Interesting note passed on by Kurt Helin at ProBasketballTalk.com (one forwarded from ESPN.com's Ric Bucher): Six NBA owners also own or have recently owned NHL teams. That league, of course, lost the entire 2004-05 season thanks to labor trouble, but in the end radically re-shaped their financial structure, slashing player salaries and instituting a hard cap.
Those six, says Bucher, have told their NBA brethren it was worth the damage of missing an entire year to get the deal they wanted.
While the NBA is more popular now than an ascending NHL before the bottom fell out, there are, at least from ownership perspective, some similarities between their respective situations. The NBA, as the NHL did, argues the basic framework of the CBA is untenable, and can't be kept going forward. In both sports, there are/were owners claiming they're more profitable when not playing.
Still, the NBA has a lot more to lose in losing a season. Any benefit of a more favorable CBA could very well be mitigated by the harm caused in erasing the year. The goal for each side is to maximize its share of the pie. Shrink the pie, and everyone loses.
From that end, take comfort knowing the Lakers aren't one of the franchises wishing to sit on the sidelines. Because they're extremely competitive (evidenced by the banners), extremely motivated to win now (evidenced by the roster), and extremely profitable (evidenced by the bottom line), they want to get back on the floor. As a franchise, the Lakers are more likely to argue with other owners, whether about the extent of revenue sharing or for a larger top end payroll. Regarding the latter, at least, they have more in common with players.
Helin notes the six owners with NHL experience aren't necessarily a powerful lot, which is good. Insofar as basketball in L.A. is concerned, fans don't want them spreading around any crazy ideas.