PDA

View Full Version : League "revenue sharing" will probably ruin the league as we know it



Sssmush
03-27-2012, 04:25 AM
So, I was reading this interview with Jim Buss, and in it he mentions that previously the Lakers were paying out approximately $6 million in revenue sharing to the league, but that now that number is going up to between $50 million and $80 million dollars.

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/bfGhs?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=los-angeles-lakers

Ahem. Yes. That is 50... to 80... MILLION DOLLARS the Lakers will need to pay to teams like the Bobcats, Hornets, etc, etc. And that is on top of all of the luxury taxes, which will in any case more than TRIPLE for teams in the Lakers tax bracket, and will be automatically doubled for any team in LT territory more than four years, which the Lakers have a hard time staying out of.

I just feel that we've reached a stage where the NBA is on the verge of literally imploding financially, and everything that is great about NBA basketball might be a thing of the past very soon.

Now, I don't want to say this is a case of the "East Coast elites" socking it to the Los Angeles Lakers, simply because Los Angeles has been the undisputed center of professional basketball in America for as long as any of us can remember. Something like the retroactive USC conspiracy, where the Southern and Southeastern schools all get together and vote for a corrupt plan to retroactively strip USC of a couple of national titles because one crack-head agent starts running his mouth, meanwhile down in the jungles of Florida and Alabama I'm pretty sure most of the football players don't even know that they're in college.

Nawwwwww. Instead, this is like a case of corrupt crony capitalism run amok.
Let me explain.

First, the slick used car salesman league executives talk some coalition of boneheaded semi-billionaires (errr, "with a dream") into paying $400 million for a grossly overvalued NBA franchise with no fanbase in a total **** market, OR to move a grossly overvalued NBA franchise with no fanbase in a total **** market to another **** market and try to evangelize the NBA there.

THEN, the team starts losing. Who could've predicted? I mean, who knew? Anyways, totally unexpected, the team starts to suck and loses money because no one comes to the games, when they can just stay home and watch the Lakers in full HD on a 62 inch super HD flat screen.

THEN the slick used car salesman super agents swarm in on these hapless newbie owners, selling them lemon after lemon after lemon for $100 million dollar contracts. (hey, if he doesn't make $100 million, he's not an NBA star. AND YOU NEED STARS). At this point I'm not even going to mention something like the Knicks signing Amare, because, I mean Knick fans eat that sort of failure for breakfast, and then ask for another bowl. Baaaah.... Baaaah.... Booooey...

Anyways, back to the cool story bro. So, then all these newbie teams in **** markets have outlandish payrolls that don't help them win AND the fans of course still don't give a ****, because (who knew?) the fans all got something better to do, and it is still twice as fun to watch the Lakers at home in HD for free.

Anyways, long story short, etc etc etc, these "franchises" start losing money faster than they can tank games to try to get the first pick. They are all hemorraging money, but NOT ONE will sell, because they still see a way out of their horrific investment(s), their NBA investment bubble. So, we get a strike... all that jazz

and NOW, we got the Lakers having to pay $80 million to $100 million A YEAR in revenue sharing and luxury taxes to help pay off the bad mortgages and bad player contracts of the bottom half teams of the NBA.

Realistically, that $100 million is greater than the actual dollar value, realistically appraised, of a team like the Bobcats--a value that is mostly derived from being part of a league that contains the Los Angeles Lakers and a few other good teams. And the league is counting on the Lakers to pay that fee every year, year after year after year, to keep all those weak teams afloat, so they can sign more bad contracts for soso players.

Personally, I am now officially hoping the Lakers just tank it like the Clippers, go WAY under the cap, don't spend anything on marketing, and raise ticket prices even more. I hope the Lakers find a way to pay the absolute MINIMUM in revenue sharing and luxury tax. I hope the rest of the league has to resort to cannibalizing itself financially, and then when it tries to suck even more revenue from the Lakers, that the Lakers take them to court and establish some mutha****ing boundaries yo. NBA is a capitalist business, enough with this weak*** Mussolini fascist corruption or wannabe communism or whatever the **** they are trying to be. (yeah, maybe someone should go interview "MJ" about that, I'd love to hear it.)

*whew*

oK. Yeah, us Laker fans just gotta understand, the game has changed, and if for no other reason than pride we gotta do everything we can to NOT be the freakin' cash cow/welfare office for the entire league.

You got financial problems because you signed Hedo Turkglu? Antwan jamison? Brandon Roy? Rashard Lewis? Chris Kaman?

**** you. Not our problem. Pay it yourself. Or do the honorable thing and contract your franchises.

shep33
03-27-2012, 04:27 AM
I don't get why the NBA doesn't just contract some teams. Isn't that the easiest solution?

Raps08-09 Champ
03-27-2012, 04:33 AM
Wasn't it was either this or a hard cap?

Raps08-09 Champ
03-27-2012, 04:34 AM
:laugh2:

That 2nd option is such a joke. It's worded so biased.

SportsAndrew25
03-27-2012, 04:35 AM
How about tell these teams who cannot manage their way out of a paper bag to **** off and let the smart teams do what they have to do continuously win.

shep33
03-27-2012, 04:57 AM
Honestly, just contract a couple of teams. Leagues are way too big these days.

dee279
03-27-2012, 05:15 AM
50 to 80 million??? DAT **** CRAY

Pakman
03-27-2012, 05:15 AM
Lakers Knicks Celtics heat bulls. Spurs. The rest can GTFO

ghettosean
03-27-2012, 05:22 AM
The false option is worded so badly that it's obvious the op wants no one to use it. If you put just true or false you would have a better poll.

ghettosean
03-27-2012, 05:34 AM
Also the Lakers can make up to 1 Billion dollars from TV revenue... I'm not saying that is exactly what they are making but you can bet they are making a **** load from TV deals opposed to the other teams you are mentioning above and other smaller teams that have no contract issues but just don't get any big TV deals. I'm not saying they should have to pay money to other teams but they voted on the new CBA and I believe they were one of the few in the beginning pushing to get this done so they can put a little blame on themselves and that also does tell me that they are making a **** load of money.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/02/17/l-a-s-tv-deal-revenue-sharing-tipping-point/

310Casper
03-27-2012, 07:42 AM
They need to just cut these small market teams already. Or at least have them wear "sponsored by Los Angeles lakers" patches on their jerseys at all times.

Pat Thetic
03-27-2012, 08:36 AM
That's really not that much money in the grand scheme of the NBA.

Also, why do you care if your favorite team's owner doesn't pocket as much money as usual? How does this affect you or the quality of the team on the court?

gwrighter
03-27-2012, 10:11 AM
Wasn't it was either this or a hard cap?

That is exactly how I remember it going down. Either pay unprofitable teams money, or be not allowed to sign players when your team is at the cap threshold. They chose money.

Kevj77
03-27-2012, 10:41 AM
Wasn't it was either this or a hard cap?Small market owners actually wanted both. Revenue sharing was always going to be part of the new CBA. It never got the attention because it wasn't an owner v. player issue. It was an owner v. owner issue.

Raps08-09 Champ
03-27-2012, 10:48 AM
Small market owners actually wanted both. Revenue sharing was always going to be part of the new CBA. It never got the attention because it wasn't an owner v. player issue. It was an owner v. owner issue.

Players wanted revenue sharing more than a hard cap from my understanding.

Have a hard cap and there wouldn't be much of an issue money wise from teams IMO.

Kenny Powders
03-27-2012, 10:52 AM
How about tell these teams who cannot manage their way out of a paper bag to **** off and let the smart teams do what they have to do continuously win.

How do you expect them manage their team when any superstar they get wants to bum **** their buddy in one of a handful of cities. If basketball players weren't such prima donnas this wouldn't be happening.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-27-2012, 10:55 AM
And thats why we traded LO

da ThRONe
03-27-2012, 11:10 AM
The most popular sport in the U.S. by a huge margin has the majority of their revenue shared and they are doing outstanding financially.

LakersIn5
03-27-2012, 11:13 AM
**** the new cba and stern! why does the lakers and the teams that are willing to spend have to pay up for ****** teams like the bobcats. pay for your own expences! damn it!

Hellcrooner
03-27-2012, 11:16 AM
all of this woudl be solved by Free market.


If New york had been able to buy Lebron from the cavs for 100 million dollars cavs wouldnt have any finantial trouble.
Plain and square.

da ThRONe
03-27-2012, 11:19 AM
I don't understand the overwhelming cries for contraction. It sets a dangerous president in a business thats built solely around competiton. No matter how much talent they will always be good and bad teams. With the exception of a few fan base most fans won't consistently support bad teams.

black1605
03-27-2012, 11:27 AM
Contraction makes sense on paper, it just isn't plausible. There would be a million hoops to jump through, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance of a major American sport league contracting a team.

Since I am a Bobcats fan, I will use them as an example. If they were to be moved, or contracted before the year 2030, the arena would be owed hundreds of millions of dollars of restitution. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone, regardless of how much money they have. Not to mention the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed on behalf of the city and various businesses that started based on their proximity to the stadium.

Despite initial opposition to a new arena, it was built and was 100% publicly funded. It would be nearly impossible at this time to strip the city of a team that the tax payers reluctantly payed for.

I know the Bobcats are the first team that most people mention when contraction or relocation is discussed, but that isn't going to happen before 2030 unless a man worth five times what a Mark Cuban type mogul is willing to simply give away hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take for him to acquire the team in the first place.

Long live Bismack Biyombo.

dalton749
03-27-2012, 11:32 AM
ur dumb dont ***** because your player salaries are twice the amount of the small market teams. teams like the lakers attract all of the good free agents and deprive the small markets of talent which is only taking money out of their pockets so if your team wants to have the talent to be competitive every year then your gunna pay for it or not spend as much and have the talent spread out through the other 29 teams in the league. this is pathetic

Ebbs
03-27-2012, 11:47 AM
Contract Bobcats, Hornets boom!

They both blow and are in pretty awful positions moving forward

ghettosean
03-27-2012, 11:56 AM
That's really not that much money in the grand scheme of the NBA.

Also, why do you care if your favorite team's owner doesn't pocket as much money as usual? How does this affect you or the quality of the team on the court?

The bolded especially for the lakers...

The rest is true as well!

black1605
03-27-2012, 11:56 AM
Contract Bobcats, Hornets boom!

They both blow and are in pretty awful positions moving forward

Exhibit A.

tcav701
03-27-2012, 11:59 AM
okay now for the real issues facing the NBA:

1. Free Agents want to play with their friends and in large markets and the former rules made these super teams possible.

2. Small market teams DO NOT make more mistakes than larger market teams. If you dont believe me check the Knicks. However, large market teams can still afford to spend and try to cover up their mistakes while small markets have to have a fire sale to operate in the black.

3. Fans in any market will go to games/buy jerseys if their team is competitive. Does this system truly create an equal playing field for all markets? no.


So what do you do??

I got it!!! Penalize teams that bully the system and hide cash through the former CBA.

This way, large markets cannot flood their teams with talent and spend double what other teams do simply because of their zip code.

In turn, free agents will have to resign or go to teams with huge cap space, generally weaker teams. When more teams are competitive, they will sell more tickets and make more money.

I am so confused that with the success of the NFL and their model why fans cry for a different system. Wait I know, its because the color of your laundry.

Your Lakers have raped the system long enough, deal with it.

ghettosean
03-27-2012, 12:04 PM
Contraction makes sense on paper, it just isn't plausible. There would be a million hoops to jump through, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance of a major American sport league contracting a team.

Since I am a Bobcats fan, I will use them as an example. If they were to be moved, or contracted before the year 2030, the arena would be owed hundreds of millions of dollars of restitution. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone, regardless of how much money they have. Not to mention the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed on behalf of the city and various businesses that started based on their proximity to the stadium.

Despite initial opposition to a new arena, it was built and was 100% publicly funded. It would be nearly impossible at this time to strip the city of a team that the tax payers reluctantly payed for.

I know the Bobcats are the first team that most people mention when contraction or relocation is discussed, but that isn't going to happen before 2030 unless a man worth five times what a Mark Cuban type mogul is willing to simply give away hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take for him to acquire the team in the first place.

Long live Bismack Biyombo.
Also this and very well written and explained sir as to why contraction is so difficult! Ahhhhhh and what the hell...

Long live Bismack Biyombo! LOL

GMEN4EVER
03-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Wow, how selfish can people get? Does anyone here realize that revenue sharing and a real salary cap is what makes the NFL work? Without it, you can't have competitive balance. Mara saw this, and decades ago at the cost of his team's own fortunes he strongly endorsed revenue sharing. The NBA is trying to model themselves after the NFL in this regard. This is progress.

Laker fans need to stop crying and accept the fact that the NBA isn't just about the Lakers. And in the best interest of the league from a competiveness standpoint the teams need to follow the NFL model for how to operate the league. Which also means the guaranteed contracts need to go, but that's a fight for a later CBA negotiation...

Sadds The Gr8
03-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Lakers Knicks Celtics heat bulls. Spurs. The rest can GTFO

:facepalm:

Lakerfrk
03-27-2012, 12:25 PM
You realize this is the same crap as the the 99% stuff... people want the richer people to pay more to cover the people who earn less...

It's simply an american way of thinking... not that I like it or dislike it, but it's the way our country works, why not our sports organizations?

beasted86
03-27-2012, 12:43 PM
I don't get why the NBA doesn't just contract some teams. Isn't that the easiest solution?

They are afraid of the backlash, but it's really what the league needs.

In any other business when one of the individual chain stores is failing, they don't keep it alive for years and years. They cut their losses and move remaining assets to other stores.

For whatever reason the NBA refuses to work like that, just as baseball refuses to work like that.

The Final Boss
03-27-2012, 01:00 PM
I don't get why the NBA doesn't just contract some teams. Isn't that the easiest solution?

Yes they can but then they wouldn't get $100M a season from an intelligently run organization.

sixer04fan
03-27-2012, 01:20 PM
Haha, this is the most biased poll I have ever seen.

OC Knights #11
03-27-2012, 01:25 PM
The league ended when Michael Jordan retired, with Lebron James entering the league with his streetballing, dirtbag cronies;Howard, Wade, Melo, Paul, Williams, Bosh

ghettosean
03-27-2012, 01:48 PM
okay now for the real issues facing the NBA:

1. Free Agents want to play with their friends and in large markets and the former rules made these super teams possible.

2. Small market teams DO NOT make more mistakes than larger market teams. If you dont believe me check the Knicks. However, large market teams can still afford to spend and try to cover up their mistakes while small markets have to have a fire sale to operate in the black.

3. Fans in any market will go to games/buy jerseys if their team is competitive. Does this system truly create an equal playing field for all markets? no.


So what do you do??

I got it!!! Penalize teams that bully the system and hide cash through the former CBA.

This way, large markets cannot flood their teams with talent and spend double what other teams do simply because of their zip code.

In turn, free agents will have to resign or go to teams with huge cap space, generally weaker teams. When more teams are competitive, they will sell more tickets and make more money.

I am so confused that with the success of the NFL and their model why fans cry for a different system. Wait I know, its because the color of your laundry.

Your Lakers have raped the system long enough, deal with it.
This....

And the Lakers voted on the new CBA and pushed for it to be signed while small market owners grudgingly accepted.

Shmontaine
03-27-2012, 01:58 PM
LOL... so the lakers get a 2 BILLION dollar tv deal and then complain that it's not fair to share revenue???

they get 200 million a year from their tv deal... the lakers complaining about money is a joke...

valade16
03-27-2012, 02:09 PM
Yes they can but then they wouldn't get $100M a season from an intelligently run organization.

Do you seriously think that's the only reason the Lakers have enjoyed so much success?

Just curiou to know how deep the delusion actually is.

Ironman5219
03-27-2012, 02:32 PM
Heaven forbid every team competes on an equal playing ground......

Bramaca
03-27-2012, 02:56 PM
I'm not sure what the OP's real point is. The amount the Lakers are going to pay isn't going to hurt how much the team has to spend on players. Even after their payment for revenue sharing they will still have enough for the team to pay more then any other team and still make a profit. It also doesn't hurt the Lakers being a preffered destination for players. There is nothing that ruins or changes the league.

To the people advocating contraction, how would that really benefit the league? There are 14 small market teams, they all vary in revenue (mostly based on how well the team does) but only 4 of them made a profit last year. Contracting any of these teams would only serve to increase the salary and luxry levels putting the remaining ones farther back and in more financial trouble in a couple years. Contract even more and it just increases the cap/tax levels that much more putting the rest of the small market teams into more financial hardship. Not to mention the hit the league would take from pulling out of multiple cities. Contraction would cause more damage to the league then almost anything else.

As for crooners' opinions on the free market fixing everything its not exactly like its all peaches and cream in the euro football world. They have been having major troubles as well. It's just trading one set of problems for another.

Bruno
03-27-2012, 03:14 PM
Revenue sharing is a form of socialism, and league welfare, depending on ones point of view. Gotta be a tough debate for free-market fans of small market teams. As a fan of a big market team, and a fan of the free market, I think its rubbish from two angles.

KB-Pau-DH2012
03-27-2012, 03:24 PM
ur dumb dont ***** because your player salaries are twice the amount of the small market teams. teams like the lakers attract all of the good free agents and deprive the small markets of talent which is only taking money out of their pockets so if your team wants to have the talent to be competitive every year then your gunna pay for it or not spend as much and have the talent spread out through the other 29 teams in the league. this is pathetic

How bout small markets that haven't always had the best players or highest salaries but still managed to win the championship?

How about the Spurs of San Antonio or the Pistons of Detroit?



Why do teams like the Bobcats, Wizards, Raptors, Bucks and the David Stern Hornets still exist.

What have those franchises done of any significance in the last decade?

I remember the Bucks had such a great three of Cassell, RObinson and Allen. WHat did they do?

Bucks send Cassell to Minnesota for Joe Smith, and then trade prime Ray Allen to Seattle for old Gary Payton.

It's these type of dumb moves by small market teams like MIL etc. as to why they never get anywhere.

celtNYpatsHeels
03-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league

ThunderousDemon
03-27-2012, 04:09 PM
You realize this is the same crap as the the 99% stuff... people want the richer people to pay more to cover the people who earn less...

It's simply an american way of thinking... not that I like it or dislike it, but it's the way our country works, why not our sports organizations?

Yeah wanting the corporations who own our government and therefore influence the tax code in their favor is crap and we should just take it, just like when we had to pay the billions of dollars in bailout money to the ****ing banks because they were gambling on derivatives with their investors money. Go back to watching fox news and cnn you lemming

Hellcrooner
03-27-2012, 04:09 PM
Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league

Mua ha ha ha ha hah
Obama is faaaaaaaaaaaaar from being a true socialist.

ThunderousDemon
03-27-2012, 04:13 PM
Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league

lol, straight out of the fox news handbook.

Rockice_8
03-27-2012, 04:32 PM
Wait so now not every player gets to force their way to LA so you mean maybe a competitive balance may come into play? Seems like a good thing, if your not LA or NY.

If you can't afford the new luxury tax then don't pay it and lower your cap, seems simple enough.

As for the revenue sharing who cares honestly. Every team gets equal shares of TV rights and jersey sales blah blah blah it keeps things fair.

The league wants more balance instead of more dynasties and this is a step in the right direction.

Shmontaine
03-27-2012, 04:34 PM
LOL at comparing this to socialism...

the NBA is a company with franchises around the country...

do you think that coca cola doesn't support sprite??

maybe you don't think iphone and ipad sales don't go into the support of the imacs...

Law25
03-27-2012, 04:37 PM
ur dumb dont ***** because your player salaries are twice the amount of the small market teams. teams like the lakers attract all of the good free agents and deprive the small markets of talent which is only taking money out of their pockets so if your team wants to have the talent to be competitive every year then your gunna pay for it or not spend as much and have the talent spread out through the other 29 teams in the league. this is pathetic

No offence but this is crap in so many ways its not even funny.All this talk about the Lakers buying all the leagues top talent is so damn wrong. Other than Shaq name one to tier talent the Lakers bought or stole from other teams in the last um 33 to 34 years. Dont worry I'll wait.............................

Done waiting. Kareem traded, Norm Nixon drafted, Magic Drafted, Rambis drafted,Worthy drafted, Byron Scott draft day trade i believe, Michael Cooper drafted, Vlade Divac drafted, Elden Campbell drafted, Nick Vanexll drafted, Eddy Jones drafted, Kobe draft day trade, Bynum drafted, and Pau traded. Lets look back further shall we. Mikcan Drafted, West drafted, Baylor drafted, and Wilt traded.

Aside from that tell me which Laker on the bench you would consider a top tier roll player since 05 and how do the Lakers have the worst bench in the league this year if their buying the best? I know the Lakers have had alot of success and it may seem ther cheating somehow but when you actually look into it you will find they were and are just ran well. Are you saying that after they draft players and the players turn out great or very good that they shouldnt retain them in free agency? are you saying they should just sell them for cheap to weak teams becuase their ran by idiots? If not than what are you saying?

Law25
03-27-2012, 04:39 PM
Should the Lakers help with revenue sharing yes, but should it be as high as it is i would have to say HELL NOOO!!!

Kevj77
03-27-2012, 04:56 PM
No offence but this is crap in so many ways its not even funny.All this talk about the Lakers buying all the leagues top talent is so damn wrong. Other than Shaq name one to tier talent the Lakers bought or stole from other teams in the last um 33 to 34 years. Dont worry I'll wait.............................

Done waiting. Kareem traded, Norm Nixon drafted, Magic Drafted, Rambis drafted,Worthy drafted, Byron Scott draft day trade i believe, Michael Cooper drafted, Vlade Divac drafted, Elden Campbell drafted, Nick Vanexll drafted, Eddy Jones drafted, Kobe draft day trade, Bynum drafted, and Pau traded. Lets look back further shall we. Mikcan Drafted, West drafted, Baylor drafted, and Wilt traded.

Aside from that tell me which Laker on the bench you would consider a top tier roll player since 05 and how do the Lakers have the worst bench in the league this year if their buying the best? I know the Lakers have had alot of success and it may seem ther cheating somehow but when you actually look into it you will find they were and are just ran well. Are you saying that after they draft players and the players turn out great or very good that they shouldnt retain them in free agency? are you saying they should just sell them for cheap to weak teams becuase their ran by idiots? If not than what are you saying?I tried to point this out time and time again during the lockout. Shaq is the only top talent the Lakers have ever signed in free agency. Most of the free agents the Lakers sign are role players. Artest, Fox, Barnes, Vlad and Blake are the type of free agents LA gets. The MLE type player. Lakers success has come from great drafting and smart trades. They are an extremely well run organization.

The advantage they have as I see it isn't in ripping off other teams top free agents like people claim, it is in being able to afford to keep their own talent. They can afford to pay three players top money. Other teams might only be able to afford two high paid players. It has cost them their depth, it is the reason they have the worst bench in the NBA and before the Sessions trade had to start a PG (Fisher) that wouldn't have started for any other team.

5ass
03-27-2012, 05:06 PM
with the way the OP worded his post it seems like the 80 mill are coming out of his big *** pocket.

5ass
03-27-2012, 05:09 PM
without revenue sharing we would have no season, meaning no revenue at all. Thats the choice the lakers (and other high revenue teams lke NY, chicago ect) were left with.

C_Mund
03-27-2012, 05:45 PM
How bout small markets that haven't always had the best players or highest salaries but still managed to win the championship?

How about the Spurs of San Antonio or the Pistons of Detroit?



Why do teams like the Bobcats, Wizards, Raptors, Bucks and the David Stern Hornets still exist.

What have those franchises done of any significance in the last decade?

I remember the Bucks had such a great three of Cassell, RObinson and Allen. WHat did they do?

Bucks send Cassell to Minnesota for Joe Smith, and then trade prime Ray Allen to Seattle for old Gary Payton.

It's these type of dumb moves by small market teams like MIL etc. as to why they never get anywhere.

I'm not saying this to troll so I really hope I don't come across that way.
But.....try trading in your Gold and Purple for the colors of a small-market team for a couple seasons. After watching scores of big-name free agents book to teams that already have more than enough talent you'll begin to understand what it's like trying to support a bunch of over-paid middle-class players. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as small market success and I'm definitely not saying that big markets don't have savvy businessmen, but in today's NBA there are players colluding and forcing trades while deterring smaller teams to give up talent because they KNOW they have no chance of retaining said players. The longer this happens, the more one-sided the league will be, and the more fans will drop off because we're basically trying to run a team straight up the side of a mountain.

Sactown
03-27-2012, 05:52 PM
They aren't going to contract 350 million dollar assets and growing.. it would hurt publicity, and would be stupid...

Sssmush
03-27-2012, 06:01 PM
Just to clarify a few things.

First off, we gotta look at revenue sharing as something different from salary caps. Hard caps, soft caps, no caps... all of those are systems to level the playing field so that small market teams can compete.

REVENUE SHARING has nothing to do with competitive balance, and is only relevant to the profit margins of team owners in small markets. For some of those owners, it is the salary FLOOR, not the salary ceiling, which they are concerned about, as their teams are in bad markets and their business plans are essentially flawed and untenable. Others, like the Dallas Mavericks, do OK, but see a chance to get extra dollars$$ from big market teams.

Second, NFL revenue sharing, which is commonly held up as the shining example, is based on revenues and gate receipts. Gate receipts are shared across the board, national TV contract, etc etc.

It is a different thing to simply say "you are in Los Angeles, in a big market, and your franchise name is legendary and popular, therefore you will give the rest of us owners $80M a year. Let's vote on it. 26-4 we win. Yayyy!"

Thirdly, what people hollering about unfairness and competitive balance and profitability don't realize, is that this investment bubble, this quagmire of unprofitable teams, was created by NBA profit speculators who jumped into the game to make money and get attention, and may end up ruining the whole league.

1988 - Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets created through expansion.

1989 - Minnesota Timberwolves created through expansion.
1989 - Orlando Magic created through expansion.

1995 - Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies created through expansion.
1995 - Toronto Raptors created through expansion.

2004 - Charlotte Bobcats created through expansion.

OK? Now, first of all, who made the giant commissions off of these $400M lemon sales from the league in the first place? And what happened to all that money?

And why, NOW, is it suddenly the Lakers' responsibility to BAIL OUT these boneheads from their failed sports investments? Why is it the duty of the Lakers to ensure that Joe the dry cleaning mogul, and Pete the quicken loans scam artist, and Bob the Indian casino boss, all make $$$ millions a year off of their lame-o failed and poorly managed NBA investment?

Clearly, if these teams were marketed correctly and run correctly by people with a passion for basketball, they'd be profitable. And if not, then what the hell were they thinking!??!? And again why is it the Lakers' fault!?!?

Now, the local TV contract, sure, of course the other teams deserve some revenue sharing from that. That's a good point. The Lakers don't play in a vacuum, they play against other NBA teams. But $80M a year??? Just in revenue sharing?

And actually, all these owners know damn well that the Lakers are a HUGE money draw for them. Half of them put pictures of Kobe Bryant in their hometown ads for season ticket sales!! So... maybe the Lakers deserve a little love, maybe a bit of "revenue sharing" coming back our way once in a while, instead of us always paying out the nose, and then having owners vetoing deals on us and creating new "Laker rules" to trip us up and then complaining that if the Lakers shed salary they won't pay enough luxury tax and that comes out of their pocket (as Marc Cuban did).

I agree the teams can't be contracted. Someone would have to pay the bill one way or the other, and then all the lawsuits come. Probably, we could say that whoever bought those teams always had a giant lawsuit against the NBA as their "plan B" business model. So, yeah, **** them. The best solution would be, just let them sink or swim. If they can't turn a profit, then eventually they will sign the team back over to the league at a loss, and the league can contract it, and deal with a few lawsuits from the surrounding hot dog vendors or whatever.

Sactown
03-27-2012, 06:17 PM
To contract 4 teams would probably coast somewhere in the 2 billion dollar range.. Who's planning on footing that bill? Plus you'd piss of a lot of cities.

C_Mund
03-27-2012, 06:20 PM
No offence but this is crap in so many ways its not even funny.All this talk about the Lakers buying all the leagues top talent is so damn wrong. Other than Shaq name one to tier talent the Lakers bought or stole from other teams in the last um 33 to 34 years. Dont worry I'll wait.............................

Done waiting. Kareem traded, Norm Nixon drafted, Magic Drafted, Rambis drafted,Worthy drafted, Byron Scott draft day trade i believe, Michael Cooper drafted, Vlade Divac drafted, Elden Campbell drafted, Nick Vanexll drafted, Eddy Jones drafted, Kobe draft day trade, Bynum drafted, and Pau traded. Lets look back further shall we. Mikcan Drafted, West drafted, Baylor drafted, and Wilt traded.

Aside from that tell me which Laker on the bench you would consider a top tier roll player since 05 and how do the Lakers have the worst bench in the league this year if their buying the best? I know the Lakers have had alot of success and it may seem ther cheating somehow but when you actually look into it you will find they were and are just ran well. Are you saying that after they draft players and the players turn out great or very good that they shouldnt retain them in free agency? are you saying they should just sell them for cheap to weak teams becuase their ran by idiots? If not than what are you saying?

All of these are good points that cannot be totally discounted....but just to show you the other side of the coin, our Raptors......
BJ Armstrong- First pick in expansion draft, refused to report
Damon Stoudemire, Drafted, forced trade to Blazers for Kenny Anderson, who refused to report
Marcus Camby, forced trade
T-Mac, Bolted at first chance even though his and team's future were looking good
Vince- Forced trade
Mourning- Traded to Toronto, refused to report

....add those to the list of over-paid free agents (Turkoglu, Jason Kapono, etc..) and you might begin to understand that not all teams deserve the rosters they end up with, and it goes both ways. Honestly we in Raptor land would have been ecstatic to pick up a Ron Artest, even at that stage in his career but he more than likely wouldn't have come to Toronto for less than ten million a season.

Sssmush
03-27-2012, 06:40 PM
All of these are good points that cannot be totally discounted....but just to show you the other side of the coin, our Raptors......
BJ Armstrong- First pick in expansion draft, refused to report
Damon Stoudemire, Drafted, forced trade to Blazers for Kenny Anderson, who refused to report
Marcus Camby, forced trade
T-Mac, Bolted at first chance even though his and team's future were looking good
Vince- Forced trade
Mourning- Traded to Toronto, refused to report

....add those to the list of over-paid free agents (Turkoglu, Jason Kapono, etc..) and you might begin to understand that not all teams deserve the rosters they end up with, and it goes both ways. Honestly we in Raptor land would have been ecstatic to pick up a Ron Artest, even at that stage in his career but he more than likely wouldn't have come to Toronto for less than ten million a season.

Here is my prescription: Go watch the movie Moneyball 3 times. And then open your eyes and realize that there are HUNDREDS of players who want to make it in the NBA and would do ANYTHING for a roster spot on the Toronto Raptors.

Seriously, players like Ron Artest are so overrated. They are like names on the back of shirts, attached to 260 lb headcases who can't shoot.

And if any players don't want to come to Toronto (probably because of the huge income tax) then get them waivers so they pay only US income tax, or give them lifetime dual citizenship, or make it worth their while somehow.

Why should players be willing to pay out an extra $1M - $2M a year just for the privilege of playing in Toronto if they don't have to?

Also, introduce them to some Montreal hookers and models, and I'm pretty sure they will want to stay.

Kevj77
03-27-2012, 06:42 PM
C Mund you're right it is the other side of the coin. It isn't something that revenue sharing and a lower cap can ever cure completely. Players want to play certain places. Big cities, warm weather, states with no income tax and contenders. Players don't force their way out of LA I understand that is a very real advantage. Other teams have to overpay to get free agents or players demand trades.

I just get tired of the Lakers steal other teams talent arguement. It's not true, but they don't lose talent they want to keep either and that is their advantage.

As for revenue sharing I think it is needed the question is how much is fair. I think 50 million is a bit extreme. Dr. Buss earned that TV deal by constantly fielding a winner, otherwise why don't the Clippers have the same deal. They play in the same city and arena.

Sssmush
03-28-2012, 05:41 AM
C Mund you're right it is the other side of the coin. It isn't something that revenue sharing and a lower cap can ever cure completely. Players want to play certain places. Big cities, warm weather, states with no income tax and contenders. Players don't force their way out of LA I understand that is a very real advantage. Other teams have to overpay to get free agents or players demand trades.

I just get tired of the Lakers steal other teams talent arguement. It's not true, but they don't lose talent they want to keep either and that is their advantage.

As for revenue sharing I think it is needed the question is how much is fair. I think 50 million is a bit extreme. Dr. Buss earned that TV deal by constantly fielding a winner, otherwise why don't the Clippers have the same deal. They play in the same city and arena.

Yeah, the NBA talent argument is clearly off-base. The top teams and coaches have proven over and over that it's how you develop talent that matters.

And a lot of the "attraction" that the Lakers have over other teams is that they know how to respect their players and be real with them. Lakers give respect and Lakers get respect. Players know the Lakers are for real. And players that the Lakers choose to develop turn out far better than they would do on another team.

Think about all the talent that goes through a lot of those small market teams, teams like the Clippers that only have downtown LA, LA county, Orange County, and San Bernadino county for a market, or teams like Indiana that only have the entire state of Indiana and the surrounding states for a market, teams that get one or two or sometimes THREE lottery picks every season. Year after year after year of all Americans and top draft picks... and the players always underachieve and the teams usually always suck, unless the team becomes so loaded with lottery picks that they just make the playoffs despite themselves, before the players start to leave as soon as they can, errrrr good teams like the Lakers/Bulls/Heat/Spurs/Sixers/Boston "steal" them.

Sssmush
03-28-2012, 06:11 AM
Literally, think about how crazy they go for college hoops in Indiana, the tickets are like as hot as tickets for the Green Bay Packers, yet the Indiana Pacers are dwindling away, with a "small market", even though they're the only pro basketball team for like a thousand square miles, in an area that is totally basketball crazed. They have Larry Bird for a GM and they still have no tradition, and, I guess, no fanbase, if they can't even meet minimal operating costs without millions in losses. This can't just all be a big coincidence or conspiracy. What player did LA ever steal from Indiana?

ghettosean
03-28-2012, 07:02 AM
Literally, think about how crazy they go for college hoops in Indiana, the tickets are like as hot as tickets for the Green Bay Packers, yet the Indiana Pacers are dwindling away, with a "small market", even though they're the only pro basketball team for like a thousand square miles, in an area that is totally basketball crazed. They have Larry Bird for a GM and they still have no tradition, and, I guess, no fanbase, if they can't even meet minimal operating costs without millions in losses. This can't just all be a big coincidence or conspiracy. What player did LA ever steal from Indiana?
Ummmmmmmmm there's player on your team called Metta World Peace who destroyed that franchise for quite sometime now. Your example is pretty bad considering that he was in the biggest Brawl in NBA history. That hurt the franchise big time and Bird had to dismantle the entire team and rebuild from scratch after he assembled a squad that could compete for a title.

Not sure what that has to do with anything are you going to point out each and every franchise until you go see out of the 30 teams we didn't get anyone from here smh!

Try harder to make your point...

ghettosean
03-28-2012, 07:17 AM
Yeah, the NBA talent argument is clearly off-base. The top teams and coaches have proven over and over that it's how you develop talent that matters.

And a lot of the "attraction" that the Lakers have over other teams is that they know how to respect their players and be real with them. Lakers give respect and Lakers get respect. Players know the Lakers are for real. And players that the Lakers choose to develop turn out far better than they would do on another team.

Think about all the talent that goes through a lot of those small market teams, teams like the Clippers that only have downtown LA, LA county, Orange County, and San Bernadino county for a market, or teams like Indiana that only have the entire state of Indiana and the surrounding states for a market, teams that get one or two or sometimes THREE lottery picks every season. Year after year after year of all Americans and top draft picks... and the players always underachieve and the teams usually always suck, unless the team becomes so loaded with lottery picks that they just make the playoffs despite themselves, before the players start to leave as soon as they can, errrrr good teams like the Lakers/Bulls/Heat/Spurs/Sixers/Boston "steal" them.
I can't believe you are talking about the Lakers respecting players....

Are you talking about the same team that this season alone:

1. Hired Mike Brown without consulting there superstar who got them 5 rings
2. Traded Lamar Odom without a 2nd thought (even if he did request the trade he obviously didn't want to go and they shoved him out the door as quickly as possible to save some cash).
3. Drove Pau Gasol absolutely nuts not confirming if he would be traded or not (basically ignoring him)
4. Pissed off there whole team to the point where they had to have team meetings to form a mutany against front office

Are you talking about that type of respect?!? That's just this year!!!! Also when you say they show that they are forreal did you think that when they gave up Lamar for a bag of peanuts cause I didn't see the return they got for him.

This is so hilarious that you think other organizations treat there players like dirt and that is why they don't want to stay. It's far beyond what you are trying to get at but I'm sure HOLLYWOOD had nothing to do with the attraction to the Lakers and the advantage to steal away players and also living it up with movie stars, singers and other celebs but the most important thing is $$$.

Money talks bro and honestly all the owners in the NBA signed this agreement including Buss (he was the actual one pushing for this to get done from the begininng which shows he makes so much dough he doesn't give 2 ***** about the money he is giving back to teams in the CBA. I'm glad the players have it clear and share the revenue money freely amongst each other instead of thinking of battling each other in the way you are talking.

How sad would that be for that group because what you are proposing would be sad for the NBA!

tcav701
03-28-2012, 08:14 AM
Did you Laker fans ever think that one day you would sound exactly like Yankee fans?

celtNYpatsHeels
03-28-2012, 12:53 PM
LOL at comparing this to socialism...

the NBA is a company with franchises around the country...

do you think that coca cola doesn't support sprite??

maybe you don't think iphone and ipad sales don't go into the support of the imacs...

Well yes, but Coke owns Sprite. The NBA doesnt own any franchises except the Hornets. Its a different situation.

celtNYpatsHeels
03-28-2012, 12:55 PM
lol, straight out of the fox news handbook.

then you must write for the New York Times??? or maybe the Huffington Post?

Monta is beast
03-28-2012, 03:15 PM
I think you meant save the league.

JWO35
03-28-2012, 04:21 PM
As we know?
I know it as a terrible one-sided talent league where only about 4 Teams have a realistic chance to win a title while the other 26 sit on the sidelines....

Sssmush
03-28-2012, 08:12 PM
As we know?
I know it as a terrible one-sided talent league where only about 4 Teams have a realistic chance to win a title while the other 26 sit on the sidelines....

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Look around the league. Where are all the top draft picks and college superstars, the #1 picks and all, where are they located? What teams are they on?

NOT the Lakers, is where they're located.

How can teams continue to whine and make excuses about not having talent, meanwhile they are literally tanking games in a race to the bottom to get the #1 pick and get even MORE talent then they already have.

Basketball is a team sport. I still say it is laughable that Indiana thinks it is a small market, when it is smack in the middle of basketballville USA, and probably has a potential fan base in the 10s or millions.

One poster said that it was all Ron Artest's fault, that the Pacers team had to be torn down and rebuilt three times because of the brawl in Detroit. What a joke.

Artest throws a soda at some drunken bully in the stands, and the whole state of Indiana suddenly decides that the Pacers are just "too black" for their taste, so they rebuild it with Austin Croshere, Scot Pollard, Peja Stoyacovich, Sarunas Jaskevicious and Jeff Foster.

Of course the team still sucks, because, hey, no coach, no system, no tradition, etc, but now you've given it the Mayberry makeover and the fans are still on strike, as a wave of xtian conservatism sweeps Indiana or whatever. The team doesn't market correctly to the fans, and becomes even less profitable.

And... this is all the Lakers problem that they should pay for... exactly why now??

$80 million dollars? A year?

Jeebus, we will give you some money and keep you afloat, but at least try to do your part and develop a strong franchise with tradition. If the used car salesmen coaching your team suck, then bring in some ex-players or try something new. Bring in a moneyball stats expert. I know they are out there and they are looking to get into the game. I bet Indiana has the same scouts it did 20 years ago.

ghettosean
03-28-2012, 10:07 PM
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Look around the league. Where are all the top draft picks and college superstars, the #1 picks and all, where are they located? What teams are they on?

NOT the Lakers, is where they're located.

How can teams continue to whine and make excuses about not having talent, meanwhile they are literally tanking games in a race to the bottom to get the #1 pick and get even MORE talent then they already have.

Basketball is a team sport. I still say it is laughable that Indiana thinks it is a small market, when it is smack in the middle of basketballville USA, and probably has a potential fan base in the 10s or millions.

One poster said that it was all Ron Artest's fault, that the Pacers team had to be torn down and rebuilt three times because of the brawl in Detroit. What a joke.

Artest throws a soda at some drunken bully in the stands, and the whole state of Indiana suddenly decides that the Pacers are just "too black" for their taste, so they rebuild it with Austin Croshere, Scot Pollard, Peja Stoyacovich, Sarunas Jaskevicious and Jeff Foster.

Of course the team still sucks, because, hey, no coach, no system, no tradition, etc, but now you've given it the Mayberry makeover and the fans are still on strike, as a wave of xtian conservatism sweeps Indiana or whatever. The team doesn't market correctly to the fans, and becomes even less profitable.

And... this is all the Lakers problem that they should pay for... exactly why now??

$80 million dollars? A year?

Jeebus, we will give you some money and keep you afloat, but at least try to do your part and develop a strong franchise with tradition. If the used car salesmen coaching your team suck, then bring in some ex-players or try something new. Bring in a moneyball stats expert. I know they are out there and they are looking to get into the game. I bet Indiana has the same scouts it did 20 years ago.

Wow you don't base much of what you say on fact but more on keen sentences... I'll try and break this down as simple as I can for you:


Lets say there are 2 franchises (lets use Indy since your so keen on using them for your examples and the lakers) making money off tickets sales and all other marketable items and then have one of those 2 franchises having a huge cash advantage by getting a $3,000,000,000 cable deal cause that will erase any mistakes away that the Lakers make where other teams do not have this enormous advantage that you refuse to discuss (hence small market and big market... Hope the 3 BILLION is helping you out thus far)...

That's beyond an enormous advantage I'm not sure what to call it and why the hell does the Lakers deserve all that money they are playing other teams in the NBA on TV are they not? They are choosing to be part of this league Buss signed and was pushing to get this deal done because of one thing so he doesn't loss money on his Cable deal. If fans loss interest if the season was cancelled (almost sounds like you would have wanted) and they had to wait a year that costs Buss's pocket book revenue sharing or not.

It's clear you are being narrow minded on this subject and act as if the Lakers are the only team on the floor when playing basketball but sorry they are playing against other teams in this league and they deserve a cut of that deal. Revenue sharing is mainly based on these type of large cable contracts. You keep poking fun at Indy but if they got a 3 BILLION dollar deal and got to keep every penny as you so selfishly mention I bet they would be sitting pretty too.

Since most of the people on here know better Buss voted and agreed to the terms in the CBA, Buss pushed for it to get done quickly to salvage the season to avoid losing interest and ratings, Buss is making money and you are crying because of the agreement he came to. If you want to blame anyone blame him he signed it!

Fact of the matter is if you don't like what Buss did and agreed to regarding revenue sharing maybe you should just keep your team in LA permanently and have them play scrimmages against each other on National TV instead of playing a different team in the NBA every night.

There are other teams in this league that you are playing on national TV it's not all about you... Those teams get there dues to suck it up cause the NBA not just about you and the Lakers :facepalm:

What happened to your other point before I liked where it was going it made so much sense



Originally Posted by Sssmush

a lot of the "attraction" that the Lakers have over other teams is that they know how to respect their players and be real with them. Lakers give respect and Lakers get respect. Players know the Lakers are for real.


I was hoping you would discredit my comments in my last post on that because you were making so much sense :D

Sssmush
03-29-2012, 05:27 AM
Wow you don't base much of what you say on fact but more on keen sentences... I'll try and break this down as simple as I can for you:


Lets say there are 2 franchises (lets use Indy since your so keen on using them for your examples and the lakers) making money off tickets sales and all other marketable items and then have one of those 2 franchises having a huge cash advantage by getting a $3,000,000,000 cable deal cause that will erase any mistakes away that the Lakers make where other teams do not have this enormous advantage that you refuse to discuss (hence small market and big market... Hope the 3 BILLION is helping you out thus far)...

That's beyond an enormous advantage I'm not sure what to call it and why the hell does the Lakers deserve all that money they are playing other teams in the NBA on TV are they not? They are choosing to be part of this league Buss signed and was pushing to get this deal done because of one thing so he doesn't loss money on his Cable deal. If fans loss interest if the season was cancelled (almost sounds like you would have wanted) and they had to wait a year that costs Buss's pocket book revenue sharing or not.

It's clear you are being narrow minded on this subject and act as if the Lakers are the only team on the floor when playing basketball but sorry they are playing against other teams in this league and they deserve a cut of that deal. Revenue sharing is mainly based on these type of large cable contracts. You keep poking fun at Indy but if they got a 3 BILLION dollar deal and got to keep every penny as you so selfishly mention I bet they would be sitting pretty too.

Since most of the people on here know better Buss voted and agreed to the terms in the CBA, Buss pushed for it to get done quickly to salvage the season to avoid losing interest and ratings, Buss is making money and you are crying because of the agreement he came to. If you want to blame anyone blame him he signed it!

Fact of the matter is if you don't like what Buss did and agreed to regarding revenue sharing maybe you should just keep your team in LA permanently and have them play scrimmages against each other on National TV instead of playing a different team in the NBA every night.

There are other teams in this league that you are playing on national TV it's not all about you... Those teams get there dues to suck it up cause the NBA not just about you and the Lakers :facepalm:

What happened to your other point before I liked where it was going it made so much sense



I was hoping you would discredit my comments in my last post on that because you were making so much sense :D

Of course the Lakers had to vote to end the strike, otherwise these other teams/owners that you're talking about were willing to trash the entire league. They were willing to just let it all go down in flames, so that next year they could stick it to the players with a hard cap deal, so they could all sell out , sell their teams to foreign investors, and bail from basketball, because all they care about is $$$.

Why do the Lakers deserve it? Lakers have been in LA cultivating their market and building their fanbase for decades. Lakers were heart and soul basketball, even when it wasn't a big Nike/Adidas David Stern profit-fest. Every team has a "fanbase", just most of the teams the fanbase doesn't give a crap about them.

Right? Why don't the Clippers get a $3 billion cable deal? They're in LA, they got a big market. Just like Indiana has the entire state of Indiana for a market, as well as probably North Kentucky.

Indiana has a population of 6.5 million. Los Angeles has a population of 9.5 million. Do you think that extra 3 million people is the difference between one team making $100 million in profit a year, and the other losing $10 million every year? Really? What about the Clippers?

Anyways, the Lakers DO respect their players. Their is a deep culture of equality, progressiveness and colorblind respect and humanity that surrounds the Los Angeles Lakers, which is one of the big reasons they are so beloved here. It runs deep, and the basketball culture here is incredibly rich, and is THE major reason why the Lakers are winners and develop players so well.

ldawg
03-29-2012, 08:05 AM
Its suck that they punish well run teams in favor of cheap or Badly run teams. It well drag historic well run teams to sorry teams level. Its no wonder the NBA is becoming even more boring. At least there were a few teams and match up worth watching. Now they will all suck with one good player and a bunch of d league level players. Cost of living, tax, weather, market, fan base, owner etc are a few factors why players like certain teams and that will not change. What they need to do is cut back on the amount of teams i think, the talent level in the nba is watered down to many raw players that can just jump high. If they contract they can still play games in those states ex Miami and Spurs can host a game in Charlotte. I dont know the answer but to punish a team is crazy. Not many knew Lin until he went New York, Sessions to La so you cant say big markets do not make a huge difference they have a much larger fan base. If you make those teams boring it wont make Bobcats more appealing to fans all it does is make the game overall more boring. The Players may not like this but I like player movement it add to the game. That is why draft night trades and trade deadline draws interest you want to know how x player will fit and help your team.

TubbyBucket
03-29-2012, 10:59 AM
Well yes, but Coke owns Sprite. The NBA doesnt own any franchises except the Hornets. Its a different situation.


Revenue sharing is a form of socialism, and league welfare, depending on ones point of view.



"Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league"]Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league.

:facepalm: Socialism by definition can't be used to describe a private corporation. This thread just serves as another reminder of how socialism and capitalism has lost all meaning in our political discourse.


Gotta be a tough debate for free-market fans of small market teams. As a fan of a big market team, and a fan of the free market, I think its rubbish from two angles.

Any deal which doesn't involve the government is a free market transaction. Just mind boggling how people don't even understand basic concepts, dear lord...

Edit: Also, people who think Obama is a socialist should not vote. Seriously.

TubbyBucket
03-29-2012, 11:02 AM
And if the OP is so upset, take it up with the Buss family.

Vinylman
03-29-2012, 11:31 AM
Players wanted revenue sharing more than a hard cap from my understanding.

Have a hard cap and there wouldn't be much of an issue money wise from teams IMO.

The players want revenue sharing because it creates more jobs...

IF there was no revenue sharing the league would naturally contract by 4-5 teams... thats 60-75 jobs

and when did the players ever want a hard cap? all a hard cap does is depress wages... players want the wild wild west of the past CBA

Vinylman
03-29-2012, 11:47 AM
Contraction makes sense on paper, it just isn't plausible. There would be a million hoops to jump through, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance of a major American sport league contracting a team.

Since I am a Bobcats fan, I will use them as an example. If they were to be moved, or contracted before the year 2030, the arena would be owed hundreds of millions of dollars of restitution. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone, regardless of how much money they have. Not to mention the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed on behalf of the city and various businesses that started based on their proximity to the stadium.

Despite initial opposition to a new arena, it was built and was 100% publicly funded. It would be nearly impossible at this time to strip the city of a team that the tax payers reluctantly payed for.

I know the Bobcats are the first team that most people mention when contraction or relocation is discussed, but that isn't going to happen before 2030 unless a man worth five times what a Mark Cuban type mogul is willing to simply give away hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take for him to acquire the team in the first place.

Long live Bismack Biyombo.

wow... so much wrong here...

lawsuits from businesses surrounding the stadium? Are you kidding me?

Lets not talk about the bobcats for a minute... the NBA took over a **** franchise called the NO Hornets... why? because they couldn't pay there bills... what usually happens to businesses that can't pay their bills? oh yeah they go bankrupt... what rights do municipalities have if a business goes bankrupt? pretty much nothing unless they are somehow a secured creditor...

Letting the NO hornets go bankrupt and fold would not have cost the league anything from a monetary standpoint... maybe a couple of bad PR hits but realistically nothing financially...

Unfortunately, we will never see contraction because owners went in the exact opposite direction in the new cba than what was needed to make **** owners and **** teams competitive... the raised LT penalties and significantly increased revenue sharing... all that does is encourage the **** teams to tank even more to get draft picks because there is no monetary consequences related to putting a **** product on the floor... then they hope they can cobble together some young players and look promising... all this so that the owner who has totally mismanaged the team can flip the team to another rich bored white guy and make multiple millions of Dollars while never accomplishing anything...

the nba... where rich bored white guys go to make millions while doing nothing...

its fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The goods
03-29-2012, 12:22 PM
This is what happens when you have people that can't run a team or manage it its not all small market teams look at the spurs they've been contenders for as long as I can remember smart owning and smart drafting,and OKC smart drafting and signings no matter if its a big market or small market you have to know what your doing,but now the smart teams have to cover up for stupid teams mistakes is straight B.S.

llemon
03-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Buss should sell the Lakers

Illa215
03-29-2012, 06:34 PM
Maybe if the league still had any parity, then people would watch.

What's the point for us fans to pay money to see a team that has zero chance to win? There is six teams in the league who have a reason to even play. It's a league of 6 super teams and no defense.

Who gives a ****, though? I'mat the point where I won't miss the league when it's gone.

Sssmush
03-29-2012, 08:00 PM
:facepalm: Socialism by definition can't be used to describe a private corporation. This thread just serves as another reminder of how socialism and capitalism has lost all meaning in our political discourse.

Any deal which doesn't involve the government is a free market transaction. Just mind boggling how people don't even understand basic concepts, dear lord...


Firstly, the big Republican push has been to uphold the definition of corporations as people. See also: Romney's famous quote "corporations are people too."

If corporations are "people", or virtual people, then the concepts of socialism apply to them in a similar manner. What is sometimes snarkily referred to as "corporate socialism" aka "crony capitalism" is when the taxpayers foot the bill for the risks and inevitable losses of the big corporations, as well as extra funding, enticements and tax breaks for those corporations, "corporate welfare" as it is also called. The real corruption comes in when 100% of the profits go to the corporations and their political buddies.

The socialism or collectivism that we are seeing within the NBA is of course not GOVERNMENT socialism, and, I should mention, I do not think that socialism per se is a bad thing, in moderation. I never said that socialism was a bad word. I believe I used the term "stalinist communism" or "mussolini-style fascist crony capitalism".

Anyway, the point being that even though the government isn't involved in this, the NBA is itself a governing body, a "government" of sorts, led by an elected or appointed leader (Stern) with major decisions and charters being voted on Democratically. As a Democracy, it suffers from that systems fatal flaw, which is that the majority are free to easily just vote for their own selfish short term interests without any consideration of the long term health of the system or group overall.

So, in the NBA's mini-democracy of 30 franchises, if 26 of the teams vote to in essence abolish personal property, and make the profits of one team the profits of all, and to pool all of the revenues and distribute them equally, overseen by a central authority (the league office) that is in effect a form of communism. It is also corrupt, because it infringes on rights that teams like the Lakers have had and earned for many decades, in order to line the pockets of bubble investors who bought expansion teams like Charlotte at a huge premium, in order to cash in on the NBA craze, only to start hemorraging money, and then frantically create a Tea-Party style alliance with all the other losing owners to try to extort revenues from the winning teams. ($80M a year from the Lakers)

Sssmush
03-29-2012, 08:12 PM
all that does is encourage the **** teams to tank even more to get draft picks because there is no monetary consequences related to putting a **** product on the floor...

This is a really strong point. If all the revenue is eventually shared equally, if the Lakers make 1/30th of league revenue, and Charlotte also makes 1/30th of league revenue, no matter who does all the heavy lifting and who brings in value and quality to the league, then all the financial incentive of being a "hit" and a "winner" are over with, and since the revenue distribution is the same either way, the worst teams will try to spend the minimum possible, so they can pay off the massive mortgages on their franchises as quickly as possible and sell them.

Essentially what we're seeing is a 10 year liquidation plan from the small market owners. The league would probably contract them, but the cost would be far too high, and since the league is a democracy, they were able to force the current changes before they just went bankrupt.

Actually, if there were no salary floor as well as no salary cap AND just reasonable TV based revenue sharing, every team would be free to be as profitable as it would like to be.

The salary floor comes in because in negotiating with the players to limit player and team salaries, as a give-back they have to set a MINIMUM salary, and that is what's breaking some small market teams.

If they just tore up the whole CBA and went free market with it, things would balance themselves out.

gbrl
03-29-2012, 11:33 PM
Of course the Lakers had to vote to end the strike, otherwise these other teams/owners that you're talking about were willing to trash the entire league. They were willing to just let it all go down in flames, so that next year they could stick it to the players with a hard cap deal, so they could all sell out , sell their teams to foreign investors, and bail from basketball, because all they care about is $$$.

Why do the Lakers deserve it? Lakers have been in LA cultivating their market and building their fanbase for decades. Lakers were heart and soul basketball, even when it wasn't a big Nike/Adidas David Stern profit-fest. Every team has a "fanbase", just most of the teams the fanbase doesn't give a crap about them.

Right? Why don't the Clippers get a $3 billion cable deal? They're in LA, they got a big market. Just like Indiana has the entire state of Indiana for a market, as well as probably North Kentucky.

Indiana has a population of 6.5 million. Los Angeles has a population of 9.5 million. Do you think that extra 3 million people is the difference between one team making $100 million in profit a year, and the other losing $10 million every year? Really? What about the Clippers?

Anyways, the Lakers DO respect their players. Their is a deep culture of equality, progressiveness and colorblind respect and humanity that surrounds the Los Angeles Lakers, which is one of the big reasons they are so beloved here. It runs deep, and the basketball culture here is incredibly rich, and is THE major reason why the Lakers are winners and develop players so well.

i find this part especially amusing. you are crediting everyone in indiana and near states as pacer fans but limiting the lakers to los angeles

you really cant comprehend how la is a bigger market than indiana?

gbrl
03-29-2012, 11:39 PM
That's really not that much money in the grand scheme of the NBA.

Also, why do you care if your favorite team's owner doesn't pocket as much money as usual? How does this affect you or the quality of the team on the court?

this

utl768
03-30-2012, 02:25 AM
its all because people like dan gilbert cried wolf

TubbyBucket
03-30-2012, 02:26 AM
Smush, please stop rambling. All organizations use governance. Corporations, schools, chess clubs. That does not make them a state. Let me repeat: your grievances with the NBA has nothing to do with "crony capitalism," "corporate socialism," or "corporate personhood." When economists use terms like socialism and free market, they're referring to a specific definition. You don't get to redefine those terms.

Sssmush
03-30-2012, 05:19 AM
Smush, please stop rambling. All organizations use governance. Corporations, schools, chess clubs. That does not make them a state. Let me repeat: your grievances with the NBA has nothing to do with "crony capitalism," "corporate socialism," or "corporate personhood." When economists use terms like socialism and free market, they're referring to a specific definition. You don't get to redefine those terms.

Again, I said communism, not socialism.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. (Dictionary.com)

While it should be clear that I wasn't LITERALLY saying that the NBA is a communist organization, I'm sure you can see the analogy between what is happening in the NBA and communism. If you can't, then good day sir, sorry to have troubled you.

So, let's say Sally works as a waitress, and she's really hot, and gets lots of tips, so she makes $1,000 a week. The rest of the waiters are fat dudes, who don't always remember to shower, get the orders wrong a lot, and don't get along with customers so well. They get less tips, even when they work more hours, and so they make about $500 a week.

There are 7 fat dude waiters, and one hot-chick waitress. They hold a vote, and decide that all the tips should be combined, and everybody will get an equal share. Now, everybody makes $562 a week.

Teams like the Lakers and the Knicks are low hanging fruit. MJ in Charlotte says "We're losing $10M a year, we can't make a good draft pick, and our franchise value is dropping like a rock! Stern promised us we'd triple our money! Oooooh, wait a minute, look, the Lakers are making some money. Let's create a big lockout, and threaten to destroy the entire league, and force them in to an agreement to share ALL the profits equally among all the teams."

Right?

The league salary floor is in the $40M range.

If the top 6 teams all pay $80M in revenue sharing, that is $480M dollars in revenue sharing (not counting luxury tax revenues, of course, which are separate).

If the NBA teams in the 16 smallest markets divvy up that money, that equals $30M per team.

That means that those teams can field a minimum NBA roster at a costs of only $10M a year, MINUS luxury tax revenues. And, since they will probably tank games and have a lot of 1st pick rookies on their teams, they will get a lot more bang for the buck, because rookies cost less. Then, factor in the share of the national TV revenue and merchandising sales that those teams will get, etc etc etc, etc etc etc,

and, long story short, MJ and "Bird" will have enough extra money to make a few more really stupid player signings, to long, overpriced contracts, and be able to sell off their teams, or move them to more profitable cities, when the next highest bidder comes along.

etc etc you're welcome

valade16
03-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Indiana has a population of 6.5 million. Los Angeles has a population of 9.5 million. Do you think that extra 3 million people is the difference between one team making $100 million in profit a year, and the other losing $10 million every year? Really? What about the Clippers?

Comparing an entire state to one city in the most populous State in the Union... classy.

Let's look at the real numbers however.

Indiana has 6.5 million people, of which 1.7 million live in the Indianapolis metro area.

The LA Metro area is 12.8 milion people. So LA actually has 10.1 million more people than Indianapolis and 6.3 million more people than the entire state of Indiana.

But were not done yet. The Riverside Metro Area has 4.2 million people and the San Diego Metro Area has 3.1 million people. Meaning there are 20.1 million people in and around LA.

That is 13.6 million more peole than the entire state of Indiana. So yes, having 3 times as many people can easily explain why the Lakers are so profitable and the Pacers aren't.

Sssmush
03-30-2012, 06:39 PM
Comparing an entire state to one city in the most populous State in the Union... classy.

Let's look at the real numbers however.

Indiana has 6.5 million people, of which 1.7 million live in the Indianapolis metro area.

The LA Metro area is 12.8 milion people. So LA actually has 10.1 million more people than Indianapolis and 6.3 million more people than the entire state of Indiana.

But were not done yet. The Riverside Metro Area has 4.2 million people and the San Diego Metro Area has 3.1 million people. Meaning there are 20.1 million people in and around LA.

That is 13.6 million more peole than the entire state of Indiana. So yes, having 3 times as many people can easily explain why the Lakers are so profitable and the Pacers aren't.

Well, the capacity of Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indiana is 17,000, and it wouldn't seem to be too unrealistic that the Pacers might be able to sellout 41 home games there, with the Indianapolis population being appx 2 million, and the population of the surrounding areas of Indiana--actually not all that much larger than the LA Metro area combined the Riverside Metro area-- being 6.5 million.

By contrast, Lambeau Field, where the Packers play, has a capacity of 73,000, and is perennially sold out, and the Packers are highly profitable--a SOURCE of revenue for the league, not a drain on its profitability.

Also, since Indiana is far more culturally monochromatic and cohesive than the LA area is (which contains vast multicultural populations, many of them with no interest whatsoever in basketball) and, as I mentioned before, Indiana is traditionally basketball crazy, has only one NBA franchise (not 4 like California) and also there are far less forms of entertainment in Indiana in general. Also, if we are talking about television market, it would seem that the entire Indiana cable market, not just Indianapolis, should be taken into account, since they only have one team and because the state is so culturally cohesive, and even fans who live several hundred miles from Indianapolis would be just as interested to watch their teams on TV.

But, yeah, sure. Ok. LA has 10 million people, so... the Lakers should have to give $80M to the Pacers, Bobcats, etc. Ok. What about the Clippers? They also have the exact same local population, and even play in the exact same stadium. Should they also donate $80M a year to help support the league's expansion teams and unprofitable/poorly run franchises?

valade16
03-30-2012, 06:50 PM
Well, the capacity of Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indiana is 17,000, and it wouldn't seem to be too unrealistic that the Pacers might be able to sellout 41 home games there, with the Indianapolis population being appx 2 million, and the population of the surrounding areas of Indiana--actually not all that much larger than the LA Metro area combined the Riverside Metro area-- being 6.5 million.

Also, since Indiana is far more culturally monochromatic and cohesive than the LA area is (which contains vast multicultural populations, many of them with no interest whatsoever in basketball) and, as I mentioned before, Indiana is traditionally basketball crazy, has only one NBA franchise (not 4 like California) and also there are far less forms of entertainment in Indiana in general. Also, if we are talking about television market, it would seem that the entire Indiana cable market, not just Indianapolis, should be taken into account, since they only have one team and because the state is so culturally cohesive, and even fans who live several hundred miles from Indianapolis would be just as interested to watch their teams on TV.

But, yeah, sure. Ok. LA has 10 million people, so... the Lakers should have to give $80M to the Pacers, Bobcats, etc. Ok. What about the Clippers? They also have the exact same local population, and even play in the exact same stadium. Should they also donate $80M a year to help support the league's expansion teams and unprofitable/poorly run franchises?

Not sure what you're talking about with the first bolded part. Indiana is 140 miles wide by 270 miles long. That is a far larger footprint than the Greater LA area...

And you seem to think the NBA has decreed that the Los Angeles Lakers shall henceforth forever pay an $80 million tax. The tax is for teams that make a huge profit or spend above the league salary cap. So if the Pacers ended up becoming a dynasty and made money hand over fist and the Lakers began to suck like the Clippers and started losing money the Pacers would actually be paying the Lakers.

Vampirate
03-30-2012, 07:30 PM
How bout small markets that haven't always had the best players or highest salaries but still managed to win the championship?

How about the Spurs of San Antonio or the Pistons of Detroit?



Why do teams like the Bobcats, Wizards, Raptors, Bucks and the David Stern Hornets still exist.

What have those franchises done of any significance in the last decade?

I remember the Bucks had such a great three of Cassell, RObinson and Allen. WHat did they do?

Bucks send Cassell to Minnesota for Joe Smith, and then trade prime Ray Allen to Seattle for old Gary Payton.

It's these type of dumb moves by small market teams like MIL etc. as to why they never get anywhere.

You DO realize the Raptors are a profitable franchise despite all the seasons of losing right?

There is no way the Raptors would be up for contraction.

Bramaca
03-31-2012, 01:08 AM
Well, the capacity of Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indiana is 17,000, and it wouldn't seem to be too unrealistic that the Pacers might be able to sellout 41 home games there, with the Indianapolis population being appx 2 million, and the population of the surrounding areas of Indiana--actually not all that much larger than the LA Metro area combined the Riverside Metro area-- being 6.5 million.

By contrast, Lambeau Field, where the Packers play, has a capacity of 73,000, and is perennially sold out, and the Packers are highly profitable--a SOURCE of revenue for the league, not a drain on its profitability.

Also, since Indiana is far more culturally monochromatic and cohesive than the LA area is (which contains vast multicultural populations, many of them with no interest whatsoever in basketball) and, as I mentioned before, Indiana is traditionally basketball crazy, has only one NBA franchise (not 4 like California) and also there are far less forms of entertainment in Indiana in general. Also, if we are talking about television market, it would seem that the entire Indiana cable market, not just Indianapolis, should be taken into account, since they only have one team and because the state is so culturally cohesive, and even fans who live several hundred miles from Indianapolis would be just as interested to watch their teams on TV.

But, yeah, sure. Ok. LA has 10 million people, so... the Lakers should have to give $80M to the Pacers, Bobcats, etc. Ok. What about the Clippers? They also have the exact same local population, and even play in the exact same stadium. Should they also donate $80M a year to help support the league's expansion teams and unprofitable/poorly run franchises?

You trash the NBA's new revenue sharing because it is communist/socialist and how it is making the teams split revenue equally (which it isn't even close to doing) and then turn around and herald a football team that has stayed in existence because of that leagues revenue sharing which does more to even the playing field financially. Where are you going with this? It's a contradiction.

The other problem with your communist/socialist theory is that you are failing to acknowledge that while each individual team is independently owned they act as a collective, compete against each other, and generally depend upon each other to create the system which allows them to make so much money. That makes comparisons to other companies with franchises meaningless for the most part.

The idea that management is the major contributing factor in the failure of these teams to be financially stable and that market size isn't as much of a factor are way off base. Out of 13 small market teams in the NBA the only difference in revenue is gate receipts. Arguably the best managed team in the NBA, the Spurs, who have had a ridiculous amount of success don't make any more money on local tv rights or corporate sponsors then the Pacers. Market size plays a huge factor in the possible revenue of a team and all the 'well managed' ones as you put it are one or two losing seasons away from being in the same boat. If you think that contraction of a couple of the small market teams would solve anything, it wouldn't. May as well be prepared to contract all of them. Don't get me wrong, management does play a part but to think that all 13 small market teams can consistently be making the playoffs is not realistic. There are well managed teams that don't make the playoffs.

Another thing you failed to take into account in the difference of large and small markets is corporate sponsorship. These companies provide more revenue for an NBA team then almost anything else, from paying for naming rights, advertisements, to box suites and vip seating. The availability of these companies makes a huge difference in the amount of money team can make. Between the 13 small market cities a total of 89 Fortune 1000 companies have their headquarters in those cities, or an average of around 6.5 per city. Chicago, LA, and New York have 214 Fortune 1000 companies between them, an average of 71 per city.

The benefits that the owners in the large markets reap from the collective group that forms the NBA is enormous and they would not get that without the setup that the league has. In order to keep the league healthy and growing financially it is necesary for the big market owners to share some of that with the teams that don't have that opportunity.

Bramaca
03-31-2012, 01:43 AM
Here's a pretty good article regarding the new revenue sharing plan.


“Any business operator wants to keep their revenue,” said Jeanie Buss, executive vice president of business operations for the Lakers and a member of the NBA’s planning committee charged with creating the new plan. “That’s the nature of the business, but we also understand the bigger picture and we want a league with teams that are economically viable so that every team has the opportunity to compete. It makes for a healthier league.”

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/01/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx

For those worried that the deal is designed to split eveything evenly the Lakers will still likely end up with $250 million in revenue per year after they pay while small market teams like Milwaukee will be getting around $16 million to bring their annual revenue up to around $110-115 million. So don't worry, the Lakers will still have plenty of money to spend.

LAOwnsAll15
03-31-2012, 01:49 AM
This is what happens when billionares buy a team and expect the team to line their pockets with cash, and when that fails they complain to the man who is supposed to make the league profitable.

Less stupid owners in the league... Look at the Dodgers in LA, even they were starting to become ****, all because the owner.

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 01:59 AM
Not sure what you're talking about with the first bolded part. Indiana is 140 miles wide by 270 miles long. That is a far larger footprint than the Greater LA area...

And you seem to think the NBA has decreed that the Los Angeles Lakers shall henceforth forever pay an $80 million tax. The tax is for teams that make a huge profit or spend above the league salary cap. So if the Pacers ended up becoming a dynasty and made money hand over fist and the Lakers began to suck like the Clippers and started losing money the Pacers would actually be paying the Lakers.

Actually, it is 177 miles from Santa Barbara to Oceanside, and about 85 miles from Rancho Palos Verdes to San Bernadino. And this of course doesn't even take into account the San Diego area which would extend it about another 80 miles south. So, just in terms of area, it is actually comparable. And as I mentioned, Los Angeles has a ton of people that probably think all those LA Lakers billboards everywhere are advertising vacation homes or bottled water.

Mudvayne91
03-31-2012, 02:05 AM
Lakers Knicks Celtics heat bulls. Spurs. The rest can GTFO


Well we have a socialist president, why not a socialist basketball league

This x 1,000,000

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 02:18 AM
You trash the NBA's new revenue sharing because it is communist/socialist and how it is making the teams split revenue equally (which it isn't even close to doing) and then turn around and herald a football team that has stayed in existence because of that leagues revenue sharing which does more to even the playing field financially. Where are you going with this? It's a contradiction.

The other problem with your communist/socialist theory is that you are failing to acknowledge that while each individual team is independently owned they act as a collective, compete against each other, and generally depend upon each other to create the system which allows them to make so much money. That makes comparisons to other companies with franchises meaningless for the most part.

The idea that management is the major contributing factor in the failure of these teams to be financially stable and that market size isn't as much of a factor are way off base. Out of 13 small market teams in the NBA the only difference in revenue is gate receipts. Arguably the best managed team in the NBA, the Spurs, who have had a ridiculous amount of success don't make any more money on local tv rights or corporate sponsors then the Pacers. Market size plays a huge factor in the possible revenue of a team and all the 'well managed' ones as you put it are one or two losing seasons away from being in the same boat. If you think that contraction of a couple of the small market teams would solve anything, it wouldn't. May as well be prepared to contract all of them. Don't get me wrong, management does play a part but to think that all 13 small market teams can consistently be making the playoffs is not realistic. There are well managed teams that don't make the playoffs.

Another thing you failed to take into account in the difference of large and small markets is corporate sponsorship. These companies provide more revenue for an NBA team then almost anything else, from paying for naming rights, advertisements, to box suites and vip seating. The availability of these companies makes a huge difference in the amount of money team can make. Between the 13 small market cities a total of 89 Fortune 1000 companies have their headquarters in those cities, or an average of around 6.5 per city. Chicago, LA, and New York have 214 Fortune 1000 companies between them, an average of 71 per city.

The benefits that the owners in the large markets reap from the collective group that forms the NBA is enormous and they would not get that without the setup that the league has. In order to keep the league healthy and growing financially it is necesary for the big market owners to share some of that with the teams that don't have that opportunity.

You make some good points, but it is undeniable that if the league were to subtract the 4 worst expansion teams, or the four most unprofitable and troubled franchises (which might be the same, I'm not totally sure on that one) then the whole league would be more profitable, the level of competition and talent would be higher, and each individual team would be more valuable and worth more money$$.

The league wouldn't lose much PR-wise. Who really cares is the Seattle Supersonics play in Oklahoma, or New Orleans, or get morphed into the New Hampshire Hamsters or the Buffalo Biatches. Who really gives a crap? It's just some new owners thinking they can sell the product in a new town and build the fanbase, and if they fail then they'll be calling for labor lockouts, hard caps, expansion drafts and revenue sharing. Meanwhile, the fans could care less, and these teams are like pesky flies itching the butts of the major teams like Boston, Chicago, New York and yes, the Los Angeles Lakers. The one major sports team that the East Coast has to recognize as being truly elite in every way.

You can't deny that those bad teams are just an expense for the whole league. On the one hand, they're yelling that they need revenue sharing dollars from the league just to survive, meanwhile teams like the Lakers have to shell out $80M (!!!) in revenue "sharing" which is a huge amount of money.

Basically it means that one team is at + $250M in profit, and the other team is at negative $25M or something.

Of course those "bad" teams are cooking their books to make their losses look worse so they can scam local communities on stadium deals and escape lawsuits when they move the team to greener pastures, and they are also tanking games to try to weasel their way to the #1 draft pick, the next "Blake Griffin" who will make them some of the sweet concession and apparel money.

But still... it is BEYOND RIDICULOUS if you ask me.

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 02:20 AM
You DO realize the Raptors are a profitable franchise despite all the seasons of losing right?

There is no way the Raptors would be up for contraction.

Yeah, Raptors are pulling their own weight, holding it down in Canada. Raptors are cool. Even their name is cool.

bbal995
03-31-2012, 02:40 AM
Pathetic that one team has to pay its competitors money. Never knew I could ever feel sorry for the Lakers. Too many midget teams purposefully tanking who'll be getting some of this money despite the fact they never tried to compete in the league. Then again, if one team can afford this it's the Lakers.

Bramaca
03-31-2012, 03:09 AM
You make some good points, but it is undeniable that if the league were to subtract the 4 worst expansion teams, or the four most unprofitable and troubled franchises (which might be the same, I'm not totally sure on that one) then the whole league would be more profitable, the level of competition and talent would be higher, and each individual team would be more valuable and worth more money$$.

OK, subtract the 4 small market teams that are in the worst shape financially (Milwaukee, Memphis, Charlotte, and New Orleans). There are others that could go in there instead but I went with these for this example.

Would the league be more profitable? Bottom line it would be but it really wouldn't change the financials of any of the individual teams. The ones that are making money are still making the same, the ones that aren't are still losing the same.

Level of competition higher? To a certain degree maybe, but the only players that would really change quality for other teams are the top players and many of the financially struggling teams would likely be hesitant to take on some of those huge contracts. So the top end players might end up going to teams that are already good just creating more of a gap between them.

Individual teams worth more money? No, value is based on what a team makes in revenue, its assets, its marketplace and potential. Taking teams away wouldn't change any of this other then possibly for the really high end teams (Lakers, Bulls, Knicks) who would be paying in revenue sharing. But this really doesn't help the league in any way.

What are some of the negative effects?

Loss of jobs for players, just put 55-60 players out of work. Seriously hurt relations with the players union. Possible side effect, out of work players go to Europe and raise the level of play there even closer to the NBA, increase the popularity of Euroleague which increases revenue and makes Euro players consider either coming back from the nba or just staying in europe instead of going to the nba as a more serious option.

Loss of marketplaces, just pulled out of 4 cities that were the only teams in their state. Total population of those states is around 27 million, combine that with Washington and the NBA has just pissed off NBA fans in over 10% of the US's people. Thats going to result in some type of a hit in terms of merchandise and national tv ratings. Not to mention bad publicity.

Removing lower revenue teams results in the slaray cap and luxury tax going up by 4 and 5 million respectively. Now this is good for the high revenue teams but not so good for the 9 other small market teams and a few middle market teams that were already struggling and losing money. This just puts them even further in the hole. Now how is this fixed? Contract even more teams or start a revenue sharing system which is what you were trying to avoid by contracting teams.

Basically by removing teams you have lowered the overall value of the league, its market reach and potential revenue, strengthened a competitors talent levels, and created even more problems in many of the remaining franchises. Maybe its better to just do revenue sharing now instead of going through all that especially considering the revenue sharing isn't actually hurting the big market franchises ability to do anything.

Not to mention the Lakers owners aren't even worried that this is going to prevent them from doing anything and the only way they are going to be giving up $80 million in revenue sharing is if they make a profit of $160 million.

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 04:58 AM
OK, subtract the 4 small market teams that are in the worst shape financially (Milwaukee, Memphis, Charlotte, and New Orleans). There are others that could go in there instead but I went with these for this example.

Would the league be more profitable? Bottom line it would be but it really wouldn't change the financials of any of the individual teams. The ones that are making money are still making the same, the ones that aren't are still losing the same.

Level of competition higher? To a certain degree maybe, but the only players that would really change quality for other teams are the top players and many of the financially struggling teams would likely be hesitant to take on some of those huge contracts. So the top end players might end up going to teams that are already good just creating more of a gap between them.

Individual teams worth more money? No, value is based on what a team makes in revenue, its assets, its marketplace and potential. Taking teams away wouldn't change any of this other then possibly for the really high end teams (Lakers, Bulls, Knicks) who would be paying in revenue sharing. But this really doesn't help the league in any way.

What are some of the negative effects?

Loss of jobs for players, just put 55-60 players out of work. Seriously hurt relations with the players union. Possible side effect, out of work players go to Europe and raise the level of play there even closer to the NBA, increase the popularity of Euroleague which increases revenue and makes Euro players consider either coming back from the nba or just staying in europe instead of going to the nba as a more serious option.

Loss of marketplaces, just pulled out of 4 cities that were the only teams in their state. Total population of those states is around 27 million, combine that with Washington and the NBA has just pissed off NBA fans in over 10% of the US's people. Thats going to result in some type of a hit in terms of merchandise and national tv ratings. Not to mention bad publicity.

Removing lower revenue teams results in the slaray cap and luxury tax going up by 4 and 5 million respectively. Now this is good for the high revenue teams but not so good for the 9 other small market teams and a few middle market teams that were already struggling and losing money. This just puts them even further in the hole. Now how is this fixed? Contract even more teams or start a revenue sharing system which is what you were trying to avoid by contracting teams.

Basically by removing teams you have lowered the overall value of the league, its market reach and potential revenue, strengthened a competitors talent levels, and created even more problems in many of the remaining franchises. Maybe its better to just do revenue sharing now instead of going through all that especially considering the revenue sharing isn't actually hurting the big market franchises ability to do anything.

Not to mention the Lakers owners aren't even worried that this is going to prevent them from doing anything and the only way they are going to be giving up $80 million in revenue sharing is if they make a profit of $160 million.

Well, consider, that if the top 6 teams are all kicking in $80M in revenue sharing, to be divided essentially by the bottom 16 teams in terms of market and profitability (i.e., fans, or the lack thereof).

That's $480M / 16 = $30M

$30M x 4 contracted teams

That is $120M extra in revenue every year, JUST in terms of what we wouldn't have to break 'em off in revenue sharing.

With the same amount of games, more smaller market teams would get high profile games on TNT, ESPN and ABC also, and higher shares of the TV revenues, more advertising exposure, and overall the remaining league will be leaner and meaner, and each of the remaining teams will be more valuable.

I doubt this will ever happen, though... and probably it would be a long dark tunnel if these teams started to really go under.

Anyways, I am not quite as irritated about all this now... I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, that the Lakers will be fine and the league will be alright, hopefully.

Just look at it from my perspective as a Laker fan: suddenly there is a 3 to 1 luxury tax looming, 4 to 1 for repeat "offenders," and now the Lakers have to seriously think about not being able to afford a Kobe + a Pau, or sign an MLE free agent or whatever, without paying 4 times their actual cost.

So this new CBA is really hurting in terms of what it's doing to existing teams, pressuring them to break up.

THEN on top of all that, I find out that the Lakers will have to pay out $80M dollars in sheer revenue sharing, because all the skeezy little expansion teams voted together for a ****ing special "Laker rule" so they can all get a piece of the LA pie.

I don't like it. I do understand that everybody got to try to make a run at me and show me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, I do understand that, but I really just don't like the direction they've taken the league and I think it is largely related to these NBA "bubble" investors as well as the way overpriced market for players, that coalitions of agents are able to squeeze out of inexperienced teams.

I think I really liked the league before, when it was kind of city against city, owner against owner, team against team, dynasty against dynasty.

It just isn't the same when half the teams are subsidized and it is kind of a fake, artificial competitiveness going on. And it makes me trust the referees a bit less, like, maybe this year Oklahoma will get a bunch of calls in the playoffs and be unbeatable because of the refs, because, hey, Oklahoma is a small market and it's their turn, or we want to build up the midwest market, or whatever.

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 05:05 AM
I mean, city against city, NY vs LA vs Indianapolis vs Memphis vs San Antonio vs Portland... whatever.

What is wrong with that?

How expensive or difficult does it really have to be to put a 12 man basketball team out there on the court? And if they are well-coached and play hard, who knows they could get hot and you never know what team will win.

One top draft pick, a Jordan or a Duncan, can carry any of these teams over the top.

But now it just seems like half the league has given up, they've just decided they can't make money, they can't stop wasting money and getting conned by the agents, they can't coach their players, they can't excite the fans, they can't win.

Just like a bunch of hapless MJs, they can't do anything except create a nasty lockout and then grab for a piece of the Laker's pie.

Bramaca
03-31-2012, 09:22 AM
Well, consider, that if the top 6 teams are all kicking in $80M in revenue sharing, to be divided essentially by the bottom 16 teams in terms of market and profitability (i.e., fans, or the lack thereof).

That's $480M / 16 = $30M

$30M x 4 contracted teams

That is $120M extra in revenue every year, JUST in terms of what we wouldn't have to break 'em off in revenue sharing.

With the same amount of games, more smaller market teams would get high profile games on TNT, ESPN and ABC also, and higher shares of the TV revenues, more advertising exposure, and overall the remaining league will be leaner and meaner, and each of the remaining teams will be more valuable..

You didn't even read the articles regarding the revenue sharing and how it works did you? You just saw that the Lakers may have to pay 80 million and decided to rant. Nothing in this applies to how revenue sharing works.


Just look at it from my perspective as a Laker fan: suddenly there is a 3 to 1 luxury tax looming, 4 to 1 for repeat "offenders," and now the Lakers have to seriously think about not being able to afford a Kobe + a Pau, or sign an MLE free agent or whatever, without paying 4 times their actual cost.

So this new CBA is really hurting in terms of what it's doing to existing teams, pressuring them to break up.

So you are upset that the Lakers will have to take into consideration some of the financial costs that most other teams do. I don't see the problem there especially considering that if they are as well managed as suggested it shouldn't be a problem.


I don't like it. I do understand that everybody got to try to make a run at me and show me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, I do understand that, but I really just don't like the direction they've taken the league and I think it is largely related to these NBA "bubble" investors as well as the way overpriced market for players, that coalitions of agents are able to squeeze out of inexperienced teams.

Large markets were the cause of that.


It just isn't the same when half the teams are subsidized and it is kind of a fake, artificial competitiveness going on. And it makes me trust the referees a bit less, like, maybe this year Oklahoma will get a bunch of calls in the playoffs and be unbeatable because of the refs, because, hey, Oklahoma is a small market and it's their turn, or we want to build up the midwest market, or whatever.

This sounds a lot like how fans of smaller market teams have felt towards the league for a couple decades now.

tcav701
03-31-2012, 09:34 AM
The Lakers agreed to these rules just like everyone else.

The difference between the owners and the Laker fans *****ing in this thread is they actually understand how the luxury tax works.

Raps08-09 Champ
03-31-2012, 09:43 AM
The players want revenue sharing because it creates more jobs...

IF there was no revenue sharing the league would naturally contract by 4-5 teams... thats 60-75 jobs

and when did the players ever want a hard cap? all a hard cap does is depress wages... players want the wild wild west of the past CBA

I never said they did.

The options were to do revenue sharing or a hard cap. Players wanted revenue sharing.

Even though hard cap was the best solution overall,

ghettosean
03-31-2012, 10:23 AM
You didn't even read the articles regarding the revenue sharing and how it works did you? You just saw that the Lakers may have to pay 80 million and decided to rant. Nothing in this applies to how revenue sharing works.



So you are upset that the Lakers will have to take into consideration some of the financial costs that most other teams do. I don't see the problem there especially considering that if they are as well managed as suggested it shouldn't be a problem.



Large markets were the cause of that.



This sounds a lot like how fans of smaller market teams have felt towards the league for a couple decades now.
Bramaca you beat me to it... LOL... I was going to use the same >>>FACTS<<< you were using in this debate in your posts before this one.

Not that I don't like Sssmush and his cries of communism and his analogies using male and female waiters involving tips to make his points :laugh2:

P.S

The bolded is obvious to everyone here.

Vinylman
03-31-2012, 01:02 PM
I never said they did.

The options were to do revenue sharing or a hard cap. Players wanted revenue sharing.

Even though hard cap was the best solution overall,

oh ... i must have misudnerstood your post...

and yes, the best solution would have been a hard cap like the NFL... but only if all contracts weren't guaranteed and their were other provisions such as franchise player tags and a compensatory FA system...

Again, the least desirbable system is revenue sharing (NBA style... other RS systems that are less punitive are understandable)... contraction makes far more sense to the long term competitiveness of the league

Sssmush
03-31-2012, 04:56 PM
You didn't even read the articles regarding the revenue sharing and how it works did you? You just saw that the Lakers may have to pay 80 million and decided to rant. Nothing in this applies to how revenue sharing works.


I'll admit that my numbers are not spot on, I didn't research them, I just made them up. That's true.

They are estimates, and in my post(s) I said something like "Ok, so let's say the top 6 teams..." or "if the top 6 teams pay xyz..." like that.

I never said "this is how the CBA works" or "these are the exact payouts".

I guesstimated, just throwing the top 6 teams out there. I figured that if the Lakers are paying $80M a year, then it's likely that 5 other teams will also pay that much. Say, NY, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia... something like that.

If that is approximately true, then that would be $480M in revenue sharing, just from those 6 teams, not counting luxury tax and not counting any other revenue sharing from other medium teams.

If it's going to be redistributed, I estimated that it would be to the bottom 16 teams in terms of market and profitability. If that number is more or less I don't actually know.

I'd be interested to know the real numbers, maybe I'll take a look at it. I do know that the Lakers are on the hook for $80M this year... if you're telling me that my numbers are wrong and that it's NOT the top 6 teams paying that amount, that it is ONLY the Lakers paying that amount, and that the league office, the big East Coast teams and all the old cigar chomping East Coast sportswriters are just sitting back and laughing about it, how the Lakers are getting "USC'd" or whatever, then that means the situation is even MORE out of whack and ridiculous than I already thought it was.

Not sure if that's what you're implying. I'm interested to know where exactly where you think I've veered off course here.

Sssmush
04-02-2012, 04:56 AM
Here's a great article on all this, that also accurately lays out the numbers:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/06/revenue-sharing-isnt-needed-to-make-nba-small-market-teams-competitive/