Lockout!!!

[Gyp Rosetti]

The owners are looking for, relative to other American pro sports leagues, a ridiculously large slice of the pie AND absolute cost certainty. The players are moving from their position, but the owners won't budge. While I don't understand why the players are so in love with a soft cap (I love it because it's far more interesting than a hard cap), I fail to see why the owners insist on "total capitulation" (to quote Billy Hunter). The owners are not negotiating in good faith, the players are (and, well, they're the product).

What's good faith? Meeting halfway? That sounds all good and fair but if meeting halfway still makes zero sense economically for the owners, then why would they do it?

They've invested hundreds of millions of dollars, their own dollars, into these franchises. When guys like Michael Redd and Rashard Lewis are making in excess of 15M annually and these guys are by some accounts losing money due to nothing more than an awful CBA , I have no problem with the owners wanting to get this next CBA right so that it does more than merely get them in the black. Just my opinion.

 

[GVC]

What's good faith? Meeting halfway? That sounds all good and fair but if meeting halfway still makes zero sense economically for the owners, then why would they do it?

They've invested hundreds of millions of dollars, their own dollars, into these franchises. When guys like Michael Redd and Rashard Lewis are making in excess of 15M annually and these guys are by some accounts losing money due to nothing more than an awful CBA , I have no problem with the owners wanting to get this next CBA right so that it does more than merely get them in the black. Just my opinion.

I never said anything about meeting halfway, you ****ing clown. The owners are demanding a more favorable CBA than any other pro sports CBA, including the NHL- a league with far lower revenue than the NBA. Something doesn't add up.

And who the hell decided to pay Rashard Lewis all that money?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

1. "THEY". Who is, who isn't? Don't cite me vague, info-war Stern press-releases.
So I should cite Billy Hunter's figures? Yeah, I'm sure they're much more objective.
2. What constitutes "loss"? How much of the loss is legally cooked books? Don't cite me vague, info-war Stern press-releases.
See above.
3. BILLIONAIRES. Do people know what that means?
And your point is what? Because the owners have an inordinately huge sum of money, they should just piss it away and grin and bear it. That makes sense. The owners lose money and the employees thrive.
4. Players will be losing money, and a MUCH larger source-of-income than the owners will be.
The owners are losing money. That means they're spending more than they're making. That shouldn't be happening. So the imbalance needs to change. And no matter how much the players lose in the deal, they'll still be making millions.
5. Owners won't negotiate in good faith if the report is true.
And what is good faith exactly?

See above.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I never said anything about meeting halfway, you ****ing clown. The owners are demanding a more favorable CBA than any other pro sports CBA, including the NHL- a league with far lower revenue than the NBA. Something doesn't add up.

And who the hell decided to pay Rashard Lewis all that money?

What's the issue here? You mentioned "good faith." I asked if that meant meeting halfway. And you got your panties in a bunch. So what the **** is it then? All you have to say is "something doesn't add up." ****ing brilliant. There's a reason the percentage varies sport to sport and perhaps there's a reason the NBA owner's percentage should be greater than the other three. Is that so ridiculous to consider?

As far as Rashard Lewis goes, what's the alternative? To be passive in free agency and build a ****house team through the draft which is a whopping two rounds and where the talent is extremely top-heavy? To be the Billy Beane of the NBA and build with players who represent a better bang for your buck? Yeah, that'll certainly draw the crowds and get them in the black. Everyone wants to come watch Aaron Afflalo play. C'mon.

My point is this. We don't know **** about the economics of it all when it comes down to it so to sit on a pedestal and cry foul is a little bit presumptuous. Maybe the owners are being douches (wouldn't surprise me), maybe they're not.

 

[GVC]

I have no problem with the owners wanting to get this next CBA right so that it does more than merely get them in the black. Just my opinion.

What does "get this next CBA right" mean? The players pull in half the percentage of revenues as players in other leagues, despite having higher revenues than some? Players get paid minimum wage across the board? What?

You've consistently taken the position that no matter how ridiculous the owners' demands are, it's the players responsibility to cave. In short, you're a ****ing moron.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

What does "get this next CBA right" mean? The players pull in half the percentage of revenues as players in other leagues, despite having higher revenues than some? Players get paid minimum wage across the board? What?

You've consistently taken the position that no matter how ridiculous the owners' demands are, it's the players responsibility to cave. In short, you're a ****ing moron.

I never said that. But good job for continuing to prove how much of a douche you can be.

 

[GVC]

My point is this. We don't know **** about the economics of it all when it comes down to it so to sit on a pedestal and cry foul is a little bit presumptuous. Maybe the owners are being douches (wouldn't surprise me), maybe they're not.

And yet, you consistently side with the owners. With current TV deals, smaller rosters, lower cost for facilities (ice making, zambonies, etc.), can you speculate why NBA owners are demanding their players accept 10-15% less revenue share than NHL players receive, especially since the overall health of the NHL is very good? Until I get something approximating a good answer, I'll give the players credit for compromising and hold it against the owners for not moving from their initial demands. You know, if I have to take sides.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I never said that. But good job for continuing to prove how much of a douche you can be.

Are you idiots seriously arguing on both lockout threads?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

And yet, you consistently side with the owners. With current TV deals, smaller rosters, lower cost for facilities (ice making, zambonies, etc.), can you speculate why NBA owners are demanding their players accept 10-15% less revenue share than NHL players receive, especially since the overall health of the NHL is very good? Until I get something approximating a good answer, I'll give the players credit for compromising and hold it against the owners for not moving from their initial demands. You know, if I have to take sides.

I have no clue. Do you? Perhaps it's because the NHL has a hard-cap. You don't seem to be a fan but the NHL has one and as you've said has a very good overall health. And yet Billy Hunter, who's acting in such good faith "said if the owners are serious about a hard cap, he'll give it to them if players get 65 percent."

 

[GVC]

I never said that. But good job for continuing to prove how much of a douche you can be.

Implied. You've equated losing money with players making too much, ignoring entirely the possibility of owner mismanagement (which seems to be perfectly reasonable, again, given the health of the NHL). Further, you seem to be glossing over the possibility that the owners are asking for too much, and not budging while the players make concessions. It's obvious concessions have to be made, and it certainly seems like the players are making concessions (again, I don't know if they're truly sufficient), but the owners initial position was ridiculous, and there has been no report from anywhere that they've moved to a more reasonable one.

 

[GVC]

I have no clue. Do you? Perhaps it's because the NHL has a hard-cap. You don't seem to be a fan but the NHL has one and as you've said has a very good overall health. And yet Billy Hunter, who's acting in such good faith "said if the owners are serious about a hard cap, he'll give it to them if players get 65 percent."

I fail to see what difference a hard cap makes when players are guaranteed a specified percentage of revenues (this past season, the owners had to pony up because the players made less than their guaranteed share). If the owners are serious about more franchises being economically viable, they ought to work out a better revenue sharing model like the NHL. I think that's a big difference between the two leagues. Of course, the owners don't want that...they expect the players to give up as much as necessary for the worst run franchise in the most basketball-apathetic city to be guaranteed a profit. It's absurd.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Hard cap or not, the owners had to pay out a huge sum of money after this past season to make up the difference between what players actually made and what they were guaranteed. So whether the cap was hard or soft made absolutely no difference. If you have cost certainty like that, what difference is there if there's a hard cap instead of a soft cap? I fail to see any (and, again, I don't know why the players care so much about a soft cap...except, maybe, it allows them to build their brand in one city for longer...maybe?). At the same time, the players have reportedly (with no denials from the league) moved on their position, making some concessions to owners. As far as I can tell, the owners have not moved much from their initial (ridiculous) position.

I have no idea what difference the hard cap makes either but it must make some difference and a pretty ****ing big one if Hunter's asking for 65%.

My original major issue, before you menstruated, was with Numberica's assumption that the owners are being douches here. We don't have a ****ing clue where the truth lies. I tend to believe the owners were losing money. Numberica seems to sit on the other side of the fence. Neither is wrong. But you were with your tone. If I ever see you now, I'm gonna slap you in the face with my ****.