who will cave first? owners or players

[Eja117]

In the mean time I think you have to work pretty hard to make the NBA lose money

Why? When you only have 42% of revenue to pay for all expenses beyond the players, I don't think it is very hard to lose money at all, considering the amount of overhead involved.  

This is the thing. The owners are trying to tell us that if the players just go down from 58% to 54% or something like that then suddenly the extra 4% or 6% is going to make all the difference and these 23 dirt poor teams are suddenly going to be profitable and the league will be in better shape yadda yadda, and that basically for the entirety of Duncan's career the league has been in drastic shape..........I'm just not buying that.  They weren't going out of business even last time when they were handing out $99 million contracts to the Juwan Howards and didn't have a rookie scale.  There's no reason they should be going out of business this time.

The question isn't whether they are going out of business or not.  Even Stern is not claiming that.  The question is whether they are making money.  

The NBA is a business.  It is a billion dollar business.  If a business that brings in $3 billion a year in revenue cannot make significant profit, then there is something wrong with the system.  Collective bargaining is an opportunity for them to fix the system so that the business can be as profitable as it should be for everyone involved, not just the players.

I see what you're saying and I guess that could be true. Nevertheless last time they said the same thing. Now they're saying it again. In 12ish years they'll say it again.  They have to be careful what they wish for because if they bring salaries in line with say Euro salaries there will be no real reason for a player to stay in America. Certainly not when they could expand their brand in Europe or some other place.

Oh, I agree.  Although I don't think they are anywhere close to being in line with Euroleague salaries...at least on average.  I think, even with their lowball offer, their salaries will still be the highest in pro sports, and significantly higher than any other basketball league in the world.  But that is absolutely something they need to be cognizant about in these negotiations.

As for what happens in 12 years...I think the reason these agreements only last for X amount of years is because things change, plus, it is hard to see the loopholes that far in advance.

I think a huge reason for their current stance is having to do with dramatic changes to the economy, and the sports landscape with new technologies, and they are accounting for those in the negotiations.  At the time of the next CBA negotiations, they will look at the landscape at that point in time and determine what the best course of action is.

Each time they will learn lessons and the system will get better.  And if it gets too strong towards one side, it will be corrected the next time around.  

I just don't think the fact that they keep changing things based on the current situation is any thing that should be held against them.

Actually I guess I'm fine with them changing. It's just the woah is me act and the "I'm not responsible for any of this" acts that annoy me.

I actually wish they'd just come right out and be like "this is all about greed to be honest. We're doing fine, but we want more."

Listen to Stern's podcast with Simmons.  He says explicitly that the owners are trying to make the league profitable, and the players response is that they will only give back enough to let them break even.

I agree that the posturing in the press is sickening, but when it comes down to the actual negotiations, I think the owners have much more to stand on. 

I find Stern's level of trustability to be up there with Gaddafi.  No. That's a mean thing to say about Gaddafi. That guy is fighting to the end, just like he said he would.

[greenpride32]

42% of all that money should be enough for them to make money themselves.  Upping that to 55% is pretty ridiculous, and would allow them to continue spending irresponsibly.  If they weren't giving out stupid contracts and were only getting a small percentage of the BRI, then I'd be in favor of giving more back to the owners, but neither of those are the case.  They've proven they'll spend the money if you give it to them, and I don't see how giving them more money is a smart long-term solution.

You don't understand how the current system works (or the one that just expired I should say).  Owners have to pay 57% BRI to the players no matter what.  Even if they don't spend all that money in salary, the difference gets paid out to the players at the end of the year as part of the agreement that the players get 57%.  So let's say you have teams competing for the services of Joe Average who might be worth $4m/yr; all of a sudden he gets bid up to $38m over 5 years.  Why does this happen?  The owners already know they have to fork over x amount of dollars no matter what; you might as well spend it on player that could help improve your team. 

All these arguements about owners overpaying makes no sense.  They HAVE to spend a certain amount. 

[Interceptor]

Since the owners aren't making money anyways, they would just calculate those lost revenues into the new deal.  The owners are accounting for this scenario, which is why their offers will continue to get worse and worse for the players as each game is missed.

I think it's more likely that the owners will largely chalk it up to the cost of doing business.  It's money spent to try to get a more favorable deal, an investment that may or may not pan out.

[LooseCannon]

This is the thing. The owners are trying to tell us that if the players just go down from 58% to 54% or something like that then suddenly the extra 4% or 6% is going to make all the difference and these 23 dirt poor teams are suddenly going to be profitable and the league will be in better shape yadda yadda

The players already offered to go down to 54%.  The owners want the players to go down significantly more (some say under 40%), so much more that it seems that they are phrasing it in terms other than a percentage of BRI to obfuscate just how much more.

[BASS_THUMPER]

all this drama make me see more clearly why the playas want the money they make...

[LB3533]

42% of all that money should be enough for them to make money themselves.  Upping that to 55% is pretty ridiculous, and would allow them to continue spending irresponsibly.  If they weren't giving out stupid contracts and were only getting a small percentage of the BRI, then I'd be in favor of giving more back to the owners, but neither of those are the case.  They've proven they'll spend the money if you give it to them, and I don't see how giving them more money is a smart long-term solution.

You don't understand how the current system works (or the one that just expired I should say).  Owners have to pay 57% BRI to the players no matter what.  Even if they don't spend all that money in salary, the difference gets paid out to the players at the end of the year as part of the agreement that the players get 57%.  So let's say you have teams competing for the services of Joe Average who might be worth $4m/yr; all of a sudden he gets bid up to $38m over 5 years.  Why does this happen?  The owners already know they have to fork over x amount of dollars no matter what; you might as well spend it on player that could help improve your team. 

All these arguements about owners overpaying makes no sense.  They HAVE to spend a certain amount. 

This just shows you that the NBA is super profitable.

If the owners are already handing out outrageous contracts to mediocre players and then on top of that still have to cut a check to meet the 57% that just shows you their errors and poor money management.

[mgent]

42% of all that money should be enough for them to make money themselves.  Upping that to 55% is pretty ridiculous, and would allow them to continue spending irresponsibly.  If they weren't giving out stupid contracts and were only getting a small percentage of the BRI, then I'd be in favor of giving more back to the owners, but neither of those are the case.  They've proven they'll spend the money if you give it to them, and I don't see how giving them more money is a smart long-term solution.

You don't understand how the current system works (or the one that just expired I should say).  Owners have to pay 57% BRI to the players no matter what.  Even if they don't spend all that money in salary, the difference gets paid out to the players at the end of the year as part of the agreement that the players get 57%.  So let's say you have teams competing for the services of Joe Average who might be worth $4m/yr; all of a sudden he gets bid up to $38m over 5 years.  Why does this happen?  The owners already know they have to fork over x amount of dollars no matter what; you might as well spend it on player that could help improve your team. 

All these arguements about owners overpaying makes no sense.  They HAVE to spend a certain amount. 

That's not what I was saying, signing bad contracts might not hurt them financially, but it hurts the roster.  This is why part of what the owners want is a hard cap/non-guaranteed contracts.

As far as the money issue, from what I understand the problem is with the 43% NOT spent on players' salaries.  My suggestion is that they worry more about what they do with the money they're given.  You gotta plug the hole before you start pouring more water.

What do you mean they HAVE to spend a certain amount?  The BRI dictates what they can spend and can't spend.  The fact is they're spending beyond their means.  Everything outside of that 57% is theirs to decide how to spend, that's the part that matters.

[greenpride32]

What do you mean they HAVE to spend a certain amount?  The BRI dictates what they can spend and can't spend.  The fact is they're spending beyond their means.  Everything outside of that 57% is theirs to decide how to spend, that's the part that matters.

No offense, but this is why I said you don't understand the system.  The players get 57% of BRI guaranteed.  Let's say for simplicity revenue is $100m for the year and player salaries are $50m.  That is $7m short of the mandated 57%.  So what that means is the owners have to pay this amount to the players at the end of the year.  No matter if revenue is $100m, $250m, or $1b owners HAVE to pay 57% to the players.  

Now let's say you're an owner and GM, and you realize there is a salary shortfall.  You can either over pay to sign a guy to an extension or to sign a free agent.  Or you can do nothing to try and improve your team, but it's going to cost you in either case.  That's why teams "over spend"; they actually aren't they're just spending their mandated 57%.

[cman88]

The players are piety much going to have to cave right now t their stance is that they want piety much the same cba as last time which is not going to happen. I think there going to find that if they don't compromise a deal won't get done.

The owners hands right now have their hands pretty much tied by the players in how much they v can improve their rosterand compete. just look at perkins. We either had to overpay for roleplayer and hurt our future or just let him walk the market dictated that he'd get oasis the results money he gets now

[Celtics18]

What do you mean they HAVE to spend a certain amount?  The BRI dictates what they can spend and can't spend.  The fact is they're spending beyond their means.  Everything outside of that 57% is theirs to decide how to spend, that's the part that matters.

No offense, but this is why I said you don't understand the system.  The players get 57% of BRI guaranteed.  Let's say for simplicity revenue is $100m for the year and player salaries are $50m.  That is $7m short of the mandated 57%.  So what that means is the owners have to pay this amount to the players at the end of the year.  No matter if revenue is $100m, $250m, or $1b owners HAVE to pay 57% to the players.  

Now let's say you're an owner and GM, and you realize there is a salary shortfall.  You can either over pay to sign a guy to an extension or to sign a free agent.  Or you can do nothing to try and improve your team, but it's going to cost you in either case.  That's why teams "over spend"; they actually aren't they're just spending their mandated 57%.

Are you sure that's right? That makes absolutely no sense to me.  In that scenario if a team had, say, a basketball related imcome of $200 million, then they would have to pay their players $114 million of that.  Then, on top of that, they have to pay the luxury tax for being over the salary cap. 

If that's how it works then it really is a foolish system. I mean, if the salary cap is in place to level the playing field and create parity, I don't see how this system helps to accomplish that at all.  It basically forces the richer teams to go over the cap so they can pay the players.

I think it's more likely that the salary cap is based on 57% of the overall BRI of the league.  Ergo, each team's individual BRI doesn't have an impact on that particular team's salary for a given season.

 
 

[greenpride32]

Are you sure that's right? That makes absolutely no sense to me.  In that scenario if a team had, say, a basketball related imcome of $200 million, then they would have to pay their players $114 million of that.  Then, on top of that, they have to pay the luxury tax for being over the salary cap. 

BRI is not based on individual teams, it's based on the entire league.  That's why there is a soft cap in place (allowing some teams to go well over the cap and others to go well under it).  Small market teams would get crushed in that weren't the case.  You know how at the end of each season they don't know what the cap is going to be next year and they have to calculate it?  That's based on the estimated BRI for next year.  So the cap and the BRI (estimate) is directly related.   

Owners have no control over what they pay the players.  It's 57% of BRI no matter what under the old CBA.  Take a hypothetical example; if all owners colluded and paid each player $1m each for a total league salary of ~$440m or so, they still have to pay the remaining amount out to total 57%. 

[mgent]

What do you mean they HAVE to spend a certain amount?  The BRI dictates what they can spend and can't spend.  The fact is they're spending beyond their means.  Everything outside of that 57% is theirs to decide how to spend, that's the part that matters.

No offense, but this is why I said you don't understand the system.  The players get 57% of BRI guaranteed.  Let's say for simplicity revenue is $100m for the year and player salaries are $50m.  That is $7m short of the mandated 57%.  So what that means is the owners have to pay this amount to the players at the end of the year.  No matter if revenue is $100m, $250m, or $1b owners HAVE to pay 57% to the players.  

Now let's say you're an owner and GM, and you realize there is a salary shortfall.  You can either over pay to sign a guy to an extension or to sign a free agent.  Or you can do nothing to try and improve your team, but it's going to cost you in either case.  That's why teams "over spend"; they actually aren't they're just spending their mandated 57%.

You do know 57% isn't 100% right?  That's not even close to all the money.  If you think salaries are the only thing teams have to pay for then it's you that doesn't understand the system.

Read what I actually said.

What does that extra money even matter?  That's not the reason the owners want 12% more.  I bet that 12% is at least 100 times more than what you're talking about.

[mgent]

Owners have no control over what they pay the players.

Obviously they do.  They choose what to give their own players.  I don't see how you figure a team can give someone a contract for free because they have to pay that money anyway.  It's not just one team paying, it's the league as a whole.

[Celtics4ever]

Count me in on the Stern is an untrustworthy crook crowd.   Has anyone ever presided over more lockouts?   I know many are high on him but he rode the coat tail of popularity of Magic and Bird into the Jordan Era.   This wasn't a result of him but rather those magical players.   He is over-rated.   Had referee-ing scandals, hides and manipulates the draft behind closed doors I think as well.  He is a marketing guru of the highest degree but a mediocre commissioner.  I would not trust him a bit on financial discretion.   If the league was in trouble they'd axe the WBNA immediately.  Most teams operate on a loss of 1-2 million per year and this would be cut if they were in real financial duress.

I would say that the players will cave first.   There are more haves and have nots amoung them.   The have nots will run out of money and demand action from the haves to cave.    Not every player has nice advertising endorsements to keep them afloat.   Not everyone saves money and look at how many spend above their means and end up broke at the end of their careers.   These blokes did not save and will be hurting during the lockout,  they will pressure the haves to make a deal.   This is almost always the way it goes with a lock out in professional sports.   The owners almost always have the upper hand, they may concede on a some issues but they usually come out ahead in the end.

[cman88]

Owners have no control over what they pay the players.

Obviously they do.  They choose what to give their own players.  I don't see how you figure a team can give someone a contract for free because they have to pay that money anyway.  It's not just one team paying, it's the league as a whole.

they choose what the market will bear though. If that team doesnt overpay for their own players, some other team will. Joe Johnson wouldve gotten a rediculous contract somewhere else if Atlanta didnt pay him..

and if you're atlanta and want to stay competitive in the league, you pay him. or risk going into rebuilding mode everytime a star you have goes to free agency.

this is partly why it takes nba teams to rebuild alot longer than nfl teams. The owners in the NFL are given alot of options to improve their team. wheras in the NBA if you have someone with a bad contract you are stuck in limbo...look at the knicks with Eddy Curry...or the celtics before Ainge came in.