Stern: Deal By Tuesday Or No Games Through Christmas

That's a nice way to twist someones statement.

 

Drew Gooden has the right idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44921488

 

You mean like the same lack of leverage they had that forced the good deal they have now? The players didn't cave to a bad deal in '99, when they were less prepared for a lockout than they are now. They have all the leverage they need, because there ain't gonna be a season until they sign the agreement. Sure, the players stand to lose money in the short term. But without a season, some of those owners lose their freaking shirts and probably their teams.

The only leverage you need in a game of chicken is the will to keep your foot on the gas. And when you've got less to lose than the other side, you've always got leverage.

 

I think the Federal Mediators findings will have a impact on the NLBR's ruling.
That ruling is going to push the needle in one sides favor I just don't know who yet.

 

I don't think so....

This is an entirely different issue than it was in 99. If a portion of the league is truly losing money, in theory some teams would come out ahead during the lockout. What incentive do those owners have to fold? All players on the other hand will lose money. Not everyone gets paid like Dwade... so it's only a matter of time before players start folding. Hell, some already have...

In a fight between Millionaires who have one source of income, and Billionaires who have multiple ventures each, it seems obvious what the outcome will be...

 

That same advantage for the owners could be seen as a unfair bargaining position by the NLBR.

 

Very true. My point was, as of now, there is no way the players have leverage on the owners.

I doubt things would be ruled that way however. As owners and the league overall are affected by the recession, I don't see how it is fair for players to have immunity to the depression we are in. Who knows. Just my opinion.

 

Not necessarily -- even without paying players and other staff, the teams might still incur even bigger losses. We just don't know.

 

That's what the NHL players thought until the whole season got canceled. The NHL teams saved billions in player salaries, benefits and payroll taxes. They were losing more money, when they were playing than when the season was cancelled. Go figure.

 

Right. It all depends on how truthful owners are being about their losses. We just don't know. Both sides might be bluffing to a certain extent, but my inclination is to go with owners outlasting players, as they are much wealthier at the end of the day. We will see.

 

Spooner has it right. It's not like the lease payments are costing $2.3 B /yr(player's cut of revenue). There are several teams saving money. They are still receiving marketing money. They keep all except $37 mil. The $37 mil goes to the players.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...-marketing-money-will-go-to-players-war-chest

 

Not comparable. Fan interest was never huge in hockey, at least not comparable to basketball. Interest in basketball is arguably at it's highest since MJ retired and it took almost 2 years for fans to truly come back to the game after the last lockout. So if owners are concerned about their league remaining as popular as it is now then they shouldn't want to cancel the entire season. They don't lose as much as the players but the still lose, and if the entire season is cancelled then the TV revenues for this season becomes a loan and has to be paid from the revenue in future seasons. I don't think anyone noticed when the hockey season was cancelled. I bet half of the sports fans in the US can't even tell you when hockey season is.

 

Future revenues don't matter, if losses continue. There is only so much money that a business can bleed, before the league takes over franchises. Hornets are the first, but they won't be the last if the current CBA continues.

 

That's assuming all of these teams are losing as much $$ as they say they are. Most teams aren't bleeding money every season. And I doubt there is one team out there that an owner couldn't easily sell if they wanted to. I don't recall the Nets or Bobcats struggling to find buyers, even in a down economy. Even the Hornets could have been sold for a profit if the league didn't force them to stay in NO.

But the main point was this isn't comparable to hockey. The level of interest is not comparable at all.

 

Did you miss the story on the Hornets? Shinn was unable to sell the franchise because of the losses. The league took over the franchise and pays for the Hornerts's player's salaries now.

 

I guess I did miss it. So you are saying the same team that stole the Seattle franchise would not have been willing to just take the franchise that just played in their city, with CP3? And did the story on the Hornets highlight how the league won't let anyone take the team out of the city? If the league let the Hornets leave then you don't think the same guys who were willing to buy the Sonics to keep them in Seattle would buy them? I find it very hard to believe that a person who wants a team wouldn't want one with a young star like CP3 on it. The problem is no one wants the team in New Orleans.

I stand by the statement that any owner in the league could sell his team if he/she wanted, and the Hornets could be sold if the league would let them move. There is no shortage of interested buyers or cities. Jordan and Postolos both wanted the Bobcats, even though they were in a suck market and losing money.

Edit: Here is a listing of recent buyers who lost out:

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison lost out on the Warriors, who were sold for a record $450M, and is rumored to be interested in NO if he can move them to San Jose:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...ew-orleans-hornets-and-move-them-to-san-jose/

He actually did try to buy the NO franchise but his offer was rejected:
http://www.nola.com/hornets/index.ssf/2011/01/sacramento_kings_face_iffy_fut.html

This group was rumored to but the Hawks and Thrashers for $500M:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2011-06-09-insider-atlanta-hawks_n.htm

Good article on why owning a team is such a good investment, even with the "losses":
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/five-reasons-why-its-good-to-own-an-nba-team-2011-07-14

 

In order for a team to move cities, you need more than a willing buyer. The city must pay for an arena. This is something many cities are unwilling to do. That was the whole reason seattle moved in the first place. Just recently there has been a notion in Seattle for a new arena, but it is still in infant stages.

 

I would not mind Seattle buying the Hornets.....

Too bad Paul Allen already owns the Blazers.

DD

 

Anaheim, San Jose and Seattle all want teams right now. OKC wanted the NO team before they moved back to NO. Teams are still being sold for record prices. The Bobcats, with all their losses and in their horrible market, still had more than one suitor. Granted, the article says they did sell for a loss.

 

Saw this on another site: