I think mellow was implying that just because he's signed doesn't make him a basketball player.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
I think mellow was implying that just because he's signed doesn't make him a basketball player.
To be fair, that's sort of an asinine request given that this is the period of time during which Hunter will be doing the most work.
EDIT: Just had it confirmed for me that physical arena depreciation was included. Also, the Knicks put their sexual harrasment lawsuit settlement in as a business cost. Dear lord.
EDIT: Just had it confirmed for me that physical arena depreciation was included. Also, the Knicks put their sexual harrasment lawsuit settlement in as a business cost. Dear lord.
mellow
Well-Known Member
As far as I've read, they've been working on a deal solidly for TWO YEARS. If he hasn't been giving 100% already, I don't see why this time is any more special now that the players are locked out.
But, clearly it wouldn't be fair unless David Stern ALSO agreed to take no salary during the lockout.
But just imagine that--if, say, the top 10 negotiators/lawyers/analysts on both sides agreed to take no salary until the lockout was over, I'm guessing it would not last long at all.
That isn't totally true. An initial proposal was made by the owners two years ago but that deal hadn't substantially changed in any way until about a month ago. There's been a lot more smoke than fire on the CBA up until this point.
True story: The NBPA doesn't even have 10 lawyers total on staff; much less on the CBA negotiation. The players themselves are obviously already going without pay. As for Stern, as long as he has sufficient pigs in a blanket I suspect he's fine.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Most of the time I tend to side with the players on CBA negotiations. However, this negotiation seems to have a different feel to it. I do believe that the players DESERVE a lot of money. They are the reason we are fans, watch games, buy jerseys, etc. But if the league as a whole is losing money, I think the most practical thing to do is look into cutting salaries. The owners are people too, and they made VERY large investments to purchase these teams. Many of them can't even turn a profit while staying well below the cap. Then if they don't exceed the cap to purchase better players, the fans call them cheap. How is this fair to the owners?
Also, can someone please explain to me why the NBAPA is guaranteed 57% of profits? Bill Simmons on a podcast said something to the effect of "If it costs $5 to make $10, the NBA is losing $.70". So while on paper NBA teams appear to be bringing in more revenue than in years past, when 57% of that revenue is automatically going into players bank accounts, it's difficult for teams to find ways to make a profit.
The NBA Players are whining because they don't want to have their salaries cut, the teams are whining because they would actually like to make SOME money.
I'm siding with the NBA on this one.
Also, can someone please explain to me why the NBAPA is guaranteed 57% of profits? Bill Simmons on a podcast said something to the effect of "If it costs $5 to make $10, the NBA is losing $.70". So while on paper NBA teams appear to be bringing in more revenue than in years past, when 57% of that revenue is automatically going into players bank accounts, it's difficult for teams to find ways to make a profit.
The NBA Players are whining because they don't want to have their salaries cut, the teams are whining because they would actually like to make SOME money.
I'm siding with the NBA on this one.
So, these mega-millionaire businessmen made bad investments and now they want the employees to bail them out of their loans. If I was a player I would say tough luck boyz, renegotiate your loan or sell it at a loss. Don't look to me bail out your millionaire ***.
Greed
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
word is that they DO count that stuff in their P&L statements, but it's not currently figured into the BRI calculation in terms of how to split revenues. the owners are trying to add that in so that the players share in those costs, the players don't think they should have to because they're essentially just employees.
this according to several recent tweets by larry coon.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
there are several problems with your logic. i can argue the players' side of this argument, too, but the way you get there has some logical flaws.
the owners have created a business that allows guys to get filthy stinkin' rich for playing basketball, but under the current system, THEY take all the financial risks. the players right now are GUARANTEED 57% of BRI minus certain costs, or around $2 billion... no risk involved there. they show up, they get a paycheck.
the owners, on the other hand, assume all the risks of running the business, which is why many of them lose money and a few of them lose boatloads of money. some are billionaire playboys who are fine losing the money because their team is just a high-priced toy they like to entertain themselves with. but others are serious businessmen who accept tons of risk and loss just to be kingmakers for a bunch of spoiled kids. so the players are just as much at fault here... they're failing to compromise so that they can make $2.1 billion instead of $1.9 billion at the expense of owners who have invested in creating a machine that makes them uber-rich. and if you think creating an NBA where players can make that kind of money is easy, talk to someone who has played ball in europe.
like i said, that's just one side of the argument, and i can articulate and sympathize with both sides...i just think you're oversimplifying.
theNBAnerd
Well-Known Member
that actually happened in the NFL. their union leader agreed to lower his salary to $1 during the lockout as a show of solidarity and shared urgency. shane battier asked billy hunter if he planned to do the same and hunter apparently squirmed and dodged the question.