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

[mcHAPPY]

"Personal?"

Yeah, I suppose the Owners could run the league without any players and simply play themselves right? The NBA would be awesome if it weren't for the damn players!

If it's "Personal," the owners would really show the players who's boss and get into a different line of business.

With modern finance, they may have trouble finding a place, there's not too many other industries where anachronistic "Tycoon Boss" types are still prominent. Most industries are dominated by shareholder corporations, boards, etc. Pro sports is the last vestige of the tycoon, and I suspect they will soon be extinct. As others have suggested being an old-school Boss in the public eye is probably among the reasons a lot of these goons become owners in the first place. It's quick sickening how many people identify with these plantation owners.

I understand Tim W's position, that team interests are more aligned with fan interests than player interests, and I have no issue with this position, this position would hold whatever the nature of team ownership, including shareholder based, and actually suggests the best model directly: Fan-based ownership.

It's not that "Tycoons" have interests aligned with fans, they don't since their whole mission in life is charging the fans as much as possible while paying the players as little as possible. It's that teams have different interests than players.

Bring on the antitrust. The Players should own the league, the Fans should own the teams. The Tycoons can go to hell. Simple.

Where to begin? lol

Comparing athletes to slavery is an insult to history.

No doubt a professional sports league violates antitrust laws. However, how can a league truly operate without them - unless it is a league of 5-6 teams.

Players owning the league and fans owning the teams... that will work out splendidly. I'm sure the players and fans will enjoy fronting the billions needed to run the league - all at a loss!

[Quirk]

Where to begin? lol

Start by accepting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Comparing athletes to slavery is an insult to history.

Arguments about "insults to history" are an insult to logic.

No doubt a professional sports league violates antitrust laws. However, how can a league truly operate without them - unless it is a league of 5-6 teams.

A player/fan run league would not be fighting it's way into an antitrust case.

Players owning the league and fans owning the teams... that will work out splendidly. I'm sure the players and fans will enjoy fronting the billions needed to run the league - all at a loss!

Here's a clue: Securities.

That's how the entire world economy is financed. Not Tycoons. The 19th century has been calling pro-sports wanting it's financing model back for a long time.

A sports league with billions in revenue would have no trouble securitizing their future income.
Nobody is running anything at "at a loss." The idea that the owners are running a charity on behalf of the love of basketball is nonsense. Neither group wants to lose money, both have recourse to take on debt when needed when loses do occur, like any modern business.

[mcHAPPY]

Start by accepting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Look through my posts. I have claimed not to know the outcome of the antitrust. Even the players attorney's have acknowledged this. I think you should look at your own advice there.

Arguments about "insults to history" are an insult to logic.

Seriously? Comparing people who were mated to produce superior genetic slaves to do more work? Comparing people who if they stepped out of line they would be killed? Comparing people who were tortured and abused in all sorts of manners on the whims of their masters? Comparing people who's reward for work was the right to live another day? Comparing people who risked everything to escape through the underground to live a day without the aforementioned restrictions?

We are talking about athletes who play a game for a living and get paid millions of dollars over the course of an average career in the just expired system. We are talking about a labour agreement that was rejected by the players that could have easily seen average salaries move from $5M to $7-8M per season.

Arguments based on extremes are an insult to the discussion.

A player/fan run league would not be fighting it's way into an antitrust case.

Because such a league would most likely have 5-6 teams.

What happens when a corporation is bleeding more money than it is taking in? What happens when the market figures out that a stock is not worth the hype? Oh sure, they could issue more debt to cover losses but essentially the yields to entice debt holders would cause the team to fold as the cost to carry the debt eats up all income.

What you are advocating would result in the majority of franchises becoming bankrupt in a short period of time. What you are advocating does nothing to improve competitive balance in the NBA, in fact it only exasperates it. The NBA is not like MLB or the NFL. Two or three great players on one team alters the competitive balance of the league due to the nature of the sport.

People do not invest to lose money whether it is a stakeholder in a public corporation or a tycoon owner.

Here's a clue: Securities.

That's how the entire world economy is financed. Not Tycoons. The 19th century has been calling pro-sports wanting it's financing model back for a long time.

A sports league with billions in revenue would have no trouble securitizing their future income.
Nobody is running anything at "at a loss." The idea that the owners are running a charity on behalf of the love of basketball is nonsense. Neither group wants to lose money, both have recourse to take on debt when needed when loses do occur, like any modern business.

That initial IPO would be fantastic I am sure.

With an argument to take on more debt when loses do it occur all credibility is lost. The majority of teams would never turn a profit in a truly free market. Taking on debt to cover operational losses is a good way to go BANKRUPT. Look what happens when yield rates rise. There comes a point when the cost of carrying debt becomes greater than incomes. That is the end game.

What happens in a truly capitalistic marketplace when one business goes bankrupt? The stronger businesses come in to pick up the assets at pennies on the dollar.

Giving this some thought it is interesting and could work. However if the goal is to have a 26-30 team league with each franchise having an opportunity to compete, well good luck with that, in my opinion.

Well what about revenue sharing? Yes, I am sure stakeholders in NY are going to be very happy to share their revenues with stakeholders in MIL. That would be like JPMorgan shareholders saying, "Ohhhh CitiBank, you are having such a hard go of it - especially on that one time charge of $1.5billion. Here, let me take a collection from the profitable banks of GS and BofA to cover those costs."

The goal of a private business is to control the marketplace hence mergers and acquisitions. The goal in professional sports is to win on the court but to do that you need competitors. If the goal is to watch truly great teams squash the majority of the opposition, I believe there is already a professional basketball circuit that meets those desires of the market - they go by the name of the Harlem Globetrotters.

[Joey]

A hard cap would most definitely work for the owners, since it would limit how much teams can spend. It doesn't work for the players, though, and it would kind of suck for the fans who would not get much continuity on their team because teams wouldn't be able to afford to keep all their best players.

Not only that, as soon as they do sign that horrible contract, (which everyone knows is going to happen) a Hard Cap would make it that much more debilitating.

[Apollo]

"Personal?"

Yeah, I suppose the Owners could run the league without any players and simply play themselves right? The NBA would be awesome if it weren't for the damn players!

It's already personal for the players. It was months ago. I don't get your point here. The players are now seeking to do damage to the Owners via the courts and there are reports that suggest they make seek to toss as many suits at them as possible in a desperate hope that something sticks. The minute you bring the courts into the game is the minute it's personal. The Players have said the hard cap and other mechanisms, which would make the game better for the fans, are "blood issues". My point, Quirk, is that that Owners will undoubtedly be out for "blood" if they overcome a law suit hurtle.

If it's "Personal," the owners would really show the players who's boss and get into a different line of business.

The Players have already been given a rude awakening about who the Boss is. Hence the desperate act to decertify and toss suits at the Owners which weren't even applicable under the conditions of the negotiations to date.

With modern finance, they may have trouble finding a place, there's not too many other industries where anachronistic "Tycoon Boss" types are still prominent. Most industries are dominated by shareholder corporations, boards, etc. Pro sports is the last vestige of the tycoon, and I suspect they will soon be extinct. As others have suggested being an old-school Boss in the public eye is probably among the reasons a lot of these goons become owners in the first place. It's quick sickening how many people identify with these plantation owners.

What you're missing here is the fact that all these Owners have made their fortunes elsewhere. Most industries are dominated by CEO's who delegate from the top and the stakeholders typically go along with their plans. Pro Sports is going nowhere. It will change with the times, just like any other industry. The only way Pro Sports dies is if something new and improved comes along.

It's quick sickening how many people identify with these plantation owners.

Just because you say that doesn't make it reality. I've only read a couple writers make that analogy and I thought it was a pretty outlandish and an insult to our intelligence. It made me question what their mission was.

Unions are actually detrimental to industry in turbulent economic times such as these and if you don't agree then please see the Detroit automotive industry. If you have trouble finding it that is because you're looking in the wrong place. You're looking in Michigan. You should be looking in China.

I understand Tim W's position, that team interests are more aligned with fan interests than player interests, and I have no issue with this position

Yes, something is far closer to the Fan's interest than absolutely nothing. I agree.

suggests the best model directly: Fan-based ownership.

This works in Greenbay, Wisconsin. I would support that direction 100%... But wait, what happens if one of those fans is a tycoon and has enough money to purchase at least a51% stake in the company?

It's not that "Tycoons" have interests aligned with fans, they don't since their whole mission in life is charging the fans as much as possible while paying the players as little as possible. It's that teams have different interests than players.

No one in here is kidding themselves. If you page through here you won't find a single person who is naive enough to think that the Owners are fighting this fight for the fans. Everyone in here knows that the Owners are fighting this for their own gain. The people in here on the Owners' side are on that side because they've looked at the issues, they've looked at what both sides are offering each other and they've come to the realization that what the Owners are offering the Players improves the health of the business and promotes a fair, more consistent on court product for all fans. What the Players are offering helps only themselves. The Players offer provides no added value to the fans.

Bring on the antitrust. The Players should own the league, the Fans should own the teams. The Tycoons can go to hell. Simple.

Someone versed in modern finance and industry should be able to appreciate the terms capital, ingenuity and know how. Simply put, the players are missing all three. Otherwise we would be talking about this new and exciting start up league right now.

[Joey]

This works in Greenbay, Wisconsin. I would support that direction 100%... But wait, what happens if one of those fans is a tycoon and has enough money to purchase at least a51% stake in the company?

Wow, I actually didn't know this! Unreal. Very cool as well.

I'm all for this if they could somehow figure out a way to make this system work else where.
I imagine the fact that Green Bay is SO small, has alot to do with its success.

And after doing some reading, apparently the Packers have a rule, where no one individual can own more than 200 000 shares, which works out to about 4% ownership stake (almost 5M shares currently owned).

The President (as elected by a Board) represents the team in all Ownership meetings.
Apparently the NFL has a rule where you can't have more than 32 owners per team, but because the Green Bay system was in place before the rule was enacted, they were exempt.

Packers are also the ONLY American Pro Sports team to release their Financial Balance sheet EVERY year.

Very cool. Thats a team I could support.

[mcHAPPY]

Wow, I actually didn't know this! Unreal. Very cool as well.

I'm all for this if they could somehow figure out a way to make this system work else where.
I imagine the fact that Green Bay is SO small, has alot to do with its success.

And after doing some reading, apparently the Packers have a rule, where no one individual can own more than 200 000 shares, which works out to about 4% ownership stake (almost 5M shares currently owned).

The president represents the team in all Ownership meetings.
Apparently the NFL has a rule where you can't have more than 32 owners per team, but because the Green Bay system was in place before the rule was enacted, they were exempt.
Packers are also the ONLY American Pro Sports team to release their Financial Balance sheet EVERY year.
Very cool. Thats a team I could support.

But the Packers still play under parameters of a predetermined CBA which is what the NBA players are fighting.

[Apollo]

Wow, I actually didn't know this! Unreal. Very cool as well.

I'm all for this if they could somehow figure out a way to make this system work else where.
I imagine the fact that Green Bay is SO small, has alot to do with its success.

And after doing some reading, apparently the Packers have a rule, where no one individual can own more than 200 000 shares, which works out to about 4% ownership stake (almost 5M shares currently owned).

The President (as elected by a Board) represents the team in all Ownership meetings.
Apparently the NFL has a rule where you can't have more than 32 owners per team, but because the Green Bay system was in place before the rule was enacted, they were exempt.

Packers are also the ONLY American Pro Sports team to release their Financial Balance sheet EVERY year.

Very cool. Thats a team I could support.

In Greenbay I think they did it back in the 20's to save the team. This would not be viable in this day in age where franchises are worth anywhere from $200M to upwards of $1B.

FYI, there is a rumor that the Packers are planning to issue some more shares(7,000) to help fund an expansion at Lambeau field. It's been over 50 years since they've issued new stocks I think.

[Joey]

In Greenbay I think they did it back in the 20's to save the team. This would not be viable in this day in age where franchises are worth anywhere from $200M to upwards of $1B.

FYI, there is a rumor that the Packers are planning to issue some more shares(7,000) to help fund an expansion at Lambeau field. It's been over 50 years since they've issued new stocks I think.

I was actually just reading they had a sale in 1997-98 with shares going for $200 each.
Still, I wouldn't mind grabbing a couple shares just to say I did. haha

[Apollo]

I was actually just reading they had a sale in 1997-98 with shares going for $200 each.

Darn, well I wasn't 100% accurate but got the general idea out there at least.

Still, I wouldn't mind grabbing a couple shares just to say I did. haha

Me too!

Who knows, maybe they get some perks like an "employee discount" on Packers merchandise?

[Quirk]

Seriously?

Yes, it's an invalid argument. "History" can not be insulted, and even if something is "insulting," this doesn't make it false.

Comparing people who ...

Slavery has taken many different forms at different place and times in history, there have been numerous eras where certain slaves have had great privilege, and even power, while remaining slaves, for instance prized concubines or gladiators.

In any case, my comparison was regarding the owners, not the players. They act like plantation owners, as if they own the players and have a right to profit from their work, and dictate the terms.

We are talking about athletes who play a game for a living and get paid millions of dollars over the course of an average career in the just expired system.

Not sure what "play a game for a living" is supposed to mean. Their jobs are both strenuous and stressful and they undertook significant risk and effort to get to where they are.

They don't "get paid" millions of dollars. They earn millions of dollars. Earnings the owners want more of.

Because such a league would most likely have 5-6 teams.

Why? How do Tycoon Bosses expand the scalability of a basketball league?

What happens when a corporation is bleeding more money than it is taking in? What happens when the market figures out that a stock is not worth the hype? Oh sure, they could issue more debt to cover losses but essentially the yields to entice
debt holders would cause the team to fold as the cost to carry the debt eats up all income.

There is no reason to believe a profesional basketbal league is unsound.

What you are advocating would result in the majority of franchises becoming bankrupt in a short period of time

Why?

With an argument to take on more debt when loses do it occur all credibility is lost.

The NBA is not did losing money.

The majority of teams would never turn a profit in a truly free market.

I am not advocating a "truly free market," in absence of labour agreement that's what the NBA will have to face.

A player/fan owned league would have a labour agreement, and not be a truly free market.

Taking on debt to cover operational losses is a good way to go BANKRUPT.

You continue to make the false assumption that a profesional basketball league is an unsound business.

Yes, I am sure stakeholders in NY are going to be very happy to share their revenues with stakeholders in MIL

In what way do Tycoon Owners have different interests than the stakeholders you describe? If the stakeholders believed that a large stable league was good for their stake, they would support it, just as the current owners do.

The goal of a private business is to control the marketplace hence mergers and acquisitions. The goal in professional sports is to win on the court but to do that you need competitors. If the goal is to watch truly great teams squash the majority of the opposition, I believe there is already a professional basketball circuit that meets those desires of the market - they go by the name of the Harlem Globetrotters.

A player owned league with fan owned franchises seems to be ideally suited to pursue goals inline with the interests of profesional sports.

[Quirk]

It's already personal for the players.

All the more reason for the owners to find a new line of business. Since they're not needed to organize basketball games.

My point, Quirk, is that that Owners will undoubtedly be out for "blood" if they overcome a law suit hurtle.

Yet, without a labour agreement they are an anti-competitive trust, and with any luck, will be sanctioned as such by the courts.

The Players have already been given a rude awakening about who the Boss is.

So they should fire their Boss, who contributes nothing.

Most industries are dominated by CEO's who delegate from the top and the stakeholders typically go along with their plans.

If they screw up, they get fired.

Pro Sports is going nowhere. It will change with the times, just like any other industry.

Yes, and that future will be without Tycoon Owners, eventually, like any other industry. When that transformation will happen I can't say, but maybe this is the beginning.

Unions are actually detrimental to industry in turbulent economic times such as these and if you don't agree then please see the Detroit automotive industry. If you have trouble finding it that is because you're looking in the wrong place. You're looking in Michigan. You should be looking in China.

Credible citation to actual research that backs the outlandish claims you are making above? Unions did not wreck the automotive industry. Not sure what I should be looking for in China. I suggest we don't pursue this tangent further unless you are prepared to back up your claims with actual facts and analysis, do either of us have the time for that?

The relevant fact is that without a union, the league can not exist, as drafts and contract restrictions etc, presuppose a labour agreement. So the point is moot. Unless we want a free market with dozens of teams and different leagues, no draft and no contract restrictions, there must be a union, regardless of what you think unions did to Detroit.

This works in Greenbay, Wisconsin. I would support that direction 100%... But wait, what happens if one of those fans is a tycoon and has enough money to purchase at least a51% stake in the company?

Again, I'm suggesting the players own the league and the fans own the teams. So, this Tycoon would still not control the league or the CBA, etc. In any case, I'm not really suggesting we figure out the league bylaws for a fictional league right here, right now.

Someone versed in modern finance and industry should be able to appreciate the terms capital, ingenuity and know how. Simply put, the players are missing all three. Otherwise we would be talking about this new and exciting start up league right now.

Capital is formed by securitizing future income. Ingenuity and know how is hired, in the NBA it comes from the GMs, Coaches and even David Stern and his staff, not the Tycoon Owners.

[Quirk]

But the Packers still play under parameters of a predetermined CBA which is what the NBA players are fighting.

The Players are not against a CBA. They are against the one the owners offered, which is intended to reduce the portion of basketball revenue that players earn and increase what owners earn.

Player/fan ownership would not have this problem.

[Apollo]

The Players are not against a CBA. They are against the one the owners offered, which is intended to reduce the portion of basketball revenue that players earn and increase what owners earn.

Player/fan ownership would not have this problem.

Why?

[mcHAPPY]

Yes, it's an invalid argument. "History" can not be insulted, and even if something is "insulting," this doesn't make it false.

The insult is to the people, their memory, and their place in history who actually were slaves on a plantation.

Slavery has taken many different forms at different place and times in history, there have been numerous eras where certain slaves have had great privilege, and even power, while remaining slaves, for instance prized concubines or gladiators.

Slaves do not have a choice to work. No one is forcing a person to sign an NBA contract under the old CBA. It is their choice. They could easily go to Europe as Brandon Jennings did or go to Israel or Japan as Jeremy Tyler did. Gladiators fought for their masters or were murdered or sent to do manual labour elsewhere - more likely murdered though.

In any case, my comparison was regarding the owners, not the players. They act like plantation owners, as if they own the players and have a right to profit from their work, and dictate the terms.

If this was true there would have been no movement off a hard cap, no guaranteed contracts, or 43% of BRI for owners. There would also have been no movement after the first proposal to add money and years to the mini-MLE.

The players chose not to accept the offer of the owners - that was their right. It is not the owner's responsibility to offer a contract the players deem 'fair'. Negotiations usually involve both parties not getting 100% of what they want - which seems to be the case with this proposal from the NBA.

Was it an ultimatum? Debatable. The owners reached the furthest they were willing to move. That usually happens in negotiations. Should the owners have said we'll reset to this offer if you don't accept? No, I don't think that was a wise move.

Not sure what "play a game for a living" is supposed to mean. Their jobs are both strenuous and stressful and they undertook significant risk and effort to get to where they are.

Miners have stressful and strenuous jobs who took significant risk to get where they are. Miners mine for a living.

Players have stressful and strenuous jobs who took significant risk to get where they are. Players play a game for a living.

They don't "get paid" millions of dollars. They earn millions of dollars. Earnings the owners want more of.

Miners get paid to mine. Players get paid to play.

OR

Miners earn money to mine. Player earn money to play.

Why? How do Tycoon Bosses expand the scalability of a basketball league?

How many shareholders would continue to hold their shares or how many new shareholders would buy in to a franchise like Orlando that has lost more money than any other team in the league the last few seasons? The 'Tycoon Bosses' have other revenue streams that can keep franchises afloat that otherwise would be unable to stay afloat. When

There is no reason to believe a profesional basketbal league is unsound.

22 of 30 teams would beg to differ.

Why?

Because the issue of 'super teams', 'haves and have nots', and 'good market vs bad market' would only be magnified.

The NBA is not did losing money.

The sky is not blue. Just because I said it doesn't make it true. Even the players agree the league is losing money. The difference is the amount.

I am not advocating a "truly free market," in absence of labour agreement that's what the NBA will have to face.

A player/fan owned league would have a labour agreement, and not be a truly free market.

Then at the end of the day whether there are tycoon bosses or fans owning teams, the player will continue to be slaves. Whoever is running a team is not going to be in favour of some teams having advantages within the labour agreement that ultimately effects the product and chances on the court.

You continue to make the false assumption that a profesional basketball league is an unsound business.

The NBA under the last CBA was an unsound business. They lost money every year. Having professional sports teams in a league with little to no chance of success in comparison to other teams as a result of the labour agreement is an unsound business.

In what way do Tycoon Owners have different interests than the stakeholders you describe? If the stakeholders believed that a large stable league was good for their stake, they would support it, just as the current owners do.

So to achieve a large stable league a labour agreement appears to be needed that does not give the players every freedom they desire. How does this conflict change with Tycoon Owners or stakeholders?

A player owned league with fan owned franchises seems to be ideally suited to pursue goals inline with the interests of profesional sports.

In your opinion. Funny how the only thing you did not reply to in this was:

Quirk wrote:
Start by accepting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Look through my posts. I have claimed not to know the outcome of the antitrust. Even the players attorney's have acknowledged this. I think you should look at your own advice there.