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

[mcHAPPY]

And time changes alot of things, such as whether a business stays unprofitable or not (or vice versa). So again, to the point, there is a difference between the two leagues at the times of the lockouts, not only because of where they were but where they were/are going.

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I'm talking about in general. A business or league losing money year in and year out is not sustainable. Period.

Yes and compare those stats to Guerin previously. He put up good numbers for 1 season after compared to good (and better) numbers for oaround a decade before. How is this even a debate? The league changed... so did the players and their style. Blame it all on his age... thats still just 'opinion you are trying to pass off as fact' and age still only touches a fraction of those involved in this lockout. Whats not opinion is the entire list of drastic rule changes and more than a small amount of discussion available about it, its effect on the league, its effect on players and its effect on team building.

The guy averaged 23.8 goals a season for 18 years. His last season he had 21 goals. Quit trying to discredit the guy's accomplishments. He adapted to the new rules fine - he was an above average hockey player before the lockout and after until his final season. His points remain valid: what the players were fighting for in the NHL then and what the NBA players are fighting for in the NBA now is not worth it and they cannot, and will not, win.

Do you really think that 7% think there jobs are guaranteed anyways? How quickly does that bottom 7% dissappear and reappear in the NBA? Please, since when is this battle over Sonny Weems and Patrick O'Bryant? No one cares about them... they know it, players know it, the owners would know it if they even knew who they were, you and I know it.

So the bottom guys in the league don't matter? I'd like to see Billy Hunter or Derek Fisher float that in a player's meeting. The 7% are jobs gone through contraction as you spoke of. That means the lower level players are fighting over fewer jobs which means more turnover which will affect much more than 7% of the league. When over 50% of the league is within +/- $1M in salary of each other, there are a lot of guys with much more to lose than the Garnett's and Wade's.

There are 2 or 3 players on every team that get to be part of this discussion just because they were in the right place at the right time. That is their right, and it may be in their best interest to want to play right away... but should those few, or will those few, have much influence on those who actually play and will still be in the NBA 1-10 years from now?

The average career is 5 years. Most players will be long gone in 10 years. And they are not the few, they are the majority. And at the end of the day the owners are going to get what they want anyways - or the league will not play. That is not me talking, that is Charles Barkley who would have more information that any of us put together in my opinion.

Is that what its come to.... "lets get the most irrelevant involved so I can try and prove or push my agenda?" Please. When this CBA argument is over those bottom 7% are just as likely out of a job regardless of the CBA.

Actually that is not what it has come to. It has come to this because the conversation constantly changes and goes in circles with condescending and dismissive retorts. The bottom line has always been the players are not acting in their best interests and they cannot win any dispute with ownership as long as ownership stays united.

and put yourself in the 100% who are being forced to take pay cuts and are told they won't be able to recoup that money because of a statement by billionares they refuse to prove. I know for this argument people will easily believe they will take a pay cut for the good of their company or employer, but history proves otherwise. But no one ever has a problem wanting someone else to. The players are doing just what 99% of the world would do and has throughout history. Try to get every dime they can, both long and short term. They just happen to be doing it while already making alot more than most. But they are still human, acting in the way humans do, and acting the exactly way you or I would in their situation. They are doing the exact same thing the owners are, just from the other side.

Please don't tell me what I would do because if I was an average NBA player, I would have settled a long time ago. It also would not have been for the good of the company or employer, it would have been for my own good. When the benefits of fighting for a gain become less than what one is giving up in the fight, it is time to pack it in. In my job, they went on strike nearly 20 years ago for a minuscule increase in wages. They were on strike for a little over 2 months which took many 12-15 years to recover from. My father is an auditor at CRA and he told me of labour negotiations back in the early '90's. They were offered 0/3/3/3 raises. They declined and went on strike. After a couple of months, the government ordered them back to work with wage freezes for 3/4 years. They won nothing. The players have already won by keeping their contracts guaranteed - that is a major concession by owners. One might say strike and lockout are not the same and that is true however the situations are the same - one side wanting to keep things the same while the other wants change.

Taking the advice of a guy who was aging, while becoming obsolete in a new system, playing for an inferior league (both financially, in viewership and growth) with a group who gave in at what could have been at the worst possible time.... is not necessarily good advice. It may be the best advice they get... it may also be terrible advice.

At the same time maybe Jerry Moyes could offer the owners some 'advice' especially on a hard cap and on how great it is for small market teams and Gary Bettman could give Stern some pointers about the importance of locating professional sports teams and sticking to your guns about it no matter what happens........

The statistics do not support your continued discrediting of Bill Guerin. His message and experience is valid. The state of the NHL then versus the NBA now have both losing money. However this is not what I wish to discuss and any comparisons made to discredit the statements made by Bill Guerin are only deflecting from the true message he has which is the point of his comments: the players can't win.

[GarbageTime]

First off we know exactly how much the Owners made. The Players took 57% of it last season

but thats says NOTHING about what they 'lost', where they lost it, how they lost it, or who lost it.

Where does that get you? To a nice conspiracy theory?

conspiracy theory? Please. Never did I say they did or didn't make money. I'm asking where is the evidence of this and why have they been so unwilling to not provide it. And more importantly, why are some so readily willing to believe it?

Yes. I am one. I state again, it's none of the player's business how the league operates. The players are not partners, they're employees in a system.

if you are one how can you be so ridiculous as to act as if these players would go over the books themselves?

This has nothing to do with some legal right for the public or players to see what the owners are making. This has everything to do with claiming losses, and even more importantly, people using unproven information as to support their arguments.

I'd love to see Mr. "martyr" himself, Kevin Garnett, blaze a trail and take another for the team out of the goodness of his heart and prove why he's needs 53% of the BRI. He simply needs to print off his bank statements and show Mr.Stern where he's spending his money. By your logic the owners need to know this information to make sure they make a good deal and aren't being deceived. Stern needs to know what kind of hot tub Garnett owns and how much it drives up his utility bill among other things.

Please stop this silly game you are trying to play. I'm not asking for anyone's personal information. I'm asking for transparency based on the statements of the owners. And more specifically the arguments you have been using supporting the owners with ZERO factual evidence to prove them.

Honestly you are getting absolutely ridiculous. Don't throw rationality and critical thinking out the window so you can try and prove and/or try and discredit my opinion.

[mcHAPPY]

It is a question at the heart of the lockout, and it is perhaps the most difficult question to answer: Does spending more money, or having more money to spend, help NBA teams win?

If you believe that equalizing payrolls can inject more “competitive balance” into the NBA, then the league’s owners have something of a noble goal in mind in trying to squeeze player salaries and limit team spending. If you believe engineering competitive balance isn’t possible in this way, then the owners are either chasing a ghost or (worse) disguising a money grab as a holy quest for equality.

I have been a competitive-balance skeptic for two main reasons:

• I’m just not sure it’s possible to engineer widespread competitive balance in a sport in which a half-dozen to 10 superstars can so dominate the league. The most comprehensive studies suggest that professional basketball in the United States, throughout the respective histories of the NBA and ABA, has seen less “competitive balance” than any other major American sport. Rejigger the rules all you want, but the teams with LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant and the league’s other true franchise players will be the real title contenders in most seasons.

• The best sports economists suggest that there is very little connection between spending and winning. Here’s what Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College and former adviser to the players’ union, told Howard Beck of The New York Times earlier this month:

“The statistical correlation between payroll and win percentage is practically nonexistent.”

Whoa. Nonexistent? Zimbalist tells me he was referring to the correlation between spending and winning within a single NBA season. That’s an important qualifier, and the numbers seem to back it up. As part of a deeper analysis of competitive-balance issues, I isolated every team that has won 55 regular-season games over the least 12 seasons, or every season since the lockout-shortened 1999 campaign. That isn’t a perfect cutoff point; for instance, it misses the 2009-10 Celtics, who made the Finals after a 50-win season. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and 55 is a win total that generally denotes a very good team.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011...balance-issue/

Interesting article on the issues of competitive balance.

I disagree with both arguments. I agree teams typically need a superstar to win (2004 Pistons are a good exception to the rule). However the issue is not about the LBJ, Howard, Dirk, Durant's etc of the league being the real contenders each year. The issue, for me, is the top players in the league are trying to concentrate talents in large markets on teams that can afford to use exemptions to bolster payroll.

2 years of LBJ going..... where? before Miami with Wade.

Bosh left Toronto to join with Wade and LeBron.

Carmelo left Denver to join with Amar'e and add another third star in 2012.

The media focused on Williams leaving Utah (he would not sign extension offered) until Utah said, "we're not going through Denver situation."

Paul is the new question mark.

Dwight Howard is the latest to have his departure speculated about.

Superstar players teaming up with one another was unheard of until the last few years. It is hardly in the best interests of competitive balance throughout the league to have the top players playing with one another on teams with payrolls of pushing $100M and other teams relegated to a small notch above NBADL status.


Using the example of Sacramento, that will be OKC if the old CBA sticks. They will grow their team and eventually have to pay with the richest teams in the league to remain competitive i.e. keep talent.

The San Antonio example is just but should a small market team need to be the best managed team in the league just to compete? That doesn't sound like competitive balance when a large market team can 'buy' a fix to a wrong year after year whereas a small market team has no room for error.

[GarbageTime]

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I'm talking about in general. A business or league losing money year in and year out is not sustainable. Period.

and I'm talking specifics which is incredibly important when discussing these matters. Every business that is losing or making money is, in general, in the same situation. But not all business whether losing or making money are in the same circumstances.

The guy averaged 23.8 goals a season for 18 years. His last season he had 21 goals. Quit trying to discredit the guy's accomplishments. He adapted to the new rules fine - he was an above average hockey player before the lockout and after until his final season. His points remain valid: what the players were fighting for in the NHL then and what the NBA players are fighting for in the NBA now is not worth it and they cannot, and will not, win.

I'm not trying to discredit the guy. His VALUE changed drastically. Don't mistake VALUE (ie his production vs cost) with quality, character or accomplishments or whatever. The league changed around him and that inevitably hurt his salary. His point is fine, as is his opinion. My point, is his opinion that comes as an individual who while in a similar situation was under circumstances different than where the NBA is and/or where alot of the NBA players are.

So the bottom guys in the league don't matter? I'd like to see Billy Hunter or Derek Fisher float that in a player's meeting. The 7% are jobs gone through contraction as you spoke of. That means the lower level players are fighting over fewer jobs which means more turnover which will affect much more than 7% of the league. When over 50% of the league is within +/- $1M in salary of each other, there are a lot of guys with much more to lose than the Garnett's and Wade's.

and when did I say this was good for everyone? Clearly contraction will hurt some people. As will pay cuts. As will a hard cap. As will no hard cap. As would an increase in pay. I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking this is all sunshine and lollipops we are talking about here.

The average career is 5 years. Most players will be long gone in 10 years. And they are not the few, they are the majority. And at the end of the day the owners are going to get what they want anyways - or the league will not play. That is not me talking, that is Charles Barkley who would have more information that any of us put together in my opinion.

I think you completely missed my point there.

Actually that is not what it has come to. It has come to this because the conversation constantly changes and goes in circles with condescending and dismissive retorts. The bottom line has always been the players are not acting in their best interests and they cannot win any dispute with ownership as long as ownership stays united.

You may not like my retorts, but seriously there are points in time such irrelevant, off base or unimportant arguments are brought in to 'counter' what I'm saying I just can't help it. What is or isn't in the best interest of the bottom 7% is hardly applies to the league as a whole. It applies to the bottom 7%.

Please don't tell me what I would do because if I was an average NBA player, I would have settled a long time ago. It also would not have been for the good of the company or employer, it would have been for my own good. When the benefits of fighting for a gain become less than what one is giving up in the fight, it is time to pack it in. In my job, they went on strike nearly 20 years ago for a minuscule increase in wages. They were on strike for a little over 2 months which took many 12-15 years to recover from. My father is an auditor at CRA and he told me of labour negotiations back in the early '90's. They were offered 0/3/3/3 raises. They declined and went on strike. After a couple of months, the government ordered them back to work with wage freezes for 3/4 years. They won nothing. The players have already won by keeping their contracts guaranteed - that is a major concession by owners. One might say strike and lockout are not the same and that is true however the situations are the same - one side wanting to keep things the same while the other wants change.

Was your 2 months on strike going to cost you potential X million dollars over the life of your career? Would you have stayed on strike longer if you knew it would? Our values as fans are never going to overlap with players (or the owners for that matter) situations.

Well we'll have to unquestionable agree to disagree there. Never were unguaranteed contracts going to happen so thats hardly a concession. Thats like saying the players didn't demand a raise so therefore the owners got a concession.

The statistics do not support your continued discrediting of Bill Guerin. His message and experience is valid. The state of the NHL then versus the NBA now have both losing money. However this is not what I wish to discuss and any comparisons made to discredit the statements made by Bill Guerin are only deflecting from the true message he has which is the point of his comments: the players can't win.

That is not necessarily true. They may not 'win' (whatever that entails) but then again they might. Or they might just 'not lose' by continuing or agreeing now. There is simply put a one sided belief that the players hold no power.... yet at the same time we argue that players can 'hold teams' hostage. I believe that whoever holds out the longest will have to give up the least, but either holding out is going to cost both sides more than its worth.

(side note : This whole 'just quit you are weak compared to them' message, on a moral level, is just so incredibly wrong).

Again the NHL and NBA circumstances are not the same, nor was Bill Guerins compared to alot of NBA players. This has nothing to do with 'discrediting' Bill Guerin. His message and experience are completely valid but relative to his own circumnstances, and not necessarily the same as the NBA.

[mcHAPPY]

From HoopsWorld.com Twitter feed:

KBergCBS Silver: We made clear we were willing to go to 50 percent in an effort to compromise.
44 seconds ago · reply · retweet · favorite

SpearsNBAYahoo NBA not announcing any more missed games "at this time," Holt said. Silver said meeting with Stern tomorrow to find next step.
58 seconds ago · reply · retweet · favorite

tribjazz #NBA's Silver said fallout over split of revenue discussion broke talks off.
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

Jonathan_Feigen Peter Holt: "(Mediators) would have liked to keep it going. Both sides realized we’re just too far apart."
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

KBergCBS Silver: issue that led to breakdown was the split of revenue.
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

tribjazz Holt said #NBA won't make any announcements at this time about further cancellations.
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

tribjazz Silver: "We have to regroup with David [Stern] ... and determine what our next steps are."
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

KBergCBS Silver: "We have to regroup ... and determine what our next steps are."
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

MrMichaelLee Spurs owner Peter Holt: "Certainly a tough day. A very tough day." Two sides have no further meetings scheduled. David Stern out with flu.
about 1 minute ago · reply · retweet · favorite

KBergCBS Holt says mediators "weren't ready to give up. ... But both sides realized that we're too far apart."
2 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

tribjazz RT @WojYahooNBA With the NBA standing firm on an offer of a 50-50 revenue split, talks ended, source tells Y!
3 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

NYPost_Berman "We're very far apart," Spurs owner Holt says, He adds last thirty hours were disappointing.
3 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

tribjazz Holt: "It could be tough [to meet again soon.]"
3 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

WojYahooNBA With the NBA standing firm on an offer of a 50-50 revenue split, talks ended, source tells Y!
3 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

Things do not look good.

College ball starts November 7th.

[mcHAPPY]

and I'm talking specifics which is incredibly important when discussing these matters. Every business that is losing or making money is, in general, in the same situation. But not all business whether losing or making money are in the same circumstances.

Slant the argument in any manner you wish. The bottom line is the owners are not operating in a system that guarantees they lose money each year. The last system had them lose money each year of the agreement. Split hairs on this all you want, more money out than coming in is bad and unsustainable.

I'm not trying to discredit the guy. His VALUE changed drastically. Don't mistake VALUE (ie his production vs cost) with quality, character or accomplishments or whatever. The league changed around him and that inevitably hurt his salary. His point is fine, as is his opinion. My point, is his opinion that comes as an individual who while in a similar situation was under circumstances different than where the NBA is and/or where alot of the NBA players are.

The players have already lost any money they are fighting for in the 2011-12 season. They will lose any money over a 6 year agreement by December 16th. That is Bill Guerin's point: the players have already lost and anything they win now will never compensate for what they have already lost by not taking the agreement offered (50/50). In the end, the players will accept what they could have accepted weeks (and possibly months) earlier.

and when did I say this was good for everyone? Clearly contraction will hurt some people. As will pay cuts. As will a hard cap. As will no hard cap. As would an increase in pay. I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking this is all sunshine and lollipops we are talking about here.

The current situation in the NBA has reached the point where the players in sticking to their demands will only continue to hurt themselves even if they get what they want. The overwhelming majority of the players will NEVER recoup what they are losing.

I think you completely missed my point there.

And Charles Barkley said it! The Don Cherry of the NBA? Never mind I have been completely been swayed. A union should now give up and give in to a ownership group, who locked them out, and that will not be transparent because Charles Barkley says so. Barkley has always been known for his high level of intelligence, rationality and reasoning. Never known as a guy who speaks just to be heard.

Barkley certainly has had his moments. On this matter he is speaking very rational and very intelligent. As was Reggie Miller.

You may not like my retorts, but seriously there are points in time such irrelevant, off base or unimportant arguments are brought in to 'counter' what I'm saying I just can't help it. What is or isn't in the best interest of the bottom 7% is hardly applies to the league as a whole. It applies to the bottom 7%.

You brought up the 7%:

Contraction would effect a very small % of the player personnel. If it was 2 teams, thats 7% of all players.

Again, have Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter go to the union and tell them that 7% of the jobs will be lost if we continue our stance. A union is not acting in its members best interests and the members of the union are not acting in its best interests when their actions have already cost themselves the very compensation they are fighting for.

The argument on my end has remained the same. I cannot say the same for you.

Was your 2 months on strike going to cost you potential X million dollars over the life of your career? Would you have stayed on strike longer if you knew it would? Our values as fans are never going to overlap with players (or the owners for that matter) situations.

Well we'll have to unquestionable agree to disagree there. Never were unguaranteed contracts going to happen so thats hardly a concession. Thats like saying the players didn't demand a raise so therefore the owners got a concession.

I wasn't on strike. It was before my time.

When you work in percentages, it makes things similar. Clearly you do not have any interest in common sense discussion and instead are seeking dismissive and condescending statements as a means to support your view.

That is my point: I would not have stayed on strike. My colleagues did not gain anything - they lost. What they lost took 12-15 years to recover. An average NBA career is 5 years - they have already lost.

That is not necessarily true. They may not 'win' (whatever that entails) but then again they might. Or they might just 'not lose' by continuing or agreeing now. There is simply put a one sided belief that the players hold no power.... yet at the same time we argue that players can 'hold teams' hostage. I believe that whoever holds out the longest will have to give up the least, but either holding out is going to cost both sides more than its worth.

It is going to cost the players more. They will never recoup the losses. The players are already going to take less money in any new deal which will go to the owners. The players position is like a child telling his parents he will hold his breath until he gets his own way.

(side note : This whole 'just quit you are weak compared to them' message, on a moral level, is just so incredibly wrong).

No this 'just quit you are weak compared to them' is like throwing in the towel for a fighter getting the living sh!t kicked out of him. It sucks for his ego but at least he'll have no long term effects.

Again the NHL and NBA circumstances are not the same, nor was Bill Guerins compared to alot of NBA players. This has nothing to do with 'discrediting' Bill Guerin. His message and experience are completely valid but relative to his own circumnstances, and not necessarily the same as the NBA.

Fair enough. I think the players of today will be wishing for their share of the lost salaries in 8 years much like Bill Guerin - but time will tell.

[mcHAPPY]

Via HoopsWorld.com Twitter feed:

DarnellMayberry Somebody stop Billy Hunter from rambling PLEASE


WojYahooNBA Hunter says Cavs owner Dan Gilbert kept telling him to "trust him" that they would come up with system agreement if union agreed to 50-50.



jadande Hunter: "Why should I trust [Dan Gilbert]?"


SherrodbCSN #NBAPA exec director Billy Hunter said #NBA wouldn't talk about system issues, unless they agreed to 50/50 split.


KBergCBS Hunter says he looked at mediator's notes, and they said Holt and Silver described 50-50 as "take it or leave it."


tribjazz NBPA's Hunter said NBA's Fisher and Holt delivered the "poison pill."


WojYahooNBA Hunter says owners told them they wouldn't negotiate on the system issues, until players agree on 50-50 split.

WojYahooNBA Silver and Holt still here, talking about how the NHL is a model for them.


WojYahooNBA Holt on owners willingness to go distance in fight for "competitve balance": "There are certain things we must have..."



KevinDing To hear Silver & Holt explain owners' side, they know players don't want to lose on both $ and system -- but they're still coming for both.



PDcavsinsider RT @KBergCBS: Asked if league would EVER go above 50-50, Holt says, "As of today, that's true. But in negotiation, you never say never."


PDcavsinsider RT @WojYahooNBA: Silver says owners told players they won't go past 50 percent on revenue split.




darrenrovell Truth RT @bcuban Nothing has changed. The owners can sustain their losses and recoup over time. The players can not.



sheridanhoops NBA labor talks have broken up. League went to 50-50 on revenue split. Union dropped from 53 to 52.5 percent. http://t.co/myrJRlhU

Via SheridanHoops.com:

NEW YORK — NBA Labor talks have broken off.
The split of revenues was the undoing. NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver says the union moved from 53 percent of BRI to 52.5 percent of BRI. Owners moved from 47 percent to 50. That’s when the talks broke off.

Silver said he will meet with commissioner David Stern and the owners’ labor relations committee tomorrow to reassess the situation. It is fair to expect more regular season games to be canceled at some point in the near future.

Spurs owner Peter Holt said federal mediator George Cohen wanted the sides to keep talking, “but both sides realized that we’re too far apart. … We need some fresh air and maybe some fresh thought and then try to get back together.”

“What Peter and the owners made clear is that was as far as we were willing to go, that’s 50 percent of BRI,” Silver said, adding the sides also were still apart on several system issues related to the salary cap.
Cohen’s employer, the Federal Mediation and concillation Service, released the following statement:

“As a follow up to the NBA’s and NBA Players Association agreeing to my invitation to conduct negotiations under the auspices of the FMCS, three days of mediation have taken place. During this period, a wide variety of issues were addressed in a professional, thoughtful manner, consistent with what one would expect to take place in a constructive collective bargaining setting.

“Regrettably, however, the parties have not achieved an overall agreement, nor have they been able to resolve the strongly held, competing positions that separated them on core issues.”

“In these circumstances, after carefully reviewing all of the events that have transpired, it is the considered judgment of myself and Deputy Director Scot Beckenbaugh, who has been engaged with me throughout this process, that no useful purpose would be served by requesting the parties to continue the mediation process at this time. For our part, the Agency has advised the parties that we will be willing and prepared to continue to facilitate any future discussions upon their mutual request.”

PDcavsinsider RT @helenenothelen: i get the feeling nba is going for the kill here, as bettman and nhl did in 04-05.

SpearsNBAYahoo Hunter: "Philosophically, it's a real large gap between the groups." He added NBA wants pre-condition of 50-50 BRI to meet again.


geoff_calkins @SpearsNBAYahoo I get they don't want it, but why should NBA players be entitled to a system that is more favorable than NHL/NFL systems?


KevinDing Union chief Billy Hunter cites Lakers' Jerry Buss first (with NY, MIA, DAL owners): "Those are the folks who wanted a deal and were open."


darrenrovell Quick summary: The reason why there's no NBA deal is because both sides are letting emotion get in the way of facts.


PDcavsinsider Hunter: "We've made concession after concession and concession, and it's just not enough



geoff_calkins Of course the bigger market owners want to play. They like a system in which they can buy the best rosters. Why wouldn't they?


SherrodbCSN "The system is more important to the players than the numbers."-#NBAPA Billy Hunter.



IraHeatBeat More doom. More gloom. Billy Hunter: "Unfortunately what we have to do is miss more games for this to set in. We are on a slippery slope."


MrMichaelLee All that being said, at some point, players have to realize that these owners are resilient, have longer pockets & this will only get worse

[GarbageTime]

Slant the argument in any manner you wish. The bottom line is the owners are not operating in a system that guarantees they lose money each year. The last system had them lose money each year of the agreement. Split hairs on this all you want, more money out than coming in is bad and unsustainable

I'm not slanting anything or splitting hairs. I said that right from the start.

Barkley certainly has had his moments. On this matter he is speaking very rational and very intelligent. As was Reggie Miller.

I decided to erase that after I wrote it as my sarcasm was getting a bit much, even for me.

I wasn't on strike. It was before my time.

When you work in percentages, it makes things similar.

you weren't event the one on strike? And employees being legally forced back to work by the government is such a different situation from players choosing to go back. Apples and Oranges my man.

And a % of $20 an hour is in no way similar to a % of 500k - 20 mil k a year.

Clearly you do not have any interest in common sense discussion and instead are seeking dismissive and condescending statements as a means to support your view.

I'm simply going to chuckle at this statement. Atleast you aren't an accountant trying tell me its the players themselves who would be reading the owner's financial statements.

[Apollo]

but thats says NOTHING about what they 'lost', where they lost it, how they lost it, or who lost it.

It's none of the players' business, period. They're employees of a company.

conspiracy theory? Please. Never did I say they did or didn't make money. I'm asking where is the evidence of this and why have they been so unwilling to not provide it. And more importantly, why are some so readily willing to believe it?

They have no obligation to do so. Do you think it's normal for companies to hand over their books during labour disputes? If you do then you need to study up.

if you are one how can you be so ridiculous as to act as if these players would go over the books themselves?

I'm not assuming anything from you. You never said accountants, you were talking about the PA. Now why don't you tell me what you expect from these accountants. What do you want them to do?

This has everything to do with claiming losses, and even more importantly, people using unproven information as to support their arguments.

It doesn't have to be proven. It is what it is. They're saying they're losing money and they don't need to justify it to the employees, only the stakeholders. There is however evidence if one were willing to look:

The NBA has lined up $200 million to distribute to teams interested in additional cash, which the league considers a sign it remains strong in a slumping economy.

Between $13 million and $20 million will be available to each of 12 teams that have expressed interest in the funds, commissioner David Stern said Thursday. The money can be used for any purpose, including helping teams deal with operating losses incurred because of the economy.

It should not, Stern said, be construed as a bailout. At a time when credit markets have been frozen, investors saw the NBA as a safe bet.

"It's exactly the opposite" of a bailout, Stern told The Associated Press "This was a show of strength in the creditworthiness of the NBA's teams."

The NBA declined to name the teams interested in the money.

The league has an existing $1.7 billion credit facility, essentially a line of credit established by lenders from which teams can borrow. The league had been interested in growing the facility when the credit markets seized up last fall.

"They told us there's no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league, and indeed, the credit facilities that had come up for other leagues were being termed out rather than renewed," Stern said.

JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America recently approached the league to say $150 million might be available, a figure that eventually grew to $200 million.

Source: ESPN.com

I'm asking for transparency based on the statements of the owners. And more specifically the arguments you have been using supporting the owners with ZERO factual evidence to prove them.

Labour negotiations aren't a court of law. They don't need detailed proof, the players aren't the jury. There are many reasons why a company wouldn't want to hand over its books to it's labour that don't involve hiding lies or deceit.

Honestly you are getting absolutely ridiculous. Don't throw rationality and critical thinking out the window so you can try and prove and/or try and discredit my opinion.

I am very rational. Now answer my question about what you expect the accountants to do and I'll take it from there.

[GarbageTime]

darrenrovell Truth RT @bcuban Nothing has changed. The owners can sustain their losses and recoup over time. The players can not.

and here I thought a lockout was ok for the owners by saving them money? Approx 22 of them if I'm not mistaken.

That makes it sound alot more like the lockout is costing the owners, but the profits they make from it when over with will pay cover it.

Where's the truth, whats the truth, who's being greedy?

like I said before, things that make you go hmmm......

[Bendit]

Wow if I wasnt convinced before I am now. It seems the owners are going for the jugular.

Apart from the money issues I think the LBJ, Wade & Bosh move was a wakeup call for the small market owners and they are going to make sure it doesnt happen again and/or using the new system to force the NY & Miami teams to either divest of at least one of their max. players and with a cap make it only possible to have a mediocre cast around them (unless good players want to play for the minimum).

Wonder if the Gumble statements had any effect...I did not hear anyone from the union separate themselves from it.

A fundamental problem is that the players have no real leverage...no sustainable alternative sources of income and the owners know it alongwith public furor (except in Miami) about what the troika did. That was a bad for business move and Barkley had it right...the owners wont allow this. Someone mentioned that he has Jordan whispering into his ear so he probably has a good handle at the ownership positions.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not slanting anything or splitting hairs. I said that right from the start.

I'm sorry but this reply:

I'm talking specifics which is incredibly important when discussing these matters. Every business that is losing or making money is, in general, in the same situation. But not all business whether losing or making money are in the same circumstances.

to this statement:

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I'm talking about in general. A business or league losing money year in and year out is not sustainable. Period.

is splitting hairs. Losing more money than you make is not sustainable. Period.

I decided to erase that after I wrote it as my sarcasm was getting a bit much, even for me.

Luckily, I'm getting to the point of not caring. The views you offer are constantly changing throughout the discussion and are based on one reply to the next. There is no consistency in your message - much like the player's association.

you weren't event the one on strike? And employees being legally forced back to work by the government is such a different situation from players choosing to go back. Apples and Oranges my man.

And a % of $20 an hour is in no way similar to a % of 500k - 20 mil k a year.

Comparing hourly wages of the common person to annual wages of a pro athlete is ridiculous.

My point is 10% is 10% and the 10% for the common person, while not near the same amount, is much more important.

I'm simply going to chuckle at this statement. Atleast you aren't an accountant trying tell me its the players themselves who would be reading the owner's financial statements.

And I'm simply going to ignore this statement.

[mcHAPPY]

and here I thought a lockout was ok for the owners by saving them money? Approx 22 of them if I'm not mistaken.

That makes it sound alot more like the lockout is costing the owners, but the profits they make from it when over with will pay cover it.

Where's the truth, whats the truth, who's being greedy?

like I said before, things that make you go hmmm......

Clearly you are mistaken.

Cuban and owners like Buss and Arison will recoup losses.

The 22 teams losing money will have a good number losing less money.

Losing less money not operating is still better than losing more money operating.

The profits owners make when this is over will ensure the sustainability of the league for years to come.

[mcHAPPY]

Via HoopsWorld.com:

WallaceNBA_ESPN If you don't fault the players for all wanting/maintaining g'teed contracts, how can u fault owners for seeking system w/g'teed profits?

Very true.

[GarbageTime]

I am very rational. Now answer my question about what you expect the accountants to do and I'll take it from there.

yes so rational that you are telling me you don't feel any real evidence is necessary in order for you to provide an argument.

Telling me "but they don't HAVE TO do that" doesn't make it reasonable for them to make a statement they are unwilling to prove. More importantly, it doesn't make it reasonable for you to assume that statement is true, let alone pass off that information as the truth.

You never said accountants, you were talking about the PA.

hahaha... please you are stretching it. And when I talk about ownership do you assume I think the individual owners do their own financial statements to?

What do I expect accountants to do? Exactly what accountants do. Review and ensure the accuracy of financial statements and resource allocation.

But what are you expecting? A step by step 'how to' procedure? I'd hire an accountant to do that. But if you feel like working pro bono... be my guest.