Owners pressing for up to a 40% paycut???

[Q_FBE]

But the players are awaiting a clear sign that the owners are willing to move off their demand for a reduction of $750 million to $800 million in player salaries from the $2.1 billion that players earned in the 2010-11 season

I was thinking that a rollback of salaries of 15-25% was fair for everyone (40% in the case of Lebron ) but man this is like a 35% paycut.

No word on guarenteed salaries, contract length, and salary/luxery tax rules. The luxery tax would divide the owners for sure.

Prepare for a long and lonely winter without NBA basketball. 

[Tai]

A link would be nice.

[Chris]

I think you may be misinterpreting this.  They aren't talking about a 40% rollback of current salaries.  They are talking about the owners proposal of a hard cap at around $45 million (which would not be for several years). 

And of course owners are going to have to come off that number, but that is not going to happen until the owners feel enough pressure to compromise among themselves on how to subsidize the smaller market teams, who can't afford a cap above $45 million.

[Tai]

I think you may be misinterpreting this.  They aren't talking about a 40% rollback of current salaries.  They are talking about the owners proposal of a hard cap at around $45 million (which would not be for several years). 

And of course owners are going to have to come off that number, but that is not going to happen until the owners feel enough pressure to compromise among themselves on how to subsidize the smaller market teams, who can't afford a cap above $45 million.

Hmm, I see. Still, the low hard cap isn't really news, unless the owners changed the amount they're willing to agree to.

[Chris]

I think you may be misinterpreting this.  They aren't talking about a 40% rollback of current salaries.  They are talking about the owners proposal of a hard cap at around $45 million (which would not be for several years). 

And of course owners are going to have to come off that number, but that is not going to happen until the owners feel enough pressure to compromise among themselves on how to subsidize the smaller market teams, who can't afford a cap above $45 million.

Hmm, I see. Still, the low hard cap isn't really news, unless the owners changed the amount they're willing to agree to.

That's the point.  Its not news at all.  The owners are holding strong, which means we are looking at a long road here.

I find it funny that people are referring to the owners bending on the guaranteed contracts as important.  If the players are willing to take only 40% of the Basketball related income (compared to 57%, which is the current number they are asking for), then the owners will gladly guarantee any contracts.  But, I have a feeling the non-guaranteed contracts will go right back on the table if the owners budge from their stance on the BRI.

[snively]

I think you may be misinterpreting this.  They aren't talking about a 40% rollback of current salaries.  They are talking about the owners proposal of a hard cap at around $45 million (which would not be for several years). 

And of course owners are going to have to come off that number, but that is not going to happen until the owners feel enough pressure to compromise among themselves on how to subsidize the smaller market teams, who can't afford a cap above $45 million.

Hmm, I see. Still, the low hard cap isn't really news, unless the owners changed the amount they're willing to agree to.

That's the point.  Its not news at all.  The owners are holding strong, which means we are looking at a long road here.

I find it funny that people are referring to the owners bending on the guaranteed contracts as important.  If the players are willing to take only 40% of the Basketball related income (compared to 57%, which is the current number they are asking for), then the owners will gladly guarantee any contracts.  But, I have a feeling the non-guaranteed contracts will go right back on the table if the owners budge from their stance on the BRI.

I think the owners will have some pressure points on the BRI that could impact their solidarity on the hard cap.  I think it's something of a mistake to assume that all the small-market teams are big fans of using a hard cap to bring down the players' share. Without a substantial revenue sharing measure super-imposed on top of the cap, most of the revenue wrested from the players will land in the big markets.

A more severe luxury tax (and/or a lower threshold) might garner some appeal among the small market teams as a means to lower player's share of the revenue while also maintaining the ability to feed off of some of the bigger markets.  If this is a business-motivated move, competitive balance is going to be less relevant than profit margins, and the players will take advantage to break up owner solidarity.

[pearljammer10]

I would cut it to 50%.