Bring on the Scabs!!

[TNT]

My local Rec Center has a group of Filipino's who play basketball together once a week.

TRUST ME, YOU WOULD PAY TO SEE THESE GUYS PLAY.

I am intrigued. Tell me more!

 

[Park Bites]

I would be interested to see who some of these other players jazz fans would go to see. First name that comes to mind is lance allred. Then maybe Kevin Krueger. Maybe give Morris almond another shot.

 

[Scorpjazz]

Stephen A. Smith is generally an idiot, but that article shows he actually can put something good out there. He's right on the money this time, IMO...

Agree, Stephen A. is spot on.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Very good article.

 

[zman1527]

What I'm saying is the owners are right and the players are wrong. The owners took the risk, invested hundreds of millions of dollars and deserve to make a profit. Even if player' wages were cut substantially they still make more than every other league.

Hey, I bought stock last year in XYZ company and I deserve to make a profit. I risked my money and now the stock is down. I demand that management at XYZ cut their salaries and make me profitable. Is that how it works?

Also, note that the players just want a percentage of the action, not a set amount. Thus as the revenues goes up they get more, as it goes down they get less. Right?

Look, I don't like $120 tickets and $20 mill/year salaries anymore than anyone else. But I am sick and tired of seeing the little guys get slapped down these days so the multi-millionaires can become multi-multi-millionaires. Now I realize the players are not such "little guys" but the idea is the same.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Okay, Zippy, how do you know that any are losing money at all? If 22 are losing money, why are not the owners selling these bad investments??? With the accounting games they can play, no one can know if any one of them is losing money at all. You trust the owners in this? Okay, I have a wonderful MBS rated AAA for ya. Sure those illegal dishwashers in East LA are good for the mortgage payments. LOL

You never heard of a billionaire selling out of a bad investment? Happens all the time. And if they did the new owner would have a better financial situation presumably: if owner A bought if for $300 million and it is actually losing money, maybe someone can buy it for $150 million. Then you have a better proposition.

Sure the players make good jing and they should be very happy with that. But they are only asking for a percentage. If revenue goes down, so does their take, right? I think they ought to go for 50:50 and stick with that. That will sound fair to everyone.

Why 50/50?

 

[zman1527]

Why 50/50?

Because it sounds fair.

 

[mfree]

Okay, Zippy, how do you know that any are losing money at all? If 22 are losing money, why are not the owners selling these bad investments??? With the accounting games they can play, no one can know if any one of them is losing money at all. You trust the owners in this? Okay, I have a wonderful MBS rated AAA for ya. Sure those illegal dishwashers in East LA are good for the mortgage payments. LOL

You never heard of a billionaire selling out of a bad investment? Happens all the time. And if they did the new owner would have a better financial situation presumably: if owner A bought if for $300 million and it is actually losing money, maybe someone can buy it for $150 million. Then you have a better proposition.

Sure the players make good jing and they should be very happy with that. But they are only asking for a percentage. If revenue goes down, so does their take, right? I think they ought to go for 50:50 and stick with that. That will sound fair to everyone.

Its pretty tough to sell a team for which you paid $300M ($250M borrowed) for $150M. Bankers and other partners don't like that.

What you are saying is that they made a bad investment. If they give in now, you become right. If they win this war, and can still make their loan payments as well as some profit, you are wrong.

They will not give in easily.

 

[colton]

Why 50/50?

Because it sounds fair.

Actually, there's a little bit more to it than that. Most reports that I've read have said that if the 57% figure got reduced to 52%, the league as a whole would break if they had 100% revenue sharing. The 50% figure seems very reasonable to me in that it wouldn't require 100% revenue sharing, but it would require a large amount of it; and it wouldn't guarantee that ALL owners made a profit, but it should make it so that a well-run franchise would be able to do so.

In short, I think 50-50 is a reasonable level.

It's also fairly close to half way between what the players were offering (54.5%?) and what the owners were requesting (43%?). (I can't remember the bargaining numbers off the top of my head.)