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

[mcHAPPY]

oh they SAID they'd deal with it. Silly me. Ofcourse that means they will......



That may be true... but do you not think it would convince players and fans that they are alot more committed to dealing with the issues, and/or that they are really putting the strength of league as their priority?

To me a deal where EVERYONE who has helped cause the problem takes a hair cut is the most fair approach. Cut salaries, and cut the income of those who have created the problem the league is in. Help those that have suffered.

The very idea that "they are the owners so they should be able to do what they want" is the very thing that created the idea of a labour union, and has started just about every union thats in existence today. Its that very ignorance (not directed at you but in that thought in general, specifically by those in 'power') that creates the huge divide between management and employees. Just like the employess arguing we make the product so we should see all the money. It causes more problems than it solves. Once people truelly begin to comprehend that both sides are right (and therefore both wrong) in that belief, labour negotiations will can actually become much easier than they are.

Look back at the Hall of Fame/Bob Cousy article. Exhibition schedules of 21 games in 24 days, a salary of $35K for Cousy in 1963 which was highest in the league (a lot of money but not obscene at that time), read why they started the union:

Cousy: Well, we needed representation. It was that simple. I was the only one that had the profile to do it without fear of retaliation. Every year, attorney and fellow Crusader Connie Hurley and I would go down to New York and sit in the office of NBA President Maurice Podoloff. He’d keep us waiting for 45 minutes. We’d go in with our little laundry list, and he’d say, “Fine, I’ll bring it to the attention of the owners at the next meeting.” And, of course, he never would. The owners knew we didn’t have much leverage and they would basically stall us.

I laugh now when I think about trying to get 10 bucks out of these guys for dues just to pay for the stationery and stuff—it was like pulling teeth. Now they pay $10,000 apiece for dues—and I’m sure they’re happy to do so.

But our only major concession over those years was when we got the meal money raised from five dollars a day to seven dollars a day. It was literally an extra 200 bucks in the players’ pockets. Man, I became a hero.

http://magazine.holycross.edu/issue_..._on_one?page=3

I would agree with your reference to why unions were originally started if the players were truly being wronged. The players are not being treated unfair and, to me, that is the issue and why they may be getting backlash from fans. They are among the highest paid professional league in the world, they have first class facilities, accommodations, and travel, and they have a marketing machine promoting them at no cost to themselves. The current model is not working and the owners have asked for a 50/50 split of the revenue. The owners, with all their costs, operated on 43 cents per dollar of revenue last year and for the previous 5 before that. I'm not seeing how the players have been taken advantage of

Who ever said that was untrue? Clearly throwing resources at a problem can help solve problems... but it won't necessarily be the answer and can also can cause new problems. In this case a few teams being willing to throw money at players drove up the prices of all players. Those other teams then in turn spent their limited money inefficiently.

But teams like San Antonio/OKC have PROVEN that you don't necessarily need to throw money around recklessly or need a large market to win. Teams like NY/Washington have proven that throwing money around and being in a large market doesn't mean winning. Its about efficient spending, which not enough owners have been willing or able to do. IF more owners would be smarter about their spending, I guarantee player contracts would be much more in line with what they deserve. Instead owners have valued risk over efficiency. Now its biting them in the ass.... but some of us are putting all the onus on the players anyways. Makes no sense to me what so ever.

OKC has not had to make their decisions yet. The rookie contract scale that, correct me if I'm wrong, you have been outspoken against is why they have created what they have. It will be interesting over the next couple of seasons to see what happens why they have to pay 'asking price' for their talent (Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden).

based on what? I see absolutely no reason to believe this.



those same players are part of the PA no? So if one is mad at the PA they should be mad at the individual players themselves. Its players like Lebron James who left a small market team reeling, who are getting paid top dollar, who are influencing teams to spend recklessly. Dwight Howard has had a similar effect on Orlando over the last season or two. Should these not be the very guys we are most upset with? Yet I'd bet few if any would be mad at having them on their team...its the Derek Fisher's, who has 6 rings as a starting PG, is one of the top 'blue collar' players and arguably the best team leader in the league, who could be traded on a whim, all while being paid less than the league average that we should be mad at.. funny how that works no?

Fisher has made some big shots and no one can take away his role in winning championships. BUT he has also been very lucky to play with some 'decent' players. So at this stage in his career, is he really worth $3.4M averaging 6.8PPG on 38.9%fg and 2.7 assists?

In a game like basketball, where 1 (or a few) player(s) makes all the difference both positively and negatively), NO ONE can guarantee parity or profitablility in any form. Revenue sharing can atleast help address profitabliltiy. Nothing will guarantee parity.

The system still has the NBA as a whole in the red. Any revenue sharing is not spreading profits around, it is spreading loses. How long can the league operate at a deficit? Even Greece only managed 10 years after joining the EU.

I'd say Matt52's article with football more or less proves this, although it doesn't address it. A very profitable league where small market teams can win and spend close with everyone, yet they don't necessarily. Why? Because you still need a superstar quarterback to do it.... and a hard cap, or revenue sharing, or cutting player salaries won't guarantee you that superstar. Nor will it guarantee that you can keep that superstar, or pay that superstar.

Every team is going to pony up for a true superstar. The difference is the role players. For years DAL has been giving crazy contracts to any free agent available. The idea has been to buy the best pieces available to stick around Dirk. Not every team can overpay for the role players - that is the issue with the MLE.

I have no doubts that players are being payed more than they 'deserve'. But thats life. Why does the coal miner who breaks his back and likely shortens his life span be paid a portion of what a manager or owner or even some shareholders do? Because not everyone is capable of owning a businnes, running a business or have the resources to invest in a company. But almost anyone can throw a pick axe around. The same applies here... not every can jump as high, shoot as well, are as strong or be as tall as NBA players. That may not be fair, but that is life. We as fans pay to see that... we want to see the best, we want our teams to have the best and we will give our money to the best time and time again.

At the same time I could really care less how much these guys get paid... I'm just as happy with players averaging 10k a year as I am with players average 5 mil a year.

Where I have problems is with this idea that we should just believe that the owners are being honest and want fairness, and that all the onus is with the players. 22 teams are losing money? Ok what are those 22 teams and how much is each team losing? Is a team like Dallas losing money? Why is this information not available? Should we just ignore the fact that its the owners who offered the contracts? That someone thought it was a good idea to pay Gilbert Arenas or Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis just as much or more than Lebron James or Dwight Howard? Should we now compensate the stupid at the cost of those who are already (arguably) underpaid for their services?

Alot of the last paragraph has been discussed before.

If we want 'fairness' and long term stability... how about this. Cut salaries, 100% revenue sharing among teams, contraction by a 2 or 4 (or whatever is needed) teams, all teams become public companies with purchasable shares.

Now it doesn't get more fair than that. Cuts cost, shares profits, eliminates the teams that are a drain while increasing the supply of players and therefore further decreasing future salaries, and allows all team values and financial statements available to public scrutiny and interpretation. Lets see how much people actually want whats 'fair'....... I'm betting very few want that.

Sounds like you want to nationalize the NBA. At the end of the day they are a private conglomerate. Just like the players have the choice to work for the NBA, fans have the right to put their money and attention elsewhere.

[mcHAPPY]

that is, for the most part, exactly it. So why do so many feel the need to put the onus on one side? Thats what I don't get here. Both sides are at fault and both sides need to solve it and both sides need to pay there share.

Yet only 1 side is offering it... the one so many people are blaming.... makes no sense to me.

I've seen a lot of backlash at the owners.

At the end of the day though, can you blame them for not wanting to operate at a loss in the old system?

[Joey]

At the end of the day though, can you blame them for not wanting to operate at a loss in the old system?

Thats capitalism.

Don't invest in something if you don't want to risk losing your money.

RIM investers initially bought stock in the company thinking it was ONLY going to go up and make them millions and millions of Dollars. Once the stock went down and the company started losing money, they sell and get out.

If the NBA Owners don't like it, then sell and get out.

Don't start bending the system to suit your circumstance.
You make the circumstance suit the system.

[jimmie]

Don't start bending the system to suit your circumstance. You make the circumstance suit the system.

Which is exactly what the owners are doing here. The old CBA is expired. This is their opportunity to change the system in a way that limits the chances of the system leading to sh*tty circumstances down the road. That's why the old CBA wasn't negotiated for 20 years, or 50. So that, as circumstances (global financial situation, a few stupid owners jacking up the price for mediocre players, etc.) change, there is an opportunity to address those changes through a new CBA.

As for Garbage's statement about the owners' finances -- there's been a solid counter-argument made that, although Hunter and the union keep mocking the idea that the owners are, in fact, losing money, they still haven't offered any evidence for their position. There's a responsbility on both sides. Don't call me a liar unless you have damn good proof.

Both sides are, of course, at fault. But almost everyone with half a brain realizes the owners will win. And that's why the backlash is getting worse for the players. We all just want basketball, and because we all recognize the futility of the union's position (right or wrong, it IS a futile position), we'd just like to see them suck it up and move on.

[mcHAPPY]

Thats capitalism.

Don't invest in something if you don't want to risk losing your money.

RIM investers initially bought stock in the company thinking it was ONLY going to go up and make them millions and millions of Dollars. Once the stock went down and the company started losing money, they sell and get out.

If the NBA Owners don't like it, then sell and get out.

Don't start bending the system to suit your circumstance.
You make the circumstance suit the system.

I'm not sure capitalism is when owners give the employees 57% (or 54, 53, 50%) of revenue before they dish out their operating costs. I'm also never heard of a truly capitalistic enterprise having the employees making many, many millions while the owners lose many, many millions.

[Apollo]

Thats capitalism.

Don't invest in something if you don't want to risk losing your money.

RIM investers initially bought stock in the company thinking it was ONLY going to go up and make them millions and millions of Dollars. Once the stock went down and the company started losing money, they sell and get out.

If the NBA Owners don't like it, then sell and get out.

Don't start bending the system to suit your circumstance.
You make the circumstance suit the system.

Capitalists operate for profit. They extended a deal back in 2005 without knowing the market turn on the horizon. Due to economic devastation the whole landscape has changed and they are no longer operating at profit. They've made it very clear to the players. I think its irrational, if not a cop out, to tell someone that they should sell their business because they're losing money when there is something very blatantly obvious they can do to turn it around and when they have the means to turn it around. You don't think it's crazy to tell a guy who pumped his millions into something to get out because the workers can't be bothered to settle for 50% of a mega-billion dollar industry? Come on man... Let's talk real world here. These guys didn't obtain pro sport franchises by being weak, pathetic losers. They extended the 2005 deal with no fuss because they were making lots of money. Times have changed, are you paying attention to the mass protests on the Fed and the CEO's of major banks like J.P. Morgan? The people down there are getting screwed over via an attack on the middle class. That middle class is shrinking. They're losing their jobs. They're losing their homes. They're losing their investments, their nest eggs. That middle class is what feeds the NBA and the middle class is hurting bad. On top of that inflation is on the rise and the U.S. dollar has been sliding for most of the year. The owners didn't need 50% in 2005 or '98 to make money but this isn't 2005 or '98. Moving teams is counter productive to the history of the league and to the culture of the league. It's also totally unnecessary given there is an obvious course of actions that can and is being taken to avoid such a thing. And please help me out here, where do you propose they move half the league? Switzerland? Capitalism isn't about bending over and taking one for your hired help. The NBA's woes are a sign of the cracks in society and the old CBA is a obsolete relic from a time you can only see in your rearview mirror.

Your analogy about buying and selling stocks has no real worth to this issue. Owning stocks and owning a business are completely different. One case you're giving your money to someone else and typically you have no control of what they do with it. The other case you own the business and you control the business; the fate of the business is in your hands.

[mcHAPPY]

Apollo, are you really Steve Kyler at HoopsWorld.com? This rings a bell:

Mutang
Here’s the deal; I’m a Utah Jazz fan. All we’ve ever had for pro-sports in Utah is the Utah Jazz. Thats why the arena there is always the toughest to play, we eat, drink, breath Utah Jazz. You know how many kids and now adults out there are named Stockton?? We live Jazz basketball, and have no other professional outlet to cheer for. And when the NBA does start back up, they’ll see that fans are not coming back. And thats just Utah fans. Imagine those fans that support the Knicks, or Clippers, whoever and actually have other sports teams to cheer for???? The NBA players are going to be STUNNED…..owners too. They blew it.

Steve Kyler
Everyone is entitled to their own response to this, but as I continue to say… this is not about the fans… This labor deal will govern the NBA for the next decade and getting this right will swing the balance of power in the league in a number of new ways.

As a Jazz fan you should embrace what the owners are trying to do… they are trying to make the NBA about drafting smart, spending your dollars wisely and having good coaching… not allowing it to be about the depth of the owners pocket or a willingness to spend.

Under the current system it is almost impossible for Utah to land a marquee free agent unless they over pay… it’s also a lot harder for them to compete in the West when the Lakers can lap them in spending.

This is not about the fans… this is about fixing the business between the Players and the owners and once this is solved, they’ll care about you again.

[heinz57]

they paid millions to drop out of school and play a playground game 82 times a year

screw them.

[Apollo]

My quote of the week:
Why not discuss revenue sharing right now? Because it's not the most pressing issue. Revenue sharing isn't holding up revenue earning.

Apollo, are you really Steve Kyler at HoopsWorld.com? This rings a bell:

No but I have been an NFL fan since childhood and I appreciate how much more exciting and rewarding their brand is compared to the NBA. There is a reason why a league that plays 16 regular season games per season can dominate the North American professional sports landscape and it's not luck. The NBA owners are on the right path and if they win, these fans who are begging to be shot in their own foot will eventually come to understand how important these times are right now to the long term health of the league and why it is so important to operate in a system of equality.

[Joey]

I'm not sure capitalism is when owners give the employees 57% (or 54, 53, 50%) of revenue before they dish out their operating costs. I'm also never heard of a truly capitalistic enterprise having the employees making many, many millions while the owners lose many, many millions.

I think Capitalism can be roughly defined as "An economic system in which corporations are privately owned, and operated in a competitive market."

So regardless of how the Companies revenues are split, Capitalism is Capitalism. You are a private producer, and you TRY and capitalize, or make profit from, your asset.

And when you OWN that asset, you take FULL responsibility for its Success and it's Failures.
This is my understanding anyway.



The other thing that you are not mentioning is that the Players are not only the Employees, but they are the PRODUCT as well.

I would imagine MOST companies spend at least, or more than 50%+ on their Employees AS WELL AS developing and maintaining their product.


As I said before, the NHL has a 57% split and they are experiencing their best years in terms of profit, if I am no mistaken.

[mcHAPPY]

Great line Kyler ended with:

This is not about the fans… this is about fixing the business between the Players and the owners and once this is solved, they’ll care about you again.

[Apollo]

I think Capitalism can be roughly defined as "An economic system in which corporations are privately owned, and operated in a competitive market."

So regardless of how the Companies revenues are split, Capitalism is Capitalism. You are a private producer, and you TRY and capitalize, or make profit from, your asset.

And when you OWN that asset, you take FULL responsibility for its Success and it's Failures.
This is my understanding anyway.

They are taking responsibility. They've pretty much said they screwed up in 2005 and now they are correcting for that. So you're pro hard cap and a 50/50 BRI split then?

[mcHAPPY]

I think Capitalism can be roughly defined as "An economic system in which corporations are privately owned, and operated in a competitive market."

So regardless of how the Companies revenues are split, Capitalism is Capitalism. You are a private producer, and you TRY and capitalize, or make profit from, your asset.

And when you OWN that asset, you take FULL responsibility for its Success and it's Failures.
This is my understanding anyway.



The other thing that you are not mentioning is that the Players are not only the Employees, but they are the PRODUCT as well.

I would imagine MOST companies spend at least, or more than 50%+ on their Employees AS WELL AS developing and maintaining their product.


As I said before, the NHL has a 57% split and they are experiencing their best years in terms of profit, if I am no mistaken.

We've reached the point of circles.

The owners are the factory.

The owners are taking responsibility for their failures: they have made the choice to close up shop after obliging to a money losing contract for the past 6 years in the hopes of achieving a CBA that will offer them a better opportunity at success.

What you imagine would be an opinion to which I do not know if is it accurate or not. How many employees get as many perks as an NBA player who are not VP's or CEO's?

The NHL has a hard cap.

[Joey]

Capitalists operate for profit.

That's the plan anyway ...
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't always give profits.

Times have changed, are you paying attention to the mass protests on the Fed and the CEO's of major banks like J.P. Morgan? The people down there are getting screwed over via an attack on the middle class. That middle class is shrinking. They're losing their jobs. They're losing their homes. They're losing their investments, their nest eggs. That middle class is what feeds the NBA and the middle class is hurting bad.

I understand this, but what I don't understand is they just experienced their best Ratings and best Attendance in Years?

Not to mention, the NBA is no longer simply confined to the USA. People and TVs all over the world are now buying and watching the brand.

Moving teams is counter productive to the history of the league and to the culture of the league. It's also totally unnecessary given there is an obvious course of actions that can and is being taken to avoid such a thing. And please help me out here, where do you propose they move half the league? Switzerland?

I never suggested moving the team... Ever actually.
I suggested Selling the team, and more than a few owners in the last few years HAVE sold.
For somewhere in the range of $400M. Guarentee they made a profit.

Capitalism isn't about bending over and taking one for your hired help. The NBA's woes are a sign of the cracks in society and the old CBA is a obsolete relic of time you can only see in your rearview mirror.

The players are the NBAs PRODUCT. Not the Hired Help. They SELL the players.
The hired help is the janitor locked in the hall closet, and he's making minimum wage, and I guarentee the owners never met him.

[Joey]

They are taking responsibility. They've pretty much said they screwed up in 2005 and now they are correcting for that. So you're pro hard cap and a 50/50 BRI split then?

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.