Reply With Quote
its more likely they can force a vote for decertification. its only 30% to get the process started. i think its 50% to get the deal approved.
I still don't see how the players bent the owners over in the '99 CBA. The '99 CBA was the difference between Duncan getting $15-30 million a season like Garnett, Jordan, Shaq, and Ewing were pulling in the late 90s vs. the $9.5 million he ended up getting after his rookie scale contract expired.
its more likely they can force a vote for decertification. its only 30% to get the process started. i think its 50% to get the deal approved.
That simply didn't happen. The 1999 CBA was a huge victory for the owners. Look it up if you're too young to remember the events of the 98-99 lockout.
I just don't get how anyone can side with the owners.
^Me & you, Deepy...on this issue, hand-in-hand, daddy.
It's about time.
& I don't wish to upset the applecart, but, I noticed up above you stole my statement about the players concentration on the system instead of the BRI. I said that first.
I'm siding with the owners on the system issues. Anything to make the league more compe ive.
I don't side with them on that either. Its not good for the league and plenty of small markets make the playoffs consistently.
Because those of us who love our Spurs would like to see them become profitable once again. We don't want them to leave our fine city. A bad CBA like the current system makes it financially impossible for the Spurs to make a profit. Unless there's a real salary cap like in the NFL and NHL, the Spurs will not make it in San Antonio. Holt would be forced to sell and a city like St. Louis or Seattle would get to see Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan perform for their fans. In the alternative, ticket prices would also have to increase substantially thereby making it unaffordable for a lot of fans in SA.
Last edited by Birn; 11-06-2011 at 11:54 PM.
not true
lol broussard says out of the 8 hrs from the meeting they only met together for 15 minutes.
Actually, the owners allow for a league for the players to play in. Owners > Players.
Without the owner's money the players aren't playing.
Sure the players help generate revenue but that doesn't matter if there's no one paying the overhead to run the team.
So the Spurs wouldn't make it in SA but they'd make it in St. Louis?Ok. O_o
And the Spurs are locked in an iron clad lease for another 20 plus years. Good CBA or bad CBA, they're not going anywhere.
Quit being a moron.
Without these current group of owners other owners would step up and pay this talent. Without these players, these current owners have franchises worth nothing.
What? I'm not talking about the two groups of owners. I'm talking about owners in general. If there's no owners willing to put up their own money for a team, there's no team, there's no league, there's no players to televise and make popular.
If you think a new league could start up with the current NBPA players and be anywhere as successful as the NBA, you're nuts.
The players need the NBA as much or more than the NBA needs the players to succeed in the long run.
what some of the morons on here fail to recognize, look at the exhibition games thats been played already this off-season, just how many of them games got aired on big tv networks besides the occasional report in the newspapers and youtube clips....
if theres no league, they the stakeholders will just get their money and invest it somewhere else maybe more euro/football games on tv...thats how i see it...
if the nba folds, expect them to ask for a bailout by the govt, then just restart the league with lower wages by attracting any player who wants to play since its better then sitting out and not earning a dime.
That's because that's how the mediator business works... they stay in separate rooms and the mediator goes back and forth... kindergarten kind of stuff, tbh
There would be other owners, with other money. Nobody pays to watch owners run their business.
Yep.
Why wasn't FOX Sports or Versus clamoring to buy the tv rights to those exhibition games featuring top 10-20 NBA talent?!?
Because the players themselves have very little value outside the NBA bubble.
If you took Ben and Jerry's ice cream and stuck it in a brand new carton with a generic, unfamiliar name and sold it in the same stores Ben and Jerry's is sold and the same price and everyone knew it was the same ice cream (taste wise) as what was in the Ben and Jerry carton, the new generic wouldn't sell and would go out of business within a year.
However, if you took a generic, unfamiliar brand ice cream and put it in the Ben and Jerry's carton, sells might dip a bit but they'd remain in business years later.
Maybe the league need to shred a few teams. The question is why do only players have to subsidize the Bobcats of the league. The current revenue sharing from top teams to small teams is the worst in all professional sports. Doesn't look like it's changing much either.
Why then does it take 8 hours to say "Yes" or "No" to 6 different things?
Even the 8-10 hour meetings without the mediator and they'd come back with well they offered this and we said no.
Really? 8 hours for that?
You'll always find owners in the big markets that want to pay to play. The only reason the owners are still locked out is the small market teams. And part of the reason is the Buss of the league don't want to subsidize the small/failing markets.
From what I heard, the union had a complete proposal on their own that they brought to the table, including a 51%, plus system adjustments that they feel they needed to have in order to go that low on the BRI. I assume owners mulled over it for a while, then told the mediator what they didn't like. That's when Cohen starts going back and forth with the "wait if" stuff. It obviously takes time, and obviously the owners aren't really budging from their flex-cap and 50% BRI.
Yeah, in the NBA? No.
What dumbass is going to invest money in a new start up league and pay their players NBA type money and give them NBA type luxuries while building a new brand and starting to from scratch?
No one.
That's like McDonald's folding and you bought their recipes and now you have to replicate their success under the name "Tom's Burgers." Now go over take the market share Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, etc now have.
You truly have a bad misconception of the business world if you think its a simple solution of "just start a new league with new owners" and problem solved.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
