| 0 |
Subject: NBA labor news
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [4992510] Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 11:08
As it is looking more and more likely that the season will start getting canceled (in chunks, to start), it seems the labor dispute is likely the only real NBA news for awhile.
The latest salvo: League to NBAPA: "Sure, we'll meet--just agree to my demands and we'll set it up." |
| 1 | Great One
ID: 418501919
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 11:56
|
This all just a conspiracy to delay me from dominating RIHC.
|
| 2 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 15:03
|
Can someone explain what it is the players want? Don't they get paid enough already?
Quit your whining, get on the court and play.
|
| 3 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 15:12
|
I'm thinking about holding meetings with the owner of my business and telling them I'd like 57% of his profit. And if I don't get it I'll refuse to work.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 17:08
|
Given how much money they make off your work, that would be pretty cool.
If course, the players are actually proposing a cut in their pay, not a raise. From 57 to 53, in fact--a 7% cut.
|
| 5 | reebbertxx
Dude
ID: 561124720
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 18:37
|
The players aren't refusing to work they are locked out. Most of them have contracts that they are willing to "work" for but they are not being allowed to do so.
|
| 6 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 19:54
|
Yes, but the old labor agreement expired, thus requiring a new one. During negotations for a new one they are asking for more than 50% of the BRI.
Yes, I understand that's what they've had in the past. To me that's insane. They want the people they work for to give up more than half of the BRI.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 20:23
|
I really have no idea why you think that is "insane" in an industry in which the very personalities of the players (workers) drive all the revenue.
The owners were making a ton of money before, and the players offered them a slightly better deal this time around. In response, the owners have locked them out because they want an even better deal where the players take a 14% cut in revenue.
If the owners were losing money I'd see your point--but they are not.
|
| 8 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 20:35
|
I think the debate about whether they are losing money is open. Its hard to determine considering the numerous ways each side of the argument interprets the data.
IMO, the owners are the ones taking all the risk. They are the ones who take the hit if things go south (which they will do now that games have been canceled). And the owners are the ones who get stuck with the bad contracts of guys who fail to perform. Yes, I know the argument about not paying guys like Rashard Lewis $20 million a year. But what about a guy like Eddy Curry, who signs and then fattens up. Guys who start putting out no effort once they get their big deal. For every KG who works their butt off there are guys who stop putting out their full effort with a guaranteed deal.
If the owners have to assume risk they should be compensated for taking that risk. I know some owners are terrible (Sarver, Maloofs, etc) but owners should still be taking home a majority of the profit their business brings in.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510
Sat, Oct 08, 2011, 20:56
|
If the owners have to assume risk they should be compensated for taking that risk.
Nobody is saying otherwise. The question is the amount of that compensation.
Should they get a 14% raise? Or just a 7% raise?
|
| 10 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 00:16
|
The current split is 57% for the players right? I'd think dropping to 50/50 would be more than fair for both sides.
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510
Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 09:40
|
Why do you believe that to be fair?
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 4992510
Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 09:50
|
I should note that the just-expired CBA held back a small portion of each player's salary, to be paid back to the owners in the base of revenue drops. Is this fair?
Some background on team profits.
Overall, the teams are not doing badly. Except, of course, those teams whose business decisions are bringing them losses. Should they be protected from the risk of those business decisions by the players themselves?
|
| 13 | weykool
ID: 58814232
Sun, Oct 09, 2011, 21:00
|
I really have no idea why you think that is "insane" in an industry in which the very personalities of the players (workers) drive all the revenue.
Both sides need each other.
To say one side drives all the revenue is pretty silly.
Without the NBA, please tell me how much you would be willing to pay to see the NBA players play a 3 on 3 pickup game at the beach.
The players only expense is to pay their agent, after that the 57% is pure profit.(its actually a 50/50 split already)
From the 43% the owners have to all the expenses associated with running a business.
The player are guaranteed to make money while the owners are not.
According to Derek Fisher on the Steven A Smith show: The owners are NOT losing money but the 100 million that the players are willing to concede over the life of the contract represents 57% of the owners losses.
Talk about speaking out of both side of his mouth.
One of the arguments that the players are making is that the owners are counting what they paid for their franchises as a portion of their deductions.
They reason that when they sell their franchise they will make all that money back and then some.
The problem with that thinking is its only true if you can find someone willing to pony up more than you just paid.
As we saw with the housing bubble there is no guarantee that the price of something will continue to increase forever.
If the players dont make a deal and the season gets cancelled they will be forced to take pay cuts when they do get back on the court.
A cancelled season will mean less money going forward.
If the players are smart they will meet the owners somewhere in the middle on the money but with strings attached.
Some sort of revenue sharing for the small market teams so they can afford to pay for better players AND maybe something like a 2:1 split for any increases to future revenue.
They are both in this together and both sides need each other just as much in order to generate revenue.
They need to see it as a partnership where both sides are committed to increasing the total revenue for the good of both sides.
|
| 14 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 19:59
|
Well, there goes the first 2 weeks of the season. Baseball is almost over. If the season gets cancelled it will be a very boring summer of sport here in Oz.
|
| 15 | PR
ID: 179331316
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 17:37
|
PD - First, thanks for the article link. After reading it though, I have to strongly disagree with his analysis of the Pacers and why they are losing revenue.
There is no lingering aftermath of the Malice at the Palice that I am aware of in Indiana. This state loves its basketball, and all those characters that were involved in that deal are long gone. In fact, the Pacers have completely recycled their image and only have brought in character guys since that, shunning guys like Tinsley they couldn't move and eating his salary just to keep him away from the team. If any normal employee had conducted himself like Tinsley, he would have been fired.
The reason we've had a bad cap situation is because of the bad contracts that we brought in via trades primarily b/c the Simons (well Simon now - owners)....never overpay. They would not pay Brad Miller 9 million to stay in his prime, but that's another story.
The fans have been really impressed with how the Pacers have turned themselves around with good play from good young players and they've been in playoff contention every year I think since finishing the longest active string of playoff appearances in the NBA. They are not a mismanaged franchise with a hangover that is a 'special case' and should be disregarded. They are a great example of a small market team in a very receptive small market that simply can't draw talent (in part b/c of location) and in part b/c of having no money to spend b/c of the exorbitant size of NBA contracts. I can't even afford to take my family to a game there. I rarely go myself largely b/c of cost.
There is just a huge disconnect between most fans and the players who make a ridiculous sum of money compared to fans who pay to support their salaries. I mean come on, these guys have dream jobs. They get to compete in a GAME for their job. Sure, it's work lifting weights and avoiding Big Macs, and studying the game, but presumably it is work they LOVE due to loving the game that they play, that has given them a career that most people could only dream of.
I do agree that there are some really bad owners out there and some not so smart ones. But the whole financial situation is just out of control. The debt issue is a huge one which certainly drives a lot of this. But the whole thing is built on debt. I mean who has the cash sitting in a bank account to pay upfront for an arena? And for the players or others to say that the interest costs should not be factored into the equation...that's it not a true business cost...I don't agree with that.
I think the problem was captured pretty well when Latrell Sprewell turned down his multimillion dollar offer from Minnesota because he had to "feed his family." Many of these players, and their rich agents, advisors and union bosses have little concept of what the man on the street or average fan feels about the salaries they make. Why can't they accept a hard cap? Greed, pure and simple. They would rather have a less competitive nba with large market teams able to pay more in salary including any luxury tax just to maximize their potential paychecks.
The article saying that the franchises should move if fans won't pay more for tickets.....that just contributes to the idea of that only the rich should be allowed to go see games or everyone should fork over a ton of their hard earned money to help keep the players' salaries high. No way. I think 'contraction' or consolidation or whatever the correct term is may be the way to go if they want to sustain salaries they way they do...but I wish they would just figure out a way to share the risk and benefit with the owners who provide the forum for them to use their talents and abilities.
Also, I do not think that players having to give back a portion of their revenues to their teams in the event of negative financial outcomes is "unfair." It's simply a negotiated contract stipulation that allowed the players to get a sweeter deal in the hopes that finances would flow more positively, but left some insurance in there for the owners in case they didn't...thereby allowing the owners to agree to bigger contracts. Same things happens in other contract situations, for example contract between teachers and school corporations. If tax revenues are strong and the school has more money, they can pay more salary, but if revenues are low, the school has less money to pay so everyone can live with it and it's fair. But that's in the case of teachers who are underpaid anyway...not in the case of multimilliondollar athletes looking for even more wealth.
In part, I wrote this just in case some of you were missing my massive posts which say very little yet ramble on forever.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 20:36
|
PR: If the giveback portion of the contract is fair because it is a negotiated clause, surely the percentage of receipts due to the players (who, after all, drive those revenues to the league in the first place) is also fair.
The players are willing to take cuts in pay because of the revenue situation. Owners want them to take a 14% cut, while players have offered a 7% cut. Here's the thing: The owners haven't demonstrated that they will lose any money by taking the players' offer. (Probably because they can't).
Sprewell, of course, was an ass, but hardly personified most of the players, who worked hard, made boatloads of money for themselves and the league, and deserves the money.
This is all like a guy who made his team's owner a million dollars profit, was paid $250K, and is being chastised because he doesn't connect with the "man on the street." Meanwhile the owner is making a lot more money, while risking very little of his own (ever see owners negotiate for a town to build them a new workplace? Sprewell has nothing on those guys).
|
| 17 | Pacers Rule
ID: 279121921
Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 22:36
|
Agreed, the previous CBA deal was 'fair' in the sense that both parties agreed to it. However, I still feel the entire NBA top to bottom is overpriced. Why should we have to pay $200 to watch the season on TV? Why do tickets cost so crazy much? Why are the players salaries so high?
Obviously there are some fixed costs involved, like cost of debt and costs of the buildings, etc. that the owners and players can't just reduce by choice. However, it seems there are lots of ways the whole situation could cost less, and given the extremely high levels of players salaries, that is an obvious reason for the high cost of things. For a few teams, they are clearing tons of money still so the owners are to blame for why prices are as they are. But the fact that like 22 teams lost money this past year even with these crazy high prices says something is very wrong with the current system.
As far as using taxpayer money to fund a stadium, to me It only makes sense if tax revenues generated by the stadium and team are going to make up for the investment. Lots of hotel and food and beverage taxes in addition to sales taxes are generated, but perhaps not to the level that is sometimes paid. Some say it's a 'prestige' thing for the city and helps the city land other events and business, and that's probably true. But that's hard to quantify. Obviously the stadiums and teams create a lot of jobs which puts a lot of bread on tables and creates even more tax revenues, so don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-NBA.
I just don't like to see the players drawing so crazy much salary when the league is actually losing money for most of the owners and tickets are priced so high many people can't afford to attend the games or watch them on TV.
To me the whole idea of revenue sharing between the owners and players makes a lot of sense. The players should be guaranteed a certain base salary and then if their teams make money, they split those profits with the owners or something along those lines in addition to their base salary. In this way, if the owners/team makes money, the players make money. That sounds fair to me. Maybe harder to work out, but fair nonetheless.
I also wish there was a hard cap and revenue sharing to help equalize the playing field between the teams.
|
| 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 16:25
|
I think that the players would agree to even deeper revenue sharing numbers provided that the owners agreed to:
-independent auditing;
-a much higher percentage going to the players after a certain profit share has been realized by the owners.
In other words, once the owner makes a certain amount of profit, the players all get raises out of revenue above that amount.
The problem, of course, is that the owners don't want to open their books. And who can blame them, really? If they don't have to then they are unlikely to actually do it, even if it leads to a deal which guarantees them profit.
Meanwhile, no recent stadia have been built which offers to taxpayers any reasonable return on their investment, based upon net tax revenues. The owners all promise that the taxpayers will get there money back if only the taxpayers foot the bill for a new and improved workplace for them, but it just doesn't happen. Time after time after time, these new places fail to cover costs.
|
| 19 | weykool
ID: 499141718
Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 21:25
|
The problem with profit sharing is getting both sides to agree what is and isn't profit.
From the Forbes article in post 12:
Last year, the NBA’s franchises made about a quarter of a billion dollars in operating profits.
As Forbes describes it, operating profit includes the cost of arena debt but excludes the financing costs of owning the franchise.
The basic premise is if you dont count ALL of the expenses of the owners they are making money.
There are lost of different kinds of profits.
Gross profit
Operating profit
Net profit
Pre-tax profit
After tax profit
As for taxpayer financed stadium arenas.
I am in favor of all owners building their own.
Use taxpayer money to secure the land and charge $1 per year as long as the team remains in the city.
If the team moves then the land and whatever is on it reverts back to the taxpayer.
I dont know that I buy that taxpayers dont get back what they put up.
The downtown area in LA was dead prior to Staples center being built and now its made a huge comeback economically and more than paid for the cost of the arena.
You have to factor in the jobs and sales taxes collected not only from the arena but the surrounding businesses as well.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 10:06
|
The Heartland Institute's study on taxpayer-funded stadia.
Not sure I can get the actual study rather than just the overview, but at the bottom is link after link from other papers and essays on the topic.
Claims that taxpayer-funded stadiums recoup their costs and more in the form of economic development are dismissed by respected economists. A July 2007 article from Reason Public Policy Institute researchers Samuel Staley and Leonard Gilroy notes, "More than 20 years of academic research has failed to find a significant relationship between an investment in a sports stadium and significant job or income growth."
There are certainly some things municipalities should pay for: Roads, schools, wastewater plants, stormwater BMPs, parks, etc etc. But overpaying for workplaces for professional sports teams, from an economic standpoint, isn't one of them.
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 10:54
|
League offers 51% (kinda), threat.
|
| 22 | WonderB
ID: 591071618
Wed, Nov 16, 2011, 19:08
|
so much for this season. good luck next year boys.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Nov 19, 2011, 18:19
|
I guess they have time on their hands, so why not?
|
| 24 | youngroman
ID: 56523304
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 04:14
|
seems like we have a 66 games regular season starting at Christmas.
source
this means that there are no off-days in fantasy. just when the football season is over, the hoops season will start. perfect!
|
| 25 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 12:54
|
Hell Yeah!
|
| 26 | WonderB
ID: 5085217
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 16:26
|
where do i sign up!
|
| 27 | mc5huffl35
Leader
ID: 00795541
Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 22:48
|
RIHC/AAA/AA?
|
| 28 | Pacers Rule
Leader
ID: 910311210
Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 23:42
|
NBA fantasy drafts in December. Let's hope Santa brings some good picks! Thanks already Santa for the extra rest/rehab time for Mr. Bynum.
With training camps open concurrently with Free Agency, it should be a wild preseason with a fairly tight window for slow drafts.
|
| 29 | CJ
ID: 1810412813
Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 21:03
|
Seems to me last year I had more than "4" teams! I swear I was in 7 leagues last year.
Yahoo has posted:
How many leagues can I join?
You can join any combination of four leagues (Public or Custom; Head-to-Head, Rotisserie, or Fantasy Points) with a single Yahoo! ID.
If you'd like to join or create more than four leagues, you need to set up a second Yahoo! ID.
|
| 30 | beebop
ID: 131002822
Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 23:00
|
From memory, you could only join 4 leagues under the 1 yahoo ID, this was from a very long time ago.
But I do remember last year possibly having more teams too. Maybe going back to old rules again?
|
| 31 | CJ
ID: 1810412813
Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 01:35
|
I DID have close to 7 or 8 teams on Yahoo last year........so seeing how our Basketball fantasy options are being eliminated by the day.....Yahoo needs to open it up !
Or was it because we chose different formats? Like i had some head to head and other rotis?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: NBA labor news
|
|