PDA

View Full Version : OPINION: NBA players aren't the brightest crayons in the box



CityofChaos
11-15-2011, 01:41 AM
David West


Via twitter: "We have 100 dollars to split. U get 50, I get 50. You split your 50 between 30 guys. I split my 50 between 450 guys. Think about it."


Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

NYKNYGNYY
11-15-2011, 02:01 AM
great post, couldnt describe it in a better way.....cant think of the word that compares it

znick21
11-15-2011, 02:02 AM
did you tweet that back to him?

lakers4sho
11-15-2011, 02:27 AM
They don't even split it 50-50. Owners take 30 [ arbitrary ], and THEN they split the remaining with the players.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 02:29 AM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

bholly
11-15-2011, 02:29 AM
His logic is flawed, but yours is laughably bad, too. This isn't just like McDonald's - the player is not just an employee but a huge part of the product. It isn't about 'deserve' it's about supply and demand and negotiating power. The players have a pretty significant amount of monopoly power and it shows a complete ignorance of basic economics to ignore that and think their remuneration should be at all similar to that of menial labour.

And even if we ignored all that, do you know how much of McDonald's revenue goes to employee costs and paying for the product? Unless you've got some numbers to prove otherwise, for all we know McDonald's employees get more than 50%.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 02:31 AM
^i would actually equate Players with the ANNOUNCERS or maybe the salesman of the Product not the product itself.
The Image of the product.

And if you are wondering people is more likely to buy your Hamburguers if the announcer is Jessica Alba than if the announcer is Ross Perot.

Thats why Mcdonadls woudl pay a good sum to Miss Alba to do it.

ugafan
11-15-2011, 02:40 AM
And it's one example. I doubt all the players believe the same thing.

gotoHcarolina52
11-15-2011, 02:47 AM
If forced to analogize, I would compare the NBA to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Sure, the animals are the "product"/"main attraction"/"image"/what-have-you, but just because their milkshake brings all the boys to the yard doesn't mean they should have any rights! I'm with the Ringling Brothers on this one--the only thing these glorified clowns should be entitled to is a decent meal and a pile of hay on which to sleep.

When was the last time you saw Dumbo the Elephant or Lucy the Lioness or Carl the Camel or Mindy the Monkey threatening to decertify his/her/its union and file a grievance with the NLRB or an antitrust lawsuit with the District Court for the Southern District of New York?! That's right, NEVER! The Ringling Brothers got it right. They knew how to keep their prima donnas in check.

VillaMaravilla
11-15-2011, 02:49 AM
His logic is flawed, but yours is laughably bad, too. This isn't just like McDonald's - the player is not just an employee but a huge part of the product. It isn't about 'deserve' it's about supply and demand and negotiating power. The players have a pretty significant amount of monopoly power and it shows a complete ignorance of basic economics to ignore that and think their remuneration should be at all similar to that of menial labour.

And even if we ignored all that, do you know how much of McDonald's revenue goes to employee costs and paying for the product? Unless you've got some numbers to prove otherwise, for all we know McDonald's employees get more than 50%.

not true a few teams are lucky to have a Kobe who actually brings in the cash but many teams dont, so what happens to those teams that dont have a star or had one that left to join forces with other superstars? he has it right because at the end of the day this is the problem not every team has a Lebron, Kobe, Durant......

JonnyBrav000
11-15-2011, 02:51 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:


LOL, you think you are so smart hahaha. Listen anyone can flip burgers, can you find anyone on the street to be talented enough to entertain millions of people for their hard earned cash??? Way different situation than a burger joint. If the owners didn't need the players, they would start a league with amateur talent. Your point is not very relative.

pd1dish
11-15-2011, 03:09 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

this has been the reason all along for why i cant support the players in this situation. they think they deserve more than what they are already getting. what they have been getting all along is more than what they deserve. half the guys in the league get overpaid more than double what they should be getting paid (i guess you can blame the owners for raising the market prices of these guys). but, thats my 2 cents and i agree with what you said Chaos

dnewguy
11-15-2011, 03:15 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

Kevj77
11-15-2011, 03:18 AM
Stern did a great job of framing this to be all about BRI split then wouldn't budge on their system changes. Players went to 50/50 and made concessions on system issues. They actually negotiated unlike the owners.

I could care less who wins the PR war anymore the courts will decide it now.

Also at McDonalds the hamburger is the product, in the NBA players are literally the product.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 03:19 AM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

And no matter the player you are talking about, he is a guaranteed millionaire by just being in the league. An 8 year career in the current NBA system would grant you generational wealth if you have any sense, many of these players don't and that is their problem. I wouldn't mind a job where I can work only eight years of my life for 8 months out of the year and then have generational wealth, sounds like a pretty good deal if you ask me.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

bfrap
11-15-2011, 03:28 AM
Unlike the other major sports, the NBA really had the dumbest players. Did they not see how well the anti-trust thing went for the NFL?

Also, unlike the other 3 major sports leagues, the college game is actually a more entertaining product. I am looking forward to not seeing these thugs out of street gangs on my TV this year. I will enjoy college basketball and be happier.

And last but not least, that one player complained about how Jordan was "Selling them out" I wonder if that brain dead fool actually thought about what he said and didn't think about this: Maybe now that Jordan has seen the other side, maybe, just maybe things are not so rosey in respect to the teams books? Oh, but that logic won't get this fool his big contract.

Thank you NBAPA. I don't want to see your crying selves on my television anyway. So keep being the dim bulb.

ClippersE.G
11-15-2011, 03:34 AM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

You should change your screename to Buzz Killington.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:35 AM
His logic is flawed, but yours is laughably bad, too. This isn't just like McDonald's - the player is not just an employee but a huge part of the product. It isn't about 'deserve' it's about supply and demand and negotiating power. The players have a pretty significant amount of monopoly power and it shows a complete ignorance of basic economics to ignore that and think their remuneration should be at all similar to that of menial labour.

And even if we ignored all that, do you know how much of McDonald's revenue goes to employee costs and paying for the product? Unless you've got some numbers to prove otherwise, for all we know McDonald's employees get more than 50%.

No. A good restaurant wants to keep labor at approx 17%...20% and up is too much.

And the logic isnt flawed. The service the Players provide is incredibly similar to the service any other Service Sector employee provides. They are serving the customer, either by creating food or by playing a game. And if all other companies run efficiently with 17% labor costs, and the employees are generally okay with the money they make, the players should stop being ignorant and realize they are overpaid and replaceable, just like every other employee in the world

ClippersE.G
11-15-2011, 03:36 AM
And it is funny when players (in this instance David West) try to act like if they know anything about business just because they went to College. Most of them did not even receive a degree but for some reason they think they all majored in business or something ...Keyon Dooling, Mo Evans....Vice Presidents really? It is indicative of the rest of the players when your representation speaks as if they have an elementary education.

ClippersE.G
11-15-2011, 03:38 AM
If forced to analogize, I would compare the NBA to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Sure, the animals are the "product"/"main attraction"/"image"/what-have-you, but just because their milkshake brings all the boys to the yard doesn't mean they should have any rights! I'm with the Ringling Brothers on this one--the only thing these glorified clowns should be entitled to is a decent meal and a pile of hay on which to sleep.

When was the last time you saw Dumbo the Elephant or Lucy the Lioness or Carl the Camel or Mindy the Monkey threatening to decertify his/her/its union and file a grievance with the NLRB or an antitrust lawsuit with the District Court for the Southern District of New York?! That's right, NEVER! The Ringling Brothers got it right. They knew how to keep their prima donnas in check.


:cool:

ClippersE.G
11-15-2011, 03:40 AM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

oh my god you cant be serious...are you drunk?

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:46 AM
Stern did a great job of framing this to be all about BRI split then wouldn't budge on their system changes. Players went to 50/50 and made concessions on system issues. They actually negotiated unlike the owners.

I could care less who wins the PR war anymore the courts will decide it now.

Also at McDonalds the hamburger is the product, in the NBA players are literally the product.

Wrong. The game is the Product. The players service the customers by playing the Game! The burger is the product. The cooks service the customers by cooking the product.

All these damn socialist out here talking about the owners being greedy and this and that.

No. The players are gifted and talented in what they do. they deserve to be paid fairly according to the demand for their skills. And sorry boys and girls. If the owners dont want your skill set, they arent going to pay you, regardless of the "split". And they players can take their services to other leagues if they so chose and get paid depending on the market value of their service.

The owners are the ones that are writing the checks, and the players are trying to bite the hand that feeds them.


Sickening. Socialism isnt the answer and doesnt work. Let the free market work and let the players get paid based on what the market dictates. its not hard!!!!

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 03:47 AM
Unlike the other major sports, the NBA really had the dumbest players. Did they not see how well the anti-trust thing went for the NFL?

Also, unlike the other 3 major sports leagues, the college game is actually a more entertaining product. I am looking forward to not seeing these thugs out of street gangs on my TV this year. I will enjoy college basketball and be happier.

And last but not least, that one player complained about how Jordan was "Selling them out" I wonder if that brain dead fool actually thought about what he said and didn't think about this: Maybe now that Jordan has seen the other side, maybe, just maybe things are not so rosey in respect to the teams books? Oh, but that logic won't get this fool his big contract.

Thank you NBAPA. I don't want to see your crying selves on my television anyway. So keep being the dim bulb.

College bball has gone in the crapper the last several years, it is getting harder and harder to watch as a diehard basketball fan. If you like massive amount of turnovers, horrible shooting %, low scoring games (not due to defense but just awful awful shooting and shot clock), a 35 second shot clock for a 40 minute game, horrific officiating (yes, by far worse than the NBA), horrible FT shooting.

And where do you think these "thugs" come from? They aren't just dropped out of the sky. There are the same amount of "thugs" in college bball as in the pros. Also, I really hope you don't like the NFL because they lead the world of sports in "thugs" and crime.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:48 AM
oh my god you cant be serious...are you drunk?

Internet socialists.
They can keep barking.
At the end of the day, the markets will do the talking, and the players will get paid what they are WORTH. Not what the players THINK THEY ARE WORTH...but what they TRULY ARE WORTH!

I AM JOHN GALT!

Kevj77
11-15-2011, 03:51 AM
Wrong. The game is the Product. The players service the customers by playing the Game! The burger is the product. The cooks service the customers by cooking the product.

All these damn socialist out here talking about the owners being greedy and this and that.

No. The players are gifted and talented in what they do. they deserve to be paid fairly according to the demand for their skills. And sorry boys and girls. If the owners dont want your skill set, they arent going to pay you, regardless of the "split". And they players can take their services to other leagues if they so chose and get paid depending on the market value of their service.

The owners are the ones that are writing the checks, and the players are trying to bite the hand that feeds them.


Sickening. Socialism isnt the answer and doesnt work. Let the free market work and let the players get paid based on what the market dictates. its not hard!!!!******** it's the owners asking for socialism. They want revenue sharing, they want to tell player what they are worth and not let the free market work. That is socialism at it's finest.

The players are the product. Lets see how well the NBA does with replacement players. Better yet let the owners suit up and play 5 on 5.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 03:52 AM
Wrong. The game is the Product. The players service the customers by playing the Game! The burger is the product. The cooks service the customers by cooking the product.

All these damn socialist out here talking about the owners being greedy and this and that.

No. The players are gifted and talented in what they do. they deserve to be paid fairly according to the demand for their skills. And sorry boys and girls. If the owners dont want your skill set, they arent going to pay you, regardless of the "split". And they players can take their services to other leagues if they so chose and get paid depending on the market value of their service.

The owners are the ones that are writing the checks, and the players are trying to bite the hand that feeds them.


Sickening. Socialism isnt the answer and doesnt work. Let the free market work and let the players get paid based on what the market dictates. its not hard!!!!

I agree with your premise, but you clearly don't have a f'n idea on what socialism is. There is nothing wrong in negotiating the best deal for you, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that negotiation to be in good-faith, absolutely nothing wrong with that in a capitalist system, and that is what happened here on both sides. The problem is, the PA has gone to far and stopped negotiating and are flatly not working. In a "socialist" system they would still be getting something, here they are getting nothing for their decision. I believe the owners did negotiate in good-faith with the understanding of their proposal, i just don't think the players have any perspective.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:53 AM
******** it's the owners asking for socialism. They want revenue sharing, they want to tell player what they are worth and not let the free market work. That is socialism at it's finest.

The players are the product. Lets see how well the NBA does with replacement players. Better yet let the owners suit up and play 5 on 5.

Dude. Thats the ****ing point of a free market. The person PAYING YOU tells you what they are willing to PAY YOU.
Not the other way around.

You need to stop throwing around terms you dont understand.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:55 AM
I agree with your premise, but you clearly don't have a f'n idea on what socialism is. There is nothing wrong in negotiating the best deal for you, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that negotiation to be in good-faith, absolutely nothing wrong with that in a capitalist system, and that is what happened here on both sides. The problem is, the PA has gone to far and stopped negotiating and are flatly not working. In a "socialist" system they would still be getting something, here they are getting nothing for their decision. I believe the owners did negotiate in good-faith with the understanding of their proposal, i just don't think the players have any perspective.

You just regurgitated what i just said...

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 03:57 AM
I agree with your premise, but you clearly don't have a f'n idea on what socialism is. There is nothing wrong in negotiating the best deal for you, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that negotiation to be in good-faith, absolutely nothing wrong with that in a capitalist system, and that is what happened here on both sides. The problem is, the PA has gone to far and stopped negotiating and are flatly not working. In a "socialist" system they would still be getting something, here they are getting nothing for their decision. I believe the owners did negotiate in good-faith with the understanding of their proposal, i just don't think the players have any perspective.

I think you misconceived what i was saying. The people who are anti owners pro players tend to side with a more socialistic layout of how things should be set up. You are right with your assertions, its not a socialist system. But a lot of these clowns on this site are advocating for one, albeit unknowingly

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 03:59 AM
You just regurgitated what i just said...

not really. I don't believe you have a very good idea on how a free market works let alone a socialist system.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 04:01 AM
not really. I don't believe you have a very good idea on how a free market works let alone a socialist system.

Go read Mises and Friedman and then tell me i dont know how a free market works

lakers4sho
11-15-2011, 04:03 AM
In a classical free market model, the price of a good is determined solely by supply and demand.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:05 AM
I think you misconceived what i was saying. The people who are anti owners pro players tend to side with a more socialistic layout of how things should be set up. You are right with your assertions, its not a socialist system. But a lot of these clowns on this site are advocating for one, albeit unknowingly

Well, the people who are for the players in this also don't have very good perspective iMO. The owners aren't free of criticism at all, but relative to other professional sports leagues, and the proposal, I feel the players should have taken the proposal and gone back to work to collect their checks. To try and get something better than what is offered in an already broken system is just foolish at this point. Not many other places of business can you have guaranteed contracts worth millions regardless of performance.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:07 AM
Go read Mises and Friedman and then tell me i dont know how a free market works

put it in context to a professional sports league and then get back to me. Many layers that can't just be simplified as socialist and capitalist, actually trying to do that in this context is silly.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 04:07 AM
In a classical free market model, the price of a good is determined solely by supply and demand.

Supply-Players
Demand-Owners

There will almost always be a supply of good basketball players around(unless they all move to play in china)

There are only around 30 teams. High supply. Low Demand. GUESS WHAT! THE PRICE DROPS FOR THE SERVICE!

Kevj77
11-15-2011, 04:09 AM
Dude. Thats the ****ing point of a free market. The person PAYING YOU tells you what they are willing to PAY YOU.
Not the other way around.

You need to stop throwing around terms you dont understand.Then are players free to quit and find work with one of the other 29 teams if they are underpaid. A draft goes against a free market. Does anyone tell you who to work for after college. Does a free market guarantee businesses that can't fail like an NBA franchise?

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 04:09 AM
put it in context to a professional sports league and then get back to me. Many layers that can't just be simplified as socialist and capitalist, actually trying to do that in this context is silly.

True, I have a narrow black and white lens to view this through and thats not entirely fair to categorize the two sides are capitalist or socialist. Apologies there. I simplified a complicated scenario

beliges
11-15-2011, 04:11 AM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

The OWNER of the record label makes more money than the famous musician. Not even the Beatles or Michael Jackson made more money from their music than the owner of the record label that signed them. Thats just how it is.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:13 AM
wrong. The game is the product. The players service the customers by playing the game! The burger is the product. The cooks service the customers by cooking the product.

All these damn socialist out here talking about the owners being greedy and this and that.

No. The players are gifted and talented in what they do. They deserve to be paid fairly according to the demand for their skills. And sorry boys and girls. If the owners dont want your skill set, they arent going to pay you, regardless of the "split". And they players can take their services to other leagues if they so chose and get paid depending on the market value of their service.

The owners are the ones that are writing the checks, and the players are trying to bite the hand that feeds them.


sickening. Socialism isnt the answer and doesnt work. Let the free market w!ork and let the players get paid based on what the market dictates. Its not hard!!!


LOl, very funny only that ITS THE OWNERS the ones that are trying to make an already communistlike system in the league into a totalitarian marxist-leninist crap with stern playing the kim yong il role.


free market? we have that in sports leagues here in europe, no draft, no cap, no max salarys no ****, you are worht as much as some team is willing to pay you.

get a clue man.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 04:15 AM
Then are players free to quit and find work with one of the other 29 teams if they are underpaid. A draft goes against a free market. Does anyone tell you who to work for after college. Does a free market guarantee businesses that can't fail like an NBA franchise?

Did the player sign a contract saying they will play for a certain team for X amount of years for x amount of money? Who says a Franchise cant fail? Anything can fail. And no one is telling any of these players who they can or cannot work for. When they sign a contract, its based upon the supply of players on the market at that time in relation to the demand for that player. Sure, the draft is but a minor hitch in the free market idea, but to discredit the entire free market idea bc of a player draft for a sports team is silly

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:15 AM
Supply-Players
Demand-Owners

There will almost always be a supply of good basketball players around(unless they all move to play in china)

There are only around 30 teams. High supply. Low Demand. GUESS WHAT! THE PRICE DROPS FOR THE SERVICE!

The owners could do that. The players who want to play with the proposed deal, come on down. I am actually for this. Go get the D-leaguers and other players from around the world that otherwise wouldn't be worthy to play in the league. They could of course still put out a product, but would people still show up? The problem is, many owners aren't making very much money and if they lost many quality star players to attract the public, the deal would look even less rosy. There is a difference between a high quality product and low quality product, the WNBA's continued losses prove that. Doing something like that and trying to sell it to the public is almost an impossibility. Basically, no one wins and both sides are to blame. IMO the players are more to blame, and to go to these lengths now is, as stern called it, nothing more than a cheap tactic.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:17 AM
The OWNER of the record label makes more money than the famous musician. Not even the Beatles or Michael Jackson made more money from their music than the owner of the record label that signed them. Thats just how it is.

well it snormal they do since the owner of a label does nto only publish one artists records but several artists ones and winns some form each on them.

but know somethign funny? the main income from a musician is not records.

its the money you get paid for playing live.

Guess waht the owner of a company does not see a cent of that money.

redsoxphil91
11-15-2011, 04:19 AM
The owners could do that. The players who want to play with the proposed deal, come on down. I am actually for this. Go get the D-leaguers and other players from around the world that otherwise wouldn't be worthy to play in the league. They could of course still put out a product, but would people still show up? The problem is, many owners aren't making very much money and if they lost many quality star players to attract the public, the deal would look even less rosy. There is a difference between a high quality product and low quality product, the WNBA's continued losses prove that. Doing something like that and trying to sell it to the public is almost an impossibility. Basically, no one wins and both sides are to blame. IMO the players are more to blame, and to go to these lengths now is, as stern called it, nothing more than a cheap tactic.

true true

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:22 AM
[/b]

LOl, very funny only that ITS THE OWNERS the ones that are trying to make an already communistlike system in the league into a totalitarian marxist-leninist crap with stern playing the kim yong il role.


free market? we have that in sports leagues here in europe, no draft, no cap, no max salarys no ****, you are worht as much as some team is willing to pay you.

get a clue man.

Your lens isn't very clear either. Their job is being an NBA player. If a player plays for the Detroit Pistons, he is property of the Detroit Pistons of the National Basketball Association. The NBA is one big business. There are many different factions of the business I work for, in many different cities around the USA. My business could tell me tomorrow that I am required to move to another city. That is their right and I would have to go. If I don't want to go, I can quit my job and look for a place to work somewhere else with a different company. The NBA is one corporation not 30.

Kevj77
11-15-2011, 04:23 AM
No NBA teams aren't allowed to fail. The NBA could fail, but not individual teams, they could be sold. Can players decide how long thier rookie contract is or if their offer gets matched as a restricted free agent? What about max contracts for players like Lebron that are obviously worth more than they are paid. Max contracts are against a free market.

You can't compare sports to other forms of business.

beliges
11-15-2011, 04:24 AM
well it snormal they do since the owner of a label does nto only publish one artists records but several artists ones and winns some form each on them.

but know somethign funny? the main income from a musician is not records.

its the money you get paid for playing live.

Guess waht the owner of a company does not see a cent of that money.

You know who gets paid the most money from a band going on live tours? The concert promoter. You know why? Because they put up all the money and take all the risk. Again, thats just how it is. Similar to your description of record label owners up there, NBA owners do not just have one player on their roster either, rather they have several players.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:25 AM
Your lens isn't very clear either. Their job is being an NBA player. If a player plays for the Detroit Pistons, he is property of the Detroit Pistons of the National Basketball Association. The NBA is one big business. There are many different factions of the business I work for, in many different cities around the USA. My business could tell me tomorrow that I am requested to move to another city then that is their right and I have to go. If I don't want to go, I can quit my job and look for a place to work in another business. The NBA is one corporation not 30.
o yeah? it is?

then tell me why lakers have not split that mega tv deal they just signed and gave every of the other 29 teams their equal part of the money?

they ARE INDEED different "corporatiosn"

but lets assume your falacy was true.

if you in your bussines with different factions sign a 5 year deal for say the miami branch, and ONCE IT IS OVER and you fulfilled your contract, the los angeles branch of the same bussines WANTS you to work for them NO ONE IN THE WORLD CAN LEGALLY STOP YOU from signing with the miami branch.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:26 AM
You know who gets paid the most money from a band going on live tours? The concert promoter. You know why? Because they put up all the money and take all the risk. Again, thats just how it is. Similar to your description of record label owners up there, NBA owners do not just have one player on their roster either, rather they have several players.


ha ha ha, how many concerts have you played?

i actually do.

and btw , the promoter contacts you and asks you how much woudl you want for the show, you say your price, if he does not like it he does not contrct you, if he likes it you strike a deal.

but he does not come and tell you im only paying this and put a gun in your head to force you into it.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:31 AM
o yeah? it is?

then tell me why lakers have not split that mega tv deal they just signed and gave every of the other 29 teams their equal part of the money?

they ARE INDEED different "corporatiosn"

but lets assume your falacy was true.

if you in your bussines with different factions sign a 5 year deal for say the miami branch, and ONCE IT IS OVER and you fulfilled your contract, the los angeles branch of the same bussines WANTS you to work for them NO ONE IN THE WORLD CAN LEGALLY STOP YOU from signing with the miami branch.

What? The lakers can make their money, but if they were a separate entity then they wouldn't have to pay the huge amount of luxury tax or revenue share with the other teams in the league. Also, from the players perspective...they are an NBA player 1st, LA Laker 2nd.

and to your 2nd part...huh? If a player signs a 5 year deal with Miami, and after that player fulfills that contract LA wants him why can't he sign back with Miami again?

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:34 AM
What? The lakers can make their money, but if they were a separate entity then they wouldn't have to pay the huge amount of luxury tax or revenue share with the other teams in the league. Also, from the players perspective...they are an NBA player 1st, LA Laker 2nd.

and to your 2nd part...huh? If a player signs a 5 year deal with Miami, and after that player fulfills that contract LA wants him why can't he sign back with Miami again?

if he wants to stay in miami he stays if he wants to go to la go to l.a

thats how it works for you or me as WORKERs and thats how SHOULD work for players too.


and thats what the plantatio......er Owners are tryign to do, avoid their legit right to do what they please in other branch of the company THAT WANTS them once their contract with their original branch is over.

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 04:35 AM
if he wants to stay in miami he stays if he wants to go to la go to l.a

thats how it works for you or me as WORKERs and thats how SHOULD work for players too.


and thats what the plantatio......er Owners are tryign to do, avoid their legit right to do what they please in other branch of the company THAT WANTS them once their contract with their original branch is over.

The owners are eliminating free agency?

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:45 AM
The owners are eliminating free agency?

they are doing it DEFACTO establishing a disguised hard cap and ridiculous rules making sign and trades almost imposible and making it IMPOSIBLE for a team to simply do their work wisely and clear cap space to get FA, thats why players are in RAGE

beliges
11-15-2011, 04:45 AM
if he wants to stay in miami he stays if he wants to go to la go to l.a

thats how it works for you or me as WORKERs and thats how SHOULD work for players too.


and thats what the plantatio......er Owners are tryign to do, avoid their legit right to do what they please in other branch of the company THAT WANTS them once their contract with their original branch is over.

Umm, the law in your country might be different than it is in the States, but here, when you sign a contract, you are bound to the terms of the contract. The law disallows personal service contracts, meaning nobody can be forced to work anywhere they dont want to. However, while a player is under contract, he is not allowed to go and play for another team without the contractor's consent. The law disallows this kind of breach. SO NBA players are not forced to do anything they dont want to do. Nobody has a gun to their heads. Without any restrictions, they are allowed to freely test their value on the open market and sign with whatever team is willing to sign them to a contract. To say the relationship between NBA owners and players are like plantation owners and workers is just plain dumb.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:48 AM
^ what we are talkign here is not what they do during the contract is the FACT that owners want to eliminate the chance of players ever becoming FA.

beliges
11-15-2011, 04:56 AM
^ what we are talkign here is not what they do during the contract is the FACT that owners want to eliminate the chance of players ever becoming FA.

A players ability to become a FA will not be affected one bit with the new proposed deal. A player will sign a contract, complete performance of the contract and once the contract ends, will become a FA, free to sign with whichever team is willing to sign him. There is absolutely nothing in this new deal that tries to eliminate free agency.

abe_froman
11-15-2011, 05:01 AM
nope...but neither are the owners.there was fair warning and talk this would happen but instead of offering deals that could be passed by all parties.they dug in,getting caught up in emotions and "sticking it to the other side"(spurred on by fans who,judging by posts here as well as elsewhere,cheered on this tactic)

i been saying no one took it seriously,the season was lost because no side wanted to be realistic.the only question each side should have been asking themselves is "would this be passed by the other side"....but unfortunately its the only question that neither side thought of ,never wanted to

Illinirob83
11-15-2011, 05:08 AM
they are doing it DEFACTO establishing a disguised hard cap and ridiculous rules making sign and trades almost imposible and making it IMPOSIBLE for a team to simply do their work wisely and clear cap space to get FA, thats why players are in RAGE

So they are trying to create competitive balance in a very tough league to do so, while still giving guaranteed contracts that wont be voided under any circumstance? Not too bad. I also dont believe your hyperbole. I would like to read the full proposal myself before believing your spin on it, which is probably nothing but mis-information.

But it sounds like to me you feel if the lakers wanted to go out and sign Howard, Paul, lebron, and dirk they should be free to do so without any restrictions, tax, rules. Your league would suck. Also, in my corporation they wouldn't let one branch have all the best and brightest while the other branches suffer, thus killing it.

BreakOutKid
11-15-2011, 05:11 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar, get back up in West's grill about it

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 05:27 AM
So they are trying to create competitive balance in a very tough league to do so, while still giving guaranteed contracts that wont be voided under any circumstance? Not too bad. I also dont believe your hyperbole. I would like to read the full proposal myself before believing your spin on it, which is probably nothing but mis-information.

But it sounds like to me you feel if the lakers wanted to go out and sign Howard, Paul, lebron, and dirk they should be free to do so without any restrictions, tax, rules. Your league would suck. Also, in my corporation they wouldn't let one branch have all the best and brightest while the other branches suffer, thus killing it.

lol you know what soccer makes 10000000000 times the money the next most profitable sport, do you know how it works? yep with 10 teams or so ( from basicall y 3 different countrys out of 300) having 80% of the top 10 players. thats exatcly how it works.

Foye
11-15-2011, 05:36 AM
Hey, I'm going to do it.

I'll go to the owners of the cinema I work for and demand a 50/50 split of the revenue I bring in. Sounds fair doesn't it? On the weekend that would be at least 1000 $ for me/day. :D

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 05:39 AM
^are people paying to go see you seelign popcorn?


i for sure know people dont come to the hotel to see me work.

Kevj77
11-15-2011, 05:55 AM
^are people paying to go see you seelign popcorn?


i for sure know people dont come to the hotel to see me work.You will never be to get a pro owner fan to admit that players aren't just employees, even though they know it. They have been sold the lies by small market owners and Stern that this is about competitive balance and bringing their team a championship, not that it's all about money and keeping a star player hostage so cheap owners can reap profits around that player, without ever surrounding him with the talent to win a championship. These fans won't admit that even they don't give a **** who flips their burgers or who greets them at Wal Mart, yet don't want their star player to leave their team.

Patman
11-15-2011, 05:58 AM
In a classical free market model, the price of a good is determined solely by supply and demand.

Yes, but this is pretty irelevant to the Lockout discussion. 1. There is no real Free market, all markets have some form of Control that does not allow them to freely operate (i.e. labour laws, food regulations). 2. The NBA and the other US Sports have no Free market there Systems are totally regulated.

hineswardfan
11-15-2011, 07:04 AM
I could of swore it was the sharpest crayon in the box.

knicksfan42
11-15-2011, 09:09 AM
Then are players free to quit and find work with one of the other 29 teams if they are underpaid. A draft goes against a free market. Does anyone tell you who to work for after college. Does a free market guarantee businesses that can't fail like an NBA franchise?

This whole socialism/ free market thing you're arguing doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with either of the economic systems. Economic systems do not apply to the way businesses/organizations run themselves. When players join the NBA they agree, without coercion, to abide by the organizations rules by signing a contract (that is the free market) and they can leave the organization (NBA) anytime they want (retire).

ewing
11-15-2011, 09:30 AM
They don't even split it 50-50. Owners take 30 [ arbitrary ], and THEN they split the remaining with the players.


So what even if thats true the players cant get a better deal elsewhere and if they lose the season they will get a worst deal then the one offered. Then when they do take the court they will lose a ton of fans and the deal after this one will be even worse. players and people in general need to start realizing the the stsyem isn't set up for them personally. It not about social justice its about what you can get. I'm for the players getting as much as they can out of the owners but if they push it far enough where fans lose an NBA season it will bite them in the *** and they should be smarter then that.

mjt20mik
11-15-2011, 09:32 AM
To be honest, I can understand these players bring in a lot of money and revenue. I just still don't understand how a person with barely any college education (in these times) have the right to ask for more money, when people who are educated barely earn $40,000. I mean at least be realistic.

ewing
11-15-2011, 09:38 AM
You will never be to get a pro owner fan to admit that players aren't just employees, even though they know it. They have been sold the lies by small market owners and Stern that this is about competitive balance and bringing their team a championship, not that it's all about money and keeping a star player hostage so cheap owners can reap profits around that player, without ever surrounding him with the talent to win a championship. These fans won't admit that even they don't give a **** who flips their burgers or who greets them at Wal Mart, yet don't want their star player to leave their team.


Of course they are not regular employees. What other group of employees get more then 1/2 of the revenue from a business without any investment? Also enough with the dramatic language from the players side they are always being held "hostage" or treated like "slaves" these are guys are the most persecuted millionares ever. If the idea having to play ball in Minn or where ever upsets you that much play for one year, retire, move where ever you want and never work again.

LanceUpperCut
11-15-2011, 09:48 AM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

I'm not sure if this accurate but I always heard that the record label takes around 80% of the $ made from a musician.

gotoHcarolina52
11-15-2011, 10:07 AM
In a classical free market model, the price of a good is determined solely by supply and demand.

This is hardly a free market. The NBA is exempt from antitrust scrutiny by virtue of its collective bargaining agreement with the players--it is the only game in town.

nstojic
11-15-2011, 10:20 AM
:laugh2: :laugh2: oh, pro athletes... :pity:

it's a privilege for your job to be a pro athlete... whether you're making 20 mil a season or 1 mil... give your head a shake, manage your money better and shut up...

the players are doomed to fail, here.. why? because the NBA owners all make plenty of money elsewhere on other ventures and their teams, to varying degrees, are not their sole incomes and therefore, they can wait allllllll day...

Rentzias
11-15-2011, 11:10 AM
lol you know what soccer makes 10000000000 times the money the next most profitable sport, do you know how it works? yep with 10 teams or so ( from basicall y 3 different countrys out of 300) having 80% of the top 10 players. thats exatcly how it works.
They're about $60 million up from the next sport. Top 10 Forbes most profitable franchises feature six NFL teams (in fact ALL NFL teams are in Top 50) and three soccer teams.

Yeah, I don't like concentrating talent and having a mercenary league though.

gwrighter
11-15-2011, 11:57 AM
you should have tweeted back, "What are your costs as a player? Think about it."

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 12:32 PM
They're about $60 million up from the next sport. Top 10 Forbes most profitable franchises feature six NFL teams (in fact ALL NFL teams are in Top 50) and three soccer teams.

Yeah, I don't like concentrating talent and having a mercenary league though.

im not talking the money generated for each team, but from the sport globaly , there are 32 nfl teams sharing the pie whilst there are litteraly THOUSENDS of soccer teams to share the pie..

desertlakeshow
11-15-2011, 01:10 PM
And bad arguments.

Enough of the Owner has to make more than the employees routine. Does the Ownership group of Wal Mart make more money than the employees as a group. Does the Owner of Apple make more than the combined salaries of all their employees.

All we have learned so far is that the NBA and their CBA is not recession proof, and that it is risky to do business in the NBA under this economic climate. Sounds like owning a business anywhere right now to me.


And anyone comparing the NBA employee situation to that of a Hamburger stand is not being rational. If that were the case all of the employees flipping burgers would be next in line to take over for the players that the owners see fit to vilify.

The NBA players have a unique talent that people will pay big dollars to see. The owners have a league where people will pay big money to see uniquely talented people play basketball.

Players salaries have come down in the last ten years, coaches salaries have gone up as well have GM salaries.

The players have already agreed to take a billion dollar paycut, from an amount they have already been promised.

Let the free market system work. Owners that have purchased NBA teams in small markets are at a disadvantage because they are in a small market. This is known before they buy a team, if they do not like this reality they should double the amount of money that they have spent on a franchise and buy one in a larger market.

Max contracts are not fair market. Neither are salary caps. Neither are Franchise player tags.

Billionaires fighting it out with Millionaires is never pleasant.

Really unimpressive when the poor masses side with the Billionaires.

OC Knights #11
11-15-2011, 01:16 PM
Dumbest players in professional sports. Maybe they should require these street ballers to attend all 4 years of college.

Where Amazing Happens.........:facepalm:

Dankster
11-15-2011, 01:17 PM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

What are you talking about?? They're owners, that's what owners do--- they generate income from the product/service they're providing.

Almost every single owner in the league (aside from Jimmy Dolan,) made their money from another avenue and right now they're reaping the reward of hard work thats spanned decades...They own the dam team, they have the right to implement whatever stipulations they pretty much want. And if the players don't like it, go find another dam job or league to play in...

KingPosey
11-15-2011, 01:18 PM
I hate when people use the "employee" argument. Players arent anywhere near employees. They are THE product, THE ONLY reason people go to a game.

The players have made unparalleled concessions in this thing and it still isnt enough for owners like my Kings. I personally dont think the Maloofs want a season because they dont want to stay.

I dont know near as much as posters like Hawkeye on this lockout, but I feel like certain owners are being insane, and I dont feel like Stern has any interest in the players' side at all.

Cal827
11-15-2011, 01:19 PM
Wow, I thought I was going to walk into another race thread. I understand he's mad, but what does he expect.. in negotiations, if one person gives in as much as he did, then the other usually goes for everything that they can that's in their favor. I would have taken the 50-50 b/c I endured the NHL strike, and when they returned, the Owners won basically every single fight since the players were desperate as hell. I hope that these players had a fund that they were saving up for losing a season, cause a lot of them might be bankrupt by the end of this lockout.

sixer04fan
11-15-2011, 01:23 PM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

Wow. I'm going to go through every point you just made and prove how little you thought about what you just said. And how horribly you just failed to put your own points into perspective...

1) 82 games traveling all over the country? That takes up, what, like 8 months of the year? And it's not like they're living in bad, undesirable conditions. They travel in a life of luxury on first class planes and 5 star hotels, all paid for BY THEIR OWNERS.

2) Practice 2x a day? Oh my god! Between the amount of time players practice and play games, they have about a 20-30 hour work week at the max.

3) Have a career that averages 8 years? Are you kidding, I would love that! Making millions of dollars and retiring at the age of 35? Yeah, tough life. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can get a job after you retire from basketball... This is a career path that the players CHOOSE to pursue.

4) Promoting a jersey and they don't get a dime? They make millions of dollars anyways, man! It's not their jersey to sell. It's given to them for free to wear, when the owners pay for it. Did they design the jersey? Do they own the rights to the jersey? No, the team does all that. Do models make money for the clothes that the designer labels create and sell? The players also are free to have other personalized endorsement deals with shoes, watches, sports drinks, etc, and they can make plenty of money on that side from that.

5) You don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game... What do you think the players are getting paid for? And who is paying them? And who agrees to these contracts? And don't the owners risk a lot of their own money just to win a game? Do the players risk any money? No, they have guaranteed contracts, supplied, once again, by the owners. Come on man, wake up. They play a sport, there's an associated injury risk obviously. They can get injured and still get paid, so what is the point of that argument? What's the difference?

6) In the end the owners can just sell the team and get their money back... Excuse me? If running a company were that easy, then we would all own our own businesses, and there would be no financial risk, because we could just sell the business and get all our money back. How old are you? Is this how you think the real world works?

7) How many players are suffering "life ending injuries"? What are you even talking about there? Now you're blatantly just making stuff up.

flatbush knicks
11-15-2011, 01:41 PM
are you people serious whats wrong with players freedom screw the owners we already gave them all the money plus revenue sharing so why cant the players get free movement this has nothing to do with mickey ds just pretty much civil rights A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WHEREVER THEY WANT

gotoHcarolina52
11-15-2011, 01:41 PM
^^ Well put, sixer04fan. :clap:



are you people serious whats wrong with players freedom screw the owners we already gave them all the money plus revenue sharing so why cant the players get free movement this has nothing to do with mickey ds just pretty much civil rights A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WHEREVER THEY WANT

Yes, I'm sure if Jimmy's father the steel worker wants to work in Plant B instead of Plant A, ACME Steel Corp. would have no choice but to accommodate his "civil right" to work in Pant B.

Look, you undoubtedly have a right to choose for whom you work (which company) or to refrain from working at all, but once you choose your employer, you have little say over what duties you're given or where inside the company you ultimately end up working. And whatever say you do have is usually left to the discretion of your superior(s) and hardly amounts to any right that approximates your civil right to be free from discrimination or the rights of the disabled to reasonable accommodations.

And, to add to the fun, your employment relationship with your employer is most typically "at will" in nature, meaning you can be fired "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all." Some "rights" those are!

sixer04fan
11-15-2011, 01:48 PM
are you people serious whats wrong with players freedom screw the owners we already gave them all the money plus revenue sharing so why cant the players get free movement this has nothing to do with mickey ds just pretty much civil rights A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WHEREVER THEY WANT

Dude, it's a private enterprise! When you work for a company, you are hired and assigned to a specific department, or a specific branch, or a specific location. Is that a civil rights issue, too? If you don't like it you can quit, and in the NBA, you can retire. Jesus Christ, get a grip.

The players elect to join the league with their own free will. Then, they sign a contract to play for a team with their own free will. If they don't like how it's run because it restricts player movement, then DON'T JOIN THE LEAGUE. Go play in Europe and sign with whatever team you want to as a free agent.

:facepalm:

ink
11-15-2011, 02:01 PM
Dude, it's a private enterprise! When you work for a company, you are hired and assigned to a specific department, or a specific branch, or a specific location. Is that a civil rights issue, too? If you don't like it you can quit, and in the NBA, you can retire. Jesus Christ, get a grip.

The players elect to join the league with their own free will. Then, they sign a contract to play for a team with their own free will. If they don't like how it's run because it restricts player movement, then DON'T JOIN THE LEAGUE. Go play in Europe and sign with whatever team you want to as a free agent.

:facepalm:

Exactly. And every single player knows that they play in a 30 team league, not a 6 team league. If they don't like that they can play in another league.

ink
11-15-2011, 02:14 PM
I hate when people use the "employee" argument. Players arent anywhere near employees. They are THE product,

False. Let them play in sweats on a tarmac for nothing then, with no support staff, no team, no nothing. See how many people get to watch that.


THE ONLY reason people go to a game.

That applies to at most 10 players. And what if they're not playing that night? Only a fanboy would go to a game ONLY to watch a star. A basketball fan goes to watch two teams play. Teams that are financed, managed, and produced by the franchise.

Longhornfan1234
11-15-2011, 02:14 PM
I don't think very many people really understand the prior NBA CBA. The 57% of BRI thing guaranteed the NBAPA an underage check if actual salaries ever dropped below 57% league-wide, but the salary cap was set at 51% and the minimum salary at 37.5%, so no individual owner was ever forced to pay 57% of his own BRI to his own players. It was the high-spending big-market teams that could afford to spend more and who wanted to spend more who guaranteed that number was always well above 57%. In fact, the 2010-11 season is the only season ever that the league actually had to cut a check to make up a deficit. In every other season ever under the previous CBA, the owners collectively spent more than 57% of BRI on player salaries even though they didn't have to, and Dan Gilbert, Jerry Buss, the Dolans, and other guys who never lost money were usually the ones ensuring that happened. The 57% was always a concession to owners in the first place, guaranteeing that they would get back some of what they willingly overspent. People talk like his acted as some kind of de facto minimum wage to guarantee players an unfair split they otherwise would not have earned when it was the exact opposite. It acted as a wage ceiling to guarantee owners wouldn't have to pay the full amount of the contracts they agreed to pay if league revenue wasn't high enough.

GeekInThePink
11-15-2011, 02:38 PM
Jared Dudley may take the cake for dumbest NBA player.

beliges
11-15-2011, 02:40 PM
I hate when people use the "employee" argument. Players arent anywhere near employees. They are THE product, THE ONLY reason people go to a game.

The players have made unparalleled concessions in this thing and it still isnt enough for owners like my Kings. I personally dont think the Maloofs want a season because they dont want to stay.

I dont know near as much as posters like Hawkeye on this lockout, but I feel like certain owners are being insane, and I dont feel like Stern has any interest in the players' side at all.

Wrong wrong wrong. The NBA is the product. NBA basketball is the product. The jerseys, the teams, the arenas, the entertainment. Thats the product. The players are a part of that product, but the owners fund the product. The players get checks from the owners. They are employees. Without the NBA, you would never have heard of 95% of these players. So no, youre wrong, the players are nothing but employees. Not easily replaceable employees, but employees nontheless.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 02:48 PM
Wrong wrong wrong. The NBA is the product. NBA basketball is the product. The jerseys, the teams, the arenas, the entertainment. Thats the product. The players are a part of that product, but the owners fund the product. The players get checks from the owners. They are employees. Without the NBA, you would never have heard of 95% of these players. So no, youre wrong, the players are nothing but employees. Not easily replaceable employees, but employees nontheless.

thats one thing that would be interesting to test.
but Difficult nonethless.

I mean, i fyou could lock up the current players make a lawusit to them that DIDNT allow them to play in europe or nowhere else and force them to retire and you filled the roster with "less talented players"
well, no matter how "untalented" you are

if your starting five is Watson, Reddick, Morrison, Kwame, Milicic its a Fact that one of them will average 25 ppg and other 20 ppg.
the league would market those players as "stars", the question is if people would Buy into them being really stars..

Of course as i said this cant be put to test, because if the lebrons and kobes are playign in europe people ( and tv broadcasters etc) will turn their attention where the current stars are.

Da Knicks
11-15-2011, 03:09 PM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

:clap: As a fellow musician and musician rep i can say i will not take less than 80% when i do a show with any of my bands. The place can pay the electric bill, insurance and whatever else but that is not my concern. My bands will bring in the people and that is why we get called to do the gigs. Heck sometimes ill even ask for some of the beer money if the band is popular enough and sells out.

beliges
11-15-2011, 03:19 PM
:clap: As a fellow musician and musician rep i can say i will not take less than 80% when i do a show with any of my bands. The place can pay the electric bill, insurance and whatever else but that is not my concern. My bands will bring in the people and that is why we get called to do the gigs. Heck sometimes ill even ask for some of the beer money if the band is popular enough and sells out.

Youre obviously not going on tour, in huge arenas, across the world. Theres a big difference than that vs playing a gig at a little club/bar.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 03:26 PM
the difference is when you are starting , many clubs ask you to PAY a price for playing then and then you get 100% of the income from tickets and a % from drinks.

when you are in the "world Stage" ( i actually manage some concerts here and ive contacted some bands abroad like for example "the creepshow", they ask you for a certain amount, in the example case 5000 dollars+ flight tickets+ hotel and food wages ) you pay that to the band and your income as organizer comes from the tickets.

miller74
11-15-2011, 03:28 PM
These players think its as easy as 50/50 you pay we play. There isnt equal risk, if an NBA franchise files for bankruptcy, players on that team still get paid, if not by the team the league takes control and players get paid. If the team were to be retracted due to financial reasons, players are free to go to any team and still earn their money, they can go to Europe and make lucrative amounts of money. What does the owner get in these circumstances?? fcuked is what they get. They are the ones initially putting the millions in, when the players have to spend money to make money playing basketball, maybe then they should be entitled to more $$

MLB2K10King
11-15-2011, 04:06 PM
College bball has gone in the crapper the last several years, it is getting harder and harder to watch as a diehard basketball fan. If you like massive amount of turnovers, horrible shooting %, low scoring games (not due to defense but just awful awful shooting and shot clock), a 35 second shot clock for a 40 minute game, horrific officiating (yes, by far worse than the NBA), horrible FT shooting.

And where do you think these "thugs" come from? They aren't just dropped out of the sky. There are the same amount of "thugs" in college bball as in the pros. Also, I really hope you don't like the NFL because they lead the world of sports in "thugs" and crime.

you are painfully offensive. If you think basketball and foot ball is full of thugs, go watch squash. While you're at it take your ignorance somewhere else.

ink
11-15-2011, 04:14 PM
:clap: As a fellow musician and musician rep i can say i will not take less than 80% when i do a show with any of my bands. The place can pay the electric bill, insurance and whatever else but that is not my concern. My bands will bring in the people and that is why we get called to do the gigs. Heck sometimes ill even ask for some of the beer money if the band is popular enough and sells out.

You talking about taking 80% of the house? That's different than BRI. The house would be as if the players were ONLY getting a % of ticket sales in the arena. They're not. They're getting a % of all basketball related income including the gate.

pd1dish
11-15-2011, 04:15 PM
Dude. Thats the ****ing point of a free market. The person PAYING YOU tells you what they are willing to PAY YOU.
Not the other way around.

You need to stop throwing around terms you dont understand.

exactly. the problems is that the majority of posters on this site are little kids or young teenagers that dont know how businesses and markets work. it doesnt matter that there would be no NBA without the players.

the fact of the matter is that in order for there to be an NBA in the first place, there needs to be money and investors, and thats where the owners come in. they invest millions upon millions into their teams. they dictate the market value of these players. its absurd that the players think they are getting underpaid. its just the selfish, uneducated nature of these guys (and their greedy agents knowing they can manipulate the players to try and get more money).

idk what a lot of the players are making, but if a guy like Kyle Korver can make $5 million per year being someone who comes off the bench for 15-20 minutes every game and hits maybe 2-3 shots. not to mention he plays horrific defense because hes so limited physically. id compare this player to a special teams guy or a spell HB in the NFL. they are making a couple million if theyre lucky. if youre a player that is unhappy with how youre being paid, then get out of the league because someone else will gladly take your spot and make that $5 million per year and the NBA wont take any steps backwards. the only way they can go backwards is if this season gets cancelled, and thats not good for either side.

pd1dish
11-15-2011, 04:24 PM
Wow. I'm going to go through every point you just made and prove how little you thought about what you just said. And how horribly you just failed to put your own points into perspective...

1) 82 games traveling all over the country? That takes up, what, like 8 months of the year? And it's not like they're living in bad, undesirable conditions. They travel in a life of luxury on first class planes and 5 star hotels, all paid for BY THEIR OWNERS.

2) Practice 2x a day? Oh my god! Between the amount of time players practice and play games, they have about a 20-30 hour work week at the max.

3) Have a career that averages 8 years? Are you kidding, I would love that! Making millions of dollars and retiring at the age of 35? Yeah, tough life. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can get a job after you retire from basketball... This is a career path that the players CHOOSE to pursue.

4) Promoting a jersey and they don't get a dime? They make millions of dollars anyways, man! It's not their jersey to sell. It's given to them for free to wear, when the owners pay for it. Did they design the jersey? Do they own the rights to the jersey? No, the team does all that. Do models make money for the clothes that the designer labels create and sell? The players also are free to have other personalized endorsement deals with shoes, watches, sports drinks, etc, and they can make plenty of money on that side from that.

5) You don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game... What do you think the players are getting paid for? And who is paying them? And who agrees to these contracts? And don't the owners risk a lot of their own money just to win a game? Do the players risk any money? No, they have guaranteed contracts, supplied, once again, by the owners. Come on man, wake up. They play a sport, there's an associated injury risk obviously. They can get injured and still get paid, so what is the point of that argument? What's the difference?

6) In the end the owners can just sell the team and get their money back... Excuse me? If running a company were that easy, then we would all own our own businesses, and there would be no financial risk, because we could just sell the business and get all our money back. How old are you? Is this how you think the real world works?

7) How many players are suffering "life ending injuries"? What are you even talking about there? Now you're blatantly just making stuff up.

this is possibly the greatest post ive ever seen. and i just died laughing when i read #7 hahahahah

nice post sixerfan

Chronz
11-15-2011, 04:31 PM
If forced to analogize, I would compare the NBA to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Sure, the animals are the "product"/"main attraction"/"image"/what-have-you, but just because their milkshake brings all the boys to the yard doesn't mean they should have any rights! I'm with the Ringling Brothers on this one--the only thing these glorified clowns should be entitled to is a decent meal and a pile of hay on which to sleep.

When was the last time you saw Dumbo the Elephant or Lucy the Lioness or Carl the Camel or Mindy the Monkey threatening to decertify his/her/its union and file a grievance with the NLRB or an antitrust lawsuit with the District Court for the Southern District of New York?! That's right, NEVER! The Ringling Brothers got it right. They knew how to keep their prima donnas in check.
LOL I commend you for this work of art. I dont side with your stance but Ive never seen it put like that before.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 04:32 PM
LOL I commend you for this work of art. I dont side with your stance but Ive never seen it put like that before.

its a dangerous analogy btw, monkeys? walking ond thin glass

Da Knicks
11-15-2011, 04:35 PM
Youre obviously not going on tour, in huge arenas, across the world. Theres a big difference than that vs playing a gig at a little club/bar.

Actually we do go on tour and my friends who are much bigger bands do business a little differently but guess what they ask for a big piece of the pie and get paid no matter if the place sells or not. Here recently they played at a smaller venue and asked for a good amount and the place did not get the amount of people expected they still got paid. You have to value yourself before someone else does it for you and underpays you.

Saying all this, i do believe the system is broken in the nba and needs fixing. However trying to keep players on just one team even if that specefic team is not doing anything to get better is not right. The 50-50 split was already agreed upon until the owners asked for more stuff. The players just want to let the owners know that they will not be bullied. Espn has being trying hard to put the fault on the players and that is one of the biggest problems. T.V. and the players agents have to quit making the players feel as if they are the only ones giving in. The past CBA made the players alot of money it is time for the owners to make some too.

Just give me some basketball already.:mad:

Chronz
11-15-2011, 04:37 PM
its a dangerous analogy btw, monkeys? walking ond thin glass
I didnt even think of that but that adds an extra element of raunchy goodness

ink
11-15-2011, 04:40 PM
Actually we do go on tour and my friends who are much bigger bands do business a little differently but guess what they ask for a big piece of the pie and get paid no matter if the place sells or not. Here recently they played at a smaller venue and asked for a good amount and the place did not get the amount of people expected they still got paid. You have to value yourself before someone else does it for you and underpays you.

Are you talking about taking 80% of the house? Because that isn't what BRI is. The house/gate/ticket sales is only a fraction of the income the NBA generates. Their most lucrative income is from broadcast rights, and I don't know what venues you're playing at but it's doubtful they broadcast your gigs right? ;)

Da Knicks
11-15-2011, 04:49 PM
Are you talking about taking 80% of the house? Because that isn't what BRI is. The house/gate/ticket sales is only a fraction of the income the NBA generates. Their most lucrative income is from broadcast rights, and I don't know what venues you're playing at but it's doubtful they broadcast your gigs right? ;)

Only some of the gigs get played on t.v. and those we do get paid for it. The nba and music business is a lil different in some of those aspects since a musician can make more money through writing songs and getting played on the radio t.v. If you have your own editing company then you will be making 100% of what your songs are making through the radio, t.v. So i can understand the players on this subject because i would hate for someone to tell me i can only get a percentage of something im making 100% on.

blahblahyoutoo
11-15-2011, 05:26 PM
I could of swore it was the sharpest crayon in the box.

obviously you aren't.
:P

blahblahyoutoo
11-15-2011, 05:31 PM
To be honest, I can understand these players bring in a lot of money and revenue. I just still don't understand how a person with barely any college education (in these times) have the right to ask for more money, when people who are educated barely earn $40,000. I mean at least be realistic.

because they possess a skill that few have.
because people will pay that amount to watch them play (or owners will pay them that amount to have them on his team).
this is capitalism at work.

do you believe in communism?

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they're overpaid, because obviously they are, which is why they're having BRI negotiations.
but if they are paid that much, it's because someone is willing to pay for it.
if they are overpaid, market forces will bring it back down to reality.
if not, they risk bankrupting the system.

blahblahyoutoo
11-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Wow. I'm going to go through every point you just made and prove how little you thought about what you just said. And how horribly you just failed to put your own points into perspective...

1) 82 games traveling all over the country? That takes up, what, like 8 months of the year? And it's not like they're living in bad, undesirable conditions. They travel in a life of luxury on first class planes and 5 star hotels, all paid for BY THEIR OWNERS.

2) Practice 2x a day? Oh my god! Between the amount of time players practice and play games, they have about a 20-30 hour work week at the max.

3) Have a career that averages 8 years? Are you kidding, I would love that! Making millions of dollars and retiring at the age of 35? Yeah, tough life. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can get a job after you retire from basketball... This is a career path that the players CHOOSE to pursue.

4) Promoting a jersey and they don't get a dime? They make millions of dollars anyways, man! It's not their jersey to sell. It's given to them for free to wear, when the owners pay for it. Did they design the jersey? Do they own the rights to the jersey? No, the team does all that. Do models make money for the clothes that the designer labels create and sell? The players also are free to have other personalized endorsement deals with shoes, watches, sports drinks, etc, and they can make plenty of money on that side from that.

5) You don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game... What do you think the players are getting paid for? And who is paying them? And who agrees to these contracts? And don't the owners risk a lot of their own money just to win a game? Do the players risk any money? No, they have guaranteed contracts, supplied, once again, by the owners. Come on man, wake up. They play a sport, there's an associated injury risk obviously. They can get injured and still get paid, so what is the point of that argument? What's the difference?

6) In the end the owners can just sell the team and get their money back... Excuse me? If running a company were that easy, then we would all own our own businesses, and there would be no financial risk, because we could just sell the business and get all our money back. How old are you? Is this how you think the real world works?

7) How many players are suffering "life ending injuries"? What are you even talking about there? Now you're blatantly just making stuff up.

pretty much owned.

and i thought they do get a piece of the pie from jersey sales.

ink
11-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Only some of the gigs get played on t.v. and those we do get paid for it. The nba and music business is a lil different in some of those aspects since a musician can make more money through writing songs and getting played on the radio t.v. If you have your own editing company then you will be making 100% of what your songs are making through the radio, t.v. So i can understand the players on this subject because i would hate for someone to tell me i can only get a percentage of something im making 100% on.

What I'm getting at is if you play at Venue A, you are getting 80% of the house. That's it. That's your cut.

If an player is playing in the NBA, they are getting their % of the BRI which includes the gate/tickets/house but also includes a lot more. That is many times bigger than getting the house. They are not just playing for a cut of ticket sales.

You are getting 80% of the house because that's all that venue has to offer. You're comparing apples to oranges.

One is a venue and is limited to that venue; the NBA is a LEAGUE with a huge range of income possibilities lined up for the player. They aren't just dependent on the house like your situation is.

50% of the BRI is proportionately much bigger than even 100% of the house because the BRI is based on such a wide range of lucrative income possibilities.

iliketurtles24
11-15-2011, 05:40 PM
i dont think they are crayons at all, seem more like colored pencils to me (taller)

blahblahyoutoo
11-15-2011, 06:09 PM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

LOL, owners risking injury to win a game.

hey, i'm not risking my life saving people from burning buildings because it's not my ****ing job, genius.
that's what they're paid to do.
are they doing it for free out of the goodness of their hearts?

if this job is too risky for their liking, they can work in a slightly safer environment flipping burgers.
or if they feel they're not being compensated enough, they're free to join another league, perhaps euro or china.

what a joke of an argument.

Bishnoff
11-15-2011, 06:27 PM
David West via twitter: "We have 100 dollars to split. U get 50, I get 50. You split your 50 between the 1,000's of guys involved in front offices, administrations, and the support staff. I split my 50 between 450 guys. Think about it.

Fixed.

ink
11-15-2011, 06:51 PM
Fixed.

Nicely done.

Da Knicks
11-15-2011, 06:53 PM
What I'm getting at is if you play at Venue A, you are getting 80% of the house. That's it. That's your cut.

If an player is playing in the NBA, they are getting their % of the BRI which includes the gate/tickets/house but also includes a lot more. That is many times bigger than getting the house. They are not just playing for a cut of ticket sales.

You are getting 80% of the house because that's all that venue has to offer. You're comparing apples to oranges.

One is a venue and is limited to that venue; the NBA is a LEAGUE with a huge range of income possibilities lined up for the player. They aren't just dependent on the house like your situation is.

50% of the BRI is proportionately much bigger than even 100% of the house because the BRI is based on such a wide range of lucrative income possibilities.

I understand completely with the BRI, my post was in the beginning a response to the people who see players as employees and not the entertainment product that they are. Hellcrooner put it well in one of his first post when he categorized them in a group with actors and singers. Im not on anyones side on this because i can understand the fight from both sides. The players imo just dont want the people to say that they got run over on any deal they take. Espn has being labeling them as the guys who are losing everything when in reality these guys have being taking too much for too long. The owners had the deal in place but got greedy at the end leading to the players feeling disrespected. If there was no media inbetween i think a deal would of already happened.

Money is the root of all evil and when people start feeling slighted things can get out of hand pretty quickly. 50-50 was a fair deal to me but the players dont see it that way because they are losing 7% of what they originally had. The problem is that the media put it out like the owners are out to rape the players when reality is that the players just had it too nice for too long can we agree?:)

MrfadeawayJB
11-15-2011, 07:03 PM
FACT: NBA players aren't the brightest crayons in the box



Fixed.

ink
11-15-2011, 07:03 PM
I understand completely with the BRI, my post was in the beginning a response to the people who see players as employees and not the entertainment product that they are. Hellcrooner put it well in one of his first post when he categorized them in a group with actors and singers. Im not on anyones side on this because i can understand the fight from both sides. The players imo just dont want the people to say that they got run over on any deal they take. Espn has being labeling them as the guys who are losing everything when in reality these guys have being taking too much for too long. The owners had the deal in place but got greedy at the end leading to the players feeling disrespected. If there was no media inbetween i think a deal would of already happened.

Money is the root of all evil and when people start feeling slighted things can get out of hand pretty quickly. 50-50 was a fair deal to me but the players dont see it that way because they are losing 7% of what they originally had. The problem is that the media put it out like the owners are out to rape the players when reality is that the players just had it too nice for too long can we agree?:)

Definitely agree. The pendulum swung from relatively underpaid (MJ @ $3M in 1992) to grossly overpaid (how about Nick Collison @ $13.25M in 2011) and now it needs to swing back. But, most importantly, the league needs to do more than alter salary levels; they need to put a system in place that controls the madness. Controls management, agents, players, and everyone else that is grinding the league into the ground.

Da Knicks
11-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Definitely agree. The pendulum swung from relatively underpaid (MJ @ $3M in 1992) to grossly overpaid (how about Nick Collison @ $13.25M in 2011) and now it needs to swing back. But, most importantly, the league needs to do more than alter salary levels; they need to put a system in place that controls the madness. Controls management, agents, players, and everyone else that is grinding the league into the ground.

:clap: this the agents have alot of the blame but so does all the media who have the owners and players at odds over something that they should not be involved in. All the finger pointing is what got us to this point.

excellent post by the way.

KingPosey
11-15-2011, 07:23 PM
False. Let them play in sweats on a tarmac for nothing then, with no support staff, no team, no nothing. See how many people get to watch that.



That applies to at most 10 players. And what if they're not playing that night? Only a fanboy would go to a game ONLY to watch a star. A basketball fan goes to watch two teams play. Teams that are financed, managed, and produced by the franchise.

Dont TELL me something is false because you dont agree, thats idiotic. Plenty of people are going to watch THE PRODUCT play in BS charity games. If they set up their own games, people will watch.

ink
11-15-2011, 07:33 PM
Dont TELL me something is false because you dont agree, thats idiotic. Plenty of people are going to watch THE PRODUCT play in BS charity games. If they set up their own games, people will watch.

Are those charity games NBA games? Do they count in any standings anywhere? Is it even good basketball? The answer to all three of those questions is "no".

The product we're talking about here in the NBA FORUM is the NBA.

The games you're talking about are meaningless exhibition games that a few people in the stadium watch as compared to the millions that watch the NBA around the world. That's EXACTLY the point.

And btw, let them set up their own league.

Guess what they'll need first and foremost.

That's right. Investors.

ink
11-15-2011, 07:35 PM
:clap: this the agents have alot of the blame but so does all the media who have the owners and players at odds over something that they should not be involved in. All the finger pointing is what got us to this point.

I agree. The media have severely dumbed-down the sport.

ChiSoxJuan
11-15-2011, 07:36 PM
There are numerous problems with the entertainer analogy:
1) the SAG provides a safety net for actors & nothing more.
2) Actors sign multiple film deals with 1 studio.
3) The studios are not franchise businesses of a single league
4) A film's success is not dependant on another films failure
5) Actors now take less up front for a larger % of the films profits (if there are any)
6) Actors are not free to sign with studio A while shooting a film for studio B
7) An actor will see many scripts over his career
8) There is no concept of FRI for all studios and actors
9) There is no concept of a CBA relating to FRI for all studios and actors
10) There is no concept of trading an actor in the film business

3RDASYSTEM
11-15-2011, 07:38 PM
Then why in the **** did the owners agree to the 1999 deal giving they 'workers' 57pct and themselves(owners) the lower pct? how ****in dumb does that sound? How the hell do u let your employees take u to the water to drink,aint it vice versa since im paying for it all, and on top of me paying for it all,nobody is coming to see 'me'(owner) personally, but they sure as hell buying all types of tickets/jerseys/road game sales that the players generate, but like i said its a 'partnership' because the other(owners) brightest crayons in the box signed off on a deal for 57pct,without the threat of decertification in 1999(i could be wrong but i dont recall them saying they would)....so its like the dumbness of the owners rubbed off on players leaving u with both in same paradox

Punk
11-15-2011, 07:39 PM
...What the hell is money being the talk here? It's not about that. They all willing decided to take less on BRI but the owners wanted more and didn't want to move on the system issues. The movement they made was on 2 years which is hardly movement on a 10 year CBA.

ink
11-15-2011, 07:41 PM
...What the hell is money being the talk here? It's not about that. They all willing decided to take less on BRI but the owners wanted more and didn't want to move on the system issues. The movement they made was on 2 years which is hardly movement on a 10 year CBA.

Money issues and system issues don't just get traded for each other. Money is the quick fix, the bailout; system is the long term repair. No sane person is going to keep trading away necessary change mechanisms for dollars. That's the kind of thinking that got the league into this mess in the first place.

Captain Moroni
11-15-2011, 07:51 PM
People dont go to mcdonalds to see YOU serve them the burguer.
Quite a difference.

If you want to compare them to other workers try Musicians or Actors.

They go to McDonalds for the product. The owner of that particular store is a franchisee. That franchisee is banking on the popularity of the product to attract as many customers as they can.
If you go to McDonalds in LA, NY, Israel, or Spain you know that a Big Mac is on the menu. You know that french fries will be available.
For the popularity of the food on the menu the owners pay a hefty price thats called a franchise fee. They also pay a big price for a local and national advertising campaign.
They dont pay for all of this just to provide you with a McRib so they can lose money.
In McDonalds, the workers are not the ticket, the food is. The workers are like the ushers at the arena. Paid by the owners not the product.
The players are the all beef patties. Also paid for by the owners.

Captain Moroni
11-15-2011, 07:54 PM
Money issues and system issues don't just get traded for each other. Money is the quick fix, the bailout; system is the long term repair. No sane person is going to keep trading away necessary change mechanisms for dollars. That's the kind of thinking that got the league into this mess in the first place.

Yessir

barreleffact
11-15-2011, 07:56 PM
Well, the people who are for the players in this also don't have very good perspective iMO. The owners aren't free of criticism at all, but relative to other professional sports leagues, and the proposal, I feel the players should have taken the proposal and gone back to work to collect their checks. To try and get something better than what is offered in an already broken system is just foolish at this point. Not many other places of business can you have guaranteed contracts worth millions regardless of performance.

Sounds funny you would make this statement when you are arguing for the owners that are trying to guarantee themselves money regardless of their performance...

Captain Moroni
11-15-2011, 07:58 PM
David West-Genius....lol

beliges
11-15-2011, 08:09 PM
Sounds funny you would make this statement when you are arguing for the owners that are trying to guarantee themselves money regardless of their performance...

Umm ya..Duh!! They are the owners. They have invested hundreds of millions of their own dollars to run the franchise. Of course theyre gonna try to guarantee themselves some profit. They are taking all the risks, they should guarantee themselves some sort of return on their investment. The players have guaranteed contracts and the ability to test the market in order to get thesmelves the highest possible pay day possible. Nothing wrong whatsoever with this system.

beliges
11-15-2011, 08:10 PM
...What the hell is money being the talk here? It's not about that. They all willing decided to take less on BRI but the owners wanted more and didn't want to move on the system issues. The movement they made was on 2 years which is hardly movement on a 10 year CBA.

Actually the BRI was part of the proposal the owners offered which the players rejected.

Team*Chicago
11-15-2011, 09:08 PM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

That makes sense only the dumb people wouldn't understand this. The owners deserves more than 50/50 but some of them were kind enough to leave it like that instead of going 53/47 like the hardline owners.

3XDouble
11-15-2011, 09:19 PM
Wow! Some of you have really missed the point. C of C has pointed out that this particular player suffers from the same incredible level of ignorance as many of the posters here. David Lee portrays the revenue split as 50% of the pie going to 450 players and the other 50% going to 30 owners. The fact is that 50% of the pie goes to the players. Of the remaining 50%, about 1/3 goes toward running the league and the other 2/3 goes to roughly 4,000 employees of the team, arena leases, travel, advertising, etc. What the owners are left with collectively is zero percent. PLAYERS 100% OWNERS 0%. Yet, the players and many of you represent 100% as a concession. The argument that the owners got their way on the revenue split and therefore should concede system issues is ridiculous to anyone with any business education or experience.

I agree that these are not just mere employees. Letís say they are looked at in such special terms that even though they have invested nothing and have guaranteed contracts, they are partners. Thatís certainly not how any partnership works that I have ever seen but letís just say itís so. This is not a stretch at all given they get a guaranteed percentage of the revenue. So, all of you siding with the players have a VERY different definition of a fair partnership than those of us defending the owners This is what I believe C of C was getting at in his post. He was making a point that at least this one player is outraged at having to concede some salary when in fact he does not have the vaguest notion of how the dollars are actually distributed and therefore has absolutely no idea what is fair, and what is not fair.
Ask yourself this Ö. If the salaries were half of what they are, would the players still be ecstatic to play in the NBA. Would it still be a dream job? The NBA is a profession that offers an incredible income. To say it is a fun job would be a gross understatement. The working conditions and fringe benefits are phenomenal to say the least. Anyone with even a shred of financial acumen understands the financial split and terms are incredibly in favor of the players. What goes with this job are some terms the owners are imposing to protect their business (the NBA). There is not a single player in the NBA qualified to challenge their ability (or Stern) in determining the system issues. The vast majority of you arguing the system issues are too restrictive simply want a system that favors you market. You want it all for yourself.

The fact is that these system issues are reaching a point where they jeopardize the long-term health of the league. Create a half-dozen super teams and 24 other teams become irrelevant and the only interesting games are those between the super teams. Television revenues plummet. 24 markets lose interest and revenues not only stagnate, they are going to decrease. Several teams would be contracted. Probably a third of the labor force is out of professional basketball and is now making 40K a year instead of $1-2M. A few of them might catch on in Europe at 1/3 of what they make here. I am thankful that the owners are taking a hard stand to protect the long-term viability of the league.

barreleffact
11-15-2011, 09:55 PM
Wow! Some of you have really missed the point. C of C has pointed out that this particular player suffers from the same incredible level of ignorance as many of the posters here. David Lee portrays the revenue split as 50% of the pie going to 450 players and the other 50% going to 30 owners. The fact is that 50% of the pie goes to the players. Of the remaining 50%, about 1/3 goes toward running the league and the other 2/3 goes to roughly 4,000 employees of the team, arena leases, travel, advertising, etc. What the owners are left with collectively is zero percent. PLAYERS 100% OWNERS 0%. Yet, the players and many of you represent 100% as a concession. The argument that the owners got their way on the revenue split and therefore should concede system issues is ridiculous to anyone with any business education or experience.

I agree that these are not just mere employees. Letís say they are looked at in such special terms that even though they have invested nothing and have guaranteed contracts, they are partners. Thatís certainly not how any partnership works that I have ever seen but letís just say itís so. This is not a stretch at all given they get a guaranteed percentage of the revenue. So, all of you siding with the players have a VERY different definition of a fair partnership than those of us defending the owners This is what I believe C of C was getting at in his post. He was making a point that at least this one player is outraged at having to concede some salary when in fact he does not have the vaguest notion of how the dollars are actually distributed and therefore has absolutely no idea what is fair, and what is not fair.


Ask yourself this Ö. If the salaries were half of what they are, would the players still be ecstatic to play in the NBA. Would it still be a dream job? The NBA is a profession that offers an incredible income. To say it is a fun job would be a gross understatement. The working conditions and fringe benefits are phenomenal to say the least. Anyone with even a shred of financial acumen understands the financial split and terms are incredibly in favor of the players. What goes with this job are some terms the owners are imposing to protect their business (the NBA). There is not a single player in the NBA qualified to challenge their ability (or Stern) in determining the system issues. The vast majority of you arguing the system issues are too restrictive simply want a system that favors you market. You want it all for yourself.

He likely has a better idea than you even if his tweet was far off base. However, WE do not see how much is taken via nBRI. THEY do get to see that. I am sure they have a much better argument than your counter.

Further, to say that none of them are qualified is trivial at best. Some of them are VERY intelligent. Granger scored above a 30 on his ACT if memory serves me correctly. I believe he actually got somewhere between a 28-32 and I want to say a 32. There are MANY intelligent people. We just typically do not see them. That is why we don't see Lebron and Wade, etc as the front leaders. I cannot say who is and who is not qualified to debate for themselves in a system THEY work in and I do not. Yes! There are lawyers that are more qualified than most of them to debate this system issues, but if that is your stance, the owners are not qualified either. Many of them aren't the most competent which is why the league is in this mess.

I also disagree than people only want a system that benefits themselves. The fact is that in a true free market system even with a cap the players would be restricted. With or without a cap, the owners would dictate what they were willing to pay and after they overloaded on a Kobe, they would likely not have enough for Lebron or Durant as well. The small market teams could then better compete if they were willing to offer more money.

The fact is that these system issues are reaching a point where they jeopardize the long-term health of the league. Create a half-dozen super teams and 24 other teams become irrelevant and the only interesting games are those between the super teams. Television revenues plummet. 24 markets lose interest and revenues not only stagnate, they are going to decrease. Several teams would be contracted. Probably a third of the labor force is out of professional basketball and is now making 40K a year instead of $1-2M. A few of them might catch on in Europe at 1/3 of what they make here. I am thankful that the owners are taking a hard stand to protect the long-term viability of the league.

If the players are at fault for wanting too much money, it is also conceivable that the league is at fault for over expanding. The league had 23 teams and less at times and was working very well. Parity will forever be nonexistent as far as rings go, and many publicists have written the league was at its most successful when there were dynasties.

There is should be no system that can guarantee money in a capitalist society. In ANY other organization, the teams would either close or relocate. That has been proven time and time again.




Umm ya..Duh!! They are the owners. They have invested hundreds of millions of their own dollars to run the franchise. Of course theyre gonna try to guarantee themselves some profit. They are taking all the risks, they should guarantee themselves some sort of return on their investment. The players have guaranteed contracts and the ability to test the market in order to get thesmelves the highest possible pay day possible. Nothing wrong whatsoever with this system.

Then there is also nothing wrong at all with the players attempting to keep what money they can. He said himself that there is no system that can guarantee you money. That is exactly what the owners are trying to do. They want a fool-proof system. That sounds great! As you said, every owner WANTS a fool proof system; however, there cannot be a fool-proof system.

I feel it is also worth mentioning that everyone continues to say the players should agree to 50/50. People are quick to point out that the players should actually make 47/53...in reality they already made about 50/50 because the owners take business expenses off top and call it non BRI. Then they take away the rest and divide it. The actual income would likely be far less than 47/53 if the players conceded to the 50/50 split. This is decent if it works. I just fail to believe that the system is so broken that players are at fault for being overpaid when the owners:
1-Sign the checks/offer the contracts
2-Take money off top to cover expenses
3-Have their arenas paid via tax dollars. All MOST owners have to pay for is yearly upkeep and other employees. The ticket prices and exorbitant prices for the concession stands likely cover much of the employee salaries if not EXCEED them. Plus, they new TV deal is set to increase BRI by another 2 BILLION. They players would see half of that 2 billion or more as well, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Hellcrooner
11-15-2011, 10:21 PM
They go to McDonalds for the product. The owner of that particular store is a franchisee. That franchisee is banking on the popularity of the product to attract as many customers as they can.
If you go to McDonalds in LA, NY, Israel, or Spain you know that a Big Mac is on the menu. You know that french fries will be available.
For the popularity of the food on the menu the owners pay a hefty price thats called a franchise fee. They also pay a big price for a local and national advertising campaign.
They dont pay for all of this just to provide you with a McRib so they can lose money.
In McDonalds, the workers are not the ticket, the food is. The workers are like the ushers at the arena. Paid by the owners not the product.
The players are the all beef patties. Also paid for by the owners.
funny, mcrib is no longer available in spain, wich is a shame because it was delicious

ChiSoxJuan
11-15-2011, 10:27 PM
This is very simple. At least 12 teams feel they will lose less by shutting the league down for a full season. That's as real as it gets when it comes to the financial state of those teams.

How does the league rectify that? Increase revenue sharing by mandatory rules or increase revenue sharing by making the luxury tax system more punitive. Either option takes more revenue from teams with the best media deals. It should be obvious that these 12 teams would prefer the mandatory option over the luxury tax system for the simple reason that it is easier to run a team knowing what to expect income wise. The luxury tax system option is dependant on the inefficiency of teams. The NYY's have quickly improve their efficiency & thus lowered their tax payments in MLB. It can happen.

So why then are the player's fighting against the luxury tax system option? Because they are dim-witted. The agents have one main interest: steer the stars to the teams with the best media deals so that they can grow the biggest endorsement pie from the players. That's where they can cash in the most in a league with a max deal structure. They don't give a crap about competitive balance or revenue sharing. They want a deal that best greases the path for stars to the biggest media markets.

Why are the agents dim-witted as well? Because MJ & Wade have shown the NBA the power of national endorsement value. Their local media presence pales in comparison to their national presence. AT&T is trying to absorb T-Mobile in part because of Wade's influence in growing their sales over the yrs. Whether Wade plays in Mia or Mil his talent will still resonate at a national level when the league is run right.

What would smart players do? Talk to the TV networks & tailor the deal to what they want. If a more competitive league means more games at a national level then the player's should be for a more competitive league & should have a goal to get there before 2016 when the current TV deals run out. Commonsense, would suggest a more punitive luxury tax system is the way to go.

ink
11-15-2011, 10:56 PM
@barreleffact - Not everyone cares about the 50/50 BRI split at all. Many would sooner see system change rather than a bailout for the league, which is what getting the $300M in losses back essentially amounts to (thanks for that point from DaThrone).

Now that the union is de-certifying there is still a chance that they will scrap the bad deal they negotiated and come up with the system change they needed.

barreleffact
11-15-2011, 11:34 PM
^ Don't they still have 45 days IF they wished to make a deal before the de-cert goes into affect?

Also, that 300mil per year has already been reconciled via the 7% BRI and the punitive luxury taxes. Further, the teams that are losing money are most likely the small market teams that are least suitable for maintaining a franchise. If they are such a strain, they should be removed as would happen with any other corporation. The interesting thing if this did happen would be the decreased revenue and thus some salaries (probably not the ave. salary) and jobs lost via those teams, but as a fan it would concentrate talent...

ink
11-16-2011, 01:08 AM
^ Don't they still have 45 days IF they wished to make a deal before the de-cert goes into affect?

Also, that 300mil per year has already been reconciled via the 7% BRI and the punitive luxury taxes. Further, the teams that are losing money are most likely the small market teams that are least suitable for maintaining a franchise. If they are such a strain, they should be removed as would happen with any other corporation. The interesting thing if this did happen would be the decreased revenue and thus some salaries (probably not the ave. salary) and jobs lost via those teams, but as a fan it would concentrate talent...

The $300M is essentially a bailout. That is not an effective way to solve the league's long-term financial or competitive issues. That's why the direction of this whole negotiation toward BRI was a waste of time and effort. It was essentially the players bribing the league to give them their old CBA full of exemptions back. And that ain't comin' back anytime soon.

If contraction were to happen at all it would affect a minimum of teams. Leagues don't just cut off the teams that are struggling. Sure it would concentrate talent but it would also disrupt the entire league, conferences, schedules, etc on a permanent basis. Obviously they didn't go into a lockout to make the owners' problems worse.

ink
11-16-2011, 01:10 AM
Wow! Some of you have really missed the point. C of C has pointed out that this particular player suffers from the same incredible level of ignorance as many of the posters here. David Lee portrays the revenue split as 50% of the pie going to 450 players and the other 50% going to 30 owners. The fact is that 50% of the pie goes to the players. Of the remaining 50%, about 1/3 goes toward running the league and the other 2/3 goes to roughly 4,000 employees of the team, arena leases, travel, advertising, etc. What the owners are left with collectively is zero percent. PLAYERS 100% OWNERS 0%. Yet, the players and many of you represent 100% as a concession. The argument that the owners got their way on the revenue split and therefore should concede system issues is ridiculous to anyone with any business education or experience.

I agree that these are not just mere employees. Letís say they are looked at in such special terms that even though they have invested nothing and have guaranteed contracts, they are partners. Thatís certainly not how any partnership works that I have ever seen but letís just say itís so. This is not a stretch at all given they get a guaranteed percentage of the revenue. So, all of you siding with the players have a VERY different definition of a fair partnership than those of us defending the owners This is what I believe C of C was getting at in his post. He was making a point that at least this one player is outraged at having to concede some salary when in fact he does not have the vaguest notion of how the dollars are actually distributed and therefore has absolutely no idea what is fair, and what is not fair.
Ask yourself this Ö. If the salaries were half of what they are, would the players still be ecstatic to play in the NBA. Would it still be a dream job? The NBA is a profession that offers an incredible income. To say it is a fun job would be a gross understatement. The working conditions and fringe benefits are phenomenal to say the least. Anyone with even a shred of financial acumen understands the financial split and terms are incredibly in favor of the players. What goes with this job are some terms the owners are imposing to protect their business (the NBA). There is not a single player in the NBA qualified to challenge their ability (or Stern) in determining the system issues. The vast majority of you arguing the system issues are too restrictive simply want a system that favors you market. You want it all for yourself.

The fact is that these system issues are reaching a point where they jeopardize the long-term health of the league. Create a half-dozen super teams and 24 other teams become irrelevant and the only interesting games are those between the super teams. Television revenues plummet. 24 markets lose interest and revenues not only stagnate, they are going to decrease. Several teams would be contracted. Probably a third of the labor force is out of professional basketball and is now making 40K a year instead of $1-2M. A few of them might catch on in Europe at 1/3 of what they make here. I am thankful that the owners are taking a hard stand to protect the long-term viability of the league.

Recommended reading. You should start a new thread using this post as the core idea.

barreleffact
11-16-2011, 01:26 AM
The $300M is essentially a bailout. That is not an effective way to solve the league's long-term financial or competitive issues.

If contraction were to happen at all it would affect a minimum of teams. Leagues don't just cut off the teams that are struggling. Sure it would concentrate talent but it would also disrupt the entire league, conferences, schedules, etc on a permanent basis. Obviously they didn't go into a lockout to make the owners' problems worse.

The competitive problem will NEVER be fixed. There will never be true parity. No more than 4-6 teams will have a shot. The biggest shot at parity came this year with 2 top 5 talent on the same team. This league has never had parity and never should. In order to establish parity, FA would have to be gone.

300 mil is different from a bailout. its a yearly bailout at best to cover all of their expenses and guarantee they break even AT LEAST. When they manage their money correctly and see the raise in TV contracts especially, they will far exceed just breaking even.

Contraction would only make the owners problems worse for the contracted teams and the teams fans. That's about it. I do not mean contract, however. Contraction would just move the teams to different venues, or am I mistaken? (Seriously because every time I see contraction I think relocate) I mean delete the excess fat. If there is a problem, you have to start somewhere even if the initial headache would seem unfathomable, especially when there was no problem when the league had less teams.

Hellcrooner
11-16-2011, 01:36 AM
^even if fa would be gone there WOULD not be parity, in fact NO FA is what led to a team winning 11 rings in 13 years, they did a strike of good decisions in the draft and the cruised for a decade, until....FA wass instituted.

just imagine a team would have been lucky/savy enough to draft Pau( or parker, or arenas, or JJ)/Ming( or stou)/Lebron ( or wade or melo or) pn consecutive years, with no FA

ink
11-16-2011, 01:39 AM
The competitive problem will NEVER be fixed. There will never be true parity. No more than 4-6 teams will have a shot. The biggest shot at parity came this year with 2 top 5 talent on the same team. This league has never had parity and never should. In order to establish parity, FA would have to be gone.

Think beginning of the season, not the outcome. Teams want to have an equal shot at talent, all 30 of them. If they do, and spending is capped for EVERYONE, they will have hope at the beginning of the season. It has worked in other leagues. Don't measure parity by the playoffs alone when there are 82 other games that need to be competitive for the NBA to be legitimate and profitable.


300 mil is different from a bailout. its a yearly bailout at best to cover all of their expenses and guarantee they break even AT LEAST. When they manage their money correctly and see the raise in TV contracts especially, they will far exceed just breaking even.

You're missing my point. They need system change. They don't need a money windfall. The $300M was lost because of a bad system, not because they were short a few bucks. Ignoring the system problems will just mean they fall into the red again in a few years. Think long term, not short term.


Contraction would only make the owners problems worse for the contracted teams and the teams fans. That's about it. I do not mean contract, however. Contraction would just move the teams to different venues, or am I mistaken? (Seriously because every time I see contraction I think relocate) I mean delete the excess fat. If there is a problem, you have to start somewhere even if the initial headache would seem unfathomable, especially when there was no problem when the league had less teams.

No, contraction means DELETE. No league is going to contract all the teams the players don't want to play in, or all the teams from small markets, or all the teams that are losing money. The first step, before contraction, is to fix the system so that more teams can function properly. Right now the CBA completely favours the big market teams. That might work for the big markets, and that is obviously why the big market fans are so often on the side of the players and the status quo. But for the 24 teams the old CBA doesn't work for, change is needed to set better terms for business and competitive success.

ink
11-16-2011, 01:42 AM
^even if fa would be gone there WOULD not be parity, in fact NO FA is what led to a team winning 11 rings in 13 years, they did a strike of good decisions in the draft and the cruised for a decade, until....FA wass instituted.

just imagine a team would have been lucky/savy enough to draft Pau( or parker, or arenas, or JJ)/Ming( or stou)/Lebron ( or wade or melo or) pn consecutive years, with no FA

Parity is not just about playoffs and champions. Parity is about making the 1230 regular season games competitive and profitable.

Hellcrooner
11-16-2011, 01:45 AM
Parity is not just about playoffs and champions. Parity is about making the 1230 regular season games competitive and profitable.

Funny, if via draft with no free agency you create a monster like 60s celtics, you can bet your *** that the games wotn be competitive nor profitable.

as a matter of fact, celtics almost killed basketball, in the 70s you could only see the games on tape delay.

by the way that was the decade with more parity and more champions and finalists, and the league almost dissapeared.

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 01:48 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

No, he makes a good point. The only point that works against him is that 500 isn't that much larger than 30.

If you were talking about 3 owners, and a workforce of 10,000 then it starts to come more into focus.

Consider a factory that makes hand woven rugs. Say, if after business expenses, marketing and material costs there is $500M in revenue.

If 50% of the revenue goes to the workers, each worker makes an average of
$25,000, and each owner makes an average of $83,000,000.

Considering that the only thing being sold by the NBA is the play of NBA players, and that the only thing the league and the teams really do is market and dispense that product, I'd say that 60%-40% split in favor of the players would be COMPLETELY fair.

Actually, there shouldn't even be a collective bargaining split of BRI or whatever.

The union is so stupid. The FREE MARKET will give the players a better deal, a MUCH BETTER deal.

Collective bargaining is supposed to be somethign that the workers use to gain salary, rights or an advantage. Here it is being used to LIMIT what the players can make. It is really the OWNERS using collective bargaining against the players, negotiating a LIMIT to player salaries to help prevent them from mismanaging themselves.

So... the players have every right to sue the union (and the league) to break out of the process.

Look, NONE of this has to happen. Players don't demand any guarantees whatsoever. Just open it to the free market--pay the players if you want to, don't pay them if you don't want to. No league minimum salary, no league maximum salary. No minimum of BRI for the players, and no max team salary.

End of story. That's it. That's all you should need. The league is destroying itself now when it doesn't have to.

ink
11-16-2011, 01:51 AM
Funny, if via draft with no free agency you create a monster like 60s celtics, you can bet your *** that the games wotn be competitive nor profitable.

as a matter of fact, celtics almost killed basketball, in the 70s you could only see the games on tape delay.

by the way that was the decade with more parity and more champions and finalists, and the league almost dissapeared.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. But you're talking about a dynasty team and calling it parity, so I'm confused. Think all 30 teams, 1230 regular season competitive games. That's what drives television ratings higher. When sports fans can tune into any NBA game and see strong competition. Watching 6 super teams and 24 also rans drives ratings down. It also means less people from those 24 teams will be buying tickets to meaningless games. It's in the players' and the league's best interests to make all 30 teams viable. More jobs, more profit, better security. Not to mention MUCH better basketball.

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 01:51 AM
The $300M is essentially a bailout. That is not an effective way to solve the league's long-term financial or competitive issues. That's why the direction of this whole negotiation toward BRI was a waste of time and effort. It was essentially the players bribing the league to give them their old CBA full of exemptions back. And that ain't comin' back anytime soon.


Bollocks. Complete nonsense.

Just open the league to unrestricted free market economics. Then let's see who's bribing who.

And if they mess up the league bad enough, then some new league will come along and do it better. HELLO, it's the players that people want to see.

ink
11-16-2011, 01:55 AM
Bollocks. Complete nonsense.

Just open the league to unrestricted free market economics. Then let's see who's bribing who.

And if they mess up the league bad enough, then some new league will come along and do it better. HELLO, it's the players that people want to see.

Judging by the convolutions of your last post, not to mention your dead-wrong prediction that the owners would cave by November, I'll stay away from your voodoo economic theories. ;)

Hellcrooner
11-16-2011, 02:13 AM
Bollocks. Complete nonsense.

Just open the league to unrestricted free market economics. Then let's see who's bribing who.

And if they mess up the league bad enough, then some new league will come along and do it better. HELLO, it's the players that people want to see.

Glad, you are getting the tune.

iu92grad
11-16-2011, 02:21 AM
I agree. They're not the smartest lightbulbs in the toolshed....

justOmazing
11-16-2011, 02:22 AM
David West



Sadly, as much as I love this hometown boy, his logic here is highly flawed.

He might as well speak for the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. His logic could be.....I make all the delicious hamburgers that are served nightly, bringing in thousands of dollars daily. And that may be completely true....But who owns the equipment? Who pays for the uniforms? Who pays the business taxes? Who pays the license to operate? Who pays the royalties to McDonald's Corporation? Who pays for the materials weekly which is shipped from Golden State Foods? Who pays the electricity bill to operate this McDonalds? Who pays the insurance for the facility? I can tell you with 100% certainty.....it isn't Reggie flipping the burgers nightly. Yet, Reggie's logic should be that since he makes the item that everybody comes in for nightly...he should be splitting the revenue with the owner at least with a 52% split of the profits, while the business owner can have 48%. Rolling Eyes Do all of these NBA college educated idiots think this flawed?

So....as long as the union and the players operate under this flawed logic, we aren't seeing any NBA season anytime soon. :facepalm:

I like where you were going with this argument. What you didn't include is the tens of thousands of people in each organization responsible for retail, poduct marketing, concessions, advertisement, telecasting, broadcasting, internet and other media outlets, and the list goes on and on... who are paid by the owners as well... who got put out of a job. The whole notion that somehow these players are getting mistreated is ridiculous. It's one thing to strike when you are being taken advantage of and you can't even put food on the table to feed your family. In the "everyday workforce" this kind of behavior is rare. So for these millionaires to do this based on their greed... and THAT IS ALL IT IS, it just shows the true heart of this league.

justOmazing
11-16-2011, 02:37 AM
No, he makes a good point. The only point that works against him is that 500 isn't that much larger than 30.

If you were talking about 3 owners, and a workforce of 10,000 then it starts to come more into focus.

Consider a factory that makes hand woven rugs. Say, if after business expenses, marketing and material costs there is $500M in revenue.

If 50% of the revenue goes to the workers, each worker makes an average of
$25,000, and each owner makes an average of $83,000,000.

Considering that the only thing being sold by the NBA is the play of NBA players, and that the only thing the league and the teams really do is market and dispense that product, I'd say that 60%-40% split in favor of the players would be COMPLETELY fair.

Actually, there shouldn't even be a collective bargaining split of BRI or whatever.

The union is so stupid. The FREE MARKET will give the players a better deal, a MUCH BETTER deal.

Collective bargaining is supposed to be somethign that the workers use to gain salary, rights or an advantage. Here it is being used to LIMIT what the players can make. It is really the OWNERS using collective bargaining against the players, negotiating a LIMIT to player salaries to help prevent them from mismanaging themselves.

So... the players have every right to sue the union (and the league) to break out of the process.

Look, NONE of this has to happen. Players don't demand any guarantees whatsoever. Just open it to the free market--pay the players if you want to, don't pay them if you don't want to. No league minimum salary, no league maximum salary. No minimum of BRI for the players, and no max team salary.

End of story. That's it. That's all you should need. The league is destroying itself now when it doesn't have to.

OK. You're leaving out one simple economic detail. The owner is the one taking the business/financial risk... NOT the players. The players are getting paid millions to WORK FOR THE OWNER. No matter what business you are in, the owners ALWAYS make significantly more money, because they are the one's footing the bill and taking the financial risk. Not vice-versa. Without owners, there is no damn job... and therefore no damn product.

And PS. entertainment is the product, not the players. They are employees. We want the entertainment they provide, which is no different than acting or any other entertainment venue. When these employees stop providing it in quality, they are no longer hired... plain and simple.

What is being left out of the original argument as well is the tens of thousands of other employees are paid by that owner to do marketing, retail, food service, insurance, scouting, public relations, media, telecasting, couseling, medical, lawyers, etc. etc. etc. Thousands and thousands of them have been left without a job because of this strike.

ChiSoxJuan
11-16-2011, 02:40 AM
This is a dangerous game the player's are playing & here's why:

The courts have already acknowledge both in the NFL & NBA the right for teams to posture in CBA negotiations. That includes legal filings. The court would view posturing to be veiled threats or threats of an unlikely consequence. In terms of these negotiations that means actions speak louder than words. At no time has the NBA refused to negotiate with the players. Furthermore, several Stern threats proved to be nothing more than posturing. Ultimatums came & went & the league never officially proposed the "reset" offer. The players are the only party that has refused to negotiate by their actions on Monday. The contents of the antitrust suits show firm acceptance by the player's of a 50/50 BRI split. This further supports what was discussed and agreed upon in last weeks negotiations.

That means the player's are pinning their hopes of the courts finding the NBA failed to live up to terms of CBA negotiations because of system issues that amount to less than 1% of the BRI split. Good luck with that. If they should lose this battle, it would bolster the NBA's side & increase the odds of their suit finding the disclaimer of interest amounts to the players failing to live up to terms of the CBA negotiations. If the NBA wins that the NLRB can assign settlement costs against the players. This would not only weaken their antitrust suits but also increase the odds the NBA is awarded treble damages.

As I said before, pinning one's up on system issues that are likely to amount to less than 1% of BRI is not very bright. If the hardliners want to crush the union winning in the NLRB will pave the way.

What should the player's have done? Call Stern's bluff.
Contact Stern and reaffirm support for the 50/50 BRI but lack of support for system issues. If he puts forth the 47/53 offer, the players case w the NLRB has been bolstered. The players then continue to both reject & negotiate as required under good faith bargaining. Drawing out the process puts owners at odds against each other. The players always have time as leverage. That time draws them closer to an NLRB decision & the NLRB is authorized to force a settlement if they feel either side has not met the terms for negotiations. Such a settlement would give them $ leverage in the CBA.

SwatTeam
11-16-2011, 02:45 AM
This is ridiculous. The players are like oranges and the owners are like apples. If you take a dump on one apple and eat an orange, then cant you see why oranges are black spiders and every one here hates black spiders because we live in a white elephant world.

This whole thing is nonsense. The conversational analogies here are nonsense. 50-50 split (helps shore up the owners lost expenses and puts a little more money in their pockets, which is the big issue overall), keep FA and sign and trades intact, reduce lengths of contracts from 5 to 4, reduce midlevel exceptions from 5M to 3.5M and keep the biannual exception, one amnesty clause for each team (2 seasons to use), removal of the no trade clause as an option in contracts (only kobe has one anyways), and an increase of 15 cents in the dollar for dollar luxury tax. So for every $1 a team over the cap spends they will pay a stiffer $1.15 (which adds up).

Nothing too crazy here, just small tweaks. This league does NOT need wholesale changes. Obviously, the league is doing something right since they have just had one of their most popular and lucrative seasons in over a decade. A prolonged stoppage hinders this growth - and it has. TWEAKS to the system. Nothing else. I don't want to hear these some of these posters economic/political model this represents or ask for parity and competitive balance. It doesn't exist. Not in the NFL or MLB. I don't care about the NHL's system because I'm from the south and I dont give a s**t about a sport where a bunch of white guys chase a black object and smack it around in white-ice rink. I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL!!!!!! AMERICA F%^& YEAH!

justOmazing
11-16-2011, 02:49 AM
Wow! Some of you have really missed the point. C of C has pointed out that this particular player suffers from the same incredible level of ignorance as many of the posters here. David Lee portrays the revenue split as 50% of the pie going to 450 players and the other 50% going to 30 owners. The fact is that 50% of the pie goes to the players. Of the remaining 50%, about 1/3 goes toward running the league and the other 2/3 goes to roughly 4,000 employees of the team, arena leases, travel, advertising, etc. What the owners are left with collectively is zero percent. PLAYERS 100% OWNERS 0%. Yet, the players and many of you represent 100% as a concession. The argument that the owners got their way on the revenue split and therefore should concede system issues is ridiculous to anyone with any business education or experience.

I agree that these are not just mere employees. Letís say they are looked at in such special terms that even though they have invested nothing and have guaranteed contracts, they are partners. Thatís certainly not how any partnership works that I have ever seen but letís just say itís so. This is not a stretch at all given they get a guaranteed percentage of the revenue. So, all of you siding with the players have a VERY different definition of a fair partnership than those of us defending the owners This is what I believe C of C was getting at in his post. He was making a point that at least this one player is outraged at having to concede some salary when in fact he does not have the vaguest notion of how the dollars are actually distributed and therefore has absolutely no idea what is fair, and what is not fair.
Ask yourself this Ö. If the salaries were half of what they are, would the players still be ecstatic to play in the NBA. Would it still be a dream job? The NBA is a profession that offers an incredible income. To say it is a fun job would be a gross understatement. The working conditions and fringe benefits are phenomenal to say the least. Anyone with even a shred of financial acumen understands the financial split and terms are incredibly in favor of the players. What goes with this job are some terms the owners are imposing to protect their business (the NBA). There is not a single player in the NBA qualified to challenge their ability (or Stern) in determining the system issues. The vast majority of you arguing the system issues are too restrictive simply want a system that favors you market. You want it all for yourself.

The fact is that these system issues are reaching a point where they jeopardize the long-term health of the league. Create a half-dozen super teams and 24 other teams become irrelevant and the only interesting games are those between the super teams. Television revenues plummet. 24 markets lose interest and revenues not only stagnate, they are going to decrease. Several teams would be contracted. Probably a third of the labor force is out of professional basketball and is now making 40K a year instead of $1-2M. A few of them might catch on in Europe at 1/3 of what they make here. I am thankful that the owners are taking a hard stand to protect the long-term viability of the league.

excellent post :clap:

justOmazing
11-16-2011, 02:54 AM
This is ridiculous. The players are like oranges and the owners are like apples. If you take a dump on one apple and eat an orange, then cant you see why oranges are black spiders and every one here hates black spiders because we live in a white elephant world.

This whole thing is nonsense. The conversational analogies here are nonsense. 50-50 split (helps shore up the owners lost expenses and puts a little more money in their pockets, which is the big issue overall), keep FA and sign and trades intact, reduce lengths of contracts from 5 to 4, reduce midlevel exceptions from 5M to 3.5M and keep the biannual exception, one amnesty clause for each team (2 seasons to use), removal of the no trade clause as an option in contracts (only kobe has one anyways), and an increase of 15 cents in the dollar for dollar luxury tax. So for every $1 a team over the cap spends they will pay a stiffer $1.15 (which adds up).

Nothing too crazy here, just small tweaks. This league does NOT need wholesale changes. Obviously, the league is doing something right since they have just had one of their most popular and lucrative seasons in over a decade. A prolonged stoppage hinders this growth - and it has. TWEAKS to the system. Nothing else. I don't want to hear these some of these posters economic/political model this represents or ask for parity and competitive balance. It doesn't exist. Not in the NFL or MLB. I don't care about the NHL's system because I'm from the south and I dont give a s**t about a sport where a bunch of white guys chase a black object and smack it around in white-ice rink. I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL!!!!!! AMERICA F%^& YEAH!

That's kind of a racist comment dude. What does it matter what race/color they are?

LA_Raiders
11-16-2011, 03:10 AM
lol, NBA players are a lil dumb...

Hellcrooner
11-16-2011, 04:03 AM
This is ridiculous. The players are like oranges and the owners are like apples. If you take a dump on one apple and eat an orange, then cant you see why oranges are black spiders and every one here hates black spiders because we live in a white elephant world.

This whole thing is nonsense. The conversational analogies here are nonsense. 50-50 split (helps shore up the owners lost expenses and puts a little more money in their pockets, which is the big issue overall), keep FA and sign and trades intact, reduce lengths of contracts from 5 to 4, reduce midlevel exceptions from 5M to 3.5M and keep the biannual exception, one amnesty clause for each team (2 seasons to use), removal of the no trade clause as an option in contracts (only kobe has one anyways), and an increase of 15 cents in the dollar for dollar luxury tax. So for every $1 a team over the cap spends they will pay a stiffer $1.15 (which adds up).

Nothing too crazy here, just small tweaks. This league does NOT need wholesale changes. Obviously, the league is doing something right since they have just had one of their most popular and lucrative seasons in over a decade. A prolonged stoppage hinders this growth - and it has. TWEAKS to the system. Nothing else. I don't want to hear these some of these posters economic/political model this represents or ask for parity and competitive balance. It doesn't exist. Not in the NFL or MLB. I don't care about the NHL's system because I'm from the south and I dont give a s**t about a sport where a bunch of white guys chase a black object and smack it around in white-ice rink. I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL!!!!!! AMERICA F%^& YEAH!

that makes too much sense you know? so none of the parts involved are smart enough to come to that conclussion specially since it has become a competition of ego.

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 06:04 AM
OK. You're leaving out one simple economic detail. The owner is the one taking the business/financial risk... NOT the players. The players are getting paid millions to WORK FOR THE OWNER. No matter what business you are in, the owners ALWAYS make significantly more money, because they are the one's footing the bill and taking the financial risk. Not vice-versa. Without owners, there is no damn job... and therefore no damn product.

And PS. entertainment is the product, not the players. They are employees. We want the entertainment they provide, which is no different than acting or any other entertainment venue. When these employees stop providing it in quality, they are no longer hired... plain and simple.

What is being left out of the original argument as well is the tens of thousands of other employees are paid by that owner to do marketing, retail, food service, insurance, scouting, public relations, media, telecasting, couseling, medical, lawyers, etc. etc. etc. Thousands and thousands of them have been left without a job because of this strike.

Sure. Ok. Fair enough.

And is there ant legitimate reason, in America 2011, that those owners shouldn't be free to pay the players (or not pay the players) as much as they want?

BOTH sidess have risk. NBA players are extremely valuable athletes, who are delicate and have a short shelf life. And they must worry about their image for endorsements, to earn additional income.

So, NBA,owners may have tons more money, and they're investors, not bballers, but that doesn't mean that they arethe only ones taking a risk.

In any case, it is common sense that the owners should be able to risk their money, and spend their money, however they want to. If there were no salary rules last year, Lebron signs for $50M +, and probably not in Miami.

Owners take the risk. Fine, let them take the risk. Revenue sharing is welfare for the badly managed teams

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 06:07 AM
Glad, you are getting the tune.

I've said this all along.

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 06:14 AM
At this point, I'd like to see the players toss it back in the owners court, demanding a 60% share of BRI with 2010 CBA or a complete open market.

Look, if ur pro owner, whatever. You think ur right, u mad at the players, whatever.

But get this--the whole leage and all the owners are losing their ***es on this debacle. So, take a big bite of that.

Jordan will lose so much, he could easily be some kind of MC Hammer in a couple years. And sterling, gilbert... those guys will lose truckloads of equity.

L. O. L.

And no federal bailouts in this environment. Don't even dream of it.

players can **** them totally

ChiTownPacerFan
11-16-2011, 06:56 AM
That McDonald's analogy is so terrible, I can't even begin to point out all the problems with it. FFS, I don't even agree with the notion that the guy flipping burgers doesn't deserve more money.

ModernDaySavage
11-16-2011, 09:00 AM
If forced to analogize, I would compare the NBA to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Sure, the animals are the "product"/"main attraction"/"image"/what-have-you, but just because their milkshake brings all the boys to the yard doesn't mean they should have any rights! I'm with the Ringling Brothers on this one--the only thing these glorified clowns should be entitled to is a decent meal and a pile of hay on which to sleep.

When was the last time you saw Dumbo the Elephant or Lucy the Lioness or Carl the Camel or Mindy the Monkey threatening to decertify his/her/its union and file a grievance with the NLRB or an antitrust lawsuit with the District Court for the Southern District of New York?! That's right, NEVER! The Ringling Brothers got it right. They knew how to keep their prima donnas in check.

Yeah, because you can just train new ****in animals to do the act and no one would honestly know the difference. You can't just go replace a LeBron James or Black Mamba etc....just isn't happening

barreleffact
11-16-2011, 09:22 AM
Think beginning of the season, not the outcome. Teams want to have an equal shot at talent, all 30 of them. If they do, and spending is capped for EVERYONE, they will have hope at the beginning of the season. It has worked in other leagues. Don't measure parity by the playoffs alone when there are 82 other games that need to be competitive for the NBA to be legitimate and profitable.

Every year every team starts over at 0W-)Ls. That is the closest to parity there will ever be. At that point there is only peculation. You cannot have parity over an 82 game season. This is not football where one game can separate a wild card from being out. That is the point of having 82 games. It maximizes profits while restricting luck. If they really wanted parity, they should shorten the season and make the games that are played more meaningful.

You're missing my point. They need system change. They don't need a money windfall. The $300M was lost because of a bad system, not because they were short a few bucks. Ignoring the system problems will just mean they fall into the red again in a few years. Think long term, not short term.

IF 300mil was lost, that is highly debatable. However, how much money the players receive automatically changes the system. The majority of the overhead costs was the players. They already are decreasing that and preparing to generate even more money through the new broadcast contracts. You point out a system change, but how the money is divided is irrelevant when the total theoretically adds us to the same sum, regardless. You want a system change for "parity," but again,chasing parity is like searching for a phantom.

The league is not going to fail. Even if there were only 6 teams with stud players, there those 6 teams will be forced to play in every arena, and when they do fans will draw to those arenas. Money is made off TV and not arenas anyway due to the huge prices for tickets.

No, contraction means DELETE. No league is going to contract all the teams the players don't want to play in, or all the teams from small markets, or all the teams that are losing money. The first step, before contraction, is to fix the system so that more teams can function properly. Right now the CBA completely favours the big market teams. That might work for the big markets, and that is obviously why the big market fans are so often on the side of the players and the status quo. But for the 24 teams the old CBA doesn't work for, change is needed to set better terms for business and competitive success.

The Knicks prove that this in untrue. The Clippers and Toronto prove that this is untrue every year. In fact, if you broaden your perspective beyond the championship only mentality, you can argue the opposite. OKC built through the draft, Portland, Spurs, etc. The Lakers sign players that are already in their prime, but the small markets draft these stars and retain them for 7 years. ( The time they build their reputations and are most statistically dominant).

The truth is somewhere in between. The CBA favors neither side totally. In truth to not favor the big markets by your phrasing, there should either be no FA or players should be forced to sacrifice 4 million a season to play in a larger market. Both would be LARGELY in favor of the smaller markets.

Also 24 teams are saying it doesnt work? That would obviously be non factual. 6 MAYBE 8 are likely to be unsustainable currently, and even their problems are amended by the concessions by the players. TY for clarifying contraction btw. I assumed it basically made the contracted teams like the hornets (either no ownership or floating ownership to change cities at will).

...

ChiSoxJuan
11-16-2011, 11:30 AM
Start with WHO are the LT's:

Lakers: nothing in this proposal is going to stop them from spending on their team.
As of last yr they are spending 40% of their rev on payroll. The Hornets spend 70%.

Mavs: Chandler says the new CBA could have him gone, but when has Cuban said that?
Who really believes Cuban is going to pass up a shot at b2b championships to save less than $100M? The guy's a billionaire & lives for GLORY! He's probably giddy over SAE & Amnesty ever yr right now.

Celtics: They are a media enterprise team but of smaller stature than the Lakers.
Less than 1/2 of their rev is spent on players. Again not a chance of them spending less.

Cavs: dropping out of this club & eager to get back in. Don't let Gilbert fool you.

Knicks: 2nd to the Lakers as media enterprise teams go. Dropped out of the club recently & can't wait to jump back in. Like Celts, less than 1/2 their rev is spent on players.

Magic: If Howard leaves, out of the club. If Howard stays, overjoyed to stay in it.
They pay about 55% of their rev on players .

Nuggets: dropping out & not likely to be back soon.

Suns: dropping out & not likely to be back soon.

Heat: Be back soon & stuck with the Big 3. Must keep paying as much as possible to win.

Jazz: Dropping out & not likely to be back soon.

Why are teams dropping out of the LT club? Too expensive? Please. Loss of superstars is the main reason they drop out. There's not one ownership group there that has ever blinked an eye at spending whatever it takes to maintain a contender.

Wrt to the not likely to be back soon, Chi, Okc, & Atl are likely to be joining soon. $ is no object for these owners but they won't make decisions that hamper the future of their teams. Those decisions will be easier now with amnesty, & SAE options.
If you doubt Chi refer to the Big Ben Wallace signing & subsequent trade. They are just as quick to eat $ to fix a mistake as any of the LT's. They will amnesty Boozer in a heartbeat if it means signing Howard.

So where is the compromise? Where it has always been.
Better access for LT's in trades & FA in exchange for higher LT costs.

Any owner that has ever been an LT or is willing to become an LT will always spend what it takes on a contending team. It is only when his team falls out of contention that they start thinking more judiciously about the contracts they ink.

So why haven't the players realized this? Because Fisher & Hunter are dim-wits.

For the rest of us, this is quite simple: An LT system only resembles a hard cap when owners become unwilling to pay those costs. Fisher & Hunter should start with who the LT's are before imaging the proposed LT system resembles a hard cap.

For the dim-wits, the Phi Flyers have exceeded the hard cap of the NHL by some $40-50M by making use of the cash for cap exemptions in that CBA. Owners will always find a way to exceed limits when it comes to maintaining or improving a contender.

ink
11-16-2011, 11:42 AM
...

I don't think we're using the same terms so I'm going to agree to disagree.

sixer04fan
11-16-2011, 12:12 PM
At this point, I'd like to see the players toss it back in the owners court, demanding a 60% share of BRI with 2010 CBA or a complete open market.

Look, if ur pro owner, whatever. You think ur right, u mad at the players, whatever.

But get this--the whole leage and all the owners are losing their ***es on this debacle. So, take a big bite of that.

Jordan will lose so much, he could easily be some kind of MC Hammer in a couple years. And sterling, gilbert... those guys will lose truckloads of equity.

L. O. L.

And no federal bailouts in this environment. Don't even dream of it.

players can **** them totally

You sound like David West

mlisica19
11-16-2011, 12:51 PM
I heard that the players rejected the 50/50 but though the owners gave in for the 50/50 they took away other things in their contract. And the owners are using yellow journalism to make it seem to the media that the players are always saying no, even when the $$$$ is split.

NYY 26 to 7
11-16-2011, 12:58 PM
Where do people really believe the players have leverage? By the time this suit would play out, which for anti-trust cases is typically 3+ years for this high profile type of case, the top players will have lost their prime, lost years of earning capability, and lost fans. Those who will be just fine and still around - billionaire owners. There is no room to win for the players and regardless of how you view each individual player over time it is the NBA product that has proved names change but the league remains. As much as you my love LeBron, Wade, Melo whoever you would watch if they re-up'd with college players and whoever wanted to cross the line. Players are reaching and I think they have made an Epicly poor decision bottom line the McDonalds comparison is not that off they get 50% with no expense to pay out and they are the employees (highly skilled but still replaceable). Fact is without this league and these owners writing their checks they can not make this kind of money anywhere in the world. Have fun making 1/4 in Europe of what you would have made in the NBA.

ChiSoxJuan
11-16-2011, 01:00 PM
Wrong mlis. We do not have an NBA season right now because the players refused to accept BOTH higher LT costs on the LT crowd & the MLE & S&T restrictions on LT's. Everything else was a B-list issue & I can guarantee you that if the player's had agreed to a framework deal on Mon there was no way Stern was going to let B-list issues stand in the way of a Dec 15th start.

I have listed below the LT crowd & the farcical assertion that higher LT costs would hamper their spending to maintain or improve contending teams. We don't have a season right now because player's weren't willing to offer higher LT costs in exchange for less MLE & S&T for LTs.

jtchilln
11-16-2011, 01:17 PM
And who does all the work to makes every single million? I don't see the owners attending 82 games traveling all over the country and Canada, practice twice a day, having a career that averages 8yrs, going all over the world to promote a Jersey when they dont get a dime, i don't see the owners risking injury just to win a game. In the end owners can sell the team and make all their money back but by then the player may have had a life ending injury.

PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU COMMENT.

you act like these guys are traveling by bus and having to eat a day old cheeseburger from a rest stop on the way while traveling all over the country and Canada....LOL. These guys are treated like kings with private jets, hotel suites and a meal stipen of like $100+ a day while on the road.

if you don't like the way your treated it's easy......go play in another league. who says that you have to play in the NBA? go play in China or Brazil or Italy if you have it so bad here. Seems pretty simple to me.

harnith
11-16-2011, 01:28 PM
At this point, I'd like to see the players toss it back in the owners court, demanding a 60% share of BRI with 2010 CBA or a complete open market.

Look, if ur pro owner, whatever. You think ur right, u mad at the players, whatever.

But get this--the whole leage and all the owners are losing their ***es on this debacle. So, take a big bite of that.

Jordan will lose so much, he could easily be some kind of MC Hammer in a couple years. And sterling, gilbert... those guys will lose truckloads of equity.

L. O. L.

And no federal bailouts in this environment. Don't even dream of it.

players can **** them totally

I understand where you are coming from, but i disagree. I think there are a lot of people, the players included, who are over looking a few of the nuances in this deal.

First off, most NBA owners do not just own an NBA franchise, but other Firms, and corporations as well. Many own a team out of family wealth, and the kinds of wealth were talking about don't go away over night. I think that without having to pay the players, and the ability to rely on other business's, investments, and renting out NBA facilities, the owners will be able to weather the storm quite well.

On the other hand the players are the ones who will suffer financially. The only thing many NBA players are good at is playing basketball. They focus their who childhood, and adolescent lives on basketball. Many leave college early without degrees to play in the NBA. If your not the Melo, Amare, or billups on your team, and are one of the other 10 guys that don't get paid squat, and have been spending money in large amounts because your relying on your $380,000 a year, your in trouble.

Also don't forget, if you play in the NBA, age can mean EVERYTHING. One year older means one year slower, one year closer to retirement, and one year you didn't have any stats.

Wonder if Kyrie Irving wishes he stayed in college?

beliges
11-16-2011, 02:58 PM
Honestly some of the arguments you guys have is so beyond ridiculous and has zero common sense. Guys the owners take all the financial risk to put this product together. The players are part of the product. WIthout the NBA, the players have no forum to showcase their talents. They may play for some overseas league or a street league. But the NBA as a whole is what gives these players the opportunity to earn the millions of millions of dollars they earn. They are not the product and they are not the owner. They are the employees in this. To say that they deserve a cut as big as the owners is just plain silly. They do nothing but show up to their huge arena and play the game of basketball in front of millions of people watching on TV. But the owners make that arena, and make the television coverage available through investing hundreds of millions. Players are completely wrong here and should have accepted this deal. Now, there is no chance they will get a deal as good as the one they were going to get. Hopefully this becomes a humbling experience for them and they will learn to be less greedy in future negotiations.

blahblahyoutoo
11-16-2011, 03:21 PM
u mad at the players, whatever.


you do realize that without a verb, this is not a sentence right?

mlisica19
11-16-2011, 05:32 PM
Honestly some of the arguments you guys have is so beyond ridiculous and has zero common sense. Guys the owners take all the financial risk to put this product together. The players are part of the product. WIthout the NBA, the players have no forum to showcase their talents. They may play for some overseas league or a street league. But the NBA as a whole is what gives these players the opportunity to earn the millions of millions of dollars they earn. They are not the product and they are not the owner. They are the employees in this. To say that they deserve a cut as big as the owners is just plain silly. They do nothing but show up to their huge arena and play the game of basketball in front of millions of people watching on TV. But the owners make that arena, and make the television coverage available through investing hundreds of millions. Players are completely wrong here and should have accepted this deal. Now, there is no chance they will get a deal as good as the one they were going to get. Hopefully this becomes a humbling experience for them and they will learn to be less greedy in future negotiations.

Why do these players have to play in this league? They can easily go ANYWHERE else to play ball. Over seas... those teams would pay top dollar for ANY NBA player to play for them. Would MOST of them be making the same amount they do in the NBA? No... but who cares, their still making a pretty penny as to now where there making NOTHING.

In the 60's, the NHL thought the same thing. Their were the elite league, and back then they were basically the only league. The Soviet league was like an amateur league and that was the 2nd best league in the world.

The NHL owners were making so much money. Def over 60% of the profit. Superstars like Hull realized this by doing some research and simple math. He said, HEY! Though the owners are the ones who brought us together, put the roof over our head and is paying our checks. How is he able to do all this without people like me...

So what did he do... He helped built a rival league known as the WHL which stood strong for 10 years. It allowed underage players who couldnt play in the NHL play like future superstars Gretzky and Messier and others.

The NBA isnt the ONLY form of basketball these people can play for. And these owners would be NO where without these stars. The players bring in crowds that help the owners make money...

The $$$ should be somewhat split, but thats far form the issue here. There are minor things that both sides wont agree too. And the media isnt covering that because the owners are paying them to publish certain criteria.

if you think the league would be nothing without these owners, think again. Take away LeBron James and Dwayne Wade and Kobe and Dirk from the league. Who would have watched the NBA playoffs last year. Just those players make the league a substantial amount of $$$.

Lakerfan In NY
11-16-2011, 05:55 PM
Your comparison to what is going on is laughable at best. Try this comparison: The NBA players are more like investment bankers, whose job is to market & sell. What are they selling or the product? Not the players but the NBA brand. Thru their play, appearances (mandatory), camps they allow the NBA brand to grow. Allowing the NBA to make outright purchases of new securities (NBA Global) from the issuer and distributes them to dealers and investors (Nike, Gatorade etc) profiting on the spread between the purchase price and the selling price.
Thru the “investment bankers/players” efforts, they have shown record gain in profits. Again. So, they are entitled to be compensated, for bring in added business aka huge revenue to the league. If this was the white collar business world, all this would manifest as stock options & huge bonus, company allowances etc but in the NBA it’s the BRI. Understand that the NBA is a business & like any business It ISN’T guaranteed to make a profit (which these owners keep forgetting.) So, it is up to the owner to hire wise business management (GM’s) to get the best & brightest “bankers” to help teams sell their brand to the NBA for further marketing outside the market area. As with anything, there are great bankers aka NBA Superstars like K. Bryant & LBJ. Good bankers aka above average NBA players like the J Terry, AI. Average bankers which are the rest of the league & then you have bad bankers like L. Walton, S Diop. So, who determines these bankers/players worth? Why the owners.
You are only worth what someone thinks your worth & willing to pay you. So, you have these small market investor aka small market team that picked the wrong banker yr after yr like the T-wolves complaining because the bigger better investor w/ a tradition of good investment get all the big name investment bankers/players. Since, these smaller market investors can’t stop the larger investor from going after the top bankers/players they figure if we put a cap on the number of investment bankers/players a team can have than maybe we can steal one & use them to make us some money. We really don’t even have to put a good product out on the floor (ie New York Knick owner Dolan cuts a profit every time the garden opens) if we could land just one super investment banker/player for less than the market share than we can market him, bring in more investor aka fans & get as much out of him until he can’t play at the highest level than we get rid of him.
So, now these owners of small market teams are looking for a bail out (Even though the small market owners are the richest of all NBA owners.) What is their bail out? Not government but taken away the money of the investment bankers/players. They (the owners) know that in the court of public opinion they will win. That why they are quiet. Even M Cuban who wouldn’t stupid b4 is silence bc they know. The owners had a company do a cost analysis that basically said that in time the fans/market will come back so they can hold on & wait it out. Armed with this insider info the owners go to the table & ask for everything & the kitchen sink but give back nothing. Can anyone say they heard of something the owners gave back? Hence, the anti-trust lawsuit, if the players can prove that this is what the owners are doing than the players win a big battle. The key is “good faith.” The players have dropped from 57% to I think 52.5% or so which is roughly 160 million dollars or 40 million per % point. But the owners (only some bc the same small market billions didn’t want that much of a split) didn’t even want a 50-50 split. This is only 50-50 in name alone. From the BRI everything basketball related comes off the top, than the rest is shared. So, if you’re a good crafty firm/owner, could you hide millions of dollars & write it off as a BRI expense? Of course you could just like the NJ Nets owner whom “cooking the books” to turn a huge profit into a bigger lost. Hence why the owner are so against opening the books to prove they are losing money in a time of record high. Let’s stop believing that a 50/50 split is really a 50/50 split. Once the cost for Stadium upkeep, stadium employees etc is taken out, 50/50 split is all profit. So if they make $ 10. $4 is taken off the top to pay for basketball related item that is solely a responsibly of the owner… the remaining $6 is split between owners & players. So, actually the owner receive $7 & the players $3.
I don’t agree with the player either but the owners are something else. Let’s stop comparing apples from orange & the moment you do you will see how truly greedy the owners are. This is not an average business, more than any other sports NBA players make the revenue for their sport (just an opinion) they are more recognizable than any other athlete in any other sport. These owner who are not basketball fans they see green & that is what is driving this more money in their pocket. Let’s stop the bull that you would watch if CBA player played…you’re lying to yourself. If that the case WNBA would be the s77t.
Paul Allen, Portland TrailBlazers, $13.2 billion
Richard DeVos, Orlando Magic, $5 billion
Mickey Arison, Miami Heat, $4.2 billion
Stan Kroenke, Denver Nuggets, $3.2 billion
Tom Gores, Detroit Pistons, $2.5 billion
Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks, $2.3 billion
Glen Taylor, Minnesota Timberwolves, $1.8 billion
Herb Simon, Indiana Pacers, $1.6 billion
Dan Gilbert, Cleveland Cavaliers, $1.5 billion
Michael Heisley, Memphis Grizzlies, $1.5 billion
Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers, $1.5 billion
Joshua Harris., Philadelphia 76ers, $1.45 billion

barreleffact
11-16-2011, 06:57 PM
you act like these guys are traveling by bus and having to eat a day old cheeseburger from a rest stop on the way while traveling all over the country and Canada....LOL. These guys are treated like kings with private jets, hotel suites and a meal stipen of like $100+ a day while on the road.

if you don't like the way your treated it's easy......go play in another league. who says that you have to play in the NBA? go play in China or Brazil or Italy if you have it so bad here. Seems pretty simple to me.

That is why there is a CBA...for COLLECTIVE bargaining. It's supposed to be for both sides to COLLECTIVELY bargain what parts they don't like. UNIONS are based on this principle.

Also, the flip side of your coin is if the owners don't like the players wants, they can hire strike labor or lockout. Both mean significantly decreased money for the ownership as well.

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 07:58 PM
you do realize that without a verb, this is not a sentence right?

U mad?

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 08:09 PM
Where do people really believe the players have leverage? By the time this suit would play out, which for anti-trust cases is typically 3+ years for this high profile type of case, the top players will have lost their prime, lost years of earning capability, and lost fans. Those who will be just fine and still around - billionaire owners. There is no room to win for the players and regardless of how you view each individual player over time it is the NBA product that has proved names change but the league remains. As much as you my love LeBron, Wade, Melo whoever you would watch if they re-up'd with college players and whoever wanted to cross the line. Players are reaching and I think they have made an Epicly poor decision bottom line the McDonalds comparison is not that off they get 50% with no expense to pay out and they are the employees (highly skilled but still replaceable). Fact is without this league and these owners writing their checks they can not make this kind of money anywhere in the world. Have fun making 1/4 in Europe of what you would have made in the NBA.

The owners actually hav a big problem. They are collectively invested in the league to the tune of abot $15B. And they have very high hopes for new interntional markets and new revenue streams. They've actually been borrowing against and trading on those hopes for a long time. When a bank loans them $400M to buy an NBA team, that is based on crazy future eenue projections, as well as an assumption that the team will continue to wildly increase in value.

Think about how inflated it all is, and how much money is wastedor givenaway in useless maerketing to cronies and pals. Consider how INLATED the cost of the whole league is.

If you were to tart a new league, u wouldn't have to charge new owners $400M for a franchise... you could actually just grant franchises at no charge, or an initial setup fee, to a select group of owners. Then, they only hae to deal with stadium costs, player salaries, etc... They don't have this monster burden of debt from the start. All they would need is a TV deal...

Trust me theownersand the NBA have much to lose,far more than theplayers. They ca evn be sued by cities over stadium costs, etc. And that's just the start. A lost season will cost them, literally, billions in equity. They will be hemraging like Qaddafi's butt hole

Anilyzer
11-16-2011, 08:18 PM
I mean LoL, $400M for a basketball team? The "Hornets" or the "Bobcats", who play in a different city evry year?

What kind of a sucker deal is that? David Stern is like some kind a Brnie Maddoff. I'm sure he just wants the "small market" owners to just shut up and keep on sucking

ghettosean
11-16-2011, 08:36 PM
I think this is a silly discussion and most people who are siding with the owners did not follow who gave up what because I have been following this and the players have given back over a BILLION dollars back to the owners to cover there losses. Stern is pulling the wool over your eyes and making it sound like a BRI issue when it's not... This is about the system change that the league wants to make.

Also please do not compare the NBA players to burger flippers because if you are I want to see the MJ of burger flipping that's why I go to those places. The burger is the product for them not the flipper and the NBA players are the product of basketball not the ball or the rims you can get those anywhere but you can't get a Kobe, Lebron (which I hate), Wade, Dirk... etc. This is why the players have negotiating power and not the burger flippers.

Players are the product just ask the athlete of the year after the finals ;)

Try and put the blame where it belongs there is a division between owners and that's small market owners VS big market owners. Big markets can cover the losses and THEN SOME for the small markets that are losing money. In the words of MJ "If you can't afford to own a franchise you should sell it".... Oh but that was when he was a player.

The small and big markets need to figure out there issues before blaming the players... Shame!!!

blahblahyoutoo
11-16-2011, 10:05 PM
U mad?

are you mad?

ink
11-17-2011, 01:02 AM
Why do these players have to play in this league? They can easily go ANYWHERE else to play ball. Over seas... those teams would pay top dollar for ANY NBA player to play for them. Would MOST of them be making the same amount they do in the NBA? No... but who cares, their still making a pretty penny as to now where there making NOTHING.

In the 60's, the NHL thought the same thing. Their were the elite league, and back then they were basically the only league. The Soviet league was like an amateur league and that was the 2nd best league in the world.

The NHL owners were making so much money. Def over 60% of the profit. Superstars like Hull realized this by doing some research and simple math. He said, HEY! Though the owners are the ones who brought us together, put the roof over our head and is paying our checks. How is he able to do all this without people like me...

So what did he do... He helped built a rival league known as the WHL which stood strong for 10 years. It allowed underage players who couldnt play in the NHL play like future superstars Gretzky and Messier and others.

The NBA isnt the ONLY form of basketball these people can play for. And these owners would be NO where without these stars. The players bring in crowds that help the owners make money...

The $$$ should be somewhat split, but thats far form the issue here. There are minor things that both sides wont agree too. And the media isnt covering that because the owners are paying them to publish certain criteria.

if you think the league would be nothing without these owners, think again. Take away LeBron James and Dwayne Wade and Kobe and Dirk from the league. Who would have watched the NBA playoffs last year. Just those players make the league a substantial amount of $$$.

You do realize you're comparing the "injustice" of players today to a time when a player like Bobby Orr made $35 THOUSAND a year right? Hull left for the WHA because he was offered $1M to play there and the salary scale changed forever. But the fight before that was against owners who absolutely refused to pay the players a decent wage.

That was then.

This is exactly where so many of these players' complaints get so pathetic. There WAS a time when players needed unions to improve their working conditions and salaries.

That time is NOT now.

The pendulum has swung from a ludicrous low where great players made $35,000 a year in 1967. By 1992 the greatest player the sport of basketball will likely ever know, MJ, made $3M. Today 30+ players make more than $12M.

There is no case to be made that this is at all like the advent of the WHA.

Just because a union was useful and righteous at one time doesn't mean they will always be useful and righteous in a different, more privileged time. These players are privileged, and they show a stunning lack of respect for the players of the past who actually DID suffer through years of bad wages and working conditions.

Anilyzer
11-17-2011, 05:06 AM
You do realize you're comparing the "injustice" of players today to a time when a player like Bobby Orr made $35 THOUSAND a year right? Hull left for the WHA because he was offered $1M to play there and the salary scale changed forever. But the fight before that was against owners who absolutely refused to pay the players a decent wage.

That was then.

This is exactly where so many of these players' complaints get so pathetic. There WAS a time when players needed unions to improve their working conditions and salaries.

That time is NOT now.

The pendulum has swung from a ludicrous low where great players made $35,000 a year in 1967. By 1992 the greatest player the sport of basketball will likely ever know, MJ, made $3M. Today 30+ players make more than $12M.

There is no case to be made that this is at all like the advent of the WHA.

Just because a union was useful and righteous at one time doesn't mean they will always be useful and righteous in a different, more privileged time. These players are privileged, and they show a stunning lack of respect for the players of the past who actually DID suffer through years of bad wages and working conditions.

I actually agree with you that there is no need for a players union.

THAT is the point of decertification, and the players should want it.

Think about it: Why do the players need a union that negotiates their salaries DOWNWARD, that forms an agreement with the league to 1. limit total player compensation 2. limit max team salaries 3. limit and restrict free agency ?

NBA players make a ton of jack, and they would make even more without the union. The LEAGUE wanted the players union, and the LEAGUE formed the alliance with that players union, which then allows them to skirt federal anti-trust laws, and do things like conduct college drafts and grant teams "rights" over players.

So when the league turns around to try and use that same player's union to "break" the players economically, to put even more earning restrictions on them... then the players not only don't need the union, they have to break off from it.

Notice how David Stern immediately started making nasty threats when the decertification thing got going.

Also, I don't believe it will take "2 or 3 years" for a judge to place an injunction on the lockout or the NBA system, as some sports reporters are saying. I'd like to see this in front of a judge ASAP, or have a federal panel set up a binding arbitration, and have the owners open their books.

Hellcrooner
11-17-2011, 05:28 AM
I actually agree with you that there is no need for a players union.

THAT is the point of decertification, and the players should want it.

Think about it: Why do the players need a union that negotiates their salaries DOWNWARD, that forms an agreement with the league to 1. limit total player compensation 2. limit max team salaries 3. limit and restrict free agency ?

NBA players make a ton of jack, and they would make even more without the union. The LEAGUE wanted the players union, and the LEAGUE formed the alliance with that players union, which then allows them to skirt federal anti-trust laws, and do things like conduct college drafts and grant teams "rights" over players.

So when the league turns around to try and use that same player's union to "break" the players economically, to put even more earning restrictions on them... then the players not only don't need the union, they have to break off from it.

Notice how David Stern immediately started making nasty threats when the decertification thing got going.

Also, I don't believe it will take "2 or 3 years" for a judge to place an injunction on the lockout or the NBA system, as some sports reporters are saying. I'd like to see this in front of a judge ASAP, or have a federal panel set up a binding arbitration, and have the owners open their books.

problem is the judge wont have the balls to declare all the nba practices illegal, anticonstitutional and unfair adn stablish the players as regular workers with regular workers rights in a free market ( basically what they are in teh rest of the world)

Because that would be a slap in the face to what has been done in american sports history for a century.

ink
11-17-2011, 01:15 PM
I actually agree with you that there is no need for a players union.

THAT is the point of decertification, and the players should want it.

Think about it: Why do the players need a union that negotiates their salaries DOWNWARD, that forms an agreement with the league to 1. limit total player compensation 2. limit max team salaries 3. limit and restrict free agency ?

NBA players make a ton of jack, and they would make even more without the union. The LEAGUE wanted the players union, and the LEAGUE formed the alliance with that players union, which then allows them to skirt federal anti-trust laws, and do things like conduct college drafts and grant teams "rights" over players.

So when the league turns around to try and use that same player's union to "break" the players economically, to put even more earning restrictions on them... then the players not only don't need the union, they have to break off from it.

Notice how David Stern immediately started making nasty threats when the decertification thing got going.

Also, I don't believe it will take "2 or 3 years" for a judge to place an injunction on the lockout or the NBA system, as some sports reporters are saying. I'd like to see this in front of a judge ASAP, or have a federal panel set up a binding arbitration, and have the owners open their books.

If you're interested in facts (rather than private theories) on the history of the NBPA, which btw was started by Bob Cousy in 1954 (who had to work damn hard to convince all the teams in the NBA to allow it), here is the link (http://www.apbr.org/labor.html).

What actually happened was that in the 40s the only leverage the players had was to play the two basketball leagues (the Basketball Association of America and the National Basketball League) off each other for salaries. When the two leagues merged in the late 40s that leverage evaporated. Less than a decade later, Cousy managed to get enough teams to accept a union so that players' rights were respected and they were paid somewhat equitably.

Obviously the players wanted the union. It was their initiative.

ChiSoxJuan
11-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Some of you just don't get it. The product of the NBA is the game of basketball played by what is considered the finest basketball players on the planet. While the NBA started out as a franchise business, it clearly resembles more of a mega-corporation of subsidiaries today. This is evident by looking at revenue generated by NBA deals compared to revenue generated by single team deals. The NBA league-wide deals now account for over 1/3rd of all revenue & more importantly has a growth rate higher than all but the media enterprise teams.

This is not unique to the NBA either. Similar comparisons can be drawn in the NFL, MLB, & NHL.

That is the reality of these 4 now, & the courts have shown an understanding of that. That is why even the courts favor a league's need for competitive balance over a player's right to move. Player's as well as their leadership have tunnel vision. They ignore the impact of player movement on the league as a whole. The courts clearly do not.

in the past the commissioners of these 4 were more concerned with rules of conduct than rules of operation. That's changed. The focus now is how to grow more total revenue for the league. That's why competitive balance is the focus now. The math is quite simple.

Competitive balance is a nice term fans can understand & of course it gets the fan thinking about all this in terms of the quality of play. The real drive for it by all 4 commissioners is to grow total revenue for the league. It's simple math. If rev from Lakers is L, & rev from Clippers is C, & potential rev from a more competitive Clipper team is p & C+p is much closer to L, then Stern will shape the rules to help the Clippers more than the Lakers. As teams competing in the same market, the same can be said for Knicks & Nets. If that means less player movement, then that's just the cost of growing total revenue for the league.

Unless your a communist or radical socialist who thinks these 4 league's should be run as a public service to the fans, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

Anilyzer
11-17-2011, 07:45 PM
Some of you just don't get it. The product of the NBA is the game of basketball played by what is considered the finest basketball players on the planet. While the NBA started out as a franchise business, it clearly resembles more of a mega-corporation of subsidiaries today. This is evident by looking at revenue generated by NBA deals compared to revenue generated by single team deals. The NBA league-wide deals now account for over 1/3rd of all revenue & more importantly has a growth rate higher than all but the media enterprise teams.

This is not unique to the NBA either. Similar comparisons can be drawn in the NFL, MLB, & NHL.

That is the reality of these 4 now, & the courts have shown an understanding of that. That is why even the courts favor a league's need for competitive balance over a player's right to move. Player's as well as their leadership have tunnel vision. They ignore the impact of player movement on the league as a whole. The courts clearly do not.

in the past the commissioners of these 4 were more concerned with rules of conduct than rules of operation. That's changed. The focus now is how to grow more total revenue for the league. That's why competitive balance is the focus now. The math is quite simple.

Competitive balance is a nice term fans can understand & of course it gets the fan thinking about all this in terms of the quality of play. The real drive for it by all 4 commissioners is to grow total revenue for the league. It's simple math. If rev from Lakers is L, & rev from Clippers is C, & potential rev from a more competitive Clipper team is p & C+p is much closer to L, then Stern will shape the rules to help the Clippers more than the Lakers. As teams competing in the same market, the same can be said for Knicks & Nets. If that means less player movement, then that's just the cost of growing total revenue for the league.

Unless your a communist or radical socialist who thinks these 4 league's should be run as a public service to the fans, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

You're the one who sounds like the communist. If the whole league becomes one big World Wrestling Federation, with completely centralized control, and all the revenues spread out evenly, and a CBA that cuts down all the tall trees (dyansties and great teams) in favor of a competitive balance of mediocrity, then it IS time for a new league, big time.

The refereeing is messed up, the league is already transparently corrupt in the way it promotes superstars who have marketing tie-ins with other corporations that are also in business with the league... It's tiresome. The product has sucked more and more precisely because of centralized league control and highly questionable refereeing.

USA needs something fresh and new, a new league or even a new basketball-like sport that could utilize the skills of elite NBA'rs even better.

The league has ****ed itself by charging $400M a pop for teams, or rather, all those owners have ****ed themselves by buying into it. Imagine how much Mark Cuban would make with an elite pro basketball team if it only cost $3M for a setup fee, and he owned the whole thing outright?

Face it: NBA is a big pyramid scam. Owners jump in thinking they can get 2000% return like Jerry Buss did with the Lakers, but instead franchise values are flatlining, a lot of teams are losing money (which is their own fault), and now the whole league is locked out and the season is probably cancelled. Not good. Brutal, in fact.