**Official CBA Thread I**

[FinaciousOne]

I think it is. They have a union and a union rep, after all.

Whether you realize it or not the owners and players are partners on a functional basis. Their fortunes are inextricably intertwined.

I'm not so sure about that. The players could simply demand that the cap go up by 8% every year no matter what, and they'd have a lot more certainty than they do now. It seems to me that the choice of a percentage is a benefit to the players and the owners. It helps the players in time of expansion and protects the owners in time of decline.

Since their fortunes are inextricably intertwined, neither can make carte blanche demands. If they got a fixed 8% cap increase, they would not necessarily be more certain of their future if that growth rate were to jeopordized the financial viability of the League.

The owners, of course. Assuming that risk is part of what they bring to the table. Actually, let's be honest here -- the owners have risk limited by their investment if they want it to be that way. They can incorporate or choose a LLC form for their company. In that case, the real risk is going to lie with the creditors of the venture.

Since their fortunes are inextricably intertwined, the point of negotiating an agreement is to preserve the business and prevent such a sad outcome for both sides

That's true, but they can seek out the protection of the bankruptcy courts. They do have avenues of recourse.

This would mean that both parties failed in their negotiation for they would have destroyed the very thing that supports both.

Actually, there is one more point I meant to address. I think that Upshaw is saying what he is saying because the increased TV money comes on the 87% side and will change that 87% number to something greater when that money starts coming in this fall. This is why he rejects the league's claims of revenue neutrality. TV revenue growth rate is not predictable over the long term, but we know what that revenue is going to be for 2006.

That should be easy to negotiate past if the numbers are already known.

 

[Jimmy James]

That should be easy to negotiate past if the numbers are already known.

That may be a strong part of why there is apparently a 59.5% agreement. I agree with you here. Again, I'm trying to explain why Upshaw disagreeing with the owners' stance doesn't just make him a greedy ******* as some here (not you to my knowledge) have claimed.

 

[FinaciousOne]

That may be a strong part of why there is apparently a 59.5% agreement. I agree with you here. Again, I'm trying to explain why Upshaw disagreeing with the owners' stance doesn't just make him a greedy ******* as some here (not you to my knowledge) have claimed.

I've never impuned the motives of either side. I don't have a dog in this fight.
It is a complicated situation with significant consequences and all sides need to skillfully negotiate a deal they can all live with keeping in mind the overall goals of preserving the golden goose.

Enjoyed chatting. Got to call it a night. Thanks.

 

[greatwade]

http://www.hoovers.com/miami-dolphins/--ID__46783--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

It is actually neither.

I'll grant you that a LLC is not a corporation, but the fundamental limited liability concept is the same as that of a corporation. It also means that losses are not passed along to Wayne unless Wayne actually wants those losses -- the LLC could easily choose to be treated as an S corporation or a C corporation. This only makes me more certain that Wayne engages in investments and other business decisions with an eye toward generating profits in the right years and losses in the right years depending on what else he has going on with his own personal affairs.

Except its not an LLC :wink:

 

[DeathStar]

Except its not an LLC :wink:

way to be a smartass.

its LTD jimmy james.

 

[greatwade]

way to be a smartass.

its LTD jimmy james.

:tongue: