Blog Entry

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

Posted on: October 24, 2011 1:58 pm
Edited on: October 24, 2011 2:00 pm
Posted by Ben Gollivernba-lockout

National Basketball Players Association president Derek Fisher said the NBA's owners were lying on Friday, and we spent all weekend waiting around anxiously for the other shoe to drop.

NBA commissioner David Stern, who called in sick that day, needs to do something, right? He can't just watch his league's labor negotiations blow up in his absence and not make some attempt at regaining order.

The question: What will he do?

Some think he could still have an 82-game schedule up his sleeve, but it's still not clear when the two sides will meet next in their negotiations.

Ken Berger of reports that Stern could opt for an open-ended approach rather than a definitive one.
"Pretty widely expected that NBA's next announcement will be that start of season postponed "indefinitely" or "until further notice."
When Stern announced that the NBA would cancel the first two weeks of its regular season, the announcement came three weeks prior to Nov. 1, the season's start date. We now stand pretty much exactly three weeks prior to the season's new start date -- Nov. 15 -- so an announcement of some kind should be coming shortly.

Why would Stern opt for an indefinite postponement? Well, it would save him the hassle of making a new cancellation announcement every two weeks. Surely, the outcry from fans and media members will accompany every new announcement. If he makes just one indefinite announcement, everyone hangs in limbo, uncertain when to rage. It would also give him the flexibility of getting the season started at whatever time is convenient if negotiations are successful. No need to wait an extra day or week to get things going if an agreement is actually reached.

A potential downside to an indefinite postponement would be the elimination of clear "deadlines" that are sometimes said to help the negotiation process. If the two sides don't feel clear pressure to work things through by a certain date to save a set amount of game checks, will that impact the motivation to set up meetings and/or stick to them for hours on end?

For now, we just wait and see for the answers to those questions.

Since: Apr 26, 2007
Posted on: October 26, 2011 3:52 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?


Sounds like a third grade smackdown with a first grade education.  Do you still practice writing your ABC's in crayon?

Since: Oct 24, 2011
Posted on: October 24, 2011 10:56 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

you're, not your.

Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posted on: October 24, 2011 9:36 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

Do you like to type, or just like to try and make everyone believe you THINK you know what your talking about BOTRON. As a new member to the CBS boards, I can tell you won't impress anyone, as it's easy to see that your an idiot. If your so fraggin smart, you possibly can't like sports, as it's beneath you. 

That's third grade smakedown,....jacka$$.


Since: Dec 23, 2006
Posted on: October 24, 2011 9:07 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

I honestly could care less.  And many sports fans I know feel the same.  I lke college hoops much better anyway.  Maybe I don't understand all the issues, but the owners are losing money because they paid the players too much.  The owners were stupid to get in this position in my opinion, but now the players have to wise up and realize they were making a tremendous amount of money.  So the players should make a deal, and still be rich.  I have no sympathy for either side.

Since: Oct 24, 2011
Posted on: October 24, 2011 7:41 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

Multiple analyses have indicated that the NBA's $300M loss claim is spurious.  From a strict accounting basis, earnings may have troughed at that number during the worst economy in generations.  However, as earnings include non-operational items such as interest, and non-cash items such as depreciation, it is rarely used in financial and valuation analyses.  

For example, if I buy a team for $400M and borrow $350M in order to buy the team, a significant chunk of my earnings are going to be eaten up by the interest payments on my borrowings.  While this correctly could reduce a team's earnings to the point they are showing a loss, it is a result of the financing decisions made in purchasing the team, not with the money being generated by the team, less operating expenses (notably in this case player salaries).

Further, as the purchase price and assets of the team are amoritized and depreciated over time, this further reduces earnings, but represents a non-cash expense to the owners that is simply an accounting convention that allocates the cost of the team/assets to the accounting periods where revenue is generated.

Because of these issues, EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation & Amoritization) or cash flow (complicated, but basically the net cash generated/lost by the team) are typically used to evaluate companies (in this case the team).  Under these analyses, it appears that during an absolutely terrible economy, the NBA did show moderate losses on an a cash or operating basis.  However, under the consessions that the players have already made, the league would be profitable, even in a terrible economy.

Not to muddy the waters, but on a completely separate note, I really don't understand your $5M a year for 70 hours comment.  I'm going to ignore the fact that the 70 hours of work number is ridiculous and just point out that value/salaries are (suposedly) determined by the market.  If we threw out the union, the CBA, the salary cap, everything, most players would make more, some significantly more.  How much do you think LeBron could have gotten in an open, free market last summer?  $40M a year? $50M? $60M?  How much would his signing have increased the franchise value of (for example) the Knicks?  Granted, this would be detrimental to competitive balance, but this could addressed through a luxury tax.

Sorry if this is a little more complicated than third grade math.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: October 24, 2011 5:08 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

NO BODY CARES WHO DEREK FISHER SAYS IS LYING. I want to know if Derek Fisher can't understand 3rd grade math...and how he got a college scholarship if he can't... or if HE'S is lying.

They say the NBA lost $300 million last year, the books agree with the owners, and so does the the IRS, and the Federal Mediator ...The "concessions" Fisher and the NBPA agreed to amount to about $200 million a year...or about a $100 million per year guaranteed LOSS for the NBA. 

The problem is simple. The NBA doesn't want to lose money anymore, so the players have to come up with another $100 million a year for the NBA to break even, and the players union won't do that.  

Didn't the owners mention to Fisher they aren't willing to lose money anymore ? It's why they have locked the players out- it makes more sense to suspend the NBA than lose triple digit millions a year running it paying millionaires that don't care.

...but Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter say the NBA owners are lying, and are trying to take unfair advantage of players... who make an average of $5 million a year for less than 70 hours of work a year.

If Fisher were good enough salesmen to sell THAT, they should retire from the's just holding them back.

Since: Apr 26, 2007
Posted on: October 24, 2011 4:32 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

You can add to the close of March madness with the NFL combines and draft (which is watched more than a regular season NBA game) the first month of baseball (which is still exciting for all 30 teams) and the Stanley Cup tourney.  Not until June will most sports fans miss basketball.

Since: Dec 18, 2006
Posted on: October 24, 2011 3:21 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

Right now, no one really cares about the NBA until the NFL season is over and the March Madness champion are crowned.

Since: Aug 28, 2006
Posted on: October 24, 2011 2:18 pm

NBA could cancel games 'indefinitely'?

Suits me if they never play again.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or