Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

    By Chris Sheridan
    ESPN.com
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6673181

    NEW YORK -- In a somewhat conciliatory gesture, NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday during the latest round of collective bargaining negotiations to replace the labor agreement that expires at the end of this month.

    The players welcomed the move but cautioned there was still a wide gulf to be bridged. The sides are still hundreds of millions of dollars apart on how to split revenues, and the owners are still asking for a hard salary cap system.

    Another labor meeting is set for next Tuesday, and commissioner David Stern said the onus will be on the players to make a new economic proposal.

    "The time to have an optimistic or pessimistic view is at the close of the day Tuesday. That's an important day," Stern said after the sides met for nearly five hours. "Time is running out, but both parties seem, at least to me, intent to make a deal by June 30."

    The question of guaranteed contracts has been called a "blood issue" in the past by union director Billy Hunter, and the owners had earlier proposed a new system in which all contracts would contain only partial guarantees.

    But that proposal was taken off the table Tuesday, with the owners agreeing to continue with the current system in which guarantees on individual contracts are a negotiable issue on a case-by-case basis.

    "Every move is important, but if there is still a hard cap, it is not as significant," union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said.

    Still, the day began with the sides far apart on three issues -- the split of revenues, the type of salary-cap system the league will operate under and the question of contract guarantees -- and ended with one of those items crossed off the list.

    How to resolve the sides' remaining differences remains a puzzle, and the key will be the almighty dollar -- or, more specifically, the split of those dollars.

    "One piece controls several hundred thousand pieces, so essentially we could put together a million-piece puzzle in a very short time if we can get two or three pieces in the right place, and that's what we're focused on doing," union president Derek Fisher said.

    Owners are seeking to redefine the calculation of basketball-related income, the pile of net revenues of which the players, under the current system, are guaranteed 57 percent.

    The union has offered to drop that guarantee, but it has been unable to agree with the owners on either a formula for a recalculated BRI or the percentage of those revenues that each side would get under the terms of a new deal.

    "Everyone is a little frustrated," said Maurice Evans of the Washington Wizards, a member of the union's executive council. "We feel like they're trying to give us things that we already have.

    "But are we committed to trying to hammer out a deal and see their perspective? Yes, we are," Evans said.

    Stern said each side has presented three formal proposals plus one informal proposal, and he said the owners decided to yield on the issue of guaranteed contracts because of the significance several players placed on that issue during the course of negotiations over the past 18 months.

    "I would say we're not on the same page right now, but there's some good conversations going on, and both sides are trying to come to an agreement. We'll see what happens," said Carmelo Anthony of the New York Knicks, who is not a member of the union's negotiating committee. "It was a must that I came to this meeting, just for me to sit in there in the position I'm in and with the stature I have."

    Prior to the meeting, which began at noon ET at a hotel across the street from league headquarters, Hunter said the players wanted to see a more reasonable split of revenues put forth by the owners, who are proposing a 10-year agreement in which certain changes would be phased in.

    The sides ended Friday's meeting still in disagreement on exactly how much of a financial sacrifice the players are being asked to make. In their early proposals, owners demanded a reduction of some $750 million to $800 million in player salaries from the $2.1 billion that players earned in the 2010-11 season. The union maintains that is still the case, whereas Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver contend the owners have scaled back those demands considerably.

    Absent more tangible signs of progress Tuesday, the sides are expected to dig in their heels for what would be the league's first work stoppage since the summer of 1998 -- a lockout that lasted into February of 1999 before a truncated 50-game season was played.

    "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to," Stern said. "The clock is ticking and the runway is shortening."

    Hunter indicated there is a growing belief that a group of hard-line owners are dictating the pace and tone of the negotiating process.

    "The owners appear to be pretty unified in their position," Hunter told ESPN.com. "If I had to say who, I'd probably say the small markets are driving. Because if you look at the big markets -- Chicago, L.A., New York -- they're making tons of money. So it's not an issue with them, it's an issue of the smaller markets. I think that David (Stern), if he feels the climate is right within the room and there is a deal to be made, then David still has enough sway to make the deal. But I'm not sure that's an easy move on their part."

    Also Friday, the league told the players that this weekend it would be canceling its Las Vegas Summer League, which would have started in early July. Silver stressed that was simply a function of the calendar, not a threat to the players.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

    "The owners appear to be pretty unified in their position," Hunter told ESPN.com. "If I had to say who, I'd probably say the small markets are driving. Because if you look at the big markets -- Chicago, L.A., New York -- they're making tons of money. So it's not an issue with them, it's an issue of the smaller markets.



    That is the key to the whole agreement.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

      they said on NBA TV now the player have to comprises and lower their Basketball related income (BRI) which is at 58%


      i would think they need to lower it to 45% to get a deal done and the player don't want that they also said the owners are dead set on a hard cap.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

        Originally posted by owl View Post
        "The owners appear to be pretty unified in their position," Hunter told ESPN.com. "If I had to say who, I'd probably say the small markets are driving. Because if you look at the big markets -- Chicago, L.A., New York -- they're making tons of money. So it's not an issue with them, it's an issue of the smaller markets.



        That is the key to the whole agreement.
        I disagree Dolan the Knicks owner said that he is willing to improve revenue sharing with small market teams that shouldn't be a major issue IMO. It is more getting the players to agree to a hard cap and lowering BRI IMO.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

          I think Evans called it, the owners are negotiating by giving them stuff they already have. I always felt the guarantee issue was a red herring, something they could take off the table in the name of "progress". It all comes down to the hard cap as far as the owners are concerned. They'll give on BRI, they'll give on the cap number, they'll even give on contract years, but the hard cap is a seismic change, and one they won't give up on lightly, if ever.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

            Another article with pretty much the same info.

            http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/17/d...s=iref:nbahpt2

            Resolution in talks may come down to Tuesday's meeting
            By David Aldridge, TNT analyst
            Posted Jun 17 2011 10:09PM

            NEW YORK -- Hopes for a resolution to an oncoming lockout that would delay, if not cancel, the 2011-12 may come down to one last meeting in New York next Tuesday between NBA owners and the National Basketball Players Assocation.

            The virtual line in the sand was drawn Friday afternoon by NBA Commissioner David Stern, after a five-hour meeting between the owners and players at a downtown Manhattan hotel where Knicks forward Carmelo Anthony, not a member of the union's executive committee, made an appearance, along with Bucks swingman John Salmons and Timberwolves guard Sebastian Telfair. Hornets guard Chris Paul, a member of the executive committee, also was in attendance after missing the last couple of negotiating sessions during the Finals in Miami and Dallas.

            And the meeting produced some movement on a key sticking point between the parties.
            After a presentation by the union that detailed its staunch opposition to significant reductions in guaranteed contracts -- one of the owners' main contentions in previous negotiating sessions -- the league removed that plank from its current proposal to the players, in essence agreeing to return to the existing rules that allow teams to guarantee, either fully or partially, all contracts with their players.

            But the league expects a signficant concession from the union next week to equal the one it believes it gave Friday.

            Asked if that was the case, Stern said, "I would like one. I don't want to set expectations too high."

            Stern did not specify what concession he wanted, but the notion of a hard cap that would limit total player salaries, along with an increased split for owners of Basketball Related Income (BRI) from the current 57-43 split in favor of the players are two points of emphasis for owners.

            "I really think that the time to have an optimistic or pessimistic view is at the close of the day on Tuesday," Stern said. "Tuesday's a very important day in these negotiations. It's important because of the substance of our conversations today, and because time is running out. And because both parties still remain, at least to me, intent on doing the best they can to make a deal before June 30."

            NBPA President Derek Fisher acknowledged that the owners had changed their position on guaranteed deals. However, a hard cap would dramatically reduce the total amount that players take home, making guaranteed deals less impactful.

            "That's part of what we discussed today," Fisher said. "It was very open. A lot of owners were very opinionated, had things to state.

            "We had several players that had opinions and made great comments ... guys that aren't on our committee took the time to come in and see what was going on. It was good to get in there today. There's a very clear sense of urgency. But we're not sure between now and July 1 if we can make up the gulf that exists between the two sides."

            Owners still want a hard cap and a reduction in the length of player contracts. Players still want owners to do more of the heavy lifting by agreeing to enhanced revenue sharing amongst themselves to make up some of the financial shortfalls. The league claims that 22 of its 30 teams lost money last season and is asking for more than $700 million in salary givebacks from the players.

            "No one's really making significant headway," said Wizards forward Mo Evans, a vice president of the union. "There are still major [proposed] changes to the system as we know it. According to them, there is no system, so we're starting from scratch. And that's hard to do in two weeks."

            Deputy commissioner Adam Silver also officially announced what had long been suspected -- the NBA will cancel its popular Summer League in Las Vegas, which had participation from more than 20 teams the past few seasons and was the coming-out party for rookie stars like Blake Griffin and John Wall.

            "We made it clear to the union that it was purely a function of the calendar, and drop dead dates with hotels and the arena," Silver said.

            "No intent to send signals of any kind to the players. But it was an unfortunate consequence of the fact that at this late date, we still don't have a deal beginning July 1."

            But at least they're still talking.

            Anthony said he came to provide support as one of the league's star players -- "it was a must that I came to this meeting," he said -- and wanted to show the owners that he wanted to fight not just for current players, but to future players not yet in the NBA.

            "It's a lot of dialogue going back and forth," Anthony said. "Are we on the same page right now? No. But there's a lot of good dialogue going back and forth. They talked about [guaranteed contracts]. That was a big discussion up there, a big topic up there. But we'll see what happens with that."

            Stern said he would be willing to meet every day after Monday next week if there was a notion that real progress was being made. (The union has an already-scheduled meeting of its player representatives set for next week in New York.) And both sides also agreed that apparant progress in the NFL talks between owners and players doesn't impact the NBA's discussions.

            "We're not as strong a business," Silver said.

            "There is an important difference based upon the calendar between us and the NFL," Stern said. "If we were out as it appears that the NFL will be out, even on a best-case scenario, given the length of our season, that would take us to a place that would assure, a lot, I think, more damage. Because we have such a longer season. And I think that motivates us on both sides to see what we could do."

            Almost all the members of the owners' labor relations committee -- Phoenix's Robert Sarver, San Antonio's Peter Holt, the committee chair, the Lakers' Jeanie Buss, Orlando CEO Bob Vander Weide, Oklahoma City's Clay Bennett, Portland president Larry Miller, Boston's Wyc Grousbeck, Dallas' Mark Cuban and Minnesota's Glen Taylor -- were in attendance. Cleveland's Dan Gilbert did not attend.

            The union expects more of its members to attend next Tuesday's meeting.
            Tuesday. That is the day that will tell the tale. A collective bargaining agreement is like a jigsaw puzzle, with a million different pieces. The NBA's owners and players have put together about eight.

            They have 13 days to complete the rest.

            "We haven't agreed fully on anything," Fisher said. "But ... one piece [the hard cap] controls several hundred thousand pieces. So essentially, we could put together a million-piece puzzle together in a short time if we can get two or three pieces in the right place. And that's what we're focused on doing."

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              I think Evans called it, the owners are negotiating by giving them stuff they already have. I always felt the guarantee issue was a red herring, something they could take off the table in the name of "progress". It all comes down to the hard cap as far as the owners are concerned. They'll give on BRI, they'll give on the cap number, they'll even give on contract years, but the hard cap is a seismic change, and one they won't give up on lightly, if ever.
              I don't disagree with you often Kegboy on things CBA, but I think this is one of those rare occasions. I think the BRI split is the number one issue, followed by the hard cap. I agree though that the partial guarantees are the easiest item for the owners to give up. A pity, because I actually like that provision.

              Put it this way: The BRI split is the bottomline. Every team out there, big market or small market, wants a larger slice of revenue back from the players. The hard cap just affects the distribution of revenue - some teams will be in favor, others will oppose, and there are probably some that don't care too much either way.

              On Evans' assertion that the owners are just giving back to the players what they've always had. Well that's the nature of the entire negotiations isn't it? Owners on the offensive with big demands, and players basically defending the status quo.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

                Doesn't it stand to reason that if the big market owners help create a system where the small markets can make money that the big markets will make even more than they do now?

                Also, I think the BRI is a financial/business model issue while the hard cap is a competitive balance issue.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  I don't disagree with you often Kegboy on things CBA, but I think this is one of those rare occasions. I think the BRI split is the number one issue, followed by the hard cap. I agree though that the partial guarantees are the easiest item for the owners to give up. A pity, because I actually like that provision.

                  Put it this way: The BRI split is the bottomline. Every team out there, big market or small market, wants a larger slice of revenue back from the players. The hard cap just affects the distribution of revenue - some teams will be in favor, others will oppose, and there are probably some that don't care too much either way.

                  On Evans' assertion that the owners are just giving back to the players what they've always had. Well that's the nature of the entire negotiations isn't it? Owners on the offensive with big demands, and players basically defending the status quo.
                  It is not just BRI split that is the problem.
                  What the owners want, besides 53/47 (iow 10% drop for the players) is to take a large chunk of cost and reduce BRI first with that, after that they want the split to be as mentioned, so in essence they want to take 35% pf the players (750 million)

                  And Dolan saying the dont mind a better revenue share model doesn't mean LA agree to that or any of the others that make money, to them it is probably easier to take it from the players so the get even more.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

                    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                    Doesn't it stand to reason that if the big market owners help create a system where the small markets can make money that the big markets will make even more than they do now?

                    Also, I think the BRI is a financial/business model issue while the hard cap is a competitive balance issue.
                    Owners feel it related, as they want to deduce the cap from the BRI (as in if bri is 70% of current after deducting the cost as they propose and the split (for easy calc) 50% that means that the cap would be 1.4 billion div by teams so roughly 45 million per team, at the most) , after they have re-invented what IS BRI.

                    Let's try not to forget that according to the article above, players split 2.1 billion which equals the 57% , it also leaves 1.6 billion for the owners/teams.
                    If they split that more reasonable then it is hard to imagine teams losing money

                    (that is about 55 million per team for cost not related to players)

                    If the players are willing to give as much back as 5% (rumours were that) then that means the teams each would get approx 7.5 million more.

                    If there was a hardcap as proposed avg income for team/owner would be 80 million
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

                      The most important part of the cba to me as a fan is competitive balance. I know an equal playing field will never really happen but I'll take anything that levels the field more then it is now. A hard cap is a must, and if the cap is low enough it might be better to not have a max limit for contracts. If Lebron made 70% of a his teams cap then there would be no way that any other superstar would be willing to join him for chump change.
                      I hate to see the owners give up on limiting guaranteed contracts but it's not as big of an issue to competitive balance. I hope if they give up on this that a more liberal system to suspending players without pay and cutting players gets in the cba. Arenas, Tinsley, and Marbury should have been cut with ease but the cba prevented it. Cutting players based off performance is different issue but it sucks for a team like the Knicks to have to continue to pay a player like Curry when he just doesn't seem to care to get into basketball shape. I'd rather see a lockout and even lose a season then see the players get want they want.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA owners relaxed their stance on guaranteed contracts Friday

                        Our old pal count55 is on top of this stuff. If you follow him (@toothpicksray) on Twitter he and Larry Coon (@LarryCoon) provide some good analysis and updates on the NBA labor situation.

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X