Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CBA Negotiations: League Officials Feel NFL Hardcap System Superior To Their Softcap

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm not sure #2 would work well. The reason being the economy is so bad and in my view we're about to take another dip far worse than 2008. Revenues will drop in such a case. If revenues are dropping then teams can't plan long term because what happens if they lock their guys up, the economy tanks and suddenly they have more salary than the new hard cap number?

    I don't think there should be any guaranteed contracts. It's the Eddy Curry's of the league who are killing teams. I think there should be non-guaranteed contracts in place with signing bonuses, yearly bonuses and performance bonuses. On top of that contracts should be re-negotiable at any time pending the willingness of the player and owner.

    Roll backs will be needed to accommodate teams like the Lakers. It's big market teams who will lose a competitive edge with a hard cap in my view by the way.

    Comment


    • #17
      What happens to current contracts when there's a new CBA? Are all contracts back to square one - re-negotiating?

      Comment


      • #18
        LilRomeo wrote: View Post
        What happens to current contracts when there's a new CBA? Are all contracts back to square one - re-negotiating?
        Still in the debate, but they don't disappear. If anything they get a roll back/reduction in amount by a certain percentage, but personally I doubt that has much chance of happening. Would more likely be a phase-in to the new system over a couple of years or something.

        Comment


        • #19
          The proposal from NBA owners that the NBA Players Association rejected last week called for the implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer.

          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6530352

          Comment


          • #20
            I think the NFL hardcap is a bad comparison.

            1. The NFL has some control over alternative revenue resources ie who gets corporate sponsorship gigs.

            That would never happen in the NBA. They also have real revenue sharing with a way more prestigious TV deal. I think the NHL hard cap is a lot closer to what the NBA would want except:

            2. NBA players have WAY more revenue resources than hockey players.

            What we've seen from the NHL hard cap is that building a quality team is temporary -- to keep stars, important second tier players need to be moved when they increase their value (see Chicago Blackhawks). Also, this doesn't stop players from getting paid less from the league, especially since their might be alternative revenue benefits playing in certain markets.

            I think a hard cap would be a bad idea. A "harder" cap like what Kuh suggested would be way more beneficial and create an environment where real revenue sharing is possible.

            Comment


            • #21
              What I think must come about in the new CBA:
              - eliminate guaranteed contracts, perhaps after 2yrs of the contract. The Eddie Curry's of the world piss us all off, not just the owners. Even in an office union if you have a guy/girl causing sh&t, there is a process by which they either shape up or you can kick them out the door. Drunk driving, drug violations, societal mayhem, jackassery should all be grounds for the bu-bye clause.

              - reduce the raises (although not as drastically as proposed). Kobe is great to the Lakers, but no freaking way is he worth $30M in a couple of years from now. Period. No way. And the more these guys get, the more the ticket prices jack up to compensate.

              - reduce the length of time on long-term contracts to max 4yrs.

              - kill the sign-and-trade option. If you want the money, stay with your damn team. No forcing the issue and holding a team ransom . You want to go to another team, take less money (if you are a max-type player of course, mid-level guys have at 'er!) Also for the GM's, no benefits of holding onto your guy and thinking you will get 'something'. Plan your team so they want to stay, or plan for the potential of losing him. MANAGE your team. I can't trade my employee if he wants to go to my competitor because they offer the benefits he/she likes, I either have/offer those benefits or bu-bye.

              I like certain aspects of the current system, including the luxury tax, but I would alter it to a $3 tax for every dollar over the cap. Yah yah some will say certain owners will still pay over. Fine, let them. I think it would help. In my opinion, Jerry Buss is not going to pay an extra $60M on top of the extra $30M he currently pays just to keep his players salaries. And if he does, then great for the teams under the cap sharing an extra $60M. They certainly won't be losing so much money. This setup still gives a modicum of flexibility to teams, but will level out more closely to a hard(er) cap system.

              Comment


              • #22
                http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...&status=Active

                "The owners' latest proposal suggested continuing the current system for two years, then instituting a hard cap in year three. This gives teams a two-year grace period.

                I think it's going to be even easier than that -- this is a negotiation, and at the start of a negotiation you ask for the moon & the stars, then you slowly work your way somewhere in the middle. The owners are starting with a hard cap. The players are starting with something resembling what we have now. The owners have already backed off a little by providing that two-year grace. I think when all is said & done, they'll end up with a system that is harder, but not a true hard cap.

                Evem David Stern talks about the value of Bird rights. I think Bird rights -- in a more restrictive form -- and a few other exceptions will survive into the next agreement.

                But to answer the last part of your question -- the owners' proposal also calls for salary rollbacks -- lower wages in existing contracts. The proposal calls for cuts of 15%, 20% or 25%, based on the player's salary."

                Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...#ixzz1MzSdvklM

                Comment


                • #23
                  NBAPA Sues NBA. Charges range from "Being mean." too " Not playing nicely."

                  Wow ... this is big news.
                  Source


                  NEW YORK (AP) -- The NBA players' association filed an unfair labor charge against the league Tuesday with the National Labor Relations Board, a move it hopes could block a lockout it feels owners want.

                  The union says the NBA hasn't bargained in good faith, has made financial demands without offering concessions to the players, and has bypassed the union to deal directly with players.

                  The charge filed with Region 2 of the NLRB seeks "an injunction against the NBA's unlawful bargaining practices and its unlawful lockout threat."

                  The NBA and players are trying to reach a deal for a new collective bargaining agreement before the June 30 expiration of the current one. They plan to meet early next month during the NBA finals, but remain far apart on major financial issues and a work stoppage remains a possibility.

                  Though both sides insist they realize the importance of negotiating a deal themselves without it reaching the courts, as the NFL's labor situation has, the union hopes the charge could give them legal backing if bargaining fails.

                  The charges against the league include:

                  • making harsh, inflexible, and grossly regressive "takeaway" demands that the NBA knows are not acceptable to the union and not supported by objective or reasonable factors or balanced by appropriate trade-offs;

                  • engaging in classic "take it or leave it" and surface bargaining intended to delay action on a renewal CBA until the NBA locks out the represented employees in order to coerce them into accepting the NBA's harsh and regressive demands;

                  • failing and refusing to provide relevant financial information properly requested and needed by the union to understand, test, and analyze the NBA's asserted justification, based on financial weakness, for its grossly regressive contract demands;

                  • threatening union-represented employees that the NBA will force them to pay for the cost of a lockout through even more draconian takeaways from their CBA;

                  • making demands and threats that are inherently destructive to the collective bargaining process and to employee rights, and that reflect the NBA's hostility to that process and those rights and are intended to signal to Union-represented employees that back-and-forth bargaining is futile.


                  A request was made with the NBA seeking comment. NBAPA is basically saying the NBA Owners aren't playing fair, and don't actually want to avoid the lockout.
                  I don't disagree with these charges either.

                  David Stern got some 'splainin' to do.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X