Damn...I just wrote a ****ing book there.
The only way to avoid that is if both sides agree to a stipulation that the lost year "never took place" and resume all contracts as if there was no lockout. If they don't do that, then all players lose a year on their deal.
All of that being said....we' won't miss a full season. All of that is posturing for the public by the negotiating sides, and fear mongering by the media.
The #1 issue is revenue sharing and how poor it is in the NBA. The Knicks BRI (basketball related income) gets a huge shot of steroids right in the ass (no homo) because of the MSG network. The team essentially owns the network, but the network also has the exclusive broadcast rights for the team in it's home market...not SNY, not Comcast sports net, or Fox sports, or anyone else...it's the network that the team essentially owns. So every time you see a "Dial 7" cab commercial, or Rosco the bed bug sniffing dog commercial, that's ad revenue being generated by the network and I believe a cut of that is added to the Knicks BRI for their broadcasting rights. While I obviously don't know the exact numbers...I can tell you that the Knicks make more money with the MSG network than the Bucks do with Fox Sports Midwest, therefore they have a higher BRI, and more money to spend (that's why we were almost always in the luxury tax territory.)
BRI also takes other things into account like 40% of all proceeds from luxury suits. MSG's luxuray suites always have suits & ties in em, and they cost. Other teams have these advantages too, but not many. That's the issue.
The teams without, want a better revenue sharing model that gives them extra skrilla to work with since their BRI isn't as impressive as the big market teams. And while some of these NBA teams are exaggerating how much their losses are, there's no question that there are teams hemorrhaging money like a stuck pig...look at the Maloof family.
Since I don't know what the current revenue sharing model is, I dunno how these small market teams want to alter it to make it better for them...but one thing I do know is that the big market teams...the ones with the money and high BRI, are saying "why the **** should we give you guys any more money??" So the divided owners (those with cheddah, and those without cheddah) come together against a common enemy...the players. "Give back 40% of your money....every single year for the next half decade...and we won't work out the issues among ourselves, kay?" And the players are looking at the owners like "" cause that's not happening.
So...the closer it gets to the season, the pressure is on the owners who can't afford to miss a season....because they can barely afford to even operate during a season...and the players. Despite all the posturing in the media...teams can't afford to miss a season. Check it out, the Celtics' owner doesn't even own TD Garden...they rent it, and they recently extended their lease thru 2021. Rent is rent, whether or not you're actually on the premises means jack ****..you gotta pay your rent. So if there are not ticket sales, no concession sales, no cash-flow from any parking arrangements...but there's still rent to pay...why would an owner sit back and say " no season? no problem"
Cash rules everything. And when cash isn't being deposited but cash is being withdrawn, those owners will cave and something will get done. My money is on the owners without, who end up loosening up on some of their demands. The players might give back some money in a new salary cap model, but it won't be as much as the owners are asking for.
Last edited by nuckles2k2; Aug 09, 2011 at 07:02.
Right or wrong, the owners have the resources to absorb a long lockout much, much better than the players...expenses and all.
And philosophically speaking, I can't really blame the owners for demanding a bigger share of BRI from the players. Afterall, it's their league. If there are teams losing money, it's a bad business model. Penalizing a big market to artificially keep a smaller market afloat isn't great business. Either get the smaller market profitable (more BRI from players) or kill it (contraction).
Personally, I'd like to see them kill the NOH. It's unowned, it's losing money, and frankly, there's not enough talent in the NBA to stock this many teams. If they could just find one more team from the East to cut, it would probably solve a lot of problems. But nobody wants that.
Excellent posts by Nuckles and Marek. The fans and the players need a league with many teams spread throughout the country. This gives the players employment opportunities and increases the fan base. Who wants a ten team league? But there are only so many truly good franchise locations There should be some revenue sharing to assist the smaller market teams.
I do not believe that the owners are against revenue sharing. However, it appears that the revenue the owners want to share among themselves is the revenue they now seek to take from the players.
The owners want to separate the percentage of revenue pie they want vis a vis the players on the one hand and what they will do about revenue sharing after the pie is split on the other hand. It appears that the prinicipal current problem is the revenue split. I think that hard-caps, flex-caps, contract lengths, max contraacts etc. are side issues, but related side issues. Once a revenue split is determined, the other issues will tend to fall into place. What difference will a hard cap make to player compensation if the players are guaranteed a percentage of BRI? If we can assume a BRI pie that is stable or continues to grow, it is the percentage of the BRI pie they end up getting that will determine how much the players will make.
However, it now appears that the owners want a split that will plainly diminish substantially overall player compensation.