IMO the worsening world econony and stock markets favor the owners

[Blazinaway]

stance and of them eventually getting most of what they want. The economic outlook is looking worse and worse and IMO that does not bode well for the NBA players. Very bad timing for a possible strike and perhaps sitting out a year.

My advice is get what you can now cause it will likely we less the longer you wait.

 

[jlprk]

You say that the economy will worsen, forcing owners to decrease their offer. But won't this worsening affect owners as much as players? It's not logical that players should hurry to make a deal more than owners.

 

[mook]

Isn't it the owners who are locked into payments on arenas, etc? It's not like if there are no games to play, the arena becomes free. If you assume the owners have investments in other assets such as stocks, bonds, etc, and the markets plummet, it seems to me it's going to be harder for them to cover those fixed costs.

Also, it's not merely a game of "who gets hit the worst will flinch."

If I pay you one dollar to whack me in the head with a baseball bat, and you require me to pay two dollars to whack you in the head with a baseball bat, is anybody really winning this game? We're both getting whacked in the head with bats.

Similarly, with every day of the lockout the owner's franchise becomes a little less valuable. The last lockout caused a major hit to popularity of the NBA, which in turn devalued somewhat the franchises. They didn't suffer forever, but if you are an owner wanting to sell in the next few years, it's got to make you think.

Obviously, there are a lot of reasons why owners hate lockouts. Otherwise, they'd never sign a CBA, never recognize a union, and just close down the league every year or two and drive player salaries down to minimum wage.

 

[Blazinaway]

You say that the economy will worsen, forcing owners to decrease their offer. But won't this worsening affect owners as much as players? It's not logical that players should hurry to make a deal more than owners.

HUH? "force" the owner's to lower their offer? No, it may "force" the players to accept the owners current offer because it's hard to argue an improving or even stable financial environment given what is going on in the economy. The owners in my opinion are already prepared to sit out the season, and are much better prepared financially to do so than the players.

When more and more people are out of work and afraid for their job, and see their retiremant assets dwindle with declining markets, it's IMO very hard for the NBA players to hold out for the status quo and not be willing to give up quite a bit, since most Americans are and have been doing with less for many, many years and it appears the economy and stock markey could be worsening again.

There is not much sympathy for NBA players who make millions when the they will still make millions no matter what CBA is agreed to.

 

[jlprk]

Your whole post simply concerns the PR angle of who will be more popular with fans. This is irrelevant to owners and players who are negotiating in real dollars for themselves, not popularity dollars for the fans. There is one exception in your post, this sentence, which I'll answer.

The owners in my opinion are already prepared to sit out the season, and are much better prepared financially to do so than the players.

Each side loses money by sitting out, and each side will gain money if it wins. So I don't see the difference in motivation you see between the 2 sides. Someone should draw a graph to find intersections of these curves: for each side (owners and players), the gain in income over the next 10 years vs. the loss in income during the one lockout season. The intersections of those 4 lines might clarify our thinking or it might not.

 

[PapaG]

You say that the economy will worsen, forcing owners to decrease their offer. But won't this worsening affect owners as much as players? It's not logical that players should hurry to make a deal more than owners.

It depends, but common logic says that billionaires would have a bigger cushion than millionaires, and NBA players aren't generally known for making sound business decisions.

 

[PapaG]

Each side loses money by sitting out, and each side will gain money if it wins.

True, but most, if not all, of the owners have other streams of revenue, so they may not negotiate in good faith. That was the argument Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning tried to make when the disbanded the union and took the NFL to court. The courts didn't buy it then, and I don't think they'll buy it now if the NBAPA tries a similar tactic.

Simply put, the NBA players need their jobs a heck of a lot more than most of the owners need their jobs. Plus, teams like Charlotte and New Orleans may actually want to miss a season due to the massive amounts of money they are losing. The Blazers even operate in the red, and if it was Paul Allen's only source of income, perhaps he'd want to not lose millions of dollars for a year or two.

 

[Mediocre Man]

The lockout favors the owners period. Most if not all have many other businesses that make them money.

 

[HailBlazers]

The lockout favors the owners period. Most if not all have many other businesses that make them money.

Hence them not negotiating in good faith. Hell their not even negotiating between themselves in good faith it sounds like, with no alignment or new developments on revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing a vital (yet secretive) component to talks
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/featur.../revenue-sharing-still-vital/?ls=iref:nbahpt1

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

The Blazers even operate in the red, and if it was Paul Allen's only source of income, perhaps he'd want to not lose millions of dollars for a year or two.

Did you get to read "Idea Man" yet? It sounded like he was not willing to keep spending money either.

 

[mook]

It depends, but common logic says that billionaires would have a bigger cushion than millionaires, and NBA players aren't generally known for making sound business decisions.

The majority of NBA owners are not billionaires: http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/16/lakers-nets-blazers-magic-business-sports-nba-billionaires.html

It says that 10 of the 30 owners are.

Interestingly, Paul Allen isn't the league's wealthiest owner anymore (it's now Prokorov). Allen fell so far from #1 because....he made a lot of unsound business decisions.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Hence them not negotiating in good faith. Hell their not even negotiating between themselves in good faith it sounds like, with no alignment or new developments on revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing a vital (yet secretive) component to talks
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/featur.../revenue-sharing-still-vital/?ls=iref:nbahpt1

And the players are????

They know, for a fact, the teams are losing money and the only solution is either a hard cap or non fully guaranteed salaries. Yet they seem to be fighting among themselves and broken away from the agents.

 

[PapaG]

The majority of NBA owners are not billionaires: http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/16/lakers-nets-blazers-magic-business-sports-nba-billionaires.html

It says that 10 of the 30 owners are.

Interestingly, Paul Allen isn't the league's wealthiest owner anymore (it's now Prokorov). Allen fell so far from #1 because....he made a lot of unsound business decisions.

Wow, only 10 billionaires?? Why, the rest of the owners will probably be on the corner with tin cups, asking for our spare change!

Plus, one of Allen's worst decisions was buying the Blazers, at least in terms of making money off of them. It's a hobby to him. He actually makes money off of the Seabags, btw, so not only does he have another toy, but that one is making money for him.

 

[mook]

Wow, only 10 billionaires?? Why, the rest of the owners will probably be on the corner with tin cups, asking for our spare change!

Maybe it's a meaningless distinction. But when I think of a billionaire, I think of a guy who has a, "Who gives a fuck, it's only money" attitude. Somebody with "only" $500m always struck me as the kind of person who worried more about where the next hundred mil went. *shrug* I don't dabble in those circles, so I could be wrong.

 

[jlprk]

And the players are????

They know, for a fact, the teams are losing money

Players changed their minds? Link? All I saw was articles explaining how the books can be cooked.

In addition to amortizing purchase costs, owners can also allocate expenses from their other businesses to the team, and revenues from the team to their other businesses.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Players changed their minds? Link? All I saw was articles explaining how the books can be cooked.

In addition to amortizing purchase costs, owners can also allocate expenses from their other businesses to the team, and revenues from the team to their other businesses.

I dunno. The owners have been willing to open their books. I think the evidence is that they are losing money. I think the owners deserve the right to make money on a year to year basis.

 

[PapaG]

Maybe it's a meaningless distinction. But when I think of a billionaire, I think of a guy who has a, "Who gives a fuck, it's only money" attitude. Somebody with "only" $500m always struck me as the kind of person who worried more about where the next hundred mil went. *shrug* I don't dabble in those circles, so I could be wrong.

I somewhat agree, but if the owners really aren't lying about losing money, then some of those really rich guys may not mind getting a better CBA. It's difficult to compare that NFL lockout with the NBA lockout, IMO, because the NFL is such a money-making machine that it was in both sides' best interest to get a deal done. I'm not sure the same thing can be said about the owners in the NBA, and if that's the case, the players are going to end up either missing at least one season or making large concessions to the owners.

I think the leverage lies 90% with the owners at this point if there are some that really are losing millions a year.

 

[PapaG]

I dunno. The owners have been willing to open their books. I think the evidence is that they are losing money. I think the owners deserve the right to make money on a year to year basis.

I don't see how teams like New Orleans or Charlotte (or even Atlanta) can be making money. Their arenas always seem half-empty, and there just isn't enough national TV money to make up for operating losses, which is why the NFL is so profitable.

 

[mook]

I think the leverage lies 90% with the owners at this point if there are some that really are losing millions a year.

If they do indeed have 90% of the leverage, I'd look for LeBron James to be making $2 mil/year on his next contract. A guy like Batum will make $100k/year. Lol. You want to bet on that happening?

If you want to see a league where ownership does indeed hold 90%+ of the leverage, look at the UFC. Guys consider themselves damned lucky if they get to beat the snot out of each other for $50k/year. The best fighter in the league (Anderson Silva) doesn't even make a million bucks a year. Meanwhile Dana White raked in $450m last year just in PPV sales.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I don't see how teams like New Orleans or Charlotte (or even Atlanta) can be making money. Their arenas always seem half-empty, and there just isn't enough national TV money to make up for operating losses, which is why the NFL is so profitable.

Add Minnesota, Milwaukee, Detroit, New Jersey (until they move), Indiana, Philly, and Sacramento just off the top of my head.

 

[PapaG]

If they do indeed have 90% of the leverage, I'd look for LeBron James to be making $2 mil/year on his next contract. A guy like Batum will make $100k/year. Lol. You want to bet on that happening?

That's ridiculous and could only happen with 100% leverage. Do you want to talk seriously about this, or are we just going to end up in a roundy-round?

If you want to see a league where ownership does indeed hold 90%+ of the leverage, look at the UFC. Guys consider themselves damned lucky if they get to beat the snot out of each other for $50k/year. The best fighter in the league (Anderson Silva) doesn't even make a million bucks a year. Meanwhile Dana White raked in $450m last year just in PPV sales.

That's 100% leverage. The problem for UFC fighters is that the sport itself is marketed for the most part, not the fighters (pay $50 for UFC 12,313 this Saturday - insert fighter names here!!!), and there aren't a lot of other options available.

Comparing the NBA to UFC seems absurd to me. Clearly the owner, Dana White, is making money hand over fist. I don't think that every NBA owner can say the same about their own franchise.

 

[Nikolokolus]

The owners have the leverage, but the economy going (staying?) into the shitter doesn't really move the needle one way or another as far as I can see. Ultimately if people have less disposable income and sponsors aren't doing well and thus not interested in spending as much money on cross-marketing then all that does is shrink the pie that the owners and players split up.

 

[MARIS61]

NBA players aren't generally known for making sound business decisions.

Nor are NBA owners.

The only Blazer in the history of the franchise to declare a business bankruptcy is Paul "I own islands, yachts and submarines but I can't pay for my team's expenses" Allen.

 

[Blazinaway]

The owners have the leverage, but the economy going (staying?) into the shitter doesn't really move the needle one way or another as far as I can see. Ultimately if people have less disposable income and sponsors aren't doing well and thus not interested in spending as much money on cross-marketing then all that does is shrink the pie that the owners and players split up.

I think what it does is lessen the average persons support for the players positions. As most of U.S. population have taken at least some sort of large financial hit (home value, job loss, etc etc) the past several years, IMO there is little sympathy for the players not having to offer some significant give ups.

Basically the public says get a clue and take a hit NBA boys, just like almost all of us have had to go thru. It's time for you to "share the pain". And it's sort of hard to have sympathy when that "pain" may be less of a guaranteed contract of 10 mil vs 12 or 13 million, or 3 million vs 5, or no guaranteed contract for 5 or 6 yrs, maybe "only" 3. Just my opinion

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think what it does is lessen the average persons support for the players positions. As most of U.S. population have taken at least some sort of large financial hit (home value, job loss, etc etc) the past several years, IMO there is little sympathy for the players not having to offer some significant give ups.

Basically the public says get a clue and take a hit NBA boys, just like almost all of us have had to go thru. It's time for you to "share the pain". And it's sort of hard to have sympathy when that "pain" may be less of a guaranteed contract of 10 mil vs 12 or 13 million, or 3 million vs 5, or no guaranteed contract for 5 or 6 yrs, maybe "only" 3. Just my opinion

Public perception has zero percent to do with the way this thing is playing out between the owners and the players ... OK well maybe not zero, but it's damn close. The only things the owners should be worried about is damaging the popularity of the game just as it was starting to rebound after the Michael years, other than that there's no incentive for the the players to bend over and take it just to appease some nebulous notion about public support for their position at the negotiating table.

 

[jlprk]

As most of U.S. population have taken at least some sort of large financial hit (home value, job loss, etc etc) the past several years, IMO there is little sympathy for the players not having to offer some significant give ups. Basically the public says get a clue and take a hit NBA boys, just like almost all of us have had to go thru.

Since way before the lockout began, the union has volunteered to "take a hit." Negotiations are over how much, not whether.

It had been 57% or something and they offered 54% months ago. Owners demanded low 40s. The compromise will probably be low 50s or 50.

You act as if all American employees have taken pay cuts. Who are all these employees who have kept the same job but accepted a pay cut?

Have you offered your boss to cut your pay? The players have.

 

[MARIS61]

Since way before the lockout began, the union has volunteered to "take a hit." Negotiations are over how much, not whether.

It had been 57% or something and they offered 54% months ago. Owners demanded low 40s. The compromise will probably be low 50s or 50.

You act as if all American employees have taken pay cuts. Who are all these employees who have kept the same job but accepted a pay cut?

Have you offered your boss to cut your pay? The players have.

More to the point, what executives and CEO's have volunteered to take pay cuts?

Is David Stern taking a pay cut? Has Larry Miller stepped up to the plate and returned 20% of his salary?

 

[MARIS61]

I think what it does is lessen the average persons support for the players positions. As most of U.S. population have taken at least some sort of large financial hit (home value, job loss, etc etc) the past several years, IMO there is little sympathy for the players not having to offer some significant give ups.

Basically the public says get a clue and take a hit NBA boys, just like almost all of us have had to go thru. It's time for you to "share the pain". And it's sort of hard to have sympathy when that "pain" may be less of a guaranteed contract of 10 mil vs 12 or 13 million, or 3 million vs 5, or no guaranteed contract for 5 or 6 yrs, maybe "only" 3. Just my opinion

Just the opposite, I believe most people would rather see the players stand tough and fight for their worth.

Just as illegal aliens working for sub-minimum wages hurts the average American's pay, so does any concession by workers at the higher end of the spectrum. Most fans realize who's raking in more than they're worth, and it's not the most talented basketball players in the world.

 

[MARIS61]

I'd like to see the players demand a raise to say 65% and sit out a year to make their point.

The owners have nothing without them, nothing at all.

 

[Ed O]

I'd like to see the players demand a raise to say 65% and sit out a year to make their point.

The owners have nothing without them, nothing at all.

They've got other businesses and investments... so, financially, they have a lot of other things going on.

They also have the reason the NBA matters: the teams. There are more Kobe Bryants and Kevin Durants that will emerge over time. There won't be any Los Angeles Lakers or Boston Celtics that will come from nowhere.

Players giving up a year of their (often short) careers doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ed O.