Reply With Quote
Yeah, the players should take that if they really want to have a season.
Let's hope this is accurate.
Yeah, the players should take that if they really want to have a season.
The majority of teams are making money. It's actually some small markets, a minority, that are not. That can be solved with better revenue sharing or contraction.
The whole "you're getting 46% of BRI" really has nothing to do with it, other than asking the players to bend over and take it.
Daps!
Let's hope sensible minds will prevail.
I just wan ma NBA!
http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA
Labor meeting over, and Derek Fisher says sides will meet again Friday with as many as 15 owners joining players in negotiating room.Let's hope Dan Gilbert won't screw everything like the last time.The weekend has been left open by owners and players to keep talking here in New York, Fisher said.
Owners suggest 4 level tax system.
http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/28/...ut-luxury-tax/
He also thinks it will be next week before a deal gets done.
4 level tax system is a good idea IMO. It keeps the current soft cap while increasing revenue sharing.
If they can save the whole regular season, the lockout would have been nearly harmless. Nobody cares about the preseason.
According to Forbes reports from the 2009-2010 season, that is not the case:
http://bizofbasketball.com/index.php...nion&Itemid=57
Supporting data: http://bizofbasketball.com/index.php...844&Itemid=128
While you are correct that it is mostly small-market teams that are not turning a profit, I would hardly call 56% of the league a minority. Even teams who have been successful in the last 5 years (Dallas Mavericks, Miami Heat) or teams that are lauded for their masterful front offices (San Antonio Spurs) are taking a loss.
The data is just skewed by several other large markets who ARE turning a hefty profit, despite whether they have been successful (Los Angeles Lakers), not successful (Toronto Raptors, Houston Rockets), or the joke of the league (New York Knicks).
I can't claim to know enough about the economics to say that revenue sharing will solve all of this, but I think it's pretty apparent that something has to give.
Somewhat true, but to echo a similar point the biggest spenders in big markets can still spend and make up for the increased costs. Small market teams will now be penalized more for spending over the tax and they can't absorb that as much as an LA.
Maybe I'm over estimating how much LA is willing to spend, but I can see a Yankees type baseball disparity with the new tax system or worse.
Sounds like it wouldn't change much tbh.
About the graph: the 09-10 Spurs season was by far their worst financially, because of the trade for a certain tiny-eared SF that pushed them way over the lux tax. Without RJ, they turn a profit somewhere in the Celts/Blazers area - it's that simple. Holt understood the implications before he OK'd the trade.
Also,Otis Smith.
Either way I don't really care all that much. Spurs have a well run franchise and will adapt. I just want a season.
Dex, that's one year of the previous CBA in a overwhelming ty economy.
Seeing that players take a % of that income, a ty economy affects them as much as everyone else, in the form of salary cap (the old soft cap).
What that chart shows is that there's a revenue disparity that's monumental.
Asking ALL players to bend over and take it won't balance the disparity of those numbers. Only better revenue distribution will. Basically, owners are asking players to take a hit so the team that's losing the most money (Orlando in your chart) can be back in the black, but also, all the other teams get a jump too, including those that are well into the black.
I understand that Jerry Buss might not want to cut a check to the Maloofs, but there's really no other solution to spread revenue more evenly, other than contract the league and wipe the small markets.
There's also something to be said about owners making ty decisions, but asking players to take the hit for them.
Good points. And I agree, the owners are responsible for making this mess, so I can see why the player's feel they shouldn't have to commit hari-'Seppe to fix it.
I know if my boss came to me and offered me a huge pay increase, I would take it without batting an eye. I wouldn't sit and think, "well how is this going to affect our business model down the line?" All the players were doing is taking what was offered to them under the old structure.
When I went to NBA.COM on my phone, about two hours ago, I read an article on the headlines that said the owners have backed off the hard cap as well. But that article is longer on the website.
Anyone else read that?
*no longer
Not sure about one on NBA.com, but there is on still posted on Yahoo (found in the NBA Forum. Yes, there was actually basketball discussion in the NBA forum)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...meeting_092711
NEW YORK – For the first time in two years of labor talks, NBA owners made a modest push from their rigid stance on implementing a hard salary cap, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.
Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said the players will never agree to a hard cap.
The owners proposed at Tuesday’s negotiating session an idea similar to the current system that allows teams to pay a luxury tax for going over the cap. Only, now there would be ultra-punitive measures against higher-spending teams. The current system has teams pay a dollar-for-dollar tax for exceeding the cap.
Players Association executive director Billy Hunter has called the hard cap a “blood issue” for the union, and insisted the players would never agree to it.
The owners’ proposal on Tuesday “would still have the affects of a hard cap,” one source with knowledge of the talks said.
The owners didn’t budge on a desire to change the basketball-related income percentage (BRI) to a split that takes the players from 57 percent to the mid 40s, sources said. The players had offered to drop from a 57-43 split to 54-46 at a meeting last week in New York.
The two sides met for a little less than two hours on Tuesday on Manhattan’s East Side, and planned to meet again on Wednesday morning. The Players Association’s economist, Kevin Murphy, didn’t attend Tuesday’s meeting, but was traveling to New York to take part in Wednesday’s session. While the owners’ proposal was a slight upgrade, it is unlikely to move union leadership.
The owners and union both strongly suggested that Wednesday’s meeting would tell the direction of the talks. After the NBA canceled the first two weeks of training camp and preseason games last week, sources said league officials would likely suspend the last two weeks of October games by the end of this week if the two sides hadn’t made significant progress in negotiations. The NBA’s regular season starts on Nov. 1, and it’s almost certain games will soon start to be canceled without the framework of a new labor agreement.
I just think that tiered system will only result in small teams not going over the cap at all while big teams still spend just the same. The talent gap will grow much wider. Now, if the owners and players think the increased revenue sharing boost will offset that, than fine. From a basketball perspective however, the disparity between teams will grow.
I wish the NBA would adopt a hard cap. It would level the playing field extremely, especially for a team like us who is about to hit some down years in the near future.
Let the Spurs have a losing season or two and they will be losing money big time. Small markets just don't have the staying power financially to compete with big market teams for players.
yeah im wondering what all this means for the future of the spurs
Stern was quoted yesterday as saying that both sides were still quite apart. So there's been some progress, but apparently not enough to reach an agreement soon.
One question re: the NHL, as I was reading that the owners keeping a hard line (and wasting a whole season) brought a lot more balance to the league, with the last 6 or 7 Stanley Cup winners being different franchises. This example was used to show that if the owners have their way in the NBA, it could lead to a more balanced leagues, with more/different contenders every year.
But every time I talk to people having followed the NBA since the 70s or 80s, the impression I get is that they enjoyed having only a few teams dominating whole eras, with strong rivalries à la Lakers-Celtics.
So what would fans want? A few really strong teams leading to epic confrontations? Or a more even league, but possibly a bit diluted in terms of talent?
"a bit diluted in terms of talent"
The 30-team NBA is already fatally diluted in talent, players AND coaching, and 2500 games/season means 2000+ games are totally meaningless, with the players going through the motions.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
