An 80 million hard cap would be beautiful...
That'd give us room to sign D12 and pick up a couple veterans on minimum contracts or MLE-level contracts (yes for the last time I know they're getting rid of the MLE but I mean the salary amount not the exemption itself)
The NBA’s Board of Governors met Tuesday in Dallas and heard a report on collective bargaining from Spurs owner Peter Holt, chairman of its labor relations committee.
The league wouldn’t reveal if the board officially authorized locking out the players once the clock strikes midnight Thursday, the end of the collective bargaining agreement that’s been in place since 2005, but it doesn’t matter. As commissioner David Stern has warned already, such a vote is a mere formality and can be conducted by any means at any time.
The first lockout authorization via text message may be mere hours away.
Holt’s committee will meet with the negotiating committee of the National Basketball Player’s Association on Thursday, but no last-minute breakthrough is expected.
Here’s the truly bad news: Once the lockout begins, the standoff is going to get nastier.
According to NBA executives familiar with the league’s strategies, once the lockout is in place, the owners will push for a hard salary cap of $45 million, the elimination of guaranteed contracts and ask that the players swallow a 33 percent salary cut.
The concessions made in recent weeks, including the “flex cap” of $62 million and a guarantee of $2 billion in annual player payroll, will be off the table.
If this seems certain to guarantee the loss of the entire 2011-12 season, it is because there are owners who think it is necessary for the long-term viability of the league.
The players likely know this is coming because hints have been leaked for weeks. How they react to the old, hard line once the anticipated stoppage begins will determine the prospects for next season.
During the 1998 lockout, a settlement was reached the day before the NBA said it would cancel the entire season.
This would be the prudent course of action, but the anticipated hardening of the league’s stance may move the union to decertify, an action that has been called its “nuclear option” since under U.S. labor law, it would remove the antitrust exemption from the league.
Anyone who has followed the NFL’s labor impasse knows this is what the NFLPA chose. Jeffrey Kessler serves as outside counsel for the NFLPA and the NBPA, so it is clear which path he prefers.
And if decertification happens?
Expect another antitrust lawsuit that will take months, perhaps years, to make its way through the courts.
The two sides have been working on a new deal for the better part of two years, so you have to wonder how they’ve approached the 11th hour still miles apart from an agreement.
Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver will have us believe it is because the league’s business model is broken and requires a new system. The trouble with this argument is that owning a professional sports team is more of a hobby than business for many of the owners.
Do you think Mark Cuban, who has a Forbes Magazine wealth estimate of $2.5 billion, loses sleep over the money he likely will lose on last season’s Mavericks, who had a player payroll in excess of $90 million (plus luxury taxes under the soon-to-expire CBA)?
Not when he gets to sleep with the Larry O’Brien Trophy, as he admitted to after his team won the NBA title earlier this month.
That’s not part of any business model Harvard MBA candidates study.
There are owners for whom the model no longer works well for, and Holt may be one of them. If small-market teams such as the Spurs want to remain competitive, a hard cap would help, but so would revenue sharing among the league’s 30 teams. But that is something Holt’s fellow owners must agree to do, and that won’t be any easier than striking a deal with the players.
There is a deal to be struck, on all issues, because there always is.
Time has run out on the easy route.
Beginning Friday morning, the real difficulty begins.
.... **** the owners man..
**** 'em all man, what a pile of greed and bull**** to wade through.
The players will still make boat loads of money (eventually)
The owners are mostly billionaires with basketball teams as HOBBIES.
The only people getting F$%*ED in this fiasco is US.
We the fans are getting totally ****ED on this bull**** because A) the players are greedy and don't want to give up their millions of dollars for playing a ****ing game. And B) the owners are greedy and want to cut back the salaries so much that they'll be making 100's of millions of dollars a year off of them.
If this lockout occurs and they end an entire season of basketball, I'm sorry but **** the entire NBA. What a terribly run professional league. David Stern and Derek Fisher should be ashamed of themselves.
Though the CBA negotiations have received substantial media attention, there is very little detailed analysis of the real issues.
Under the current CBA the players are guaranteed 57% of "BRI" (Basketball Related Income). That, obviously, leaves the teams with the remaining 43%. I have seen on several occasions that the players' share of current BRI is $2.17 billion. This translates into about $1.64 billion for the teams. In a 30 team league, this is an average of about $55 million a team. Bear in mind, this is a more a gross figure than a net figure because, in theory at least, all costs other than player compensation must be deducted.
It takes over 20 pages of the current CBA to define BRI. To some extent it looks like gross proceeds from every income source from any NBA related entity, e.g. "aggregate operating revenues." But there are numerous adjustments and sub-definitions too time consuming and complicated to try to figure out. For example, proceeds from broadcassts are "net of reasonable and customary expenses." And for certain things, such as luxury suites or arena signage, the BRI includes only 40% of the gross proceeds net of taxes.
There has got to be some creative accounting going on. Fifty-five million dollars does not seem an appropriate "gross" for an NBA team. I would expect substantial expenses in addition to players' salaries. The Golden State Warriors were recently purcased for $450 million. The debt service at 5%, for example, would be $22.5 million a year.
Although I could be wrong on this, it also appears that despite its inclusion in the BRI, an individusl team's local broadcast revenues are not shared with other teams. This makes little sense and is apparently part of the union argument suggesting that the large market teams share with the small market teams. Let them, and not the players, subsidize the teams in markets that do not command substantial broadcast revenue.
In short, I find the coverage of the CBA negotiations totally lacking in substance. What the hell is really going on?
Last edited by Oldtimer; Jun 29, 2011 at 17:33.
If I was making Landry Fields' salary I'd be happy for life.
I call BS on the $45 Million hardcap proposal. The owners aren't trying to punish the players with the new CBA they're trying to negotiate.
If anything I could see the hardcap going to the Mid $70 millions with a real chance of it going up to 80. The reason I say this is that the league is smart enough to know they have to set a minimum cap as well as a max cap. So with a max at say 76 million you would need to set the minimum cap at 60 million (based on Stern's example of a $16 million swing from max to minimum). Then if you add in Amnesty and the ability to trade players I can see all the teams in the league including the Lakers being able to get under the Max Flex cap.
As for the players I could see them possibly agreeing to this if the league did two things. First agree that the Hard cap can't go down but could potentially go up based on revenue. Also allow players sent to the D league not to be included in the max roster spot. That way rookie projects and aging vets who may not be signed to a team at the beginning of the season could still be paid minimum salaries to sit on the bench. It just wouldn't be on TV.
As for the owners it would be a mandatory increase of $6 million to $10 million. I mean Portland just promised Oden $8 Million so they're not afraid of spending money. The main thing is they need to simply lower what the average player makes and force teams not to have the option of continually using the MLE everytime it becomes available.
A 45 million dollar hard cap would ruin basketball.
There is absolutely NO rationale WHATSOEVER for Amar'e to receive what's effectively going to be a 7 million dollar salary rollback when mediocre MLB players are making the same amount of money as he is currently. The league WILL NOT get that, I promise.
Sorry but you're wrong. Just because there are millions and millions of dollars flowing through the hands of the NBA doesn't mean the people in the right places are making the right amounts of money.
Originally Posted by SSj4Wingzero
The NBA is a business and thus the people involved are involved because they want to make money. Money makes the world go round as they say.
Baseball is the most popular sport in America. Basketball is 3rd on that list behind American Football. So of course, salaries, income and turnover are going to be much higher for a sport which is the biggest in a nation as huge as the USA.
A 45 million hard cap would actually balance the league a lot more in the short term than any of the deals they have been discussing so far. And if the league is heading for lockout, why should the owners care? They are LOSING money anyway. Why agree to a deal which is just going to continue losing them money? Why rush to bring the league back so they can earn less than their outgoings?
The stupid thing is that this has already come to a head 6 years after the previous deal was set. The business model of the NBA is clearly very flawed if they are having to hugely restructure things only 6 years after the two sides came to an agreement.
Whew. Thanks for the in depth read, OT. The BRI is beyond my reckoning entirely! There'll never be any sort of pervasive coverage of the CBA talks. The NBA can't afford the torch and pitchfork reaction they'll get from fans.
Originally Posted by Oldtimer
How am I wrong? Do you really think that the Players' Association would EVER accept a deal where every player had to reduce his salary by 33%? You do realize that makes the maximum contract a team can offer a FA 11 million dollars, right? You honestly think that there would ever be a situation where the maximum amount of money a team could offer a player would be 11 million dollars? That salary is so low that I could see players bolting for Euro teams in order to make more money. What do you think a rookie contract is going to be? 1 million dollars a year for a first overall pick? No chance in hell.
Originally Posted by smokes
You're dead wrong if you think the Players' Association would ever acquiesce to that. Never in a million years. The league would sooner force six teams into contraction than lower the hard cap to 45 million dollars and stand firm on it.
I don't think for a SECOND that the league should ruin the earning power of NBA stars at the expense of small-market owners. If a city and owner can't afford to keep a team, then that team should be contracted and its players drafted out...why should the league ruin itself for the sake of the owner of a **** franchise that can't afford to keep itself afloat?
You talk like 11 million dollars is a small amount of money. It's a huge amount of money, it's just small in relation to the 15-20 million per year that was on the table a couple of years back.
Originally Posted by SSj4Wingzero
It's really a case of who can play hardball the longest. The owners of NBA teams have much more money than the players trust me
Some of them do. Others don't. If 11 million dollars is the maximum, then let's say 4 million dollars would probably be the league average salary. The minimum salary would probably go down to around 400,000 if you scaled everything down exactly.
Originally Posted by smokes
As a late first round or second round draft pick, you'd be better off playing in Europe at that point. The owners can talk what they want about a hard cap but if they want to roll back salaries by 33% I think they'll have to accept the reality that European teams will pay players more.
But look at the flip side. There are players like Eddy Curry who were strangling a teams ability to grow purely because of the way the salaries are worked in the NBA. It's not only the fault of the idiot GM's who sign off on these contracts it's because you have such a huge amount of disposable income that these hair-brained decisions can be made in the first place.
Originally Posted by SSj4Wingzero
I agree a 45 million hard cap is a crazy step down from what is currently on offer that's why the players union at this point should take the 65 million flex cap and be thankful for it.
People seem to paint the players association as the victims and the NBA as the dictators in this situation but actually it is the NBA who has been trying to make all the concessions to their plans and the players who refuse to budge.