What's new
By:

Bring on the Scabs!!

O

oldtimer

Well-Known Member
I love basketball and I watch or read about it more than anyone should. I will watch B level players and pay to do it. Now that the lockout is a reality I want to know how soon can the owners bring in replacement players. I don't care if I get to see Kobe or Lebron. I really wanted to see the Jazz this year play, but it can wait. It has to wait while the NBA gets control over its costs.

Here is what I believe:

1. This lockout will be long, at least the entire season. The players and owners position is too far apart and while the NFL is fighting over how to share profits, NBA teams are actually losing money. The NBA owns the Hornets. Golden State was recently sold for substantially less than thought. Detroit was sold for 100 million less than they could have 3 years ago. 22 teams are losing money (putting aside tricky accounting). The NBA is dealing with losses not profits. The NBA needs real give backs to make it work and the players are not willing to give hardly anything.

2. The players are wrong. First I don't think they understand the economic of the NBA and the new realities of this economy. Cost keep going up and yet they don't care. They want what they have become accustom to receiving. The players and the union leaders don't want to give back the substantial gains they got in the last CBA deal. The players actually think that because the rate of increase will not be the same as it has in past years they are losing money. The fact is the NBA says you are making great money, more than all other sports leagues, we just want to keep you salaries at these obscene current levels. The players truly believe they are entitled to a specific percentage of Basketball Related Income no matter what that is. My problem with this is the player partake in all the benefits of growth without experiencing any of the risk the owners took in buying the team.

3. The owners plan to cap salaries at 2.17 Billion for the next 10 years is fair. Its actually a slight increase in player salaries from this year but it gives the owners the ability to project their costs in the future.

4. If the players insistence on tying salaries to BRI will prevent a deal. If they have to have a percentage of revenue it should be closer to 45% rather than 54%.

5. Owners should be able to make millions of dollars each year on their investment.

6. I think people will watch replacement players.

7. I think the owners could break the union if they brought in replacement players.

So how soon can be get replacement players under the existing labor laws?
 
The league brought this upon itself by allowing the refs to call the plays according to the status of the players, thereby enhancing the mythical status of NBA players. If the games were called without bias, then more players would be competitive, the games would be more competitive, and salaries would be deflated due to competitive economic forces.
 
Hey Thee Jazz Fan

Are you sure that is the law? Why would the league lock the players out if by doing so they cannot bring in replacements? Can anybody confirm this?
 
Oldtimer, there is no chance they will bring in replacements. No one will pay to see guys that you can probably find at your local YMCA. D-League and the WNBA are good examples of why NBA players have massive bargaining power.
The lockout happens by default as the CBA contract has legally expired.
 
It is really ridiculous that a sport with so few players would have so many that make SO much money... Really an NBA player can usually have a longer career than an NFL player just because of the nature of the sport. I mean when a guy like Memo makes as much per year as Peyton Manning possibly the greatest QB to ever play... There is a very serious problem! Every team in the NBA has got ridiculous contracts left and right, its a joke! There's no doubt the main thing the NFL has going for it is the ability to cut players and they have also kept guaranteed money down for the most part except for new rookie contracts that get more and more pathetic. With the development of these new Euro leagues in basketball why not cut players and reduce guarantees. Could you imagine how much better the competition would be if you could just cut guys like CJ, Fes, etc...
 
northeast said:
The league brought this upon itself by allowing the refs to call the plays according to the status of the players, thereby enhancing the mythical status of NBA players. If the games were called without bias, then more players would be competitive, the games would be more competitive, and salaries would be deflated due to competitive economic forces.
Click to expand...

I agree! The league made a business decesion to market the stars, it worked well with Bird vs Magic, then Michael Jordan. But things got out of whack after that. It went from marketing stars to marketing every player as if he was a star. The players ego and sense of entitlement subsequently went through the roof. The refs followed suit, protecting the 'stars' till the games took on a look and feel of a scripted wrestling event rather than a sports competition. The NBA players even have ring side babes just like Hulk Hogan had Cyndi Lauper (see Eva Longoria, and the Kardashians).

David Sterns biography could very well read like a greek tragedy--he started with a small kingdom, through his machinations and intrigue his kingdom gained supreme power, but at his pinnacle he is thown out by his subjects and the kingdom is destroyed, leaving the king and his subjects in a worse state than the begining.
 
I really wanted to know the answer to my question so I did some research and the answer is YES the NBA can bring in replacement players.

According to Gabriel A. Feldman a law professor

"In the event of a lockout, can the owners hire replacement players?

Yes, employers may hire temporary employees during a lockout where the harm to the locked out employees is "comparatively slight" and the decision to hire is motivated by a legitimate business reason." What is "comparatively slight" I don't know.

"Would the NBA owners be permitted to lock the players out?

Yes, as long as the lockout is used for the purpose of increasing bargaining power, not to discourage union membership or to interfere with the players' organizational rights."

So what were left with is whether the NBA will bring in replacements. The answer to that unfortunately is probably NO for all the reasons set forth by the posters in this thread. As Mr. Feldman put it "the NBA has not used replacement players in the past and are unlikely to do so this time around, because sponsors, fans, and networks simply do not want to see (or pay to see) Shane Falco playing for the Lakers instead of Kobe Bryant."

It is my belief that this season is lost because the NBA will not bring in replacement players. They have spent to much time and energy marketing the existing players. Having refs create superstars, like paul pierce and Kobe Bryant who would only be average players if they had to play in the rules and system that existed when Magic and Jordon played. However, after a year away from the game, the NBA will have to consider replacement player as means of increasing their leverage over the players. So the short answer no replacements this years and a lost season, but maybe replacements next year.
 
My local Rec Center has a group of Filipino's who play basketball together once a week.

TRUST ME, YOU WOULD PAY TO SEE THESE GUYS PLAY.
 
oldtimer said:
I love basketball and I watch or read about it more than anyone should. I will watch B level players and pay to do it. Now that the lockout is a reality I want to know how soon can the owners bring in replacement players. I don't care if I get to see Kobe or Lebron. I really wanted to see the Jazz this year play, but it can wait. It has to wait while the NBA gets control over its costs.

Here is what I believe:

1. This lockout will be long, at least the entire season. The players and owners position is too far apart and while the NFL is fighting over how to share profits, NBA teams are actually losing money. The NBA owns the Hornets. Golden State was recently sold for substantially less than thought. Detroit was sold for 100 million less than they could have 3 years ago. 22 teams are losing money (putting aside tricky accounting). The NBA is dealing with losses not profits. The NBA needs real give backs to make it work and the players are not willing to give hardly anything.

2. The players are wrong. First I don't think they understand the economic of the NBA and the new realities of this economy. Cost keep going up and yet they don't care. They want what they have become accustom to receiving. The players and the union leaders don't want to give back the substantial gains they got in the last CBA deal. The players actually think that because the rate of increase will not be the same as it has in past years they are losing money. The fact is the NBA says you are making great money, more than all other sports leagues, we just want to keep you salaries at these obscene current levels. The players truly believe they are entitled to a specific percentage of Basketball Related Income no matter what that is. My problem with this is the player partake in all the benefits of growth without experiencing any of the risk the owners took in buying the team.

3. The owners plan to cap salaries at 2.17 Billion for the next 10 years is fair. Its actually a slight increase in player salaries from this year but it gives the owners the ability to project their costs in the future.

4. If the players insistence on tying salaries to BRI will prevent a deal. If they have to have a percentage of revenue it should be closer to 45% rather than 54%.

5. Owners should be able to make millions of dollars each year on their investment.

6. I think people will watch replacement players.

7. I think the owners could break the union if they brought in replacement players.

So how soon can be get replacement players under the existing labor laws?
Click to expand...

You are a fool to think all these teams are losing real money. Accounting these days works greatly in the favor of the multi-millionaires. There are several articles out there about how this works in the NBA.

If they are losing money, let them sell their team like GS did. Certainly that 100 million lower price tag has to keep loan costs down quite a bit. These are big boys, if they made a bad investment under the terms they bought under, tough luck. Sell and move on and eat the loss.
 
Stephen A. Smith is generally an idiot, but that article shows he actually can put something good out there. He's right on the money this time, IMO...
 
Zman1527

You think I'm a fool if I believe NBA owners are losing money, then call me zippy and give me a big red nose and shoes. I don't believe all NBA teams are losing money and I even mentioned that there are some tricky accounting issues teams employ to post losses. However, you cannot deny that NBA profits are going down and costs are increasing. Okay maybe only 10-15 teams truly lost money. It still too many. And while you can site to many articles that discuss tricky accounting I can refer to just as many discussing the huge losses (real losses) that teams have incurred.

What I think is foolish is your statement that if billionaire owners made a bad investment they should just sell the team and move on. I know of no billionaire that is just going to say "oh well, I made a bad investment, there is nothing I can do about these soaring player salaries so I'm just going to sell and move on" Yea, that's going to happen.

I may be the only one on the planet, but I feel players salaries have become outrageously high. Players salaries could be cut 35% and they would still be generously paid and set for life.
 
oldtimer said:
Zman1527

You think I'm a fool if I believe NBA owners are losing money, then call me zippy and give me a big red nose and shoes. I don't believe all NBA teams are losing money and I even mentioned that there are some tricky accounting issues teams employ to post losses. However, you cannot deny that NBA profits are going down and costs are increasing. Okay maybe only 10-15 teams truly lost money. It still too many. And while you can site to many articles that discuss tricky accounting I can refer to just as many discussing the huge losses (real losses) that teams have incurred.

What I think is foolish is your statement that if billionaire owners made a bad investment they should just sell the team and move on. I know of no billionaire that is just going to say "oh well, I made a bad investment, there is nothing I can do about these soaring player salaries so I'm just going to sell and move on" Yea, that's going to happen.

I may be the only one on the planet, but I feel players salaries have become outrageously high. Players salaries could be cut 35% and they would still be generously paid and set for life.
Click to expand...

Okay, Zippy, how do you know that any are losing money at all? If 22 are losing money, why are not the owners selling these bad investments??? With the accounting games they can play, no one can know if any one of them is losing money at all. You trust the owners in this? Okay, I have a wonderful MBS rated AAA for ya. Sure those illegal dishwashers in East LA are good for the mortgage payments. LOL

You never heard of a billionaire selling out of a bad investment? Happens all the time. And if they did the new owner would have a better financial situation presumably: if owner A bought if for $300 million and it is actually losing money, maybe someone can buy it for $150 million. Then you have a better proposition.

Sure the players make good jing and they should be very happy with that. But they are only asking for a percentage. If revenue goes down, so does their take, right? I think they ought to go for 50:50 and stick with that. That will sound fair to everyone.
 
I never said 22 teams were losing money, I said it was reported that 22 teams were losing money putting aside the issue of fancy accounting tricks. However, it cannot be reasonably disputed that revenues on a percentage basis are down and costs are up. And I don't know where you have been but owners are selling teams and some for massive losses. The NBA had to step in an actually owns a team right now. Something that is unheard of in the history of sports. The league actually owns one of their own teams. The Bobcats, the pistons, and Golden State have also been recently sold.

The billionaire owners don't have to sell if they can find a system that works. If that means the players take a huge cut in pay so be it. You can't have a system where 8 to 15 teams make a profit. You propose a 50-50 split. That might work it might not. That the players position. The players want a percentage of revenues. This ensures that if the league grows in popularity the players will benefit. If the owners agree fine. But what if the percentage need is 60-40 for the owners to make a profit. The players haven't budged from a 54.5% BRI. Maybe a 50-50 split would have avoided a lockout.

The owners have said, and I agree with them, that players salaries shouldn't be tied to BRI at all. NBA players make more money than another other sports league. Even an average NBA player makes more than Payton Manning. The owners are saying the players are making around 2 billion dollars a year and the average player makes around 6-7 million with the great players making 18-22 million. In the eyes of the owners that should be enough money. They don't want it tied to BRI, they are saying lets set a fixed number that pays players very very generously and cap it there for 10 years. That system could be tweaked a little to make it work a little better for the players. For instance, if revenues increase 5% over five years salaries could also increase every five years or so. If they go down players should be willing to decrease that amount.

What I'm saying is the owners are right and the players are wrong. The owners took the risk, invested hundreds of millions of dollars and deserve to make a profit. Even if player' wages were cut substantially they still make more than every other league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top