who will cave first? owners or players

[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. 

[KGs Knee]

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.  

"Only" 42%?  42% should be plenty enough for the owners to pay operating expenses.  If it isn't, then the owners need to find a way to lower those operating expenses or increase their revenues.  The players deserve just about every penny they currently get as a whole (obviously certain players don't, but others are underpaid, so it balances out).

[Donoghus]

Players. 

[celts55]

definitely the players.  the owners have all the leverage and all the money.

I most closely agree with this.

In the mean time I think you have to work pretty hard to make the NBA lose money, so I don't have too much sympathy for the owners here.

I agree that it will be the players and to tell you the truth, I don't have much sympathy for either side.
perhaps it's a simplistic view, but if say a guy like Odem had to that 2.6 million a year, i don't care. That's a lot of money. It's more than most of us will make in a lifetime. In this economy there are plenty of people living pay check to pay check. NO, i don't feel bad for they players.

As for the owners, well who started paying these players these kind of contracts anyway? I love the Celtics as much as the next guy, but there is no way in the world do I think guys like KG, Pierce, Ray should be making 20 million a year. I hear people talking about what a great deal they made ONLY paying Rondo 11 mill a year. Where is the sanity? Really think about how much 11 million is. It's all crazy and needs to be fixed and if they can't find a way to do it and all make a living, than I guess I won't be watching pro ball this year.

So no, nt me. I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for either side. A bunch of gready pigs if you ask me.

[Moranis]

but if only 7 or 8 owners are making money, then 22 or 23 owners would have no losses to recoup.  The owners can't make that claim nor negotiate like it or it will prove the players correct.

I am not sure if I am following.  If only 7 or 8 teams are making money, then all those other teams are ONLY losing money.  The whole purpose of this lockout is to make it so those teams are making money going forward.  So, if the lockout causes them to lose even more revenue, then that means that they will have even less money to pay the players, while still making money.

Or let me explain it this way. 

Lets say the revenue next year would be $3 billion if no games are missed, and the owners right now would offer the players $1.5 million of that revenue. 

With each month of games missed, about $375 million of revenue will be lost.  So, lets say they lose 3 months of games.  That would leave the revenue for the year at $1.875 billion. 

However, the owners are going to look at that and instead of saying the players half is $937.5 million, they are going to point out that while no revenue has been coming in over the last 3 months, they have still been building expenses.  They have still been paying rent, paying other employees, still marketing the league, so people will come back, etc. 

So, they are going to run those numbers, and tell the players that they need to cover the other expenses before giving them half of that revenue. 

The 50/50 split would be based on a full season of revenue, however, with every month missed, more and more of that money will have to go to the expenses.

You are assuming no revenue is coming in, which just isn't accurate.  Each team will still get the 31 million or so from the television contracts even if there is no basketball.  That doesn't account for the NBA related basketball video games, jersey and other merchandise sales, etc.  That should more then cover the expenses of virtually every team during the lockout.

[mgent]

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. 

All the more reason they should be cutting their spending.  A lot of that money beyond the salaries goes to benefits for the players.  Let the players keep their money, take away some of the unnecessarily luxuries, and if the players want they've got more than enough money to pay for those things themselves.

Were you the one that brought up the example that in the future, owners are going to be losing even more money as technology encourages fans to watch from home rather than going to the arenas and spending money?  Isn't that all the more reason spend less money on arenas and the like?

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.

The sooner the owners get their offer back down under 50%, the closer we'll be to ending the lockout.  They're not going to be able to get that and a hard cap.

[Chris]

but if only 7 or 8 owners are making money, then 22 or 23 owners would have no losses to recoup.  The owners can't make that claim nor negotiate like it or it will prove the players correct.

I am not sure if I am following.  If only 7 or 8 teams are making money, then all those other teams are ONLY losing money.  The whole purpose of this lockout is to make it so those teams are making money going forward.  So, if the lockout causes them to lose even more revenue, then that means that they will have even less money to pay the players, while still making money.

Or let me explain it this way. 

Lets say the revenue next year would be $3 billion if no games are missed, and the owners right now would offer the players $1.5 million of that revenue. 

With each month of games missed, about $375 million of revenue will be lost.  So, lets say they lose 3 months of games.  That would leave the revenue for the year at $1.875 billion. 

However, the owners are going to look at that and instead of saying the players half is $937.5 million, they are going to point out that while no revenue has been coming in over the last 3 months, they have still been building expenses.  They have still been paying rent, paying other employees, still marketing the league, so people will come back, etc. 

So, they are going to run those numbers, and tell the players that they need to cover the other expenses before giving them half of that revenue. 

The 50/50 split would be based on a full season of revenue, however, with every month missed, more and more of that money will have to go to the expenses.

You are assuming no revenue is coming in, which just isn't accurate.  Each team will still get the 31 million or so from the television contracts even if there is no basketball.  That doesn't account for the NBA related basketball video games, jersey and other merchandise sales, etc.  That should more then cover the expenses of virtually every team during the lockout.

If that is correct (I am not sure it is, but I'll go with it), wouldn't that give the owners even more reason to hold tight then?  If they are really not losing any money for missed games, then they have little to no motivation to give in until the system is exactly how they want it.

[Chris]

The sooner the owners get their offer back down under 50%, the closer we'll be to ending the lockout.  They're not going to be able to get that and a hard cap.

Now, this I agree with.  But lets not put it all on the owners.  The players are not coming down to 50% either.  

Personally, I think the numbers will end up right at about 50% per side, and that is where it should be.  But when we are talking about who needs to give first, I will go with the ones who currently are taking in 100% profit, than the side that needs to put their cut towards costs of running the league.  

edit: actually, I take that back, I don't want to put it on either side.  They both need to stop playing games and start meeting.

That is the most frustrating thing here.  They have turned it into a game of chicken, and neither side is showing any urgency to get to the table.  I think there can be a very reasonable solution for both sides, but they are all letting their egos get in the way.

[mgent]

but if only 7 or 8 owners are making money, then 22 or 23 owners would have no losses to recoup.  The owners can't make that claim nor negotiate like it or it will prove the players correct.

I am not sure if I am following.  If only 7 or 8 teams are making money, then all those other teams are ONLY losing money.  The whole purpose of this lockout is to make it so those teams are making money going forward.  So, if the lockout causes them to lose even more revenue, then that means that they will have even less money to pay the players, while still making money.

Or let me explain it this way.  

Lets say the revenue next year would be $3 billion if no games are missed, and the owners right now would offer the players $1.5 million of that revenue.  

With each month of games missed, about $375 million of revenue will be lost.  So, lets say they lose 3 months of games.  That would leave the revenue for the year at $1.875 billion.  

However, the owners are going to look at that and instead of saying the players half is $937.5 million, they are going to point out that while no revenue has been coming in over the last 3 months, they have still been building expenses.  They have still been paying rent, paying other employees, still marketing the league, so people will come back, etc.  

So, they are going to run those numbers, and tell the players that they need to cover the other expenses before giving them half of that revenue.  

The 50/50 split would be based on a full season of revenue, however, with every month missed, more and more of that money will have to go to the expenses.

You are assuming no revenue is coming in, which just isn't accurate.  Each team will still get the 31 million or so from the television contracts even if there is no basketball.  That doesn't account for the NBA related basketball video games, jersey and other merchandise sales, etc.  That should more then cover the expenses of virtually every team during the lockout.

If that is correct (I am not sure it is, but I'll go with it), wouldn't that give the owners even more reason to hold tight then?  If they are really not losing any money for missed games, then they have little to no motivation to give in until the system is exactly how they want it.

Exactly, I think that's what he was arguing.  I too read something about owners making more money if they didn't have to pay for the season.  It's just one of the reasons why owners have most of the power.

I also assume that's why the players don't want to change their offer.  As soon as they come down the owners are going to say "Okay, either you agree to give us the amount of money we want, or we'll meet you halfway (around 48%) and then we're going to restructure the league exactly how we want it (hard cap, 45mil per team, etc.)"

[Chris]

I also assume that's why the players don't want to change their offer.  As soon as they come down the owners are going to say "Okay, either you agree to give us the amount of money we want, or we'll meet you halfway (around 48%) and then we're going to restructure the league exactly how we want it (hard cap, 45mil per team, etc.)"

But in theory the owners are going to say that to the players no matter what (although I personally think they are going to give much more than that).  So, the players are just delaying the inevitable, and costing themselves money in the process.

[indeedproceed]

Sad Truth: The Players are screwed.

[mgent]

I also assume that's why the players don't want to change their offer.  As soon as they come down the owners are going to say "Okay, either you agree to give us the amount of money we want, or we'll meet you halfway (around 48%) and then we're going to restructure the league exactly how we want it (hard cap, 45mil per team, etc.)"

But in theory the owners are going to say that to the players no matter what (although I personally think they are going to give much more than that).  So, the players are just delaying the inevitable, and costing themselves money in the process.

I think a good deal depends on how many players sign contracts overseas.  They're waiting to see how much power/leverage they can muster before they start negotiating with the owners who already have most of the power (building ammunition).

Owners might not mind losing 1 season, but losing the players is the last thing they want (they're the potential money-makers for them).  If the players stick to their guns and are willing to give up multiple seasons, or look into a different league, I think the owners can also be in a pickle.  It all comes down to whether the players are more willing to sacrifice their money, or the game they love on the biggest stage.

The players actually have a tiny bit of power, it just doesn't seem like it because everyone assumes they'll give up a little bit of their millions before they play anywhere other than the NBA.

[indeedproceed]

I also assume that's why the players don't want to change their offer.  As soon as they come down the owners are going to say "Okay, either you agree to give us the amount of money we want, or we'll meet you halfway (around 48%) and then we're going to restructure the league exactly how we want it (hard cap, 45mil per team, etc.)"

But in theory the owners are going to say that to the players no matter what (although I personally think they are going to give much more than that).  So, the players are just delaying the inevitable, and costing themselves money in the process.

I think a good deal depends on how many players sign contracts overseas.  They're waiting to see how much power/leverage they can muster before they start negotiating with the owners who already have most of the power (building ammunition).

Owners might not mind losing 1 season, but losing the players is the last thing they want (they're the potential money-makers for them).  If the players stick to their guns and are willing to give up multiple seasons, or look into a different league, I think the owners can also be in a pickle.  It all comes down to whether the players are more willing to sacrifice their money, or the game they love on the biggest stage.

The players actually have a tiny bit of power, it just doesn't seem like it because everyone assumes they'll give up a little bit of their millions before they play anywhere other than the NBA.

Well the other thing here is that nobody has really lost any real money yet, aside from the rookies selected in the first round.

You'll know just how far the players will go once the games checks they've been counting on stop rolling in.

[mgent]

I also assume that's why the players don't want to change their offer.  As soon as they come down the owners are going to say "Okay, either you agree to give us the amount of money we want, or we'll meet you halfway (around 48%) and then we're going to restructure the league exactly how we want it (hard cap, 45mil per team, etc.)"

But in theory the owners are going to say that to the players no matter what (although I personally think they are going to give much more than that).  So, the players are just delaying the inevitable, and costing themselves money in the process.

I think a good deal depends on how many players sign contracts overseas.  They're waiting to see how much power/leverage they can muster before they start negotiating with the owners who already have most of the power (building ammunition).

Owners might not mind losing 1 season, but losing the players is the last thing they want (they're the potential money-makers for them).  If the players stick to their guns and are willing to give up multiple seasons, or look into a different league, I think the owners can also be in a pickle.  It all comes down to whether the players are more willing to sacrifice their money, or the game they love on the biggest stage.

The players actually have a tiny bit of power, it just doesn't seem like it because everyone assumes they'll give up a little bit of their millions before they play anywhere other than the NBA.

Well the other thing here is that nobody has really lost any real money yet, aside from the rookies selected in the first round.

You'll know just how far the players will go once the games checks they've been counting on stop rolling in.

Which is why if they're smart, they're making backup plans now, rather than when that happens.

[BballTim]

Sad Truth: The Players are screwed.

  Well, as screwed as you can be considering the amount of money they get paid for playing basketball.