Breaking news: Hunter says there will be disclaimer of interest

[nickagneta]

I don't understand why people get hung up on revenue sharing as it relates to BRI.  Yes, revenue sharing is a part of competitive balance.  However, it's not going to help the league's bottom line.  If the league is losing $300 million per season, no amount of revenue sharing is going to help that; at best, each team is losing $10 million per year.

People get hung up on the revenue sharing because they absolutely do not believe that the NBA as an entity lost $300 million last year. Clearly you do believe that because you are right, if they lost $300 million and the players gave them $300 million then all revenue sharing is going to do is ensure everyone breaks even.

And that's why I refuse to believe that the NBA is losing that much money. Because why on Earth would the MBAs who own these teams settle for just a $300 million give back simply to break even? The answer is easy. Because their $300 million loss is pure horse crap. Numbers made up by tax accountants and lawyers using depreciation of contracts, interest payments on initial leveraged loans to purchase the franchise, bloated office overhead expenses and so on.

But why revenue sharing is so important to those that don't believe the $300 million loss is because with the substantial give back of money by the players and revenue sharing by the owners, then all teams should be able to create a profit and so be competitive. If they are all competitive because they are all fiscally sound, then obviously most of the system changes that are limiting player movement and reducing the salaries of the NBA middle class aren't really necessary.

And that is the union's position. If they are giving back the money then the owners should revenue share to make the league as a whole fiscally stable and the system can remain the same and players can have the freedom to play where they want. But that's not what the owners want.

All the owners want the money. The large market owners with exceptional local broadcasting deals and expensive average seating and huge gates don't want to share their profits with small market owners that struggle to fill arenas, have low average ticket prices and poor local broadcasting deals. Also, owners that own exceptionally run teams, don't want to share their profits with teams that are run incompetently.

But the small market owners and owners of teams that are run incompetently want the money and the revenue sharing because they think that besides the profit they garner from increases franchise valuations, that they deserve to be guaranteed a working yearly profit as well.

And all the owners except the ones in desirable locations for free agents want system changes because when they get their hands on a once in a generation superstar, they want to do everything the can from him playing five years there and running to Phoenix or LA or NY or Chicago or Miami or Dallas, places that all players would love to play in.

There are definitely teams in the red. 17-23 teams total with a total NBA loss of $300 million. I'm not buying it.

Not when the owner of the Sixers sells 90% of his team during a lockout when his team is in an awful salary cap position, expecting little to no revenue this season, and one of the worst draws in the league over the last 5 years in attendance for a profit of $170 million over what he paid for the whole franchise just 15 years earlier.

Not when Paul Allen, one of the richest men in the world who once paid $50 million in luxury taxes to have a championship caliber team, is crying poor mouth and a leader amongst the owners looking for larger givebacks for the players.

Not when the owners claim to never have stipulated Draconian verbal B list items but claim in their written proposal that they will verbally make aware to the NBPA their revenue sharing plan. Verbal contracts I guess are only used when its in the best interest of the owners being able to hide unfavorable information or want to not go forth with something.

The owners have just demonstrated way too many head scratching, illogical in a business sense, moves for me to trust their $300 million figure. And so if I don't trust that then I do see revenue sharing as a major issue to resolve the problems some owners claim they have.

If Stern didn't put a gag order on the owners, I think we the fans would have had some very interesting Tweets and interviews and comments to read from the Busses, Cubans, Dolans, and Arisons of the NBA. Those type of owners can't be happy regarding revenue sharing and they probably think its ridiculous to have to share their profits with people like Sterling, Jordan, and the franchise being run by the NBA that resides in New Orleans. Its not their fault those franchise are so poorly run. Why should they have to pay to make them profitable or a nice destination for free agents to want to sign with?

But of course we will never hear any of that because of half million dollar fines that Stern will lay out to anyone who even thinks of saying something.

[Yogi]

   The NBA owners have always been full of it.  They brought in 1.8 Billion dollars in BRI last year.  This is after what the players earned.  They were making the claim that they lost 300 Million dollars last year?  That means the operating cost of running the NBA is 2.1 Billion Dollars a year.  If they really spent that much, they deserve to go bankrupt because that demonstrates a level of incompetence that goes beyond pitiful into the realm of punishable. 
   This is without including their non-basketball-related income.  They come up with this mythical 300 million number by including the interest they pay on loans they took to buy their franchises.  That means that just because they overpaid for their franchise and took out a loan that they couldn't afford, the players should pay off their debt for them?  That's utter nonsense.  You make a bad business decision, you deserve to pay for it.  Under their logic, they could sell their franchise for a profit to a different owner, and the new owner can make the same argument since they took out an even bigger loan they deserve even more BRI because somehow they are entitled to a profit.  Absolute nonsense. 

[guava_wrench]

I don't understand why people get hung up on revenue sharing as it relates to BRI.  Yes, revenue sharing is a part of competitive balance.  However, it's not going to help the league's bottom line.  If the league is losing $300 million per season, no amount of revenue sharing is going to help that; at best, each team is losing $10 million per year.

Does talking in terms of average make sense? If the Lakers are insanely profitable, they aren't losing $10 million per year.

The teams losing money would be losing way more than $10 million per year considering there are plenty of profitable teams.

I don't see how the problems of small market teams are the problems of the players. I'm not even sure why small markets should have the same expectations of success when they have far less support than the big market teams. If more fans support a team, than let it spend more on players. If the big market teams decide they want to share revenue, than more power to them.

[Moranis]

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

Don't you mean, you and 14 of your friends, who do all the legal work and bring in all of the money for the industry but collect just 50% of the revenue, while one other person gets the other 50% but pays all of the operating expenses of the entire business.

[fairweatherfan]

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

Don't you mean, you and 14 of your friends, who do all the legal work and bring in all of the money for the industry but collect just 50% of the revenue, while one other person gets the other 50% but pays all of the operating expenses of the entire business.

And the firm gets to deduct significant expenses before that 50-50 split, meaning it's actually more like 42%.

And if another firm that tries to pay top dollar for top attorneys wants to triple or quadruple his salary he's not allowed to work for them because "they spend too much, it's not fair to the other firms". 

And early in his career his firm can send him at will to a much smaller firm at a 90+% pay cut, while still retaining exclusive rights to his services.

And they reserve the right to track him down during vacations with family and friends to make him drop everything and take a drug test.

And if the partners spend too much on attorneys as a group (even if he's getting very little of it) he loses 10% of his salary and maybe some of his pension and future years' salaries too.  Yeah, sounds like a great deal. 

We'd all love an NBA salary, but almost nobody would want their model applied to our current jobs.

[Chris]

After seeing the cases filed by the players, I am 100% convinced that Stern wanted and planned for this to happen.  Stern is a very smart guy, and a trained lawyer, yet he went on record saying that his side was done negotiating.  He gave the players way too much ammunition to file these (even if there is nowhere near enough substance for the players to win). 

Now, the question of why Stern wanted this to happen is tougher to answer.  I could see it from both sides. 

On one hand, perhaps it was pushed by the owners side, who really wanted to crush the union, and they saw this as a necessary step in the process, for the players to realize that this will not work.

On the other hand, perhaps things are so bad between the owners that Stern believed the only way to get the hard-liners to give a little more was to threaten them with something like this.  He could have even conspired with Hunter/Fisher on this, to help make it happen.

Either way, it just doesn't add up.  Stern is too smart, and too skilled to not have known with nearly complete certainty that this was going to happen, when he made the statements he did over the last week. 

[fairweatherfan]

After seeing the cases filed by the players, I am 100% convinced that Stern wanted and planned for this to happen.  Stern is a very smart guy, and a trained lawyer, yet he went on record saying that his side was done negotiating.  He gave the players way too much ammunition to file these (even if there is nowhere near enough substance for the players to win). 

Now, the question of why Stern wanted this to happen is tougher to answer.  I could see it from both sides. 

On one hand, perhaps it was pushed by the owners side, who really wanted to crush the union, and they saw this as a necessary step in the process, for the players to realize that this will not work.

On the other hand, perhaps things are so bad between the owners that Stern believed the only way to get the hard-liners to give a little more was to threaten them with something like this.  He could have even conspired with Hunter/Fisher on this, to help make it happen.

Either way, it just doesn't add up.  Stern is too smart, and too skilled to not have known with nearly complete certainty that this was going to happen, when he made the statements he did over the last week. 

I am sure of one thing about Stern - while he's clearly on the owners' side he absolutely, desperately wants a season, as does everyone else in the league office.  Losing a season is a complete failure for him as a commissioner and a massive setback for the league and I'm sure he knows it. 

I don't know that he deliberately tried to guide the players this way, but if he did it's not to try and lose a season - he has very little vested interest in a lost season and a whole lot in preserving one.  If he was losing control of the hardline owners this may help, but it's a very risky move to make.

[Roy H.]

After seeing the cases filed by the players, I am 100% convinced that Stern wanted and planned for this to happen.  Stern is a very smart guy, and a trained lawyer, yet he went on record saying that his side was done negotiating.  He gave the players way too much ammunition to file these (even if there is nowhere near enough substance for the players to win). 

Now, the question of why Stern wanted this to happen is tougher to answer.  I could see it from both sides. 

On one hand, perhaps it was pushed by the owners side, who really wanted to crush the union, and they saw this as a necessary step in the process, for the players to realize that this will not work.

On the other hand, perhaps things are so bad between the owners that Stern believed the only way to get the hard-liners to give a little more was to threaten them with something like this.  He could have even conspired with Hunter/Fisher on this, to help make it happen.

Either way, it just doesn't add up.  Stern is too smart, and too skilled to not have known with nearly complete certainty that this was going to happen, when he made the statements he did over the last week. 

The other alternative is that Boies is correct, and Stern bluffed.  Did he really expect the players to risk the season (and $2 billion) over use of half of the MLE by a handful of teams?  Maybe he miscalculated, figuring that if the players would go to 99%, then they'd go to 100% without a problem.

I do agree, though:  the ultimatum language was strange for somebody who knew litigation was coming.  It will be interesting to hear how the league spins that in its filing.

[Chris]

After seeing the cases filed by the players, I am 100% convinced that Stern wanted and planned for this to happen.  Stern is a very smart guy, and a trained lawyer, yet he went on record saying that his side was done negotiating.  He gave the players way too much ammunition to file these (even if there is nowhere near enough substance for the players to win). 

Now, the question of why Stern wanted this to happen is tougher to answer.  I could see it from both sides. 

On one hand, perhaps it was pushed by the owners side, who really wanted to crush the union, and they saw this as a necessary step in the process, for the players to realize that this will not work.

On the other hand, perhaps things are so bad between the owners that Stern believed the only way to get the hard-liners to give a little more was to threaten them with something like this.  He could have even conspired with Hunter/Fisher on this, to help make it happen.

Either way, it just doesn't add up.  Stern is too smart, and too skilled to not have known with nearly complete certainty that this was going to happen, when he made the statements he did over the last week. 

I am sure of one thing about Stern - while he's clearly on the owners' side he absolutely, desperately wants a season, as does everyone else in the league office.  Losing a season is a complete failure for him as a commissioner and a massive setback for the league and I'm sure he knows it. 

I don't know that he deliberately tried to guide the players this way, but if he did it's not to try and lose a season - he has very little vested interest in a lost season and a whole lot in preserving one.  If he was losing control of the hardline owners this may help, but it's a very risky move to make.

Let's not forget, this is Stern's last CBA negotiation, and it will also be his legacy.  Every game lost is tarnishing his personal image, and I am sure that is in his mind, every time some owner says they are willing to lose the season. 

[Roy H.]

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

Don't you mean, you and 14 of your friends, who do all the legal work and bring in all of the money for the industry but collect just 50% of the revenue, while one other person gets the other 50% but pays all of the operating expenses of the entire business.

And the firm gets to deduct significant expenses before that 50-50 split, meaning it's actually more like 42%.

And if another firm that tries to pay top dollar for top attorneys wants to triple or quadruple his salary he's not allowed to work for them because "they spend too much, it's not fair to the other firms". 

And early in his career his firm can send him at will to a much smaller firm at a 90+% pay cut, while still retaining exclusive rights to his services.

And they reserve the right to track him down during vacations with family and friends to make him drop everything and take a drug test.

And if the partners spend too much on attorneys as a group (even if he's getting very little of it) he loses 10% of his salary and maybe some of his pension and future years' salaries too.  Yeah, sounds like a great deal. 

We'd all love an NBA salary, but almost nobody would want their model applied to our current jobs.

If the average salary for a lawyer in that law firm was $5 million, I'd take it.  It might not be as ideal as it was before, but it's still the best gig in town.

In terms of the issues brought up, the only one I have an issue with is the D-League stuff.  Having rookie deals be essentially non-guaranteed is a non-starter.  I don't like the idea of taking escrow shortfalls from retirement benefits; I'd just say adjust the escrow higher the next season, and recoup from that.  Year round drug testing?  I don't see the issue.  A mini-MLE for luxury tax teams?  I see that as a legit step toward competitive balance.

[Chris]

Its no secret that there will be winners and losers here, but from watching the negotiations, I can't help but feel like the owners are treating the players less like partners, and more like subordinates.

By giving the players a 50/50 split?  From which the players pay nothing other than taxes, and are allowed to get separate endorsement deals, while the owners pay 100% of the expenses?  That doesn't sound like too bad of a partnership to me.  In fact, I would absolutely love to find another attorney in town who would give me that deal.  I'll take 50% of the firm's revenue, while he gets the other 50% and pays all the overhead.  I'm in.

Don't you mean, you and 14 of your friends, who do all the legal work and bring in all of the money for the industry but collect just 50% of the revenue, while one other person gets the other 50% but pays all of the operating expenses of the entire business.

And the firm gets to deduct significant expenses before that 50-50 split, meaning it's actually more like 42%.

And if another firm that tries to pay top dollar for top attorneys wants to triple or quadruple his salary he's not allowed to work for them because "they spend too much, it's not fair to the other firms". 

And early in his career his firm can send him at will to a much smaller firm at a 90+% pay cut, while still retaining exclusive rights to his services.

And they reserve the right to track him down during vacations with family and friends to make him drop everything and take a drug test.

And if the partners spend too much on attorneys as a group (even if he's getting very little of it) he loses 10% of his salary and maybe some of his pension and future years' salaries too.  Yeah, sounds like a great deal. 

We'd all love an NBA salary, but almost nobody would want their model applied to our current jobs.

If the average salary for a lawyer in that law firm was $5 million, I'd take it.  It might not be as ideal as it was before, but it's still the best gig in town.

In terms of the issues brought up, the only one I have an issue with is the D-League stuff.  Having rookie deals be essentially non-guaranteed is a non-starter.  I don't like the idea of taking escrow shortfalls from retirement benefits; I'd just say adjust the escrow higher the next season, and recoup from that.  Year round drug testing?  I don't see the issue.  A mini-MLE for luxury tax teams?  I see that as a legit step toward competitive balance.

I still don't believe that the owners were really saying take it or leave it on the D-league stuff.  That sounds much more like an over the top demand that they would negotiate from.

I actually think it would be a great thing if they put in 2-way contracts for non-first round picks.