The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[pmatic]

A single percent is worth about $40 million, so a ten percent cutback is about $400 million.

I say the players have good reasoning to not give away $400 million so easily (even if the majority are overpaid).

As far as a new league is concerned, there's a lot of logistics that it would have to go through between insuring NBA contracts, coaches, medical staff, arenas, etc. Seems far-fetched but I'd love to see it myself.

 

[pmatic]

A single percent is worth about $40 million, so a ten percent cutback is about $400 million.

I say the players have good reasoning to not give away $400 million so easily (even if the majority are overpaid).

As far as a new league is concerned, there's a lot of logistics that it would have to go through between insuring NBA contracts, coaches, medical staff, arenas, etc. Seems far-fetched but I'd love to see it myself.

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Exactly, they are trying to bust the union up, while personally im not a fan of unions because of what they actually do to companies they are a necessary evil. If you look at unionised business and non union business the non union ones always perform better, yea the cost come down, but the quality doesn't suffer in non union establishments. The NFL works because they had a union which accepted that guaranteed contracts were out of the question. MLB works because they arbitrate out the first 6 years 3 in the big leagues. Even Tampa was pulling in 20 million at their worst.
The NBA has a chance to let there be arbitration, and guaranteed contracts with length clauses and maintain salary floors, and caps with taxes accessed for being over or under each. These owners don't want to run a successful business.
They just want to let the asset accrue value, and limit the losses to insure that they come out with a net profit.
The players are balking because they aren't the ones who decided to expand to Charlotte or stay in NewOrleans, or give the Maloof's a team. Sure the union welcomes the salaries, but the functions of the business aren't the players problems.
They aren't the ones who built a new arena in a city where attendance was declining, they didn't tell the sonics not to renovate Key Arena. Fact is that a lot of these new arenas are built more for aesthetics than anything. If your drawing 15000 in a 20k stadium, does it make more sense to demand a stadium with more luxury boxes, or get the food staff and security cost down?
  

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Exactly, they are trying to bust the union up, while personally im not a fan of unions because of what they actually do to companies they are a necessary evil. If you look at unionised business and non union business the non union ones always perform better, yea the cost come down, but the quality doesn't suffer in non union establishments. The NFL works because they had a union which accepted that guaranteed contracts were out of the question. MLB works because they arbitrate out the first 6 years 3 in the big leagues. Even Tampa was pulling in 20 million at their worst.
The NBA has a chance to let there be arbitration, and guaranteed contracts with length clauses and maintain salary floors, and caps with taxes accessed for being over or under each. These owners don't want to run a successful business.
They just want to let the asset accrue value, and limit the losses to insure that they come out with a net profit.
The players are balking because they aren't the ones who decided to expand to Charlotte or stay in NewOrleans, or give the Maloof's a team. Sure the union welcomes the salaries, but the functions of the business aren't the players problems.
They aren't the ones who built a new arena in a city where attendance was declining, they didn't tell the sonics not to renovate Key Arena. Fact is that a lot of these new arenas are built more for aesthetics than anything. If your drawing 15000 in a 20k stadium, does it make more sense to demand a stadium with more luxury boxes, or get the food staff and security cost down?
  

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

 

[youngtriz]

my cousin works for a very strong union and his company is doing very well and the workers get paid very well... ILWU

 

[youngtriz]

my cousin works for a very strong union and his company is doing very well and the workers get paid very well... ILWU

 

[doublejs07]

Random...assuming the season is cancelled, how would the NBA handle the 2012 draft lottery?

 

[doublejs07]

Random...assuming the season is cancelled, how would the NBA handle the 2012 draft lottery?

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

Originally Posted by YoungTriz

my cousin works for a very strong union and his company is doing very well and the workers get paid very well... ILWU

I have a problem with them, but well run and fair unions are always better than the alternative.
My problem is that they can never justify the extra expenses.
Draft lottery would be the same number of balls at each spot

  

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

Originally Posted by YoungTriz

my cousin works for a very strong union and his company is doing very well and the workers get paid very well... ILWU

I have a problem with them, but well run and fair unions are always better than the alternative.
My problem is that they can never justify the extra expenses.
Draft lottery would be the same number of balls at each spot

  

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Random...assuming the season is cancelled, how would the NBA handle the 2012 draft lottery?

I posted an ESPN Insider article in this thread or the NBA Off-season thread that discusses some possibilities, with the draft order based on;
This past season's lottery teams
A league wide lottery
Order based on team records of the last 5 years (not fair for a team like the Cavs)

Anyways,

THE PMATIC PLAN PART II

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Basketball Related Income SplitPlayers get 51.5%.to the owners 48.5%. Players give back $220 million the first year alone. It'll probably end up being a 50-50 split in real life but maybe Stern throws the union a bone.

Salary Cap System
Harder cap. Keep Bird Rights, but only allow teams to only "tag" one player per off-season with the team's Bird Rights.

Luxury Tax

$1-4.9 million over luxuty tax: $1
$5-9.9 million over luxury tax: $1.50
$10-14.9 million over luxury tax: $1.75
$15-19.9 million over luxury tax: $2
$20+ million over luxury tax: $2.50

Contracts

Teams can re-sign their own players for up to five years. Teams can sign other team's free agents for up to three years. If a team has a player in restricted free agency that signs an offer sheet with another team, the team has three days to match or not match the offer sheet.

Annual Rises

Under the old CBA, players could receive 10.5 percent annual raises if they had Bird rights and signed with their old team, 8 percent raises otherwise. It's rare that players will increase their worth as time passes, so let's have all contracts "front-loaded" so players get paid more in the beginning of their contracts instead of the other way around.

Exceptions

Reduce the Mid-Level Exception. Have the first year worth $4 million. Eliminate the Bi-Annual Exception altogether.
Revenue Sharing
Let the owners settle this on their own.

Other Issues

Amnesty Clause: Allow teams the ability to cut but pay the full amount owed to one player on the roster before the start of the season.

Draft: As much as I would like to allow high school players to enter the league, I think it is better if they went to college to develop (even the elite). I'll let them wait two years before they can enter the league.

Extension: The so-called "Melo Rule" prevents teams like the New York Knicks did in February with Carmelo Anthony — from using Bird rights to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless the player is acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player’s contract.

League: NBA teams can independently operate a D-League team or be assigned to one with another NBA team or two. The D-League will be for free agents looking to catch the eye of a NBA team, players who wouldn't get playing time on their respective NBA team or players coming back from injury.

Trade: Eliminate sign-and-trades.

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Random...assuming the season is cancelled, how would the NBA handle the 2012 draft lottery?

I posted an ESPN Insider article in this thread or the NBA Off-season thread that discusses some possibilities, with the draft order based on;
This past season's lottery teams
A league wide lottery
Order based on team records of the last 5 years (not fair for a team like the Cavs)

Anyways,

THE PMATIC PLAN PART II

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Basketball Related Income SplitPlayers get 51.5%.to the owners 48.5%. Players give back $220 million the first year alone. It'll probably end up being a 50-50 split in real life but maybe Stern throws the union a bone.

Salary Cap System
Harder cap. Keep Bird Rights, but only allow teams to only "tag" one player per off-season with the team's Bird Rights.

Luxury Tax

$1-4.9 million over luxuty tax: $1
$5-9.9 million over luxury tax: $1.50
$10-14.9 million over luxury tax: $1.75
$15-19.9 million over luxury tax: $2
$20+ million over luxury tax: $2.50

Contracts

Teams can re-sign their own players for up to five years. Teams can sign other team's free agents for up to three years. If a team has a player in restricted free agency that signs an offer sheet with another team, the team has three days to match or not match the offer sheet.

Annual Rises

Under the old CBA, players could receive 10.5 percent annual raises if they had Bird rights and signed with their old team, 8 percent raises otherwise. It's rare that players will increase their worth as time passes, so let's have all contracts "front-loaded" so players get paid more in the beginning of their contracts instead of the other way around.

Exceptions

Reduce the Mid-Level Exception. Have the first year worth $4 million. Eliminate the Bi-Annual Exception altogether.
Revenue Sharing
Let the owners settle this on their own.

Other Issues

Amnesty Clause: Allow teams the ability to cut but pay the full amount owed to one player on the roster before the start of the season.

Draft: As much as I would like to allow high school players to enter the league, I think it is better if they went to college to develop (even the elite). I'll let them wait two years before they can enter the league.

Extension: The so-called "Melo Rule" prevents teams like the New York Knicks did in February with Carmelo Anthony — from using Bird rights to sign or extend a player acquired by trade unless the player is acquired before July 1 of the final season of the player’s contract.

League: NBA teams can independently operate a D-League team or be assigned to one with another NBA team or two. The D-League will be for free agents looking to catch the eye of a NBA team, players who wouldn't get playing time on their respective NBA team or players coming back from injury.

Trade: Eliminate sign-and-trades.

 

[myjaysgetrocked]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution


I wanted to touch on a few things.
Amare saying form our own league...

I think it could work, but thats only cause I know it could.
Basic structure
Guys invest an amount of money which is what they want to make back on the deal. Shoe companies, Owners who wanrt to cross the picket line etc invest in ownership / liability stakes in the league. But their investiment is not to exceed 40% of what the inital investiment is.
Amare Lebron Wade Howard, Kobe, put down 100 million total
Nike could put down 24 million in that situation for its guys Adidas could put down 8 for Howard, and Jordan Brand would put down 8 for Wade.

Deeper finanical structure.
Similar to the NBA, but the players take the pitfalls of any potiental losses. say the league ends up in a 2 million dollar hole,there are 100 shares in a team 2000 in the league the loss gets distributed evenly so that's a 1000 loss for every share.
on the flip side the league makes 100 million then each share gets 50k. 1 million dollars equals a share.
If the league was more of a trial thing, and the NBA were back next season, then the NBA and its owners would pay back each of the initial investments to buy out the leagues right to operate. Meaning if 200 million were invested in the league the NBA would pay the players, and the people who invested in the league every cent they invested before negotiations of the actual NBA CBA started.

Why this would benefit players? If the players are actually the product we will know within 6 weeks of the leagues operation.
NBC, Fox, CBS even ESPN and ABC would be fighting for the TV rights especially at the start insuring with the right mix of venues profit, and NBA owners either investing, or falling over their ++$ to get back into good faith negotiations.
With rules and regulations about ownership after retirement guys could have built in retirement plans.

Why it wouldn't work. While I think the players need to do this for themselves, and if the lockout extends a lot further, they would have no clue as to how to do it. More over agents and lawyers would run the league just like they do now. Guys will stick on longer than they should because of their stakes in the team. For this to work you need a core group of guys,  and the shoe companies and high net worth individuals to invest and hold the players accountable for things like when a guy retires, and coaching decisions, personal decorum etc.
Its a headache, and if people who are billionares, and have master degrees and Phd's cannot do it what makes me think Lebron James, Kobe Bryant can do it and not piss everyone else off?


that's the next step if Stern wants to act like he didnt prepetuate the sentement Wade displayed in that meeting.

Kobe and Kevin Garnett are looking at this situation with the only sane eyes in the whole thing.
The 1999 CBA cost Kobe at least 100 million, prob cost Garnett 40, and that's not to mention in great depth the Rookie contracts which Garnett might have been signed for even more money. At least half of the NBA's teams would have given Shaq 49 million in 92, only the bucks would have given Glenn Robinson 87 million in 94.
Im of the thought that if you take away guaranteed contracts then the rookie cap should be gone. You can point to the NFL and technically the NBA as examples where it didnt work, but why not make them all free agents? College can still have its hypocritical rules about eligibility and violation of it once you hire an agent, but let it be a free market. if that's not viable how about letting a team have a scale, but being able to abandon it, and putting in and arbitration. Why not after 2 years let John Wall have an arbitrator access his performance? You can still have a salary cap, and give the arbitrator the freedom to use Bird rights and Luxury tax money. If the arbitrator puts a team into Lux tax then instead of dollar for dollar, let it be dollar for 25 cents or something like that, which still penalises a team for making bad moves.
My idea for rookies would be whatever the team wants to pay a guy they draft him and pay him that, then after 2 years the arbitrator accesses the performance and determines the salary for the next year. If a team decides to reject arbitration then the guy is a FA. Years that can be accessed by an arbitrator are years 2-5, so that teams still get 5 years with a guy via qualifying offers. Once your vested, as in 5 years then max length of contracts is 4 years. Before your vested a team can sign you for all of your arbitration years so a max of 5 years. No max salary just a cap, and luxury tax.
How is it that a sport which isn't as popular world wide as the NBA or NFL will have the easiest negotiations, unless Bud and the owners try to stick it to Michael Weiner.

How are you going to pay for the other 300 players? There is no way this secondary league makes that much money. If you're hoping players take salary cuts, might as well just agree to what the owners are proposing now. Also, there is no way you could have players invest in this league and also have them playing. You honestly don't think there is conflict of interest here? If people think there is favoritism now in the NBA, imagine how it will be if you're actually an investor/owner AND a player. 
Like I've said, the players can start their own league but ultimately it will come NO WHERE close to the NBA. 

 

[myjaysgetrocked]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution


I wanted to touch on a few things.
Amare saying form our own league...

I think it could work, but thats only cause I know it could.
Basic structure
Guys invest an amount of money which is what they want to make back on the deal. Shoe companies, Owners who wanrt to cross the picket line etc invest in ownership / liability stakes in the league. But their investiment is not to exceed 40% of what the inital investiment is.
Amare Lebron Wade Howard, Kobe, put down 100 million total
Nike could put down 24 million in that situation for its guys Adidas could put down 8 for Howard, and Jordan Brand would put down 8 for Wade.

Deeper finanical structure.
Similar to the NBA, but the players take the pitfalls of any potiental losses. say the league ends up in a 2 million dollar hole,there are 100 shares in a team 2000 in the league the loss gets distributed evenly so that's a 1000 loss for every share.
on the flip side the league makes 100 million then each share gets 50k. 1 million dollars equals a share.
If the league was more of a trial thing, and the NBA were back next season, then the NBA and its owners would pay back each of the initial investments to buy out the leagues right to operate. Meaning if 200 million were invested in the league the NBA would pay the players, and the people who invested in the league every cent they invested before negotiations of the actual NBA CBA started.

Why this would benefit players? If the players are actually the product we will know within 6 weeks of the leagues operation.
NBC, Fox, CBS even ESPN and ABC would be fighting for the TV rights especially at the start insuring with the right mix of venues profit, and NBA owners either investing, or falling over their ++$ to get back into good faith negotiations.
With rules and regulations about ownership after retirement guys could have built in retirement plans.

Why it wouldn't work. While I think the players need to do this for themselves, and if the lockout extends a lot further, they would have no clue as to how to do it. More over agents and lawyers would run the league just like they do now. Guys will stick on longer than they should because of their stakes in the team. For this to work you need a core group of guys,  and the shoe companies and high net worth individuals to invest and hold the players accountable for things like when a guy retires, and coaching decisions, personal decorum etc.
Its a headache, and if people who are billionares, and have master degrees and Phd's cannot do it what makes me think Lebron James, Kobe Bryant can do it and not piss everyone else off?


that's the next step if Stern wants to act like he didnt prepetuate the sentement Wade displayed in that meeting.

Kobe and Kevin Garnett are looking at this situation with the only sane eyes in the whole thing.
The 1999 CBA cost Kobe at least 100 million, prob cost Garnett 40, and that's not to mention in great depth the Rookie contracts which Garnett might have been signed for even more money. At least half of the NBA's teams would have given Shaq 49 million in 92, only the bucks would have given Glenn Robinson 87 million in 94.
Im of the thought that if you take away guaranteed contracts then the rookie cap should be gone. You can point to the NFL and technically the NBA as examples where it didnt work, but why not make them all free agents? College can still have its hypocritical rules about eligibility and violation of it once you hire an agent, but let it be a free market. if that's not viable how about letting a team have a scale, but being able to abandon it, and putting in and arbitration. Why not after 2 years let John Wall have an arbitrator access his performance? You can still have a salary cap, and give the arbitrator the freedom to use Bird rights and Luxury tax money. If the arbitrator puts a team into Lux tax then instead of dollar for dollar, let it be dollar for 25 cents or something like that, which still penalises a team for making bad moves.
My idea for rookies would be whatever the team wants to pay a guy they draft him and pay him that, then after 2 years the arbitrator accesses the performance and determines the salary for the next year. If a team decides to reject arbitration then the guy is a FA. Years that can be accessed by an arbitrator are years 2-5, so that teams still get 5 years with a guy via qualifying offers. Once your vested, as in 5 years then max length of contracts is 4 years. Before your vested a team can sign you for all of your arbitration years so a max of 5 years. No max salary just a cap, and luxury tax.
How is it that a sport which isn't as popular world wide as the NBA or NFL will have the easiest negotiations, unless Bud and the owners try to stick it to Michael Weiner.

How are you going to pay for the other 300 players? There is no way this secondary league makes that much money. If you're hoping players take salary cuts, might as well just agree to what the owners are proposing now. Also, there is no way you could have players invest in this league and also have them playing. You honestly don't think there is conflict of interest here? If people think there is favoritism now in the NBA, imagine how it will be if you're actually an investor/owner AND a player. 
Like I've said, the players can start their own league but ultimately it will come NO WHERE close to the NBA. 

 

[statis22]

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

Naw you got it all wrong, of course it will work, the players ARE the product. The NBA is nothing without them.

 

[statis22]

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

Naw you got it all wrong, of course it will work, the players ARE the product. The NBA is nothing without them.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

1. Players owning 60% of a new league. Okay. Where's that money coming from? You have to support rosters of at least 10 players, probably, and you have to pay them. How much are you going to pay them? (note the average salary in the NBA, and add quite a bit to that, because this is fewer teams so more guys who make more money will be involved looking to make something comparable) Remember, there's no paycheck coming to ANYONE outside the stars of the league, and that's only for whatever endorsement deals they already have in place. So this is out of pocket for the players. What do you do? You get sponsors...
2. ....so now you have sponsors. Nike gets on board, Adidas gets on board, Reebok, etc. They all invest in teams. What if Steve Ballmer and his billions wants the Microsofties to play in Seattle? You're not turning down one of the richest people in the world. And what does it take to get him on board? You must acquiesce to the demands of those investors who have the money to fund your league. They aren't hopping on board without control. And they definitely aren't investing without having a majority stake in the team they own. They're paying the salaries. Adidas will want D12 and DRose, Nike will want their players. So good luck with that bidding war for players.
3. Current owners. Why even mention them? This is a competing league. Current owners have their own real teams. They aren't investing hundreds of millions into ANOTHER league. Forget it. not even worth mentioning.
4. Current contracts...that's all that needs to be mentioned. These guys stand to make SO MUCH money in the the NBA when it comes back it's not worth the massive pay cut just to make a statement. It's not even just a pay cut under your scenario. Under your scenario, they would be taking money out of their non-existent (at the moment) salary to pay other guys to play in their competing league.

The whole idea of a competing player-run league is asinine. The only way it works is the Bill Simmons model: You get one or two crazy basketball-nut billionaires (Ballmer and Ellison) to essentially fund a new league. You get advertising dollars where you can. They control four teams each, pay the salaries, lock in the venues, etc. That's how it would work. None of this "players control the majority of the league" crap. Nobody would buy into it.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

1. Players owning 60% of a new league. Okay. Where's that money coming from? You have to support rosters of at least 10 players, probably, and you have to pay them. How much are you going to pay them? (note the average salary in the NBA, and add quite a bit to that, because this is fewer teams so more guys who make more money will be involved looking to make something comparable) Remember, there's no paycheck coming to ANYONE outside the stars of the league, and that's only for whatever endorsement deals they already have in place. So this is out of pocket for the players. What do you do? You get sponsors...
2. ....so now you have sponsors. Nike gets on board, Adidas gets on board, Reebok, etc. They all invest in teams. What if Steve Ballmer and his billions wants the Microsofties to play in Seattle? You're not turning down one of the richest people in the world. And what does it take to get him on board? You must acquiesce to the demands of those investors who have the money to fund your league. They aren't hopping on board without control. And they definitely aren't investing without having a majority stake in the team they own. They're paying the salaries. Adidas will want D12 and DRose, Nike will want their players. So good luck with that bidding war for players.
3. Current owners. Why even mention them? This is a competing league. Current owners have their own real teams. They aren't investing hundreds of millions into ANOTHER league. Forget it. not even worth mentioning.
4. Current contracts...that's all that needs to be mentioned. These guys stand to make SO MUCH money in the the NBA when it comes back it's not worth the massive pay cut just to make a statement. It's not even just a pay cut under your scenario. Under your scenario, they would be taking money out of their non-existent (at the moment) salary to pay other guys to play in their competing league.

The whole idea of a competing player-run league is asinine. The only way it works is the Bill Simmons model: You get one or two crazy basketball-nut billionaires (Ballmer and Ellison) to essentially fund a new league. You get advertising dollars where you can. They control four teams each, pay the salaries, lock in the venues, etc. That's how it would work. None of this "players control the majority of the league" crap. Nobody would buy into it.

 

[myjaysgetrocked]

Originally Posted by Statis22

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

Naw you got it all wrong, of course it will work, the players ARE the product. The NBA is nothing without them.

No doubt the players are the product, but lets not be naive and think they will achieve success anywhere close to the NBA. I'm not questioning whether it will "work/succeed" and we all have different definitions of succeeding. To me, if you can't replicate a copy cay of the NBA, you failed. Even in his later post, gangsta207 mentioned that he envisioned a 10-15 team league right? So half the NBA players are basically gonna get cut? That right there shows you failed. The T.V. contracts, endorsements etc are with the NBA, not the players.  Let's be honest, the NBA owners are filthy rich(megaimillionaires to billionaires), the players not so much(except for the top 15-20%)....so in reality, who really needs who to survive. Do you honestly think the average salary will be $5 million, if somehow this new league were able to keep every current NBA player?


I'm not trying say that players are wrong and owners are right or vice versa. All I'm saying is that, there is no better medium than the NBA for basketball players, and there is NO WAY you create another league to be as successful without it taking at minimum 4-5 years. Whether we like it or not, the owners have the leverage in this situation. 

 

[myjaysgetrocked]

Originally Posted by Statis22

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

Naw you got it all wrong, of course it will work, the players ARE the product. The NBA is nothing without them.

No doubt the players are the product, but lets not be naive and think they will achieve success anywhere close to the NBA. I'm not questioning whether it will "work/succeed" and we all have different definitions of succeeding. To me, if you can't replicate a copy cay of the NBA, you failed. Even in his later post, gangsta207 mentioned that he envisioned a 10-15 team league right? So half the NBA players are basically gonna get cut? That right there shows you failed. The T.V. contracts, endorsements etc are with the NBA, not the players.  Let's be honest, the NBA owners are filthy rich(megaimillionaires to billionaires), the players not so much(except for the top 15-20%)....so in reality, who really needs who to survive. Do you honestly think the average salary will be $5 million, if somehow this new league were able to keep every current NBA player?


I'm not trying say that players are wrong and owners are right or vice versa. All I'm saying is that, there is no better medium than the NBA for basketball players, and there is NO WAY you create another league to be as successful without it taking at minimum 4-5 years. Whether we like it or not, the owners have the leverage in this situation. 

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

dmbrhs wrote:

---

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

1. Players owning 60% of a new league. Okay. Where's that money coming from? You have to support rosters of at least 10 players, probably, and you have to pay them. How much are you going to pay them? (note the average salary in the NBA, and add quite a bit to that, because this is fewer teams so more guys who make more money will be involved looking to make something comparable) Remember, there's no paycheck coming to ANYONE outside the stars of the league, and that's only for whatever endorsement deals they already have in place. So this is out of pocket for the players. What do you do? You get sponsors...
2. ....so now you have sponsors. Nike gets on board, Adidas gets on board, Reebok, etc. They all invest in teams. What if Steve Ballmer and his billions wants the Microsofties to play in Seattle? You're not turning down one of the richest people in the world. And what does it take to get him on board? You must acquiesce to the demands of those investors who have the money to fund your league. They aren't hopping on board without control. And they definitely aren't investing without having a majority stake in the team they own. They're paying the salaries. Adidas will want D12 and DRose, Nike will want their players. So good luck with that bidding war for players.
3. Current owners. Why even mention them? This is a competing league. Current owners have their own real teams. They aren't investing hundreds of millions into ANOTHER league. Forget it. not even worth mentioning.
4. Current contracts...that's all that needs to be mentioned. These guys stand to make SO MUCH money in the the NBA when it comes back it's not worth the massive pay cut just to make a statement. It's not even just a pay cut under your scenario. Under your scenario, they would be taking money out of their non-existent (at the moment) salary to pay other guys to play in their competing league.

The whole idea of a competing player-run league is asinine. The only way it works is the Bill Simmons model: You get one or two crazy basketball-nut billionaires (Ballmer and Ellison) to essentially fund a new league. You get advertising dollars where you can. They control four teams each, pay the salaries, lock in the venues, etc. That's how it would work. None of this "players control the majority of the league" crap. Nobody would buy into it.



Dmbrhs
It would be out of pocket, if Dwayne Wade is going to be pissed hes being treated by Stern like a slave, then he should fight for his freedom, this is a step.
  
First of all players if they want to be in the league would have to put up their own money out of their savings to purchase shares in the profitability or liability, and in the case of rookies they would be staked shares by other players or outside investors. For example Harrison Barnes cannot afford to purchase a stake in the new league right now, Nike could if they wanted him to wear their shoes give him a portion of their stake or pay him a salary. Players who buy shares in the league or more specifically their teams could inorder to get a player they really wanted could offer similar options, either salary or a stake. That puts the impetitus on the players to make this league profitable enough to collect salary.

But unless the outside investors paid you or you got a contract as a rookie that paid you, you would have no salary as a player. You would collect dividends after things like insurance, coaches salary, training and medical, arena and marketing costs. This is a long term investiment that would take at least 2-3 years to gain real traction. They would need to be planing now, playing in June and be settling litigation with the NBA. London is prob out of the question if FIBA wants to play hardball and side with Stern. There is a great deal of sacrafice involved with players being legitimate owners.


Those owners are invested in the NBA but they have arenas that need to be booked. It would be crossing a picketline no doubt, but those guys would jump at the chance. And heck a lot of those cities if the deals and the leagues finances make sense would take their chances on a sporting team that cant leave, and will fill stadiums that a lot of them own.
Having uber rich guys control 4 team reaks of potiental collusion. If Ballmer owned in Seattle, Chicago, San Antonio, and Charlotte, all he would do is minimise losses in San Antonio, and Charlotte, and keep Seattle competitive enough to not get trashed, and go all out for Chicago since he can draw more people, at a higher price. You need a guy like his support, and you would without doubt let him have a franchise where ever he wanted, but mutiple's nah.
If the NBA players decided they would do this while in labor talks, and the season would start in Jan. This would be a hit guys dont go overseas cause there isnt a guarantee they get paid. Stay over here and you are more likely to get something for playing basketball, be it when the NBA eventually uses its finanical might to crush the league, or through logical self owned business growth.

How are you going to pay for the other 300 players? There is no way this secondary league makes that much money. If you're hoping players take salary cuts, might as well just agree to what the owners are proposing now. Also, there is no way you could have players invest in this league and also have them playing. You honestly don't think there is conflict of interest here? If people think there is favoritism now in the NBA, imagine how it will be if you're actually an investor/owner AND a player. 

Why would players do it? Like I said it would function like a stock. How much your willing to put in, and how much you get staked. Assuming you always operate with a profit, and there is for all intensive purposes a 2000 total shares for 10 teams ( just trying to keep it simple) Players would then pay money out of their own pockets. Lets use Amare as an example. Amare wants to get a salary of 20 million a season he would invest 20 million and that would be the maximum he could make back in a season. So it would be Invest 20 get 40 in his situation. It would always be investing what you want to double up if the funds are available. Players would invest what they wanted to make. Even if its for relative peanuts compared to what they make in the NBA. Say for a 56 game season with 15 teams the numbers worked out to a billion. A you wouldnt require as much cost as the NBA. B your venue of choice would be more reasonable price wise .C if its successful there is a check involved vs no check, the already present potiental for salary roll backs. D your share can be bought and sold resulting in more profits on top of the dividends. Its not far fetched at all. If I tell a player that look, we need to cover marketing expenses, stadium rental expenses etc but, your going to make whatever you put in to cover expenses get a check above and beyond expenses if the money is right double, get all of the tax benefits of being an owner, and have an tangible form of intelectual property which like NBA franchises can be sold its a no brainer if the numbers matchup. You know how the NBA comes up with a cap? They access previous years, and come up with a percentage based on the BRI. The NBA had a BRI of 3.9 billion last year. Is it far fetched to say that a players owned league with nothing but top guys who manage their finances well enough to invest in this league with a 10 team league couldnt make 1 billion? The networks pay 930 million a year to the NBA even if Comcast and GE, the owners of NBC paid half of that or more than half of that and we got games on their conglourmate of networks. Fox couldnt spare money for local rights to a sport they know is profitable for them? It really depends on how serious the players want to be. There has to be clauses in these network contracts that prevent them from having to pay if the NBA is out of session for a certain amount of time.
 You would have the conflict of interest, but you could agree for scouts, your body etc to determine when you retire. When you retire you cannot own more than a certain percentage of the team, prob a clause that states with in a year or 2 of retirement 70% of your finanical interest has to be divested.

  You wouldnt start letting guys invest until you got the revenue streams sorted out. That means tv rights, internet rights, Jersey licencing ( obvious) potential investors corporate sponsorship where your going to play, how are you going to fly, where your going to stay on the road. Every imaginable logistic that comes with professional basketball cost is tabulated, and all the potiental profit is calculated just like with any business. If American Airlines wants the contract let them bid on it. If they want it and will let all cost go if they get a certain amount of free publicity, so be it. Hotel cost are tabulated etc.
These guys before they invest a single dollar need to know how much they could make. To determine the networks interest ,consult the insurance companies and develop a business plan it might cost 10 million dollars. That's a high estimate imo cause all it is is calls, initial lawyer fees and travel.
Where to play the games?
College campuses, secondary arenas like the Fourm, or technically Allstate Arena, City municipal or county owned current NBA arenas. Cities, and their tax payers in exchange for tax breaks if profitable might not be against getting there stadiums used for 33-41- 59 more days in a year, especially if the lockout last a year or even 2.
UCLA would take the money for the dates at Pauley, heck Philip Anschutz might let them get Staples, and might be an investor on the basketball side of things if the players come correct.



Bottom line although I was happy the players mentioned it, they arent serious and it showed. Kobe would prefer to give loans, and make a few dollars until things get settled with the league. Zack Randolph would rather buy donks, and get weed deliveries to his house. Lebron is too busy trying to repair his image, Wade is too busy thinking about marrying Ms. Union. Amare wants to be the king of NY , Melo wants to be the king of Baltimore. Kevin Durant is too busy playing streetball. Kevin Love wants his degree,  Fisher wants a cushy position post retirement. Bill Russell would have been one of the guys who would have tried it out.
Its a shame that these dudes cant even get in the same room with the Networks and try and see their value to the networks. I dont even think the players believe their own hype about it being a player driven league.
But to read 50 lines from someone who actually thinks, and assert that the idea is asinine is not cool.


My Jays: if you de certify the union there is going to be an anti trust court case. Either you could start the league when you de certify or wait til after. The NBA would argue that they are not a monoply because you guys started up a league and found funding within yourselves, the players could argue due to unfair labor practices we were forced to start up an alternative option to the NBA where less than half the people employed by the NBA are employed currently in our league. I dont know who would win cause im not a lawyer, but I would imagine that the players cannot be penalised in an anti trust suit for building a league after the NBA tried to force a deal with players giving them back 200 million. or 400k per person.

 

[gangsta207therevolution]

dmbrhs wrote:

---

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution

DubA169 wrote:

---

A ten percent cut is big. Don't forget that the second the new cba is up they will be asking for another ten percent cut.

Pmatic, as soon as Amare mentioned it I was was like

. Cause it would put the NBA and its owners in a real tough spot.
These games would draw at the secondary arenas, and the city owned first rate arenas. You could build the connections with the fans better, you could keep opperating cost lower with smaller venues, and real basketball fans would be back.
The Tv contracts if the NBA were to fold would be in a similar range.
My personal vision is of a 10-15 team league initally with Players owning 60%.
Nike, Adidas, UA, Reebok, and if you want JB would have interest in owning 40% and having all the guys wear their shoes.Rogue owners and or big market owners would have interest. Paul Allen Jerry Buss, Reinsdorph, Dolan, Jordan Cuban would be good fits for the stadiums they own or can book really easily they serve and the amount of finanical interest they could have. They and the Players would stake rookies into the league. There wouldnt be 82 games for the sake of having 82 games a year. Everybody but the guys who bought NBA teams too high would benefit, and Jordan, the new 76ers owners. MSG, United Center, Philips, Rose Garden, America Airlines arena the Palace,Wells Fargo
Those stadiums are all owned by the guys and corporations who operate NBA teams. Im sure AEG wouldnt be against buying a stake in a team, and cities would have an oppertunity too to own a stake in a team and determine if its a viable option for them taking into consideration taxes, and the use of these stadiums they own.

Public preception would be better, cause there wouldnt be as many tax dollar built stadiums being built. a Summer season with outdoor games wouldnt be out of the question. There are a lot of things that could go right. On the other hand the NBA contracts would be an issue, as players will have had to abandon them.

1. Players owning 60% of a new league. Okay. Where's that money coming from? You have to support rosters of at least 10 players, probably, and you have to pay them. How much are you going to pay them? (note the average salary in the NBA, and add quite a bit to that, because this is fewer teams so more guys who make more money will be involved looking to make something comparable) Remember, there's no paycheck coming to ANYONE outside the stars of the league, and that's only for whatever endorsement deals they already have in place. So this is out of pocket for the players. What do you do? You get sponsors...
2. ....so now you have sponsors. Nike gets on board, Adidas gets on board, Reebok, etc. They all invest in teams. What if Steve Ballmer and his billions wants the Microsofties to play in Seattle? You're not turning down one of the richest people in the world. And what does it take to get him on board? You must acquiesce to the demands of those investors who have the money to fund your league. They aren't hopping on board without control. And they definitely aren't investing without having a majority stake in the team they own. They're paying the salaries. Adidas will want D12 and DRose, Nike will want their players. So good luck with that bidding war for players.
3. Current owners. Why even mention them? This is a competing league. Current owners have their own real teams. They aren't investing hundreds of millions into ANOTHER league. Forget it. not even worth mentioning.
4. Current contracts...that's all that needs to be mentioned. These guys stand to make SO MUCH money in the the NBA when it comes back it's not worth the massive pay cut just to make a statement. It's not even just a pay cut under your scenario. Under your scenario, they would be taking money out of their non-existent (at the moment) salary to pay other guys to play in their competing league.

The whole idea of a competing player-run league is asinine. The only way it works is the Bill Simmons model: You get one or two crazy basketball-nut billionaires (Ballmer and Ellison) to essentially fund a new league. You get advertising dollars where you can. They control four teams each, pay the salaries, lock in the venues, etc. That's how it would work. None of this "players control the majority of the league" crap. Nobody would buy into it.



Dmbrhs
It would be out of pocket, if Dwayne Wade is going to be pissed hes being treated by Stern like a slave, then he should fight for his freedom, this is a step.
  
First of all players if they want to be in the league would have to put up their own money out of their savings to purchase shares in the profitability or liability, and in the case of rookies they would be staked shares by other players or outside investors. For example Harrison Barnes cannot afford to purchase a stake in the new league right now, Nike could if they wanted him to wear their shoes give him a portion of their stake or pay him a salary. Players who buy shares in the league or more specifically their teams could inorder to get a player they really wanted could offer similar options, either salary or a stake. That puts the impetitus on the players to make this league profitable enough to collect salary.

But unless the outside investors paid you or you got a contract as a rookie that paid you, you would have no salary as a player. You would collect dividends after things like insurance, coaches salary, training and medical, arena and marketing costs. This is a long term investiment that would take at least 2-3 years to gain real traction. They would need to be planing now, playing in June and be settling litigation with the NBA. London is prob out of the question if FIBA wants to play hardball and side with Stern. There is a great deal of sacrafice involved with players being legitimate owners.


Those owners are invested in the NBA but they have arenas that need to be booked. It would be crossing a picketline no doubt, but those guys would jump at the chance. And heck a lot of those cities if the deals and the leagues finances make sense would take their chances on a sporting team that cant leave, and will fill stadiums that a lot of them own.
Having uber rich guys control 4 team reaks of potiental collusion. If Ballmer owned in Seattle, Chicago, San Antonio, and Charlotte, all he would do is minimise losses in San Antonio, and Charlotte, and keep Seattle competitive enough to not get trashed, and go all out for Chicago since he can draw more people, at a higher price. You need a guy like his support, and you would without doubt let him have a franchise where ever he wanted, but mutiple's nah.
If the NBA players decided they would do this while in labor talks, and the season would start in Jan. This would be a hit guys dont go overseas cause there isnt a guarantee they get paid. Stay over here and you are more likely to get something for playing basketball, be it when the NBA eventually uses its finanical might to crush the league, or through logical self owned business growth.

How are you going to pay for the other 300 players? There is no way this secondary league makes that much money. If you're hoping players take salary cuts, might as well just agree to what the owners are proposing now. Also, there is no way you could have players invest in this league and also have them playing. You honestly don't think there is conflict of interest here? If people think there is favoritism now in the NBA, imagine how it will be if you're actually an investor/owner AND a player. 

Why would players do it? Like I said it would function like a stock. How much your willing to put in, and how much you get staked. Assuming you always operate with a profit, and there is for all intensive purposes a 2000 total shares for 10 teams ( just trying to keep it simple) Players would then pay money out of their own pockets. Lets use Amare as an example. Amare wants to get a salary of 20 million a season he would invest 20 million and that would be the maximum he could make back in a season. So it would be Invest 20 get 40 in his situation. It would always be investing what you want to double up if the funds are available. Players would invest what they wanted to make. Even if its for relative peanuts compared to what they make in the NBA. Say for a 56 game season with 15 teams the numbers worked out to a billion. A you wouldnt require as much cost as the NBA. B your venue of choice would be more reasonable price wise .C if its successful there is a check involved vs no check, the already present potiental for salary roll backs. D your share can be bought and sold resulting in more profits on top of the dividends. Its not far fetched at all. If I tell a player that look, we need to cover marketing expenses, stadium rental expenses etc but, your going to make whatever you put in to cover expenses get a check above and beyond expenses if the money is right double, get all of the tax benefits of being an owner, and have an tangible form of intelectual property which like NBA franchises can be sold its a no brainer if the numbers matchup. You know how the NBA comes up with a cap? They access previous years, and come up with a percentage based on the BRI. The NBA had a BRI of 3.9 billion last year. Is it far fetched to say that a players owned league with nothing but top guys who manage their finances well enough to invest in this league with a 10 team league couldnt make 1 billion? The networks pay 930 million a year to the NBA even if Comcast and GE, the owners of NBC paid half of that or more than half of that and we got games on their conglourmate of networks. Fox couldnt spare money for local rights to a sport they know is profitable for them? It really depends on how serious the players want to be. There has to be clauses in these network contracts that prevent them from having to pay if the NBA is out of session for a certain amount of time.
 You would have the conflict of interest, but you could agree for scouts, your body etc to determine when you retire. When you retire you cannot own more than a certain percentage of the team, prob a clause that states with in a year or 2 of retirement 70% of your finanical interest has to be divested.

  You wouldnt start letting guys invest until you got the revenue streams sorted out. That means tv rights, internet rights, Jersey licencing ( obvious) potential investors corporate sponsorship where your going to play, how are you going to fly, where your going to stay on the road. Every imaginable logistic that comes with professional basketball cost is tabulated, and all the potiental profit is calculated just like with any business. If American Airlines wants the contract let them bid on it. If they want it and will let all cost go if they get a certain amount of free publicity, so be it. Hotel cost are tabulated etc.
These guys before they invest a single dollar need to know how much they could make. To determine the networks interest ,consult the insurance companies and develop a business plan it might cost 10 million dollars. That's a high estimate imo cause all it is is calls, initial lawyer fees and travel.
Where to play the games?
College campuses, secondary arenas like the Fourm, or technically Allstate Arena, City municipal or county owned current NBA arenas. Cities, and their tax payers in exchange for tax breaks if profitable might not be against getting there stadiums used for 33-41- 59 more days in a year, especially if the lockout last a year or even 2.
UCLA would take the money for the dates at Pauley, heck Philip Anschutz might let them get Staples, and might be an investor on the basketball side of things if the players come correct.



Bottom line although I was happy the players mentioned it, they arent serious and it showed. Kobe would prefer to give loans, and make a few dollars until things get settled with the league. Zack Randolph would rather buy donks, and get weed deliveries to his house. Lebron is too busy trying to repair his image, Wade is too busy thinking about marrying Ms. Union. Amare wants to be the king of NY , Melo wants to be the king of Baltimore. Kevin Durant is too busy playing streetball. Kevin Love wants his degree,  Fisher wants a cushy position post retirement. Bill Russell would have been one of the guys who would have tried it out.
Its a shame that these dudes cant even get in the same room with the Networks and try and see their value to the networks. I dont even think the players believe their own hype about it being a player driven league.
But to read 50 lines from someone who actually thinks, and assert that the idea is asinine is not cool.


My Jays: if you de certify the union there is going to be an anti trust court case. Either you could start the league when you de certify or wait til after. The NBA would argue that they are not a monoply because you guys started up a league and found funding within yourselves, the players could argue due to unfair labor practices we were forced to start up an alternative option to the NBA where less than half the people employed by the NBA are employed currently in our league. I dont know who would win cause im not a lawyer, but I would imagine that the players cannot be penalised in an anti trust suit for building a league after the NBA tried to force a deal with players giving them back 200 million. or 400k per person.

 

[mgrand15]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution



Bottom line although I was happy the players mentioned it, they arent serious and it showed. Kobe would prefer to give loans, and make a few dollars until things get settled with the league. Zack Randolph would rather buy donks, and get weed deliveries to his house. Lebron is too busy trying to repair his image, Wade is too busy thinking about marrying Ms. Union. Amare wants to be the king of NY , Melo wants to be the king of Baltimore. Kevin Durant is too busy playing streetball. Kevin Love wants his degree,  Fisher wants a cushy position post retirement. Bill Russell would have been one of the guys who would have tried it out.
Its a shame that these dudes cant even get in the same room with the Networks and try and see their value to the networks. I dont even think the players believe their own hype about it being a player driven league. 

Anyway, I'm glad the players brought it up because it makes the owners feel some sort of pressure. As of now, they've been waiting for the players to miss that first pay check and waiting for them to break down. I'm sure they know talks like this could inspire some crazy billionaire and I'm sure they know very well how profitable these players can be for owners. A new league probably wouldn't be great for a majority of the players but it'd still scare the owners if all the money makers and top tier talent made some 8 team league funded by some billionaires.

 

[mgrand15]

Originally Posted by gangsta207therevolution



Bottom line although I was happy the players mentioned it, they arent serious and it showed. Kobe would prefer to give loans, and make a few dollars until things get settled with the league. Zack Randolph would rather buy donks, and get weed deliveries to his house. Lebron is too busy trying to repair his image, Wade is too busy thinking about marrying Ms. Union. Amare wants to be the king of NY , Melo wants to be the king of Baltimore. Kevin Durant is too busy playing streetball. Kevin Love wants his degree,  Fisher wants a cushy position post retirement. Bill Russell would have been one of the guys who would have tried it out.
Its a shame that these dudes cant even get in the same room with the Networks and try and see their value to the networks. I dont even think the players believe their own hype about it being a player driven league. 

Anyway, I'm glad the players brought it up because it makes the owners feel some sort of pressure. As of now, they've been waiting for the players to miss that first pay check and waiting for them to break down. I'm sure they know talks like this could inspire some crazy billionaire and I'm sure they know very well how profitable these players can be for owners. A new league probably wouldn't be great for a majority of the players but it'd still scare the owners if all the money makers and top tier talent made some 8 team league funded by some billionaires.

 

[everysingletime]

I think owners recognize the whole alternative league thing for what it is.  A thinly veiled bluff.

What owners are really scared about is the lockout prolonging to the point where there'll be fan backlash. 

Both sides are bluffing here.  Players with their talk of starting a different league and owners telling the players that they're willing to lock out for a season or two. 

I'm sure the players blink first.