Does Anyone Expect A Season?

[elindholm]

Going from memory the union contends it is not really a 50/50 split as it does not include other income the NBA receives. I can't remember the details but a 50/50 split is not really an even split of the income the league receives. However, I don't know how long the players can hold out before they break.

50/50 is arbitrary anyway. The media seem to regard it as "fair" for some reason, but in what other industry do bosses and employees agree to split their revenues 50/50? The players should focus on protecting free agency, contract lengths, and other things that really matter to their job satisfaction and security -- not how many percentage points they're going to share of some bizarrely computed total that no one will have the resources to verify.

 

[Mainstreet]

50/50 is arbitrary anyway. The media seem to regard it as "fair" for some reason, but in what other industry do bosses and employees agree to split their revenues 50/50? The players should focus on protecting free agency, contract lengths, and other things that really matter to their job satisfaction and security -- not how many percentage points they're going to share of some bizarrely computed total that no one will have the resources to verify.

The whole thing is a mess. I agree the players "should focus on protecting free agency, contract lengths, and other things that really matter to their job satisfaction and security" but I can also see both sides. The players feel coming down from 57% of BRI to 52.5% is already a large concession. I don't see how the players can win unless they are willing to crash and burn so to speak. And then I don't think they gain much. IMO, overall, the players should have taken the last offer. Below is a quote from a Paul Coro article dated 11-2-11 at azcentral that includes comments from Steve Nash.

No lockout issue looms larger than the players' share of basketball-related income. Players received 57 percent in the previous agreement. They have come down to 52.5 percent, but the owners' best offer was a 50-50 split.

"The owners are trying to paint us in a light that we're causing the issues," Nash said.

"It's great for the owners because to a fan, '50-50? That's great.' But in any entertainment industry, the talent gets paid the majority of the money.

"We were making 57 percent. They're just picking where they're coming from. We're coming from an actual place."

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/sun...11102phoenix-suns-steve-nash-nba-lockout.html

 

[Griffin]

The whole thing is a mess. I agree the players "should focus on protecting free agency, contract lengths, and other things that really matter to their job satisfaction and security" but I can also see both sides. The players feel coming down from 57% of BRI to 52.5% is already a large concession. I don't see how the players can win unless they are willing to crash and burn so to speak. And then I don't think they gain much. IMO, overall, the players should have taken the last offer. Below is a quote from a Paul Coro article dated 11-2-11 at azcentral that includes comments from Steve Nash.

I think the problem with Nash's and the player union's viewpoint is that the 57% is a very unrealistic number in today's economy. The players feel like they have already conceded 5%, but in reality they were never going to get 57% again. That deal was reached in a different economy, with a different ownership group, and with different profit margins. Even in best-case scenario for the players they would have not gotten 57% again, and they know it.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think the problem with Nash's and the player union's viewpoint is that the 57% is a very unrealistic number in today's economy. The players feel like they have already conceded 5%, but in reality they were never going to get 57% again. That deal was reached in a different economy, with a different ownership group, and with different profit margins. Even in best-case scenario for the players they would have not gotten 57% again, and they know it.

I'm sure Nash would have been happy to walk away from this matter but I think the players feel they are fighting a battle for future players coming into the NBA. I think Nash stands to lose about 2M right now. As I view it, the whole matter is sad because I believe both sides lose. Also the NBA stands to slide into mediocrity with the fans. I don't believe it is a given all the fans come back.

 

[Black Jesus]

I am completely over the NBA for the foreseeable future.

Shady league that doesn't follow the real rules of basketball.

 

[Griffin]

Also the NBA stands to slide into mediocrity with the fans. I don't believe it is a given all the fans come back.

But we've been through this before back in 1998 and the league eventually recovered. I don't know why it should be any different this time around, but it will take some time. I do believe that they will salvage the season, even if only 50 games again, simply because it makes no sense financially for either side otherwise.

 

[Mainstreet]

Although it may be maneuvering, there does seem to be a splinter element of at least 50 players in the Players Association that are exploring decertification. If such occurred it would undoubtedly end the NBA season as I see it as the whole matter gets pushed into the court system as an anti-trust action. I think this was a position the agents supported in the beginning so I wouldn't totally discount it may grow legs. Different news sources have reported the matter.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7185628/nba-lockout-talks-resume-saturday

 

[JCSunsfan]

Although it may be maneuvering, there does seem to be a splinter element of at least 50 players in the Players Association that are exploring decertification. If such occurred it would undoubtedly end the NBA season as I see it as the whole matter gets pushed into the court system as an anti-trust action. I think this was a position the agents supported in the beginning so I wouldn't totally discount it may grow legs. Different news sources have reported the matter.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7185628/nba-lockout-talks-resume-saturday

That would just be stupid.

 

[Mainstreet]

That would just be stupid.

Who knows anymore. Both sides appear to be more entrenched. It looks bleak heading into talks with owners and players Saturday.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7190096/nba-hope-bleak-labor-talks-sources-say

 

[Griffin]

This is just not making any sense.

• Some players are threatening to decertify union if deal is for less than 52%.
• Decertification will almost certainly result in the entire season being cancelled since the antitrust lawsuits will take time to resolve.
• Loss of player income from cancelled 2011/12 season alone will be approximately $2 billion, even if they ultimately get their 52%.
• Loss of player income from accepting 50/50 split over the next six years (when the players union would have an opt out) as opposed to 52% will be approximately $1 billion.
• $2 billion > $1 billion.

Is the decertification talk just an empty threat, or are some players hoping the courts would rule in their favor and they'd get 57% back? Or perhaps they fear that once 50/50 is agreed on, that number will never go back up in their favor in future CBA's.

I think this weekend may be the last chance they have to reach a deal. Too many owners are already complaining about 50/50 being too high. That offer will not stay on the table much longer. I think 49/51 in favor of players may still be workable.

 

[elindholm]

The players are mainly interested in money, which is fine, but they've deluded themselves into thinking that they are guided by "principle." So now they are holding out in the name of principle, even if costs them money. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Mainstreet]

The players are mainly interested in money, which is fine, but they've deluded themselves into thinking that they are guided by "principle." So now they are holding out in the name of principle, even if costs them money. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree, the players are getting locked into principle. The same probably applies to owners. I bet if all the players were allowed to vote on the best CBA offer (that was on the table) a majority of players would approve it.

 

[AfroSuns]

I agree, the players are getting locked into principle. The same probably applies to owners. I bet if all the players were allowed to vote on the best CBA offer (that was on the table) a majority of players would approve it.

I agree

 

[Griffin]

Chris Broussard is reporting that they are making progress again and that the negotations are going "very well", as per unnamed source. Of course it may all still fall apart again like last time. It's almost 2AM ET and they are still talking apparently. They'll get an extra hour when DST ends.

Update: Just watched NBA's press conference. According to Stern, the mediator suggested a compromise on several of the issues, including a 49/51 band revenue split, and the league accepted 5 out of 6 of the proposals including the new BRI. The players union did not accept any of the compromises. The NBA will leave the new proposal on table until Wednesday. If the union does not accept it by then, NBA's next proposal will be 47/53 with a flex cap.

The new BRI split is a band split that depends on the actual revenue. The players would get between 49% to 51% of BRI depending on whether revenue is lower or higher than expected.

Update 2: Fisher said that the players union went down to 51% of BRI (with some of that going to retired players, although he wasn't clear about that). He insisted that the NBA's BRI proposal is still essentially 50/50 since they are unlikely to ever get 51% under the band proposal. He was being very vague about specifics of the system issues, but he did say the union did not like any of the mediator's suggestions that Stern said the NBA would include in their new proposal, except perhaps for one. He considers NBA's Wednesday deadline as an ultimatum, and said that NBA's current proposal, even with the added changes, is not something he would bring to the players to vote on.

It seems to me that they are really close on the BRI and the owners should consider going up to 51% fixed as opposed to the current band proposal. That may be enough to get the deal done. I don't know why the union is so preoccupied with the system issues when they all have to do with restrictions on tax paying teams, but with the much harsher LT there will likely be only a few teams subject to these new rules. NBA has reportedly compromised on many of the system issues still unresolved, but the union has not offered any compromises apparently.

What bothers me the most is that Fisher repeatedly stated that this is not a proposal he would allow the players to vote on. So even though the majority of players would likely approve it, apparently as long as Fisher, Hunter and the rest of the union committee doesn't like it, the rest of the players don't get a say.

 

[elindholm]

Each side has drawn a line in the sand. For the league, it's "We won't accept a deal that will lead to the majority of our owners losing money." For the players, it's "We won't accept a deal that will result in our piece of the pie being a slightly smaller percentage of a huge number than a larger percentage of a huge number."

The league's resolve won't break, because they have absolutely no incentive to implement a system that doesn't meet their bottom-line criterion: They're better off simply shutting the entire operation down. On the other hand, a good number of the players, probably most of them, are ready to play now.

I don't see how the players can win this battle. Either the owners will get what they think they need, or the league will fold. If they players think they'll do better in a reconstructed league, they're crazy: They might get 52% or 57% or hell, even 65% of whatever the start-up league's BRI is, but it will be a pittance compared to what they're making now.

I think the heart of this must be that the players honestly don't believe that the league is telling the truth about owners losing money. And who knows, maybe the owners are lying, or massaging the numbers in a way to make things seem worse than they are. But without any mechanism to expose that possible deception, it must be assumed that the league simply will not agree, ever, to a money-losing system. Why the players can't understand and accept this is a mystery to me, but it seems clear that they are not being well represented by either Hunter or Fisher.

 

[Mainstreet]

Each side has drawn a line in the sand. For the league, it's "We won't accept a deal that will lead to the majority of our owners losing money." For the players, it's "We won't accept a deal that will result in our piece of the pie being a slightly smaller percentage of a huge number than a larger percentage of a huge number."

The league's resolve won't break, because they have absolutely no incentive to implement a system that doesn't meet their bottom-line criterion: They're better off simply shutting the entire operation down. On the other hand, a good number of the players, probably most of them, are ready to play now.

I don't see how the players can win this battle. Either the owners will get what they think they need, or the league will fold. If they players think they'll do better in a reconstructed league, they're crazy: They might get 52% or 57% or hell, even 65% of whatever the start-up league's BRI is, but it will be a pittance compared to what they're making now.

I think the heart of this must be that the players honestly don't believe that the league is telling the truth about owners losing money. And who knows, maybe the owners are lying, or massaging the numbers in a way to make things seem worse than they are. But without any mechanism to expose that possible deception, it must be assumed that the league simply will not agree, ever, to a money-losing system. Why the players can't understand and accept this is a mystery to me, but it seems clear that they are not being well represented by either Hunter or Fisher.

If the NBA folds as a league the owners are going to have a lot of money invested in franchises that may have no value. It is a nuclear option for both the owners and the players. How will Sarver be ever able to sell the Suns and make a profit?

 

[Griffin]

On the other hand, a good number of the players, probably most of them, are ready to play now.

And with good reason. I'm guessing that the majority of players make under $2M/year. So the majority of players couldn't care less if the Lakers or Mavericks are able to use the full mid-level exception to sign players or not. And that's what it really boils down to. The fact that the union is more willing to accept a lower BRI than to compromise on the system issues leads me to believe that their executive committee caters a whole lot more to the $5M-$15M/year players which are a minority than to the majority of players who make far less.

It really is mind-boggling to me when you consider that very few teams are likely to be in the LT territory given the significantly higher tax rate to be implemented and greater revenue sharing. So very few teams in the future will be subjected to these restrictions that the union committee is refusing to accept. We are not even talking about salary cap anymore, we are only talking about teams over the LT threshold which is generally around $20M above the salary cap, a far cry from a hard salary cap. It seems the union is willing to jeopardize the whole season just so that a small group of the more prominent free agents can get paid well by any of the 30 teams they may choose as opposed to, say, only 27 of them.

 

[AfroSuns]

^^^^^^^^^
The owners obviously seem to realize this, hence the ultimatum.
No surprise the union is reluctant to take the latest proposal back to its members for voting

 

[elindholm]

If the NBA folds as a league the owners are going to have a lot of money invested in franchises that may have no value. It is a nuclear option for both the owners and the players. How will Sarver be ever able to sell the Suns and make a profit?

That's a good point and I don't know the answer. Maybe a tax specialist could explain how the entire investment could be written off as a loss to ease a lot of the pain?

The fact that the union is more willing to accept a lower BRI than to compromise on the system issues leads me to believe that their executive committee caters a whole lot more to the $5M-$15M/year players which are a minority than to the majority of players who make far less.

I'd guess that a lot of it has to do with last year's finalists. The Mavericks, with Cuban, have the reputation of "spending whatever it takes," and so in a sense, the fact that they actually won last year's title is making negotiations more difficult, because it reinforces the notion that being a free spender makes you much more likely to win a title. (In fact, being a free spender makes titles only somewhat more likely, and the Spurs are always on hand to provide a powerful counterexample.) And then you have the Heat, with their well publicized assembly of megastars, making players think that parity is impossible and the (other) only way to compete is for stars to collude and find ways to hook up. Both of those paths to success would become much more difficult under what the league wants from a new CBA, and I would guess that a lot of players would prefer to keep the freedom of potentially latching onto one of the Chosen Few, rather than be excluded from the small number of franchises who have figured out the best way to game the system.

 

[SunsTzu]

I think the heart of this must be that the players honestly don't believe that the league is telling the truth about owners losing money.

That was their claim early on but unlike the NFL the NBA opened up it's books and let the NBPA audit them. The fact that the league has lost roughly 300m per year under the previous CBA no longer seems in dispute.

Of course this makes the players unwillingness to agree all the more confusing. It seems as though the players feel all the unprofitable teams should be run like the Mavs or the way the Blazers used to run with billionaire owners dumping their own money into the team.

 

[slinslin]

So Sarver and the Suns are not mentioned as hardliners anymore.

Sounded bogus from the beginning anyway since the Suns made money most years, they were one of the few profitable franchises. Why would Sarver want to lose the season, even as bad as the Suns are right now he would probably think that he can make a profit anyway without being too hardline.

 

[Folster]

So Sarver and the Suns are not mentioned as hardliners anymore.

Sounded bogus from the beginning anyway since the Suns made money most years, they were one of the few profitable franchises. Why would Sarver want to lose the season, even as bad as the Suns are right now he would probably think that he can make a profit anyway without being too hardline.

I imagine he's still a hardliner. He probably wised-up and closed his mouth, or was told to shut it. I'm guessing the latter to be true. Having him as the face of the hardliners was not helping the league's case

 

[slinslin]

I doubt it, even the revenue share might not be all that good for the Suns. They might not be a huge market but certainly above NBA average and were one of the most profitable teams.

I think Sarver is just the scapegoat for stupid sports journalists because it is easy to pick on him right now.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I don't see how the players can win this battle. Either the owners will get what they think they need, or the league will fold. If they players think they'll do better in a reconstructed league, they're crazy: They might get 52% or 57% or hell, even 65% of whatever the start-up league's BRI is, but it will be a pittance compared to what they're making now.

I think the heart of this must be that the players honestly don't believe that the league is telling the truth about owners losing money. And who knows, maybe the owners are lying, or massaging the numbers in a way to make things seem worse than they are. But without any mechanism to expose that possible deception, it must be assumed that the league simply will not agree, ever, to a money-losing system. Why the players can't understand and accept this is a mystery to me, but it seems clear that they are not being well represented by either Hunter or Fisher.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant whether or not the owners are massaging the numbers. (Which it certainly looks like they're doing) Here is an interesting breakdown of some of the creative accounting that goes on in the NBA league offices.

http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss

When it comes down to it, both sides are idiots. Some of these owners look at having a team as a money making venture when it should be viewed as a piece of art or some other form of ostentatious ego building.

The players have no leverage at all and they know it. That's why they've already been completely beaten down in the negotiation process. People like Fisher and Hunter are fools. The next offer they get will be worse than the last, and it looks like there is little chance of that changing. Just get it over with and stop wasting time.

 

[slinslin]

So the players think the current offer is not worthy of discussion they want 50-50 and the system issues going their way.

Thank god the owners will refuse, go down to 47% and still force the system fixes down their throats in time.