who will cave first? owners or players

[wdleehi]

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.

And be accused of being cheep and not caring about winning by their fans when they don't bring in the talent or keep the talent other teams do because they are not willing to pay the market price.


Then, the fans stop coming to the games.  The local media deals get smaller.  Merchandise sales go down. 

[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.

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.

Completely different league, completely different roster structure.  That's just the way the system is, if you value talent like Eddy Curry wrong, you've got to deal with the consequences.

This is where good owners/bad owners come in.  Ainge wasn't scared to get 3 players on the rosters whose salaries alone put us over the salary cap.  It could be argued that for the roles the big 3 were playing they were absolutely overpayed (KG was getting what? about 24mil).  But what Ainge DIDN'T do over the past 4 years was spend money on the smaller MLE-type contracts and overpay the bench (the Lakers).  We were calling him cheap at the time, but now we're in one of the best situations financially compared to the other contenders.  It all depends on what your team looks like, a huge contract like Johnson doesn't necessarily hurt your team, but a much lesser player like an aging Posey getting the full MLE almost always does more harm than good.  There's a huge difference between good owners that overpay responsibly, and bad owners.



You get what you pay for, simple as that.  Why are people acting like a GM's job should be easy?  You've got to either get lucky with the talent you draft, or you've got to take risks and spend money.  99% of the time, the teams with bad management are the ones stuck in mediocracy (Wolves, Clips) and the ones with good management are the ones taking the smart risks and moving up in rankings.

You comparing Pitino to Ainge and Red only adds to my point.  The teams stuck with contracts took a risk and it didn't pay off.  Why should they be able to take risks without consequences, and why should they be able to immediately get back to same situation that teams who played it safe or took smarter risks are in?

It's just the name of the game.  The system got to be this way for a reason.  Every system is going to have its advantages and disadvantages.  There's no cure-all, otherwise it would've already been implemented.

[Edgar]

Fans?

What a depressing times.

[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.

And be accused of being cheep and not caring about winning by their fans when they don't bring in the talent or keep the talent other teams do because they are not willing to pay the market price.


Then, the fans stop coming to the games.  The local media deals get smaller.  Merchandise sales go down.  

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

That guy was saying owners have zero control and you can spend whatever you want on whoever you want because all that money's coming out of your pocket anyway.  That's clearly not the case.

[Moranis]

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. 

Only problem.  The league is profitable right now.  The money just isn't being shared properly.

That's debatable.  Just about every reputable source I have read states that the league lost money.  Now, the extent of how much they lost is certainly up to debate, but I have yet to see a source claiming money was made.

And then there is the question of why an owner who invests significantly more money into their team should supplement the other teams to the point that would be needed to make them profitable as well.

Is Forbes not reputable?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/calling-foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

According to Forbes the NBA made over 180 million in 2009-2010 (the most recent year with figures available).  Forbes estimated that the profit of 5 teams would more then cover the losses of every single team that is in the red.  The NBA problem is much more about revenue sharing among the owners then anything else.  It just doesn't do a very good job.

Also, 57% is an almost identical to both MLB (58%) and the NFL (56% before the most recent C.B.A.).  When the NHL lost a season they were at 66% and are now down to about 54%. 

[Roy H.]

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. 

Only problem.  The league is profitable right now.  The money just isn't being shared properly.

That's debatable.  Just about every reputable source I have read states that the league lost money.  Now, the extent of how much they lost is certainly up to debate, but I have yet to see a source claiming money was made.

And then there is the question of why an owner who invests significantly more money into their team should supplement the other teams to the point that would be needed to make them profitable as well.

Is Forbes not reputable?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/calling-foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

According to Forbes the NBA made over 180 million in 2009-2010 (the most recent year with figures available).  Forbes estimated that the profit of 5 teams would more then cover the losses of every single team that is in the red.  The NBA problem is much more about revenue sharing among the owners then anything else.  It just doesn't do a very good job.

Also, 57% is an almost identical to both MLB (58%) and the NFL (56% before the most recent C.B.A.).  When the NHL lost a season they were at 66% and are now down to about 54%. 

Aren't the Forbes' numbers estimates?  The league keeps saying that it has independently audited numbers suggested a net loss.  Here's how the league responded to that report:

A New York Times blog post Tuesday titled "Calling Foul on NBA's Claims of Financial Distress'' called the league "fundamentally a healthy and profitable business'' with an estimated operating income of $183 million in 2009-10, making a 5 to 7 percent profit during the life of the collective bargaining agreement that expired last week.

The story was based on estimates prepared by Forbes and Financial World magazines. NBA spokesman Mike Bass said the information was inaccurate, saying Forbes "does not have the financial data for our teams and the magazine's estimates do not reflect reality.''

"Precisely to avoid this issue, the NBA and its teams shared their complete league and team audited financials as well as our state and federal tax returns with the players union,'' Bass said. "Those financials demonstrate the substantial and indisputable losses the league has incurred over the past several years.''

The league has projected losses of $300 million last season after losses of several hundred million dollars in each season of the CBA, which was ratified in 2005. Owners locked out the players last week after they could not agree on a new deal.

The union has frequently questioned the league's financials, saying it believes there were losses but not anywhere near what the NBA has stated. The players offered to give up $100 million in salary costs annually in a recent proposal for a new five-year deal, believing that was more in line with the true losses.

Link.

Even the players agree that the league is losing money.

[Chris]

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. 

Only problem.  The league is profitable right now.  The money just isn't being shared properly.

That's debatable.  Just about every reputable source I have read states that the league lost money.  Now, the extent of how much they lost is certainly up to debate, but I have yet to see a source claiming money was made.

And then there is the question of why an owner who invests significantly more money into their team should supplement the other teams to the point that would be needed to make them profitable as well.

Is Forbes not reputable?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/calling-foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

According to Forbes the NBA made over 180 million in 2009-2010 (the most recent year with figures available).  Forbes estimated that the profit of 5 teams would more then cover the losses of every single team that is in the red.  The NBA problem is much more about revenue sharing among the owners then anything else.  It just doesn't do a very good job.

Also, 57% is an almost identical to both MLB (58%) and the NFL (56% before the most recent C.B.A.).  When the NHL lost a season they were at 66% and are now down to about 54%. 

Aren't the Forbes' numbers estimates?  The league keeps saying that it has independently audited numbers suggested a net loss.  Here's how the league responded to that report:

A New York Times blog post Tuesday titled "Calling Foul on NBA's Claims of Financial Distress'' called the league "fundamentally a healthy and profitable business'' with an estimated operating income of $183 million in 2009-10, making a 5 to 7 percent profit during the life of the collective bargaining agreement that expired last week.

The story was based on estimates prepared by Forbes and Financial World magazines. NBA spokesman Mike Bass said the information was inaccurate, saying Forbes "does not have the financial data for our teams and the magazine's estimates do not reflect reality.''

"Precisely to avoid this issue, the NBA and its teams shared their complete league and team audited financials as well as our state and federal tax returns with the players union,'' Bass said. "Those financials demonstrate the substantial and indisputable losses the league has incurred over the past several years.''

The league has projected losses of $300 million last season after losses of several hundred million dollars in each season of the CBA, which was ratified in 2005. Owners locked out the players last week after they could not agree on a new deal.

The union has frequently questioned the league's financials, saying it believes there were losses but not anywhere near what the NBA has stated. The players offered to give up $100 million in salary costs annually in a recent proposal for a new five-year deal, believing that was more in line with the true losses.

Link.

Even the players agree that the league is losing money.

Exactly, maybe I overstated my case by saying no reputable source is reporting that the league is making money, however, what I should have said was that no reputable source, that has access to the actual numbers, has claimed the league is making money. 

[Moranis]

I have no idea how many of the other players share Mo Evans feelings (I suspect most), but he sure is fired up.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/08/25/maurice.evans/index.html

NBA players won't be waving the white flag anytime soon, but they are looking to meet with league officials next week for just the second time since the lockout began on July 1.

And that, for anyone holding out hope that the season might be started on time, counts as welcome news.

National Basketball Players Association vice president Maurice Evans revealed that and much more in a wide-ranging interview with SI.com on Wednesday evening. The veteran free agent had just landed in Chicago after meeting with approximately 10 players in New York, with both locations part of a six-city tour designed by the NBPA to educate and update their players on the status of the negotiations.

But Evans and his NBPA colleagues have spent much of the time discussing NBA Commissioner David Stern's recent podcast with ESPN's Bill Simmons. Evans claims the interview was filled with inaccuracies and even lies, from the purported percentage of salary rollbacks players are being asked to accept to the much talked-about issue of Stern's salary.

The owners' proposal, Evans made clear, will simply never be accepted even if its means losing "this season and more."

SI.com: So no white flag is coming, huh?

Evans: The deal we've been offered would so drastically alter the game as we know it today. The offers have been so pathetic that it's hard to even talk about it when we're informing the guys. We're $7.6 billion apart [over the life of the proposed deal]. Again, when you realize all the components that they're trying to take away, and trying to take out of the [collective bargaining agreement] that's already in effect -- the guaranteed contracts, grandfathering in [contracts], the [salary-cap] exceptions, Larry Bird [rights]. You and I have already talked about this many times, but [players] are really starting to get it and they're willing to sit out for as long as necessary to get us a fair deal.

SI.com: My thing is simply about the owners and the fact that I honestly believe they're not going to crack, that they're just fine missing the season, no matter if they're a large-market team or small-market owners.

Evans: They're unified, and as unified [as the players], and that's great for them. It's not about who's more unified and having a battle of wills. It's about knowing what's right. We've earned the right to compete. We're the ones playing. You can't tell me their sponsorships and the package that they're selling is what has allowed the game to grow to what it is. That's not what increased basketball-related revenue 4.8 percent. We can go down the list about record television ratings and all kinds of different things. And for those guys to jeopardize that, you can't tell me that the owners aren't going to be hurting as well. They've made commitments to sponsorships and things that are contingent on us having a season. We're not holding that over their heads. We've never walked into negotiations and told them about all the things they're going to be losing. We've only walked into negotiations and tried to get deals.

The last [players'] offer was [a giveback of] $630 million over a six-year period. That's over a $100 million a year and they told us that it was pathetic. ...If they think that's what this negotiation is about, then they're miscalculating. Again, even with the 57 percent of BRI -- when you total out the total revenue, we receive 50 percent [in the old system]. We allow them to deduct expenses and deduct things, so when they overpay coaches and fire them and then they have three coaches on payroll that, in effect, goes into BRI. We've never told them that they could take that out, even though it's one of the highest expenses.

We don't want anyone to take a loss, not even the owners. But they seem to be hellbent on contracting [teams] and, as David Stern said, have a huge reset [of the entire system]. If we're going to reset ... then they're going to have to reset the entire league. And even they're going to have to take a reset. We're unified with the agents. We're getting them back on track, getting the players back on track, so now we just need to get the owners back on track.

SI.com: You mentioned the Stern podcast and how you took exception to some of the claims he made. What are you referring to, specifically?

Evans: The major, if not the most, misleading thing was him saying that if Billy [Hunter, NBPA executive director] just tells the players that all I'm asking for is eight percent salary cuts that there would be resolution. That eight percent is actually 40 percent over 10 years, and the actual total is $7.6 billion that he's asking for. Even if you're saying, 'We already make $2.17 billion [annually] in salaries.' That hasn't grown. That's why we got our entire escrow back and then some.

To say that it's the players' salaries [causing the problem] -- it's not our salaries. Our salaries are the main constant. If [owners] take back another $160 million, keep our salaries at $2 billion, then you're not even guaranteeing the $2 billion. And then secondly, that $2 billion, if you're keeping that for 10 years, you've got to account for the growth that takes place each year. The NBA grew by between 3 and 6 percent every year, and we didn't even take [into account] the full growth. If you take the full growth, it's over 40 percent [in salary reductions they're being asked to accept] and it's over $7.6 billion total. For 10 years, that's not even a reality to think that we would accept a deal of that notion.

We don't share in that growth [of the owners' proposal] until that eighth year. And that's when the national TV deal has already come into effect by then, the Lakers' 20-year, $3 billion TV deal -- and that's minimum numbers -- we don't share in that. ...The league is healthy. There's nothing that says that the league is unhealthy.

SI.com: The fans just want the bottom line, which is basically the question of when you're meeting again right now.

Evans: We haven't nailed down a date, but I'm hearing next week. I'm not sure if that's after Labor Day or what, but Stern is supposedly coming back from his two-week vacation and then we'll get back in the process. The players are ready, man. We're just getting ready for them to re-engage, set the time and the place, and we'll be there willing to try and hash this thing out.

SI.com: I've talked to some players who were bothered by the fact that Stern took a vacation right now. How did you see that?

Evans: Of course it does rub you the wrong way a little bit when the guy doesn't seem to have a sense or urgency. And then when you hear about his $20 million-plus salary, and he tries to justify it and go on and have an hour-long podcast that you could say is misleading or you could also say lying. Those things are the most disappointing. We had all these meetings, and the guy has yet to come in and truly bargain in good faith. They have yet to truly engage us and work toward getting a deal. Each time we come in, we're offering significant amounts of money and then they're not even supporting the losses with real claims. That part is what has been disappointing.

SI.com: You mention his salary, but he was pretty adamant in saying it was less than half of what was reported.

Evans: So that's his base salary, and then you get all these incentives. First of all, in dealing with Stern, I've learned that even the base of $9 million is probably somewhere around $12 million. Then you add bonuses and all that and it shoots up to $20 million-plus. But it's not my job to critique his salary. I want him to make money. That's the whole point is we want everyone to make money. But he's the one who wants everyone to suffer losses. ...The guy tells us it's the recession and all these different things, yet they want to experience all the growth over the next 10 years while we experience none. When you look at it that way, it's extremely disappointing.

SI.com: What's the latest on the National Labor Relations Board case?

Evans: We're still waiting. We're in the process of getting the decision and that's when they filed the hypothetical lawsuit against us so they could try and stop us from reaching a verdict and delay the decision. [Stern] accomplished his goal because it delayed our decision by another three weeks.

SI.com: You sound pretty prepared to miss the entire season. Is that where it's at right now?

Evans: Our guys are willing to miss this season and more. We're willing to do what it's going to take because accepting a deal at the numbers that they're asking for will be worse than missing the season.

SI.com: Where are you at in terms of possible decertification?

Evans: That's not on the table right now. That has never been a ploy. If we decertify, then it will be because that's what's best for all of our guys. Right now is not the time for that. Right now we're trying to negotiate and trying to bargain and engage the owners to try and save the season the same way the NFL did. I went to NFL preseason games and their fans are so excited to have football back. We want that same excitement for our fans.

SI.com: When you guys meet next week, I would assume you expect the owners to come equipped with a new proposal?

Evans: We expect them to give us a real proposal and finally really engage us the way they should have been engaging us the last three years.

[StartOrien]

Just a thought: Wouldn't it be a huge PR power play for the owners to address/complete revenue sharing in the near future?

Right now isn't everyone's biggest complaint that no ones even trying to talk this out? Wouldn't the owners completing something as significant as revenue sharing paint them in a great light in the public's eye?

[KGs Knee]

So, after reading Month Evans' interview, it seems if the owners are banking on the players caving, they have severely miscalculated.  I just can't are thm ever accepting the owners absurd demands.

At this point I am just flat out disgusted by the owners negotiating tactics.  Sickening!

[Roy H.]

Just a thought: Wouldn't it be a huge PR power play for the owners to address/complete revenue sharing in the near future?

Right now isn't everyone's biggest complaint that no ones even trying to talk this out? Wouldn't the owners completing something as significant as revenue sharing paint them in a great light in the public's eye?

I think it's hard for the owners to work on revenue sharing until they have a reasonable projection of what the system is going to be, and how much projected money is going to be split.  For instance, one form of revenue sharing is the luxury tax, which needs to be collectively bargained.  Other forms of revenue sharing -- such as division of local broadcasting deals, etc. -- could in theory be worked out, but unless the answer is that every team gets a 1/30th split of the entire pot, then the owners are going to want to know how their franchises are going to be specifically impacted.

[StartOrien]

Just a thought: Wouldn't it be a huge PR power play for the owners to address/complete revenue sharing in the near future?

Right now isn't everyone's biggest complaint that no ones even trying to talk this out? Wouldn't the owners completing something as significant as revenue sharing paint them in a great light in the public's eye?

I think it's hard for the owners to work on revenue sharing until they have a reasonable projection of what the system is going to be, and how much projected money is going to be split.  For instance, one form of revenue sharing is the luxury tax, which needs to be collectively bargained.  Other forms of revenue sharing -- such as division of local broadcasting deals, etc. -- could in theory be worked out, but unless the answer is that every team gets a 1/30th split of the entire pot, then the owners are going to want to know how their franchises are going to be specifically impacted.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks, Roy.

[Chris]

Just a thought: Wouldn't it be a huge PR power play for the owners to address/complete revenue sharing in the near future?

Right now isn't everyone's biggest complaint that no ones even trying to talk this out? Wouldn't the owners completing something as significant as revenue sharing paint them in a great light in the public's eye?

I think it's hard for the owners to work on revenue sharing until they have a reasonable projection of what the system is going to be, and how much projected money is going to be split.  For instance, one form of revenue sharing is the luxury tax, which needs to be collectively bargained.  Other forms of revenue sharing -- such as division of local broadcasting deals, etc. -- could in theory be worked out, but unless the answer is that every team gets a 1/30th split of the entire pot, then the owners are going to want to know how their franchises are going to be specifically impacted.

Exactly.  And just to throw it out there, Stern has also said that contraction may in fact go on the table when those discussions take place after a CBA is agreed upon...providing the players give the owners the right to contract in the new CBA. 

[wdleehi]

So, after reading Month Evans' interview, it seems if the owners are banking on the players caving, they have severely miscalculated.  I just can't are thm ever accepting the owners absurd demands.

At this point I am just flat out disgusted by the owners negotiating tactics.  Sickening!

I don't think so. 

Once game checks are missing, players cracks are going to start to form. 

[LB3533]

Players won't be sitting on their couch (at least not all of them).

Some will use their basketball skills/talents and take them overseas or they will work "real, normal" jobs.

The players won't be caving this time around.