who will cave first? owners or players

[Eja117]

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.

[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.

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.

I don't think the players are building any leverage by signing contracts for less than they would make in the NBA, and including NBA outs in their contracts.  

It might keep the players from going broke a little quicker, but I don't think that puts much pressure on the owners, since they know they are getting the players back whenever they come to an agreement.

I think the one thing that could shake things up for the owners would be if a prominant player (it would have to be a free agent like say, Tyson Chandler)signed a contract overseas, that didn't include an NBA out clause.  That would be the first sign that the players are prepared to give things a shot without the NBA.

[Eja117]

Out of curiosity about 15 years from now when there's another lockout and the league again says it's in dire straights will it be ok for me to laugh at them?  I mean how many times are we going to listen to a multi-billion dollar international entity say that?

It's well known your average family can't afford to go to games so if they're losing money then I guess they should just shut their doors or something and let the other pro sports take over.

[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.

[Eja117]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

that is where the long  term negative detriment comes into play, which is why I think the owners eventually give in more then the players.  If the league misses a full year, I think the loss of revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, etc., as well as the potential detriment of tv ratings taking a dive, costs the owners much more going forward.

[Eja117]

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."

[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.

that is where the long  term negative detriment comes into play, which is why I think the owners eventually give in more then the players.  If the league misses a full year, I think the loss of revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, etc., as well as the potential detriment of tv ratings taking a dive, costs the owners much more going forward.

Not if they get the system they want.  Since the owners aren't making money anyways, they would just calculate those lost revenues into the new deal.  The owners are accounting for this scenario, which is why their offers will continue to get worse and worse for the players as each game is missed.

My guess is that if a season is missed, any chance of the players of getting a percentage of total revenue will be off the table, and instead they will be discussing the split of net revenue.  

[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. 

[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.

Josh Childress made something in the equivalent range of 10 million dollars a year on the contract he signed in Europe as a lot of the European numbers being thrown around are in Eurors and are NET to the player.  Reggie Williams more then doubled his salary in his recent contract he signed in Spain.

[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.

[indeedproceed]

Sad Truth: The Players are screwed.

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

Right. They're going to lose this, but nobody really loses too much if they're getting paid millions of dollars to play basketball. But, the owners are going to bend them over deliverance-style.

[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.

Josh Childress made something in the equivalent range of 10 million dollars a year on the contract he signed in Europe as a lot of the European numbers being thrown around are in Eurors and are NET to the player.  Reggie Williams more then doubled his salary in his recent contract he signed in Spain.

What does that do for the 400 players?  There always has been, and there always will be room for a few well paid Americans in Europe.  There has yet to be any indication that they have room to pay more than a handful of players anything close to what they would make over here (well, other than guys who are at the bottom of the payscale anyways).

[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.