Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on current players contracts

  1. #1
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on current players contracts

    Owners looking for 30% first year salary rollbacks, one owner suggesting 100% chance of a lockout


    Interesting read. I am not familar with what the NHL did. But does this mean that every NBA player would have their salary rollbacked for 1 year 30%.

    http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/13/d...-lockout-loom/

    David Stern Sounds Off on LeBron Quarrel; Potential Lockout Looms

    LAS VEGAS -- These should be the new halcyon days of the NBA.

    A seven-game dream Finals between the Lakers and the Celtics wrapped up in June, followed by a star-studded free-agency class that entered with unprecedented hype. Even the latest Las Vegas summer league has showcased the league's ever-growing brand, with next-generation talent like top pick John Wall filling the gym at UNLV and playing in front of a nationally-televised audience.

    But these are not good times for David Stern's league, with the ominous issues piling up and the commissioner having no choice but to address the obvious on Monday.

    After spending more than three hours meeting with the league's owners inside the Palms Casino Resort, a candid and cutting Stern came equipped with a lengthy hit list and fired away from the start.

    • He ripped LeBron James' one-hour ESPN show on Thursday that was dubbed "The Decision," calling the process of his announcing he would join Miami "ill-conceived, badly produced and poorly executed." Had Stern been consulted, he said he would have suggested James inform Cleveland that he was not returning long before "The Decision" so as to avoid the public humiliation. Overall, his was a just and respectable public lashing, lacking only a direct reference to James' handlers and, specifically, ring leader Maverick Carter.

    • He fined Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert $100,000 for his vitriolic letter to James after his departure, calling it "ill-advised and imprudent."

    • He criticized Jesse Jackson, albeit politely, responding to the reverend's comparison of Gilbert to a slave owner by saying, "(Jackson) is, as he rarely is, mistaken."

    • He was dismissive of reports alleging tampering in the case of James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh "bringing their talents" to South Beach, saying the three players were "totally within their rights to talk to each other" about possibly playing together before free agency began. Stern added that the Labor Relations Committee has been asked to explore whether changes to the free-agency process should be part of future labor negotiations. In truth, however, the league is unsure how to police player tampering and has bigger items on its agenda at the moment.

    Such as, one could say, the future and viability of the league itself.

    Lost in the plethora of story lines rolling off Stern's tongue was the notable absence of any progress relating to labor negotiations. While there was rightful focus on the continued tarnishing of James' brand and reputation, Stern also revealed that most of the owners' meeting was spent discussing the oceans that must be crossed between now and next summer to avoid a lockout.

    Except for one thing: it seems Stern is the among the select few who believes it won't happen.

    An unofficial FanHouse poll of owners, coaches and involved agents returned an overwhelming sentiment that a lockout is inevitable, with one owner deeming it a "100 percent" certainty. The owners want to go the way of the NHL and its hard salary cap, although their plans are believed to include first-year salary rollbacks of approximately 30 percent that are even more extreme than the 24 percent implemented by the hockey league in 2005. As for the players, it sounds as if they may as well have told Stern to photocopy the current version of the CBA and throw a new signature on the bottom.

    "We reviewed their (latest) proposal with the owners," Stern said. "Basically where we are is that we're asking for fundamental changes in the system and the players, as (union director) Billy Hunter has said publicly, would very much like the present system to continue."

    There is more recent salt in this wound, too, as the funny money being doled out to free agents this summer has somehow managed to unify both camps even further. One source described the owners' current mood as "militant," while the players have grown even less willing to hear proclamations of relative poverty (Stern now says the projected losses are $370 million for last season) when players like Darko Milicic are signed to $20 million deals.

    Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver summarized the league's view on that front, saying, "teams have no business choice but to compete for players." The owners' stance is truly that simple, and the irony as they see it is that the recent flurry of bloated deals are -- in their view -- an indictment of the system even if they are signing the checks. And then there's Hunter, who at 67 may be hoping this is his last CBA negotiation and has thus far employed the "Last Stand" mentality in representing the players with the same unrelenting stance.

    It's not looking good at the moment, NBA fans. But heck, at least Game 7 was fun.

    E-mail Sam at amick.sam@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @samickFanHouse.
    Read More: Cavaliers Heat NBA Free Agents Adam+Silver, Chris+Bosh, Dan+Gilbert, David+Stern
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-13-2010 at 10:33 AM.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,299

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    In the end the owners will get their way. The players have had it their way for far to long and the league is showing obvious signs of strain. The players can not be that stupid to think that it can go on like status quo when they look in the stands every game and see less and less people.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
    Posts
    3,536
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    A slightly different take from Chris Mannix of SI

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...nnbin&hpt=Sbin

    LAS VEGAS -- He didn't raise his voice or slam his fist. He didn't resort to theatrics during a 30-minute press briefing on Monday, NBA commissioner David Stern didn't once look annoyed. But his message to the players union on Monday couldn't have been clearer: get ready to makes some concessions, because what's going on now simply isn't going to go on much longer.

    In between tagging Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert and slapping around Maverick Carter (more on that below), Stern addressed the looming labor issues that threaten to wipe out parts or all of the 2011-12 season. And to say there are issues would be putting it lightly; the two sides have already swapped proposals and, in the words of one NBA source, "are miles apart."

    "Basically where we are at is that we would like fundamental changes," said Stern, "and the players would very much like the present system to continue."

    That can't happen, Stern said. Not with his teams losing $370 million last season and a national economy in the toilet. No, fixing the NBA's problems will require a massive overhaul. The owners proposal calls for first-round picks to have their salaries cut by about one-third, would reduce the minimum salary by as much as 20 percent, and would guarantee contracts for only half their value. The total value of a maximum salary would drop significantly, as would the number of years players could sign for. The players would also see a reduction in their share of the basketball-related income, of which they currently receive 57 percent.

    "Part of the problem with the existing system is it's based largely on revenue, not net revenue," said deputy commissioner Adam Silver. "Although our actual revenue numbers were better than what we projected, it came at a large cost. Our teams did a spectacular job in a down economy of increasing ticket sales, but that came at the cost of additional promotions, additional marketing, additional staff. They largely made up for a reduction in season ticket sales by selling more individual tickets."

    The players union, predictably, wants no part of the owner's proposal. They rejected it over the All-Star break, with union chief Billy Hunter calling Stern's projected losses 'baloney.'

    "I think, as I understand their answer," said Stern, "is that, 'We agree with your numbers, we just would eliminate some of them from the final calculation.'"

    The Washington Post reported that part of the union's defense was that the total amount paid to players has risen only about 10 percent over the last four years, or about 2.5 percent a year, from about $1.85 billion to $2.04 billion. They will point to a salary cap that came in $2 million higher than expected and $8 million higher than the doomsday scenario the NBA floated last summer. And they will point to the tens of millions NBA owners have been doling out the likes of Amir Johnson, Drew Gooden and Hakim Warrick.

    Stern will listen and smile, but he will not bend nor will he break. An NBA filled with teams swimming in red ink isn't one he wants to oversee and he will do everything in his power to change that.

    "Our owners spend within the system," Stern said. "They're encouraged, praised, and otherwise driven to improve their teams. Of course, they have the capacity. It winds up driving them to unprofitability. They want to change that system so when they get driven to it, whatever they do, there won't be losses. That's all."

    But that's not all. The union, which has been battered and beaten by Stern at nearly every opportunity over the years, is digging in its heels. It's why many around the league are bracing for a lockout.

    "I'm expecting one," said a Western Conference executive.

    "It's going to happen," texted an Eastern Conference exec.

    Armageddon is coming to the NBA. At this point, it doesn't appear to be a question of 'if.' It's of how long it will last.

    • Stern announced that the NBA had fined Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert $100,000 for his media tirade following LeBron James' decision to leave Cleveland.

    "I think that remarks by Dan Gilbert, catalyzed as they may have been by hurt with respect to the manner and the fact for himself, his team, and particularly for the people of Cleveland, though understandable, were ill advised and imprudent," said Stern.

    Stern also criticized Rev. Jesse Jackson, who issued a statement denouncing Gilbert, saying the Cavaliers owner treated James like a "runaway slave."

    "Equally imprudent, I believe, are the remarks by my good friend Jesse Jackson, which purport to make this into a racial matter," said Stern. "I find that to be, however well meaning Jesse may be in the premises on this one, he is, as he rarely is, mistaken. I would have told him so had he called me before he issued his statement."

    • Count Stern among the many who didn't approve of the way James left Cleveland. In his opening remarks Stern blasted James' nationally televised announcement -- which was the brainchild of James's business manager, Maverick Carter -- as being in poor taste.

    "I think that the advice that he received on this was poor," said Stern. "His performance was fine. His honesty and his integrity shine through. But this decision was ill conceived, badly produced and poorly executed."

    Stern added that he was disappointed that James didn't give Cleveland the courtesy of a personal phone call before he made his announcement.

    "Had he asked my advice in advance, I might have suggested that he advise Cleveland at an earlier time than apparently he did that he was leaving," said Stern. "Even without announcing where he was going, so we could have eliminated that. I would have advised him not to embark on what has been come known as "The Decision."

    • The signing of James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami has made the question of collusion amongst players a hot issue in the NBA. However Stern said that no action will be taken against players, who are free to discuss their futures in any setting.

    "What we told the owners was that the three players are totally, as our system has evolved, within their rights to talk to each other, whether it be at a players association meeting, a collective bargaining meeting, an All-Star Game, an Olympic team.," said Stern "That is not tampering or collusion that is prohibited. However, it may be technical. That's our rule right now, our practice. You're allowed to do that."

    Stern did say that he would delegate the issue to the labor relations committee, which could revisit the issue at a later date.



    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz0tZL3V91V

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Brad8888 For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In the end the owners will get their way. The players have had it their way for far to long and the league is showing obvious signs of strain. The players can not be that stupid to think that it can go on like status quo when they look in the stands every game and see less and less people.
    Players understand that and that is why they are submitting proposals (a year out) that are exactly like the CBA they have right now. If the players really thought they could keep the current system, they would be submitting proposals that were more player friendly. Just negotiations.

  8. #5
    Member thewholefnshow31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,231

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is more recent salt in this wound, too, as the funny money being doled out to free agents this summer has somehow managed to unify both camps even further. One source described the owners' current mood as "militant," while the players have grown even less willing to hear proclamations of relative poverty (Stern now says the projected losses are $370 million for last season) when players like Darko Milicic are signed to $20 million deals.
    It is laughable to hear that the owners' current mood is militant. How can you whine and cry about being broke, but then give guys like Darko, Joe Johnson and others ridicilous amounts of money? How does a draft bust like Darko get 20 million?

    A hard cap does need to be implemented and the contracts do need to come down, but the owners did nothing to help their cause this offseason. If things are so dire to need these drastic changes they should have played hard ball with the free agents.

    I have pretty much come to terms with the fact that the NBA will have a lockout and the NFL owners and players will get so damn greedy and will have one as well.

  9. #6
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is laughable to hear that the owners' current mood is militant. How can you whine and cry about being broke, but then give guys like Darko, Joe Johnson and others ridicilous amounts of money? How does a draft bust like Darko get 20 million?

    .
    that is explained (rather well IMO) in both of the linked articles. Owners, teams, GM's cities are encouraged to use the system to their own competitive advantage. And that is exactly what is going on this summer. That is a separate issue from the CBA - the CBA sets the rules, and it governs how the teams can go about signing players.

    The point is lets say the Hawks draw the line - JJ is not worth that much money - we aren't going to give him that $$. So JJ leaves the Hawks. That hurts the hawks franchise on the court - they wouldn't be as good a team. Another team would have signed JJ because they are trying to win too. The owners want teh system changed so the Hawks can keep their best player and still be a money maker

    I see the owners point and I think it is a good point. Why isn't that understandable. Maybe it isn't being explained well.

    If the owners would have played hard ball with the free agents, then they would have been accused of collusion. Or how do you police every owner - impossible to do so except through the CBA
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-13-2010 at 10:19 AM.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  11. #7

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    There is no reason to believe the financial numbers the NBA is putting out there. These owners didn't get to be successful by tossing money out the window. If you are losing money hand over fist you do not hand 20 million of it over to Darko Milicic.

    This will be an ugly battle without some open accounting of team finances or at least a 3rd party to make sense of it all. In this bad economy I know that the owners are not making the money they are accumtomed to making. To claim that they lost $370 million for last season... well, they aren't acting like it.

    If my bank account is overdrawn I am hoping that there is rice and beans in the cabinet. I stop going to Ruth's Chris for filet and Dom Perignon. Choosing to let Dark walk would have not affected Minnesota one iota. I can more understand Joe Johnson, but come on. The owners are spending funny money and we are supposed to cry for them?
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 07-13-2010 at 09:48 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  12. #8
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    In the article that Brad posted, I think this is the key paragraph

    "Part of the problem with the existing system is it's based largely on revenue, not net revenue," said deputy commissioner Adam Silver. "Although our actual revenue numbers were better than what we projected, it came at a large cost. Our teams did a spectacular job in a down economy of increasing ticket sales, but that came at the cost of additional promotions, additional marketing, additional staff. They largely made up for a reduction in season ticket sales by selling more individual tickets."
    That explains why attendance and revenue went up, but net revenue went down and how the league as a whole could have lost $370 M

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  14. #9

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    The owners' proposal calls for first-round picks to have their salaries cut by about one-third, would reduce the minimum salary by as much as 20 percent, and would guarantee contracts for only half their value. The total value of a maximum salary would drop significantly, as would the number of years players could sign for.
    Will the owners make their case strictly by saying they can't afford the old salaries?

    Is there something owners can give back in exchange for these concessions from the players?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  15. #10
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Will the owners make their case strictly by saying they can't afford the old salaries?

    Is there something owners can give back in exchange for these concessions from the players?
    interesting question: what can the owners give back or give up to the players? I don't know, I'm trying to think back what was before 1999 because the owners got several concessions from the players back then. Contracts were shortened by 1 year, I don't remember the rest. Owners got what they wanted but just not to the degree that they wanted.

    I was trying to find a good article about the 1999 lockout - but couldn't. I know it hurt a few players career - Shawn Kemp was never the same after, nor was Vin Baker.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-13-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  16. #11
    Member owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,130

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    One issue is when many of the teams are not doing well they come to the cities with
    threats of moving and wanting more hand outs. The current business model is broken and cities will start pushing back. Many cities are running in red ink. People are losing jobs.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

  17. #12

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    I personally think that the salary structure as it exists right now could work with the simple addition of a total ban on guaranteed contracts beyond a certain number of years (3?). Or the guarantee could only be triggered by performance clauses. Too many teams are playing lots of players to sit there like Tinsley for us, Eddie Curry, Marbury, etc. Earn that contract, sure, but then don't just quit.

    Which would be more palatable for players, a loss of guaranteed money or a salary rollback? You would have to limit the amount of signing bonus too, since players would use that to get around the lack of a guarantee. Lets say that contracts can only be guaranteed beyond a 3rd season by reaching hard-to-achieve performance incentives in line with or exceeding their past production and signing bonuses can be no more than 10% of the first three years' guaranteed salary total.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,947

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    As I understand it, the NHL "rollback" was a 24% salary cut, across the board on all existing contracts. The "first-year" meant it happened immediately after the CBA was ratified, not that it was delayed until 2012 or something. To be clear, it impacted entire contracts, not just one year of it.

    The interesting part about it is, in the case of the NHL lockout, it was the players who first proposed it, and kept proposing it. Of course, one could argue that the NHL was in much more dire shape, and this was necessary to fit teams under the new salary cap, where one had not existed before.

    As bad as '98 was, this seems much more drastic. Of course, one could argue that's necessary, the current economic landscape is a wasteland compared to the booming late '90's. However, '98 was settled because of divisions in the players association. It was felt that the new deal only really impacted the highest paid players, and the rank-and-file rebelled. An across the board 1/3 cut will affect everyone, and that'll be a lot harder to swallow.

    IOW, considering how close '98 came to losing the whole season, I would not be the least bit surprised if there is no 2011-12.

    [edit] Regarding "the owners aren't acting like it", I'd beg to differ. I would argue that they're acting exactly like they expect these salaries to be cut in one way or another. Even if there isn't a rollback, a 4-year $30M contract isn't so bad when you don't pay a year of it.
    Last edited by Kegboy; 07-13-2010 at 10:08 AM.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kegboy For This Useful Post:


  21. #14

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    How does a draft bust like Darko get 20 million?

    Adam Morrison is a bust, Darko isn't. Granted Darko hasn't produced as well as a top lottery pick should, but far better than Adam Morrison. Dunleavy has not produced as well as where he was drafted either.

    7 mil a year is not overpaid for Darko, especially if you look at Foster being paid 6.6 mil for what he produces, that is when he's not injured. Your point would have been better made about ridiculous contracts by pointing out Amare and Johnson's max contracts, especially Amare's with his history of injuries.
    Last edited by Justin Tyme; 07-13-2010 at 10:10 AM.

  22. #15
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    I wonder if there will ever be a scenario where each team, limit one per year/season, could "cut bait" on a player, resulting in the player receiving 100% of their money, but 0% of it going against the team's salary cap (allowing them to be more competitive immediately if the owner is willing to spend the extra cash).

    I definitely think we need a "franchise tag" similar to the NFL to give small market teams a better chance at competing with the big boys.

    I think slicing off another year on new contracts would help in the mistake-erasing department, though the downside is the star players you want to keep become free agents more often.

    Also, doesn't it seem like a no-brainer that the cap and tax should be based on net revenue versus just plain revenue?

  23. #16
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,672

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    One thing that gives me considerable peace of mind:

    Our team will be well positioned to rebuild the team and secure long term contracts with our "successful" rookies under the new rules.

    There will be little hand wringing and bad feelings by our current players, as their contracts will be established all post negotiation.

    Something I'd love to see them consider: moving to a model where contracts are non-guaranteed by default, and negotiations are made to provide up front bonuses or guaranteed portions ala the NFL. There are some ways to establish new precedents, that would allow teams to jettison players who ball only on contract years.

    The whole notion of guaranteed contracts adds a lot of poison to the quality of play during the season, IMO...

  24. #17
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,947

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I definitely think we need a "franchise tag" similar to the NFL to give small market teams a better chance at competing with the big boys.
    I'd like that a lot better than the current Restricted system. That doesn't work at all.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  25. #18
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if there will ever be a scenario where each team, limit one per year/season, could "cut bait" on a player, resulting in the player receiving 100% of their money, but 0% of it going against the team's salary cap (allowing them to be more competitive immediately if the owner is willing to spend the extra cash).
    They did that in 1999. Each team had the opportunity to end a 1 contract early. it was only a 1 time thing though. I don't remember the players balking at it much because it allowed the player to be a free agent and in some cases got players out of bad situations.

  26. #19
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,883
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on 1st yr salaries

    One thing that must be separated in understanding these discussions is that most of these teams are owned by a group of investors. This is a separate legal entity. This is NOT the owners pet project or hobby. The owners aren't the one losing money per se, it is that the teams are not solvent on their own. They must take on debt whether it is through the NBA, or from the owners. It is all about solvency of the individual entity and not how rich the owners are or aren't. The CBA system is in place to promote competition amongst teams while reducing the ability of the richest owners to dominate the league.

    The LA Clippers are a perfect example of a team who has been extremely solvent financially. They have made money in something like every year but one of their existence. They have also let more top five draft picks walk for nothing and they don't really care about beign competitive. The current system provides a framework for the competition amongst teams, but many of the teams can't be solvent with this system if they want to be a competitive basketball team. $370M in losses last year is over $12M dollars per team per year in future debt. That is not how you run a company. Billionaire owners don't like losing $12M on any entity, but they are willing to accept that to a degree because of the high profile of their NBA franchise. They will win this CBA. The players don't really want a lockout, because half of them will be broke if there is a lockout. Most don't make the millions that the superstars do, but they all want to spend their money like they are superstars. Owners will definitely win this CBA. The Indiana Pacers won't have nearly the amount of expenses that other teams do because all of the people we would still have to pay aren't under contract. The Simons have set themselves up for a lockout. They are trying to remain financially viable to keep this entity in Indianapolis. They don't want to HAVE to sell to anyone willing to buy the team. They want leverage to keep the Pacers here as evidenced by their agreement with the city. This is important to understand. It is the entity, not the owner that must be solvent to understand the structure of the CBA and potential lockout.
    Last edited by pacergod2; 07-13-2010 at 10:35 AM.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to pacergod2 For This Useful Post:


  28. #20
    A happy Roy is a good Roy DaveP63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Farmerstucky
    Posts
    1,222

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on 1st yr salaries

    I hope they have been saving well. It will be a long, cold winter. Despite the posturing of the NBAPA, I really doubt that there is any give in the position of the commissioner and the owners. I believe that they mean exactly what they say and the players can pick their poison or do without a check. The ride on the gravy train would seem to be over...
    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
    "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

  29. #21
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on 1st yr salaries

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveP63 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I hope they have been saving well. It will be a long, cold winter. Despite the posturing of the NBAPA, I really doubt that there is any give in the position of the commissioner and the owners. I believe that they mean exactly what they say and the players can pick their poison or do without a check. The ride on the gravy train would seem to be over...
    One thing we learned from the 1999 lockout is the players didn't save their money. Might be different this time around as I would expect the players to be more ready and more readily expecting the lockout. One big reason why the lockout ended with the players giving in on most issues is that a lot of the players were running out of money. The fact of the matter is the owners can survive much easier without their NBA revenue (in fact in some cases, individual owners are better off not having a season at all in the short term) where as the players their salary is not only supporting themseleves, in many cases it is supporting their entire extended families, their posse, their friends.......I remember a few stories about wives getting very antsy and needing that regular income.

    One thing I would like to know if it the PA is hording money for the lockout

    I'll never forget Patrick Ewings quote, "we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money".

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  31. #22
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,327

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on current players contracts

    I think people make a huge error when they think that most of the team owners invested in teams just to make it a profitable business. Sports teams success is NOT typically measured in $, it is measured in wins. The current environment, as defined by the CBA, pretty much requires teams to spend more than their typical basic revenue would be in order to pay for players who are capable of having that success. This leads to teams losing money.

    I think owners see that the only way to lower costs is to change the business environment so that everyone can still compete for the best players/team but they aren't required to lose so much money in order to do so. I think a team that breaks even and wins is considered a fantastic investment in the sports world, while it would be considered a dog in the business world.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  33. #23
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,085

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on current players contracts

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if there will ever be a scenario where each team, limit one per year/season, could "cut bait" on a player, resulting in the player receiving 100% of their money, but 0% of it going against the team's salary cap (allowing them to be more competitive immediately if the owner is willing to spend the extra cash).
    that's actually not good for the owners collectively, since it just encourages wealthy owners to keep on overspending, knowing they get a "reset" each year.

    it's been done as a one-off as uncle buck says, but only to help teams transition to a new cba.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Also, doesn't it seem like a no-brainer that the cap and tax should be based on net revenue versus just plain revenue?
    i've thought all along that the cap was based on net income, not gross revenue, so that's a bit of a surprise to me.

    that said, corporations have various methods of creative accounting - there's too much incentive for the owners to cook the books so that players get a smaller share. i would guess the accounting procedures would be a major sticking point in negotiations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kegboy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    [edit] Regarding "the owners aren't acting like it", I'd beg to differ. I would argue that they're acting exactly like they expect these salaries to be cut in one way or another. Even if there isn't a rollback, a 4-year $30M contract isn't so bad when you don't pay a year of it.
    i agree. the current spending spree seems irrational unless teams are already discounting the contracts they are signing right now.

    this is actually bad for us, because we have been very conservative financially at the cost of current competitiveness, with the thought that we will get assets later by bailing out those overspending teams. but if the new cba itself bails them out, we'd be in a far weaker bargaining position.

  34. #24
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on current players contracts

    The cap is definitely based on revenue.

    Stern's not an accountant, and he's clearly netting certain expenses against revenues to arrive at "net revenues". That's a smokescreen.

    I don't expect the owners to be forthcoming about thier finances publicly. Nor should they be. But there is little doubt that Stern is bending and twisting definitions around.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  35. #25
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: David Stern on Lebron and lockout. Owners want a 30% rollback on first year sa

    Quote Originally Posted by Putnam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Will the owners make their case strictly by saying they can't afford the old salaries?

    Is there something owners can give back in exchange for these concessions from the players?
    Here's how the owners will make their case:

    You're locked out, and you're going to run out of money long before we do.

    They've undoubtedly listed out all of their demands, and decided which ones will be sacrificed to give the appearance of compromise.

    I was listening to Mark Boyle on the radio a few months back, and he was commenting on how ill-prepared, financially, a vast majority of the players were back in 1999. I'm sure he'd correct me if I was wrong, but my recollection was that he said today's players are in no better shape.

    While I'm sure that the bad contracts handed out this summer will make a lockout more likely, I don't think that they weaken the owner's bargaining position very much, if at all. Their position is clear. These contracts were created by the CBA, not by excess money.

    • Atlanta spent 7 years clawing out of the cellar, and faced a precipitous fall back into it, if they didn't sign Joe Johnson to that contract.
    • Milwaukee senses an opportunity to be a force in the East now, so they re-signed Salmons, added Maggette's contract and picked up Gooden for front court depth
    • Memphis made strides towards respectability that they feared would be completely erased if they lost Rudy Gay
    • Going back a couple of years, New Orleans, in desperate financial straits, signed James Posey to an ugly contract because they felt he was a finishing piece for a team on that seemed on the cusp of contention


    This CBA is, to put it kindly, ****ed in the head. If you try to build a team organically, the most likely result is that the team will become too expensive, before it becomes good enough to contend. It doesn't matter that this system was one that the owners willingly entered into. It was a mistake, and it needs to be rectified. What this hinges on is whether the owners have the will and resources to force a new agreement.

    As Pacer fans, you really should want the owners to win - and win big. Of the 16 playoff teams, only three (ATL, OKC, & POR) had lower payrolls than the Pacers, and OKC & POR is due to the fact that their top three and top two players, respectively, are still on rookie contracts.

    Of the final eight teams in the playoffs, only Atlanta will not pay the luxury tax, and they were beaten like a rented mule. The average payroll for these teams was over $79 million dollars. For the final four, it was over 83 million.

    While David Kahn has given $20 million to Darko, the Pacers have spread $22 million over 8 different players over the last three years, and foregone a $20 million deal for a player they really would have liked to keep - Jarrett Jack. They have been trapped by the guaranteed contracts under this CBA. Again they entered into these, but they were largely driven by their belief that they were on the cusp of a title in the middle of this decade, then perpetuated by a misguided attempt to both (necessarily) clean up their image and to try to (unnecessarily and mistakenly) milk a couple of more years out of JO as the foundation.

    What, exactly, this deal will look like when all is said and done, I cannot tell you. All I can say is that if it doesn't look significantly different than the current one, then I'm not real hopeful about the Pacers' future.
    Last edited by count55; 07-13-2010 at 11:11 AM.

  36. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to count55 For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


Similar Threads

  1. The latest on the labor situation
    By Unclebuck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-28-2005, 11:13 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 04:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •