Strange New Proposal by the Players
If you listen to the 30 mimute interview with Stern and Silver, they state what the players union offered today:
With the players union's predicted league revenue increases from growth over the ten years of a new contract, in which they predict there will always be increasing growth:
1.The players want the average salary for the players to increase from $5 million to $7 million per player by over the first six years of the term of the CBA contract.
2. With that growth, the aggregate profit for the teams of the league would be $80 million per year (as stated by Adam Silver).
To translate that:
The players for a team would make 15 * $7M = $105 million
The owner on average would make $80M/30 teams = $2.67 million.
That would mean, the owner who has roughly $400 million invested would make 0.6% profit on his investment, and less than half of the average of one of the players on his team.
That is beyond ridiculous.
the way i see it, the players are in no way gonna gain anything. Its just a matter of how much they lose and limiting the changes from the current deal which has nba players as the highest paid athletes of any sports league in the world. The owners are going overboard with how much they want to change and i kinda side with the players right now becasue i dont think things should change all that much, owners just need to be smarter with their money. But the players are crazy if they actually think this lockout is an opportunity to get more money from the league.
This is what happens when you let players who didnt finish college or even complete one year of it try come up with business plans.
I swear these players are retarded. They are biting the hand that feeds them. Without the owners there is no NBA. They need to make a profit before any of it works do.
This is the same reason you see CEO's making more money then their employee's. It is simple the people who write your paychecks should always make more money then the person who is getting that check.
I totally see where you're coming from. anyone with 400 mill to invest would not settle for anything less than a 6% return on their investment (after MRP is taken into consideration). Even with all the merchandising and TV contracts, most owners will still be in the red under the proposed deal.
I mean, if I had $400 million, I can invest in a market index ETF and get more return than an NBA team. Well, maybe people are in it for the fame, but from a financial point of view, it's not only the players who are retarded, but the owners who buy these teams hoping to get a good return.
but the owners dont have to spend like thye do either. I mean the grizz are supposed to be one of the less wealthy franchises right? SO they throw 80 mill at gay, about 17 mill per at zbo(or something like that) another 9 mill per at conley. Now they will have to throw more money at gasol. I mean they arent even waiting till these guys hit the free agency market to see what their value is on the open market. They paid all those guys ahead of time without hesitation. ANd they are just one example. I could go on for days about head scratching salaries being given out. Richard jefferson pretty much sucked his first year in san anotnio and the spurs rewarded him by giving him a nice long term deal? backups lke steve blake and jared dudley who are easily replaceable getting 4-5 mill per? Hard for me to think poor owners when they are the ones with no probelm making it rain on these players like a baller at a strip club and then whining later about it.
If you are purchasing an NBA team, I don't think your primary goal is increasing your profit margin. The guys who purchase these teams have plenty of money and buy these teams b/c they either have an interest in the game, fame, or the sheer challenge of building a champion in the sport.
If you have that much money and are looking to increase your income level, then purchasing a sports franchise is probably not the best way to go about doing so in comparison with the other opportunities that that money would present.
the owners do have to spend like that to put out competetive teams. Donald Sterling turns a profit with the Clippers (I believe one of the highest profit margins in the league) yet does so at the expense of fielding playoff quality teams. The players need to accept a decrease in revenue % for the league to not only be viable, but ultimately sustainable.
You realize the average player salary right now is 6 million. That is up from 5.2 million in 2007-08:
You guys are talking about the players being idiots or not having educations, you talk about return on investment, but why do you all refuse to talk about BULL$HIT. Such as Adam Silver saying the aggregate profit would be 80 million dollars, that the NBA is losing 300 million dollars and that you guys actually think that owners get a 0.6% return of investment. We know what the players make guys, those books are open. But, do we know how much the owners really take in? Where do we see those numbers printed in plain sight? You can believe everything you here, and make up some fake numbers, but not every roster has 15 players and owners were paying salaries in accordance to the market and what they BELIEVED they were able to pay.
Not to mention that when you buy a team for 400 million dollars, and than sell it for 500 million, you make a pretty damn nice return on profit there, do you not? Well, most owners make more than the 25% ROI I just demonstrated. Jesus, I know the players are not guilt free, but I do not believe for one second that their offer was unfair. I think that the NBA loves to spout out fake numbers and garbage to try and make the players into the villains, when it is really an issue amongst the owners and NBA in general. The owners should make sure everyone makes money, and they are not doing that. Do not blame that on the players, who regardless of what happens, are still making less money than these guys when it is all said and done. These guys may be losing money, but you have to spend money to make money and by that I mean win championships and win games. You have to have the right personnel and minds around you. So, you try to draft the right people for your franchise and not sign players that get you nowhere. My guess? Those 8 teams making money, make enough money to make all of the other teams profitable. No conflict of interest there amongst owners? The owners have some things to figure out before they can snicker at anything the players offer.
clippers are a sorry franchise from top to bottom and shouldnt be used as an example as the norm. I gaurantee you teams can be competitive while remaining under or around the 60 mill salary cap they have had if they were smart. Fact is most teams above the salary cap have tons of overpaid players. Mavs were the second highest payroll but thats partly becasue they had peja getting about 15 mill, brian cardinal making dumb money and brendan haywood getting 7 mill. They could have easily replaced those guys with guys in the 1-3 mill range and won a ring.
What I was saying was to your point about owners paying large sums of money. I was stating that sad state of affairs is such that owners HAVE to pay large contracts to compete, despite it killing their profit line. IF owners don't put out the money they can turn a profit, albeit with a shi$$ty team (like the clips). the Players need to drop their required % of NBA money to allow for more profit from the owners, who obviously finance the teams. This increased sharing along with a harder cap ( to keep contracts from getting to Rudy Gay's point (your example) should also help we fans purchase tickets at lower rates. Thanks - Chris
i agree things need to change to an extent, but the owners are trying to completely reinvent the wheel here. I think small changes are needed and the owners are playing this crazy victim card while not seeming to give a damn about money. The rudy gay one was just one example of a few i pointed out and i could name many others. I see way too many overpriced contracts to feel bad for these teams. Make some small changes, learn how to efficiently run a franchise, and lets play basketball. Thanks-perez
Lets seen some fiscal accountability and responsibility from the teams first. Open their real books first. They don't spend on new stadiums, the locals do it, what are their actual expenses as opposed to their income? Nobody knows for sure because they will not open their books. Sounds like BS to me.
If they had nothing to hide they would open the books, same for the NFL. But the truth is they are full of BS and are probably crooks. If they open up their real books the government and the IRS might be knocking at their door wondering how they hid all those under the table deals and payoffs including donations to certain politicians and wrote it off from their teams income.
I'm not an accountant but I know how business is done. The NBA owners are snakes.......and David Stern is a King Cobra.
I don't get all this stuff, I just want basketball :(
agree, but the owners hands are tied without a harder cap. If teams want to spend to get talent, you must spend accordingly to compete. There are no saints in this battle, but players must compromise a larger % of their salaries for the league, ther cities and ultimately their fans.
Heres my opinion its both players and owners fault for this mess
1. Owners- They are in complete control of how much and who to spend thier money on, we all know owners always hand out money in FA like its candy and then complain about it when it doesnt work out for them. the examples listed above by the posters before are perfect examples. If a player is playing badly at a consistant rate for three years and he has one good year on his track record(contract year), that should be a red flag that he is not motivated enough unless he has to win a high deal., meaning let some other idiot spend and waste thier money on them, owners and gm need to learn how to properly study and research players before spending money on them and offer a reasonable price, like shopping for a car, you check type of car, is it used or new, is it realiable, how much is insurance, how many miles, whats the highest and lowest price you can find it and what determines it. also mikeyv made a good point no one know what owners pull in on a monthly and yearly basis, I sure as hell know if i am an owner i am not going to keep running a business if i know i cant afford the expenses.
2. Players- I dont blame players for trying to seek every single penny out of owners, because as workers every one wants to make more money(i know i do), but when players start making excuses like how am i suppossed to feed my family(sprewell im looking at you), thats complete bs idc if your the 15 man on the bench you still make 450k, when the avg family makes 50k(which i know my family doesnt make even close to this either) you have no right to complain about not making ends meet, you should be investing your money somehow, appartenly half of nba players didnt payed attention in business class in high school when they tell you to pay yourself first. Im fine with players proving themselves and getting promoted with a nice contract but there should be a clause in the contracts just like every other job on the face of the earth if they don't play up to expectations(reasonable ones), they do not earn the full contract or they can be fired(waived in nba terms with a reasonable buyout). that way players can't take advantage of playing well only in contract years(owners win), but on the flip side thier should also be more incentives(bonuses for normal people) for players that exceed thier expectations(players win).
Bottom line- its both players and owners fault for the lockout, they both need to take blame, and need to come to a compromise because your never gonna get everything you want in life and thats just the way it is.
The title to the post made me think it might be of a sexual nature. Sorry for the immaturity, I just cant get into this lockout &$#%#&@! too tough. Feels to much like school or something...
I think guaranteed contracts hurt both players and owners. Owners are forced to hurt players who underperform or are given unworthy contracts, and the players with those contracts become pariahs who lack the freedom to move around because of those giant price tags they carry. If contracts would be terminated when a player underperforms, not only would a player have more incentive to work on their game and be more professional about being basketball players, then they wouldn't be stuck with an overpaid/overrated label due to a poor decision by an owner in offering them so much money (thinking of Luol Deng here, who has played quite well, but will never earn that contract).
Players strike me as greedy in this though, if they want guaranteed contracts the owners need to take more of the revenue, they can't have their cake and eat it too. I really don't see how a lock-out solves anything, when at the end of the day, the same issues are going to be there regardless of how many games are missed. Both sides should take a long look at what they are arguing over and remember the love of the game.
One thing that makes me very curious though is where Michael Jordan stands on these issues as the only player/owner in the NBA.
NBA says 22 of the 30 teams are LOSING money. Wether that is true or not I have no clue. What I do know is the owners have to open up their books and prove the numbers that they are claiming. Untill that is done then there will be no trust amongst the two sides. This is obviously easier said than done, for no one likes to be audited, especially billionaires. The owners must also work on revenue sharing. Once again easier said than done because why should a successful team have to suffer for a team that is sub par. Players on the other hand need to understand that they are the highest paid professional sports league and can't (atleast short term) ask for raises. I mean maybe 22 teams loosing $ might be a bit of an aggageration, but it is clear that some teams are defintely in the RED. The players need to "bite the bullet" if you will and let the owners of these teams get back into the BLACK before they go demanding more money.
Need to open up there books, then the real conversation can start. If a company calls you up and says you have a unpaid bill you need to ask them to prove it before you start paying it off, because you don't know what your paying off without proof that the bill exists. Players made about $2 billion last year the NBA makes about $4.3 billion anually. That's $2.3 billion that the NBA should be making. If there is not enough money to go around after costs of operation from $2.3 billion annually then maybe the league just needs to be run better. David Stern and the owners are probably the problem
Where are you guys getting the idea that players deserve more? We are talking about basketball players here....
Obama doesnt even make 1 million
Top scientist around the world < 1 Million
What the hell makes them deserve to make $100 million.
You can relate this issue to current gas prices. Gas giants makes Billions upon billions. And in order to run a successful business you need a sustainable profit margin. Meaning a constant increase. If these Gas giants lower prices their stock shares go down. They raise prices they make more money while also seeing an increase in value of stock.
The NBA owners are looking to make money. These people did not buy teams because it is the cool thing to do. They put in money as a investment in order to one day sell the team for more then they bought it for.
What the NBA needs to do like any other company in the world would do is release all the players let them go else where and start signing people who think it is acceptable to play to for under $100 million. Then when these players realize the NBA will always be there they will flock back.
Let those players go overseas and watch how a unfree market works.
This lockout really stinks badly. Both sides want "alot" more money...The owners wont give in because they say they are losing money. The players arent about to be stripped of money the earned. Most of these players likely have alot of that money currently invested, their futures planned, and the current CBA was taken into consideration. I would honestly be surprised to watch any NBA Basketball this year. Thank God Harrison Barnes, Jarred Sullinger, Perry Jones, Terrence Jones, Jeremy Lamb, Terrence Ross, and Khris Middleton stayed in school, and that the 2011 highschool class runs so deep. Should be a great college year.
If theres no NBA season do the Raptors select 3rd in the draft?
Is this possibly something the players are throwing out on purpose? I have a feeling they know this is something that they would not actually get, but I think you bring so many points to the table knowing that some are going to get shot down, but not everything. I think it's similiar to the owner's original idea of no longer having guaranteed deals.
Tim, I think that even though a lot of these players did not complete college it does not neccessarily make them idiots. There are plenty of people, especially in this country that did not complete college that are rolling in money. Some incredibly smart people are searching for jobs, while some incredibly dumb ones are set for life. There is no universal path. However in terms of the NBA, I think that a lot of the player reps are typically pretty aware and fairly reasonable people. In my opinion, the owners are the ones that created the problem. You can't blame guys for taking more money then they are worth.
It's a broken system, but most of these guys are not going to stand for you re-doing the whole thing to their loss. I think you can easily look at a guy like Lebron or Dwight Howard with their age and current skill and say he's worth the maximum and he's going to be really good or really great for X amount of years.You can't say Boozer who is injury prone, not a franchise player, is worth only a couple million less a year with 5-10% bonuses for the next 4 years or so. Rajon Rondo and Ben Gordon should not be getting paid nearly the same amount. You can go on and on, as there are plenty of other examples of this.Too many owners feel the need to overpay for guys when they have cap room or even outbid on guys that are their RESTRICTED free agents (i.e., Arenas, Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay even though he makes more sense to get the deal he did) instead of letting the market determine their worth.
its all about demand tim, not what is deserved. its about who has the ability to negotiate the best deal for themselves and get as much as they can in such a distributive negotiation
Thats how negotiation go. Don't get fooled into thinking thats what one siode or the other wants. The Plan in negotiations is to ask for a very high number that you wont get while the other side asks for a low number and then negotiate untill the two sides meet somewhere in the middle. When someone ask for 800 million they don't really want 800 million they want something like 530
I can only see the owners giving up more money to the players if guaranteed contracts are eliminated. Rashard Lewis' name is going to get thrown around a lot as to what owners don't want to see happen.
If i'm a player and i see that i just say " well don't pay that much money to a player like that dummy, problem solved"
problem is if other teams are overpaying athletes you'll never get good enough players. Everyone else is willing to overpay nobody will play for you. Its gotten out of hand how much they pay the players its partly their fault but again if other owners are going to do it, its almost impossible not too.
Even with a lower cap owners will over pay for a player and the next cba they will want to lower it more.
I think the league got too big. Maybe 8 guys deserve a huge guaranteed deal, but because so many teams exist, there is an opportunity for these second tier guys to get paid big bucks. Then there are still too many teams so these glorified role players are getting paid to be stars. When Rashard Lewis signed with Orlando, only two teams were in the market for him and only one (Orlando) had double digit money to spend, so essentially they were bidding against themselves. Between the pressure of selling tickets and keeping the current roster happy, they over spent and got stuck with a guy who clearly just wanted to see some 0's and not a trophy.Vince Carter, Yao Ming, Michael Redd, Gilbert Arena, Rashard Lewis, all top 10 in salary . None are considered top 10 players, possibly not even top 10 at their position. I don't blame these guys, I blame the system. The owners can't let this happen again, too many teams are destroyed by forcing the issue. I'd like to see the league adopt NFL style contracts that have a guaranteed element and incentive bonuses. Once you figure out Corey Magette isn't your franchise cornerstone, you cut him loose and try it again with Harrison Barnes.
I'd like to see the NBA incorporate a better revenue sharing plan between the NBA teams.
I'd also like to see the owners open up their books. I want to know how much they made from TV contracts, ticket sales, jersey sales, etc, etc. And then I want to see their expenses. There's a disagreement in regards to how many teams are actually losing money and how much. IF there's disagreement about the actual numbers, I don't know how a deal can be made.
There needs to be some changes to the CBA, but I get the feeling the owners want the players to pay for their own mistakes and bad investments.
The problem is we have a 3 way war here.
The old money owners.
The new money owners.
The old money owners are the guys who legitimately own their teams now. They purchased their teams long ago at a much cheaper price and now have sole possession of the team.
The new money owners are the guys who either spent a fortune to own their team, as the investment it takes to purchase an NBA team within the past decade is far greater than in the 60s 70s 80s. They also tend to only be the majority shareholder and may not have full say over the activities of the organization or control over all the money/assets brought in.
Because these 2 groups have varying interests, this creates a dilemma between the owners themselves, without even including the players yet.
Throw the players interests in as well and we have a debacle that could take us far into this season, if not beyond it.
Interesting article on NBA lockout. I think as much as the owners want to take away from the players they need to get their own issues in order. I never side with the owners in lockout situations ppl have to understand the owners win every single cba and will win again, but the thing I don't like is when this CBA ends up not working out they'll have another lockout for some of the same issues its rediculous. The NBA model of revenue sharing is outdated and way behind what the MLB and NFL have. The NFL is the most popular sport by far in America and even their smaller market teams use revenue sharing to gain some profit and even NFL owners complain about not getting enough money.
I think sports' owners in general need to understand that an investment in a team isn't likely to gain much money, but it does give the owner popularity and recognition that they would not otherwise have plus that popularity also allows them to better market their other means of making money. If ppl look at it as straight gains and losses in team profit they're ignoring so many aspects of the other assets tangible and intangible you gain when you become a team owner.