Printable View
Im curious to know where a lot of us Fans (members) of KO stand on this
NBA lockout issue.....your two cents is needed.
The issues:
- BRI percentages for players & owners
- Hard or soft cap?
Definition of BRI: [Only registered and activated users can see images. Click Here To Register...]
Hard vs Soft Caps: [Only registered and activated users can see images. Click Here To Register...]
As a Bussinessman who started from the botton (minimum-wage) to work
my way to the top.....my stance is in favor with the players-union proposal
of accepting 52% of the BRI for next 3 or 4 seasons with a raise to 54% the
following 3 or 4 seasons so the players would average 53% of the BRI in 6 or
8 seasons. There was a strong reason why the players received 57% of the
BRI in the 1999 lockout that has yet to be mention during this 2011 lockout.
After the "Lebron James Decision" a soft-cap is neccessary however, a flex-
cap could be instituted just not the one the owners first laid on the table.
:smokin: :gony: :smokin:
Both sides are just being greedy in my opinion.
The players need to just take the 50-50, and the owners need to work out their revenue sharing program.
Done deal.
Afterwards the league needs to reconsider where they have these smaller markets.
Relocation or contraction.
The players are gonna have to take the 50-50 split cause the offer probably isn't gonna get much better than that, but there's no doubt they deserve more.
They are the commodity, they are the league.
The owners wanna wrestle back more money simply because they shelled out so much cash for payroll that they're having a hard time turning a profit. Who's fault is it that Gilbert is making $19 million, Elton Brand $17 million, or Barron Davis $13?
The owners made their bed in '99, extended it in 2005, spent uncontrollably simply because they could, now they want the players to save them. So the players are supposed to give money back?
I'd like to see anyone who calls the players greedy, willingly just give money back to your employer by way of extra hours for no overtime, no benefits, and even roll your salary back a bit over time. It's not exactly what's proposed to the players, but let's see how the everyday working man likes the idea of their employers taking an extra chunk of the revenue pie just because they want to.
Plus the players already proposed a reduction in their share of the BRI from it's current 57% down to 52% which increases to 54% later in the life of the CBA....that's an immediate 5% increase for the owners, that reduces to 3%....more than reasonable when the players are the commodity. But the owners ain't havin' none of it. 50-50 or gtfo.
I just wish the players would take the proposal already because everyone knows that the owners can hold out longer than the players...and the offer in all likelihood isn't getting better.
My season tix are paid for god dammit, I want basketball. Right. Now.
I'm all for the players. This is their lively hood and without the players the league wouldn't exist. Stearn is just a bully throwing around threats as if he is the NBA, that sought of arrogance isn't really sitting well with the players or fans. The players have been told atleast 2 years ago to prepare for this moment because they expect the owners and stearn to use these wack tactics (canceling games) to scare much of the player base into submitting so they can be paid...but paid what the league wants them to be paid.
I commend them (the players) for standing strong in what they believe is fair. The owners make more then their share and should be happy they are making money off the backs of people that will need that big check for constant expensive healthcare, and the big house and perks that come along with giving up their freedom. None of these guys can actually afford to live in average neighborhoods, where the people are constantly hounding you for autographs and pictures...when all you want to do is go to the store and buy a simple loft of bread and milk.
In the end... this is just a game and the fans can find something else to do in the mean time and let these guys handle thier biz so they can get back to entertaining the fans. How can they bring their best (what we pay for) when they are not happy or treated fair finacially? You just can't compare their wages to the average populace. Anyone can make big bank if they put in the hard work and master their crafts. Thats what these guys did and they deserve the money we fans have no problem giving them...I don't care what the owners get.
To be honest, I rather community ownership of teams, this way the players will get paid and there isn't a greedy owner holding up the games because he feels he deserves more of the revenue to something he barely had a hand in. Owning something doesn't always mean you deserve to monoplize on it. You should be happy that you get some profit and that your product is self sustaining. Greed always corrupts...
i dont pretend to know the nuts and bolts of it but from over here the NBA is being painted pretty badly. I believe however that there should be a hard cap on teams or we need something to make the league more competitive. We dont want the same teams always ending up deep in the playoffs.
is there any chance of games being played this season? i was planning to come over to the states and i wanted to come to MSG but i will delay my trip if there wont be
Like other have said, I"m with the players. I feel like they have been the only party trying to compromise. I think it has been quite evident that the owners are not as much concerned with having a seasons as they are squeezing every single cent from the players that they can.
The players need to take 50/50 as it is only going to get worse for them as the season goes on. They really are at the mercy of the owners. I truly believe this lockout could have ended last week, but the owners decided to lose more games...
Lose some money now to gain more over the next 7-10 years.
The Utah Jazz Raja Bell perspective of the lockout
Bell gave a specific example, and it’s the one fans are likely most familiar with. The much-publicized BRI issue has been one of the most-debated issues in the negotiations between players and owners.
“I think initially let’s say we are making 57% of BRI (Basketball Related Income)…let’s say off the top. That is what was under the current or past collective bargaining agreement that just expired. We were willing to come down and we came down incrementally to let’s say 53%. That wasn’t enough and then it became you guys take 49% and the numbers just keep moving and if you are talking about let’s say middle level exception…Right now it is $5.8 [million]. If we come down to let’s say $5 million, now the owners want it to be $3 million. The numbers are so low. It’s like any bargaining. If you shoot so low you know you can’t get the deal done. I feel like that is their target to shoot just below the bar, so it looks they are negotiating and in fact there is not a real attempt to negotiate.”
One issue for the players is that before calculating the BRI for a season the NBA takes their operating costs out of the money pool. Bell said he understands why fans would feel players should just take their 50% and play ball, but also explains why the BRI is the big sticking point.
“No to a certain degree I do understand a fan’s perspective on that, but at the end of the day like – let’s use Shell Oil as a corporation. Shell Oil – whoever runs that company – makes billions and billions of dollars, right? But without the oil they make nothing. The oil is the product they are selling and the owners are selling us as the product and without that product there is nothing. You understand where we are coming from when we say 50-50 (split of revenue) isn’t exactly 50-50, when you take your operating costs off the top?
“50-50 is not an accurate depiction of what it breaks down to be once an owners has recouped all of his operating costs,” Bell continued. “You have to understand these owners are crafty. They are building in operating costs that they are paying to themselves. I mean some of these guys own their own arenas and they are paying rents in essence to themselves as they own other corporations and they are calling it a operating cost? When you are doing that over 82 or 100 games and then you are saying okay now I want to split whatever is left with 50-50… it’s not 50-50.”
Bell also wanted to make it perfectly clear that what’s going on is not the players striking, but rather the NBA preventing the players from playing basketball.
I stand in front of my television watching the North Carolina Tarheels win the NCAA tourney .
I'm asking myself, why actually do the owners want the league to become more competitive and I'm trying to compare the financial situation of the NBA with that of European football leagues. They do not have all that **** called BRI, salary cap, max contracts, mid level exceptions and rest of blah, blah, blah. All the teams earn money on their own (sponsors, tickets, commercials, TV rights etc.) and spend that money on their own (contracts, transfers etc.) and they are still absolutely competitive, eg. last week Naples (€95,1M/$123,6M revenue as of 2010) was able to compete with Munich (€323,2M/$420,1M revenue as of 2010) and they ended up with a 1:1 draw, so why shouldn't we bring some free market to the NBA? Why shouldn't we let the owners find their own way to make money and their way to spend it?
That's exactly what the NBA has, that's why the larger markets dominate in terms of incoming revenue. Larger market = more money to be made, which = more money to spend. The NBA is essentially in a free market, there's a reason the Lakers inked a 20-year TV deal with Time Warner that's estimated to pay them $3 billion dollars over the term of the contract, while the T'Wolves play on FOX Sports North.
There are many differences bitween those two systems. For example, theoritically small markets are able to make much more money than large markets, eg. both football teams from Manchester (metro of 2,6M population) even sharing their local market generate much more income than just one team from Paris (metro of 10M population). Another thing are transfers, in the NBA almost all trades are made on the basis of the "player/s for player/s" rule, which in football rarely happens, because players are usually traded for cash (eg. Ronaldo who was bought by Real Madrid for $122M).
I mean if the NBA would be based on the free market system, then if a team doesn't generate revenue, makes loss every season and can't afford its payments than it declares bankruptcy and if players don't want to play for money their teams offer to them, they can alwas change their career path. :smokin:
It would still be the same thing. The Lakers and Knicks would buy be able to buy everyone based on how much money they bring in solely based on their potential income due to their market size.
You can see a clear example of it in the MLB. The largest payrolls are all in the larger markets, you still have competition from smaller market teams, but they often end up losing young elite players due to inability to pay them (Marlins letting Cabrera go, Indians losing C.C., Milwaukee is about to lose Prince, Tampa had to cut ties with Crawford, etc) so it's not exactly going to change things in the NBA...the teams with the higher (B)asketball (R)elated (I)ncome will still have more money to throw around. Sure under your theory the Kings could sell Tyreke, Marcus, and DeMarcus for a ton of money, but then who do they buy to replace them with? International soccer has a much deeper talent pool.
By the way, Real Madrid brought Ronaldo AND Benzema, Xabi Alonso, Coentrao, and Angel di Maria. And they get money from the country instead of relying on a single owner and the team related income. So...they have a lot of money and they're pooling talent. The Knicks have a lot of money and they're pooling talent, the Lakers have a lot of money and pool talent, the Mavs have a lot of money and pool talent, and the Heat have a lot of money and pool talent.
All the teams I just named, all pay the luxury tax. Things wouldn't change all that much.
Maybe things wouldn't change that much, however there would be no lockout at all.
Raja Bell's comments suggested that the BRI number is net of the owners' operating expenses thus implying that this was somehow unfair to the players. It is not that simple.
Under the old CBA, the BRI was an extremely complicated calculation. Too complicated for me, at least, to determine the extent to which it may have favored the owners, but also too complicated -- and important -- not to have been the subject matter of negotiation.
I have not seen evidence that there is great disagreement between the owners and the players as to what constitutes the BRI. The focus appears to be on the percentage split, not what is included in, or excluded from, the BRI.
The BRI does, however, include a lot of stuff that is net of "reasonable expenses." For example, proceeds from beverage sales or other concession items. Certainly the BRI should not include the gross sales, because there is plainly a cost of goods sold. The beer that is sold for $7 or $8, does have a cost. To be sure this is an area of potential abuse or even fraud, but I do not get the impression that the BRI calculation itself, at least at this point, is a contested issue.
What confuses me are the apparent issues beyond the BRI split. Under the old CBA the players got 57% of the BRI and the players were guaranteed that amount as follows --
"In the event that for any Salary Cap Year Total Salaaries and Benefits is less than 57% of BRI, the difference shall be paid by the NBA to the Players Association . . . for distribution to all NBA players who were on an NBA roster during the Season covered by such Salaary Cap Year on such proportional basis as may be reasonably dtermined by the Players Association."
We have all been projecting a BRI of about $4 billion. If the owners impose a hard cap of, for example, $60M a team, an amount greater than any of the previous soft caps, it comes to $1.8 billion for the thirty teams. On a $4 billion split at at least 50% for the players, the NBA would owe $200M to the Players Association to be distributed proportionally. If there were a soft cap, and as a result the total player benefits was more than $1.8 billion, then either there would be less than $200M to distribute or the NBA would keep some of the escrow. No matter what, the players get and only get their share of the BRI. In the end, at least for the players as a whole, what is the difference between a hard cap and a soft cap?
Assuming an agreement on the BRI split, why do the owners care about the amount of a mid-level exception or any other way the players divide their share of the BRI? And why should the players insist on guaranteed contracts? All the money that the Jerome Jameses and the Eddy Currys were paid that was beyond what they contributed was taken out of the contributing players' BRI share. If it did not go to a James or a Curry, it would have been disributed proportionally.
All the issues, other than the BRI split, appear to be aimed at limiting individual players' opportunities because all they do is move the player money among the different players. A low limit on a mid-level exception will mean an underpayment for some players and perhaps more money for the stars. Preusuambly the owners believe that these other issues will assist in making a more competitive league