Resuming CBA talks

[baseline bum]

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.

Don't forget the local TV deals that Birn showed were not part of the BRI if the team can setup a shadow company like Spurs Sports and Entertainment.

[ElNono]

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.

Hope they will be. Both sides need to learn that stopping the league has serious consequences beyond the immediate economic impact. I mean this is the 4th lockout in league history and 2nd in the past 12 years alone.

This can't happen every other CBA negotiation.

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.

But the players accepted a 50% split, with the condition that there's also a 0% to a 3% bonus tied to league growth. They're negotiating for a 10 year deal. They already came all the way down from 57%.

[dbreiden83080]

If the season goes away when do they even start talking again? IF they get to the point where they walk away from the tables for good, they are still gonna have the same issues months later they'll just be even more pissed at eachother. You can't lose the whole season over this. They have to figure out a way to play at least half the season. Good luck getting people to come back to the NBA after they have missed an entire year. It will take the length of the new CBA to get the fans back they lost..

[ChuckD]

Woj - The owner's hidden agenda: exit strategy

[Buddy Holly]

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.

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

the OWS could manage the league, and all the games would be free, and everyone would be paid equally, and there'd be no penalties, and the score would always be love-love, and the championship would be shared equally by all teams, and the MVP would always be everybody

[DPG21920]

Tree. Of. Woj.

[DPG21920]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

No, youre out of your mind to think there wouldn't numerous people lined up to be owners in a new league. There are plenty of deep pockets which is why you see so many people bidding on low level franchises for all time high prices.

Fact remains it would take planning and time, but it could be done.

Without the players there is not even a debate.

[ElNono]

Let's watch Adam Silver dunk that !!!!!

[ElNono]

BTW, people forget that it was Stern that introduced the salary cap to the NBA (along with mandatory drug testing) in the '80s and that change basically made union and owners 'partners', or so he sold it back then.

There's also the fact that the reason the union received a small bump in revenue in the 2005 CBA was after they conceded to include a minimum age requirement that Stern wanted too.

[jag]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

[Mr. Body]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

There are multi-millionaires everywhere. Many of them would be far better sports owners than some of the current crop.

The owners would be nowhere without spectacular players. It would be a little dip league no one watched.

Here's hoping a new model of sports ownership, a la Green Bay, could somehow emerge. One where rich businessmen didn't threaten and gouge municipalities to build them expensive stadiums to fatten their accounts.

[Mr. Body]

That Wojnarowski article posted above is simply amazing. What an utter asshole Paul Allen looks to be. The personalities involved in this whole mess are combustible and there doesn't look to be a single good soul among the owners and the league willing to stand up for the good of the professional sport as a whole.

[benefactor]

That Wojnarowski article posted above is simply amazing. What an utter asshole Paul Allen looks to be. The personalities involved in this whole mess are combustible and there doesn't look to be a single good soul among the owners and the league willing to stand up for the good of the professional sport as a whole.

You'll love this too then...

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/32841752

Allen is probably the worst possible person the owners could have put up there to deliver this message. He represents everything that is wrong with professional sports owners.

[Birn]

As I've said many many time before, neither side is interested in a pure free market system where all risks, costs, and rewards are unrestricted. Neither side wants it so please stop trying to insist that all the players want is a chance to earn their true market value. The players are demanding guarantees and protections to minimize their exposure to risk. The owners are seeking protections as well. This is not a free market at all. If they truly wanted a free market with players and owners in partnership with each other then you would have no guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. If owners ever wanted to get rid of someone they would just let them go and they would no longer be responsible for paying them. If players get hurt...too bad. They would be released and would have to rehab their way back to top playing shape. This is not realistic because the players want protections from such risk. In order to have these protections they have to give up some of the potential rewards that a true free market provides. Also, if this were truly a partnership as the NBAPA says it is then they should also have to pay for a share of the expenses paid by the owners. They talk exclusively of BRI (basketball related income) but forget about BRE (basketball related expenses). The players are just plain ignorant and greedy when it comes to understanding business. I'm sure the owners would be happy to give them 57% of BRI if the players also picked up 57% of the expenses. That won't ever happen because the players only want guarantees on income...which is fine but they will have to give their free market values in exchange for those guarantees. They can't have it all.

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%? How come the players feel en led to take 53%? What's wrong with 50%? I've still not seen a valid reason as to why the players have to take more than 50% of the pie with no contribution toward expenses. That silly offer of a flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Nothing close to it.

All of you people that are siding with the players are missing the whole point of the negotiations from the perspective of the Spurs. IF THE CBA IS NOT CHANGED SO THAT SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN COMPETE FINANCIALLY IN THE FUTURE THEN IT IS NO LONGER CONCEIVABLE FOR THE SPURS TO REMAIN IN SAN ANTONIO. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE TO OWN A COMPE IVE TEAM IN A SMALL MARKET THEN HOLT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL THE TEAM. HE DOESN'T OWN THE TEAM JUST FOR HIS PURE ENJOYMENT. HE NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY. IT'S PURE AND SIMPLE...THE SPURS NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROFITABLE IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN SA. IF THIS CBA FAILS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE SPURS ARE GONE. THE AT&T LEASE WON'T STOP A NEW OWNER TO MOVE THEM OUT OF TOWN. THEY WOULD JUST PAY THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LEASE. IT'S THAT SERIOUS PEOPLE.

[Mel_13]

Lol capital letters

[Mr. Body]

Birn, dude, no one EVER wants a free market. IN ANY INDUSTRY. It's just a stupid political fable.

All actors want things in their favor. And they want stability as much as anything, which is why you have multi-year contracts. BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

You don't get the players accepting below 53% at this point because they were at 57% last CBA. Why would they give up 7 points to get to 50/50 just for no reason at all? Just because the owners say so? That's crazy. Crazy in the short term, crazy in the medium term, and just means in the long term the owners will expect to rape the out of you again next time around.

And... yes, there's a good chance San Antonio loses the Spurs. It's always been the case. If they hadn't drafted Duncan the team would be gone by now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are multi-millionaires everywhere. Many of them would be far better sports owners than some of the current crop.

The owners would be nowhere without spectacular players. It would be a little dip league no one watched.

Here's hoping a new model of sports ownership, a la Green Bay, could somehow emerge. One where rich businessmen didn't threaten and gouge municipalities to build them expensive stadiums to fatten their accounts.

Lambeau had vision. Unfortunately those with vision in this era are few and far between.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As I've said many many time before, neither side is interested in a pure free market system where all risks, costs, and rewards are unrestricted. Neither side wants it so please stop trying to insist that all the players want is a chance to earn their true market value. The players are demanding guarantees and protections to minimize their exposure to risk. The owners are seeking protections as well. This is not a free market at all. If they truly wanted a free market with players and owners in partnership with each other then you would have no guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. If owners ever wanted to get rid of someone they would just let them go and they would no longer be responsible for paying them. If players get hurt...too bad. They would be released and would have to rehab their way back to top playing shape. This is not realistic because the players want protections from such risk. In order to have these protections they have to give up some of the potential rewards that a true free market provides. Also, if this were truly a partnership as the NBAPA says it is then they should also have to pay for a share of the expenses paid by the owners. They talk exclusively of BRI (basketball related income) but forget about BRE (basketball related expenses). The players are just plain ignorant and greedy when it comes to understanding business. I'm sure the owners would be happy to give them 57% of BRI if the players also picked up 57% of the expenses. That won't ever happen because the players only want guarantees on income...which is fine but they will have to give their free market values in exchange for those guarantees. They can't have it all.

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%? How come the players feel en led to take 53%? What's wrong with 50%? I've still not seen a valid reason as to why the players have to take more than 50% of the pie with no contribution toward expenses. That silly offer of a flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Nothing close to it.

All of you people that are siding with the players are missing the whole point of the negotiations from the perspective of the Spurs. IF THE CBA IS NOT CHANGED SO THAT SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN COMPETE FINANCIALLY IN THE FUTURE THEN IT IS NO LONGER CONCEIVABLE FOR THE SPURS TO REMAIN IN SAN ANTONIO. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE TO OWN A COMPE IVE TEAM IN A SMALL MARKET THEN HOLT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL THE TEAM. HE DOESN'T OWN THE TEAM JUST FOR HIS PURE ENJOYMENT. HE NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY. IT'S PURE AND SIMPLE...THE SPURS NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROFITABLE IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN SA. IF THIS CBA FAILS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE SPURS ARE GONE. THE AT&T LEASE WON'T STOP A NEW OWNER TO MOVE THEM OUT OF TOWN. THEY WOULD JUST PAY THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LEASE. IT'S THAT SERIOUS PEOPLE.

You have no basis for this. The Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's et al all say o. Baseball has about the same amount of revenue sharing and no cap whatsoever yet those markets still have teams.

You have this make believer world in your head please stop trying to pas it off as fact.

[Birn]

Birn, dude, no one EVER wants a free market. IN ANY INDUSTRY. It's just a stupid political fable.

All actors want things in their favor. And they want stability as much as anything, which is why you have multi-year contracts. BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

You don't get the players accepting below 53% at this point because they were at 57% last CBA. Why would they give up 7 points to get to 50/50 just for no reason at all? Just because the owners say so? That's crazy. Crazy in the short term, crazy in the medium term, and just means in the long term the owners will expect to rape the out of you again next time around.

And... yes, there's a good chance San Antonio loses the Spurs. It's always been the case. If they hadn't drafted Duncan the team would be gone by now.

Mr. Body, everybody that lives in our country wants free market capitalism in all industries. Silly Socialist!!

I stand corrected...everybody except the NBA players and owners and Barack Obama.

Once again, just because the players raped the owners for 57% in the last CBA doesn't set any precedent at all. I could understand it more if the players had ownership stakes in these teams but they don't. The fact is there would be no NBA without the owners. 50/50 is the only reasonable solution and compromise to get this thing over with. The players will still be paid more money under a 50/50 system than they ever received in a 57/43 system. That's what is making this so frustrating for average fans...they just don't understand why the players have to be so greedy. They're going to lose big time!

Nothing is going to get done until it is confirmed that they can't play an 82 game schedule. Once they officially start losing games then that's when the players crack. Owners are giving them every opportunity to get a deal done but the players are being too petulant and childish about 53% of BRI. They've drawn a line in the sand and said they won't move any further. Owners see that and think "OK, see you next season". Players have zero leverage. Once games are lost for good they will fold up like a cheap tent. The players are pure amateurs at negotiating.

[Birn]

You have no basis for this. The Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's et al all say o. Baseball has about the same amount of revenue sharing and no cap whatsoever yet those markets still have teams.

You have this make believer world in your head please stop trying to pas it off as fact.

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

[Birn]

Lambeau had vision. Unfortunately those with vision in this era are few and far between.

AAAAHHHHH...gotta love that Socialism!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

You said compete financially. Now you are just whining for guarantees. You probably think of yourself as conservative too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AAAAHHHHH...gotta love that Socialism!

I guess. Its the NFL not the steel industry.

They are most assuredly Green Bays team. Screw Peter Holt.

[Birn]

No, youre out of your mind to think there wouldn't numerous people lined up to be owners in a new league. There are plenty of deep pockets which is why you see so many people bidding on low level franchises for all time high prices.

Fact remains it would take planning and time, but it could be done.

Without the players there is not even a debate.

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.