Charles Barkley’s advice to Shaq about Orlando.

[Kblaze8855]

After an infamous poll many of you may not remember hearing about….



The July 16, 1996 issue of the Sentinel ran a poll on the front page that read, “Is Shaquille O’Neal Worth $115 million over 7 seasons?” According to Jeff Pearlman’s book Three Ring Circus, at the end of polling, 91.3% of readers voted “no.” That was basically the last straw in Shaq’s decision to leave the Magic.

Charles Barkley was a member of the 1996 US Olympic Team alongside O’Neal, which just happened to be holding practices in Orlando. When he got wind of the poll, Barkley didn’t mince words when telling Shaq what the future four-time champion needed to do, according to Pearlman:


“Are you f****** kidding me? You bring glory to this redneck, one-horse town, and this is what they think of you? Get out as soon as you can. F*** these people.”Charles Barkley’s advice to Shaquille O’Neal in 1996
.

[BigShotBob]

They definitely planned on paying Penny that kind of money when the time came, just not Shaq. Though they wanted to at least get him $90-100 million but the Lakers were able to offer him more after getting rid of the entire bench and the rest is history really.

[FultzNationRISE]

I mean it is what it is.

Sports is full of fans who resent player salaries, but cant stop consuming the product.

In fact, that pretty much sums up all economics, period.

Just ask rrr3.

[Kblaze8855]

I mean it is what it is.

Sports is full of fans who resent player salaries, but cant stop consuming the product.

In fact, that pretty much sums up all economics, period.

Just ask rrr3.



Ever try to explain to someone why athletes make so much money?

People can’t get their head around built in subscriber fees, Internet impressions, advertising, international rights, corporate naming rights, apparel deals and on and on it goes.

It’s like they think someone sat down and just assigned them millions after deciding their contribution to society is worth that.

Theres a reason school teachers don’t make that money. There are too many of them and nobody wants to see them teach….

And some people genuinely don’t get it. I don’t know where they think the money should go. It goes to the players or the even richer owners. We as a society supply the money….then bitch that they have it.

Just weird shit.

[bladefd]

Chuck always spoke his mind, and he ended up being right here. Shaq wouldn't have won anything in Orlando.

Magic was not getting past the Bulls until 98 minimum. After that, who the hell knows. Sure T-Mac was great, but he didn't arrive until couple of years later in 2000. He was hardly clutch or as good defensively as Kobe. Magic had a crappy front-office that could also never be relied upon, even in the weak East at the time. Doc Rivers was the coach back then - I never exactly was sold on him as a coach like say Pat Riley or Phil Jackson. Chances are Shaq would have been rotting there.

[j3lademaster]

Ever try to explain to someone why athletes make so much money?

People can’t get their head around built in subscriber fees, Internet impressions, advertising, international rights, corporate naming rights, apparel deals and on and on it goes.

It’s like they think someone sat down and just assigned them millions after deciding their contribution to society is worth that.

Theres a reason school teachers don’t make that money. There are too many of them and nobody wants to see them teach….

And some people genuinely don’t get it. I don’t know where they think the money should go. It goes to the players or the even richer owners. We as a society supply the money….then bitch that they have it.

Just weird shit.the NBA’s revenue is already there. It’s just a matter of whether that money goes to the owners or the players. Superstars like Lebron are actually very underpaid.

[bladefd]

Ever try to explain to someone why athletes make so much money?

People can’t get their head around built in subscriber fees, Internet impressions, advertising, international rights, corporate naming rights, apparel deals and on and on it goes.

It’s like they think someone sat down and just assigned them millions after deciding their contribution to society is worth that.

Theres a reason school teachers don’t make that money. There are too many of them and nobody wants to see them teach….

And some people genuinely don’t get it. I don’t know where they think the money should go. It goes to the players or the even richer owners. We as a society supply the money….then bitch that they have it.

Just weird shit.

How about cheaper tickets? Or cheaper NBA league pass? I can't afford to spend $100 on a basketball game ticket and be so far back that I can't even see the court. I also have to resort to streaming games because I can't afford to shell out $200 + tax per season for league pass. How about bringing down the cost of NBA league pass to $100/annually or less?

Why are we limited to "do you want the money to go to players or owners?" How about us fans? Are we not the reason why this revenue exists in the first place? Are we just chopped liver?

[FultzNationRISE]

How about cheaper tickets? Or cheaper NBA league pass? I can't afford to spend $100 on a basketball game ticket and be so far back that I can't even see the court. I also have to resort to streaming games because I can't afford to shell out $200 + tax per season. How about bringing down the cost of NBA league pass to $100/annually or less?

Why are we limited to "do you want the money to go to players or owners?" How about us fans? Are we not the reason why this revenue exists in the first place? Are we just chopped liver?


https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nicolas-cage-laughing-gif-imgur-7.gif

[Kblaze8855]

.Why are we limited to "do you want the money to go to players or owners?"


Because we live in the real world and not one of fairy tales?

There is no price point for league pass that prevents the players being insanely rich.

Just a matter of the specific number put in the “Nobody needs ____” argument made by someone who doesn’t understand the 800 ways they are the cause of the “problem”.

[Shogon]

How about cheaper tickets? Or cheaper NBA league pass? I can't afford to spend $100 on a basketball game ticket and be so far back that I can't even see the court. I also have to resort to streaming games because I can't afford to shell out $200 + tax per season for league pass. How about bringing down the cost of NBA league pass to $100/annually or less?

Why are we limited to "do you want the money to go to players or owners?" How about us fans? Are we not the reason why this revenue exists in the first place? Are we just chopped liver?

Do you not understand the basic concept of business or what is it, exactly?

If the NBA could make $50,000 per seat every single game and the games all were consistently selling out or close to it, should they charge $30 a seat so you can feel good? Obviously I am using extreme numbers here, but the point remains.

You want business to take in less income out of... charity?

If they charge less for the seats, the owners make less money, the league makes less money, the players make less money. At the end of the day they're providing their services for the maximum price that people are willing to pay.


That is point blank human nature period. I do agree that on an individual level it absolutely can get to a point where... when is enough enough? But when we're talking about large groups of people like the league + players, think maybe thousands of people total... uh... yeah... they're going to try to make as much money as they can. Again, it's just human nature.

It's like you don't understand this extremely basic concept of OBJECTIVE reality.

The seats are going to be as much as supply and demand allows them to be.

[bladefd]

Because we live in the real world and not one of fairy tales?

There is no price point for league pass that prevents the players being insanely rich.

Just a matter of the specific number put in the “Nobody needs ____” argument made by someone who doesn’t understand the 800 ways they are the cause of the “problem”.

Absolutely. I am not saying they or owners should not be insanely rich. All I'm saying is that a piece of the revenue should be pumped back into keeping league pass and tickets at least somewhat reasonably affordable. Otherwise it's a runaway train. Greed is a real thing. And it eats people from within. The more they make, the more they want.

In the 80s and 90s, tickets were possible for anyone. Cable TV was affordable. I understand the game grew and demand went up. I expect costs to be raised but when I see how much revenue the league is getting, I ask myself why the costs keep rising of say nba league pass. We are already at $200 per season. Cable tv is getting outrageously expensive as tnt/espn/abc all want a bigger pie to pay for the ever increasing tv deals that put more money into the pockets of players/owners (tv deals which ultimately drive up the cost for everyone subscribing).

Will it ever stop increasing? I think we both know it's unlikely until it gets to the point that it begins to drop from cord-cutters and people just unable to afford, period. The average person's income has not been keeping up with rising costs, let alone with inflation over last few decades. It's runaway capitalism with those already garnering the biggest incomes. And no end in sight.


As for shogun's post.. At what point do you say enough? This applies not just to nba but society as a whole. Jeff bezos will be just as happy with 9 mansions instead of 14 mansions. Mark Cuban will be just fine owning 5 mansions and 8 cars than 8 mansions and 13 cars. LeBron will just fine owning 3 mansions and 5 Ferraris. Nobody is talking about charity. Why is it a problem to be opposed to having extreme run-away crony capitalism? I don't want socialism but capitalism within reason. Just because I don't support crony capitalism doesn't mean I am asking for charity or socialism.

[iamgine]

Absolutely. I am not saying they or owners should not be insanely rich. All I'm saying is that a piece of the revenue should be pumped back into keeping league pass and tickets at least somewhat reasonably affordable.

For basketball? No.

Maybe for more important things like public transport.

Also, $200 for full season of HD NBA games are expensive? That's a lot less than the price of a cup of coffee per day. It can be argued as much much too cheap.

[warriorfan]

How about cheaper tickets? Or cheaper NBA league pass? I can't afford to spend $100 on a basketball game ticket and be so far back that I can't even see the court. I also have to resort to streaming games because I can't afford to shell out $200 + tax per season for league pass. How about bringing down the cost of NBA league pass to $100/annually or less?

Why are we limited to "do you want the money to go to players or owners?" How about us fans? Are we not the reason why this revenue exists in the first place? Are we just chopped liver?

At times it’s hard to believe this isn’t some sort of satire troll account.

[Phoenix]

Chuck always spoke his mind, and he ended up being right here. Shaq wouldn't have won anything in Orlando.

Magic was not getting past the Bulls until 98 minimum. After that, who the hell knows. Sure T-Mac was great, but he didn't arrive until couple of years later in 2000. He was hardly clutch or as good defensively as Kobe. Magic had a crappy front-office that could also never be relied upon, even in the weak East at the time. Doc Rivers was the coach back then - I never exactly was sold on him as a coach like say Pat Riley or Phil Jackson. Chances are Shaq would have been rotting there.

At one point it was thought that Duncan, Grant and Tmac were all going to Orlando in 2000. That would have only been possible with Shaq leaving and Penny having moved on. Shaq staying would have completely changed the next half decade of personnel moves, as well as completely changed the course of history for the Lakers in that time frame, which rewrites how the early 2000's unfold. The Spurs, Blazers and Kings may have all won a title in that period instead of the Lakers.

[Horatio33]

I live in England and for nearly $100 dollars a month I can watch up to 30 soccer matches a month. For league pass at $200 a year I can watch every nba game live or as most games are in the middle of the night can watch them the next day. Its pretty good value for money.

[Shogon]

Absolutely. I am not saying they or owners should not be insanely rich. All I'm saying is that a piece of the revenue should be pumped back into keeping league pass and tickets at least somewhat reasonably affordable. Otherwise it's a runaway train. Greed is a real thing. And it eats people from within. The more they make, the more they want.

In the 80s and 90s, tickets were possible for anyone. Cable TV was affordable. I understand the game grew and demand went up. I expect costs to be raised but when I see how much revenue the league is getting, I ask myself why the costs keep rising of say nba league pass. We are already at $200 per season. Cable tv is getting outrageously expensive as tnt/espn/abc all want a bigger pie to pay for the ever increasing tv deals that put more money into the pockets of players/owners (tv deals which ultimately drive up the cost for everyone subscribing).

They will charge as much as they can until it eats into their bottom line. If they charge $50 for league pass and it boosts their income to the point that all expenses considered, they are making more money overall... that's what they'll do. If the price point is $150, that's what they'll do. If the price point is $1500, that's what they'll do. If the price point is $15, that's what they'll do. It's just supply and demand. Nothing more or less. There can be human error in there, but I assume they've spent a significant amount of money and time reaching their price point.


As for shogun's post.. At what point do you say enough?

The NBA is not yet at "enough is enough" point. As long as the stadiums are still filled and advertisers and ISPs/cable providers are getting their money's worth through viewership to continue raising salaries, they should do it. If you think the NBA as a whole has reached overpaid status, don't support them. It's that simple. The only thing you can do about it is to vote with your eyes, your attention and your time.

NBA players provide a great outlet for millions of people. They should be compensated accordingly. They are "forced"(if they want to be NBA players, anyways, which obviously they are not forced to be) to endure people prying into their personal lives, having to answer stupid questions for reporters, and being under the microscope by fans... all for our entertainment. They earn every cent. I would not trade places with those guys even if I got to have all of their money. **** that shit.

On an individual level, I agree with the idea of when is enough enough. It doesn't really apply to companies, no. Greed out of corporations is ok. The problem with the current way a lot of corporations operate, however, is the fact that you have a bunch of people that often end up on the boards of these companies that had nothing to do with the company becoming successful in the first place. As a result, they are not emotionally attached to its continued success and they aren't looking at the long term(10+ years through infinity). They are only considering the short term and they are trying to line their pockets as quickly as possible. If the company fails as a result of their extreme greed, well it doesn't matter because they've made so much money in the short term, what do they care? It was never their baby. It was just their ATM. In the mean time, these are companies that only got as successful as they once did because they offered such a good product that society as a whole was willing to endure all of their competitors going out of business. Now that a psycho is running things, the competitor is gone and it could take decades for real competition to arise. That is the one true massive failure of capitalism, imo, regarding short to mid term problems. Long term? Those companies go out of business and all is right with the world again. The issue is that in the 20 or 30 years it takes for large corps that were once great to go out of business, they have inflicted a lifetime's worth of emotional pain on a substantial number of people.

Perhaps there should be some sort of legislation that limits how much CEOs and board members can make that didn't found the companies that they're apart of, but in terms of limiting the company itself to be as profitable as possible long term? Nah. I'm not even sure how you would do it, to be honest. If you just made their income percentage based, they would still try to maximize it all. If you set a hard number, we'd have to constantly revise that number.

But again, this really all boils down to the fact that life isn't fair. There's only so much we can do about it.


Just because I don't support crony capitalism doesn't mean I am asking for charity or socialism.

"Crony capitalism" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't understand that the root problem of why large corporations get bailed out and have unreasonable influence on our lives is mostly the size and influence of the federal government."

Speaking of Bezos though...

We all know Amazon is putting companies out of business. Imagine a day that Bezos has 0 influence at Amazon and imagine that just maybe they start to change their general viewpoint of trying to obsess over customer experience because some people take over that just want to bleed it for maximum profit. Imagine how bad the fallout for society will be as a result if Amazon takes it all over and then starts falling apart... lol.

[Kblaze8855]

Just because I don't support crony capitalism doesn't mean I am asking for charity or socialism. .


What would you call complaining about the wealth of people who own and usually founded giant companies?

What’s your solution(since apparently it’s a problem) to founders of word changing companies being insanely wealthy?

These people are not sitting on 200 billion in cash. Bezos has 200 billion in hypothetical worth…because he founded a company. To cash it out….hed have to give up that ownership. At that point he would have 200 billion in cash but till then….what?

You think a companies hypothetical value should be capped? We should seize successful companies to make government assets? Sell them to the employees after forcing the founders out for nothing?

How would you….if you founded Amazon….prevent yourself being richer than you deem necessary through any means other than giving away your company?

Pay everyone 25 an hour instead of 18(what Amazon pays here). He’s still one of the wealthiest people ever. How do you remedy that problem other than having all successful founders walk away from their shares, donate the resulting cash, and I guess hope the board pinky swears they still get to run what they created?

Or does your right to run your creation end when it’s too successful?

[bladefd]

What would you call complaining about the wealth of people who own and usually founded giant companies?

What’s your solution(since apparently it’s a problem) to founders of word changing companies being insanely wealthy?

These people are not sitting on 200 billion in cash. Bezos has 200 billion in hypothetical worth…because he founded a company. To cash it out….hed have to give up that ownership. At that point he would have 200 billion in cash but till then….what?

You think a companies hypothetical value should be capped? We should seize successful companies to make government assets? Sell them to the employees after forcing the founders out for nothing?

How would you….if you founded Amazon….prevent yourself being richer than you deem necessary through any means other than giving away your company?

Pay everyone 25 an hour instead of 18(what Amazon pays here). He’s still one of the wealthiest people ever. How do you remedy that problem other than having all successful founders walk away from their shares, donate the resulting cash, and I guess hope the board pinky swears they still get to run what they created?

Or does your right to run your creation end when it’s too successful?

Jeff bezos can borrow billions against the value of his stocks (collateral) without having to cash-out. Unless if he defaults on the borrowed sum, he can keep borrowing money and pay off previously borrowed money with more borrowed money. Just explaining that he doesn't have to cash out his money and can put up the stocks as collateral indefinitely. He can also issue more shares to raise money when he just wants to generate capital. That's besides the point though.

Seize companies? No. However, there comes a time that you split companies. Like Amazon or Google or Facebook could be split into several companies. I don't know about the logistics of how it would work out, but you can't let these companies grow to infinite levels. There is a reason why monopolies have been banned.

Since we are talking about Amazon, they are getting out of control pretty much like a monopoly, feeding up and taking out all of their competitors. Amazon has just put into motion plans to buyout an entire mall near me, and people are suing to stop that. They are pushing into every state and I won't be surprised if they push into every country, pushing out every store. Not just in retail, but also manufacturing. Amazon sees someone successful selling a product - Amazon starts manufacturing something very similar under Amazon company label, sells it by completely undercutting the pricing. That is not just in certain industries, but they keep pushing into new sectors.

[bladefd]

They will charge as much as they can until it eats into their bottom line. If they charge $50 for league pass and it boosts their income to the point that all expenses considered, they are making more money overall... that's what they'll do. If the price point is $150, that's what they'll do. If the price point is $1500, that's what they'll do. If the price point is $15, that's what they'll do. It's just supply and demand. Nothing more or less. There can be human error in there, but I assume they've spent a significant amount of money and time reaching their price point.



The NBA is not yet at "enough is enough" point. As long as the stadiums are still filled and advertisers and ISPs/cable providers are getting their money's worth through viewership to continue raising salaries, they should do it. If you think the NBA as a whole has reached overpaid status, don't support them. It's that simple. The only thing you can do about it is to vote with your eyes, your attention and your time.

NBA players provide a great outlet for millions of people. They should be compensated accordingly. They are "forced"(if they want to be NBA players, anyways, which obviously they are not forced to be) to endure people prying into their personal lives, having to answer stupid questions for reporters, and being under the microscope by fans... all for our entertainment. They earn every cent. I would not trade places with those guys even if I got to have all of their money. **** that shit.

On an individual level, I agree with the idea of when is enough enough. It doesn't really apply to companies, no. Greed out of corporations is ok. The problem with the current way a lot of corporations operate, however, is the fact that you have a bunch of people that often end up on the boards of these companies that had nothing to do with the company becoming successful in the first place. As a result, they are not emotionally attached to its continued success and they aren't looking at the long term(10+ years through infinity). They are only considering the short term and they are trying to line their pockets as quickly as possible. If the company fails as a result of their extreme greed, well it doesn't matter because they've made so much money in the short term, what do they care? It was never their baby. It was just their ATM. In the mean time, these are companies that only got as successful as they once did because they offered such a good product that society as a whole was willing to endure all of their competitors going out of business. Now that a psycho is running things, the competitor is gone and it could take decades for real competition to arise. That is the one true massive failure of capitalism, imo, regarding short to mid term problems. Long term? Those companies go out of business and all is right with the world again. The issue is that in the 20 or 30 years it takes for large corps that were once great to go out of business, they have inflicted a lifetime's worth of emotional pain on a substantial number of people.

Perhaps there should be some sort of legislation that limits how much CEOs and board members can make that didn't found the companies that they're apart of, but in terms of limiting the company itself to be as profitable as possible long term? Nah. I'm not even sure how you would do it, to be honest. If you just made their income percentage based, they would still try to maximize it all. If you set a hard number, we'd have to constantly revise that number.

But again, this really all boils down to the fact that life isn't fair. There's only so much we can do about it.




I agree there is not much we can do. Nba can charge whatever sum they want for their products. All we can do is not buy. It's just how it is. We can beg or petition companies to charge less - not that they would ever listen.

My whole point was simply that it doesn't have to be an argument of "players or owners?" as if those 2 were the only involved parties. I would expect more money going into improving fan experience, which includes the cost of watching the games. Do I expect the NBA to do that?? Probably should not. We are living in a runaway corporatism system (another name is extreme capitalism) where corporations/bottom-line rules our world sadly with ethics of business out the window in the name of the bottom-line. It is the way it is.

[Kblaze8855]

Let me ask again since I’ve yet to get an answer from anyone I’ve ever asked….


You go start a company yourself. It kicks ass.

Its valued at a tremendous sum of money. You are a billionaire due to the value of your company.

Its more value than anyone needs but it isn’t cash.

What do YOU do to prevent your wealth increasing?

Cash out either by selling or using it as collateral(which essentially makes it an asset of the person loaning you the money but we can ignore that)…..which reduces your stake.

Your cure is to simply give away your company for money which I suppose you then donate….

But the company is still there. Someone else may run it but it exists. Bezos selling out doesn’t remove Amazon. It just makes him liquid. So he can then give it away….and not run his company unless they choose to allow it.

I think he’s already at like 9-10 percent. He should go to zero and give the money away….but you aren’t saying it should be charity and you don’t support socialism?

Your solution is to take a company by force from its founder when it does too well….break it up.

Ok.

Now he’s worth what? Do you think he’s not still waaaaaay richer than whatever you call enough?

How does that fix the problem?

He built the company. You can ask him to give his money away or you can use government intervention to steal it for their use.

If those are your desired outcomes fine. Just say that. Because there is no other way to prevent insane wealth of guys on the ground floor of massive companies.

You leave your company and give it away or the government takes it.

If you want them all to walk away and let their boards replace them as they cash out and give the money to the state to distribute or like….the homeless vets…. just say that.

But don’t say that and also say you aren’t asking for charity or pro wealth redistribution. You can be pro those things. But it would be nice to be it directly.

[bladefd]

Let me ask again since I’ve yet to get an answer from anyone I’ve ever asked….


You go start a company yourself. It kicks ass.

Its valued at a tremendous sum of money. You are a billionaire due to the value of your company.

Its more value than anyone needs but it isn’t cash.

What do YOU do to prevent your wealth increasing?

Cash out either by selling or using it as collateral(which essentially makes it an asset of the person loaning you the money but we can ignore that)…..which reduces your stake.

Your cure is to simply give away your company for money which I suppose you then donate….

But the company is still there. Someone else may run it but it exists. Bezos selling out doesn’t remove Amazon. It just makes him liquid. So he can then give it away….and not run his company unless they choose to allow it.

I think he’s already at like 9-10 percent. He should go to zero and give the money away….but you aren’t saying it should be charity and you don’t support socialism?

Your solution is to take a company by force from its founder when it does too well….break it up.

Ok.

Now he’s worth what? Do you think he’s not still waaaaaay richer than whatever you call enough?

How does that fix the problem?

He built the company. You can ask him to give his money away or you can use government intervention to steal it for their use.

If those are your desired outcomes fine. Just say that. Because there is no other way to prevent insane wealth of guys on the ground floor of massive companies.

You leave your company and give it away or the government takes it.

If you want them all to walk away and let their boards replace them as they cash out and give the money to the state to distribute or like….the homeless vets…. just say that.

But don’t say that and also say you aren’t asking for charity or pro wealth redistribution. You can be pro those things. But it would be nice to be it directly.

I suggest breaking it up at some point into multiple companies. That facilitates competition. Break Amazon into retail company, streaming company, etc - essentially treat it like any monopoly. Monopolies are illegal in this country, right? The only reason why Amazon skips over that designation is because they don't yet control entire sectors - they will be considered monopoly after they take all of their competitors out. They are being smart in how they take out their competition. Anti-trust laws have not yet caught on to stop Amazon from eating up every industry, but that is exactly what is happening.

Corporatism is the extreme end of the capitalism when competition goes out the window. What these mega-corporations are doing is anti-competitive. Anyone who supports capitalism should be freaking out about what the future holds as we move deep into corporatism.

[Kblaze8855]

Once again since I’m still waiting…..


You start a company. You. It goes from you and your friends to the 3rd largest manufacturer of ____ in the world. You’re worth 2 billion.

Do you cash out and give it away…,putting your company in the hands of people who are just gonna keep growing it anyway once you leave?

How do you prevent your well run company from producing people who’s equity in it makes them too rich?

You can absolutely break it up among the employees to run….all of which would hope to use it to reach enough wealth to quit…but you could do that.

That your solution?

Hand over control, give your liquid assets away till you are merely comfortable, and watch your company be run by people you now can’t direct?

Sell out for pennies like Colonel Sanders and get sued when you try to sell your own original recipe because they ruined your food for profit once you weren’t there to make them put quality over business?

[bladefd]

Once again since I’m still waiting…..


You start a company. You. It goes from you and your friends to the 3rd largest manufacturer of ____ in the world. You’re worth 2 billion.

Do you cash out and give it away…,putting your company in the hands of people who are just gonna keep growing it anyway once you leave?

How do you prevent your well run company from producing people who’s equity in it makes them too rich?

You can absolutely break it up among the employees to run….all of which would hope to use it to reach enough wealth to quit…but you could do that.

That your solution?

Hand over control, give your liquid assets away till you are merely comfortable, and watch your company be run by people you now can’t direct?

Sell out for pennies like Colonel Sanders and get sued when you try to sell your own original recipe because they ruined your food for profit once you weren’t there to make them put quality over business?

If I'm the ceo of that corporation, I don't know where my ego would be at. Would I be the same person I'm now or would I be a greedy savage S.O.B? It's hard to say. If I do gain massive ego and lose my way then I would probably just keep expanding infinitely. I would probably get corrupt and not be the same person as I'm right now. Greed may take me over like most human handed the reins to power and wealth (only a rare few would be able to resist that urge like Gandhi or someone). The present me would want that future potential blood-hungry version of me from going out of control.

However, would you be okay with one corporation controlling every aspect of your life? Are monopolies good for everyone outside of the ceo/direct stakeholders? Is that where we are at now, normalizing monopolies? I am against governments having too much power (we are at the very edge right now imo of too much power), now a single corporation or several corporations controlling everything? Hell no, I would not want that. Competition matters. Ethics matter. Justice system exists for a reason to protect individuals, democracy and society.

[FultzNationRISE]

You can absolutely break it up among the employees to run….all of which would hope to use it to reach enough wealth to quit…but you could do that.

That your solution?

Hand over control, give your liquid assets away till you are merely comfortable, and watch your company be run by people you now can’t direct?

Sell out for pennies like Colonel Sanders and get sued when you try to sell your own original recipe because they ruined your food for profit once you weren’t there to make them put quality over business?

Cant even do that.

If you give it away to other executive board members it doesnt solve anything bc theyre also filthy rich.

If you literally GIVE controlling interest and responsibility for the company to people sweeping floors and putting stuff in boxes... lol. Imagine thinking that ever works in the real world and not just in the fantasy imagination of soyboy heads. The company will disintegrate in days. LOL at a serious company being run democratically by people who know nothing about business.

If you got no teeth, youre just not born to eat steak. Thats reality for some people. Bladefd dont wanna live with it because he’s left nibbling on grass.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m not asking who you might be. I’m asking you today. Your current belief system.

Your company you built from nothing is worth 3.5 billion and you personally own a majority.

How do you get out of that?

Give up control to people who will simply corrupt it when you’re gone? Try to somehow put it out of business as you go and everyone loses their jobs?

Whats your solution?

Plenty of founders have sold out for millions before the company ends up worth billions. Not exactly stopping the machine.

You could be that Wayne guy from Apple who would be richer than Bezos if he didn’t give up his 10 percent the first year. See how much you can help society that way.

[Kblaze8855]

Cant even do that.

If you give it away to other executive board members it doesnt solve anything bc theyre also filthy rich.

If you literally GIVE controlling interest and responsibility for the company to people sweeping floors and putting stuff in boxes... lol. Imagine thinking that ever works in the real world and not just in the fantasy imagination of soyboy heads. The company will disintegrate in days. LOL at a serious company being run democratically by people who know nothing about business.

If you got no teeth, youre just not born to eat steak. Thats reality for some people. Bladefd dont wanna live with it because he’s left nibbling on grass.


I was thinking a Green Bay packers situation. Thousands of owners who I suppose could elect a board.

It wouldn’t work but you could try it. Eventually it would just be in the hands of some outsider who got the small time people to sell out for short term profit. Like 9 rich guys would own 8 percent each just off giving your employees peanuts for their shares they wouldn’t appreciate because they didn’t bleed for the business like you did.

[tontoz]

For the record there were no max contracts back in '96. That rule came into play a few years later. Maybe Shaq's departure was part of the reason they started having max salaries.

I don't get caught up in salaries. I only look at salaries in terms of how they compare among other players. The 'players make too much' narrative is not worth responding to imo.

[j3lademaster]

For the record there were no max contracts back in '96. That rule came into play a few years later. Maybe Shaq's departure was part of the reason they started having max salaries.

I don't get caught up in salaries. I only look at salaries in terms of how they compare among other players. The 'players make too much' narrative is not worth responding to imo.I think it was the Kevin Garnett contract that did that.

[hateraid]

After an infamous poll many of you may not remember hearing about….

Weird how he'd chastize Simmons under similar pretenses

[bladefd]

I’m not asking who you might be. I’m asking you today. Your current belief system.

Your company you built from nothing is worth 3.5 billion and you personally own a majority.

How do you get out of that?

Give up control to people who will simply corrupt it when you’re gone? Try to somehow put it out of business as you go and everyone loses their jobs?

Whats your solution?

Plenty of founders have sold out for millions before the company ends up worth billions. Not exactly stopping the machine.

You could be that Wayne guy from Apple who would be richer than Bezos if he didn’t give up his 10 percent the first year. See how much you can help society that way.

I told you. I would not try to get out and would fight it with tons of lawyers. At some point, it essentially becomes a game. I would keep pushing it and expanding, buying up everything. The board (they would not if they are making millions) or SEC or Congress would have to get me to stop through antitrust laws.

Nobody willingly gives up power. Or sells a portion of their company for money. It stops being about money at some point. You think Amazon is buying up everything and taking companies out of business across multiple sectors for purely money? I don't think so tbh. It's the growth mentality that you don't know when to stop. Greed begets more greed. Bezos won't willingly say "hey guys, let's stop this insane growth mentality. We are already worth over $2 trillion. Lets stop f*cking over our competition by undercutting everyone."

So you would have to ask me from Congress' perspective or the SEC. Congress can update antitrust laws that would include the business model of companies like Amazon. You break them up the same way as monopolies. Google search shows the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was used in early 1900s to break up companies. John Rockefeller's oil company was split into multiple separate companies ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil ). Pretty crazy that exxon, chevron, bp, mobil all can be traced back to this Rockefeller oil split a century back along with bunch of other companies that went out of business or acquired by other companies.

I don't know exactly how Amazon would be broken up since they don't usually make their own products, but Apple/Microsoft would probably be pretty easy. Hardware division, software division, Apple store division each a separate company handling their own area. Microsoft doesn't make hardware anymore after failed Microsoft phones, but you can probably have OS+software division and Azure (cloud hosting) division. Who would run the two split companies? Up to the respective boards to figure it out.

Original founders are long gone for many of these companies. Steve Jobs started Apple and Bill Gates started Microsoft - neither have been CEOs in many many years.. Elon musk will burn out at some point. Bezos is leaving as Amazon CEO after getting burned out. Zuckerberg is still fairly young but give it another few years

[baudkarma]

Do you not understand the basic concept of business or what is it, exactly?

If the NBA could make $50,000 per seat every single game and the games all were consistently selling out or close to it, should they charge $30 a seat so you can feel good? Obviously I am using extreme numbers here, but the point remains.

You want business to take in less income out of... charity?

If they charge less for the seats, the owners make less money, the league makes less money, the players make less money. At the end of the day they're providing their services for the maximum price that people are willing to pay.


That is point blank human nature period. I do agree that on an individual level it absolutely can get to a point where... when is enough enough? But when we're talking about large groups of people like the league + players, think maybe thousands of people total... uh... yeah... they're going to try to make as much money as they can. Again, it's just human nature.

It's like you don't understand this extremely basic concept of OBJECTIVE reality.

The seats are going to be as much as supply and demand allows them to be.

You nailed it. The price that people are willing to pay for those seats has already been established. If NBA owners decided to cut ticket prices in half for every seat, every game, how many of those seats would wind up in the hands of fans who paid face value for them? Very few. Scalpers would buy up as many of those tickets as they could, mark them up to the price they already know people are willing to pay, and then resell them. And while we might disagree on how revenue should be split between owners and players, I'm pretty sure we all agree that we don't want to make scalpers rich(er).

[Kblaze8855]

Of the 10 people over 100 billion 8 are founders, one is the son of a founder, and then you have the European guy who owns al the luxury brands. I’m not sure if he founded any of them or not. Either way….most of the people we talk about as just needing to stop because their worth is obscene simply started companies and ran them too well not to be rich.

And when you put yourself in that position and admit you either cash out and give your baby to someone else to run or keep running it well….I’m not sure where you get that “When is enough enough?” mentality.

When youre rich off equity as most super billionaires are….you give up your life’s work or keep getting richer.

I get why people don’t let their creations go. I wouldn’t either. I will not be those McDonald’s brothers selling out in the 70s and costing their family generations of endless wealth as their name is on 15 thousand restaurants they get nothing out of.

The peasants can talk inequality all they want. Nobody is buying me out of my company unless they built it with me from dirt.

[Shogon]

You nailed it. The price that people are willing to pay for those seats has already been established. If NBA owners decided to cut ticket prices in half for every seat, every game, how many of those seats would wind up in the hands of fans who paid face value for them? Very few. Scalpers would buy up as many of those tickets as they could, mark them up to the price they already know people are willing to pay, and then resell them. And while we might disagree on how revenue should be split between owners and players, I'm pretty sure we all agree that we don't want to make scalpers rich(er).

Pretend we could magically wipe away the history of ticket prices... scalpers would quickly find the true market value, regardless. So yes, agreed.

[baudkarma]

After an infamous poll many of you may not remember hearing about….

To be fair, I think you could have asked that question about just about any pro athlete at that time, and the vast majority of people would answer the same way. For some reason, any time there's a labor dispute in just about any pro sport, most fans side with the owners. Fans call the players "greedy", complain that they want all that money "just to play a game". Owners on the other hand, are "protecting their investment", or "preserving the integrity of the game". If a player demands a trade he's being disloyal. If a team trades away a loyal player (looking at you Demar) then the fans shrug and tell each other that it's just a business.

[Shogon]

Of the 10 people over 100 billion 8 are founders, one is the son of a founder, and then you have the European guy who owns al the luxury brands. I’m not sure if he founded any of them or not. Either way….most of the people we talk about as just needing to stop because their worth is obscene simply started companies and ran them too well not to be rich.

And when you put yourself in that position and admit you either cash out and give your baby to someone else to run or keep running it well….I’m not sure where you get that “When is enough enough?” mentality.

When youre rich off equity as most super billionaires are….you give up your life’s work or keep getting richer.

I get why people don’t let their creations go. I wouldn’t either. I will not be those McDonald’s brothers selling out in the 70s and costing their family generations of endless wealth as their name is on 15 thousand restaurants they get nothing out of.

The peasants can talk inequality all they want. Nobody is buying me out of my company unless they built it with me from dirt.

For me personally, enough is enough when I know I can walk away 100% from any employer without a care for the world knowing that I am financially set for life.

This number varies from person to person based on what standard of living they want to enjoy... but in modern day terms, for me? $1.5 million would do it. That would be more than I would ever need, hyperinflation aside.

But let's face it also... the type of people that are going to create world changing ideas/companies are also the type that aren't going to be satisfied with a modest life. They're the type of people where enough never truly is enough. They typically have very strong psychological problems, as the most driven people almost always do.

[Kblaze8855]

And the type of people with ideas that big and the ability to make them reality will generate so much so soon that “Enough” will be miles from their vision. Someone would see how special whatever the idea was and offer to buy them out for way more than “enough”. And most types we are taking about would be offended by the very idea.

Its mine. You can buy in. You can’t buy me out.

[dirkdiggler41]

How were the salary rules back then? Considering today nobody would have doubted giving Shaq the max. Why did they vote against it?

[tontoz]

How were the salary rules back then? Considering today nobody would have doubted giving Shaq the max. Why did they vote against it?



There was no max salary back then for stars. There was a cap though.

[Kblaze8855]

Orlando was generally not as into Shaq as common sense would suggest. A poll in the same paper had fans picking the coach Brian Hill over Shaq if they had to choose too.

Penny was the fans guy I’d assume. Penny was more popular than Shaq around me at the time.

[bladefd]

Of the 10 people over 100 billion 8 are founders, one is the son of a founder, and then you have the European guy who owns al the luxury brands. I’m not sure if he founded any of them or not. Either way….most of the people we talk about as just needing to stop because their worth is obscene simply started companies and ran them too well not to be rich.

And when you put yourself in that position and admit you either cash out and give your baby to someone else to run or keep running it well….I’m not sure where you get that “When is enough enough?” mentality.

When youre rich off equity as most super billionaires are….you give up your life’s work or keep getting richer.

I get why people don’t let their creations go. I wouldn’t either. I will not be those McDonald’s brothers selling out in the 70s and costing their family generations of endless wealth as their name is on 15 thousand restaurants they get nothing out of.

The peasants can talk inequality all they want. Nobody is buying me out of my company unless they built it with me from dirt.

Question. Would you be against any legislation making monopolies illegal? I think they are "technically" already illegal in US for past ~130yrs if you dominate a single industry by buying out or taking your competition out of business - Amazon has found a way around it by going into many different sectors so they don't have complete control over a single sector. There is also the fact that antitrust laws are built for after the fact rather than during while a corporation is going through insane growth through buyout/bankrupting their competition. If Amazon gets hit with antitrust laws, it will be after Walmart, Bestbuy, etc are already taken out of business so not for years.

Would you want these sorts of monopolistic vulturous behavior legalized?

[bladefd]

There was no max salary back then for stars. There was a cap though.

Players were getting paid much less too. I recall reading that Jordan made like 30mill in his last Bulls season, and that was like more than half the cap lol. That was also because they were trying to get Jordan his due towards the end of his career after years of underpaying him for what he brought to the team.

[baudkarma]

Once again since I’m still waiting…..


You start a company. You. It goes from you and your friends to the 3rd largest manufacturer of ____ in the world. You’re worth 2 billion.

Do you cash out and give it away…,putting your company in the hands of people who are just gonna keep growing it anyway once you leave?

How do you prevent your well run company from producing people who’s equity in it makes them too rich?

You can absolutely break it up among the employees to run….all of which would hope to use it to reach enough wealth to quit…but you could do that.

That your solution?

Hand over control, give your liquid assets away till you are merely comfortable, and watch your company be run by people you now can’t direct?

Sell out for pennies like Colonel Sanders and get sued when you try to sell your own original recipe because they ruined your food for profit once you weren’t there to make them put quality over business?

Mark Cuban sold out Broadcast.com in 1999 to Yahoo.com for 5.7 billion in Yahoo stock. He hedged against what he probably perceived as the decline of his stock options. He won. Yahoo stock declined precipitously over the next few months, but Cuban was protected.
Selling out his business doesn't seem to have hurt him much.

If you have a unique business idea, and it's profitable, then you hang on to it. If it's something that other people can copy, possibly impove upon, and make it their own.... you grab the money.

[iamgine]

Poor Shaq

In Magic, they preferred Penny
In Lakers, they preferred Kobe
In Heat, they preferred Wade

[baudkarma]

Poor Shaq

In Magic, they preferred Penny
In Lakers, they preferred Kobe
In Heat, they preferred Wade

I don't know if the Magic actually preferred Penny, or if they were just using that as an excuse to lowball Shaq. "Oh, you want to play for a contender, don't you? Then we can only pay you this much, because we have to keep room under the cap to sign Penny when he's a free agent.". Then when Penny is up for his new contract, they make the same argument to him, saying they have to keep space under the cap to sign Racer X, and he needs to accept a less than market deal because Shaq already made the sacrifice, why won't you?

I will agree that many teams decided that they didn't want Shaq on their roster. He voluntarily left Orlando to join the Lakers, but how often did he bounce around after that? Heat-Suns-Cavs-Celtics. NBA teams treasure superstar players, they do whatever they can to keep those special players happy, and yet Shaq got bounced around like a ping-pong ball. Obviously there was something broken there.

[bladefd]

I don't know if the Magic actually preferred Penny, or if they were just using that as an excuse to lowball Shaq. "Oh, you want to play for a contender, don't you? Then we can only pay you this much, because we have to keep room under the cap to sign Penny when he's a free agent.". Then when Penny is up for his new contract, they make the same argument to him, saying they have to keep space under the cap to sign Racer X, and he needs to accept a less than market deal because Shaq already made the sacrifice, why won't you?

I will agree that many teams decided that they didn't want Shaq on their roster. He voluntarily left Orlando to join the Lakers, but how often did he bounce around after that? Heat-Suns-Cavs-Celtics. NBA teams treasure superstar players, they do whatever they can to keep those special players happy, and yet Shaq got bounced around like a ping-pong ball. Obviously there was something broken there.

Shaq became injury-prone while with the heat and later. Teams kept giving him chances, but he could not stay healthy. He was also out of shape and unable to play many minutes.

[iamgine]

I don't know if the Magic actually preferred Penny, or if they were just using that as an excuse to lowball Shaq. "Oh, you want to play for a contender, don't you? Then we can only pay you this much, because we have to keep room under the cap to sign Penny when he's a free agent.". Then when Penny is up for his new contract, they make the same argument to him, saying they have to keep space under the cap to sign Racer X, and he needs to accept a less than market deal because Shaq already made the sacrifice, why won't you?

I will agree that many teams decided that they didn't want Shaq on their roster. He voluntarily left Orlando to join the Lakers, but how often did he bounce around after that? Heat-Suns-Cavs-Celtics. NBA teams treasure superstar players, they do whatever they can to keep those special players happy, and yet Shaq got bounced around like a ping-pong ball. Obviously there was something broken there.

Well to be fair after Lakers he was no longer a superstar so he only got bounced around as a superstar a maximum of 1 time (Lakers to Heat).

[Phoenix]

Poor Shaq

In Magic, they preferred Penny
In Lakers, they preferred Kobe
In Heat, they preferred Wade

In all cases the fans seemed to take to the flashy, charismatic guard. Much harder to associate with than a snarling 7'1 300 pounder. IIRC Shaq was initially jealous of the whole 'lil Penny' gimmick and how much it added to Penny becoming more popular.