Comments on: Union membership clearly divided on Stern’s ultimatum

By: poorlittlepinkus

poorlittlepinkus — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:34:03 +0000

So tired of this. Shut up and play ball!

By: spunjmunke

spunjmunke — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:52:58 +0000

The longer that rich people argue about getting richer the more and more that those of us who scrape and struggle to get by will be more and more disenfranchised.
Hey players…you have a good deal going. If it weren’t for the owners ponying up THEIR money, you wouldn’t have a job.
Hey owners…you have a good deal going. If it weren’t for the players hustling their talant, you wouldn’t have a business opportunity.
As funny as I think it is that the players are trying to paint the picture that they’re the victims here, the real victims are the people who’s livelyhood is dependent on these teams. Local businesses and support staff are struggling with every missed game. When those people go under, that’s less people that can afford to support the product and the jobs that you, the players and owners, produce. The longer you complain about a marginal percentage, the longer you can potentially damage your legacy in the community. But then, you guys are all making big time cash so why would you care? You can say you do, but it’s all lip service.

By: stropcity

stropcity — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:32:47 +0000

Should we really expect all 400+ players to share the same position on career altering issues that will affect not only their futures, but also the futures of kids still grinding on the middle school blacktop?

By: hail2tharedskins

hail2tharedskins — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:16:25 +0000

Well, missing just a quarter (20 games) from this season is also hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, assuming BRI is $4bil annually, 1% over ten years means the players are giving up $400M; missing 20 games or a quarter of a season means the players are losing $500M or $2bil if the entire season is lost. The dollars just don’t add up for the players to justify sacrificing the season over 1% or even 2-3% of BRI.

Of course the owners are missing out on that revenue as well, but there are a few key distinctions: The first is that owners also won’t be making huge expenditures to host the games, there are a lot of expenses the owners must pay out from their cut of the revenue – in other words the plyers share of revenue is pure profit, the owners only see a fraction after expenses so the owners are sacrificing a lot less of the money that actually reaches their pockets. The second is that some teams are already losing money and they conceivable would lose less by not playing games since they would greatly reduce their expenses that are causing the losses. The teams like the Lakers and Knicks would be hit hard by not playing games but teams like the Bobcats might actually fair better without games (also note that while teams like the Lakers would be hit the hardest by missing games they are also in the best position to withstand the hit because of years of massive profits). Lastly, and most important the owners have decades to recoup any losses this year because they don’t have a term limit on how long they can be owners, the players only have a handful of years to earn money as basketball players and a season lost is a year of earnings they can never recover.

By: brooklynbulls

brooklynbulls — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:05:09 +0000

I believe if they took it to a vote, the players would take the deal. The owners are unfair in their totalitarian approach, but hey thats what the rest of the real world’s employees must deal with from the corporate machine. At least the players get to suffer in a far more desirable tax bracket than the rest of us. Take the damn deal!

By: dadawg77

dadawg77 — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:38:52 +0000

This isn’t about money anymore its about ego. If it was about money then the season would have started on time.

By: kandh2004

kandh2004 — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:38:24 +0000

I have to give it to Martin this might be the smartest thing a players has said so far. Just take the deal and start getting paid for the god given talent that 100% of the fans wish they had

By: david8726

david8726 — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:14:12 +0000

Well, to be fair, “1% over 10 years” is a huge amount of money. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. So I can understand why some players would want to fight for that.

As a selfish fan, though, I want them to fold so I can watch basketball again.

By: eaglessuperfan

eaglessuperfan — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:09:31 +0000

Do they realize that if they loose another month they stand to gain almost nothing? We are talking about maybe 1% over 10 years. Do they really want too keep loosing games (money) and leverage (deal is gonna get worse)?