2011 CBA Negotiations Thread

Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by G-man, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    A lockout is the equivalent of an owners strike so technically the players are free to do whatever they want. If the owners can hire replacement players during player strikes ( baseball 1994-ish ) then the players should be able to organize their own publicly displayed games during owner lockouts without any repercussions.
     
  2. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    Or what about something like the old ABA? Some ambitious investors get together and coordinate something over several cities. Maybe start with something like 12-16 teams.
     
  3. Ernie the Slow Adult

    Ernie the Slow Adult All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    This is where Roscoe aways points out that it is the owners who are assuming all the risk. I am seeing that more clearly now.

    The players need someone to pay them to play. They can't just go off and form a league. They need scab owners. Maverick Carter and Worldwide Wes can't pull this off.
     
  4. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    It would really have to extend into year 2 before we would see anything interesting happen. What if the owners started year 2 with replacement players? What happens then? It would take them a decade to get up to the current talent level.
     
  5. TaS

    TaS All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    17,625
    Likes Received:
    2,957
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    And if they were smart, they'd maintain some consistency in lineups to attract back their fans.

    For the most part, the owners have assumed a ton of risk because they paid full value for franchises that were in existence before. If the league granted a new owner a 31st NBA team for free, he wouldn't be taking much risk in funding it going forward. That is the position that a new league would be in.

    Imagine if one of the richer players or former players kick started it with a plan and some cash. He could announce that the first 50 NBA players to commit get 1% ownership, the next 50 get .5% ownership, and so on. Draw up a 100 year player-owner contract that they're happy with, then start looking for new owners to buy teams. The committed players would get their ownership share paid back to them every time a new franchise is sold, or they could choose to retain their share. Target all the interested parties in the past who weren't able to maneuver the politics to buy into the NBA. Contract the league down to 16 teams to start and expand later after it is stable. Run a shortened 40 game season with 8 teams making the playoffs.

    Would be the ultimate power play. Imagine how bad of an investment Gores would have just made if that took shape.
     
  6. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    When you think about it - what are they actually paying for? Especially those teams who do not even own their own stadiums. They are paying for the right under NBA rules to show basketball games in that particular market. Its only valid and worth something if the NBA is valid and worth something. With no star players its not going to be worth much.
     
  7. TaS

    TaS All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    17,625
    Likes Received:
    2,957
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    Right, they're just paying for the present value of all future expected profits + their exit event (where they sell the team to someone else who pays for the same thing going forward).

    The value of that really depends on having a monopoly in the US. Usually, there are so many players under contract with different expiration dates and there is a huge barrier to entry for a new league (think XFL). A new league would have a very hard time convincing a critical mass of players to join it, especially the high paid stars that they need.

    But now, and for a limited period of time, that barrier to entry is lessened. When you think about, the actual sport is a very cheap sport to stage. All it take is 16 guys to meet at a gym and scrimmage. Any suitable arena can be rented for a fraction of the revenue that a game brings in. After that, it's just travel, marketing, and salaries. Very doable.

    On the downside, you'd have a whole mess of legal and other structures to put in place (rules, draft rights, initial rosters, schedule logistics), you'd have to cut up the pie in an agreeable manner, you'd have to negotiate pretty hard on all the TV airtime arrangements, and you wouldn't have an apples to apples record book/ history/ franchise memories, etc. In short, the current NBA is established and has momentum (both are tough to get to as a start-up).
     
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Fantasy-Football Snub Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    12,306
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lake Elmo

    Isiah Thomas has experience running a league. Give em a call...

    Where's Lee when you need him...
     
  9. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean

    Quote is from the end of the article. I have heard of revenue sharing proposed by the smaller teams that really has nothing to do with the players. This could get ugly.
     
  10. Nemo

    Nemo Fantasy-Football Snub Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    12,306
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lake Elmo

    Owners should agree to sharing the wealth. Problem is the weasel small market owners will just pocket the shared money instead of reinvesting in players, arena improvements, better popcorn...ya know, the important stuff...:gun1:
     
  11. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    Really - you think so?

    Something about that does not seem right to me. Other things factor in besides market size like how well you run and market your team. Where is the motivation under a shared plan?
     
  12. raxrets

    raxrets Team Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    tartu
    THE problem is that owners try to force players to pay - to cover up owners' inadequate managing.

    Owners and NBA decided to overextend - did not ask opinion from players union - and now it is somehow, according to NBA, player's fault.
     
  13. Mogilny

    Mogilny All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    There's the reverse order draft, there's the salary cap and now revenue sharing? Why not just move the roster of the champs to the franchise with the worst record every year? And the 2nd to the 29th and so on? If a market can't carry a team then maybe that market shouldn't have a team.
     
  14. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    Seems more and more that this is more about owner vs owner and overall bad management by the league than anything else. They are overextended. They just had to add those last 2 teams.

    If these small markets are peering over at the Lakers huge tv deal and feel as though they are due a big check from it then this can get very ugly.

    Revenue sharing might work in the NFL where every game is nationally televised anyway but in the NBA? I just don't see it.
     
  15. Nemo

    Nemo Fantasy-Football Snub Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    12,306
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lake Elmo

    Ya know max...I'm not the best expert with money.

    [STRIKE]
    That's why my wife manages it all.
    [/STRIKE]

    But it seems to me that the Laker don't get their 150 million per year TV deal if the league goes to 12 teams...I guess I feel the owners are in this together and need to work together as a team better. The messes we see with some of our pro sports is dur partly to owners fighting owners over money issues...
     
  16. TaS

    TaS All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    17,625
    Likes Received:
    2,957
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    If a market doesn't have the profit making potential to support a salary level at the cap, then the league shouldn't have a team in that city. If there is a city that has the ability to support up to the cap, but doesn't generate huge profits, then fine, it will just sell for a lower value then another team. Whatever owner buys into to that market should only pay a price for the franchise that allows him to hit his target returns.

    I agree that the cap and the draft rules really are set up well to make sure that any team able to pay their players up to the cap level have as good a shot as any other team. The Knicks haven't exactly been rolling in titles for example, while Detroit and San Antonio have multiple conquests. It works pretty well, in that it takes a disciplined GM, a smart coach, and a little luck to get the ship.

    I personally want the owners pitted against each other, not sharing with each other.
     
  17. max

    max All-Star

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    my bunker in the Carribbean
    I just cannot see how profit sharing would go over with the more profitable teams. Someone like Cuban who paid full value for his team plus funded a stadium for himself would now be asked to give up say 20% of his revenue to support his competitors? Seems like a violation of the contract terms of when he bought the team at the very least.

    Maybe they should just give an out clause to the any owner who wants out and dismantle their team. If they are losing the amounts that they claim then I wonder if they would go for it. But this is an era where the league would rather buy a team rather than leave it unsold.
     
  18. Nemo

    Nemo Fantasy-Football Snub Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    12,306
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lake Elmo

    If these owners were the owners of let's say...a McDonald's franchise...I completely understand your point. an owner in Orlando would not be expected to support the guy who opens up a franchise in Moosejaw.

    But I believe that all the owners are intertwined in the pro ranks. They all depend on the success of one another for the success of each member. A league must determine the correct number of teams to enjoy optimum success. Teams only should be considered for the metro areas that can support them. Owners should be hand selected so that they run the team with the intention of being successful, both on and off the field. Since the Los Angeles metro area and NYC are both huge population centers, It will give both towns an unfair advantage. They have the ability for more cash reserves because of access to more clients. They naturally can then put a better product out on the field if all other variables are equal...That makes the fans in Kansas City less enthused about their chances, unless somehow things are balanced....

    Kansas City, I believe is important, to the future of baseball. Moosejaw...less important to the future of McDonald's...
     
  19. Mogilny

    Mogilny All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    I guess this is the major difference. I don't follow MLB so I don't know anything about KC but I don't believe Sacramento is important for the future of basketball or Phoenix for the future of hockey. I'd wouldn't mind leagues with 24 or 20 teams.
     
  20. round

    round All-Star 1x Fantasy Champion

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    364
    Location:
    Michigan/Glasgow
    ahh but thats the rub, owners don't want to lose there teams... Go right to the sale of the Pistons and the league demanding a certain value for the sale... the value of the teams has nothing to do with really worth. Its being set to make the teams look like they have gained value since they were bought I guess. Is the owner of the lakers going to want to buy out the 5-6 teams that may need to be contracted? 400 million time 5... I just don't see the remaining owners wanting to put up 2 billion dollars.

    But on the otherside of the battle you have the players who don't want to lose jobs....

    so nobody is going to argue to contract. Just don't see contraction happening unless all the franchises are losing money.
     

Share This Page