PDA

View Full Version : Some optimism on the labor front



Unclebuck
04-21-2011, 04:24 PM
I realize we are two hours away from our first home playoff game in 5 years, so probably won't be too much discussion about this now, but in a week or two this might be more relevant.

I've gone on record as saying no games will be missed this year, I know you think I'm crazy, but maybe not

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=19508



Some Optimism On The Labor Front: One of the more common topics around the NBA Playoffs recently has been the state of the NBA with regards to its ongoing labor talks with its players.


In a surprising turn of events, there is a growing consensus that if there is a work stoppage in the NBA, it would not be a long one and unless Billy Hunter tries to make this process personal, there appears to be some degree of willingness on the NBA Owners part to make a reasonable deal.


Several high profile agents have said they were doubtful a lockout was inevitable and were hearing positive things from the process.


During the last NBA Board of Governors meeting the NBA's Labor Committee was authorized to make a new proposal to the players and it's believed several of the points the NBA Players had material objections to are being removed from the discussion or modified in such a way as to make them more palatable to the players.


While the exact details of the Owners' new offer is not clear yet, as some say it's still being crafted, the general idea is the long rumored "hard cap stance" and roll back of existing contracts is being tabled.


The NBA does want to reduce the amount of dollars paid to players, but is now open to a phased reduction in the percentage being given to the players and its believed a number of the salary cap exceptions that are commonplace are to be phased out completely over the course of the next agreement.


The owners are said to be willing to commit to a larger overall salary cap number in exchange for changes in percentages given to players and how the salary cap figures are calculated.


In short, the NBA salary cap is currently set at $58.044 million this season. It is believed the Owners' new proposal would have that number increasing every year of the deal, in exchange for the phased reduction of cap exceptions, a reduction in the number of years allowed on contracts and an overall adjustment of the mechanics of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


So what do the players get out of this? No one loses a dime on their existing deals. There will be no work stoppage or lost wages.


The compromise… the Players won't get 57% of revenues, and eventually there will be a harder cap system down the road, but one that could be substantially greater than the $45 million hard cap initially proposed by the owners.


The Current average team salary in the NBA is $67.5 million, with the Lakers and Mavericks clocking in at over $90 million in team salaries and the Orlando Magic just shy of that figure at $89.1 million.


If the Owners can put a proposal on the table keeping average team salaries in the $65 million range while they move towards a hard cap in the high $60 million range, the NBA can get what it wants while not costing the players any real money.


If the NBA owners stand firm to their $45 million number, there is no chance for a deal.


However more and more people are talking optimistically about a deal in July, so we'll see if reasonable people can make a reasonable deal.

Hicks
04-21-2011, 05:27 PM
That'd be great if it gets resolved so quickly. Just have to wait and see.

I hope however it turns out, our cap space remains valuable.

Kstat
04-21-2011, 05:30 PM
The NBA can't afford to go down the same road as the NFL. They would cost themselves more money in PR than they'd make back in negotiations.

Pacerized
04-22-2011, 09:01 AM
It would be great if this gets resolved but I hope the owners don't cave in to this degree. I never thought an immediate 45mil hard cap was reasonable and if anything is implemented it would have to be phased in over a few years. I hope a hard cap in the high 60's is just an untrue rumor. The lower the hard cap, the better our chances of competing. A hard cap near 70 mil still leaves room for something like what happened in Miami, the big 3 would have to pair back their annually increases in order to keep a team on the floor but it could happen. If it comes to a hard cap that high I hope they put no limit on what a max contract player could get. Would Lebron sign for 14.5 mil in Miami if the Bucks offered him 35 mil.? There's more then one way to skin a cat, I just hope this cba comes out with a better system of parity for the Pacers. Whatever happens with a hard cap, our current cap room should be valuable. The owners care most about the financial aspect, I care most about the Pacers competing.

BillS
04-22-2011, 09:42 AM
I don't see how you can have a competitive league when some teams are able to spend $25 MILLION more than others - especially when those teams are already the "haves" of the league.

More proof that the NBA wants 6 major-league teams and 24 pushovers, I'm afraid.

ballism
04-22-2011, 10:13 AM
I don't see how you can have a competitive league when some teams are able to spend $25 MILLION more than others - especially when those teams are already the "haves" of the league.

More proof that the NBA wants 6 major-league teams and 24 pushovers, I'm afraid.

My English fails me here. What does it mean "roll back of existing contracts is being tabled"? Does it mean owners are waiving that demand? Or does it mean it's still on the table?

The 'phaze out' of exceptions is fair enough, pretty much what i expected. Instant hard cap with a low $ number was not realistic.



I don't see how you can have a competitive league when some teams are able to spend $25 MILLION more than others - especially when those teams are already the "haves" of the league.

More proof that the NBA wants 6 major-league teams and 24 pushovers, I'm afraid.

The key for us will be the revenue-sharing negotiation between owners. If there's a good NFL-like revenue sharing system, Pacers will be in a great position to compete.
Cap is always only one side of the picture. You may have a hard cap, but if you don't have any money left for top coaches, managers, scouts, you are still screwed. So I'd say for us, revenue sharing negotiations are even more improtant than the CBA negotiations.

owl
04-22-2011, 10:24 AM
If the NBA is wise they will work to make all teams have equal footing when it comes to
the financial end. That means eventually a hard cap, revenue sharing and some form of
Tag to hold on to your superstar that you have developed and invested in. A hard cap is
an absolute necessity.

Sollozzo
04-24-2011, 11:55 AM
They better get something done.

If the league does have a significant lockout then Stern has to go. Two significant lockouts in 13 years makes you an absolute failure as a commissioner. No excuses.

Shade
04-24-2011, 12:05 PM
If a hard cap is put into place, what happens to teams that are currently over that cap?

idioteque
04-24-2011, 12:09 PM
My English fails me here. What does it mean "roll back of existing contracts is being tabled"? Does it mean owners are waiving that demand? Or does it mean it's still on the table?


The term comes from parliamentary procedure and means that the demand is being waived. If the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, votes to "table" an amendment it basically means that it is being condemned to purgatory, never to be discussed again.

I had no idea English was not your first language, your English is damn good. I guess I should have looked at your location!

PacerGuy
04-24-2011, 12:27 PM
My English fails me here. What does it mean "roll back of existing contracts is being tabled"? Does it mean owners are waiving that demand? Or does it mean it's still on the table?

They are not planning on going forward (ie: taking off the negotiation "table") with the idea of reducing ("rolling back") current contracts value to fit a new wage scale.

Hope that helps. :)

BillS
04-24-2011, 12:31 PM
The term comes from parliamentary procedure and means that the demand is being waived. If the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, votes to "table" an amendment it basically means that it is being condemned to purgatory, never to be discussed again.

I had no idea English was not your first language, your English is damn good. I guess I should have looked at your location!

Be aware that in British parliamentary parlance to "table" a motion means to put it out for discussion and action, while in the US it means to place it on stand-by and NOT take action.

Two countries separated by a common language. Makes it very understandable for someone even with good ESL skills to be confused if they learned English from British sources.

Hicks
04-24-2011, 01:54 PM
If a hard cap is put into place, what happens to teams that are currently over that cap?

Dunno, but I don't think we're going to have to worry about it.

xIndyFan
04-24-2011, 02:48 PM
I don't see how you can have a competitive league when some teams are able to spend $25 MILLION more than others - especially when those teams are already the "haves" of the league.

yes, this is true. no better example of the logical outcome of this is baseball. with only a few teams having a legit chance to succeed.


More proof that the NBA wants 6 major-league teams and 24 pushovers, I'm afraid.

sorry, this is silly. the 24 teams in question are owned by 24 very rich businessmen. they do not want to spend millions of dollars to make a few teams successful. since the NBA commissioner is selected and paid by those 24 guys, he is not going to screw them to please the 6.

owl
04-24-2011, 03:07 PM
If a hard cap is put into place, what happens to teams that are currently over that cap?


I think anything that is changed will be phased in over 3-4 years with the cap going
up every year and having less exceptions each year until it is a true hard cap with no going over it and then paying a tax.

wintermute
04-24-2011, 04:46 PM
So all those scare stories we've been hearing the past year are basically the league posturing to the union? Sure seems that way now.

The good news is, it sounds like the owners are willing to start the real negotiations soon, as opposed to after softening up the players with a lockout first. They must have realized how much damage a lockout would cause the whole NBA, players and owners both.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-heisler-20110424,0,6797449.column?page=1



David Stern sounds serious — which means threat to next season must be serious

The commissioner suggests it's time for 'very intense' collective bargaining to avoid 'terrible mess' the NFL is experiencing. Players' union says it's just waiting for proposal it can take seriously.

By Mark Heisler

April 23, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

A funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypse.

No, it wasn't Carmelo Anthony's saying "I had fun," after scoring 42 points in the game of his life at Boston . . . as the Knicks went down, 0-2, on their way to 0-3.

This involves labor, where, as everyone knows, doom waits just over the horizon.

In the first good news for you holdouts who think there's a chance they'll play 70 games next season . . .

Oh, no one thinks that?

Actually, I do, or did, until some GM types, who thought they'd be back playing by Dec. 1, began saying it might be more like Dec. 1, 2012.

At Friday's Game 3 in Madison Square Garden, Commissioner David Stern dropped all posturing and made a plea to start talking in earnest.

Until then, Stern's demands — 40% giveback, cutting existing contracts — looked less like a proposal and more like Attila the Hun sending a rider to tell the townspeople he was coming.

In reply, union head Billy Hunter rolled his eyes and waited for Stern to get serious.

NBA people railed that the union was ignoring the crisis, detailed in the owners' IRS statements provided to it . . . while acknowledging this season's projected $4-billion revenue will surpass last season's record $3.6 billion.

Said a league official, incredulously:

"They keep asking us, 'What do you really want?' "

Actually, both sides understood it was a game, even agreeing not to call each other names over All-Star weekend.

What Stern, or, more to the point, his owners, want is half . . . which is still a monumental 20% giveback, requiring monumental fall-back room.

So we got hints of contraction . . . as Stern docked 29 teams $7 million apiece to buy the New Orleans franchise, knowing he'll sell it after this unpleasantness and give them $8 million-$9 million back.

Not that Stern wasn't going to get real — but it looked as if it would be closer to Sept. 15 than July 15.

By then the media would have written off the season and pronounced the NBA dead . . . the environment Stern hoped to create from the get-go.

Then came Friday in the Garden with Lisa Salters of ESPN.

Asked about the lessons of the ongoing NFL lockout, Stern said, forthrightly:

"What I have learned is you should make a deal. You get the courts involved, you get the union involved, as going out of business, supposedly. The players argue with each other.

"It's a terrible mess. We've got to try the best we can to avoid that. . . .

"I would guess we're going to go into very intense meetings and negotiations now."

The NBA is unveiling a new proposal, although I have the over/under on the giveback at 30%.

Stern's words still represent a change in tone, as the NFL union's decertification sobered up the football owners from arrogance that reached the point of buffoonery.

In the last bargaining session Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson was allowed to attend, he reportedly asked Peyton Manning, "What do you know about player safety?" and "Do I have to help you read a revenue chart, son?"

Now, it's a de-certifiable mess as they await Judge Susan Richard Nelson's decision that could lift the lockout, with players confident they'll prevail, as they have over and over in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

Stern, the sharpest lawyer working in sports, may see more than a mess here . . . like NFL owners about to get it between the eyes.

Happily for the NFL, it has no real economic issues, as the respected Sal Galatioto, a financial consultant for pro teams, said recently on CNBC.

Any time NFL owners wish to, they can declare peace and probably will before too long.

The NBA and its players, on the other hand, have real issues and important gaps to close.

They're as much about major market domination (see: LeBron James to Miami, Anthony to New York, et al.), uneven distribution of profits, and losses suffered in other businesses by owners like Phoenix's Bob Sarver, a banker, and Sacramento's Maloof brothers, who own a casino.

Nevertheless, Forbes' projections — which the NBA disputes — had 17 of 30 teams losing money last season and an overall $153-million operating profit . . . a 4.25% return on $3.6 billion.

With businesses typically insistent on 10%, at least, the painful truth for players is the owners are entitled to a giveback.

The painful truth for the big owners is that everyone else can't exist to groom stars for them, so a hard cap and/or a franchise-player system is needed.

(Contraction, as espoused by Lakers people, is exponential arrogance.)

No one can see down the line farther or faster than Stern, who is often frustrated, waiting for the world to catch up.

Talking to the silver-tongued devil last week on the Sacramento story, I fumbled around posing a question.

Figuring out where I was going by about word two, Stern answered and wished me a nice weekend before I got it out.

The guy may actually be a genius, but we'll know more by Dec. 1.

mark.heisler@latimes.com

TMJ31
04-24-2011, 05:02 PM
If a hard cap is put into place, what happens to teams that are currently over that cap?

Probably some sort of system that requires you to make significant progress towards reaching that cap within a certain period of time. Whether you let contracts expire, or make trades or what have you.

Personally though, I hope that there is some sort of system devised that screws over the teams that regularly spend 20-30 million over the cap, just to give us small market teams some sense of justice, lol.

able
04-25-2011, 05:36 AM
Makes it very understandable for someone even with good ESL skills to be confused if they learned English from British sources.

Uhhh excuse me ? are there any other sources for the "english" language?

The fact that local "habits" or "accents" make for the language to develop into a makeshift dialect does not change the source :)

"being tabled" = put on the table, goes for cutlery as well as for paper

could have made or could've made instead of could of made; it is the simple things in life :P

Mono
04-25-2011, 06:04 AM
Uhhh excuse me ? are there any other sources for the "english" language?

The fact that local "habits" or "accents" make for the language to develop into a makeshift dialect does not change the source :)

"being tabled" = put on the table, goes for cutlery as well as for paper

could have made or could've made instead of could of made; it is the simple things in life :P

I'm afraid I have to split hairs with your splitting of hairs, here, able. It's quite clear from the context what Bills meant by "source." He didn't mean source as in: the source of the language; he meant source as in: the source from which the language was learned. I won't belabor the point by listing some of the ways that English differs from place to place, I'm sure many of those differences are well known to all of us. :)

Finally, I'm have trouble making sense of your last sentence, but I'll just say I hope you're not suggesting that it is ever okay to say "could of."

cheers

BillS
04-25-2011, 09:16 AM
Uhhh excuse me ? are there any other sources for the "english" language?

The fact that local "habits" or "accents" make for the language to develop into a makeshift dialect does not change the source :)

"being tabled" = put on the table, goes for cutlery as well as for paper

could have made or could've made instead of could of made; it is the simple things in life :P

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Just 'cause the "English" got it from renegade Scandinavians and Germans and then bastided it up with that whole Norman French thing don't make 'em RIGHT.

Here we were able to refine it and make it live for a new generation - well, except for them Canadians, who keep insisting on that extra "u" and using "s" instead of "z" and other quaint habits.

:lol:

Unclebuck
04-25-2011, 11:39 AM
And then not so optimistic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nba-players-owners-remain-far-apart-in-labor-dispute/2011/04/21/AFTuOqdE_story_1.html


NBA players, owners remain far apart in labor dispute

By Amy Shipley (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/Amy+Shipley/), Sunday, April 24, 6:40 PM

LeBron James (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nba/playerstats.asp?id=3704&team=) just couldn’t keep quiet during a negotiating session between the NBA players and team owners early in 2010. As the owners discussed their latest proposal to the two dozen or so players who showed up to the meeting in Dallas, James spoke up, two people who were in the room recalled.

“You just want to turn us into the NFL!” James said.

NBA officials were quick to respond.

“Yeah, we do,” one league official said, according to those in the room. “It’s the most successful sports league in the history of the world.”

And therein lies the crux of the latest labor dispute between NBA players and owners, which could erupt into the second U.S. professional sports work stoppage of the year if the two sides cannot reach agreement by July 1 — just a couple of weeks after a new league champion is crowned. NBA Commissioner David Stern said on April 15 that ownership would deliver a new proposal to the players’ union — the first from either side in nearly a year — when the sides next meet, which could be as early as this week.

Sources familiar with the owners’ thinking say they aren’t willing to make major concessions as they seek to reshape their league using principles employed by the NFL, a $9 billion a year industry that dominates the U.S. sports landscape in fan interest and revenue generation. Philosophically, the NBA owners and players seem to be at opposite ends of the court.

Depending on one’s perspective, the NFL offers either the ideal blueprint to develop a robust sports business or an oppressive financial system for players.

Owners seem prepared to follow the lead of NFL’s ownership — which locked its players out in mid-March — if the players won’t accept at least some elements of a revamped, not merely smoothed out, economic system.

“We need a new system,” Adam Silver, the league’s deputy commissioner and chief operating officer said after the NBA’s board of governors meeting last week. “The current system is broken and is unsustainable.”


Deciphering the numbers
National Basketball Players Association Chief Billy Hunter said the fact that television ratings, ticket sales and licensing revenue increased this season demonstrates the exact opposite: the league is thriving and requires no major fixes, other than, perhaps, some self-control on the part of certain team owners.

Despite the NBA owners’ unprecedented decision during these labor talks to open their books to the union, the sides can’t even agree on what the numbers say. Silver said last week 22 of the league’s 30 teams lost money this past year with collective losses at $300 million (better than the $340 million lost the previous year). Hunter maintained during an interview days later that not even a single team is in the red, saying the union disputes elements of the league’s accounting, such as including as losses depreciation figures and certain third-party transactions with team-owned companies.

“They want a guaranteed profit for each team,” Hunter said. “Nobody in business gets a guaranteed profit. If we implement the system they are talking about, franchise values will go through the roof. People will be lining up to buy teams, because it’s a guaranteed return.”

Hunter speculated the NBA ownership was being swayed in part by a half-dozen owners — including the Washington Wizards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards)’ Ted Leonsis — who have experience in busting unions through their ownership stakes in NHL franchises. The NHL lost the entire 2004-05 season to a lockout but gained major financial concessions from players when a new agreement finally was reached.

“I think that’s part of the energy behind it,” Hunter said. “Some of the owners in the league . . . went through the lockout in 2005 that decimated the union.”

The NBA players’ union has demonstrated its solidarity by sending big-name players — and lots of them — to bargaining sessions at the last two all-star games. Derek Fisher (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nba/playerstats.asp?id=3125&team=) of the Los Angeles Lakers has been heavily involved as the union president; James, Dwyane Wade (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nba/playerstats.asp?id=3708&team=14), Carmelo Anthony (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nba/playerstats.asp?id=3706&team=18), Chris Paul (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/nba/playerstats.asp?id=3930&team=3) and many others have also participated in talks. But little progress has been made over the past year.

The sides are split not only over how to divvy up money to the players, but how much of the total revenue the players should receive. Players, whose $5 million average salary is the highest in U.S. professional sports, want to maintain the 57 percent of the basketball revenues that they currently receive; the league wants to shrink that number to closer to 43 percent by taking more money off of the top to cover certain expenses and splitting the rest in half.

The owners also have argued since making their first and only proposal in January 2010, that the game would prosper — and everyone would benefit — if they adopted an NFL-style hard salary cap on individual teams. The NBA, like Major League Baseball, currently has a soft cap, which allows teams to exceed it in special cases but imposes a financial penalty called a luxury tax if they surpass a certain threshold; that money is redistributed to small-market teams.

The owners, who say large-market owners will always be willing to exceed a soft cap, claim a hard cap would increase competitiveness and allow small-market teams to compete for championships. The players say a hard cap would effectively eliminate the guaranteed contracts and longer-term contracts that currently populate the NBA, while suppressing salaries for marquee players, wiping out the NBA’s middle class and pushing everyone else to the bottom.

“We’re not receptive,” Hunter said, “to a hard cap.”


A move to share revenue
There is one area, Hunter said, in which the players would embrace an NFL-like system: In revenue sharing. Unlike in the NFL, NBA teams negotiate local television deals, which are not shared, on top of a national television deal that is shared. And unlike in the NFL, in which teams share 40 percent of gate revenue, NBA teams keep their gate receipts. “They want to move to an NFL model as it relates to a hard cap, but they do not want to adopt an NFL revenue sharing model,” Hunter said.

Stern and Silver said revenue sharing was indeed a major topic at the recent board of governors meetings and NBA owners are committed to developing and implementing a new plan. Hunter said the players want to know precisely what that plan is. In any case, Stern said, revenue sharing won’t eradicate all the league’s financial problems.

“You cannot revenue share your way to a sustainable business model,” Stern said. “Our issues are not solved by revenue sharing.”

Silver said “several” NBA franchises are so deeply in the red they would lose less money this season during a lockout than by playing under the current system. Three sports business experts told The Post they consider the NBA’s general claims of overall financial losses legitimate. But they also said the NBA already had a relatively restrictive system of free agency.

“The chances for a work stoppage are at least 50-50,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a noted author on sports economics who is also a professor of economics at Smith College. “They do have real losses in the aggregate, so it’s a more difficult situation than the NFL.”

It is not, however, on par with the financial disarray the NHL found itself in before its last labor dispute. About a third of NHL owners lost less money during the lockout than they would have had games gone on, according to NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly. Daly said that, despite the public-relations hit the league absorbed when it canceled the season, the lockout proved to be a valuable tool.

“Ultimately, we did it for the right reasons, I think, to be able to achieve our objectives in those negotiations,” he said during a recent interview. “Our league and our sport is in a much better place today than it was seven years ago. . . We were in a position where we really had no choice.”

The NBA players and ownership seem to agree they do have a choice. Both sides say a lengthy lockout would be disastrous for a business that, while facing some financial challenges, has seen catapulting fan interest in the last year.

“Even those teams that in the short term would do better on a [profit and loss measure] by not playing. I’m sure they would still prefer to be playing and building their business,” Silver said. “And there’s no doubt, from a league-wide standpoint, we would do enormous damage to ourselves if we are not playing.”

Said Hunter: “You’re going to destroy the league because one or two teams might do better? . . . When we had the lockout in ’98, it took until about 2005 for the boat to get righted again . . . and come out of the abyss.”

Hunter vowed to enter the next round of negotiations with and open mind. Howard Ganz, a prominent sports law attorney who has represented ownership in talks, said he, too, hadn’t given up on a deal.

“A lockout is by no means inevitable,” Ganz said. “There’s plenty of time left to reach an agreement.”