Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver killed CBA deal

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.[/QUOTE]
Actually, they'd make even more.

The Warriors just sold for 25% more than what Forbes said they were worth ($363 million). Forbes says the Lakers are worth $643 million. If they were sold for 25% more than that (and it'd probably be higher, owning the Lakers is a status symbol), Buss would have profited $736.75 million dollars over what he paid for the franchise!

But sarcastic, the market is the market. Both sides should be free to negotiate to whatever terms they want. Why do u care what the owners want? You seem predetermined to side with the players, i just dont understand why. Judging by your political beliefs inthe otc, it seems u just always think whoever is making less is entitled to a portion of others income determined by you and a bunch of outsiders based on what u arbitrarily determine is fair, rather than let two sides work it out themselves.

What compells you to play robin hood in a society where people have the freedom on their own to control their own destiny without your interference? Who made you the arbiter of whats fair?

The owners can shut down the league for good if they want. They dont owe the players a say in how to run it. The players can negotiate their say based on whatever their value is to the owners, and thats the business of those two sides. I just dont see why you arent neutral on this, but instead feel like you have to paint the owners as greedy and the players as victims. WhT is with you always doing stuff like that? How old are you? You seem so sensitive and feminine. Just sayin bro. Or sis.

[QUOTE=FourthTenor]But sarcastic, the market is the market. Both sides should be free to negotiate to whatever terms they want. Why do u care what the owners want? You seem predetermined to side with the players, i just dont understand why. Judging by your political beliefs inthe otc, it seems u just always think whoever is making less is entitled to a portion of others income determined by you and a bunch of outsiders based on what u arbitrarily determine is fair, rather than let two sides work it out themselves.

What compells you to play robin hood in a society where people have the freedom on their own to control their own destiny without your interference? Who made you the arbiter of whats fair?

The owners can shut down the league for good if they want. They dont owe the players a say in how to run it. The players can negotiate their say based on whatever their value is to the owners, and thats the business of those two sides. I just dont see why you arent neutral on this, but instead feel like you have to paint the owners as greedy and the players as victims. WhT is with you always doing stuff like that? How old are you? You seem so sensitive and feminine. Just sayin bro. Or sis.[/QUOTE]


They did agree to terms in the last CBA. In exchange for giving the players 57% of BRI, the owners got concessions they wanted from the players such as minimum age, caps on individual salaries, etc, etc, etc. I am not siding with the players just to side with the players. During the baseball strike I felt the owners were in the right. The players were making over 60% of the revenue. What I don't understand from this lockout is why the owners would agree to a system in which they knew they would lose money every year, unless of course they are lying about their financials. According to them they have lost money every year of this CBA. Either they have the worst accountants in the world who told them to sign off on that deal, or they are lying. In my opinion they are lying. The losses they are claiming are due to interest, and ammortization. I guarantee every team has a positive EBITDA.

Of course the owners can shut down the league if they wanted. A new league would form very quickly. There is a huge market for a basketball league, and the NBA is lucky to have a monopoly on it granted by the government.

It's not that I think the players are victims. I think they should give in to some of the demands of the owners, just not all. Negotiations are not supposed to work that way. A good negotiation means that both sides come away pissed off, otherwise one got too much. The players have already conceded some positions and money. It's time for the owners to stop standing firm and give in to some of the players demands.

Even Stern came out and said the players new offer was fair.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]New York is new york. 25 million people can sell out a 20 thousand seat arena just off people wanting something to do. That has nothing to do with the NBAs likelyhood of survival without the players. Long as we look at one end....look at the other. the Hornets had to do a ticket drive to just get up the numbers needed so the owner couldnt claim disinterest and move the team. The Cavs before Lebron averaged 11,497 fans. And thats with NBA players on its roster.

What do you think happens when its walkons and guys from the CBA and eurocup castoffs are the stars?

There are teams that are going to go on life support surviving only off the owners willingness to burn through his fortune to keep the lights on.

This isnt a player or two retiring and young stars replacing him. This is the overnight removal of the NBA and replacing it with garbage and whoever you can get to come over from the respectable euroleagues.

People would rally around the new guysi n time and the Knicks Lakers and Bulls? be fine.

What do you do to keep the Hornets going when people dont care right now?

Sign Lil Wayne and make tickets 12 dollars anywhere in the house first come first served?

Teams would become literally impossible to support without just draining bank accounts. And not the way they get drained now. Imagine having to split revenue the same way with scrubs as you do the players now...only less ratings, less jersey sales, and 7 thousand people at the game.

Owners cry poverty now.

What you are talking about would literally kill every team without ownership who just loved the game enough to hold out for the youngsters to develop.

But some teams cant be maintained right off the bat.

If paul Allen the Russian guy and some of the other tycoon owners decided to keep the league afloat while some of the penny pinchers were thinking it over...league is fine.

But if not...eh.

The league could survive...with owners willing to lose money at a rate that makes them pray for the current situation. But if they are saying hat e have is killing them?

No stars/known players would be the final nail. At least if the players being booted doesnt void any CBA and they cant start from scratch paying guys nothing.

But thats a whole other discussion.

Plus just look at thej ersey sales list and do the math...

There are players who generate as much money(not pure profit...but revenue) just off their jersey sales as some teams entire payroll.

I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.[/QUOTE]

Marketing and hype is NOT fact. All you are doing is spouting off nonsense hype and marketing that the NBA puts out. If you really think that "NBA stars" are what makes the NBA then you are totally clueless.

The NBA can take any player it wants to and make him a "star". That is why they change rules, have crooked refs, and spend hundreds of million of dollars on hype and marketing that makes gullible people like you believe the NBA is actually a serious competition, rather than the scripted sports soap opera that it actually is.

Your have a total lack of insight.

[QUOTE=xcesswee]The nba operates when the NBA biggest star's retire because those players are being replaced with younger stars. What about this hypothetical, you take all NBA players right now and put them in some other league. You take D3 players and D-League players and put them in the NBA. Which league is going to do better?[/QUOTE]

The NBA rigs its league to create fake, manufactured stars. They can do it with any group of players they choose.

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.[/QUOTE]

The Lakers earn money every year genius. What the hell do the Lakers have to do with this? The teams that lose millions every year are what this is about. And that is like 85% of the teams in the league.

Under your logic and way of thinking, the NBA would become a 6 team league.

[QUOTE=Euroleague]Marketing and hype is NOT fact. All you are doing is spouting off nonsense hype and marketing that the NBA puts out. If you really think that "NBA stars" are what makes the NBA then you are totally clueless.

The NBA can tale any player it wants to and make him a "star". That is why they change rules, have crooked refs, and spend hundreds of million of dollars on hype and marketing that makes gullible people like you believe the NBA is actually a serious competition, rather than the scripted sports soap opera that it actually is.

Your have a total lack of insight.[/QUOTE]

Complete bullshit. If that were true, the NBA could solve all it's problems by making 30 Michael Jordan's, one for each team, and the league would make billions. People can discern talent, and you are a fool if you think they can't.

There is a reason why there is only 1 Elvis Presley. There are millions of people who dress exactly like him, but there is only 1 true Elvis.

[QUOTE=brantonli]Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.

Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.[/QUOTE]

The average IQ in this thread is appalling.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I can't believe you brought up average salary.

Here let's do some second grade math.

NFL makes 9 billion but needs 1500 players.
NBA makes 4 billion but needs 400 players.

Guess which league's players bring in more per player.[/QUOTE]

NBA makes $4 billion and spends $4.3-$4.35 billion. That means the NBA loses $300-$350 million ever year. If you can't figure out that there is something wrong with this "business model" then you are simply retarded.

[QUOTE=blacknapalm]the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen? [/QUOTE]

They don't want to decertify because if they do then Euroleague clubs can outright sign any player they want to. If there is no union, and a lockout, there is no league and no contracts.

Big Euroleague clubs would immediately start signing all of the top NBA players. Which would basically end any negotiating power the union might currently have.

[QUOTE=bagelred]I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]

So, you also are arguing for a 6 team NBA.........

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?




Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.







Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?[/QUOTE]

NBA is, always has been a 2 team league. Celtics and Lakers. That is why the NBA is a very unpopular league in the USA and why it loses hundreds of millions each year.

People are sick and tired of the NBA and it's total rigged bull shit and being nothing but a 2 team league historically.

The NBA will not even exist and can't even compete with Euroleague financially as it currently exists. Those are the actual facts.

The average American can't even stand the NBA anymore. It is a horrible "product" and people would much rather watch college football or college basketball than the NBA. People are sick of the NBA rigging the league for certain teams and creating "stars" with rigged rules and refs.

On top of this, MLS and European soccer are rapidly eating up what was previously NBA revenue streams.

Let's just hope this doesn't end with everybody hating phoenix suns

[QUOTE=Euroleague]

The NBA will not even exist and can't even compete with Euroleague financially as it currently exists.
[/QUOTE]
This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Par for the course, I guess.