Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Let me start over. You don't know my point. I - like most sensible people - think that both parties are at fault and that they should and will meet somewhere in the middle of their proposals. Like I believe most informed and sensible people believe, I believe the players are greedy but not anymore greedy than owners, who are undoubtedly fudging numbers so they can make money hand over fist. We as fans are the casualties, and the only way to make our voice heard is to boycott the product, and that's not happening for me as I love NBA basketball.
CJ is one of the dumbest posters on this site and yet somehow one of the longest tenured. If players aren't allowed to earn more than $5 million a year (or whatever similar nutty figure that he's yelling from his front porch/gold mill) then they - relative to the earnings of the league - are slaves. That is ********. The players need the organization, but the organization needs the players. They are the best in the world at what they do by a wide margin and the NBA makes a ****-load of money. Why should the actual PLAYERS just get **** on like CJ's proposing. It's absolute garbage. It's plainly stupid, and I'm sure he knows it.
I think guaranteed contracts need to go (or be marginalized significantly). I believe in the flex cap system. I believe there should be something resembling a franchise tag. But BRI for players shouldn't go down one bit. I believe everyone should have to earn what they make and that a rather slim majority of players do. Players like Bobby Simmons, James Posey, Jamaal Tinsley, and AK make it hard to believe that guaranteed deals are fair.
Fishsticks
Banned
I don't care about how much money anyone is getting as long as this CBA levels the playing field. For a fan thats all we should be concerned about. The big three phenomen really is ruining the league. If teams countinue to be allowed to lure the best players and stack their teams simply because where the team is located, the league is doomed.
Fishsticks
Banned
The price is a bit steep.
Too funny: you find out the owners have been lying to your face and you still support them? A $183 million overall profit versus their creative accounting loss of $323 million is a difference of oh, say, a half of a billion dollars. LMAO. Go on worshipping those hard working mega-millionaires who lied to you.
On another issue though, as to the above numbers it looks like this issue is really among owners and sharing revenue more evenly. That is what a guy on tv just said. He also said that a few owners made their recent purchases for big bucks based on a promise by Stern to ream the players.
zman you are unreal. I agree with you that revenue sharing is needed. I even agree that the players are fairly asking the owners to fix revenue sharing first. Yet you ignore that and focus only on the half of my argument that the CBA is also broken.
If your going to criticize my post at least read the New York Times article and try to understand my argument. In the New York Times article it claims that 3 teams made 150 million and the league as a whole only made 183 million. That leaves 33 million to be split amongst 29 teams. Hardly a successful business model. If you accept the New York Times view of NBA finances, (the NBA made 183 million last year) and you totally reject the NBA's claims they lost hundreds of millions, there is still a problem. Even if there is 100% revenue sharing, which there wont be, each team only would make 6 million in Earning before taxes and depreciation assuming they make 183 million again next year. Why should teams only make 6 million a year while players are making a guaranteed 15-20 million. The players have nothing at risk and yet they are guaranteed to make more money than the team. So under the best case scenerio, ie. rejecting the NBA claims to have lost hundreds of millions and allowing 100% revenue sharing, a CBA change is still necessary.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you are an NBA player because you can only see your side of the argument.
If your going to criticize my post at least read the New York Times article and try to understand my argument. In the New York Times article it claims that 3 teams made 150 million and the league as a whole only made 183 million. That leaves 33 million to be split amongst 29 teams. Hardly a successful business model. If you accept the New York Times view of NBA finances, (the NBA made 183 million last year) and you totally reject the NBA's claims they lost hundreds of millions, there is still a problem. Even if there is 100% revenue sharing, which there wont be, each team only would make 6 million in Earning before taxes and depreciation assuming they make 183 million again next year. Why should teams only make 6 million a year while players are making a guaranteed 15-20 million. The players have nothing at risk and yet they are guaranteed to make more money than the team. So under the best case scenerio, ie. rejecting the NBA claims to have lost hundreds of millions and allowing 100% revenue sharing, a CBA change is still necessary.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you are an NBA player because you can only see your side of the argument.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....I resent that remark!
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where CJ ranks on the dumbness scale, nor am I sure where Numberica ranks, but i do know that suggesting there should be a correlation between intelligence and posting tenure on an open internet forum is pretty dumb.
Hanging around a place where the nicest thing anyone could say of you is that you're out of touch with reality in a major way doesn't sound like the smartest thing to me. And a place where the vast majority of his interactions are him being mocked when he's not being outright ignored. But hey, I guess if a person doesn't understand all of that, then they WOULD keep coming back.
Touche.
But what do I know. I'm sure he's a nice guy. Now those black gu... I mean HOPPERS... !!!!!!!! should be thankful just to get a paycheck... I reckon!!!