So what if the players threaten to start their own franchise?

[97 bulls]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?

[RazorBaLade]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?

players dont have as much money as the white guys sitting at the top of the NBA and each franchise do.

like chris rock once said

shaq is rich. the white guy that signs his check is wealthy. thats why your proposal cant work

[bmulls]

They wouldn't have arenas for 1, and the cost of organizing a new league, hiring all the grunt workers, advertising it, etc. would be astronomical.

I guess its a possibility if the owners simply refuse to budge, but both sides stand to gain the most money by working together.

[97 bulls]

players dont have as much money as the white guys sitting at the top of the NBA and each franchise do.

like chris rock once said

shaq is rich. the white guy that signs his check is wealthy. thats why your proposal cant work
They don't need capital. They have clout. What tvv network wouldnt be willing to show basketball games featuring the greatest players in the world. All they need is businesses to invest. Then, they can undercut the owners by cutting side deals with the networks and cities and the like. It would take a while to get things up and running, but it can definately be done.

[FourthTenor]

So what if the players threaten to start their own franchise?







http://www.europaplus.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mikhail-Prokhorov.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Jerry_Buss_playing_the_WSOP.jpg/220px-Jerry_Buss_playing_the_WSOP.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmpkeciHcG1qfsfo1.jpg
http://totalsoccershow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Mark-Cuban-Money.jpg







:facepalm

[97 bulls]

They wouldn't have arenas for 1, and the cost of organizing a new league, hiring all the grunt workers, advertising it, etc. would be astronomical.

I guess its a possibility if the owners simply refuse to budge, but both sides stand to gain the most money by working together.
I don't think it'd be hard to find suitable arenas/venues to play in.

[FourthTenor]

Then, they can undercut the owners by cutting side deals with the networks and cities and the like. It would take a while to get things up and running, but it can definately be done.

LMFAO


And who is negotiating the deals with TV companies, John Salmons??




Dude, get fukcing real here.

[97 bulls]

http://www.europaplus.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mikhail-Prokhorov.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Jerry_Buss_playing_the_WSOP.jpg/220px-Jerry_Buss_playing_the_WSOP.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmpkeciHcG1qfsfo1.jpg
http://totalsoccershow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Mark-Cuban-Money.jpg







:facepalm
I made this thread to show that the players don't need the owners. The players allow the owner to run the league in good faith. These guys money does not dictate lebron james or dwight howards talent.

[97 bulls]

LMFAO


And who is negotiating the deals with TV companies, John Salmons??




Dude, get fukcing real here.
No. Think outside the box. The owners don't negotiate the tv deals. They hire lawyers to do that. The players could do the same thing. Think about it.

[Collie]

They don't need capital. They have clout. What tvv network wouldnt be willing to show basketball games featuring the greatest players in the world. All they need is businesses to invest. Then, they can undercut the owners by cutting side deals with the networks and cities and the like. It would take a while to get things up and running, but it can definately be done.

It isn't as simple as that. For one, how many players would rather just bite the bullet and accept the owner offers instead of starting up a rival league? I can think of many. Second, just because Lebron plays in it doesn't guarantee high ratings. I mean, this year was considered a very high point of the past 10 years, and Lebron has been in it for 8 already. Why hasn't it happened before? It took a monumentally game-changing move (The Decision) to drive popularity upwards. Then you have talent dilution like the ABA-NBA split. Both leagues would be competing for talent, and both leagues would be weaker for it.

Ever read up about the 70's and why they were considered the dark ages of basketball? Well, the pre-merger NBA-ABA split is the reason. We never saw matchups like prime Dr J and John Havlicek because of it.

Ultimately, I think the players realize that it would be too much hard work and uncertainty. These guys aren't business tycoons. They don't know or wouldn't know how to run such a large and complicated machine that costs hundreds of millions. That's way beyond the scale of a simple basketball union. That happens, basketball is way worse off for everyone.

[DRoseOwnsACamry]

When I first read the title, I thought it said "What if players start to threaten their own franchises". In that scenario, there will be no way that the player can win. If AI got banished from the Sixers for refusing to play in a 4th, imagine what would happen if players threaten their own franchises.

[Blue&Orange]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

Why don't they do it? Can you give me an answer?


I answer it for yourself, one thing is to play around with your money, other thing is to play around with somebody else money.

[NuggetsFan]

So unrealistic. All 300+ players teaming together to make there own league! Do LeBron James and Kobe Bryant decide the teams? What about a guy like Nick Collision? What role does he play in this new league? Does he decide the contracts?. Do they vote on who's the new commish?. Do 1-2 players get this rolling? or is it combined effort. Is the role you play determined by your bank roll and or ability?.

They can get payed. By going to Europe and other places. Established leagues.

If there was some kinda league to replace the NBA it wouldn't be started by the players :roll: :roll: .

[97 bulls]

It isn't as simple as that. For one, how many players would rather just bite the bullet and accept the owner offers instead of starting up a rival league? I can think of many. Second, just because Lebron plays in it doesn't guarantee high ratings. I mean, this year was considered a very high point of the past 10 years, and Lebron has been in it for 8 already. Why hasn't it happened before? It took a monumentally game-changing move (The Decision) to drive popularity upwards. Then you have talent dilution like the ABA-NBA split. Both leagues would be competing for talent, and both leagues would be weaker for it.

Ever read about the 70's and why they were considered the dark ages of basketball? Well, the pre-merger NBA-ABA split is the reason. We never saw matchups like prime Dr J and John Havlicek because of it.

Ultimately, I think the players realize that it would be too much hard work and uncertainty. These guys aren't business tycoons. They don't know or wouldn't know how to run such a large and complicated machine that costs hundreds of millions. That's way beyond the scale of a simple basketball union. That happens, basketball is way worse off for everyone.
Wondering how many players would be willing to jump would be the hardest part of the process. If half the big names decided against it, they woudnt be able to do it. But if they all did. They'd be able to get it off the ground. Obviously this is more of a brain storming session but I don't think it would be nearly as hard to get a league up and running. Especially if the known names willingly come over. Or better yet all the players.

And its obvious the owners wont get into a bidding war with the players cuz at their own admonition, they can't afford to pay the players they have already. Im just trying to show the players don't need the owners.

[Nevaeh]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?


Don't know if it would work, but you did just give me a great idea for NBA2k11 (clone each team then give them all new names and uniform colors without any existing NBA teams to be found for the entire season).

[97 bulls]

So unrealistic. All 300+ players teaming together to make there own league! Do LeBron James and Kobe Bryant decide the teams?
the players can delegate who makes these decision just like they do team captains and unnion reps.
What about a guy like Nick Collision? What role does he play in this new league? Does he decide the contracts?. Do they vote on who's the new commish?. Do 1-2 players get this rolling? or is it combined effort. Is the role you play determined by your bank roll and or ability?.
why would a player like nick colison hold anything up? If he could make waves like that he would've already

They can get payed. By going to Europe and other places. Established leagues.
most players don't want to go overseas and leave the united states.

If there was some kinda league to replace the NBA it wouldn't be started by the players :roll: :roll: .there have been many leagues that have been started. So that's obviously not hard. The problem is they don't have the name recognition. And the main thing is the lack of their games being nationally telivised due to not having the names peole would be interested in watching

Obviously this isn't gonna happen right now. But I would venture to guess that in 10 years, the owners are gonna try to make the players make more concessions. And get to the point that emancipating from the league would be viable.

[97 bulls]

Why don't they do it? Can you give me an answer?


I answer it for yourself, one thing is to play around with your money, other thing is to play around with somebody else money.
I don't think its ever been needed. But I think it will be an option to explore within the next 2 CBAs.

As far as whose money would be used to bankroll this kind of effort. They could use the same avenues as the owners. The home cities (taxes), tv revenues, licenses. And companies would invest cuz its a sure thing. In the scenario im presenting, if 80% of the players in the nba were for it, it would work. And more than likely, the other 20 would follow. Then the nba owners would be finished.

I just think the players need to be dictating how much the owners get. Not the other way around

[miller-time]

I don't think its ever been needed. But I think it will be an option to explore within the next 2 CBAs.

As far as whose money would be used to bankroll this kind of effort. They could use the same avenues as the owners. The home cities (taxes), tv revenues, licenses. And companies would invest cuz its a sure thing. In the scenario im presenting, if 80% of the players in the nba were for it, it would work. And more than likely, the other 20 would follow. Then the nba owners would be finished.

I just think the players need to be dictating how much the owners get. Not the other way around

it isn't really though is it.

the nba has been establishing itself as an international brand for the past 50 or so years, and got its biggest boost during the jordan era. a bunch of basketball players getting together wouldn't be able to replicate that for at least 10 to 20 years. at least. it is far from a sure thing. the whole thing would likely collapse within 5 to 10 years.

second of all, most if not all nba owners don't need the nba. you don't buy an nba team to become a multi-million or billionare, you buy a team after your have already become one. if the players owned the league, then their source of income is also their investment. if the league went bust the players are all finished. it is so incredibly risky that it borders on the ridiculous.

[97 bulls]

it isn't really though is it.

the nba has been establishing itself as an international brand for the past 50 or so years, and got its biggest boost during the jordan era. a bunch of basketball players getting together wouldn't be able to replicate that for at least 10 to 20 years. at least. it is far from a sure thing. the whole thing would likely collapse within 5 to 10 years.
The michael jordan era ended in 98. The league has flourished since then. In fact, I think it was that last lockout that hurt the league to the point that it was so bad in the early 00s. And only as of 08 has the league been able to overcome the bad taste they left in the mouths of the fans

second of all, most if not all nba owners don't need the nba. you don't buy an nba team to become a multi-million or billionare, you buy a team after your have already become one. if the players owned the league, then their source of income is also their investment. if the league went bust the players are all finished. it is so incredibly risky that it borders on the ridiculous.

im not saying the owners need the nba to stay wealthy. Im saying the players don't need the owners to play basketball in front of their fans and be compensated for the entertainment. The fact is the nba is a multi billion dollar business. And that's dolely due to the players, not the owners.

And before you say the owners take all the risks, that's not true cuz when they sign a player to a contract, they pass the price of that contract to the fans in raised ticket prices and parking etc. As well as expect the players to loose salary if in their opinion they aren't making enough money.
You could say that about any busines

[97 bulls]

Another thing miller time. I don't see why the nba a booming indusrty wouldn't be a sure thing if the 30 something owners aren't running the show. They're not practicing, shotting the ball, etc. Were talking about a league that would be established just run under new management.

[Hondo]

Isiah Thomas to bring back the CBA, and hold a dispersal draft for NBA players. That would work

[Collie]

Thing is, there are too many factors involved to make it as simple as you make it out to be. For one, the NBA is an established brand, and that counts for a lot. Let's say they put up the National Basketball League or something. For the hardcore basketball fan, it might not matter since we watch for the players. But for the rest of the market? Even with guys like Lebron, it isn't guaranteed that they'll watch or support it.

Second, how many multi-millionaires will support such a venture? If they're willing to pay the current salaries, they'd be looking at > $50 million costs a year, not counting the rest of their expenditures. That's a significant amount of money for a pet project. If you start counting marketing (which will need to be massive due to this being a new league), misc costs, personnel, coaches, the inevitable bidding war with the NBA - you'd probably go into the hundred millions, and that's NOT even counting the fact that you'd need an arena. If I'm a potential owner, I'd be willing to sponsor a rival league with guys like Lebron, but NOT at that price.

They already did this before you know? It was called the ABA and it featured some of the best players in the world like Dr J, David Thompson, George Gervin, Rick Barry, etc. And they still folded less than 10 years later. I have no reason to believe that this would turn out any different.

[The Iron Fist]

Quite possibly the dumbest thread, ever.

[Shepseskaf]

They don't need capital. They have clout. What tvv network wouldnt be willing to show basketball games featuring the greatest players in the world. All they need is businesses to invest. Then, they can undercut the owners by cutting side deals with the networks and cities and the like. It would take a while to get things up and running, but it can definately be done.
This is absolutely correct. To the dumb@sses who don't understand it, the players are the valued commodity, not the owners.

If a plan like this were put together, it wouldn't be the players themselves dealing with all of the organizational and logistical issues -- it would be smart businessmen who would be hired to perform the same roles that the current owners do.

The players could either pay them by sharing the revenue that the games generate. TV contracts could be negotiated, as could deals with arenas all around the country.

It wouldn't be simple to put together, but it could definitely be done -- if the players wanted to go in that direction.

[InspiredLebowski]

This thread is so full of stupid I don't know where to begin.

[blacknapalm]

wow, not even sure where to start. like you think you can just jump and start your own league with a whole set of coaches, scouts, trainers, personnel, logistics, arena costs, ticket sellers, retail, organizers, promoters, vendors, camera men, video coordinators, etc.? are you serious?

secondly, you would be breaking anti-trust laws. it would go the courts. it would take a long time, then there would be appeals.

third, by that point, you'd have players in different factions. it would be a huge mess with no direction. this isn't like getting a neighborhood block party game together.

this is not even an option.

[asdf1990]

Lets just put it this way the nets owner alone probably 3x more money than all the NBA players combined. U need cash to build stadiums, promote ur team etc.. and only billionaires have that kind of cash.

[bluechox2]

im sure nba players can afford to buy decent ass cameras, just ****ing stream that shit on the web and make new teams for fun, would be awesome

[stephanieg]

You mean the workers should run the factory? Commie!

[knicksman]

as if lebron and other superstars cant be replaced in this league. without these superstars, other players will step up and will become superstars so owners really dont need these players. if lebron or kobe doesnt want to play, im sure there are rookies like cousins, irving who would be willing to play and accept those amounts and become the face of the league. youre acting like if lebron is gone, nobody will step up. or owners cant find replacements for them

[asdf1990]

as if lebron and other superstars cant be replaced in this league. without these superstars, other players will step up and will become superstars so owners really dont need these players. if lebron or kobe doesnt want to play, im sure there are rookies like cousins, irving who would be willing to play and accept those amounts and become the face of the league. youre acting like if lebron is gone, nobody will step up. or owners cant find replacements for them
LoL cousins and irving replacing lebron and kobe.

[Sarcastic]

People who think the NBA brand is important are delusional. Say all players start a new league and NBA is left with only D-League talent. You gonna continue to watch your shitty NBA team play or you gonna watch LeBron James in his new league?

I can watch crappy NCAA if I want to see bad basketball. Remember how bad Butler/UCONN was?

[Collie]

People who think the NBA brand is important are delusional. Say all players start a new league and NBA is left with only D-League talent. You gonna continue to watch your shitty NBA team play or you gonna watch LeBron James in his new league?

I can watch crappy NCAA if I want to see bad basketball. Remember how bad Butler/UCONN was?

What if Kobe stayed and Lebron left? A new league doesn't guarantee all the talent shifting. How about the incoming rookies? There will be bidding war for new talent. Like I said NBA-ABA all over again.

[Blue&Orange]

I don't think its ever been needed. But I think it will be an option to explore within the next 2 CBAs.

Really? That's so lame.
So players are taking "only" 57% of the revenue, when they could be taking 100% of the revenue because according to you, it's never been needed to? That doesn't make any sense.


Why musicians don't record and promote and etc with their own albums? It's cheaper than building a league and they have a puny little percentage compared to NBA players, it's what 5% per sale? lol And still they go to the labels, even the filthy rich musicians, they still go to the labels... what if the album failed?

Again, as i said it before, it all fun and games when dealing with somebody else money, when it's your own...

[Nowitzness81]

Can you imagine how awesome a real fantasy NBA draft would be?

I know one thing - no Wade and James on the same team!

Watching the draft would be awesome...I'm sure there would be some dumb picks.

[97 bulls]

What if Kobe stayed and Lebron left? A new league doesn't guarantee all the talent shifting. How about the incoming rookies? There will be bidding war for new talent. Like I said NBA-ABA all over again.
If the players tried to establish their own league, they'd need at least 80% of the players to be willing to jump. Not a split. That's what I said earlier.

[97 bulls]

You mean the workers should run the factory? Commie!
The players in athletics are not "labor" they are the product. This seems to be the fundamental flaw in peoples beliefs. You can replace workers, you can't replace the product.

[97 bulls]

Lets just put it this way the nets owner alone probably 3x more money than all the NBA players combined. U need cash to build stadiums, promote ur team etc.. and only billionaires have that kind of cash.
They have the name. They really don't need that much money. Businesses would invest. Cuz of the name. And when I say name, I mean the players are established. If the owners of coke sale it (and when i say sale it, i mean the recipe name everything), does that not make it coke anymore? Cuz the previous owners don't own it anymore?

[clipps]

Okay, so maybe all the bands and artists signed to record lables should tell them to **** off. Or maybe all the workers of Walmart should band together and create a new franchise to outclass walmart. Maybe all the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors of the Armed Forces should band together, tell the Generals and the Barack Obama to **** off and create their own Military....

You should probably buy yourself a helmet.

[97 bulls]

Really? That's so lame.
So players are taking "only" 57% of the revenue, when they could be taking 100% of the revenue because according to you, it's never been needed to? That doesn't make any sense.


Why musicians don't record and promote and etc with their own albums? It's cheaper than building a league and they have a puny little percentage compared to NBA players, it's what 5% per sale? lol And still they go to the labels, even the filthy rich musicians, they still go to the labels... what if the album failed?

Again, as i said it before, it all fun and games when dealing with somebody else money, when it's your own...
a new album is completely different from playing basketball. You just can't guarantee that a musician is gonna be spot on with every album they make. An athletes talent isn't the same as a musician putting out a song. Its the equal to that musicians voice. But there's alot of people that can sing. But not everybody can be charismatic, have that look, be that determined etc.

And even with that musicians do make their own labels. where have you been?

Like I said, it can be done.

[97 bulls]

This is absolutely correct. To the dumb@sses who don't understand it, the players are the valued commodity, not the owners.

If a plan like this were put together, it wouldn't be the players themselves dealing with all of the organizational and logistical issues -- it would be smart businessmen who would be hired to perform the same roles that the current owners do.

The players could either pay them by sharing the revenue that the games generate. TV contracts could be negotiated, as could deals with arenas all around the country.

It wouldn't be simple to put together, but it could definitely be done -- if the players wanted to go in that direction.
Finally, someone with sense. Business sense.

[97 bulls]

Okay, so maybe all the bands and artists signed to record lables should tell them to **** off. Or maybe all the workers of Walmart should band together and create a new franchise to outclass walmart. Maybe all the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors of the Armed Forces should band together, tell the Generals and the Barack Obama to **** off and create their own Military....

You should probably buy yourself a helmet.
As I said in my previous post, music is different. There's no guarantee that an artist can put out hit after hit. The record companies do take the risks in the music indusrty. Your trying to compare things that aren't comparable.

[clipps]

As I said in my previous post, music is different. There's no guarantee that an artist can put out hit after hit. The record companies do take the risks in the music indusrty. Your trying to compare things that aren't comparable.

Go ****en make yourself a damn basketball league then since you know so much about it.

[BlazersDozen]

I think you're forgetting something more than owners & players. There are fans. A lot of fans are fans of teams. Home teams & team names/history mean a lot to fans which is why I think it also wouldn't work. You could throw CP3 & other guys on a court & I doubt it would draw 20,000 people because Hornets logo. Basically, the players would be known but the product wouldn't be trusted by fans. You're basically proposing the players make TNA like Jeff Jarrett did & the owners are WWE. It would take more time to build a trust worthy product & build a small followable history to make a gigantic fan base than to just work things out with owners. Also the players aren't the valued commodity. The fans are...ask the WNBA

[Butters]

Most of these guys can't handle a small mom and pop shop with out going under,how the F would they start and run there own league?

[winwin]

This thread is so full of stupid I don't know where to begin.

your post is so full of stupid I don't know where to begin.

[SpanishACB]

people who say this cant be done have no idea.
ive heard people claim hiring personal is a problem. im sorry, but its an opportunity in bussines sense. specially considering how many peopke out there without jobs.

you only need a CEO and a good lawyer firm. you start financing it with tv deals, national channels go into a bid war because the product is stablished and they know the formula.

you sign a big sponsorhip deal to give name to the league, say IBM Basketball League. they will gladly take care of the marketing for you. logos, advrtisments etc...

the biggest problem i see is who is going to buy the new franchises, some could possibly turn into annonymous societies or even welcome public investment so the actual city say Boston is supporting the team financislly while at the same time getting a revenue from ticket sales, this will improve the feeling of real fan of a team, something nba lacks.

players would have the exact same life they have now. people who imagine them
in suits dealing with tv networks are either 8 year olds or grown ups who never really grew up, seriously get a grip.

bottom line is people need not to reply to topics if theyre only goal is to prove how little they know about it.

[bokes15]

This question is more or less like saying "why don't all workers say f*ck my job i'm starting my own business." The answer being, as others have said, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it. Too many things to worry about and i'd think the players would much rather just focus on playing basketball and have the business aspects be worked out for them.

[IGOTGAME]

This question is more or less like saying "why don't all workers say f*ck my job i'm starting my own business." The answer being, as others have said, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it. Too many things to worry about and i'd think the players would much rather just focus on playing basketball and have the business aspects be worked out for them.

Trying to compare NBA players to people at a "normal job" is insane. But just to play along with your insane game, lawyers do this ALL THE TIME. They leave big firms because the options may be better in a solo or small practice where they are the boss and they don't have to split their proceeds up as much.

But again, must business are full of players with that have grossed 20-100 million in their careers. I'm not saying it is likely but they ability to do it.

[SpanishACB]

This question is more or less like saying "why don't all workers say f*ck my job i'm starting my own business." The answer being, as others have said, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it. Too many things to worry about and i'd think the players would much rather just focus on playing basketball and have the business aspects be worked out for them.

sigh...
do you realize nba players are not labour but the stellar product?
if you leave your job as a pie cook we sign another one. if a guy with 10 million fans who can play basketball better than 99'9% of the world leaves his job you CANT just hire another. owners need lebron whilst lebron doesnt care who the owner is, it doesnt affect him because he is the product.

[bokes15]

sigh...
do you realize nba players are not labour but the stellar product?
if yoy leave your job as a pie cook we sign another one. if a guy with 10 million fans who can play basketball better than 99'9% of the world you CANT just hire another. owners need lebron whilst lebron doesnt care who the owner is, it doesnt affect him because he is the product.
They are stellar players, but they are also in a STELLAR LEAGUE. Do you think that the NBA holds all the best basketball players in the world? Or maybe it's just that they have a structured system, they pump a ton of money into it, they have the top advertisers, marketers, etc... which makes them standout more than others. It's hard to just up and create something like that out of nowhere just based on "talent." If it was, it would've been done a long time ago.

[bokes15]

Trying to compare NBA players to people at a "normal job" is insane. But just to play along with your insane game, lawyers do this ALL THE TIME. They leave big firms because the options may be better in a solo or small practice where they are the boss and they don't have to split their proceeds up as much.

But again, must business are full of players with that have grossed 20-100 million in their careers. I'm not saying it is likely but they ability to do it.
Are you trying to tell me that basketball is something you can make a career out of for yourself as an individual? Like if you are a supremely talented athlete you can create your own career and become as rich or richer than you would be in the NBA WITHOUT a league? Are you really that delusional?

[IGOTGAME]

Are you trying to tell me that basketball is something you can make a career out of for yourself as an individual? Like if you are a supremely talented athlete you can create your own career and become as rich or richer than you would be in the NBA WITHOUT a league? Are you really that delusional?

They can create another league if they are so inclined. League's have been created before. The players are the product not the franchises. It would have to be a group effort but it is possible.

At one time there was actually two leagues in the United States...OMG ITZ HAPPENZ BE4Z

[SpanishACB]

They are stellar players, but they are also in a STELLAR LEAGUE. Do you think that the NBA holds all the best basketball players in the world? Or maybe it's just that they have a structured system, they pump a ton of money into it, they have the top advertisers, marketers, etc... which makes them standout more than others. It's hard to just up and create something like that out of nowhere just based on "talent." If it was, it would've been done a long time ago.

ill try to bear with you for a minute...

look, for every stellar marketing guru working in the nba theres another thousand willing to take his job, so your argument about the importance of the league is null. specially when you take into account that tje players are not a product that needs excesive help from marketing to achieve sales, one could argue the product sells itself.

about the difficulty of creating it i have the impression many of you are just plain naive. do you think there isnt a queue of companies of equal or greater prestige willing to do the job that stern and co are doing? let me go further, i could go as far as assuming that Fisher and his friends have had multiple offers from investment groups already and theyre going to have many more these days.

[bokes15]

They can create another league if they are so inclined. League's have been created before. The players are the product not the franchises. It would have to be a group effort but it is possible.

At one time there was actually two leagues in the United States...OMG ITZ HAPPENZ BE4Z
Obviously it's possible, but it's very unlikely. Players go to the biggest leagues that pay the most money. They may be the product but there's a lot more that goes into running a business than just being a good or great basketball player. They'd have to pump in their own money to actually run the league and last I checked, there isn't an NBA player on the planet that makes that kind of dough. Then, they would have to find a way to advertise this new league in your fantasy world, and try and strike lucrative deals to do so.

[SpanishACB]

Obviously it's possible, but it's very unlikely. Players go to the biggest leagues that pay the most money. They may be the product but there's a lot more that goes into running a business than just being a good or great basketball player. They'd have to pump in their own money to actually run the league and last I checked, there isn't an NBA player on the planet that makes that kind of dough. Then, they would have to find a way to advertise this new league in your fantasy world, and try and strike lucrative deals to do so.

did you even read this last page of the thread?

[bokes15]

did you even read this last page of the thread?
Nope. I responded to the OP, you quoted me and I responded to you. I have nothing left to say to you. I've made my point. Ignorance is bliss.

[97 bulls]

Most of these guys can't handle a small mom and pop shop with out going under,how the F would they start and run there own league?
When your talking about something this big, all they have to do is choose THE RIGHT people to run it for them. And when I say right im talking about making sure that the people you put in charge to run your business share your view on how the business should be run. Hell most players do this now.

[bokes15]

When your talking about something this big, all they have to do is choose THE RIGHT people to run it for them. And when I say right im talking about making sure that the people you put in charge to run your business share your view on how the business should be run. Hell most players do this now.
But do you realize they need a lot of money to do this? Starting a league from the ground up wouldn't be cheap.

[SpanishACB]

But do you realize they need a lot of money to do this? Starting a league from the ground up wouldn't be cheap.you sound like a broken record on loop. the money is there, i explain this in the first posts of this page, do us all a favor and go read it, you might learn a few things.

[Nastradamus]

I don't know about player owned franchises, but I'd love to see more franchises owned and operated by the fans like the Packers.

[bokes15]

you sound like a broken record on loop. the money is there, i explain this in the first posts of this page, do us all a favor and go read it, you might learn a few things.
I think the problem lies in the fact that people like yourself think of the NBA as a collective group of talented basketball players rather than what it really is, a business. And if you have a business background and truly know all that goes into running a successful and lucrative one, you would know that the question asked in the OP is quite a ridiculous one.

[SpanishACB]

I think the problem lies in the fact that people like yourself think of the NBA as a collective group of talented basketball players rather than what it really is, a business. And if you have a business background and truly know all that goes into running a successful and lucrative one, you would know that the question asked in the OP is quite a ridiculous one.

i dont want to sound patronising but from this end im one of the three people in this thread (other is the Op) that have a sense of how the bussines world goes, that minimun you can expect from attending bussines school.

im clearly aware of what it takes to run a NBA. the fact that you seem unable to comprehend that there are a nunch of people out there with the financial power and smarts to make this work and who would be willing to invest just shows that you are totally unprepared to deal with this subjects and it really feels like tslking to a child.

[bokes15]

i dont want to sound patronising but from this end im one of the three people in this thread (other is the Op) that have a sense of how the bussines world goes, that minimun you can expect from attending bussines school.

im clearly aware of what it takes to run a NBA. the fact that you seem unable to comprehend that there are a nunch of people out there with the financial power and smarts to make this work and who would be willing to invest just shows that you are totally unprepared to deal with this subjects and it really feels like tslking to a child.
I gathered that from my comment about having a business background you would've got the hint that that's what I studied in college, but I guess since you need it to be actually pointed out to you, there you go. You clearly don't understand the subject matter, hence the reason why i'm not wasting anymore energy in debating with you. Have a good one. :cheers:

[SpanishACB]

I gathered that from my comment about having a business background you would've got the hint that that's what I studied in college, but I guess since you need it to be actually pointed out to you, there you go. You clearly don't understand the subject matter, hence the reason why i'm not wasting anymore energy in debating with you. Have a good one. :cheers:

so your conclusion is that the nba cant be cloned because its such a bussines monster that there are no ready individuals to do that work other than the nba staff.

oooook

[bokes15]

so your conclusion is that the nba cant be cloned because its such a bussines monster that there are no ready individuals to do that work other than the nba staff.

oooook
Pretty much. I could go over all the business concepts with you but i've already realized that would be a waste of time, so the simplified point being that NBA players don't have the time, the smarts, or the resources to clone and make an equal or replicated league of the NBA's magnitude.

[97 bulls]

This question is more or less like saying "why don't all workers say f*ck my job i'm starting my own business." The answer being, as others have said, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it. Too many things to worry about and i'd think the players would much rather just focus on playing basketball and have the business aspects be worked out for them.
There is a huge difference. The owners aren't negotiating against the labor. Theyre going against the product.

[97 bulls]

Pretty much. I could go over all the business concepts with you but i've already realized that would be a waste of time, so the simplified point being that NBA players don't have the time, the smarts, or the resources to clone and make an equal or replicated league of the NBA's magnitude.
I don't know if this has been said. But on this big a stage they would hire lawyers/economists etc to run it. But on their terms. The owners put people in positions to make decisions on day to day business. All big companies do that. How are you missing this?

[97 bulls]

I honestly don't think the people that are against this idea due to it not being able to work. I think they're against the players. In any capacity that doesn't relegate them to earning just enough to have a good living. Id like to know why? Why so much loyalty to the owners?

And to the people that call me stupid, im just trying to show that the players don't need the owners. I liken it to a prostitue and a pimp. I can never wrap my head around how it makes sense for a woman to sale her body then give the proceeds to a pimp and he pay her a portion of the money that she earned. I mean, does the woman really need the pimp? Come on

[Blue&Orange]

And to the people that call me stupid, im just trying to show that the players don't need the owners. I liken it to a prostitue and a pimp. I can never wrap my head around how it makes sense for a woman to sale her body then give the proceeds to a pimp and he pay her a portion of the money that she earned. I mean, does the woman really need the pimp? Come on
Any credibility your opinion still might had, just went out of the window.

You failed to answer the question i made you, if it's doable why isn't done? The "because it wasn't needed" sorry but it's a stupid answer. The difference between getting 57% of the revenue vs 100% is so big that you can only laugh at that notion.

Why don't you go bother some NBA player in twitter or whatever, ask them if they are willing to put their money on the line to build a league on their own and compete against the NBA.

[pmj]

I agree, the reality is it's a lot easier to replace the rich guys with other rich guys than it is to replace Kobe, Wade, Lebron with some scabs.

They could find investors and make a new league, lease places to play, etc. It wouldn't be as big or have as many teams as the NBA at first, but they could definitely start a "new" league so to speak.

The only problem is I really doubt they are allowed to under the contracts they sign. Sports leagues are pretty much given limited monopolies. For instance, I doubt NFL players can go to the XFL during the lockout, although they and NBA players can probably play in different countries.

[OKC Adonis]

They could find investors and make a new league, lease places to play, etc. It wouldn't be as big or have as many teams as the NBA at first, but they could definitely start a "new" league so to speak.

What makes you think that these new investors won't want the same things as the old owners wanted?

Why would you want to invest $400 million so a max contract guy who plays basketball make more than what you do on your investment?

[Blue&Orange]

I agree, the reality is it's a lot easier to replace the rich guys with other rich guys than it is to replace Kobe, Wade, Lebron with some scabs.

They could find investors and make a new league, lease places to play, etc. It wouldn't be as big or have as many teams as the NBA at first, but they could definitely start a "new" league so to speak.

The only problem is I really doubt they are allowed to under the contracts they sign. Sports leagues are pretty much given limited monopolies. For instance, I doubt NFL players can go to the XFL during the lockout, although they and NBA players can probably play in different countries.
So basically we are angry at the owners for investing and wanting return and profit, the solution being getting different investors that in the end will want return and profit. Makes perfect sense.

[knicksman]

As I said in my previous post, music is different. There's no guarantee that an artist can put out hit after hit. The record companies do take the risks in the music indusrty. Your trying to compare things that aren't comparable.

music is also the same. fans are buying them because of the singer no matter how shtty the song is

[mattevans11]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?


i read through the first couple pages of this thread. the point is being missed... i dont think the OP is hitting this from the right angle... all the players would need would be to go to the owners with a business plan (which a lawyer could do up), once the owners see there is a viable (and it must be viable) option is availiable for the player to do, then they would have to give in to the demands of the players.....

here is the problem... if either side has too much power the league would be the one that would take the hit.... there needs to be a happy medium so that the players are not getting too much and that the owners are not getting too much....

the CBA is needed for this reason and both the owners and players are needed as well...

arguing about arenas is stupid.... any arena in the world will host a game that is going to fill the seats.

[knicksman]

They can create another league if they are so inclined. League's have been created before. The players are the product not the franchises. It would have to be a group effort but it is possible.

At one time there was actually two leagues in the United States...OMG ITZ HAPPENZ BE4Z

im sure if they organized their own league, they would be paid less than what they get in the nba. maybe around 2 million only so time will come other players quit this nonsense and goes back to nba where they can be paid 15 million. you guys failed to realize that money can buy them. these owners are richer than these players.

[Blue&Orange]

And even with that musicians do make their own labels. where have you been?[/

Like I said, it can be done.
How many compete with Warner Music Group?

As I said in my previous post, music is different. There's no guarantee that an artist can put out hit after hit. The record companies do take the risks in the music indusrty. Your trying to compare things that aren't comparable.
That funny because that's what the owners are complaining, NBA players are unable to deliver hit after hit. Specially after getting the big contract.

I think you're forgetting something more than owners & players. There are fans. A lot of fans are fans of teams.

:applause: Put some scrubs in a Knicks uniform and i will watch it. Couldn't care less about Amare and Melo. :lol

[97 bulls]

Any credibility your opinion still might had, just went out of the window.

You failed to answer the question i made you, if it's doable why isn't done? The "because it wasn't needed" sorry but it's a stupid answer. The difference between getting 57% of the revenue vs 100% is so big that you can only laugh at that notion.

Why don't you go bother some NBA player in twitter or whatever, ask them if they are willing to put their money on the line to build a league on their own and compete against the NBA.
Im not saying the players should monopolize the revenues to the tune of 100%. I've already stated they'd need to hire people to run it like an accountant. But the players would be dictating the terms.

And I said it had never been needed in the sense that until recently, 98, the owners hadnt took a stance to the point where they want to take things back. I mean, expecting a paycutt that's tantamount to 40%?

Here's the other end of the spectrum, if the owner are and have been loosing as much as 300 mill a year why not get the **** out of the business? I honestly don't think they're loosing money. I think they just want more of the BRI. Or a higher percentage. What do you think?

[Human Error]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?
This is so naive that I can't believe my eyes... Stay school, kid.

This is like recording artists establishing their own label only to get back to their old label after they realize that it costs tons(of time, money, effort, all the little things that they thought didn't exist) in doing all by themselves.

[97 bulls]

music is also the same. fans are buying them because of the singer no matter how shtty the song is
That's not necessarily true. There's been alot of artist that have made great songs and or whole albums. But then bomb on the sophmore version ill check some and get back to you.

[TheFan]

People who think the NBA brand is important are delusional. Say all players start a new league and NBA is left with only D-League talent. You gonna continue to watch your shitty NBA team play or you gonna watch LeBron James in his new league?


but what if the NBA finds the next super exciting player that everybody wants to see?

fame comes and goes, look at what happened to the WCW in the monday night wars, WCW had the hot veterans(Hogan, Nash, Hart, Scott Hall etc) but WWF found the super exciting wrestler(Austin) everybody wanted to see and run the ass of the WCW out of the building....

i think its not possible... yes they can try it but theres a good chance it bust on their faces...... just for starters, its impossible to get every player to jump on that ship, do you think young players that haven't made money are gonna risk into that adventure?

i think people saying its possible are underrating the difficulties of running a complex business in the hipercompetitive world of capitalism.

[Jasper]

I don't understand how the owners can dictate things the way they do. The players are the commodity. And unlike oranges, the players have the ability to make decisions. The fact is the players in all sports don't need the owners to play basketball and get paid for it. They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises. They act like the nba is the only way they can get paid to play.

What do you guys think?

I like this idea ...
they could have cool seats on evening games throughout the summer at playgrounds.

No sense in calling it the rec league .. call it the PRo's league :rockon:
------------
During the Winter church leagues could be converted as well :

Pro Church League (PCL) has a neat bell ring to it.

[Collie]

Answer me this. If they're gonna create a NEW league, why would the new investors and owners be any different than the ones we have now?

[KingBeasley08]

what a great thread



:facepalm

[97 bulls]

Answer me this. If they're gonna create a NEW league, why would the new investors and owners be any different than the ones we have now?
Because the players would allign themselves with investors that have the same goals in mind as far as where the league is headed.

[YAWN]

Ignoring the fact that most are under contract... it could be possible. But their salaries would have to be dictated on the profits as opposed to guaranteed contracts, which is something they don't want.

Any person on this board could go out and rent an arena, which would come staffed for the most part under the house nut expense. You could put on a basketball game, concert, boxing match or whatever the hell you want.

The problem is that there are going to be a lot of expenses, and you will need to cover them all before seeing any profit. The players would have to be paid out of the profit which would obviously be variable and not consistent enough across the board to have guaranteed contracts.

The NBA guarantees the players money, and the owner is the one that takes it on the chin if the expenses outweigh the net monies; the players get paid no matter what.

I think the owners are embellishing on their expenses at the moment. I find it very hard to believe that most are actually losing what they say they are. This is a common tactic by record labels too, they'll rack up the expenses coded to artists in order to justify paying out less royalties.

[Shepseskaf]

what a great thread



:facepalm
Some of you really need to open your minds and broaden your horizons.

No one is saying that forming a new league is imminent, but it is certainly out there as a future possible option.

[FireDavidKahn]

Some of you really need to open your minds and broaden your horizons.

No one is saying that forming a new league is imminent, but it is certainly out there as a future possible option.
It's about as possible of an option as Lindsay Lohan never drinking alcohol again in her life.

Where would they play? the YMCA? Who on earth would want to invest in this new league under the players rules (likely means the investors lose money)?

[joshwake]

with what? by the time Nov rolls around the collective capital of all NBA players will be $27.32

[1~Gibson~1]

anything is possible....(KG moment)....but on a real note the players arent as wealthy as the owners (obviously) and if this were to happen, the league would be a very "bootlegged" one (obviously) but when you have guys like KG, LeBron, Wade, Shaq etc who gets/(or have gotten) paid big money and saved up (but only if they've saved up enough) they could all come together and instead of having a commish, the Players Union could run the whole thing.......i be damned if it happens in my lifetime though, and im not even 20 yet :lol

-edit, only problem with this "theory" is that ALL of the players would have to take a major paycut, but if they're willing to do that then they might as well arrange an agreement with the owners and get the NBA started back up again :hammerhead:

[Kevin_Gamble]

Where would they play? the YMCA? Who on earth would want to invest in this new league under the players rules (likely means the investors lose money)?

Let's see, NBA players used to play in arenas paid for by tax-payers for cliquey owners who never really had to compete in the open market. How about we open up the league to free market and see who would be willing to run an NBA team with players commanding 55% of the revenue as salary?

[magnax1]

with what? by the time Nov rolls around the collective capital of all NBA players will be $27.32
This is true, lol.
However, the players could have done this if they really all wanted to. Problem is getting a majority of the players to risk quite a lot of money to try and start their own league

[joshwake]

This is true, lol.
However, the players could have done this if they really all wanted to. Problem is getting a majority of the players to risk quite a lot of money to try and start their own league
exactly. I don't mind the owners making lots of money really, there is a lot of risk in running a professional sport. In any profession you can trade job security for more earning potential. The players need to realize that the owners inherit risk of losing money along with the chance of making it. That being said, I don't agree with the owners asking players to share in past losses, they should not have to be responsible for bad administration and bad business in general. Lets see some heavy pay cuts along with reduced ticket prices.

[B]

The owners would throw so much legal paperwork at the players or anybody who backed the players the players who formed the new league would all be past retirement age before they ever stepped foot on a court

[L.Kizzle]

It's not gonna take players, it's gonna take some rich guy or maybe even a former player like Magic Johnson. The ABL, a rival league with the BA in the early 60s was started by Abraham Saperstein, the Harlem Globtrotters owner.

[Shepseskaf]

It's about as possible of an option as Lindsay Lohan never drinking alcohol again in her life.

Where would they play? the YMCA? Who on earth would want to invest in this new league under the players rules (likely means the investors lose money)?
You should probably move out of your mother's basement and get some life experience before exposing your ignorance for all to see.

If you can't understand the simple principles behind supply and demand as it applies to sports, then you'll never understand what is being discussed here.

[pmj]

[QUOTE=B

[28renyoy]

While this would be feasible with the assets, they simply are not there. A lot of NBA players live paycheck to paycheck and it would take billions to start a new league. The money would not be there to start it, and even if it were the players wouldn't want to risk it.

[Nastradamus]

exactly. I don't mind the owners making lots of money really, there is a lot of risk in running a professional sport. In any profession you can trade job security for more earning potential. The players need to realize that the owners inherit risk of losing money along with the chance of making it. That being said, I don't agree with the owners asking players to share in past losses, they should not have to be responsible for bad administration and bad business in general. Lets see some heavy pay cuts along with reduced ticket prices.

There is very little risk in running a sports franchise actually. You have a virtual blueprint, you know when you buy the team how much you will need to spend on resources like player salaries etc., how many average fans you'll get and so on. Few teams lose money especially with most modern leagues having revenue sharing. Like we've seen, they count the cost of the team in their losses. Sure, that's a legit expense they have to pay, but that asset they are counting a loss is still there and has usually gone up, not down in value. When they sell the team it will cover all those losses and a large profit while they also make an operating profit of 10 mil or so every year. Its not the fastest way to a profit, but its not risky either.

[FireDavidKahn]

You should probably move out of your mother's basement and get some life experience before exposing your ignorance for all to see.

If you can't understand the simple principles behind supply and demand as it applies to sports, then you'll never understand what is being discussed here.
Great. Please do explain how viable it is that the players could start their own league and have it succeed financially. It isn't as black and white as "Who would watch the NBA without the current stars? Without them the NBA is nothing."

Whether you like it or not the image that is the NBA is in demand as well as the stars. Both sides would take a huge hit if they decided to part ways. The problem for the players is that the NBA has built up a long history of being the top league in the world and because of that people want to play in the NBA. In the short term it could hurt, but in the long term I would love to bet that the NBA would triumph over a silly little start up league made by some scorned players. Not to mention that even if the players did start their own league, they would get paid peanuts for a while.

[Collie]

Consider as well that this league would need to actually go well above what the current NBA is offering in terms of salaries and compensations. Not just a slight amount, but WELL ABOVE. Else, why would the players even consider such a risk?

[Blue&Orange]

Here's the other end of the spectrum, if the owner are and have been loosing as much as 300 mill a year why not get the **** out of the business? I honestly don't think they're loosing money. I think they just want more of the BRI. Or a higher percentage. What do you think?
So if you owned some business you would quit at the first sign of loss, instead of trying to make it profitable? :no:

And some owners already left, don't know about Detroit, GSW, Hornet, but the Nets were sold at loss.

Look, making another league it would a huge risk for the players, and like you said, investors would be needed, all investors in the world want their money back and more, so the players would end up in the same situation, plus having to fight with the NBA brand recognition and the history of the NBA franchises. Not a good place to be.

There's no way in hell the owners offer is so bad that forming a new league is the only solution. How is 5$ million average salary bad? Is a yearly $2b guaranteed with the possibility of raising if the NBA revenue raises that bad?

Last offer from the players was six years from now the average salary would be 7$ millions, what means $3.15 billions in salary, image the revenue don't improve that much, owners wouldn't be losing money they would be shutting down. Don't blame just the owners for the lockout.

Money aside, i think the changes the owners want to make will benefit the game and the fans. I'm with the players only in the contract length, 10 years is too much, and the fact that the Union want to he owners to reach a revenue-sharing plan before the new CBA and the owners want to look into it only after.

I still believe there will be a season. Both sides will concede enough.

[97 bulls]

Consider as well that this league would need to actually go well above what the current NBA is offering in terms of salaries and compensations. Not just a slight amount, but WELL ABOVE. Else, why would the players even consider such a risk?
Where is the risk collie? Do you really feel that the only way we as fans can enjoy watching the top players in the league play ball is through the nba? And, follow me, if the best players as well as 85% of the league leave ie, the best players in the world commit to playing, people wouldn't still enjoy watching them play? The product is still there. But just under new management.

Why are you so protective of the owners?

[Collie]

Where is the risk collie? Do you really feel that the only way we as fans can enjoy watching the top players in the league play ball is through the nba? And, follow me, if the best players as well as 85% of the league leave ie, the best players in the world commit to playing, people wouldn't still enjoy watching them play? The product is still there. But just under new management.

Why are you so protective of the owners?

I'm not being protective of the owners, but trying to show that a new league is something that is very very unlikely to happen and is largely unnecessary when an existing league is already setup with much history and experience. Could it be made? Sure. Can it be successful? Definitely. But I'd think there is 90% chance that the teams and players work it out before something like a new league could even be considered. These guys would just like to play and get paid, they would need incredible incentive to put up with the hassle of creating a new league (marketing/ setting everything up etc). How will teams be set up for example? Regional draft? Would players be able to choose where they want to go? Will ESPN stand by this? Will Nike? These little things can be problematic and for all the divide this lockout brings, a compromise is much much easier to arrange.

In an ideal world, every investor will pony up X amount of cash, every player would be happy to move and be content with their new team. Every sponsor would hop on board, and everyone makes money and is happy. But things don't often turn out like that. Even in the NBA you have disgruntled owners, owners who don't give a shit like Sterling. Cheapskate owners who sell draft picks. After a few years, many of these guys will realize that the money spent on NBA teams is no joke and many will sell their teams. After a few years, these guys would also demand the very same things that the current owners are demanding. What does this mean? You just took the same league and slapped on a different name.

As for risk, remember that we aren't the regular NBA fan. We obsess over stats and compare players like Orlando Woolridge vs Rolando Blackman, we debate PER and talk about 15 year old prospects. I will watch a new league, undoubtedly, if it offers the same quality. But the casual fanbase? They might just walk away from it all. Remember how damaging 98-99 was in terms of league popularity? Multiply it 10-fold and that's the risk we're looking at in terms of casual fan appeal.

[InfiniteBaskets]

For those who are in favor or see a player-formed league as a possibility, I'd like to see if you can answer some of these questions off the top.

1. Who would the 'owners' of teams be? Would it be the players themselves? How much 'ownership' would a player get? If the entire Laker squad decided to start the LA Lakers with the entire team's roster worth of players (unlikely), is Kobe the majority owner because he sells the most jerseys? So then what happens when Kobe starts to decline and he sees his minutes go down? The coach is going to bench the guy paying his salary??? Or what happens when Kobe retires, does he still retain partial ownership of the team?

2. How would players get paid/Who pays the players? Lets say, all the Thunder players (again unlikely) form their own team. Their current player payroll for this upcoming season is 53 million-ish. Nobody on the Thunder has made even close to that amount currently. So if you're Kevin Durant, you're just going to cross your fingers and hope that in your first season you come off with plenty of profits so you don't break your bank paying salaries... Because guaranteed contracts is what feeds our kids right? That's with paying your entire marketing/finance/equipment/training team on top of renting out a venue. Nothing like practicing 10 hours a day on your game and coming home so you can be on the phone for 5 hours at a time trying to book the best staff for your team. Of course you can hire other leeches to take care of that stuff for you, but best believe they're not here to help you without taking a piece of the pie for themselves.

3. As a player/owner, are you comfortable with the Gilbert Arenas on your team, Dwight Howard? You have no problem that you're putting your 25/10 every night while this guys in chuck-mode, freezing you out half the game, yet you know you're the main reason these fans are coming to the stadium even allowing him to get paid. Let's not try and pretend these players are all just going to be cool with each other.

4. All this uncertainty, and as an investor, I'm supposed to hand over the cash to fund this? On top of this risky proposition, I have absolutely no say in how my investment is handled (how this team is run)? If I have no say in team management this investment quickly becomes more like a stock/bond than an actual enjoyable experience that I saw Mark Cuban having.

[97 bulls]

For those who are in favor or see a player-formed league as a possibility, I'd like to see if you can answer some of these questions off the top.

1. Who would the 'owners' of teams be? Would it be the players themselves? How much 'ownership' would a player get? If the entire Laker squad decided to start the LA Lakers with the entire team's roster worth of players (unlikely), is Kobe the majority owner because he sells the most jerseys? So then what happens when Kobe starts to decline and he sees his minutes go down? The coach is going to bench the guy paying his salary??? Or what happens when Kobe retires, does he still retain partial ownership of the team?
the league would be run by a commitee that will be established democratically with a majority vote. Each team would be appointed a GM that would be able to sign and trade players. The team would be run like a normal pro basketball team.the cities the teams reside in would actually own the francise.

2. How would players get paid/Who pays the players? the league could have a salary structure similar to how the nba is set up now. Lets say, all the Thunder players (again unlikely) form their own team. Their current player payroll for this upcoming season is 53 million-ish. Nobody on the Thunder has made even close to that amount currently. So if you're Kevin Durant, you're just going to cross your fingers and hope that in your first season you come off with plenty of profits so you don't break your bank paying salaries... Because guaranteed contracts is what feeds our kids right? That's with paying your entire marketing/finance/equipment/training team on top of renting out a venue. Nothing like practicing 10 hours a day on your game and coming home so you can be on the phone for 5 hours at a time trying to book the best staff for your team. Of course you can hire other leeches to take care of that stuff for you, but best believe they're not here to help you without taking a piece of the pie for themselves.
kevin durant is established. As is the league. The players are established to the point that this scenario isn't realistic.

3. As a player/owner, are you comfortable with the Gilbert Arenas on your team, Dwight Howard? You have no problem that you're putting your 25/10 every night while this guys in chuck-mode, freezing you out half the game, yet you know you're the main reason these fans are coming to the stadium even allowing him to get paid. Let's not try and pretend these players are all just going to be cool with each other.
this makes no sense cuz this is dwight howards situation. In the nba as its currently configured

4. All this uncertainty, and as an investor, I'm supposed to hand over the cash to fund this? On top of this risky proposition, I have absolutely no say in how my investment is handled (how this team is run)? If I have no say in team management this investment quickly becomes more like a stock/bond than an actual enjoyable experience that I saw Mark Cuban having.
where is the uncertainty? The league would be new yes, but the players are known.

[joshwake]

There is very little risk in running a sports franchise actually. You have a virtual blueprint, you know when you buy the team how much you will need to spend on resources like player salaries etc., how many average fans you'll get and so on. Few teams lose money especially with most modern leagues having revenue sharing. Like we've seen, they count the cost of the team in their losses. Sure, that's a legit expense they have to pay, but that asset they are counting a loss is still there and has usually gone up, not down in value. When they sell the team it will cover all those losses and a large profit while they also make an operating profit of 10 mil or so every year. Its not the fastest way to a profit, but its not risky either.
Yea this is why nobody wants to buy the Dodgers or the Hornets. I dunno what the average salary of everyone on ISH over 20 is, but maybe, just maybe if we all apply for loans etc we can buy the Hornets. Acording to Nastradamus it's a can't miss investment! What the hell are you smoking?

[YAWN]

Yea this is why nobody wants to buy the Dodgers or the Hornets. I dunno what the average salary of everyone on ISH over 20 is, but maybe, just maybe if we all apply for loans etc we can buy the Hornets. Acording to Nastradamus it's a can't miss investment! What the hell are you smoking?

Plenty of people want to buy the dodgers, but the moronic current owner wants to keep running the team into the ground instead of selling it. Yet with all the negativity and chaos, the Dodgers still average 36,000 per game (#10 in the league)

I don't agree that owning a team is a can't miss investment, but id be curious to see a list of owners who have purchased a team and later sold it for lees, (or currently own it and worth less than when they bought it)... I bet its slim to none.. Donald Sterling has been making plenty of money on the Clippers for all those years due to never spending much cash. With as big a market as LA is, people still came when they sucked so the money kept on rolling in.

There are not enough people in NO to keep paying to go to Hornets games when they suck, thus they gross less money. Frankly I just don't think they care much about basketball in the town... Don't think they would sell out every game even with a winning product on the floor. And there in lies the reason no one wants to buy NO.

[joshwake]

Plenty of people want to buy the dodgers, but the moronic current owner wants to keep running the team into the ground instead of selling it. Yet with all the negativity and chaos, the Dodgers still average 36,000 per game (#10 in the league)

I don't agree that owning a team is a can't miss investment, but id be curious to see a list of owners who have purchased a team and later sold it for lees, (or currently own it and worth less than when they bought it)... I bet its slim to none.. Donald Sterling has been making plenty of money on the Clippers for all those years due to never spending much cash. With as big a market as LA is, people still came when they sucked so the money kept on rolling in.

There are not enough people in NO to keep paying to go to Hornets games when they suck, thus they gross less money. Frankly I just don't think they care much about basketball in the town... Don't think they would sell out every game even with a winning product on the floor. And there in lies the reason no one wants to buy NO.

It has much less to do with whether or not the investment will be profitable and more to do with return of investment. Investor(s) may not be happy with a few million in profit over a year when they could have put money into several other properties and had better ROI.

[Shepseskaf]

Great. Please do explain how viable it is that the players could start their own league and have it succeed financially. It isn't as black and white as "Who would watch the NBA without the current stars? Without them the NBA is nothing."

Whether you like it or not the image that is the NBA is in demand as well as the stars. Both sides would take a huge hit if they decided to part ways. The problem for the players is that the NBA has built up a long history of being the top league in the world and because of that people want to play in the NBA. In the short term it could hurt, but in the long term I would love to bet that the NBA would triumph over a silly little start up league made by some scorned players. Not to mention that even if the players did start their own league, they would get paid peanuts for a while.
All right, I'll explain. First of all, as earlier stated, a player-initiated league is NOT a likely outcome. The players would undoubtedly all prefer to make their living within the financial structures that are already in place.

For me, this discussion was all about what COULD happen. If, for example, the players decided that they just could not agree to exist under the terms proposed by the current owners, it is eminently possible that they could take their talents elsewhere and use the name recognition and marketability that they collectively possess.

In the absence of any NBA basketball for an entire year, and if the two sides are still far apart at that juncture, would anyone be interested in turning on the tube to see a new league with Kobe, LeBron, etc. playing? Of course. Every single person on ISH would tune in to watch it.

In terms of a financial structure, having the players put up money would not create a viable league. In my view, it would be done in the normal business start-up manner. Individuals and business groups with deep pockets would be solicited to provide financial backing for individual franchises.

In short, the "new" league would pretty much look a lot like the old one, except that by opting out of the current league situation, the players would have a chance to select ownership who would agree to terms that were more favorable to them.

Would it be a huge logistical challenge? Of course. Could it happen. Of course.

[InfiniteBaskets]

where is the uncertainty? The league would be new yes, but the players are known.


1. Who would the 'owners' of teams be? Would it be the players themselves?
the league would be run by a commitee that will be established democratically with a majority vote. Each team would be appointed a GM that would be able to sign and trade players. The team would be run like a normal pro basketball team.the cities the teams reside in would actually own the francise.

That doesn't answer my question. So who is in control of each team? Are the GMs or players in control? How does a 'city own a franchise'? Would the Knicks immediately become mayor Bloomberg's new guinea pig? God I hope not.


2. How would players get paid/Who pays the players? the league could have a salary structure similar to how the nba is set up now.
A salary structure similar to how it is now? So who's pocketing profits and who's paying the players? Is it the 'city' again? Let's say a team happens to lose money during the regular season and not make the playoffs. Do the players on that team just not get paid? Or do you expect the profits made from other teams to just cover their salaries?

Bottom line is the players cannot be the owners because there is too much conflict of interest. You dodged nearly all of my questions and provided vague one word answers that make no sense to me. If it's so easy to just start up a league, then I'd love to see the players do it. After all, players from other leagues in other countries/sports do it all the time right? Oh wait, no they don't because nobody has the capital/experience to operate their own team AND practice as a full time sports professional.

[bigdog13]

So now that the inmates are running the aslylum, and this new league is going to run exactly like the current system, which players will be absorbing the losses?

[Shepseskaf]

That doesn't answer my question. So who is in control of each team? Are the GMs or players in control? How does a 'city own a franchise'? Would the Knicks immediately become mayor Bloomberg's new guinea pig? God I hope not.
This discussion is getting a bit far afield from the original post. The OP stated: "They could appoint a new commissioner, and have retired players run franchises."

To me, that sounds reasonable. The current players would help to finance the league, but would not be in control of the franchises. Those duties would fall to the major investors and each franchise's management teams, which would include retired players who understand how teams work.



A salary structure similar to how it is now? So who's pocketing profits and who's paying the players? Is it the 'city' again? Let's say a team happens to lose money during the regular season and not make the playoffs. Do the players on that team just not get paid? Or do you expect the profits made from other teams to just cover their salaries?

Bottom line is the players cannot be the owners because there is too much conflict of interest. You dodged nearly all of my questions and provided vague one word answers that make no sense to me. If it's so easy to just start up a league, then I'd love to see the players do it. After all, players from other leagues in other countries/sports do it all the time right? Oh wait, no they don't because nobody has the capital/experience to operate their own team AND practice as a full time sports professional.
So, just because it hasn't been done before, then it can't be done? Open your mind, won't you? As previously stated, the current players would be concerned with playing, not administrating.

I would envision a revenue sharing model between investor-players and other investors. It wouldn't be easy to begin a new league, so there will obviously be challenges. However, given the definite demand in terms of fan interest, there is money to be made. Would it top the current salary structure? Probably not, given the growth pains that any start-up business will experience.

The main point is that given their name recognition as marketable commodities, if the players so chose, they could attempt to start another league, and form management and ownership groups to achieve that goal.

It isn't likely to happen, but it could. People need to stop being so negative about innovative ideas. Probably part of the reason that America is falling down the crapper these days.

[97 bulls]

So now that the inmates are running the aslylum, and this new league is going to run exactly like the current system, which players will be absorbing the losses?
I honestly don't believe the owners are loosing money. And even if some of the teams are loosing money, the NBA isn't. That's why some form of revenue sharing is needed.

[pmj]

I honestly don't believe the owners are loosing money. And even if some of the teams are loosing money, the NBA isn't. That's why some form of revenue sharing is needed.


Exactly. They said the total losses were 300 million, and only 8 teams made money. So that means 300 million divided by 22 teams = 13.6 million each. And that's in the worst recession in 50 years.

The owners just need to figure out some revenue sharing, and the players have already proposed to reduce their % of revenue by 3% (over 100 million). All they need to do is make some other small concessions like the amnesty for a contract and reducing the raises year to year (which I believe they already also propsed), and this shit should be done. Stern is just completely failing.

[97 bulls]

That doesn't answer my question. So who is in control of each team? Are the GMs or players in control? How does a 'city own a franchise'? Would the Knicks immediately become mayor Bloomberg's new guinea pig? God I hope not.
when I say the city would own the franchise, I mean this in a sense that's similar to what happened when the seattle sonics team left for okc and changed their name. The city kept the name and if they ever established another team, that name would resume. And I did answer your question. General Managers would run the teams. But the big decisions would be handled in the form of a vote from the players. The players also would have accountants running the books. The players could get paid by the establishment which could be names the PBPL. Pro basketball players league. The accountants could establish a fund in which to pay the players. And they could get paid under the name PBPL.

A salary structure similar to how it is now? So who's pocketing profits and who's paying the players? Is it the 'city' again? Let's say a team happens to lose money during the regular season and not make the playoffs. Do the players on that team just not get paid? Or do you expect the profits made from other teams to just cover their salaries?
I answered the first part of this question. As far as the second part, some form of revenue sharing would need to exist since noone would own a team outright

Bottom line is the players cannot be the owners because there is too much conflict of interest. You dodged nearly all of my questions and provided vague one word answers that make no sense to me. If it's so easy to just start up a league, then I'd love to see the players do it. After all, players from other leagues in other countries/sports do it all the time right? Oh wait, no they don't because nobody has the capital/experience to operate their own team AND practice as a full time sports professional.
League do get started all the time. The problem is they don't have the big name established players to draw a real audience. And like I said in the beginning. This wouldn't work with only half of the players that play in the NBA (established recognizeable known players) joining. They would need the lions share of the players in the nba to join.

Now, in the event the league isn't profitable, which is highly unlikely, the players would have to restructure their saaries to keep the business afloat. But that's really no different than what's being expected of the players now. But the difference is the players would have full access to all the take. And really couldn't. Argue against accountants they hired informing them that the league isn't making a profit.

Obviously this isn't gonna happen right now. But it does show what I've always known, the players don't need the owners in the way the owners are acting. And as far as the up and comming lawsuits that would undoubtedly happen, the owners have locked out the players. So they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on right off the cuff. And then whatnare owners supposed to tell the judge? That the players can only play in the nba and under their (the owners) terms? Yeah right.

[Kevin_Gamble]

LMFAO


And who is negotiating the deals with TV companies, John Salmons??


Dude, get fukcing real here.

Well, maybe lawyers... whom you can hire for money... will negotiate deals? Do you think the owners negotiate all the deals themselves or are even capable of doing it?

[Kevin_Gamble]

Yea this is why nobody wants to buy the Dodgers or the Hornets. I dunno what the average salary of everyone on ISH over 20 is, but maybe, just maybe if we all apply for loans etc we can buy the Hornets. Acording to Nastradamus it's a can't miss investment! What the hell are you smoking?

Lol what? Nobody wants to buy the Dodgers, one of the most famous sports franchises in the world that happens to own what is possibly the best baseball town in the world?

[97 bulls]

Lol what? Nobody wants to buy the Dodgers, one of the most famous sports franchises in the world that happens to own what is possibly the best baseball town in the world?
Yeah. Im still trying to figure out why the mlb wouldn't allow mark cuban to buy a baseball team. And I know there been groups lined up to buy the hornets but the nba declined them.

[cavsfanatic]

Do you know how much loot you'd have to get to do this? Billions!

[97 bulls]

Do you know how much loot you'd have to get to do this? Billions!
I don't think finding suitable investors would be hard. The hardest part would be how many players would be willing to go.

[Sarcastic]

Do you know how much loot you'd have to get to do this? Billions!

1. Players band together
2. Players go to networks and say: We are creating a new league with 20 teams. Basketball will be better and more competitive than ever before.
3. Networks hand over billions of $$$

[niko]

It's not a feasible idea. At best you'll see players throw together exhibitions as a "threat" to make their own league. Basically, you are telling people with less money to make a league. How does that benefit the players? Create a better financial system for the owners? jsut new ones?

[kaybee]

Investors invest their money in products that they know are reliable. People aren't going to invest into something that they aren't for sure they are going to profit off of. If that were the case all NBA players could get an endorsement and not just the bonafide superstars. Start a league, let it establish a name for itself, and then maybe the investors and sponsers will start rolling in, but getting someone to invest on a new name is hard. As an investor, am I really supposed to trust a bunch of professional athletes, with my money and name? You say they would hire marketing and business teams to handle all of the financial issues, but they aren't going to do it for free. Who's going to pay them? You mean to tell me NBA players can afford uniforms, travel expenses, venues, coach and staff, advertising, etc for an entire league?

Not only that, sure a lot of hardcore fans of basketball would watch, but I think it'd take some convincing for the casual fan to watch. Think about it, smaller franchises are cutting their loses for a reason and teams like the Heat, Lakers, and Celtics have the most televised games for a reason. They have established fanbases and TV networks know they're going to rack in the viewership.

Am I missing something?

Where would the order be amongst the players? Also wouldn't the players be operating at more of a loss than what the owners are asking them to take considering the fact that they not only have to invest in their own business, but be willing to take a paycut for the initial investment.

Hey I'm a pre-med major. Maybe I should just stick to that.

[Shepseskaf]

Investors invest their money in products that they know are reliable. People aren't going to invest into something that they aren't for sure they are going to profit off of.
FAIL on your first sentence, which pretty much invalidates anything else you had to say.

Investors fund highly speculative ventures every single day. The more speculative, the less certain it is that a profit will be turned.

Have you heard of Facebook? Investors put down millions far before the business earned any profits. The same can be said for many Internet start-ups of the last decade, or so.

What speculative investors do is look long-term. If they feel that eventually the funds they provide will get their money back, plus profits, then they'll go ahead with it.

In my view, the long-range viability of the third most popular sport in the country is secure. Losses will occur early, but if the underlying business plan is solid then profits would come later.

[kaybee]

FAIL on your first sentence, which pretty much invalidates anything else you had to say.

Investors fund highly speculative ventures every single day. The more speculative, the less certain it is that a profit will be turned.

Have you heard of Facebook? Investors put down millions far before the business earned any profits. The same can be said for many Internet start-ups of the last decade, or so.

What speculative investors do is look long-term. If they feel that eventually the funds they provide will get their money back, plus profits, then they'll go ahead with it.

In my view, the long-range viability of the third most popular sport in the country is secure. Losses will occur early, but if the underlying business plan is solid then profits would come later.

Do you think T-Mobile, Sprite, or Kia really would have their brand names plastered over some uncertainity? Facebook started out small and it grew. Their initial investment of $500,000 was even after they had already grown into a successful business that showed a lot of potential. Then the millions started coming in that makes Facebook the global phenomenon it is today. The difference is, to start a new league, there would have to be millions upfront for it even to be viable. There's a reason for those filthy rich owners even if some of you don't want to admit it.

Investors, as you said, look to get their investment back PLUS a profit. You really think a person would want to invest $100 million up for something so fabricated and speculative expecting to get at least $200 million back?

[JMT]

There are contracts in place with municipalities, arenas, tv networks, vendors, advertisers, suppliers, etc that call for exclusivity and prohibit them from dealing with a competitor. That's true for both the NBA and individual franchises.

Owners are billionaires with multiple streams of revenue that last a lifetime. They are educated, successful business men. There are 30 of them that have to reach a consensus.

Players are millionaires with a single source of revenue that lasts an average of 5 years. Most have little or no business accumen or experience. There are 400 of them that would have to reach a consensus.

In any battle that could involve the courts and/or money...and everything that's been proposed in this thread would involve LOTS of courts and money...the owners will win. Just like they'll win the lockout.

[Shepseskaf]

Do you think T-Mobile, Sprite, or Kia really would have their brand names plastered over some uncertainity? Facebook started out small and it grew. Their initial investment of $500,000 was even after they had already grown into a successful business that showed a lot of potential. Then the millions started coming in that makes Facebook the global phenomenon it is today. The difference is, to start a new league, there would have to be millions upfront for it even to be viable. There's a reason for those filthy rich owners even if some of you don't want to admit it.

Investors, as you said, look to get their investment back PLUS a profit. You really think a person would want to invest $100 million up for something so fabricated and speculative expecting to get at least $200 million back?
What you've said isn't really relevant to the discussion. Yes, all investors want to get a good return on their original funds -- some do, and some don't. Despite the best of intentions, various people and business groups around the world lose millions of dollars on a regular basis.

As to your point about certain brands not wanting their names to be associated with "uncertainty", in the event that the players decided to initiate the process of starting a new league, potential investors -- including the ones that you just mentioned -- would be shown detailed business plans. If the plans were solid, the investment would flow, if not, then not.

So, the start-up costs aren't relevant. As noted, if the plan to move forward with the new league looked good, the money would flow. If not from the investors that were associated with the NBA, then from others.

[eldanielfire]

I'm nt sure why anybody think that because of the dispute players could start their own franchaises when they wnat more money and the owners are claiming current pay caps mean franchaises lose money.

If you subtracted the fact a new franchaise wouldn't ahve the history or prestigue of the NBA and that the core fans who have supported their sides for years or decades probably won't move then it's bound to fail.

I mean why would a typical Bulls or Celtics fan support a new side with no history, they have no connection with just because LeBron and Wade play in it? They didn't abandon their teams when the Miami heat 3 joined together last Year so why would they suddlenly abandon the sides they have always supported for a completely new league?

[Blue&Orange]

In terms of a financial structure, having the players put up money would not create a viable league. In my view, it would be done in the normal business start-up manner. Individuals and business groups with deep pockets would be solicited to provide financial backing for individual franchises.

So what would be the difference form what we have now? Cause in a normal business, the guys with the deep pockets, will want to call the shots and will want the money back and more. This is the real word.


I would envision a revenue sharing model between investor-players and other investors.

Again what would be difference from what we have now? To my knowledge players and owners share revenue. :confusedshrug:


It wouldn't be easy to begin a new league, so there will obviously be challenges. However, given the definite demand in terms of fan interest, there is money to be made. Would it top the current salary structure? Probably not, given the growth pains that any start-up business will experience.

Yeah that will happen, NBA players happily walking away from $2b guaranteed money for growth pains.


1. Players band together
2. Players go to networks and say: We are creating a new league with 20 teams. Basketball will be better and more competitive than ever before.
3. Networks hand over billions of $$$
lol Sure, networks hand over billions :facepalm

Because all the celtics, Lakers, Knicks fans, would stop seeing their teams to go watch a few players :facepalm


There’s like already at least twenty solid reasons in this thread why players won’t do it and if they do it why they wouldn’t be better financially, not even close. There’s not one solid and credible reason why they should and how would they be better.

The question that if so easy and so doable why it’s not done, remains to be answered, i wonder why.:rolleyes:

[JMT]

Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits, and not enough money to fight them.

thread

[oldschool4ever]

1. Players band together
2. Players go to networks and say: We are creating a new league with 20 teams. Basketball will be better and more competitive than ever before.
3. Networks hand over billions of $$$


so less players mean less total players salaries. i thought the point on the players side is not to take a major paycut?


the networks aren't going to pay more then they are currently for some experiment.

[Shepseskaf]

So what would be the difference form what we have now? Cause in a normal business, the guys with the deep pockets, will want to call the shots and will want the money back and more. This is the real word.
So sum up all of your questions, the possible new system would like pretty much like the current one, except that it would be with new ownership, get it? If the move was player-initiated, the objective would be to ultimately create something similar to what exists now, but with better terms than the current owners are offering.

You obviously haven't been reading the posts in the thread. No one is saying that forming a new league would be "easy" or even that its likely to happen. An innovative idea was put on the table, and people are commenting on its possible viability.

You obviously don't think its viable, but others -- myself included -- think that under the right conditions, it could be.

[guy]

Do you think T-Mobile, Sprite, or Kia really would have their brand names plastered over some uncertainity? Facebook started out small and it grew. Their initial investment of $500,000 was even after they had already grown into a successful business that showed a lot of potential. Then the millions started coming in that makes Facebook the global phenomenon it is today. The difference is, to start a new league, there would have to be millions upfront for it even to be viable. There's a reason for those filthy rich owners even if some of you don't want to admit it.

Investors, as you said, look to get their investment back PLUS a profit. You really think a person would want to invest $100 million up for something so fabricated and speculative expecting to get at least $200 million back?

To be fair, unlike Facebook, you'd be getting recognizable and popular products here like Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Howard, etc.

Of course, I don't think it would happen anyway. It would take way too much time and too many inexperienced people to organize something like this and the owners probably have alot of the rights to the resources (arenas, sponsors, tv deals etc.) the players would need anyway. And it still is risky because a lot of fans identify with the TEAMS anyway. It wouldn't be worth all the trouble.

[knicksman]

Investors invest their money in products that they know are reliable. People aren't going to invest into something that they aren't for sure they are going to profit off of. If that were the case all NBA players could get an endorsement and not just the bonafide superstars. Start a league, let it establish a name for itself, and then maybe the investors and sponsers will start rolling in, but getting someone to invest on a new name is hard. As an investor, am I really supposed to trust a bunch of professional athletes, with my money and name? You say they would hire marketing and business teams to handle all of the financial issues, but they aren't going to do it for free. Who's going to pay them? You mean to tell me NBA players can afford uniforms, travel expenses, venues, coach and staff, advertising, etc for an entire league?

Not only that, sure a lot of hardcore fans of basketball would watch, but I think it'd take some convincing for the casual fan to watch. Think about it, smaller franchises are cutting their loses for a reason and teams like the Heat, Lakers, and Celtics have the most televised games for a reason. They have established fanbases and TV networks know they're going to rack in the viewership.

Am I missing something?

Where would the order be amongst the players? Also wouldn't the players be operating at more of a loss than what the owners are asking them to take considering the fact that they not only have to invest in their own business, but be willing to take a paycut for the initial investment.

Hey I'm a pre-med major. Maybe I should just stick to that.

he thinks owners and investors dont think alike when these owners are former investors, bankers, etc. LOL

these investors are thinking of money too. theres no investor who would just concede to what players want and just willing to accept losses on their investment

[asdf1990]

Owners would probably shit bricks if the players managed to start their own league. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

[97 bulls]

Investors invest their money in products that they know are reliable. People aren't going to invest into something that they aren't for sure they are going to profit off of. If that were the case all NBA players could get an endorsement and not just the bonafide superstars. Start a league, let it establish a name for itself, and then maybe the investors and sponsers will start rolling in, but getting someone to invest on a new name is hard. As an investor, am I really supposed to trust a bunch of professional athletes, with my money and name? You say they would hire marketing and business teams to handle all of the financial issues, but they aren't going to do it for free. Who's going to pay them? You mean to tell me NBA players can afford uniforms, travel expenses, venues, coach and staff, advertising, etc for an entire league?

Not only that, sure a lot of hardcore fans of basketball would watch, but I think it'd take some convincing for the casual fan to watch. Think about it, smaller franchises are cutting their loses for a reason and teams like the Heat, Lakers, and Celtics have the most televised games for a reason. They have established fanbases and TV networks know they're going to rack in the viewership.

Am I missing something?

Where would the order be amongst the players? Also wouldn't the players be operating at more of a loss than what the owners are asking them to take considering the fact that they not only have to invest in their own business, but be willing to take a paycut for the initial investment.

Hey I'm a pre-med major. Maybe I should just stick to that.
Think about it. Why are certain teams nationally televised? Certainly not cuz of the market. I remember when jordan played, the bulls were on tv 3 times a week. Once the bulls were broken up (the championship team mind you) they weren't televised at all. Hell even WGN stopped televising alot of their games. And they're a chicago station. How many of the celtics games were nationaly televised before garnett and allen joined pierce?the bulls and celtics are the 3rd and 5th tv markets in the us. And they rarely to never aired any of their games before the marketable players showed up.

[97 bulls]

FAIL on your first sentence, which pretty much invalidates anything else you had to say.

Investors fund highly speculative ventures every single day. The more speculative, the less certain it is that a profit will be turned.

Have you heard of Facebook? Investors put down millions far before the business earned any profits. The same can be said for many Internet start-ups of the last decade, or so.

What speculative investors do is look long-term. If they feel that eventually the funds they provide will get their money back, plus profits, then they'll go ahead with it.

In my view, the long-range viability of the third most popular sport in the country is secure. Losses will occur early, but if the underlying business plan is solid then profits would come later.
You my friend show you know business. The first rule in business is buy low and sell high.

[Blue&Orange]

So sum up all of your questions, the possible new system would like pretty much like the current one, except that it would be with new ownership, get it?

So now isn't a players league no more, it's just a different owners\investors league, where new owners\investors will front the majority of the money and then will let the players take the biggest slice... Good luck with that, ain't happening. Even zigalionaires like Paul Allen and Prokhorov aren't happy with the current deal, good luck finding those "investors"\"owners".



No one is saying that forming a new league would be "easy" or even that its likely to happen. An innovative idea was put on the table, and people are commenting on its possible viability.

You obviously don't think its viable, but others -- myself included -- think that under the right conditions, it could be.
I appreciate the soft backpeddling it means some sense is setting in.

And it's not an innovative idea :roll:, you think nobody thought of that ever? You think nobody on the players side, ever thought of that? That's the problem right there you and 97 bulls think that you just came up with some innovative breakthrough notion, that nobody have considered before.

[niko]

You'd basically be trying to make the NBA from scratch but without...
1) All the players. Not everyone would cross even in a best case scenario.
2) All the history.
3) The buildings to play in. (Where are you playing in NY?)
4) The Network contracts
5) The Partners (the advertising)

You would have to do all this from scratch. Right now, the owners are locking out the players because even with all this, they say the model is not profitable enough. BUT, you think a new group of people is going to do better ,from scratch.

That's just patently ridiculous. There is absolutely 0% chance of this.

[Shepseskaf]

So now isn't a players league no more, it's just a different owners\investors league, where new owners\investors will front the majority of the money and then will let the players take the biggest slice... Good luck with that, ain't happening. Even zigalionaires like Paul Allen and Prokhorov aren't happy with the current deal, good luck finding those "investors"\"owners".
You don't read very well. Either that, or you like the mischaracterize and overgeneralize.

No one said it would be a "players' league". What was proposed was that players take the initiative to start a new league sans the current owners.

It also was never said that the players would take a "bigger slice" then the main investors. The "slice" would have to be palatable to both sides, such that the players would find it acceptable and the potential owners would find it of interest to explore putting down funds for the venture.



I appreciate the soft backpeddling it means some sense is setting in.

And it's not an innovative idea :roll:, you think nobody thought of that ever? You think nobody on the players side, ever thought of that? That's the problem right there you and 97 bulls think that you just came up with some innovative breakthrough notion, that nobody have considered before.
Again, you're not reading. There has been no "backpeddling" at all. It was proposed as a "what if" scenario, and people have had their say.

As to being innovative, it certainly would be if such an idea every took root and an actual attempt was made.

Now do yourself and a favor and go back and actually read the previous posts before putting your own spin on things and misstating what was said.

[Hammertime]

What would be the motivation for players to do this. The players are currently throwing a hissy fit because they do not want to take a pay cut. In what alternate universe would a brand new league be able to pay them as much as they stand to make right now?