Lockout!!!

[mellow]

Did AK hold a gun to LM's head to make him sign that agreement? Do any of the players do that?

Literaly? Probably not, but you never know with the Russian Maffia. But com'on we all know what really happens. The players use every bit of leverage and threat to put the team in a corner, so the player can maximize his deal. Or did anyone imagine that one day while sitting at a golf course for a 'charity' event that LHM calls Andrei and says: You know sucess in business is about making good deals, buying low & selling high, cutting overhead & increasing sales and optimizing the risk/reward ratio, but to hell with all that--I want to pay you 17 mill for 6 years.

The player knows the team has a limited number of roster spots and the teams want to stay competive and/or marketable. Many of the teams roster spots are filled with 19-yr old kids who can't play yet or the guy who is perpetually injured durring the middle of his contract or the 36 year old that hasn't played in 3 years but he has a guarantee. So the team has limited roster spots and salary available to keep the team competitive--thats when the player steps up and says I'm leaving town unless you give me X. Its not a gun, but to small markets, or the undesireable teams it might as well be.

AK and his agent did put the proverbial gun to LHMs head.
So did Milsap, his agent and Portland.
So did Mathews.
So did Memo for his extension.

 

[moevillini]

One positive: the D-League will not be affected by the lockout:

https://www.ridiculousupside.com/2011/6/30/2251814/nba-lockout-news-update-d-league

So it looks like Burks & Kanter will have something to do...

LOL, though would they even be eligible to sign a D-league contract? I doubt it.


I KNOW this is a dumb question, but I don't really understand how this works for the players that are currently under contract. Isn't anyone whose current contract runs through the 2011-2012 season (or beyond) still under a valid contract? Shouldn't they still be working?

my little pea brain just can't keep up with all the intricacies of this and all that BRI stuff has me even more confused

 

[zman1527]

Interesting read:

Exclusive: How (And Why) An NBA Team Makes A $7 Million Profit Look Like A $28 Million Loss

https://deadspin.com/5816870/exclus...-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss

Great find, great article. There are no white knights here, but the owners trying to portray themselves as beleaguered John Galt's is just laughable. Didn't they refuse to totally open their books to the players? That proves beyond any doubt that they have something to hide, that they are lying, and that they make more profit than they ever want to let on.

A small excerpt: "This can't be emphasized enough: Every year, taxpayers hand the plutocrats who own sports franchises a fat pile of money for no other reason than that one of those plutocrats, many years ago, convinced the IRS that his franchise is basically a herd of cattle. Fort calls it "special-interest legislation." "It's not illegal," he says. "It's just weird."

The billionaires get to hire numerous attorneys to take advantage of the numerous loopholes out there or even get a politician to write some up for them, like the above. I agree the players ought to be very grateful to be paid so much for playing a game, but hey deserve honesty and a fair cut. The owners, like so much of the modern corporate world, have total disdain for honesty and fairness, they want it all.

 

[Sneakers]

Look, we can all debate who is at fault for large, ridiculous contracts and underperforming athletes but in the end I am convinced that in the new CBA (however long it takes) the owner's will have a way to wiggle out of a giant contract in which the player is underperforming. Whether it be a regular annual or biennial "amnesty" exception, or something that can only be done under certain circumstances, it's something that is essential in keeping team's competitive and not doomed for years because of one player.

Yes I know it would be essentially a way to save the owner's from themselves, but there would of course be regulations that punished reckless spending and ridiculous contracts.

Those of you siding with the players need to keep in mind that the owners represent the teams. Essentially, the more concessions the owners can get the more flexibility and leverage teams, ie the Jazz will have moving forward to build their team. Players are no more loyal than their next paycheck. We want the Jazz to come out of this CBA with the best chance to win and be competitive moving forward.

 

[DutchJazzer]

what aboput the fans i keep hearing all about this ****ty fight between billionaires and millionaires
but since when is it ok to charge $100 foir a lowerbowl ticket to a frikking game taking 2 hours.
or about 20 bucks for snacks.

those prices should be lowered

 

[zman1527]

what aboput the fans i keep hearing all about this ****ty fight between billionaires and millionaires
but since when is it ok to charge $100 foir a lowerbowl ticket to a frikking game taking 2 hours.
or about 20 bucks for snacks.

those prices should be lowered

Did you pay it? Nuff said.

I am actually with you, but if the seats are full and there are long lines at the concession stands it won't change.

 

[gregbroncs]

So, these mega-millionaire businessmen made bad investments and now they want the employees to bail them out of their loans. If I was a player I would say tough luck boyz, renegotiate your loan or sell it at a loss. Don't look to me bail out your millionaire ***.

This would be great. But then the players can forget about guaranteed contracts. If you don't want to play for the money you are paid then you are fired. If a team wants to be financially responsible it is very difficult to do that and claim you are trying to win.

Guaranteed contracts are the bane of the NBA. If the players want their guaranteed contracts then they need to be willing to make a lesser profit and submit to a hard cap.

They can't have it both ways. Either they are employee's or they are partners. Right now it seems like they want to be whichever one supports the argument of the day.

Give us our share of the income but don't expect us to take any of the risk we are just employees. Well last I checked employees don't have any say in how the income is spent beyond their individual salary.

 

[colton]

Didn't they refuse to totally open their books to the players? That proves beyond any doubt that they have something to hide, that they are lying, and that they make more profit than they ever want to let on.

Actually, everything I have read said the owners DID totally open their books to the players. That's how the players know about things like this.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Here's a good article by Larry Coon. https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=coon_larry&page=NBAFinancials-110630

It's much more sympathetic to the players' point of view than most articles I've read. The single biggest item is that the owners are counting the cost of buying a franchise (done with loans) in the "operating costs" they are reporting. So, when they say that 22 of the 30 teams are losing money, that's including the cost of the loans. Which, in my opinion, it clearly shouldn't for this purpose.

That's not to say that the players have bent far enough... but this aspect of their position makes a lot more sense to me now.

In a thread in the NBA forum, I said there was no way the $300M figure was accurate. I'm sure there are some other fuzzy expenses or revenue sources that have been excluded. There are a handful of teams losing money, but most of that is based on terrible ownership or management. The Jazz turned a profit EVERY year Larry H. ran the team. The only losses have been in the last couple/ But that too, was a management decision...KOC could have been allowed to trade AK and get that salary off the books earlier.

Sure the owners want a bigger share of the pot, but the real problem lies in revenue-sharing. Don;t get me wrong, I hate the players union, but the owners are equally contemptible. Difference is that they have definitely been winning the PR battle. In the end, a deal will be reached and the real losers will be the fans, as ticket prices, concessions, merchandise and LP rates will inevitably rise.

 

[colton]

Sure the owners want a bigger share of the pot, but the real problem lies in revenue-sharing.

I wouldn't say it's the "real problem", but it's half the problem. I totally understand why the players were saying that they need the revenue sharing spelled out before they can figure out what the new CBA should be like.

If revenue sharing could be made much more like the NFL (I think it's something like each team keeps 40% of their income and sends the other 60% to the league HQ for redistribution), and if the players/owners could agree on a simple 50-50 split, the lockout could be over within a week. All of the other items pale in consequence to those two.

 

[zman1527]

This would be great. But then the players can forget about guaranteed contracts. If you don't want to play for the money you are paid then you are fired. If a team wants to be financially responsible it is very difficult to do that and claim you are trying to win.

Why would the contracts go by the wayside? I am saying is the mega-millionaire who bought say the OKC franchise overpaid then why should anyone bail him out? Let him sell to someone else who inherits the contracts of the franchise. What's wrong with that? I hear a lot of whining multi-millionaires armed with modern (phony) accounting saying the have made a bad investment. Tough luck.

Guaranteed contracts are the bane of the NBA. If the players want their guaranteed contracts then they need to be willing to make a lesser profit and submit to a hard cap.

Agreed about the contracts and I can see the hard cap. But the contracts are coming from the owners trying to outduel one another. The players are going along but no one is holding a gun to the owners heads either.

They can't have it both ways. Either they are employee's or they are partners. Right now it seems like they want to be whichever one supports the argument of the day.

Give us our share of the income but don't expect us to take any of the risk we are just employees. Well last I checked employees don't have any say in how the income is spent beyond their individual salary.

Nor do employees have any say in how the business is run. Just like the players. I think the players have no control over management or accounting procedures so they are right to go for a straight percentage. 50-50 sounds perfectly fair to me.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Did you pay it? Nuff said.

I am actually with you, but if the seats are full and there are long lines at the concession stands it won't change.

I paid nbalp for 6 eyars now everyyear it egts more and more and more expensive.
so maybe i dont have a right to complain about the ticket pric es or the frickin nachos. but i do have a rtight to complain about the damm nbalp prices