green
Well-Known Member
LOL. That's all this world needs. More government intervention. SAVE US OBAMA!
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
LOL. That's all this world needs. More government intervention. SAVE US OBAMA!
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Wow--I didn't expect to agree with something that rustbucket writes.
It would be totally appropriate for, say, the governors or mayors of cities/states suffering from the NBA lockout to band together and approach the owners, NBA leadership, and/or the players and tell 'em to get a deal done. Given that the both the union and the NBA have agreed to stay hush-hush (at least through the mediation process) having some outside peer pressure--out in the public--would hopefully help the process along. Heck, they can approach both sides privately first if they want.
I'd suggest taking it to the national Congress, given that they've stuck their noses in sports before (e.g., drugs in baseball), but many of them would be reluctant to ruffle the feathers of (or support) the union--even one in which the average salaray is several million dollars.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Enhanced revenue sharing does not fix the problems. And realistically, the players have to understand that the owners are going to get over on this deal. The owners will get a CBA that gets them in the black, and THEN they'll realign revenue sharing that gets them blacker (no racicisistical pun intended.)
I would hope the mediator is stressing to owners that estimated revenue sharing should be incorporated in the proposals. But as I said in another post, the players need to stop looking for fair and start looking for practical. They would have leverage if the majority of owners weren't prepared to take the losses of not playing. That's an unwinnable scenario.
Yes, the owners are a bunch of filthy rich one-percenters and I don't have any sympathy for them, but let's face it, professional athletes are most overpaid employees in existence. How can you be on their side? They need to get a deal done because it's hurting the 99 percent of us poor slobs.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
It would really create an interesting dynamic if the local governments could do this, but in reality I doubt they have any leverage. The owners are probably obligated to pay rent whether the games are held or not, but it seems extremely unlikely that they have a contractual liability for the number of fans they are required to draw or the economic impact those fans are required to have.
Are you really this dumb? The government already intervened previously by spending hundreds of millions on the arenas. Now you object to further intervention to actually get some return for that money?
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I wasn't susggesting that governments get involved in order to enforce contracts; I was suggesting that government leadership are justified to get involved in order to increase the pressure on owners and players to come to a deal in order to restore or improve the positive economic impact of an NBA season on their respective communities. In other words, I'm suggesting that government pressure helps the little guy (i.e., the thousands of people who rely on or benefit from the NBA economically who are now being hurt by the delay in an agreement).
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
1) utah had the 7th highest payroll last year as one of the smallest markets in the league...how did they expect to make a profit? there is no system possible in which the jazz can maintain that kind of payroll relative to other teams and still be profitable. Any move to a more punitive cap will only make it harder for a team like utah to compete.
2) that graph has operating income at pretty much the same level, in absolute terms, as it has ever been. Not sure how that entitles the owners to a greater share of revenue
3) if the issue is truly that the cost of doing business is growing faster than revenues, the fair solution is to calculate each years player salary pool based off of the previous years salary pool + rate of revenue growth - rate inflation.
That is not being offered, because this is about bullying labor.
2) that graph has operating income at pretty much the same level, in absolute terms, as it has ever been. Not sure how that entitles the owners to a greater share of revenue
3) if the issue is truly that the cost of doing business is growing faster than revenues, the fair solution is to calculate each years player salary pool based off of the previous years salary pool + rate of revenue growth - rate inflation.
That is not being offered, because this is about bullying labor.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
if i were in charge of the players unions i would start collecting 10% dues every year for the next 10 years and then have the players union start their own league. the owners contribute nothing.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
By increasing the owners' share to rise in line with that of other major sports teams.
Based on the article I cited, the increased player share just to the players' current offer would've put Utah into the plus column. Moving the share to 50-50, plus some more generous revenue sharing (which the Lakers and others have reportedly expressed an openness to), would take care of probably all but a couple of teams.
Glad that you are becoming less itinerant in this regard <<sigh>>.
Not clear. Depends on whether the reduced ability for teams to overpay for players can compensate for the tendency for players to go to teams in larger and/or more attractive markets. But there are only so many such attractive teams, so I am optimistic that a harder cap would be a slight benefit to teams like Utah. There are only so many "superstars" to go around, so while it will continue to be tough for small-market teams to attract two or three franchise players at a time, they might have a better chance at one or two when money is less of a factor (and when the highly attractive teams are "filled up"). The rest of the talent gap between the elites and the other superstars can be partially compensated for by good-quality coaching and player development--such as a play-for-performance policy that includes minimum minutes for young players on a regular basis.
I'm also in support, though, of the owners offering a softer cap as a concession to get a deal done sooner. In these economic times, even the most wealthy teams are less likely to overpay IMHO, especially if they agree to more liberal revenue sharing for the have-not teams.
Like with the rest of the country, the problem is the income disparity. While 5 or 10 teams are in good shape, many others are struggling. Unlike our corrupt government representatives, most of whom seem to have little regard for anyone but the wealthy (especially their donors), the less-fortunate owners are pushing for a bigger share of the pie, even if it involves revenue sharing, and it appears that at least some of the "haves" recognize that they it least mildly depend on the other teams for their success. (It won't be surprising if a team or two folds/moves anyway.)
No; that's not being offered because it's more complicated, and because a revenue share in line with other major teams accomplishes the same goal. Also, your more complicated formula makes no accounting for increased legitimate non-salary operating costs. With a more balanced (e.g., 50-50) operating share, the owners still retain (nearly) all of the risk, and the calculations are less complicated.
I still continue to be amazed how you passionately defend these millionaire athletes who are among the highest paid in professional sports. You'd make a great commentator on Fox News
-- or simply a troll in sheep's clothing.
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I realize that. The interesting thing would be if the governments actually had any leverage. Unless there's some enforceable clause in the contract I don't think they do.
They should just tell the owners if you don't agree to a deal we will tax the **** out of you and say goodbye to tax breaks due to owning an NBA team.