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

[Apollo]

But thats not even the point so why are you bringing it up?

You targeted only the max contract guys in your statement. I thought you were referring to something about max contracts.

People would still watch the league without those max contract guys.

And those top players will be replaced by the next top players, just like the current top players replaced the previous crop of top players.
But they are top players. Like Joey pointed out. If your best player is Luke Ridnour you are not going to get as many fans as Lebron James or Michael Jordan etc.

Your shortsightedness is assuming fans are all hardcore fans and just want to watch basketball. The majority of fans are casual fans. They have other things they can and will spend their dollars on.

I'm not even arguing for a new league. No doubt it would take decades to build up to what today is. But this idea that fans will just come watch basketball no matter what product you put on the floor is untrue. There is a reason the NBA needs to support the D-League and WNBA.

The top player won't be Ridnour. If this thing drags on too long and it's perceived as due to the very top earners you might just see people "crossing the line" once scabs are brought in... Or a mutiny.

[Joey]

They're hurting the union's chances of making a good deal for everybody. I'm not sure anyone called them overreaching. I think it was more along the lines of 'tactless' and 'self centered'.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You're trying to progress a point using random numbers and no analysis. How about you give us real examples if you're going to make the comparison? As is I don't agree with what you're saying.

The Tourist grossed $278M so I don't follow.

Nevermind Apollo. I asked a simple question, of which, in all of this you failed to answer.
If you can't see the comparison yet, there is little I care to do about it.
I thought the comparison was pretty clear and obvious ...

People are going to watch what's on network and local cable. The players who are going to dominate the minds of the fans are the players the NBA markets around. They're not going to care about Deron Williams playing in Turkey then any more than they do now.

.. What does this have to do with anything??

This doesn't prove NBA is better without them ... this doesn't prove they will make more money, or even the same amount of money ... this isn't really saying anything at all actually ... I never said the newNBA wouldn't have fans. What I did say, and I can promise you, those fans won't be willing to pay the same prices for tickets and merch. to enjoy their fan experience, when the best team on the floor could barely compete in the NBDL.

[Joey]

And those top players will be replaced by the next top players, just like the current top players replaced the previous crop of top players.
But they are top players. Like Joey pointed out. If your best player is Luke Ridnour you are not going to get as many fans as Lebron James or Michael Jordan etc.

Your shortsightedness is assuming fans are all hardcore fans and just want to watch basketball. The majority of fans are casual fans. They have other things they can and will spend their dollars on.

I'm not even arguing for a new league. No doubt it would take decades to build up to what today is. But this idea that fans will just come watch basketball no matter what product you put on the floor is untrue. There is a reason the NBA needs to support the D-League and WNBA.

We're absolutely on the same page GT.

[Apollo]

Nevermind Apollo. I asked a simple question, of which, in all of this you failed to answer.
If you can't see the comparison yet, there is little I care to do about it.
I thought the comparison was pretty clear and obvious ...

They both entertain. That's it. It's not a good comparison at all.

.. What does this have to do with anything??

This doesn't prove NBA is better without them ... this doesn't prove they will make more money, or even the same amount of money ... this isn't really saying anything at all actually ... I never said the newNBA wouldn't have fans. What I did say, and I can promise you, those fans won't be willing to pay the same prices for tickets and merch. to enjoy their fan experience, when the best team on the floor could barely compete in the NBDL.

I never said the league was better without them. To paraphrase, I said the league could move on and do fine without them. Have you even pondered the idea that the owners would recruit overseas if the high profilers keep derailing negotiations? FIBA didn't block the NBA players from going over there. It's a two way road at this point when things get more dire. As in the potential for a second cancelled season.

[GarbageTime]

You targeted only the max contract guys in your statement. I thought you were referring to something about max contracts.

People would still watch the league without those max contract guys.

Yes. As I already stated some people would still watch. Just not as many and those wouldn't be willing to spend as much money. There is a reason LA and Mia (Cleveland before) etc, sell out almost no matter where they play (and at increased ticket prices at that), while Minnesota or Bobcats do not.

Here is a quick list of NBA road game attendance:

Miami - LA - Boston - Bulls - Amare - Thunder - Clippers - Suns - Magic - Kings. (Cavs were in last place)

These teams all are one of the best teams and/or have the most exciting/up and coming players in the NBA.

Lebron/Wade - Kobe - Big 3 - Knicks - Durant/Westbrook - Griffon - Nash - Dwight - Tyreke Evans

Just off hand in 2009/10 the top 10 were

LA - Cavs - Celtics - Heat - Magic - Bulls - Spurs - Nuggets - Suns - Knicks

I think its tough to miss the relationship between star players and fan demand.

[Joey]

They both entertain. That's it. It's not a good comparison at all.

Seriously Apollo? Ok. Well like I said, Nevermind. I don't care enough to argue about this.

I never said the league was better without them. To paraphrase, I said the league could move on and do fine without them. Have you even pondered the idea that the owners would recruit overseas if the high profilers keep derailing negotiations? FIBA didn't block the NBA players from going over there. It's a two way road at this point when things get more dire. As in the potential for a second cancelled season.

And "doing fine" is one thing .. but thats certainly not how would think to describe the Best League in the World. Which is, again, what this is about. The NBA maintaining its Status as the Best League in the World. Not whether or not they can hire scabs, and still call themselves the NBA.

[Apollo]

Yes. As I already stated some people would still watch. Just not as many and those wouldn't be willing to spend as much money. There is a reason LA and Mia (Cleveland before) etc, sell out almost no matter where they play (and at increased ticket prices at that), while Minnesota or Bobcats do not.

Here is a quick list of NBA road game attendance:

Miami - LA - Boston - Bulls - Amare - Thunder - Clippers - Suns - Magic - Kings. (Cavs were in last place)

These teams all are one of the best teams and/or have the most exciting/up and coming players in the NBA.

Lebron/Wade - Kobe - Big 3 - Knicks - Durant/Westbrook - Griffon - Nash - Dwight - Tyreke Evans

Just off hand in 2009/10 the top 10 were

LA - Cavs - Celtics - Heat - Magic - Bulls - Spurs - Nuggets - Suns - Knicks

I think its tough to miss the relationship between star players and fan demand.

If this goes on too long something will be better than nothing to the owners and fortunately for them they'll have to pay the scabs a lot less while they wait on the union. I hope it doesn't come to that but for me, something is better than nothing as well. Especially if it leads to a fair system for all teams.

Seriously Apollo? Ok. Well like I said, Nevermind. I don't care enough to argue about this.

If you didn't care you wouldn't keep coming back without about it. Like I stated above. The Screen Actors Guild doesn't share a similar relationship with anyone like the NBA PA does with the NBA. You can't compare what one actor makes off one movie to something as vast and as complex as the old NBA CBA. I don't think they're comparable at all for one and secondly you're not bringing forth any real numbers to prove your point.

And "doing fine" is one thing .. but thats certainly not how would think to describe the Best League in the World. Which is, again, what this is about. The NBA maintaining its Status as the Best League in the World. Not whether or not they can hire scabs, and still call themselves the NBA.

The owners can't maintain unless the union wises up. If they don't they have three options.

• Cave and proceed to take a beating yearly again.
• Do nothing and wait the PA out.
• Bring in replacements.

Considering many owners feel they're losing less money by playing no games I would tend to believe that the third option makes sense if this thing has potential to go past one season.

[Joey]

If you didn't care you wouldn't keep coming back without about it. Like I stated above. The Screen Actors Guild doesn't share a similar relationship with anyone like the NBA does with the NBA PA. You can't compare what one actor makes off one movie to something as vast and as complex as the old NBA CBA. I don't think they're comparable at all for one and secondly you're not bringing forth any real numbers to prove your point.

You just proved my point though. The NBA owners should thanking their lucky stars they are able to function in that distortion of what they call Capitalism, while the rest of the "Entertainment Industry" (it is a Real Term y'know, thus the comparison) is forced to take risks, with no guarantees of profit, and must pay top dollar in a competitive market (Real Capitalism).

I don't need numbers to prove my point. You're just not getting it clearly. Which is fine. Doesn't mean I'm not rationalizing it perfectly well.

And I really don't care, I'm just too stubborn to let you have the last word on it. haha

The owners can't maintain unless the union wises up. If they don't they have three options.

• Cave and proceed to take a beating yearly again.
• Do nothing and wait the PA out.
• Bring in replacements.

Considering many owners feel they're losing less money by playing no games I would tend to believe that the third option makes sense if this thing has potential to go past one season.

True. But because its a Lockout, and not a strike, they can only hire Temporary Replacements.
Not sure what constitutes 'Temporary' in this matter though.

I'm just hoping they get this figured out so we can talk about basketball again.

[GarbageTime]

If this goes on too long something will be better than nothing to the owners and fortunately for them they'll have to pay the scabs a lot less while they wait on the union. I hope it doesn't come to that but for me, something is better than nothing as well. Especially if it leads to a fair system for all teams

It might be. I'm betting owners won't be to very pleased about their plummeting team value and revenue when coming to a deal would be a better option. Anyways, not really the point.

This was more in relation to Jimmie's idea that players are not the product. While it may be fans come to watch NBA basketball. More fans come, and are willing to pay more, to watch certain players (or combinations of players) play NBA basketball. And when its all said and done, thats where the real money is.

[Bendit]

You just proved my point though. The NBA owners should thanking their lucky stars they are able to function in that distortion of what they call Capitalism, while the rest of the "Entertainment Industry" (it is a Real Term y'know, thus the comparison) is forced to take risks, with no guarantees of profit, and must pay top dollar in a competitive market (Real Capitalism).

I don't need numbers to prove my point. You're just not getting it clearly. Which is fine. Doesn't mean I'm not rationalizing it perfectly well.

And I really don't care, I'm just too stubborn to let you have the last word on it. haha





True. But because its a Lockout, and not a strike, they can only hire Temporary Replacements.
Not sure what constitutes 'Temporary' in this matter though.

I'm just hoping they get this figured out so we can talk about basketball again.

If I may just point out that sports leagues are by statute allowed to function differently in a capitalistic system which of course considers a monopoly a nono. Thats why it is somewhat futile to fully compare other business enterprises/industries to say the NFL or the NBA.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an...rust_exemption

[GarbageTime]

NEW YORK (AP)—NBA players and owners met for more than 10 hours with a federal mediator, hoping to deliver the progress Commissioner David Stern says is needed to avoid canceling more games.

The talks started about 10 a.m. Monday as Stern sought immediate results in just one day of mediation, saying during interviews last week that proposals could get worse and more games could be lost without a deal Tuesday.

This was the longest negotiating session since owners locked out players when the old collective bargaining agreement expired at the end of the day June 30

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;...ug=ap-nbalabor

I heard them (forgot who) talking on the Fan590 the other day and I thought they made a good point. Both sides are relatively close to a conclusion... but that tends to be the toughest time to finalize everything as both sides feel the need to 'win' the battle. Make it seem as if the other side folded, or one side came out on top.. regardless of whether it was really true or not. So while things may get close, certain, and maybe unimportant, items may end up having a huge effect on the ability to reach a conclusion.

So just like Apollo mentioned KG earlier today, when I see things like this:

The talks started about 10 a.m. Monday as Stern sought immediate results in just one day of mediation, saying during interviews last week that proposals could get worse and more games could be lost without a deal Tuesday

I don't exactly now how that helps anything.

I hope the mediator tells both sides the best solution is meeting with him everyday for 10 hours a day... and I'm willing to bet within a few days both sides will be so worn down a conclusion will met by the end of the week.

[Apollo]

You just proved my point though. The NBA owners should thanking their lucky stars they are able to function in that distortion of what they call Capitalism, while the rest of the "Entertainment Industry" (it is a Real Term y'know, thus the comparison) is forced to take risks, with no guarantees of profit, and must pay top dollar in a competitive market (Real Capitalism).

Where are these guaranteed profits you speak off? The NBA has to go out and earn their money like any other business that's not getting bailed out by the government. You best elaborate.

Also please tell me which league is spending even a tenth of what the NBA is spending in it's business. They spend more on player salaries, more on coaches, more on trainers, more a facilities, more on travel & accommodations, more on marketing, etc. than any of those leagues paying the likes of Deron Williams pocket change compared to what he was making in the NBA. Please explain this to me because as far as I know no league in the world comes anywhere near the NBA.

I don't need numbers to prove my point. You're just not getting it clearly. Which is fine. Doesn't mean I'm not rationalizing it perfectly well.

I'm not getting it because you're not explaining anything. Let's hop in the time machine and go back a few pages:

And I'm curious; do you guys think that Movie Stars deserve the money they make?
I mean $20M to stand in front of a camera?? Crazy. They should take their $2M and Suck-it.
And if a movie doesn't generate the kind of Box Office stubs it expects, they should give some of it back.

They deserve whatever they can bargain for, just like everybody else in this world. Just like the NBA players who've had to give back nothing to the NBA. That is unless I am misunderstanding your point here. Please explain to me how the Screen Actors Guild's collective bargaining agreement works with their employer?

Sure they could hire some No Name Guy and pay him $10.
But they hire Tom Cruise, and Denzel and Johnny Depp because they bring in the REAL money.
Spend money to make money.

Interesting concept but I need more Joey. Seeing how you're so strongly defensive about this point surely you could break down some examples showing us how much the budget was for a couple movies, the proportion of that budget allocated to the star actors of the film and the proportion of that budget allocated supporting actors. While you're at it try to pick a few films that failed(as in lost a lot of money) and then take a look at how successful those actors were at landing future big movie staring roles. It's nice to say they're alike but to me we have no information in here to believe it beyond your vague statement. We also have nothing in here to use to compare both situations to learn anything from it. Thanks.

[slaw]

This is not a prisoner's dilemma at all.

Yeah it is. It's classic and was entirely predictable months ago. Both parties should agree but there are reasons why neither party is willing to do so. That's where we are: both sides willing to give up $4 billion in revenue.

We've already gone through the first phase where nothing was at stake. Both sides took an aggressive posture (which was smart) hoping to push their opponent off the board cause there was no risk involved. Once the first two weeks got cancelled, they entered the middle game. Now, the costs associated with no deal start to escalate to massive levels over the next few weeks. Once this starts, we'll enter endgame.

At that point, both sides will threaten armageddon scenarios (this is already starting) while at the same time looking for backroom ways to cajole and compromise on a deal. They will take a step or two back and try to salvage the season. It has to come to this cause two weeks of revenue isn't enough to hurt. Even 4-8 weeks isn't enough and, once it's gone, it's a sunk cost and who cares about week 9 when you've already lost 8 weeks of cash. It's only when the entire season is threatened that negotiations will get serious. Cause then, you're looking at losing this season and possibly the next if teh players decertify. And the owners are looking at, oh, $6 billlion in damages.

I don't see any other way for this to end except for the entire season to be risked. The day before the drop dead date for that we'll likely get a deal...

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

On a different note, is it possible for the the NBA and PA to agree on a CBA and if some of the players dont like it then they can opt not to play? Like a strike?

IMO, the NBA will do fine without the likes of Lebron, Wade, Garnett and the other antagonists who keep butting in the negotiations. Somebody else will take their place.

[GarbageTime]

On a different note, is it possible for the the NBA and PA to agree on a CBA and if some of the players dont like it then they can opt not to play? Like a strike?

IMO, the NBA will do fine without the likes of Lebron, Wade, Garnett and the other antagonists who keep butting in the negotiations. Somebody else will take their place.

When an agreement is reached it will be presented to the membership of each side to be ratified (ie. voted on). Assuming it is passed its game on. I guess a player could 'strike' but all that would result in is him losing his paycheque and possible legal action against him as he would have a legal contractual obligation (although I'm not sure that would happen but not impossible)

Considering they are part of the union I have no idea how they are 'butting in'. They have just as much right to input as anyone else. If thats the case no owner should have any input on the negotiations as that would be 'butting in'.