Does anyone know what the logic is behind the players wanting 4% more than the owners (52-48 split)? It seems to me to be a very hard "sell", to imply to the public that the players should get more than the owners. If I'm representing the owners, I go out in the public and say repeatedly: What's more fair than 50-50?
The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
The players aren't that smart despite what they think, and it doesn't help that they're probably getting terrible advice from their agents. They're going to look like idiots when it's all said and done. No sympathy for them (nor do I have any for the owners, but they're clearly in the driver's seat).
I would say both sides are wrong on this issue and the owners are wise to just refrain from making lots of public comments while the players can't help themselves or are leaked. This thing is so far out of sync with the general mood of the American populace that it is one of the few times where no publicity is the best publicity.
Yeah, the owners suck too because they've already gained 5% from the old CBA. They could just call that enough, agree to 52%, and get on with the season. Ultimately the players are the bigger jackasses though because one, they seem to think 50/50 is unfair, and two, they don't seem to realize or just don't want to acknowledge that in the end, it's virtually guaranteed that the owners will get their way. Holding out at this point isn't going to do anything except bring us one step closer to a lost season.
Last edited:
So assuming the CBA is going to be a 10 year deal, maybe rounded down to 9 years considering that the players may have an opt out at year 7, at what point would they really just be better off taking 2% less (since they keep saying that it's not just about this year but about years to come)?
So working backwards, 9 years worth of an additional 2% of BRI (and lets say BRI increases by an average of 5% a year - it increased 4.7% from 09-10 to 10-11) would give them a total of about $884 million. So in other words, after 8.84 weeks worth of cancellations they would start "losing money"/being worse off over the entire period of the CBA, even with 52% of BRI going to them, and we all know that's probably not going to happen.
So working backwards, 9 years worth of an additional 2% of BRI (and lets say BRI increases by an average of 5% a year - it increased 4.7% from 09-10 to 10-11) would give them a total of about $884 million. So in other words, after 8.84 weeks worth of cancellations they would start "losing money"/being worse off over the entire period of the CBA, even with 52% of BRI going to them, and we all know that's probably not going to happen.
I hate to bring this up, because I normally wouldn't, but this is what happens when by far the majority of players in the union didn't even finish 3 years of college.
I just don't think they're that smart when it comes to finance, investment, or understanding the numbers here. I keep hearing all these players saying "no way we go below 53, that's it!", and I highly doubt they really know the ins and outs of this, let alone the long term effects.
If a number of these players have econ and finance degrees, then please point that out, and I'll admit I'm jumping to conclusions. But I get the sense most haven't got a clue.
Just saying 53 because that's what they've heard. That's what KG said. Don't think they really know the difference between 53, 52 and 50%, and the long term damage they're doing.
I just don't think they're that smart when it comes to finance, investment, or understanding the numbers here. I keep hearing all these players saying "no way we go below 53, that's it!", and I highly doubt they really know the ins and outs of this, let alone the long term effects.
If a number of these players have econ and finance degrees, then please point that out, and I'll admit I'm jumping to conclusions. But I get the sense most haven't got a clue.
Just saying 53 because that's what they've heard. That's what KG said. Don't think they really know the difference between 53, 52 and 50%, and the long term damage they're doing.
I have zero years of college and I'm smart enough to see the big picture here. I suspect many other folks are as well. For some of the younger players you could chalk it up to youth, people in their early/mid twenties just don't tend to think long term about anything. But in the case of guys like Fisher and Garnett, there's just no excuse, they should know better. To have seemingly amassed little to no wisdom or humility at their age is pathetic. I'm still not sure they're as stupid as they appear to us right now, though, it may just be a case of their egos and pride clouding their judgement.
Last edited:
A couple of the NBA stars have been quoted in the media/ through twitter etc, such as Durant, Derrick Rose ... I wasn't too happy with Derrick Rose's statements, firstly that he feels underpaid due to his rookie contract (give me a break Rose. What makes you so special? Just because you're the youngest MVP doesn't give you the rights to b*tch about something that so many other rookies over the years have simply accepted), and secondly he wants to abolish a salary cap so that players can be paid more. Seriously Rose? Do you know how much Wayne Rooney of Manchester United earns? Do you know how many millions of people (maybe even billions) around the world watch soccer more than basketball? Do you know that not many people outside the USA know who Derrick Rose is, but know who Lionel Messi is? Geesh. Oh one more thing, do you know how much more money the owners of Manchester City have than the Maloofs? No salary cap. Hooboy.
I am really disgusted right now. For the last three days it's been positive news and was looking like a deal would be done by Monday. Then it all blows up at the last minute over the exact same think that stalled talks last time and the time before that. it's just so stupid. Meet for three days discussing who knows what, then as the last order of business, get to the BRI, only to find that no one has budged since the last meeting. They're spinning their wheels at this point. No sense in even having any further talks until one side is ready to give on the BRI.
One other thing on this, even if the players are oblivious, shouldn't Billy Hunter know the bottom line? If not, you'd at least think they'd have someone advising them who does. it's hard to believe that it's really just a bunch of dumb, spoiled rich guys shooting themselves in the foot because no one is around to stop them.
Attorney Billy Hunter is extremely well paid by the union - but Shane Battier obviously thinks he's overpaid and has no skin in the game like those he represents...
http://bloguin.com/crossoverchronicles/2011-articles/june/is-billy-hunter-the-weak-link.html
http://bloguin.com/crossoverchronicles/2011-articles/june/is-billy-hunter-the-weak-link.html
I don't have much faith in Hunter. Has he really done a good job explaining everything to all the players, or is it a select few, as well as agents?
From earlier today.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32972/first-real-test-of-player-resolve
From earlier today.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32972/first-real-test-of-player-resolve
Since you brought up 9 years, and the key word here is collective, because in the end, each player is paid as an individual, not collectively. So the question is, how many of the players playing under contract right now will be in the league 9 years from now? How about 5 years from now? I can name some big stars that won't. Which means that under the scenario you just described they'll never get back the money they lost. And of course we both know that the players will never end up with the 52% that they want. maybe they'll get 51%, or 50.5%. In which case none of the players are likely to get back what they lost.
Yup. But I'm working on the presumption that they care about their collective income, since that's what they've been saying the whole time (it's not just about us, not about the money, we have to think about the generations of players after us etc etc.)
Either way, IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE SO WHY DO THEY KEEP PUSHING FOR IT!!!
Either way, IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE SO WHY DO THEY KEEP PUSHING FOR IT!!!
Last edited:
On the surface they may believe what they're saying, but I would liken it to the demonstraters on Wall st. Its easy to camp out and demonstrate when its 80 degrees outside and the nights are balmy. When the temp drops below 30 degrees in the daytime and colder at night, you start to question your motivations. Likewise, when some of the players money starts to run out and the house payment is due, we'll see what they really care about..
Back to the topic at hand:
I've fluctuated from one side to the other on this issue numerous times. I'm tired of watching the drama, I just want to see NBA basketball again in my lifetime. At this point, I think there could be a compromise if they would just put one representative from each side into a room and tell them they cannot come out without an agreement - and give the two of them the authority to speak for everyone else. Make it a one-year interim deal if you have to, but get some kind of agreement out there. AND - in the future - I'd like a clause in any CBA that says if the current CBA expires and no new one is agreed to that the terms of the old one will continue until such an agreement can be reached.
I've fluctuated from one side to the other on this issue numerous times. I'm tired of watching the drama, I just want to see NBA basketball again in my lifetime. At this point, I think there could be a compromise if they would just put one representative from each side into a room and tell them they cannot come out without an agreement - and give the two of them the authority to speak for everyone else. Make it a one-year interim deal if you have to, but get some kind of agreement out there. AND - in the future - I'd like a clause in any CBA that says if the current CBA expires and no new one is agreed to that the terms of the old one will continue until such an agreement can be reached.
I disagree with the last bit. That will probably favor one side or the other (in this case, the players!) and all they would have to do is not agree to anything and automatically get what they want.
The best thing to do is agree to a "default" that would not be palatable to either side. Say, all tickets to all games are automatically $5 each, all players earn the vet minimum (or another set minimum amount) and get paid the same no matter who they are (Kobe gets the same as the 12th man on the Cavs, for example), no trades or signings can be made (FA are on the same team as they were the year before), etc.
But, there can be no lockout or strike. All games are played.
THAT would make them come to the table.
The best thing to do is agree to a "default" that would not be palatable to either side. Say, all tickets to all games are automatically $5 each, all players earn the vet minimum (or another set minimum amount) and get paid the same no matter who they are (Kobe gets the same as the 12th man on the Cavs, for example), no trades or signings can be made (FA are on the same team as they were the year before), etc.
But, there can be no lockout or strike. All games are played.
THAT would make them come to the table.
This isn't about rationality. Both sides are playing the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy. Both sides want to show that they're willing to destroy the league to force the other side to their way.
The fact that the players are more hungry than the owners doesn't matter that much. NBA players can make a decent paycheck playing for other countries, they'll eat. The expected loss per player if the NBA is to be injured or destroyed is on the order of perhaps $400k. The expected loss to an owner is on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The players are holding a good hand, not a great one, but good enough that it makes sense for them to scare the owners about destroying the league. NBA caliber players would land on their feet somewhere or another. NBA owners are rich, but losing the complete value of the league would probably hurt most of them substantially. The Kings are the only major investment the Maloofs now hold, for one.
The revenues must be hurting for the NBA, and there are substantial problems, like the lopsided teams, that are hurting the game. Seems to me that the owners can't be too tight with the money or the players have every reason to balk, and will do so. I don't think the season will start until the owners find the place where the players stop and refuse to budge. The players just have to remain oblivious to rational income maximization, that's their advantage, because the owners can't do that as easily.
Like I said they're playing MAD.
The fact that the players are more hungry than the owners doesn't matter that much. NBA players can make a decent paycheck playing for other countries, they'll eat. The expected loss per player if the NBA is to be injured or destroyed is on the order of perhaps $400k. The expected loss to an owner is on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The players are holding a good hand, not a great one, but good enough that it makes sense for them to scare the owners about destroying the league. NBA caliber players would land on their feet somewhere or another. NBA owners are rich, but losing the complete value of the league would probably hurt most of them substantially. The Kings are the only major investment the Maloofs now hold, for one.
The revenues must be hurting for the NBA, and there are substantial problems, like the lopsided teams, that are hurting the game. Seems to me that the owners can't be too tight with the money or the players have every reason to balk, and will do so. I don't think the season will start until the owners find the place where the players stop and refuse to budge. The players just have to remain oblivious to rational income maximization, that's their advantage, because the owners can't do that as easily.
Like I said they're playing MAD.
According to a 2009 SI article (see link below), within 5 years of retirement 60% of NBA players are broke. In doing a little Google search, I could find only one graduated finance major (Okafor). I don't think I'm climbing out on a thin branch by making the assumption that as a general rule NBA players are financial illiterates.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/index.htm
Which is a good reason to hire a financial advisor, or at the very least, a professional accountant. I know JT graduated from Rider with a degree in communications. Not sure how much that helps in balancing your budjet, but I've met JT parents and know he's in good hands if he needs advice. But your right. Many of the players are one and done with little education, especially financial education. And, they all become experts on how to spend money.
Someone said the expected loss per player is only 400 mil. I'd like to point out that there are quite a few players that are only making around 400 mil, and thats a lot of money to them. I'd also like to point out that both sides have been preparing for this battle for two years. You tell me who you think is the best prepared. 30 owners, or 400 players? To think that the players hold any, or all the cards is lunacy. The major loss to the owners right now is TV revenues, of which the players also get a cut. But the owners aren't paying player salaries, electric bills, airline bills, or any game related bills. Owners that own, or manage the arena's in which they play will still recieve revenue from other events that occur there, including parking etc.
The players are recieving nothing, other than what they can get from exhibition games, or from playing overseas, which is an adventure in itself for some of these guys that are used to being pampered. I'm sure the top players are still recieving money from indorsements, but thats just a priviliged few. Most have no such indorsements. Most make 5 mil a year of less, and most are probably overextended financially. I'm not saying this because I want it to be so. But because its simply the history of human nature when you give a bunch of young people a lot of money. If you don't grease the wheel, it will come to a stop. Right now the wheel is not being greased. Just a matter of time!
Someone said the expected loss per player is only 400 mil. I'd like to point out that there are quite a few players that are only making around 400 mil, and thats a lot of money to them. I'd also like to point out that both sides have been preparing for this battle for two years. You tell me who you think is the best prepared. 30 owners, or 400 players? To think that the players hold any, or all the cards is lunacy. The major loss to the owners right now is TV revenues, of which the players also get a cut. But the owners aren't paying player salaries, electric bills, airline bills, or any game related bills. Owners that own, or manage the arena's in which they play will still recieve revenue from other events that occur there, including parking etc.
The players are recieving nothing, other than what they can get from exhibition games, or from playing overseas, which is an adventure in itself for some of these guys that are used to being pampered. I'm sure the top players are still recieving money from indorsements, but thats just a priviliged few. Most have no such indorsements. Most make 5 mil a year of less, and most are probably overextended financially. I'm not saying this because I want it to be so. But because its simply the history of human nature when you give a bunch of young people a lot of money. If you don't grease the wheel, it will come to a stop. Right now the wheel is not being greased. Just a matter of time!
Sounds like we may be approaching endgame now:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...w-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_110111
You knew things were going to start to crack sooner or later once the money started going out the door.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...w-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_110111
You knew things were going to start to crack sooner or later once the money started going out the door.
Something's not right with that number. With BRI at about $4B, each percentage point comes up to about $40M per year. Since the players appear to be a 2-point concession from making an easy deal, that's $80M per year, or $800M total over a 10-year deal (though there will be opt-outs along the way so the CBA might not last so long). Since there are about 5 months in the season and the players' share is about $2B, that means each lost month will cost about $400M. So the back-of-the-envelope calculation (ignoring inflation, etc.) is that if the players lose 2 months of the season holding out for that 52% of BRI, they might as well have just made the deal to start with. They've already lost one month. Tick-tock.
But as far as $400M per player, that's off somewhere. My numbers above suggest (at 400 players) about a $200K average per-player loss per year (~4% of annual salary) by taking 50-50 (relative to 52%, which I don't think they'll get) and about a $1M average per-player loss (~20% of annual salary) per month of lockout.
But as far as $400M per player, that's off somewhere. My numbers above suggest (at 400 players) about a $200K average per-player loss per year (~4% of annual salary) by taking 50-50 (relative to 52%, which I don't think they'll get) and about a $1M average per-player loss (~20% of annual salary) per month of lockout.