Lockout!!!

[InGameStrategy]

Just like a politician, I can't believe everything Stern is saying is 100% true.

I agree that I wouldn't trust Stern any farther that I can throw his buttery body, but it is likely that at least some of what he is parroting originated with the owners. Despite the notion that Stern might exert a lot of power over the owners, he still works for them. For example, I can envision a scenario in which the owners told Stern that if the players don't agree sooner rather than later, that they will exert more stipulations upon the players; it is also possible that Stern proposed it, and the owners agreed. Or a mix of the two. I question whether the owners are being rational about it; with the existing bloated salaries, it seems that the owners would want a tapering of the player share over time; i.e., 56% next year, 55% the year after that, down to--say--52% in five years and holding. If it's not tapered, then the existing high salaries will hog much of the payroll of most teams, especially if the owners foolishly insist on a hard cap.

The high player share is a much bigger problem than a hard cap as long as a "luxury tax" is in place. The profitable teams should also look at the amount of money that would subsidize the unprofitable ones would make sense.

 

[One Brow]

-Stern wants revenue sharing once the league as a whole is profitable. He claims that the big market teams are in favor of this as well, despite the fact that most of the sharing is going to be coming from their pockets.

That would result in the player share of BRI being 48-50%. The 39% I have heard about is what it would take to get every team profitable individually.

 

[colton]

That would result in the player share of BRI being 48-50%. The 39% I have heard about is what it would take to get every team profitable individually.

That matches what I remember, as well.

 

[colton]

Just like a politician, I can't believe everything Stern is saying is 100% true.

Yep. The scoreboard comment in particular is ludicrous. The players weren't complaining about the owners counting amortization of scoreboards, they were complaining about the owners counting amortization of PURCHASING THE TEAMS themselves.

 

[oldtimer]

Colton

I thought it was even more ridiculous. I don't think teams are amortizing the purchase price (I don't think that is possible legally). Teams are including financing costs of the loans they took to purchase the teams as a cost of doing business. I really don't think that is a problem at least as far as the IRS goes. The real problem with the amortization, at least according to some of the articles I've read, is that some teams are amortizing players. Teams are treating players like they do inventory on a shelf. The legality of this is questionable and according to reports not every team is doing it. Those that do better have good lawyers to explain it to the IRS.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

The high player share is a much bigger problem than a hard cap as long as a "luxury tax" is in place. The profitable teams should also look at the amount of money that would subsidize the unprofitable ones would make sense.

I agree. However, I would like to see the luxury tax be changed from $1 for every $1 over the cap, to $2 for every $1 over the cap. If would force teams to exercise caution before going over the cap and create additional sharing of revenues as long as those funds are being distributed back to teams under the soft cap.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Colton

I thought it was even more ridiculous. I don't think teams are amortizing the purchase price (I don't think that is possible legally). Teams are including financing costs of the loans they took to purchase the teams as a cost of doing business. I really don't think that is a problem at least as far as the IRS goes. The real problem with the amortization, at least according to some of the articles I've read, is that some teams are amortizing players. Teams are treating players like they do inventory on a shelf. The legality of this is questionable and according to reports not every team is doing it. Those that do better have good lawyers to explain it to the IRS.

I've read this too. If you listen to the podcast, Stern mentions that not all expenses listed on their taxes are being used as a calculation of losses for CBA negotiations. They may use the technique you mention for IRS purposes and tax benefits, but they aren't for the CBA negotiation. From the interview, while Stern didn't quote an exact number, it sound like the "agreed upon" loss between the players union and the owners is somewhere between $200-$300 million.

I remember reading the same article you are referring to, and the two things that bothered me were that the Audited Tax Reports that these reporters got there hands on were old (one was from 2005 and the other 2008 if I remember correctly), and they did no follow up to determine if these final numbers were the same numbers that the NBA was reporting for CBA negotiation purposes. Lazy reporting or just plain biased.

 

[NUMBERICA]

David Stern is a piece of ****.

 

[northeast]

5 million a year is more than enough pay for anybody to do anything

 

[NUMBERICA]

5 million a year is more than enough pay for anybody to do anything

So owners should be capped to that figure on how much they can make owning a team, and the rest goes to...?

 

[Gameface]

5 million a year is more than enough pay for anybody to do anything

Sure, at least as long as someone else who wants that person to do the same thing doesn't offer them 6 million, then someone else offer them 7 million...

Funny how that works.

 

[DutchJazzer]

the NBA's offer will decrease, not increase

.

Good thats the way it should be.