Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: Players Knock Back A Proposed 50/50 Split Of BRI

  1. #1
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,488
    Rep Power
    28

    Angry Players Knock Back A Proposed 50/50 Split Of BRI

    Stern said the owners were willing to consider a 50-50 split, but that the players' side would not consider it. "I was very surprised by that," Stern said.

    Stern also said that, during discussions, owners had come off their long-held insistence on a hard cap, and revealed that last week owners backed off their desire for a rollback of existing salaries. He also said the owners had offered the players a chance to opt out of a new 10-year agreement after seven years.


    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    This is disgraceful, IMO. I've been reading that the big name agents: including, of course, World Wide Wes, who to me is the doucheiest in a new wave of agent douche, are now looking to decertify. They are also urging all players to remain staunch that 57% of BRI is their rite. That's ridiculous.

    Apparently Stern has not been honest in his revealing of total incomes for the league, or at least has concealed information.

    Whether or not this is the case, to knock back a 50/50 split is ****ed. I look forward to seeing how the union justifies such non-benevolent behavior toward its player's fan base.

    So, if this debacle isn't come to a close by Monday next week, the first 2 weeks of the regular season are as good as gone.

    The fact that it's taken 4 months to reach this stage makes it evident, to me, that the agents for the NBA stars have been collectively prepared, if not collectively conspiring, to have as much of the season cancelled as possible for the sake of winning this toe to toe battle of greed.

    **** the lot of 'em.

  2. #2
    Veteran Wargames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,193
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    I think this is PR is response to Woj's article that said Stern was the main problem in the negotiations. In all likelihood the NBAPL would still turn down the deal if it involved the flex cap that in many ways is a hard cap by just another name.

    What no one is saying is that if the owners shared TV revenue the whole league would be profitable but the owners figured it would be easier to go against the players instead of each other. The only problem with that is that there is money out there Wilson Chandler, JR smith, and K mart were very likely broke and would of been voices arguing to end the shutout but then they found money overseas so basically all the players with money can sit this out. The owners on the flip DO NOT want the season to end because they would be forced to pay back season ticket holders and various sponsors all at once. Derrick Fisher gave a speech today saying basically this which means the players have a game plan.

    My prediction is a 52-48 player/owner BRI split, a lower soft cap to lower the overall salaries of all teams, a removal of all the exceptions or a longer time linit on their use, the addition of the Melo Clause and possibly a rule that allows teams to amnesty 1 player with no cap penalties once every few years.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,666
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    The 50/50 split was after a $350M expense deduction which effectively made it the same as the 47/53 split according to the union. The sides are so far apart, they aren't close to resolving the big issues like the revenue sharing and the salary cap, unless one side or another gives in its going to be a long strike.

  4. #4
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Percentages

    In the 2009-10 season the total BRI was $3.643 billion and the players' 57% share was $2,076 billion. In the 2010-11 season the respective numbers were $3.817 billion in BRI and $2.176 billion in players' share.

    For ease of arithmetic let us assume a BRI increase in the coming season to $ 4 billion. That means that each 1% of BRI is $40M. If a 50/50 split were truly something the owners will accept, but the players want at least 53% -- and assuming agreement on other issues -- then the players are holding out for $120M a year. This amounts to a $4M a year payroll deduction for each of the 30 teams. But, of course, at 50/50, the players will have given up a total of 7%, or a per team total of $9.33M.

    The owners claim a league loss of $300M last year. The 50/50 split would just about take care of the losses at least on a gross basis. I do not know how the owners can distribute all the gain to the money losing teams.

    There is a lot of other stuff going on -- hard cap, length of contracts, luxury tax amounts that will operate as effective hard caps, mid level exceptions, Bird rights,etc. I see an eventual 50/50 split. I do not have an idea of where the sides are on the many other issues.

    On another note, it concerns me that though we hear a lot about splits among the owner groups, there is little coverage of the very differing interests of the players. Obviously the big earners, at least going forward, will take a total earnings hit of 7% hardest - the reduction will hurt them the most but only in total dollar gross amounts. But what about the players earning less than $2M or $3M a year. Sure, it is plenty of money, but these guys do not have the endorsements or the likely savings to be able to handle an extensive lockout. If you are not a star, but are looking to making $1M a year, a 7% deduction would leave you with $930,000. If your option is working in a furniture store like Delonte West, you will want your $930K. And what about the players, like Kevin Garnett, with perhaps only a year or two of earnings left? The union is representing some conflicting interests and seems to be catering to the "stars" and their agents.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,666
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    OT - As I understood the union letter to the players explaining the 50/50 split the owners wanted to take the 300M loss of the top reducing the revenues shared by 300M. So with a deal where there is a 50/50 split with the 300M taken off the top, the players share would be 1.85B using your 4B revenue number which would actually be less than the 47% deal the owners are offering if you didn't do the 300M expense deduction, the players would get 1.88B in a straight 47% deal. No wonder the players turned it down but it was a great PR ploy by the owners because it makes the players look greedy turning down an equal split.

    I see the owners point in proposing these deals, the point is they want the players to be equal partners and to share the losses as well as the revenues, a position the players want no part of.

    Good point about the negotiations being detrimental and possibly causing a rift between the stars and non-stars in the league. An example is the MLE and a proposal I saw reducing that to 3-4M a year instead of the 5-6M now and reducing the years to 3 instead of 5. Non-stars won't be happy with proposals like that, that MLE has made a nice living for the Jerome James and Jeffries of the league.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,032
    Rep Power
    19

    Angry The Luv of Basketball.......

    I seen from the beginning of July 1st, every new CBA proposal put on
    the table were aimed at "SCREWING" the future NBA players.

    I am so glad I been a strong supporter of Rukers-Park since the 60's to
    know when Rukers Park population is at full capacity with loud noise of
    oohs-aahs, and excitement yells from people sitting on top of ice-cream
    trucks.....this huge crowd of excited people squeezing into get into an
    over crowded park is all from a bunch of guys bouncing a basketball.

    Reducing the MLE to $3M rather than raise it back to $6M so a team could
    use it to sign 3 or 2 players is a HARD-CAP. There is nothing flexable about that.

    Reducing the players revenue from 57% to 54% in a league where the
    fan-base supporters has risen tremendously in the last two seasons is
    a HARD-CAP. There is nothing flexible about 50-50 split when the increase
    in ticket prices and T.V. broadcasting each of the past 3 seasons were
    paid in full.
    Is this another reason for all teams prices to increase for season ticket
    buyers for the 2011-12 season? or is it for the (crying) owner to be able
    to pay the extra $2 and $4 dollars over the new "super luxury tax" with
    few tears???

  7. #7
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    10

    Default 300M Off the Top?

    Tiger, I have not seen the idea of $300M off the top. That amount is 7.5% of a $4 billion BRI and would mean that the players would end up with 46.25% of a $4 billion BRI, If the owners' position prior to "suggesting" 50/50 was 47% for the players after $300M off the top, the percentage for the players of a $4 billion BRI would be 43.475 %. That simply can't be, can it?

  8. #8
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,492
    Rep Power
    20

    Default kiyaman rules

    I applaud Kiyaman's latest posts on KO, his grammar and insight has improved tremendously over the last season, and he's making a ton of sense. must be taking them smart pills... bravo!

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,032
    Rep Power
    19

    Thumbs down

    Originally Posted by tiger0330
    OT -
    Good point about the negotiations being detrimental and possibly causing a rift between the stars and non-stars in the league. An example is the MLE and a proposal I saw reducing that to 3-4M a year instead of the 5-6M now and reducing the years to 3 instead of 5. Non-stars won't be happy with proposals like that, that MLE has made a nice living for the Jerome James and Jeffries of the league.

    Why do peeps mention the one or two bads (JJ and JJ) of the MLE,
    when compared to the 10 or 20 MLE decent-players.

    Everyone keep mentioning all the high salary players and over-paid players,
    when there is never any mention of all the low salary players and under-paid
    players.....why is that? do these same peeps have a clue of how many
    minimum-wage players are in the league each season? along with players
    still playing on their rookie contract each season?

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,666
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Oldtimer
    Tiger, I have not seen the idea of $300M off the top. That amount is 7.5% of a $4 billion BRI and would mean that the players would end up with 46.25% of a $4 billion BRI, If the owners' position prior to "suggesting" 50/50 was 47% for the players after $300M off the top, the percentage for the players of a $4 billion BRI would be 43.475 %. That simply can't be, can it?
    This is an excerpt of the letter the union sent to the players re: the negotiations. It think it says that the 50/50 deal relaxed the salary rollback demands also but in the end is was the same deal offered by the owners or as the union phrased it "horse trading".

    "Yesterday, however, was about the revenue split. The owners have long been pushing for significant economic relief and we have differences about the extent of the owners’ losses. There have been numerous proposals to shift more dollars to the owners’ side and help cover the increased cost of running this business. In our last formal proposal, we offered to reduce our share of BRI to 52.4 percent, and then gradually increase that percentage over the course of a six-year deal to 54 percent, yielding an average of 53 percent. This offer – measured against our current system which guarantees us 57 percent of BRI – shifts an average of $185 million per year to the owners’ side, for a total of $1.1 billion over six years. We feel this offer – which would involve no rollbacks of existing contracts and maintain the current salary cap and luxury tax levels – is fair and addresses the owners’ complaints.

    The owners, on the other hand, have been in a far different place. Prior to yesterday, they had stood on an offer averaging 46 percent of BRI, rolling back this year’s salaries and benefits to $2 billion flat and growing very slowly over 10 years. Yesterday, they hoped to exchange back and forth offers in an effort to bring our proposal as far down as possible. They began the day offering an increase of just over one point – to an average of 47 percent. (They characterized the proposal as a 50-50 split, but with a new $350 million expense deduction, their offer would actually result in the players receiving only 47 percent of current BRI.) This proposal would reduce our salaries and benefits in each of the next two seasons before allowing salaries to grow modestly over the next 10 years. We informed them, in no uncertain terms, that such an offer was unacceptable, and that we would not engage in this type of horse trading. We reminded them that we had already moved a significant way from our current 57 percent and would take a stand until they agreed to a fair deal."
    Last edited by tiger0330; Oct 07, 2011 at 12:02.

  11. #11
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    10

    Default The Union Letter

    Thanks Tiger. I now see it, but it is hard to believe. I do not think either side is being entirely straight with the public.

    If the owners went from 47% to 50% but would then first take $350M off the top, it is plainly worse than 47% to the players. On a $4 billion BRI the deduction would leave $3.65 billion to split 50/50. That leaves the players with $1.825 billion and that number, in turn, is 45.6% of a $4 billion BRI. Are the owners treating the players as idiots?

    I am guessing that one of the big differences between the owners and the players is the expected BRI increases going forward. The union's claim that their offer would produce an average savings over a 6 year period of $185M suggests an average increase of over $400M a year in BRI. The increase between the last two seasons was about $174M. My guess is that the owners do not project such increases and thus suggested a flat $350M deduction that would be less onersous -- butnot by much -- to the players going forward.

    I do not think these guys are close at all.

  12. #12
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    The 50/50 split is misleading. The fact of the matter is that BRI is construed in the owner's favor already. Owners rake in dough that should be considered BRI, but isn't.

    Moreover, from what I've read, the Owners are also attempting to remove expenses in the field of around $300,000,000. This effectively takes the player's now 57% BRI to 47% (if 50/50 were to be the ending settlement).

    That is a lot of movement for the players, and quite frankly, I think a good shafting.

    The Players have already said they will drop 4% points, totaling to losses of 120 million a year.

    ESPN has even reported that the player's countered the offer with a 51/49 split.

    The players countered with a proposed 51 percent share, increasing to 53 percent, which the owners turned down, sources told Broussard.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    I don't think the Players aren't trying here.

    Ultimately, the question is: where does the line get drawn? Even if the player's were getting 35% BRI, they would still be raking in oodles of money; yet, I think it would be absolutely unfair. Would people still call them greedy if the owner's conditioned negotiations on that percentage?

    The players are the ones who make the money for the league. They put the butts in the seat. They should be entitled to a fair share, right?

    Isn't it their right and responsibility to fight for their best interests. Would we not do the same thing? If someone offered you 16 million a year, would you tell them, "no?"

    To drop 10 percentage points from where they are at is a lot in one year. To me it is the owners who are being greedy -- not the players. The players were the first to compromise, and the owners countered with a proposal that was essentially the hard line they began negotiations with.

    I also think it is quite insulting for the NBA to condition negotiations on the players giving in on items that are in dispute. "I know we have a dispute over BRI, but unless you give in to our terms we won't even attempt to negotiate anything else."

    Really?

    To me that doesn't sound like the NBA even wants the season to start, and would be more content with just screwing over the NBA players.
    Last edited by MusketeerX; Oct 08, 2011 at 02:28.

  13. #13
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    10

    Default $300M Off the Top

    It does not appear to me that the idea of $300M or $350M off the top for the owners before the percentage split of the BRI is still on the table. No one, including Broussard, is talking about it.

    The current players are somewhat in a box. If the owners want the players to go from 57% to 50%, it is not a small amount but it is still only 7%. If the owners are truly willing to sacrifice a season, 100% of salaries for one year will disappear. At 7% a year, it would take 14 years, at a 7% increase in average pay rather than a decrease, for a current player to make his single year's salary back. A lost year really screws the current players and the owners know it.

    The current players have to take care of themselves. The stars still in junior high will have their chance in the next contract.

    Big question --are the owners willing to lose a year? If they are, the players have a problem.

  14. #14
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    In these situations, the owners always have the advantage, for sure. 7% is a ton to lose in one year... The owners are more about trying to get every single cent they can from the players at this point -- without any concern for fairness or the NBA fan.

    I have not heard that the 350 mil is off the table either, so I can only assume that the last offer still stands.

    What's worse, under the proposal of the owners, players who are not superstars would lose out on guaranteed contracts and things such as Larry Bird exceptions...

    Meaning fan favorites who do the nitty gritty are going to be traded around more easily, and cohesive teams will systematically be dismantled over the years. I think you lose out on Dynasty teams like that, which is a loss for everyone.
    Last edited by MusketeerX; Oct 09, 2011 at 18:27.

  15. #15
    The Knicks are Back DaTPRiNCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn N.Y.........Alexandria,Egypt in the blood
    Posts
    3,862
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    11th hour meeting going on tonight. apparently the league has moved from its insistence on the 50-50 split. If thats the case there may be some steam going into the meeting. im still optimistic( perhaps child-like at this point) that the season starts on time. Cheers to basketball

Similar Threads

  1. Knicks Nightmare
    By Starks_boy in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Aug 17, 2009, 08:03
  2. Walsh Transcript
    By Crazy⑧s in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jun 23, 2009, 14:20
  3. International Players More Hype than Hope
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: Feb 20, 2009, 16:33
  4. Replies: 137
    Last Post: Jul 04, 2008, 19:35
  5. What players wont return next season
    By Kiyaman in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 20, 2008, 13:57

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •