If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

[bagelred]

If the players don't want to play on the owners terms, fine. I'd just start the league without the marquee players and just have scrubs until the stars come back and work on the owners terms. No reason for the players to have the leverage.

No one would watch and the owners would make the NBA brand into a joke. There's a reason no one watches the D League. And actually, the NBA would probably lose more money because believe it or not, there are actual expenses to be paid when you schedule a basketball game.

[Math2]

No one would watch and the owners would make the NBA brand into a joke. There's a reason no one watches the D League. And actually, the NBA would probably lose more money because believe it or not, there are actual expenses to be paid when you schedule a basketball game.

Not as much as salaries...adn the players would come back...

[97 bulls]

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.

Oh come on, would you pay $5000 for courtside seats to see the luke walton led lakers? Its an nba team.

And if the owners don't need the players, why don't they just replace them with the And 1 players and save themselves money?

[97 bulls]

Not as much as salaries...adn the players would come back...

Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

[LJJ]

Oh come on, would you pay $5000 for courtside seats to see the luke walton led lakers? Its an nba team.

And if the owners don't need the players, why don't they just replace them with the And 1 players and save themselves money?

No one is saying the owners don't need the players.

The owners can't make money without the appropriate star power and quality play.
The players can't make money without the organisation, investment, goodwill, facilities of the owners.

Simple as that. Currently, one of these parties is making about 2,3 billion dollars in pure profit every season though, while the other is losing money. And that is why there is a lockout.

[97 bulls]

No one is saying the owners don't need the players.

The owners can't make money without the appropriate star power and quality play.
The players can't make money without the organisation, investment, goodwill, facilities of the owners.

Simple as that. Currently, one of these parties is making about 2,3 billion dollars in pure profit every season though, while the other is losing money. And that is why there is a lockout.

A lot of you guys sure are acting as if the owners can function without the players.

The only thing the owners have in this disagreemnet is the fact that the nba is established.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

The and 1 players aren't anywhere near as talented as the nba players. Come on.

This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.

You are correct that AND1 players are not nearly as talented. But it doesn't really matter. The NBA players could not make the kind of money they do now if they ran things themselves. There are too few players that have enough business experience to run a multi-billion dollar league themselves and hiring people to run it for them... well you are just in the same position as before.

Beyond that, only a select few players have the kind of cash it would take to support a league (at least in terms of start-up cash) and, in the end, the players with the most money would end up controlling the league, which, as with hiring others to run the league, is exactly where we are right now. And if the players would control things, what happens when the richer players, the ones in control, retire from playing? I do not believe it is legal to force them out upon retirement.

Not only that, but the league has to have someone in control. You could do a share-type deal where the league is essentially a private stock market (again, not sure if that is legal) and the players buy chunks of it with their own money, but you then run into the same issue as before: what happens when a player retires? They cannot be forced to give up their portion of ownership of the league, so you end up with outsiders (albeit former insiders) having control of your league. Because of how many shares these players have accumulated over the 15-20 years they played, the rookies coming in get a smaller and smaller portion of things each year until, eventually (say 20 years from now), the league is almost entirely owned by former players acting, essentially, as today's current owners. No matter what route you take, you will end up where you are today.

In short, the owners provide business management which is as important as the product when a business grows to be as large as the NBA. And there is a reason the players have not already done this: it just cannot work.

This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.

Depends on the market, really, and if the product is new or in development. Your product line should, by general rule, never cost you more than 20-30% of your revenue. Now, I know the first thing you are going to do is add that 25-35% and this 20-30% and go, "Hey! That's exactly what the players are making now!" (give or take a few exclamation points, of course), but you only have half the picture.

That 25-35% and that 20-30% that the employees and product cost also include all employees and all fees associated with those employees. In the NBA, this includes all of the players, trainers, coaches, front offices, arena personnel, etc. and all of the health care (players get insane health care benefits), travel expenses, retirement benefits (unlike most of the world, athletes still get these), general expenses such as uniforms and supplies, and product development.

What remains is roughly 40% (Hey! What the owners get!) that is used for facility, maintenance, marketing, legal, damage, recruitment, utility, and security expenses. What is left of that 40% generally goes to the owners/executives/shareholders.

In the NBA, that 40% is stretched to include that as well as all employees, minus the players, and all benefits. By no means, even by giving the players both the employee and product description, does the NBA's current model fit that of a typical successful business.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Owners. I mean obviously it's not the player's fault, they didn't decide to cancel. Sure, some players are overpaid. But it's not the player's fault, it's the owner or GM's fault for overpaying that person. Let's say Rashard Lewis, if his manager negotiates a good deal that maxes out at 22 Mil a year, he's supposed to say, "No, that's too much, get me a deal that's worth less." ? The owners are just being dumb.

And running a sports franchise isn't just a business. This article explains it pretty well. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ts-nba-lockout

It's all on the owners. And David Stern I suppose. The players couldn't control that.

[kkling]

Damn owners! "we want more than billions."

[Kurosawa0]

It's bad for fans to have guys with stupid, big contracts.
The Clippers had to trade away a first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis, because Davis couldn't stay away from the buffet line.

I think that owners should be able to have an out if a player doesn't live up to a contract, but if owners wouldn't be giving out these massive contracts to guys who aren't named LeBron or Durant, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Put it this way, if the majority of the league wouldn't overpay the Elton Brands the contracts would cheapen on their own.

Some of the players may be ridiculously overpaid, but no one made the owners agree to pay them in the first place.

[97 bulls]

You are correct that AND1 players are not nearly as talented. But it doesn't really matter. The NBA players could not make the kind of money they do now if they ran things themselves. There are too few players that have enough business experience to run a multi-billion dollar league themselves and hiring people to run it for them... well you are just in the same position as before.
Except that seeing as how since its the players league, they can dictate everything. And the people they put in charge of it can ask for more money. Not demand it.

Beyond that, only a select few players have the kind of cash it would take to support a league (at least in terms of start-up cash) and, in the end, the players with the most money would end up controlling the league, which, as with hiring others to run the league, is exactly where we are right now. And if the players would control things, what happens when the richer players, the ones in control, retire from playing? I do not believe it is legal to force them out upon retirement.
I'm sure they caould find investors


Not only that, but the league has to have someone in control. You could do a share-type deal where the league is essentially a private stock market (again, not sure if that is legal) and the players buy chunks of it with their own money, but you then run into the same issue as before: what happens when a player retires? They cannot be forced to give up their portion of ownership of the league, so you end up with outsiders (albeit former insiders) having control of your league. Because of how many shares these players have accumulated over the 15-20 years they played, the rookies coming in get a smaller and smaller portion of things each year until, eventually (say 20 years from now), the league is almost entirely owned by former players acting, essentially, as today's current owners. No matter what route you take, you will end up where you are today.
They could limit the amount of shares. Or upon retirement they must sell off their shares to the current players.

In short, the owners provide business management which is as important as the product when a business grows to be as large as the NBA. And there is a reason the players have not already done this: it just cannot work.
It could definately work. It would just take a lot of work.

Depends on the market, really, and if the product is new or in development. Your product line should, by general rule, never cost you more than 20-30% of your revenue. Now, I know the first thing you are going to do is add that 25-35% and this 20-30% and go, "Hey! That's exactly what the players are making now!" (give or take a few exclamation points, of course), but you only have half the picture.

That 25-35% and that 20-30% that the employees and product cost also include all employees and all fees associated with those employees. In the NBA, this includes all of the players, trainers, coaches, front offices, arena personnel, etc. and all of the health care (players get insane health care benefits), travel expenses, retirement benefits (unlike most of the world, athletes still get these), general expenses such as uniforms and supplies, and product development.

What remains is roughly 40% (Hey! What the owners get!) that is used for facility, maintenance, marketing, legal, damage, recruitment, utility, and security expenses. What is left of that 40% generally goes to the owners/executives/shareholders.

In the NBA, that 40% is stretched to include that as well as all employees, minus the players, and all benefits. By no means, even by giving the players both the employee and product description, does the NBA's current model fit that of a typical successful business.

The main problem for the owners is that the players are irreplaceable. Bottom line, flatout. Which honestly is something you can't say for the owners, trainers, ballboys, etc. You don't have a grocery store without gorceries.

[97 bulls]

I think that owners should be able to have an out if a player doesn't live up to a contract, but if owners wouldn't be giving out these massive contracts to guys who aren't named LeBron or Durant, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Put it this way, if the majority of the league wouldn't overpay the Elton Brands the contracts would cheapen on their own.

Some of the players may be ridiculously overpaid, but no one made the owners agree to pay them in the first place.

Elton Brand was one of the top PFs in the league when he signed his contract. He got hurt playing basketball.

And while what you state is true, in context, what about the second round picks and late picks that are underpaid?

[pauk]

both

owners for being stupid and desperate

players for being so stubborn and having their heads up their asses

[bagelred]

Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

Wait....what?

$800,000 * 82 games = $65,600,000

[Math2]

Why would they? There's plenty of money to be made overseas. Its happening right before our eyes. Didn't a team in the italian league just offer kobe $800,000 a game?

They wouldn't be happy overseas.