Lockout!!!

[Gyp Rosetti]

So you're referring to the owners taking the whole apple pie, right?

Or are you referring to the players taking 57% in the LAST contract, which the owners foolishly agreed to? Was that really a lack of good faith on anybody's part--or just very good negotiation on one side and very bad negotiation on the other?

And what percentage of total revenue starts or stops being fair or financially responsible?

A percentage in the low 50's seems both fair (which seems hard to define, given that that's a notable drop) and financially responsible (which is also hard to define, but seems to be a level at which the franchises should be able to be profitable--at least NBA-wide, if not every team). At a drop from 57% to 51%, it's a savings of about 6% * $40 million/percent = $240 million, which covers most of the income-statement losses (some of which are non-cash losses anyway).

Any remaining shortfall can be taken care of by revenue sharing, which the Lakers have already agreed to; not sure if the other few profitable franchises have. They should agree to it; the revenue sharing will pay for itself in one saved season.

(edit)

 

[NUMBERICA]

Really? In what way?

He's trolling.

 

[InGameStrategy]

He's trolling.

Not many 6000-post trolls out there.
(Evidently my trolldar is not working ...)

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I wasn't trolling at all. I simply find it amusing how people so quickly side with the players because they've made seemingly significant concessions. Just because they've done so doesn't mean the math necessarily works or that the deal is fair. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not saying it is. But you don't have any idea any more than me so stop pretending that you do.

 

[Deleted member 848]

**** you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SalmonHobo again.

.

 

[GVC]

I wasn't trolling at all. I simply find it amusing how people so quickly side with the players because they've made seemingly significant concessions. Just because they've done so doesn't mean the math necessarily works or that the deal is fair. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not saying it is. But you don't have any idea any more than me so stop pretending that you do.

We can, of course, make comparisons with other American pro sports leagues (as imperfect as they might be), which IGS and I have tried to do. Keep up, half-wit.

 

[InGameStrategy]

We can, of course, make comparisons with other American pro sports leagues (as imperfect as they might be), which IGS and I have tried to do. Keep up, half-wit.

. . . and/or we can just do the math: if revenues stay flat (which might be aggressive assumption given the economy, but is tempered by the NBA's increasing global reach, leading to compensating worldwide revenues), then a drop of the player percentage to the low 50's should be enough to make the owners profitable. Or break-even. Or something close to that. If the owners are seeking more than that, then they are pushing it too far IMHO. With the cut in player percentage value alone, the value of each franchise will go up (or not go as far down) in value.

Symbolically, a 50-50 split sounds good. Even reach-across-the-aisle-like.
(With the players being tall, though, it means that they've reached farther ...)

I just want the suits to agree so the players can start suiting up.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Not many 6000-post trolls out there.
(Evidently my trolldar is not working ...)

I would make the comparison that you don't call someone that is occasionally lying a "liar", per se.

Just jump back to page 24. There is a lot of discussion on what exactly the meaning of "good faith" is. So either I have too loose a definition on what trolling is, or KEK still doesn't know what 'good faith' means.

 

[One Brow]

50% of revenues, with no other changes to today's structure, would be a fair deal for the players.
50% of revenues, with some generic soft cap that we have no details about, could be horrible for the players.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

Malcolm Gladwell:

Let us recap. At the very moment the commissioner of the NBA is holding up the New Jersey Nets as a case study of basketball's impoverishment, the former owner of the team is crowing about 10 percent returns and the new owner is boasting of "explosive" profits. After the end of last season, one imagines that David Stern gathered together the league's membership for a crash course on lockout etiquette: stash the yacht in St. Bart's until things blow over, dress off the rack, insist on the '93 and '94 Cháteau Lafite Rothschilds, not the earlier, flashier, vintages. For rich white men to plead poverty, a certain self-discipline is necessary. Good idea, except next time he should remember to invite the Nets.

https://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That was a pretty good read. Makes the previous owner of the Nets sound like a complete dick.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

more from Gladwell:

"Is it a contradiction to say that the current model does not work," Stern was asked, "and yet franchises are being bought for huge sums by billionaires like Mikhail Prokhorov?"

"Stop there," Stern replied. "… the previous ownership lost several hundred million dollars on that transaction."

...

In the end, this is the lesson of the NBA lockout. A man buys a basketball team as insurance on a real estate project, flips the franchise to a Russian billionaire when he wins the deal, and then — as both parties happily count their winnings — what lesson are we asked to draw? The players are greedy.