Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    I don't doubt that for a second. But what if they are able to hold out longer? What if they can hold out for two or three seasons? What if they can hold out until some of these owners are on the brink of losing previously fixed incomes? What if they can hold out until some of these owners are paying out costs with no sight of income in the near future? Until they are on the verge of having to declare bankruptcy on their asset?

    Its not something I endorse or want to see... but I think if the players are willing to hold out for a full season, leading into the following season they will win. Just like management unity is crucial to success so if player unity. The real question is who can stick together the longest... they both have alot to lose.
    I agree with your ideas but I disagree with the players being able to hold out longer. The reason is because the owner's largest expenses have been slashed or totally eliminated with the work stoppage while the TV revenues and merchandising (albeit probably taking a hit) continues to roll in. If 22 teams are truly losing money operating it doesn't seem unreasonable to think they will lose less money not operating while their other interests (outside basketball) continue their normal activiities.

    Comment


    • For a completely different perspective from one of the top popular science writers and one of those Canadians:

      Malcolm Gladwell in 'Psychic Benefits' and the NBA Lockout "explains why owning a basketball franchise has always been a bad business — and ought to stay that way."

      Comment


      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
        I agree with your ideas but I disagree with the players being able to hold out longer. The reason is because the owner's largest expenses have been slashed or totally eliminated with the work stoppage while the TV revenues and merchandising (albeit probably taking a hit) continues to roll in. If 22 teams are truly losing money operating it doesn't seem unreasonable to think they will lose less money not operating while their other interests (outside basketball) continue their normal activiities.
        I never said that they would be able to, and I agree with you and Apollo that they will more than likely be unable to. I'm just stating that if they are.. they will 'win' (so to speak). If this lockout is as fierce as the media is making it, it will come down to a battle of wills.

        As to owners expenses, they still have other fixed costs (arena's, interest etc). TV revenues (assuming they have been paid in full, or without a clause that prevents payment under a lock out.... which I have no idea if they do or not) may keep coming in, but if the players stay on an extended lockout, networks and advertisers may think twice about how much they should or are willing to pay on their next deal.

        Then you have to consider the willingness of owners to want to keep an 'asset' that is costing them money with no foreseeable future income and a potentially decreasing asset value (ie. if players are not playing nobody will be willing to buy tickets, buy advertising etc and no one is going to want to buy a team, atleast at a fair value, if there is still a stirke/lockout).

        Then you also have the influence of big market teams that will consistently lose potential money.... which will likely be the first to want the lockout to end (NY, LA, Chicago etc).

        I really think them losing 'less money' without a season is very short term.

        Comment


        • Thanks Soft Euro for the Gladwell link. He makes a lot of sense. Of course, his argument won't carry any weight in resolving the lockout, but it is probably accurate.

          Comment


          • I liked it to. One can leave it up to Gladwell to take a subject out of a locked up context and reframe it.

            Comment


            • The writing has been on the wall for a while that the 2011-12 season was in jeopardy and it's because everyone expected the owners to take a hardline stance in negoations. That's exactly what has happened so far and most people who have been following the CBA talks aren't surprised one bit. I definitely wouldn't call it a conspiracy. It's pretty far from that actually. Stern and the owners have been pretty transparent and have warned that they wanted a major overhaul of the system and were willing to miss games to achieve it.

              Comment


              • Here's another little lockout tidbit:

                Wilson Chandler has signed with the Zhejiang Guangsha of the Chinese Basketball Association for the upcoming season. This particular signing is noteable because the CBA has ruled that they will not allow opt-out clauses for players who would want to return to the States and play assuming that there's NBA games this year. Chandler will be there for the entire year, even if the lockout is resolved. From the sounds of it however, I don't think he expects that to happen.

                Just another indication that we could be in for a full year of no NBA

                Comment


                • March first is typically the deadline for a player to be waived by a team in order to be eligible to play for another team in the playoffs. So, if Chandler's deal runs through to April it sounds like he probably has no chance to have his cake and eat it too. If that's the case then this is no doubt a pretty bold statement by his camp on where negotiations are headed.

                  My question would be that if the players are locked out for an entire season then what's their breaking point after that? October 2012?

                  Comment


                  • Apollo wrote: View Post
                    My question would be that if the players are locked out for an entire season then what's their breaking point after that? October 2012?
                    If it goes on that long then the de-certification of the union becomes a feasible option for the players. Of course, that road is also uncertain and litigation is unpredictable.

                    From the other side, at some point, missing seasons starts to do long-term damage to a league and, consequently, revenues and team valuations. It took MLB years to recover from the early 90s lockout and it still hasn't come back in softer markets. If they do lose the season (and I think it is a real possibility) it seems to me the incentives for both sides start to change in the spring of 2012

                    Comment


                    • Lockout Optimism

                      Chris Sheridan believes the lockout will be done early, and we won't lose a game:

                      http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/...theyre-saying/

                      Thought I'd share.. definitely a different outlook on the lockout since all we hear is that there won't be a season.

                      Note: I got this link off of Doug's blog, so the credit for finding it goes to him.

                      Comment


                      • Comment


                        • planetmars wrote: View Post
                          Chris Sheridan believes the lockout will be done early, and we won't lose a game:

                          http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/...theyre-saying/

                          Thought I'd share.. definitely a different outlook on the lockout since all we hear is that there won't be a season.

                          Note: I got this link off of Doug's blog, so the credit for finding it goes to him.

                          I was just about to post this.

                          Here are the last three paragraphs - and most important in my opinion - for those who do not get through the entire article:


                          I have been saying all along that there is too much to be lost by having a work stoppage that extends into the fall and forces the cancellation of games. And with the NBA coming off a fantastic season in which attendance, ratings and merchandise sales all skyrocketed, there is took much risk of punishing the product to go too far down the bumpy road the owners have chosen to take.

                          At the end of the day, they have too much to gain by making a deal that gives them a significantly larger share of the pie that what they were getting under the old deal. And lastly, all of the principle players in the negotiations are reasonable and rational men. They are not interested in destroying what they’ve built up over the past several seasons, especially in 2010-11.

                          So a settlement is coming, and I am here to tell you that it’ll likely come a lot sooner than most everyone else has been predicting. It’ll take a lot of back-and-forth over the remainder of September, but it can certainly get done when both sides can identify the middle ground and move there simultaneously.

                          Comment


                          • planetmars wrote: View Post
                            Chris Sheridan believes the lockout will be done early, and we won't lose a game:

                            I guess if you agree with the underlying premise here that this is just posturing then perhaps this looks better but his analysis has three major assumptions in it (all of which may be incorrect):

                            1. Everyone stands to lose more from a lockout.

                            2. A 6-year deal is doable.

                            ADD: Also, I believe it was Sheridan who was opining in the spring that there wouldn't even be a lockout because the money was to good for everyone. I think he may be misreading the situation (or so many others are).

                            3. The owners won't go after a hard cap. This is the big one to me. He basically says the owners have to cave. It's just a red herring. Never be a deal with a hard cap. Um, why? Based on what? The NHL got a hard cap when everyone said the players would never agree. They did. After a lost year. He quotes not one source to back up his assertion the owners will cave on a hard cap but, on the other hand, you have Ted Leonsis and other NHL owners who we know (based on Leonsis' own words and Ric Bucher) telling the other owners that losing a season is worth it to get the cap.

                            Sheridan may be right (and he obviously has sources) but this strikes me as some wishful thinking.
                            Last edited by slaw; Tue Sep 6, 2011, 05:44 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Such a tease...
                              Eh follow my TWITTER!

                              Comment


                              • slaw wrote: View Post
                                I guess if you agree with the underlying premise here that this is just posturing then perhaps this looks better but his analysis has three major assumptions in it (all of which may be incorrect):

                                1. Everyone stands to lose more from a lockout.

                                2. A 6-year deal is doable.

                                ADD: Also, I believe it was Sheridan who was opining in the spring that there wouldn't even be a lockout because the money was to good for everyone. I think he may be misreading the situation (or so many others are).

                                3. The owners won't go after a hard cap. This is the big one to me. He basically says the owners have to cave. It's just a red herring. Never be a deal with a hard cap. Um, why? Based on what? The NHL got a hard cap when everyone said the players would never agree. They did. After a lost year. He quotes not one source to back up his assertion the owners will cave on a hard cap but, on the other hand, you have Ted Leonsis and other NHL owners who we know (based on Leonsis' own words and Ric Bucher) telling the other owners that losing a season is worth it to get the cap.

                                Sheridan may be right (and he obviously has sources) but this strikes me as some wishful thinking.
                                Great counter-thoughts.

                                While Sheridan may be correct in the numbers not being that far apart, there are major philosophical differences that are not going to be easily overcome.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X