Another Lockout looming?

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

I was about to say the exaxt same thing. What gets me though, is how stupid all of these guys think the fan is. They feed us all these standard answers and white lies, while we ignore the facts and pick sides.

---

No. Alot of the fans are just sheep.

[Wretch]

That is exactly what I'm saying, but without the cliche.

[detroitdave]

Quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, it should be all about what WE want because WE put all that money in their pockets. We could make them pay for being so damn audacious, hardheaded, and greedy - but

nobody fears the fan.

---

Nice. That's it in a nutshell.

[Eeeee]

Wanna know something. Without the fans these guys are NOTHING. Irrespective of the fact that they shoot jumpers for hours and work hard on their game, the ability to earn their astro salaries is created by the fact that the fans are willing to turn up and part with their hard earned to ensure this circus continues.

Without the fans, these guys dont get paid, dont drive Bentleys and Roll Royce, Dont live in million dollar homes, dont wear iced out custom jewellery, dont get signature shoes clothes and gear etc.

They should think about that when they are pissing off the fans while bitching about that FREE MARKET that you speak of, and the fact that they are only getting whats justifiably theirs.

That free market DOESNT EXIST without the fans.

Thats why I get pissed off when I hear about any argument talking about how they are only getting whats rightly theirs, or what they deserve. They ALREADY have more than they need and could ever hope to spend in a large part. Particularly more than the people who indirectly pay their salaries. When does enough become enough?

[Final_quest]

Do you know who else is nothing without the fans?

THE OWNERS.

The players learn how much the owners make, and figure they should get paid a salary that allows the owners to make big money off of them. Why should it be the players who concede to the owners and not the other way around?

The NBA is different from the NHL. The NHL was losing money so the owners had to play hardball. The NBA teams are making money, and the owners want to take more away from the players. The owners are wrong in this case, but right in the case of the NHL.

If you knew that you're company was making big profits and wanted to give you a pay cut would you be happy?

The best thing a fan can do to lower prices is not go to the games or buy merchandise.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

The best thing a fan can do to lower prices is not go to the games or buy merchandise.

---

It's more than that... What makes the NBA what it is is the television contracts. The gate for the NBA is really Nothing. IN most cases, the gate that is made for most teams is only enough to pay for the rental of the arena. For years, the Hawks gate has been in the negative as it relates to the rental..And when that happens, Stern has to come out of pocket.

But the TV contract... that is the key.. What drives the TV contract is ratings AND what those advertisers who advertise during the games make because of their advertisements. The fans will have to adversely effect the TV ratings in order to really touch the league.

In a way, the NBA is it's own enemy. With a strike in Hockey, Basketball was suppose to increase it's viewership... But it didn't really.

I suppose what will happen is maybe a 3-4 day lockout and the owners will come to their senses.. The owners have to realize that the fans might just lose interest if they don't repair what's wrong. If that happens... Whoa Mama... Everybody loses.

Actually, this would be a good time for Street Ball to start gearing up. IF the NBA goes to a lockout, then the streetball people should approach ESPN and try to get a contract.... I think they could put some pressure if they cut out some of the things tht they do which takes away from the game and legitimize their league.

[Wretch]

Because it is not the Players' league. It is a private structure that the owners operate and allow the players to work in. As both the employee of and the substance of the NBA's product, players have a right to ask for fair compensation. That I agree with. Bur what is fair?

Do they "deserve" better than:

• A $100 per piem in addition to their salary

• Minimum salaries starting at $385,000 for a players with no experience - regardless of how much "work" they do

• Minimum salaries in excess of 1,000,000 for 10+ year veterans - regardless of how much "work" they do

• Guaranteed money for 5 years, regardless of how much "work" they do, equating up to $13,000,000 annually?

...and how exactly are the owners making players take a paycut? Name one player right now that has worked for (IOW earned) at least $385,000 dollars for the 2012 season.

(...)

There is not one player in the NBA that is paid for the "job" he does. They are compensated with guaranteed contracts - which means the league is basically paying a player regardless of the "job" that he does. I could get a contract worth 60-70K annually to join a team and build a network, but if I don't actually work or choose to work at an unacceptable level, you can bet that my contract will be null and void. However, NBA players don't have to do a damn thing and they will get paid for 7 years - and we foot the bill.

So how exactly is the league taking money, that their business makes, away from players for services that they do not have to work for and, in effect, haven't earned?

[Final_quest]

This is definitely a subjective issue, but you almost make it sound like the players are doing nothing to earn their salary. The paycut occurs when you take away 2 years of guaranteed money that the player potentially could sign for.

In addition in the previous CBA the owners inked a great deal. If Shaq, or Allen Houston for that matter, played under the current CBA they would get paid significantly less. The ceiling was put in place as to how much you could pay a player and how many years you could sign them for. Since we know that players were getting signed for up to $30 million/year, we know that when the owner almost halved the max salary they were getting a great deal. In the day Michael Jordan was easily worth $40 million/year.

There is no free market anymore, and the biggest losers were the players. The biggest winners were the owners. Now Lebron James will get signed for half of what he is worth, and on top of that the owners want to limit how many years he can be signed for.

Let's step off the semantics of what it means to get paid for what you do. There are a lot of scenarios where people get paid for what they don't do, and others where they don't get paid for what they do.

Again why are so many people siding with the owners? They are the ones who have gotten the free lunch, and now they want to get a little more.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

is is definitely a subjective issue, but you almost make it sound like the players are doing nothing to earn their salary. The paycut occurs when you take away 2 years of guaranteed money that the player potentially could sign for.

---

The point is that they don't have to do anything to get guaranteed money? Nothing.

Think about Orlando. How much Money did Grant Hill suck up before he decided to get back out there.

Think about Hendu, CC, Terrell Brandon... Do you think they EARNED those contracts...

That's one side.

The other side is this:

The Owners are MAKING A fortune off of their investment.

IN 2003, the NBA was making 766 Million dollars from ESPN, ABC, and TNT.. It's probably like 850 Million now?

Anyway, let's take the 766 Million. 30 teams... That's 26 million per team and that's just the National TV Deal. Then you have local TV deals. Then you have Merchandise. Then there's the gate. Then you have a funny profit sharing thing that the owners do...

For Instance.. The Knicks..

They get their 25.5 from the National deal. They have a local TV deal that pays 20 Million. They have the highest gate in the league that pays 35 (2003) million. They have the sharing revenue that they get from the league. All in all per year, I wouldn't be surprised if the Knicks didn't get over 150-200 million per year.

Where the fight happens is what percent of the revenue goes to the players...

To put things into perspective...

2 yrs ago.

Football (which is the most Ideal) gave 67% to the players.

Baseball gave 63% to the players.

Hockey gave 75% to the players (which is why they are locked out now).

NBA gave 57% to the players.

The Players looked around and said.. HEY.. We're getting screwed. But the owners explained it away by saying, but your contracts are guaranteed.

I think as we move forward, we will see something similar to football. IF the players will give up that guarantee, they can make as much as they want and will get more revenue...

[Final_quest]

I'm not saying Wretch is wrong. Essentially what I'm saying to that perspective is so what. The owners can cry all they want, so can the fans. The only sport without guaranteed contracts is football. The contracts before the last CBA were guaranteed as well.

Any team, by free will, can sign a player to whatever length contract they want. Any team can choose to sign a player or not. If a team wanted to they could have a team full of minimum one year length contracts. Any signings above and beyond that is a decision that the GM and ownership made.

These players have to do SOMETHING to get their contract. They have to convince the people offering the contract that they are worth what they are paying them. The owners can cry about players that get injured and "do nothing" to get their pay.

There is risk involved with every business. Somehow, in spite of all the bad contracts and paying people to do nothing, these guys are making gigantic profits. If they were losing money I would concede that the players should give up their seven year deals.

Hawks fans perspective. Every Hawks fan should be in favor of the changes in the CBA, it favors us. In spite of what I think is fair, the new CBA gives us an advantage. It would give us even more room under the cap, and keep us from signing a player for more than 5 years. It has almost no effect on teams that will already be over the cap for the next few years. So in a sense it helps us while it has little effect on many of the other teams.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Hawks fans perspective. Every Hawks fan should be in favor of the changes in the CBA, it favors us. In spite of what I think is fair, the new CBA gives us an advantage. It would give us even more room under the cap, and keep us from signing a player for more than 5 years. It has almost no effect on teams that will already be over the cap for the next few years. So in a sense it helps us while it has little effect on many of the other teams.

---

What happens when after the end of his first five year contract, Smoove decides he wants to go somewhere else? Under the new CBA, they get rid of the advantage that the team would have with it's own FAs. Right now, a team can sign it's own free agent to 7 yrs. A number that's appealing because with 12.5% raises that means that the player also gets more. The owners want to put in a 5 yr system in hopes that ultimately, it will keep salaries down. However, the promise of more years is one of the main things that keeps FAs with their team. I suppose anybody could offer a 5 yr deal. What advantage is that for the original team?

I see it as the OWNERS are just trying to be greedier.

[Eeeee]

Its not subjective at all. Its completely objective. Wretch is correct. Players get paid irrespective of how much they do.

I dont care what the 'market' value is, how is a fan supposed to have empathy with people that get paid more money than they could ever hope to spend when you are dealing with max players, and yet they still whine about being underpaid. GIMME A BREAK.

Hey you know what FQ? You are right NBA Owners are nothing without the fans, but you know what....they are the owners. They are running businesses and are entitled to make money, if they get a bigger slice of the pie because the TV deal goes up, GREAT FOR THEM, its a good investment, they have no obligation to give it to anyone. The unfortunate problem for them is that their employees are so high profile they need to pay when they whine because the media is all over them. Thats like saying Coca Cola should pay all their employees more simply because they have a massive market share, or McDonalds, or Ikea, or microsoft...........IS ANYONE HERE CRYING ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYEES?

Maybe the owners should sell all their teams like the above companies for public listing and then with shareholders, the fans simply vote to tell the players to [censored] off when they come around begging for more cash.

For me it comes down to one issue and one issue alone. There are a bunch of millionaires that invariably, every year, get some of my dough because I like watching them play. Then they take time off to bitch and whine because they want more money. Ultimately, who ends up footing the bill? We do, the fans, because ticket prices go up, NBALP or NBATV price goes up or whatever. We always cop it in the end and that we are here even discussing this issue pisses me off.

When I see a player like Ruben Patterson assault someone, or another NBA player smoking weed or another with 12 kids to 12 women or whatever, this is the [censored] that basically we foot the bill for, and then they slap us in the face because they want more $$ and we are supposed to be understanding about it??? [censored] that..............

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

f they get a bigger slice of the pie because the TV deal goes up, GREAT FOR THEM, its a good investment, they have no obligation to give it to anyone. The unfortunate problem for them is that their employees are so high profile they need to pay when they whine because the media is all over them.

---

On this argument, I don't like either side, but....

the players side of the argument is a little different than this. They come together to have an agreement. Right now, Basketball players are entertainers who get paid the least for their services amoung all other sports entertainment by %. If a corporation makes a good investment, all the members of the corporation gets paid when that investment pays off.

The owners are not trying to guarantee that they get to keep their gains. They are trying to increase their gains by taking more from the players.

In that respect, the Owners are wrong.

[Final_quest]

First off to say that players get paid irrespective of what they do is incorrect. When Kevin Garnett signs a big contract it is based on his past performance. You have to achieve to get a contract. Even then they are required to at least show up in uniform, unless they are injured. Players cannot just sign their contract and spend the next seven years in Bermuda. They are getting paid to be a part of the team, and how you perceive that they perform is in fact subjective.

It seems that you have no problem with the owners making money, but with players making money. The big difference between owners of a company like IKEA being able to enjoy increased revenues without sharing with their employees is that their employees are replaceable. You can't replace Shaq, Jordan, Lebron, etc. They are the primary people generating revenue.

Fans aren't paying to watch the game of basketball. They are paying to watch the highest level of basketball in the world. You can go to a local playground if you just want to watch basketball in general.

The players don't have to beg. They have bargaining power that an accountant, sales rep, or shelves stocker does not have. They can legitimately prevent the owner from making money knowing that people will not pay to watch replacement players.

Entertainers whether it be actors, musicians, artists, or athletes are not always great citizens. Any team has the right to not sign someone based on character, and any fan has the right to not watch players for the same reason. For me, I want to watch Randy Moss and Barry Bonds regardless of their issues.

I'm not generalizing and saying all athletes are underpaid. I'm saying NBA athletes are. NHL players are overpaid. When Delta pilots took a 33% cut in pay they knew their company was losing money. This is not the same scenario with NBA players.

[AHF]

Here are a couple basic points:

(1) The NBA would increase the amount of basketball related income paid to players under their proposed agreement. Thus it would not reduce the amount players are being paid in the aggregate, it would increase it.

(2) The change would be in tying the money more closely to actual production by making them shorter. Players could not continue to earn huge salaries beyond their quality years because the contracts would end earlier and their play would not warrant something like the 18 million Mutombo is being paid this season. That 18 million would not just be lost money, it would be money that would be spent elsewhere - presumably somewhere more productive than on Mutombo.

(3) The NBA is not a free market. If it was a free market there would be no salary cap (see Yankees spending v. Devil Rays), there would be no age limit (i.e., Lebron would have been drafted probably in 9th grade), there would be no limit on the number of teams competing (any team could field a team if willing to pay because it is a true free market), there would be no draft (true free market means every team competes for every player), etc. etc.

Moreover, the NBA free agency market does not function like a normal market. In a normal market, companies are driven by decisions that will improve their earnings not a desire to simply outproduce other companies. In a sports market, teams (other than the Clippers) will not seek to maximize profits but will compete to the point of losing money because their primarily goal is winning and not earning profits. The basic assumptions on which a normal, rationale market operates are suspended in a sports league which is why the NHL has most of its teams bleeding money, why there is no competitive balance in baseball (the Yankees pitching staff earns more than a number of teams' entire rosters), etc.

The league that is the least free market is the one that is the most successful - the NFL. Why would you want a free market? I want a league that fosters competitive balance and is run responsibly so there is long-term stability. I don't want a league where a team has 20% of its $$ tied up paying Alonzo Morning to play for another team or Dikembe to play for another team, etc. As a fan, I am totally in favor of reducing the length of contracts and increasing the overall % of gross revenues paid to players. Who loses out in that scenario? Star players who cannot be paid past their prime. Cry me a river for Vin Baker.

[Final_quest]

This is the best post yet. AHF has listed all the real reasons why this CBA is being proposed.

As a fan, yes this is good for the game. I don't dispute that. The deal was the NBA would raise the cap significantly in exchange for shorter contracts. However, the players are trying to get as much as they can out of the owners, and I can't blame them for that. I think the players deserve what they are asking for.

[Final_quest]

Just read about a sticking point I had not heard. The owners want to lower annual raises from 10% to 5%. That is definitely a pay cut.

[Diesel]

Damn... Your argument destroyed in it's first sentence!

Quote:

---

First off to say that players get paid irrespective of what they do is incorrect. When Kevin Garnett signs a big contract it is based on his past performance.

---

What had KG done to deserve the second richest contract in the history of the NBA again??

6 yr 126 million dollar deal Oct 1, 1997...

His stats for the previous year were:

17 ppg, 8 rpg, and 3.1 apg...

That's similar to Al Harrington type production. I guess that means that you think that Harrington is worth a 6 yr 126 million dollar deal.

On top of that I don't think KG had been to the playoffs yet.

If you want other examples..

Juwaun Howard.

Joe Smith...

Glen Big Dog "I haven't played a game yet but I want 100 Million dollars" Robinson.

[Diesel]

If that's true...

It's merely a negotiation tactic.

The owners put out something ludacris and then negotiate it back to where it was and the players believe that they have gotten a victory when all they have really gotten is what they had plus all the concessions that the owners really wanted.

Still.. The players and owners will probably agree at 6 yr max.. I think that's what the owners want anyway.

I think that the raises will remain at 12.5 and 10%... Because it's the only incentive for staying with the same team.

I think that Basketball will have to push for rules that will make FAs want to stay. I can see something like 12.5% raises if you are with your previous team and 9% raises if you switch teams..

[AHF]

The % of raises is definitely going to drop because the raises in contracts don't keep with raises in revenue. The owners are proposing dramatic cuts to something like 5% but I expect the max raises to be somewhere in the middle like 9.5% with your team 8.5% with another team or something like that.