[Bmore_DCParticipant]

I understand the current financial system the NBA uses is broken…and i understand the owners frustration in losing money…but heres what i dont understand…

How is it the players fault that an NBA team signs Joe Johnson to the max??? Of course its a horrible deal, but is that Johnsons fault? or an NBA owner signing off on that deal?

Look at the Buck’s current roster and the amount they make…they traded FOR Beno Udrih who makes like 7 mill a year!!! They signed Drew Gooden to that ass contract and now they complain they are losing money???

I can go on and on with examples of idiotic signings and and trades (orlando magic comes to mind)…

And now we as fans are losing out the most with no bball being played…

Doesnt this bother anyone else? Look at the Thunder’s payroll and how good they are…The NBA’s small market owners need to stop being RETARDS and model themselves after the Spurs and Thunder organizations… 

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

The system is terribly broken. Even a team like the Spurs, who makes excellent moves, still isn’t really making any money.

Right now the players get 57% of the BRI regardless. Say the owners spend wisely and they actually spend less than 57% on salaries. Let’s say they spend 54% on NBA salaries. That’s a good thing, right? WRONG. Instead of the owners pocketing that 3% they saved, they actually have to give it ALL back to the players at the end of the year.

What kind of system rewards wise spending with just having to give the savings back lol?

And even with some of the insane contracts last season, the owners still spent less than 57% on NBA salaries as a whole. The owners didn’t get to keep those savings… They had to give it back to the players.

 

 

 

[Bmore_DCParticipant]

I really dont have the figures..but i would say the Spurs turn a nice profit…i could be wrong but i dont see how they are really losing money…

but yes the system is terrible it needs to be 50/50…the owners will not budge on this

[GrovesinternationalParticipant]

the problem is that with the current system, ifthe hawks didn’t throw that kind of money a JJ they would likely lose him, which would put them in a position where they are struggling to make the playoffs. they probably weren’t too keen to throw that money at him, but in order to stay competitive they had to, because there is always another team who would throw that money at him in a quest to become competitive. the system is broke, they need a payment scheme that is based on productivity and achievement (which would limit contract inflation). i think such a system was proposed by one of the writers on SLAMonline or on this site. One correction to the system they proposed is that i would make the salary changes occur at the end of a contract, not seasonally, thats on the basis of likely inclusion of shorter contracts in the New CBA.

[TallmanNYCParticipant]

 First of all, it is okay if some business struggle from time to time. The Owners are whinning that during a big recession they might not be making that much money. Tough. That happens. Also everyone knows that $300 million loss that Stern talked about was a lie. I hate that the media even reports that number without everytime pointing out that it is a lie. 

You want to talk Spurs? Here is how Forbes values the team:

 

Team Value1	$404 mil
San Antonio Spurs are owned by Peter Holt, who bought them in1996 for $76 mil.

Forbes values all the teams every year and publishes it. Keep in mind that when teams sell as they sometimes do, they ALWAYS sell for much more than what Forbes values the teams at. See the Warriors for recent example. So $404 million is pretty much the floor. So Owner Peter Holt doesn’t like how much money he is making each year, he can sell the team and make his $328 million in proft. Not bad after about 15 years of owning the team. And keep in mind that you can’t tell me he wasn’t making profits when the Spurs were winning championships. Yeah he has some expensive and aging players and this might now be a good couple of years for him. He had some great years before that. 

[TallmanNYCParticipant]

 

I don’t know if this graph will come through, but this is also from Forbes. It is San Antonio’s operating income. According to this, they made big bucks from 2002 through 2009. Yes, 2010 was a down year and they may have lost money, but just $5 million. But give me a break if you are complaining after a great 8 year run of big profit. According to this, they made $19 million just in 2009. $27 million back in 2004. Whine whine whine Owners. 

 

[IndianaBasketballParticipant]

Is that the income they made AFTER they’re expenses or BEFORE?

Good information though.

[chevilicousParticipant]

There’s two sides to every coin. As mentioned in a previous post, if the Hawks don’t throw that kind of money around towards a borderline all-star, they lose him to a larger market with more revenue, and aren’t nearly as competitive. However in addition to this something people to never say about the players, is how about these players that under perform after a contract year. This happens all the time, granted teams need better GMs and scouts to discover talent, but guranteed contracts to guys who under perform, and or piss and moan about their situations on current rosters i feel are not honoring these contracts.

   There are two things that need to happen for the NBA to be as successful as these guys all say they want it to be.

#1 They need a fair hard cap, or a system that severly punishes those teams who go over the salary cap that would prevent them from doing so. I don’t think the players should even have a say in something of this matter, as it’s the owners descision on how to throw their money around, and if they agree to such a system it is obviously with the mind set of a more competitive balance. You can’t argue in one breath that you aren’t the ones signing riddiculous contracts, and in the next breath bitch about the owners putting a system in place to prevent it, it’s just stupid.

#2 There needs to be more revenue sharing amongst the owners, it makes no sense that huge markets make a killing off 3 billion dollar TV deals and look to go after a larger share of the BRI, if you want to fill the gap and make it so all your teams are making money you take the 47% that was offered, and fill the gap with team revenue sharing.

Once you do these two things i feel as though you have created a more competitive balance between all teams giving everyone an equal oppurtunity to compete, and you also make it so players don’t have as much leverage in demanding trades to larger markets as they have less cap flexibility to make something like this happen. I don’t understand how players feel entitled to choose where they play, and for which orginization. You’re part of a BUSINESS, when your are part of a business you have to relocate allot of the times, and if you don’t like to relocate you can go find another business that will pay you 10$ million a year to stay in the location of your liking, its as simple as that.

[Bmore_DCParticipant]

 thanx for proving my point with some great information guys!

[Author]

Posts