share

NBA Players Union is Delusional

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
NBA Players Union is Delusional

NBA Players Union head Billy Hunter is disputing David Stern's recent report that the owners lost $370 million last year. Does it really matter if the owners lost $370 million or $1 million? How much more money do these overpaid millionaires want?

The union attitude reminds me of the last NBA strike when the head of the players union, Patrick Ewing, was making $16 million a year. And he went on strike?

Do they really want to risk their $10 - $20 million annual salaries in a strategy that might result in a lockout?

What planet do those guys live on?


mgreener_34
mgreener_34's picture
Registered User
Joined: 01/06/2010
Posts: 567
Points: 1106
Offline
I've never been a fan of

I've never been a fan of people who make more in a year then I would in my entire lifetime complain about it. These people got a free pass in life for the most part, and should just enjoy what that have. Stop using the token "I have my family to think about" excuse and just play basketball.

Platypus
Platypus's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/30/2009
Posts: 2484
Points: 3361
Offline
Shaq has made

Shaq has made $290,846,146...... thats just on the court

source Basketball-Reference.com

Godfather
Godfather's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/12/2010
Posts: 127
Points: 424
Offline
Come on, 15 million dollars

Come on, 15 million dollars isn't that much money...................when you support 6 illigitmate children, have 3 mansions, 9 cars, and a posey of 15 that you gotta help buy girls and drugs.

Please, give these guys some sympathy. Life is tough for them. They have to play basketball for a living.

PurpleMonkeyDis...
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2010
Posts: 1258
Points: 551
Offline
???

Miami just threw 100 mil at 3 different players... The owners are the ones with the problem.

Godfather
Godfather's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/12/2010
Posts: 127
Points: 424
Offline
Exactly. The owners ask for

Exactly.

The owners ask for this &$#%#&@! rule changes, but then a star player becomes a free agent and they throw this player a 50+ million dollar bone that the player doesn't deserve.

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
@rtbt Your argument is very

@rtbt

Your argument is very onesided towards the owners.

Look at it from the players' perspective. IF it's true that the NBA hasn't lost money, then why should they change the current CBA system?

According to the players union, the losses that the NBA are reporting could be WAY off due to the accounting method they're using.

IF the owners haven't lost money, then I don't see why they need to change the CBA to make it more profitable for the owners. Based on the NBA Final ratings, season ticket sales, overall interest, etc... The owners aren't losing anything.

the U 327
Registered User
Joined: 11/27/2009
Posts: 896
Points: 1785
Offline
I'll be pissed if there's a

I'll be pissed if there's a lockout

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
This argument that the owners

This argument that the owners are losing all of this money doesn't really make sense...

Player salaries actually dropped this past season. The NBA had the best Finals in 12 years... The basketball-related-income was the highest in NBA history. Season ticket sales are now at an all-time high as well.

I also think it's funny that the league said the salary cap would drop to around $50 million, but it's actually higher than it was this past season.

Truth is... There is A LOT of interest in the NBA right now and it doesn't make sense that they're losing money. I see no reason why the players should cave in and take less. They're not the ones complaining... The owners are.

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
@mgreener_34 It's easy for

@mgreener_34

It's easy for people like us to despise NBA players because they get paid millions to play basketball.

However, think about it. Say you worked for some million dollar company. Business and sales are at an all-time high, but the company wants you to take a pay cut. How would you feel about that regardless of how much you were making already? You wouldn't like it.

The NBA wants players to take a paycut based on weak facts that the owners are losing a ton of money. Why should the players cave in? I don't care how much the players are making. They're the product and deserve their fair share of the overall worth of the league. Whether it's $5, 10, 15 or 20 million...

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 11977
Points: 12001
Offline
we already saw where this

we already saw where this lockout will go if it does happen. The players lost in 1999 and they'll probably lose again. I Forget who said it last time, but the message came out loud and clear, millionaires cant compete with billionaires when it comes to holding out. The millionaires will fold first. Numerous reports have owners losing money, including the los angeles lakers last season, and they won the title. I believe like 4 teams have been sold in the last 24 months, owners are getting out. Thats usually not a sign that they are making money.

With that said, hard to feel bad for these owners when they continue to pay out these contracts. If you are going broke, no way amir johnson should be getting 6-7 mill per or travis outlaw the same or joe johnson 20 mill per or darko 5 mill per.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
IndianaBasketball and the Owners

IndianaBasketball said, "Your argument is very one sided towards the owners"

Indiana, I'm not defending the owners, most of whom I despise, I'm talking about sanity. Unless your name is Antoine Walker, most people can live very comfortably for the rest of their lives with a hundred million dollar contract.

If you're in that situation, you would have to be insane to risk harming the sport with a possible lockout or strike which would hurt the employees of the arenas and everyone associated with the NBA because you're a SELFISH, GREEDY whiner. It doesn't matter what happens because you already have a hundred million guaranteed [set for life], but you still want more. Give me a break!

And since you brought up the owners, they're the ones taking all of the financial risk. When the players are ready to give up their GUARANTEED CONTRACTS and share the same monetary risk owners take of losing money, maybe then they'll gain my respect.

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
Hmmm... So it's the players

Hmmm... So it's the players that are selfish and greedy, and not the owners, huh? So it's the players that are going to hurt the workers of the arenas and everyone associated with the NBA? I'm NOT buying that...

The responsibility and burden is not solely on the backs of the players. They DESERVE their fair share and security REGARDLESS of how much they're already getting paid. THEY are the product. IF not for them, the NBA would be nothing. I don't pay for my season tickets to go see Mel/Herb Simon. I pay to go see Danny Granger.

They need to come to a middle ground, but the notion that the players should cave in is absurd.

NashyMing
NashyMing's picture
Registered User
Joined: 02/08/2010
Posts: 632
Points: 1409
Offline
When you see all the crazy deals...

When you see all the crazy deals happening this summer, you really need to wonder about the loss that NBA claimed to have.

If the NBA teams are losing money like crazy, why did they give out all those crazy contracts?

Marginal players getting MLE.
Average players getting star players' money.
Star players getting super star players' money.
Luckily, there's the max, or else we would have seen a 500mil contract for the like of LBJ.

The owners kind of lose the argument when you see all the crazy deals going on every summer.

khaled_a_d
Registered User
Joined: 02/25/2010
Posts: 511
Points: 437
Offline
give up GUARANTEED CONTRACTS

give up GUARANTEED CONTRACTS for what? for being paid 4 years for a bad rookie contract? then when being FA you still can't choose where you play?
everybody keep hating on overpaid players,but what underpaid players?I will agree that players should give up on guaranteed contracts if it meant that underpaid player can get out of his stupid contract.
owners are much more wealthy ,players take risks too b/c of injuries ,and at the end of the day this sport live and die with the players
u guys don't watch basketball to see owners/coaches/cheerleaders/referees etc, you watch it because the players and only the players,without them the industry is dead
they have the right to get paid a lot as long as the NBA earns a lot
people hates on guaranteed contracts b/c they look it only as a fans of their teams
and by the way not all players get Max like Lebron or Wade
you have to remember that Basketball career isn't long and there is like 400 player in the NBA not just lebron wade Dirk etc

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
IndianaBasketball and the Owners

IndianaBasketball, that's right. It's the players who are greedy and creating a possible lockout or strike situation. That doesn't mean the owners aren't also greedy, stupid, and self absorbed because they are. But they're the ones taking all of the financial risk.

1. Unlike the owners who are putting their money at risk, players have GUARANTEED CONTRACTS.

2. What world do you live in where you believe players receiving hundred million dollar contracts are not somehow getting their fair share?

3. Life is all about risk/reward ratios. One has to decide if and when it's time to fight for something. If you're earning $35,000 a year and you need money to feed your family, then it's probably worth the risk. However, when you have a hundred million dollar contract, only a SELFISH, GREEDY, SELF CENTERED individual would beg for more.

IndianaBasketball, as I mentioned above. If and when the players are willing to give up their GUARANTEED CONTRACTS and take their salaries as a PERCENTAGE of the PROFITS, then they'll earn my respect.

Steroid
Steroid's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/13/2010
Posts: 842
Points: 1052
Offline
Basketball players make

Basketball players make enough money already. It's their fault if they can't spend their money wisely. How much more money does one need if they're already making millions and pretty much have no financial problems unless they are irresponsible.

bobbyb
Registered User
Joined: 04/06/2009
Posts: 1157
Points: 442
Offline
$

they will never take percentage of profits, how do you determine profit. Who would decide administrative expenses.E.G

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
@Steroid You're

@Steroid

You're misunderstood. The players aren't asking for more money. They're fine with the current CBA system. The owners want the players to take less and to restructure the CBA so it's more profitable for the owners.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BobbyB On a Percentage Of Profits

Players would never take a percentage of the profits, but not because of the reason you cited. One can agree on a set of CPA standards to determine net profit and give the players they're share. In fact, I believe there is a system like that currently in place where all of the players receive X percentage of gross revenues.

However, if you want to put yourself in the same position as the owners, then the players should give up their guaranteed contracts. In other words, if there's no profit one year, you get nothing. Do you really believe NBA players would take such a risk?

Unlike the players, if the owners lose money one season, it's a loss. The players don't give back their salaries to the owner if the team has a poor year financially.

So until the players are willing to put their salaries at risk, they should gladly accept their hundred million dollar contracts, be thankful and appreciative, and give back to the game.

mikeyvthedon
mikeyvthedon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 5618
Points: 13289
Offline
Reason For Strike

I put it on the owners. Agents may drive up prices, players may want more money, but ultimately these owners are the ones paying out the contracts. Yes, when you own a team, you want to make money, but as much as I have never really been a fan of Billy Hunter, as he always seems discontent, I side with the players nearly always. How do we know the NBA has lost 370 million? We never see what teams actually generate and their actual revenues. We only know what players are getting paid, we have no idea how much owners are actually generating. The owners have a lot of expenses, way more than i can even think of right now, but their is a reason they are paying out 80 million per year in a given season in strictly player salaries. That reason, THEY CAN. If they could not do it, than they should sell the team and get out of the business. Every ownership group in the NBA probably has tons of different revenue streams, and the bottom line is that if you own a team, and want them to compete, you have to spend money. But, who puts the people in the seats, who has built the league. You can say the owners have built the arenas, you can say David Stern is a marketing genius, but the players make this league. The athletes are the reason people watch the games, and the NBA has some of the best in the world. Their may be people taking losses, I do not know the numbers, but why label the players as being spoiled millionaires when they are working hard in their field, just as the owners have in their own right. The players may be unwilling to concede, but the owners are just as unwilling. I do not think the players want to bankrupt the owners, but I think they have every right to ask for whatever is beneficial to them to continue. I think the current system has been benficial to the league as well, and stopped the current problem that NFL teams are facing with rookie holdouts and ridiculous salaries. Maximum contracts actually limit the amount a player could really make, which at this point would be astronomical considering some of the salaries before the lockout.

Am I saying to feel sorry for players? No, these guys obviously make good money, and they should be aware of that and humbled to know how lucky they are. But, if their is one group you should not feel sorry for, it is the owners and executives of the NBA. How much does the average owner make? When they sell the team, will they not make a nice little profit? When times are tough, even with a low cap number, would they still not fire employees just to keep salaries at the top nice and large. When these people buy teams, they indeed want to make good business moves, they want to make money and hopefully they want to make winning teams. But, if they do not, they are taking this legitimate risk, they know the rules and the guidelines of the NBA's salary cap and they also should know that their has been precedent created numerous times when it comes to what a player makes in the league. When the NBA released its cap figures as being 58 million as opposed to 50, why should the players not be entirely skeptical about their proposed losses? Also, think about this. The players, around 450 or so people, make about 57% in the revenue share. The other 43% than goes to 30 owners of teams. Do the math. Should you really believe the owners are facing these losses because of the players? After the last CBA and lockout in 1999, many people thought the owners won! The players had to take less money than normal, their was a limit into how much someone could make! A soft cap also gave owners the ability to spend as much as they were willing to try and make a championship team without just stacking player after player, like the Yankees.

So, whose side do you take, the owners or the players? I tend to believe much more in the players rights than the owners. I think players wanting things to play out the same as they have been in the last 10 years is fair, and if owners aren't willing to do that, they I honestly question their motives. I question whether they have actually lost money as opposed to maybe are not making as much money as they were before the luxury tax instituted by the last CBA. If they were to show the players numbers, with actual legitimate losses and show that this system is definitely not working to make it profitable to be an owner, than I am sure the players would listen and try to keep the business going in a way that is profitable to both players and owners. But, as of right now, I do not think it is the case. So before you go blaming the players for not playing, give a little thought into what the owners are trying to do. You do not make as much money as these men have without being shrewd businessmen, and they are definitely looking out for number 1. Why would the players, the ones who make fans watch the league, pay to go to games and keep the league running, not be able to do the same?

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
mikeyvthedon on the debate

mikeyvthedon made some excellent points but this is not about saying the owners are the good guys or they're 100% right. Each side has valid points but in the end, it's all about sanity. When you're making a hundred million dollars, complaining that you aren't receiving your fair share is flat out insane!

As for your other points, please consider the following:

Unlike the players, if the owners lose money, it's a loss. The players don't give back their salaries to the owner if the team has a poor year financially.

So until the players are willing to put their salaries at risk and play for a percentage of the profits, they should gladly accept their GUARANTEED hundred million dollar contracts, be thankful, appreciative, and give back to the game.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
IndianaBasketball Said I Misunderstood

IndianaBasketball, I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying for the good of the game, the players should realize and acknowledge changes need to be made on the financial end. Now if those changes mean changing a hundred million dollar contract to a hundred thousand dollar contract, I might have some sympathy for the players.

However, you can bet those changes will be minor modifications to a system that made NBA players the richest athletes on the planet. For example, maybe instead of maxing out at $20 million per year, players will max out at $18 million a year. Oh no, I won't be able to sleep at night worrying about those poor NBA millionaires losing some pocket change.

flybobbyfly
flybobbyfly's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/04/2010
Posts: 303
Points: -38
Offline
if all the players holdout

if all the players holdout the guys in the d league would do it for 100k. the only crowd that really loses with all these shenanigans is the fans. billionaires seem to never really lose. these lucky, spoiled players made more money on their rookie contract then they ever would have made in their careers as security guards. players need to buck up and realise they dont deserve more than 5 million a year to play basketball. there are a million people in the world that would work as hard as they do and play for 50 grand

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
flybobbyfly on the Players

Thanks flybobbyfly.

The guys from the schoolyard in my old Brooklyn neighborhood would give up their jobs to play for the Knicks for FREE!

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
Actually the lakers made a

Actually the lakers made a 30million dollar profit this season. And if stern and the owners are constantly saying they lost money to every source they can find then of course you ate gonna see that everywhere. That doesn't make it true though

mikeyvthedon
mikeyvthedon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 5618
Points: 13289
Offline
Guys

I understand this. I think everyone understands this, these guys are lucky! However, their is a reason that D-League players might play for less (100 k, I do not know....) and your friends would play for free. That reason? They are not in the NBA right now, under the guidelines and rules set by the NBA. They may love basketball, so on and so forth, but if they were good enough to attract the large salaries, paid to these players by the owners, they might be barking a different tune. I for one, and hear me out, think every job can be incredibly difficult. You know what job is also difficult. Being a professional athlete. You have tons of variables, constant competition and any slight misfortune that comes from an injury could mean you lose your job. Not to mention the level you have to work at to maintain success, many players are born with a great deal of talent, but you need to work your butt off to stay at a relevant level as a player. Is playing basketball more fun than working at McDonalds or as a security guard? Hell yeah it is, but these guys have made it into these jobs, and it is their job. The level of pay for their jobs is just what has happened due to the nature and amount of money in their business. Should these players be happy to be making millions? Absolutely, and if they are not, than they are certainly not in touch with reality and incredibly selfish. I think everyone should take some time and appreciate what they have, and that while we can say such and such a job is easy, just try and think and put your shoes in someone elses feet. Every job has something about it that sucks, that creates stress, which is why if someone has a job, I give them full credit for even taking that responsibility. I do not think a basketball player is any better than someone working in fast food or security, but the way things work out, these guys make more money.

With that being said, if you are making 100 million dollars, be damn happy you are doing so. But, I think what you guys are not getting here, is that these players are a group that is looking out for more than just the 9 figure dealers. They are looking out for the Players Association as a whole, which is a group that goes beyond LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Joe Johnson and Chris Bosh. They want what they think is best for the people that play basketball and make the NBA what it is, and they also want a fair share of the money the league makes. So, you can say that it is unfair for the fans, it is. You can say the players are being selfish and making too much money, they make a lot for something we all view as being fun and simple. But these elite athletes, that millions of people pay too watch and see, have been given a precedent for how much money they make by the owners, and for the owners to say, "well, this is ridiculous, we are losing to much money, we want to make this more profitable", well, that would be a hard pill for anyone to swallow. You and I might go, well, I am cool with making 250k, sold! But for these guys, that would mean giving up a lifestyle that they and most likely their families have become accustomed too. They are not necessarily thinking about the fans best interest, they are thinking of their own, but they are also saying, "Screw the owners making more money off of our work. We want what is fair and what you guys have been giving us." If the owners are losing profits, well, that sucks. But when a person that makes more money than you tells you that they want you to make less so they can make more, what would you say, "Well, its cool, I already make enough"? I do not think so, hence the players will strike. You can hate them, call them greedy, but it is not even close to their fault. The owners should be more flexible and maybe care more about the best interest of the players, rather than saving more for themselves. In any strike the fans get screwed, and who do they blame? The PA's (Players Associations), and why is this? Because we see what these guys make, we know we love watching them play, and we feel they are being greedy not giving us what we want to see for their greater good, which is to hold out and strike for hope of getting more (or not giving up what they already have to take less in this case). People may get angry at the owners as well, but to us they are mainly nameless and faceless and are not the people shown on TV complaining. You only see David Stern, Adam Silver, and never hear from this faceless group known as "the Owners." I think if people knew what they make, and saw their faces and what they were asking for, they would be singing a different tune. This whole thing is built on greed, but major market sports is capitalism. Their is a reason the NBA is the NBA and the NBADL is just that. The best players play in the NBA, they are the best athletes and are incredible to watch for basketball fans. No matter how much you would market something else, it would be missing the skills the players in the NBA posess. That is why that if I had to choose anything, I choose to stand behind the whiny millionaire NBA players. They may be greedy, they may not know what is going on, but, hey, when you have to choose against the lesser of two evils, I go with the underdog.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
Some one said something along

Some one said something along the lines of "how you figure someone making one hundred million not getting a fair share". Let's say you sign a six year one hundred million. In that six years the team brings in about two billion. What percentage is that 100million?

HotSnot
Registered User
Joined: 05/20/2010
Posts: 739
Points: -1421
Offline
The owners need to be

The owners need to be protected from themselves. If one owner agree's with the the premise that most players are "overpayed" and only attempts to sign RFA's and FA's with modest practical contracts... not one player will sign to play for his team. It is likely there will be another team out there who offers abit more and then another who offers abit more and then yet another desperate team who really needs a that player and all of a sudden you have a ridiculous contract. Without quality players, tickets sales go down and team revenue goes down. If every owner decided to hold firm and collectively say we are not "overpaying" then that is collusion and not a "free market" system which is the foundation of capitalism in the U.S. Essentially, the owners need to be saved from themselves under the current system. If the owners don't attempt to compete for players services and win basketball games, then why be an owner in the first place?

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
"NBA Players Union head Billy

"NBA Players Union head Billy Hunter is disputing David Stern's recent report that the owners lost $370 million last year. Does it really matter if the owners lost $370 million or $1 million? How much more money do these overpaid millionaires want?

The union attitude reminds me of the last NBA strike when the head of the players union, Patrick Ewing, was making $16 million a year. And he went on strike?

Do they really want to risk their $10 - $20 million annual salaries in a strategy that might result in a lockout?

What planet do those guys live on?"

Get your facts straight before you rant.

1) Patrick Ewing and the players did not go on strike in 1999. They were locked out. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

2) There is a legitimate debate over whether the players should have to BAIL OUT the owners who bought their franchises in the past decade at inflated prices. Team values all over sport are depreciating in the current economic climate, and Billy Hunter and the players are right to point out that David Stern and the owners are trying to make it sound as if the losses are reflective of player salaries.

3) The current CBA guarantees a revenue split between management and labor. The players get 57 percent of BRI. No more, no less. This is why 9 percent of a player's salary goes into an escrow fund, so when owners throw $34 million at Amir Johnson and spend more in salaries that 57 percent the players give that excess money back. The union argument is that the system is not broke for that reason. If you want to make the argument revenues should not dictate salaries, then I suggest to learn something about market economies.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
mikeyvthedon on the debate

Mikeyv, thanks for taking the time to put together a very long, well thought out set of arguments. One area I will completely agree is the owners are a bunch of greedy idiots who make one stupid financial decision after another in terms of player salaries. As I said earlier, they deserve far more than their fair share of blame for the potential problem.

One area where I will disagree is your argument about other players, the guys at the end of the bench. I think we can they aren't stars and nobody pays money to watch them play. After only one year, the minimum NBA salary is almost 3/4 of a million dollars for a bench warmer. That's not too shabby and in the real world it often comes to much more.

Here are two examples of guys with zero talent who seem to be doing very well.

Brian Scalabrine: $3.4 million

Brian Cardinal: $6.7 million

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard Said I Was Ranting

BothTeamsPlayedHard, I usually have a lot of respect for your opinions but I thought your comment directed towards me was out of line. You said, "Get your facts straight before you rant."

I don't classify my comments in this thread as ranting.

Next, your technically correct that it was a lockout but you are playing a silly game of semantics. The fact is both sides couldn't agree and whether you call it a lockout or a strike, the net effect was the same. Here is a description of the events.

In March 1998, seeking changes to the league's salary cap system and a ceiling on individual player salaries, the owners opened up the CBA for discussion. The Players Association opposed the owners' plans because they wanted raises for the players. After the two sides failed to reach an agreement, the owners initiated a lockout.

After a serious division within the players union, NBPA executive director Billy Hunter reached an agreement with NBA commissioner David Stern on January 6 to end the work stoppage.

Hmmmmmmmm, it sounds as if the players had the authority and power to end the work stoppage any time they wanted.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
Yes, a union can end any work

Yes, a union can end any work stoppage by caving to any and all demands of management. The difference between a strike and a lockout is who is demanding concessions. The players weren't asking for changes, management was. It is important to point out, it does no good for players to strike in the offseason. All it does is save ownership operating costs. The time for players in the NFL, MLB, or NBA to strike is right before the playoffs when ownership makes the most money and has the most to lose. That is when they have leverage in negotiating.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard Said

BothteamsPlayedHard said, "If you want to make the argument revenues should not dictate salaries, then I suggest to learn something about market economies."

Thanks for the gracious offer to teach me economics. Obviously you didn't get my point because I was saying just the opposite, revenues should dictate salaries.

I would fully support the players position if they agreed to base their income on team profits [not gross revenue]. In other words, if the team makes a hefty profit, the players are rewarded accordingly. But if the team loses money, they are paid a much lower amount.

But we know the players will not do that because they want the best of both worlds. They want that GUARANTEED one hundred million dollar contract no matter what happens, but they also want to benefit from higher league revenue. And that's when they become models for greed and selfishness. They want all of the benefits with none of the risks!

I know the difference between a lockout and a strike, but both sides agreed to open up the CBA. Anyway you look at it, the conflict was a classic battle of employer versus employee over wages and benefits. The fact that the owners made the first move was nothing more than strategic. The players were not giving in and were ready for a strike. Call it whatever you want.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
Revenues do dictate salaries.

Revenues do dictate salaries. The players, in a labor based industry, get 57 percent. In the next CBA, it will be closer to 50 percent. There is a contractual link between the two.

Why is it on the players to guarantee owners to be profitable? Do you honestly think it is the players' fault that the owners who bought their teams in the inflated market of 2000-2007 have seen them go down in value because of the global recession? Should the players pay the cost of the owners abandoning a big market in Seattle for Oklahoma City? The Thunder owners paid the City of Seattle $45 million to move, is that on the owners or the players? You are making the argument that bad owners like George Shinn and Chris Cohan should be guaranteed a profit regardless of the quality of their work. That is corporate socialism that provides a huge disincentive of management to invest in their on-court and off-the-court product. It is bad for the league.

You want the players' salaries to be tied to profits, but there is already a situation where the owners not only own the team, but the tv network, the radio network, the stadium, and the buildings around the stadium. Do the profits from those ventures count in your profit-sharing sheme? The New York Yankees are a profitable team, but not as profitable as YES. The Chicago Tribune made sure to lock in a long-term broadcast contract extension with Tribune-owned WGN tv and radio before selling majority ownership to the Ricketts family. Billionaires are really good at making companies with open books look broke while stashing huge profits in those whose books are closed.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard Said

BothTeamPlayerHard said, "Why is it on the players to guarantee owners to be profitable?"BothTeamsPlayedHard also said, "You are making the argument that bad owners like George Shinn and Chris Cohan should be guaranteed a profit".

I never said the above, those are your words!

Please read what I wrote. If you read my posts above, I said just the opposite. You cannot guarantee profitability and that's why it's the owners, not the players, who are taking the biggest risk. In capitalism the bigger the risk the bigger the reward.

I also never absolved the owners of blame. If you read my comments above you would know that I said the owners are a bunch of greedy idiots who made one stupid financial decision after another in terms of player salaries. They deserve far more than their fair share of blame for the potential problem.

As for how you determine profits, you resolve that issue in contract negotiations.

NBA players are the richest athletes in the world. They should appreciate what they have, give back to the game and their communities. The players union should work with the owners to fix many of the problems with the CBA as opposed to taking a defiant stand. Let's hope they go with the former.

But I never want to hear anyone saying the players aren't receiving their fair share of the revenue.

Brian Scalabrine: $3.4 million

Brian Cardinal: $6.7 million

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
"Please read what I wrote. If

"Please read what I wrote. If you read my posts above, I said just the opposite."

Okay.

"I would fully support the players position if they agreed to base their income on team profits [not gross revenue]. In other words, if the team makes a hefty profit, the players are rewarded accordingly. But if the team loses money, they are paid a much lower amount."

Also, the fair share works both ways.

Donald Sterling: $10 million in operating profit, working on more than a decade of never making less than $10 million per year.

James Dolan: $21 million in 2009

Christopher Cohan: $11.9 million in 2009

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard

BothTeamsPlayedHard, are you asking me if I think it should go both ways. If that's the questions, the answer is yes.

All of those guys you mentioned are morons who would be overpaid if you substituted the word, "thousands" for "millions" in the salaries you listed.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
NBA Players Union

Unlike the players, if the owners lose money, it's a loss. The players don't give back their salaries to the owner if the team has a poor year financially.

The players want the best of both worlds. They want that GUARANTEED one hundred million dollar contract no matter what happens, but they also want to benefit from higher league revenue. And that's when they become models for greed and selfishness.

They want all of the benefits with none of the risks!

NBA players are the richest athletes in the world. They should appreciate what they have, give back to the game and their communities. The players union should work with the owners to fix many of the problems with the CBA as opposed to taking a defiant stand. Let's hope they go with the former.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
What part of the players

What part of the players giving back money beyond 57 percent of basketball related income do you not grasp? They do share in the economic health of the league. You just don't seem to want to actually know how the CBA works.

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12784
Points: 24405
Offline
I knew BothTeamsPlayedHard

I knew BothTeamsPlayedHard would contribute something great to this thread. I learned a lot that I didn't know about.

I had no idea the players gave back money beyond 57% of BRI. Is there a great website to view the current CBA?

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3425
Points: 4672
Offline
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon
rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard Said

BothTeamsPlayedHard said about me, "What part of the players giving back money beyond 57 percent of basketball related income do you not grasp?"

Why do you insist upon making up your own words and then attributing them to me? Where and when did I ever say the players didn't give back money in terms of benefits? Once again, those were YOUR words.

The following is what I actually said. I don't understand why you continue to ignore what I really say and instead insist upon attacking me.

"NBA players are the richest athletes in the world. They should appreciate what they have, give back to the game and their communities. The players union should work with the owners to fix many of the problems with the CBA, as opposed to taking a defiant stand. Let's hope they go with the former."

sheltwon3
sheltwon3's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2009
Posts: 6364
Points: 2606
Offline
owner hired people that

owner hired people that overpay players then cry they are not making money mainly because they are stupid. They money is out there yet a lot of player get screwed like Matt Barnes who is a good player but for whatever reason does not get a good contract because general manager hired by owners overpay for guys that are decent but not great. How do you explain Wesley Mathews getting all that money. If Portland says they are losing money, the owner needs to be slapped for that move.

sheltwon3
sheltwon3's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2009
Posts: 6364
Points: 2606
Offline
Why is it that the public

Why is it that the public know what player make and not what owners make or spend. I think if people knew what the owner make, you would never side with them. The owners are making bank but they want to make more. Why would a person buy a team if teams are not making money. In the past few years, many teams were sold and the past owners made a decent profit on the sales.

RSS: Syndicate content