Otherwise known as a hooter.
To Hell With it!
- Thread starter JohnnyClutch
- Start date
Otherwise known as a hooter.
Chris-L
Well-Known Member
1. woot
Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, "w00t".
"w00t" was originally an trunicated expression common among players of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for "Wow, loot!" Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement.
"I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot!"
"woot! i r teh flagmastar!" (Think Tribes)
"Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!'
Woot originated as a hacker term for root (or administrative) access to a computer. However, with the term as coincides with the gamer term, "w00t".
"w00t" was originally an trunicated expression common among players of Dungeons and Dragons tabletop role-playing game for "Wow, loot!" Thus the term passed into the net-culture where it thrived in video game communities and lost its original meaning and is used simply as a term of excitement.
"I defeated the dark sorcerer! Woot!"
"woot! i r teh flagmastar!" (Think Tribes)
"Woot, I pwnzed this dude's boxen!'
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.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
You're assuming 100% revenue sharing here. Right-wingers would call that socialism. There's no way that the Hornets should be as profitable as the Fakers; they already revenue-share a large portion of the broadcasting revenues. And even if they had zero revenue sharing, it doesn't matter if the offer that the players get is still far superior to any alternative that the players have--and superior to the average salary in any other major sport.
The problem is that the new owners probably cannot sell the team anymore at an further inflated price, so they would "loose" money. Besides, they are businessmen; and this is business, and the players can take the offer or work at McDonalds.
False, false, and false, based on the law of exit value.
https://www.answers.com/topic/exit-value
You are assuming that revenues stay at the same level. I'm not convinced, after the damage that both sides have made via these negotiation, that that will be the case.
Because GE's financial statements actually show a financial profit.
https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GE+Income+Statement&annual
The NBA's financial statements do not.
https://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/06/nba-rebuttal/index.html
You loose. [That's what she said.]
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...this is about hip hop, posses, strip clubs, illegitimate babies, capping people, jailhouse tats, AND money!
The CBA is with the league. What happens to the money after that is their problem. Moreover, we're moving more and more to systems like MLB and the NFL, who have revenue sharing. Why haven't the teams agreed on a plan like that yet if they're working towards a hard cap?
You're either a true employee who has completely given in to never having any say in his company, or a business owner who expects his employees to live this way and doesn't understand a union.
This only shows a definition, not how it applies. I'm no financial genius by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact that they can buy a franchise for one price, and sell if for a higher amount tells me if you lose money, it's only pretend money you never had in the first place.
100% correct. If the players would have given in before a lockout there would be no damage. But on the other side of that, if the Owners would have given in before the CBA expired there would be no damage. It is at least as much the owners fault as the players fault.
Huh... an NBA story, illustrating the NBA loosing money, from NBA.com, just before labor agreements start. Imagine that. And you totally missed my statement entirely.
I guess I can't explain it any better, but I did find these, which should help:
Click Here.
and here
It basically says Forbes, and The NY Times were BOTH wrong about the financial state of the NBA on many points... at least as claimed to be wrong by the NBA themselves. Moreover, goes to say the tax returns, federal and state, were all given to the Players association to prove that they're loosing money. But the players still say the owners are making money, and have a case with it.
Even The Times thinks the numbers the NBA are making public are sketchy:
I wonder why a business entity that is under such scrutiny would hide their data from the public. Seems to me all they have to do to get the majority vote from their fan base is provide EVERYTHING to the public. Yeah... they don't legally have to. But if it's gonna get you a W, why not?
Not convinced of that.
I want a season just as bad as anyone on this board. Really. But both sides have to negotiate, and I'm not seeing that out of the owners. This really sums up my opinion on the matter.