[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[CBA] CBA response digest.




According to the wishes of Greg and Others I've combined my replies
regarding the collective bargaining agreement in a digest format. I've also
added a tag, [cba], in order to help people uninterested in CBA wrangling
avoid reading unwanted posts. I advise others to use this tag as well, to
avoid unnecessary conflicts.

Noah

msg1:  JMENINNO@PARTNERS.ORG, RE: Those nasty owners picking on those poor
players....

msg2: Michael Joseph Byrnes, Players' League


msg1:
JMENINNO@PARTNERS.ORG wrote:
> Let's not be ridiculous here.  The NBA is not injuring these players,
> basketball is.  If they don't want to take the risk, don't play the
> game.  I didn't blame my college when I tore my acl in an intramural
> game.

Quite true. But morally the players are the ones subjecting themselves to
injury so they should be the first compensated not the owners.

> They DO get a portion of the profits.  They get over half of the
> revenues.  The owners pay other expenses, as have been noted, like
> building arenas, private jets, meal money....

Yes but that portion is only after the owners take their more than fair
share of it.

> Sorry, Noah, but calling yourself Socialist will not stop the bill
> collectors from coming when the jet or the arena payment is due.

It depends on what government you live under.

> So, this is their way of exercising restraint.

No this is their way of legislating the players out of their fair share of
the money. The cap and increased rookie contracts the owners propose would
effectively cut the players out of that. By eliminating guaranteed contracts
and forcing players to sign longer rookie contracts, the players would spend
nearly half of their average career under a contract well below their value
as well as that contract being non guaranteed. In that situation the owner
would hold all of the cards.
> They work for free, do they?

Nope. But for less than owners.

> Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The players already get over half the pie.  If you
> give them the whole pie they would have to use the rest for airplanes,
> hotels, meals, arenas, these consultants you want to hire....  Unless
> they can maintain the same revenues and do these things as efficiently
> as the current arrangement does, they will lose money compared to their
> current situation.

How do you know that? The owners won't open their books. If expenses do take
up the other half of all NBA income(not just the nebulous "basketball
related income" that the CBA adheres to), then the players themselves will
have to be fiscally responsible. I won't condemn that.

>That is the risk I'm talking about.  Losing money
> might not seem like a big deal to you, because you seem to be a
> socialist, but I don't think the players share the 'good of the group'
> mentality.

No they probably don't(although I'm not a socialist), but shouldn't they?
Basketball is a team sport, shouldn't the players be altreuistic or at least
communistic? By communisitic I mean the word in terms of its root
*community* rather than the political connotations.

> Now they have the team to negotiate with.  You would have them fighting
> with each other about these things.  A very, very bad idea for a group
> as immature as NBA players.

True, but wouldn't the conflicts and resolutions breed the maturity and
responsibility the NBA players lack? Now NBA players have people to clean up
for their every mistake, look where it gets them. Some responsibility would
do them good.

> See above.  If they can't increase revenue or cut costs there's only the
> owner's profit to be had, whatever that is.  Could be a loss this year,
> depending on who you believe.  And that would be at considerable risk.
> No.  There's no way they would be interested in that in the slightest.

Probably not. At best they'd be interested in the CBS-Fox league. That would
just be history repeating itself.

> Please.  Your plan doesn't add quality players to the league.  There
> will still be awful teams, and since that will mean the players on them
> are paid poorly, you would have a very hard time convincing anyone to
> play for them.

Perhaps, but isn't that the case already? Even though the clippers have more
money now than they would under my proposal, don't players ignore that money
to play on a better team? How many free agents have the clippers retained
lately? As for the team collapsing, why haven't the clippers collapsed yet?
Even with foolish ownership, mismanagement, and CBA(the other CBA) quality
talent, they're still around.



Msg2:
Michael Byrnes wrote:
> When did I ever say that the players should moderate their wealth while
> the owners should not.

My apologies for misinterpreting you. Looking back at your post it was
merely a rebuttal of my argument for a players league.

> I believe that each side has a right to whatever concessions it can get in
> the collective bargaining process.  My frustration is with the fact that
> both sides seem to be out to win a victory over each other, rather than
> being out to cooperate and win a victory for the league and the sport.

Agreed.

> No sport league like the NBA existed before the concept of ownership.  The
> NBA is, in addition to being a "sport league", a multimillion dollar
> entertainment industry.  Show me one of those that has existed without
> ownership.

I don't know of any multimillion dollar entertainment industry, but I do
know that organized sports leagues existed in native north american and
aztec countries well before european colonization.
> This is a separate issue.  No city should ever fork over a stadium for a
> sports team, though several cities have done so.  It hasn't, and won't
> happen in Boston, though.

In regards to you post you are correct. It is cogent when related to the
current school of thought decrying player greed however. I shouldn't have
posted it responding to you though.

> ANyway, without a city to finance a stadium, no NBA player is going to
> want to assume any part of the debt that would be involved.

No, they are irresponsible as Mr. Meninno correctly pointed out.
> OK, let's say that you are the star center on the Boston Celtics, and I am
> the "GM/consultant".  I decide to make a trade which I think is in the
> best interest of the organization.  Unfortunately, the player to be traded
> is your best friend on the team.  Since you're paying (most of) my salary,
> I can either not make the trade or look for another "consultant" job.

True, but the league would have to have a ratified constitution to prevent
that sort of thing.

>
> What if the "coach/consultant", who also gets most of his salary from
> you, isn't giving you enough minutes?  Bye, bye, coach/consulatant.

See my above response regarding a consitituition.'

> The players would run their league into the ground with such squabbles.

True. That further highlights the need for a constitution.

Noah