Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The player percentage of BRI is where the fat paychecks come from.
Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Kobe Bryant....shot down 50/50 deal!
- Thread starter carolinajazz
- Start date
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
But the owners do pay for the hotel rooms, charter flights, player travel per diems, locker room amenities and a variety of other expenses that are specifically designed to keep the athletes happy and satisfied out of their portion of the BRI.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
of course they should have. If you did all the work and your employer guaranteed you 57% of the revenue for 12 years, and then after that 12 you had made a good enough product that revenue doubled - why would you accept a drop in compensation down to 50-50?
that makes no sense. The players should go to nike and start their own league - yeah they would lose money, but its better to lose money than be taken advantage of.
that makes no sense. The players should go to nike and start their own league - yeah they would lose money, but its better to lose money than be taken advantage of.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Um, maybe because a large portion of the rest of the country has also had to accept a drop in compensation (many in the form of partial or full layoffs, or not being able to find a job in the first place), and because they were arguably overpaid (in absolute terms and also relative to the other leagues) in the first place.
Sorry, Crymelo Anthony and Dwhine Wade; the honeymoon period is over (or reduced by 7 percentage points). Now it's time for your BRI to fall in line with the NFL and other leagues. Somehow the pro football athletes--who average a lower salary and have a shorter average lifespan in the league--figured out how to do it without missing games. But the NBA punks (and their agents) couldn't.
The longer they hold out, the more everyone loses. I'm 100% behind the owners not paying more than 50%. If you count all the perks (hotels, flights, etc.), if it comes out of the owners' share, it's likely closer to 51% or 52% anyway.
If the players' slogan is "Let us play," then the owners' slogan should be "Shut up and play."
If they try, God bless 'em. Likely probability of success of that league?
Less than 50-50
.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Ya see, that's just stupid. Pride doesn't feed anyone, including Latrell's children.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
Hey, its not like that extra 7% is going to charity. I see no reason that the owners deserve that extra income, remember its a lockout not a strike.
Also, the owners do pay for perks such as hotel rooms etc, but they also are trying to revise the formula for BRI to exclude lots of different types of revenue.
the league had record profitability last year, this is about stealing a larger portion of the pie for owners. **** them.
Also, the owners do pay for perks such as hotel rooms etc, but they also are trying to revise the formula for BRI to exclude lots of different types of revenue.
the league had record profitability last year, this is about stealing a larger portion of the pie for owners. **** them.
"hold out"? it's a lockout, remember. did you mean "resist capitulation" instead?
and how are hotels and flights a "perk"? these guys are on the road 50 nights a year. what are they supposed to do? drive their own cars on the road trips? sleep at the arena?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....and that's exactly why most NBA fans do side with the owners (of course, I have my "other" reasons as well!) and the players don't have a leg to stand on....which they will find out shortly....when those paychecks stop coming and the deal on the table get's worse and worse and worse!
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
The owners and the players have every right to try to get the best deal possible for their side. I won't say I believe they are losing a lot of money. Anyway, I have no issue with them wanting a 50/50 split. In the end both will lose out if this goes on because the fans will ultimately walk away. Some probably already have.
yes, they should get a paycut, just because the rest of us (supposedly) have. and can i get a t-bagger over here to object to the socialism implied in this post?
as opposed to the owners, who make their money all fair-and-square. see:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?7331-Get-to-know-an-NBA-owner!&p=199023&viewfull=1#post199023
kwb
Well-Known Member
I can totally see those 3 just wanting to do what's completely best and beneficial for the younger players in the league.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
The owners were the obstacle at the beginning, but now it's the players. And there's little difference between a lockout and a contract dispute in terms of the impact of not having games.
The NBADL players and international players can explain to you the difference between a perk and a cost-effective business expense better than I can.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/jennings_nba_a_far_better_option_than_europe/6090403
In either case, if it's really coming out of the owners' share, then it further reduces the players' argument in all this. Before taxes, the players' 50% (or 46% or 53% or whatever) comes out relatively expense-free.