NG. At least it gives Billups and Stat time to heal.
Nice way of finding the glass half full. If that is what it takes for them to be healthy, perfect. I still believe that we will probably have a shortened season like '99, and if we can repeat that year's success, I sign for that immediately!
Owners are not interested to run loses anymore and players are not going to cut their paycheck.
It is not about the season. NBA is dead conceptually.
And as usual fans will suffer by not having bbal for a long time and will get ripped with high prices for tickets and other stuff.
Will fans pay more?... with the state of the economy and more troubles coming our way I would say NO.
Half of the teams presenting trash product not worth paying for.
CUT THE FAT!!!
F*ck it. Call up Keanu and the other Replacements.
martin wrote:knicks1248 wrote:BasketballJones wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-...this article provides an overview of the legal issues.
my ?...Why can't they split things down the middle, why deos once side want more then the other
negotiation?
Seems like a no brainer..give a little, take a little.
Don't offer to sell me something for $10 im only willing to spend $5 on, then comeback and say..ok give me $9.50..and i say, i'll give you $5.50..thats not negotiation
Well, the US' pain may be Europe or Asia's gain...
knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:knicks1248 wrote:BasketballJones wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-...this article provides an overview of the legal issues.
my ?...Why can't they split things down the middle, why deos once side want more then the other
negotiation?
Seems like a no brainer..give a little, take a little.
Don't offer to sell me something for $10 im only willing to spend $5 on, then comeback and say..ok give me $9.50..and i say, i'll give you $5.50..thats not negotiation
Perhaps when you are dealing with Billions it's a bit different.
Split it down the middle, sounds great. Are the players willing to split the risk? If a franchise loses money are the players willing to give back salary? Currently the owners assume most if not all of the risk.
The owners also own an appreciating asset. When the owners sell, do they give the players any part of the profit?
knickstorrents wrote:The owners also own an appreciating asset. When the owners sell, do they give the players any part of the profit?
Potentially appreciating asset. Again, there is risk that a franchise loses value. That risk is not shared.
knicks1248 wrote:BasketballJones wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-...this article provides an overview of the legal issues.
my ?...Why can't they split things down the middle, why deos once side want more then the other
Because they the owners take all the risk? They even have to pay injured players who do nothing more than sitting on the bench to collect paychecks. The only risk on the player side is injury, and the compensation they receive is way over the top and more than covers that risk adequately.
Not sure why you guys are hating on the players. Here's another article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Au...
When millionaires buy a team and spend 100's of millions of dollars on it, you can be sure there is due diligence to what the existing CBA is. The owners KNEW what they are getting themselves into. They are now simply trying to change the rules.
Right now they are offering up deals that they know the player's association won't accept because the owners WANT a lockout. It doesn't matter that the NBA is grossing more than ever, or that more robust revenue sharing would make it so all teams can profit. The owners are just being greedy.
When you guys hate on players for taking max contracts they don't deserve, why don't you hate on the owners that dole them out? The owners are seeking to put in rules, and reduce player salaries to the point where a team can not lose money. Sorry, but I feel that If an owner makes dumb moves, they should lose money. Why can't the owners in the big markets also share more revenue to strengthen the league? I think trying to get profitability solely through salary reduction is too one sided.
Even if the players agreed to these draconian reductions, you'd still have big market teams profit exponentially more than small market teams. More strong teams makes the NBA a better product, so small market teams SHOULD be subsidized and as the current revenue sharing agreement seems to be weak, it should be strengthened.
Capitalism is where if you run a business poorly, you lose money. I don't see why NBA owners feel they should be able to reduce salaries to the point where no matter what they do, they can make money. Doesn't seem fair to me.
loweyecue wrote:knicks1248 wrote:BasketballJones wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-...this article provides an overview of the legal issues.
my ?...Why can't they split things down the middle, why deos once side want more then the other
Because they the owners take all the risk? They even have to pay injured players who do nothing more than sitting on the bench to collect paychecks. The only risk on the player side is injury, and the compensation they receive is way over the top and more than covers that risk adequately.
There's usually insurance of some kind to cover injuries. If there is NO insurance (e.g., I don't think Amare qualified) the owners are taking a calculated risk that they knowingly accept.
I'm sorry, I can't stomach the concept of a team being unable to lose money know matter what the owner does.
Andrew wrote:Split it down the middle, sounds great. Are the players willing to split the risk? If a franchise loses money are the players willing to give back salary? Currently the owners assume most if not all of the risk.
That's the way all work goes with owners and employees.
The risk to the players is losing your job if your organization goes bankrupt and bad physical injury--(which could be life-long) if you have bad luck.
Bonn1997 wrote:That's the way all work goes with owners and employees.
Yes, and you don't have regular employees asking for 50% of the profits, which is the premise of this conversation.
Bonn1997 wrote:The risk to the players is losing your job if your organization goes bankrupt and bad physical injury--(which could be life-long) if you have bad luck.
Under the current multi-year guaranteed contracts I don't think this is a real argument.
Childs2Dudley wrote:NEW YORK – NBA Players Association chief Billy Hunter on Wednesday assailed the owners’ latest collective bargaining proposal and said he is prepared for owners to vote on a lockout at next Tuesday’s Board of Governors meeting in Dallas.“Their demand is gargantuan and we just can’t meet it,” Hunter told reporters at the Manhattan hotel where players are staying for crucial meetings and draft-related activities this week.
A day after commissioner David Stern seized control of the message by disclosing details of the owners’ latest proposal, Hunter gathered reporters in an effort to respond and “set the record straight,” he said. At the meeting, also attended by union president Derek Fisher of the Lakers, executive committee member Maurice Evans of the Wizards and union staff, Hunter said the owners’ latest proposal would cost the players $8.2 billion over 10 years compared to the current system and $7 billion compared to the players’ standing offer.
“Under their proposal, over five or six years, they would reap a profit of over $1.8 billion after expenses – after their alleged expenses,” Hunter said.
Hunter and Fisher also clarified a point that was lost after Tuesday’s bargaining session: As part of their proposal to guarantee the players $2 billion in salary and benefits per year during their 10-year proposal, owners are seeking to keep the $160 million in escrow money withheld from players’ paychecks for the 2010-11 season. Eight percent of player salaries is withheld under the current agreement and returned each August to ensure that players ultimately wind up with 57 percent of basketball-related income (BRI).
“That’s money that players have already earned, worked for this past season,” Fisher said. “That’s off the table, as far as we’re concerned. To me, it speaks to the arrogance that they feel in approaching us with their proposal, to be able to go back and reach for those dollars.”
- CBS Sports
Papabear Says
This was going to be a do nothing season for us again anyway because we are waiting on Chris Paul.
