• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NBA Lockout: NBPA Rejects Deal, Announces It Will File For Decertification

99percenter said:
I also believe the players deserve a majority of the BRI. I think if you've ran a business you would know the owners have it good when it comes to labor costs.
Click to expand...

100% agreed. I'm largely on the players side in this, but I do believe they need to give some concessions on BRI. When the league is posting record revenues and is still losing money as a whole, that's not a sustainable business model. I'm still of the opinion that the players deserve more than 50% though.
 
StillBallin75 said:
100% agreed. I'm largely on the players side in this, but I do believe they need to give some concessions on BRI. When the league is posting record revenues and is still losing money as a whole, that's not a sustainable business model. I'm still of the opinion that the players deserve more than 50% though.
Click to expand...

Than why are the owners demanding a 50-50 split. the players already agreed to bring it down to 53 which i think is fair.
 
99percenter said:
Than why are the owners demanding a 50-50 split. the players already agreed to bring it down to 53 which i think is fair.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree a 50-50 split is essentially the owners wanting guaranteed profitability even when they **** up, insuring themselves from their own mistakes. Some hardliners like MJ even want a 47-53 split, which is completely hypocritical and ridiculous on his part. Also, the owners should entertain more ideas for revenue sharing.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The owners have no league without the players. The owners have no media draw without the players. The owners have no revenue without the players.
Click to expand...

and players and owners have no reason to have a league without fans, no reason for media draw without fans, and no revenue without fans.
Forbes magazine reported that almost half the teams in the NBA lost money last year. It is past time for the owners and players to be realistic in salaries and take into account that fans may not support the high cost of attending the games.
 
haymarket said:
The owners have no league without the players. The owners have no media draw without the players. The owners have no revenue without the players.
Click to expand...

The majority of owners are losing money by the bushel with the players. They are giddy at the lack of a season right now.

The Mavericks won a title, and Cuban still lost millions.
 
Erod said:
The majority of owners are losing money by the bushel with the players. They are giddy at the lack of a season right now.

The Mavericks won a title, and Cuban still lost millions.
Click to expand...
View attachment 67118297

why is it the players' fault that the owners are weak business people
and every owner is in a position to sell their franchise for more than they paid for it. how many businesses do you know where the operation loses money year to year and still gets sold for a higher amount than that for which it was purchased

why would the players be giddy for the loss of their pay checks for a year

the only thing you have demonstrated is a continuing ignorance of the topic
 
Erod said:
The majority of owners are losing money by the bushel with the players. They are giddy at the lack of a season right now.The Mavericks won a title, and Cuban still lost millions.
Click to expand...

If this were true, most of these owners would be rushing to the exits to sell their teams right now. They are not.
 
Last edited:
Thank for posting that bubba - excellent overview. :peace
 
StillBallin75 said:
If this were true, most of these owners would be rushing to the exits to sell their teams right now. They are not.
Click to expand...

Unless they were thinking there was hope...

Clearly someone can't read and its not the owners that are sharing financial information with the players.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yep, I agree a 50-50 split is essentially the owners wanting guaranteed profitability even when they **** up, insuring themselves from their own mistakes. Some hardliners like MJ even want a 47-53 split, which is completely hypocritical and ridiculous on his part. Also, the owners should entertain more ideas for revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

That is so stupid. I explained to you before the salary was their cut while the rest of the revenues is the owners cut. The players did yes have to give up a great deal of that cut then they had before but it no way means the owners are trying get guaranteed profitability. It means they want to keep more of their cut. What do you think happens anyway when they are forced to give up more of their cut?
 
Henrin said:
That is so stupid. I explained to you before the salary was their cut while the rest of the revenues is the owners cut. The players did yes have to give up a great deal of that cut then they had before but it no way means they are trying get guaranteed profitability. It means they want to keep more of their cut.
Click to expand...

anyone out there able to translate the post immediately above
 
Henrin said:
That is so stupid. I explained to you before the salary was their cut while the rest of the revenues is the owners cut. The players did yes have to give up a great deal of that cut then they had before but it no way means the owners are trying get guaranteed profitability. It means they want to keep more of their cut. What do you think happens anyway when they are forced to give up more of their cut?
Click to expand...

When you're asking for larger and larger cuts, at a certain point it's no longer simply "I want a bigger cut," it becomes "I want so big of a cut that I can be insured from managing my business poorly by whittling down my only fixed cost - player salaries."
 
justabubba said:
i do wonder why mediators were not brought in to facilitate negotiations before the nuclear option was exercised
Click to expand...

Because that would've been SMART... and these clowns didn't want to ruin their perfect record of stupidity they have going.

I find it hilarious that Hunter has set up shop as the head of the new "trade association", and is still coordinating the lawyers. Just when I thought this guy couldn't possibly be a bigger jackwagon, he goes and effectively proves all by himself that the decert process is a complete sham. The court won't have a hard time figuring that one out...

According to Chapter 8 of the NLRB's Outline of Law and Procedure in Representation Cases:

To be effective, [a disclaimer] must be clear and unequivocal and made in good faith. Retail Associates, 120 NLRB 388, 391–392 (1958); Rochelle’s Restaurant, 152 NLRB 1401 (1965); and Gazette Printing Co., 175 NLRB 1103 (1969). In International Paper, 325 NLRB 689 (1998), the Board characterized the request as being one of “sincere of abandonment with relative permanency.”

Thus, a union’s bare statement is not sufficient to establish that it has abandoned its claim to representation if the surrounding circumstances justify an inference to the contrary. 3 Beall Bros. 3, 110 NLRB 685, 687 (1955). Its conduct, judged in its entirety, must not be inconsistent with its alleged disclaimer H. A. Rider & Sons, 117 NLRB 517, 518 (1957). McClintock Market, 244 NLRB 555 (1979), and Ogden Enterprises, 248 NLRB 290 (1980). Windee’s Metal Industries, 309 NLRB 1074 (1992).
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
View attachment 67118297

why is it the players' fault that the owners are weak business people
and every owner is in a position to sell their franchise for more than they paid for it. how many businesses do you know where the operation loses money year to year and still gets sold for a higher amount than that for which it was purchased

why would the players be giddy for the loss of their pay checks for a year

the only thing you have demonstrated is a continuing ignorance of the topic
Click to expand...

I actually run a business, and have for 20+ years. It requires taking a break from the internet, which I'm sure you can't fathom.

Yes, the owners are largely responsible for the current financial state of the league. And lo and behold, they want to fix it. And they are.

What the players don't get is that the owners aren't losing money right now, at least most of them. There is no pressure or incentive to negotiate. The players think this is like the NFL situation, which is apples and oranges. The NFL owners stood to lose $200 million per week in the preseason. There was incentive on both sides. Not here.

What else are the players going to do? The average NBA career is 4 years and change. Imagine losing 25 percent of your life earnings in one year.

The players need to kick Hunter to the curb and get a deal done. The owners need only sit tight and wait.
 
505 said:
Because that would've been SMART... and these clowns didn't want to ruin their perfect record of stupidity they have going.

I find it hilarious that Hunter has set up shop as the head of the new "trade association", and is still coordinating the lawyers. Just when I thought this guy couldn't possibly be a bigger jackwagon, he goes and effectively proves all by himself that the decert process is a complete sham. The court won't have a hard time figuring that one out...
Click to expand...

They've got some pretty good lawyers on their side though. When you've got some crack lawyers, they can pretty much turn any single sentence of legalese on its head and in your favor.
 
StillBallin75 said:
They've got some pretty good lawyers on their side though. When you've got some crack lawyers, they can pretty much turn any single sentence of legalese on its head and in your favor.
Click to expand...

If this plays out as an anti-trust lawsuit (which is unlikely), the typical duration of such a case in court is roughly two years.
 
Erod said:
If this plays out as an anti-trust lawsuit (which is unlikely), the typical duration of such a case in court is roughly two years.
Click to expand...

Yep, but this isn't typical and both the players and the league know that they can't wait two years. It's pretty clear to me, at least, that this is simply a tactic by the union/trade association to hopefully force Stern and the owners' hand into more negotiations so that they can at least start playing by January or February.
 
Erod said:
I actually run a business, and have for 20+ years. It requires taking a break from the internet, which I'm sure you can't fathom.
Click to expand...
and what the hell does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Yes, the owners are largely responsible for the current financial state of the league.
Click to expand...
see, we agree on something, early on
the owners are the ones who bid up the prices of the star players
and then complain that the players have allowed them to do that
it's like they want the players to protect the owners from hurting themselves

And lo and behold, they want to fix it. And they are.
Click to expand...
they are attempting to, anyway
they are asking the players that they are throwing money at to resist accepting their money
one hell of a solution

What the players don't get is that the owners aren't losing money right now, at least most of them.
Click to expand...
damn, that's odd. seems like someone just recently posted a graph depicting each team and their level of profitability. that graph indicates about half of the teams are operating under water
so if half were losing money when games were being played, how is it that they will not be losing money now that games are not being played

There is no pressure or incentive to negotiate.
Click to expand...
really
no incentive to negotiate
so, those owners don't have staff to pay while the strike is going on and no income is being generated
they have no fixed obligations to satisfy during this period of no income
by now you can probably see that i am saying 'bull ****' to such a foolish comment

The players think this is like the NFL situation, which is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
yes, so apples and oranges
both professional sports leagues
both at negotiation impasse
so different [/s]

The NFL owners stood to lose $200 million per week in the preseason.
Click to expand...
the owners stand to lose $1 million per game not played and players are expected to miss $350 million per month
1,230 games played per season
and since the players have been realizing half of the NBA revenue as their compensation it appears treasonable to conclude that each side will give up approximately the same income

There was incentive on both sides. Not here.
Click to expand...
what incentive was their for the NFL players which does not exist for the NBA players to make a deal

What else are the players going to do? The average NBA career is 4 years and change. Imagine losing 25 percent of your life earnings in one year.
Click to expand...
and by comparison, the average career of an NFL player is 3.3 years
so much for your apples and oranges argument

The players need to kick Hunter to the curb and get a deal done.
Click to expand...
actually, that is what they have done
they have now filed a class action anti trust action against the league and are seeking treble damages ... triple their $2 billion annual income

The owners need only sit tight and wait.
Click to expand...
yep, wait on the court to rule on this matter ... possibly within one year
in the meantime, continue to pay the debt obligations of a firm having no income

this is a very ripe moment for some monied interests to snap up the players and form a new professional basketball league
 
Last edited:
if they cancel the season, they should have to pay back a year's worth of the money that they have grifted from taxpayers.
 
jb: "this is a very ripe moment for some monied interests to snap up the players and form a new professional basketball league "

This may be true. The question is where would the new league pratice and have their games? If its is with the existing facilities, then it would be a "ripe" moment for the fans/(taxpayer) to demand a higher rent on those facilities where tax dollars were used to build. It would be a "ripe" momement to renegotiate any lease for the facilites to whoever to ensure better protection against losses in the future.
 
justabubba said:
so if half were losing money when games were being played, how is it that they will not be losing money now that games are not being played


really
no incentive to negotiate
so, those owners don't have staff to pay while the strike is going on and no income is being generated
they have no fixed obligations to satisfy during this period of no income
by now you can probably see that i am saying 'bull ****' to such a foolish comment


yes, so apples and oranges
both professional sports leagues
both at negotiation impasse
so different [/s]


the owners stand to lose $1 million per game not played and players are expected to miss $350 million per month
1,230 games played per season
and since the players have been realizing half of the NBA revenue as their compensation it appears treasonable to conclude that each side will give up approximately the same income
Click to expand...

If you're operating at a continuing slow-drip loss, and you stop operating, you cut those losses. Any administrative expenses pales in comparison to what is being paid to the players, not to mention the tax manipulating that can be done to offset those losses of revenue from TV and radio.

Bottom line is that most of these owners have money coming in from multiple businesses. Most of the players don't have a Gatorade deal to bridge them through. The owners will simply wait them out.
 
Erod said:
If you're operating at a continuing slow-drip loss, and you stop operating, you cut those losses. Any administrative expenses pales in comparison to what is being paid to the players, not to mention the tax manipulating that can be done to offset those losses of revenue from TV and radio.

Bottom line is that most of these owners have money coming in from multiple businesses. Most of the players don't have a Gatorade deal to bridge them through. The owners will simply wait them out.
Click to expand...

more economic ignorance
just as i had anticipated
you want us to believe that the owners who are presently losing money while generating income from NBA games will somehow become profitable by not selling sporting events during the strike

you mentioned you have operated a business for twenty years. your profession that losses can be turned into profits by discontinuing income generating operations causes me to question your success as a business operator. reminds me of the adage about how to earn a million dollars in the restaurant business. answer: start with two million
 
Here's the thing.

It's true that the owners can afford to weather the storm of a cancelled season better than the players can. Some of the owners would be quite glad to sacrifice a season to get a better deal - but not all. In addition, even the sacrifice of season is not without consequences to the owners. The NBA isn't that popular right now, and who knows what a cancelled season will to do to the fanbase and to revenues once they do start up again. So while the average owner would probably be in favor of sacrificing a season to get a better deal, that deal only looks attractive up to a certain point. Most would rather NOT have to sacrifice a season if they can help it, especially the small-market owners. It seems to me like the players are just holding out for the best deal that they can before the season is completely gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom