Knicks · Why is Stern always let off the Hook for NBA problems (page 1)
According to NBA commissioner David Stern, the fate of the 2011-12 season may come down to this weekend’s labor negotiations: “Either we’ll make very good progress, and we know what that would mean -- we know how good that would be, without putting dates to it -- or we won’t make any progress. And then it won’t be a question of just starting the season on time. There will be a lot at risk because of the absence of progress.”It’s hard to know how seriously to take him, as escalating rhetoric before a big meeting is a basic element of negotiating. A shortened season, while far from ideal, would not seriously harm the NBA. However, if the season is lost, the decision should ruin Stern’s legacy.
Stern took over the league in 1984, the same year Michael Jordan entered the NBA. He has been widely credited with helping the league grow over the last 27 years, and is often called “the best commissioner in sports.”
Now, at the age of 69, his career is coming to an end. If he can’t get a deal done, he should be remembered more like Gary Bettman (NHL) and Bud Selig (MLB), inept managers unable to control more hard-line owners at the cost of the league’s overall popularity, than Pete Rozelle, beloved for shepherding the NFL to new heights of popularity.
When the NBA first locked out the players on July 1st, it claimed a net loss of $340 million for the last season, a figure met with considerable skepticism throughout the financial world. On the basis of these numbers, Stern said the NBA’s financial situation was so dire the league would cancel the entire 2011-12 season unless fundamental changes to its business model were made.
Several of the league’s most overextended owners are undoubtedly in financial distress, but that’s quite different from saying the league as a whole is in jeopardy. Since 2010, eight teams have changed owners; there is no shortage of buyers for any owner who needs to sell.
The biggest problem with Stern’s rhetoric is Stern himself. He presided over the renegotiation of the CBA in 1999 and 2006, both of which were seen as huge wins for owners at the time. If the league’s business model is in such bad shape, why is the person most responsible for creating it still in charge?
To be fair, there are many well-run business with financial problems because of the worldwide economic downturn. But even if we accept the owners' dubious claims of complete financial distress, and ignore all the ancillary benefits that come with owning an NBA franchise, the explosion in the value of sports television rights over the last two years should have made them whole.
In 2007, Stern negotiated a nine-year deal with ESPN/ABC and TNT, locking in the NBA’s TV contract at the worst possible time. If he had negotiated a five-year deal, as was customary, the league would be in the middle of a TV bidding war that has already made college conferences hundreds of millions of dollars.
On the strength of NBA Finals featuring super-teams from Boston, Los Angeles, Miami and Dallas in recent years, Forbes estimated the league that the NBA’s new TV contract would be worth an additional $300 million a year. That’s almost all of the owners’ dubious loss claims, and it’s Stern’s fault the money isn’t there.
When seen in that light, the league’s financial situation is hardly as dire as Stern’s proclamations. Most of it could be resolved by increasing revenue sharing between the teams, something which doesn’t even involve negotiating with the player’s union.
The players, meanwhile, have shown themselves more than willing to negotiate. Their latest proposal significantly reduces their share of BRI (basketball-related income). There is a fair deal to be made for both sides, a deal that would not cancel an entire season and completely derail the NBA’s surging popularity. A lockout over how to distribute $4 billion dollars while unemployment is over 10% would be devastating to the league’s image.
If the owners cancel the season, it would be the equivalent of a man with minor heart problems shooting himself in the face in order to get his cholesterol levels right. And if David Stern wants to earn the many accolades he has received and one day become a member of the Hall of Fame, he cannot allow them to pull the trigger.
The commish for any league works for he owners.
He is off the hook because he is the spokesman for them. Union works for the Players.
So "Blame" is not releveant here.
And dont think the old owners don't care about how the leveraged teams are doing, they do. ITs very important the values of the teams stay up.
Stern does not approave the numbers, the owners vote on it.
Nalod wrote:
The commish for any league works for he owners.He is off the hook because he is the spokesman for them. Union works for the Players.
So "Blame" is not releveant here.
And dont think the old owners don't care about how the leveraged teams are doing, they do. ITs very important the values of the teams stay up.
Stern does not approave the numbers, the owners vote on it.
What about the current CBA which he negotiated and convinced owners to take? If it's such a bad deal that they have to make such major changes, how is Stern not on the hook for some of that blame?
What about the TV deal that Stern took credit for? Many questioned the TV deal when Stern made it and it seems that he made a mistake in making the deal so long. Now he has no way of leveraging the outstanding BB and high ratings that have happened in recent years.
The league has done very well under the past CBA in terms of team values. There doesn't seem to be a need to do anything different in that regard. Team values have a lot more to do with location and then the teams record and if they have stars people are excited to see. Aside from moving teams to better cities, nothing much can be done to change the biggest part of the teams value which is location.
Stern has a lot more power than you're giving him credit for and blame is a "relevant" question.
Nalod wrote:The commish for any league works for he owners.
that's the way it is... the way it ought to be is the commissioner is the steward of the game, not picking side but placing the game first. but he (or those) who has the cash is king
nixluva wrote:Nalod wrote:
The commish for any league works for he owners.He is off the hook because he is the spokesman for them. Union works for the Players.
So "Blame" is not releveant here.
And dont think the old owners don't care about how the leveraged teams are doing, they do. ITs very important the values of the teams stay up.
Stern does not approave the numbers, the owners vote on it.
What about the current CBA which he negotiated and convinced owners to take? If it's such a bad deal that they have to make such major changes, how is Stern not on the hook for some of that blame?
What about the TV deal that Stern took credit for? Many questioned the TV deal when Stern made it and it seems that he made a mistake in making the deal so long. Now he has no way of leveraging the outstanding BB and high ratings that have happened in recent years.
The league has done very well under the past CBA in terms of team values. There doesn't seem to be a need to do anything different in that regard. Team values have a lot more to do with location and then the teams record and if they have stars people are excited to see. Aside from moving teams to better cities, nothing much can be done to change the biggest part of the teams value which is location.
Stern has a lot more power than you're giving him credit for and blame is a "relevant" question.
Im not sure where Stern is blamed for the contracts with Television. NBA owners have to approve any deal Stern signs on their behalf. The recession has hurt some markets. If its self inflicted so be it. Who is right or who is wrong is not of consequence, this is about who has the leverage. Owners feel their model is not working so they are making steps to fix it. Some won't like it, but its their league and their problem to fix. Someone on these forums said it very well to that effect (wish I remembered who, but I don't want to take credit for that statement).
As nixluva pointed out, he negotiated the last cba (which funnily enough was thought to favour owners at the time- really you can never underestimate the owners ability to make stupid decisions and then blame the system), he agreed to a bad tv deal, and on top of that he over-expanded the number of teams, which is a huge reason for any losses and the lack of competitive teams. But it's the players that have to pay the price while he continues to make his fortune?
I'm sick and tired of this whole thing. I don't even want to read one lockout story anymore. I'm done with all these idiots fighting about splitting millions of dollars amongst themselves. What an incredibly boring subject. Why should I care about this? I just want basketball. I really cannot wait to talk about actual basketball again, rather than what some rich people are going to do with millions of dollars.
Childs2Dudley wrote:It's funny how nixluva is so pro-player meanwhile the players could care less about nixluva or anyone else who supports them. All they care about is their money. They don't care about the fans or the season starting on time. They want what they feel they "deserve". Funny how spoiled these guys are considering football players make 1/3 of what NBA players make in their career and risk their lives every damn game doing it. And even they had a lockout and managed to resolve it quickly. NBA players are spoiled crybabies. 57% is an absolute joke. The fact they don't want to go lower than 53% is a bigger joke. So much entitlement from guys who are rich BECAUSE OF THE OWNERS.I'm sick and tired of this whole thing. I don't even want to read one lockout story anymore. I'm done with all these idiots fighting about splitting millions of dollars amongst themselves. What an incredibly boring subject. Why should I care about this? I just want basketball. I really cannot wait to talk about actual basketball again, rather than what some rich people are going to do with millions of dollars.
"they are rich because of the owners." wrong. they are rich because of the fans and sponsors. the owners are in it to get rich too -- they just broker the deal between the fans and players.
NFL revenue split is 48% after last lockout and players almost walked out at 46% which is funny. that being said, NBA is a much more star driven league -- i'd watch college hoops if i just cared about backdoor cuts and 60-58 games. i don't -- i watch so i can see lebron, wade, kobe, etc. also, in a negotiation with billions of dollars at stake, its a somewhat crazy proposition to drop from 57% to 46%.
kobe apparently just signed in italy. these guys should follow his lead and try to go overseas and support themselves this year. sit out the whole season and have the owners lose even more money if they are so desperate they'll come back to the table ready to make a deal.
childs, its hard to have sympathy on owners who claim that their year to year profits are down but franchises are getting sold for hundreds of millions more than current valuations -- what gives? these guys don't get into it to make a few million bucks every year, they get into it so that they can sell it 10 years down the line and make 5x their money back. they are doing that -- yet claiming they are broke!
the stars deserve to get paid like stars. there should be no mid level exception -- don't pay middling one-dimensional guys as stars. luke walton makes $8 mil/yr, amir johnson $7 mil a year, etc. pay the stars like stars and pay everyone else $1-4 million. its those middle of the road deals that ruin salary cap situations and cause teams to lose $$$.
Andrew wrote:It sounds like more than a couple people misuderstand what Stern's job is. He works and negotiates on behalf of the owners. He doesn't run the teams, he doesn't decide if the owners can make money under the agreement. Pretty much he asks what the owners wants, and tries to get it. In the end, its the owners who decide if they want the deal, and if it makes sense for them financially.
That's a strange job description for someone whose title is commissioner. I'm pretty sure you're right but I think the confusion is understandable given his job title.
BigSm00th wrote:Childs2Dudley wrote:It's funny how nixluva is so pro-player meanwhile the players could care less about nixluva or anyone else who supports them. All they care about is their money. They don't care about the fans or the season starting on time. They want what they feel they "deserve". Funny how spoiled these guys are considering football players make 1/3 of what NBA players make in their career and risk their lives every damn game doing it. And even they had a lockout and managed to resolve it quickly. NBA players are spoiled crybabies. 57% is an absolute joke. The fact they don't want to go lower than 53% is a bigger joke. So much entitlement from guys who are rich BECAUSE OF THE OWNERS.I'm sick and tired of this whole thing. I don't even want to read one lockout story anymore. I'm done with all these idiots fighting about splitting millions of dollars amongst themselves. What an incredibly boring subject. Why should I care about this? I just want basketball. I really cannot wait to talk about actual basketball again, rather than what some rich people are going to do with millions of dollars.
"they are rich because of the owners." wrong. they are rich because of the fans and sponsors. the owners are in it to get rich too -- they just broker the deal between the fans and players.
NFL revenue split is 48% after last lockout and players almost walked out at 46% which is funny. that being said, NBA is a much more star driven league -- i'd watch college hoops if i just cared about backdoor cuts and 60-58 games. i don't -- i watch so i can see lebron, wade, kobe, etc. also, in a negotiation with billions of dollars at stake, its a somewhat crazy proposition to drop from 57% to 46%.
kobe apparently just signed in italy. these guys should follow his lead and try to go overseas and support themselves this year. sit out the whole season and have the owners lose even more money if they are so desperate they'll come back to the table ready to make a deal.
childs, its hard to have sympathy on owners who claim that their year to year profits are down but franchises are getting sold for hundreds of millions more than current valuations -- what gives? these guys don't get into it to make a few million bucks every year, they get into it so that they can sell it 10 years down the line and make 5x their money back. they are doing that -- yet claiming they are broke!
the stars deserve to get paid like stars. there should be no mid level exception -- don't pay middling one-dimensional guys as stars. luke walton makes $8 mil/yr, amir johnson $7 mil a year, etc. pay the stars like stars and pay everyone else $1-4 million. its those middle of the road deals that ruin salary cap situations and cause teams to lose $$$.
No owner is forced to use the MLE. The MLE merely gives all parties more options. In addition, you know that the MLE can be used on multiple players rather than overpaying for one, right?
The truth is both parties have profited enormously for what we they do and there are no victims. Neither side gives a crap about the fans. Though they both will try to portray themselves as wanting to please the fans and if only those money grubbing @$$holes on the other side would stop trying to cancel the season and all that. They both need each other to continue to suck away your expendable income and why anyone would care which side gets more of your money is beyond me.
Childs2Dudley wrote:It's funny how nixluva is so pro-player meanwhile the players could care less about nixluva or anyone else who supports them. All they care about is their money. They don't care about the fans or the season starting on time. They want what they feel they "deserve". Funny how spoiled these guys are considering football players make 1/3 of what NBA players make in their career and risk their lives every damn game doing it. And even they had a lockout and managed to resolve it quickly. NBA players are spoiled crybabies. 57% is an absolute joke. The fact they don't want to go lower than 53% is a bigger joke. So much entitlement from guys who are rich BECAUSE OF THE OWNERS.I'm sick and tired of this whole thing. I don't even want to read one lockout story anymore. I'm done with all these idiots fighting about splitting millions of dollars amongst themselves. What an incredibly boring subject. Why should I care about this? I just want basketball. I really cannot wait to talk about actual basketball again, rather than what some rich people are going to do with millions of dollars.
I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.
That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.
Bonn1997 wrote:I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.
That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.
nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years!
well that's untrue.
Plant and design-build contracts are such that the first party provides a performance spec and the second party designs and builds something using those guidelines. If the guidelines were shit and the first party selects a questionable company to perform the works, then the first party gets an expensive piece of shit, as that is what the agreement specifies. The contact pays out on a milestone/lump-sum basis.
Very similar to basketball contracts. The contract based on a shit performance spec. If the player is of dubious character and/or a health risk the owners get bit in the ass because payment is on a milestone/lump-sum. But then again they typically know nothing about basketball and hire people to make multi million dollar acquisitions, who get fired without immediate results. So management has a risk-taking incentive.
SupremeCommander wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years!well that's untrue.
Plant and design-build contracts are such that the first party provides a performance spec and the second party designs and builds something using those guidelines. If the guidelines were shit and the first party selects a questionable company to perform the works, then the first party gets an expensive piece of shit, as that is what the agreement specifies. The contact pays out on a milestone/lump-sum basis.
Very similar to basketball contracts. The contract based on a shit performance spec. If the player is of dubious character and/or a health risk the owners get bit in the ass because payment is on a milestone/lump-sum. But then again they typically know nothing about basketball and hire people to make multi million dollar acquisitions, who get fired without immediate results. So management has a risk-taking incentive.
nykshaknbake wrote:well THAT's untrue. You can try to fit it to the same mold but it's very different. The guidelines are what make the difference. The only real similarity is there is an owner and there are employees. Saying that and the fact that there are rules they agree on between each other an therefore they are the same is silly. In your example if an auto worker constantly show incompetence to a high degree he will get his contract terminated.SupremeCommander wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years!well that's untrue.
Plant and design-build contracts are such that the first party provides a performance spec and the second party designs and builds something using those guidelines. If the guidelines were shit and the first party selects a questionable company to perform the works, then the first party gets an expensive piece of shit, as that is what the agreement specifies. The contact pays out on a milestone/lump-sum basis.
Very similar to basketball contracts. The contract based on a shit performance spec. If the player is of dubious character and/or a health risk the owners get bit in the ass because payment is on a milestone/lump-sum. But then again they typically know nothing about basketball and hire people to make multi million dollar acquisitions, who get fired without immediate results. So management has a risk-taking incentive.
nevermind. not worth it
nykshaknbake wrote:It really isn't. For example, there is no industry on this planet besides sports where you can get paid your full salray and not produce a thing...FOR years! It really doesn't fit into other categories of labour disputes. The other issues are very different as well.Bonn1997 wrote:I think alot of people see this as a classic labor vs big buisness. With big buisness trying to put the squeeze on the blue collar worker.
That's because it is a classic labor vs. big business clash. Both sides (the owners and the players) have bigger bank accounts than the participants in many other workers vs. corporate owners clash, but the issues are the same.
I've certainly seen it in my own industry, although like in the NBA, in mine too it is rare. There are many jobs that are not considered "at will" forms of employment, and what you're describing will occasionally happen in any of them.