carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....GOOD point!
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
....GOOD point!
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Wow--your math (or logic) is so bad, you're not embarrassing Duke; you're embarrassing the entire Research Triangle. Kobe and Lebron would make as much in 3 weeks in the NBA than they would from this world tour. And in the NBA, they can do that times 15 or 20 or 25 every year--something that they cannot repeat nearly as often on a "tour."
Yes, and that's what you would get if the players or these imaginary investors start up an alternative league.
Yeah, Cameron indoor arena holds what--12,000? And you're talking what--one game a year?
You are really a bad representative of a Duke education.
Wow--I hope you don't have a Duke MBA or econ degree, because you are already embarrassing your school.
Let me fill you in on a concept: fixed costs. There's no way that the fictitious new league that you are dreaming about would get a $4 billion TV contract, because it would take years (if ever) to replicate the stability that the NBA has; the Utah Jazz are a great example of that.
Investing in or buying a sports franchise is already a poor-ROI proposition (look up ROI if your Duke education didn't teach you what that means), so you'll be hard-pressed to find 20+ entities who are willing to put up money for a new, alternative NBA that has to operate out of arenas that don't already have contracts in the NBA. I agree that possibly the optimal league size is about 25 teams, but the 30-team league can operate profitably at 50-50.
The most likely alternative to the current NBA is that the current NBA owners blow things up and start things over at a much lower cost basis, which would decimate the NBA players' salary. The superstars and journeymen alike are FAR better off taking the 50-50 and running. It is the owners who have alternatives; they have other businesses, and most of them already consider their NBA team as a poor ROI proposition, even at 50-50. Meanwhile, most NBA players have alternatives overseas at 1/2 the salary (see Deron). Or at McDonald's. The journeymen especially are crazy to let this holdout go longer, and I doubt that they've been able to vote on this with the knowledge of the real impact of this holdout.
The reason that Garnett and others are supporting this holdout is that their high-school education is telling him that being greedy is better than the more profitable alternative of partnering with the existing wildly successful NBA organization at 50-50. Which is about as much as your education is telling you.
Does anyone know that answer to my question, do owners get tax breaks from owning NBA team during a lockout?
Don't know, but would certainly think their losses help offset other income ..
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You know that I don't always agree with your delivery, but you were right on the money with this post. Repped.
Why can't you negotiate with your bosses? Employees do this all the time.
You'll get at least 7 cents on the dime.
It took until 1993, but the NFL ultimately lost that battle, and in the process faced anti-trust lawsuits.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...racist? Just kidding! Very astute post!
My take on the negotiations:
The owners are right that a 50-50 split is fair. First, stop saying the players are down from 57 it means nothing. The CBA expired and if the owners wanted to pay 57 they could have simply extended the old deal. The fact is the players aren't coming down from anything because there is no active CBA. It just as easy for the owners to start at 25% and say they come up 25%, it means nothing. What everyone is really talking about is how much they want nothing else. I love when the players said over and over in the news conference, the owners are at 50 we're at 53 lets split the difference. That's a straw man argument. The owners are saying we are at 47 and you are at 53 so lets meet in the middle at 50. None of its really true its all made up. The owners have decided they want 50 and the players have decided they want 53. That is a very wide gulf to jump. In my opinion 50-50 still pays the players a tremendous amount of money, more than they could get anywhere else in the world. I think they should take it.
The players are right to say we might except a BRi deal if the system issues are favorable. The NBA claims the two issues are separate and distinct. According to the NBA, the punitive luxury tax is about competitive balance and the BRI split is about money. This is not true and they know it. If the luxury tax is so punitive nobody will exceed it, salaries will be greatly lowered. The NBA knows this is true but are choosing to ignore it. The fact is the system and BRI all tie together. Players need a method of switching teams and getting paid what they feel they are worth. If the luxury tax prevents movement, players can't get paid their maximum worth and it lowers salaries. I think the players were right to ask the owners to put a pin in the BRI discussion to talk about the system. The owners were wrong to insist on an agreement of 50-50 before even discussing the punitive luxury tax.
The owners are right that a 50-50 split is fair. First, stop saying the players are down from 57 it means nothing. The CBA expired and if the owners wanted to pay 57 they could have simply extended the old deal. The fact is the players aren't coming down from anything because there is no active CBA. It just as easy for the owners to start at 25% and say they come up 25%, it means nothing. What everyone is really talking about is how much they want nothing else. I love when the players said over and over in the news conference, the owners are at 50 we're at 53 lets split the difference. That's a straw man argument. The owners are saying we are at 47 and you are at 53 so lets meet in the middle at 50. None of its really true its all made up. The owners have decided they want 50 and the players have decided they want 53. That is a very wide gulf to jump. In my opinion 50-50 still pays the players a tremendous amount of money, more than they could get anywhere else in the world. I think they should take it.
The players are right to say we might except a BRi deal if the system issues are favorable. The NBA claims the two issues are separate and distinct. According to the NBA, the punitive luxury tax is about competitive balance and the BRI split is about money. This is not true and they know it. If the luxury tax is so punitive nobody will exceed it, salaries will be greatly lowered. The NBA knows this is true but are choosing to ignore it. The fact is the system and BRI all tie together. Players need a method of switching teams and getting paid what they feel they are worth. If the luxury tax prevents movement, players can't get paid their maximum worth and it lowers salaries. I think the players were right to ask the owners to put a pin in the BRI discussion to talk about the system. The owners were wrong to insist on an agreement of 50-50 before even discussing the punitive luxury tax.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Like in the NHL, what ends up happening with a hard cap is that the stars still get paid, but everyone else fights for scraps. For stars and fringe players, the system issues aren't a big deal (as their pay is relatively unaffected), but for the middle tier players, these same issues could end up significantly reducing their income (probably by half or even more for some). If most players fall into this middle tier, it makes perfect sense why the players would reject what the owners are offering: A reduction of 10%+ in BRI share for players collectively is effectively a reduction in pay by 50% (potentially) for a bunch of players.
Last edited:
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
+1 on your post. The only thing that I would add is that one rationale to the owners demanding a discussion of the percentage first is that in the meetings last week, all they talked about was the opposite--the peripheral details--and made no progress on the BRI (which is the #1 thing that matters). Maybe it was a preference that backfired, as possibly hammering out more concretely the other details would have felt like progress (and possibly would have encouraged either or both sides to talk more seriously about the BRI split), but I can understand the owners' insistence on doing the core negotiation first.
It would be awesome to be a fly on the wall, and we can imagine how stubborn both sides were, especially given that the mediator was successful with the potentially equally tenacious NFL and NHL deals but got nowhere with the NBA billionaires and punk players.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
The nhl may have another lockout on its hands - once you give in, they'll never stop attacking you. https://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2010/07/19/is-it-too-soon-to-worry-about-another-nhl-lockout/4065/
Once you give in to a union they won't stop until the industry is destroyed and has to move overseas to remain profitable.
Not quite... the owners' current proposal isn't a simple hard cap like the NHL or NFL. It's still keeping the two cap levels as the old system did--the salary cap and the luxury threshold. The luxury threshold becomes "harder", but not completely hard. In fact, I proposed the exact thing about 5 months ago if I recall correctly. I think it's the best way to go. By having the two thresholds, especially if most teams are between the two thresholds, you make it so that signing players for beaucoup dollars is tough (unless it's your own player), but signing players via cap exceptions is easy.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I don't know that we know the specifics of the system being discussed, and it seems as though the owners want to settle BRI split before system issues are tackled (at all?). If there's more info out there, I'd like to see it.
I was mostly posting what I posted in response to the assertion that system issues aren't a big deal. Of course they are, as they'll impact some players more than others. With a harder cap and fewer/lower-valued exceptions, the middle income players will be hit hardest, and that's not something you can just ignore when discussing the merits of the players' actions, especially since (I would guess) the plurality of players are in the middle income category.
This is not a competitive balance issue, no matter how many times people say it is. If the owners were truly committed to greater competitive balance, revenue sharing would be on the table.
A harder cap will impact NBA rosters more than it does NHL/NFL rosters because there are fewer players on NBA rosters, and thus less flexibility in keeping key players. A strict hard cap might just kill the league.
GVC
Well-Known Member
That article is over a year old.
GVC
Well-Known Member
That depends on who you ask. I'd wager that players making around the median salary don't think BRI split is nearly as important as system issues.
the players will cave. then we'll get a 50-game season, like last time.