To Hell With it!
- Thread starter JohnnyClutch
- Start date
I think I might have just wooted.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Ewww.
JohnnyClutch
Well-Known Member
Yea, to hell with the spoiled, entitled, blessed, overindulged, self-indulgent, spoon-fed, puerile, mollycoddled teenagers.
Let's us, who actually PAY for this league, go back to God by going all the way on the hard-line express to get a league that's worth watching. Any of them can play, as long as they accept the new terms.
Why? Just why?
You're not supposed to feel sorry for anyone, or anything. There's only one thing more important than being a fan, and that's being a person. The NBA as a whole had the best year it's had in a long time last year. This year would have been better, most believe.
That being said, if a company as a whole is making money, why do the players have to withdraw?
"NBA owners stupidly paid $100,000 for a KIA for the last few years, now KIA won't take a $75,000 offer." Well, it's not that simple. Since the last lockout, we've had two bargaining sessions to do something make changes and they didn't see it as enough of a problem to change anything. This wasn't a one time purchase, this is like saying "NBA owners stupidly paid $8k/month on two separate 5-7 year contracts to lease a Rolls-Royce, and now Rolls Royce won't give them a new lease on a newer, better model for $7k/month". The players are already willing to bail them out by dropping down to 50-50 if they can cut some of the system issues.
Take the huge dollar amount out of this, and put yourself in their situation. Your company just had it's most successful year in recent memory, and you have a union. Your employers says "Hai... you're gonna take a 7% cut in salary, we don't want to pay you if you're sick or injured(no sick time/short term disability), it will be much more difficult for anyone to be hired to another division if you currently work for us, and various other little things that will make things work better in our favor, but throw your benefits to the dogs."
Under those circumstances, what would you do? Knowing your boss is full of crap when he says "we can't exist unless we do this", and you have the power to say no and have real weight behind it, what would you do?
That being said, if a company as a whole is making money, why do the players have to withdraw?
"NBA owners stupidly paid $100,000 for a KIA for the last few years, now KIA won't take a $75,000 offer." Well, it's not that simple. Since the last lockout, we've had two bargaining sessions to do something make changes and they didn't see it as enough of a problem to change anything. This wasn't a one time purchase, this is like saying "NBA owners stupidly paid $8k/month on two separate 5-7 year contracts to lease a Rolls-Royce, and now Rolls Royce won't give them a new lease on a newer, better model for $7k/month". The players are already willing to bail them out by dropping down to 50-50 if they can cut some of the system issues.
Take the huge dollar amount out of this, and put yourself in their situation. Your company just had it's most successful year in recent memory, and you have a union. Your employers says "Hai... you're gonna take a 7% cut in salary, we don't want to pay you if you're sick or injured(no sick time/short term disability), it will be much more difficult for anyone to be hired to another division if you currently work for us, and various other little things that will make things work better in our favor, but throw your benefits to the dogs."
Under those circumstances, what would you do? Knowing your boss is full of crap when he says "we can't exist unless we do this", and you have the power to say no and have real weight behind it, what would you do?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Until that last word, I was convinced you were talking about the owners.
GVC
Well-Known Member
This is a joke, right?
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
The overall profit margin and operating cash flow were pretty low, and net income was negative on a statutory basis.
This negotiation is not about bailouts or players being so generous. Their 57% share was near the top percentagewise among professional sports--and their average salaries remain far higher than that of other leagues, even at 50/50.
I do put myself in their situation, and I see that they are getting paid to play basketball. Shut up and take what is still an unparalleled salary, even if you have to play where your boss tells you to. You still get 4 months off per year.
Did the owners say that? No. They said that they wouldn't be profitable--or might be only mildly profitable. It's the players that have more of a chance of not existing (i.e., not playing basketball for a living, at least not all 400+ of them; there's simply not room in overseas leagues or in any "And1 and then some" league that the players or their agents feebly set up) than the franchises, who can rebuild the league from the ground up at a much lower cost basis. I wouldn't be surprised if some owners would prefer the latter, even it it means significantly sacrificing profits in the short-term.
Lets resolve the profitability situation once and for all.
My argument: This says they still make money. Yes, only a little, but the NBA still made money. Last year, BRI increased 4.8% to $3.817B. A 7% cut appears to be just over $255 million that would be basically given back to the owners. Divide that by 30 teams, and you have an extra 8.5 million per team. This means that it's still profitable to have a team in the NBA by almost $10m a year.
Add on top of that the fact that the average cost of an NBA team has risen much, much more than just average American dollar inflation since 1970, after they sell the team, no owner would be loosing money. At no given point is an NBA team not a profitable investment. By owning a team, you will make money. These are the numbers I see, and base all of my arguments on, and best I can tell what the Players Association is going off of. Yes, they make money, but they're also bringing in that extra 4% increase in value to these franchises, which NBA wide is $174 million a year, 5.8m to each team. Each team get an average increase of 5.8m in worth each year.
The concept that the league as a whole is loosing money is as big a farce as saying GE pays taxes. Shady business math is what their argument is based on.
Are we still on the same page? Yes or no? If no, please show me why.
My argument: This says they still make money. Yes, only a little, but the NBA still made money. Last year, BRI increased 4.8% to $3.817B. A 7% cut appears to be just over $255 million that would be basically given back to the owners. Divide that by 30 teams, and you have an extra 8.5 million per team. This means that it's still profitable to have a team in the NBA by almost $10m a year.
Add on top of that the fact that the average cost of an NBA team has risen much, much more than just average American dollar inflation since 1970, after they sell the team, no owner would be loosing money. At no given point is an NBA team not a profitable investment. By owning a team, you will make money. These are the numbers I see, and base all of my arguments on, and best I can tell what the Players Association is going off of. Yes, they make money, but they're also bringing in that extra 4% increase in value to these franchises, which NBA wide is $174 million a year, 5.8m to each team. Each team get an average increase of 5.8m in worth each year.
The concept that the league as a whole is loosing money is as big a farce as saying GE pays taxes. Shady business math is what their argument is based on.
Are we still on the same page? Yes or no? If no, please show me why.