Acie

box1992

jose makes more money a day, than some people make in a year :S

Shadowfax

i can't imagine even making $4882.35 a day...playing a game i love

DDUnreal

Lol Lockout

Ammo

Which is why I will remain disgusted that $53,000 per game instead of $57,000 (rudimentary) will be an insult.

LX

I think the insult has a little something to do with not being able to negotiate in good faith, in spite of being essential to the league's existence. There's plenty yo be disgusted with, and there is a level of greed involved, but there is more than just that on the part of the players. The players did not rule out accepting a paycut. The owners ruled out negotiating altogether, and that is a little insulting.

Ammo

Just because the negotiations didn't reach the point that the players wanted, that doesn't mean the owners didn't negotiate in good faith. At what point does it become not in good faith? When the owners say, "That's enough" or when the players say, "We will never accept a cap"? NBA players are afterall paid higher than the other major sports and may have the highest percentage shared among the sports.

And they may be essential to the league, but they are soon to be essential..... sitting there losing a year of pay. I'm no "Republican", but there's the perspective. Someone else owns it and paid for it.

ValanciunasFanboy

Doesn't compare to Kobe's ~300k a day once you account for shoe deals etc, but still. It's awesome to have a talent that pays big time.

LX

Someone else owns it and paid for it, but without players has nothing.

When does it become not in good faith? When the owners decide they are not going to negotiate but merely make demands. The players showed they understood monetary losses, real or not, that the owners wanted to make up for. They were working within that framework and trying to get to where games could be played again. The owners have no intention of playing games or working within any framework as necessary partners that need to work together. They are saying take it or leave it and trust me, after two years of signalling they were ready to make a power play.

I'm not going to try to portray the players as faultless, and there is simply no way to make them worthy of sympathy. But this is a clusterfuck that goes way beyond blaming the players for being greedy.

Toby

ya'll pay Calderon 10 million a year? No wonder there's an owner's strike going on.

DanH

I agree that the owners never meant for a full season to happen, but you can't say that the owners saying they won't go above 50% is much worse than the players outright rejecting concepts like a hard or flex cap. The difference is, when the players said that a hard cap is a blood issue and that they wouldn't negotiate with that on the table, the owners took it off the table and kept negotiating. When the owners said that they couldn't negotiate if the players wouldn't agree to 50-50, the players walked away. The value of the BRI spit to the players is comparable to the value a hard cap would have to the owners, so only the status quo, which was flawed from the start, makes the two scenarios different.

Ammo

Then the writing is on the wall and the players will end up hurting themselves most. And the longer it goes, even less chance of anything better. Besides, Stern is playing them like a fiddle. There is one guy who totally inderstood. John Salley was part of negotiations for the players at one point and he said he realized early who was in control....and quit on the spot.

I'm not just talking about greed but futility also. If I'm in a busted elevator with Shaq and he says give me all your money or I'll punch you in the head for every dollar I find on you, I can either cough it up or let him take it slowly and take shots to the head. Either way he's getting it, one way hurts me more. Only difference is I won't be getting rich.

John Salley on Prime Time Sports - SPORTSNET 590 The FAN Toronto - Photos

fancylad

Or in the case of Alabi, sitting on a bench and occasionally waiving a towel.

Ammo

Here's a proper link (I hope) that included John Salley on their CBA negotiations...

It's in this thread...

John Sally currently on SNE

Windex

If only I was 7 feet tall.
some of these guys seem to get a minimum contract based size alone. As long as you can move and grab a ball, you are set for life

LX

And that's pretty insulting to be confronted with. As I was saying, it goes beyond the possibility of a paycut.

moremilk

Let's put it like this. Under the old system, the owners were losing 300m a year.With a 53% split the owners break even. With a 50-50 split, they make 300m a year. That amounts to a 2% rate of profit. less than some GICs .... And players call that greedy ...

ValanciunasFanboy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that math seems odd.
NBA revenues are at around 4 bil a year AFAIK. So those 3% would be ~120 mil, or ~4 mil per team.
Idk how you came up with a 2% profit rate or those huge valuations (for your math to be correct, NBA teams' combined value should be ~15 bil, no way).

Btw, as per owners' math, they are breaking even at 53% if owners get those 53%. At 50-50 owners are still losing money - but that epends on who you ask, of course.

pzabby

we need Dan H in here to clear this

DanH

Let's assume we believe the owners' claims, and that they lost 300 million last year alone. Last year, the total revenue was 3.817 billion. At 57%, the players received 2.176 billion. To recover 300 million, assuming no growth in revenue due to the effects of the lockout, the owners would logically have to pay the players only 1.876 billion, which is 49% of the revenues. So at 50-50, the owners claim to still be losing money. Revenue growth would help bring that to a gain.

Of course, the owners' claims are up for debate, but without personal access to the entire league's books, I can't really comment on that, except to say that I expect some of the accusations that have been made hold merit, and some don't and have been refuted. Personally I don't find the conversation too interesting, since it really isn't about what each side SHOULD be asking for, but what they are asking for, and what leverage they have.