Reply With Quote
I'll help. Why negotiate for less than you think you can get?
To answer the 1st part of your statement, you get paid if you exceed your current contract or expectations, meaning play better than what your paid thus should lead to a raise like most jobs.
Not sure what the the 2nd part of your statement means to be honest...
I'll help. Why negotiate for less than you think you can get?
Why hold out for more with the possibility of less in the end? This could easily be seen many ways..
Because we're the ones paying their damn checks in the first place? If fans didn't care about watching the game, they wouldn't fill the arenas and flood the league with the same money that the players and owners are fighting about. People say without owners, their would be no players, and vice versa. That may be true, but without fans, there wouldn't be a league at all, and the fans are the ones that are really losing out here.
Am I supposed to feel bad that these guys don't get to play the game they claim to love so much? Am I supposed to feel bad that they have to wait it out, sitting on their millions (or at the least, hundreds of thousands) of dollars? If they can't live on the wealth that they've already accrued because they are too boneheaded to properly invest it, that's their problem.
I understand that the players are just trying to get the best deal they possibly can; that's the point of negotiating. The owners are just doing the same thing. The problem is, in my opinion they have gone past the point of reasonable, and now both sides are just trying to get greedy.
The player's original offer in this whole deal was to keep the original 57% that they were getting in the first place. How is that negotiating in good faith? The article I posted already spelled it out: the average salary of an NBA player is already way higher than any of the major sports.
If most of the league's owners are really struggling to make a profit (and while I think they may be exaggerating a bit, I believe they are struggling, or they would've already accepted the 53/47 split), how can that not be viewed as a problem? The point of an investment IS to profit, not just to sit in your skybox and call yourself an owner.
And why is the acceptable alternative supposed to be for the successful teams to give money to the un-successful teams just so the players can continue to be overpaid? I'm no businessman, but I wouldn't expect Netflix to share revenue with Blockbuster just so more people can watch movies. And yet, they've still agreed to do this, and it still wasn't good enough for the players.
Instead they are going to let another half-season go to waste and alienate hundreds of thousands of fans. They'll forsake arena employees, investors, rookies who haven't yet seen a dime from the NBA, and local business who depend on traffic from the games (and who could struggle to put food on the table for the time being in a crumbling economy) so that they can continue to make 5 million a season instead of 4.5? Give me a break.
If they go this route, I sincerely hope they lose more money from lost games, than they recoup in whatever deal they end up signing down the line (and I agree, it will end up being a worse deal than what is on the table right now). In my opinion, it's what they deserve.
Last edited by Dex; 10-05-2011 at 01:24 PM.
Of course this is the case. Its uncertain but citing NBA pr and presenting it as objective proof doesn't posit much. The players have not played there cards and we do not have enough of an idea of how much european contracts will foil the owners negotiation by starvation strategy.
the 6 leading agencies collectively telling their clients to hold out was taken as a win by the owners around here. Its a texas team so I'm not surprised but I'm still waiting for some historical our financial analysis beyond citing wojo quotes of nba execs And claims that makes for a good article.
Blockbuster doesn't go into metric stores to sell their product. The lakers did go into maison square garden. Sure they sell the lakers but we watch games for the most part. The large market teams play the small market teams directly on a set mutually agreed upon schedule.
I agree with this. They could make up the lost 350 million they say the owners are taking off the top in a 50/50. If that 350 million is indeed the reason they won't agree to a mutual split. I believe if they don't come up with a compromise by Monday there won't be a season. Fisher was saying the players last offer would make up about 200 of the 300 million the owners claim to have lost. I don't see the owners going for that. Perhaps I should look on the bright side, I'll save thousands of dollars on tickets...
I agree with this. They could make up the lost 350 million they say the owners are taking off the top in a 50/50. If that 350 million is indeed the reason they won't agree to a mutual split. I believe if they don't come up with a compromise by Monday there won't be a season. Fisher was saying the players last offer would make up about 200 of the 300 million the owners claim to have lost. I don't see the owners going for that. Perhaps I should look on the bright side, I'll save thousands of dollars on tickets...
The NBA should just eliminate all small market teams tbh. If the players are going to have to take a paycut to pad the pockets the big market owners even more, then just leave teams in LA, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, Dallas, and Philadelphia, remove the salary cap, and make it a free market free for all.
Looks like Sunday will be the day there will or not have an agreement.
Owners shouldn't hesitate to make the last step and agreed to a 52/48 split in favor of the players. Even a 52/48 split would be great for the owners. Player will take a 8.8% salary cut which is considerable.
I think the owners will accept this as well, but the players better not expect big increases per year following if this happens..
Increases should be tied to revenue of the split. They should expect the increase they negotiate.
, your so smart....
Well you are not then because that is precisely how it is negotiated. Not the "the players shouldn't expect' arbitrary nonsense.
, so let me get this straight, you mean to tell the players should get paid what they negotiate? really, news to me...
I have a different hope. I want to see the professional leagues get full an rust scrutiny on all of their violations. So far the NFL has really only had a very few specifics reviewed and determined to be illegal.
Kessler in his brief against the NFL went after everything. The draft, the nature of contracts, pay structures, or anything else that was clear collusion.
I am very sick of owners like Kraft, Krauss, Buss, and Jones who hide behind the shield of their trust to pull these types of machinations.
Once the trusts were busted, and they would be considering some very specific wording from American Needle vs NFL, that would leave them with two options.
First would be as you proposed which would be a fully free market without collusion beyond scheduling, venues, and the like which again the Supreme Court has set a standard by which to review. No revenue sharing, no draft, no stock structure on contracts, no restriction on employee movement beyond a mutually agreed to contract. Seeing how the US leagues have steered away from that paradigm, I don't see it happening.
The second would be that the individuals such as Kraft, Buss, Krauss and Jones along with all of the owners would have to relinquish their decision making powers to an overarching authority when it came to issues that would require colluding. For example David Stern or a board would have the authority to make a CBA without the consent of the owners beyond his initial appointment.
I think all of this tiddlywinks hide the accounting and play the PR bull game is a by product of these trust being allowed to operate as they are. They need to be busted. its a poor business model.
No thats not what either of us are saying. What we are saying is that they negotiate a percentage and the rise and fall of their actual salaries are based off of that.
The owners want to fix the market well if that is the case then you fit it to something such as BRI or total revenues. Not just some arbitrary fixed value that they or you as their sycophant determine they deserve. its called a free market not dictation of market by firms.
Apparently it is.
man if the players want to m uch
the owners would just cut back on expenses like hotel accomondations and lunches
Coon has a piece about the realities of lost wages for the players compared to the line they're holding. Puts things bluntly better than any other article I've seen.
The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.
Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.
Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages.
This would hold true for the owners as well in terms of opportunity cost. All those gate receipts, concessions, TV revenues, etc would be lost for them as well. They are getting 47% of gross as well and they do still have contracts with cities, vendors etc to contend with.
So right now it's a standoff to see which side can make the other lose more money while pissing off the fans? Sounds like some brilliant negotiations.
Sure but I think to myself what a fair split would be when one party wants to fix the market because market forces skew dramatically the other way.So right now it's a standoff to see which side can make the other lose more money while pissing off the fans? Sounds like some brilliant negotiations.
Free market gets one upwards of 60% of the total, so given the baseline of what an US free market would give, whats a fair adjustment of the market?
Given that reality I ahve zero respect for the ownerships position. At the end of the day, I believe that every American is en led to a free market and that they ownership is trying to skew the market to more than half at a difference of upwards of 14 points clearly places the blame of a stalemate at their feet.
Personally I in good consciousness could not ask to deviate from a free market to ask for anything more than equal shares.
Thye players have not sued which would in truth put into question the future of the sport and their initial position was a grant of 4 points. Considering most stock dividends are below that I find that completely reasonable.
The owners on the other hand are jsut trying to get every penny that they can get. The players clearly are not becuase if they had they would have sued already.
Looks like they might have to anyway.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
