Wages of Wins - Do The Players - And Cities - Really Need the NBA Owners
by Jax on Jul 11, 2011 11:15 AM PDT
Email
Print
Actually an interesting article from Mr. Berri. He describes the lockout situation as one in which the owners are "extorting" the players. He also discusses an idea I raised in an earlier fanpost or fanshot - why can't the players just start their own league?
His idea is for cities to be the owners. Fascinating angle - government-run sports franchises.
The bottom line is that Berri recognizes the fact that the players have leverage here given the increasing popularity of professional basketball. In this situation, can the owners really force the players to pay for their management / ownership failures?
Here is the link:
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/do-the-players-and-cities-really-need-the-nba-owners/
131 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
LOL gov't run sports teams?
good luck getting americans to be on board. This is the United States, not China.
yea, I've been to a DMV
do not want
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
I'd imagine that they'd be a publicly traded companies
with the city governments that pay for new stadiums owing large shares
Clipper Nation would run the Clippers best than Donald Sterling
That to me is enough reason to say HELL YEAH to this idea
Donald heckled ME!!!
by DonaldSterlingSucks on Jul 11, 2011 3:04 PM PDT reply actions
Having the government involved is a dumb idea
But here are 54 players who have made more money than Jordan.
Starting at the barnstorming level for low overhead + no holds barred for sponsorships + putting the former player/owner’s name in the name of the team, e.g. Shaq’s Anaheim Amigos = easy win.
Of course, ending the lockout would instantly pull most of the players back to the NBA contracts, so the owners could threaten to disrupt any new league for the duration of the contracts of players like Lebron and Kobe. I think that’s why you keep it small for a couple of years until most of the current contracts run out and then you really start to invest. The players could threaten to strike in response to the end of the lockout, but that wouldn’t let them out of their obligations of their current contracts.
(Is this really enough original content to be a fanpost? Normally “I agree with this” is fanshot material.)
Why bother responding to one of my fanshots, fanposts, etc if
your’e just going to complain? You’re a petulant child.
Why not just go away?
btw – not sure what you mean by “ending the lockout.” They have no CBA in place. Are the players forced to play without any agreement on a CBA?
I suppose that the owners could just simply agree to the players’ demands, but that would be a huge win for the players.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
And of course you're wrong - I didn't just say that "I agree"
Reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Yeah, you didn't say much of anything
Per usual. That’s my point.
Many intelligent folks are interested in discussing
the lockout and the relative perceived leverage of ownership and employees. See bacek’s recent fan post.
Apparently you’re not either. Which begs the question – why are you here harassing fellow citizens?
Oh yeah, you’re the resident bully. I suspect Steve will finally ax you soon.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Ending the lockout
Means ending the lockout. Like the players may try to force by decertifying the union. See also NFL.
It would help immensely if you knew what you were talking about.
Why does ending the lockout when there is no CBA require the players to play?
I see you have no answer for that.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
The contracts are only invalid while the owners have them locked out
That is why they are allowed to go overseas. All leagues respect each others contracts. If it becomes a strike instead of a lockout, the players can’t just go anywhere…
The expiration of the CBA has no bearing on the players' obligations to play?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Not if the NFLPA wins their suit, the NBPA is threatening to go that way
They are suing the NFL to honor the signed contracts, if my understanding is correct. They say even without the CBA or even a union, the contracts already signed are completely valid and enforceable.
Look, we both know its all a game to get leverage, so I’m not sure why you are playing dumb. The bottom line is every league worth it’s salt honors the contracts of every other league. If a player is under contract with a team and that team is open for business, that player will not be able to get a contract with another team in another league. Hence why all of these players going to Europe even now have to have an out clause in their contract that immediately voids the rest of the contract if the lockout ends.
I'd have to look at the suit but if it's what you say it is I highly doubt the players win
The teams are not open for business if there is no CBA in force. The players have out clauses because they’d rather play in the NBA and because they believe that a new CBA will be put in place at some point. They understand that they have to honor their contracts if there is a new CBA agreed to.
My gut reaction to this situation is somewhat similar to Berri’s (not the government running teams part), which is that the NBA is a popular money-making sport that the owners have screwed up by allowing salaries and contracts to spiral out of control. The players should not be on the hook for the owners’ incompetency. I think the owners have to be careful here because the league is a cash cow and there’s no reason that a new league can’t be formed. The owners should have to pay for their own mistakes. Having said that, if the mistakes have been so large that the league can’t continue to operate as is, perhaps it’s better that a new league is formed.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Cool
Form a new league. To me its funny/sad and crazy/stupid the players haven’t done it yet.
Barnstorming. If the ashes of And-1 can fill gyms and get on Fox Sports, surely the NBA players can pull it off.
You aren’t talking to a guy who is against tearing it down and starting over. Just do it by the rules everyone agreed upon when they started, not by suing to change the rules.
If the Players are willing to do that
they might as well accept the owners offer. They would not be making near the type of money they are making now as a barnstorming team.
Ok, I've read the article you link
I’m not a specialist in this area. As I understand it, the NFL players have decertified the union,therefore there would be no CBA in the NFL. The NFL players therefore WANT the NFL to continue on and honor the player contracts.
Is the NBA union really threatening to decertify? It seems to me the players, not the owners, hold the cards here. If the players truly want a new league, that would be the opposite of what’s going on in the NFL, according to that article. The NBA players could just argue that the owners won’t agree to a new CBA; therefore they are under no obligation to play. I suppose the owners can then drastically lower their demands, giving the players what they want, and the players would have no incentive to create something new.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Well
Decertification still not off the table for NBPA even after a negative tick for the NFLPA.
If the league is open but the players won’t play, I believe that is what is called a strike. But, IANAL.
The union is likely hurting the players here, as it likely does while a CBA is in force.
Ok, this is what I don't know
Are the players obligated to play in the absence of a CBA?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
You can't physically force someone to play
But it seems legally important who is refusing to do. If business is open and the workers won’t come, in every other business in the world, that is called a strike.
I was going to say something similar
In most situiations, the danger is that the workers would get fired for not showing up without a CBA in place. I suppose for NBA players the danger is that they’d get sued for lost profits in the event they start another league instead of showing up.
Would such a suit have merit? Not sure. And I suppose different states would have different laws on that. California is generally extremely employee friendly.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Query who will pay the leases on all the NBA venues during a lockout?
Does the league still get revenue from TV contracts if a locout? Doubt it.
Do the players have a substantial warchest?
Intersting stuff – pass the popcorn.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Need an alternative?
What about fan ownership? Don’t laugh. The Green Bay Packers have been doing it for almost a hundred years. As I understand it, the Packers have over a hundred thousand owners who own a couple of million shares. It’s a non-profit organization, there are no dividends, and you can’t make a profit on the shares. The company is run by a board and the profits go to charity. The system keeps an NFL team in a city of only ten thousand. Why wouldn’t it work for basketball?
Shoulda been a fanshot, sure, but it’s here now.
Seems fine to me
But very tough to implement, I would imagine.
Yeah... you'd need a visionary commissioner.
It’s not a stopgap for a strike or a lockout. But it might be a better way to do things.
Great point about fan ownership
Disagree about the fanshot thing not that it matters
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I think John R's barnstorming idea is probably the player's best way to go immediately...
I think you could field a few all star teams and have them play exhibitions against each other and against international teams and do huge business. If your goal is to make the NBA owners bend over and see things your way, that seems a real option.
Of course there’s no reason the fan ownership idea wouldn’t work within the structure of the current NBA anyway. If the owners are really losing money, then either put some revenue sharing in place or let Stern act on his “contraction” rhetoric. Then see if someone like Kansas City could raise operating capital by selling shares. It you kept the corporation non-profit I assume you’d save on taxes but maybe those shares could be equity-based or issue dividends.
It’s interesting, I always thought that Green Bay’s STH owned the team, but apparently the ownership has nothing to do with holding season seats.
that would be the quickest way to break the union.
Barnstorming would work for the top stars. What about the guys who are average players or the rookies? While the top guys are pulling in money, the Brian Skinners of the NBA will be ready to fold.
And barnstorming's not the only game around.
Most of the rank and file players might find employment overseas. Skinner’s a bad example, simply because he’s so marginal. The guys you’ll be pushing out will be the ex-college players employed in Europe and Asia. But it won’t last. There will eventually be basketball here in the states, where the big markets lay… and everything goes back to normal.
I’m not an advocate of the barnstorming idea, but I think it has it’s validity and it might serve a purpose. Don’t you think the Miami Heat had the feel of a barnstorming team this year? A couple of stars stuck together with spit and a big bankroll designed to travel around, put on a show, and fill some arenas?
The Heat are it
But they are why the owners could bust up a new league if it tried to start too fast by just ending the lockout. All those guys are locked up for 5 years. But if you start small and build, by the time those deals are up there could be real choice for them.
More opportunity by scrapping the rigidity of the union.
by John R on Jul 11, 2011 10:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
yes but by the time that happens
most players will be out of money and willing to make a deal. Do you think the regular rank and file will be able to last long enough to do that? Do you also think that there are enough teams in Europe to absorb all of the league players? Not too long ago, players who went over had issues getting paid. Dreaming about going over to Europe en mass, running around like and – 1 or the Globetrotters and creating a new league are all romantic ideas.
I think that I guess I just have a higher opinion of the players than you
Or maybe you are right and things are really that grim. The players are just too stupid, despite the average salary being over $5M per year, to ever really force a positive change that isn’t minuscule monetary gains here in exchange for some freedoms over there.
it is not that they are all too stupid
it is just that it is a lot harder to keep such a large group together when there are mouths to feed, life styles they want to live, etc, etc. Solidarity is the key and that will only last until the money runs dry and a vast majority will run drive rather quickly. Especially those who do not know how to manage money, have a large entourage, have a bunch of leeches surrounding them, and make bad business moves. These are the guys who will cost any effort to make positive inroads.
"Solidarity is the key "
I just fundamentally disagree.
Whatever increases the maximum utility is the key. The NBPA as an organization has done a poor job in modern times demonstrating to me that it is the best thing for the players. For some players yes, for others no.
Who else is the union helping but the rank and file, if anyone? It clearly hurts the top and it intentionally hurts the bottom. If the rank and file decide breaking with the union is the best decision, maybe that’s just them finally seeing the light.
If they can’t take the 10’s of millions of capital NBA players have earned and create something better, well maybe we really do need the capitalists after all.
I am not sure I agree that the union is the problem
But I do agree that the players have power and potentially can force something better.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
but that would again require solidarity.
Some of the rank and file may be militant enough to want to break free, some will be willing to fight for the status quo while others will be thankful to take what they can get. Solidarity keeps all of these different factions together. It is easier to keep 30 owners/ownership groups together than it is to keep 600+ players. The owners know this and thus is willing to tank a whole season to get what they want.
In terms of the players breaking the union themselves could be both positive and negative. The NBA acts a lot like 30 entities than a solid organization like the NFL. It could cost them something they hold dear (guaranteed contracts) for higher earning potential.
by mustang6944 on Jul 12, 2011 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Bring back the old ABA and the red, white and blue ball
It was a young, gunslinging, maverick league that was really fun and entertaining!
"I'm feeling pretty good. Pret-ty pret-ty pret-ty good." Larry, Curb Your Enthusiasm
The union is an arbitrary ideal
Don’t make keeping the union a goal in itself.
Also, the union isn’t exactly doing the rookies any favors what with the draft and the salary scale…
by John R on Jul 11, 2011 10:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
technically it doesn't matter that the Union isn'thelping current rooks
they haven’t paid a single Union due
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Actually worse than that
Think of all the jobs the union costs by allowing the NBA to have the draft. If there is no draft the teams would be forced to run their own development systems. There would likely be a B team for each club and possibly semi-pro youth programs. Solves the NCAA corruption problems as well.
Man the NBPA does a lot of damage.
by John R on Jul 11, 2011 10:49 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Weird that you see the Player's Association as the villain...
It seems to me the owners are as guilty as the players for things like the rookie cap, the nineteen-year-old rule, and the draft. (Though I agree in a true free market system, those things are probably illegal.)
A true development system, B-teams, semi-pro youth programs (whoa!) are all, of course good things. I like coming back around to this idea of upper and lower divisions. It might solves some problems for small market teams. Play your way into the playoffs.
The owners cant have a draft without the union
No matter how many evil top hats and monocles they buy.
by John R on Jul 12, 2011 8:32 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
the union was in no position to stop it
Not while in a current CBA. Now next year they may have a fighting chance. But then there is the problem of if the players chose not to go into the union and negotiate with the team directly.
Um
The union doesn’t want to stop it. They are trading the freedom of non-members for…what exactly? Financial predictability for the owners?
Even without a draft, because the NBPA is a federally certified union they have a monopoly on NBA labor. So there is no way for a player to make NBA money without first submitting themselves to the rookie process.
There is no accurate way to say that the NBPA is good for rookies. It is bad for rookies. But it is their job to be bad for rookies. To protect your Brian Skinners from the Blake Griffins. To protect the unproductive from the productive. And hence the capital is poorly utilized and everyone is worse off…except Brian Skinner. Which may be necessary to prevent him from eating you.
Not terribly apropos
But I just now realized how much I miss KamanHomie.
As Clipper fans we have to occasionally remember that the outside world, the real world, believes that we’re all insane. They don’t understand us at all. What we do doesn’t make any rational sense to them. - citizen zhiv
you know things are going good when del taco employees are talking about the clips. - ImranQ
I think the players could find smart people to run the teams in a new league
With more control than they have now.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Yes... my thought as well...
But someone’s got to move it forward. A real “commissioner”, not just an owner-rep like David Stern.
all commissioners are owner reps
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Not by definition...
It might be the way it works in all the major leagues but it’s not necessarily the way it should be or has to be.
in sports negotiations they are
commissioners always put the interests of the owners first and foremost
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Right, but if the owners are the players . . .
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Boy there are so many things wrong with this article
I wouldn’t even know where to begin. We are all ready seeing cities having to lay off police officer and city workers which makes this a really stupid idea. Then there is the issue of guarantee contracts in this economy.
Yeah, stats guys should just stick to stats
But he’s right about the underlying premise, which is that the players would seem to have substantial leverage in the NBA, and that cities might as well.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I don't think cities have any leverage
I doubt the cities could pay the operating costs of the arenas.
by Michael White on Jul 11, 2011 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Their leverage is
the fact that they provide the arenas and tax breaks
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
But the arenas are already buiilt now. That money has been spent.
by Michael White on Jul 11, 2011 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
True for current arenas - although I thought Sactown is only in the promise stage
It’s going to keep coming up. I’m sure there are other ramifications.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
The only cities that would provide leverage
are those that do not have a team. And many of those cities would be no better than New Orleans or Atlanta. Hell one of the cities mentioned in the article (Tampa Bay) cannot even support a MLB team.
I'm all for starting a new league since this one is in shambles
We need investors that can make the sport respectable again. The government is subject to so much bs nothing would get accomplished, much like how we can’t pass healthcare or financial reform or anything else these days. Just form teams and take them public as IPOs, have the financial community grease the wheels. I’m not sure why we need billionaires to run these teams, besides the fact that they are basically expensive play things for the wealthy. If we could run the teams like real companies and give the players the proper ownership we could get basketball back one day.
wine um, dine um, 69 um
by flightofthegriffin on Jul 11, 2011 4:41 PM PDT reply actions
if you run it like a business
you’d essentially be like the owners. That is why i have a whole problem with the premise of a new league. Would anyone really pay the players what they make now? The players could run into the exact same problem in negotiation with this new entity. Also, a lot of player would lose money. You think a start up league would pay Lamar Odom $10mil? Or Rashad Lewis? Or ever other over paid player. Then there is the fact that this new league would have to start generating billions to off set these type of money these players want. That won’t happen immediately. It is why none of these other leagues in sports have ever survived.
they could be paid partially with stock
would probably make them a hell of a lot more committed to their team if they had a vested interest in the team itself. I wouldn’t pay lamar odom 10 million, tons of teams have bad contracts but that’s why they have gotten into financial trouble. If lamar odom wants 10 million he better impact the price of the stock and be the best player possible or his money gets messed with. If they can’t live with the terms of that than they don’t get to participate. I have a feeling all NBA players would want a chance to be CEOs of their team one day though.
wine um, dine um, 69 um
by flightofthegriffin on Jul 11, 2011 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Why are you so sure he's not worth that?
The money in the sport is unbelievable.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
because if you are gonna run it like a business
or even try to bring in investors to create a new league, what makes anyone here think that the new owners/investors will not be more Sterling and less Dolan. This isn’t the 80s and more are looking to turn a profit.
people are naive
and romantic.
They want to believe that it won’t be about the bottom line.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
You have no idea what you're talking about
No offense
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
*Citation needed
You would do better to be polite before you cry and cry about being a victim all the time.
You filthy hypocrite you.
Yah ok sunshine
Go get a coffee and come back after
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
You are the one who seems bitter this morning
You are spouting off with invective and no evidence. Today must end in “y”, then.
Nope, you've misinterpreted things once again
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
There is no need to write no offense
Unless one knows one is being offensive.
Its funny how hard you are sending your own fanpost off track today. At least you are only doing it to yourself this time.
Fanpost on track - you are offtrack
If you want to argue, take it outside.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Citations / explanations given elsewhere herein
I’m not into makework. Feel free to read
And answer my quetions below please.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Actually he knows more than
those who think it would be as simple as starting a new league or some barn storming teams would be enough to break the owners.
You misunderstand my point
I don’t think that they SHOULD start a new league. I just think that the owners should not be trying to force concessions out of the players for claimed losses that (a) if they are losses have nothing to do with the players; and/or (b) are not really losses and it is just an example of the owners trying to increase their own profits at the expense of the players.
I’m just pointing out that professional basketball is increasing in popularity worldwide and is very profitable now. There is a danger that if ownership pushes too far this is a situation where the players can bolt. You assume the players are stupid and management is smart. Well, as I said below, players can hire smart people too to run things.
I don’t think it would be simple or a likely result. I also think barnstorming is just a temporary stopgap, not a real solution. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
There are ways to force owners to spend
You just have to have a strong enough commissioner to enforce whatever agreements they make
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
and that is how you break a union
If you exclude players who want to make what they are in the current NBA or are paying them less then what they would make by lying down with the owners, then you given the owners what they want.
Also, on the business end of this, how long do you think it would take for these new leagues/team to be profitable so that these players are making the profit that they are trying to keep? How many years before this new league gets a TV contract like the current NBA one? Then there is the failure rate of starting a new business and we are not talking about the most business savvy people in the world.
Ugh...
That last line is dangerous. You think the only smart guys involved in the NBA are ownership?
In answer to your “How long before it makes a profit” question. There are risks but the rewards are gigantic and recognizable. You have to find the right partners. Fans, arena owners, banks, even city governments can help you get over the hump.
I was looking at the Forbes numbers for the Green Bay Packers… a solid model for fan-based ownership.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Green-Bay-Packers_302814.html
The trick here is that they’ve been complaining about player costs being too high and their profits too low (10 million) but their overall valuation has gone from $927M to $1B in the last three years. And this is a small market team.
What investor wouldn’t want a piece of that growth in a down economy.
Yeah, I agree
There’s alot of money to be made here folks. You just have to run things competently. The current owners are complaining about their own failings.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
again it comes to how long
and whether or not the middling players, rookies and even some of those who are defending their top dollar capable of holding on until that happens. Then does the union take a risk in supporting one league while blocking another which could have some major labor ramifications.
How is the union blocking the league?
The league is trying to force major concessions from the union at a time when revenues are up substantially and so are team values.
Seems unfair to pin the cause of the standoff on the players given the concessions requested and the current status of things.
Whether the players can hold on is another story. But to me the equities are in their favor given what we actually know to be the facts.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Time for a ClipperChuck mediation!
Life is too short.
"I'm feeling pretty good. Pret-ty pret-ty pret-ty good." Larry, Curb Your Enthusiasm
you might want to reread what I posted.
I am talking about in the case of the players creating another league. At which point does it become not negotiating in good faith if the NBAPA supports and help gets a new league off the ground while maintaining their stance against the NBA.
by mustang6944 on Jul 12, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm no labor expert, but I'm not sure I agree with your premise
There is no CBA. You can’t force the players to work for a particular employer.
There are some issues that I don’t know the answer to. First, is the enforcement of the individual player agreements contingent on an enforceable CBA? If not, the players can do whatever they want. If so, then perhaps the players have to negotiate in good faith.
If that’s the case, then of course I would agree with you that in general the players would have to negotiate in good faith. But that of course is a bilateral requirement meaning the owners too have to negotiate in good faith.
I would submit that trying to force concessions from the players based on financial issues that hte players did not create and in a scenario where the league is financially healthy raises the question of whether the NBA owners are negotiating with the players in good faith. Would you agree?
If the owners are not negotiating in good faith, do the players have to? Should they have to?
So the issue becomes whether and to what extent the mere exploration of alternative employment scenarios for the players becomes something construed as bad faith negotiations.
At bottom I think that many people give far too much deference to the league. Remember, there used to be two legit basketball leagues – the NBA and the ABA. At some point they merged, but there’s nothing illegal about having a second league. It all comes down to where the talent – the players – want to play.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Also, there are public policies in play here
Players should have the right to ply their trade like anyone else. If the NBA is truly losing the kind of money the owners are claiming, given the revenues and team values, something is clearly rotten in the State of Denmark. It may be time to move on from the NBA.
Of course, the more likely scenario is that this is all bluster by the league.
We shall see.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I'm no labor expert,
And yet you keep talking…
How is that dangerous unless you make it so
Ugh…
That last line is dangerous. You think the only smart guys involved in the NBA are ownership?
A vast majority of these athletes have little business acumen and you would be surprise about how many athletes end up broke five years after they are out of the league. Why do you think Antoine Walker is trying to make a comeback? And it is not just basketball players who get caught up in this. It happens in every major team sports. These guys have friends, family member, business associates and outright leaches who steer them in wrong directions. Why do you think there are few Jordans and Magic Johnsons out there. Why do you think the saying a fool and his money are soon parted. Plus it is also a lot easier to coordinate efforts between 30 owner/ownership group and 600 plus players some who may not want to wait long for a new league to get on its feet to get paid.
As for using the Packers, that is not a good idea. They were in constant financial straits. That is why they did what they did. It was the only way to survive. It wasn’t because it was the most idea way to start a team. Investors understand this. That is why the ABA, USFL, USAFL, XFL are no more. It is why the Arena Football league and Arena two went belly up. Investors will only supply so much to a fledgling organization. Sponsorship money will start off low. Ticket prices would start off low. Again, it will take years for these guys to get into a position to even attempt to take on the NBA.
Then there is the specter of what happens when the NBA returns. You have a business juggernaut lead by probably one of the most business savvy Sports heads in the country.
Athletes today can be smart enough to hire the right people to run the business affairs
The main problem with your argument is that if it is really true that the NBA has been losing money for the past five years as ownership claims, why do you think that its head is really “one of the most business savvy Sports heads in the country.”
The answer of course is that the league isn’t really losing money and they’ve been doing a great job increasing the popularity of the sport. Which is why they should not be trying to pin these paper losses n the players. THey pay the players. It is the owner decision to overpay or not. The players had nothing to do with it. The issue is not the union. It is incompetent decisions (supposedly) by management. I’m skeptical that they were even bad decisions, but that’s beside the point.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
"the league isn’t really losing money"
*Citation needed.
I don't think any citation is needed for that proposition
I take it you agree with everything else said? Try not to be nasty this morning and you will get alot further.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
You are incorrect on all counts
Very poor comment.
First you have the evidence, then you form the opinion. You get this backward frequently.
If I"m incorrect, please explain why
I doubt you can. But I’m waiting.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
It was your claim
Prove it or you are just wasting everyone’s time as usual.
If you make a comment worthy of substation response (ever) I will be glad to respond in kind.
“The league isn’t really losing money” is citation still needed.
But cry again about me first. It will just show you don’t have proof, and unlike when you accuse others, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
No offense but you are really wasting everyone's time here
I made several points and you claim they are all wrong. The support is obvious (except perhpas to you).
As to the league not losing money, revenues are up substantially for the last five years and so are team values. The league claims without substantiation that teams have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Where’s the explanation? Does that really square with what we know to be true?
If you believe the league has actually been losing money John R please provide your citation. If you can’t or won’t do so we will assume that you have no facts to back up your position.
Now, I need an explanation from you as to why my other points are wrong. If you give none, I will accept your apology and retraction.
First, i said that if the league has been losing hundreds of millions every year as Stern claims he really isn’t the best in the business. Particularly given the fact that revenunes are up and team values are up. Since you say you disagree with that, please explain why.
Second, I said the owners, not the players, are respoinsible for overpaying players – going over their own salary cap. Do you disagree with that too? If so, why?
Third, I said that the owners’ decisions to overpay are not caused by the union. Do you disagree? If so, why.
Looking forward to your explanation.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Still waiting . . .
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Is that the dividing line...
That John R believes owners are losing money and Jax does not? Eh… it seems to me we’ve seen evidence supporting both sides recently, the truth seems somewhere in the middle.
But the interesting thing to me about this thread is the argument whether there is another structure either within or outside the design of the current NBA that might function better for the fans and for players… and whether or not players could access it in the event of a prolonged lockout.
Great discussion… don’t demean it.
I have no idea what his argument is
My point is that it really doesn’t matter whether the owners are losing money because the players had nothing to do with it and the revenues and values are there to pay the players.
John R is just looking to fight and nitpick thus wasting everyone’s time because the point is obvious. Which gets really old
I agree with you on the interesting aspect of this thread.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I don't know if the owners are losing money or not
And I don’t care. Notice I haven’t made claims one way or the other.
Still waiting . . .
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
LOL
Were you literally waiting for me to comment?
What a loser…
You're done
Don’t respond to my posts as yours will be ignored. There’s no point.
As Steve said, you’re disingenuous. People like you don’t deserve to participate here.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Also
You have still failed to prove your claims.
Normally, it would require a link. Hence: Citation still desperately needed. But since you are still talking out of your rear end, you don’t have one.
Why do you exist here
You denied what I posted and offered no explanation while demanding same from me.
Memo – no citation needed where the answer is obvious.
You offer nothing and have zero integrity. That is why you will always be outside looking in.
Go away.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
So you DO think the owners are the only smart guys...
A lot of people have money and then lose money. It isn’t just basketball players. It’s also over-extended geniuses like the Maloofs who now want either the city of Anaheim or the city of Sacramento to bail them out. (Are their losses even NBA related? Probably not.)
As for the example of the Green Bay Packers… you’re right, the reason they sought out fan ownership was because they didn’t have the big market some of the other teams had. But guess what? It worked! Would it work in the NBA? Probably not without revenue sharing. But your listing of failed sports league is meaningless. Everyone of those leagues had standard ownership packages and was competing against a bigger, more established league. I’m not advocating overthrowing the NBA, I’m suggesting that there are other ways to own a team (player-based, fan-based) than the traditional way we’ve seen things. The Packers exist WITHIN the structure of the NFL and they are undeniably successful, both professionally and as a business.
if the owners were smart
they wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with and I’d be at T&M watching summer league. Also the concept of a publicly owned team was originally brought up under the precept of creating a new league (see article above).
the thing that gets me is that the one owner against this mess is DTS. You’d think he’d be all for anything that gives him more money.
by mustang6944 on Jul 12, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Is Sterling against the lockout?
I’m not aware of that. I’m not aware the owners have broken ranks and taken any individual positions.
But Sterling’s never been much over the cap, never paid luxury tax, he’s got phenomenal equity in the team value, no arena debt, pretty big media revenue (I assume), a huge draw in Blake Griffin for the next three years, and he’s turns a profit even when the team is terrible. He needs a lockout like he needs a hole in the head.
I wish I could remember the name of the article
so that I can link it. But it talked about that before the lockout that the hawkish owners were leading this charge and ESPN was speculating how long it would take the other owners to get involve. It was in that article that they got a quote from sterling. Which I understand considering that outside of Baron, he has never overpaid a player and is able to show restraint. So why can’t the other owners.
"So why can't the other owners"
That’s the million dollar question. Certainly the players ain’t holding guns to their heads.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
It would be interesting to see where lie the hawks and doves...
I suspect most of the owners who have built up a lot of equity are not jumping up and down screaming about player’s salaries. But I also don’t want to laud Donald Sterling for not spending enough to win. It does seem that payroll is related to winning. And I’m not sure I admire Mark Cuban or think he’s nuts for losing money, spending wildly, and finally earning a championship. (Forbes has him almost doubling his franchise value in eight years but Ross Perot ( a minority owner) has sued Cuban for lowering the franchise value. Even two owners of the same team can’t agree on profits, costs, and value!)
I'd love to see the complaint in that Perot v. Cuban lawsuit
I don’t have a problem if owners want to spend more money – just don’t blame it on the players.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
The question of why can't the owner stop overpaying players
is moot.
It isn’t the problem of overpaying players, it is the problem that you MUST overpay players, and have high salaries to win.
Competitive teams often have two or three overpaid players.
Those are not the teams with financial problems.
The best way to create a team that is full of underpaid players and be competitive is to draft well. But, honestly the draft is full of hits and misses. More misses than hits. So building through the draft is a nice idea, but very hard to pull off.
Outside of the 80’s only MJ’s (and Pip’s) Bulls and The Duncan Era Spurs have been able to do this.
A real solution would be contraction, but we all know that won’t happen
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Truly the best leverage
the players have is if some of the top Euro league teams get involved and if the union does something like become a FIBA union. If they could get the top teams in Europe to set the standard, then they have something to force the league’s hand. Until then it is only a matter of time before they fold.
Remember the good old days
when we could post about getting Iggy or if we thought the Clippers could make the playoffs next year, or post a picture now and then of Keith Closs or Maggette? sigh!
"I'm feeling pretty good. Pret-ty pret-ty pret-ty good." Larry, Curb Your Enthusiasm
What is interesting is how completely the whole lockout
Is centered on just a portion of this league: the middle tier of players who make a lot of money and get long deals without truly impacting a franchise.
It is also curious that of the players planning to go to Europe, they are either marginal, like Songaila and Weems, or franchise players, like Deron Williams and Kobe Bryant.
It is funny
that some of the articles out there talk about how the league want to get rid of that middle tier, which I do not think is all that true. More like they would rather come as close to a slotting system as possible.
The MLE is the biggest thing that is coming under fire because that is where another source of overpaid players are coming from. I wonder how much things would change if, instead of doing away with the MLE, just change the rules on it. Like eliminating it for teams in luxury tax land and allowing lower teams to use it.
A good idea but a pretty narrow window...
You have to be over the cap to use the exception. With the cap at 59 million last year and the luxury tax threshold at 69, and the MLE at just under six not many teams are gonna fit the window… UNLESS you’re allowed to go into the luxury tax zone by using the MLE… which seems counter productive when the owners are trying to reach an agreement that reduces payroll.
Part of reducing payroll
is finding better ways to use that payroll you have. The players want to keep both those exceptions (including bi-annual). I was looking at it as a way to keep both while trying to figure out a way to adjust the parameters for using it. It may not reduce payroll, but it will help balance the playing field if teams in the Luxury tax can only resign their own players above the cap. Another way would be that if a team hits the cap at any point can use it vice the current way which prevents lower teams from having access to it if they do not start the year at the cap.
Yeah...
It makes sense to change the lux tax rules as you say. No MLE if you’re in the tax zone or if the MLE puts you there. The PA might not like it but it’s better than a hard cap.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
