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

[Apollo]

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.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

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.

[Maleko]

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.

[Matt52]

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.

[Maleko]

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.)

[slaw]

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.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...38893/25772987

Here's the Berger piece. The NBA's own negotiators claims that it takes $20mm in non-player expenses to generate $120mm in revenue. Since they won't open their books, you can ask them to "break it down".

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...season-2010-11

There's a back of the envelope calculation based on the league's numbers. Perhaps, I should ask: can you break down the owners' $370mm losses for me?

[grindhouse]

I haven't yet went in depth with this but so far I am liking a hard cap at 45 mil. If a franchise tag is added with that then I think we will start seeing a competitive league across the board like the NFL. fans will more liking pack the stadiums when they have a competitive team the only going to games to see the traveling show.

The current business model they have now is not good for the game and if what they say is true and the league is basically subsidizing some of the teams then that is not only not sustainable but unamerican, so either they change the system or end up like hockey where franchises move too often for anyones liking.

[Maleko]

I haven't yet went in depth with this but so far I am liking a hard cap at 45 mil. If a franchise tag is added with that then I think we will start seeing a competitive league across the board like the NFL. fans will more liking pack the stadiums when they have a competitive team the only going to games to see the traveling show.

The current business model they have now is not good for the game and if what they say is true and the league is basically subsidizing some of the teams then that is not only not sustainable but unamerican, so either they change the system or end up like hockey where franchises move too often for anyones liking.

Miami doesn't pack the stadium when they do have a competitive team, although this year they did well. I remember many games in the last few years where there were more empty seats than butt-filled. Some cities just don't fully support sports teams. Only 6 teams had 100% (or better however that works) attendance this past year, with a number of teams close to that, but then you have playoff teams that are more than competitive like the Hawks @83.6% capacity! Other playoff teams like Philly at 72.6% (lowest in the league), Grizzlies at 80.9%, Hornets 86.1%, Nuggets 88.2%. Then you get the Cavs at 97.8%, the Suns at 95.4% and the Jazz at 98%.

Bottom line is some cities support their teams, some are fickle, and some don't give a crap. Changing the model will still leave 14 teams out of the playoffs, still some will suck, and some will always compete.

I am not sold on a hard cap certainly, as I do not see it as a saving grace that so many others do. The example like the Blackhawks of hockey is used a lot on this forum, so let's imagine the NBA finals go to Miami, Philly or Memphis. Two years later when they drop off due to the hard cap, like Chicago did, the fans will all go away again. (Note I am not saying they did in Chicago hockey, just saying in these basketball cities). There is a fundamental issue wrong in the NBA CBA. I sure don't have the solution or I would bottle it.

What I think must come about in the new CBA:
- eliminate guaranteed contracts. The Eddie Curry's of the world piss us all off, not just the owners.
- reduce the raises. Kobe is great to the Lakers, but no freaking way is he worth $30 in a couple of years from now. Period. No way. The more these guys get, the more the ticket prices jack up to compensate.
- reduce the length of time on long-term contracts
- kill the sign-and-trade option. If you want the money, stay with your damn team. No forcing the issue and holding a team ransom. You want to go to another team, take less money (if you are a max-type player of course, mid-level guys have at 'er!)

My thoughts at least.

[MyMomLovesMe]

My thoughts....


Don't sign stupid contracts. Why do the mismanaged teams always require the well managed teams to make concessions for them. Then they get the best picks in the draft. Stern wants to rig the league so that its like shooting fish in a barrel for the owners. No one put a gun to anyone’s head to sign Curry or to hire Brown as a coach. The owners walk away from contracts every day and Stern does jack. You make a poo poo you have to sit in it. Why are they shifting their mismanagement on the players? The league is a money scam, run by a criminal gambling racket. It's fixed at every juncture, and they want to now fix the books so that there is no competition amongst teams. The proposal they are proposing makes Toronto no different than Milwaukee. (Show me a team that has bankrupted? Or that no one wants to buy... lol, it doesn't happen)


Screw them, let the competition and free market rule. Raptors don't have any problems, I am sorry that Atlanta and Philadelphia do. Cry me a river.... what happened to my draft pick? Tough world isn't it? Go screw yourself Stern, I pay to much money for this crap for you to use the moment to get a bigger slice of the pie.

If you guys really buy Stern's cooked books than I got some nice fairy tales to tell you as well.

[MyMomLovesMe]

NHL salary cap for 2010, was set at 59 Million.

Profits have been doing good in a recession. (No major network deal like the NBA, but the same expenditure) http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...5AB33X20091112


You are going to tell me, that the NBA, a world brand, who's TV rights are being sold all over the world. Jerseys you name it, is doing worse than the NHL? Stern is the biggest weassel the NBA has. (BTW NBA, controls all rights outside of the teams jurisdiction)

No one knows what the NHL is south of the equator, but you will see NBA gear in New Zealand. The books on the NBA smell like funky cheese, and I feel sorry that the players union is getting taken to the cleaners on this next CBA because of Sterns posture and timming. He is a low life scum bag, and I would not trust a word out the midgets mouth.

[Matt52]

NHL salary cap for 2010, was set at 59 Million.

Profits have been doing good in a recession. (No major network deal like the NBA, but the same expenditure) http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...5AB33X20091112

You are going to tell me, that the NBA, a world brand, who's TV rights are being sold all over the world. Jerseys you name it, is doing worse than the NHL? Stern is the biggest weassel the NBA has. (BTW NBA, controls all rights outside of the teams jurisdiction)

No one knows what the NHL is south of the equator, but you will see NBA gear in New Zealand. The books on the NBA smell like funky cheese, and I feel sorry that the players union is getting taken to the cleaners on this next CBA because of Sterns posture and timming. He is a low life scum bag, and I would not trust a word out the midgets mouth.

Each NHL team has a roster of 23 players versus 15 for the NBA.

I think Stern gives a little more credit than what you are giving considering where he has taken the league in the last 25 years.

This is collective bargaining and negotiation - neither side is going to come out and start off telling exactly what they want. Negotiations imply give and take. The players have already lost based on simple fact they want to keep things the same and the owners are pushing radical changes.

In my ideal world, a hard cap is brought in in the mid-high 60's ($65-70M).

[MyMomLovesMe]

You can give as much credit to Stern as you want. The game has grown immensely, the brand is recognisable all over the world. I can wear a maple leaf jersey in Africa or Asia and no one will know what it is. I put on a NBA jersey, even of a small market team and it is a brand, a style.


The point I am making is that the NBA is using some shady accounting. It's difficult for me to jive with their numbers. Kobe and Lebron jerseys only go into teams coffers when they are sold in Florida or LA respectively.



For some odd reason the NHL has figured out a functionary model with a significantly worse revenue stream. Less attractive assets, and little to no world brand. Something is not adding up... someone is being less then honest with the health of this league, and the fans are being held hostage in an attempt for the owners to take a bigger slice of the pie.

....because if you think this is an attempt to sell you your ticket lower, or the ball cap cheaper, you will find out fast no one cares about how much the fan is being gauged.

(as for the amount of players, 23 vs 15, meh... more plane tickets more hotel rooms, more training staff, more paper work... I think when you compare TV contracts and revenue streams, one looks very little next to the other. Except the wrong entity is crying about its profits... so what is the problem? Management or greed?)


(Maybe the NHL is being run much much better, but I find that hard to believe... I think Stern is trying to pull a fast one. I find it very hard to believe that the NBA is less desirable a product in 2011 than it was 2 or 3 years ago and that the revenue has contracted by 25%, the way they want to cap the players. The world numbers for interest and growth of the game do not support that view. So either someone is fudging, or being EXTREMELY incompetent with a golden goose. IF its really that bad, than STERN deseves to be fired for not knowing how to run the league when emergin markets like China, India and to some extent Europe are clamouring for the product.) (These players promoted the product internationally, in Asia, Africa and Europe and now Stern is conning them out of 25%, LOL.)

(The NHL could only dream of being in such a position. Outside of some northern markets in Europe no one cares. ...and even in those NHL markets I bet you NBA posts better numbers side by side. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the rights to the NBA finals are more lucrative in Iceland than the Stanley Cup.)


...shaddy accounting by Stern and his gang. (I don't thnink they are this incompetent. Owners are not running away from their franchises beggin to sell.)

[Raptors_]

You can give as much credit to Stern as you want. The game has grown immensely, the brand is recognisable all over the world. I can wear a maple leaf jersey in Africa or Asia and no one will know what it is. I put on a NBA jersey, even of a small market team and it is a brand, a style.


The point I am making is that the NBA is using some shady accounting. It's difficult for me to jive with their numbers. Kobe and Lebron jerseys only go into teams coffers when they are sold in Florida or LA respectively.



For some odd reason the NHL has figured out a functionary model with a significantly worse revenue stream. Less attractive assets, and little to no world brand. Something is not adding up... someone is being less then honest with the health of this league, and the fans are being held hostage in an attempt for the owners to take a bigger slice of the pie.

....because if you think this is an attempt to sell you your ticket lower, or the ball cap cheaper, you will find out fast no one cares about how much the fan is being gauged.

(as for the amount of players, 23 vs 15, meh... more plane tickets more hotel rooms, more training staff, more paper work... I think when you compare TV contracts and revenue streams, one looks very little next to the other. Except the wrong entity is crying about its profits... so what is the problem? Management or greed?)


(Maybe the NHL is being run much much better, but I find that hard to believe... I think Stern is trying to pull a fast one. I find it very hard to believe that the NBA is less desirable a product in 2011 than it was 2 or 3 years ago and that the revenue has contracted by 25%, the way they want to cap the players. The world numbers for interest and growth of the game do not support that view. So either someone is fudging, or being EXTREMELY incompetent with a golden goose. IF its really that bad, than STERN deseves to be fired for not knowing how to run the league when emergin markets like China, India and to some extent Europe are clamouring for the product.) (These players promoted the product internationally, in Asia, Africa and Europe and now Stern is conning them out of 25%, LOL.)

(The NHL could only dream of being in such a position. Outside of some northern markets in Europe no one cares. ...and even in those NHL markets I bet you NBA posts better numbers side by side. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the rights to the NBA finals are more lucrative in Iceland than the Stanley Cup.)


...shaddy accounting by Stern and his gang. (I don't thnink they are this incompetent. Owners are not running away from their franchises beggin to sell.)

Why don't they just fire stern? i hate that douche, and he riggs the draft lottery all the time and it pisses me off.

[MyMomLovesMe]

Because he is a clever sob, he is winning these negotiation so far, the players will make concessions.


We can hate him and feel used, but in the end the owners end up having more control of their franchises, with little or no consequence for making bad moves. At 45 million, hard cap, you can be mentally challenged and still make money.


Stern is exploiting the economic times, and fans perception of the unfair pay scale, and taking the pie back for the owners in the midst of the disarray. You can hate the money that we are talking about, but STERN does not, he just hates the fact that its going to the players that are making this a show instead of the owners.


We the fans will not see a dime back, regardless whether Stern or the Players win. Don't let Stern's agenda fool you into thinking he represents your interest. He does not, he represents ownership. I personally am on the side of the players. I think they are being exploited. Regardless what your politics are about athletes making this kind of money, the money is there, and I don’t like the way Stern is carving up the pie and acting like he is not getting a fair share. I don't trust him, and never have.

[Raptors_]

Because he is clever sob, he is winning these negotiation so far, the players will make concesions.


We can hate him and feel used, but in the end the owners end up having more control of their franchises, with little or no consequence for making bad moves. At 45 million, hard cap, you can be mentally challanged and still make money.

so no lockout?

[MyMomLovesMe]

It's about money, and give and take. So yes, the lockout, depends entirely on Stern in my opinion. No lockout? I don't know, he may care more about money and power than the game... I don't think that would surprise anyone.


There really is no reason why there should be a lockout, the fans are ready to spend. The drama is really of Sterns making.



If I was the players I would be asking what happend to the emeging markets money? Why is the league doing so bad when the brand has grown substantially? At no point has the world been this connected with the internet and live feeds, why is the NBA not capitalizing on this? Interest is higher than ever, why is there no money to show for the extra demand?

(I don't think they are stupid, I just think the players union has done a piss poor job of kicking the tires.) I would be super happy if Stern got the axe, but I am biased towards the players.


I do think that his contention that the state of hte league is poor, can be used to put the HEAT back on to STERN and his managment. I think the players union can make this very ugly for the midget if they had the guts to do it.

[slaw]

If I was the players I would be asking what happend to the emeging markets money? Why is the league doing so bad when the brand has grown substantially? At no point has the world been this connected with the internet and live feeds, why is the NBA not capitalizing on this? Interest is higher than ever, why is there no money to show for the extra demand?

The reason for the NBA lockout is the same as the reason for the NFL lockout: the owners have run out of ways to increase franchise values. Cities are starting to wise up and are signalling they won't be building new stadiums/arenas for these guys, which takes a huge revenue pile away. Merchandise, luxury suites, seat licenses, tv deals, etc. - they can't bleed much more out of people. Even owners who lost money year over year knew that, at the end of the day, their franchise values would continue to soar, however, that isn't happening anymore. You add to that the fact that there aren't many markets left to move teams and fewer buyers and, well, your team's value is stagnant.

The point being that even if revenues increase slightly year over year, which they are in the NBA by the way, it doesn't mean that your team is worth more than it was last year. However, if you can cap costs back 3 or 4 years and continue to increase revenues, well, then you can increase enterprise value.

[ezz_bee]

I have no problem with owners and the NBA making money, I have no problem with players making money either. I just wish the books were open. Despite MyMomLovesMe vehemence I think he does raise some good points. I think the league needs to do a better job of getting world market revenue back to individual franchises.

Without knowing exactly where the money is coming from and how much their REALLY is then it is difficult to find an appropriate solution.

[MyMomLovesMe]

[joey_hesketh]

Wow ... this is big news.
Source

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NBA players' association filed an unfair labor charge against the league Tuesday with the National Labor Relations Board, a move it hopes could block a lockout it feels owners want.

The union says the NBA hasn't bargained in good faith, has made financial demands without offering concessions to the players, and has bypassed the union to deal directly with players.

The charge filed with Region 2 of the NLRB seeks "an injunction against the NBA's unlawful bargaining practices and its unlawful lockout threat."

The NBA and players are trying to reach a deal for a new collective bargaining agreement before the June 30 expiration of the current one. They plan to meet early next month during the NBA finals, but remain far apart on major financial issues and a work stoppage remains a possibility.

Though both sides insist they realize the importance of negotiating a deal themselves without it reaching the courts, as the NFL's labor situation has, the union hopes the charge could give them legal backing if bargaining fails.

The charges against the league include:

• making harsh, inflexible, and grossly regressive "takeaway" demands that the NBA knows are not acceptable to the union and not supported by objective or reasonable factors or balanced by appropriate trade-offs;

• engaging in classic "take it or leave it" and surface bargaining intended to delay action on a renewal CBA until the NBA locks out the represented employees in order to coerce them into accepting the NBA's harsh and regressive demands;

• failing and refusing to provide relevant financial information properly requested and needed by the union to understand, test, and analyze the NBA's asserted justification, based on financial weakness, for its grossly regressive contract demands;

• threatening union-represented employees that the NBA will force them to pay for the cost of a lockout through even more draconian takeaways from their CBA;

• making demands and threats that are inherently destructive to the collective bargaining process and to employee rights, and that reflect the NBA's hostility to that process and those rights and are intended to signal to Union-represented employees that back-and-forth bargaining is futile.

A request was made with the NBA seeking comment.

NBAPA is basically saying the NBA Owners aren't playing fair, and don't actually want to avoid the lockout.
I don't disagree with these charges either.

David Stern got some 'splainin' to do.