Reply With Quote
That's ridiculous. If they're going to push for capping salary this far down, then I hope the players hold out as long as necessary to kill this. You'd basically be winding the clock back to 1994 or so, not including inflation.
yeah I would love for the NFL to adopt guaranteed contracts like the NBA, then teams would really have to pay for their stupid decisions.
and there would be more trades as teams try to unload contracts
That's ridiculous. If they're going to push for capping salary this far down, then I hope the players hold out as long as necessary to kill this. You'd basically be winding the clock back to 1994 or so, not including inflation.
Exactly.
On top of that, our favorite teams are no longer held hostage to disaster contracts. Teams can move on and rebuild quicker, get rid of trouble players, lazy players, etc...
It's a win-win for our favorite teams and the fans.
sweet another spurs championship!
NFL lockout and NBA lockout in the same year? Murder rates will climb
Yeah, no way that happens, but it is an example of the extreme end of the owner's negotiating position, and a good reason to believe there will be a lockout because, clearly, some owners are going to try to rape the players in the next CBA.
The example cited would mean the player's cut going from 58% or so which it is at the moment, down to about 30%. Absurd. Also, unfair. There is no NBA without the players. They deserve their cut of the revenue.
The worst part is, in the lockout everyone will again blame the players as being spoiled the same way they blame American auto workers and teachers and anyone else in a union that fights for employee rights.
Yup, people are idiots, and they'll make the "basketball players don't deserve millions" argument. You know what, I agree that it is stupid to pay basketball players millions, but who should recieve the money if they don't? Money-grubbing owners? Players deserve their 55-60% cut as they are the ones providing the basis for the entire business - no players, no entertainment.
The irony is that the very same people who run that argument stimulate demand for the NBA (and other sports) in the first place, and that if those people didn't give their money to sports, sportsmen wouldn't be so massively overpaid!
The 98 lockout was devastating to me. I was just starting to get into basketball hard core and they took that year of connection away from me.
I couldn't care less about the NFL...
Because the player has to live up to his end of the contract too, he is obligated to perform at an acceptable level. Is this too hard for you to understand?
The terrible comparison aside. Whatever. 50-100 million dollar guaranteed, long-term contracts are re ed to begin with. They cripple franchises. Which hurts the quality of basketball around the league.
For every Lebron James there's 5 Eddie Currys.
A contract is something that both parties have to live up to. These contracts are too one-sided, and is collectively bargained to be that way, much like the NBA contracts are too heavily weighted towards the players. (However, in the NBA, NFL type contracts could breed a very selfish style of basketball to bad ones own stats to keep them signed, where in the NFL a player is just a part of a system).
If the team has the power to renegotiate a contract based on poor performance, then the player should have the power to renegotiate if he exceeded expectations.
Either way, the NFL has 2 more urgent issues.
1) Treatment of retired players is deplorable. No matter if you are a practice squad player or a multisuperbowl MVP, the NFL should take care of the health of its players. Period. They make too much money not to.
2) Rookie contracts should never be counted against the cap if you have a hard cap like in the NFL. These players earned their payday in college for the right to be drafted higher, but the already obviously bad NFL team forced to pick 1st shouldn't be hampered with a big bloated contract when the rookie hasn't proven he can play professionally yet. Either you have negotiated rookie deals or you have rookie contracts not count against the cap.
No, it was already covered in the thread, which means either you were lazy and didn't read it, or it was "too hard for you to understand".
Oh, and I'd back bb's brain over most of the people on this site in just about any context.
Please try reading the thread.
The length of guarunteed contracts WILL CHANGE. It is one of the things the owners hate. But you don't have to go all the way to an NFL-style model to make it fairer for the owners whilst motivating the players more (see emboldened above).
I never said go full NFL-style model. But I can guarantee there will be many more ways to void a contract next CBA. None of this collect a 50 million dollar paycheck for doing nothing while sitting on your ass at home like today's NBA.
I pray to God that the NFL doesn't cancle the 2011 season. I live in Indianapolis, IN, and we are getting the superbowl that year. I'll be damned if the NFL cancles the biggest party this town has had in a long time.
A new twist: the owners probably want to dramatically shrink the % of BRI going to the players. The players will give them the bigfor that, as they should. It occurs to me that a lot of owners are going to try and screw the players to recover money they lost in the crash through other businesses, and that shouldn't fly. Take the loss and keep a fair agreement with the players - no players, no NBA. They deserve over 50% of BRI.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...pizza-metaphor
More on NBA labor talks: The pizza metaphor
February, 1, 2010
By Chris Sheridan
Those of you who follow the business side of the NBA closely know about BRI, the acronym for Basketball Related Income -- the pot of money that the owners and the players split up.
To those unfamiliar with the concept of BRI, this is somewhat of a sloppy metaphor, but I'll use it anyway:
Picture BRI as a pizza, cut up into eight slices. For at least the past 15 years, the players have been getting four slices, the owners three, and they've split the eighth slice in 14 of those years.
Now, if what SI.com is reporting is accurate, the owners want to not only take half the pizza, but a big chunk of that fifth slice, too.
A formal proposal from the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement is expected to arrive at the players' union offices any day, and tone will be set for the road forward -- and whether it will be a long, difficult road -- toward replacing the labor agreement due to expire June 30, 2011.
The NBA has declined to comment on the accuracy of the 45-55 report, which was the third item in today's Sports Business Journal. Players union president Derek Fisher commented on the issue diplomatically in a story I wrote today regarding the labor situation.
But back to the pizza.
If the owners really do ask for 55 percent, predictions of an epic, bloody battle could prove prescient.
Here is a list, provided by a representative for several high-profile NBA players, of the percentage of BRI that NBA players have received since 1995-96 -- the year the Chicago Bulls won an NBA record 72 games:
2008-09: 57.4 percent.
2007-08: 57 percent.
2006-07: 57 percent.
2005-06: 57 percent.
2004-05: 57 percent
2003-04: 57 percent.
2002-03: 60 percent
2001-02: 57 percent
2200-01: 65 percent.
1999-00 62 percent.
1998-99: 59 percent
1997-98: 57 percent.
1996-97: 55 percent.
1995-96: 53 percent.
Just a little something to chew on until we find out at All-Star weekend (NBA commissioner David Stern will undoubtedly address the matter at his annual All-Star news conference) a little more about what was in the owners' initial proposal, and how it was received.
This is just ing amazing. The players accepted caps on contract length twice, caps of contract value, a luxury tax, decreasing shares of the revenue, 4 year servitude to the team that drafts a player, and the owners want more? You can't have a ing hard cap, no MLE, reduced player deals, non-guaranteed deals, AND lower the share of BRI the players get all at once.
What a ing crock. I haven't seen a goddamn ticket price reduction since the lockout even though the players accepted terms twice that significantly limited their pay. Under the old system Kobe Bryant and LeBron James would be making $35 million a year.
Exactly. The owners are a bunch of completely unreasonable arseholes who seem to have forgotten that without players they don't get their 45% of the big pie. Without the players there is no NBA. A lot of NBA team owners are just bag venture capitalists using basketball to line their pockets. If they can't control their greed for a moment and give the players a fair cut, 'em.
I think a lot of what you're saying begs the question. NBA teams are businesses first and foremost, so greed, the bottom line, and -baggery are pretty much a given. But, as a business, aren't the owners en led to run their enterprises as they see fit? In a world without a CBA, employers would (and should) be able to negotiate the terms of employment with their employees. If an owner's terms are unreasonable, then the employee can go elsewhere--no one is twisting his arm. Given that, what's wrong with NBA owners trying to get the most from the players without giving much back to the players -- that's basic business, no?
I think there is an unanswered question here: what is the purpose of the CBA? Is it to normalize the field horizontally across all 30 franchises to make sure they can compete equally for the same talent? Or is it to guarantee the rights of the players?
While the answer is that the truth is somewhere in between, I think that the idea of players being en led to a larger cut of profits is what is sinking some teams. For example, Philly has the albatross of Elton Brand's contract around its neck, so when attendance goes down, the business as a whole gets really hurt. But with guaranteed contracts, longer term deals, etc... ownership is stuck hurting financially. The idea that the players are en led to certain contractual givens (contractual guarantees, etc...) is largely responsible for hurting NBA teams.
I'm shooting from the hip here, but I think there's a good analogy to executive compensation because both have high public visibility and statute as well as get paid a load. CEOs negotiate the terms of their employment with the company with the idea being that the executive is not en led to anything; he is there to serve the company, and if his performance isn't up to par, then he gets the axe. The idea here is that if the executive isn't living up to expectations, and the corporation is hurting as a result, he gets the axe and a new manager is given the opportunity to turn things around.
Likewise, shorter contracts or contracts annually reviewed for attainment of performance goals, the ability to terminate contracts due to injury, and smaller contracts could go a long way to making NBA franchises, and the NBA itself, much more compe ive and successful.
my compromise:
Players guaranteed 57% of BRI
Salaries stay the same but contracts have a max length of 3 years.
MLE and LLE stay.
If owners really want protection from themselves this solves that problem to a large extent - now the biggest mistake they can make is 3 years. This benefits the vast majority of players too because it frees up money for them that was locked up in bad deals with players who don't deserve it.
Oh, and there should be an Isiah Thomas clause - any team who hires him for anything beyond scouting pays the league a 10 Million/yr penalty.
C'mon Son! What kinda in name is that son? Do you take it in the ass son? Nobody gives a what you have to say . Isn't there an Australian, Koala ing message board somewhere you should be frequenting son?RuffnReadyOzStyle
Getda outtaherewitdatbool
Players need to send their own completely unacceptable and lopsided proposal to the owners... then negotiations begin. We'll see what middle-ground looks like.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4895310Foyle says owner proposal goes too far
Comment Email Print Share
By Chris Sheridan
ESPN.com
Archive
BOSTON -- In the strongest comments yet by a players' union official since NBA owners made a new collective bargaining proposal, vice president Adonal Foyle of the Orlando Magic said the offer put forth last week by commissioner David Stern's office is "ludicrous."
That was the first word out of Foyle's mouth when he was asked Sunday to characterize the owners' new labor proposal, which was given to the union late last week as the sides took one of the first major steps toward replacing the collective bargaining agreement that expires at the end of the 2010-11 season.
“
Foyle A system like that would be too restrictive, and it doesn't jibe with what we think the league is.
” -- Union vice president
and Magic center Adonal Foyle
"I think it's a proposal that's far-reaching," said Foyle, the union's second-in-command behind president Derek Fisher. "This [new proposal] has gone too far. It wants a hard cap, it basically will create no middle class and which, in effect, means none of the Bird rules would apply," Foyle added, referencing the so-called Larry Bird exception that allows teams to exceed the salary cap to retain their own free agents.
Foyle, who was a member of the union's negotiating committee during the 2005 collective bargaining talks and was a player rep for the Golden State Warriors during the 1998-99 lockout, went on to call the owners' proposal "rash" and "unfair."
In addition to a hard salary cap to replace the current system of a "soft" cap, with its accompanying luxury-tax penalties for teams that exceed a certain payroll threshold ($69.9 million this season), owners have asked that contracts be shortened to a maximum of four years, Foyle said.
"I think when you look at the current CBA as it stands, it benefits both the players and owners. This is an agreement where we can [quibble] with different things within it, but it's an agreement that gives some things to both parties involved," Foyle told ESPN.com.
"A system like [the new proposal] would be too restrictive, and it doesn't jibe with what we think the league is. We have been willing to negotiate a guarantee that we don't get over a certain threshold, and no other businesses do that. We hold back 9 percent of our income so that the owners can make sure they are covered on the back end. We have given up a lot of stuff, and they have given up a lot of stuff, so I think to start off a negotiation in this rash a term, I think it's unfair," Foyle said.
Foyle said the union was particularly taken aback by the gravity of the owners' demands after the sides had held several cordial meetings in advance of the league's submitting the initial proposal.
"That's what I think was what most surprising to all of us. The meetings, in our estimation, had been quite constructive. We were seeming to get a sense of where everybody was, and we went through why we think [the current agreement] should be extended," Foyle said. "But I think a proposal like this is the first time they're saying: 'This is the way we want to go with the league.'"
The union's executive board will meet with team player representatives at All-Star Weekend to discuss the owners' proposal.
The union's executive director, Billy Hunter, has declined to comment publicly on the owners' proposal since it arrived on his desk last week. Fisher, too, has declined substantive comment.
That's pretty much what I said early in the thread. That would be a fair compromise.
Oh, and I have a troll!
Yeah, I kinda agree.
timvp, if you read this, is there any chance you can change my handle to "Ruffy"? I think my troll here makes a fair call on that. Thanks in advance.
The NBA cant afford another lockout.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
