Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

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

  • How The PA Stole Christmas:


    “It’s time to make the deal. If we don’t make it Tuesday, my gut … is that we won’t be playing on Christmas Day,” Stern said.

    “Deal Tuesday or we potentially spiral into situations where the worsening offers on both sides make it even harder for the parties to make a deal.”

    On Tuesday the sides will use the same federal mediator who tried to resolve the NFL’s labor dispute months before it eventually ended.

    “We really want the union, and us, to explain ourselves to a federal mediator. It may be in the act of explaining we will get a better reality check.”
    Source: CBS New York

    Comment


    • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
      I'm not against it.

      I'm not on anybodies side in this. I just want Basketball.

      However I recognize, and am Empathetic to the stance with which the players are taking. That is all.

      It's no one sides fault. It's just a giant Catch-22, and I'm pointing out the other side.
      I like the players a lot more than those old guys in suits but I am taking their side because to me their side is talking sense and thier side is proposing things which will make the league better while the players appear to be desperately clinging on for dear life to a system that doesn't work. The owners are driven by money and the players are driven by money but at least the owner's side offers the fans hope for a better product and long term health of the game.

      Comment


      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
        The owners are the factory.
        Disagree with this.
        I'd say the Sport itself is the Factory.

        The owners don't provide the players with the Talent or the Skill.
        They just capitalize on it, and sell it to the masses.


        Do you think that its fair that NCAA athletes make the Schools BILLIONS and yet see nothing in return?

        Matt52 wrote: View Post
        The NHL has a hard cap.
        Of $60M.
        And a winimum Team Payroll of No-less than $48M(ish). Thats more than ALOT of NBA teams are paying on Salaries right now.



        Are you actually trying to say that NONE of this is due to the Owners own Hand, Matt?

        Comment


        • hold on here people... there are many things on BOTH sides that are very anti-capitalist going on here.

          A union, in and of itself, can be seen as anti-capitalist. But so is a hard or soft cap. Putting any restrictions on any company or individual ability to make money is anti-capitalist...anti-capitalism is exactly what the owners want FOR THE PLAYERS. They also want it for each other... or atleast some want it for others. There is a serious irony in this debate between the owners and players where the union is acting as an agent of capitalism. Just goes to show a person's ideology is only as strong as it makes their pocket book.

          Capitalism also doesn't guarantee you profits. Far from it. It guarantees you NOTHING. Yet this is what these owners want... they want a level playing field (or atleast as level as suits them) while still being able to bring in profits and not having to give any up to their peers. A real capitalist system would have no salary cap, no draft, and no financial security. If an owner was not making enough money to be profitable they would have to fold. If an owner couldn't compete with other teams because of the size of their investment, they'd have to invest more. If an owner signed a contract they'd be obligate to pay it or declare bankruptcy in order not to. There is NOTHING capitalist going on here.

          Edit: There is one thing capitalist going on, and thats ticket prices.

          And Apollo owners are not taking responsibility for their prior actions. Far from it. If they were they would accept their mistakes, pay their obligations and not give big contracts the next time around.... however they aren't and don't want to. And next time around they'll give ungodly contracts to players who don't deserve it just like they did after the last LOCKOUT. You know the one where the owners wanted a salary cap as to make the playing field more level, and then included an almost infinite number of exceptions. Oh and then a bunch of them more or less ignored it and spent money like crazy anyways. But yes its the players fault.......
          Last edited by GarbageTime; Thu Oct 13, 2011, 06:54 PM.

          Comment


          • The owners aren't asking for guarantees. They're telling the players they're taking 50% of the revenue. If the economy tanks even worse, who's giving them this guaranteed money you speak of?

            GarbageTime wrote: View Post
            And Apollo owners are not taking responsibility for their prior actions. Far from it. If they were they would accept their mistakes, pay their obligations and not give big contracts the next time around.... however they aren't and don't want to.
            They have taken responsibility. They made a mistake by extending a deal that hurt them. That was their mistake. Those obligations were connected to an agreement that no longer exists. They now have no obligations to pay the players anything until both sides come to a new agreement. The contract is over, time to move on friend.

            GarbageTime wrote: View Post
            And next time around they'll give ungodly contracts to players who don't deserve it just like they did after the last LOCKOUT.
            Actually they won't be operating in a system built around ungodly risks if they get their way and this is the first lockout in 12 years.

            GarbageTime wrote: View Post
            You know the one where the owners wanted a salary cap as to make the playing field more level, and then included an almost infinite number of exceptions. Oh and then a bunch of them more or less ignored it and spent money like crazy anyways. But yes its the players fault.......
            I'm not saying it's the players' fault. I'm saying it's the owners' fault. The owners' made a bad deal. They're through it now. They honored it. Now they're working for a fair deal that doesn't hurt them.

            Comment


            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
              Disagree with this.
              I'd say the Sport itself is the Factory.
              Fair enough - owners are the promoters who provide the capital to pay and care for the help.

              The owners don't provide the players with the Talent or the Skill.
              They just capitalize on it, and sell it to the masses.
              Which in turn pays the players. WIthout the owners/league backing, the players would never receive the attention and compensation they do. Sure there would be another league - but we'd be in the same situation with those owners as well.


              Do you think that its fair that NCAA athletes make the Schools BILLIONS and yet see nothing in return?
              I wouldn't say nothing - next to nothing but not nothing. They get scholarships, world class facilities, and a platform to develop craft to go on and make money. But who are we kidding: it is peanuts in the big picture and that is not the issue - we are talking NBA.


              Of $60M.
              And a winimum Team Payroll of No-less than $48M(ish). Thats more than ALOT of NBA teams are paying on Salaries right now.
              If by ALOT you mean 1, then I agree. 29 of 30 teams in the NBA had a payroll of over $50M with a softcap of $58M. The only team under $50M was Sacramento at just under $40M. 20 of 30 teams paid $64M or more (would have been 21 except for Denver Melo trade).

              The NHL also has a roster of 23 compared to the NBA's 15 (which is usually 14).

              Are you actually trying to say that NONE of this is due to the Owners own Hand, Matt?
              Of course the owners have a hand in their current situation. They agreed to it in 2005. Now it is over and they want a new agreement. The contract was for 6 years and they are up. What entitlement do the players have to 53%?

              Comment


              • They have taken responsibility. They made a mistake by extending a deal that hurt them. That was their mistake. Those obligations were connected to an agreement that no longer exists. They now have no obligations to pay the players anything until both sides come to a new agreement. The contract is over, time to move on friend.
                Making a mistake is not taking responsibility for it. And yes their contract with the union is over, not their contracts with individual players though. Yet they are trying to adjust their current responsibilities to individual players through their new contract with the union.

                Lets see the owners work out a new system while not touching current salaries. Then they would be taking responsibility for their prior actions.

                Actually they won't be operating in a system built around ungodly risks if they get their way and this is the first lockout in 12 years.
                A hard cap will make contracts much more risky as teams will have less ability to compensate for them. Atleast right now teams have the ability, if they choose, to 'hedge' against injuries, or players not working out etc. Under a hard cap they won't. It makes payroll risk smaller as a whole, while increasing the risk of every individual contract.

                Spending X dollars on a player under a Y cap is less risky than paying X dollars to player under a Y-1 cap.

                And as we already know, its the not Lebron or Dwight contracts that are problematic. Its the Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis contracts that are. A hard cap does nothing to fix that... it only makes it worse.
                Last edited by GarbageTime; Thu Oct 13, 2011, 07:16 PM.

                Comment


                • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                  Making a mistake is not taking responsibility for it. And yes their contract with the union is over, not their contracts with individual players though. Yet they are trying to adjust their current responsibilities to individual players through their new contract with the union.

                  Lets see the owners work out a new system while not touching current salaries. Then they would be taking responsibility for their prior actions.



                  A hard cap will make contracts much more risky as teams will have less ability to compensate for them. Atleast right now teams have the ability, if they choose, to 'hedge' against injuries, or players not working out etc. Under a hard cap they won't. It makes payroll risk smaller as a whole, while increasing the risk of every individual contract.

                  Spending X dollars under a Y cap is less risky than paying X dollars under Y-1 cap.

                  And as we already know, its the not Lebron or Dwight contracts that are problematic. Its the Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis contracts that are. A hard cap does nothing to fix that... it only makes it worse.

                  Impr
                  The players association has the choice to role back contracts for those under contract or leave fewer dollars for their free agent colleagues. It is all the same amount of dollars for the players, it is how it gets distributed.

                  Luckily owners are attempting to take contracts from 5/6 years to 3/4 years max. If contracts were only 4 years max for re-signing FA's or sign and trade FA's and 3 years for another team FA, both Gilbert and Rashard would be off the books now.

                  Comment


                  • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                    owners are the promoters.
                    Perfect. Great analogy actually, Matt.

                    They are Don King. I like it. hahah


                    Matt52 wrote: View Post
                    Which in turn pays the players. WIthout the owners/league backing, the players would never receive the attention and compensation they do. Sure there would be another league - but we'd be in the same situation with those owners as well.
                    Except that the players would never run out of People trying to make money off of their talents.
                    The owners WILL run out of Players that they can make Real money off of.

                    But yes its the Catch-22 I mentioned. It's a tough call.

                    Matt52 wrote: View Post
                    If by ALOT you mean 1, then I agree. 29 of 30 teams in the NBA had a payroll of over $50M with a softcap of $58M. The only team under $50M was Sacramento at just under $40M. 20 of 30 teams paid $64M or more (would have been 21 except for Denver Melo trade).
                    Are we looking at the same information?
                    Hoopshype says 16 were under $50M?
                    Or is what I'm reading just plain wrong? haha


                    Matt52 wrote: View Post
                    What entitlement do the players have to 53%?
                    Suppose just as much as the Owners have to the 53% they desire.
                    Last edited by Joey; Thu Oct 13, 2011, 07:23 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Apollo wrote: View Post
                      The owners aren't asking for guarantees. They're telling the players they're taking 50% of the revenue. If the economy tanks even worse, who's giving them this guaranteed money you speak of?
                      You are right there, and I probably worded it incorrectly initially. I meant it as capitalism doesn't mean you are or will operate under a profit.

                      Comment


                      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        The players association has the choice to role back contracts for those under contract or leave fewer dollars for their free agent colleagues. It is all the same amount of dollars for the players, it is how it gets distributed.

                        Luckily owners are attempting to take contracts from 5/6 years to 3/4 years max. If contracts were only 4 years max for re-signing FA's or sign and trade FA's and 3 years for another team FA, both Gilbert and Rashard would be off the books now.
                        And the PA is currently offering to do both, just not up to the owners liking. Again remember this is a lockout and the players have offered both salary cuts and future salary restrictions.

                        But it also does nothing to address the owner's current responsibilities. I'd bet the players would have no problems (or atleast less of a problem) with the owners offering a smaller future salaries, while taking X% of each current salary and not including it under the cap. In this way owners can meet their current obligations (responsibilities) while being able to adjust for their future system.

                        personally this is something I'd be much more for. But thats just me.

                        as for the second part... that is completely irrelevant. The next Gilbert Arenas or Rashard Lewis will sign a 4 year contract (or whatever it may be) under the new system and be a burden on their team for the remaining life of the contract. Those two were just examples of the type of problematic contracts.

                        Comment


                        • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                          Are we looking at the same information?
                          Hoopshype says 16 were under $50M?
                          Or is what I'm reading just plain wrong? haha
                          They are technically incomplete as no moves were made this offseason... so those are not full team rosters

                          Comment


                          • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                            They are technically incomplete as no moves were made this offseason... so those are not full team rosters
                            Exactly. They are the 2011-12 rosters on the books thus far (i.e.without free agency, rookie contracts, or extensions).

                            Comment


                            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                              Perfect. Great analogy actually, Matt.

                              They are Don King. I like it. hahah




                              Except that the players would never run out of People trying to make money off of their talents.
                              The owners WILL run out of Players that they can make Real money off of.

                              But yes its the Catch-22 I mentioned. It's a tough call.



                              Are we looking at the same information?
                              Hoopshype says 16 were under $50M?
                              Or is what I'm reading just plain wrong? haha




                              Suppose just as much as the Owners have to the 53% they desire.
                              I was looking at 2010-11 information. 2011-12 rosters there at HoopsHype.com do not have rookie deals, free agency, or extensions.

                              With regards to 53%, what risk are players taking? What money, capital, or resources are they investing? There only 22 people in the NBA or associated with the NBA last year who did not make money and they were all owners.

                              Comment


                              • Interesting quotes from Stern. Unfortunately we are at the point where neither side can be believed 100% as they both seek fan approval and the other's condemnation:

                                Via Hoopshype.com:

                                Henry Abbott: Stern also says idea of 50/50 BRI split came a month ago from the union's "negotiator." http://player.radio.com/player… Twitter

                                Tommy Dee: Stern: We offered the union to look at our books. Union declined. Twitter
                                Stern is known as a master manipulator by various media reports. So credibility is an issue here.

                                On the other hand, if this is true, it seems as if the union doesn't care many teams are being run in to the ground and they know the league's claims are in fact true.

                                Unfortunately, again, is except Larry Coon, I've yet to come across an impartial journalist in this multi-billion dollar 'squabble'.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X