My take on the Strike.......

[Vol4ever]

Every time a professional league goes into a strike the negative outweighs the positive.

Maybe its because Im middle aged and liker several on this board been a ardent fan of the Hawks for over 30 years. We had ups and downs this year BUT ended up having a decent season and reaching the second round of the playoffs. I know we all wanted more but IMO and a story for another day, we just didnt have the horses to compete with Chicago. I guess Im at the age I am tired of all of the BS within the organization and the NBA as a whole. Maybe the game is passing me by, but I dont have the zealo I once had and going on strike has lessened that zeal a little more.

In regards to the league wide strike as a business owner myself I have to side with the owners on this deal. Its obvious the game has gotten out of control IMO. Ticket prices are way too high for the average fan. I can buy tickets and live about 150 miles north of the Hawks and I do come down 4-5 times a year and watch the team, the cost is just way to high. The ownership has to be responsible for everything. Those who have never had to meet a payroll doesnt understand the owners side. The biggest expense in any business is payroll and benfit costs, sometimes employees dont understand this because they never have been there and done that.

In regards to the players and the players union, they are the ones with the problem. The top players in the league take up 80% of the salaries (payroll) in the league, the medium starter to role (bench) player is at the bottom, and that is the way an industry works. If they want to complain about this they should take care of their own house through the players union. This country is growing increasingly distraut with Unions in general.

In the end the fans lose. If the league stays on strike and loses games, then the fans will find something else to do..

[Guest]

Because the players salaries are tied to revenues, it cannot be player salaries that are driving the increasing costs. It's a ploy from the league to causally dismiss this fact. The decreasing profit margins (if this is at all true, which I doubt) are from something other than the players.

[Diesel]

Every time a professional league goes into a strike the negative outweighs the positive.

Maybe its because Im middle aged and liker several on this board been a ardent fan of the Hawks for over 30 years. We had ups and downs this year BUT ended up having a decent season and reaching the second round of the playoffs. I know we all wanted more but IMO and a story for another day, we just didnt have the horses to compete with Chicago. I guess Im at the age I am tired of all of the BS within the organization and the NBA as a whole. Maybe the game is passing me by, but I dont have the zealo I once had and going on strike has lessened that zeal a little more.

In regards to the league wide strike as a business owner myself I have to side with the owners on this deal. Its obvious the game has gotten out of control IMO. Ticket prices are way too high for the average fan. I can buy tickets and live about 150 miles north of the Hawks and I do come down 4-5 times a year and watch the team, the cost is just way to high. The ownership has to be responsible for everything. Those who have never had to meet a payroll doesnt understand the owners side. The biggest expense in any business is payroll and benfit costs, sometimes employees dont understand this because they never have been there and done that.

In regards to the players and the players union, they are the ones with the problem. The top players in the league take up 80% of the salaries (payroll) in the league, the medium starter to role (bench) player is at the bottom, and that is the way an industry works. If they want to complain about this they should take care of their own house through the players union. This country is growing increasingly distraut with Unions in general.

In the end the fans lose. If the league stays on strike and loses games, then the fans will find something else to do..

Without the books being opened, I don't know if you can make that assumption.

The NBA makes over 800 Million dollars per year from their TV contract. That's just one place where the money comes in.

800 Million per year. 30 teams. That's 27 Million per team per year.

IF that was all their source of funding you would have something. But they get money from other places. Radio, local TV, Internet, Gate, and Revenue Sharing on LT. There's a lot of money going around that is unaccounted for. However, I do tend to agree with the owners. The truth is that a lot of the poorer owners have businesses that are suffering so basketball has to make more money than it is making for them. Stern has always been good at making Hunter crumble and giving the owners what they want. It will happen again.

[HawkItus]

Every time a professional league goes into a strike the negative outweighs the positive.

Maybe its because Im middle aged and liker several on this board been a ardent fan of the Hawks for over 30 years. We had ups and downs this year BUT ended up having a decent season and reaching the second round of the playoffs. I know we all wanted more but IMO and a story for another day, we just didnt have the horses to compete with Chicago. I guess Im at the age I am tired of all of the BS within the organization and the NBA as a whole. Maybe the game is passing me by, but I dont have the zealo I once had and going on strike has lessened that zeal a little more.

In regards to the league wide strike as a business owner myself I have to side with the owners on this deal. Its obvious the game has gotten out of control IMO. Ticket prices are way too high for the average fan. I can buy tickets and live about 150 miles north of the Hawks and I do come down 4-5 times a year and watch the team, the cost is just way to high. The ownership has to be responsible for everything. Those who have never had to meet a payroll doesnt understand the owners side. The biggest expense in any business is payroll and benfit costs, sometimes employees dont understand this because they never have been there and done that.

In regards to the players and the players union, they are the ones with the problem. The top players in the league take up 80% of the salaries (payroll) in the league, the medium starter to role (bench) player is at the bottom, and that is the way an industry works. If they want to complain about this they should take care of their own house through the players union. This country is growing increasingly distraut with Unions in general.

In the end the fans lose. If the league stays on strike and loses games, then the fans will find something else to do..

Yeah, you are a business owner, but the way you are coloring this is too simplistic. If you go out and hire a secretary, you know how much you slot for said secretary. Worst case scenario you can go without a secretary and do it yourself. The NBA is not this situation. Bruce Levenson cannot go out and play SG for the Atlanta Hawks and get fans to pay for this. This is entertainment. Entertainment business models have nothing to do with the average business. Comparing the NBA to your Business is like me comparing a strip club to your business.

Edited July 13, 2011 by sultanofatl

[frosgrim]

I find it hard to believe that ticket prices will come down after the lockout. Hockey had a full year shut-down and now has a very high ticket price. The owners are just as "greedy" as the players. Both want to make more money, so I find it hard to support either side in this foolishness. Both are wrong on multiple points, and both are right on multiple points. Management and workforce should work together, when they don't the overall product suffers. It is amazing to me that both sides KNOW that a shutdown will hurt the bottom line, but they can't work together to find a reasonable solution. Foolishness.

The my way or the highway tactic isn't negotiations. It's a 5 year old's petulance.

[dlpin]

high ticket prices are not caused by high salaries. In fact, given that salaries are a constant share of revenue, the relationship is precisely backwards. Salaries go up because ticket prices go up, not the other way around.

[Randy]

I'm betting the owners win, no matter who's to blame. Its simple - the players are making a lot more off the sport than the owners. You can argue the owners aren't losing money- and who knows. But players get more than half the revenue, and have no other costs. After the players get their cut, the owner get what left and have to pay coaches, travel, arena rentals, people to sell tickets, etc. No matter what, the owners lose less than the players lose from the strike. Their revenues goes down, but costs go down a lot.

And, whose got the most staying power? If you are a guy with less than say 5 years before you retire, probably no way you ever get back the money you lose by missing a season. If you are a bottom paid player, you may not even make it in the legaure for more than a few years, so you need to play anytime you can. The guys who can win with a long strike (if it turns out their way) are the young, highest paid guys. But there aren't as many of those as the guys who lose. Even those kinds of players have bills to pay, payments on their Ferrari's and the like.

So I'd bet on the owners. And in a labor negotiation it has nothing to do with whose right or wrong, what's fair or not. Its who have the most leverage on the other guy.

[Vol4ever]

Because the players salaries are tied to revenues, it cannot be player salaries that are driving the increasing costs. It's a ploy from the league to causally dismiss this fact. The decreasing profit margins (if this is at all true, which I doubt) are from something other than the players.

1. So, do the owners get a cut of the Nike deals and such the players recieve?

2. Do the players have to pay for the arenas they play in?

3. The NBA is not a electric or a water company that must be had for everyday survival of life.

4. The NBA is a entertainment business.

5. The owners pay all of the expenses.

6. The fans pay the revenue the team receives.

[ATLFORLIFE]

I think it's a bunch of BS that we are here being bored because of this lockout. What is so bad about taking a little less money? You see people who are struggling just to make enough for there families and here the players are saying we want the most money possible. If I was Derek Fisher, I would listen to what the owners have to say, I mean whats wrong with makeing 5 mill a year? Not bad in my book. With that money you would be set for life, Lol.

1. So, do the owners get a cut of the Nike deals and such the players recieve?

2. Do the players have to pay for the arenas they play in?

3. The NBA is not a electric or a water company that must be had for everyday survival of life.

4. The NBA is a entertainment business.

5. The owners pay all of the expenses.

6. The fans pay the revenue the team receives.

Agreed.

[Guest]

1. So, do the owners get a cut of the Nike deals and such the players recieve?

Should the Maverick's players have a stake in HDNet that Mark Cuban owns?

2. Do the players have to pay for the arenas they play in?

Do the owners? Hardly, most of the arenas that are used in the NBA are subsidized by local governments.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9411.0;wap2

The subsidies have already begun and the team isn't even here yet. It looks like the NBA team will cost OKC tax payers at least $2,000,000 a year and as much as $6,000,000 a year (depending on if you count improvements and not counting lost revenue).

3. The NBA is not a electric or a water company that must be had for everyday survival of life.

4. The NBA is a entertainment business.

Agreed.

5. The owners pay all of the expenses.

If having arenas subsidized by local government means all the expenses, then I guess so. Just take Houston for example (heads up, Sports Authority is an entity tied to Harris County which is the county that Houston is located in):

Quick Arena Facts

Arena Cost: $175 million

Land Cost: Capped at $20 million

Parking Garage Cost: $35-$45 million

The Rockets Pay: $105 million total - $8.5 million annual rent for 30 years

The Sports Authority Pays: $70 million

The City Pays: For the cost of the land

Private Business Pays: For the cost of the garage

NO Ticket Tax.

NO Tax Increases.

NO New Taxes.

NO Property or Sales Taxes will be used.

The Sports Authority's contribution comes from its budget of existing hotel occupancy and car rental taxes. These taxes will NOT increase if the arena passes or decrease if it doesn't.

The city will fund the land from its Convention and Entertainment Facilities Management budget which is made up of existing hotel occupancy taxes. These taxes will NOT increase if the arena passes or decrease if it doesn't.

Arena Maintenance: The Rockets will be responsible for arena operating expenses except for a $1.6 million annual capital repairs fund provided by the Sports Authority.

Arena Revenues: The Rockets will receive all the revenues from events at the arena with the exception of hockey if owned by someone other than Les Alexander.

Naming Rights: The Rockets will receive 95% of the naming rights. The city recieves 5%.

Parking Revenue: The Rockets receive parking revenue for their events including the Rockets, Comets and Thunderbears. The city receives ALL other parking revenue.

http://basketball.ballparks.com/NBA/HoustonRockets/newindex.htm

Tons of NBA Arenas are like this. And you are certainly downplaying the role of workers. Would these owners have a product if they had no players? I guess we should retroactively go back in time and tell Michael Jordan he can't have all that money he made in the NBA since he didn't pay a dime for The Madhouse on Madison. But don't worry, we'll just ignore the United Center and what the NYTimes said about it:

Michael Jordan practically built the United Center, filled it with banners and left his stone likeness standing sentry outside Gate 4, frozen in mid-dunk, forever rising above a crowd of helpless, faceless defenders.

[Diesel]

Who wins this comes down to one thing...

Poor owners vs. Poor players.

If the players and owners have been gearing up for this for years then it will come down to the poorest of the players and the poorest of the owners.

I always say the owners will win because even though there are some poor ones, none of them needs basketball to survive.

However, players.. need basketball to survive.

Joe got a 121 Million dollar deal last year. You expect me to believe that his house is paid for or that he lives in a 300k house with no car note and no extra funds spent on BS?

Even the richest of the players live lifestyles that are hard to keep up otherwise.

[Vol4ever]

I agree with you Diesel that the owners will win out. I base my belief on the owners understand business and the player association does not have the legal expertise that the owners have and can afford.

I still believe if they miss games it will do damage to the league that will take years to recover if ever.

[thecampster]

Yeah, you are a business owner, but the way you are coloring this is too simplistic. If you go out and hire a secretary, you know how much you slot for said secretary. Worst case scenario you can go without a secretary and do it yourself. The NBA is not this situation. Bruce Levenson cannot go out and play SG for the Atlanta Hawks and get fans to pay for this. This is entertainment. Entertainment business models have nothing to do with the average business. Comparing the NBA to your Business is like me comparing a strip club to your business.

Let's remember the costs of running an NBA team is far more than just player salaries. Game day staff, insurance, front office, scounting, development, NBACares and their other community outreaches.

The argument between labor and ownership is always that without skilled labor, there would be no business. But Ownership is usually a long haul affair, where as "talent" comes and goes. The players that play today are not the players that will be here in 10 years (save a few). The owners must invest long term, for the good of the league. Players must invest in now for their own personal long term.

[dlpin]

you guys saying that players make more money than owners, etc. are forgetting that teams increase in value very fast, making it a huge cash cow. The warriors were bought in 1995 for 119 million, and despite being one of the absolute worst franchises since then (2nd worst record in the league since then) and despite lacking a single markee name right now, they were still for 450 million. Inflation adjusted, that is a profit of 280 million dollars over 15 years.

This, of course, on top of the massive tax incentives and tax breaks of owning a professional team. Owners can write off both the salaries and the salary depreciation.

[HawkItus]

Let's remember the costs of running an NBA team is far more than just player salaries. Game day staff, insurance, front office, scounting, development, NBACares and their other community outreaches.

The argument between labor and ownership is always that without skilled labor, there would be no business. But Ownership is usually a long haul affair, where as "talent" comes and goes. The players that play today are not the players that will be here in 10 years (save a few). The owners must invest long term, for the good of the league. Players must invest in now for their own personal long term.

Just stop it, this analogy of Athletes, entertainers and their bosses to real life is just ridiculous. What other industry are you capped out with what you can make by collective bargaining rules that you may or may not have even been represented by a vote? If a Doctor becomes the greatest surgeon in the world he can charge whatever fee he wants. If a lawyer has the ability to never lose a trial he can charge whatever rate he wants. It is ridiculous and once you realize this you can stop thinking in real world terms. The owners have such an advantageous position to the players that it is almost criminal. The players are not striking the owners locked them out. You can't blame players for the piss poor decision making of front offices. You can't blame players for taking advantage of the rules that both players and owners agreed to. You can't cry "woe is me" when you bought into an enterprise that you had the very limited ability to actually see the books. Players don't see them. Only owners and the NBA executive team. So an owner looks at the books, can see that there are huge losses on the books and still buys in. Shame on you.

[Vol4ever]

Just stop it, this analogy of Athletes, entertainers and their bosses to real life is just ridiculous. What other industry are you capped out with what you can make by collective bargaining rules that you may or may not have even been represented by a vote? If a Doctor becomes the greatest surgeon in the world he can charge whatever fee he wants. If a lawyer has the ability to never lose a trial he can charge whatever rate he wants. It is ridiculous and once you realize this you can stop thinking in real world terms. The owners have such an advantageous position to the players that it is almost criminal. The players are not striking the owners locked them out. You can't blame players for the piss poor decision making of front offices. You can't blame players for taking advantage of the rules that both players and owners agreed to. You can't cry "woe is me" when you bought into an enterprise that you had the very limited ability to actually see the books. Players don't see them. Only owners and the NBA executive team. So an owner looks at the books, can see that there are huge losses on the books and still buys in. Shame on you.

Your post is so rediculous I dont even no where to start....................

Nobody that has a job is allowed to look at the owners books. The NBA is out as an organization to make sure the BIG market teams and especially New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are succesful.

It doesnt matter what the books look like and I am quite sure the owners are hurting, but the players are free to go to whatever team. If there are no rules in regards to salary cap etc teams like Atlanta are out of business. The owners own the company and the players can play for what they are offered in the collective bargaining contract, if they dont like it go overseas. Good luck with that.

[frosgrim]

Your post is so rediculous I dont even no where to start....................

Nobody that has a job is allowed to look at the owners books. The NBA is out as an organization to make sure the BIG market teams and especially New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are succesful.

It doesnt matter what the books look like and I am quite sure the owners are hurting, but the players are free to go to whatever team. If there are no rules in regards to salary cap etc teams like Atlanta are out of business. The owners own the company and the players can play for what they are offered in the collective bargaining contract, if they dont like it go overseas. Good luck with that.

actually in a non-profit you can get to the books, including the salaries of the top 5 earners.

Cooperatives also can have an open book structure.

So some people are in employment situations where you can see the books.

But this is besides the point. The NBA would fail if it didn't have great talent playing. That is the crux of the issue that the owners have to come to grips with. There is the adage that Magic and Bird saved the NBA and that Jordan built it into the international money maker that it is today.

Point is that the owners and players need to be partners in this game, not adversaries. The NFL gets this. To some extent is looks like MLB has finally realized this (reports are that MLBPA and the owners are working towards a new agreement and things are going well in the negotiations).

[dlpin]

Your post is so rediculous I dont even no where to start....................

Nobody that has a job is allowed to look at the owners books. The NBA is out as an organization to make sure the BIG market teams and especially New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are succesful.

It doesnt matter what the books look like and I am quite sure the owners are hurting, but the players are free to go to whatever team. If there are no rules in regards to salary cap etc teams like Atlanta are out of business. The owners own the company and the players can play for what they are offered in the collective bargaining contract, if they dont like it go overseas. Good luck with that.

How are you "quite sure" the owners are hurting?

Of course, if that were the case, then some of these billionaires are just stupid. Would people pay 450 million dollars on a money losing business, like the warriors? Would people pay over 700 million for a money losing business, like the nets?

Also, plenty of employees have access to the books. Any publicly traded company, any non profit, and any time a company tries to take away a contracted upon benefit there will be something like that.

Finally, people need to remember that the whole point of the players union and the collective bargaining in the nba is restricting pay in order to provide stability. In other words, the whole reason we have a collective bargaining system is to protect the owners from themselves.

[Vol4ever]

I think the biggest thing involved in this lockout is the small market teams like Atlanta. I believe the Hawks have the 8th highest payroll in the league posted by someone in Hawksquawk. I think the main problem is n\how the ream management has useed this on player contracts.

The thing that bugs me most over the last 30 years is if a team like Boston, Chicago, the Lakers need a player to win a championship, they go out and get one because the luxury tax is not that important to them.

Oh well just venting there because the last 3 years we have done NOTHING in the off season in regards to getting tougher in the paint!

[HawkItus]

One more thing, it is not a strike, it is a lockout. The players are fine with their current pay and CBA. The owners are the ones who want more and are asking for more.

Your post is so rediculous I dont even no where to start....................

Nobody that has a job is allowed to look at the owners books. The NBA is out as an organization to make sure the BIG market teams and especially New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are succesful.

It doesnt matter what the books look like and I am quite sure the owners are hurting, but the players are free to go to whatever team. If there are no rules in regards to salary cap etc teams like Atlanta are out of business. The owners own the company and the players can play for what they are offered in the collective bargaining contract, if they dont like it go overseas. Good luck with that.

You misunderstand my point. The owners get to see the books. Owners have recently bought into the NBA after seeing the books. For a ship that is supposedly taking on a lot of water you have a lot of new guys willing to jump on board. That is fishy.