PDA

View Full Version : Whose Side Are You On?



Rafer17
07-01-2011, 10:28 PM
Players, Owners, or Independent?

210Don
07-01-2011, 10:28 PM
watch basketball side.

TopsyTurvy
07-01-2011, 10:31 PM
I would side towards the owners but with a strong understanding that they made the bed they now sleep in.

Cavs_Fan24
07-01-2011, 10:39 PM
watch basketball side.

I'm with this guy

thenetslegend
07-01-2011, 10:41 PM
the dark side

TRF929
07-01-2011, 10:45 PM
Owners to a degree, they have some very good points. Plus I can't see where the players are coming from and their counter arguements. But my mind may change the more info that comes out

asandhu23
07-01-2011, 10:47 PM
lolside

mdm692
07-01-2011, 10:49 PM
The fans side. We buy the tickets, jerseys, hats, and all other merchendise therefore we should not be punished for the stupid mistakes made by owners and gms. They want monet make a good competitive team with in the cap dont go and pay hedo, rashard, arenas, travis outlaw, vince carter, among others a bunch of undeserved money then blame the player.

NBA_Starter
07-01-2011, 10:49 PM
Independent

*Silver&Black*
07-01-2011, 10:54 PM
Fans.

barreleffact
07-01-2011, 10:54 PM
Owners in the sense that they should make more than any player they employ, but Players in the sense that the owners are attempting to shaft them. They are claiming losses that come from purchasing the franchise. That has nothing to do with the players IMO. If a business made so much money, it could pay for itself (roughly 40mil a year) Then it never would have been sold.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
07-01-2011, 10:56 PM
I will go with the big market owners or the owners making a profit. They have to hear about the owners losing money who bought their teams and gave bad contracts and they have to hear players that say they don't make enough money.

Dash
07-01-2011, 10:58 PM
Side of potatoes

daleja424
07-01-2011, 10:59 PM
Firmly on the players side. The owners have used sketchy/greedy tactics and have come off as complete a-holes in this. The owners didn't even attempt to find a compromise.

daleja424
07-01-2011, 11:00 PM
Owners to a degree, they have some very good points. Plus I can't see where the players are coming from and their counter arguements. But my mind may change the more info that comes out

really?

You understand the owners wanting to take half of the players cut...but can't understand why the layers don't want that???

llemon
07-01-2011, 11:28 PM
I want freedom and justice for all.

thenetslegend
07-01-2011, 11:32 PM
I want freedom and justice for all.

alright, lincoln

PHX2daDEATH
07-02-2011, 12:02 AM
They are forgetting who gives them that money, so i dont really care if the league disbands all together, atleast there will still be FOOTBALL..and maybe Isiah will re-start the CBA and Vince McMahon will start the XBL. This is ridiculous to me and a sign of regression on everybody's intelligence. Owners say they are losing money but they expect that they can afford to lose a whole season because the product is the best its been in 10-15 years. They figure fans to be nothing more than brainwashed slobs who still fill their arenas in 2012 after a lost season. After the last lockout the league was filled with young players like A.I McGrady, Carter, Ray Allen and then there was Timmy and Shaq b#$#slappin the mere mortal competition, it took awhile for fans to come back and watch that, with the exception of the Detroit series against the spurs, all of Timmy's and Shaq's finals were real snoozers. and Detroit/San Antonio might be the least talked about 7 game series in the history of sports.Now we got guys like Melo, Stat, LBJ, Wade Bosh, Howard, Paul all entering the prime of their careers..and you got young guys like Durant and Rose just beginning..Owners, players they EXPECT us to to keep dishing out their paychecks and taxing us for the arenas. I think us as fans need to let them know we won't be coming back if they a lose a season, no matter how good the product is..

Giantwarrior
07-02-2011, 12:08 AM
The fans side. We buy the tickets, jerseys, hats, and all other merchendise therefore we should not be punished for the stupid mistakes made by owners and gms. They want monet make a good competitive team with in the cap dont go and pay hedo, rashard, arenas, travis outlaw, vince carter, among others a bunch of undeserved money then blame the player.

most of the money that a team makes come from the networks and tv.

its true that you shouldnt overpay for players like, Hedo, Arenas, and Rashard. etc. but theres just enough superstars in the league so second tier players get overpaid. teams are forced to overpay to stay competitive with the LAL, BOS, MIA, SAS etc.

with a hard salary cap, the league will be balanced and competitive. you dont want to see LAL, BOS, etc. winning all of the championships. it also lets teams like the warrios, raptors, hornets, kings to have a chance in the NBA. I think it will be better for the league.

look at it this way. The NBA salary cap was 58 million. The Mavericks won the NBA Championship with a payroll of about 87 million. WTF? You will never see the Clippers doing that. Mark Cuban is a great owner, but bad business man, because he loses money owning the Mavericks.

TO Rapz
07-02-2011, 12:09 AM
I want freedom and justice for all.


alright, lincoln

:laugh2:

Giantwarrior
07-02-2011, 12:10 AM
about 20 out of 32 teams are losing money in the NBA. Some owners want a lockout for a year because the will actually make money because they wont lose it during an NBA season.

The two sides are SOOoooo far apart. im afriad the NBA is going to lockout for a year.

lakers4sho
07-02-2011, 12:18 AM
Green Party

PhxGiant
07-02-2011, 12:18 AM
Whoever has brought up lowering ticket prices. Oh, you mean that's not what they have been arguing about ? :/

xabial
07-02-2011, 04:03 AM
Tea Party.

daleja424
07-02-2011, 07:17 AM
This talk of lost money is absurd. They are only taking "losses" bc of high interest loans they took out to buy the team... And now they want the players to foot the bill for the interest on the loan they bought the team with. Let me ask... Do the players get a share of the team in return... Or are they expected to pay for part of the purchase of teams and get nothing in return?

As soon as I heard the Owners expected players to pay THEIR loan interest... I was done with the owners.

WorldWideJames
07-02-2011, 11:42 AM
This talk of lost money is absurd. They are only taking "losses" bc of high interest loans they took out to buy the team... And now they want the players to foot the bill for the interest on the loan they bought the team with. Let me ask... Do the players get a share of the team in return... Or are they expected to pay for part of the purchase of teams and get nothing in return?

As soon as I heard the Owners expected players to pay THEIR loan interest... I was done with the owners.

Actually, their losses are even slimier than that. Some of you may have read the deadspin story (http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss) which explains how teams go from profits to losses.

For those of you familiar with accounting, I'll try to explain. Someone in 1959 was smart enough to convince the IRS that players were actually DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. Now, a depreciable asset is basically any type of asset with an effectiveness that erodes (machinery, cars, and even patents because they only last for a certain amount of time, but they amortize). A depreciation expense is eventually subtracted from revenues even though this expense is NEVER ACTUALLY PAID. It makes a lot of sense for some of the assets I mentioned above. Machines become less effective the more you use them. Cars are the best example. It was argued that NBA players are assets whose skills erode with time, and, because of that, there is an implied cost with their upkeep and replacement. This implied cost is the depreciation expense teams get to take to shield them from taxes, but never actually pay.

I studied finance and have some accounting experience (mostly financial, I'm no expert), so all of this is probably very elementary. That being said, NBA teams get to have players on their books as assets (probably at contract value) as well as liabilities (wages payable), which is normal. NBA players salaries are expensed yearly and also depreciated yearly for a certain amount of determined from the depreciable base (generally the amount paid for the asset).

What is most interesting is that very rarely, if not never, is a player immediately financed (one year deal, paid one day one). I don't know how teams get to have players on their books, but if it is for total contract value, they're making out like bandits with the ability to depreciate. They're basically expensing every year's salary, and then depreciating the player. Take into account that they don't pay lump sums in the beginning of the year and we have a nice time value of money conundrum.

I'd like to point out that depreciation is not "baroque logic," as Deadspin points out. It makes sense... less so for NBA players but the logic is strong.

All that being said, I wrote about the lockouts and compared them to a business we love to hate -Wall Street. Both get 50% of revenues. One is economically important, the other is for entertainment.

I'm on the owners side in the NFL, and I'm split in the NBA. Revenue sharing is a must.

(sorry if I didn't explain the accounting very well. I'm not familiar with actual NBA accounting and was kind of speculating)

Hellcrooner
07-02-2011, 11:45 AM
none.

i cant belive how greedy the owners are and how short sighted and coward are the players who are in the end the ones that GENERATE the money and should by no means accept more enslaving rules , specially in a country who is all bout "freedom" as in liberal economics freedom.

RSA27
07-02-2011, 12:06 PM
I am an accountant, granted a recent college grad and not the greatest accountant in the world, but when I looked over the couple leaked financial statements I was moved greatly towards the players side. I checked out the 08-09 hornets financial statement in particular. NO one of the smaller markets in the NBA made a nearly 2 mil operating profit. That is taking into account they were nearly 20 mil over the cap, and paying off high interest debt and a deferred relocation fee. If they had just spent at the cap, not accumulated so much debt and not had the relocation fee (all things shinn directley controled) they would have had about a 35 mil operating profit. Now that is pretty tremendous for a team that doesn't own a stadium and exists in a small market. I can only imagine how much the large market owners who bought their teams years ago, and have a stake in their stadium make. For me it is just owner greed and stupidity that is driving this lockout.

WorldWideJames
07-02-2011, 12:13 PM
I am an accountant, granted a recent college grad and not the greatest accountant in the world, but when I looked over the couple leaked financial statements I was moved greatly towards the players side. I checked out the 08-09 hornets financial statement in particular. NO one of the smaller markets in the NBA made a nearly 2 mil operating profit. That is taking into account they were nearly 20 mil over the cap, and paying off high interest debt and a deferred relocation fee. If they had just spent at the cap, not accumulated so much debt and not had the relocation fee (all things shinn directley controled) they would have had about a 35 mil operating profit. Now that is pretty tremendous for a team that doesn't own a stadium and exists in a small market. I can only imagine how much the large market owners who bought their teams years ago, and have a stake in their stadium make. For me it is just owner greed and stupidity that is driving this lockout.

You gotta be over the cap to compete though. They get hammered with a tax and know it's coming. The Hornets almost won 50 games that year. They were competitive, albeit bounced in the first round. Spending around the cap is impossible. Well, it was. It might be the only thing possible with the new CBA.

And couldn't you say the owners were being prudent in being over the cap? The better the team, the better sales are, usually.

How high interest debt are we talking? Why not refinance now? I'm sure they have. They better have, at least.

tredigs
07-02-2011, 12:17 PM
They are forgetting who gives them that money, so i dont really care if the league disbands all together, atleast there will still be FOOTBALL..and maybe Isiah will re-start the CBA and Vince McMahon will start the XBL. This is ridiculous to me and a sign of regression on everybody's intelligence. Owners say they are losing money but they expect that they can afford to lose a whole season because the product is the best its been in 10-15 years. They figure fans to be nothing more than brainwashed slobs who still fill their arenas in 2012 after a lost season. After the last lockout the league was filled with young players like A.I McGrady, Carter, Ray Allen and then there was Timmy and Shaq b#$#slappin the mere mortal competition, it took awhile for fans to come back and watch that, with the exception of the Detroit series against the spurs, all of Timmy's and Shaq's finals were real snoozers. and Detroit/San Antonio might be the least talked about 7 game series in the history of sports.Now we got guys like Melo, Stat, LBJ, Wade Bosh, Howard, Paul all entering the prime of their careers..and you got young guys like Durant and Rose just beginning..Owners, players they EXPECT us to to keep dishing out their paychecks and taxing us for the arenas. I think us as fans need to let them know we won't be coming back if they a lose a season, no matter how good the product is..


Hahah uhh don't look now, but... they've got a minor problem over there as well.

steelmanron100
07-02-2011, 12:26 PM
Owners put up the money, the risk, ect. They are SUPPOSED to be the ones making the greater percentage of the loot. The players are nothing more then the girl who sells Beer...an EMPLOYEE! Yes they are high paid ones but they are still nothing more then Labor personell. BTW I don't think this will last very far. The owners don't want a " Hard " Cap. They are just talking that now as a negotiating point. What they really want is a little more even revenue sharing. And a definite " Franchise " player option for each team to keep whatever ONE " Star " player that they might have. Cause the trend of players playing in Cleveland, and Denver, or maybe even Orlando opting out and or trying to force their team to trade them to a MAJOR Prime time city/contender at the threat of leaving outright is ridiculous....and has to stop. If the owners get those two things, they'll keep the salary cap flexible, and NOT Hard.

Hellcrooner
07-02-2011, 12:37 PM
Owners put up the money, the risk, ect. They are SUPPOSED to be the ones making the greater percentage of the loot. The players are nothing more then the girl who sells Beer...an EMPLOYEE! Yes they are high paid ones but they are still nothing more then Labor personell. BTW I don't think this will last very far. The owners don't want a " Hard " Cap. They are just talking that now as a negotiating point. What they really want is a little more even revenue sharing. And a definite " Franchise " player option for each team to keep whatever ONE " Star " player that they might have. Cause the trend of players playing in Cleveland, and Denver, or maybe even Orlando opting out and or trying to force their team to trade them to a MAJOR Prime time city/contender at the threat of leaving outright is ridiculous....and has to stop. If the owners get those two things, they'll keep the salary cap flexible, and NOT Hard.

and thats where the fine line ( in sport terms) between being an employee and being an SLAVE ( N o matter how well paid and how deluxe) is.

players should by NO MEANS accept franchise tag.

well they shouldnt accept the draft, the restritcetd f.a the maximum salary limitations, the being traded withouth consent thing and so on an on...... but thats another discussion completely.

Tom Stone
07-02-2011, 12:37 PM
Owners put up the money, the risk, ect. They are SUPPOSED to be the ones making the greater percentage of the loot. The players are nothing more then the girl who sells Beer...an EMPLOYEE! Yes they are high paid ones but they are still nothing more then Labor personnel. BTW I don't think this will last very far. The owners don't want a " Hard " Cap. They are just talking that now as a negotiating point. What they really want is a little more even revenue sharing. And a definite " Franchise " player option for each team to keep whatever ONE " Star " player that they might have. Cause the trend of players playing in Cleveland, and Denver, or maybe even Orlando opting out and or trying to force their team to trade them to a MAJOR Prime time city/contender at the threat of leaving outright is ridiculous....and has to stop. If the owners get those two things, they'll keep the salary cap flexible, and NOT Hard.



Nice comment man...........The Hard or flex cap, is about having an upper limit you can't cross.....thus causing parity in the league and making everything you said happen.......You won't get what you want without the Hard or Flex cap system.

ULT WARRIOR408
07-02-2011, 12:38 PM
watch basketball side.

I say independent.I just want b-ball to continue.

unleashthebeast
07-02-2011, 12:40 PM
Firmly on the players side. The owners have used sketchy/greedy tactics and have come off as complete a-holes in this. The owners didn't even attempt to find a compromise.

precisely. And holy ****, it is split 14 to to 14! Thats insane

69centers
07-02-2011, 01:08 PM
Firmly on the players side. The owners have used sketchy/greedy tactics and have come off as complete a-holes in this. The owners didn't even attempt to find a compromise.

Absolutely agreed. I'm on the players' side. The lockout is happening because the owners want change. The NBA is being absolutely childish. Go to any player on NBA.com right now and you'll see they completely stripped down the website, even removing player's pictures!!

http://www.nba.com/home/playerfile/paul_pierce/

kidfury
07-02-2011, 01:15 PM
owners invest a lot of money to own a franchise, it's not unreasonable for them to expect a profit. the owners are asking for a lot but most people would agree that guranteed contracts should be done away with (arenas, redd, hedo = are garbage). a hard cap would limit players' pay but also limit the stupidity of gms to give out absurd contracts unless they're willing to have NO bench depth.

llemon
07-02-2011, 01:26 PM
owners invest a lot of money to own a franchise, it's not unreasonable for them to expect a profit. the owners are asking for a lot but most people would agree that guranteed contracts should be done away with (arenas, redd, hedo = are garbage). a hard cap would limit players' pay but also limit the stupidity of gms to give out absurd contracts unless they're willing to have NO bench depth.

Do away with the MLEs (or limit who gets one and for how much) and the TPE's, and your halfway to fiscal responsibility and parity.

astrosmaniac
07-02-2011, 01:46 PM
and thats where the fine line ( in sport terms) between being an employee and being an SLAVE ( N o matter how well paid and how deluxe) is.

players should by NO MEANS accept franchise tag.

well they shouldnt accept the draft, the restritcetd f.a the maximum salary limitations, the being traded withouth consent thing and so on an on...... but thats another discussion completely.

except for the millionth time, its a PRIVILEGE to play in the NBA (or any pro sports league for that matter). no is saying they have to play. they can go seel burgers with their high school degrees. if you want the opportunity to get paid millions, you have to play by the rules given

RB#20
07-02-2011, 01:48 PM
Independent. I'm sorry, I don't feel bad for a bunch of greedy movie-star actors and actresses (the players) who make 100 times my base salary and certainly not for the directors and nazis (the owners) who make 1000 times my base salary. YOU'RE PLAYING A ****ING KIDS GAME! GROW THE **** UP!

llemon
07-02-2011, 02:00 PM
except for the millionth time, its a PRIVILEGE to play in the NBA (or any pro sports league for that matter). no is saying they have to play. they can go seel burgers with their high school degrees. if you want the opportunity to get paid millions, you have to play by the rules given

The have been playing by the rules given.

The lockout is about changing the rules.

The Union is about the workers having a say in what the rules are.

Welcome to America (at least for now).

astrosmaniac
07-02-2011, 02:06 PM
yes, but this isnt working class america. the owners are taking much more risk than a starbucks hiring a cashier. they are putting millions into something that has just as much chance to fail as it does to be the next big thing (i.e. thabeet VS durant - both #2 picks). if you have no way to protect you investment, why should you spend the money.

and its not like they cant work somewhere else. they have every right to earn a living, but if you want a job, you have to follow the employers rules

EDIT: i get what you are saying, my point is more to crooner calling playing in the NBA slavery because of the draft and RFA. no one forced them to do join the NBA, its not slavery

G-Menfan4lyfe
07-02-2011, 02:07 PM
most of the money that a team makes come from the networks and tv.

its true that you shouldnt overpay for players like, Hedo, Arenas, and Rashard. etc. but theres just enough superstars in the league so second tier players get overpaid. teams are forced to overpay to stay competitive with the LAL, BOS, MIA, SAS etc.

with a hard salary cap, the league will be balanced and competitive. you dont want to see LAL, BOS, etc. winning all of the championships. it also lets teams like the warrios, raptors, hornets, kings to have a chance in the NBA. I think it will be better for the league.

look at it this way. The NBA salary cap was 58 million. The Mavericks won the NBA Championship with a payroll of about 87 million. WTF? You will never see the Clippers doing that. Mark Cuban is a great owner, but bad business man, because he loses money owning the Mavericks.

Which is funny cuz Miami supposedly had the "Super Team" but their payroll was much less than the Mavs. While I hate the Mavs cuz Im a Heat fan, and I hate Mark Cuban as an NBA owner, I'm a Mets fan too and would love Cuban to buy the Mets. He's a multi-billionare and what is it to him if he loses a few million a year on a team he owns and loves to watch as long as its winning?

Like someone said in another forum being an owner is more like a hobby to most of these guys than a business. And if you are in the ownership game for business reasons and own a small market team then you are just a dumb@$$.

While I agree players are overpaid, the owners caused it. Why can't they just keep things the way they were? You know teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Heat, Mavs, Spurs, and Nets want to spend money to win. Why should they be penalized because of cheap owners who let their GMs dish out bad contracts?

Like someone else said, I'm on the owners who make money side. I also think that not only is there a rift between the player but also between the cheap owners and the big spender owners. Don't these guys realize that you gotta spend money to make money?

G-Menfan4lyfe
07-02-2011, 02:10 PM
yes, but this isnt working class america. the owners are taking much more risk than a starbucks hiring a cashier. they are putting millions into something that has just as much chance to fail as it does to be the next big thing (i.e. thabeet VS durant - both #2 picks). if you have no way to protect you investment, why should you spend the money.

and its not like they cant work somewhere else. they have every right to earn a living, but if you want a job, you have to follow the employers rules

Well at least the NBA has a rookie wage scale and non-guaranteed contracts. The NFL these high draft picks get bigger contracts than proven vets and they get huge guarantees. Now thats crazy. Can you say Jamarcus Russell?

DeyAce
07-02-2011, 02:11 PM
neutron

astrosmaniac
07-02-2011, 02:15 PM
Well at least the NBA has a rookie wage scale and non-guaranteed contracts. The NFL these high draft picks get bigger contracts than proven vets and they get huge guarantees. Now thats crazy. Can you say Jamarcus Russell?

no i agree, im just saying if theres no RFA or "franchise" tag, then theres nothing to stop a durant type player from bloting to NY type team in 2-3 years when OKC was the team that took the risk and paid the money to develop him

Ebbs
07-02-2011, 03:32 PM
I think the league is extremely inflated salary wise. There's no argument there but I'm still with the players. If you sign a contract the owners have to live by that. It's complete BS to say yea were cutting agreed upon salaries in half. If the players were like we are striking unless we all get 50% raises the owners would say **** you.

imagesrdecievin
07-02-2011, 03:51 PM
Everyone claiming that the owner's bear all the risk are grossly underselling the fact that the true money made by the owners is in the increased value of the franchise. No sports owner that I know of has sold a franchise at a loss.

It isn't that different from a landlord that buys a rental property and loses money for x amount of years paying the mortgage, repairs, taxes etc. and then after breaking even not only turns a profit but now has equity in their asset.

A lot of the losses the owners are claiming here are based more around being a tax write-off for their other business interests than an actual loss of physical dollars.

If the teams were losing money in the way the owners claim then why is it that franchises always sell for a profit?

THE MTL
07-02-2011, 04:12 PM
Basketball has been losing money due to things like the salary cap. Honestly, life isnt fair and big market teams make the money. Just look at baseball.

This year NBA saw record income because teams like Chicago, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando were all good teams.

You take away power from those teams and NBA will find itself in this hole again.

However, I do agree that basketball contracts have gotten outrageous though. Superstars arent that bad cause of the maximum contract. However ppl in-between the 11-13 million per year range, usually end up becoming awful contracts.

Wade>You
07-02-2011, 04:14 PM
It's not "Players vs Owners," it's the Players+half the owners (Mavs, Lakers, Heat, Knicks, Boston, and other teams that are willing to spend) vs the other half of the owners that have crappy GMs and are just in it to make money.

With that said, I'm on the players' side.

Wade>You
07-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Basketball has been losing money due to things like the salary cap. Honestly, life isnt fair and big market teams make the money. Just look at baseball.

This year NBA saw record income because teams like Chicago, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando were all good teams.

You take away power from those teams and NBA will find itself in this hole again.

However, I do agree that basketball contracts have gotten outrageous though. Superstars arent that bad cause of the maximum contract. However ppl in-between the 11-13 million per year range, usually end up becoming awful contracts.I love your "it's a business" attitude. Sports has no place in business.

treyday07Raps
07-02-2011, 04:33 PM
super teams are gay owners should play hard balls ahha

Hawkeye15
07-02-2011, 04:36 PM
Independant. The fans side. They are the ONLY ones who suffer in these situations. Obviously some things need to change so more than half the teams aren't losing money, but they let this go on too long, and now its become a huge obstacle.

topdog
07-02-2011, 04:39 PM
The anti-hardcap side. I understand owners are competing for players and are pressured by fans who want their team to win, but no one has a gun to their head and a hand on their wallet. I will say though that I can't think of a situation where a player said "I'll take less money because I want to play here."

The owners should be asking for ways to keep the players they drafted without going over the cap and a greater share of revenues - I think it's odd that players are guaranteed over 50%.

Hawkeye15
07-02-2011, 04:42 PM
I do find it interesting that this even causes fanbases to clash. Fans of the large market teams have a totally different viewpoint than those fans of small market teams. I even had a Knick fan tell me that the reason the league is in trouble is because of teams like mine (Wolves). Us small market fans apologize that we can't put out a pathetic team year after year and still make money like some of the large market teams. The problem is poor spending choices amongst all teams. When a Milwaukee sees the Lakers give $80 million to Gasol, and another $80 million to Bynum, they feel they have no choice but to do anything they can to keep up.

I am all for a salary cap, but there must be some sort of flexibility to it, to sign only your own players. GM's and owners must be held accountable for many of the completely irresponsible financial choices they have made, and that goes for every team. And players must understand that they will need to take pay cuts and guaranteed years off, or many teams will be in huge financial trouble down the line. As for revenue sharing, I don't care how the rich owners/players divide that. It is the furthest care I have.

Take the players offer, and start being more financially responsible. Stop giving Joe Johnson $100 million. Stop giving Rashard Lewis $125 million. Stop making these horrible deals.

topdog
07-02-2011, 04:54 PM
In a good year, cap is about 60M. You must have 12 players on your roster. So I say that a team should be able to keep any starter they drafted for no more than 7.5M (like an RFA clause) that would add up to 37.5M leaving 22.5 for the 7-10 bench players which should be able to be kept for somewhere from 2.5 to 5M (considering some are going to be 6th men and play more minutes.

That would allow any team to keep all the players it acquires as draft picks/rookies for around 58M without prohibiting other teams from spending as much as they want. The caveat is that fewer players would be available, but it also forces teams to develop players or risk losing acquisitions to an expensive FA market.

smith&wesson
07-02-2011, 04:57 PM
im on the fans side. owners should charge less money for seats, and the players should acept lower salaries. more fans will come. the franchises will make more money, and the players will still be paid pretty dam well.

if every one were a little less greedy it would be good for business all around.

JWO35
07-02-2011, 05:59 PM
I voted players, but now that I think about it should be owners. The average salary of a NBA Player being 5-6mil is down right ridiculous.

But other than that, I just want to see Brandon Knight play...

KnicksR4Real
07-02-2011, 06:06 PM
players

Gram
07-02-2011, 09:47 PM
Players.

Jamiecballer
07-02-2011, 10:13 PM
while both parties are acting in their own interests its the owners whose interests are in line with what's best for the league long term. the players are so damn greedy it's disgusting.

avrpatsfan
07-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Players easily. The players didn't force the owners to give Rashard Lewis $125 million nor did they force the Hawks to give Johnson $110 million. Without the players the owners would be nothing.

albertc86
07-02-2011, 11:17 PM
Players easily. The players didn't force the owners to give Rashard Lewis $125 million nor did they force the Hawks to give Johnson $110 million. Without the players the owners would be nothing.

Debatable. The players wouldn't be making anywhere near to what they're making if these owners weren't paying them these inflated salaries either; that's the problem. The owners are at fault for overpaying certain players and the players are just plain greedy. At the end of the day, you have rich players arguing with wealthy owners, and both parties expect us to choose sides. How distasteful is that? What have they ever done for us?

I hope this gets settled just so I can see some basketball. Neither side is thinking of the game, they're thinking about their bank account.

imagesrdecievin
07-02-2011, 11:22 PM
while both parties are acting in their own interests its the owners whose interests are in line with what's best for the league long term. the players are so damn greedy it's disgusting.

If the owners were only interested in the long term health of the league instead of just their greed and need to break the union then they'd be discussing profit sharing as a part of the negotiations. That would be one of the single biggest steps they could take towards stabilizing the long term health of the league.

Rafer17
07-02-2011, 11:28 PM
Damn look at these numbers, the voting is so close

albertc86
07-02-2011, 11:29 PM
If the owners were only interested in the long term health of the league instead of just their greed and need to break the union then they'd be discussing profit sharing as a part of the negotiations. That would be one of the single biggest steps they could take towards stabilizing the long term health of the league.

Profit sharing? They're the owners. The players are the employees. The profits are already built-in to the players' salaries and depending on the players value. Players are already earning millions of dollars to play a game and getting endorsements deals on the side. Not to mention, the perks that come with being famous (women). It's kinda difficult to sympathize with either side.

imagesrdecievin
07-02-2011, 11:33 PM
They are the owners but the skill level they bring makes it in essence a partnership. By posturing that they NEED these drastic givebacks in order to make the league profitable and competitive witjout discussing profit sharing shows where their real interests lie.

albertc86
07-02-2011, 11:40 PM
I wonder if contraction as David Stern has mentioned before among others in the NBA has been brought up in these meetings.

Lessen the amount of teams to bring some parity back to the league. If anything, if the league is losing money, it's because of these smaller, unsuccessful teams. Do away with them and disperse the talent. This will result in a more competitive, profitable league.

Take it back to 15+ years ago where teams were actually teams. The league seems so diluted now with some of these players and underperforming teams.

Jamiecballer
07-04-2011, 12:44 AM
If the owners were only interested in the long term health of the league instead of just their greed and need to break the union then they'd be discussing profit sharing as a part of the negotiations. That would be one of the single biggest steps they could take towards stabilizing the long term health of the league.

if the NBA players (or 90% of all pro athletes, to be fair) were the least bit grateful for how fortunate they are they would find a way to be satisfied with only 6 cars rather than 7.

all they are doing is jeopardizing future generations of basketball players the opportunity to experience this good fortune as well by threatening the viability of the league long term.

Fnom11
07-04-2011, 02:04 AM
Players are overpaid, yet the owners are the ones who allowed not only this to happen but encouraged it in most cases(Joe Johnsons contract).

Arch Stanton
07-04-2011, 02:24 AM
Owners players want bench warmers making 6 million a year.

ChiSox219
07-04-2011, 02:26 AM
The players have too much power/control of the money.

The owners are trying to screw the players by instituting a flat $2 billion for the players for 10 years. League revenue will grow and by the end of the 10 years, owners will have too much control of the money, estimated at 60% vs ~43% now.

I'm independent. I think owners should get a larger share of the revenue or the sources of BRI need to be looked into and lowered so the owners are properly compensated. I'd like to see contracts more like the NFL, where bonus is guaranteed but salary is not. Players eating up 20% of the cap space while performing at a level equal to a minimum salary is not good for the owners, fans, or players.

tcav701
07-04-2011, 08:48 AM
I am on the owners side because the owners are so stupid.

There needs to be a hard cap put into place to protect these owners from themselves. I know that sounds rediculous but thats what it comes down to. The NBA is the only league I've seen where teams will trade young, good players for ****** expiring contracts. And even when a small market team finds room to make a MAX offer, they have to settle on Lewis, or JJ or Okafor, ect. Top free agents only want to play in NY, BOS, LA, MIA, DAL, CHI. So what chance do these owners have? They have two choices really, make dumb moves if they can afford to Knicks, Clippers, ect. or just give up MIN, CLE, ect.

I mean teams like OKC are doing things the right way but how will they win a ring when Dwight goes to LA? Deron to Dallas? CP3 to NY? Fans of larger market teams want to tell the smaller markets to pound sand but they should stop and realize that you need these teams because you need to play them and beat them to better your franchise. Or maybe the league should contract to 10 teams and erase the cap? I am a fan of a large market team but I am 100% for competitive balance. Take the NFL for example, there is a reason their Thursday night Seahawks/Bills preseason game gets more ratings than NBA playoff games.

The NFL can market its sport and not individual players because of the balance that exists. And yet dynastys are built because the smartest owners prevail and not the richest. The NBA is becomming almost unwatchable because it is less of a sport and more entertainment. It is driven by players, not teams and the officiating is so poor because they protect certian players' image. I could get into this in full for hours but when you got guys like Terry, Jeff Green, Mike Miller, Arenas, Odom, ect comming of the bench, theres is obviously a lack of balance.

And didnt the desicion and all leading up to it show you that the owners need some control back? You got 3 guys having owners come to them and offer absurd contracts while they sat there in their sweatpants laughing because they had already made their mind up years ago. Maybe it's okay that players decide what coach comes to the team or what coach gets fired.

But the bottom line for me is the players work for the owners and the owners work for the NBA. The owners created this monster and of course the should be heald responsible. But it is the leagues job to keep these owners under control to protect their image, the owners, tha players and the fans.

Witness06
07-04-2011, 08:48 AM
HEY COME ON GUYS>>>>>WHERE IS YOUR B.S. METER!!!!!!!
NBA franchises are selling for RECORD numbers!!!!! someone just bought Detroit, and the Wizards recently sold. Also the Golden state warriors sold for like $400+mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All of these are "small market teams"!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT BUSINESS MAN IS PAYING THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR A BUSINESS THAT IS LOSING MONEY????????

THESE SO CALLED LOSSES FOR THE OWNERS IS B.S. , If they are realling losing 100's of millions NOONE WOULD BE BUYING TEAMS . In 1981 you could buy a team for 15million, yes Fifteen million. Today those teams sale for 300-400 mil ( and that profit is not part of the BRI which the players get a percent of).

Im just saying...hate on the players all you want....say they are over paid....whatever....but use a little common sense. If the league is in such bad shape why are billionaires fighting to get in at these prices?

The Smurf
07-04-2011, 08:53 AM
HEY COME ON GUYS>>>>>WHERE IS YOUR B.S. METER!!!!!!!
NBA franchises are selling for RECORD numbers!!!!! someone just bought Detroit, and the Wizards recently sold. Also the Golden state warriors sold for like $400+mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All of these are "small market teams"!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT BUSINESS MAN IS PAYING THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR A BUSINESS THAT IS LOSING MONEY????????

THESE SO CALLED LOSSES FOR THE OWNERS IS B.S. , If they are realling losing 100's of millions NOONE WOULD BE BUYING TEAMS . In 1981 you could buy a team for 15million, yes Fifteen million. Today those teams sale for 300-400 mil ( and that profit is not part of the BRI which the players get a percent of).

Im just saying...hate on the players all you want....say they are over paid....whatever....but use a little common sense. If the league is in such bad shape why are billionaires fighting to get in at these prices?

A pack of skittles is selling for record numbers, too.

Witness06
07-04-2011, 09:08 AM
A pack of skittles is selling for record numbers, too.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5383261

Check the story here is my case in point. The guy bought Golden State warriors in 1995 for 119 mil, they have only made the playoffs 1 time since then. He just sold the team in 2011 (with a claimed 300mil in losses) for 450mil!!!!! And to top that the guy who bought is currently a minority owner of the Boston Celtics (which means he understands the NBA ownership, and knows the TRUE value of owning a team). You dont have to be a rcocket scientist to understand that here is a guy who knows the NBA, knows exactly what he is buying, and still spends a record number on a small market team. IF THEY WERE REALLY LOSING MONEY WHY WOULD A BILLIONARE DO THAT?????????
Oil is selling for record numbers to smart ***.....And they are reporting record profits. This is simple common sense. If the NBA was saying look we cant even sell these teams because we are losing money, that would be one thing. But to have these facts all in the everday news paper and then tell the employees we need to CUT YOUR PAY 30%, while small market teams are selling at 300-400 % PROFIT, Ratings are the best ever, International Interest id the highest ever....????????? I was born at night ....not last night

PrettyBoyJ
07-04-2011, 09:40 AM
I'm with the owners, some of the things they want to pass I dont agree with (i.e. hardcap) but the players have gotten to greedy... I understand blaming management for bad decisions, but at the same time players are responsible to hold up there end of the bargain as well.. The way I see it if someone is paying you max money to play for their team they expect you to put in the work, train, stay in shape to play at a high level.. Some players are willing to do that but a lot of players in this league once they sign that big contract they take off.. Players should be held accountable as well..

And if 22 out of 30 teams are losing money that should be a wake up call to players and say lets take a pay cut and help generate profit for the league.. This is prob. unlikely, but suppose a number of team begin to file for bankruptcy and league is in financial trouble players checks might start bouncing (i.e. LA Dodgers) and players will start getting upset.. All could have been avoided if they took a pay cut and split revenue equally.. The players greed is what experts believe the lockout will wipe out an entire season..

They have an opportunity to play the game they love.. How bout agreeing to a 5 year deal taking pay cuts and making the league more profitable since the NBA is currently at its "best" since the Jordan Era and renegotiate a new deal that will be in favor of the players and benefit the league when that one expires..

ShockerArt
07-04-2011, 09:49 AM
NFL - players 100%
NBA - owners-ish

phoenix_bladen
07-04-2011, 10:00 AM
i think a bit to the owners

i think players if they're getting paid max they should perform like a max

i understand they need guaranteed contracts because of injuries etc etc which is why i think if they shorten contracts to 3 years instead of 5 would make players continue to try their hardest instead of signing a contract and slack off.

that way you have players always performing to the best of their abilities to continue to establish their fair market value

Witness06
07-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Why is there a perception that guys dont try once they get the big money? I mean yes , we are all human and there a a small percentage of guys who fall in that category. But that is a SMALL percent. You guys seem to want to PUNISH 400 players for the actions of a handful. Remeber these are HUMAN beings, most of these contracts are given based on potential....thats a big word. Its an investment just like a stock or anything else, some meet or exceed expexctations some dont. The teams (as in life) that choose right win the ones who dont ...lose. If you check the record you will find that over the last five years the owners have increased their spending 5x's the rate of players salary growth.
The owners are demanding a system were profit is a garuntee, what business in America does that?
And just a thought.....
If the NBA is losing 300 mil a year......Why are billionares fighting to pay RECORD PRICES for small market teams (ie Golden state warriors 450 mil, Detroit Pistons 360
+ mil, Washington wizards 550 mil, all three sold THIS SEASON)in the middle of a recession?
OR MAYBE THATS TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE FOR THIS FORUM

jimm120
07-04-2011, 10:26 AM
really?

You understand the owners wanting to take half of the players cut...but can't understand why the layers don't want that???

I'm kind of with the owners.


If I go and invest 700,000 million dollars, I want large profits. And definitely no losses. BTW, I don't think they're making losses. Look at MLB and the FLorida Marlins. Now THAT is a team that is supposed to be losing money. only like 3,000 to 6,000 fans per game. Means they not only get less money from the entrance, but less from the parking and food sold. Yet, they are actually making small profits (of course, by keeping the team crappy and taking the revenue sharing).

Point is:

Players - They are getting paid upwards to $23 million a season to play basketball. The "starting" salary on a max contract is around $16. I can bare to see those numbers fall. Starting max contract to $13 million. Highest contract around $16 million.

Owners - Did they dig their own **** hole? Maybe. But still, its a business for them. They paid large amounts for these franchises. Even if food/parking/tv contracts push them to profits, they still expect a profit from the core business, because they consider those other things as something separate.


So, players "win", and all of our teams are handicapped with bloated contracts. Was it the teams that gave those contracts? Hell yeah, but the market DICTATED that price. So now, the league needs to control the market so prices don't get so ridiculous.

I just think that players are too greedy. The owners want to take away half of their money? extreme. But SHOULD they lose some money? yes. They're getting paid way too much.

Its not the NHL. the NBA doesn't have problems as big as that. You can see by how the ratings have been up the past 2 years. But there needs to be more control.

jimm120
07-04-2011, 10:32 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5383261

Check the story here is my case in point. The guy bought Golden State warriors in 1995 for 119 mil, they have only made the playoffs 1 time since then. He just sold the team in 2011 (with a claimed 300mil in losses) for 450mil!!!!! And to top that the guy who bought is currently a minority owner of the Boston Celtics (which means he understands the NBA ownership, and knows the TRUE value of owning a team). You dont have to be a rcocket scientist to understand that here is a guy who knows the NBA, knows exactly what he is buying, and still spends a record number on a small market team. IF THEY WERE REALLY LOSING MONEY WHY WOULD A BILLIONARE DO THAT?????????
Oil is selling for record numbers to smart ***.....And they are reporting record profits. This is simple common sense. If the NBA was saying look we cant even sell these teams because we are losing money, that would be one thing. But to have these facts all in the everday news paper and then tell the employees we need to CUT YOUR PAY 30%, while small market teams are selling at 300-400 % PROFIT, Ratings are the best ever, International Interest id the highest ever....????????? I was born at night ....not last night


I just wanted to say that yes, the team became more valuable but if that is the only thing that you're taking into consideration, then I don't know how deep you're thinking about this.

A team isn't a piece a land. You can't just buy it for $100,000 and then sell it for $300,000. Why? A team needs "maintenance". You need to get players. It costs money to run a team. A piece of land you can buy and just leave it there to gain value on its own during the years. You can't just buy a team and let it stay there gaining value.

So, SINCE 1995, his operating losses have earned him a loss of $300,000, even though his property has technically gained value. But so has his yearly tab on taking care of the franchise.

effen5
07-04-2011, 10:59 AM
I'm with the owners, some of the things they want to pass I dont agree with (i.e. hardcap) but the players have gotten to greedy... I understand blaming management for bad decisions, but at the same time players are responsible to hold up there end of the bargain as well.. The way I see it if someone is paying you max money to play for their team they expect you to put in the work, train, stay in shape to play at a high level.. Some players are willing to do that but a lot of players in this league once they sign that big contract they take off.. Players should be held accountable as well..

And if 22 out of 30 teams are losing money that should be a wake up call to players and say lets take a pay cut and help generate profit for the league.. This is prob. unlikely, but suppose a number of team begin to file for bankruptcy and league is in financial trouble players checks might start bouncing (i.e. LA Dodgers) and players will start getting upset.. All could have been avoided if they took a pay cut and split revenue equally.. The players greed is what experts believe the lockout will wipe out an entire season..

They have an opportunity to play the game they love.. How bout agreeing to a 5 year deal taking pay cuts and making the league more profitable since the NBA is currently at its "best" since the Jordan Era and renegotiate a new deal that will be in favor of the players and benefit the league when that one expires..

This.

camador22
07-04-2011, 11:08 AM
Arenas
R.Lewis
J.Johnson
E.Brand
V.Carter

=500 Million dollars combined when they originally signed. Half a billion and I threw out the first 5 names that came to mind not the other 30 or 40 overpaid.

Owners will get what they want when it's all said and done.

dodie53
07-04-2011, 11:30 AM
side by side

Tom Stone
07-04-2011, 11:37 AM
I'm with the owners, some of the things they want to pass I dont agree with (i.e. hard cap) but the players have gotten to greedy... I understand blaming management for bad decisions, but at the same time players are responsible to hold up there end of the bargain as well.. The way I see it if someone is paying you max money to play for their team they expect you to put in the work, train, stay in shape to play at a high level.. Some players are willing to do that but a lot of players in this league once they sign that big contract they take off.. Players should be held accountable as well..

And if 22 out of 30 teams are losing money that should be a wake up call to players and say lets take a pay cut and help generate profit for the league.. This is prob. unlikely, but suppose a number of team begin to file for bankruptcy and league is in financial trouble players checks might start bouncing (i.e. LA Dodgers) and players will start getting upset.. All could have been avoided if they took a pay cut and split revenue equally.. The players greed is what experts believe the lockout will wipe out an entire season..

They have an opportunity to play the game they love.. How bout agreeing to a 5 year deal taking pay cuts and making the league more profitable since the NBA is currently at its "best" since the Jordan Era and renegotiate a new deal that will be in favor of the players and benefit the league when that one expires..



The only thing people should really care about is the fairness of the league, and the hard or flex cap is the only way to get it.......without an upper limit, GM's like Cuban will be willing to do whatever it takes to win, epically since he now got a taste of it.......cuban is going to be like a pit bull on cocane.....and with super teams being put together, being able to make it to the final's in one year, and predict it .....and some people don't have a problem with that.....it sickens me.

llemon
07-04-2011, 11:55 AM
Arenas
R.Lewis
J.Johnson
E.Brand
V.Carter

=500 Million dollars combined when they originally signed. Half a billion and I threw out the first 5 names that came to mind not the other 30 or 40 overpaid.

Owners will get what they want when it's all said and done.

The owners got what they wanted when they signed those guys to those ridiculous contracts.

llemon
07-04-2011, 12:08 PM
if the NBA players (or 90% of all pro athletes, to be fair) were the least bit grateful for how fortunate they are they would find a way to be satisfied with only 6 cars rather than 7.

all they are doing is jeopardizing future generations of basketball players the opportunity to experience this good fortune as well by threatening the viability of the league long term.

Yes, and if the wealthiest Americans were the least bit grateful for how fortunate they are, they wouldn't fight a 3% income tax increase that would help pull this country out of the economic hole it is in. Of course, then they might only be able to have 11 private jets instead of 12.

They are jeopardizing future generations of Americans of the opportunity to have a place to live, something to eat, and obtain decent medical care, as well as the viability of America long term.

Witness06
07-04-2011, 12:15 PM
I just wanted to say that yes, the team became more valuable but if that is the only thing that you're taking into consideration, then I don't know how deep you're thinking about this.

A team isn't a piece a land. You can't just buy it for $100,000 and then sell it for $300,000. Why? A team needs "maintenance". You need to get players. It costs money to run a team. A piece of land you can buy and just leave it there to gain value on its own during the years. You can't just buy a team and let it stay there gaining value.

So, SINCE 1995, his operating losses have earned him a loss of $300,000, even though his property has technically gained value. But so has his yearly tab on taking care of the franchise.

You are proving my point.....if you look deeper. A team is NOT a piece of land.....so what makes it appreciate????? Its ability to MAKE MONEY. A TEAM IS A BUSINESS it only appreciates IF it makes money. In business its the difference between Mcdonalds and a Tower records store, Mcdonalds makes money so its MORE valuable....Tower records LOSES money so they are non-exsitstent. EVERY APSECT of NBA merchandising, ratings, international value is at an all time high and salaries are a FIXED COST. 57% of BRI (not all profit, just the negotiated revenue). Any rich person knows how to use accounting practices to save money/taxes (THATS HOW WE GOT IN RECESSION IN LARGE PART) , they know how to show loses even when its not real cash.

The players are offering some give backs, the owners seem to not be fair. In the last CBA the players agreed to Max contract limits, agreed to rookie contract limits so they have shown a willingness to address these issues. And still they are saying ok we will give back 3-5% but not 33%. Thats not fair when EVERY OTHER ASPECT of revenue is at RECORD highs. Still the salaries are a fixed cost and the league was profitable.

michael811
07-04-2011, 12:26 PM
Since the owners refuse to split their own money and adopt a revenue sharing model similar to what the Nfl owners do I blame them. How can they expect the players to sacrifice for the good of the league when they refuse to do the same.

Witness06
07-04-2011, 12:27 PM
Arenas
R.Lewis
J.Johnson
E.Brand
V.Carter

=500 Million dollars combined when they originally signed. Half a billion and I threw out the first 5 names that came to mind not the other 30 or 40 overpaid.

Owners will get what they want when it's all said and done.

These are like INVESTMENTS, there are no GUARNTEES. Like stocks sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. For everyone bad contract there are 10 fair ones. Just because you chose a guy like BRAnd, or Arenas who got hurt and didnt come back as good as they were.....thats life. At the same time other teams either passed or just refused to pay that much for these guys. So in the NBA as in life you are rewarded for your choices.
The owners look ROI when doing these max deals.....take a guy like Lebron How much did he generate for the ENTIRE CITY of Cleveland???? Well, was he paid what he was worth or was he the best bargain ever in East OHIO???
So the contracts are relative, singing Arenas at the time may have allow the team to get alot more money from the local TV deal because of the anticipated ratings. This is a business and there are reasons they sign these guys.....the owner isnt just looking at the "on court value" Merchandising, and media rights are big money, player endorsements and exsposure is good for the team.

Witness06
07-04-2011, 12:31 PM
Since the owners refuse to split their own money and adopt a revenue sharing model similar to what the Nfl owners do I blame them. How can they expect the players to sacrifice for the good of the league when they refuse to do the same.
Great point!!!! The Jerry Buss's and James Dolan's arent giving up their profit for the good of the league.

Tom Stone
07-04-2011, 12:53 PM
Since the owners refuse to split their own money and adopt a revenue sharing model similar to what the Nfl owners do I blame them. How can they expect the players to sacrifice for the good of the league when they refuse to do the same.

Your right the owners must share there overall profit as well, makeing it easyier on small markets....they said they would but won't give us details.

I would like to a revenu plan put in place, to show good faith to the players, that there commited to fixing the problem.

llemon
07-06-2011, 03:41 PM
Any pro-management posters reconsidering their position after all the reports that the Owners are massaging the books?

The rich need more money, and are willing to confuse the IRS (and try to break a Union) to get it. It's what's for breakfast.

Jamiecballer
07-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Yes, and if the wealthiest Americans were the least bit grateful for how fortunate they are, they wouldn't fight a 3% income tax increase that would help pull this country out of the economic hole it is in. Of course, then they might only be able to have 11 private jets instead of 12.

They are jeopardizing future generations of Americans of the opportunity to have a place to live, something to eat, and obtain decent medical care, as well as the viability of America long term.

that's a different debate but what does it have to do with this situation?

LA_Raiders
07-07-2011, 02:44 AM
Owners 100% I hate unions, they are for losers...

ChongInc.
07-07-2011, 04:56 AM
Owners.
You need to have the basic structure to be successful. The NFL has it. The NHL has it. The
MLB does not and look how that's going for them.

X12Celtics3
07-07-2011, 09:48 AM
Owners. Unlike the NFL lockout, the NBA lockout is completely necessary because the league currently is broken. The system just does not work, it needs to be changed. The players, of course, will oppose it because the changes won't benefit them, but in order to make the NBA a well-run league (which it has never been during my lifetime, all of whihc has been in Stern's era).

I've brought up this point several times now, and it always either gets ignored or one or two people agree with me, but nobody seems to disagree. People keep saying "The owners are stupid because they pay contracts that they can't afford". However, in leagues that aren't stupid (like the NFL), the contracts are non-guaranteed so this doesn't happen. Do you think that NFL owners don't ever give ridiculous money to players who disappoint? They most certainly do... but in the NBA, these players have guaranteed contracts, so the money ties the team up for many years instead of the player just being cut. Why is it that people blame the owners for that aspect without acknowledging the broken system that is even more at fault?

Things that the NBA needs: Non-guaranteed contracts, hard salary cap, franchise tag

I'm willing to wait a very long time without basketball if the result is a league with those features.

LongIslandIcedZ
07-07-2011, 10:19 AM
I know if I owned a team and I was constantly losing money, I would want some drastic changes as well.

Owners.

Southsideheat
07-07-2011, 10:25 AM
When are people going to realize that this isn't a Players vs. Owners issue. It's a basketball issue, the system is broken and it needs to change. Both players and owners will have to make big concessions for the system to work. And yes, losing a season may be the only way to fix it.

BrokenAnkles
07-07-2011, 11:02 AM
I saw that the owners have lost $1.8 BILLION over the past 5 years. I am siding with the owners on that fact alone. I know that they are idiots and they put this on themselves but I completely understand why they are locking the players out. With how far apart the two parties are, I'm positive that we will miss games. I'm just hoping that it's not the whole season. Even as a huge hockey fan, February-June will be pretty boring with no NBA.

llemon
07-07-2011, 11:21 AM
I saw that the owners have lost $1.8 BILLION over the past 5 years. I am siding with the owners on that fact alone. I know that they are idiots and they put this on themselves but I completely understand why they are locking the players out. With how far apart the two parties are, I'm positive that we will miss games. I'm just hoping that it's not the whole season. Even as a huge hockey fan, February-June will be pretty boring with no NBA.

Stern and NBA owners lie, via cooked books.

llemon
07-07-2011, 11:22 AM
I know if I owned a team and I was constantly losing money, I would want some drastic changes as well.

Owners.

Wouldn't you want to sell a money losing business?

LongIslandIcedZ
07-07-2011, 11:30 AM
Wouldn't you want to sell a money losing business?

If I was an owner and the new CBA did nothing to help my situation I would probably look into selling. But I'm not an owner or billionaire, so getting into that mindset is difficult, I would probably love owning an NBA team lol.

Ironman5219
07-07-2011, 11:39 AM
They need a hard cap plain and simple. Its not an even playing field, the overptaid Lakers are getting championship because they are outspending everyone. 22 of the teams are losing money, it can't keep going that way. You can't pay a player if the money is not their, if they keep losing money eventually they will shut down, then we would end up with like 8 teams... lame! Make it like the NFL, even the playing field, and the NBA will be fun to watch again.

llemon
07-07-2011, 11:43 AM
If I was an owner and the new CBA did nothing to help my situation I would probably look into selling. But I'm not an owner or billionaire, so getting into that mindset is difficult, I would probably love owning an NBA team lol.

And I'm not an NBA player, but I would love to play in the NBA.

But I wouldn't want to give back any of my salary because some idiot spent over $100 mil on Gilbert Arenas.

LongIslandIcedZ
07-07-2011, 12:02 PM
And I'm not an NBA player, but I would love to play in the NBA.

But I wouldn't want to give back any of my salary because some idiot spent over $100 mil on Gilbert Arenas.

And thats why there's a lockout, your taking the side of the players and I'm on the side of the owners. And I'm not saying some owners aren't idiots, James Dolan could be the biggest idiot of them all. If I'm paying millions to my employees I would like to be profitable at the end of the day. I see where the players are coming from too, I just side with the owners.

quietstorm80
07-07-2011, 01:28 PM
Owners always claim "poverty" but name me the last time a team in any sport was sold for a loss?

The answer is NEVER

Why would successful business people invest hundred of millions of dollars on a venture that will loss money?

It amazes me how fans, take offense to player salaries but never care how much the owners make.

llemon
07-07-2011, 03:13 PM
And thats why there's a lockout, your taking the side of the players and I'm on the side of the owners. And I'm not saying some owners aren't idiots, James Dolan could be the biggest idiot of them all. If I'm paying millions to my employees I would like to be profitable at the end of the day. I see where the players are coming from too, I just side with the owners.

So you are backing the idiots because they are rich. Good call.

LongIslandIcedZ
07-07-2011, 04:45 PM
So you are backing the idiots because they are rich. Good call.

Not at all. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the owners. If I owned a team and shelled out millions to my employees and I wasn't making money, I would want to drastically change things. If the numbers are correct (and I don't know that they are) than a good amount of teams aren't making money. Clearly we're on opposite sides of the lockout right now, and arguing won't do anything but further entrench our beliefs.

truplayer199
07-07-2011, 04:47 PM
Players. If the Owners were reducing ticket cost then i might change my mind.

FuriousJatt
07-07-2011, 05:13 PM
im with the owners... no business owner wants to keep on losing money... no business can survive being in redink year after year. its not like the owners are asking the players or their other employess to work for free. if the players cant take less money to play then why should the owners play the season and lose money?

Witness06
07-07-2011, 06:04 PM
I have stated this on this forum and would like your reaction?
In 2011 3 small market nba teams sold for RECORD amounts
1. washington wizards and their arena sold for 550 mil
2. Detroit pistons sold for 360 + mil
3. Golden state warriors sold for 450 mil (just last month To the minority owner of the Celtics)

If the system is broken, and the league is losing hundreds of millions annually how is it that very successful, super rich businessmen are fighting bidding wars and paying RECORD prices to get in? That just doesnt add up. No one with any common sense is going to pay a record price for a business that losses hundreds of millions, someone is not being honest. The players salary is a fixed cost at 57% ( and what seems to be unreported) is they get 57% of BRI (which are pre negotiated items ) not overall profits.

nolafan33
07-07-2011, 07:23 PM
Owners side, easily.

daleja424
07-07-2011, 07:42 PM
im with the owners... no business owner wants to keep on losing money... no business can survive being in redink year after year. its not like the owners are asking the players or their other employess to work for free. if the players cant take less money to play then why should the owners play the season and lose money?

Whine and cry about losses all you want... but the average NBA franchise is worth twice as much today as it was 10 years ago. When NBA teams start accounting for that equity in their books... I'll start to listen. When a team is posting a 5 million dollar loss, but gains 20 million in equity... there isn't really a loss...

Punk
07-07-2011, 08:08 PM
Totally the players. Again, spend money wisely.

Why should middle-class players have to suffer because owners are handing out terrible contracts?

I know the Bucks are losing money and BADLY. But just last year they overpaid Salmons, Gooden then they end up producing a losing season. They take on a contract like Cory Mags when Bell, Gazuric were coming off the books sooner.

Decisions by owners is the problem. Gilbert Arenas gets 100 million, Joe Johnson gets 100 million.

Dirk signs for 82 million to keep cap space to build a contending team. See the difference?

Now, The Knicks signed Amare to 100 million. Obviously a huge risk but he's earned his money's worth by bringing one of the biggest markets to relevance which creates money for the league.

Stern and owners want smaller markets to compete? Are we supposed to forget Memphis? Conley (overpaid), Gay (slightly overpaid) and Randolph paid....HUGE contracts but a small market that can contend for a Championship without "superstar" players.

Denver as well. Another small market that can contend in the west. They traded the right pieces to get rid of Carmelo. Think about if they took the Nets offer? Harris, Morrow, Outlaw. Three terrible contracts that would amount to a losing season.

It's about using your money correctly. Owners can't and punishing the players for accepting and keeping their money is ridiculous.

daleja424
07-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Precisley. Joe Johnson signed with the Hawks for more than Bosh, Wade, James, or Boozer got last summer. That is just bad spending!

Rafer17
07-12-2011, 02:04 PM
The owners complain about players getting too much money...but their the ones giving out the money

Rafer17
11-05-2011, 11:01 AM
Well months into negotiations, were already losing some of the season, maybe all of it. Are you still on the same side you voted on back in july?

DwayneMVPwade
11-05-2011, 11:22 AM
I dont care what side wins. Just end the lockout

VillaMaravilla
11-05-2011, 11:39 AM
owners

ManRam
11-05-2011, 11:41 AM
I'm more on the owners side...but both are being obnoxious at this point...

Corey
11-05-2011, 11:44 AM
Players.

They've already said they'll accept 52% of the BRI. They were getting 57% in the last deal. They're already agreeing to handing over 5% that the owners WEREN'T getting before. Just freaking accept it. They are the ones playing the games. They're already taking less than they were receiving. Lets go.

Cosmic_Canon
11-05-2011, 11:46 AM
I'm with the players, but at the same time, I won't trash the owners or praise them.
Both sides want the most money, this is capitalism, I'm not mad at someone wanting the most money.

knicks4life33
11-05-2011, 12:22 PM
the players!!!!!!! the owners are the ones who are greedy and stopping from the season starting. The players have been fair in there negotitations but the owners want everything and are willing to cancel the season and also quoted some owners are willing to cancel 2 seasons get wut they want. so u tell me who is the 1 at fault

KnicksorBust
11-05-2011, 01:14 PM
Players.

They've already said they'll accept 52% of the BRI. They were getting 57% in the last deal. They're already agreeing to handing over 5% that the owners WEREN'T getting before. Just freaking accept it. They are the ones playing the games. They're already taking less than they were receiving. Lets go.

This. Owners are taking the hard line though. They want it all and they want it all now.

futureman
11-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Independent. If players can't save their money, that's their fault and not the owners. Jordan is on a crusade to kill the league. He won't even accept a 50/50 proposal out of sheer greed. He was getting 30 million per year while his teammates were getting 3 million.

Tony_Starks
11-05-2011, 01:43 PM
Players.

They've already said they'll accept 52% of the BRI. They were getting 57% in the last deal. They're already agreeing to handing over 5% that the owners WEREN'T getting before. Just freaking accept it. They are the ones playing the games. They're already taking less than they were receiving. Lets go.


:clap:

Yessir. What the players have conceded is more than enough to cover the owners supposed "losses" and yet that somehow is still not enough. At this point its sheer greed and arrogance on the owners part......

ink
11-05-2011, 02:26 PM
Why take a side? If you look at the issues you can see that neither side is hard done by. Neither. But you can also see that the league is seriously ****ed up in so many ways. The EGO NBA is not sustainable and will eventually collapse unless it changes course. That's the fault of BOTH the league (who initiated this ******** star-based league marketing campaign in the late 90s) and the players (the best of which now have no loyalty except to themselves or their BFFs).

If you get sucked into debates about the percentage points that players and owners want, you have seriously bit hook, line, and sinker. Neither side is getting shafted, both sides are incredibly rich and privileged, but for some reason instead of reacting with disgust at the travesty that's been done to our game, people get all excited about talking about rich people's money. Wow.

KnicksR4Real
11-05-2011, 02:42 PM
Players