Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver killed CBA deal

[QUOTE=Hater]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 margins are huge othwewise they wouldnt make movies? NBA teams spend hundreds of millions on teams and lose money. Studios put 170 million into waterworld. Pluto Nash cost 100 million and made 7. There are no huge profit margins in much of anything these days.

And the entire movie industry just makes no sense to compare to the NBA because there are movies made for 2000 bucks nobody gets paid for. The movie industry isnt the 20 bigtime movies that come out a year. Its mostly people who dont get paid much of anything making movies you never heard of.

because of it...I cant say. Its not a subject ive ever looked into. If you have the numbers feel free to provide them. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand. But I wouldnt mind knowing.

[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?



As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?[/QUOTE]

The "people" are spending billions of dollars BELOW just what the NBA needs to break even. The "people" have clearly rejected the NBA product as it currently exists and thus, the players have to accept a pay cut, or else the league will go bankrupt.

A 5th grader should be able to grasp this.

[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]

You are a complete idiot.

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]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.[/QUOTE]

:roll: :oldlol: :oldlol: :lol :rolleyes: :facepalm

Yeah, you are a real genius. You probably are running for Congress in 2012 with such incredible economic wisdom.

[QUOTE=eliteballer]...really. You really trying to say that:roll:[/QUOTE]

You guys are really showing what true morons you are.

if gilbert had it his way the lockout would last until lebron is 37

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]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.




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.[/QUOTE]

You are wrong on every single point you make. You clearly have no clue how to separate hype and marketing from economic fact.

[QUOTE=kaiiu]These ni99as mad as fvck :lol[/QUOTE]**Punches Kaiiu in his damn face**

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]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.




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.[/QUOTE]
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it'd be exactly the same, but the NBA could still operate. The same way the league was still able to operate after losing its biggest stars to retirement. The league is bigger than any one or group of stars. The league makes the stars what they are. Like I said, refer to my Knicks example, if you're gonna use the Cavs example. You could suit up a random D3 basketball squad, and MSG would still fill to capacity.

You could reduce salaries by 25-50% and the NBA would still be as it is, and the players still multi-millionaires. Adn the teams should would make money.

Fact.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]The margins are huge othwewise they wouldnt make movies? NBA teams spend hundreds of millions on teams and lose money. Studios put 170 million into waterworld. Pluto Nash cost 100 million and made 7. There are no huge profit margins in much of anything these days.

And the entire movie industry just makes no sense to compare to the NBA because there are movies made for 2000 bucks nobody gets paid for. The movie industry isnt the 20 bigtime movies that come out a year. Its mostly people who dont get paid much of anything making movies you never heard of.

because of it...I cant say. Its not a subject ive ever looked into. If you have the numbers feel free to provide them. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand. But I wouldnt mind knowing.[/QUOTE]
You don't give the employees a bigger share of your revenue. It just makes no damn sense. If I cared enough, I'd do the research. But I'm not gonna do the research just to prove myself right which I already know.

Sarver has always had a reputation of being cheap

[QUOTE=Vragrant]Sarver has always had a reputation of being cheap[/QUOTE]

[img]http://www.austinpost.org/files/articles/adl.jpg[/img]

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=Hater]You don't give the employees a bigger share of your revenue. It just makes no damn sense. If I cared enough, I'd do the research. But I'm not gonna do the research just to prove myself right which I already know.[/QUOTE]


You keep saying that...despite the fact that clearly they do. And seem willing to continue or at least be close to it. The NFL has for years and just now stopped I believe(id have to look into exact numbers).

You say its not done...or shouldnt be...reality says it is...and is likely to continue. You not liking it doesnt change that those in power discussed it and it made sense to them. At least at times. something inthen umbers made the accountants and lawyers ok with it.

I cant say what that was. but I suspect the question of "Why give them more money?" was raised in every sports labor talk.

And then they...gave them more money.

Ask them why.