Lockout official - Page 11
Old 09-22-2011, 12:07 PM   #201 (permalink)
is the baby faced assassin

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 80,636
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
How does that help the teams that are losing money? The tax is what helps that....

Having more % of the revenue helps.

So you think there shouldn't be a hard cap?

Last edited by jeffb; 09-22-2011 at 12:09 PM.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 12:10 PM   #202 (permalink)
.

Senior Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,494
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffb View Post
So you think there shouldn't be a hard cap?
Yes, I'm not advocating a hard cap.... I prefer a more punishing soft cap... maybe a scaled tax system with more expensive thresholds.

Distributing wealth from the richer teams is a key aspect of providing a more level playing field.
carp is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 12:13 PM   #203 (permalink)
is the baby faced assassin

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 80,636
Representing:
FINALS

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
Yes, I'm not advocating a hard cap.... I prefer a more punishing soft cap... maybe a scaled tax system with more expensive thresholds.
The owners would also be getting more revenue @ say 50%. I'm not sold on a hard cap either. No system is perfect, but if a system can be ironed out that allows what you're saying than get errrrrrr done. I just want basketball.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 12:57 PM   #204 (permalink)
Is wondering when the Patman and JJ will be unleashed?

Membres supérieurs
 
DocHoliday99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,288
Representing:
Default

Owners have a consensus, according to sources, that they want to have an amnesty clause upon completion of a new collective bargaining agreement.

Unlike the previous agreement in 2005, teams would not have the salary count against the cap.

The clause was widely nicknamed as 'The Allan Houston Rule' even though the Knicks ultimately didn't use the provision upon him.



Read more: Sources New Amnesty Protection Wont Count Against Cap - RealGM Wiretap
DocHoliday99 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 12:58 PM   #205 (permalink)
Is wondering when the Patman and JJ will be unleashed?

Membres supérieurs
 
DocHoliday99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,288
Representing:
Default

The union has offered to drop its share of basketball related income from 57 percent to 53 and most expect it to ultimately reach 51 or 50.

“They’re still debating the definition of BRI,” one source said.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports


Read more: Source Definition Of BRI Still Being Debated - RealGM Wiretap
DocHoliday99 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 02:39 PM   #206 (permalink)
Follow @raptorsforum on twitter

Senior Member

 
box92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,882
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHoliday99 View Post
The union has offered to drop its share of basketball related income from 57 percent to 53 and most expect it to ultimately reach 51 or 50.

“They’re still debating the definition of BRI,” one source said.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports


Read more: Source Definition Of BRI Still Being Debated - RealGM Wiretap
I think if the owners get it down to 50-50, they wouldnt mind the hardcap as much and would probably settle with the soft cap/flex cap
box92 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 04:21 PM   #207 (permalink)
is the baby faced assassin

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 80,636
Representing:
Default

Report: Owners plan amnesty clauses in new CBA | ProBasketballTalk

Quote:
Back in 2005, when the last NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement was put in place — teams could waive one player and not have to pay the luxury tax on that player’s salary. (The player still got the money on his contract and the teams did not get salary cap relief.) Everyone called it the Allen Houston rule, except that Houston did not get waived by the Knicks (they waived Jerome Williams). The biggest names let go were Reggie Miller, Brian Grant and Michael Finley.

This time around, there could be two players let go.

According to a tweet from John Canzano of the Oregonian, that’s what the owners want.

NBA source: Owner consensus on two amnesty-type clauses in new CBA. One like before. Another gives cap relief also.

The players union would need to agree to this, obviously. But it seems to be on the table and may be one of the things that comes up at Thursday’s meeting (or did in previous meetings).

It leaves some interesting decisions for teams out there. Canzano points to Portland, where the fiscally sound but emotionally hard move would be to waive Brandon Roy. That’s because Roy has four years and $69 million left on his current deal and with the current condition of his knees he’s no longer worth that kind of money.

Some teams would have obvious choices, but there could be some interesting ones out there as well.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 04:31 PM   #208 (permalink)
sticking to his guns... is stuck to his guns...

Senior Member

 
DanH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, ON
Posts: 5,158
Representing:
Default

Here's the thing - there are two issues at play here: profitability (both league-wide and on a team-by-team basis), and competitiveness and parity across the league.

The hard cap proposal has NOTHING to do with profitability. Restricting owners from signing players over the cap has no impact on the total amount paid to the players. It simply prevents teams from overspending to buy championships - a parity issue. So the 2/3 of the league that isn't paying millions over the tax to win wants the hard cap to give them a chance to compete. Since the majority want it, that's what's being negotiated. Also, once the revenue sharing plan is in place, the teams winning won't get to keep as much of their winning-related profits, so they are ALSO in favour of a hard cap, so their GM's are forced to keep expenses reigned in while trying for the championship. In the end, a harder/flex cap would have the same effect - any way to discourage/prevent excessive spending solves this issue. But the hard cap is their opening stance, and the only reason the players should be opposing it is that it restricts (somewhat) their ability to sign with whatever team they want.

The profitability issue lies in the BRI split and the revenue sharing. The BRI split will determine the profitability of the league as a whole - especially depending on how they settle the definition of BRI. The revenue sharing would help the teams that are not turning huge profits - again, this is something more than 2/3 of the league wants, so it's going to happen. The mechanism simply has to be worked out. That will sort out the team-by-team profitability of the league.

ETA: Oh, and that amnesty clause WILL HAPPEN, if the owners really want it. It benefits the teams AND the players.
DanH is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 04:37 PM   #209 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,960
Representing:
Default

if we can amnesty away jose and kleiza, i will be very happy.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2011, 09:45 PM   #210 (permalink)
#NorthernUprising

6 Man Like Lou Will
 
js12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: T.O.
Posts: 5,666
Representing:
Default

Quote:
NBA Commissioner David Stern and National Basketball Players Association president Derek Fisher emerged from a five-hour meeting in New York on Thursday agreeing on one point: the calendar is not their friend for the scheduled start of training camps (Oct. 3) and preseason games (Oct. 9).

Stern said he had "no announcement to make," but ESPN, which televises preseason games, reported the league on Friday will postpone training camps and postseason games.

"We each say and believe that we're doing the best for our clients and we're going to try to make a fair deal," Stern, 69, said on his birthday. "Both sides have work to do, and we'll let you know how that works."

During the 1998-99 lockout, the league postponed training camps and canceled 24 preseason games on Sept. 24, then canceled the remainder of the preseason Oct. 5. The NBA canceled the first two weeks of the regular season Oct. 8.

Even if the league and locked-out players reached a deal next week, it is unlikely training camps would begin on time. A new collective bargaining agreement needs to be drafted and ratified by both parties and an abbreviated free agency period needs to occur.

Fisher said the sides planned to meet next week.
NBA nearing point of postponing camps, games ? USATODAY.com
js12 is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2011, 12:25 PM   #211 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 22,045
Representing:
Default

Quote:
The NBA announced today that player training camps for the 2011-12 season have been postponed indefinitely because a new collective bargaining agreement has not been reached with the National Basketball Players Association. Training camps were scheduled to open on October 3.

In addition, the league canceled all preseason games scheduled from October 9 through October 15.

"We have regretfully reached the point on the calendar where we are not able to open training camps on time and need to cancel the first week of preseason games," said NBA Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver. "We will make further decisions as warranted."
NBA indefinitely postpones training camp, cancels 43 games | NBA.com
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2011, 12:06 PM   #212 (permalink)
a nacho hound

Senior Member
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South of Portland, home of the Blazers
Posts: 5,934
Representing:
Default

Quote:
David Stern's flawed NBA lockout logic

September 22, 2011
By Howard Bryant
ESPN.com

After dueling displays of solidarity, NBA owners and players reportedly planned to meet Wednesday even as regular-season games are being threatened by David Stern's lockout.

The NBA commissioner has adopted a tactic perfectly suited for today's age of shrinking media, anger toward labor and multimillion-dollar athletes: Use the authority to repeat his position until misinformation becomes truth.

Stern has benefited from a disturbing lack of accountability, a familiar blueprint the powerful have used throughout history to justify incorrect political positions, unnecessary wars, greed and corruption with the often-successful hope that the public will lack the interest and stamina to call them out.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and little to none of Stern's rhetoric holds up to scrutiny. He justified the lockout by stating the dominance of big-market teams threatened competitive balance. To curb this dominance, ownership is demanding a hard salary cap and a cap on the length of guaranteed contracts. Stern said NBA teams have lost as much as $300 million because the league's financial system is fatally flawed, and the only remedy to ensure the league's future is to reduce the percentage of money -- 57 percent in the expired deal -- allocated to player salaries.

It all sounds reasonable enough, except that player salaries and big-money teams aren't the primary threats to the NBA. Instead, the real threats are the revenue disparity between owners and the discipline or a lack thereof (the ultimate salary cap) to control spending.
read more: David Stern's NBA lockout logic is flawed - ESPN
Toby is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2011, 09:43 PM   #213 (permalink)
sticking to his guns... is stuck to his guns...

Senior Member

 
DanH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cambridge, ON
Posts: 5,158
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby View Post
What a ridiculous article. He postulates that the goal for having a hard cap is not to improve parity, but simply to let owners keep their cash. Except, a hard cap will in no way save the owners a single penny as a whole. He complains that sharing revenue is the real concern - and ignores the fact that that is one of the major topics the owners have made real headway on between them, and an aggressive revenue sharing plan is expected to be put in place - and is actually the source of the owners' majority support of a hard cap!
DanH is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 03:29 AM   #214 (permalink)
playoffs please dont end

FTMFW
 
Shifty.py's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,755
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
NBA indefinitely postpones training camp, cancels 43 games
The venuse must have been booked. Is NBA paying for those arenas? Then every cancelled game hurts them directly
Shifty.py is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 11:34 AM   #215 (permalink)
Follow @raptorsforum on twitter

Senior Member

 
box92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,882
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty.py View Post
The venuse must have been booked. Is NBA paying for those arenas? Then every cancelled game hurts them directly
They would have insurance to cover it
box92 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 09:02 PM   #216 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

I wonder how so few people on here complain about the MLSE. I know we do here and there, but fuck, it's being made painfully clear (and for the better for torontos identity in the NBA, the lockout will help kill idea's hat toronto is a weak franchise). Ok, but don' we all find it hilarious how toronto is in on the gig with the other top franchises, yet, spends no where close to them....

those guys don't wanna share, AND they wanna be able to stack their team....

The MLSE just doesn't wanna share, they'd rather die than spend money on a winner for this city.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2011, 10:30 AM   #217 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,248
Representing:
Default

a great piece by Malcolm Gladwell on espn - grantland

Quote:
Earlier this year, NBA commissioner David Stern was interviewed by Bloomberg News. Stern was expounding on his favorite theme — that the business of basketball was in economic peril and that the players needed to take a pay cut — when he was asked about the New jersey Nets. Ratner had just sold the franchise to a wealthy Russian businessman after arranging to move the team to Brooklyn. "Is it a contradiction to say that the current model does not work," Stern was asked, "and yet franchises are being bought for huge sums by billionaires like Mikhail Prokhorov?"

"Stop there," Stern replied. "… the previous ownership lost several hundred million dollars on that transaction."

This is the argument that Stern has made again and again since the labor negotiations began. On Halloween, he and the owners will dress up like Oliver Twist and parade up and down Park Avenue, caps in hand, while their limousines idle discreetly on a side street. And at this point, even players seem like they believe him. If and when the lockout ends, they will almost certainly agree to take a smaller share of league revenues.

But Stern's success does not change how strange the NBA position is. There is first of all the hilarious assumption that owning a basketball franchise is a business — at least as that word is used outside of, say, the president's mansion in Pyongyang.1 But beyond that is a second, equally ridiculous assumption, which is that the economics of basketball teams are principally about basketball. As it turns out, they are not.

Bruce Ratner's original plan for the Atlantic Yards site called for 16 separate commercial and residential towers and a basketball arena, all designed by the superstar architect Frank Gehry. The development would be home to roughly 15,000 people, cost in excess of $4 billion, total more than eight million square feet, and make his company — by some calculations — as much as $1 billion in profit. To put that in perspective, the original Rockefeller Center — one of the grandest urban developments in American history — was seven million square feet. Ratner wanted to out-Rockefeller the Rockefellers.

Ratner knew this would not be easy. The 14 acres he wanted to raze was a perfectly functional neighborhood, inhabited by taxpaying businesses and homeowners. He needed a political halo, and Ratner's genius was in understanding how beautifully the Nets could serve that purpose. The minute basketball was involved, Brooklyn's favorite son — Jay-Z — signed up as a part-owner and full-time booster. Brooklyn's borough president began publicly fantasizing about what a professional sports team would mean for his community. The Mayor's office, then actively pursuing an Olympic bid, loved the idea of a new arena in Brooklyn. Early on, another New York developer, Gary Barnett, made a competing play for the railway yard. Barnett's offer was, in many ways, superior to Ratner's. He didn't want the extra 14 acres, so no land would have to be expropriated from private owners. He wasn't going to plunk a small city down in the middle of an already crowded neighborhood. And he tripled the value of Ratner's offer. Barnett lost. He never had a chance. He wanted to build apartments. Ratner was restoring the sporting glory lost when the Dodgers fled for Los Angeles. As Michael Rikon, one of the attorneys who sued to stop the project, ruefully concluded when Ratner's victory was complete: "It is an aphorism in criminal law that a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. With regards to condemnations in New York, it can fairly be said that in New York a condemnor can condemn a Kasha Knish."2 Especially if the kasha knish is being eaten to make way for a professional basketball arena.

Ratner has been vilified — both fairly and unfairly — by opponents of the Atlantic Yards project. But let's be clear: What he did has nothing whatsoever to do with basketball. Ratner didn't buy the Nets as a stand-alone commercial enterprise in the hopes that ticket sales and television revenue would exceed players' salaries and administration costs. Ratner was buying eminent domain insurance. Basketball also had very little to do with Ratner's sale of the Nets. Ratner got hit by the recession. Fighting the court challenges to his project took longer than he thought. He became dangerously overextended. His shareholders got restless. He realized had to dump the fancy Frank Gehry design for something more along the lines of a Kleenex box. Prokhorov helped Ratner out by buying a controlling interest in the Nets. But he also paid off some of Ratner's debts, lent him $75 million, picked up some of his debt service, acquired a small stake in the arena, and bought an option on 20 percent of the entire Atlantic Yards project. This wasn't a fire sale of a distressed basketball franchise. It was a general-purpose real estate bailout.

Did Ratner even care that he lost the Nets? Once he won his eminent domain case, the team had served its purpose. He's not a basketball fan. He's a real estate developer. The asset he wanted to hang on to was the arena, and with good reason. According to Ratner, the Barclays Center (the naming right of which, by the way, earned him a cool $400 million) is going to bring in somewhere around $120 million in revenue a year. Operating costs will be $30 million. The mortgage comes to $50 million. That leaves $35 million in profit on Ratner's $350 million up-front investment, for an annual return of 10 percent.3 "That is pretty good out of the box," Ratner said in a recent interview. "It will increase as time goes on." Not to mention that the rental market in Brooklyn is heating up, the first of Ratner's residential towers is about to break ground, and his company also happens to own two large retail properties directly adjacent to Atlantic Yards, which can only appreciate now that there's a small city going up next door. When David Stern says that the "previous ownership" of the Nets lost "several million dollars" on the sale of the team, he is apparently not counting the profits on the arena, the eminent domain victory, the long-term value of that extra 14 acres, or the appreciation of Ratner's adjoining properties. That is not a lie, exactly. It is an artful misrepresentation. It is like looking at a perfectly respectable kasha knish and pretending it is a ham sandwich.

And let's not forget Mikhail Prokhorov. How does he feel about buying into the financial sinkhole that is professional basketball? The blog NetsDaily4 recently dug up the following quotation from a 2010 interview Prokhorov did with the Russian business newspaper Vedomosti:

"We have a team, we're building the arena, we've hired professional management, we have the option to buy into another large project, the building of an office center. For me, this is a project with explosive profit potential. The capitalization of the team will be $700 million after we move to Brooklyn. It will earn approximately 30 [million]. And the arena will be worth around $1 billion."

Let us recap. At the very moment the commissioner of the NBA is holding up the New jersey Nets as a case study of basketball's impoverishment, the former owner of the team is crowing about 10 percent returns and the new owner is boasting of "explosive" profits. After the end of last season, one imagines that David Stern gathered together the league's membership for a crash course on lockout etiquette: stash the yacht in St. Bart's until things blow over, dress off the rack, insist on the '93 and '94 Cháteau Lafite Rothschilds, not the earlier, flashier, vintages. For rich white men to plead poverty, a certain self-discipline is necessary. Good idea, except next time he should remember to invite the Nets.

One of the great forgotten facts about the United States is that not very long ago the wealthy weren't all that wealthy. Up until the 1960s, the gap between rich and poor in the United States was relatively narrow. In fact, in that era marginal tax rates in the highest income bracket were in excess of 90 percent. For every dollar you made above $250,000, you gave the government 90 cents. Today — with good reason — we regard tax rates that high as punitive and economically self-defeating. It is worth noting, though, that in the social and political commentary of the 1950s and 1960s there is scant evidence of wealthy people complaining about their situation. They paid their taxes and went about their business. Perhaps they saw the logic of the government's policy: There was a huge debt from World War II to be paid off, and interstates, public universities, and other public infrastructure projects to be built for the children of the baby boom. Or perhaps they were simply bashful. Wealth, after all, is as often the gift of good fortune as it is of design. For whatever reason, the wealthy of that era could have pushed for a world that more closely conformed to their self-interest and they chose not to. Today the wealthy have no such qualms. We have moved from a country of relative economic equality to a place where the gap between rich and poor is exceeded by only Singapore and Hong Kong. The rich have gone from being grateful for what they have to pushing for everything they can get. They have mastered the arts of whining and predation, without regard to logic or shame. In the end, this is the lesson of the NBA lockout. A man buys a basketball team as insurance on a real estate project, flips the franchise to a Russian billionaire when he wins the deal, and then — as both parties happily count their winnings — what lesson are we asked to draw? The players are greedy.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2011, 10:32 AM   #218 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,248
Representing:
Default

and a couple of enlightening footnotes from the same piece -

Quote:
"To me, NBA franchises are like pieces of art. There are only 30 of them. They aren't always on the market, especially a franchise that would have been such a natural fit. … If you just looked at the Cavaliers in terms of revenues, profits and balance sheets — and you paid this amount for it — people would say 'You're insane! You're nuts.' But if you look at all the tentacles, the impact on our other venues, it makes tremendous sense. We have now opened a Cleveland office [of Quicken Loans] and that's tremendously successful. Our employees love it that we're associated with the Cavs and can come to games — that helps us attract and keep better people. There are a lot of nonprofit things that can be done with pro sports. It brings an unbelievable amount of excitement."

What's the matter, Danny? Don't like your Rembrandt any more?
Quote:
The economics of stadiums, of course, deserves its own separate article. But here's a small point, courtesy of my friend David Goldhill. Most stadiums — the Barclays Center included — are subsidized in some way by local government. The logic is this. An arena will bring a certain level of new economic activity to a neighborhood, which will generate tax revenues. So it makes sense for a city to put some portion of those expected revenues toward the construction of an arena. NBA owners love these deals. If there's no basketball season, however, then the tax revenue cities bank on to pay for their investment disappears. Goldhill says that in that case, owners really ought to reimburse the municipalities that gave them money. But has anyone even mentioned this possibility? The NBA plutocracy voted not to play basketball right after taking money from local taxpayers on the promise that they would play basketball. How do these guys sleep at night?
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2011, 08:53 PM   #219 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,960
Representing:
Default

while gladwell is quite right, it doesn't negate the fact that 'the players' and their agents are also extremely greedy.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2011, 10:57 PM   #220 (permalink)
is the baby faced assassin

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 80,636
Representing:
Default

Quote:
The NBA concluded Wednesday's meeting at approximately 2:30 PM EST.

Derek Fisher said the sides will meet again on Friday with as many as 15 owners joining players in the meeting room.

The weekend has been left open by both the owners and players to continue negotiations.

Fisher intimated that the desire to come to agreement on a new deal is strong on both sides.
Twitter
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24