To Hell With it!
- Thread starter JohnnyClutch
- Start date
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.
Chris-L
Well-Known Member
Hey, there's that guy.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that revenue sharing has been discussed. I don't know what they agreed to.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7147909/nba-lockout-owners-discussing-revenue-sharing-sources-say
Your argument would carry (more) weight if the NBA average salaries were anywhere near those of the MLB and NFL.
No, I'm a fan who believes that (1) a union who still ends up with average salaries far above that of any other major sport and (2) that the real sticking points heavily affect the superstars (and their agents) who feared that the existing deal would actually be approved if it had been put to a vote, so the whiny elites whispering in D-Fish's ear stopped that very unionesque step from happening.
In terms of your self-assessment of your financial acumen, I can't say I disagree with you. However, I invite you to research the concepts of ROI from both an operational and investment capital ("exit value") standpoint.
The problem is that the owners' profitability was not satisfactory, and the players' profitability (average salary) was exorbitant on both a relative basis and an absolute basis. Just like a union protects employees from getting hosed, an agreement among partner-owners protects the owners. And "hosed" does not equal a $5 million average salary.
From a financial standpoint, I believe accountants more than the Sporting News.
But as I have stated, it is not important whether the NBA made money or lost money. If the NBA were swimming in profits and still wanted to bring down the player take in line with other leagues and limit player hijacking of the league, that's plenty understandable.
Fitting that your opinion is from something that is six weeks old.
And the owners gave in all the way through the 10-year term, ratcheting up salaries to ridiculous levels. Now they want protection from that so that agents and players can't demand it. The proposal with 25% of payroll being placed as maximum payout to a superstar (vs. the 30% that agents--I mean the players--demand) is more than fair--perhaps still too excessive. The other 12 or 13 on the roster shouldn't have to share the other 70% or 75%. If Joe player were more educated, then they'd be demanding an audience from their own (dissolved) union. Now that the union is semi-dissolved, the elites and agents probably have even more power.
It's a free country. The NBA players don't have to sign it. They can fight for contracts overseas for 1/3 to 1/2 the amount. They can try to start their own league. And the owners can rebuild it from scratch without having to deal with whiny superstars and their agents demanding a whopping 30% of payroll for their star player.
This is all about the agents and the elites taking the owners hostage, and the journeymen not speaking up enough to get a deal done, partly because their representatives did not speak to them. The majority of the NBA is non-superstars for whom having more flexibility to go into the big cities might be nice but not nearly as beneficial to their careers as getting ont he court for a meager few million for a few years.
Even if it's in Charlotte.
Last edited:
Good question. Pics?
I'd hardly call Forbes a "sporting news" source.... and oh damn! The owners sure "stuck it out" to keep their company going. They sure have given up so much.
If something would have changed in six weeks, I'd be glad to review. The only differences now, is a federal mediator came in and couldn't get anything done, owners gave an ultimatum rather than further negotiations, players called their bluff and de-certified, forcing the owners back to the table with new offers. Which is where we are now. SHOULD my opinion have changed over the last six weeks?
If something would have changed in six weeks, I'd be glad to review. The only differences now, is a federal mediator came in and couldn't get anything done, owners gave an ultimatum rather than further negotiations, players called their bluff and de-certified, forcing the owners back to the table with new offers. Which is where we are now. SHOULD my opinion have changed over the last six weeks?
Anyone who sides with the players, who are making more money in one year than most of us will make in our entires lives, who complain when there are people without homes, jobs, and health insurance, and who refuse to take a "cut" in the face of economic hard times that is leading to more people without jobs and other necessities, needs to reevaluate their role models and priorities.
GVC
Well-Known Member
The players have already agreed to take a cut of more than 10% in their salaries. Anyone who sides with billionaires operating in a cartel, who frequently receive handouts from local and state governments, and have been completely unwilling to suffer ANY losses during the worst economic downturn since the depression (instead demanding that their employees subsidize any and all risk they could possibly bare) needs to consider just how brainwashed they are.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to this Forbes article, then it doesn't lend much credence to your feeble claim about profitability. This article underscores the string of losses and claims that revenue sharing is the only way to profitability. [Or to bring the players' salaries in line with other leagues, at least BRI-wise.]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sports...show-nba-lost-over-1-5b-over-last-five-years/
If you're referring to the following article, then it's true that the NBA has a positive operating income, which does not include interest or taxes, which means that the NBA could easily not be profitable. At best, it is currently only mildly profitable, and they have seen their operating margin decline. These negotiations have not helped the top line (revenue).
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytim...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/
But again, this is not relevant to whether the players should take the offer or not. The NBA proposal is still far better than any alternative that the players might have, that's not exactly what you call hosing the union.
What has changed is that it has become more clear that the agents and superstars hijacked the negotiations, as evidenced by the fact that the NBA proposal wasn't even put to a vote, some players weren't even contacted about the proposal, and that the NBA proposal still would've given the players the highest average salary among major professional team sports. By far.