What's new
By:

Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Kobe Bryant....shot down 50/50 deal!

Cyrone Torbin said:
So you believe the Stern leaked story full on? Personally, I think it's clear the Owners want to hold out the entire season. That will ensure they don't lose money and get the best possible deal for themselves.
Click to expand...

No way this is true. There are owners who definitely make money and don't want to lose a season. That's what Hunter believes his "leverage" is. He thinks the longer he holds firm, the better chance monied owners make concessions to struggling owners (by way of a better revenue sharing package.)

What he has consistently failed to recognize is the owners will never announce their new revenue sharing package before they have an agreement with players. Why would they? It diminishes their bargaining position. They want the players to agree to a deal before they make nice with themselves so they win on both ends (or, to get really nitty gritty, the monied owners would rather know the player package before they start giving up money.)

There are at least 10 owners who don't want to give up a day of the regular season. But they're in the minority because the other owners losing money will outvote them. Inside the owners cadre, the money guys don't have the leverage.
 
Lance-A-Million said:
The jumping straight from HS generation of players is rearing its ugly, uneducated head during these negotiations.
Click to expand...

That is kind of a rash judgement. I'm sure Kobe and KG know a thing or two about how the NBA is run. They have have been in the league over 15 years. Also, just because they didn't go to college, doesn't make them idiots.
 
billyshelby said:
No way this is true. There are owners who definitely make money and don't want to lose a season. That's what Hunter believes his "leverage" is. He thinks the longer he holds firm, the better chance monied owners make concessions to struggling owners (by way of a better revenue sharing package.)

What he has consistently failed to recognize is the owners will never announce their new revenue sharing package before they have an agreement with players. Why would they? It diminishes their bargaining position. They want the players to agree to a deal before they make nice with themselves so they win on both ends (or, to get really nitty gritty, the monied owners would rather know the player package before they start giving up money.)

There are at least 10 owners who don't want to give up a day of the regular season. But they're in the minority because the other owners losing money will outvote them. Inside the owners cadre, the money guys don't have the leverage.
Click to expand...

So do you believe the Stern leaked story? I'm curious? I hate this thread because it only tells the headline from one side of the article, but fails to acknowledge the other half says it may be bogus.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
So do you believe the Stern leaked story? I'm curious? I hate this thread because it only tells the headline from one side of the article, but fails to acknowledge the other half says it may be bogus.
Click to expand...

The leaked story about a 50/50? More or less. I believe owners were willing to make a deal at that level. They were probably prepared for the players to bump it to 51, probably had contingencies on that, and the 50/51 range was the fertile ground.

I also believe firmly that Hunter knew this. But he had already dug himself a hole. The soap box was worn down from his telling players 53 was the line. He very VERY foolishly thought that a power play could get the owner to 53 at which point he would make his concessions.

As I've said, I think he really believed that the monied owners who stood to make a real profit this year would facilitate this. In fact, I would guess he was calling a bluff. He thought the owners had already reached a generally principled agreement on how revenue sharing would work, and thus they would nudge up to 53. Absolutely insane. Even if that agreement exists (in secret), the owners have all the leverage and will get their pie and eat it too.

This isn't "one sided." The owners have the winning hand. Hunter has failed to lose his effectively. That's the only story.
 
I don't get why some people think that a hard cap would help us.

Weren't most of the teams in the LT over the past year or two actually small market teams like us?
 
The Thriller said:
I don't get why some people think that a hard cap would help us.

Weren't most of the teams in the LT over the past year or two actually small market teams like us?
Click to expand...

I think it would help. It would force everyone to be on a somewhat equal playing field in terms of salary spent. A team like Dallas couldn't break the bank to get a guy like Caron Butler.

I just think if you have a hard cap, you have to have unguaranteed contracts.
 
with a reduction in revenue sharing from 57% to 50% it will be the superstars that take the biggest hit. Yes they will still get the Max contracts, but those contracts will have to be smaller. The average nba player may lose a small amount but much less compared to the stars. the league min will not likely go down, because then you loose guys to other markets so those guys wont take much of a hit. Rookies may get hurts some but again that will likely be only the high lottery players. So it will be harder for the superstars to have thier money and a team around them to contend for a championship. Why do you think the big names are calling the average players to hold firm? What I dont like is superstars (who can make much more in endorsements) are hurting the other players so they can get theirs.
 
What I do not understand is why not one of the owners' proposals has been put to a full vote by the NBPA. I mean, there's only 29 owners and a good chunk of them seems to be involved every time they meet, but the negotiations are being completely controlled by a clique of 15-20 players.
 
JimLes said:
What I do not understand is why not one of the owners' proposals has been put to a full vote by the NBPA.
Click to expand...

.....so to quote a classic movie line: "You believe in Democracy, don't ya? Then will take a vote!....and I'll stand by it!....BUT SO WILL YOU!"
 
sepanol said:
what is the 50 /50 deal means? can someone explain
Click to expand...
It means that each side is guaranteed 50% of BRI (Basketball Related Income). BRI includes ticket receipts, media rights, advertising income, apparel sales, etc. In the previous contract the players were guaranteed 57% of BRI.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It means that each side is guaranteed 50% of BRI (Basketball Related Income). BRI includes ticket receipts, media rights, advertising income, apparel sales, etc. In the previous contract the players were guaranteed 57% of BRI.
Click to expand...
So, the players get there fat paychecks, and then get a chunk of the BRI? Geeze no wonder the owners are pissed lol.
 
But the owners do pay for the hotel rooms, charter flights, player travel per diems, locker room amenities and a variety of other expenses that are specifically designed to keep the athletes happy and satisfied out of their portion of the BRI.
 
of course they should have. If you did all the work and your employer guaranteed you 57% of the revenue for 12 years, and then after that 12 you had made a good enough product that revenue doubled - why would you accept a drop in compensation down to 50-50?

that makes no sense. The players should go to nike and start their own league - yeah they would lose money, but its better to lose money than be taken advantage of.
 
TheItinerantSon said:
of course they should have. If you did all the work and your employer guaranteed you 57% of the revenue for 12 years, and then after that 12 you had made a good enough product that revenue doubled - why would you accept a drop in compensation down to 50-50?
Click to expand...
Um, maybe because a large portion of the rest of the country has also had to accept a drop in compensation (many in the form of partial or full layoffs, or not being able to find a job in the first place), and because they were arguably overpaid (in absolute terms and also relative to the other leagues) in the first place.

Sorry, Crymelo Anthony and Dwhine Wade; the honeymoon period is over (or reduced by 7 percentage points). Now it's time for your BRI to fall in line with the NFL and other leagues. Somehow the pro football athletes--who average a lower salary and have a shorter average lifespan in the league--figured out how to do it without missing games. But the NBA punks (and their agents) couldn't.

The longer they hold out, the more everyone loses. I'm 100% behind the owners not paying more than 50%. If you count all the perks (hotels, flights, etc.), if it comes out of the owners' share, it's likely closer to 51% or 52% anyway.

If the players' slogan is "Let us play," then the owners' slogan should be "Shut up and play."

that makes no sense. The players should go to nike and start their own league - yeah they would lose money, but its better to lose money than be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
If they try, God bless 'em. Likely probability of success of that league?

Less than 50-50 :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top