The negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement are in full swing, with all the of the typical posturing that we would expect to see in connection with this sort of exercise. What a great show the NBA puts on for its fans: [RQUOTER]Stern Projects $400 million in Losses for NBA DALLAS — A day after the NBA Player’s Association showed its teeth, David Stern did too. He smiled, he laughed, he joked. He even mocked some of the Players Association reaction, diminishing it as mere theatrics. When he was serious, however, Stern indicated the league was no more likely to back down than the union pledged to be, saying that losses had grown so extensive that the league needed major changes. He even seemed to hit back at NBA Players Association director Billy Hunter’s declaration that the players would not run from a fight. “We have shown the players the facts, and at our current level of revenue devoted to players salaries, it's too high,” Stern said. “I can run from that, but I can't hide from that, and I don't think the players can, either. Those are the facts, and that's what we are dealing with. We are fact based. And so that's the story.” Stern confirmed that the NBA did officially notify the union that it would extend the current collective bargaining agreement beyond June, 2011, as is its right. Stern, however, spent much of his annual All-Star weekend meeting with the media, joking about the union contention that the session on Friday was contentious and at the threat he said the union issued to decertify. “As (Spurs owner) Peter Holt, the chairman of our labor relations committee, a Texan says, 'This is not my first rodeo,'" Stern said. "I don't even know that this may not be my ninth rodeo, or my 10th, I've been around this. So I would give yesterday's meetings high marks on the list of theatrical negotiations. Literally out of the handbook of Negotiating 101. “The lawyer (Jeffrey Kessler) was brought in to threaten us as a tactic to say we are going to the union is going to go away; that's going to make you bargain harder. The right adjectives were thrown around, and our proposal as appropriately denounced. Our response is you can denounce it, tear it up, you can burn it, you can jump up and down on it, as long as you understand that it reflects the financial realities of where we are. And if you would like to have your own proposal, as long as it comes back and deals with our financial realities, that's okay with us. That's fine with us. In fact, that's what we would like to do.” Stern said the league does plan to revise its revenue sharing, a change the union said would be a key to a new agreement. He said that is being addressed separately, and would not solve the league’s revenue shortfall. “This year we are projecting a league wide loss of about $400 million, and in each of the first four years of the deal, probably losses of a couple of a couple hundred million, at least $200 million a year,” Stern said. “We are all adults; we might as well deal with the facts, and we are only fact based.” Stern said the league did invite the union to come up with a counter-proposal. When asked if the owners’ proposal had been, as Hunter said, either literally or figuratively, torn up, Stern joked again. “I don't know what that means,” Stern said. We are talking semantics and everyone around here knows that I am not anti semantic.” [/RQUOTER]
All of the articles I have posted make as much sense as this one does. If some people cannot make sense of them, that might best be attributed to "user error".
The Rockets are in the NBA, and are currently involved with trade talks that are probably being influenced to some degree by the status of the CBA negotiations and any expected changes in the collective bargaining agreement. But you make a good point. If it is considered more desirable to have this thread in the NBA forum, that is certainly fine with me.
do you think now that obama is in office that the nba is now trying to go more the socialism route maybe even communism in some ways? i kid i kid :grin:
I have a feeling Stern's cooking the books to maximize teams' losses. I know some teams are losing money, but the outlook is definitely not apocalyptic given how unwilling teams are to unload contracts onto Morey for free. He's firing the first shots for the next CBA>
On a related note... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/sports/basketball/14labor.html?scp=2&sq=nba&st=cse Analysis Falk Says N.B.A. and Players Headed for Trouble By HOWARD BECK Published: February 13, 2010 DALLAS — This is the part where David Falk can smirk, say “I told you so” and upbraid everyone who ignored his warnings. But Falk is not in a gloating mood. A year ago, during a wide-ranging interview to promote his book, Falk — the N.B.A.’s first superagent and a longtime confidant of Michael Jordan’s — warned that the league was in economic distress, that the owners would be seeking huge concessions from players and that a lockout was possible, perhaps even likely. Falk predicted then that the N.B.A. would seek a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher minimum age for incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue. When the N.B.A. and the players union opened negotiations this weekend in Dallas, every item on Falk’s list was in play, as part of the league’s initial proposal. Billy Hunter, the union’s executive director, called the proposal oppressive Friday, after a 90-minute negotiating session that he described as contentious. Predictions of a lockout are common among players and owners. Falk, who keeps a low profile these days and represents only a handful of players, is watching from a safe distance in dismay and feeling no satisfaction at seeing his prophecy fulfilled. “No, not at all,” he said in a telephone interview, adding, “I don’t think it takes a great seer to predict what was going to happen.” Falk, who played an active role during the 1998-99 lockout, the only work stoppage in league history, is intimately familiar with the issues and the personalities. He is friendly with many owners and team executives, and less so with the union leaders, in whom he has little faith. “I’m frustrated,” Falk said, “because I think that a lockout is an untenable position for both parties, but especially for the players. The players have a much more reduced financial ability to withstand it than the owners.” The collective bargaining agreement, which was adopted in 2005 and is largely an extension of the 1999 deal, will expire after next season, giving everyone a 16-month window to complete a new deal. It is early still, with more rhetoric and posturing than negotiating. Still, the signs are troubling, and the sides have rarely seemed so far apart. About half of the league’s 30 franchises are losing money, according to some estimates. Owners want a radical restructuring of the economic system, starting with a hard salary cap to replace the current soft-cap system. The union is in favor of maintaining the status quo. In his annual All-Star address Saturday, Commissioner David Stern said the league was projecting a loss of $400 million this season, after annual losses of about $200 million in the previous four years. Although he declined to confirm the reported details of the league’s proposal, Stern made it clear that he was indeed seeking a reduction in salaries. “We’ve shown the players the facts, and our current level of revenue devoted to player salaries is too high,” Stern said. “I can run from that, but I can’t hide from that. And I don’t think the players can, either.” In concert with labor negotiations, the league is also working on a plan for greater revenue sharing — a measure that the union and many agents have been demanding for some time. “Our goal for our teams, our players, but particularly our fans, is to come up with a model that says that every N.B.A. team can compete,” Stern said. The symbolism this weekend was striking. A year ago, Hunter and Stern sat side by side on a dais during All-Star Weekend and — in deference to the nation’s economic crisis — said they had begun preliminary discussions to avert a labor battle. The cooperative spirit did not last long. Hunter declined an invitation to Stern’s address Saturday. He and Derek Fisher, the union president, staged their own briefing on Friday to criticize the owners’ proposal. Hunter said the league withdrew its proposal once it saw the backlash from players. The union is formulating its own proposal. The early signs of labor strife cast a pall over the league’s three-day party, which culminates with the All-Star Game on Sunday night. Falk has been a player agent for 36 years, but he shares the view of league officials that the N.B.A.’s economic system is broken. Small-market owners cannot keep pace with their big-market peers. Players with modest skills are making too much money, leading to a decline in the quality of play. Falk blames the union, which in its zeal to protect the salaries of rank-and-file players, accepted maximum salaries on superstars in 1999. The result is a system that guarantees tens of millions of dollars to modest bench players like Jerome James and Brian Cardinal via the midlevel exception. “Is that what the fans want to see?” said Falk, whose 1990s client list was dominated by stars, including Jordan, Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning. “Will the fans come and watch more basketball if average players make that kind of money? Will they buy more merchandise, more tickets, more Gatorade? The answer is obviously no. The fans want to see the stars.” In the current picture, Falk sees a reflection of 1982. About a third of the N.B.A.’s owners were losing money then, and the league was threatening to eliminate teams, thus costing the union dozens of jobs. To secure the league’s future, the union accepted the salary cap, ushering in two decades of significant growth. The cap made the owners and players partners, a concept that Falk said had been lost after 15 years of adversarial negotiations. “This is not a time to fight,” he said. “This is a time to sit down as partners and create a system that is realistic in today’s economic climate. The times demand concessions.” To strengthen the partnership, Falk suggested that the union should accept a smaller share of basketball-related revenue in exchange for a larger stake in other areas. “China, franchise appreciation, broadcast rights, luxury seating,” Falk said. “If you’re going to be partners, there should be no definition of revenues. Revenues should be everything that owners receive.” The more fully vested they are in the league’s growth, the more incentive players will have to perform at a high level, said Falk, who ultimately reduced the negotiations to a single principle. “I think the next agreement,” he said, “has got to produce a better game.”
I'm pretty sure Mr. Stern would be showing the operating losses without using any capital gains in the teams value. In any other business negative returns would greatly devalue ownership. I don't think that is necessarily true for the major sports teams though.
That last article has a point, too many crap players making too much money. The salary cap shouldn't be accommodating role players, role players should just get whatever table scraps are left behind from what the superstars get. Makes them work that much harder to get the extra hundred thousand instead of thinking he can get millions more just because other crap role player got it also.
The NBA doesnt promise superstar luxurious lifestyles to all involved. Instead of a Bentley or Rolls, work down to "just" a Maserati or Porsche. That doesnt mean the players shouldnt squeeze out every bit of money they can get from the league. Get it all while the getting's good! Just that its the owners and management taking all the business risks, they're the ones that have variability in their profits. While the players get guaranteed money with salaries going up year after year way past the rate of inflation. Who knows how it all works, perhaps they can take less up front and take more in retirement pensions or something...make sure they're taking care of without it bankrupting their teams. Doesnt seem fair but it doesnt work that a player has 80% the stats of Kobe, so he gets 80% the pay. Sometimes sports doesnt work like an actual company where the pay is level even with the better workers. In entertainment the headliner gets everything and everyone else rides the coattails. Just how it goes...
Well, their salary cap is very low. It was only $803k for 2008-09. http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=3880859 The maximum losses from player's salaries would be about $10.5 mil(13 teams x $805k(raise for this year). It's a weak league, where most team loses money. However, the total league salaries are chump change compared to a Marbury or McGrady contract, so the owners don't care about locking them out.
Yeah the HORSE game and celebrity game are almost unwatchable. The dunk contest in getting pretty boring again also. No one has really created any new dunks since Vince. Dwight had some good one's, but Vince was on another level.
Got tired of complaining about All Star Weekend over the years. And the Dictator Stern thing is overtalked already. Agree on that, though. The whole putting suits on players, trying to promo all the players as boy scout ambassadors of the league is starting to show its watering-down effects. Its making things more synthetic and safe. Instead of letting players be themselves and let some real essence come on through. We get it, the NBA Cares. To their credit a hell of a lot. The fans also care about the PLAYERS caring, not all what the league cares about. NO, fans dont care about "globalizing the game". They care about if Paul Pierce is throwing up some questionable gang signs but at least he showed real emotion. Or if/how Kevin Durant is using any his newfound fame scoring in HOES, not HORSE.
