who will cave first? owners or players

[Celtics4ever]

I bet they do, NFL player's gave in eventually and they have an economically stronger league with more leverage.   Player's like Chris said will start caving once the checks stop coming in.  Overseas monies won't be there for all.

[LB3533]

I bet they do, NFL player's gave in eventually and they have an economically stronger league with more leverage.   Player's like Chris said will start caving once the checks stop coming in.  Overseas monies won't be there for all.

There are scrub NBA players getting offers overseas.

Maybe not all 400 NBA players will get job opportunities overseas, but even some oversea jobs are better than ZERO basketball income.

[Roy H.]

I bet they do, NFL player's gave in eventually and they have an economically stronger league with more leverage.   Player's like Chris said will start caving once the checks stop coming in.  Overseas monies won't be there for all.

There are scrub NBA players getting offers overseas.

Maybe not all 400 NBA players will get job opportunities overseas, but even some oversea jobs are better than ZERO basketball income.

True.  But how many of those players have bills related to their current rate of pay?  Cutting salaries by 50% - 75% is going to be a huge hardship for a lot of guys.  Also, for the guys with families, are they going to like living in places like Greece, Turkey, and China?

I think there's going to be a lot of pressure on players to give in, and eventually I think they will.  However, I'm sure that's going to take a lost season.

[Chris]

I bet they do, NFL player's gave in eventually and they have an economically stronger league with more leverage.   Player's like Chris said will start caving once the checks stop coming in.  Overseas monies won't be there for all.

There are scrub NBA players getting offers overseas.

Maybe not all 400 NBA players will get job opportunities overseas, but even some oversea jobs are better than ZERO basketball income.

True.  But how many of those players have bills related to their current rate of pay?  Cutting salaries by 50% - 75% is going to be a huge hardship for a lot of guys.  Also, for the guys with families, are they going to like living in places like Greece, Turkey, and China?

I think there's going to be a lot of pressure on players to give in, and eventually I think they will.  However, I'm sure that's going to take a lost season.

Exactly.  Plus, at some point, the players are going to look at it and realize they only have a limited amount of time to make as much money as possible.  When they realize that the owners are not backing down (which they are not), they will also realize that they are just losing money from their own pockets, in order to fight for ideals, and other guys who will be playing when they are long gone. 

[StartOrien]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

[Chris]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

[Roy H.]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

I think the players' basic argument would be "We're willing to give some money back, because we admit the league has lost some money.  However, we don't want the owners to get a windfall, since we're the reason fans watch the games".

Here's a chart from a TrueHoop reader that summarizes the various positions of the owners, players, and an estimated baseline of where the "break even" point would be:



http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31668/nba-negotiations-in-a-handy-chart

The answer seems to be somewhere in between the red line (which would keep owners in the negative) and the turquoise line (which would probably be acceptable to the players in the early years of the deal, but not so much as time passes.)

[StartOrien]

Awesome. Thanks, guys.

[Moranis]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

come on Chris, the players have offered over 600 million in salary reductions over the next 6 years or over 100 million dollars a year.  That isn't any small chunk of change and would essentially line basketball salaries with that of the NHL (both well below MLB and the NFL) on a percentage basis. 

I think Mo Evans did a pretty good job of explaining their own position and what they view as the owners position. 

[KGs Knee]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

This is not an accurate characterization of the players stance at all.

This players stance is more, "We recognize we will need to make certain concessions to allow the league to become more profitable, however, the owners demands go far beyond that, and therefore are unacceptable".


As shown in the chart Roy references, the owners want to completely decouple player salaries from revenue, as well as any future revenue growth. 

There is also a very good chart provided by Tom Ziller of SBNation


I have a very hard time seeing how the owners can honestly think their demands are fair at all.  They don't just want to reach a deal that allows both sides to share in the financial success of the league, they want to break the union and then force a terrible deal down their thoats.


I will give Stern credit on one fron though.  He has done a really marvelous PR job to this point, and has seemingly been able to brainwash a good portion of the media and fans to somehow find the owners to be in the right.

[Chris]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

come on Chris, the players have offered over 600 million in salary reductions over the next 6 years or over 100 million dollars a year.  That isn't any small chunk of change and would essentially line basketball salaries with that of the NHL (both well below MLB and the NFL) on a percentage basis. 

I think Mo Evans did a pretty good job of explaining their own position and what they view as the owners position. 

Well, that all depends if you believe the league is losing money.  As I personally believe the evidence strongly points to them losing a great deal of money, I stand by my point.  The players are willing to give up money to get the league close to break even, but they will not give up money to make the league profitable.  They believe that needs to be made up from the owners side, and can be done other ways than just cutting players salaries. 

[Chris]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

This is not an accurate characterization of the players stance at all.

This players stance is more, "We recognize we will need to make certain concessions to allow the league to become more profitable, however, the owners demands go far beyond that, and therefore are unacceptable".


As shown in the chart Roy references, the owners want to completely decouple player salaries from revenue, as well as any future revenue growth.  

There is also a very good chart provided by Tom Ziller of SBNation


I have a very hard time seeing how the owners can honestly think their demands are fair at all.  They don't just want to reach a deal that allows both sides to share in the financial success of the league, they want to break the union and then force a terrible deal down their thoats.


I will give Stern credit on one fron though.  He has done a really marvelous PR job to this point, and has seemingly been able to brainwash a good portion of the media and fans to somehow find the owners to be in the right.

Can you link to the article that chart is from?  I am not sure I get it, and want to see the context.

Edit: also, I will say (and have said) I don't think the owners offer is "fair".  It is over the top, just like the players is.  Both sides are starting from an extreme, because they know at some point they need to meet in the middle. 

[Fafnir]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

come on Chris, the players have offered over 600 million in salary reductions over the next 6 years or over 100 million dollars a year.  That isn't any small chunk of change and would essentially line basketball salaries with that of the NHL (both well below MLB and the NFL) on a percentage basis.  

I think Mo Evans did a pretty good job of explaining their own position and what they view as the owners position.  

Well, that all depends if you believe the league is losing money.  As I personally believe the evidence strongly points to them losing a great deal of money, I stand by my point.  The players are willing to give up money to get the league close to break even, but they will not give up money to make the league profitable.  They believe that needs to be made up from the owners side, and can be done other ways than just cutting players salaries.  

The question I have is why have expenses skyrocketed so much for NBA teams. I have yet to see an explanation for that.

Their revenues (and therefore players salaries) have steadily grown, but their non player expenses have gone far higher to the point where the league as a whole is losing money.

[StartOrien]

Just finished the Malcom Gladwell article. That was pret-ty terrible.

[KGs Knee]

I'm just finally starting to dive into all of this - so forgive my ignorance:

But what exactly is the players point? The owners have presented their side of the story, I'm not sure if I understand the players' side.

They basically believe the system is working, and they don't want anything to change.  While they are willing to make some small concessions to help the league stop from losing money, they don't think it is their place to give up salary, in order to make the business profitable for the owners.

At least this is the stance of union as a whole.  I get the impression that many of the individual players who are not in all the meetings have a very different and more militant view, based more on half truths and propaganda.

This is not an accurate characterization of the players stance at all.

This players stance is more, "We recognize we will need to make certain concessions to allow the league to become more profitable, however, the owners demands go far beyond that, and therefore are unacceptable".


As shown in the chart Roy references, the owners want to completely decouple player salaries from revenue, as well as any future revenue growth. 

There is also a very good chart provided by Tom Ziller of SBNation


I have a very hard time seeing how the owners can honestly think their demands are fair at all.  They don't just want to reach a deal that allows both sides to share in the financial success of the league, they want to break the union and then force a terrible deal down their thoats.


I will give Stern credit on one fron though.  He has done a really marvelous PR job to this point, and has seemingly been able to brainwash a good portion of the media and fans to somehow find the owners to be in the right.

Can you link to the article that chart is from?  I am not sure I get it, and want to see the context.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/8/31/2395348/nba-lockout-2011-david-stern-billy-hunter-reset-adjustment
The link is also on the home page under SBNation articles

I think the basic point is the owners want to offer the players a set dollar amount that has no bearing on revenue, which is expected to rise exponentiall in future years, especially with new TV deals due to be signed in the coming years.  In other words, the opwners are trying to shut the players out from sharing in any future growth of the league.