CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I'm not taking sides either. I'm a bit burned out on the "who's to blame" discussion so I'm just staying out of that part and focusing on what needs to be done. I'm not putting blame on the players, just acknowledging that if they don't bend then nothing will get done.

I'm just pointing out that the blame game is being used by Stern on the players. He's being totally hypocritical of the situation by claiming 'bad faith' labor negotiations and turning around filing a counter-suit to a suit that isn't even filed.

I'm with you, the blame game should be left to people like us to talk about. There should be more productive talks coming out of their mouths in this situation. As I stated in a post earlier, if they want to make a deal there has to be liked minded individuals on both sides in the room. NOT 40 people with 200 lawyers backing them up. I'm talking about maybe 4 from each side with maybe two legal counsels of each group. I don't know who those people are but scratch these names off the list: David Stern, Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher, Donald Sterling, straight-from-high-school ball players, one-year-of-college ball players, small market owners.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

When this is all said and done these are somethings I'm certain will be in the new CBA.

-There will be a tighter salary ceiling that team can not exceed(if not a hard cap) *really I think we will see a ceiling that's 15-25% higher than the cap and a really high luxury tax number that start at every dollar over the cap up to the ceiling 3 to 1 maybe 4 to 1*
-There will be a tighter salary floor.(from 75% to 85-90%)
-Player/Owner BRI split will be 50-50 give or take 2% either way.
-There will be some form of revenue sharing amongst the owners.

This is about as fair is isn't going to get for all parties involved players vs. owners and small market owners vs. large market owners.

edit: The sad part is we are going to miss part or all of the season just to basically get a deal very similar (revenue wise) to what I listed above.

[wwharton]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I'm just pointing out that the blame game is being used by Stern on the players. He's being totally hypocritical of the situation by claiming 'bad faith' labor negotiations and turning around filing a counter-suit to a suit that isn't even filed.

I'm with you, the blame game should be left to people like us to talk about. There should be more productive talks coming out of their mouths in this situation. As I stated in a post earlier, if they want to make a deal there has to be liked minded individuals on both sides in the room. NOT 40 people with 200 lawyers backing them up. I'm talking about maybe 4 from each side with maybe two legal counsels of each group. I don't know who those people are but scratch these names off the list: David Stern, Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher, Donald Sterling, straight-from-high-school ball players, one-year-of-college ball players, small market owners.

We're not on different sides here. I was just being clear that my comments were ignoring all of that on purpose. I wasn't saying the players were to blame and need to bend... just that for this thing to move forward, that's what needs to happen (along with other things, of course).

[qpc123]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6841180/atlanta-hawks-sold-california-businessman-reports-say

ESPN reporting that a California business man is buying the Atlanta Hawks, but the team will remain in ATL.

What I'm wondering if NBA teams are not profitable like the league is claiming, why would any smart business be interested in purchasing one, especially right now?

[WTF]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Right now would be the optimal time to buy a lesser franchise. Especially if he feels pretty positive that revenue sharing will be included in the next CBA.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Right now would be the optimal time to buy a lesser franchise. Especially if he feels pretty positive that revenue sharing will be included in the next CBA.

Good luck with that. The big market owners already made their feelings known about giving their profits to a small market team.

[WTF]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Oh, I know that too. But buy low, and sell high. If you want to buy a team, you may as well get in at the low point.

[23]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Well said WT

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Good luck with that. The big market owners already made their feelings known about giving their profits to a small market team.

When it's all said and done there will be some form of revenue sharing. It's just in the large market owners best interest. Stability is better for all parties involved in the NBA. It's the same reason the players will buckle.

[tehova]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/8/8/2351386/nba-lockout-2011-owners-players-union

The source said owners frequently speak of "being tired of making these guys rich"

and are even contemplating asking for more, such as including income the players receive from their commercial endorsements and sponsorship money into the BRI pot -- the theory being the players wouldn't become famous and able to make such deals if not for the NBA infrastructure that puts them on television and other media.

[WTF]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Woooooo... Get ready to get down and dirty with this one. Wow. That's pretty hardcore.

[da ThRONe]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/8/8...-players-union

The source said owners frequently speak of "being tired of making these guys rich"

and are even contemplating asking for more, such as including income the players receive from their commercial endorsements and sponsorship money into the BRI pot -- the theory being the players wouldn't become famous and able to make such deals if not for the NBA infrastructure that puts them on television and other media.

More posturing. There's no way owners can think this is legit. Just something they'll be able to "take of the table" when negotiations start back up.

[Dice]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/8/8...-players-union

The source said owners frequently speak of "being tired of making these guys rich"

and are even contemplating asking for more, such as including income the players receive from their commercial endorsements and sponsorship money into the BRI pot -- the theory being the players wouldn't become famous and able to make such deals if not for the NBA infrastructure that puts them on television and other media.

Now that's utterly ridiculous. To add personal income to the BRI is highway robbery. What the hell is that all about? Are the owners trying to be the IRS now?

Now if this has been tabled in the negotiations, I can fully understand why the players are being stubborn in this. You cannot take players personal income and lump it into the BRI revenue. I don't even think that's legal. I may be wrong but stuff like that could be cited as unfair labor practice.

[WTF]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

I don't know. I think it's a pretty strong negotiating tactic. If the owner's don't employee the players, then the players don't have the vehicle to showcase their talents to get the endorsement deals.

The owners/NBA execs work on the tv deals, and get the other Business Revenue projects rolling. The players don't take part in all of that business, yet they get a cut. They're the "talent" that the product showcases, the passenger in the "vehicle" so to speak.

So should the players get part of the tv deals etc that the league generates? If so, then why not vice versa?

I don't agree with it at all for what it's worth... just playing devil's advocate. If they want to get dirty, and not come to the table and try to work things out, to get this issue resolved, then the owners have more ammo than the players could hope to have in my eyes.

[tehova]

Re: CBA/Lockout Discussion Thread

Now that's utterly ridiculous. To add personal income to the BRI is highway robbery. What the hell is that all about? Are the owners trying to be the IRS now?

Now if this has been tabled in the negotiations, I can fully understand why the players are being stubborn in this. You cannot take players personal income and lump it into the BRI revenue. I don't even think that's legal. I may be wrong but stuff like that could be cited as unfair labor practice.

immediate reaction when i was reading that proposal