[NY Times] N.B.A. Players Union Files Complaint With Labor Board

I'm no lawyer, but does this pretty much mean both sides aren't even close to an agreement and there won't be a season next year?

 

espn.com has a more detailed explanation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6584220

 

Smart move by the players, NLRB is extremely anti-business atm and has some radicals on it that had to be recess appointed by Obama because they wouldn't be approved by Congress.

These are the same clowns that blocked Boeing from building a plant in SC because it's a right-to-work state.

 

I don't get it. It sounds like they are complaining that the owners intentionally refuse to negotiate in order that the lockout may happen. Why would the owners "want" a lockout?

 

Because it starves out the players until they sign off on any CBA the owners want.

NFL and NBA (and NHL and anyone paying attention) know that buisnessmen billionaires can starve out new money millionaires 10 times out of 10.

Hence, the importance of "negotiating in good faith"

What's unfortunate is, the NBAPA are copycatting the NFLPA step by step....despite the fact that the scenarios are very different. Barring two poor markets, the NFL is swimming in cash and has made demands out of greed. Barring a few cash cow markets, the NBA is swimming in debt and has made demands out of need.

Unlike the NFL, Stern is (and has) happily opened the books to show how a full dozen franchises are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

The PA can deny reality all they want, but they ultimately have to make severe concessions if the sport is going to survive (a la the most recent NHL economic revolution).

 

The fundamental problem with the NBA is related to the same reason how it got so big under the Stern era; he marketed the superstars to sell the league to the public, and that was fine, he got the results he wanted and then some. In the 80's and 90's he had superstars up the ass to sell to the public, and not just superstars, but once in a lifetime legends that rival any other sports legends in other sports.

But there are just so many bonafide superstars that the average sports fan will pay to see and follow. If you don't have one (nevermind 2 or 3), chances are your team is wallowing in lottery land and is having trouble selling tickets and making a profit. And compound that problem if your team is being mismanaged on the basketball operations side and overpaying players that the average sports fan won't pay to see on a regular basis. Add that all up and you get the state of the NBA today.

I personally would not mind seeing a few teams fold.

 

Well, then that's just the owners' leverage. Why is it not fair?

In most labor negotiations, the union uses the strike to "starve out" management. That's their leverage to use. Why can't management use the reverse leverage to get what they want.

 

Do you have a link for this? I thought the league-wide books aren't in until the accountants are done with their audits.

A dozen teams?
Bankruptcy? or do you mean losing money...there's a big difference.

 

this is the stuff that takes the fun out of the nba.

 

I tend to disagree with this line of thinking. While it's true that a number of NBA teams see operating losses every year, you have to look at it from a capital gains perspective. Are there any NBA teams that are worth less today than they were when their current owners purchased them? I doubt it.

 

That's what I was thinking. I think the Union is right that the League is not negotiating in good faith and they're waiting for the lockout to soften up the players. I just don't understand why they think the NLRB should stop them.

I hope the union and players learned something about the last lockout and they can hold on for more than a half-season. If they can be aggressive and be willing to kill the whole season over this, they might be able to protect a little bit of their pie.

 

That makes no business sense whatsoever. The owners' objectives are to make money. Why should they be obligated to follow an unsuccessful business model simply b/c they had success in the past?

 

Exactly! Like buying a house or any asset that can increase substantially in value. It might not make you money while owning it, but it sure does when you sell it.

This are fixed commodities. Make no mistake; the owners don't lose any money. If they did, why would these smart billionaires get into the business. They just are greedy bastids who want the most profit as possible. Bankruptcy? very doubtful.

 

You don't understand his "capital gains perspective" point. They are buying a limited commodity, a limited number of franchises. They line up to do this. Why would these smart businessman billionaires buy into a failed business model -- because it IS NOT a failed business model? Maybe yearly operations is, but so was Amazon for a long time. The key is what is your exit strategy sales price. It's not just a toy for glamour. They all know the value of the 30 franchises are increasing substantially in value. Look what has happened with the Rockets value. These businessmen also like to have losses on their books. Losses when you make profit at the exit strategy is a powerful thing.

 

Unions. Ugh.

 

I understand it fine. However, just because the business model is failing now (yearly operating losses) doesn't mean it was failing when the franchises were purchased.

You can't really compare players to investors in Amazon. Sure, Amazon investors stand to make a ton of money if the company does well. But if it does poorly, they can lose a bunch of money.

Players have guaranteed contracts. They get paid regardless of the profitability of the team.

Additionally, what if a player gets traded from Team A to Team B? Team B is now paying the player the salary he negotiated with Team A which, according to you, should be based on the projected future value of Team A.

Does that really seem fair?

 

No. You don't understand what we are saying at all. I didn't say anything about comparing players (employees) to investors of a company at all. You're way off.

I'm saying there is a proven business model (Amazon's CFO invented one for Internet Start-ups, Real Estate, for instance...and Sports) where owners don't care if they operate at a loss as long as the total value of their investment increases.

Franchise Sales Price always increases

Sports franchises is one of the safest investments for guaranteed increase in franchise value, because there is a fixed number; supply is largely fixed.

Rockets worth 10x more now

The Rockets have increased value something close to 10x since Les bought it. Do you think Les cares if he operates at a profit like his other businesses?

Owner's Purposely Overspend to Increase Value

Some sports owners actually PURPOSELY operate at a loss to increase franchise value. Can you guess how they do that?! Overspending on players. Plus, they have other ways to make money off the team.

 

heypartner,

what's your business background? i dont want to be mean, its just that it looks like your business acumen is somewhat simplistic, and i dont want to spend my time typing out a response if it's just going to fall on deaf ears...