be legal. The NBA has a motion filed just as the NBAPA does.

                            Comment


                            • heinz57 wrote: View Post
                              okay, so im kinda dumb... and this BRI stuff is a little above my head..

                              somebody explain to me why the players are entitled to ANY of the revenue. Call me silly, but isnt contractually sharing your revenue with your employees a STUPID way to conduct business?
                              I agree it is stupid but it maintains the current structure of the league. I guess the other options would be a MLB system with no salary cap but some restrictions on free agency, draft, etc. but no one seems to like that. Or, you have a fully free market where the owners could pay as much, or as little as they want, to any player. Again, I suspect no one around here likes that. I guess the owners could get together and try to impose some sort of arbitrary wage controls but that is either illegal and/or would lead to the PA disbanding and then you'd end up with some form of 1 or 2 above.

                              Comment


                              • slaw wrote: View Post
                                I agree it is stupid but it maintains the current structure of the league. I guess the other options would be a MLB system with no salary cap but some restrictions on free agency, draft, etc. but no one seems to like that. Or, you have a fully free market where the owners could pay as much, or as little as they want, to any player. Again, I suspect no one around here likes that. I guess the owners could get together and try to impose some sort of arbitrary wage controls but that is either illegal and/or would lead to the PA disbanding and then you'd end up with some form of 1 or 2 above.
                                The structure isn't working and the MLB system doesn't promote any of the 30 brands but those who can spend the most money. Are you a big market team fan who just likes posting on Raptors Republic? Your views run counter to everything that could help the less established clubs who can't/won't compete in a spending war to win more games. You put in place a MLB system and suddenly it's Cuban, Buss, Dolan and a few others buying up the league and the rest becoming farm teams. That's really healthy for the game, sure...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X