Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
spycam1
Well-Known Member
margodydek
Well-Known Member
All of the national guys that are following the lockout have commented on it. Today was his first day back.
Sam Amick (SI): "So Derek Fisher joins the talks in NY today. And as has been noted, he wouldn't do that without some feeling that a deal could be done."
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Amick also tweeted not too long ago: "NBPA Executive committee members privately expressing unprecedented optimism that a deal will get done this time. League sources too."
Either a deal's getting done or the NBA is about drop a nuclear bomb on the players and try to utterly demolish them.
Either a deal's getting done or the NBA is about drop a nuclear bomb on the players and try to utterly demolish them.
If you don't already know what it is, what makes you think it's responsible for higher car prices?
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
What would the nuclear bomb be? They are already being sued over the 47-53 ultimatum and Kessler is not attending. The talks are amicable.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Isn't capitalism--and negotiation--wonderful? The players can always choose not to make a deal--and then play baseball (at a lower salary). Oh wait; didn't Jordan try that?
Or they can go overseas.
For a lower salary.
Or they can work at McDonald's.
At a lower wage.
Conclusion: Whether the owners revenue-share or not is not particularly relevant to the players. The owners don't need to cry unprofitability in order to justify this proposal. The fact that they did cry might have hurt them because now players (and people like you) use it as a noisy but empty argument against them, when it really isn't relevant to the players' decision. But now that they do use the argument, it still doesn't matter, because it's not unreasonable for all teams to seek to be profitable individually, even if the NFL hasn't been able to do so.
. . . Except for the risk that exists with or without revenue sharing.
As if revenue sharing removes all the risk also.
Last edited:
orly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basketball_leagues#Americas
There are plenty of pro leagues in America for players to choose
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Last time I checked, the players voluntarily agreed to participate in a monopoly because said monopoly is the only means by which they can earn the salaries they do. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the other side of that monopoly is pushing back to ensure their own profitability to further endure the salaries NBA players can't get anywhere else.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Reports I have read have been in the 40 dollar range per hour. I would like a definitive report on that. Obviously the UAW does not want that hourly rate as public knowledge. I think it is worth commenting on. Then again, you're a socialist so I understand why you never side with business.
GVC
Well-Known Member
This is a chicken and egg argument. The owners had a cartel before the players had a union. As tink has pointed out in the past, there was a huge increase in player salaries during the ABA years. If the owners weren't colluding to control prices, markets, labor mobility, etc., it's not at all unlikely that many players would make much more money than they currently make.
GVC
Well-Known Member
What risk?
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I think that this CBA negotation reminds all of us of one of the many business risks in the NBA.
You can use the following model to identify the other risks, showing that the NBA is not a particularly good business, given that the NBA is only strong in maybe a couple of categories of the five.
I've already posted it previously, so I don't care to do it again. You can search for it if you prefer.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
If the owners didn't "collude" to control the market they are in, their wouldn't be a functional league for either owners or players. Revenues are maximized precisely because all parties willingly subject to the NBA "cartel." And the last thing the players want to do is abandon the "cartel." They just want better payoffs. Which is what they got the last 2 CBA's. They even recognize it's their turn to give back to the cartel as evidenced by their concessions. So I don't know why you're trying to characterize this as any kind of fight other than a highly lucrative "cartel" and all it's happy participants fighting over "cartel" money.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
You only have to look at European sports leagues to see what kind of an advantage the "closed league" system is for players. The stability the NBA players have is tremendous. Just look at it this way? What was the last NBA team to fold or get wound up? When was the last time you remember a team having trouble paying their players because of financial turmoil? When was the last time a shady owner came in from a third-world country, overpaid stars and then disappeared when his money ran out? European soccer is full of these stories.
Competition sounds like a great thing for players, in theory. A rich man with deep pockets comes from abroad and buys a small team. Since there is no salary cap in soccer(except the MLS), he can throw money at potential transfer targets. Since players' rights are not traded for other player's rights in soccer but rather traded for cash, he can just throw money at teams to get much better players than his team currently have. You don't need trade assets like in the NBA, you've got cash. If you overpay, you can get much better players than the standard of your club. Why wouldn't a team sell you their best player if you pay twice his actual market value? And why wouldn't he come to a crappier team if you pay him twice the money. Keep in mind that in soccer, the money you pay for a player's rights is actually a fee to break his contract. He signs a new contract with you regardless of how much he had left on his old contract. That means you can instantly offer him double his salary. Of course, you overpaying for players has an effect on the market is that it drives up both wages and the transfer fees. The players love it, because their wages go up.
At some point, the bubble bursts, and it's perfectly logical. As several clubs drive wages up, teams end up signing players to contracts they cannot honour. Then you have a situation where both players and teams who are paying their players suffer. It's obvious how the players suffer, but a little less obvious why other teams would suffer. The devious part about this is that most large transfer fees are paid in installments. If you pay $10 million to a club to sign their player, this will usually mean something like paying $300,000 a month for the next 3 years. That's how most deals are structured. Of course, the selling team then has to assume you will be able to make those payments and spends the money. They might buy a couple of players of their own and their wages may total $200,000 a month. If you go broke and can't pay them anymore, they can't pay their players. They then go broke and it affects teams they owe money. Vicious cycle then continues.
And it's more common than people would think.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...uggling-Portsmouth-players.html#ixzz0SfuRHyRx
This was 2 years ago. Portsmouth FC were playing in England's Premier League, which is widely considered to be soccer's highest quality league.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/hearts-delayed-players-salaries
This is going on now. Heart of Midlothian FC are Scotland's third best team. Scottish league is probably just outside of top 10 leagues in Europe.
https://www.inter.it/aas/news/reader?N=3676&L=en
This was in Italy 10 years ago. SS Lazio had won the Italian championship two years earlier. Italian league is probably top 3 in the world. This story is kinda hilarious, because unlike the NBA players, these guys "voluntarily" took a pay cut. In reality, they did it because some money is better than no money. The team couldn't afford to pay them their full wages so they decided to take a pay cut hoping that the team would be able to at least regularly pay them their decreased wages. Sort of shows you what might happen if NBA teams really start going broke.
And these are top leagues in Western European countries. I've got a relative who plays soccer professionally in Croatia. Saw him this summer. Told me how in Croatia's top division, about 2-3 teams out of 12 pay their players on time. The rest are all in arrears, ranging from a couple of months to a year. One of the team's recently had to forfeit a league game since their players decided to not show up, having not been paid since 2010. My cousin's description of how this happens? He calls it the "They can't pay you half as much as we can tell you we'll pay you" syndrome. Team owners offer you contracts, and they might as well be giving you Monopoly money. In theory, you might be doubling your salary, but in reality, your pay will be 6 months late. If you sue the club, you'll wait a couple of years on a decision, which will then be unenforceable. The club is in debt and if they get wound up, their president might go to jail, but you won't ever see any money because there isn't any.
Sorry for a long rant about a different sport, but to bring it back, the greatest thing about the closed league system, from a players perspective, is that your contract is guaranteed by the league itself. At the end of the day, you will get your money. Unless perhaps there is a catastrophic scenario where NBA as a whole goes out of business and the combined assets of the owners aren't enough to pay the remaining contracts off. Kinda unlikely. When the shady Russian mobster who owns the soccer team goes broke, the league can't pay you because it's not their jurisdiction. Your contract is with the shady Russian mobster. Something that did not seem that bad when you first signed it.
Competition sounds like a great thing for players, in theory. A rich man with deep pockets comes from abroad and buys a small team. Since there is no salary cap in soccer(except the MLS), he can throw money at potential transfer targets. Since players' rights are not traded for other player's rights in soccer but rather traded for cash, he can just throw money at teams to get much better players than his team currently have. You don't need trade assets like in the NBA, you've got cash. If you overpay, you can get much better players than the standard of your club. Why wouldn't a team sell you their best player if you pay twice his actual market value? And why wouldn't he come to a crappier team if you pay him twice the money. Keep in mind that in soccer, the money you pay for a player's rights is actually a fee to break his contract. He signs a new contract with you regardless of how much he had left on his old contract. That means you can instantly offer him double his salary. Of course, you overpaying for players has an effect on the market is that it drives up both wages and the transfer fees. The players love it, because their wages go up.
At some point, the bubble bursts, and it's perfectly logical. As several clubs drive wages up, teams end up signing players to contracts they cannot honour. Then you have a situation where both players and teams who are paying their players suffer. It's obvious how the players suffer, but a little less obvious why other teams would suffer. The devious part about this is that most large transfer fees are paid in installments. If you pay $10 million to a club to sign their player, this will usually mean something like paying $300,000 a month for the next 3 years. That's how most deals are structured. Of course, the selling team then has to assume you will be able to make those payments and spends the money. They might buy a couple of players of their own and their wages may total $200,000 a month. If you go broke and can't pay them anymore, they can't pay their players. They then go broke and it affects teams they owe money. Vicious cycle then continues.
And it's more common than people would think.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...uggling-Portsmouth-players.html#ixzz0SfuRHyRx
This was 2 years ago. Portsmouth FC were playing in England's Premier League, which is widely considered to be soccer's highest quality league.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/hearts-delayed-players-salaries
This is going on now. Heart of Midlothian FC are Scotland's third best team. Scottish league is probably just outside of top 10 leagues in Europe.
https://www.inter.it/aas/news/reader?N=3676&L=en
This was in Italy 10 years ago. SS Lazio had won the Italian championship two years earlier. Italian league is probably top 3 in the world. This story is kinda hilarious, because unlike the NBA players, these guys "voluntarily" took a pay cut. In reality, they did it because some money is better than no money. The team couldn't afford to pay them their full wages so they decided to take a pay cut hoping that the team would be able to at least regularly pay them their decreased wages. Sort of shows you what might happen if NBA teams really start going broke.
And these are top leagues in Western European countries. I've got a relative who plays soccer professionally in Croatia. Saw him this summer. Told me how in Croatia's top division, about 2-3 teams out of 12 pay their players on time. The rest are all in arrears, ranging from a couple of months to a year. One of the team's recently had to forfeit a league game since their players decided to not show up, having not been paid since 2010. My cousin's description of how this happens? He calls it the "They can't pay you half as much as we can tell you we'll pay you" syndrome. Team owners offer you contracts, and they might as well be giving you Monopoly money. In theory, you might be doubling your salary, but in reality, your pay will be 6 months late. If you sue the club, you'll wait a couple of years on a decision, which will then be unenforceable. The club is in debt and if they get wound up, their president might go to jail, but you won't ever see any money because there isn't any.
Sorry for a long rant about a different sport, but to bring it back, the greatest thing about the closed league system, from a players perspective, is that your contract is guaranteed by the league itself. At the end of the day, you will get your money. Unless perhaps there is a catastrophic scenario where NBA as a whole goes out of business and the combined assets of the owners aren't enough to pay the remaining contracts off. Kinda unlikely. When the shady Russian mobster who owns the soccer team goes broke, the league can't pay you because it's not their jurisdiction. Your contract is with the shady Russian mobster. Something that did not seem that bad when you first signed it.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
If the owners trule wanted to destroy the players they could have said that they were willing to concede on some issues and lure Fisher back to the negotiating table. With Fisher back that basically goes to show that disclaiming was nothing more than a negotiating tactic and their chances of winning the lawsuit would take a severe blow. So the owners, w/ Fisher back, could have essentially pulled the rug out from the players and "dropped a nuke".
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
RIP LOCKOUT THREAD and GOOD RIDDANCE