PDA

View Full Version : Your favorite team is paying for Kevin Durant's salary



sunsfan88
07-20-2013, 03:49 AM
Thunder Get $15M Of Durant's Salary Paid For By Other 29 Teams

The NBA Board of Governors voted to award the Oklahoma City Thunder approximately $15 million due to an issue with Kevin Durant's super-max contract, according to reporting by Zach Lowe of ESPN.

Durant signed a maximim extension with the Thunder in 2010 that went into effect for the 11-12 season, but in the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement, he would be eligible for a super-max as a two-time All-NBA honoree. The NBA approved the boost in December of 2011 and an additional $15 million over five years.

The Thunder signed the deal not anticipating paying Durant 30 percent of the cap.

Teams can only designate one player for the five-year extension, but were able to do so with both Durant and Russell Westbrook because of the loophole.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/7/19/4537664/kevin-durant-thunder-contract-nba-repay-lockout


It honestly makes no sense to me. So because the new CBA screwed OKC, now the other 29 teams have to help them? Can someone who understands all this explain perhaps in simpler terms>

tredigs
07-20-2013, 03:58 AM
The only team to score two 5 year extensions and they got to skip the bill for a year? PRESTIge work right there.

tredigs
07-20-2013, 04:14 AM
I read it over, and Lowe definitely paints a picture where OKC scored on both timing (to get two 5 years) and in somehow manipulating the board of governors to own the bill on the super-max KD would've been owed (for being a 2x All NBA player) had the deliberations gone through after the new CBA.

All I know is that somewhere out there, a billionaire is $500k lighter. And I will weep for them.

PhillyFaninLA
07-20-2013, 05:17 AM
There was a negotiations for a new CBA and this type of issue was an agreement made and when the contract was signed went into effect, logical or not its because of a legally binding mutually agreed upon contract.

Not a big deal.

TheMightyHumph
07-20-2013, 06:59 PM
So Proky is spending some more money.

Does this make his splash bigger?

JerseyPalahniuk
07-20-2013, 07:13 PM
So Proky is spending some more money.

Does this make his splash bigger?

not what "splash" youre referring to hahah but he this is part of the $80 million in luxury taxes. He's not spending more. The luxury taxes get divided to the non-tax paying teams

TheMightyHumph
07-20-2013, 07:18 PM
I thought all teams were kicking in on Durant's $15 mil, not just luxury teams.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-20-2013, 07:28 PM
I thought all teams were kicking in on Durant's $15 mil, not just luxury teams.

.

TheMightyHumph
07-20-2013, 07:57 PM
.

Yes, that's what I posted, although I'm now reading they are not reimbursing the full $15 mil

JerseyPalahniuk
07-20-2013, 08:08 PM
Yes, that's what I posted, although I'm now reading they are not reimbursing the full $15 mil

Sorry I posted that . as a filler because I hadn't read the whole article yet. I'm pretty sure the details are still being worked out on that matter as the author himself isn't clear on what will happen.

TheMightyHumph
07-20-2013, 08:11 PM
Sorry I posted that . as a filler because I hadn't read the whole article yet. I'm pretty sure the details are still being worked out on that matter as the author himself isn't clear on what will happen.

Yes, from what I've been reading, the particulars are still up in the air.

Sssmush
07-20-2013, 08:21 PM
Pffff. $500K

You do know that the Lakers have to kick in an extra $90M-$150M each year for "revenue sharing"... right? Not including "luxury taxes"?

smh. I mean I am all for a bit of socialism and cooperation for the common good. But full on extreme communism where the "big market" good franchises are just being totally sucked on to fund the other teams just seems wrong. And you know that BEFORE this was ever even done, this kind of revenue sharing was mentioned to talk up the price of the franchises being bought and sold; "assurances" were given I'm sure.

Actually if I was the Lakers or the Knicks I'd strongly considering suing the league over this kind of thing. What Stern has managed to do is grab a large percentage of the premiere franchises for "the league," and then by creating new teams out of thin air or reselling existing teams to new markets for huge ($600M+) price tags, essentially "sell off" part of those premiere teams.

So like when you buy the OKC Thunder, or the Charlotte Bobcats, or the Sacramento Kings, hey *wink wink* you're actually getting a slice of the Lakers, the Knicks, the Celtics, the Heat, etc. And not just by association: you're actually getting a real actual slice of their annual revenue.

And then they sell this scheme by saying it's to limit excessive player salaries and to level competitive balance. I mean that just makes no sense if you think about it. A salary cap should be enough. How can anybody possibly rationalize this kind of thing? I mean I know they want to gain market share over football in the heartland ok. And OKC's conservative politicians probably have a lot of pull, NBA probably needs some Republican votes in congress for some tax thingy or media conglomeration bill or something. Fine, whatever. I defy anybody here to explain to me any reason beyond that.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-20-2013, 08:26 PM
Pffff. $500K

You do know that the Lakers have to kick in an extra $90M-$150M each year for "revenue sharing"... right? Not including "luxury taxes"?

smh. I mean I am all for a bit of socialism and cooperation for the common good. But full on extreme communism where the "big market" good franchises are just being totally sucked on to fund the other teams just seems wrong. And you know that BEFORE this was ever even done, this kind of revenue sharing was mentioned to talk up the price of the franchises being bought and sold; "assurances" were given I'm sure.

Actually if I was the Lakers or the Knicks I'd strongly considering suing the league over this kind of thing. What Stern has managed to do is grab a large percentage of the premiere franchises for "the league," and then by creating new teams out of thin air or reselling existing teams to new markets for huge ($600M+) price tags, essentially "sell off" part of those premiere teams.

So like when you buy the OKC Thunder, or the Charlotte Bobcats, or the Sacramento Kings, hey *wink wink* you're actually getting a slice of the Lakers, the Knicks, the Celtics, the Heat, etc. And not just by association: you're actually getting a real actual slice of their annual revenue.

And then they sell this scheme by saying it's to limit excessive player salaries and to level competitive balance. I mean that just makes no sense if you think about it. A salary cap should be enough. How can anybody possibly rationalize this kind of thing? I mean I know they want to gain market share over football in the heartland ok. And OKC's conservative politicians probably have a lot of pull, NBA probably needs some Republican votes in congress for some tax thingy or media conglomeration bill or something. Fine, whatever. I defy anybody here to explain to me any reason beyond that.

Damn, never thought about it that way.

Sssmush
07-20-2013, 08:32 PM
Damn, never thought about it that way.

just let me cook for you, Gus

tredigs
07-20-2013, 09:14 PM
Pffff. $500K

You do know that the Lakers have to kick in an extra $90M-$150M each year for "revenue sharing"... right? Not including "luxury taxes"?

smh. I mean I am all for a bit of socialism and cooperation for the common good. But full on extreme communism where the "big market" good franchises are just being totally sucked on to fund the other teams just seems wrong. And you know that BEFORE this was ever even done, this kind of revenue sharing was mentioned to talk up the price of the franchises being bought and sold; "assurances" were given I'm sure.

Actually if I was the Lakers or the Knicks I'd strongly considering suing the league over this kind of thing. What Stern has managed to do is grab a large percentage of the premiere franchises for "the league," and then by creating new teams out of thin air or reselling existing teams to new markets for huge ($600M+) price tags, essentially "sell off" part of those premiere teams.

So like when you buy the OKC Thunder, or the Charlotte Bobcats, or the Sacramento Kings, hey *wink wink* you're actually getting a slice of the Lakers, the Knicks, the Celtics, the Heat, etc. And not just by association: you're actually getting a real actual slice of their annual revenue.

And then they sell this scheme by saying it's to limit excessive player salaries and to level competitive balance. I mean that just makes no sense if you think about it. A salary cap should be enough. How can anybody possibly rationalize this kind of thing? I mean I know they want to gain market share over football in the heartland ok. And OKC's conservative politicians probably have a lot of pull, NBA probably needs some Republican votes in congress for some tax thingy or media conglomeration bill or something. Fine, whatever. I defy anybody here to explain to me any reason beyond that.
No, their revenue share will likely be closer to 45-50 million, but there's no doubt they're putting the most in. Still, with 120 million coming in from Time Warner alone this season (so, not including the 80-100 million or whatever they make in ticket sales), they should still be able to put turkey on the table for Thanksgiving.

TheMightyHumph
07-20-2013, 10:20 PM
No, their revenue share will likely be closer to 45-50 million, but there's no doubt they're putting the most in. Still, with 120 million coming in from Time Warner alone this season (so, not including the 80-100 million or whatever they make in ticket sales), they should still be able to put turkey on the table for Thanksgiving.

Do you DARE insinuate that Proky is not making the biggest 'splash', as there is a poster in here that thinks that spending the most money declares you KING OF THE OWNERS.