NYTimes article: Forbes and Finiancial World estimates say owners making profits

[Chris]

I think the owners are dealing the hard ball to break the union, plain and simple. I don't believe their losses are even close to what they claim them to be. Franchises are selling at a rate of about $400 million per franchise, a very healthy number. Ratings are excellent for the NBA playoffs. Instead of dealing in good faith and trying to resolve the real issues(guaranteed contracts that kill teams, length of guaranteed contracts, a major reduction of the MLE to lower the NBAPA middle class, a better compensation system for losing free agents than sign and trades, a reduction of the yearly maximum pay raise, a reduction of the BRI to an NHL level) they have gone nuclear and want a complete redo with a breaking of the union.

I absolutely agree that the owners are going WAY over the top here to break the union.  And I am sure they are presenting their numbers in a way that makes things favor them in the negotations (just like the players are doing, and anyone else does in negotations).

But I still think the current system is not sustainable, and there are a number of teams who are stuck with choosing between trying to put a quality product on the floor and losing money, or keeping costs at a financially viable number, but risk alienating their fans by putting an inferior product out there.

The simple fact that the owners are willing to sacrifice games and perhaps an entire season by playing hardball makes me believe that they really are losing a lot of money here. 

Ultimately, they are going to have to compromise though.  Both the players and the owners.  Right now, they are both on the extremes.  The players are going to have to give up significant salary, and the owners are going to have to either share a lot more money, or live with a system of "haves and have-nots".  Unfortunately, I don't see either side budging on those for a long time...

[Evantime34]

The quick counterarguments to this are:
1. the successful NFL is successful because it has much stronger revenue sharing

2. the main claim of the league is that it is losing major money as a single entity; this argument appears dubious.

1. Before the league deals with the players they need to tweak revenue sharing to the point that makes sense. How can they negotiate with the players when big market owners have such differing opinions than small market owners. Right now it seems they are asking for a portion of revenue taken from the players that would allow the league to avoid legitimate revenue sharing. In other words the owners are being completely unreasonable.

[LooseCannon]

I think the owners are dealing the hard ball to break the union, plain and simple. I don't believe their losses are even close to what they claim them to be. Franchises are selling at a rate of about $400 million per franchise, a very healthy number. Ratings are excellent for the NBA playoffs. Instead of dealing in good faith and trying to resolve the real issues(guaranteed contracts that kill teams, length of guaranteed contracts, a major reduction of the MLE to lower the NBAPA middle class, a better compensation system for losing free agents than sign and trades, a reduction of the yearly maximum pay raise, a reduction of the BRI to an NHL level) they have gone nuclear and want a complete redo with a breaking of the union.

I absolutely agree that the owners are going WAY over the top here to break the union.  And I am sure they are presenting their numbers in a way that makes things favor them in the negotations (just like the players are doing, and anyone else does in negotations).

I wonder how many of the owners have an ideological interest in union-busting to the point that they are willing to lose money if they can assert more control over the unions.  This may also have some considerations for future dealings with referees and whatever arena workers might be unionized.

[Chris]

I think the owners are dealing the hard ball to break the union, plain and simple. I don't believe their losses are even close to what they claim them to be. Franchises are selling at a rate of about $400 million per franchise, a very healthy number. Ratings are excellent for the NBA playoffs. Instead of dealing in good faith and trying to resolve the real issues(guaranteed contracts that kill teams, length of guaranteed contracts, a major reduction of the MLE to lower the NBAPA middle class, a better compensation system for losing free agents than sign and trades, a reduction of the yearly maximum pay raise, a reduction of the BRI to an NHL level) they have gone nuclear and want a complete redo with a breaking of the union.

I absolutely agree that the owners are going WAY over the top here to break the union.  And I am sure they are presenting their numbers in a way that makes things favor them in the negotations (just like the players are doing, and anyone else does in negotations).

I wonder how many of the owners have an ideological interest in union-busting to the point that they are willing to lose money if they can assert more control over the unions.  This may also have some considerations for future dealings with referees and whatever arena workers might be unionized.

It's interesting.  I imagine there is at least one 1 owner who would willingly lose money, just for the joy of breaking the union, because it kills him to pay black people that much money (seriously, can't we just vote Sterling out?).  Beyond that though, I really believe it is a business move.  I think they are willing to give up the season, because they would be losing money on it anyways, and when/if they break the union, they will be able to make the money up.

[Roy H.]

I think the owners are dealing the hard ball to break the union, plain and simple. I don't believe their losses are even close to what they claim them to be. Franchises are selling at a rate of about $400 million per franchise, a very healthy number. Ratings are excellent for the NBA playoffs. Instead of dealing in good faith and trying to resolve the real issues(guaranteed contracts that kill teams, length of guaranteed contracts, a major reduction of the MLE to lower the NBAPA middle class, a better compensation system for losing free agents than sign and trades, a reduction of the yearly maximum pay raise, a reduction of the BRI to an NHL level) they have gone nuclear and want a complete redo with a breaking of the union.

I absolutely agree that the owners are going WAY over the top here to break the union.  And I am sure they are presenting their numbers in a way that makes things favor them in the negotations (just like the players are doing, and anyone else does in negotations).

I wonder how many of the owners have an ideological interest in union-busting to the point that they are willing to lose money if they can assert more control over the unions.  This may also have some considerations for future dealings with referees and whatever arena workers might be unionized.

Would Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Herb Kohl (owner of the Bucks) sit idly by while his cronies attempted to bust a union due to an ideological bent?  I think he'd have something to say about that.

Heck, David Stern is a big donor to the Democratic party, giving over $800k to that party.  I don't think anti-union ideology is shaping his decision making.  (For more on sports and political donations, see here.)

[Chris]

I think the owners are dealing the hard ball to break the union, plain and simple. I don't believe their losses are even close to what they claim them to be. Franchises are selling at a rate of about $400 million per franchise, a very healthy number. Ratings are excellent for the NBA playoffs. Instead of dealing in good faith and trying to resolve the real issues(guaranteed contracts that kill teams, length of guaranteed contracts, a major reduction of the MLE to lower the NBAPA middle class, a better compensation system for losing free agents than sign and trades, a reduction of the yearly maximum pay raise, a reduction of the BRI to an NHL level) they have gone nuclear and want a complete redo with a breaking of the union.

I absolutely agree that the owners are going WAY over the top here to break the union.  And I am sure they are presenting their numbers in a way that makes things favor them in the negotations (just like the players are doing, and anyone else does in negotations).

I wonder how many of the owners have an ideological interest in union-busting to the point that they are willing to lose money if they can assert more control over the unions.  This may also have some considerations for future dealings with referees and whatever arena workers might be unionized.

Would Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Herb Kohl (owner of the Bucks) sit idly by while his cronies attempted to bust a union due to an ideological bent?  I think he'd have something to say about that.

Heck, David Stern is a big donor to the Democratic party, giving over $800k to that party.  I don't think anti-union ideology is shaping his decision making.  (For more on sports and political donations, see here.)

On a side note, I heard somewhere (I think it might have been an interview with Ken Berger, but not positive) that Stern is not pushing for the hard-line here.  He genuinely wants a deal done, but it is the hard-line owners like Wyc and Sarver who are really digging in their heals.  I have pointed this out before, but I really think Stern gets a bad wrap.  He is just doing the bidding of the owners, but he is the one who ends up taking all the heat for the decisions they make.

[Roy H.]

On a side note, I heard somewhere (I think it might have been an interview with Ken Berger, but not positive) that Stern is not pushing for the hard-line here.  He genuinely wants a deal done, but it is the hard-line owners like Wyc and Sarver who are really digging in their heals.  I have pointed this out before, but I really think Stern gets a bad wrap.  He is just doing the bidding of the owners, but he is the one who ends up taking all the heat for the decisions they make.

I can see where Stern wouldn't want a season-long lockout added to his legacy.  It also makes sense that he'd be okay with a middle ground while some owners aren't, since Stern isn't the one with annual losses.

[LooseCannon]

Would Democratic Senator from Wisconsin Herb Kohl (owner of the Bucks) sit idly by while his cronies attempted to bust a union due to an ideological bent?  I think he'd have something to say about that.

Heck, David Stern is a big donor to the Democratic party, giving over $800k to that party.  I don't think anti-union ideology is shaping his decision making.  (For more on sports and political donations, see here.)

Not all Democrats are as pro-labor as they should be and Kohl has been conspicuously silent during the recent struggles concerning public unions in Wisconsin.

That Kohl has nothing to say about the NBA labor negotiations just means that he's not making the mistake of Ted Leonsis, who was fined for speaking publicly in favor of a hard cap.

Regardless of his position, he's still only one vote.

[KGs Knee]

Looking at the numbers in the report Forbes has given, I am left wondering about something.

If you compare the numbers between Boston and Houston, two teams with similar estimated values, there is a big discrepancy in operating income.  Houston and Boston both have approx. 153m in revenue.  Houston has 67m in player salaries while Boston has 88m.  That is a 21m difference.  Houston has 36m in income while Boston only 4m, the difference being 32m.  Basically it costs Boston 11m more to operate its team, figure derived from income minus the difference in player salaries.  Also, Boston has a 40% debt/value ratio while Houston only has a 16% debt/value ratio.  My question is why?  Maybe this is why Wyc is so apparently hard-line.

[Moranis]

Looking at the numbers in the report Forbes has given, I am left wondering about something.

If you compare the numbers between Boston and Houston, two teams with similar estimated values, there is a big discrepancy in operating income.  Houston and Boston both have approx. 153m in revenue.  Houston has 67m in player salaries while Boston has 88m.  That is a 21m difference.  Houston has 36m in income while Boston only 4m, the difference being 32m.  Basically it costs Boston 11m more to operate its team, figure derived from income minus the difference in player salaries.  Also, Boston has a 40% debt/value ratio while Houston only has a 16% debt/value ratio.  My question is why?  Maybe this is why Wyc is so apparently hard-line.

luxury tax?