Author Topic: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular  (Read 31514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21952
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2011, 07:16:24 AM »
It is possible the system is broken and unless owners spend absurd amounts of money they will never get the high end talent.

I don't think that holds up if you look at the salary structure of the league. There are lots of good, competitive teams whose salaries are in the lower third or middle third of the league. That includes the Heat, for what it's worth, who just signed the most high-end talent in the league.

The real problem has been that they've been giving too much money to middling talent or giving high-end money to players who don't end up being high-end talent. Those are failures of management, even if it's keeping up with the Joneses.

They may be in a situation where it is play by the overspending rules or spend a decade in the basement.

They're not really. They're in a situation where they need to be smart in order to be competitive without spending tons of money.

That being said, I do agree mismanagement shouldn't come at the players expense.

That to me was the central issue here and is the reigning issue in sports labour negotiations. The issue isn't whether the systems that exist make it impossible for teams to be profitable but rather whether or not the systems that exist make it so that profitability is guaranteed. The NBA's whole argument, in public, was "We lost money, therefore the system is broken" when anyone can see they've been running the league terribly for years. They've put teams in small markets, markets that have failed previously, spent heavily on crummy players and alienated their fans.

Does that sound like a fundamentally flawed system or a system that allows for flawed management? This position by the owners was just them taking their leverage and trying to idiot-proof the league and grabbing control.

That's what galls me about this. They never, ever started proposing a system where they'd have to take more responsibility.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline L K

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2011, 08:23:15 AM »
It is possible the system is broken and unless owners spend absurd amounts of money they will never get the high end talent.

I don't think that holds up if you look at the salary structure of the league. There are lots of good, competitive teams whose salaries are in the lower third or middle third of the league. That includes the Heat, for what it's worth, who just signed the most high-end talent in the league.

The real problem has been that they've been giving too much money to middling talent or giving high-end money to players who don't end up being high-end talent. Those are failures of management, even if it's keeping up with the Joneses.

They may be in a situation where it is play by the overspending rules or spend a decade in the basement.

They're not really. They're in a situation where they need to be smart in order to be competitive without spending tons of money.

That being said, I do agree mismanagement shouldn't come at the players expense.

That to me was the central issue here and is the reigning issue in sports labour negotiations. The issue isn't whether the systems that exist make it impossible for teams to be profitable but rather whether or not the systems that exist make it so that profitability is guaranteed. The NBA's whole argument, in public, was "We lost money, therefore the system is broken" when anyone can see they've been running the league terribly for years. They've put teams in small markets, markets that have failed previously, spent heavily on crummy players and alienated their fans.

Does that sound like a fundamentally flawed system or a system that allows for flawed management? This position by the owners was just them taking their leverage and trying to idiot-proof the league and grabbing control.

That's what galls me about this. They never, ever started proposing a system where they'd have to take more responsibility.

It's actually funny, because they put a more hard-line, "you have to spend X amount of the cap" requirement that is probably going to have a bigger effect on bottom lines than the old system for some of the cheaper owners.  Kind of like Florida being forced to spend 40 trillion dollars to get to the cap floor.

Offline Guru Tugginmypuddah

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2282
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2011, 10:30:52 AM »
It is possible the system is broken and unless owners spend absurd amounts of money they will never get the high end talent.

I don't think that holds up if you look at the salary structure of the league. There are lots of good, competitive teams whose salaries are in the lower third or middle third of the league. That includes the Heat, for what it's worth, who just signed the most high-end talent in the league.

The real problem has been that they've been giving too much money to middling talent or giving high-end money to players who don't end up being high-end talent. Those are failures of management, even if it's keeping up with the Joneses.

They may be in a situation where it is play by the overspending rules or spend a decade in the basement.

They're not really. They're in a situation where they need to be smart in order to be competitive without spending tons of money.

That being said, I do agree mismanagement shouldn't come at the players expense.

That to me was the central issue here and is the reigning issue in sports labour negotiations. The issue isn't whether the systems that exist make it impossible for teams to be profitable but rather whether or not the systems that exist make it so that profitability is guaranteed. The NBA's whole argument, in public, was "We lost money, therefore the system is broken" when anyone can see they've been running the league terribly for years. They've put teams in small markets, markets that have failed previously, spent heavily on crummy players and alienated their fans.

Does that sound like a fundamentally flawed system or a system that allows for flawed management? This position by the owners was just them taking their leverage and trying to idiot-proof the league and grabbing control.

That's what galls me about this. They never, ever started proposing a system where they'd have to take more responsibility.

So, are sports leagues in general, stupid or greedy or are the owners who buy these teams in crappy markets the suckers that are born every minute?  I suspect it's both, and really is no fault of the players. 

I do support the players, and think they should get the most they can, whatever sport is.  I also support the owners, that they should make some sort of profit or at least break even with their toy.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21952
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2011, 10:38:00 AM »
So, are sports leagues in general, stupid or greedy or are the owners who buy these teams in crappy markets the suckers that are born every minute?  I suspect it's both, and really is no fault of the players.

I think you should read the Malcolm Gladwell pieces I posted earlier in the thread. It talks about the different motivations owners can have for buying sports franchises and their attitudes towards them better than I can and isn't as reductive as to just say it's stupidity or greed. My quote from Terry Pegula is indicative, though, of the way that owners frequently have different opinions of their "businesses" when they're running them as opposed to come CBA time.

I do support the players, and think they should get the most they can, whatever sport is.  I also support the owners, that they should make some sort of profit or at least break even with their toy.

I think pro sports owners should be no different than anyone else when it comes to their business. They should be able to make a profit if they run their business well but they shouldn't be guaranteed a profit regardless of their own decisions.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline Deebo

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 4376
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2011, 12:06:26 AM »
Raptors sign Magloire, or agreed to terms, I guess they can't sign until friday.

Offline Sarge

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 7780
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2011, 06:55:24 AM »
Raptors sign Magloire, or agreed to terms, I guess they can't sign until friday.

Stop-gap until next year... Should make a bunch of fans happy.

Offline cw

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2011, 08:38:26 AM »
So, are sports leagues in general, stupid or greedy or are the owners who buy these teams in crappy markets the suckers that are born every minute?  I suspect it's both, and really is no fault of the players.

I think you should read the Malcolm Gladwell pieces I posted earlier in the thread. It talks about the different motivations owners can have for buying sports franchises and their attitudes towards them better than I can and isn't as reductive as to just say it's stupidity or greed. My quote from Terry Pegula is indicative, though, of the way that owners frequently have different opinions of their "businesses" when they're running them as opposed to come CBA time.

I do support the players, and think they should get the most they can, whatever sport is.  I also support the owners, that they should make some sort of profit or at least break even with their toy.

I think pro sports owners should be no different than anyone else when it comes to their business. They should be able to make a profit if they run their business well but they shouldn't be guaranteed a profit regardless of their own decisions.

I don't see how the NHL CBA guarantees profit to all the owners. Many teams don't make a profit in the NHL. Likewise, I don't see it in the NBA agreement.

Having said that, business investment can't always be like going to Las Vegas. There has to be a framework where an investor can see where they've got a respectable chance to get a reasonable return on their investment or they'll take their investment money elsewhere.

Once again, like the NHL, when the NBA players sat down and looked at the real numbers, they dropped their cut of the revenue pie from 57% to 51% or so. And that structure does something for the players many employees don't get - that as the business takes off or grows, their pay grows. It provides some security for both parties to get an agreed upon "fair share" of the proceeds.

And this is the very nature of collective bargaining. It's negotiating how much union members will get paid. Unions members want the most they can get. Owners want the best deal they can get for their bottom lines to give them the best chance to make money. Collective bargaining didn't guarantee the Airlines would make money. Agreements like this have not guaranteed a healthy bottom line for all owners of sports teams - it's just improved their chances of seeing a healthy bottom line.

One can offset the inaccurate claim that there's a guarantee of not losing money with there's a guarantee that the owners don't make out like bandits - which was a driving force behind the creation of many unions and collective bargaining in the first place.

This is collective bargaining - a two way street for labor negotiations. It isn't bargaining a business P&L. It's only bargaining the labor expense component of that business. In this case, it's roughly 50% of the business expense - not the whole enchilada.

If a coach diddles little boys or a stadium collapses and fans get killed or fans get food poisoning eating hot dogs or the owners accountant embezzles millions of dollars, do the players chip in to pay off that lawsuit? Nope. They're free and clear of a bunch of that risk (if it doesn't damage revenues) with a chunk of the revenue pie and in the NHL's case, guaranteed contracts.

All these deals do is provide individual owners of sports teams with a better, more stable chance to make dough like nearly every collectively bargained agreement might do. In exchange for that, the players get a piece of the action when the revenues grow (which has been the trend that has happened for decades for sports teams - a virtual guarantee).

« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:05:57 AM by cw »

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21952
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2011, 09:03:16 AM »
I don't see how the NHL CBA guarantees profit to all the owners. Many teams don't make a profit in the NHL. Likewise, I don't see it in the NBA agreement.

Having said that, business investment can't always be like going to Las Vegas. There has to be a framework where an investor can see where they've got a respectable chance to get a reasonable return on their investment or they'll take their investment money elsewhere.

Again, I'd direct you to the articles by Gladwell and the quote from Pegula before you start talking to me about how the CBA's and the process of negotiating it should mirror what it is in other businesses.

Like I said above this is an issue where the league has run itself poorly for years. They put teams in bad markets, signed players to contracts that everyone with half a brain could see were terrible deals and ignored fans saying that there were too many games. So what did they see? Dilution of talent, losses and lowered attendance. And what was the owner's response. The system is broken. The system doesn't "allow" for them to earn a buck. The system allowed for smart, small-market teams like San Antonio to be profitable. The system just didn't allow for everyone to be profitable all the time and there's nothing more unpalatable to modern captains of industry quite like the idea that they don't get fantastically wealthy regardless of their actual performances. Run an investment bank or NBA team into the ground and the thinking in those circles is you should walk away with millions.

The system was fine. The system allowed teams to stand or fail on the strengths of their own decisions. Problem is, that would have required responsibility and proper management. But, like lots of big business these days, the concept of risk has been replaced by a culture of bailouts. Sports leagues can run themselves as terribly as they want and then, when the end results of their terrible decisions come home to roost, they cry poor to the players and lock them out demanding massive givebacks. That's "risk" in the world of the NBA.

Losses, any losses, are chalked up to a failure in the structure of the CBA, and it's never "Well, maybe it was stupid to put teams in tiny markets for the owner's vanity or give bench players 50 million dollars on the strength of one good year, we should really tighten things up". No, it's always "We don't know how to run our business. You need to agree to change the CBA so that it's idiot proof".

And they can do it because the owners are fantastically wealthy guys with other business interests that they do run well and have all the leverage in the world as a result. I fully expect the NHL to get a similar reduction in what they pay the players despite the existing CBA basically being written on the back of the NHLPA's bloated corpse. The NFL got it and nobody even tried to claim that the NFL wasn't profitable. CBA negotiations in sports leagues aren't about establishing an equitable structure by which everyone can earn a buck, they're about pissing matches where people are trying to stuff their pockets.

edit: and that, of course, is only the least egregious aspect of this. That only applies to clubs like the Hornets, Predators and so on. But because they negotiate under the laughable premise that they're one employer the same thing applies equally as well to every team regardless of actual financial circumstance. The idea that the Leafs, Lakers and Dallas Cowboys went into their most recent negotiations looking for "... a better, more stable chance to make dough" is a joke. Where's the guarantee that those owners don't "make out like bandits"?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:13:34 AM by Saint Nik »
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline cw

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2011, 09:21:36 AM »
I don't see how the NHL CBA guarantees profit to all the owners. Many teams don't make a profit in the NHL. Likewise, I don't see it in the NBA agreement.

Having said that, business investment can't always be like going to Las Vegas. There has to be a framework where an investor can see where they've got a respectable chance to get a reasonable return on their investment or they'll take their investment money elsewhere.

Again, I'd direct you to the articles by Gladwell and the quote from Pegula before you start talking to me about how the CBA's and the process of negotiating it should mirror what it is in other businesses.

Like I said above this is an issue where the league has run itself poorly for years. They put teams in bad markets, signed players to contracts that everyone with half a brain could see were terrible deals and ignored fans saying that there were too many games. So what did they see? Dilution of talent, losses and lowered attendance. And what was the owner's response. The system is broken. The system doesn't "allow" for them to earn a buck. The system allowed for smart, small-market teams like San Antonio to be profitable. The system just didn't allow for everyone to be profitable all the time and there's nothing more unpalatable to modern captains of industry quite like the idea that they don't get fantastically wealthy regardless of their actual performances. Run an investment bank or NBA team into the ground and the thinking in those circles is you should walk away with millions.

The system was fine. The system allowed teams to stand or fail on the strengths of their own decisions. Problem is, that would have required responsibility and proper management. But, like lots of big business these days, the concept of risk has been replaced by a culture of bailouts. Sports leagues can run themselves as terribly as they want and then, when the end results of their terrible decisions come home to roost, they cry poor to the players and lock them out demanding massive givebacks. That's "risk" in the world of the NBA.

Losses, any losses, are chalked up to a failure in the structure of the CBA, and it's never "Well, maybe it was stupid to put teams in tiny markets for the owner's vanity or give bench players 50 million dollars on the strength of one good year, we should really tighten things up". No, it's always "We don't know how to run our business. You need to agree to change the CBA so that it's idiot proof".

And they can do it because the owners are fantastically wealthy guys with other business interests that they do run well and have all the leverage in the world as a result. I fully expect the NHL to get a similar reduction in what they pay the players despite the existing CBA basically being written on the back of the NHLPA's bloated corpse. The NFL got it and nobody even tried to claim that the NFL wasn't profitable. CBA negotiations in sports leagues aren't about establishing an equitable structure by which everyone can earn a buck, they're about pissing matches where people are trying to stuff their pockets.

This claim about the owners being guaranteed to make money was made with the NHL CBA in 2005. In 2011 according to Forbes guesses, 17 NHL teams lost money. In 2010, 16 NHL teams lost money. It's not a very good guarantee, is it.

That's not all about bad markets and bad decisions. It's more about being pretty close to the line - close to a break even structure in many of those cases. All GMs sign some bad deals - it is a part of the cost of doing business in sports. A few do stupid deals but it's a small % in the overall labor expense.

The fact that the NHL is at 57% and the NBA and NFL labor has dropped to 50% or so along with those bottom lines reflects that the NHL is probably too high and that all three have found this to be an equitable type of formula for their collective bargaining result.

Further, these "bad" markets is where business go to grow their business. A business grows or dies. To go into a new market can take many years (probably a generation) before the business stabilizes in this type of venture. One has to allow for that. If the league was shrunk to original six, the top salaries would dwarf 100% of the revenues for the original six. The players make more money with a bunch these "bad" markets. I'm not endorsing every particular market the league is in - some may well move. But I am endorsing a bunch of what they've done. It hurts some in the short term (10-20 years) but in the longer term as places like Dallas, Washington, Carolina, etc - places where folks questioned the league for being in stabilize, it is good for the NA acceptance, broadcasting and growth of the game. As I said recently, when historians look back on what Bettman did in expansion in the 90s, I think he's likely to be looked on much more favorably for that in 10-20 years.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:23:26 AM by cw »

Offline L K

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2011, 09:22:18 AM »
Raptors sign Magloire, or agreed to terms, I guess they can't sign until friday.

Stop-gap until next year... Should make a bunch of fans happy.

Not me.  He's a guy who refused Team Canada every year they came to him, and a guy who became an "all star" because of weak field.  Never really been a fan and a guy who is "Canadian" doesn't really show much home-town pride.  I'm not all that interested, nor do  I care.   He's a guy who is going to sit behind Bargnani, Davis, Johnson in the rotation getting 10-15 minutes a night at maximum.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21952
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2011, 09:40:16 AM »
This claim about the owners being guaranteed to make money was made with the NHL CBA in 2005. In 2011 according to Forbes guesses, 17 NHL teams lost money. In 2010, 16 NHL teams lost money. It's not a very good guarantee, is it.

Wow, you have and I say this with all politeness possible, a very complicated relationship with how much stock you put in Forbes and their system of "guessing".

That's not all about bad markets and bad decisions. It's more about being pretty close to the line - close to a break even structure in many of those cases. All GMs sign some bad deals - it is a part of the cost of doing business in sports. A few do stupid deals but it's a small % in the overall labor expense.

Well, no, let's be real. A big chunk of those losses has to do with the primary, gaping hole in logic that the NHL negotiated their CBA on the basis of, namely that the revenues generated by the Toronto Maple Leafs should be contractually linked to the payroll of the Nashville Predators. If revenues aren't evenly split but the salary structure imagines they very nearly are then you're going to have winners and losers.

But it's disingenuous, not that acts as much as a disincentive to owners anyways, to base a leaguewide position on half the owners losing money if the CBA is also going to apply just as much to the other half. How did the league do as a whole?

The fact that the NHL is at 57% and the NBA and NFL labor has dropped to 50% or so along with those bottom lines reflects that the NHL is probably too high and that all three have found this to be an equitable type of formula for their collective bargaining result.

Leaving aside that the idea that those CBA negotiations resulted in something equitable simply on the basis that they were reached, I'd remind you this is still the NBA thread.

Further, these "bad" markets is where business go to grow their business. A business grows or dies. To go into a new market can take many years (probably a generation) before the business stabilizes in this type of venture.

Again, this is the NBA thread. You're replying to a post about the NBA. The NBA's movements in recent years have been terrible. Going from Vancouver to Memphis, Seattle to Oklahoma City, Charlotte to New Orleans and then expanding back into the failed market of Charlotte.

Say what you will about the NHL's strategy but the NHL put teams in big markets like Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas and so on. We can argue about the wisdom of those of hockey markets but, as someone who's never been as harsh a critic as some of Bettman's strategy, I've always acknowledged that they were at least making a play for eyeballs.

In the NBA almost all of their moves have been out of larger markets, some with very good fanbases, and into smaller markets. Vancouver is better for the growth of the NBA than Memphis. Seattle is a more appealing marketplace than Oklahoma City. Not surprisingly, there's not a team the NBA didn't move in the last 15 years that wasn't one of the franchises this latest CBA needed to be "tinkered" towards.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline cw

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2011, 09:51:52 AM »
This claim about the owners being guaranteed to make money was made with the NHL CBA in 2005. In 2011 according to Forbes guesses, 17 NHL teams lost money. In 2010, 16 NHL teams lost money. It's not a very good guarantee, is it.

Wow, you have and I say this with all politeness possible, a very complicated relationship with how much stock you put in Forbes and their system of "guessing".

Step up and provide another better source. Sorry we don't have Levitt's numbers for you to attempt to disparage this time around (until of course, they were proven to be correct).

What we do have is reports in the media on various teams - particularly ones financially struggling and they do very roughly tie out with Forbes to indicate a bunch of the NHL owners are not making money. Again, your 2005 claim of the NHL CBA being a guarantee for owners to make money didn't pan out over the test of time.

Offline Sarge

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 7780
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AM »
Raptors sign Magloire, or agreed to terms, I guess they can't sign until friday.

Stop-gap until next year... Should make a bunch of fans happy.

Not me.  He's a guy who refused Team Canada every year they came to him, and a guy who became an "all star" because of weak field.  Never really been a fan and a guy who is "Canadian" doesn't really show much home-town pride.  I'm not all that interested, nor do  I care.   He's a guy who is going to sit behind Bargnani, Davis, Johnson in the rotation getting 10-15 minutes a night at maximum.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not expecting much or anything and as far as the whole Team Canada thing goes, yeah, I completely forgot about all of that. I guess I just don't care about it as much as others but I completely understand where the bitterness comes from. 

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21952
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2011, 10:07:27 AM »
Step up and provide another better source.

I'd be happy to make the effort, provided I was interested in kicking around whether or not various individual NHL teams are profitable. But I'm pretty sure I didn't make any statements regarding that, certainly none with the certainty of "Ha ha, told you so", and so I'm pretty sure it's not incumbent on me to provide numbers here.

Sorry we don't have Levitt's numbers for you to attempt to disparage this time around (until of course, they were proven to be correct).

I'd love to get into the way back machine and have that six year old debate again but I think I'm scheduled to try and save Lincoln.

What we do have is reports in the media on various teams - particularly ones financially struggling and they do very roughly tie out with Forbes to indicate a bunch of the NHL owners are not making money. Again, your 2005 claim of the NHL CBA being a guarantee for owners to make money didn't pan out over the test of time.

Well, I suppose I'd point out that I pretty definitively didn't state that the 2005 CBA would result in guaranteed profitability for each and every team. In fact I'm pretty sure that during the lockout I said that what the owners wanted would mean trouble for some teams because of the uneven split in revenues while tying their salary commitments to things that had nothing to do with them. Which has kind of been born out and shows, to my mind at least, that along with the lowering of ticket prices and such the Owner's claims about what this deal would do for small market teams was not true.

But again, I'm not super inclined to reopen that and especially not here in this thread about the NBA. I was just pointing out that those same Forbes' numbers failed your smell test so definitively back then and these days seem enough for you to definitively make claims about team's finances. So was there a radical shift in Forbes' methodology that allows this confidence or are we just using them the way a drunk uses a lamp post?
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline cw

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
    • View Profile
Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2011, 10:17:54 AM »
That's not all about bad markets and bad decisions. It's more about being pretty close to the line - close to a break even structure in many of those cases. All GMs sign some bad deals - it is a part of the cost of doing business in sports. A few do stupid deals but it's a small % in the overall labor expense.

Well, no, let's be real. A big chunk of those losses has to do with the primary, gaping hole in logic that the NHL negotiated their CBA on the basis of, namely that the revenues generated by the Toronto Maple Leafs should be contractually linked to the payroll of the Nashville Predators. If revenues aren't evenly split but the salary structure imagines they very nearly are then you're going to have winners and losers.

But it's disingenuous, not that acts as much as a disincentive to owners anyways, to base a leaguewide position on half the owners losing money if the CBA is also going to apply just as much to the other half. How did the league do as a whole?

Some of those losses do relate to the disparity in  teams revenues. No question about it. And at the time of the 2005 CBA, I said as much. They didn't do enough revenue sharing for all parties to be happy. However, going from a situation where there was no revenue sharing to the place they got to, was a substantial step in the right direction.

Under this new CBA, I think they have to do more.

However, when the total operating income is only 4.1% of revenues for the league, that is far too fine a line in my opinion. The league shouldn't be a charity run by the owners for the players benefit.

The NBA operating income as a league was 4.8% of revenues and 17 teams also lost money according to Forbes guesses. Very similar results across the league as the NHL with similar operating income.

The NFL's operating income as a league was 11.7% of revenues (much larger) and only 2 teams lost money.

So a bunch of these team losses has to do with the overall operating income as a percentage of revenue relationship. 4% is cutting it too fine.

The new NBA deal, after all the acrimony and haggling, should result in that league making 10.7% operating income - which will help clean up a bunch of their bottom line problems.

The NHL will probably follow suit roughly along those lines. Kick in a little more revenue sharing and they will substantially reduce teams in the losses column without making gaudy profits overall.

TMLfans.ca

Re: 2011 Toronto Raptors/NBA/Labour Negotiations Spectacular
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2011, 10:17:54 AM »