The idea of the players forming another league is insane. It's a total, complete and absolute non-stater. If anyone thinks the players don't need the NBA brand, stop doing drugs. The notion of replacement players in the NBA is more feasible but just about as stupid. Neither will happen. Put it in the bank the NBA will have a new CBA and resume either (1) with a truncated season in a few weeks, (2) next October or (3) October 2013. Unless the courts decree otherwise, the longer this drags on, the worse the new CBA will be for players.
I think contraction would rob a small market owner of his ability to make money running a team in the place of his choice. It would also rob the fans of that city the opportunity of watching their own basketball team. Revamping a bad system would allow that small market team to do well. Maybe what I suggested would not be to the liking of many of the owners, but they need to do something. The present system is definitely broken, and it is broken to the benefit of the players. The players are not going to let it go easily. The stars have all this "excess" and it will take something very drastic to get them to respect what so many have worked to build again. As long as the system is set up like it is, the players have a hammer to hold over the NBA. The tail will continue to wag the dog. I think the NBA has the best athletes in the world and they should be paid well, have great benefits and certain assurances during their careers, but it has gotten out of hand. Drastic changes are needed.
What if they created their own league and gave 63% of the BRI to themselves and implement all the system issues that were rejected or lost as a player concession in the last negotiation? It would give them a 7% raise and that would be better than what the NBA owners are proposing. The only problem is their liable for other costs such as other employees and stadiums.
I like Your proposal Roc the only tweak I would make is cutting your companies into 4 separate companies. Like the way the government broke up Bell. If there was one large company their would be anti-trust issues. But if you have 4 companies who own multiple teams and they all play in a tournament for a grand prize you can skirt the anti-trust issues.
Four companies with multiple teams is a good upgrade and it would avoid the the anti-trust issue. The problem is there would have to be very good management in all four companies or a bidding war would start over someone like a Durant, Wade, Griffin, James or Bryant. You could even wind up with another Rashard Lewis in the heat of a bidding war. Would the fact that it was a global organization in competition with leagues in Europe, China, South America, etc help with the anti-trust problem?
As long as the deals are partially guaranteed I don't think players who under preform will be a problem.
What? If you drop the part of your business that is losing money how does that mean "less money coming in." It means less loss coming in, no? And all teams get better players, because the league has 60 less players...eventually, the 60 worst players. The TV contracts would not decrease because the league dropped the 4 worthless clubs. They potentially increase because all teams get better. Revenue sharing is better and everything. Contraction is a pure event. It cannot fail. The only problem is buying out the teams. And there are ways to do that. Why do I have to explain this? The last proposal by the NBA listed contracted 2 teams as a B-list item. Contraction increases the revenue of the remaining 26 teams. How can you not understand such simple economics? Lay offs...market conglomeration/consolidation...etc etc Every business sector does this. This is how you deal with a bloated market. You buy-out or get rid of the companies that lose money.
With every missed paycheck, they have to get a slightly better deal to break even vs taking the deal they said no to. Every indication is that the owners will harden their position and offer less later, not more. Most of the owners have other sources of income, most of the players do not. The owners can wait it out longer than the players given their deeper pockets. The scenarios left for the players to come out ahead are few. While possible I admit, the odds are against it.
Every day that passes, owners need to ask themselves how much is their pride worth, considering they just had a deal to cover all of their "losses".
Covering their losses isn't good enough. They need to make a profit to offset prior years' losses. You really think the owners should've accepted an agreement where they take all the risk and break even while their employees make hundreds of millions of guaranteed dollars?
And the owners should just hire retired stars. I'd pay good money to watch Dream put another spin move on David Robinson. In fact, OMG, the NBA could recreate classic Finals and have the original rosters for Houston and NY go at it again. :grin:
If we were playing basketball then they would be making a profit. They made record revenues last year with the system in place but some teams lost $$. The players BRI decrease covers what they lost, and then some (if you believe the players economist on the owners true losses). 50% of BRI for the owners is not them breaking even. Edit: I'm not sure any deal will cover prior year losses. I believe the split decrease was just to cover future ones. But either way, the fight isn't about $$, it's system changes. They got the $$ they want.
Form the reports I am reading and hearing, many of the owners asked themselves that question two years ago and decided it was worth at least an entire season. Face it, the owners probably have a longer time over which to recover their losses than the players. Player financial concerns probably run week to week, paycheck to paycheck while the owners may be thinking month to month, quarterly or even by season.
