Printable View
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Which has what to do with the fact people pay billions of dollars to see the players and own things with their names on it?
[/QUOTE]
Do you think the studios make less money than the actors in their movies? They provide the financial backing, so they'll receive the most compensation. How much money exactly have the players contributed to operate the NBA?
[QUOTE=Hater]That makes no sense. Do you think the Apple factory workers that make the iPods make more money than Steve Jobs?[/QUOTE]
For one...yes. They did. Salary wise at least. Thousands of times more.
And comparing workers on an assembly line being compared to NBA players who are the product itself is just absurd.
A better question would be if the Ipods were themselves sentient and allowing their use to generate Apple its money...what would they be paid?
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
A better question would be if the Ipods were themselves sentient and allowing their use to generate Apple its money...what would they be paid?[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.
Stern is saying that the owners are unified.
[url]http://www.lakersnation.com/nba-wraps-up-dallas-meeting-stern-says-owners-are-unified/2011/09/15/[/url]
[QUOTE=Hater]Do you think the studios make less money than the actors in their movies? They provide the financial backing, so they'll receive the most compensation. How much money exactly have the players contributed to operate the NBA?[/QUOTE]
Case by case. Plenty of studios sink more money into the cast than they get back from the movie.
Look into what Eddie Murphy made for Pluto Nash compared to what it earned back. Or Affleck compared to Gigli.
Stars get thrown into movies that dont profit all the time. They get paid up front...because the movie turning a profit is not their problem. That is up to the people running the studio and what the yare willing to put into it and what they can expect back.
But the actors get theirs first. And those who dont(Reeves in the matrix movies for example...) get back end and make hundreds of millions.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Case by case. Plenty of studios sink more money into the cast than they get back from the movie.
Look into what Eddie Murphy made for Pluto Nash compared to what it earned back. Or Affleck compared to Gigli.
Stars get thrown into movies that dont profit all the time. They get paid up front...because the movie turning a profit is not their problem. That is up to the people running the studio and what the yare willing to put into it and what they can expect back.
But the actors get theirs first. And those who dont(Reeves in the matrix movies for example...) get back end and make hundreds of millions.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about aggregate revenue for the movie industry. Do you think the actors as a whole take home a larger percentage of the revenue than the studios?
[QUOTE=Hater]Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.[/QUOTE]
Yea the NBa is selling 2 million Lebron jerseys at 50 bucks a piece because people want to wear the game on their back.
The game is played on the streets. In HS. Everywhere. The only reason the NBA is what it is...is WHO is playing it. If they could get anyone to play the game and get the same attention and money they wouldnt pay the players millions to begin with.
What you think the owners dont replace them with guys in the junior college system for 30 thousand each because they are such nice guys?
THe players are the product. And that is why they get paid like it.
[QUOTE=Euroleague][url]http://m.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/new-forbes-report-shows-nba-lost-18-billion-over-last-six-years[/url]
[I][B]New Forbes report shows NBA lost $1.8 billion over last six years[/B]
PUBLISHED Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:08:00 -0400[/I]
[I][B]The NBA has lost $1.845 billion over the last six years[/B], according to audited financial data obtained by Forbes magazine.
* 05-06: 19 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $220 million
* 06-07: 21 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $285 million
* 07-08: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $330 million
* 08-09: 24 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $370 million
* 09-10: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $340 million
* 10-11 (projected): 23 clubs ran at a loss, total loss of $300 million[/I]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, a 4-5% cut is going to fix this problem. :rolleyes: :facepalm
Get real. The NBA does not make anywhere near the income to support the kind of salaries that NBA players demand. If they accept that deal the NBA will fold and cease to exist within 2-3 years, tops.[/QUOTE]
do you know that in poker people can lose 80 thousand before they win 200? Poker is a long term game. NBA is a really really long term game.
Guess how much money Buss bought the Lakers for? 67 million. What would he sell it for now? Like 500 mil? If he, NY, LA, and 8 other owners sell their team, that loss of 1.8 billion becomes a gain of 500 million for the NBA. Thats how owners make money. You can lose 20 million a year for 10 years, but when you SELL your team, you ALWAYS sell it for considerably more than you bought it. Thats how business in a long term company works.
When its all said and done the owners offer the players too much money.
No one made them offer big deals. You will always field a competitive team even if your free agent walks to some rich guy who will over pay him.
Why? As there are a few hundred jobs in the NBA and there will always be good players to fill them at the right price if you are smart. You secure 2 good players and pay them well then dont overpay role players. Yet you contintually see bad players paid too well.
If you run a professional and well marketed organisation you wont have any trouble.
[QUOTE=Hater]I'm talking about aggregate revenue for the movie industry. Do you think the actors as a whole take home a larger percentage of the revenue than the studios?[/QUOTE]
Again...case by case. For a movie full of nobodies that blows up and makes 100 million while paying the cast 200,000 thousand each? Or a movie fro ma major studio that has to pay Johnny Depp 40 million of a 200 million dollar budget and then spend 200 million more on ads and post production and wont really profit until DVd sales?
They are so different I cant put them under one umbrella.
Id have to look into some things. How royalties work for certian people for one. When Seinfeld sold its rights Jerry and Larry David got like 250 million in a lump sum then like 20-50 million a year after that.
It was a 1.7 billion dollar deal..
So I cant say what NBC got compared to the actors.
The bigtime actors probably find a way to get major money...like bigtime NBA players do. And they would make up for the small contract guys.
A movie making 200 million doesnt mean it made 200 million in profit. the margins arent always huge.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Yea the NBa is selling 2 million Lebron jerseys at 50 bucks a piece because people want to wear the game on their back.
The game is played on the streets. In HS. Everywhere. The only reason the NBA is what it is...is WHO is playing it. If they could get anyone to play the game and get the same attention and money they wouldnt pay the players millions to begin with.
What you think the owners dont replace them with guys in the junior college system for 30 thousand each because they are such nice guys?
THe players are the product. And that is why they get paid like it.[/QUOTE]
The current players could all retire and the NBA would continue. The Knicks sucked for an entire decade and the stadiums were still full every single night. Most people in the crowd didn't even know most of the players' names.
I'm not talking about just the sport of basketball, but the brand of entertainment the NBA provides. Their name, the franchises, they all have history. They have value on their own. That's how the Knicks can start Howard Eisley, Shandon Anderson, and Clarence Weatherspoon and still fill a stadium every night.
You can't just put great players together, make a random league, and expect that same $4 billion revenue. Look at that silly Vegas league they put together. The average attendance was 24-36 people per game. People think the league is just some middle man. They provide the platform.
Even OKC blew it.
Perkins is gonna get 9m in 2015. I wouldnt pay that dude more than midlevel.
In comparison, a guy like Splitter will be better than Perk in '14 and for half the price.
[QUOTE=Hater]Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.[/QUOTE]
...really. You really trying to say that:roll:
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Again...case by case. For a movie full of nobodies that blows up and makes 100 million while paying the cast 200,000 thousand each? Or a movie fro ma major studio that has to pay Johnny Depp 40 million of a 200 million dollar budget and then spend 200 million more on ads and post production and wont really profit until DVd sales?
They are so different I cant put them under one umbrella.
Id have to look into some things. How royalties work for certian people for one. When Seinfeld sold its rights Jerry and Larry David got like 250 million in a lump sum then like 20-50 million a year after that.
It was a 1.7 billion dollar deal..
So I cant say what NBC got compared to the actors.
The bigtime actors probably find a way to get major money...like bigtime NBA players do. And they would make up for the small contract guys.
A movie making 200 million doesnt mean it made 200 million in profit. the margins arent always huge.[/QUOTE]
The margins are huge if you add it all up. Otherwise, these giant conglomerates wouldn't be making these huge investments. There is no "case-by-case" basis. The question was for the entire movie industry. I'm not saying pick a movie here and there and the specifics don't matter at all. I think we both know the answer.
[QUOTE]The current players could all retire and the NBA would continue. The Knicks sucked for an entire decade and the stadiums were still full every single night. Most people in the crowd didn't even know most of the players' names.
I'm not talking about just the sport of basketball, but the brand of entertainment the NBA provides. Their name, the franchises, they all have history. They have value on their own. That's how the Knicks can start Howard Eisley, Shandon Anderson, and Clarence Weatherspoon and still fill a stadium every night.[/QUOTE]
The owners are claiming the NBA isnt long term stable...now(they are lying im sure...but they are claiming it|). But you think that you replace the entire NBA with walk ons and dont miss a beat?
Have you any idea how much money would be lost just off not having the jerseys to sell?
If they literally stopped selling everything related to the players the league would be over with if only for the owners not wanting to put enough money in to carry it through the down time.
They still have to pay coaches and arena staff and all this...but attendance would be miserable. People wouldnt watch as much. Look what happened to the Cavs minus ONE player. Estimates put his financial impact in the hundreds of millions.
And with a new TV deal coming up? Disney would rake the league across the coals.
This would be a loss of billion and billions of dollars. Right away. And for an extended period of time.
The league could continue...if...and only if...the owners decided to lose far far far more money than they do now as they rebuild it. Shit if they got rid of the players with a new CBA in place the league still has the cap and floor in place and must give the scrubs replacing the players 52-57% of the money anyway.
It just would not work out the way you are thinking.
[QUOTE]You can't just put great players together, make a random league, and expect that same $4 billion revenue. Look at that silly Vegas league they put together. The average attendance was 24-36 people per game. People think the league is just some middle man. They provide the platform.[/QUOTE]
A platform with nothing to look at doesnt generate money.
You need the platform and the attraction. Which is why they pay the attractions so much money. To get people to look at the platform the yspent all that money on.