First two weeks of 2011-12 NBA regular season OFFICIALLY CANCELED

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Go look up the Blazers lease agreement with the Rose Center. Then look up who owns the Blazers and who owns the Rose Center. The answer to both is Paul Allen. He pays the Rose Center money from the Blazers in order to use the arena.[/QUOTE]

I could be really off with this thinking BUT

- Allen owns the Blazers
- Allen owns the Arena.

He pays the Blazers dues to use said arena to himself. However there two separate businesses. Pretty sure the Nuggets are the same too. So yeah the Nuggets owner isn't technically losing money because he's making profit off his arena but his Denver Nuggets business still could be. There different. It's like saying if Mark Cuban is losing money with the Mavericks it's irrelevant because he's making money in other area's.

Yeah It's kinds shady\stupid that the owners themselves probably aren't losing that much money as being advertised because of something like this, doesn't mean the FRANCHISE isn't actually losing that much. Just because Stan Kroenke is paying himself doesn't make the Denver Nuggets profitable, just means he himself isn't losing as much due to his other business ventures. So the Denver Nuggets as whole could be losing what is being said? Using Nuggets\Blazers are random ex.

I could be really off here, tired as shit :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The NBA won't open any of the books, so the only thing that we can go on is the word of David Stern. Are you that naive that you believe everything a lawyer tells you?[/QUOTE]

They opened their books to the players right?

Do you actually think the owners are committing fraud? And if they were bluffing...don't you think they would have conceded more once the season actually became at risk?

The actual missing of games pretty proves that the owners have serious issues....and on the other side...that the players think the current offered deals are a joke.

I think we are way beyond the point of questioning the legitimacy of the positions.

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]I could be really off with this thinking BUT

- Allen owns the Blazers
- Allen owns the Arena.

He pays the Blazers dues to use said arena to himself. However there two separate businesses. Pretty sure the Nuggets are the same too. So yeah the Nuggets owner isn't technically losing money because he's making profit off his arena but his Denver Nuggets business still could be. There different. It's like saying if Mark Cuban is losing money with the Mavericks it's irrelevant because he's making money in other area's.

Yeah It's kinds shady\stupid that the owners themselves probably aren't losing that much money as being advertised because of something like this, doesn't mean the FRANCHISE isn't actually losing that much. Just because Stan Kroenke is paying himself doesn't make the Denver Nuggets profitable, just means he himself isn't losing as much due to his other business ventures. So the Denver Nuggets as whole could be losing what is being said? Using Nuggets\Blazers are random ex.

I could be really off here, tired as shit :oldlol:[/QUOTE]


What they are do is perfectly legal according to GAAP, however it's disingenuous to say the owners are all losing money on their teams. On paper, sure. But in reality they are not. Not all at least. I am sure there are some that can't make money no matter what, but those teams should be cut anyway (Bucks, Kings, etc).

[QUOTE=NuggetsFan]I could be really off with this thinking BUT

- Allen owns the Blazers
- Allen owns the Arena.

He pays the Blazers dues to use said arena to himself. However there two separate businesses. Pretty sure the Nuggets are the same too. So yeah the Nuggets owner isn't technically losing money because he's making profit off his arena but his Denver Nuggets business still could be. There different. It's like saying if Mark Cuban is losing money with the Mavericks it's irrelevant because he's making money in other area's.

Yeah It's kinds shady\stupid that the owners themselves probably aren't losing that much money as being advertised because of something like this, doesn't mean the FRANCHISE isn't actually losing that much. Just because Stan Kroenke is paying himself doesn't make the Denver Nuggets profitable, just means he himself isn't losing as much due to his other business ventures. So the Denver Nuggets as whole could be losing what is being said? Using Nuggets\Blazers are random ex.

I could be really off here, tired as shit :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Yep.

And this is exactly why the real world matters so much. Because the owners have lost a lot of money due to the recession, they have less money coming in from those other businesses.

In the past, they negotiated deals that didn't take such hard stances because they didn't have to. Its not like owners of a NBA team have to lose money...or have to make money. They can treat it as a business or as owning a precious piece of art. As owners, they get to decide. If they want to run it like a straight up business and make a profit...its their right.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]They opened their books to the players right?

Do you actually think the owners are committing fraud? And if they were bluffing...don't you think they would have conceded more once the season actually became at risk?

The actual missing of games pretty proves that the owners have serious issues....and on the other side...that the players think the current offered deals are a joke.

I think we are way beyond the point of questioning the legitimacy of the positions.[/QUOTE]

The players said the numbers were much less than the NBA's reported number.

He said, she said. Pick your side.

Again, I am fine with the players giving back money. That is perfectly reasonable. I think changes should be made. But the owners trying to go for a 50/50 split is just them trying to grab as many dollars as they can.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]What they are do is perfectly legal according to GAAP, however it's disingenuous to say the owners are all losing money on their teams. On paper, sure. But in reality they are not. Not all at least. I am sure there are some that can't make money no matter what, but those teams should be cut anyway (Bucks, Kings, etc).[/QUOTE]

LOL...you do realize that the players are totally against contraction and would never agree to it. They would lose 15 jobs per team....

Contraction is like the ultimate weapon of the owners. And you are supporting it? LOL

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]What they are do is perfectly legal according to GAAP, however it's disingenuous to say the owners are all losing money on their teams. On paper, sure. But in reality they are not. Not all at least. I am sure there are some that can't make money no matter what, but those teams should be cut anyway (Bucks, Kings, etc).[/QUOTE]

But in reality those are two different businesses. Doesn't matter that they are owned by the same people, just makes it douchey. NBA lockout concerns NBA franchises. So if Allen is making bank of his Blazers from the Rose center it doesn't make it ok if the Blazers aren't making money. You can't go well the Blazers lost 10m but 7 of that went to the Rose Garden so really Allen is only losing out on 3m. Doesn't work that way. The Blazers loss would be 10m plain and simple.

Of course simply just talking about your one point with the arenas's\owners with random numbers.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The players said the numbers were much less than the NBA's reported number.

He said, she said. Pick your side.

Again, I am fine with the players giving back money. That is perfectly reasonable. I think changes should be made. But the owners trying to go for a 50/50 split is just them trying to grab as many dollars as they can.[/QUOTE]

Call it what you want. Its smart business. The owners have a great power position with leverage....it would be bad business not to use it. Especially when a lot of owners are actually struggling.

Once again, the owners position makes sense business wise. The players position is one that I'm struggling to understand business wise because they have little to no leverage and each game they miss costs them millions of dollars they can never get back.

Ugh

This is all about greed

as a fan who just wants to see ball, its hard to feel bad for either side. **** em both for letting it come to this, but i hate the owners getting the better of the deal when most of them aren't even doing everything they can to try and win a title. most just are in it to turn a profit. they are businessmen who usually dont even care for the sport they own a team for. i also believe owners care about fans far less than players do since players are the product and who fans love and cheer for. its easier for owners to keep this lockout without caving because of this and the longer it goes on the more hate players will get. id like to see the players get a fair deal but rather see pro ball ASAP.

Now we can just pray for at least half a season.

No season is becoming more and more of a possibility.

shocker

The media is doing their job right now...

Alot of backlash in this forum is more on the players than the owners.

Does anybody know if the teams will receive money from the TV deals for missed games? I read somewhere that, in 1999, their contact called for payments to be made even if games were not played, which gave the owners the upper hand since the players did not receive checks during the lockout.

I'm thinking that the networks learned from that mistake and renewed their contracts accordingly, but I'm not even sure if they've had new contracts since then.

[QUOTE=icewill36]as a fan who just wants to see ball, its hard to feel bad for either side. **** em both for letting it come to this, but i hate the owners getting the better of the deal when most of them aren't even doing everything they can to try and win a title. most just are in it to turn a profit. they are businessmen who usually dont even care for the sport they own a team for. i also believe owners care about fans far less than players do since players are the product and who fans love and cheer for. its easier for owners to keep this lockout without caving because of this and the longer it goes on the more hate players will get. id like to see the players get a fair deal but rather see pro ball ASAP.[/QUOTE]

Thats why they want a hardcap so they can compete. How can you compete if its always the big markets that are winning?

[QUOTE=pegasus]Does anybody know if the teams will receive money from the TV deals for missed games? I read somewhere that, in 1999, their contact called for payments to be made even if games were not played, which gave the owners the upper hand since the players did not receive checks during the lockout.

I'm thinking that the networks learned from that mistake and renewed their contracts accordingly, but I'm not even sure if they've had new contracts since then.[/QUOTE]
Yup, the owners still get the TV money, but have to pay it back if there is no season.

If Seattle can't have the NBA then no one should, especially Bumf#ck OKC.

[QUOTE=Clutch]Now we can just pray for at least half a season.

No season is becoming more and more of a possibility.[/QUOTE]

I'm starting to think that's the case.

[QUOTE=Lakers Legend#32]If Seattle can't have the NBA then no one should, especially Bumf#ck OKC.[/QUOTE]

If OKC can field a profitably team while Seattle cannot, I'd say OKC deserves it more.