Reply With Quote
I wanna know where our damages expert is getting a billion + in damages.
I wanna know where our damages expert is getting a billion + in damages.
Not sure how similar it is to the NFL case, but you can look up the stories back then and the supposed liability was in the multi-billion range.
Obviously, I will agree immediately with you that it's very unlikely that such damages would ever be paid. Owners obviously would sit down and get done before that happens (which is what happened with the NFL).
Plaintiffs always hype up their damages claims to scare defendants. The initial claim and actual award are usually very different numbers.
No doubt. What actually ended up twisting the NFL owner's arm was the judge basically warning them that if they didn't reach an agreement, he would make one. And this goes into the uncertainty aspect, much like what we were discussing a while back with jury decisions. Neither side wants a third party to decide for them.
"Could" doesn't mean "will". But, hypothetically at least, it's probable that a unionless league has the owners paying more than they do in a unionized league. A lot of the small markets would probably be forced out, because no CBA means Cuban, Buss et al can pay even more for their rosters without penalty. The NBA in its current form needs the union, they just need it to be weak.
I agree with a lot of what jabol said.
Most owners won't have much motivation to own a team if they can't make a profit off of it. While I think it's largely a hobby (if I was a billionaire I'd certainly own a team or two for fun), I think the folks who own teams like making money off their hobbies.
NBA players are some of the best compensated athletes in professional sports. The owners could cut salaries in half and there'd still be a gazillion kids wanting to grow up to be a professional basketball player. I certainly don't feel that the players are being taken advantage of, even if every demand the owners seek was granted.
Unions have their place, and I do believe that, if managed correctly, a union can do a lot to advocate for workers' rights. Unfortunately, union leadership is often corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged, leaving a lot of union workers no better off than had they not been part of a union in the first place.
I'm not saying that's going to happen to the NBA players in this case. In fact, it's almost ludicrous to compare an average unionized employee to an NBA player, but it does appear that the NBA players aren't achieving too much success in advocating for change in their current union format.
Well said, my point exactly - I don't think any of the NBA owners are in it mainly for the money. Most have and continue to make their $$ in ways they got rich in the first place. Most owners just love the idea of owning a sports team and that's their main motivation. In some instances what also appeals for them is the idea of giving back to the community and making sure they can afford to keep their team in that community. You can't expect these guys want to do that if it means they will continue losing money every year. So, it's totally understandable why they keep fighting for a system they believe will allow them to continue owning the team and keep it in the community. Moving the teams elsewhere, out of small markets is not an option for them because there are only so many big markets available anyway so unless the league goes global what would ultimately happen if the current system doesn't change is we would end up with only a handful of teams in the league with a place for maybe a 3rd of the players. This is another point that just boggles my mind that the players don't seem to understand.
Yep, agree again. If they don't like the deal they can go to play elsewhere. As many have already found out they will not make the same amount of money in Europe. Assuming it comes to the above scenario, where the league is limited to 10 big market teams and two thirds of the NBA players go overseas you could argue a compe ive NBA-like league could develop overseas with large salaries that could perhaps overtake the NBA money at some point. Well, how does the NBA and the current US NBA fan benefit from that? The remaining NBA league could completely lose it's appeal and if you as a fan would like to get your fix of compe ive basketball you could be left following the overseas league. Good luck staying up at night or trying to skip work in the morning to catch a live game on tv or paying for plane tickets to catch a good game in person. Players and fans need to get that through their skulls and look at the big picture. The other argument, on the players side is along the lines of what happens if the economy turns around in the middle of this new CBA and the NBA continues to rise in popularity and produce loads of money. Why should that money go only to the owners. I get it - the players are largely responsible for the popularity of the league and should get a piece of the pie. Maybe the solution is to sign a new deal for 5 and not 10 years. That way if things turn around within the next 5 years they go back to the drawing board again. The other reason to support a 5 year deal is because many assumptions must be made at this time about what the economic conditions will be in the future when trying to analyze the true value of all the details of a deal that both the players and the owners are pushing for.NBA players are some of the best compensated athletes in professional sports. The owners could cut salaries in half and there'd still be a gazillion kids wanting to grow up to be a professional basketball player. I certainly don't feel that the players are being taken advantage of, even if every demand the owners seek was granted.
I agree that unions have their place but they were originally intended to keep workers safe from true abuse and as societies have evolved there is very little of such abuse around. You could argue that many unions, especially in bad economic times as the ones we see today have actually hurt the economy even more and the same abuse they were built to prevent inside their associations is created by them outside of their groups. If you know anything about the government unions for example you would notice that USPS for instance is facing tough times and working very hard to stay in business. The USPS unionized workers refuse to bend and adapt to changing times that will soon make their employer go out of business. USPS itself has also relied on contractors to support the full time employees, but again since the full time employees won't bend and the agency can't afford to hire either type of more workers - current contractors are forced to pick up the slack for the union guys and are facing ridiculous working hours and conditions that can't be sustained for a long time. Another great example of union negativity is the the complacency that unions created in the US automobile industry. In the NBA's case, as you said it yourself the union is trying to protect people that would make million of dollars anyway, earning their living by doing something I have a hard time even calling a job. In the back of my head I do feel that perhaps the only way the NBPA has the fans interest in mind (indirectly of course) is that it actually ensures the NBA remains the most compe ive basketball league in the world by keeping the best players in the world and consequently the best paid players in the world in this league. Even that though doesn't change the argument I'm trying to make about the true principle and idea behind labor unions. It also doesn't contradict my point about how the players union is responsible for the fact that we do not currently have an NBA season.Unions have their place, and I do believe that, if managed correctly, a union can do a lot to advocate for workers' rights. Unfortunately, union leadership is often corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged, leaving a lot of union workers no better off than had they not been part of a union in the first place.
I went through 41 of your posts (including the one I'm quoting above) and have a hard time believing you know what "bringing the goods" means.
Sometimes i hope people are able to to grasp the concept of expressing their thoughts by articulating them well enough and then backing them up with a supporting argument. I also hope they are able to enlighten themselves enough to understand the embarrassment they may be saving themselves from.
Don't know if you realize that your response has just proved my point. The laws you are referring to above are established by the federal government, and not unions. The need for them was exposed by the unions in the past which led to their establishment by the government, dumbass.
So we're in agreement that without an union the NBA in it's current form wouldn't exist?
No draft, no salary-caps, no luxury tax, no rookie scale... very unlikely the Spurs would exist in those conditions.
Terrible analogy. Look up the definition of the bailout. Yes the house prices dropped and if you owned one of those houses, knew you were in for 30 yrs to maintain your mortgage and were smart enough to workout a clause in that mortgage (which the NBA owners were) that would allow you to renegotiate its terms every 5 years based on the economic conditions you should be able to do so.
Sure the NBA in its current form wouldn't exist but it it's hard to tell if it would be better or worse off. All i can say is that if the players union didn't exist, the players choice would be to go overseas where they would realize that they can't get as much money as the NBA owners are proposing and would sign the owners offer.
Possibly. But it would also be much more expensive for owners. Superstar talent with true compe ion between teams to acquire them would cost a boatload more than these capped-salaries. Which is what the salary-cap in the 80's tried to control.
Both owners and players benefit from the union being there. It would be incredibly more costly for owners otherwise. Small-market teams would likely not viable under that scenario.
There's certainly a place for unions, especially on professional sports.
I would argue that should the union decertify, the NBA would not restart until a union forming again.
Such generous and classy owners
Sweet. So Microsoft, Apple, and Google are cool to form a cartel to drive down developer salaries, and you don't like it? Then take your sorry asses to India gots!Yep, agree again. If they don't like the deal they can go to play elsewhere.
You don't believe that some owners actually care or don't mind keeping the team where it is as long as they don't lose money? If I were to invest in a pro sports team I would won't to keep it in my home town or city I call home and feel loyal or nostalgic towards. Believe it or not, it's not that far fetched of a idea even when it comes to successful business men. You throw having to deal with major monetary losses into the equation and we are talking about a completely different story. Even if the owner is in it just for the prestige of owning a sports team for a short time I believe they would be willing to invest knowing they can break even after they sell the team, but again no one would be very willing to jump on the opportunity of owning a franchise if they had to sell it for a loss.
Who's forming a cartel to drive down salaries? Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete.Sweet. So Microsoft, Apple, and Google are cool to form a cartel to drive down developer salaries, and you don't like it? Then take your sorry asses to India gots!
Last edited by jabol130; 11-12-2011 at 07:37 PM.
I'm not saying you can't have rules that the teams and owners have to abide by to belong to the league. The salary cap, rookie scale etc - these things are needed to ensure the league is successful and compe ive - what does having the players union exist have to do with it. This whole thing about anti trust laws is bogus also if you believe that sports leagues and teams are a different type of business which is true. Even if the union didn't exist the NBA players, signing their individual contracts would need to sing a clause stating they are agreeing to abide by the rules established by the league. So, the fact that that clause is included in the CBA which today is an agreement between the league and the players union doesn't mean that you can't have the same type of league rule setup continue without the players union existing.
In back to back posts? Seriously?
No, it's not. There is absolutely no way the NBA could establish rules for a salary cap, rookie scale, player draft, etc. without finding itself on the wrong end of multiple an rust suits which they would lose.
I thought you wouldn't understand what i meant and so if you notice i corrected the above post to read:
In back to back posts? Seriously?
"Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete."
If you're still rolling after reading this I can't help you.
The fact that the labor law establishes that you get exceptions from anti-trust laws ONLY if collectively bargaining (which means, an union)?
Really? You posted this without even being aware of this?
Uh? More leagues means more owners, meaning more compe ion for a limited pool of exceptionally skilled players, meaning costing substantially more to lock in that talent.
Who do you think demanded the salary-cap in the NBA? Owners or players? Why?
This is where you say "I stand corrected".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions