Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.
    No Salary Cap in most leagues in Europe. They could offer Lebron $40M a season. So not really a fraction of their Salary.

    But you're right, but at the time you think Jack Nicholson is paying the same money for floor seats to watch some Tier-2 athletes run the floor? These guys are the best in the world, and are rightfully paid like it. These guys make the Networks HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars. They make the Owners HUNDRED of millions of dollars. Without the best of the best, then the fans don't pay the money they do and the advertisers don't pay the money they do.

    Look at the NBDL. Those guys are good. But not the BEST, and they are paid accordingly. I know I wouldn't pay the same money to go to an NBDL level game.

    I'm not trying to say that they SHOULD be paid as much as they are. I think a 50-50 split of revenues would be fair.
    But I also don't believe what the Stern says about the state of the League and how Dire everything is.

    ADD
    A person close to James said Tuesday that the Cavaliers' superstar would strongly consider playing overseas if he was offered a salary of "around $50 million a year."

    While $50 million a year seems outlandish, it is within the realm of possibility, considering the reported $250 million contract David Beckham received two years ago to join Major League Soccer, the $33 million Michael Jordan was paid by the Chicago Bulls for the 1997-98 season, the strength of the euro in comparison to the dollar, and the fact that European clubs are not bound by a salary cap.
    Source

    These guys are going to make that money no matter what.
    Last edited by Joey; Wed May 11, 2011, 06:53 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Apollo wrote: View Post
      We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.
      No, we won't be watching. If that were the case, the WNBA would be successful. NBA players get paid enourmous sums of money because they are ~500 in the world of ~6 billion that can do what they do. They are unique. They are freaks. They are awesome and amazing. They do things no other human being can do.

      Again, over and over again I repeat, there is no other business in the world that treats its professionals like pro sports athletes in North America. No right-thinking person would support it in any other arena and no one would accept it of their own job or career. Again, the market will bear the salary costs. The owners claim that they need $800mm more doesn't make any sense when you consider league revenues and the costs required to generate those revenues (let's say $6 to 1 as a rule).

      You are all supporting these changes based on the erroneous belief they will effect parity. They won't. The NHL is a perfect example but there are abstract macro-economic reasons why it won't matter. Just be prepared for the disappointment that unintended consequences bring...

      Comment


      • #93
        Speculationland

        slaw wrote: View Post
        The owners claim that they need $800mm more doesn't make any sense when you consider league revenues and the costs required to generate those revenues (let's say $6 to 1 as a rule).
        Right, so break it down for me. You can start off with how much each team spends on their arena mortgage payments, arena maintenance, utilities, property taxes and staff wages.

        Comment


        • #94
          joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
          No Salary Cap in most leagues in Europe. They could offer Lebron $40M a season. So not really a fraction of their Salary.

          But you're right, but at the time you think Jack Nicholson is paying the same money for floor seats to watch some Tier-2 athletes run the floor? These guys are the best in the world, and are rightfully paid like it. These guys make the Networks HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars. They make the Owners HUNDRED of millions of dollars. Without the best of the best, then the fans don't pay the money they do and the advertisers don't pay the money they do.

          Look at the NBDL. Those guys are good. But not the BEST, and they are paid accordingly. I know I wouldn't pay the same money to go to an NBDL level game.

          I'm not trying to say that they SHOULD be paid as much as they are. I think a 50-50 split of revenues would be fair.
          But I also don't believe what the Stern says about the state of the League and how Dire everything is.

          ADD
          Source

          These guys are going to make that money no matter what.
          While it's true that they could possibly offer Lebron $40 mil per, that's just one player. They've also been having difficulty actually paying the NBAers they've attracted the quite average salaries they were offered, let alone a whole league of NBAers. The top few might secure comparable salaries abroad, but I can assure you that the vast majority will not. They will lose out if they threaten to seek employment elsewhere.

          Regarding NBDL, it's not purely due to talent level that they are paid the wages they earn. More important is market share. If all the NBA players suddenly retired and the NBA collapsed (and assuming the NBDL is able to capitalize logistically), the NBDL will start to bring in more money. It's all supply and demand.

          IMO, 50-50 is already too much for the players. If you think of it as a business arrangement, the teams would be taking 100% of the risk and investing 100% of the capital in order to make 50% of the gross income. I don't know what the gross expenditures are, but it's more than 0 and that's what the players are risking/investing. No matter if the team is pulling in a loss, the players keep making their money.

          Comment


          • #95
            Apollo wrote: View Post
            Right, so break it down for me. You can start off with how much each team spends on their arena mortgage payments, arena maintenance, utilities, property taxes and staff wages.
            Haha, I just noticed the title of your post. Big LOL. I was also scratching my head and wondering why $6 to 1 was a rule when I read Slaw's post.

            Comment


            • #96
              Apollo wrote: View Post
              Right, so break it down for me. You can start off with how much each team spends on their arena mortgage payments, arena maintenance, utilities, property taxes and staff wages.
              Initially, i wasnt sure what i was saying was legit, but now that Apollo is saying the exact same thing, it makes me proud, hehehe. If you really think about it, players only support their families and themselves. Business managers really dont get paid by athletes if you truly break it down. Business managers haggle salaries with the consideration that they will be paid as well so technically, the owners pay for their salaries as well.

              i dont think the players will be shortchanged incase the max salary is reduced or if a hard cap is put in place. mind you, these players get endorsements which allow them to rake in even more millions.
              Last edited by TheGloveinRapsUniform; Thu May 12, 2011, 12:27 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Quixotic wrote: View Post
                While it's true that they could possibly offer Lebron $40 mil per, that's just one player. They've also been having difficulty actually paying the NBAers they've attracted the quite average salaries they were offered, let alone a whole league of NBAers. The top few might secure comparable salaries abroad, but I can assure you that the vast majority will not. They will lose out if they threaten to seek employment elsewhere.
                No they don't have salary caps but those teams can't afford to spend the kind of money the NBA does. Yeah, a team was trying to get LeBron or Kobe to head overseas and offering a gigantic yearly sum but first off, their contracts over there are not guaranteed. Isn't that a large part of why the players don't like the hard cap idea, because it means that Eddy Curry can't get paid $10M/yr to sit on the sideline getting fat and not doing a damn thing to earn his money and caring less about it? Also, Josh Childress can go over there by himself and make around $10M/yr but there's a difference between one player going over there and 450 plus a potentially large crew from the NCAA and hot prospects coming out of high school.

                Quixotic wrote: View Post
                Haha, I just noticed the title of your post. Big LOL. I was also scratching my head and wondering why $6 to 1 was a rule when I read Slaw's post.
                Yeah, there wasn't anything there to support it.

                Comment


                • #98
                  More details about the rejected offer

                  implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer
                  easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.
                  the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place.
                  immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.
                  lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale.
                  new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them. The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow
                  under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.
                  the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.
                  Source: ESPN.com

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    About the Will Smith analogy, the actors in those movies, I assume, make less than 57% of the gross revenue that the film makes, so what is an appropriate financial slice for the actors, or in this case the players. Is 57% too much or too little?
                    -"You can’t run from me. I mean, my heart don’t bleed Kool-Aid."
                    -"“I ain’t no diva! I don’t have no blond hair, red hair. I’m Reggie Evans.”

                    Comment


                    • Have the players ever actually made a counter offer? It would be nice to see some of those.
                      Eh follow my TWITTER!

                      Comment


                      • Raptorsss wrote: View Post
                        what is an appropriate financial slice for the actors, or in this case the players. Is 57% too much or too little?
                        Each scenario can be different. I think it should always come down to the risk of each party and the leverage of each party.

                        In the NBA, the players don't share in the risk. If Jerry Buss can't pay the mortgage Kobe Bryant isn't losing his empire. He can go play elsewhere. On the flip side, the league has a verbal agreement with FIBA for both parties to recognize each others player contracts. Some have speculated that FIBA may discard this for a shot at landing a Kobe Bryant for part of a season. I think that theory is out to lunch because why would FIBA want to damage their relationship with the NBA over something so short term? I think if the league locks out the players they're going to have no where to run. Even if FIBA backs away from their agreement with the league they still can't afford to pay most NBA players what they're currently used to and then not to mention they're hurting a lot of pros already playing over there because somebody needs to get out of the way for the NBA guys to come over. The league has the leverage. They're going to win the battle. What's important is that they be fair and honest so they don't damage the relationship they have with the PA long term. No one wants a labor standoff every five or six years.

                        Comment


                        • Apollo wrote: View Post
                          Each scenario can be different. I think it should always come down to the risk of each party and the leverage of each party.

                          In the NBA, the players don't share in the risk. If Jerry Buss can't pay the mortgage Kobe Bryant isn't losing his empire. He can go play elsewhere. On the flip side, the league has a verbal agreement with FIBA for both parties to recognize each others player contracts. Some have speculated that FIBA may discard this for a shot at landing a Kobe Bryant for part of a season. I think that theory is out to lunch because why would FIBA want to damage their relationship with the NBA over something so short term? I think if the league locks out the players they're going to have no where to run. Even if FIBA backs away from their agreement with the league they still can't afford to pay most NBA players what they're currently used to and then not to mention they're hurting a lot of pros already playing over there because somebody needs to get out of the way for the NBA guys to come over. The league has the leverage. They're going to win the battle. What's important is that they be fair and honest so they don't damage the relationship they have with the PA long term. No one wants a labor standoff every five or six years.
                          perfect way of putting it apollo. i really dont feel for the players here, they pretty much have all the leverage right now. they bitch and whine about contracts, salaries, etc etc but no matter how you turn this thing, the players always come out as winners. i think one example of this is when jordan played for the wizards. you got a highly popular player who went to a mediocre organization, he got paid big bucks but did he take the wizards anywhere? no. but he was still jordan. he moved on out of washington carrying his name out and the wizards were still the wizards.

                          what i dont agree with tho is the "franchise" tag. i dont think its right to force a player to play in an environment that he is not comfortable in anymore. im really in favor of the hard cap, so the likes of the big three, miami three and now what theyre doing in ny wont exist anymore. i dont mind superstars joining forces but they should be forced to take waaaaayyy less if they do want to do that. they talk about having to "sacrifice" in miami, but common now, theyre still among the top earners in the league. 15mil a year is not a sacrifice.

                          Comment


                          • tbihis wrote: View Post
                            perfect way of putting it apollo. i really dont feel for the players here, they pretty much have all the leverage right now. they bitch and whine about contracts, salaries, etc etc but no matter how you turn this thing, the players always come out as winners. i think one example of this is when jordan played for the wizards. you got a highly popular player who went to a mediocre organization, he got paid big bucks but did he take the wizards anywhere? no. but he was still jordan. he moved on out of washington carrying his name out and the wizards were still the wizards.

                            what i dont agree with tho is the "franchise" tag. i dont think its right to force a player to play in an environment that he is not comfortable in anymore. im really in favor of the hard cap, so the likes of the big three, miami three and now what theyre doing in ny wont exist anymore. i dont mind superstars joining forces but they should be forced to take waaaaayyy less if they do want to do that. they talk about having to "sacrifice" in miami, but common now, theyre still among the top earners in the league. 15mil a year is not a sacrifice.
                            True enough.

                            Comment


                            • Can the NBA Drive 45?

                              NBA owners have been pining for a hard salary cap seemingly since the soft cap was put in place back in the early 1980s. Every time the possibility would rise like a plastic head in a whack-a-mole arcade game, the players' union would be there to hammer it down and out.

                              So it came as no surprise to find out that the league's initial collective bargaining agreement proposal—the details of which were explained in an April 26th memo to the players by union director Billy Hunter—reportedly included demands to institute a $45 million hard cap, cut contract guarantees and significantly reduce annual salary increases. And, likewise, it wasn't a shock that the players rejected the idea wholeheartedly.

                              What may surprise some is that the league's next offer, which was delivered in late April, still insisted upon a $45-million hard cap, a source told The Sports Business Journal's John Lombardo. Lakers point guard and union president Derek Fisher dismissed the NBA's second proposal as being too similar to the original offer, likely because both offers included a 23% reduction in the salary cap. And of course, since the proposal is for a hard cap instead of a soft one, teams would be pressed into making some very difficult decisions with some of their fans' favorite players.

                              "The nature of the owners' demands is so onerous that I feel it is imperative to reinforce the message of our recent team meetings with this letter," Hunter wrote in the memo, which was quoted by Lombardo.

                              "Under the hard cap proposal, a team's total salary may not exceed the proposed hard salary cap for any reason," Hunter continued. "The important part to keep in mind is that without exceptions provided in our current soft cap system, all players would have to squeeze tightly under a hard (and much lower) cap number."

                              Hunter goes on to warn his clients about the NBA's plans for their current contracts as well. As Lombardo puts it, Hunter tells players about the "league's effort to alter the structure of current contracts while detailing the owners' proposal that no player contract be guaranteed for more than 50% for the first $8 million in salary and 25% fro any mount above $8 million."

                              "A system-wide change in the nature of guaranteed contracts," Hunter wrote, "not only would harm players' economic interests individually, but it would also significantly change the culture of the league collectively."

                              A few other proposed changes mentioned by Lombardo:

                              •Annual contract increases would be reduced to 3% or less for players who've earned their Bird rights. (Currently at 10.5%)
                              •The maximum length of a contract for a player who has earned his Bird rights would be cut from six years to four years.
                              •Annual contract increases for non-Bird rights players would be reduced to 2% from the current 8%.
                              •Non-Bird rights players and free agents signing with new teams would only be able to sign contracts for three years as opposed to five.
                              •Players would be put into one of four categories: A. Minimum Salary Players; B. Rookie Wage Scale Players; C. Maximum Salary Players; D. Someone "fighting for whatever room remains under the new hard salary cap after the three above categories are accounted for."

                              So, NBA fans, what does all this mean for you? Well, rest assured that all of this can't pass. There are two sides to these negotiations, so some of the previously mentioned demands, if true, will be implemented while others will get dropped. Whether a hard cap will ever see the light of day in the NBA is anyone's guess.

                              If there is a hard cap, there is still the major issue of what would happen to the current contracts. Would they be grandfathered in to the league's new financial landscape as antiques from a simpler time? Will teams be forced to gut their rosters in a mad scramble to get under the cap?

                              One loser in all of this seems to be teams with high salaries who were hoping to add a free agent with either the mid-level or bi-annual exception. A radically new CBA could mean that the HEAT, Celtics and Lakers won't be able the veteran pieces they need to compete for a title in 2011-2012. There's also the chance that average NBA players would make only slightly more than fringe players, which could motivate some guys to sign lucrative deals overseas.

                              It's still too early to say anything with certainty, but we could be looking at a vastly different league in the near future.



                              Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1MYkOU6EA
                              I think the owners are pushing for radical reform while the players are trying to keep status-quo. The owners will win in the end because what they want is something between what they are proposing and what currently exists. I'm sure it will go to the 11th hour at which point the owners 'give in' to what they wanted all along. Players don't have a chance.

                              Comment


                              • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                                I think the owners are pushing for radical reform while the players are trying to keep status-quo. The owners will win in the end because what they want is something between what they are proposing and what currently exists. I'm sure it will go to the 11th hour at which point the owners 'give in' to what they wanted all along. Players don't have a chance.
                                I hope it will end up somewhere in the middle, but who knows. The owners have the real power, but the changes are more than drastic. Business-wise it is interesting, fan-wise it is annoying that with such a disparity in position this could be a lockout until January or so (the players will go too poor to go much farther than that.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X