2011-2012 OFFICIAL NBA LOCKOUT thread

[southsider2k5]

What major, national network is going to get into a bidding war for a "league" that has no definitive presence and a "league" that could simply vanish as the players go back to work for the NBA? I'm not suggesting that no one would purchase the right to televise the game(s), but i'm sure it would be on a game by game type basis with very little money in play. Compared to the money the players would get from NBA TV rights it would probably make sense to just take the NBA's deal.

 

Any network that doesn't carry the NBA now would be interested if the league were set up with some legitimacy, such as contractual obligations for players to stick with the new league. At the end of the day, people want to see the players, and could give a s*** less what the name of the league is.

[LittleHurt05]

OTOH it gives them a paycheck and leverage against the owners.

 

Who pays those paychecks? Would these rich players own the teams in the league? Someone has to pay them, right?

[StrangeSox]

Who pays those paychecks? Would these rich players own the teams in the league? Someone has to pay them, right?

 

It could be an employee-owned operation. It'd be messy, and they'd need to work out pay levels. It might even be completely unworkable in that respect. But the money for the paychecks would come from TV/radio deals, ticket sales, merchandise. The same place it comes from in the NBA.

[Rowand44]

Yes, I'm sure no tv station on earth would try to get the rights to that.

lol. They'd have a tv deal in .00000000000000000001 second.

[Jenksismyhero]

lol. They'd have a tv in .00000000000000000001 second.

 

You guys are ignoring the money involved, not whether TV networks would be interested. At the end of the day, creating an entire new league (which btw, will be set up by SUPERSTAR players for their own benefit...who i'm sure will be 100% in favor of sharing the revenue equally, the % of their own money used to start the league be damned) and all the money and energy and time invested in doing that, to ultimately make less money than the current deal. Why would they do that unless they just want to become investor/owners and probably do the same s*** the current owners are pulling?

 

It's a great idea in theory, and a terrible idea in reality.

[Jenksismyhero]

I would be shocked if their contracts didn't contain clauses relating to work stoppages and scab players.

 

Oh i'm sure there's a clause about lock-outs. But they're not scab players when there is no NBA player union. They're just straight up NBA players, drafted and signed by NBA franchises.

[southsider2k5]

You guys are ignoring the money involved, not whether TV networks would be interested. At the end of the day, creating an entire new league (which btw, will be set up by SUPERSTAR players for their own benefit...who i'm sure will be 100% in favor of sharing the revenue equally, the % of their own money used to start the league be damned) and all the money and energy and time invested in doing that, to ultimately make less money than the current deal. Why would they do that unless they just want to become investor/owners and probably do the same s*** the current owners are pulling?

 

It's a great idea in theory, and a terrible idea in reality.

 

They would be the investor/owners. They also would probably shape the league to be much more to the advantage of the players.

[southsider2k5]

lol. They'd have a tv in .00000000000000000001 second.

 

If that long.

[StrangeSox]

You guys are ignoring the money involved, not whether TV networks would be interested. At the end of the day, creating an entire new league (which btw, will be set up by SUPERSTAR players for their own benefit...who i'm sure will be 100% in favor of sharing the revenue equally, the % of their own money used to start the league be damned) and all the money and energy and time invested in doing that, to ultimately make less money than the current deal. Why would they do that unless they just want to become investor/owners and probably do the same s*** the current owners are pulling?

 

It's a great idea in theory, and a terrible idea in reality.

 

But they would control their own product, which is a very valuable thing.

 

There would be significant difficulties and getting it set up and in determining salaries. It would mean making less money, at least for a while. But that doesn't mean their only option is to take whatever the owners offer.

[StrangeSox]

Oh i'm sure there's a clause about lock-outs. But they're not scab players when there is no NBA player union. They're just straight up NBA players, drafted and signed by NBA franchises.

 

The NBA players union hasn't decertified. I'm not sure if they would have to in order to form their own league.

[Steve9347]

There are no basketball antitrust laws in place. NBA arenas can rent their spaces out to all sorts of things right now: concerts, monster truck rallies, gymnastics competitions, Globetrotters exhibitions, etc. Unless there's language in a contract that specifies, "In case of a lockout, you CANNOT host another basketball team," there shouldn't be a problem. And if there is, then screw it, they can just play in a college gym.

 

That's from an article on Grantland almost two weeks ago. Awesome read...

 

We Need a Renegade Basketball League

[Jenksismyhero]

That's from an article on Grantland almost two weeks ago. Awesome read...

 

We Need a Renegade Basketball League

 

How many franchises lease a building though? I'm guessing if the owners are about to lose out on being owners of an NBA franchise, are they really content with just being landlords for a new league?

[Jenksismyhero]

But they would control their own product, which is a very valuable thing.

 

There would be significant difficulties and getting it set up and in determining salaries. It would mean making less money, at least for a while. But that doesn't mean their only option is to take whatever the owners offer.

 

No doubt that eventually, one day, some players would be in a better financial position because of it. But ultimately you know they're just going to be in the same exact position as current owners now. "What do you mean I have to earn less money than the players?! I paid for the damn franchise! I risked my money! Lock out!"

[StrangeSox]

No doubt that eventually, one day, some players would be in a better financial position because of it. But ultimately you know they're just going to be in the same exact position as current owners now. "What do you mean I have to earn less money than the players?! I paid for the damn franchise! I risked my money! Lock out!"

 

Not if they developed an employee-owned model or simply took a more egalitarian view. But that's certainly a possibility.

[ZoomSlowik]

How many franchises lease a building though? I'm guessing if the owners are about to lose out on being owners of an NBA franchise, are they really content with just being landlords for a new league?

 

Most of the stadiums are owned by a third party, not the NBA owners.

[bmags]

I stopped reading halfway up. But if the players truly found some investors for their league, and acted serious about it, the owners would cave in a heartbeat.

[MexSoxFan#1]

You guys are ignoring the money involved, not whether TV networks would be interested. At the end of the day, creating an entire new league (which btw, will be set up by SUPERSTAR players for their own benefit...who i'm sure will be 100% in favor of sharing the revenue equally, the % of their own money used to start the league be damned) and all the money and energy and time invested in doing that, to ultimately make less money than the current deal. Why would they do that unless they just want to become investor/owners and probably do the same s*** the current owners are pulling?

 

It's a great idea in theory, and a terrible idea in reality.

The players could also try to attract investors, I'm sure there would be intrest from American, European and Asain millionaires wanting to be a part of that...

 

The players have the upper hand, the NBA is a star driven league, no stars=no interest.

[Soxbadger]

Before anyone starts talking about a new league, they are going to need to hire a bunch of attorneys to try and figure out if the players would be in breach of their playing contracts.

 

Im just guessing here, but I cant really imagine a NBA contract not having a clause that explicitly forbids them from playing in a competitive league. But maybe the attorneys are stupid, but if they are smart there is a liquidated damages clause that states that if the player plays in a competitive league while under contract the damages are equal to the players salary.

 

Once again I dont have the contracts, but I really doubt its as easy as finding new investors and starting a league.

[Rowand44]

Before anyone starts talking about a new league, they are going to need to hire a bunch of attorneys to try and figure out if the players would be in breach of their playing contracts.

 

Im just guessing here, but I cant really imagine a NBA contract not having a clause that explicitly forbids them from playing in a competitive league. But maybe the attorneys are stupid, but if they are smart there is a liquidated damages clause that states that if the player plays in a competitive league while under contract the damages are equal to the players salary.

 

Once again I dont have the contracts, but I really doubt its as easy as finding new investors and starting a league.

Are you talking about when the NBA isn't locked out? Because there are obviously a lot of players going to play in competitive leagues right now.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Before anyone starts talking about a new league, they are going to need to hire a bunch of attorneys to try and figure out if the players would be in breach of their playing contracts.

 

Im just guessing here, but I cant really imagine a NBA contract not having a clause that explicitly forbids them from playing in a competitive league. But maybe the attorneys are stupid, but if they are smart there is a liquidated damages clause that states that if the player plays in a competitive league while under contract the damages are equal to the players salary.

 

Once again I dont have the contracts, but I really doubt its as easy as finding new investors and starting a league.

Or they could go to Europe like Kobe.

[southsider2k5]

Are you talking about when the NBA isn't locked out? Because there are obviously a lot of players going to play in competitive leagues right now.

 

Yeah the NBA locked them out and not vice versa.

[Soxbadger]

Im not really familiar with collective bargaining, so Im not even going to pretend that I know whether or not a lock out voids or suspends the contracts. I dont have the contracts, so i cant read them. Just because they can play in China or Europe, does not mean that the contract doesnt say "Cant compete in USA while locked out."

 

No one would really know unless they had copies of the CBA and copies of the player contracts.

 

Furthermore you are talking about starting a new league. If the new league starts, and the owners stop the lock out, would they not be immediately in breach?

 

That is the problem, unless you have the actual contracts in your hands, you just cant guess. And its probably not worth it to any investor to take these risks, unless they hire a bunch of attorneys. Its just not as simple as you are trying to make it.

[bmags]

There's no way the restrictions of their contracts would hold up while the owners are refusing to honor their contracts and pay them.

[Soxbadger]

The owners can cure the breach.

 

Once the players start a new league, how can they cure the breach, absent folding the new league.

 

Plus the players belong to a union. As soon as it became apparent that the players were leaving, the other players would vote to agree with the NBA and the NBA is back.

 

There wont be a competitive league, unless it starts with NCAA players and players not in the NBA.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/.../10/nba-lockout

 

HALF of America’s four primary sports leagues suffered work stoppages this summer. The National Football League’s (NFL) team owners instituted a lockout on March 12th to demand a more favourable labour deal with the players. Once the courts ruled that their lockout was legitimate, it took just two weeks for the sides to reach a new agreement. The 2011 season started on time.

 

The National Basketball Association (NBA) has not fared so well. Its owners declared a lockout on July 1st, and despite months of negotiations, the two sides remain far apart. On October 10th the league announced the cancellation of the first two weeks of the 2011-12 season.

 

Owners in both leagues were willing to risk losing games in order to increase their share of future revenues. But since the NFL as a whole is profitable, its owners were motivated to reach a deal quickly. The NBA’s owners say they do not have the same incentive: the league claims that its teams are losing a total of $350m a year. Such pleas of poverty are probably exaggerated. According to Forbes magazine, the league’s annual operating profit is $183m. However, the publication’s analysis confirms that a majority of NBA teams are in trouble. Those earnings were highly concentrated in a few teams, principally those in big markets like the New York Knicks and Chicago Bulls. Meanwhile, 17 of the league’s 30 clubs were in the red. The bottom three (the Orlando Magic, Charlotte Bobcats and Indiana Pacers) all hailed from smaller cities.

 

To level the playing field between big and small markets, the NBA has long counted on a limit on each team’s player payroll. However, the cap is riddled with loopholes: teams can exceed it to re-sign players with expiring contracts, or to sign one free agent per year to a league-average salary. As a result, few teams are ever under the cap, and most spend as much as they can afford—or more. In 2006-07, the salary cap was $53m and the Knicks’ payroll was $142m. Although that team somehow managed a losing record, it still forced rival clubs to spend beyond their means to stay competitive.

 

The NBA’s current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) has two other methods of controlling spending. The first is a “luxury tax”: teams that exceed a payroll threshold around 20% above the salary cap must pay a dollar-for-dollar tax on wages paid above the cutoff. But it has not stopped rich clubs from signing expensive players: the 2006-07 Knicks paid $45m of luxury tax. The last four league champions have all paid luxury tax.

 

Only the second safeguard, the escrow system, has proved effective. This scheme withholds 8% of every player paycheck. If total player salaries at the end of the year are below 57% of the league’s total basketball-related income (BRI), all the money is released. Otherwise, the players are only paid enough to reach the 57% mark, and the remainder goes to the owners.

 

As the NBA’s most recent CBA expired, the owners demanded drastic changes to sign a new deal. Their biggest request was replacing the “soft cap” system with a “hard cap” on salaries of $45m a team, with no loopholes. The current porous ceiling is $58m. They also wanted to shorten contracts and let teams end them before their expiration. The union scoffed, and offered to lower the escrow threshold to 54.3% of BRI. The owners have stopped insisting on a rock-solid cap and weakening contract guarantees. But the two sides have not bridged the gap on the escrow cutoff. The union is proposing 53%, and the owners are demanding 47%, a difference of $230m.

 

Both sides are bracing for a long lockout. A majority of owners would rather stop play than lose money on every game. “The owners are more prepared”, says Maury Brown, the president of the Business of Sports Network. “Losses [are] painful initially. [but] changes in the revenue split could be worth billions over the life of the agreement.”

 

The players are looking abroad. Around 60 have already signed with foreign teams, including Deron Williams (who will earn $5m for Turkey’s Besiktas) and Tony Parker (pictured, who will return to his native France and make $2,000 a month from Asvel, a team he partly owns). Kobe Bryant, one of the game’s biggest stars, grew up in Italy and speaks fluent Italian, and is negotiating with Virtus Bologna. If the lockout drags on, the union could also decertify and file an antitrust suit against the owners. That would take years to resolve in the courts.

 

The best hope for a quick deal would probably be a change of heart from a few key owners. Regardless of whether the current system favours players overall, it certainly favours teams in big markets over those in small ones. Both baseball and American football have addressed such disparities through revenue-sharing systems, which redistribute money from rich clubs to poor ones. Some $400m passes through baseball’s revenue-sharing scheme annually. In contrast, basketball only has the luxury tax, which moved around $60m last year.

 

The big-market teams are loath to give part of their income to competitors. However, they also stand the most to lose from the lockout: according to Forbes, the Knicks earned nearly $750,000 a game last year. If clubs like New York or Los Angeles decide they would rather share their profits than lose them altogether for the duration of the lockout, the owners could probably make enough concessions to strike a deal. Otherwise, American professional basketball fans will be watching games in Europe and China for some time to come.

 

Pundits routinely admonish both sides of American sports labour disputes to do whatever it takes to reach agreement, lest they alienate fans for a generation. But the historical record does not support such lecturing. Baseball and hockey cancelled games in 1994 and 2004-05, and the NBA itself did so in 1998-99. All of them have subsequently seen their revenues soar. Until fans start punishing leagues more harshly for work stoppages, owners and players will remain willing to cancel games in order to increase their share of the pie.