The Lockout has arrived.

rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#451
#451
More talk about an amnesty clause, for every team after the lockout, which only hurts the Kings, and allows other teams to compete in free agency, depending on where the new cap will be.

Allowing every team to dump a contract provides a lot more flexibility for the teams who have spent large sums, and had no previous desire to try to get far under the cap, such as ourselves.

From the yahoo story

As CBS Sports reported, the proposed amnesty clause that will allow teams to cut loose one problematic contract per team at the conclusion of the lockout will allow for teams to have 75 percent of the money taken off the salary cap over the length of the deal. The player will become a free agent, and the team will have only 25 percent of his annual salary on the books going forward. Players will still receive the full amount of money they’re owed under the contract.

[Related: NBA city mayors sign plea to end lockout]

The biggest hurdle left in discussions for the new amnesty clause, sources told Y! Sports, is how long teams will have to pay the player the money owed him. Will it be over two years, five years, seven years? The teams want the bought-out player to be paid over a longer period of time, while the union wants the money paid in shorter order. This is an area where a compromise will easily be found, sources said.
 
Dime Dropper

Dime Dropper

All-Star
#452
#452
rainmaker said:
More talk about an amnesty clause, for every team after the lockout, which only hurts the Kings, and allows other teams to compete in free agency, depending on where the new cap will be.

Allowing every team to dump a contract provides a lot more flexibility for the teams who have spent large sums, and had no previous desire to try to get far under the cap, such as ourselves.

From the yahoo story

As CBS Sports reported, the proposed amnesty clause that will allow teams to cut loose one problematic contract per team at the conclusion of the lockout will allow for teams to have 75 percent of the money taken off the salary cap over the length of the deal. The player will become a free agent, and the team will have only 25 percent of his annual salary on the books going forward. Players will still receive the full amount of money they’re owed under the contract.

[Related: NBA city mayors sign plea to end lockout]

The biggest hurdle left in discussions for the new amnesty clause, sources told Y! Sports, is how long teams will have to pay the player the money owed him. Will it be over two years, five years, seven years? The teams want the bought-out player to be paid over a longer period of time, while the union wants the money paid in shorter order. This is an area where a compromise will easily be found, sources said.
Click to expand...

That sucks. Owners who are stupid enough to dish out ridiculous contracts should not be bailed out. There's rarely a situation that I genuinely dislike both sides, but this is definitely one of them.
 
Dime Dropper

Dime Dropper

All-Star
#454
#454
RookieOfTheDay said:
Bad news on NBA.com. The talks ended with no new agreement and no new talks are scheduled. I'd expect more cancellations to come soon. http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/20/labor-breakoff.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1
Click to expand...

At this point I'm not expecting a season at all. Too many egos involved.

Let's suppose the season is cancelled and the sides still can't agree. Is it possible that some of next season is missed also? I know it's not likely, but is it actually possible?
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#455
#455
Dime Dropper said:
At this point I'm not expecting a season at all. Too many egos involved.

Let's suppose the season is cancelled and the sides still can't agree. Is it possible that some of next season is missed also? I know it's not likely, but is it actually possible?
Click to expand...
I've been wondering that myself. Is it possible for both sides to be so prideful and stubborn that the NBA just self destructs?
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#458
#458
Dime Dropper said:
At this point I'm not expecting a season at all. Too many egos involved.

Let's suppose the season is cancelled and the sides still can't agree. Is it possible that some of next season is missed also? I know it's not likely, but is it actually possible?
Click to expand...
Sure, it's possible as virtually anything could happen if the lock out continues that long. More likely (under an anything is possible view) is that a new professional basketball league would be formed by the players and investors. I can't imagine it would go that far to ultimately put the NBA out of business.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#459
#459
I hate the amnesty clause.

I will say that I respect the concept of guaranteed contracts to a certain extent. If you take them away, teams like the Lakers and Knicks will be free to just unload their entire roster when they are no longer a championship caliber team and will then just load up on free agents. If the Heat can do it in this current system them I'm scared to death to think what the Lakers could do in a free for all system. Agents and star players would be making sure their contracts were all up in the same year so they could bolt to LA and NY.

That being said, if I had it my way, I'd get rid of this dumb amnesty clause and come up with a new compromise. The owners want contracts at 3 & 4 years while the players want it at 4 & 5. I say give them the 4 & 5 but have all contracts have an out clause at 3 years assuming they exceed 3 years in the first place. The give back to the players would be that the owners could only terminate one of those deals every 5 years. This works for both sides because owners can completely get rid of the last 2 years on the deal but the players get the 4 & 5 concept.

Also, you could add a clause saying that the owners have to sign a player to a new contract that has a base salary of at least half of what they just cut. After all, the owners are saying that they want to get rid of dead weight underachievers and replace them with players who want to make their worth. Fisher and Hunter have been paranoid and say that the owners will just sit on their money after a player gets cut. I disagree with them but to prove my point, you put in a clause saying they have to spend half the money that they just cut and there's no way the players could hold up that element of a new cba.
 
L

Larry David

Starter
#460
#460
At this point, the league has come very close to where this needed to go to make a deal. They have a little more to give, but can't offer it because the players think the two sides will split the difference which isn't going to happen. Today the league moved to 50/50 formally and the players move .5. and expected the owners to meet them in the middle again.

The players hope to get a NLRB ruling to put some wind to their back, but this all comes down to d-day. At some point between 12-1 and 1-7, the league will draw a line in the sand to make a deal.

The players seem to think that there are enough owners that won't sacrifice a season that will allow the players to make a deal. Basically, the players will bend and offer something like 51 and 60 percent of the system changes and hope most of the owners grit their teeth and take it.

I don't know what the owners ail do, but it's pretty clear where this is going. I think the players won't give enough and the deal will be in June.

Unless the players decertify, then the season is over.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#461
#461
Larry David said:
Unless the players decertify, then the season is over.
Click to expand...
If the players decertify, this goes to court, because the owners aren't going to suddenly lift the lockout. And if they go to court, the players lose. That was made perfectly clear through the NFL labor dispute. 8th Circuit judges intimated that the decertification stemmed from a labor dispute, and would have required the NFL players to wait at least a year from decertification before they could file suit against the owners for antitrust violations. Billy Hunter must know that.

I just read Simmons' latest article on this situation. I think he's been nailing it for months on this deal, and while I don't agree with many of his ideas and fixes, it's clear to even a layperson such as myself and a moronic writer like Simmons (whom I like) that both sides are ruining it for themselves, the fans, and everyone else involved.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7123705/arms-nhl
 
UK_King

UK_King

Starter
#462
#462
Just an observation - it's a shame to see players and fans going at each other with real animosity on platforms like twitter.

Makes you wonder fans profess to "love" their teams/players and vice versa yet spit vitriol at every opportunity.

(i know it's probably a minority)
 
M

mac

All-Star
#463
#463
UK_King said:
Just an observation - it's a shame to see players and fans going at each other with real animosity on platforms like twitter.

Makes you wonder fans profess to "love" their teams/players and vice versa yet spit vitriol at every opportunity.

(i know it's probably a minority)
Click to expand...
It's a bit hard to "love" the players when they are depriving you of months of basketball all because they want to be paid a couple MILLION dollars more to play a game whilst the rest of the world faces tough economic situations.
 
RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
#464
#464
mac said:
It's a bit hard to "love" the players when they are depriving you of months of basketball all because they want to be paid a couple MILLION dollars more to play a game whilst the rest of the world faces tough economic situations.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm all for people making as much as they can, I'm a capitalist in that sense. But there comes a point where it's a serious turnoff to see multi-millionaires and billionaires bickering over huge sums of money like bums bickering over table scraps.
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#465
#465
RookieOfTheDay said:
Exactly. I'm all for people making as much as they can, I'm a capitalist in that sense. But there comes a point where it's a serious turnoff to see multi-millionaires and billionaires bickering over huge sums of money like bums bickering over table scraps.
Click to expand...
Yeah but here we are saying the millionaire players should take less money so the billionaire owners can make more. How about they both make slightly less and lower ticket prices to help us non millionaires out?
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#466
#466
ESP47 said:
Yeah but here we are saying the millionaire players should take less money so the billionaire owners can make more. How about they both make slightly less and lower ticket prices to help us non millionaires out?
Click to expand...
Depending on who you believe, the "billionaire" owners actually lose money. Most of them. I wouldn't think the Maloofs among the "B" club anymore, either (don't know for sure). Maybe others as well?
 
Rookie

Rookie

Starter
#467
#467
IMO there's a good chance that the owners will do something to promote the team (their product) by offering special ticket price here and there. Put money in to get more out kind of mentality (if they make money). Well at least I think that is how one would do business but I'm no businessman.

Of course if I was a player, I would fight for making as much as I can too. So I'm not upset at them but definitely in favor of the owner, just because owners have more stake on the team.

Disappointing but I'm not that angry over the whole ordeal.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#469
#469
mac said:
It's a bit hard to "love" the players when they are depriving you of months of basketball all because they want to be paid a couple MILLION dollars more to play a game whilst the rest of the world faces tough economic situations.
Click to expand...
They want a "fair" deal. What fair is can be debated until the cows come home, but the talent drives the league, undoubtedly, so I can't begrudge someone wanting to be compensated for what they bring to the table. And in reality, the players aren't saying "we want more," the owners are. The players have said "we'll give back," and the owners countered with "give back more." And maybe that's necessary; I don't know. I haven't poured over BRI and balance sheets, etc., and the NBA has been very restrictive with access to those figures, so it's hard to know what the actual bottom line is for the NBA in general. But it's not a bunch of greedy players saying "we won't play until you give us more money." Maybe they are greedy, but that's not what's happening.

What needs to happen is a complete reconfiguration of player compensation, contract structures, and revenue sharing. All they're doing right now is moving the slider back and forth on BRI. And that's just going to lead to these same protracted disputes in the future, even after a deal is done. That's why I linked to that Simmons article, because one of the points he makes is that the stodgy old guys running point on these "negotiations" lack the imagination and vision to see what the league has been evolving into for the last decade, and what it could be in 10-15 years, then make the hard but necessary adjustments. Stern used to live outside the box, and now, the world is bigger, the box is smaller, and he hasn't been willing to embrace the necessary changes. He's still trying to run a country club, when social networking is a multi-billion dollar business.

I'm not on the players' side, because they are resistant to the necessary changes (hard caps, lesser guarantees, shorter contracts), and I'm not on the owners' side because 1) they made their bed by overpaying players, and 2) they are resistant to the changes they need to make (stronger luxury taxes, better restraints on spending), and 3) they are fractured themselves. I don't think it's about who wins and who loses. Everyone loses with a work stoppage. It's about fixing the league, regardless of who has to make what concessions. Every player will still make millions. Every owner will still make hundreds of millions. The league will still generate billions. Get it done.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#470
#470
This is what I want to know. I'll throw out some facts and then integrate them into the league's claim of losing $300 million.

We know that the league made $3.9 billion BRI last year. This is fact, not opinion, and served as the financial number to figure out what payout the players get via the escrow payout.

We know that the players got 57% of the BRI. Based on the $3.9 billion, that comes out to $2.2 billion. Again, we've seen this number reported and if you do the math, that's what it comes out to.

Now, if you divide $3.9 billion by the 30 teams, you get $130 million in revenue generated per team.

The league claims a total loss of $300 million for 30 teams meaning that on average, an NBA team lost $10 million last season. Add $10 million to the $130 million in revenue generated and the league is telling us that on average, the cost of operating a team is $140 million per season.

Now, you take the player's $2.2 billion intake and divide it by the 30 teams and you get an average payroll of $73 million.

In summation, the league is saying that it costs $140 million to operate a franchise and that the average payroll is $73 million, meaning that the non player costs come out to $67 million per team.

This is what I want to know. How in the world do you get non player costs all the way up to $67 million. I've racked my brain trying to figure out all the non player costs. Coaches, scouts, GM's, rest of the front office, lease payments, advertising, taxes, insurance, travel and lodging, jet fuel, other employees and legal retention. I'm sure there's a few others but there's no way all that comes out to $67 million on average. I remember reading a Steve Kyler piece saying that those costs usually come out to no more than $30 million. This was back in 2002 and he had some good sources that he quoted. No way did these costs rise all the way up to $67 million. There's got to be something that we're missing or the owners just aren't being completely honest with us.
 
whozit

whozit

Starter
#472
#472
Trueblood said:
This is what I want to know. I'll throw out some facts and then integrate them into the league's claim of losing $300 million.

We know that the league made $3.9 billion BRI last year. This is fact, not opinion, and served as the financial number to figure out what payout the players get via the escrow payout.

We know that the players got 57% of the BRI. Based on the $3.9 billion, that comes out to $2.2 billion. Again, we've seen this number reported and if you do the math, that's what it comes out to.

Now, if you divide $3.9 billion by the 30 teams, you get $130 million in revenue generated per team.

The league claims a total loss of $300 million for 30 teams meaning that on average, an NBA team lost $10 million last season. Add $10 million to the $130 million in revenue generated and the league is telling us that on average, the cost of operating a team is $140 million per season.

Now, you take the player's $2.2 billion intake and divide it by the 30 teams and you get an average payroll of $73 million.

In summation, the league is saying that it costs $140 million to operate a franchise and that the average payroll is $73 million, meaning that the non player costs come out to $67 million per team.

This is what I want to know. How in the world do you get non player costs all the way up to $67 million. I've racked my brain trying to figure out all the non player costs. Coaches, scouts, GM's, rest of the front office, lease payments, advertising, taxes, insurance, travel and lodging, jet fuel, other employees and legal retention. I'm sure there's a few others but there's no way all that comes out to $67 million on average. I remember reading a Steve Kyler piece saying that those costs usually come out to no more than $30 million. This was back in 2002 and he had some good sources that he quoted. No way did these costs rise all the way up to $67 million. There's got to be something that we're missing or the owners just aren't being completely honest with us.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the bold-ed part is an accurate picture. Did the league as a whole lose $300 million or did the 22 or so teams in the red lose $300 million?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/07/06/audited-numbers-show-nba-lost-over-1-5b-over-last-five-years/

The way I read the article (if it is accurate) is that the teams in the red lost that amount of money and the figure doesn't take into account how much the teams in the black made in profit. On top of that are the losses in terms of actual cash flow or are they partially paper losses that are acceptable in terms of accounting and tax rules (depreciation and such). I am sure that there are teams (possibly most of those reported) that lost real money in terms of net income but I am also pretty certain that those numbers are inflated by accounting gimmicks. The devil is in the details.
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#473
#473
whozit said:
I'm not sure that the bold-ed part is an accurate picture. Did the league as a whole lose $300 million or did the 22 or so teams in the red lose $300 million?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/07/06/audited-numbers-show-nba-lost-over-1-5b-over-last-five-years/

The way I read the article (if it is accurate) is that the teams in the red lost that amount of money and the figure doesn't take into account how much the teams in the black made in profit. On top of that are the losses in terms of actual cash flow or are they partially paper losses that are acceptable in terms of accounting and tax rules (depreciation and such). I am sure that there are teams (possibly most of those reported) that lost real money in terms of net income but I am also pretty certain that those numbers are inflated by accounting gimmicks. The devil is in the details.
Click to expand...
No, they are claiming that the league as a whole lost $300 million. What they are saying is that 8 teams were profitable and that 22 lost money. The 8 that were profitable made a total of $150 million and the 22 that lost money, lost a total of $450 million. Subtract 450 from 150 and you get "$300 million" in losses.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44975100

http://rollingout.com/sports-entert...ncel-season-suggests-stephen-a-smith-of-espn/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1188481/2/index.htm

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/03/lockout-math-nbas-losses-at-heart-of-talks/
 
Last edited:
whozit

whozit

Starter
#474
#474
Trueblood said:
No, they are claiming that the league as a whole lost $300 million. What they are saying is that 8 teams were profitable and that 22 lost money. The 8 that were profitable made a total of $150 million and the 22 that lost money, lost a total of $450 million. Subtract 450 from 150 and you get "$300 million" in losses.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44975100

http://rollingout.com/sports-entert...ncel-season-suggests-stephen-a-smith-of-espn/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1188481/2/index.htm

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/03/lockout-math-nbas-losses-at-heart-of-talks/
Click to expand...
I think you are right and I was reading it wrong. Even reading it wrong, my suspicions are the losses aren't entirely net losses but partially nothing more than paper losses. Looking at it as total league losses, I'll go with "less than honest."
 
Trueblood

Trueblood

Bench
#476
#476
RookieOfTheDay said:
They should put Paul Allen and Kevin Garnett in a steel cage match. The side with the man standing gets the labor deal they want.
Click to expand...
I would like the owner's chances a lot more if you replace Allen with Dan Gilbert or MJ. KG is one of the biggest trash talking wimps that I've ever seen. He talks a lot but can't fight a lick. Villanueva has called him out while when someone like Zaza gets in his face, he backs off.

That being said, Allen doesn't have a chance. OTOH, I could see a feisty, pi$$ed off type like Gilbert putting KG to the deck.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#477
#477
Well I made it back safely from southern baja. Hotter than hell down there, but I still had fun. Caught 44 fish! I take no credit. Without the fish cooperating, I would have caught nothing. I hoped to come back to the beginning of some sort of training camp, but not to be. Then I read on twitter that Joe Smith's house is in foreclosure because of lack of money. I suspect he's not the only one hurting for a buck, and if not now, soon!.

As I've said before, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't blame the players for trying to hold on to what they have, and I don't blame the owners for trying to regain control of the league. To a large degree, thats really what this is all about. They are in fact, the owners, or the risk takers as some like to call them. Unpopular stance to some extent by both sides when people are losing they're homes, or can't find a job. I doubt those people care whose right or wrong on the issues.

Allen won't get his 40% for the players, but I do understand his frustration. Down one barrel he's staring at the contract recently signed by Brandon Roy, who is an excellent player, but will probably never be the player he once was, or is being paid to be. Down the other barrel he's staring at Greg Oden, in who he's already invested significant money, and received litterly nothing in return. His two choices under the current agreement is to resign him to a bigger and probably, long guaranteed contract, or to just let him walk. Neither cholce looks appetizing.

I don't know how long it will take, but in the end, I think the owners will come closer to obtaining what they want than the players will. Its much easier to keep 30 owners united than it is 400 players. Especially when the 30 owners can survive quite nicely without the games being paid. There are, or soon will be, more Joe Smith's out there. The grumbling will start, and the union will begin to crack apart. Garnett can complain all he wants from his ivory tower, but in the end, he's just one vote. Ditto Allen! Its not really about right or wrong, fair or unfair. Its about who has the most muscle, and to my eye's, its the owners.
 
IfAt1st

IfAt1st

Starter
#479
#479
Trueblood said:
No way did these costs rise all the way up to $67 million. There's got to be something that we're missing or the owners just aren't being completely honest with us.
Click to expand...
It's called "creative accounting".

Hollywood does it all the time to deny having to pay out profits - they "make up" costs to lower the amounts of money they made.

This is a very well-known phenomenon, and I'd be utterly shocked if the NBA isn't doing this, as well.
 
bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#480
#480
Well, apparently Paul Allen didn't throw a monkey wrench into the negotiations. Yes he was at the meeting, but said nothing, even when asked by Hunter. Here's an article on that, and more on Allen, who by all accounts is a strange dude, and perhaps to some extent a covenient whipping boy.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...sf/2011/10/canzano_paul_allens_silence_-.html

I'd like to add that Petrie's name has been flying around the twitter world as a possible GM replacement in Portland. Remember that its just a rumor, and one that I'd have a hard time believing. Petrie and Allen have a history, and its not a good one. I'd be shocked if Petrie would even consider working for Allen again. If Allen were to sell the team, then thats another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.