I'm not a big proponent of revenue sharing at all. It subsidizes incompetence, and may encourage even more accounting chicanery than the current system does.
Printable View
I'm not a big proponent of revenue sharing at all. It subsidizes incompetence, and may encourage even more accounting chicanery than the current system does.
[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.
[/quote]
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.
[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.
[QUOTE]Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.[/QUOTE]
Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.
[QUOTE]
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[/QUOTE]
This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?
More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done.
[QUOTE]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....[/QUOTE]
Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.
Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.
[quote]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..........[/quote]
Again, 8 big cities or an entire country of fans?
[quote]Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you?
In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.
Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Was not aware of that. My mistake. I suppose that is a minor contradiction now. Ironic how that happens.
[QUOTE=Apocalyptic0n3]Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.
[/QUOTE]
I admit I don't follow baseball as closely as basketball, but I've never heard a serious discussion of a hard cap in baseball.
You are proving my point with the Pirates. It's the BEST example. They can't pay and can't compete. Exactly. And the Yankees have a payroll a gazillion times higher. So don't we agree baseball is ridiculous in this way?
[QUOTE]There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, but you glossed over the point of the comment which is to say small payroll teams CAN compete. You just have to be more efficient and smarter about how you manage your payroll. True, large market teams can make more "mistakes" in essence because they have the money but small market teams can easily compete if you pay the right players and get a little lucky. Like I said, regardless of market size, three of the best teams this past year were in the bottom 10 of payroll.
[QUOTE]Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.
[/QUOTE]
They help ALOT. The thing that helps the most is the rookie scale contract. That benefits the small market teams TREMENDOUSLY. OKC gets Kevin Durant for 4/5 years at WAY below market value because of it. If they had to pay KD big money in his rookie year, they'd be screwed.
That being said, I think OKC will be just fine going forward and keeping all their players because they managed their payroll effectively. KD, RW, JH, KP are all going to get paid and really those are the only guys that matter. They'll be just fine, but until then, they've benefited tremendously from the rookie scale concept.
[QUOTE]This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?
More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done. [/QUOTE]
Well the socialism thing was more an aside. I'm just making a point the disparity between people's thoughts in real life, where people hate these social programs and have this laissez faire attitude, yet when it comes to NBA players getting paid....NOW we have to restrict that and make everything "fair" and make sure "everyone can compete". I just thought that was amusing.
As to your other point, it really works both ways doesn't it? OK, Cleveland wasn't "benefitting" from those road games. But what about now? Now that Cleveland sucks again, isn't Cleveland benefitting when the Lakers show up and they sell out Quicken Loans? Are they giving that money back to the Lakers? No of course not. So I don't really understand the argument. If you simply think there should be complete revenue sharing amongst all 30 teams, that would be another discussion entirely.
[QUOTE]Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course the country does best when the entire country is watching their game. No brainer. And what attracts more of the country to watch nationally televised games? Lakers vs. Knicks? or Bucks vs. Bobcats?
No one is cutting off the small markets at all. Like we said, they can easily compete if they make smart decisions, just like OKC.
Why was the league so successful this year? Well, the main reason was we had a super team that everyone watched and generated tremendous interest. National television ratings were through the roof. Was that because of parity you think? If you place this hard cap and other restrictions on player movement, you'll never get these "super teams" again.
[QUOTE]Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.[/QUOTE]
Well then maybe Sacramento doesn't need to have a team. Maybe the league needs to weed out the small markets that really can't afford a basketball team. Why does the entire league need to prop them up? Is the Sacramento market making or breaking the league?
Clearly its not going to be "8 big cities". But maybe "30 cities" isn't the answer either.
I hate to break it to you. But when the 8 big cities do well, the entire league tends to do very well. It even generates excitement in the smaller cities, because those 8 big cities are the signature franchises. You make it seem like if JUST give more help to the Milwaukee's and the Charlotte's of the league, that would be some tremendous help to the NBA. It won't.
[QUOTE]Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you?[/QUOTE] You didn't get the self mockery with the :lol symbol? Read between the lines.
[QUOTE]In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.[/QUOTE]
Like we said, the NFL model and the NBA model are completely different. Everything in the NFL is done on a national scale. The NBA doesn't work that way. Of course, you want small market teams to be able to compete, WHICH THEY ALREADY CAN. But this incessant need for 30 team parity, where "everyone needs to be equal" is not what attracts fans. Super teams, signature franchises, superstars are what drives the NBA....not parity.
The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.
Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.
I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.
The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc
Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.
Fans should be more prudent. People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. But fans are too ignorant.
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.
The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc
Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.
Fans should be more prudent. [B]People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. [/B]But fans are too ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?
The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).
[QUOTE]Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yea I mentioned that once when told they couldnt compete with ___.
Its a joke how people let cheap owners off.
These guys can in many cases pay whatever they feel like. They just choose not to do so.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.
Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.[/QUOTE] Good Post. The NFL does not exhibit true parity. Don't look at the top of the league look at the bottom and you'll see the same teams year after year trading the bottom spots of the league.
**** dan gilbert.... no wonder lebron didnt stay... and no wonder Dan showed his personality after that..... but he always showed his horrible GM skills... dude is cheap as ****.... he only wants to make money.... he doesnt care about players (or his players goals of winning a championship)....
[QUOTE=B
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?
The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).[/QUOTE]
Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them. Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.
You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.
Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]As usual, you just make up whatever bull shit you can think of to support your "arguments". Even if it is totally illogical and delusional and has absolutely no relation at all to the topic being discussed.[/QUOTE]
Hm, I was off in my numbers (it wasn't double) but the Warriors, according to Forbes, are worth $363 million.
[url]http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html[/url]
The Warriors were just sold for $450 million.
[quote]Golden State Warriors owner Chris Cohan reached an agreement Thursday to sell the franchise for a record $450 million to Boston Celtics minority partner Joe Lacob and Mandalay Entertainment CEO Peter Guber.[/quote]
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5383261[/url]
So, which is it? Is Forbes right? Or are the actual value teams are sold for right?
[QUOTE=FourthTenor][B]Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them.[/B] Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.
You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.
Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.[/QUOTE]
This is not true at all. The NBA has caps on individual contracts. If we let the market determine his value, I am sure James Dolan would have offered him at least $50 million per year. Hell, he would have given him stock in MSG if the league would have allowed it.
As for your other point, of course it's all relative. If the league were only making $2b a year instead of 4, then obviously the players would be making less money. But the fact is the NBA is projected to have rampant growth over the next 10 years, and the players want to be able to benefit from that. Under the owners proposal, the players would be locked into $2b every year for the next 10 years, meanwhile the league will probably be at 8 or 10 billion/year by that point.
Here's the history of TV contracts the NBA has.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-tv-contracts.shtml[/url]
NBA CABLE TELEVISION CONTRACTS
Seasons
Station
Contracts Amount
1979-80 to 1981-82
USA
$1.5 million/3 years
1982-83 to 1983-84
USA/ESPN
$11 million/2 years
1984-85 to 1985-86
TBS
$20 million/2 years
1986-87 to 1987-88
TBS
$25 million/2 years
1988-89 to 1989-90
TBS/TNT
$50 million/2 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
TNT
$275 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
TNT/TBS
$397 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
TNT/TBS
$840 million/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
TNT
$2.2 billion/6 years
1953-54
DUMONT
$39,000/13 games
1954-55 to 1961-62
NBC
N/A
1962-63 to 1972-73
ABC
N/A
1973-74 to 1975-76
CBS
$27 million/3 years
1976-77 to 1977-78
CBS
$21 million/2 years
1978-79 to 1981-82
CBS
$74 million/4 years
1982-83 to 1985-86
CBS
$91.9 million/4 years
1986-87 to 1989-90
CBS
$173 million/4 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
NBC
$601 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
NBC
$892 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
NBC
$1.616 billion/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
ABC/ESPN
$2.4 billion/6 years
Notice the trend? They have a new contract coming up. Considering how successful last year was, do you think the contract will be more or less than the last one?
[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.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.
No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.
Clever by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".
Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.
It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]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]
Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.
Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.
Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.
No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.
Clevelrlie by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".
Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.
It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.[/QUOTE]
You gonna back up that claim with proof?
If the Spurs generate the most money as you claim, and the NBA is rigged, as you also claim, then why not have the Spurs win every year?
[QUOTE=bagelred]Well the socialism thing was more an aside. I'm just making a point the disparity between people's thoughts in real life, where people hate these social programs and have this laissez faire attitude, yet when it comes to NBA players getting paid....NOW we have to restrict that and make everything "fair" and make sure "everyone can compete". I just thought that was amusing.[/QUOTE]
It's not socialism. It's fascism. In America, it is truly shocking that people call fascism "socialism". It is becoming downright scary when the average American thinks fascism is socialism.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.
Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The NBA format guarantees that whatever team Stern wants to win (with crooked refs) wins.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]
No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.
[/QUOTE]
You are the stupidest poster on any website I've ever heard of.
If the NBA is just rigging the league for the money, Kobe or Yao Ming will win the title every year, fact. Maybe LeBron James.
Your theories are whack-job, at best.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?
The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).[/QUOTE]
Once again this is complete nonsense. The NBA markets LeBron and their partners like Nike and Gatorade do the same in collusion. The NBA TV partners like TNT and ESPN do the same by endlessly hyping him.
The league makes rules to make him better than he really is (much better) and has the refs help him.
They start with creating this fake "superstar" early on (high school). They also spend millions of dollars to make FIBA and the Olympics rig the tournaments to allow him to win against "inferior foreign scrubs".
The NBA can do this same thing with literally thousands of players in the world. Many just as athletic or more than LeBron. They can also find one that actually has a brain, can actually shoot, and can actually play against a half zone defense.
LeBron can be replaced by the NBA in a micro second because the average NBA fan is just as retarded as you are and is too freaking stupid to grasp even the simplest of concepts. Such as hype and marketing is not reality, it is just a bunch of bullshit that is being sold to you. A bill of goods that mindless consumers like you buy.
The NBA can make another LeBron any day they want. All they have to do is get rid of the current one. The current "star" creation. Dumping all the current players would actually allow that to happen.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Wrong. The NBA format guarantees that whatever team Stern wants to win (with crooked refs) wins.[/QUOTE]
Isn't Stern a Knicks fan? He grew up in NY. If he picks the teams to win that he wants, wouldn't he pick his hometown team in his largest market to win at least 1 title in the past 30 years?
[QUOTE=Droid101]This statement makes absolutely no sense.
Par for the course, I guess.[/QUOTE]
NBA loses $300-$350 million every year.
Euroleague nets over $100 million every year.
The Euroleague is vastly ahead of the NBA financially.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.
Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.
Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.[/QUOTE]
You are such an idiot.