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

[Diesel]

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.

Just for clarity. The NBA is a league that has owners and players who share a "Collective Bargaining Agreement" between the owners and the PLAYER'S UNION.

That U word changes a lot. Because now, you do have the right to see the books. How do you make agreements without knowing everything?

The U word doesn't exist in the south, therefore, business owners decide for themselves what they want to give back. However, the owners cannot tell the players..."OK now, since we're in such an economic depression, all of you guys will have to live off of 200k a year... Nothing more.

I mean they could if they don't want an agreement.

The owners need to wait it out.

The players need the Euroleague to pick up in popularity.

Owner's win do to lack of competition.

[Vol4ever]

Just for clarity. The NBA is a league that has owners and players who share a "Collective Bargaining Agreement" between the owners and the PLAYER'S UNION.

That U word changes a lot. Because now, you do have the right to see the books. How do you make agreements without knowing everything?

The U word doesn't exist in the south, therefore, business owners decide for themselves what they want to give back. However, the owners cannot tell the players..."OK now, since we're in such an economic depression, all of you guys will have to live off of 200k a year... Nothing more.

I mean they could if they don't want an agreement.

The owners need to wait it out.

The players need the Euroleague to pick up in popularity.

Owner's win do to lack of competition.

Your right the owners will win by default.

How many players making over 10 million a year are complaining? Then you have the guys sitting on the bench making more than 99.9% than anyone on this message board.

Nice gig if u ask me. Where do I sign up?

[thecampster]

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.

No, shame on you sir. This isn't about the players playing within the rules...this is about the owners recognizing their mistakes and trying to correct the system to bring it back in. This is the players not caring about the long term survivability of the game and trying to get theirs now. I can and do blame the players. This isn't like me going to my boss and asking for a $1000 a year raise in a recession. These are people who are making at the lowest ($400,000) a year...10 times what the average American makes. The average NBA'er makes 4 million a year...100 times what an average American makes. That's right...one average year in the NBA, 8 months really, is enough to set you up for life. Asking for a more even, stable system isn't wrong on the owner's part...it's good business.

[Vol4ever]

No, shame on you sir. This isn't about the players playing within the rules...this is about the owners recognizing their mistakes and trying to correct the system to bring it back in. This is the players not caring about the long term survivability of the game and trying to get theirs now. I can and do blame the players. This isn't like me going to my boss and asking for a $1000 a year raise in a recession. These are people who are making at the lowest ($400,000) a year...10 times what the average American makes. The average NBA'er makes 4 million a year...100 times what an average American makes. That's right...one average year in the NBA, 8 months really, is enough to set you up for life. Asking for a more even, stable system isn't wrong on the owner's part...it's good business.

Great Post!

[dlpin]

No, shame on you sir. This isn't about the players playing within the rules...this is about the owners recognizing their mistakes and trying to correct the system to bring it back in. This is the players not caring about the long term survivability of the game and trying to get theirs now. I can and do blame the players. This isn't like me going to my boss and asking for a $1000 a year raise in a recession. These are people who are making at the lowest ($400,000) a year...10 times what the average American makes. The average NBA'er makes 4 million a year...100 times what an average American makes. That's right...one average year in the NBA, 8 months really, is enough to set you up for life. Asking for a more even, stable system isn't wrong on the owner's part...it's good business.

I am sorry. but this is useless moralizing. The question of how much they make is not whether they should be making more than the average person for playing a game. It is how much they make back to their bosses. In a market society, that is the bottom line. Last I checked, the league turned down a 300 million plus offer to buy the hornets. The warriors were the second worst franchise for the past 15 years and still made the owner almost 300 million inflation adjusted just in profits from the sale. The clippers, which were the worst franchise over the past 15 years, turned down an offer of almost one billion dollars. Forbes, which pretty much nailed down the books for the franchises that were leaked, estimated a profit of 183 million last year for the league. And we are talking cash profit, and not counting the tax breaks owners end up getting for their other businesses. Sounds to me like either we have the stupidest bunch of billionaires around, or the situation is not as bad.

As for the players not caring about long term survivability, that has got to be a joke. The only reason there can be a salary cap is because players have a union and collectively bargain. If the player's union decertified (and I mean truly decertified, not in name only like the nfl), there would be no salary cap, no draft, no rookie scale... In other words, by forming a union, they leave money on the table precisely for the stability of the league.

Also, math is math. If 57% of revenues was good enough 5 years ago, the percentage is still the same now. So if the owners are losing money is because they are spending more on other parts of the franchise.

This is where comparisons to other businesses completely miss the point. A union at a regular business is there to get as much money and as many benefits for their members as they can bargain. In pro sports, unions actually serve to restrict money and benefits in exchange for stability. They negotiate RESTRICTIONS on how much the players can make and who they can deal with.

[red2play]

When a league has to buy a team because noone else wants them, then you know the CBA is crap. They also need a hard cap, otherwise you'll see boston, NY and LA have much better chances to win titles and I'm NOT a lakers/celtics fan, I'm a hawks fan so lets hope that they get a hard cap.

[dlpin]

When a league has to buy a team because noone else wants them, then you know the CBA is crap. They also need a hard cap, otherwise you'll see boston, NY and LA have much better chances to win titles and I'm NOT a lakers/celtics fan, I'm a hawks fan so lets hope that they get a hard cap.

A hard cap or not is more about revenue sharing than it is about how much players make. There is a reason why it was the first thing the league gave up on its talk with players this lock out.

And using the Hornets for an argument is crap:

- First, the reason the owner of the Hornets had to sell the team has NOTHING to do with the NBA's CBA. Gary Chouest was in the process of taking over the Hornets and the sale was even up for approval by the league. Now, Gary Chouest made his money through Edison Chouest Offshore, which is a company that makes money by renting ships to the offshore oil business in the gulf. What was the major even that happened as soon as Chouest announced his bid? The BP oil spill. Now, what do you think happened to his business then? That is why the sale fell through and the league had to step in. The team didn't go bankrupt. The guy who was going to be the new owner nearly did. So he backed off.

- Second, the league didn't have to buy the team. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, was about to buy the team and move it to San Jose, and he even offered 350 million for it:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/2011/01/06/ellison-tried-to-buy-hornets-was-outbid-by-nba/

Again, if the NBA is having to outbid billionaire CEOs for its franchises, it seems quite obvious the league isn't losing anywhere near as much money as they claim.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

LOL @ feeling sorry for these owners.

Why aren't the owners acknowledging that they're the reason why a problem with payroll exist? They're the ones signing Webber to 7yr - 84 million and KG to 7 yr - 120 million dollar contracts back in the 90s.

They didn't like doing that, so to be saved from themselves, they locked the players out and instituted the rookie salary scale.

Fast forward 12 years later, they have to be saved from themselves again, because the rookie salary scale has led to the top 20 or 25 or so players demanding TOP DOLLAR when they get their 2nd and 3rd contracts. And last summer, you saw the effect of that with guys like JJ and Boozer getting deals they probaly didn't deserve. But the "broke" owners paid the money anyway, in order to keep their teams competitive. Then you have an owner like Robert Sarver in Phoenix, who didn't pay his star, loses him to NY, and his team doesn't make the playoffs.

The owners try to implement something, then an owner that wants to win does whatever to takes to win, and the other owners are FORCED to do the same, or risk getting left behind.

The Bird rule was implemented to enable teams to keep their main player, and not have him go somewhere else. But that very rule led to JJ getting paid like a star, and payrolls rising, instead of a player changing teams every 3 - 5 years because his current team just couldn't afford him.

These owners are full of ish, if you ask me.

[batfanjordanv]

Lockouts ruin seasons. Just reach a damn agreement!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I mean, a team like Memphis is supposed to be in so much financial trouble, yet, a few playoff wins see them give Zach Randolph a 4 year - 71 million dollar deal? And the owner also says that they'll bring back restricted free agent Marc Gasol too?

How does a "broke" team do that?

LOL . . that same "broke" team signed Rudy Gay to a 5/82 deal the previous summer.

So let me get this straight. The NBA and owners claim that they lost 300 million last year. But Zach Randolph and Carlos Boozer can secure 16 - 18 million dollar a year deals?

And economic wise, Memphis is still Memphis. What is the owner gonna do? Significantly raise ticket prices because they're a playoff team now, with the owners paying his guys like other playoff caliber team owners do?

You're still talking about Memphis/Shelby Co. having a population of less than 700K people, and Metropolitan Memphis having a little over 1 million within 50 miles of the area.

I think the real problem with the owners, is that they relied too much on the corporate dollar to pay top dollar for suites and ticket prices. Now that those corporations are practicing more discretion in their spending, the NBA owners are forced to do the same.

I don't have a problem with the economic model of the NBA changing. It probably should change with the economy the way it is. I just don't want these owners crying like they are the victims here. This is the monster that THEY CREATED . . . not the players.

[AHF]

As for the players not caring about long term survivability, that has got to be a joke. The only reason there can be a salary cap is because players have a union and collectively bargain. If the player's union decertified (and I mean truly decertified, not in name only like the nfl), there would be no salary cap, no draft, no rookie scale... In other words, by forming a union, they leave money on the table precisely for the stability of the league.

Also, math is math. If 57% of revenues was good enough 5 years ago, the percentage is still the same now. So if the owners are losing money is because they are spending more on other parts of the franchise.

This is where comparisons to other businesses completely miss the point. A union at a regular business is there to get as much money and as many benefits for their members as they can bargain. In pro sports, unions actually serve to restrict money and benefits in exchange for stability. They negotiate RESTRICTIONS on how much the players can make and who they can deal with.

That is just wrong on the role of Unions. Without Unions, the gross revenues for the league would be a small fraction of what they are today. There is no question that the league could not survive without an antitrust exemption or a collective bargaining agreement. For that reason, it involves exactly zero bit of sacrifice for the players to Unionize because it means more money in their own pockets. There would be no league without restrictions like the draft, restricted free agency, etc. so it isn't a richer but less stable option to decertify - it is a throw the baby out with the bath water option to refuse to unionize. In actuality, the likely outcome of a pro sports league like the NBA or NFL really decertifying for more than negotiating leverage would be legislation that would give the owners exemptions from anti-trust law so they could run viable leagues which would only reduce the players' leverage. Things right now are in their optimum shape for the players.

Pro sports unions are there for the same purpose as other unions - to maximize the take for the people they represent. It so happens that their members get the most out of a system with a CBA.

The current and former players could always choose to pool their money together and open their own sports league but getting a guaranteed 57% cut of the NBA gross profits regardless of expenses is a much better arrangement.

This doesn't make the owners angels by any means. The lack of revenue sharing in the NBA is ridiculous, IMO, for example. But the Union could not come up with a better deal today than the status quo. They will end up agreeing to something less desirable than the status quo but much more desirable than either (a) decertifying or (b) running their own league.

[AHF]

LOL @ feeling sorry for these owners.

I don't feel sorry for the owners or the players. They are all fabulously wealthy and will continue to be incredibly wealthy regardless of how the negotiations come out. Both sides will exert economic pressure to try to increase their piece of the NBA pie.

Why aren't the owners acknowledging that they're the reason why a problem with payroll exist? They're the ones signing Webber to 7yr - 84 million and KG to 7 yr - 120 million dollar contracts back in the 90s.

They didn't like doing that, so to be saved from themselves, they locked the players out and instituted the rookie salary scale.

That exists in every sport. Owners take gambles and end up overpaying players because if you run a totally "safe" team and just want to make money without taking on any significant financial risk on player contracts you end up looking like the Clippers.

As a fan, I assume the owners of franchises in any sport will be competitive enough that they will take risks that look terrible with the benefit of hindsight (along with risks that looked bad on the front end but end up looking good).

I don't care about the players or the owners.

I want a CBA that makes the game the most fun for the fans. That is my measuring stick for proposals from the players or the owners: How would this affect my enjoyment of the game as a fan?

[Diesel]

No, shame on you sir. This isn't about the players playing within the rules...this is about the owners recognizing their mistakes and trying to correct the system to bring it back in. This is the players not caring about the long term survivability of the game and trying to get theirs now. I can and do blame the players. This isn't like me going to my boss and asking for a $1000 a year raise in a recession. These are people who are making at the lowest ($400,000) a year...10 times what the average American makes. The average NBA'er makes 4 million a year...100 times what an average American makes. That's right...one average year in the NBA, 8 months really, is enough to set you up for life. Asking for a more even, stable system isn't wrong on the owner's part...it's good business.

I think you need to understand that this is the business of athletes and entertainers. They will always be paid more than the "average american". You cannot blame the players forplaying within the rules? If your boss came to you tomorrow and said.. hey, you can make up to 10 Million per year if you prove that you're worth it, you would have all kind of charts and graphs showing how you are worth it. Why? Because that would be the rules that your boss gave you.

In the NBA's case, the owners have set rules and now that the contract is up, they want to change the rules to benefit them. If this was simply a Boss Subordinate relationship, your position would be true that the bosses can do what they want. However, this is a relationship bound by a contract that has to be agreed on by Both Side. The Players are the entertainment. Without the players there would be no league. The same is somewhat true of the owners but in their case, many of them are just guys who had enough money to take a risk. They are getting paid, the question is how much.

Here's my for instance.

If I told you that the average owner makes 200 Million per year and the average they have to put out is 170 per year, what would you think of being an owner? Under that same circumstance, if I told you that you could be an owner if you just emptied your savings account would you do it? Regardless of how much you have in savings at that... would you become an owner.

Sure you would.. because under the system, you would always make money.

In the NBA, the owners make money. When guys who buy teams see the books, they buy teams anyway? Why? Because it's more profitable to own a team. If there were no profit in it, there wouldn't be as many owners.

[dlpin]

That is just wrong on the role of Unions. Without Unions, the gross revenues for the league would be a small fraction of what they are today. There is no question that the league could not survive without an antitrust exemption or a collective bargaining agreement. For that reason, it involves exactly zero bit of sacrifice for the players to Unionize because it means more money in their own pockets. There would be no league without restrictions like the draft, restricted free agency, etc. so it isn't a richer but less stable option to decertify - it is a throw the baby out with the bath water option to refuse to unionize. In actuality, the likely outcome of a pro sports league like the NBA or NFL really decertifying for more than negotiating leverage would be legislation that would give the owners exemptions from anti-trust law so they could run viable leagues which would only reduce the players' leverage. Things right now are in their optimum shape for the players.

Pro sports unions are there for the same purpose as other unions - to maximize the take for the people they represent. It so happens that their members get the most out of a system with a CBA.

The current and former players could always choose to pool their money together and open their own sports league but getting a guaranteed 57% cut of the NBA gross profits regardless of expenses is a much better arrangement.

This doesn't make the owners angels by any means. The lack of revenue sharing in the NBA is ridiculous, IMO, for example. But the Union could not come up with a better deal today than the status quo. They will end up agreeing to something less desirable than the status quo but much more desirable than either (a) decertifying or (b) running their own league.

First, plenty of leagues around the world survive without cbas and anti trust exemptions, so the assumption that without a cba the league would be lost and fold is unsubstantiated at best (1st nba cba came in 1970).

But second, and most important, what you are saying actually supports what I am saying. Even if in the long term a lack of a cba leads to financial ruin, the first, and most immediate, impact would be a flurry of large contracts signed. Maybe that leads to a less profitable league 5 or 10 years down the road from now, but the bottom line is that if, right now, the players decertified the current players would make more money. Any problems from a lack of a cba, if they exist, wouldn't show up for at least a couple of seasons. Which in the end is precisely my point. Players give up the opportunity to sign a 30 million a year contract with the knicks right now in exchange for the long term viability of the league. So the question isn't if revenues would be this much right now if they didn't have a cba from the beginning. The question is what would happen right now if the cba was abolished. The likely result would be teams like the lakers and knicks driving up contracts until a few franchises have to fold. But from now to the point where the downside of no cba happens, players would end up with more money. Money that they are giving up for the long term stability of the league.

[Sothron]

This is not a strike. This is a lockout. The owners are the ones literally at fault for stopping the league because they are the ones locking the players out of the league.

[AHF]

This is not a strike. This is a lockout. The owners are the ones literally at fault for stopping the league because they are the ones locking the players out of the league.

Players strike if the economics of the current agreement don't favor them and they have leverage to get more.

Owners lockout if the economics of the current agreement don't favor them and they have leverage to get more.

Two sides of the same coin. Professional athletes haven't hesitated to strike and the owners don't hesitate to lockout.

[Sothron]

Players strike if the economics of the current agreement don't favor them and they have leverage to get more.

Owners lockout if the economics of the current agreement don't favor them and they have leverage to get more.

Two sides of the same coin. Professional athletes haven't hesitated to strike and the owners don't hesitate to lockout.

Except in this case this is a lock out not a strike. Back in 1997? it was a lockout then as well. I actually can't remember the last time the NBA went on strike and not a lockout.

[AHF]

First, plenty of leagues around the world survive without cbas and anti trust exemptions, so the assumption that without a cba the league would be lost and fold is unsubstantiated at best (1st nba cba came in 1970).

US anti-trust law is the only relevant item here. Before 1970's nobody even considered the possibility that sports leagues would be subject to ordinary anti-trust law. Now that is accepted as a reality.

But second, and most important, what you are saying actually supports what I am saying. Even if in the long term a lack of a cba leads to financial ruin, the first, and most immediate, impact would be a flurry of large contracts signed. Maybe that leads to a less profitable league 5 or 10 years down the road from now, but the bottom line is that if, right now, the players decertified the current players would make more money. Any problems from a lack of a cba, if they exist, wouldn't show up for at least a couple of seasons. Which in the end is precisely my point. Players give up the opportunity to sign a 30 million a year contract with the knicks right now in exchange for the long term viability of the league. So the question isn't if revenues would be this much right now if they didn't have a cba from the beginning. The question is what would happen right now if the cba was abolished. The likely result would be teams like the lakers and knicks driving up contracts until a few franchises have to fold. But from now to the point where the downside of no cba happens, players would end up with more money. Money that they are giving up for the long term stability of the league.

If the players decertified, I don't think teams would be rushing out to sign huge contracts. There aren't any stars that aren't currently under contract. The main players that would attract huge bids would be the rookies that were just drafted. If teams were willing to go down that route, you might see the Knicks signing Kyree Irving, Enes Kanter, and Jonas Valančiūnas to huge deals. In addition, there would be a couple of restricted free agents that would no longer be restricted and would get decent deals like DeAndre Jordan, Marc Gasol and Thaddeus Young.

At that point, of course, fans would view the league as one with no credibility and fans of teams like the Cavs, Raptors, Grizzlies, Sixers, etc. who just lost their draft picks and top young players to NY and Miami, etc. would be outraged. It would not be business as usual and permanent damage would be done to the league immediately.

Several of the lesser teams would likely throw their seasons and operate sub-minimum pay rolls and just bank the television money. Afterall, if you can't get draft picks without breaking the bank and are going to lose your formerly restricted free agents then why bother fielding a competitive payroll? Just take the money, count the profits and wait for sanity to be restored.

I think you would safely predict an immediate drop in revenues for a league that can't even have a draft and that it would lead to a quick scaling back of player salaries in the aggregate and a rush to the bargaining table by both sides. This is the leverage that the players have been exerting on the NFL - the risk that this exact scenario plays out if when the players' anti-trust case goes forward (it hasn't been ruled on at all at this point - the only rulings have dealt with the issue of whether the players could obtain a temporary injunction in the context of a labor dispute which doesn't turn on whether than can ultimately prevail in the case -- the threat of anti-trust law striking down the draft, restrictions on free agents, etc. is very, very high even though the players aren't legally entitled to an injunction of the lockout -- that also doesn't even mean that the lockout is lawful, just that the players can only get monetary damages in lieu of injunctive relief).

[Diesel]

Except in this case this is a lock out not a strike. Back in 1997? it was a lockout then as well. I actually can't remember the last time the NBA went on strike and not a lockout.

I don't think NBA has ever had a player strike.

The owners have planned this lockout since 3 yrs ago. The reason why is because there's no more Jordan's coming along. The game needs a star player. Lebron is not it. They need another Jordan. The owners are not losing money. The owners want the system set so that they can always make money. That's all this is. The owners have peeked out, noticed that even with Lebron, KD, and Rose, there is no must see in the NBA. There's no rivalry that can be sustained for the next 10 yrs. There's no one player that's out or coming out that will carry the league the way that Magic vs. Bird or Jordan did. Sure, they are making lots of money now, but when it's time to renew the TV contract, it's no certainty that they will be able to command what they are getting now with the lack of stars that they are seeing.

Sadly, it's part their fault. They have made it too expensive at the gate. For basketball to be sustain, the prices at the gate have to be lowered so that the common man can feel like he can go to the game and root for his team. Too many luxury boxes and $100 seats have made the game not affordable to the dad who wants to take his sons to see his team. Those guys will not become die hard fans. Sure they will be fans because of the video game, but not because of the real game. So they will not watch on TV. The owners need to fix the price at the gate... if they do that, they will improve the sustainability of basketball. They already have a lock on the video game market.

[Sothron]

I don't think NBA has ever had a player strike.

The owners have planned this lockout since 3 yrs ago. The reason why is because there's no more Jordan's coming along. The game needs a star player. Lebron is not it. They need another Jordan. The owners are not losing money. The owners want the system set so that they can always make money. That's all this is. The owners have peeked out, noticed that even with Lebron, KD, and Rose, there is no must see in the NBA. There's no rivalry that can be sustained for the next 10 yrs. There's no one player that's out or coming out that will carry the league the way that Magic vs. Bird or Jordan did. Sure, they are making lots of money now, but when it's time to renew the TV contract, it's no certainty that they will be able to command what they are getting now with the lack of stars that they are seeing.

Sadly, it's part their fault. They have made it too expensive at the gate. For basketball to be sustain, the prices at the gate have to be lowered so that the common man can feel like he can go to the game and root for his team. Too many luxury boxes and $100 seats have made the game not affordable to the dad who wants to take his sons to see his team. Those guys will not become die hard fans. Sure they will be fans because of the video game, but not because of the real game. So they will not watch on TV. The owners need to fix the price at the gate... if they do that, they will improve the sustainability of basketball. They already have a lock on the video game market.

Agree with everything you said. I also am glad my old man memory isn't too bad. I didn't think the NBA players had ever went on strike.