OT: NBA Players Union plans to decertify

[Deadrody]

A brutal critique of Jordan and his management mistakes (Adam Morrison, Kwame Brown)

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/...tern-in-NBA-lockout-a-selfish-betrayal-110411

Exactly what the hell does MJ's draft history have to do with the lockout ? Michael Jordan all but BUILT the NBA as it is today. The idea that he is somehow a traitor is pathetically stupid. Go back in time and erase Michael Jordan from NBA history and today's players are fighting over scraps compared to what they make now. Ridiculous

 

[Deadrody]

I am not clear what value the owners bring to the table at all. The players should just form a new league as a partnership or a co-op and disintermediate the owners altogether.

Let's see. For instance, the original owners of the ABA teams. They put up the money - at risk of complete failure - to start teams and a league from scratch. Without them, half the teams in the NBA don't exist. The difference between them and the owners today is only a matter of degree.

There is no way the NBA and its players part ways. But even if it COULD happen, do you really think anyone is going to go watch a player's league that is the culmination of those players destroying the NBA as you know it and with it the value of the NY Knicks, Boston Celtics, and LA Lakers, for instance ? Yeah, again, good luck with that.

What is really mind boggling is that the players are risking hundreds of millions of dollars from this season over the ability of a few overpaid veterans to find a few extra million dollars with teams over the cap that can no longer use the full mid-level exception every year. Possibly the dumbest move in sports union history.

 

[RS9999X]

The players know enough to use OPM. If it wasn't for Other People's Money then players like Kwame Brown or Adam Morrison would be on the players payroll and the players would never pay past the first season of under perfomance or injury.

It's kinda like movies or the music business or Broadway where getting wealthy fans or patrons to back some 'iffy' projects is the key to making things work. I'd call it a scam but it would give scams a bad name.

The money in most clubs is the equity appreciation not the money from current operations. That's part of the problem.

One of the most hated owners is Don Sterling of the Los Angeles Clippers. He bought the club in 1981 for $12.5 million, and as of the 2008 rankings the team is valued at $297 million by Forbes (25th out of 30 NBA clubs), .

Under Sterling the Clippers have two seasons over .500 since 1981. Anything you could possibly accuse Sterling of screwing up he's screwed up from a players salary perspective. He leases the Staples Center for only $40,000 a game (he gives Staples management most of the Premium Seats to market) and turns $9 mil a year in profit with a payroll that is about 40% of the .Lakers after the luxury tax is included.

The Players simply hate him. He's like the poster boy for union takeover of the league. In real life he's a slumlord and runs his club the same way

 

[HuskyFan32]

Is it me or are the players being ridiculous here? 3 or 4 guys on every nba team are virtually useless and they collect their millions. Theyre millionaires and somehow they get a stipend for food when theyre on the road. The owners put them up in 5 star hotels and fly them on private jets. If its true that most teams dont make money, then what do the players expect? Where else in the world can the employees demand such things from the owner of a company? Everywhere else and youd get canned immediately

 

[dogfan96]

For what it's worth, the two lawyers that worked the NFL lockout (on opposite sides) are both with the NBA players and they say they are confident that a judge will rule that the owners are illegally locking out the players.. just FYI

 

[Dogdeacon]

For what it's worth, the two lawyers that worked the NFL lockout (on opposite sides) are both with the NBA players and they say they are confident that a judge will rule that the owners are illegally locking out the players.. just FYI

What its worth is: of course that's exactly what the lawyers have to say as the entire move is a negotiating tactic. So in order for it to succeed they of course need to say it will succeed to (1) scare the owners, (2) convince the court of public opinion. What they say there has no bearing on (3) their ability to convince a court of law.

What they don't say is that the owner's defense of this can cause massive further delays and those delays actually feed into the owner's lockout strategy. So unless this results in an immediate injunction opening the doors and starting the season the ability of this tactic to succeed long-term is seriously undermined by its short-term result of re-enforcing the Owner's tactic of witholding pay/games.

And there's no question that this tactic is justifiably second guessed as something they should have done on day 1 (purely from a strategic standpoint). They can argue that its 'unfair' and they didn't do this because they expected the Owners to bargain "in good faith" but that is all BS and again reinforces that the players side has never full comprehended that they have no leverage. There is no requirement in any negotiation to bargin in good faith particularly since the players definition of bad faith is that the Owners want a deal that is favorable to the Owners. I am shocked [sarcasm]. This tactic may or may not give the players' leverage, but unless and until it does it erodes their leverage simply through the passage of time.

Is it telling regarding merits of the argument that the two lawyers were on opposite sides of the NFL mess? Cynically it can be explained away with a lawyer joke or stereotype. Obviously this creates legal billings supporting the theory that the lawyers work for whomever hires them.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I have already paid for my tickets (I have a quarter package of Phoenix Suns tickets - 11 games, all on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays). This is my third year as a season ticket holder.

This was what I was told regarding my tickets:
In the event that the 2011-12 Season is cancelled your 11 Game Plan will be rolled into the 2012-13 Season, plus you will receive three (3) bonus games of your choice (excludes top tier).

Top tier games are the Heat, Celtics, and Lakers, but I can still get the Mavericks, Thunder, Bulls, etc.

 

[freescooter]

My guess is that at the end of the day the 11=12 seaosn is cancelled and 2012-13 the league comes back with a much worse deal for the players and probably a hard salary cap. Lots of highly paid mid-level guys and veteran backups are going to be replaced by young players who won't demand huge salaries. Why pay someone $5 million to play 15 minutes a night when you can get a rookie or 2nd year guy for $1.5 to do the same thing?

 

[Dogdeacon]

I have already paid for my tickets (I have a quarter package of Phoenix Suns tickets - 11 games, all on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays). This is my third year as a season ticket holder.

This was what I was told regarding my tickets:
In the event that the 2011-12 Season is cancelled your 11 Game Plan will be rolled into the 2012-13 Season, plus you will receive three (3) bonus games of your choice (excludes top tier).

Top tier games are the Heat, Celtics, and Lakers, but I can still get the Mavericks, Thunder, Bulls, etc.

I'd ask for a refund. Season ticket holders who are presumably all paid up can be justifiably pissed at Owners. I'd guess that if you request a refund they'll say ONLY if you forfeit your season ticket rights. That's unfair although it might be a helpful gauge for Owner's to monitor how bad the backlash is.

 

[SubbaBub]

A union for the NBA is a joke.

In a typical union people are paid the same based on seniority and not on production level which of course is very lame.

Their union is very loose

There is no such thing as a typical union. If it takes money and labor to make money, then a union is simply labors way of bargaining with money over the.various aspects of their working relationship.

This particular action is about the perceived success of the league. The Players see the league as doing great. The owners see it as doing not good enough. They want more of the money and more control over player contracts.

The players are rightfully skeptical. As for 50/50, I have no idea if that's fair or not. Whatever they agree on, it's not my business.

If the players went from 57 to 51, then to me money is not the issue. I suspect the real issues are player movement, salary caps, contract guarantees and non basketball revenue.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[CL82]

Owners should bring in replacements. Anyone have Keanu Reeves phone number?

 

[BlueMAB]

I am not clear what value the owners bring to the table at all. The players should just form a new league as a partnership or a co-op and disintermediate the owners altogether.

LMAO.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/1/index.htm

60% of nba players go broke within five years of leaving the NBA. Yes, let's see how well they do running a billion dollar industry when 60% of the league can't even handle their own personal finances.

Sometimes I think you say stuff just to see how much ridiculousness will fly around here.

 

[uconnbill]

Yes some owners should continue to lose money. The salaries have gotten out of control and something needs to happen.

Wait, is someone really trying to blame the players here?

This is 100% on the d***head owners.

 

[Deadrody]

The players can "claim" the league is doing great all it wants. The fact of the matter is NBA revenues, as indicated by the salary cap, have been flat for 4 years. No business has a strategy to maintain the status quo. While NBA revenues went up 3.4% between 2007 and 2010, NFL revenues went up 15.5%. And the NFL owners STILL had to get concessions from the NFL players this summer. Clearly, concessions from NBA players need to be significantly greater.

Oh, and if salaries in the NBA "have gotten out of control", what better way to fix that than to implement a hard cap at a lower value ? That's exactly what the NBA owners are trying to do. And, honestly, NBA salaries are more out of control because of "the Bird rule" and the soft cap in the first place. For instance, the cap last year was $58 million, yet the Knicks payroll was $67 Million.

 

[huskyharry]

If they decertify, then the whole season is down the tubes, which would be a real tragedy for kids like Kemba who really have zero say in what DFish, Billy Hunter and a bunch of greedy agents decide for the players' side. 57% or 50% the players will still be outrageously overpaid...lets settle this thing and play some ball

 

[Prezidint]

The players can "claim" the league is doing great all it wants. The fact of the matter is NBA revenues, as indicated by the salary cap, have been flat for 4 years. No business has a strategy to maintain the status quo.

I'd disagree on both counts. Revenues aren't relevant - only profit is relevant.
Maintaining the status quo is a great business strategy if you're doing great.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LMAO.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/1/index.htm

60% of nba players go broke within five years of leaving the NBA. Yes, let's see how well they do running a billion dollar industry when 60% of the league can't even handle their own personal finances.

Sometimes I think you say stuff just to see how much ridiculousness will fly around here.

So they should give more money to the owners?

I know most of the conservatives on this board view Lord and Serf as some kind of natural law, but the reality is there are a lot of uneconomic intermediaries throughout our economy, and the owners sure look like one to me. The NBA does not need a lot of capital to run. The overhead is relatively small because the teams and staffs are small relative to other sports. Do you watch a game and say "I really hope the Dolan's can turn the Knicks around because I want them to succeed?" Of course not. And the players' stupidity does not justify the owners' existence.

 

[BlueMAB]

So they should give more money to the owners?

I know most of the conservatives on this board view Lord and Serf as some kind of natural law, but the reality is there are a lot of uneconomic intermediaries throughout our economy, and the owners sure look like one to me. The NBA does not need a lot of capital to run. The overhead is relatively small because the teams and staffs are small relative to other sports. Do you watch a game and say "I really hope the Dolan's can turn the Knicks around because I want them to succeed?" Of course not. And the players' stupidity does not justify the owners' existence.

When did the players start "giving" money to the owners? I thought the owners paid the players.

I know most of the liberals on this board view capitalism as legalized slavery, but the guy who's been sitting on the bench for four years playing a total of 20 minutes on the season is making over $1 million his last year and over $2.2 million for his 4 years and 35 career points. I see no reason for him to make that much money if he's playing for a team where the owner is losing money. I also find it offensive that you would compare it to serfdom.

I realize the teams and staffs are small, but they don't travel to 8 away games every year. 41 chartered flights, all those hotel rooms, and per diems, probably gets a bit expensive. But what do we know, neither of us owns a team.

Why didn't you bother to show how easy it would be for the players, 60% of whom go bankrupt, to run a billion dollar industry?

 

[BlueMAB]

One major problem with the NBA is the minimum salary. Guys who never play are millionaires. They could be easily replaced, have virtually no impact on games, and they aren't the ones fans are paying to see.

There is no reason for a 4 year player who has averaged 2 minutes a game to make $1 million+ a year. They are in no position to demand more money without the Kobe's, Lebron's, Wade's, and Howard's carrying them along for the ride.

 

[Deadrody]

I'd disagree on both counts. Revenues aren't relevant - only profit is relevant.
Maintaining the status quo is a great business strategy if you're doing great.

Really ? Remind me never to get involved with any business you are in. Every business has a goal to GROW. AND guess what ? Profits are almost universally a steady percentage of... overall revenues. Grow revenues and you grow profits. Sell more tickets, more merchandise, more luxury boxes, more concessions, and guess what... you grow REVENUE. If you make 5 cents in profit on each of 10K boxes of popcorn, which do you think is a more sustainable business model for making more profit ? Charging more for your product (that will make it less attractive to buyers), or selling more popcorn overall ?

And lets not ignore the fact that the player / owner split is based on revenue, not profit. If revenues are flat, the business is not doing great, it is running in place. And if you aren't getting better, you're getting worse.

 

[Deadrody]

So they should give more money to the owners?

I know most of the conservatives on this board view Lord and Serf as some kind of natural law,

Right. NBA players and owners are "lord and serf". Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound lumping NBA players into the same bin as other allegedly "oppressed union members" ? Yeah, they got it SO bad.

By all means, I absolutely favor your brilliant idea. Dismantle the NBA and let the players finance and run their own league. I'd give better than 50-50 odds the league is defunct within 10 years.

 

[Waquoit]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound lumping NBA players into the same bin as other allegedly "oppressed union members" ?

Does that mean you hate them more or less than conventional union members?

 

[Prezidint]

Really ? Remind me never to get involved with any business you are in.

No worries.

Regarding your comment that profits are a percentage of revenues, all I can say is that it's relatively simple math.

Revenues - costs = profits.

Revenues alone are irrelevant. Only profits matter.

Take a look at GM's numbers. 2010 was the first profit year since 2004. They had twice as much revenue in 2005 than they did in 2010.

So you think they'd rather have the 2005 double sales and the losses that led to the 2nd bankruptcy or the 2011 profit with half the sales?

 

[HuskyFan32]

One point I havent heard is the fact that the labor deal that just expired was based largely on Jordan bringing the league to new heights for both popularity and profitability. Jordan made $2 or $3 mil a year the last five or six years before he made $3o mil. Then newly expired deal paid players based on the newfound popularity for the league that was based largely on MJ himself. These players made tons of money and were overpaid for years because of MJ! He retired, the league suffered and now they cant afford to pay bums $12 mil a year.

Whitlocks racial comments are absurd. He makes it sound like every player in the league bought thousand of pairs of Jordan's and thats why the brand was so successful, and marketing is so easy that Nike just said, "hey we should target inner city black kids" and thats why they bought the shoes. They bought them because MJ was so popular and the kids idolized him not because Nike made them! How come Kobe and Lebron's shoes arent nearly as popular?? If marketing was that easy every company would rake it in like Nike.

And finally, Whitlock is a total moron saying all MJ cares about is the bottom line, when the black players MJ is "trying to stop from succeeding" and Whitlock is defending are compaining that $15 or $20 mil a year isnt enough.

 

[Prezidint]

The main problem with the argument that Inner City kids funding Jordan, of course, is that inner city kids don't have much money.
White suburbanites funded MJ.
Watch a Kentucky game for some perspective. The stands are virtually all white.