More signs of labor peace?

[Roy H.]

The owners want for each team to have an equal chance at winning a championship while at the same time making a profit without actually acting as a cooperative business association and pooling their revenues and dividing them equally.

Until the owners can come to the table and say, we will be sharing revenues so that we all make money, the players are not going to agree to a hard cap because the hard cap will be set a a place that is most likely to make the currently least profitable teams profitable than make the currently most profitable teams less profitable.

For whatever it's worth, David Aldridge recently tweeted that the owners are working out a revenue sharing system that will share 3 times as much revenue as they do now.

I don't know what the actual numbers are on that, and obviously it needs to be formalized.  However, it suggests that the owners are, in fact, working on revenue sharing.  However, no amount of revenue sharing is going to make a unprofitable business organization profitable; rather, it's just a shifting of net losses.

[StartOrien]

Speaking of revenue sharing, this is YUGE news

Lakers accept hard salary cap, revenue sharing
Kevin Ding column: Jerry Buss and the Lakers might be losing more than the NBA players as the league's system gets restructured, but Buss is on board with a hard salary cap and huge revenue-sharing increases that will impede his chances to win in the future.

http://www.ocregister.com/sports/lakers-317224-buss-nba.html

[nickagneta]

The owners want for each team to have an equal chance at winning a championship while at the same time making a profit without actually acting as a cooperative business association and pooling their revenues and dividing them equally.

Until the owners can come to the table and say, we will be sharing revenues so that we all make money, the players are not going to agree to a hard cap because the hard cap will be set a a place that is most likely to make the currently least profitable teams profitable than make the currently most profitable teams less profitable.

For whatever it's worth, David Aldridge recently tweeted that the owners are working out a revenue sharing system that will share 3 times as much revenue as they do now.

I don't know what the actual numbers are on that, and obviously it needs to be formalized.  However, it suggests that the owners are, in fact, working on revenue sharing.  However, no amount of revenue sharing is going to make a unprofitable business organization profitable; rather, it's just a shifting of net losses.

Given that the NBA owners are claiming $300 million worth of losses as a business and yet have proposed a $2 billion cut in player salaries over ten years to the players, I don't buy their claim as a business model being unprofitable as currently constructed.

$300 million a year in losses but only $200 million a year as a give back and we are to believe that they can't make money? I mean, doesn't anyone else see the illogical claims being made here?

Also, 3 times what they are currently sharing? Well if that figure is next to nothing then is that really a lot of revenue sharing? How much are they really going to share?

[KGs Knee]

Given that the NBA owners are claiming $300 million worth of losses as a business and yet have proposed a $2 billion cut in player salaries over ten years to the players, I don't buy their claim as a business model being unprofitable as currently constructed.

$300 million a year in losses but only $200 million a year as a give back and we are to believe that they can't make money? I mean, doesn't anyone else see the illogical claims being made here?

I hadn't quite thought of it from that angle, but it does seem to make their claims that much more preposterous.  I suppose though, they may be considering future revenue gains into the equation as well.  So as revenue grows, the intial $200 million in givebacks grows also.

[LB3533]

Revenue is growing based upon the current CBA system.

If you change the system, you change the players' positions in this system.

That revenue will also change and most likely not for the better.

[StartOrien]

Between the reports about the Lakers willing to accept a hard cap and a stronger revenue sharing system, and the "leaked" Derek Fisher email I'm getting to be pretty optimistic. Probably gotta try to level that out.

[StartOrien]

Talk me back on the ledge guys!

[Roy H.]

Talk me back on the ledge guys!

I wouldn't get your hopes up.  A lot of what Fisher is doing right now is to quiet down the players, who heard nothing but disastrous reports from the last negotiating session.  Right now, several prominent agents are calling to decertify, and there's been a suggestion that there could be a coup to replace Billy Hunter.  This report is spun to take the heat off Hunter, and to show that things aren't as bad right now for the players as has been suggested.

At the same time, what's new in this report?  That the Lakers and Knicks would be okay with the current system?  The same current system that allows them to outspend everyone else?  Would CableVision revenue even be subject to revenue sharing?  I doubt it.  Of course Dolan and Buss want to take the deal and play the season; there's a ton more money in it (and Buss has to worry about Kobe getting older, and about possibly losing the ability to land someone like Dwight Howard in a sign-and-trade).

So, this is much ado about nothing.  We didn't learn anything that we didn't already know, except for some self-serving spin from the union.

[Roy H.]

How'd I do?

[StartOrien]

Much better, I got one foot on.

I'm encouraged by a couple things and am just trying to link them together

1. Reports that they're not that far off money wise
2. Fish's email saying that dissension in the owners broke convos off - and then further reports blaming the Sarver/Gilbert essentially wanting more.
3. The Lakers accepting the idea of revenue sharing AND a hard cap.

[StartOrien]

Word from Kevin Ding of the Orange County Register (presumably from Jerry Buss, although there is no identification of the source of this information) that Lakers owner Jerry Buss is resigned to a hard cap and -- this is huge -- major contributions to revenue sharing. Assuming that's true, it answers one of the lockout's major questions. Ding points out that this is a major concession for the Lakers, who are used to outspending rivals and seeing titles as a result. And that's probably true. However, also worth noting is that in addition to a stronger league, Buss would get way lower labor costs out of the deal. A hard cap may hurt the Lakers in some ways, but it'd help mightily in others. In fact, think about it ... the Lakers may save about $50 million in annual salaries with a hard cap ... roughly the amount they're expected to contribute to revenue sharing.

Thursday Bullets from TrueHoop
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31994/thursday-bullets-218