What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

NUMBERICA said:
Also, if the NFL is willing to lockout, that tells you a lot about ownership simply trying to get every cent they can. Same with players. That's what this is all about. There are no saints, and there are only victims.
Click to expand...

I've seen the article on how the NBA teams can manipulate their books but let's also look at the flipside. Maybe the owners are telling the truth and are losing money. If the league did collectively lose 300M as stated, then something needs to change. We could go into a bunch of options but the quick, sensible thing to do here is lower the salary cap and in turn, player's salaries. Nothing else is going to cut into that 300M deficit like that will. The product (the games) isn't getting it done so why should that product with inflated salaries remain such?

In the real world, when companies are bleeding money, people are fired to cut costs and streamline efficiency. Sure, the same could be done here. Teams could (and might for all we know) let go of employees here or there in different departments. But that's not going to save millions and millions and get them in the black. Reducing the cap number might.

This isn't about the owners being greedy in my opinion, as much as it is the owners trying to keep their business afloat. The NBA almost folded about 30 years ago and it could happen again. In fact, it will happen again if proper business measures aren't taken.

At the end off the day, when it comes down to it, if you want to question the owners and their motives and numbers (which are legal according to U.S. GAAP), then that's your call. But the fact is, it's their team. It's they who shelled out billions and billions of dollars to buy their teams and in turn, make a profit. They're not doing it for charity. Sure some more than others (I'm looking at you Mark Cuban) may have a passion for the game. But they're not simply doing it because they love basketball. They bought each team as a business investment. And they can run each team as they see fit.

This is not the same as the NFL where the owners are making money. However, again, they're the ones who are risking billions and billions of dollars. If they feel they're not getting a big enough part of the profit, that's how they feel. Can you blame them? Would you not feel the same? I'm not saying you would but I think there's a great chance that anyone in their position might.
 
I've said many times things need to change and that the players should and are going to be on the losing side, no doubt. But I think it's absurd that BRI should be something that changes, and if it does, that it would change in favor of the owners. Players deserve every cent of that cut since they are who we watch. They are who makes it the best basketball on earth. They are the Jazz, and every other team. I don't give A **** about college ball because it's so much worse. Cut or significantly marginalize guaranteed deals, put in a flex cap, put in something like a franchise tag. Do the things necessary to allow teams to fix the situation they've gotten themselves into and cultivate parity. But the players deserve most of the share here, especially since they have such a small window to earn their money and no owner is putting his body on the line for owning the team either.

The problem isn't that players make 57%. It's that owners have been irresponsible with the remaining 43% and have no way to get out from under their own mistakes. I cannot emphasize enough that there are NO good guys in this battle. And everyone are victims in it. Don't forget that the fans matter the least to both parties.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I've said many times things need to change and that the players should and are going to be on the losing side, no doubt. But I think it's absurd that BRI should be something that changes, and if it does, that it would change in favor of the owners. Players deserve every cent of that cut since they are who we watch. They are who makes it the best basketball on earth. They are the Jazz, and every other team. I don't give A **** about college ball because it's so much worse. Cut or significantly marginalize guaranteed deals, put in a flex cap, put in something like a franchise tag. Do the things necessary to allow teams to fix the situation they've gotten themselves into and cultivate parity. But the players deserve most of the share here, especially since they have such a small window to earn their money and no owner is putting his body on the line for owning the team either.

The problem isn't that players make 57%. It's that owners have been irresponsible with the remaining 43% and have no way to get out from under their own mistakes. I cannot emphasize enough that there are NO good guys in this battle. And everyone are victims in it. Don't forget that the fans matter the least to both parties.
Click to expand...

Fine then the owner's should give them their 57% and then camp them in a motel 6, make them fly commercial airlines in coach and cut all costs related to keeping them happy outside of their contracts. I would venture to guess than the luxuries these players get for free cover another 10-20% of the owner's income. That is another great way for the owner's to cut a major cost. I think the players would throw a fit if it happened but hell they'd still have their majority of the income the league gets.

I also think if they won't give up some of their money the league should ban any income the players get from sponsors. No more Nike contracts to supplement their income. Those sources directly effect the profit the league could make by signing deals with those sponsors. By eliminating the option of player's signing a contract with a certain shoe maker the league could now sign those deals for the entire team or league in order to increase their income. Again the player's would throw a fit but they would have their 57%. And this way those huge deals would increase the salary of the all the players instead of every penny of it going to a select few.
 
It should be reminded that the NBA did offer much more in the way of financial statements than any other sports league has offered in their negotiations. Those statements were then remanded to independent analysts agreed upon by both parties. Sure the players see discrepancies, but their proposals of concessions would be a good indicator they believe the league is actually losing money.
 
Oh, and I think everyone at this point agrees that revenue sharing is a good idea, it's just a matter of to what degree. That's my read, anyway.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I've said many times things need to change and that the players should and are going to be on the losing side, no doubt. But I think it's absurd that BRI should be something that changes, and if it does, that it would change in favor of the owners. Players deserve every cent of that cut since they are who we watch. They are who makes it the best basketball on earth. They are the Jazz, and every other team. I don't give A **** about college ball because it's so much worse. Cut or significantly marginalize guaranteed deals, put in a flex cap, put in something like a franchise tag. Do the things necessary to allow teams to fix the situation they've gotten themselves into and cultivate parity. But the players deserve most of the share here, especially since they have such a small window to earn their money and no owner is putting his body on the line for owning the team either.

The problem isn't that players make 57%. It's that owners have been irresponsible with the remaining 43% and have no way to get out from under their own mistakes. I cannot emphasize enough that there are NO good guys in this battle. And everyone are victims in it. Don't forget that the fans matter the least to both parties.
Click to expand...

So as fans, we need to agree to our own lockout. Think you could organize that? Facebook helped bring Mubarak down...
 
billyshelby said:
It should be reminded that the NBA did offer much more in the way of financial statements than any other sports league has offered in their negotiations. Those statements were then remanded to independent analysts agreed upon by both parties. Sure the players see discrepancies, but their proposals of concessions would be a good indicator they believe the league is actually losing money.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say. Despite Forbes recent article, there is no question that the NBA is losing money, the players just disagree with a couple of expenses (like amortization of arenas). The players would have never offered $100 million per season back right off the bat if they didn't believe that the NBA was losing money.
 
Harcher said:
So as fans, we need to agree to our own lockout. Think you could organize that? Facebook helped bring Mubarak down...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wish. The only way the fans become a factor is if people seem to lose interest, and I cannot bull **** that. I love the NBA. Or at least the competition of it, without the league as an organization, it's commissioner, or it's officials.
 
Numberica: I agree with most everything you post, but your belief that players should get 57% of the BRI just defies logic. Even after revenue sharing is fixed and if you eliminated guaranteed salaries and did all other fixes, player costs are still going to have to come down dramatically to make the NBA a viable league. When all is said and done, I believe the players percentage of revenue will be lower than 50 of the BRI and could be as low as 45% BRI. Lowering players salaries is a must.

I don't blame the players for this mess, it is completely on the owners because they gave the contracts to players who didn't deserve them, but how else do you fix the problem. The only way to fix this problem is to increase revenue or cut costs. TV contracts will go up, increasing revenue, but I believe most of them are locked in for six more years. Revenue sharing helps, but when 3-4 teams are making all the profit it wont be enough. There isn't any real option available to increase revenue to a point where players can keep 57% BRI so Player salaries have to come down.
 
oldtimer said:
Numberica: I agree with most everything you post, but your belief that players should get 57% of the BRI just defies logic. Even after revenue sharing is fixed and if you eliminated guaranteed salaries and did all other fixes, player costs are still going to have to come down dramatically to make the NBA a viable league. When all is said and done, I believe the players percentage of revenue will be lower than 50 of the BRI and could be as low as 45% BRI. Lowering players salaries is a must.

I don't blame the players for this mess, it is completely on the owners because they gave the contracts to players who didn't deserve them, but how else do you fix the problem. The only way to fix this problem is to increase revenue or cut costs. TV contracts will go up, increasing revenue, but I believe most of them are locked in for six more years. Revenue sharing helps, but when 3-4 teams are making all the profit it wont be enough. There isn't any real option available to increase revenue to a point where players can keep 57% BRI so Player salaries have to come down.
Click to expand...

If they're not earning the money, you can cut them. That lowers salaries. As far as calculating cap and something like a MLE (if it stays), the BRI should stay the same.

Take the current cap threshold and LT threshold, but make the LT threshold the hard cap and the cap the soft cap. The players that deserve their money get theirs, but the juggernaut teams are left with fewer options than they have had and would be hampered and cuffed. Meanwhile, a team like the Jazz can get rid of AK without a problem.

With franchise tags, Miami never happens. Shaq never leaves Orlando.

But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers. With lower BRI, minimum contract players make less too. And franchise players, if anything, should probably make more. Most players in the league deserve their salary, a few turds ruin the punch bowl for everyone else (AK can't be cited enough, Jamaal Tinsley, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Brian Cardinal, James Posey, Bobby Simmons).
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
Jamaal Tinsley, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Brian Cardinal, James Posey, Bobby Simmons.
Click to expand...
2 more recent contracts would be Rashard Lewis, Rudy Gay and yes I'll even add Bosh as he's a tier below a max player and the new CBA would hopefully even alleviate/keep teams from making that mistake as well that as well.
 
Numberica said: (I'm sorry to quote like this I just don't have the computer skills): "Take the current cap threshold and LT threshold, but make the LT threshold the hard cap and the cap the soft cap. The players that deserve their money get theirs, but the juggernaut teams are left with fewer options than they have had and would be hampered and cuffed. Meanwhile, a team like the Jazz can get rid of AK without a problem."

The NBA proposed the "Flex cap" which is virtually the same idea. Have a salary cap that can be exceeded up to a point and then cut it off. The players rejected that idea because in their opinion the LT threshold essentially became a hard cap. According to the players they will never accept a system where teams cannot exceed a point because that essentially becomes a hard cap.

Numberica said; "But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers."

I don't think anyone blames the players at all, except for a few out of whack salaries. But owners pay more costs out of their 43% and these costs continue to spike. Electricity, gas, advertising, etc keep going up and up. The players get 57% without any responsibility for costs. The owners pay the players and then pay every other bill out of their 43%. If these non-player related costs keep going up and up the only other place to cut is the players portion of the BRI.

The other thing the players said they would never accept is non-guaranteed contracts. Since the players have rejected a flex cap and non-guaranteed salaries, the only other place they have shown any willingness to bend is on BRI, reducing their take from 57% to 54.5%. Players have to willing to give more to make the CBA work.
 
These players making plans to play elsewhere next season doesn't really make a strong argument that this is going to be a short lockout. Hunker down friends.
 
NUMBERICA said:
If they're not earning the money, you can cut them. That lowers salaries. As far as calculating cap and something like a MLE (if it stays), the BRI should stay the same.

Take the current cap threshold and LT threshold, but make the LT threshold the hard cap and the cap the soft cap. The players that deserve their money get theirs, but the juggernaut teams are left with fewer options than they have had and would be hampered and cuffed. Meanwhile, a team like the Jazz can get rid of AK without a problem.

With franchise tags, Miami never happens. Shaq never leaves Orlando.

But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers. With lower BRI, minimum contract players make less too. And franchise players, if anything, should probably make more. Most players in the league deserve their salary, a few turds ruin the punch bowl for everyone else (AK can't be cited enough, Jamaal Tinsley, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Brian Cardinal, James Posey, Bobby Simmons).
Click to expand...

Because they are expected with their 43% of the cut to run the league with it. They still have to pay officials, coaches, all the fees on stadiums, non-player personnell, airfair, hotels, and a multitude of other costs. Meanwhile the party getting the majority of the money have no expenses related to the business. It is all their money. The players deserve a good chunck of the money but more than 50% is insane. I would say more than 45% is still too much.

Again you want the owner's to fix their expenses but how can they do that when 75% of their income is almost directly spent on the players. And you don't want the players to have to take a bit of the loss.

I really hope that now that they are in lockout the owner's hold out for their original offer. Or something close to it.
 
gregbroncs said:
Because they are expected with their 43% of the cut to run the league with it. They still have to pay officials, coaches, all the fees on stadiums, non-player personnell, airfair, hotels, and a multitude of other costs. Meanwhile the party getting the majority of the money have no expenses related to the business. It is all their money. The players deserve a good chunck of the money but more than 50% is insane. I would say more than 45% is still too much.

Again you want the owner's to fix their expenses but how can they do that when 75% of their income is almost directly spent on the players. And you don't want the players to have to take a bit of the loss.

I really hope that now that they are in lockout the owner's hold out for their original offer. Or something close to it.
Click to expand...

So you hope the league splinters? Sweet. I hope you've missed the ABA.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I've said many times things need to change and that the players should and are going to be on the losing side, no doubt. But I think it's absurd that BRI should be something that changes, and if it does, that it would change in favor of the owners. Players deserve every cent of that cut since they are who we watch. They are who makes it the best basketball on earth. They are the Jazz, and every other team. I don't give A **** about college ball because it's so much worse. Cut or significantly marginalize guaranteed deals, put in a flex cap, put in something like a franchise tag. Do the things necessary to allow teams to fix the situation they've gotten themselves into and cultivate parity. But the players deserve most of the share here, especially since they have such a small window to earn their money and no owner is putting his body on the line for owning the team either.

The problem isn't that players make 57%. It's that owners have been irresponsible with the remaining 43% and have no way to get out from under their own mistakes. I cannot emphasize enough that there are NO good guys in this battle. And everyone are victims in it. Don't forget that the fans matter the least to both parties.
Click to expand...

Actually the league and owners do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an NBA at all.
 
NUMBERICA said:
So you hope the league splinters? Sweet. I hope you've missed the ABA.
Click to expand...

I hope the league survives under a system that allows it to prosper. I could not care less about this group of players. Most of them would come back once the league started playing their games with different players anyway. What other option do they have? Go to play in Europe where a lot of the teams sign contracts then don't pay them? Or where most of the leagues have a limit on the # of foreign (to them) players they allow? There are a great # of players that would love to make even a fraction of what these players make. And by gaining control of their league it would not damage the product on the court for very long.

I am willing to not see the game for a while in the hopes that when they finally come back it is better. By better I mean diversity in the league and the owners having more control than the players. Right now neither are even close to true. The players almost all of the power and greater than 50% of the teams in the league don't have a shot at a title before the opening tipoff of the season.

I have pretty much given up on the NBA. I only watch Jazz games and playoff games that are interesting. This year I watched Dallas/OKC and some of the finals in the playoffs. If they fix it I for one will gain interest in the league. But as for now I am tired of watching the league being dominated by big markets. I am tired of watching players leave to play for teams with more money to spend. I am tired of watching superteams be made. Pretty much my interest in the NBA was going away. I see this lockout as a chance for some productive change.
 
This all sounds like a bunch of "if so and so is elected president, I'm moving to Canada" if I've ever heard it.

I believe in parity as much or more than anyone, but gouging player salaries isn't the only way to get it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top