who will cave first? owners or players

[KGs Knee]

To me though, all you have to do is look at the proposals the owners have offered.  So far, every offer they have made has gone way beyond just getting to a point that is fair for both sides.  Now, none of the players offers have really gone as far as to achieve fairness for both sides, but, their proposals are far closer to the supposed "middle ground".

Personally, I think this is a bit of an illusion, based on the fact that the players offers have not been worse than the current system.  So, the fact that they are actually giving ground from the current system looks like they are actually giving things up, while the owners are just taking things away.

However, I think if you look at it where the middle ground is a new system that guarantees the owners a profit, providing the league continues to bring in revenue at a similar level, while also maintains a salary structure for the players that keeps them as the highest paid professional sports league on average (by a pretty large margin), then I think you have both sides pretty much equally distant from that line.

Once they start working from that middleground, then I think they can get something done that is fair for both sides, and will be best for the sustainability and growth of the league going forward.

The problem right now is that the owners are working from that baseline (and of course lowballing, as any negotiator does at the beginning of negotiations), but the players are still using the old system as the baseline.  So, even if they sit down at the table, and the owners start making conscessions, the players can't make the mental leap to realize that they actually are concessions, since, based on the old system (which is irrelevant in this negotiation), it is not actually a concession.  

Furthermore, I think the agents and lawyers for the players know exactly what is going on.  They have seen the numbers, but they also know that their only chance to get the owners above that middle line, is to dig in, and refuse to work from that middle line.  So, they don't really explain this to the players, they just keep feeding the fire, and letting them dig in, knowing as agents (who have a lot longer shelf-life than players), they will benefit a lot more from even the slightest budge by the owners, than the players would.

I like this explanation, it definitely is a respectable opinion to have on the situation. Personally, I disagree that a new system is nessecary for the owners to be profitable though.

I think that a reduction in BRI split (somewhere around 52-53% for players), shorter contract gaurantees (3yrs for new teams, 5yrs for same team), concessions on allowing owners to decuct certain expenses from total revenue, along with more comprhensive revenue sharing would be sufficient.  Fixes to the current soft cap would also be needed, but a hard cap is not, in my opinion.

Like I've previuosly stated, I think the owners goal is to go for more than just being profitable, but to take away as much as possible from the players.  Thus why they want a completely new system.

[Moranis]

I think the cost of doing business has just skyrocketed.  Simple things like fuel for the jets have skyrocketed.  They have to pay more for things like security as well, and upgrading facilities. Teams also are having to invest a lot more to get people to games, particularly in the cities that aren't drawing well.

Anyone who went to C's games in 2006 knows what I mean.  Things like the in-game entertainment (Giant HD scoreboards), concerts after the games, and all the other ways they are using to entice fans to come to the games instead of just watching them on their HD TVs.  

And then there are the investments on the marketing end, etc.

The costs have certainly skyrocketed. I'm skeptical if its just the price of things however, I'm taking the view of its poor management is more likely.

I'd be inclined t agree its more to do with bad management as well.

However, even it it was just higher costs of getting people in the arenas, the new TV deals soon to be signed should be able to offset the costs.  Basically, if more people are going to watch games on tv, than the networks are going to have to pay more to braodcast the games.


Obviously that doesn't help in the short term, but it would going forwrd, and the players point of contention is they deserve a piece of that (which the owners are trying to prevent from happening).

And like I said before, I don't think the owners are in fact trying to prevent that from happening.

The owners ARE trying to change the definition of the revenue, by taking certain expenses out before dividing it.  But that is very different from completely unpairing the revenue from the players salaries.

I'm not sure why you would think that isn't what the owners are trying to do, when it seems fairly obvious (to me at least) that is exactly what they want.

Are you saying you believe Stern?

I am saying I have seen no evidence this is the case.  The only place I have seen it is in that article, yet in that article, the author even said that their would still be a connection with the revenues and salaries, but since he didn't know the details, he chose not to address it (yet he addressed everything else, that supported his point, without all the details).

As for Stern, he is a slippery lawyer.  He is a master politician, and PR guy, and has mastered doublespeak.  You cannot take anything he says at face value.  But he is also not a liar (because he knows a direct lie will kill his point). 

To be more exact, I do believe Stern when he says that the losses are irrelevant, and that the owners goal is to make the league profitable for them.  I also believe him when he says that the owners are trying to remove some of the risk from themselves, by changing the formula for the revenue share with players, by taking certain costs out before the split is made (why would he lie about that?).

Well, that is a fair take on the situation then.  This isn't the first time I've seen that the owners proposal seeks to decouple salary from revenue though (I just can't remember the exact articles).

To me though, all you have to do is look at the proposals the owners have offered.  So far, every offer they have made has gone way beyond just getting to a point that is fair for both sides.  Now, none of the players offers have really gone as far as to achieve fairness for both sides, but, their proposals are far closer to the supposed "middle ground".


To listen to the players perspective, they seem genuinely willing to meet half way, while the owners have made it a point to be very vague on specifics, other than to state they're losing money and want major give backs from the players.  The impression I'm left with is that the owners want more than just fairness for both sides, but instead, would love to essentially screw the players if they can get away with it.

This is why I believe ultimately the owners will cave first.  They just aren't in a defensible position and the longer this goes the more apparent that will become.  I fully believe the eventual deal will be much closer to the players current offer then the owners current offer.

[cman88]

eh, i think that the players will have to cave. The owners are alot richer and do have other sources of income. If you are an owner and your team is losing money. whats the point of caving to the players and going back to a system that you lost money in before?

thats the problem with the Players argument is that they want the SAME system because it put all the balls in their court as far as pay goes...but they need to realise that the system is going to have to change. and eventually I think they will have to move to that middle ground.

[LB3533]

eh, i think that the players will have to cave. The owners are alot richer and do have other sources of income. If you are an owner and your team is losing money. whats the point of caving to the players and going back to a system that you lost money in before?

thats the problem with the Players argument is that they want the SAME system because it put all the balls in their court as far as pay goes...but they need to realise that the system is going to have to change. and eventually I think they will have to move to that middle ground.

Won't owners also lose money if they don't have games at all?

And they will still be paying the rest of all the old player contracts without receiving gate income.

Teams will have to layoff everyone in the front office if they miss season after season.

[cman88]

I think they look at it as an investment for the future. maybe theyll lose money this season. but theyll make money in ensuing seasons.

[action781]

To me though, all you have to do is look at the proposals the owners have offered.  So far, every offer they have made has gone way beyond just getting to a point that is fair for both sides.  Now, none of the players offers have really gone as far as to achieve fairness for both sides, but, their proposals are far closer to the supposed "middle ground".

Personally, I think this is a bit of an illusion, based on the fact that the players offers have not been worse than the current system.  So, the fact that they are actually giving ground from the current system looks like they are actually giving things up, while the owners are just taking things away.

However, I think if you look at it where the middle ground is a new system that guarantees the owners a profit, providing the league continues to bring in revenue at a similar level, while also maintains a salary structure for the players that keeps them as the highest paid professional sports league on average (by a pretty large margin), then I think you have both sides pretty much equally distant from that line.

Once they start working from that middleground, then I think they can get something done that is fair for both sides, and will be best for the sustainability and growth of the league going forward.

The problem right now is that the owners are working from that baseline (and of course lowballing, as any negotiator does at the beginning of negotiations), but the players are still using the old system as the baseline.  So, even if they sit down at the table, and the owners start making conscessions, the players can't make the mental leap to realize that they actually are concessions, since, based on the old system (which is irrelevant in this negotiation), it is not actually a concession.  

Furthermore, I think the agents and lawyers for the players know exactly what is going on.  They have seen the numbers, but they also know that their only chance to get the owners above that middle line, is to dig in, and refuse to work from that middle line.  So, they don't really explain this to the players, they just keep feeding the fire, and letting them dig in, knowing as agents (who have a lot longer shelf-life than players), they will benefit a lot more from even the slightest budge by the owners, than the players would.

I kind of get the point your trying to say and agree to a degree, but I think you're exaggerating where this middle ground is in favor of the owners.  It sounds like you're saying that the owners' initial proposal, which was something ridiculous along the lines of (I know these figures aren't correct, but are certainly ballpark) $45 million hard cap, a 55-45% BRI split in favor of owners, and non-guaranteed contracts is more towards a truly fair middle grounds than the players initial proposal?  That offer from the owners, IMO, is at least twice as far from a true middle ground than the old CBA.  And the players' initial proposal actually made some concessions from of the old CBA.

I know this terminology can be thrown around loosely and often, but I seriously think the players' should have been insulted by that initial proposal.  Because of that, it would be hard for me to take the owners serious and it would make me reluctant to make concessions toward what might be a truly fair middle ground because of a lack of faith that the owners would return that kind of genuinity.

I do think something will get done though.  I feel like both sides genuinely want a season with no lost games.  I think these current meetings are going to do exactly what you say and really try to work from that true middle ground and maybe give/receive some items on both sides based on how strongly each side values each item.

[Moranis]

eh, i think that the players will have to cave. The owners are alot richer and do have other sources of income. If you are an owner and your team is losing money. whats the point of caving to the players and going back to a system that you lost money in before?

thats the problem with the Players argument is that they want the SAME system because it put all the balls in their court as far as pay goes...but they need to realise that the system is going to have to change. and eventually I think they will have to move to that middle ground.

They aren't going back to a system that they lost money on.  The players have already offered a 3% drop in the ratio from 57% to 54%.  That is over 100 million dollars.  It may not be enough, but the players seemingly are willing to cut more.  The owners proposal was like 40% of the current revenue structure and wasn't tied to future revenue growth. 

Long term the owners will actually lose signficantly more money then the players.  It behooves the owners to get something done, especially when 3 of your 4 biggest franchises are making significant amounts of money.  How long do you think the Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks really want to go without all that money coming in?

[Chris]

I like this explanation, it definitely is a respectable opinion to have on the situation. Personally, I disagree that a new system is nessecary for the owners to be profitable though.

I think that a reduction in BRI split (somewhere around 52-53% for players), shorter contract gaurantees (3yrs for new teams, 5yrs for same team), concessions on allowing owners to decuct certain expenses from total revenue, along with more comprhensive revenue sharing would be sufficient.  Fixes to the current soft cap would also be needed, but a hard cap is not, in my opinion.

Like I've previuosly stated, I think the owners goal is to go for more than just being profitable, but to take away as much as possible from the players.  Thus why they want a completely new system.

I don't disagree with this, although, I would reword (spin) that last paragraph.  When you say that the owners goal is to "take away as much as possible from the players," it infers malice towards the players.  I don't think there is any malice at all from the owners towards the players (at least in the actual negotiations). 

That's why I would change it to that the owners are not just trying to make the league profitable, they are trying to negotiate a system that makes the league as profitable AS POSSIBLE for them.  They are not driven to take things away from the players, they are (like every businessman), trying to maximize their own profit.

That is why they have started so low in the negotiations.  They need to start that low, in hoping that the players will cave, and give them more than they need (again, how every negotiation works), but in reality, they will not miss games, if they are able to get to that middle ground, where they are just making a reasonable profit.

I think the players, for their part need to realize that all the owners are doing here is negotiating, and, instead of getting offended that the owners are starting off with lowball offers (again, standard business practice), they should be sitting down with them, and trying to make progress through meetings.

Now, maybe it is just the optimist in me, but I take the response to yesterdays meeting as reason to believe the players have done just that.  In finally getting across the table from each other, and with both sides ready to actually try to work something out, as the loss of games looms, they have decided to stop the feigned indignance over a pretty standard negotiation tactics, and start to actually try to find a middle ground, rather than just playing chicken.

Now, this could still last a lot longer, because there are probably legitimate disagreements over what the middle ground is...but if they have really reached the point where they can discuss this stuff without being offended by each other, then there should be reason to be optimistic.

[Moranis]

I like this explanation, it definitely is a respectable opinion to have on the situation. Personally, I disagree that a new system is nessecary for the owners to be profitable though.

I think that a reduction in BRI split (somewhere around 52-53% for players), shorter contract gaurantees (3yrs for new teams, 5yrs for same team), concessions on allowing owners to decuct certain expenses from total revenue, along with more comprhensive revenue sharing would be sufficient.  Fixes to the current soft cap would also be needed, but a hard cap is not, in my opinion.

Like I've previuosly stated, I think the owners goal is to go for more than just being profitable, but to take away as much as possible from the players.  Thus why they want a completely new system.

I don't disagree with this, although, I would reword (spin) that last paragraph.  When you say that the owners goal is to "take away as much as possible from the players," it infers malice towards the players.  I don't think there is any malice at all from the owners towards the players (at least in the actual negotiations). 

That's why I would change it to that the owners are not just trying to make the league profitable, they are trying to negotiate a system that makes the league as profitable AS POSSIBLE for them.  They are not driven to take things away from the players, they are (like every businessman), trying to maximize their own profit.

That is why they have started so low in the negotiations.  They need to start that low, in hoping that the players will cave, and give them more than they need (again, how every negotiation works), but in reality, they will not miss games, if they are able to get to that middle ground, where they are just making a reasonable profit.

I think the players, for their part need to realize that all the owners are doing here is negotiating, and, instead of getting offended that the owners are starting off with lowball offers (again, standard business practice), they should be sitting down with them, and trying to make progress through meetings.

Now, maybe it is just the optimist in me, but I take the response to yesterdays meeting as reason to believe the players have done just that.  In finally getting across the table from each other, and with both sides ready to actually try to work something out, as the loss of games looms, they have decided to stop the feigned indignance over a pretty standard negotiation tactics, and start to actually try to find a middle ground, rather than just playing chicken.

Now, this could still last a lot longer, because there are probably legitimate disagreements over what the middle ground is...but if they have really reached the point where they can discuss this stuff without being offended by each other, then there should be reason to be optimistic.

there is a difference between a lowball starting point and crossing a line to the point of bargaining in bad faith.  I think the owners have crossed that line and I believe the NRLB will find that to be the case and rule in favor of the players and against the owners. 

[KGs Knee]

I like this explanation, it definitely is a respectable opinion to have on the situation. Personally, I disagree that a new system is nessecary for the owners to be profitable though.

I think that a reduction in BRI split (somewhere around 52-53% for players), shorter contract gaurantees (3yrs for new teams, 5yrs for same team), concessions on allowing owners to decuct certain expenses from total revenue, along with more comprhensive revenue sharing would be sufficient.  Fixes to the current soft cap would also be needed, but a hard cap is not, in my opinion.

Like I've previuosly stated, I think the owners goal is to go for more than just being profitable, but to take away as much as possible from the players.  Thus why they want a completely new system.

I don't disagree with this, although, I would reword (spin) that last paragraph.  When you say that the owners goal is to "take away as much as possible from the players," it infers malice towards the players.  I don't think there is any malice at all from the owners towards the players (at least in the actual negotiations). 

That's why I would change it to that the owners are not just trying to make the league profitable, they are trying to negotiate a system that makes the league as profitable AS POSSIBLE for them.  They are not driven to take things away from the players, they are (like every businessman), trying to maximize their own profit.

That is why they have started so low in the negotiations.  They need to start that low, in hoping that the players will cave, and give them more than they need (again, how every negotiation works), but in reality, they will not miss games, if they are able to get to that middle ground, where they are just making a reasonable profit.

I think the players, for their part need to realize that all the owners are doing here is negotiating, and, instead of getting offended that the owners are starting off with lowball offers (again, standard business practice), they should be sitting down with them, and trying to make progress through meetings.

Now, maybe it is just the optimist in me, but I take the response to yesterdays meeting as reason to believe the players have done just that.  In finally getting across the table from each other, and with both sides ready to actually try to work something out, as the loss of games looms, they have decided to stop the feigned indignance over a pretty standard negotiation tactics, and start to actually try to find a middle ground, rather than just playing chicken.

Now, this could still last a lot longer, because there are probably legitimate disagreements over what the middle ground is...but if they have really reached the point where they can discuss this stuff without being offended by each other, then there should be reason to be optimistic.

there is a difference between a lowball starting point and crossing a line to the point of bargaining in bad faith.  I think the owners have crossed that line and I believe the NRLB will find that to be the case and rule in favor of the players and against the owners. 

I have my doubts the NLRB will rule on either of the lawsuits filed, players' or owners'.  Even if they do rule, the most likely outcome will be a dismissal of both suits.  It is easy for us to speculate on which side is acting in bad faith, but an entirely different matter to actually prove it.

Like Chris said above, hopefully yesterday's meeting will beging to get both sides to actually negotiate in earnest.  They really do need to stop the PR war and put-up or shut-up.  The comments coming from both sides seem to indicate they both might finally realize this, although I still have my doubts.

[thirstyboots18]

This is not about "caving", this is about acting like responsible adults instead of pointing fingers like spoiled millionaires and billionaires.  This may not even be about what is
the best deal   for either the players or the owners.  This may  be about what is the best for the future of professional basketball.

[LB3533]

I think they look at it as an investment for the future. maybe theyll lose money this season. but theyll make money in ensuing seasons.

How will owners recoup their lost income when the season(s) is canceled?

[Bahku]

This is not about "caving", this is about acting like responsible adults instead of pointing fingers like spoiled millionaires and billionaires.  This may not even be about what is
the best deal   for either the players or the owners.  This may  be about what is the best for the future of professional basketball.

TP. It all comes down to priorities, and it will be interesting to see just how much consideration the fans get in all of this, and ultimately the future of the NBA ... they are not independent of each other.

[Roy H.]

I think they look at it as an investment for the future. maybe theyll lose money this season. but theyll make money in ensuing seasons.

How will owners recoup their lost income when the season(s) is canceled?

Since the majority of owners say they're losing money by playing the games (and thus, paying the players), most owners will be doing better by not playing.  From what I've read, they'll get their television money anyway, without having to pay a ton of costs and player expenses.

In other words, the lockout is potentially better for the owners than a season would be.

[LB3533]

I think they look at it as an investment for the future. maybe theyll lose money this season. but theyll make money in ensuing seasons.

How will owners recoup their lost income when the season(s) is canceled?

Since the majority of owners say they're losing money by playing the games (and thus, paying the players), most owners will be doing better by not playing.  From what I've read, they'll get their television money anyway, without having to pay a ton of costs and player expenses.

In other words, the lockout is potentially better for the owners than a season would be.

That may be all well and good, but what if there are missed seasons?

What if those stadiums are empty for seasons?

What if there are no games to broadcast for seasons?

If the players can still make some form of income overseas or whatever, how are the team owners going to generate income?

Replacement players?

NBDL Players jump directly to the NBA?

Bottom line, if those stadium seats are empty, the 30 franchises of the NBA will lose value. TV deals will run out. (And not all franchises have cushy TV deals).