The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by amel223

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.

I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different? 

Good question

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money
And your answer.......

but hey, get that 300 mil off the top, no problems here. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by amel223

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.

I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different? 

Good question

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money
And your answer.......

but hey, get that 300 mil off the top, no problems here. 

  

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by DubA169

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.

What's a "normal" business?  Just ripping it from wikipedia: an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers

What separates it from Apple, Microsoft, heck, your supermarket chain.  The end game is the same.  And in every instance the people that run it get a bigger piece of the pie than the employees who do the day to day work.  Why should the NBA be different? 
 
Tax payer money goes to schools, colleges, universities, zoos.  So teachers and zookeepers deserve equal split of revenue? 

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by DubA169

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.

What's a "normal" business?  Just ripping it from wikipedia: an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers

What separates it from Apple, Microsoft, heck, your supermarket chain.  The end game is the same.  And in every instance the people that run it get a bigger piece of the pie than the employees who do the day to day work.  Why should the NBA be different? 
 
Tax payer money goes to schools, colleges, universities, zoos.  So teachers and zookeepers deserve equal split of revenue? 

 

[jdiddy]

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN


Interesting.

 

[jdiddy]

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN


Interesting.

 

[Clyde Frog]

2. Have a league-wide lottery

Other GMs (most notably from traditional non-lottery teams) have another idea. Why doesn't the NBA just throw 30 pingpong balls into the hopper -- one for every team? Every team would have a 1-in-30 shot of winning the lottery.

 at giving Stern the opportunity to pick who goes to all the teams instead of being limited to 7 teams or so. He could just go down the list and pick where Rivers goes.If this is how they do it, they better pick these friggin envelopes on tv for everyone to see.

 

[Clyde Frog]

2. Have a league-wide lottery

Other GMs (most notably from traditional non-lottery teams) have another idea. Why doesn't the NBA just throw 30 pingpong balls into the hopper -- one for every team? Every team would have a 1-in-30 shot of winning the lottery.

 at giving Stern the opportunity to pick who goes to all the teams instead of being limited to 7 teams or so. He could just go down the list and pick where Rivers goes.If this is how they do it, they better pick these friggin envelopes on tv for everyone to see.

 

[me no pass]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN

Interesting.

 

[me no pass]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN

Interesting.

 

[lawdog1]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN

Interesting.

I don't think the Commissioner is going to be too happy with ESPN for running that story -- especially if there's any truth to it.  But as far as I'm concerned, I hope it is true. 

  

 

[lawdog1]

Originally Posted by JDiddy

Marc Stein writes that the NBA league office may be planning to play a full slate of games even if the start of the season is delayed one month.

"e advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games," Stein wrote. 

via ESPN

Interesting.

I don't think the Commissioner is going to be too happy with ESPN for running that story -- especially if there's any truth to it.  But as far as I'm concerned, I hope it is true. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Stern is an @#$ clown if he tries to get all that money back by playing a full season with one less month. 

   God damn that's pathetic.  I hope ESPN is the one full of it right here, if that article is true.......

This son of a @#$%^ runs around saying players are bad with their money and the owners are makin the concessions, but he desperate to get those extra 10 games back for revenue purposes. 

Oh wait save-a-Stern's, he wants all those games for us fans right?  For the beer vendors?  Riiiiight, I forgot about that, sharing is caring. 

82 games in 6 months, 82 games in 5 months, yeah that won't affect the quality of play much. 

 

[CP1708]

Stern is an @#$ clown if he tries to get all that money back by playing a full season with one less month. 

   God damn that's pathetic.  I hope ESPN is the one full of it right here, if that article is true.......

This son of a @#$%^ runs around saying players are bad with their money and the owners are makin the concessions, but he desperate to get those extra 10 games back for revenue purposes. 

Oh wait save-a-Stern's, he wants all those games for us fans right?  For the beer vendors?  Riiiiight, I forgot about that, sharing is caring. 

82 games in 6 months, 82 games in 5 months, yeah that won't affect the quality of play much. 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by amel223

Originally Posted by DubA169

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.

What's a "normal" business?  Just ripping it from wikipedia: an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers

What separates it from Apple, Microsoft, heck, your supermarket chain.  The end game is the same.  And in every instance the people that run it get a bigger piece of the pie than the employees who do the day to day work.  Why should the NBA be different? 
 
Tax payer money goes to schools, colleges, universities, zoos.  So teachers and zookeepers deserve equal split of revenue? 

You go to the Zoo for the zookeepers? 

You ever see a teacher make any money for the school before, outside of selling book markers or new pencils? 

I get what you're tryin to say, but you goin the wrong way with it.  I never seen a Safeway built by tax money.  Hundreds of millions in tax money.  Least I don't think I ever read anything like that.  I get that owners make the most money and what not, understood, but nobody pays for them to do anything, they pay for those players, 51-49, 50-50, 52-48, whatever, I don't care.  The players understood that they made good money at 57% last deal, they already have come down from that, but those owners that lost money didn't lose it because of the 57%, they lost money on bad business deals.  Not all, but most.  In a year where the NBA CLEANED UP money wise, these owners claim broke and lost money and all that, but won't show that to anyone?  You just trust their word do you?  If they showed all that money, penny for penny, then maybe I would be more forgiving of the owners, and would hear their side better.  Until then, all I have is a known liar in David Stern speakin, and that don't do it for me.  Know what I mean? 
  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by amel223

Originally Posted by DubA169

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.

What's a "normal" business?  Just ripping it from wikipedia: an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers

What separates it from Apple, Microsoft, heck, your supermarket chain.  The end game is the same.  And in every instance the people that run it get a bigger piece of the pie than the employees who do the day to day work.  Why should the NBA be different? 
 
Tax payer money goes to schools, colleges, universities, zoos.  So teachers and zookeepers deserve equal split of revenue? 

You go to the Zoo for the zookeepers? 

You ever see a teacher make any money for the school before, outside of selling book markers or new pencils? 

I get what you're tryin to say, but you goin the wrong way with it.  I never seen a Safeway built by tax money.  Hundreds of millions in tax money.  Least I don't think I ever read anything like that.  I get that owners make the most money and what not, understood, but nobody pays for them to do anything, they pay for those players, 51-49, 50-50, 52-48, whatever, I don't care.  The players understood that they made good money at 57% last deal, they already have come down from that, but those owners that lost money didn't lose it because of the 57%, they lost money on bad business deals.  Not all, but most.  In a year where the NBA CLEANED UP money wise, these owners claim broke and lost money and all that, but won't show that to anyone?  You just trust their word do you?  If they showed all that money, penny for penny, then maybe I would be more forgiving of the owners, and would hear their side better.  Until then, all I have is a known liar in David Stern speakin, and that don't do it for me.  Know what I mean? 
  

 

[statis22]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by Statis22

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

You mean after the owners take the 300 mil off the top or what are you saying?  Did that part change and I missed it? 

at Stern giving out the details.  Of course he is.  He's known about them for....what it say last page, 3 years now? 

  But you'll just take everything he says at face value huh? 

  

You're laughing but Stern and Adam Silver are running a clinic on Fisher & Hunter.The union driving this hard bargain is getting them nowhere. But keep on laughing while players hold out for what 120 million while the league as a whole loses out on well over 250 million a month. Money players won't get.

 

[statis22]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by Statis22

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

You mean after the owners take the 300 mil off the top or what are you saying?  Did that part change and I missed it? 

at Stern giving out the details.  Of course he is.  He's known about them for....what it say last page, 3 years now? 

  But you'll just take everything he says at face value huh? 

  

You're laughing but Stern and Adam Silver are running a clinic on Fisher & Hunter.The union driving this hard bargain is getting them nowhere. But keep on laughing while players hold out for what 120 million while the league as a whole loses out on well over 250 million a month. Money players won't get.

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by CP1708

You go to the Zoo for the zookeepers? 

You ever see a teacher make any money for the school before, outside of selling book markers or new pencils? 

I get what you're tryin to say, but you goin the wrong way with it.  I never seen a Safeway built by tax money.  Hundreds of millions in tax money.  Least I don't think I ever read anything like that.  I get that owners make the most money and what not, understood, but nobody pays for them to do anything, they pay for those players, 51-49, 50-50, 52-48, whatever, I don't care.  The players understood that they made good money at 57% last deal, they already have come down from that, but those owners that lost money didn't lose it because of the 57%, they lost money on bad business deals.  Not all, but most.  In a year where the NBA CLEANED UP money wise, these owners claim broke and lost money and all that, but won't show that to anyone?  You just trust their word do you?  If they showed all that money, penny for penny, then maybe I would be more forgiving of the owners, and would hear their side better.  Until then, all I have is a known liar in David Stern speakin, and that don't do it for me.  Know what I mean? 
  
So your argument is that you feel Stern and company is corrupt and that the NBA players deserve to be compensated for their bosses' corruption.

Interesting argument. 

So if it's somehow revealed that everything Stern has been saying was truth, you'd change your stance?  We're just going on a hypothetical here. 

 

[everysingletime]

Originally Posted by CP1708

You go to the Zoo for the zookeepers? 

You ever see a teacher make any money for the school before, outside of selling book markers or new pencils? 

I get what you're tryin to say, but you goin the wrong way with it.  I never seen a Safeway built by tax money.  Hundreds of millions in tax money.  Least I don't think I ever read anything like that.  I get that owners make the most money and what not, understood, but nobody pays for them to do anything, they pay for those players, 51-49, 50-50, 52-48, whatever, I don't care.  The players understood that they made good money at 57% last deal, they already have come down from that, but those owners that lost money didn't lose it because of the 57%, they lost money on bad business deals.  Not all, but most.  In a year where the NBA CLEANED UP money wise, these owners claim broke and lost money and all that, but won't show that to anyone?  You just trust their word do you?  If they showed all that money, penny for penny, then maybe I would be more forgiving of the owners, and would hear their side better.  Until then, all I have is a known liar in David Stern speakin, and that don't do it for me.  Know what I mean? 
  
So your argument is that you feel Stern and company is corrupt and that the NBA players deserve to be compensated for their bosses' corruption.

Interesting argument. 

So if it's somehow revealed that everything Stern has been saying was truth, you'd change your stance?  We're just going on a hypothetical here. 

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by amel223

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.  I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different?

Couple of things just off the top of my head...

• The players offered to adjust the BRI enough to basically cover the (alleged) 300 mil in losses (although teams not in the red = extra spending money for the owners)
• The dollar amount on the contract isn't guaranteed, all depends on percentages...the players received their agreed upon salary amounts last year only because the BRI was set at 57%. I read somewhere the owners are talking about lowering it to 47% (I'd be pissed if I was forced to take a 10% pay cut, especially when for the most part business is booming)
• I don't know how the league plans on implementing this version of a " hard" cap, but that's just less money that's available to the players...pie just keeps on shrinking.
• I can't think of an industry where profits are so dependent on the unique skills of the "employees" and they aren't compensated accordingly, do you?

 

[grittyman20]

Originally Posted by amel223

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.  I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different?

Couple of things just off the top of my head...

• The players offered to adjust the BRI enough to basically cover the (alleged) 300 mil in losses (although teams not in the red = extra spending money for the owners)
• The dollar amount on the contract isn't guaranteed, all depends on percentages...the players received their agreed upon salary amounts last year only because the BRI was set at 57%. I read somewhere the owners are talking about lowering it to 47% (I'd be pissed if I was forced to take a 10% pay cut, especially when for the most part business is booming)
• I don't know how the league plans on implementing this version of a " hard" cap, but that's just less money that's available to the players...pie just keeps on shrinking.
• I can't think of an industry where profits are so dependent on the unique skills of the "employees" and they aren't compensated accordingly, do you?

 

[pmatic]

Full Transcript of David Stern on NBA TV

Just in case you were wondering, after the jump you'll find the full transcript of David Aldridge's interview with NBA Commissioner David Stern conducted on NBATV last night.   Here's a link to the video if you want it.  You can use this information to formulate your response to our Make Your Voice Heard project in the post right below this one.


NBA TV's David Aldridge's interview with NBA Commissioner David Stern

NBA TV's David Aldridge: "The player's union, have already committed to four percent at a minimum cut which is about a minimum of $116 million per year. Does that not get you at least part of the way to where you need to go?" 

Commissioner David Stern:  "I think it's a gesture.  On $4 billion of revenue with salaries projected of growing from the current 5.5 percent to something approaching over 7 percent in year seven.  I don't think I am going to apologize for the owners wanting to make a profit. That's what capitalism is.  People say, "Well they bought a sports team they should expect to lose money," no, they shouldn't because when you spend the amounts of money that these franchises now cost and the losses pile up because the players salaries have gone up from a billion that we were arguing about in 1999, to $2 billion plus, I am not going to  say, "Oh we shouldn't make a profit."  The goal here is to make a profit."  

Aldridge:   "You talk about the player costs but you also earlier talked many months ago about non-player costs that have also gone up.  Has the league made any strides to get those costs down? I'm assuming you are talking about jet fuel and those sorts of things."

Stern:  "Absolutely. We've probably reduced our work force at the league office in the last year by attrition and lay offs of over 200 people. The teams probably have done another 200 total.  We've been meeting with each of the teams going over their costs and finding ways to push them down as well.  So we are moving across the board in some things and once we started the practice of flying the players on charter flights, the teams are going to either be the victims or beneficiaries of ups and downs in the price of fuel." 

Aldridge:  "But your point of contention is that there isn't enough savings in non-player costs..."

Stern:  "No, there are savings to be had, but if one understands the situation, the players say, "We want you to revenue share," and we are losing $300 million or as the players now utter, "Well you shouldn't count this and you shouldn't count that so they are only losing $200 million," that's an argument I would like to get into with them in their accounts of hours.  You can't revenue share your way out of $200 million in losses, so the idea is to cut where you can and be as profitable as you can so the big market teams and the big grossing teams will share with the low grossing teams."  

Aldridge:  "Why did you accept the offer of mediation?"

Stern:  "Because we have always been in favor of mediation and we think that the federal mediator could be helpful in breaking the log jam.  We welcomed it and the call came.  We have always welcomed it." 

Aldridge:  "What do you think he (the mediator) might be able to do or find that already hasn't been discussed?"

Stern:  "I don't know.  We will see. Maybe a different perspective will be helpful." 

Aldridge:  "He has had some success with Major League Soccer. He has also been credited with taking part in the 1995 baseball strike on the union side at the time, but he also was there with the football lockout and wasn't able to get them to agree." 

Stern:  "Those experiences make him more knowledgeable.  That's all. I think that given where the parties are, an extra set of eyes might be constructive because we've clearly indicated a desire to reach a deal on more than one occasion." 

Aldridge:  "At some point, this is going to be over and you are going to reach a deal."

Stern: "It's one of those things.  That's what makes it all so sad.  It's not a car where you can say, "If you don't like my car you can go buy another car."  We don't have any other place to go but with this union.  Given the amount of people put out of work by this and given how absolutely vaporizing the four percent of our players compensation is every week, by the end of two weeks it's going to be $170 million lost.  That money will be gone and lost forever and then the next two weeks will come or the rest of the season and the same thing will happen.  Considering what we are arguing about its very sad for both our fans, particularly for the employees at the venues and, by the way, particularly for our players as well." 

Aldridge:  "The fact that you are going to have a deal, what does the league do when this is over?  What do you say or do for fans to let them know this was not a good thing that they had to go through?"

Stern:  "We think our fans will understand that when we do get back together, the players and teams will stand shoulder to shoulder and continue to play great basketball, which we were doing so successfully last season during the playoffs and particularly in the Finals."

Aldridge:  "One thing you said about the revenue sharing aspect is that we can't finalize the revenue sharing until we know what the costs are going to be.  You sort of have a range; you know it's not going to be above 53 percent or below 47 percent.  It's going to be somewhere in the middle."   

Stern:  "We are finalizing a proposal to send out to the teams to get the owners to be ready to meet on this at the planning committee next Wednesday and at the Board of Governors next Wednesday night and Thursday." 

Aldridge:  "So do you think you could have a vote on revenue sharing by then?"

Stern:  "I don't think we will have a final vote until we have a CBA deal.  It would be nice to have a vote on two of them, but we are making some enormous progress and there's a real willingness of the high grossing teams to pitch in and put in some dollars and there's a real desire on the low grossing teams to have the money to make them competitive. And so, we will be ok from a revenue sharing perspective and when we get to a percentage we agree to, we will agree to it.  Then the system issue is there and we have a lot of markets who say they want to be able to tell their fans that if they are well managed they have a chance to compete.   And if the Lakers can have $110 million in salaries because they can afford to be tax payers andSacramento only has $45 million in salaries, that is not a permissible spread to us."  

Aldridge:  "But it's always been that way - Bigger teams with the higher salaries like Boston , NY and LA have always had the advantage."  

Stern: "The reality is we like the NFL system, we like the NHL system, but our players don't.  And since the money is guaranteed, which is the point that everyone always misses, they (players/union) say the cap is designed to push down the money the players would earn.  Wrong.  The cap is a way that's used to distribute the money the way they do it in the NFL.  Like what's done in  Green Bay , Indianapolis , Pittsburgh and all those small market teams that win Super Bowls." 

Aldridge:  "You know as well as I do that the smaller markets can compete in the NFL because the TV deals are so big that everybody gets a huge amount of money that allows them to compete." 

Stern:  "No, not so.  The reason they can compete is because they have a hard cap so that no team has the ability to bust through the cap and pay more because they share it all, sharing more of it together with a hard cap makes it more competitive." 

Aldridge:  "You said that very thing that's true; that Green Bay  spends money."  

Stern:  "They spend money because they have money and they have a hard cap."

Aldridge:  "But you are saying the hard cap guarantees money."

Stern:  "Both.  We are going to have revenue sharing and we hope to make a new TV deal and we hope to do player sharing.  Because that's what caps do.  They move players around and distribute players a little more equally."

Aldridge:  "Why is it that for four months everybody said the BRI is going to be the thing we can't figure out and then on Monday both sides said no, we will get a deal on BRI, it's the system that is killing us." 

Stern:  "At the end of the day, for reasons I don't quite understand, the union leadership is of the belief that teams that are tax payers and with us having greed that it won't be an NFL cap, it won't be an NHL cap and that those teams that are taxpayers should continue to be able to add to their rosters as long as they can afford to pay the tax.  That's what it came down to 11 p.m. on Monday night.  We were frankly as incredulous as you are."

Aldridge:  "Did you enter the weekend thinking you were going to have a deal by the end of it?" 

Stern:  "I was very optimistic that we were going to have a deal.  I was stunned when at the end of our long day on Monday night the offer from the union on the tax, let's say for a $10 million contract over the cap it went down from $12.5 million  to $11 million (on the old expired deal it was $10 million).  It was dollar for dollar.  And under their latest proposal it went down from their earlier proposal that was $11 million.  It was clear they just weren't ready to make a deal and we didn't know what else to do." 

Aldridge:  "So you are saying that what Billy Hunter said in the interview with (WFAN's) Mike Francesa was that there was a tax on a certain amount on the first $5 million and so on..."

Stern:  "Yes.  Billy said that in the bargaining session to propose a punitive tax.  And we did.  But more importantly, we proposed a system where a team could only be a taxpayer for a certain number of years and then it had to get out of the tax.  That was fair.  Then the union as they did with the NFL cap, the NHL cap and the tax, said no.  So we got together with our small committee and said lets try to meet with them one more time and we came back with a proposal that said if you don't get out of the tax it will be very, very costly.  We would like the team to get out of the tax because we would like our teams to compete.  It shouldn't be that if you are in NY, Brooklyn , LA you can have the ability to have whatever you want in terms of players.  If that's so, what are we going to tell people in other cities?  And what are those teams going to tell their fans?"

Aldridge:  "How much of this is a result of the movement we saw last year whether it was LeBron and Bosh and Wade ending up in Miami or Carmelo ending up in NY, the stars going from smaller markets to larger markets?" 

Stern:  "I don't think it's related. I think fans in those markets think the system is stacked against us.  And it's not a good thing because what we are selling here is competition and at the end of the day, we think our teams just want to be competitive and there are natural advantages to certain cities.  Some people like lakes, and you can go to cities with lakes, some people like the ocean and you can go to South Beach .  But there is an increasing sense that "glamorous" cities have an edge and I guess it's always been that way.  I accept that, in fact back in the day we didn't used to have trades and I can remember Junior Bridgemen, who was the president of the union, said at some point we should be allowed to stay in a city because our kids are in school, etc.  I remember Abe Pollin saying, "I agree with you."  And I agree with him, too.  So we try to deal with a variety of different issues but you have to have a willing partner and for reasons I don't understand, given the economics of this deal and our attempt to meet the union on the cap, the flex cap, the tax, etc., why we haven't been able to make a deal.  And the rhetoric comes back that we are ready to fight all season, to destroy a year's worth of salary and forgo the economic benefits of the proposed deal.  Hearing that makes me scratch my head and very sad as well." 

Aldridge:  "What's the timeline as you start the mediation sessions? Are they going to be daily? Weekly?" 

Stern:  "I have owners meetings Wednesday and Thursday.  Each is going to meet with the mediator on Monday and if there's a breakthrough it's going to come on Tuesday.  And if not, I think that the season is really going to be potentially escape from us because we aren't making any progress." 

Aldridge:  "By next week?"

Stern:  "How many times does it pay to keep meeting and have the same things thrown back at you.  We are ready to sit down and make a deal.  I don't believe that the union is.  But hopefully by Tuesday, aided by the mediator, they will be able to make a deal and certainly I will bring my owners ready to make a deal.  Unlike Billy Hunter, you will never hear me say something is a "blood issue."  That would be an unfair labor practice charge, but we didn't pursue it because refusing to negotiate on an issue is what's called a failure to bargain.  We assume it's just rhetoric but we've met it.  "We haven't said anything is a "blood issue" and we've moved a lot and we aren't giving any secrets away.  If the union came in with a deal that made sense I would certainly urge my owners to accommodate them, but we haven't seen that yet." 

Aldridge:  "I just want to make sure I heard you correctly:  If there is no break through next week, the season is in jeopardy."

Stern:  "I said potentially because if we know exactly what's at risk and all we are going to do is meet and stare at each other, we are always ready to meet and stare.  The union calls on Sunday morning and says can we meet at 6 p.m., we were there and ready to go.  We then met Monday and went until 11 p.m. and at that point there was no reason to continue meeting.  If this is the place where we are, and we are and not locked into any particular position but the losses continue to accrue to the owners, the offers cannot get better.  Just know this is not an official statement it's jut an observation, but just knowing the losses the league is suffering is going to change the economic situating of the league.  I think the union is being intransigent at the current place.  When the offers start getting worse to reflect the economic damage done to the teams then where is the deal?"  

Stern:  "I appreciate the media hanging in with us.  I appreciate the opportunity to get out the facts.  Some of the facts have been misinterpreted.  Actually, the first time the 50 percent was injected into these negotiations was at a much earlier meeting and it was done so by the union as a "concept".  We weren't able to move on that and so then we had both teams in, our committee, their committee and the players came to us.  Derek Fisher and their chief negotiator Jeffrey Kessler, Adam Silver, Peter Holt and I stepped out and had what we call a side bar and both sides agreed that it was neither of their proposals but it was both of their proposals that we could meet the 57/43 percent by a 50/50.  We went back in our room to sell it and I think I could have sold it, but I didn't get the chance because the players came back and said we won't do that.  Yesterday, I actually heard Billy tell a radio commentator that the offer was only allegedly made and that he never heard it. I think I am giving you a little insight into the difficulty of these negotiations.  Is it frustrating to me?  Yes.  Is it sad because of the vaporizing of player income, of fan experience, of arena workers and restaurants? Yes.  It is awful and that's why I am delighted that the mediator is in because he does represent the President's view - he is a presidential appointee - and maybe with his moral suasion, we might be able to make a deal."

Link

 

[pmatic]

Full Transcript of David Stern on NBA TV

Just in case you were wondering, after the jump you'll find the full transcript of David Aldridge's interview with NBA Commissioner David Stern conducted on NBATV last night.   Here's a link to the video if you want it.  You can use this information to formulate your response to our Make Your Voice Heard project in the post right below this one.


NBA TV's David Aldridge's interview with NBA Commissioner David Stern

NBA TV's David Aldridge: "The player's union, have already committed to four percent at a minimum cut which is about a minimum of $116 million per year. Does that not get you at least part of the way to where you need to go?" 

Commissioner David Stern:  "I think it's a gesture.  On $4 billion of revenue with salaries projected of growing from the current 5.5 percent to something approaching over 7 percent in year seven.  I don't think I am going to apologize for the owners wanting to make a profit. That's what capitalism is.  People say, "Well they bought a sports team they should expect to lose money," no, they shouldn't because when you spend the amounts of money that these franchises now cost and the losses pile up because the players salaries have gone up from a billion that we were arguing about in 1999, to $2 billion plus, I am not going to  say, "Oh we shouldn't make a profit."  The goal here is to make a profit."  

Aldridge:   "You talk about the player costs but you also earlier talked many months ago about non-player costs that have also gone up.  Has the league made any strides to get those costs down? I'm assuming you are talking about jet fuel and those sorts of things."

Stern:  "Absolutely. We've probably reduced our work force at the league office in the last year by attrition and lay offs of over 200 people. The teams probably have done another 200 total.  We've been meeting with each of the teams going over their costs and finding ways to push them down as well.  So we are moving across the board in some things and once we started the practice of flying the players on charter flights, the teams are going to either be the victims or beneficiaries of ups and downs in the price of fuel." 

Aldridge:  "But your point of contention is that there isn't enough savings in non-player costs..."

Stern:  "No, there are savings to be had, but if one understands the situation, the players say, "We want you to revenue share," and we are losing $300 million or as the players now utter, "Well you shouldn't count this and you shouldn't count that so they are only losing $200 million," that's an argument I would like to get into with them in their accounts of hours.  You can't revenue share your way out of $200 million in losses, so the idea is to cut where you can and be as profitable as you can so the big market teams and the big grossing teams will share with the low grossing teams."  

Aldridge:  "Why did you accept the offer of mediation?"

Stern:  "Because we have always been in favor of mediation and we think that the federal mediator could be helpful in breaking the log jam.  We welcomed it and the call came.  We have always welcomed it." 

Aldridge:  "What do you think he (the mediator) might be able to do or find that already hasn't been discussed?"

Stern:  "I don't know.  We will see. Maybe a different perspective will be helpful." 

Aldridge:  "He has had some success with Major League Soccer. He has also been credited with taking part in the 1995 baseball strike on the union side at the time, but he also was there with the football lockout and wasn't able to get them to agree." 

Stern:  "Those experiences make him more knowledgeable.  That's all. I think that given where the parties are, an extra set of eyes might be constructive because we've clearly indicated a desire to reach a deal on more than one occasion." 

Aldridge:  "At some point, this is going to be over and you are going to reach a deal."

Stern: "It's one of those things.  That's what makes it all so sad.  It's not a car where you can say, "If you don't like my car you can go buy another car."  We don't have any other place to go but with this union.  Given the amount of people put out of work by this and given how absolutely vaporizing the four percent of our players compensation is every week, by the end of two weeks it's going to be $170 million lost.  That money will be gone and lost forever and then the next two weeks will come or the rest of the season and the same thing will happen.  Considering what we are arguing about its very sad for both our fans, particularly for the employees at the venues and, by the way, particularly for our players as well." 

Aldridge:  "The fact that you are going to have a deal, what does the league do when this is over?  What do you say or do for fans to let them know this was not a good thing that they had to go through?"

Stern:  "We think our fans will understand that when we do get back together, the players and teams will stand shoulder to shoulder and continue to play great basketball, which we were doing so successfully last season during the playoffs and particularly in the Finals."

Aldridge:  "One thing you said about the revenue sharing aspect is that we can't finalize the revenue sharing until we know what the costs are going to be.  You sort of have a range; you know it's not going to be above 53 percent or below 47 percent.  It's going to be somewhere in the middle."   

Stern:  "We are finalizing a proposal to send out to the teams to get the owners to be ready to meet on this at the planning committee next Wednesday and at the Board of Governors next Wednesday night and Thursday." 

Aldridge:  "So do you think you could have a vote on revenue sharing by then?"

Stern:  "I don't think we will have a final vote until we have a CBA deal.  It would be nice to have a vote on two of them, but we are making some enormous progress and there's a real willingness of the high grossing teams to pitch in and put in some dollars and there's a real desire on the low grossing teams to have the money to make them competitive. And so, we will be ok from a revenue sharing perspective and when we get to a percentage we agree to, we will agree to it.  Then the system issue is there and we have a lot of markets who say they want to be able to tell their fans that if they are well managed they have a chance to compete.   And if the Lakers can have $110 million in salaries because they can afford to be tax payers andSacramento only has $45 million in salaries, that is not a permissible spread to us."  

Aldridge:  "But it's always been that way - Bigger teams with the higher salaries like Boston , NY and LA have always had the advantage."  

Stern: "The reality is we like the NFL system, we like the NHL system, but our players don't.  And since the money is guaranteed, which is the point that everyone always misses, they (players/union) say the cap is designed to push down the money the players would earn.  Wrong.  The cap is a way that's used to distribute the money the way they do it in the NFL.  Like what's done in  Green Bay , Indianapolis , Pittsburgh and all those small market teams that win Super Bowls." 

Aldridge:  "You know as well as I do that the smaller markets can compete in the NFL because the TV deals are so big that everybody gets a huge amount of money that allows them to compete." 

Stern:  "No, not so.  The reason they can compete is because they have a hard cap so that no team has the ability to bust through the cap and pay more because they share it all, sharing more of it together with a hard cap makes it more competitive." 

Aldridge:  "You said that very thing that's true; that Green Bay  spends money."  

Stern:  "They spend money because they have money and they have a hard cap."

Aldridge:  "But you are saying the hard cap guarantees money."

Stern:  "Both.  We are going to have revenue sharing and we hope to make a new TV deal and we hope to do player sharing.  Because that's what caps do.  They move players around and distribute players a little more equally."

Aldridge:  "Why is it that for four months everybody said the BRI is going to be the thing we can't figure out and then on Monday both sides said no, we will get a deal on BRI, it's the system that is killing us." 

Stern:  "At the end of the day, for reasons I don't quite understand, the union leadership is of the belief that teams that are tax payers and with us having greed that it won't be an NFL cap, it won't be an NHL cap and that those teams that are taxpayers should continue to be able to add to their rosters as long as they can afford to pay the tax.  That's what it came down to 11 p.m. on Monday night.  We were frankly as incredulous as you are."

Aldridge:  "Did you enter the weekend thinking you were going to have a deal by the end of it?" 

Stern:  "I was very optimistic that we were going to have a deal.  I was stunned when at the end of our long day on Monday night the offer from the union on the tax, let's say for a $10 million contract over the cap it went down from $12.5 million  to $11 million (on the old expired deal it was $10 million).  It was dollar for dollar.  And under their latest proposal it went down from their earlier proposal that was $11 million.  It was clear they just weren't ready to make a deal and we didn't know what else to do." 

Aldridge:  "So you are saying that what Billy Hunter said in the interview with (WFAN's) Mike Francesa was that there was a tax on a certain amount on the first $5 million and so on..."

Stern:  "Yes.  Billy said that in the bargaining session to propose a punitive tax.  And we did.  But more importantly, we proposed a system where a team could only be a taxpayer for a certain number of years and then it had to get out of the tax.  That was fair.  Then the union as they did with the NFL cap, the NHL cap and the tax, said no.  So we got together with our small committee and said lets try to meet with them one more time and we came back with a proposal that said if you don't get out of the tax it will be very, very costly.  We would like the team to get out of the tax because we would like our teams to compete.  It shouldn't be that if you are in NY, Brooklyn , LA you can have the ability to have whatever you want in terms of players.  If that's so, what are we going to tell people in other cities?  And what are those teams going to tell their fans?"

Aldridge:  "How much of this is a result of the movement we saw last year whether it was LeBron and Bosh and Wade ending up in Miami or Carmelo ending up in NY, the stars going from smaller markets to larger markets?" 

Stern:  "I don't think it's related. I think fans in those markets think the system is stacked against us.  And it's not a good thing because what we are selling here is competition and at the end of the day, we think our teams just want to be competitive and there are natural advantages to certain cities.  Some people like lakes, and you can go to cities with lakes, some people like the ocean and you can go to South Beach .  But there is an increasing sense that "glamorous" cities have an edge and I guess it's always been that way.  I accept that, in fact back in the day we didn't used to have trades and I can remember Junior Bridgemen, who was the president of the union, said at some point we should be allowed to stay in a city because our kids are in school, etc.  I remember Abe Pollin saying, "I agree with you."  And I agree with him, too.  So we try to deal with a variety of different issues but you have to have a willing partner and for reasons I don't understand, given the economics of this deal and our attempt to meet the union on the cap, the flex cap, the tax, etc., why we haven't been able to make a deal.  And the rhetoric comes back that we are ready to fight all season, to destroy a year's worth of salary and forgo the economic benefits of the proposed deal.  Hearing that makes me scratch my head and very sad as well." 

Aldridge:  "What's the timeline as you start the mediation sessions? Are they going to be daily? Weekly?" 

Stern:  "I have owners meetings Wednesday and Thursday.  Each is going to meet with the mediator on Monday and if there's a breakthrough it's going to come on Tuesday.  And if not, I think that the season is really going to be potentially escape from us because we aren't making any progress." 

Aldridge:  "By next week?"

Stern:  "How many times does it pay to keep meeting and have the same things thrown back at you.  We are ready to sit down and make a deal.  I don't believe that the union is.  But hopefully by Tuesday, aided by the mediator, they will be able to make a deal and certainly I will bring my owners ready to make a deal.  Unlike Billy Hunter, you will never hear me say something is a "blood issue."  That would be an unfair labor practice charge, but we didn't pursue it because refusing to negotiate on an issue is what's called a failure to bargain.  We assume it's just rhetoric but we've met it.  "We haven't said anything is a "blood issue" and we've moved a lot and we aren't giving any secrets away.  If the union came in with a deal that made sense I would certainly urge my owners to accommodate them, but we haven't seen that yet." 

Aldridge:  "I just want to make sure I heard you correctly:  If there is no break through next week, the season is in jeopardy."

Stern:  "I said potentially because if we know exactly what's at risk and all we are going to do is meet and stare at each other, we are always ready to meet and stare.  The union calls on Sunday morning and says can we meet at 6 p.m., we were there and ready to go.  We then met Monday and went until 11 p.m. and at that point there was no reason to continue meeting.  If this is the place where we are, and we are and not locked into any particular position but the losses continue to accrue to the owners, the offers cannot get better.  Just know this is not an official statement it's jut an observation, but just knowing the losses the league is suffering is going to change the economic situating of the league.  I think the union is being intransigent at the current place.  When the offers start getting worse to reflect the economic damage done to the teams then where is the deal?"  

Stern:  "I appreciate the media hanging in with us.  I appreciate the opportunity to get out the facts.  Some of the facts have been misinterpreted.  Actually, the first time the 50 percent was injected into these negotiations was at a much earlier meeting and it was done so by the union as a "concept".  We weren't able to move on that and so then we had both teams in, our committee, their committee and the players came to us.  Derek Fisher and their chief negotiator Jeffrey Kessler, Adam Silver, Peter Holt and I stepped out and had what we call a side bar and both sides agreed that it was neither of their proposals but it was both of their proposals that we could meet the 57/43 percent by a 50/50.  We went back in our room to sell it and I think I could have sold it, but I didn't get the chance because the players came back and said we won't do that.  Yesterday, I actually heard Billy tell a radio commentator that the offer was only allegedly made and that he never heard it. I think I am giving you a little insight into the difficulty of these negotiations.  Is it frustrating to me?  Yes.  Is it sad because of the vaporizing of player income, of fan experience, of arena workers and restaurants? Yes.  It is awful and that's why I am delighted that the mediator is in because he does represent the President's view - he is a presidential appointee - and maybe with his moral suasion, we might be able to make a deal."

Link

 

[pmatic]

A couple of SI articles.

Stern continues to skew facts in media tour

For better or worse, commissioner David Stern and union chief Billy Hunter have used part of the lull before next week’s series of meetings with a federal mediator to conduct one-on-0ne interviews with various members of the media. Stern has been a bit more prolific, having appeared in extensive interviews over the last 24 hours with WFAN’s Mike Francesa, NBA TV’s David Aldridge and ESPN’s “Mike & Mike in the Morning