PDA

View Full Version : Jim Buss: The 28 Other Owners Screwed the Lakers BIG TIME!



KB-Pau-DH2012
04-18-2012, 02:29 AM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7827083/jim-buss-los-angeles-lakers-says-new-cba-cuts-heavily-team-profits


As the lockout-shortened 2011-12 NBA regular season nears its close after the league managed to cram each team's 66-game schedule into 124 calendar days, the Los Angeles Lakers are in familiar territory.

Even with Tuesday's 112-91 loss to the San Antonio Spurs, the Lakers have the third-best record in the Western Conference and are looking ahead to a deep playoff run and potentially even the 17th championship in franchise history with a healthy Kobe Bryant back in the fold.

Even though it appears the Lakers have barely missed a beat when it comes to their competitive chances in the post-lockout NBA world, things have changed drastically for the franchise thanks to the league's new collective bargaining agreement as well as the new revenue sharing arrangement amongst the league's 30 teams.

"We can make a lot of money, and still lose money? That's not a good thing," Lakers executive vice president of player personnel, Jim Buss, told ESPNLosAngeles.com this week in a wide-ranging sit-down interview. "Especially when it's a family-run business. I mean, my God, we don't have Carnival Cruises behind us or Kohl's Department Stores ... and Microsoft up in good, old Portland. This is it. If we lose money, we lose money."

Buss was referring to the other business interests of NBA owners Micky Arison (Miami Heat), Herb Kohl (Milwaukee Bucks) and Paul Allen (Portland Trail Blazers), respectively.

Buss credited NBA commissioner David Stern for doing a "fantastic job" during the NBA lockout negotiations but believed that the league's 28 other owners targeted the Lakers when it came to discussions at the bargaining table during the work stoppage.


"I thought (Stern) tried to keep it calm and fair," Buss said. "I think most of the other teams were pointing at the Lakers. They were saying that the Lakers do this, it's not fair. The Lakers do that, it's not fair. But, in the end, I think David Stern kept it all calm and did the best he could."

Shortly after settling the new CBA, the NBA also hammered out a new revenue sharing plan. Under the new model, Buss estimated that the Lakers, who used to dole out approximately $4-6 million a season in revenue sharing, now will owe anywhere from $50-80 million in revenue sharing each season.

The Lakers signed a new local television deal with Time Warner Cable starting in the 2012-13 season that will be worth anywhere from $200-250 million a year for the next 20-25 years, based on various published reports. However, despite the TV-related financial windfall, Buss said that the aggressive increase in revenue sharing will severely dip into the Lakers' new profits.

"People (other owners) were throwing it back in our face with the new television deal and it's basically kind of wiped that out," Buss said. "Fifty million dollars extra per year just kind of went out the door."

Monta is beast
04-18-2012, 02:33 AM
Hahahahaha

JDMVP
04-18-2012, 02:42 AM
What makes me laugh about this issue is the fact that these same owners know very well without the LAKERS, this league would be absolutely NOTHING.

After they vetoed the CP3 trade, if your a thinking FAN, you know something was up and they were targeting the LAKERS big TIME.

If not for D Fish, we may not have a season right now.
This may not be Americas basketball TEAM but this team is the WORLDS FAVORITE BASKETBALL TEAM.

xk4
04-18-2012, 02:44 AM
Rich guys are getting richer at a slower pace, alert the press!

shep33
04-18-2012, 02:51 AM
Rich guys are getting richer at a slower pace, alert the press!

To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.

LakersMaster24
04-18-2012, 03:06 AM
:pity:

Lakers gotta keep crappy teams like the Bobcats and Cavs afloat...to hell with those teams, contract and get it over with.

lakers4sho
04-18-2012, 03:17 AM
and risk losing their fanbases?

Donuts365
04-18-2012, 03:18 AM
hahahahahahaaaaahaahaaaa

Jenceman
04-18-2012, 03:26 AM
Yeah, it's ridiculous. Hey you run your franchise too well, let's punish you.

xk4
04-18-2012, 03:29 AM
LA isn't punished for running its team well. It's being punished for using the profits from their ice cream stand on the beach to dominate a league where other teams are financed by an ice cream stand operating out of Milwaukee during the winter.

Also, here's a quote from the dudes daughter 3 months ago:


“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

Sssmush
04-18-2012, 05:41 AM
To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.

Yeah, the fact that there are so many financially struggling and poor franchises, especially when they're totally leveraged on high purchase prices and big stadium deals, is really sucking the fun out of the league.

The fact that most of the owners saw, with their beady little eyes, that the Lakers had found that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and garnered a sweet local television deal for themselves, and then collectively demanded that all that money be shared among everybody, nullifying all the profit and advantage, is pretty irritating.

The league has thought that the way to increase revenues for its shareholders long term is to keep expanding expanding expanding, but it is obvious they've misjudged the market, as well as eroded the entertainment value of the sport with all the weird refereeing, and now the entire league is sagging under the weight of these sorry *** loser franchises.

Honestly, if I was in the Lakers position I would seriously consider selling the team and just let somebody else deal with the collective problems. Maybe I'd take $100M and start a 6 team "17 - 20 year old" pro-league, with franchises in LA, San Francisco, Vegas, San Diego, Palm Springs and Phoenix, and start signing all the hottest prep prospects to $2M one year deals, get it going live on a cable network, and have some crazy shoe and gear promotions. Like get Kentucky's starting 5 this year out in Cali to play 25 games of pro ball in Vegas and LA. Sponsored by Nike Adidas

Sssmush
04-18-2012, 05:45 AM
Their motto could be "if you're over 20, you're too old for this game. Come see the hottest young players in the world."

bholly
04-18-2012, 07:25 AM
What makes me laugh about this issue is the fact that these same owners know very well without the LAKERS, this league would be absolutely NOTHING.

After they vetoed the CP3 trade, if your a thinking FAN, you know something was up and they were targeting the LAKERS big TIME.

If not for D Fish, we may not have a season right now.
This may not be Americas basketball TEAM but this team is the WORLDS FAVORITE BASKETBALL TEAM.

Wouldn't a thinking fan conclude that if the teams are relying on the Lakers for money, they'd want CP3 on the Lakers? CP3 makes the NBA (and thus the teams, through revenue sharing) more money by being on the Lakers rather than the Clippers. The only way you can bring CP3 into this revenue sharing thing is in the opposite way to the way you're doing it.

Also, what do you think the Lakers would be without the NBA?

The other teams depend on their revenue, sure, but they also depend on the other teams - try and see how much the Lakers make without the rest of the NBA.
People don't go to see the Lakers play themselves and win the championship of a league of one - they go to see the Lakers play another team and win the NBA Championship. I'd wager if the Lakers joined some other league, and the NBA put another team in LA, LA basketball fans would move to the new team before long. It isn't just because they're the Lakers, it's because they're LA's NBA team.
(edit: lol, it wasn't until I read this back that I remembered LA do have another team. But the point still stands. They'd watch the Clippers (or a replacement team) before they watch a team called the Lakers play minor-league ball).


To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.

This analogy doesn't quite work. The Buss' don't own a business, they own a franchise license. They're a part of the NBA business - a big part, but just a part all the same. Like what I said above - the Lakers would be nothing without the NBA.

So, the analogy sort of falls a part. These aren't independent businesses taking out of each other's pockets. These are business partners, all parts of the same corporate whole, taking from each other. It's very very different.

The product isn't just 'The Lakers' the product is 'NBA Basketball' so the other owners deserve part of the revenue from it. It totally sucks for the Buss family how much they have to give up, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but your analogy is lazy and wrong.

Also, fwiw, the fact that they don't have other business outside the NBA is completely irrelevant to whether it's the right deal or not. What an owners' business is outside is of absolutely no relevance to the other owners beyond being sure that they're still viable and their business doesn't harm the league in any way. It's not the other owners' job to give them a better deal because they're a family - it'd be nice and maybe even heartwarming (if they weren't already so rich) - but it's not something they should be expected to do at all.

Also, afaik, Arison and Cuban, the two you mentioned, voted against the CBA as a comment on how they didn't like the revenue sharing plan (which they also lose money from).

Also worth noting that they can't actually go broke or anything from it, like some are seemingly implying with this whole 'they're just a family business!' thing. The contribution is limited to at most 50% of total profits.

And finally, you have to understand that the Lakers being rich actually costs other teams in the first place. The higher Laker revenue is, the higher league revenue is, the higher player salaries are, and the more it costs other owners to run and own a team. It's pretty simple.

Overall, the issue is wayyy more complex than 'this is big businessmen stealing from a family business just because it's successful!' that many are playing it to be.

TylerSL
04-18-2012, 07:31 AM
This doesnt just hurt Buss, this deal hurts every big market owner. Whether it be Buss, or Dolan (Knicks), or Arison (Heat), or Cuban (Mavs), or the Celtics owners (company), and even Jerry Reinsdorf (Bulls). These guys were the top dogs when it comes to ownership. They dont get as much of the pie as they used to either.

meloman1592
04-18-2012, 07:41 AM
I could care less about Buss and the Los Angeles Swindlers

ldawg
04-18-2012, 07:59 AM
After the block cp3 trade it was obvious the league has a witch hunt on the Lakers. I think the Lakers should sue the NBA .

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:04 AM
On what grounds? 'Obvious metaphorical witch hunt' doesn't count.

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:11 AM
I have to admit i have not watch a lot of nba this season. There were no Laker game i would have miss in the past but this year i have just turn the tv off and get my nights rest. I am sorry but when you say the word NBA the first thing that come to my mind is MJ and Lakers. The NBA itself has been pretty boring except for the Howard drama. He has gone mad wanting to be a gm.

raiderfaninTX
04-18-2012, 08:12 AM
What makes me laugh about this issue is the fact that these same owners know very well without the LAKERS, this league would be absolutely NOTHING.

After they vetoed the CP3 trade, if your a thinking FAN, you know something was up and they were targeting the LAKERS big TIME.

If not for D Fish, we may not have a season right now.
This may not be Americas basketball TEAM but this team is the WORLDS FAVORITE BASKETBALL TEAM.

I would make sure your team could hold the jock strap of the thunder before making that statement.
They are not even the most popular or profitable team in the nba.

Chicago is

So your statement is crap seeing that your not even the best team in your conference

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:13 AM
On what grounds? 'Obvious metaphorical witch hunt' doesn't count.They could of seek legal action they had a strong case but they elect not to. IMO they should have.

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:17 AM
I would make sure your team could hold the jock strap of the thunder before making that statement.
They are not even the most popular or profitable team in the nba.

Chicago is

So your statement is crap seeing that your not even the best team in your conference

Source?


They could of seek legal action they had a strong case but they elect not to. IMO they should have.

Sounds like an open and shut case.

raiderfaninTX
04-18-2012, 08:21 AM
Source?



Sounds like an open and shut case.

Sorry I may be wrong about popularity the bulls may just be better with money but I doubt its far apart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/01/25/the-most-and-least-profitable-nba-teams/

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:22 AM
then the lakers should just make their own league then with them being the only team in it.
They are not even the most popular or profitable team in the nba.

Chicago is

So your statement is crap seeing that your not even the best team in your conferenceI dont think the nba would be nothing but the NBA would take a big hit with the loss of the Lakers. They have one of the biggest fan base. Just think about a few things. Lebron, Wade, Bosh on one team is still not the most talk about team. Spurs no one talks about them at all, Hawks is not a bad team but not talk about. Chicago has their fans but thats one team. Its very painful to watch some teams play. I would not even waste my time and watch a Bobcats Miami game.

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:24 AM
Lakers should however blow this team up and shed $$ and lay low for a minute. A team has to lower its standards because they are being punish for being in a bigger market. All the nba is saying is we are going to water down the NBA. You got all these raw players they are trying to sell you. speed the game up do some flashy dunk call the touch foul promote high scoring.

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-18-2012, 08:29 AM
For those saying the LAKERS wouldn't be anything without the NBA.....WAIT FOR IT....:laugh:

Remember the NBA was destined to die after MJ's retirement in '98, but it was the SHaq-Kobe-Phil 3peat Lakers that didn't let the NBA miss a beat after Jordan's retirement and basically paved the way for a new era of NBA Basketball. Everyone thought that after the lockout 98-99 50-game season, the NBA w/o Michael Jordan was going to quickly go down the toilet, then Phil came to LA to elevate Shaq and Kobe's career, 3 straight titles, and voila, the NBA never missed a beat.

The fact of the matter is that the Los ANgeles Lakers have been a part of 2 revivals in the sports' history. In the 1980s with Showtime Magic and their rivalry against Boston, and then after Jordan's '98 retirement when the Lakers with superstardom status of Shaquille O'Neal & Kobe Bryant (probably the most dominant 1a & 1b punch duo in NBA history).


The Lakers have kept the NBA alive, not the other way around.

D1JM
04-18-2012, 08:29 AM
Sorry I may be wrong about popularity the bulls may just be better with money but I doubt its far apart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/01/25/the-most-and-least-profitable-nba-teams/
http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:34 AM
Just think the NBA game itself is so boring no one talks about the game it self just the things that surround it.

D1JM
04-18-2012, 08:34 AM
Buss credited NBA commissioner David Stern for doing a "fantastic job" during the NBA lockout negotiations but believed that the league's 28 other owners targeted the Lakers when it came to discussions at the bargaining table during the work stoppage.

Did he mean 29 owners?

raiderfaninTX
04-18-2012, 08:35 AM
http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/

that's nice but I take profit over worth seeing that the lakers are not being sold anytime soon

also worth is bs, somethings worth is what someone will pay for it

IE. Dodgers

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:39 AM
For those saying the LAKERS wouldn't be anything without the NBA.....WAIT FOR IT....:laugh:

Remember the NBA was destined to die after MJ's retirement in '98, but it was the SHaq-Kobe-Phil 3peat Lakers that didn't let the NBA miss a beat after Jordan's retirement and basically paved the way for a new era of NBA Basketball. Everyone thought that after the lockout 98-99 50-game season, the NBA w/o Michael Jordan was going to quickly go down the toilet, then Phil came to LA to elevate Shaq and Kobe's career, 3 straight titles, and voila, the NBA never missed a beat.

The fact of the matter is that the Los ANgeles Lakers have been a part of 2 revivals in the sports' history. In the 1980s with Showtime Magic and their rivalry against Boston, and then after Jordan's '98 retirement when the Lakers with superstardom status of Shaquille O'Neal & Kobe Bryant (probably the most dominant 1a & 1b punch duo in NBA history).


The Lakers have kept the NBA alive, not the other way around.

That's all very nice, but everyone already accepts that the Lakers have been a huge positive influence on the league. What we're trying to explain to you is that is isn't a one way relationship - there is no 'not the other way around'. The NBA and the Lakers both depend to a large extent on each other.

Having said that, even though I haven't got exact numbers in front of me, I'm pretty sure the league would still make a profit without the Lakers, while the Lakers almost certainly wouldn't without the league, so if you're going to insist on one depending more on the other then the way you have it would be wrong.

If Kobe and Shaq weren't with the Lakers in those years they would've just been elsewhere in the NBA. They might've even played together. It's impossible (and sort of crazy) to say that the league would've folded without the Lakers, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the Lakers could survive outside the league.

D1JM
04-18-2012, 08:40 AM
that's nice but I take profit over worth seeing that the lakers are not being sold anytime soon

also worth is bs, somethings worth is what someone will pay for it

IE. Dodgers worth 900 mil sold for 2 billion

I showed you that list so Because it's kinda BS that the lakers think they are the only ones that are affected by the new revenue sharing. Bulls and Knicks do too

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:40 AM
Did he mean 29 owners?

There are 29 owners, considering the Hornets are owned by the league (and thus co-owned by the other 29).
'The other 28' means the 28 of the 29 that aren't the Buss family.

Raidaz4Life
04-18-2012, 08:41 AM
Did he mean 29 owners?

Maybe he didn't count the Hornets

ldawg
04-18-2012, 08:42 AM
The Lakers should do like most of the other teams just get supper cheap and dont care to win just make money. They should also lower their standards and play the draft for cheap young raw players. Meanwhile the Lakers would be suck the nba rating would go down but the good thing is they will make money off Miami, New York, Bulls profits. F winning lets just be the clippers we will watch a few games as long as you got a dunker.

D1JM
04-18-2012, 08:44 AM
There are 29 owners, considering the Hornets are owned by the league (and thus co-owned by the other 29).
'The other 28' means the 28 of the 29 that aren't the Buss family.

I keep forgetting that :facepalm:

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-18-2012, 08:48 AM
That's all very nice, but everyone already accepts that the Lakers have been a huge positive influence on the league. What we're trying to explain to you is that is isn't a one way relationship - there is no 'not the other way around'. The NBA and the Lakers both depend to a large extent on each other.

Having said that, even though I haven't got exact numbers in front of me, I'm pretty sure the league would still make a profit without the Lakers, while the Lakers almost certainly wouldn't without the league, so if you're going to insist on one depending more on the other then the way you have it would be wrong.

If Kobe and Shaq weren't with the Lakers in those years they would've just been elsewhere in the NBA. They might've even played together. It's impossible (and sort of crazy) to say that the league would've folded without the Lakers, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the Lakers could survive outside the league.


Answer this question for me....how much would the NBA have profited if post-Jordan era, it was basically the Spurs winning titles for many many years. Wouldn't the league have got boring; the one knock on the Spurs (which isn't a fair criticism but it is what it is) is that they have been and are a boring team with a boring style of play in a small market team. How much would the NBA have survived with (no offense to them) Duncan, Popovich and company carrying the torch after Jordan and Phil?

Of course there would still be profit without the Lakers but not by much I can guarantee you that.

Maybe LBJ's arrival into the NBA in 2003 would have revived the sport, but the NBA would have to wait a whole 5 yrs since Jordan retired for that to happen, and the league would make a big profit off of that, but for how long? Cleveland is afterall Cleveland at the end of the day. Aside from the Lakers and Spurs, the NBA has become a sport of individual stars who are on TEAM X or TEAM Y. The randomness and fickle business of the sport would show highs and lows for the NBA, but the Lakers have always been that one consistent spark for the league with its high profile owners, teams, head coaches, and superstar hall of fame players.

ldawg
04-18-2012, 09:06 AM
For the Lakers to survive they have to become a suck team for the competitive balance everyone speak of. However that would decrease lakers fans in turn decrease nba fans. Its like any other business that looses profits. You lower expense that also include jobs. So while the nba grow oversees it will slow down and it will shrink at home. Lets put it this way they will not catch NFL anytime soon. Do viewers rely want competitive balance? We say we do however we watch greatness. Can you name a player that was not great from 15 years ago? If all the teams became the bobcats there would be a competitive balance but the overall NBA would be suck. The NBA want to sell a cheaper lower talent level of ball to younger viewers who cant tell the difference. Lakers should break down and give in they will still make money.

D1JM
04-18-2012, 09:10 AM
For the Lakers to survive they have to become a suck team for the competitive balance everyone speak of. However that would decrease lakers fans in turn decrease nba fans.

More like the bandwagon fans that buy their little laker flag and put it on their car. All they will do is bust out a clippers flag

ldawg
04-18-2012, 09:37 AM
More like the bandwagon fans that buy their little laker flag and put it on their car. All they will do is bust out a clippers flagThere is a lot of band Wagon fans out there however Being a Laker fan goes beyond that. My whole family was a Lakers fan that in turn made me a Lakers fan and what fans you think my Kids would be? without them the NBA is not the same for me I don't follow the next great team. I have only Watch 4 Miami games this season way less than the Lakers game i have mange to watch. I admit being upset with the NBA i did not watch this season like i use to. I may elect not to get the NBA pass next season i felt like i wasted my money. The high point of the season for me was the possibility of CP3 or Howard going to the Lakers and low point is seeing what Howard has become. I dont think it works that way in fact i think most people wanted Miami to loose last year they rather Dallas won.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
04-18-2012, 09:48 AM
Did he mean 29 owners?

no

ldawg
04-18-2012, 09:54 AM
how f up is that a whole lock out because other teams hate the Lakers and block any trade for them to save money. The other teams want to make sure they stay over the cap. That is what Cuban pointed out. Cuban ***** about them saving money in the Cp3 trade. New York is in a big market no one say crap about them. its not what market you are in its more than that into winning rings.

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-18-2012, 09:57 AM
how f up is that a whole lock out because other teams hate the Lakers and block any trade for them to save money. The other teams want to make sure they stay over the cap. That is what Cuban pointed out. Cuban ***** about them saving money in the Cp3 trade.

Cuban is also the dumbass that traded for Lamar Odom and ended up saving the Lakers $18M in luxury taxes while dealing with Odom the headcase. :laugh2:

ldawg
04-18-2012, 10:02 AM
When the new **** system kick in Lakers should lay low until the next agreement just make the money live off the better teams.

ldawg
04-18-2012, 10:04 AM
Cuban is also the dumbass that traded for Lamar Odom and ended up saving the Lakers $18M in luxury taxes while dealing with Odom the headcase. :laugh2:Odom is the Man for that one. He is a Laker for life for that one. I am not going to play for the enemy...lol

TheIlladelph16
04-18-2012, 10:14 AM
Wouldn't a thinking fan conclude that if the teams are relying on the Lakers for money, they'd want CP3 on the Lakers? CP3 makes the NBA (and thus the teams, through revenue sharing) more money by being on the Lakers rather than the Clippers. The only way you can bring CP3 into this revenue sharing thing is in the opposite way to the way you're doing it.

Also, what do you think the Lakers would be without the NBA?

The other teams depend on their revenue, sure, but they also depend on the other teams - try and see how much the Lakers make without the rest of the NBA.
People don't go to see the Lakers play themselves and win the championship of a league of one - they go to see the Lakers play another team and win the NBA Championship. I'd wager if the Lakers joined some other league, and the NBA put another team in LA, LA basketball fans would move to the new team before long. It isn't just because they're the Lakers, it's because they're LA's NBA team.
(edit: lol, it wasn't until I read this back that I remembered LA do have another team. But the point still stands. They'd watch the Clippers (or a replacement team) before they watch a team called the Lakers play minor-league ball).



This analogy doesn't quite work. The Buss' don't own a business, they own a franchise license. They're a part of the NBA business - a big part, but just a part all the same. Like what I said above - the Lakers would be nothing without the NBA.

So, the analogy sort of falls a part. These aren't independent businesses taking out of each other's pockets. These are business partners, all parts of the same corporate whole, taking from each other. It's very very different.

The product isn't just 'The Lakers' the product is 'NBA Basketball' so the other owners deserve part of the revenue from it. It totally sucks for the Buss family how much they have to give up, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but your analogy is lazy and wrong.

Also, fwiw, the fact that they don't have other business outside the NBA is completely irrelevant to whether it's the right deal or not. What an owners' business is outside is of absolutely no relevance to the other owners beyond being sure that they're still viable and their business doesn't harm the league in any way. It's not the other owners' job to give them a better deal because they're a family - it'd be nice and maybe even heartwarming (if they weren't already so rich) - but it's not something they should be expected to do at all.

Also, afaik, Arison and Cuban, the two you mentioned, voted against the CBA as a comment on how they didn't like the revenue sharing plan (which they also lose money from).

Also worth noting that they can't actually go broke or anything from it, like some are seemingly implying with this whole 'they're just a family business!' thing. The contribution is limited to at most 50% of total profits.

And finally, you have to understand that the Lakers being rich actually costs other teams in the first place. The higher Laker revenue is, the higher league revenue is, the higher player salaries are, and the more it costs other owners to run and own a team. It's pretty simple.

Overall, the issue is wayyy more complex than 'this is big businessmen stealing from a family business just because it's successful!' that many are playing it to be.

Sorry for the long quote but this was a well-thought out argument. Contraction would be better for the league to eliminate the dead weight, but its not as if Buss is the only owner that is losing money in this deal.

Great counter-argument.

TheIlladelph16
04-18-2012, 10:16 AM
Odom is the Man for that one. He is a Laker for life for that one. I am not going to play for the enemy...lol

If by "the Man" you mean an unprofessional POS then yes you nailed it on that one. He should be forced to return all of his salary after the piss poor effort he put forth at his JOB. I used to love him as a player, but the respect is totally gone.

Mikeleafs
04-18-2012, 10:18 AM
Although the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics and Raptors are expected to be the biggest paying teams, all eyes turn to Lakers owner Jerry Buss, who -- in some proposals under consideration -- would be asked to share as much as $50 million next season alone. That puts him at the top of the list, followed by Knicks owner James Dolan, with no one else close.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31941/digging-deep-to-share-revenue


Anyone who says the Raptors should be contracted should shut the **** up and say thank you that we're supporting YOUR team!! :D

Odominator
04-18-2012, 10:24 AM
Sorry for the long quote but this was a well-thought out argument. Contraction would be better for the league to eliminate the dead weight, but its not as if Buss is the only owner that is losing money in this deal.

Great counter-argument.


Great Counter fellow 76er fan!


Anyways, the Lakers is one of the NBA's cornerstone, and without that Franchise, in one of the largest markets with one of the largest fan bases, the NBA would not be nearly as popular as it is today.

To say that without the NBA the Lakers would not exist is a head-scratching statement. Of course, without the NBA, there would be no teams, so why even bring this up?

TheIlladelph16
04-18-2012, 10:40 AM
Great Counter fellow 76er fan!


Anyways, the Lakers is one of the NBA's cornerstone, and without that Franchise, in one of the largest markets with one of the largest fan bases, the NBA would not be nearly as popular as it is today.

To say that without the NBA the Lakers would not exist is a head-scratching statement. Of course, without the NBA, there would be no teams, so why even bring this up?

I can't tell if your first statement is sarcastic or not, but I can forgive a fellow Sixers fan haha

I agree whole-heartedly that the league would not be as popular without the Lakers. It is one of, if not the, biggest market in the NBA and it really helped drive popularity in the NBA after Jordan trailed off.

The NBA at its core though is a business which all of the owners are a part of. It might seem unfair for big market owners, but revenue sharing is designed to benefit the entirety of the business. Again, contraction would really fix this because there are at least 4 teams you could probably eliminate or relocate (Seattle should get one)

Bramaca
04-18-2012, 10:50 AM
Sorry for the long quote but this was a well-thought out argument. Contraction would be better for the league to eliminate the dead weight, but its not as if Buss is the only owner that is losing money in this deal.

Great counter-argument.

Contraction of how many teams though? There are around 13 or 14 small market teams, some of them do alright presently but are only a couple losing seasons away from losing money and being in trouble. If you cut 2 or 4 small market teams all that will do is raise the salary and luxury tax making it even harder on the remaining small market teams and in a couple more years the same problem still exists. Unless you are willing to contract all the small market teams and weaken the leagues ability to make money overall then contraction of a couple teams does nothing. Revenue sharing is necesary for the league to work properly and have the best chance to expand its potential revenue sources.

IndyRealist
04-18-2012, 11:14 AM
Wouldn't a thinking fan conclude that if the teams are relying on the Lakers for money, they'd want CP3 on the Lakers? CP3 makes the NBA (and thus the teams, through revenue sharing) more money by being on the Lakers rather than the Clippers. The only way you can bring CP3 into this revenue sharing thing is in the opposite way to the way you're doing it.

Also, what do you think the Lakers would be without the NBA?

The other teams depend on their revenue, sure, but they also depend on the other teams - try and see how much the Lakers make without the rest of the NBA.
People don't go to see the Lakers play themselves and win the championship of a league of one - they go to see the Lakers play another team and win the NBA Championship. I'd wager if the Lakers joined some other league, and the NBA put another team in LA, LA basketball fans would move to the new team before long. It isn't just because they're the Lakers, it's because they're LA's NBA team.
(edit: lol, it wasn't until I read this back that I remembered LA do have another team. But the point still stands. They'd watch the Clippers (or a replacement team) before they watch a team called the Lakers play minor-league ball).



This analogy doesn't quite work. The Buss' don't own a business, they own a franchise license. They're a part of the NBA business - a big part, but just a part all the same. Like what I said above - the Lakers would be nothing without the NBA.

So, the analogy sort of falls a part. These aren't independent businesses taking out of each other's pockets. These are business partners, all parts of the same corporate whole, taking from each other. It's very very different.

The product isn't just 'The Lakers' the product is 'NBA Basketball' so the other owners deserve part of the revenue from it. It totally sucks for the Buss family how much they have to give up, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but your analogy is lazy and wrong.

Also, fwiw, the fact that they don't have other business outside the NBA is completely irrelevant to whether it's the right deal or not. What an owners' business is outside is of absolutely no relevance to the other owners beyond being sure that they're still viable and their business doesn't harm the league in any way. It's not the other owners' job to give them a better deal because they're a family - it'd be nice and maybe even heartwarming (if they weren't already so rich) - but it's not something they should be expected to do at all.

Also, afaik, Arison and Cuban, the two you mentioned, voted against the CBA as a comment on how they didn't like the revenue sharing plan (which they also lose money from).

Also worth noting that they can't actually go broke or anything from it, like some are seemingly implying with this whole 'they're just a family business!' thing. The contribution is limited to at most 50% of total profits.

And finally, you have to understand that the Lakers being rich actually costs other teams in the first place. The higher Laker revenue is, the higher league revenue is, the higher player salaries are, and the more it costs other owners to run and own a team. It's pretty simple.

Overall, the issue is wayyy more complex than 'this is big businessmen stealing from a family business just because it's successful!' that many are playing it to be.

This. The Lakers have a vested interest in keeping other teams in the black. I don't recall hearing Dolan complain.

IndyRealist
04-18-2012, 11:16 AM
Although the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics and Raptors are expected to be the biggest paying teams, all eyes turn to Lakers owner Jerry Buss, who -- in some proposals under consideration -- would be asked to share as much as $50 million next season alone. That puts him at the top of the list, followed by Knicks owner James Dolan, with no one else close.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31941/digging-deep-to-share-revenue


Anyone who says the Raptors should be contracted should shut the **** up and say thank you that we're supporting YOUR team!! :D

Raptors are one of the few teams that can suck for a decade and still make money.

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 11:20 AM
To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.

YES! :clap:

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 11:31 AM
I really don't get why stars don't stay for long in Toronto and why a lotta people don't consider them a big market team :confused:

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 11:32 AM
If by "the Man" you mean an unprofessional POS then yes you nailed it on that one. He should be forced to return all of his salary after the piss poor effort he put forth at his JOB. I used to love him as a player, but the respect is totally gone.

Yup.

DoubleDragon
04-18-2012, 11:33 AM
All you're gonna get from this thread is a bunch of sour grapes.
Unfortunately, the Lakers amongst a handful of teams are keeping the league afloat.
It's just the way it is. Of course you're gonna have a bullseye on your back when you're top dog. It just comes with the territory. I even read one poster ask "well what would the Lakers be without the NBA?"...huh? Teams like LA and Boston, NY, Chicago built this league up. But this is the mentality you're gonna get from any non-LA fanbase.

Don't get too offended. Just be glad our team draws the ire of the rest of the league. Just means we're doing something (too) good.

I hope another team or two at least benefits the league by becoming another legit franchise.
That would be cool. Don't get me wrong.

So when life gives you sour grapes...make wine baby:drunk:

JasonJohnHorn
04-18-2012, 11:43 AM
Yeah, it's ridiculous. Hey you run your franchise too well, let's punish you.

I wouldnt say Buss is running the team well. He was given a team that was already making money hand over fist. Any owner in the league would be doing as well or better than Buss. He's just lucky. like the owners of the Knicks are lucky. They own the teams in the two biggest markets in the league and are a lock to make money.

Just saying. Buss essentially won the lottery.

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 11:49 AM
Sorry I may be wrong about popularity the bulls may just be better with money but I doubt its far apart

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/01/25/the-most-and-least-profitable-nba-teams/

Chicago earned more over the last 5 years according to that Forbes article, but as with all stats, you have to delve deeper. Part of that advantage is due to home game attendance. Isn't the United Center somewhere around 21,000 seating capacity, while Staples is only 18,000? That's 3,000 more butts in seats. I'm not sure what the average price is for a ticket, but say it's $50. You do the math: How much more per game do the Bulls make? Per season? Over a 5 year period??? Naturally, the Bulls should come out ahead, as long as they're putting a product on the court that sells out the arena.

The bottom line is that the Lakers did get screwed and there will be hell to pay come the next time a collecting bargaining agreement is due.

The fact is the league should have contracted. They didn't. Now they're cannibalizing from some of the big fish so that the little fish can survive. The small market teams are what they are for a reason. They can't earn. They won't earn. Some of these franchises will never sniff a championship, let alone turn a profit consistently. Not unless Jordan, Bird, and Magic all find the fountain of youth and decide to play in Bummfruk, USA.

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 11:52 AM
I really don't get why stars don't stay for long in Toronto and why a lotta people don't consider them a big market team :confused:

Toronto is a great North American metropolitan city. I'd move there in a heartbeat if I could...were it part of the USA.

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 11:59 AM
Toronto is a great North American metropolitan city. I'd move there in a heartbeat if I could...were it part of the USA.

Me too! USA or not!

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 12:01 PM
Seriously...lets say a superstar developed in Toronto, he would have a NATION rooting for him not just one city. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Avenged
04-18-2012, 12:02 PM
Odom is the Man for that one. He is a Laker for life for that one. I am not going to play for the enemy...lol

Lamar is a Laker at heart but sadly.. they don't want him.

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 12:03 PM
Me too! USA or not!

I have way too much family, some of whom (especially on the wife's side) definitely would not be allowed to pass the Canadian border. :D :D :D :D

nate2usmc
04-18-2012, 12:07 PM
I have way too much family, some of whom (especially on the wife's side) definitely would not be allowed to pass the Canadian border. :D :D :D :D

Haha

Bramaca
04-18-2012, 12:09 PM
I have way too much family, some of whom (especially on the wife's side) definitely would not be allowed to pass the Canadian border. :D :D :D :D

So the reason you wouldn't move to Canada is because your in-laws couldn't come to visit. Isn't that a huge reason to do it.

ghettosean
04-18-2012, 12:19 PM
I can't believe this same thread has been opened :sigh:

This was discussed to death a month ago do we really need a new thread on it so soon... The same link is even given and the Mod of this thread even posted in the previous thread.

:horse:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=707118

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 12:26 PM
So the reason you wouldn't move to Canada is because your in-laws couldn't come to visit. Isn't that a huge reason to do it.

Nah, we're a tight knit group. My brother-in-law and one of the cousins on that side of the family are two of my best friends. As for the wife, good luck separating her from literally her "evil twin" sister. As long as you're family my sister-in-law is the best human being on the planet. But anyone else...well, she might cut you if you look at her sideways. (And it wouldn't be the first time that she's done so! :o )

KB-Pau-DH2012
04-18-2012, 12:36 PM
I can't believe this same thread has been opened :sigh:

This was discussed to death a month ago do we really need a new thread on it so soon... The same link is even given and the Mod of this thread even posted in the previous thread.

:horse:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=707118

That was a bleacher report article. The one I posted was an ESPN article that was posted on their site last night.

ghettosean
04-18-2012, 12:37 PM
....

ghettosean
04-18-2012, 12:38 PM
That was a bleacher report article. The one I posted was an ESPN article that was posted on their site last night.
Ok fair enough same topic though really and same response from Buss.

THE MTL
04-18-2012, 01:29 PM
I could care less about Buss and the Los Angeles Swindlers

this.

smiddy012
04-18-2012, 03:15 PM
I keep reading "the nba is a business". Since this is the case, why should LA receive favorable treatment in lop-sided trades? Why are lakers fans *****ing about what would have been the most lop-sided trade in NBA history? Is it because the NBA owes them something?? Or is it just because they weren't allowed to commit highway robbery again?

The feeling of entitlement displayed by lakers fans in this thread is pathetic.

gbrl
04-18-2012, 03:51 PM
I keep reading "the nba is a business". Since this is the case, why should LA receive favorable treatment in lop-sided trades? Why are lakers fans *****ing about what would have been the most lop-sided trade in NBA history? Is it because the NBA owes them something?? Or is it just because they weren't allowed to commit highway robbery again?

The feeling of entitlement displayed by lakers fans in this thread is pathetic.

this.

Bruno
04-18-2012, 03:55 PM
Yeah, it's ridiculous. Hey you run your franchise too well, let's punish you.

goes on far too much in this country, across the board.

Buss does make an interesting point i've never considered. they're not Kohls, they're not Microsoft. LAL is possibly the biggest, most successful family run business in the world.

I thought this article was going to be about the Chris Paul trade. LAL got shafted under the new cba.

Bruno
04-18-2012, 03:58 PM
I keep reading "the nba is a business". Since this is the case, why should LA receive favorable treatment in lop-sided trades? Why are lakers fans *****ing about what would have been the most lop-sided trade in NBA history? Is it because the NBA owes them something?? Or is it just because they weren't allowed to commit highway robbery again?

The feeling of entitlement displayed by lakers fans in this thread is pathetic.

bs. unfair trades have nothing to do with LAL now having to GIVE the rest of the league 50-60 millions dollars, every year under the new CBA.

xk4
04-18-2012, 04:36 PM
I'll say this again, they're not being punished for having a good front office. They aren't being punished for winning. They aren't being punished for having the most marketable players.

They are being forced to share money earned from their GIANT TV DEALS. This money does not help the team win. All it does is drives up player's salaries to the point where it hurts other teams.

And it's not just coming from the Lakers, though they will be putting the most money in. Essentially, it's money from every team being put into a pool to help the the less profitable half of the league. You can't contract half of the league.


"League projections call for about 15 of the league’s 30 teams to receive payments from the new revenue sharing plan, with seven of the 15 neediest teams, such as the Milwaukee Bucks, Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Bobcats and Sacramento Kings, to receive a distribution of roughly $16 million after the new system is fully phased in, up from the nearly $5.8 million maximum that teams could have received this year."

And Mark Cuban is not against it.


“[The new revenue-sharing plan] certainly helps level the playing field,” Cuban said in an email. “The question is whether it is enough to overcome the growing disparity in media rights fees.”

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

It's not a witch hunt. It's the best plan they could come up with to keep the league competitive. It won't put the Lakers out of business. It won't make their team worse. It just helps the other teams that aren't fortunate enough to have 25 games per year on national television.

shep33
04-18-2012, 04:43 PM
I keep reading "the nba is a business". Since this is the case, why should LA receive favorable treatment in lop-sided trades? Why are lakers fans *****ing about what would have been the most lop-sided trade in NBA history? Is it because the NBA owes them something?? Or is it just because they weren't allowed to commit highway robbery again?

The feeling of entitlement displayed by lakers fans in this thread is pathetic.


See I have to disagree with you here. It takes two teams to make a trade. The Lakers never get "favorable treatment" in any form of trade. The other team can pull the plug, or hang up the phone.

I never understood this dynamic, and why people think the Lakers got it made from stealing players in crappy trades. The other team just has to say "no" and that's the end of it. Yet, a lot of us sit here and ridicule the Lakers because they tend to get the better players in deals? I don't see how that's the Lakers fault in any way.

What I'm agreeing with is Jim Buss's position. He's saying that his family will essentially pay hundreds of millions to the NBA over the next 20 years or so, because of the new revenue sharing agreement. I would be ***** too as the Lakers owner if I were giving a significant chunk of my money to the NBA.

I'm not even looking at this from a "Lakers are getting screwed view", because it has no effect really on them winning or losing. But from a business stance, it's ridiculous.

Bruno
04-18-2012, 04:56 PM
contraction. all these franchises created in the late 80's and 90's have no business dragging down the teams that made the NBA what it is. teams who can't stay afloat on their own have no business existing, just like every other bad business in the country. either the nba is a business or it isn't. if it is, why are teams who aren't carrying their own weight being propt up? from a business perspective, that doesn't make any sense. it's crazy that LAL is forced to give 50-80 million dollars annually so that other teams can continue to exist in mediocrity, while their owners **** up and make poor decisions.

xk4
04-18-2012, 05:08 PM
"League projections call for about 15 of the league’s 30 teams to receive payments from the new revenue sharing plan, with seven of the 15 neediest teams, such as the Milwaukee Bucks, Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Bobcats and Sacramento Kings, to receive a distribution of roughly $16 million after the new system is fully phased in, up from the nearly $5.8 million maximum that teams could have received this year."

I'm just going to keep posting this over and over.

You can't contract 15 teams. And the money isn't just coming from the Lakers.

shep33
04-18-2012, 05:14 PM
I'm just going to keep posting this over and over.

You can't contract 15 teams. And the money isn't just coming from the Lakers.

I agree, you can't contract 15 teams, but I mean the problem being issued isn't really about massive contraction as opposed to unequal revenue sharing.

This doesn't really affect the Lakers in any way in terms of winning or losing. But the problem lies with the massive amounts the Buss family has to pay to the rest of the league for their own success.

Going back to the reported story. Jim Buss is upset because unlike a lot of other owners who get most of their income outside of their NBA franchises, the Buss family is pretty much dependent on the Lakers and that's it.

The problem that he's talking about it is that whatever the Lakers make as a franchise goes into the pocket of the Buss family. That being said even when their success had led to them personally, not the NBA, getting a huge TV deal, the Buss family still pays the NBA for that.

The Buss family still makes a killer, don't get me wrong, but again, what people don't understand is that they are going to pay hundreds of millions to the NBA out of their own pocket, and not because they're breaking any rules or overspending on players, but because they themselves have been more successful than any other franchise.

valade16
04-18-2012, 05:22 PM
It's not because they're more successful, it's because they are successful in a bigger market...

I feel Lakers fans complaining don't take into account the need for other teams to play against. If we contract the 15 teams receiving the benefits the entire league and the lakers will lose lots of that media revenue because the league will not be as large nor as popular.

It's a symbiotic relationship, one they agreed to by becoming part of the league. If they don't like it they can disband from the league, I'd love to see how much money they'd make without the league affiliation...

ThunderousDemon
04-18-2012, 05:26 PM
I could care less about Buss and the Los Angeles Swindlers

Then why did you comment, if you could care less. :facepalm:

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 05:47 PM
I keep reading "the nba is a business". Since this is the case, why should LA receive favorable treatment in lop-sided trades? Why are lakers fans *****ing about what would have been the most lop-sided trade in NBA history? Is it because the NBA owes them something?? Or is it just because they weren't allowed to commit highway robbery again?

The feeling of entitlement displayed by lakers fans in this thread is pathetic.

Oh right, because the LA Mafia must have stormed those other GM's homes and left dead horses in their beds as a warning: "Trade with LA or else!" :rolleyes:

Don't blame us for what you feel are poor decisions being made by other franchises. It's not our fault that we're usually a very viable trading partner and above board in every respect.

The problem isn't LA, it's the haters. The very same people that cheered when LA shipped LO to Dallas "for basically nothing" are the same fools who think we sent LO there as a poisoned pill. Get real.

No the Lakers DON'T always get the best players; they DON'T always get the most favorable trades; they DON't always get top flight talent in their prime at EVERY position.

Anyone who knows the Lakers history realizes that we usually bring in potentially talented players and said players work their arses off to be great. (Again, LO is the perfect example. He went from being clueless and unfocused to being the 6th man of the year when he was wearing purple and gold.) That is the formula. Not entitlement, favoritism, nepotism or any other B/S excuse.

Hard work under the most intense scrutiny and pressure and on the brightest of stages. Lakers players aren't afraid to be great and that's why the organization usually comes out smelling like a rose.

The Final Boss
04-18-2012, 05:57 PM
:pity:

Lakers gotta keep crappy teams like the Bobcats and Cavs afloat...to hell with those teams, contract and get it over with.

And other crap like the Warriors, Kings, Bucks, etc...

RaiderLakersA's
04-18-2012, 05:58 PM
It's not because they're more successful, it's because they are successful in a bigger market...

I feel Lakers fans complaining don't take into account the need for other teams to play against. If we contract the 15 teams receiving the benefits the entire league and the lakers will lose lots of that media revenue because the league will not be as large nor as popular.

It's a symbiotic relationship, one they agreed to by becoming part of the league. If they don't like it they can disband from the league, I'd love to see how much money they'd make without the league affiliation...

Hardly symbiotic. More like the modern day equivalent of barnstorming. Some of those teams only sellout their arenas when the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or other top team comes to town. The NBA has become a travelling road show.

Naturally, if you're a crappy owner in a small pond that isn't willing to pay money to make money, you love the new arrangement. The new CBA is just more incentive for these owners to do less, not more, because they know Sugar Daddy Lakers will come through with a $30M - $50M check for them whether they win or lose, earn money or squander it, feverishly innovate or lay around on an opium bench killing time and brain cells.

The league isn't a business; it has become a welfare state masquerading as big business. Let the NBA's "food stamps for field goals" campaign begin in earnest!

xk4
04-18-2012, 06:09 PM
So the Lakers should continue to have a financial advantage because someone accidentally moved the team to LA before TV contracts became bloated and ridiculous?

The fact is, the NBA shouldn't be competing for business within itself.

If the Buss family wants to open a Lemonade stand, they have the right to be rewarded in a free market if they run it well. But if their lemonade stand decides to back a basketball team, it becomes a problem when their profits start ******** all over the rest of the league

The goods
04-18-2012, 06:15 PM
To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.


This sums it up this is their whole life rich or not and I don't care how rich I a am I shouldn't have to give my money to teams he aren't smart enough to keep their business afloat,now teams who are up and coming like golden state I don't mind helping but cleveland who will be terrible for the long haul and after that stuff dan gilbert pulled writting a letter to david stern about the cp3 trade? Hell no I refuse to help him.

Kevj77
04-18-2012, 06:15 PM
I showed you that list so Because it's kinda BS that the lakers think they are the only ones that are affected by the new revenue sharing. Bulls and Knicks do tooYes the Bulls and Knicks are also affected. The Lakers are the hit the hardest because they got a local tv deal starting next year.

To go from 4-6 million in revenue sharing to 50-80 million is extreme. Revenue sharing is necessary, but 80 million. Think about it the Lakers payroll is 80 million before luxury tax.

The Lakers are not only paying their own payroll, but the entire payroll of at least one other team. I know that the money is divided among the other teams excluding team that also pay revenue sharing like the Bulls or Knicks, so thats not exactly how it works. If you think about it that way though it is extreme.

I also know that they are a franchise of the NBA, but companies close unprofitable franchise locations all the time. Best Buy is doing this right now closing a lot of unprofitable locations.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-buy-announces-locations-store-closings-185341700.html

(AP) Best Buy on Saturday announced the locations of 50 stores that it is closing this year, including seven in California, six in Illinois and six in the company's home state of Minnesota.It's business you don't make unprofitable locations prop up the profitable ones.

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 06:20 PM
Lets get a couple of things in perspective here. The NFL teams contribute 75% to the pool of revenue funds. The NBA is 50% now with the new deal that each team has to contribute.

The main difference is "what" you include in those formulas. The NFL has national TV revenue that is shared and the profit off of that far out ways the national TV revenue generated by the NBA.

IF you grow the league so that the national TV revenue is greater than that is one way the bigger markets can recoup the money lost early on in this new deal.

I mean just collecting a check for you local TV deals and making massive profits so that you can overspend on players and drive up cost for mediocre players which is in fact what the Lakers and the Knicks have done in the past. This is also the owners main beef with the Lakers.

THe Lakers TV deal is 200 million each year. What they have to pay out will probably be 60 million. In essence this is just another way for owners to collect on revenue that isn't included in the formula and Jennie Buss gets it..


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.”

The goods
04-18-2012, 06:22 PM
See I have to disagree with you here. It takes two teams to make a trade. The Lakers never get "favorable treatment" in any form of trade. The other team can pull the plug, or hang up the phone.

I never understood this dynamic, and why people think the Lakers got it made from stealing players in crappy trades. The other team just has to say "no" and that's the end of it. Yet, a lot of us sit here and ridicule the Lakers because they tend to get the better players in deals? I don't see how that's the Lakers fault in any way.

What I'm agreeing with is Jim Buss's position. He's saying that his family will essentially pay hundreds of millions to the NBA over the next 20 years or so, because of the new revenue sharing agreement. I would be ***** too as the Lakers owner if I were giving a significant chunk of my money to the NBA.

I'm not even looking at this from a "Lakers are getting screwed view", because it has no effect really on them winning or losing. But from a business stance, it's ridiculous.


This is what I'm talking about what the hell is a lop sided deal? It takes 2 to make a deal and what deal are people talking about? Memphis looks dangerous now because of that "lop sided deal" and as far as the cp3 trade I bet new orleans wishes they took that deal now eric gordan is nice but dragic is playing out of his mind and martin would've been a good asset,along with scola and odom? That team would've been better than they are now so F you stern and every owner that had a problem with it.
Now I have to watch chris paul carry the clippers to the playoffs when he could've been carrying us. Lol

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 06:29 PM
Hardly symbiotic. More like the modern day equivalent of barnstorming. Some of those teams only sellout their arenas when the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or other top team comes to town. The NBA has become a travelling road show.

Naturally, if you're a crappy owner in a small pond that isn't willing to pay money to make money, you love the new arrangement. The new CBA is just more incentive for these owners to do less, not more, because they know Sugar Daddy Lakers will come through with a $30M - $50M check for them whether they win or lose, earn money or squander it, feverishly innovate or lay around on an opium bench killing time and brain cells.

The league isn't a business; it has become a welfare state masquerading as big business. Let the NBA's "food stamps for field goals" campaign begin in earnest!

Every team still has to spend 90% of the salary cap every year for palyers and if they don't I believe its split amoug the players of the team. Dont' get the NBA confused with MLB.

smith&wesson
04-18-2012, 06:31 PM
To be fair to the Buss's though, they don't really make much of anything outside of the Lakers. I mean it is their business. They aren't like Mickey Arison or Cubes who have billions outside of basketball.

If you own a business, and somebody gives you specifically an incentive because of your success, why would you have to share it with every other business owner down the street?

It's stupid. Other business owners are essentially going into your pocket and taking your money, which they haven't earned. The Buss family is essentially going to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions over the next decade. Money the rightfully deserve. It's easy for us to laugh and say "who cares they're already rich", but I cannot be mad at this dude for losing a ton of money like that.


Why don't they just contract? Really it's absolutely ridiculous to have this many teams in the NBA.

good post. someone actually read the article.

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 06:32 PM
This is what I'm talking about what the hell is a lop sided deal? It takes 2 to make a deal and what deal are people talking about? Memphis looks dangerous now because of that "lop sided deal" and as far as the cp3 trade I bet new orleans wishes they took that deal now eric gordan is nice but dragic is playing out of his mind and martin would've been a good asset,along with scola and odom? That team would've been better than they are now so F you stern and every owner that had a problem with it.
Now I have to watch chris paul carry the clippers to the playoffs when he could've been carrying us. Lol

We don't know if long term salary and potential bidders had any influence on what happened. WHen you want to sell a franchise you don't add in more red ink for somone else to take on. The GM certainly doesn't care about that but other NBA owners do since they collectively still own it.

Kevj77
04-18-2012, 06:33 PM
Lets not forget that the television revenue is taxed likely at the highest tax rate because it is revenue not capital gains. Then they give 50-80 million to the unprofitable NBA teams and they pay luxury tax, it is very possible with the new luxury tax for the Lakers to lose money even with a new tv deal. I actually expect their payroll to go down as soon as Kobe retires.

Evolution23
04-18-2012, 06:34 PM
He can use his 100 dollar bills to wipe his tears.

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 06:35 PM
Lets not forget that the television revenue is taxed likely at the highest tax rate because it is revenue not capital gains. Then they give 50-80 million to the unprofitable NBA teams and they pay luxury tax, it is very possible with the new luxury tax for the Lakers to lose money even with a new tv deal. I actually expect their payroll to go down as soon as Kobe retires.

There payroll should go down if they want to keep their moeny. I mean that was the whole point of the new CBA penalities. Keep cost down for everyone so everyone can compete.

Mr Costanza
04-18-2012, 06:37 PM
I find it hard to feel sorry for billionaires in an economy like this. It's pathetic actually for someone worth that much to go on the record complaining about not making as much money as he used to. How would it look if Warren Buffet started complaining publicly about how it's not fair that his profits are down because of new insurance laws?



Edit: I'm not saying he wrong, I agree in fact he is getting a raw deal. He just needs to save his complaining for the boardroom, not ESPN.

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 06:38 PM
good post. someone actually read the article.

The local TV profit he is making is from the fan so I could care less about his loss revenue. I actually feel for the Laker fan because they will see a jump in local cable bill to watch their team which has nothing to do with the other NBA owners.

Kevj77
04-18-2012, 06:41 PM
There payroll should go down if they want to keep their moeny. I mean that was the whole point of the new CBA penalities. Keep cost down for everyone so everyone can compete.Except in business reinvesting your profits is essential to continue growth. By reinvesting back into the team they earned the television deal.

If they don't continue to do this and win championship will they get another 3 billion dollar tv deal when this one expires? If this happen it will hurt the rest of the teams that need this money because LA will contribute less in revenue sharing as their profits go down.

shep33
04-18-2012, 06:42 PM
Somebody mentioned the NFL's revenue sharing with the NBA's... lets just not go there. The NFL is a different beast and we all know it. It's arguably the best run league in the world, let alone America.

In 2010, one team lost money in the NFL. The Detroit Lions, that's it. It's a huge money making machine that trumps the NBA.

shep33
04-18-2012, 06:46 PM
I find it hard to feel sorry for billionaires in an economy like this. It's pathetic actually for someone worth that much to go on the record complaining about not making as much money as he used to. How would it look if Warren Buffet started complaining publicly about how it's not fair that his profits are down because of new insurance laws?



Edit: I'm not saying he wrong, I agree in fact he is getting a raw deal. He just needs to save his complaining for the boardroom, not ESPN.

I'm not going to disagree with you either, I mean, even with this the Buss's will make money.

Your right, they are getting a raw deal. It's just shocking that the Lakers, actually the Buss family will pay the NBA hundreds upon hundreds of millions over the next 20 years.

t2a2e9j12
04-18-2012, 06:48 PM
the new cba is horrible for both owners and players niether side got what they wanted or what the league needed to keep all teams healthy and competitive. this is just one example

BCpatsox18
04-18-2012, 06:54 PM
For those saying the LAKERS wouldn't be anything without the NBA.....WAIT FOR IT....:laugh:

Remember the NBA was destined to die after MJ's retirement in '98, but it was the SHaq-Kobe-Phil 3peat Lakers that didn't let the NBA miss a beat after Jordan's retirement and basically paved the way for a new era of NBA Basketball. Everyone thought that after the lockout 98-99 50-game season, the NBA w/o Michael Jordan was going to quickly go down the toilet, then Phil came to LA to elevate Shaq and Kobe's career, 3 straight titles, and voila, the NBA never missed a beat.

The fact of the matter is that the Los ANgeles Lakers have been a part of 2 revivals in the sports' history. In the 1980s with Showtime Magic and their rivalry against Boston, and then after Jordan's '98 retirement when the Lakers with superstardom status of Shaquille O'Neal & Kobe Bryant (probably the most dominant 1a & 1b punch duo in NBA history).


The Lakers have kept the NBA alive, not the other way around.

the NBA wasnt going anywhere after jordan retired regardless, its just too big. the reason people were saying it was going to die was because the game got boring (never quite recovered), the lakers may have promoted more people to watch with shaq and kobe but dont make it seem like the NBA was going to become the CBA without the lakers

bholly
04-18-2012, 07:12 PM
Answer this question for me....how much would the NBA have profited if post-Jordan era, it was basically the Spurs winning titles for many many years. Wouldn't the league have got boring; the one knock on the Spurs (which isn't a fair criticism but it is what it is) is that they have been and are a boring team with a boring style of play in a small market team. How much would the NBA have survived with (no offense to them) Duncan, Popovich and company carrying the torch after Jordan and Phil?

Of course there would still be profit without the Lakers but not by much I can guarantee you that.

Maybe LBJ's arrival into the NBA in 2003 would have revived the sport, but the NBA would have to wait a whole 5 yrs since Jordan retired for that to happen, and the league would make a big profit off of that, but for how long? Cleveland is afterall Cleveland at the end of the day. Aside from the Lakers and Spurs, the NBA has become a sport of individual stars who are on TEAM X or TEAM Y. The randomness and fickle business of the sport would show highs and lows for the NBA, but the Lakers have always been that one consistent spark for the league with its high profile owners, teams, head coaches, and superstar hall of fame players.

You've answered your own question. Without the Lakers, the NBA would still make a profit. A smaller profit, but it would survive. Without the NBA, do you really think the Lakers would survive?

This is the stupidest argument, I can't believe I'm part of it. The only non-idiotic opinion is that they both depend on each other. If you really want to insist that one depends on the other more (and I have no idea why you do), it has to be that LAL depend more on the NBA.

If the Lakers aren't part of the NBA, all their players are still playing for the NBA, just on different teams. The Lakers likely wouldn't survive at all without the NBA. They wouldn't have Kobe or Shaq or Magic or Kareem if they weren't an NBA team. Everything they have, they have because they're part of the NBA. If they're not part of the NBA, they're just one of a thousand other non-NBA basketball clubs in the country that nobody's ever heard of.

Without the Lakers, the NBA still has Magic and Kobe and Shaq, just playing for different teams. AI could've won in 2001 which would've been huge in another large market, the C-Webb Kings could've won, which would've been huge, the Spurs could've won a few more. There was Vince and TMac and the twin towers and the Celtics had a few good years and the Knicks had a few good years. There was plenty going on, and plenty of stars. It's lunacy to think the NBA would've suddenly survived without the Lakers franchise, and as long as you agree it survives (which you said it would), then of course the Lakers depend more on the NBA than the NBA depends the Lakers - because the Lakers WOULDN'T survive without the NBA.

I really don't know how you can be so much of a Laker homer that you're really taking that side of the argument, but it just makes you sound absolutely crazy.

valade16
04-18-2012, 07:13 PM
Hardly symbiotic. More like the modern day equivalent of barnstorming. Some of those teams only sellout their arenas when the Lakers, Heat, Bulls, or other top team comes to town. The NBA has become a travelling road show.

Naturally, if you're a crappy owner in a small pond that isn't willing to pay money to make money, you love the new arrangement. The new CBA is just more incentive for these owners to do less, not more, because they know Sugar Daddy Lakers will come through with a $30M - $50M check for them whether they win or lose, earn money or squander it, feverishly innovate or lay around on an opium bench killing time and brain cells.

The league isn't a business; it has become a welfare state masquerading as big business. Let the NBA's "food stamps for field goals" campaign begin in earnest!

Do you believe that every small market owner is "crappy" or that if every small market team simply spent money they could produce a winner or be as successful as the Lakers?

Or put another way, do you think the Milwaukie Bucks could ever, ever make as much money on a yearly basis as the Lakers do?

If not, you now realize the incredible position a franchise that happens to be situated in a city that has more people than the entirety of Wisconsin has over other teams...

As I said before, suppose you cut out the 15-18 teams losing money. Do you think the NBA would be as popular or profitable as it is today if the league was comprised of:

Celtics
Knicks
Lakers
Heat
Bulls
Mavericks
Rockets
Warriors

Would a 8 team league enjoy near the same economic success as the current one?

If not that shows that the Lakers incredible TV deal is in part due to the collection of welfare state teams simply being in the league and increasing the leagues exposure as a whole.

Wade>You
04-18-2012, 07:18 PM
I have all the respect for the Lakers and sympathize with them on how the league screwed them over (and over).

But throwing Micky Arison's name in there? Jim Buss loses all credibility and all sympathy from me.

-Carnival Cruise lost a lot of money the last few years and continues to do so.
-The new CBA screws the Heat, it doesn't help him. That's what the whole lockout was really about, quit flattering yourself, Jim.
-Micky Arison has a team in a small market but gives up just as much in the revenue sharing as the big markets do.

Heat got screwed the worst. They will struggle to keep their team and they'll be paying the same % of revenue sharing as the big markets.

It's still nothing compared to how the players got screwed in the new CBA.

Just another transfer of wealth from the players to the crappy owners and the NBA in the Stern era.

Pacerlive
04-18-2012, 08:13 PM
Except in business reinvesting your profits is essential to continue growth. By reinvesting back into the team they earned the television deal.

If they don't continue to do this and win championship will they get another 3 billion dollar tv deal when this one expires? If this happen it will hurt the rest of the teams that need this money because LA will contribute less in revenue sharing as their profits go down.

This deal is up 20 to 25 years from now and nothing is stopping them from taking their enormous profit and reinvesting it into their team. What all of the owners want is that popularity can increase for the entire nba so that national tv money can increase. Like it or not the 50 percent pooled money will have a trickle down affect for the entire nba which will increase local and national tv revenue.

Kevj77
04-18-2012, 08:23 PM
Do you believe that every small market owner is "crappy" or that if every small market team simply spent money they could produce a winner or be as successful as the Lakers?No I don't believe every small market owner is crappy. Sometimes you have to invest in a product to see profits down the road. How much money did Apple spend developing the iPhone before they sold a single phone.


Or put another way, do you think the Milwaukie Bucks could ever, ever make as much money on a yearly basis as the Lakers do?

If not, you now realize the incredible position a franchise that happens to be situated in a city that has more people than the entirety of Wisconsin has over other teams...Never it isn't possible. I do believe they could make a profit. However, it isn't all about market otherwise the Clippers would have the same television contract. Same city and arena as the Lakers why don't they have one yet?


As I said before, suppose you cut out the 15-18 teams losing money. Do you think the NBA would be as popular or profitable as it is today if the league was comprised of:

Celtics
Knicks
Lakers
Heat
Bulls
Mavericks
Rockets
Warriors

Would a 8 team league enjoy near the same economic success as the current one?With 8 teams no with 26 it would be even better than it is now. Every team would have more talent and the four least profitable teams could stop leeching off the profitable ones. The remaining teams would get a bigger share of television rights and if they are eligible profit sharing. It wouldn't hurt the national television deal. How many times a year do you see the Bobcats on TNT, ABC or ESPN?


If not that shows that the Lakers incredible TV deal is in part due to the collection of welfare state teams simply being in the league and increasing the leagues exposure as a whole.No it's mainly in part to market size, Fox Sports and Time Warner are trying outbid eachother for LA area television rights. It is the reason the Dodgers will get and Angels recently got similar deals. I don't think it has anything to do with welfare teams increasing the NBA exposure we are talking about local television rights not national. The Lakers are the most popular sports franchise in the second largest market that somehow deosn't have an NFL team with two broadcasting companies competing for their rights. They do need teams to play so I don't dispute the validity of sharing part of this money. The question for me is not should they share, but how much is fair.

Kevj77
04-18-2012, 08:33 PM
This deal is up 20 to 25 years from now and nothing is stopping them from taking their enormous profit and reinvesting it into their team. What all of the owners want is that popularity can increase for the entire nba so that national tv money can increase. Like it or not the 50 percent pooled money will have a trickle down affect for the entire nba which will increase local and national tv revenue.The NBA ratings have been improving nationally for several years already national television contracts get bigger everytime they are negotiated. Local television rights will always depend on market size.

Trickle down? It will only work if that money is actually invested in on court production and not the owners bottom line. Are there restrictions on how this money is to be used? I haven't heard any.

C-Style
04-18-2012, 08:54 PM
The Rest of the NBA is just jelly, cause they can't run their own team

xk4
04-18-2012, 10:52 PM
What a bunch of trolls you Lakers fans are ';..;'

Pacerlive
04-19-2012, 12:19 AM
The NBA ratings have been improving nationally for several years already national television contracts get bigger everytime they are negotiated. Local television rights will always depend on market size.

Trickle down? It will only work if that money is actually invested in on court production and not the owners bottom line. Are there restrictions on how this money is to be used? I haven't heard any.

Each team has to throw in 50 percent of there revenue and obviously the lakers are the top dogs here but teams do have to spend atleast 90 percent of the salary cap regardless. This isn't yankees vs pirates. Contraction has never been considered a viable way to increase the popularity of a sport. Would it limit the amount of money the lakers have to spend on other teams? Sure but we are talking about 10 million a year at most by getting rid of 2 or 4 teams. That isn't worth it for the league.

The best way is to limit cost by cutting players salaries and increasing national tv revenue. This is what jordan wanted in the new cba but rich owners in bigger markets weren't willing to give up a season for it.

LakersMaster24
04-19-2012, 02:16 AM
Thirty teams in a league is way too much, I say contract a good 5 of them and to hell with them.

Teams like:

Bobcats
Raptors
Wizards
Hornets

MickeyMgl
04-19-2012, 02:53 AM
LA isn't punished for running its team well. It's being punished for using the profits from their ice cream stand on the beach to dominate a league where other teams are financed by an ice cream stand operating out of Milwaukee during the winter.

Clippers' ice cream stand is on the same beach, yet they were on the other side of the issue. Um, yeah.... nice try, but it's for running the team well.

MickeyMgl
04-19-2012, 03:01 AM
This doesnt just hurt Buss, this deal hurts every big market owner. Whether it be Buss, or Dolan (Knicks), or Arison (Heat), or Cuban (Mavs), or the Celtics owners (company), and even Jerry Reinsdorf (Bulls). These guys were the top dogs when it comes to ownership. They dont get as much of the pie as they used to either.

Miami is not a big market in NBA terms. It's closer to the bottom than the top.

Kevj77
04-19-2012, 04:05 AM
Each team has to throw in 50 percent of there revenue and obviously the lakers are the top dogs here but teams do have to spend atleast 90 percent of the salary cap regardless.50% of 100 million is a lot different than 50% of 400 million. That is simple math and a stupid way of deciding revenue sharing. The salary cap was what 58 million this year. 58*.9 = 52.2. How many team spent less than that this year? I'll tell you only three teams the Kings, Raptors and Nuggets. That is a joke.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm


This isn't yankees vs pirates. Contraction has never been considered a viable way to increase the popularity of a sport. Would it limit the amount of money the lakers have to spend on other teams? Sure but we are talking about 10 million a year at most by getting rid of 2 or 4 teams. That isn't worth it for the league.Perhaps although I feel it is. Is kneecapping the Lakers good for the NBA?


The best way is to limit cost by cutting players salaries and increasing national tv revenue. This is what jordan wanted in the new cba but rich owners in bigger markets weren't willing to give up a season for it.Wrong limiting costs is not the answer, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Stars are already underpaid compared to what they earn for their teams, why do you think Dan Gilbert was so pissed about Lebron leaving. Would making the NBA more competitive help grow the NBA absolutely. I don't dispute that.

I don't give a crap what Jordan wanted. He might be the GOAT as a player and the WOAT as a GM/owner. He drafted Kwame and Adam Morrison as lottery picks and has sold players just to save money. This multi-millionaire deserves welfare? He sucks as an owner. Why should profitable owners be willing to give up a season the make the worst owner happy?

xk4
04-19-2012, 04:32 AM
Clippers' ice cream stand is on the same beach, yet they were on the other side of the issue. Um, yeah.... nice try, but it's for running the team well.

Point taken. Still, you can't argue that a team like the Bobcats could ever be a financially successful as the Lakers. It's just not possible.

The Lakers franchise has been run very well for a long, long time. But don't pretend like they aren't also very fortunate to be based in the largest media market.

You could clone Kobe Bryant, have a 12 man Kobe roster for every team in the league, and the Lakers would still make the most money

Pacerlive
04-19-2012, 11:25 AM
50% of 100 million is a lot different than 50% of 400 million. That is simple math and a stupid way of deciding revenue sharing. The salary cap was what 58 million this year. 58*.9 = 52.2. How many team spent less than that this year? I'll tell you only three teams the Kings, Raptors and Nuggets. That is a joke.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

Perhaps although I feel it is. Is kneecapping the Lakers good for the NBA?

Wrong limiting costs is not the answer, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Stars are already underpaid compared to what they earn for their teams, why do you think Dan Gilbert was so pissed about Lebron leaving. Would making the NBA more competitive help grow the NBA absolutely. I don't dispute that.

I don't give a crap what Jordan wanted. He might be the GOAT as a player and the WOAT as a GM/owner. He drafted Kwame and Adam Morrison as lottery picks and has sold players just to save money. This multi-millionaire deserves welfare? He sucks as an owner. Why should profitable owners be willing to give up a season the make the worst owner happy?

That stupid math is exactly the way the NFL does it minus the money on the suits in the staduim and lets just ignore how the NFL came to power with an aggressive revenue sharing plain that guaranteed profits for all its teams in the 1960's because players were paid lower wages. OF course no one wants to see a pro athlete have have to work two jobs to support his family like in the 60's but it goes back to the point of this is how the world works.

For example if I design a drug as a scientist to cure a type of cancer and it nets 1 billion dollars do you think the company I work for gives me a percentage of the patent money? NO.... I pocket my 6 figure pay check each year and try to design another drug and I may be 1 out 30 scientist in the country able to do so.

Life is like this and if you don't like then you have to be at the top to pocket the cash.

The NBA has to do what the NFL did early on and thats increase national exposure and keep growing the product. Right now each team gets around 30 million each year from the national tv deals and their is no reason not increase that so markets can be viable all over the U.S. Keep the cap low and each team will have a shot which will increase viewers and national TV deals.

As for the whether or not NBA teams will just pocket the money just remember that these franchises are working in the red and the league will not allow money paid out to be pocketed. All the NBA teams books are audited by the league every year.

Pacerlive
04-19-2012, 11:56 AM
Miami is not a big market in NBA terms. It's closer to the bottom than the top.

It depends on what you consider the market. The designated market size is 17th in the US. The greater metro area ranking its 7th in the nation.

Just signing Lebron gained them 60 or more million a year in revenue. The fact is revenue will change as team success changes for each team and the Lakers giving up 60 million of that 200-250 million each year is by no means going to handicap them.

Hawkeye15
04-19-2012, 12:00 PM
So? The Lakers understand that they are always going to be one of the lead moneymakers in the system, and will have to sacrifice money to the model to make everything work. Get over it Buss.

Pacerlive
04-19-2012, 12:46 PM
Thirty teams in a league is way too much, I say contract a good 5 of them and to hell with them.

Teams like:

Bobcats
Raptors
Wizards
Hornets

Ya good luck with buying back 1.5 billion worth of franchises so you can contract.

Again contraction is not going to solve anything and all the owners especially the big market ones would suffer greatly for it.

The players would also scoff at the idea as well since thats removing 60 jobs from the league.

Stinkyoutsider
04-19-2012, 01:07 PM
Bad news for Buss and losing money but good news for us fans. More NBA basketball is great! Now, all they need to do is keep the regular season and playoffs going longer so fans can enjoy the sport and the league more.

I have a way for the NBA teams to all make more money so the Lakers might be able to keep more. Start playing meaningful games against teams in other leagues and in other countries? Tournaments in Spain, Brazil, England could help. Going up against those teams in those countries could entice more people in other countries in the NBA, which would then sell rights in those countries...

Pacerlive
04-19-2012, 01:22 PM
Bad news for Buss and losing money but good news for us fans. More NBA basketball is great! Now, all they need to do is keep the regular season and playoffs going longer so fans can enjoy the sport and the league more.

I have a way for the NBA teams to all make more money so the Lakers might be able to keep more. Start playing meaningful games against teams in other leagues and in other countries? Tournaments in Spain, Brazil, England could help. Going up against those teams in those countries could entice more people in other countries in the NBA, which would then sell rights in those countries...

You know how bad a nba team would beat a brazilan team or a french team under nba rules? Spain would have a shot but most other leagues teams don't have the depththat nba teams have. This isn't the olympics where talent is pooled together from all other leagues.

MLB2K10King
04-19-2012, 01:32 PM
Rich guys are getting richer at a slower pace, alert the press!

Sir you are absolutely right.

utl768
04-19-2012, 02:41 PM
more the reason why revenue sharing is stupid

beasted86
04-19-2012, 06:57 PM
The NBA will dig it's own grave allowing teams like the Bobcats to destroy their profit margin.

Believe me, I feel for all the arena employees and so forth that could lose their job, but this is not the right way to conduct business long term.

MickeyMgl
04-19-2012, 08:07 PM
Point taken. Still, you can't argue that a team like the Bobcats could ever be a financially successful as the Lakers. It's just not possible.

The Lakers franchise has been run very well for a long, long time. But don't pretend like they aren't also very fortunate to be based in the largest media market.

You could clone Kobe Bryant, have a 12 man Kobe roster for every team in the league, and the Lakers would still make the most money

Best of both worlds, I guess. On one hand, you have the Clippers and Knicks, on the other, you have the Spurs and Thunder. Then there's the Lakers... and maybe make a case for the Mavericks.

Anyway, who's to say that a team in Charlotte has to be as profitable as a team in Los Angeles or New York? The salary cap was a great idea for the sake of leveling the playing field to some degree. I don't think baseball is better for letting the Yankees and a few other teams so far outspend the little guys.

But actually trying to make all of these franchises (with a wide disparity in market size) equally profitable is fairly asinine. Why shouldn't the payback of a salary cap be that the big market that is not allowed to spend more on players gets to pocket most of that revenue?

As much as I love rural and middle America, leagues should probably just focus on the largest markets.

Sssmush
04-19-2012, 08:22 PM
One thing which is overlooked, is that the real value of the league is in recognizable teams with history and tradition and a fanbase.

Spinning off new expansion teams (now we'll have another, when the Hornets change their name and get rebranded, and when the Kings move to Vancouver or whatever) actually dilutes the prestige and honor of the league, it tarnishes and waters down the value of each game.

Teams like the Sonics/Thunder/Bobcats/Kings/Hornets/ etc just pop in and out of existence on a yearly basis, constantly changing their names and migrating to whatever new town might have an arena, some marketing tie-ins, and a TV station, like carnivals, pro wrestling shows or televangelists.

The league is essentially selling shares in a revenue sharing scheme. For instance, let's say there are 29 teams + the Hornets that the league owns.

Lakers/Bulls/Knicks etc account for 95% of all the league profit and revenue. With the new CBA you essentially pool most of the league revenues and profits into a collective.

Now you, as the league, SELL the Hornets, or a new spinoff team, to an investor for $350M. That new team has virtually no chance to generate a profit or bring in revenue for the league in the first 10 years, in fact it is almost certain to lose at least several million a year.

SO, the league has just sold a 1/30th share of the profits of the Lakers/Bulls/Knicks etc to an outside investor for $350M. If the league chooses, it can pocket another $350M by selling ANOTHER 1/30th share of the profits to some other investor. Maybe sell it for even more if you grant them a license to play in Las Vegas or Missisippi or somewhere good.

everybody already knows that 10 years from now it will still be the Knicks and Lakers bringing in the bucks. These new "teams" are just mutual fund share investment vehicles into the NBA money making machine--and it's all being funded by teams like the Lakers. The TEAMS used to be strong independent entities, but now increasingly the league becomes stronger and stronger, and now have the nerve to say that without the league, without the NBA (which used to be like 3 fat dudes, 2 cigars and one hooker in a backroom with a few envelopes of cash) then the Lakers wouldn't even exist and would have no value.

Honestly, I've scoffed at the European system before, but in all seriousness, teams like the Lakers and Knicks need to be able to break away from the league all together, like Real Madrid or Manchester United, and be able to negotiate in what league they play and what games they are willing to play, and the NBA can decide to invite them in for the playoffs or not.

The Lakers should be able to play whatever players want to play there whatever dollar$$ they feel like paying them, and the other teams should have to negotiate with the Lakers for big home games in their cities. Oh, and as for demands for revenue sharing, haha that is a funny joke.

Sssmush
04-19-2012, 08:29 PM
weird... I feel like the NBA is reaching some sort of critical mass or on the verge of imploding for some reason. I have no cause to think that, but something just seems weird about this entire season. Teams like the Bobcats are obviously just letting themselves get facially gang raped for the entire season, holding on to get the #1 pick and for 2014 when they think more revenue sharing and luxury tax will somehow improve things for them... but still, it's weird. It's almost too quiet... and then the sale of the Hornets...

Not sure what's going on, but a couple teams might be on the verge of just declaring bankruptcy and walking away from the league. NBA probably gave a sweetheart deal in a hurry on the Hornets, because they don't want to be caught holding the bag.

TheIlladelph16
04-19-2012, 09:01 PM
One thing which is overlooked, is that the real value of the league is in recognizable teams with history and tradition and a fanbase.

Spinning off new expansion teams (now we'll have another, when the Hornets change their name and get rebranded, and when the Kings move to Vancouver or whatever) actually dilutes the prestige and honor of the league, it tarnishes and waters down the value of each game.

Teams like the Sonics/Thunder/Bobcats/Kings/Hornets/ etc just pop in and out of existence on a yearly basis, constantly changing their names and migrating to whatever new town might have an arena, some marketing tie-ins, and a TV station, like carnivals, pro wrestling shows or televangelists.

The league is essentially selling shares in a revenue sharing scheme. For instance, let's say there are 29 teams + the Hornets that the league owns.

Lakers/Bulls/Knicks etc account for 95% of all the league profit and revenue. With the new CBA you essentially pool most of the league revenues and profits into a collective.

Now you, as the league, SELL the Hornets, or a new spinoff team, to an investor for $350M. That new team has virtually no chance to generate a profit or bring in revenue for the league in the first 10 years, in fact it is almost certain to lose at least several million a year.

SO, the league has just sold a 1/30th share of the profits of the Lakers/Bulls/Knicks etc to an outside investor for $350M. If the league chooses, it can pocket another $350M by selling ANOTHER 1/30th share of the profits to some other investor. Maybe sell it for even more if you grant them a license to play in Las Vegas or Missisippi or somewhere good.

everybody already knows that 10 years from now it will still be the Knicks and Lakers bringing in the bucks. These new "teams" are just mutual fund share investment vehicles into the NBA money making machine--and it's all being funded by teams like the Lakers. The TEAMS used to be strong independent entities, but now increasingly the league becomes stronger and stronger, and now have the nerve to say that without the league, without the NBA (which used to be like 3 fat dudes, 2 cigars and one hooker in a backroom with a few envelopes of cash) then the Lakers wouldn't even exist and would have no value.

Honestly, I've scoffed at the European system before, but in all seriousness, teams like the Lakers and Knicks need to be able to break away from the league all together, like Real Madrid or Manchester United, and be able to negotiate in what league they play and what games they are willing to play, and the NBA can decide to invite them in for the playoffs or not.

The Lakers should be able to play whatever players want to play there whatever dollar$$ they feel like paying them, and the other teams should have to negotiate with the Lakers for big home games in their cities. Oh, and as for demands for revenue sharing, haha that is a funny joke.

You should probably take Sonics/Thunder out of that. Seattle got robbed of that team, and now the Thunder are a powerhouse in the league. They may not contribute in the same way as a team like the Lakers, but a great Thunder team benefits the league in terms of competition and its superstar players. That competition and those superstars coming to town help drive up league profit even for the big market teams.


I have only seen one or two reasonable arguments from Laker homers in here. Whoever was comparing the NBA to a welfare system (too lazy to find it) needs a facepalm. Why would any owner just "do less" even if there is supposedly incentive there to do that? Every owner wants to improve their team with the best chance of increasing their own profits. Yeah it sucks the Lakers have to give more money, but other big market teams have to do it too and I don't hear them publicly complaining about it.

Sssmush
04-19-2012, 09:39 PM
You should probably take Sonics/Thunder out of that. Seattle got robbed of that team, and now the Thunder are a powerhouse in the league. They may not contribute in the same way as a team like the Lakers, but a great Thunder team benefits the league in terms of competition and its superstar players. That competition and those superstars coming to town help drive up league profit even for the big market teams.


I have only seen one or two reasonable arguments from Laker homers in here. Whoever was comparing the NBA to a welfare system (too lazy to find it) needs a facepalm. Why would any owner just "do less" even if there is supposedly incentive there to do that? Every owner wants to improve their team with the best chance of increasing their own profits. Yeah it sucks the Lakers have to give more money, but other big market teams have to do it too and I don't hear them publicly complaining about it.

The Thunder are having a hot year, and that is good for the league. However, let's not forget that the "Thunder" were previously the "Seattle Supersonics."

For profit/business reasons, the "Sonics" bailed on Seattle, creating a vast "reverse fanbase" of embittered non-NBA fans. Simultaneously, the "Thunder" popped into existence, in a new market, and with no tradition, history or legacy whatsoever.

That in itself isn't totally bad... Oklahoma has shown that it can build something from nothing, and add some value to the league. Can it equal the loss of every NBA fan in the Northwest? Who knows. It is of course riding on the coat tails of the prestige teams, but they are making a go of it in a fresh market, so that is a good thing. Still, when people want to see the Thunder play, they want to see them play in the context of the NBA, against established NBA teams.

Heck... in 100 years, the Oklahoma City Thunder might be the most solid, established and respected franchise in the NBA, with 20 NBA championships or something.

Then they might get a huge TV deal from the "midwest mega-cable company" or whatever.

And THEN the NBA league office will grab 90% of their new mega profits, and use it as an incentive, a yearly annuity, to entice investors to buy the new NBA expansion franchises, the "Bangkok Bangers" and the "Romania Runnin' Rebels".

Hey, it's revenue sharing. Teams like Bangkok and Romania have no where near the fanbase of rich, elite teams like Oklahoma. And the league just sold those new franchises for $7B each. It's not fair for rich, elite teams like Oklahoma to just keep all that phat television money, when it should be shared equally with the newer expansion teams in small markets like Bangkok and Romania. This is only fair. Also there should be a reverse luxury tax, so that for every dollar Oklahoma spends on player salaries, they have to pay two dollars directly into a fund for Bangkok and Romania to pay they're player salaries, and every dollar that Bangkok and Romania pay over the "reverse cap" will be charged directly to Oklahoma City Thunder, as part of the "Oklahoma rule" which was democratically passed by all the 220 teams of the NBA in 2095.

Look at it this way: it ensures competitive balance. And It's only fair.

Sssmush
04-19-2012, 09:43 PM
Or the Thunder could just move to Rhode Island in two years and become the Rhode Island Rodents or something like that.

BoilerMan013
04-19-2012, 10:18 PM
I think this is hilarious. As if the Lakers are held at gunppoint and told to go 20-30 million dollars over the salary cap yearly.

Bramaca
04-20-2012, 01:02 AM
SO, the league has just sold a 1/30th share of the profits of the Lakers/Bulls/Knicks etc to an outside investor for $350M. If the league chooses, it can pocket another $350M by selling ANOTHER 1/30th share of the profits to some other investor. Maybe sell it for even more if you grant them a license to play in Las Vegas or Missisippi or somewhere good.

Here's a rough idea how the revenue sharing will likely work when fully implemented and how it might impact the bigger teams and the smaller ones.

The top 2 teams for revenue are the Lakers and the Knicks who made 208 and 244 million in revenue last year respectively. Take into account the new tv deal for the Lakers (around 150 mil per, an increase of 120 over the previous deal) and a say a 10% increase for the Knicks. Then look at what their expenses are which both seem to be around 170-185 million and add a likely increase for each to around 190 million. Then factor in that they will be contributing a max of 50% of profits.

Lakers; revenue -330 million, expenses - 190 million, profit - 140 million, revenue sharing - 70 million, revenue after rs - 260 million, profit after rs - 70 million

Knicks; revenue - 270 million, expenses - 190 million, profit - 80 million, revenue sharing - 40 million, revenue after rs - 230 million, profit after rs - 40 million

Avg low revenue team; revenue - 100 million, expenses - 110 million, losses - 10 million, max from revenue sharing - 16 million, revenue after rs - 116 million, profit after rs - 6 million

This isn't a 'lets split all the revenue equally' type of deal. The Lakers and Knicks will still make ridiculously more revenue, have plenty of profit, and be able to spend well above other teams if needed. Having the lower income teams be more solid financially becasue of revenue sharing is good for the league. It's less likely that teams will move or have to rebrand themselves "diluting the prestige and honor of the league, tarnishing and watering down the value of each game" as you say. The Lakers and Knicks do make a lot of money for the NBA and are the bigger fish but they do it by playing the other 28 teams in the league. No matter what you think, the other teams and the league do help the big fish in LA and NY earn that amazing amount of money.

All the LA fans in here seem so upset for the owner making less of a profit even though it won't actually change the teams ability to overspend other teams and won't change the oncourt product even a little. So here's another way to look at it. Without the salary cap a luxury tax that has been implemented to help all teams atleast compete and the lower revenue teams to bring those levels down that owner that you guys feel sorry for because he has to pay out 50 - 80 million in profit for revenue sharing would just be paying that much more in salary for the same product. Those low revenue teams actually created a system where he can make that much more of a profit then he would otherwise.

Sssmush
04-20-2012, 01:48 AM
Here's a rough idea how the revenue sharing will likely work when fully implemented and how it might impact the bigger teams and the smaller ones.

The top 2 teams for revenue are the Lakers and the Knicks who made 208 and 244 million in revenue last year respectively. Take into account the new tv deal for the Lakers (around 150 mil per, an increase of 120 over the previous deal) and a say a 10% increase for the Knicks. Then look at what their expenses are which both seem to be around 170-185 million and add a likely increase for each to around 190 million. Then factor in that they will be contributing a max of 50% of profits.

Lakers; revenue -330 million, expenses - 190 million, profit - 140 million, revenue sharing - 70 million, revenue after rs - 260 million, profit after rs - 70 million

Knicks; revenue - 270 million, expenses - 190 million, profit - 80 million, revenue sharing - 40 million, revenue after rs - 230 million, profit after rs - 40 million

Avg low revenue team; revenue - 100 million, expenses - 110 million, losses - 10 million, max from revenue sharing - 16 million, revenue after rs - 116 million, profit after rs - 6 million

This isn't a 'lets split all the revenue equally' type of deal. The Lakers and Knicks will still make ridiculously more revenue, have plenty of profit, and be able to spend well above other teams if needed. Having the lower income teams be more solid financially becasue of revenue sharing is good for the league. It's less likely that teams will move or have to rebrand themselves "diluting the prestige and honor of the league, tarnishing and watering down the value of each game" as you say. The Lakers and Knicks do make a lot of money for the NBA and are the bigger fish but they do it by playing the other 28 teams in the league. No matter what you think, the other teams and the league do help the big fish in LA and NY earn that amazing amount of money.

All the LA fans in here seem so upset for the owner making less of a profit even though it won't actually change the teams ability to overspend other teams and won't change the oncourt product even a little. So here's another way to look at it. Without the salary cap a luxury tax that has been implemented to help all teams atleast compete and the lower revenue teams to bring those levels down that owner that you guys feel sorry for because he has to pay out 50 - 80 million in profit for revenue sharing would just be paying that much more in salary for the same product. Those low revenue teams actually created a system where he can make that much more of a profit then he would otherwise.

I think it does limit the Lakers ability to overspend (or, in the case of a Lebron or Kobe, to spend true market value for a player).

Thanks for the super good numbers breakdown by the way. I appreciate it.

But yeah... some of this was aimed at the Lakers by the smaller teams, and it is a combination of wanting a slice of the big market pie AND at the same time wanting to cut down the tall trees and introduce a kind of backdoor hard cap by making the luxury tax just utterly ridiculous while at the same time demanding a huge slice of revenue sharing.

Btw, if you're numbers are correct, and I think they are, then the Lakers could conceivably contribute twice as much in revenue sharing this year ( $80M ) than the Knicks, the premiere franchise in the biggest most glamorous market, will make in net profit this year.

Excuse the hyperbole but that is HUGE. That means the Lakers are essentially funding 2 premiere market teams, or 8 small market teams, all by themselves--contributing the expected total net profit for that many teams in this league.

At some point, it just becomes ridiculous. Why do the Lakers even need to be in this league? Are you telling me that it's worth $80M to the Lakers to play a few games against the Bobcats and Hornets?