If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.
What's going on here is the big time star players, the large market owners and the big time agents are all on the same page and could put a deal together in about one hour. The Commissioner and small market owners are trying to restore the compe ive balance of the league to avoid a system like MLB where small market teams literally have zero chance of competing. Most players who are not superstars would have no problem with a 50/50 deal because their individual market value is well covered in a 50/50 split of revenue. The big star players are the ones taking the hit with a 50/50 split.
I guarantee that most NBA players would approve a 50/50 split if that were brought to them today for vote. The NBAPA and the star players are doing everything they can to protect their interests and nobody else's. That's not collective bargaining...that's protecting special interests and it's not right to the rank and file NBA player who is thankful for the privilege to play in the league.
The owners are simply exercising their right in a capitalistic system to refuse to pay ridiculous salaries. What's wrong with that? You guys have been saying all along that it's the fault of the owners for paying crazy salaries and that's exactly what they're trying to fix. In a capitalistic system, the owners will pay what they're willing to pay and that's it. The players can accept it or not. They will never make this much money anywhere else.
The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They have zero leverage. Where are they going to go to make the kind of money they make now? The beautiful thing about capitalism is the players don't have to accept the league's offer and they can form their own league. They won't. Why? Because they will never come close to making the money they make now. The players are going to have to take the deal being offered by the league. They have no choice. The only form of leverage they have is to try and hold out without receiving paychecks for as long as possible. That will not last. At some point they have to pay bills and support their families. Their unity won't last. Unity never lasts in a collective society. That's totally un-American. American capitalism is about individualism and serving your own self-interest. That's the only morally acceptable way to do business. That's why collective bargaining is so ineffective.
The league has been very fair and is making them a deal that will pay them more money than any other group of NBA players in the history of the league. The problem is with the star players and big market owners. The large market owners don't want a compe ive balanced league. They want to eliminate their compe ors at the bargaining table. That is the worst kind of system if you're a Spurs fan. I don't want my Spurs to become the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats. We must remain compe ive and we need a system that will allow us to do that.
Player debates are more welcome than this.
I hope every city/small business owner who makes a living off of the NBA sues the owners.
Just as I hope the owners get a better system that makes the league more compe ive in the future.
I'd give the players a higher BRI with a hard cap personally.
The yahoo article about Allen going with the small market teams is surprising. Good read though.
wish we had a like button.
I disagree.
Big time star players (and that would include Robinson and Duncan) are what make this league. Nobody goes to watch the players you claim would take the 50/50 split.
The players already offered a 50%-53% band, and the league rejected them.
The owners don't want a capitalistic (sic) system. Otherwise they would have to pay through the nose in salaries. Guys like Kobe or Lebron are worth much more than $25-$30 million for their respective teams. If they already overspend when there's an actual penalty for doing so (lux tax), then on a true capitalist system, without barriers, penalties or regulations, they would throw the kitchen sink at the stars. Which takes us back to the first point: This is a star driven league. There's no way around it.
I disagree that players have no leverage or no better options than just wait it out.
On the wait it out front, they realize some owners and knee deep in debt and can't afford to just sit a season, while the big market owners are losing money and want to roll. It only takes so many owners votes to get a deal in place.
On the not waiting it out front, they can decertify, then sue the NBA on anti-trust grounds. There's a long precedent on that, with the NFL lockout being the closest example of how that route can bring the owners to quickly sit down and negotiate in good faith.
Not really. The deal being offered would be worse than the previous CBA. Which in turn was worse than the CBA before it. Players know they'll have to give something up, and they have. The league is both locking out the players and attempting to implement a brand new system basically unilaterally.
Birn, no offense, but I see very little that's right in your posts. It's amazing how continuously wrong you are.
Disagree 100%. The players have had it too good for too long. The owners are simply refusing to pay the levels of salary the players want. That's capitalism. They can't be forced to pay what the players are demanding. If the players don't like what's being offered they should go to Europe or form their own league. Previous CBA's have nothing to do with this. The fact is the league is still growing despite a bad economy. 50% of a Billion is a lot better than 57% of $600-700 million. Sure the Lakers and Knicks may want to pay players $30 million in salary but that is not what the league is willing to pay. The league has an obligation to all teams to provide a healthy and compe ive environment where everyone has an opportunity to compete for a championship. Don't confuse Kobe and Lebron's market value on their individual brand to their value as basketball palyers. Kobe and Lebron are worldwide marketing brands and will continue to capitalize on their brands outside of the NBA. That is completely separate and apart from what the league is willing to pay them to play basketball. Their brands are worth a lot more than their basketball salary. Apples and oranges my brother. As I've mentioned in the past, if the players want a true split of BRI then they need to also include the BRI generated off court by the players in endorsements and marketing income. If they did that, I'm sure the owners would be glad to let them keep 57%.
The owners have way more leverage than the players. Even if some teams are heavily debt ridden the NBA will carry them with loans and lines of credit to get through a missed season. Players don't have such access unless you're a star player. Banks aren't going to loan money to an unemployed rank and file pro basketball player. The lack of leverage will break the players. Same thing happened in 1999 as well as the NHL lockout in 2005. Just go read the articles by NHL players about their advice to NBA players. They're warning them to take the deal now. Sitting out the season was the worst decision they made in their professional lives. Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter and the rest of negotiating committee are getting their asses kicked by a bunch of pros. It's like men against boys in the boardroom. This is the big leagues and they're acting like amateurs.
The players are making a huge mistake trying to win the PR battle in this dispute. The players are spending a lot of money on PR firms and trying hard to gain public sympathy while the owners are focused on getting what they want out this deal. The players fail to realize that nobody cares about these negotiations so they are best advised to stop whining about how the owners are treating them.
The threat of decertification is not really an option for the players. Hunter and Fisher don't want it because they know that legal action will take YEARS to play out and there's no guarantee they will even prevail. The rank and file members of the players union don't want to wait that long for a resolution. The owners are not afraid of decertification and lawsuits at all. The facts are on their side...an offer of a 50/50 split of revenues will never be found as bargaining in bad faith. That course of action is WAY too risky for the players.
The NFL lockout was not resolved as a result of the lawsuit by the players. If you recall, the judge failed to issue a ruling for the players and ordered the parties to negotiate a deal or he was going to settle it himself. That's what brought them together. The NFL owners ended up getting pretty much everything they wanted since the judge sent clear signals to the players that they're litigation was not going to be as successful as they thought. This is why Hunter wants no part of suing the owners. He knows the risks are too high and he may end up screwing the players with a deal that's even worse than what the owners are proposing.
As far as the 50% to 53% band, that is entirely different than a pure 50/50 split. No way the owners go for that. What's wrong with 50/50. What is it that makes players think they're en led to take 57% from the owners? Why not 57% to the owners? It just makes the players seem incredibly ridiculous and childish when they can't even agree to a basic 50/50 arrangement to split a billion dollars. Just incredible how greedy and ignorant the players are being. They need to realize that this is not a game the owners are playing. They will cancel the season and will wait a year to get what they need.
This is absolutely all on the players to take it or leave it. The owners are making it very clear to the players that this is THEIR league and the players should be blessed with the privilege to play in it.
I fully expect the players to crack and we'll probably see the season begin sometime in January.
Show me where you think I'm wrong. Point by point please.
The Spurs are locked in airtight at the ATT center for many more years. I think their initial lease locked them in for 25 years in 2002, and then they had to extend an additional 5 years on the original lease in order to get upgrades funded by the city in 2007 or 2008.
Stop being such a total pussy. You are most definitely the owner's target audience to frighten.
http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/s...nd-lockout-now
This is our last real hope to have the NBA season starting soon.Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."
With board members appointed by President Obama in control, the NLRB has been leaning toward unions in most disputes. If the board agrees with the players that the owners have been guilty of bad faith in their bargaining and their lockout, the board would ask a federal judge for an injunction that would stop the lockout.
I hope so. Although I have been disappointed time and time throughout this lockout.
And the owners can do as they please, as long as it's legal. In this country, under Federal labor laws, owners can only hire temporary workers under a lockout. So, if they want to pay pennies, lets see them run the league with temp talent, and see how it works for them.
This league starts with star talent and ends with start talent.
They're not being forced to pay anything. If anything, in due time, they will be forced to negotiate in good faith, something they've not done yet.
But this is re ed. The league was growing even with the old CBA. Since growth isn't seemingly tied to the CBA, 57% of a billion is a lot better than 50% of a billion. Heck, 53% of a billion is a lot better than 50% of a billion.
Furthermore, the players are being flexible here. If the league growth slows down, they're willing to go down to 50%. But if the league does continue to grow, why should only the owners reap the benefits?
The Lakers and Knicks are part of the league and their markets and dollars are not going anywhere. The fact that they CANNOT pay whatever they want is simply because the system that runs the league ISN'T a free-market, capitalist system. You know, the one you keep claiming the owners want, but that in reality they want no part of.
This is where you got it all wrong. The league only fiduciary duty is to it's board of governors (owners). It's a business. The league simply will try to put out there the best product it can put. Obviously, the league has to have a certain degree of transparency and compe iveness, or people will simply lose interest. There's no obligation though, it's simply in the league best interest that there's a certain degree of compe iveness out there.
Now, you could argue that owners feel the current structure does not favor a compe ive environment (very debatable). If that's the premise, there's different ways to address that. But the question is, why do the players, and only the players, have to take the full hit? And the answer is that this isn't about revenue sharing, or compe iveness. This is about money.
You're the one that's confused or disconnected from reality. Having players like Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, Jordan, etc wearing your team colors raises your team brand astronomically. , it makes or breaks entire franchises. Jersey sales, ticket prices, tv deals. The same owners that you claim don't want to pay more keep outbidding each other every time there's a star free agent out there. See Miami. Heck, if this would be a true capitalist system, Kobe, Lebron, etc would easily be making much more than what they're making. Conversely, on a true capitalist system, scrubs would be getting pennies, not millions. One of the reasons owners don't want a capitalist system is because as much as they want to get rid of bad decisions quickly, they also want to lock in whatever star they get. This is a star driven league. Until that gets through your head, you're going to remain confused.
Actually, it's nothing like that. The NHL prior to the lockout spent 76% of gross income on salaries. The salaries were not tied to league revenue. There was no luxury tax. Teams had mediocre TV deals in the US. A very, very different contractual situation from the $4 billion league that's the NBA.
I do agree that owners have more leverage. I don't necessarily agree that players have no leverage at all.
says who? you?
The PR will matter little the way this looks to be headed. Which, IMO, is towards a court. Ultimately, the popularity contest isn't as important as in leagues like the NFL. Very few will miss the NBA much.
I'm sure the union would rather sit down an negotiate. But there's nothing to negotiate if only one side has to concede everything. Plus the BRI split is only one aspect of the entire negotiation. There's the hard cap. The contract lengths. The players already pretty much conceded something on every single item.
It only took one month to get an injunction for the NFL players, not sure where are you getting the 'years' from. And they weren't even talking about negotiating in bad faith, since the union basically decertified from the get go, and the league only locked them out then.
The move might be risky for the players, but it's the only route they might end up having to force the issue with the owners. It worked for the NFL players.
But that's not how it worked out. At all. It actually worked well for the players. The players offered a 50/50 split. The owners also wanted a 50/50 split, but after skimming $2 billion from the top. That effectively made it 38.9% for the players. Well, the new CBA gives the players 48%. Not quite the 50% they wanted, but 10% more than what the owners were originally offering.
Remember that 18 game schedule the owners wanted and the players didn't? Well, guess who won that one?
Minimum salaries went up. Fewer practices. It was an all around win for the players.
Why not? What's so different? Why wouldn't the owners go for that?
Please elaborate.
The players haven't asked for 57% from the get go. They even agreed to a 50%-53% band. They feel that if the league keeps growing, in part because of the work they do, they should reap some of the benefits of that growth. And if the league doesn't grow, they will share the pain with the owners. Sounds pretty fair to me. Why should the players strap themselves for the next 10 years? Especially since the league has been growing at a good pace.
But this isn't solely the owner's league. It's as much the owners as it's the players. This is a star driven league. No stars, no league. Furthermore, what's really crippling the negotiations now are the small market owners. I'm sure if this was up to Buss, Dolan and Cuban, we would be playing games now.
Maybe the players will fold. I don't know. Nobody knows. I think they look pretty united, and the way the league has been conducting negotiations, I think they have a fair shot at decertification. They even have hired the NFL lawyer IIRC. I think it's quite likely that's where this is heading.
Last edited by ElNono; 10-22-2011 at 02:29 AM.
Agree. If they go the decertification route, you can kiss the season goodbye. Unlike the NFL, it's already pretty late in the game.
That's a pussy article & a pussy route.
That's just complete and utter stupid nonsense. No offense.
What gets small or medium sized teams in financial trouble is not the CBA in relation to their market size, it's how good or not good their front office is. Being inept at the job of making your team a winner or loser is what gets teams relocated.
Paying a ton of money to marginal players, drafting poorly, scouting poorly. That does it in for teams.
Not whether the team is in OKC, SLC, Memphis or New York, Los Angeles, Chicago.
When teams in major markets suck for long periods of time because of ineptness, they relocate too... Los Angeles (Rams, Raiders).
Also, as stated by ChuckD, the Spurs have over two decades on their lease with the at&t center.
Birn = Peter Holt?
Nah, pretty sure that Holt isn't so confused as to what cons utes capitalism.
The whole thing is simply making me not care at all about the NBA. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players while people can't find jobs and are losing their houses. I think many people don't side with either of them. On one hand, we have a bunch of businessmen who have so much money that they can buy a professional sports franchise. On the other side, we have a bunch of guys who get paid ridiculous sums of money to play a sport while they fly around on charter planes and stay in fancy hotels. All the while, people who get paid $8 an hour to work the games are hurting and I blame both sides.
Well said.
With all the fighting over the portion of the pie each side will get, both sides may be looking at a smaller pie when this is all said and done.
This is just one of the many things that people as outside observers see as not making any sense, but yet it continues to happen. This is with incredibly wealthy and smart people as well, not some random dummy's that don't know anything.
For whatever reason, these types of things happen in government, business & many other areas where other smart people look at the situation from the outside but miss the true motive which leads to what we deem as "illogical".
The Players play and that's all they do. They don't pay the rent, they don't pay for transportation, they don't runt he concessiones, they don't provide security, they don't pay any bills, a small majority of them make a ton of money, and those that don't make a of a lot of money. The with them as poor as I am I side with the owners, a 50-50 split is more than fair in my view, they were crazy to give them that 57 percen in the first place. And the majority of these players no longer love this game, they love the money. OK the with them is kinda strong, it's a just a game and a business. Birn makes a strong point when he says that the players won't start their own league, why, because it takes money because they will have to spend a lot of it to make it work. And my quess they won't be giving any of their employees a 50-50 split.
If you take the owners away, the players can still have a league. Even if you want to argue the merits of how successful that would be, the fact remains there would be a chance.
If you take the players away, there is no league. Period.
It's strange but most of the owners i have met over the years have been cordial and nice, while too many players treat way too many people as inferior. I think this is why many do not feel for the players as much as they probably should because they are now getting their comeuppance.
In theory, a 50/50 BRI split would look great with players and owners getting the same amount of money. Both sides would be at a equal level.
In practice, it's more complicate than that. There are 2 BRIs: the true one and the one calculated according to a formula in the CBA. For example, 60% of luxury suites proceeds aren't included in the BRI and, with new arenas getting more and more suites, it makes a lot of money. Don't be fooled by the whole 50/50 thing because at the end, owners will get the biggest share. Players proposal of a 53/47 split is likely closer to a equal share than the 50/50 proposal made by owners.
Which players have been assholes? The only two I have met that I'd classify as jerks were Kareem and Bird. Another era I know, but guys like Erving, Gervin, Robinson, Magic, Barkley, Olajuwon, Jordan, Pippen, McHale... , even Malone, have been pretty cool to their fans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
