Lockout!!!

[zman1527]

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.

I do not only see my side, I just find it funny how many people, after all the financial shenanigans we have all seen in the last decade, would rely on these mega-millionaire owners to be at all truthful about their financial situation. You saw the article yesterday about there being, possibly, a $500 million discrepancy in the profit situation. Does that not matter at all? You do not seem to want to factor in that the owners may be lying.

I believe the players have offered concesssions, yet the owners are pushing for much more and possibly using lies and deceit to back up their argument. I too hate the guaranteed contracts and would love to see them go. The bigger issue overall to me is the revenue sharing = competitive fairness. If this league is going to be successful long term, the fans in Utah and OKC have to believe they can compete with LA and NY. Have the owners dealt with that?

 

[oldtimer]

Zman I'm going to try one more time using slightly different terms:

I agree with you: Revenue sharing is extremely important.

I agree with you: Revenue sharing should come before a new CBA.

I agree with you: Owners are using creative accounting to turn what might be a slight profits into losses for several teams.

I agree with you: You cannot trust the owners on their loss claims

I agree with you: that the goal should be competitive balance so that basketball doesn't turn into baseball with five teams running the show.

I disagree with you: that owners "might" by lying about their losses, because they most definitely are lying and using creative accounting.

I disagree with you: on the conclusion of the article. Yes according to that article teams made 183 million and didn't lose 323 million as the owners claimed. Almost a 500 million dollar difference. However, 3 teams made 150 million of that 183 million profit. I don't care what the owners say because you can't trust them, but even using accounting standards favorable to players and using the figures from that New York Times article THERE IS STILL A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE CBA.

I Disagree that players have offered true concessions: Reducing salaries to 54.5% of BRI is nothing as far as concessions go. Moreover, the players want the 54.5% to increase over six years until it returns to 57% of BRI. The NFL which has 53 active roster spots and 8 practice players are seriously considering 48% FRI (Football Related Income). Basketball which has fewer player, playing on guaranteed salaries needs to consider something under 50% BRI if they truly want a deal.

DISGARDING THE OWNERS CLAIMS ABOUT NET LOSSES AND ASSUMING 100% REVENUE SHARING, WHICH WONT HAPPEN, USING NEW YORK POST NUMBERS, THE AVERAGE PROFIT PER TEAM LAST YEAR WAS ONLY 6 MILLION PER TEAM. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH PROFIT FOR OWNERS TO SUSTAIN A TEAM. Thus, not only do you have to fix revenue sharing, (AND I AGREE THAT IS A MUST) you must also still fix the CBA.

 

[zman1527]

Zman I'm going to try one more time using slightly different terms:

I agree with you: Revenue sharing is extremely important.

I agree with you: Revenue sharing should come before a new CBA.

I agree with you: Owners are using creative accounting to turn what might be a slight profits into losses for several teams.

I agree with you: You cannot trust the owners on their loss claims

I agree with you: that the goal should be competitive balance so that basketball doesn't turn into baseball with five teams running the show.

I disagree with you: that owners "might" by lying about their losses, because they most definitely are lying and using creative accounting.

I disagree with you: on the conclusion of the article. Yes according to that article teams made 183 million and didn't lose 323 million as the owners claimed. Almost a 500 million dollar difference. However, 3 teams made 150 million of that 183 million profit. I don't care what the owners say because you can't trust them, but even using accounting standards favorable to players and using the figures from that New York Times article THERE IS STILL A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE CBA.

I Disagree that players have offered true concessions: Reducing salaries to 54.5% of BRI is nothing as far as concessions go. Moreover, the players want the 54.5% to increase over six years until it returns to 57% of BRI. The NFL which has 53 active roster spots and 8 practice players are seriously considering 48% FRI (Football Related Income). Basketball which has fewer player, playing on guaranteed salaries needs to consider something under 50% BRI if they truly want a deal.

DISGARDING THE OWNERS CLAIMS ABOUT NET LOSSES AND ASSUMING 100% REVENUE SHARING, WHICH WONT HAPPEN, USING NEW YORK POST NUMBERS, THE AVERAGE PROFIT PER TEAM LAST YEAR WAS ONLY 6 MILLION PER TEAM. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH PROFIT FOR OWNERS TO SUSTAIN A TEAM. Thus, not only do you have to fix revenue sharing, (AND I AGREE THAT IS A MUST) you must also still fix the CBA.

Okay, and I do not think I ever said that the CBA should not be changed for fixed. It needs to be and the players need to take a smaller cut and take a knockdown on the long term contracts. Personnally I would love to see them play for every game pay, winner take all each night. Ya play, ya win, you get paid. Otherwise no. It will never come to that I know.

On the other hand, there are many here who are foursquare behind the owners and their right to take all the profits or at least to hammer the players way down. I think it is fair that the players get about half. What some do not realize is that if they could get away with it, many owners would pay these guys absolutely nothing.

 

[gregbroncs]

Okay, and I do not think I ever said that the CBA should not be changed for fixed. It needs to be and the players need to take a smaller cut and take a knockdown on the long term contracts. Personnally I would love to see them play for every game pay, winner take all each night. Ya play, ya win, you get paid. Otherwise no. It will never come to that I know.

On the other hand, there are many here who are foursquare behind the owners and their right to take all the profits or at least to hammer the players way down. I think it is fair that the players get about half. What some do not realize is that if they could get away with it, many owners would pay these guys absolutely nothing.

I am 100% on the owner's side. Even if the owner's made more that they said it is obvious that the player's influence in the league is out of whack. They take little risk but get 57% of the income. Meanwhile the owner's take all of the risk get only 43% of the income and have to support the team with that %. All of their other (non-player) expences come out of their lower %. Why should the player's get even 50% of income?

You do understand that even by this article that seems slanted almost entirely to the player the average NBA owner made less than the average NBA player. 6 M profit is less than a lot of their player's. Basically the owner's should be making more than any player in the league. They take the risk.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I am 100% on the owner's side. Even if the owner's made more that they said it is obvious that the player's influence in the league is out of whack. They take little risk but get 57% of the income. Meanwhile the owner's take all of the risk get only 43% of the income and have to support the team with that %. All of their other (non-player) expences come out of their lower %. Why should the player's get even 50% of income?

You do understand that even by this article that seems slanted almost entirely to the player the average NBA owner made less than the average NBA player. 6 M profit is less than a lot of their player's. Basically the owner's should be making more than any player in the league. They take the risk.

Because they are the ones we pay money to see.

 

[zman1527]

I am 100% on the owner's side. Even if the owner's made more that they said it is obvious that the player's influence in the league is out of whack. They take little risk but get 57% of the income. Meanwhile the owner's take all of the risk get only 43% of the income and have to support the team with that %. All of their other (non-player) expences come out of their lower %. Why should the player's get even 50% of income?

You do understand that even by this article that seems slanted almost entirely to the player the average NBA owner made less than the average NBA player. 6 M profit is less than a lot of their player's. Basically the owner's should be making more than any player in the league. They take the risk.

Yes, they take risk but how much? Most seem to think they are risking 100s of millions of dollars. They are not: these teams are not going to go to zero value. As long as the Jazz field a team people will buy tickets and watch on TV. Sure, they may lose some of their investment, but that is what they do, invest money to risk making more.

I think when one makes an investment to buy a business in order to make a profit, that profit should come from running the business better, not by slapping down the employees. I still believe the players ought to give some and yes, the owners ought to make more than the players. I would bet that a full and fair accounting would show that most probably do already. I have no proof of that at all but I have watched too much of modern US business to not believe it.

 

[gregbroncs]

Because they are the ones we pay money to see.

Did you pay to go see them play when they were in high school? Would you pay to go see them if they were playing without officials, regulation hoops, huge gym's, on TV and all of the things the owner's and league provide?

Did you pay before this group of player's were in the league? Or even Born? Would you pay if their was a different set of players?

Basically I care more about the team than this particular group of players. The owner's and the league will be here when these player are gone. I don't want the small market teams to go away and I don't want the league strength lessened by a group of greeding players who are already making much more than they should.

 

[gregbroncs]

Yes, they take risk but how much? Most seem to think they are risking 100s of millions of dollars. They are not: these teams are not going to go to zero value. As long as the Jazz field a team people will buy tickets and watch on TV. Sure, they may lose some of their investment, but that is what they do, invest money to risk making more.

I think when one makes an investment to buy a business in order to make a profit, that profit should come from running the business better, not by slapping down the employees. I still believe the players ought to give some and yes, the owners ought to make more than the players. I would bet that a full and fair accounting would show that most probably do already. I have no proof of that at all but I have watched too much of modern US business to not believe it.

Part of running a business better is keeping down the costs. That includes the cost of employees. In the NBA the employees are the vast majority of the expenses. Hell let the players keep the 57%. But put the burden of getting to the games, cost of uniforms, cost of staying in a hotel and all other costs related to getting themselves to their jobs back on the employees. The point is in the NBA the employees are the biggest expense and the one that is the most out of control.

This lockout is the teams' way of doing exactly what you want them to do. You just don't like the way they are forced to go about doing it.

 

[zman1527]

Did you pay to go see them play when they were in high school? Would you pay to go see them if they were playing without officials, regulation hoops, huge gym's, on TV and all of the things the owner's and league provide?

Did you pay before this group of player's were in the league? Or even Born? Would you pay if their was a different set of players?

Basically I care more about the team than this particular group of players. The owner's and the league will be here when these player are gone. I don't want the small market teams to go away and I don't want the league strength lessened by a group of greeding players who are already making much more than they should.

Hah, so Greg ought to just sign up anyone who will play for free. He ought to just open up for pickup games. Sell tickets and then the first ten guys who want to play can go shirts and skins. That will drive down ticket prices, I guarantee it! LOL.

Making more than they "ought" to make? How do you decide that? The league brings in a boatload of money to have these players play basketball so why should they not get a goodly share of that revenue.

I will make you a bet. You take the Jazz franchise, arena, management etc and I get the players. I will put games on in local gyms like the U. You can have the ES Center and the East High boys team. Bet I can charge more and get more people to my games.

 

[billyshelby]

I can't imagine the owners will publicly agree on a revenue sharing plan before they have a new CBA. It kills their leverage. But I am hopeful they will come to some type of agreement in private. That would allow the smaller market owners to move off lines in the sand and strike a compromise. It's a little sleazy, but it's the most effective way to play their hand.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Part of running a business better is keeping down the costs. That includes the cost of employees. In the NBA the employees are the vast majority of the expenses. Hell let the players keep the 57%. But put the burden of getting to the games, cost of uniforms, cost of staying in a hotel and all other costs related to getting themselves to their jobs back on the employees. The point is in the NBA the employees are the biggest expense and the one that is the most out of control.

This lockout is the teams' way of doing exactly what you want them to do. You just don't like the way they are forced to go about doing it.

A guy making the minimum gets hurt the most this way. They might be better off playing for a D-league team than paying for 40+ charter flights and 40+ really expensive hotel rooms.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Can I just say I love this idea that it's somehow the players fault that the NBA as a whole has supposedly lost half a billion dollars in the last year? Of course, that's assuming that we're just to trust the word of 28 cut-throat businessmen owners (unless you're Greg Miller or Dolan, earning that kind of money requires such practices) and DAVID STERN to be honest.