It almost assumes that "only" means they should really get paid to make it fair. What about the players who are talented enough but don't get a shot because a team can't afford them when you have unproductive players eating major cap space and no way to clear it?

Why should owners who have the team long term be any different from owners who just paid $400 million? Forget that Dolan is an ass but the team is renovating its own arena on its own dime. MSG was created by its own capital and now it should be shared? I like the way baseball does it, a team can go nuts with itself but has to share revenue when it spends over a cap amount. I guess baseball works well this way even though the small market team does not succeed on the field. Personally I don't get how some small market team and its fans go on with no chance. I get the finance part.

If Im a smaller market NBA team Im worried about losing star players and when that happens the loss of revenue. Lebron leaving cleveland has a lot to do with this. The vacuum created by Miami Im sure is an issue for them.

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

Nalod wrote:Many of those very players will be gone in 2-3 years and can't make that money back up.

Start a league in cities that have failed before?

Municipalities in this recession going to use capital to run entertainment franchises? Think about political backlash!

TV contracts?

I can see Entertainment companies like NBC-Universal or cable comanies doing it to create content.

With all the upfront costs associated when will the players actually see profits?

Good article but really not very plausable in my book.

Why can't those very Euro teams play some games here in the NBA arenas?

i AGREE, and who would actually run the team and call the shots? thats right, we would have to elect GM's and Presidents to run the team.. stinky politics to the max... the only one that will benefit are the politicians.. do you think these guys will run the team to benefit the league, or themselves...

when it comes down to it.. the owners are a special group of guys. There are just not many people in this world with 400+ mil to throw into a franchise and then be told to expect losses because A) they are rich and B) the owners have been losing money, so just continue doing so.

THey have not been losing money, or at least, the ones with half a brain have not be losing money. Most of their losses are paper losses, not real losses, and the owners are going to reap a windfall once the current TV deal runs out. THe new TV deal is going to add $400-$500 million in revenue. There is no reason that, if player salaries are rolled back 10% and the owners did more revenue-sharing, each NBA team would not be profitable regardless of market, and that is before considering the new TV deal. THe owners are trying to us the recession as an excuse to get a sweetheart deal out of the players.

the players have pretty much backed off their stance that the owners are not losing money. do you have any information that they don't have? paper losses? not all of those losses are paper losses, and having a brain or half a brain has little to do with making a profit in the nba under the old CBA...

The owners claimed they lost $300 million. That is without any TV revunue sharing among the teams. If you reduce player salaries by 10% across the board that is about $174 million saved right there. You shorten contracts by a year, make some changes to MLE, and add in revenue sharing, that $300 million loss disappears. In 2016, the new TV deal goes into effect that will net the league an extra $300-$400 million. Given that the $300 million occurred during one of the worst economic recessions in the last 30 years, there is no reason to believe all NBA teams cannot maintain profitability in the future. The owners are just trying to use the economic downturn as a means to work a sweetheart deal for themselves to guarantee hugh profits once the economy gets humming again.

wow, the nerve of business owners who dump hundreds of million of dollars into their business wanting to get a nice financial windfall... who do these greedy bums think they are.. give the players 60% and take your losses you rich fools....

come on man... if I am an owner, I want to make money!!!! players are getting paid more on average than any other sport. guranteed money. How are the owners being unreasonable here?

The bottomline is the players are the NBA. THat is who you pay to see, and the millions the owners are dumping into the business is merely the cost of buying the franchise. Most of the arenas are paid for by the taxpayers. No one is saying that the owners should not make a profit. But the NBA is not Exxon. If it were, then the antitrust laws would apply. It is a sport, and as such, it cannot be run like a business in the purest sense. The deal the players offered was a fair deal that would have made all teams profitable. The owners should have been a better job with their last TV deal. The networks pay the NFL $4 billion but the NBA only gets $900 million and the NBA has far more games. The only teams that are losing are small market teams and that is partly due to a lack of revenue-sharing. Again, no one is saying owners cannot or should not make money. That is a given, but an owner can own a team for 30 years. A player usually is only going to play for 6-10 years. Under the deal the players proposed, the owners would make a profit. It is as simple as that.

So the employees are now allowed to dictate how much profit a company should make? What anti trust laws did the owners violate? The owners should have done a better job with the TV deal? How about the players do a better job with the money they make? A player can only play for 6-10 years and that is why owners should just keep paying them guaranteed money? You don't seem to realize this but the owners can take their money to something else, a diiferent sport a new league or whatever. The players can't do jack **** without the owners, except go play in europe for much much less. In any negotiation it usually comes down to who has a greater need, and on this case it's clearly the players. I am amazed the owners even allow guaranteed contracts they should be abolished.

loweyecue wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

Nalod wrote:Many of those very players will be gone in 2-3 years and can't make that money back up.

Start a league in cities that have failed before?

Municipalities in this recession going to use capital to run entertainment franchises? Think about political backlash!

TV contracts?

I can see Entertainment companies like NBC-Universal or cable comanies doing it to create content.

With all the upfront costs associated when will the players actually see profits?

Good article but really not very plausable in my book.

Why can't those very Euro teams play some games here in the NBA arenas?

i AGREE, and who would actually run the team and call the shots? thats right, we would have to elect GM's and Presidents to run the team.. stinky politics to the max... the only one that will benefit are the politicians.. do you think these guys will run the team to benefit the league, or themselves...

when it comes down to it.. the owners are a special group of guys. There are just not many people in this world with 400+ mil to throw into a franchise and then be told to expect losses because A) they are rich and B) the owners have been losing money, so just continue doing so.

THey have not been losing money, or at least, the ones with half a brain have not be losing money. Most of their losses are paper losses, not real losses, and the owners are going to reap a windfall once the current TV deal runs out. THe new TV deal is going to add $400-$500 million in revenue. There is no reason that, if player salaries are rolled back 10% and the owners did more revenue-sharing, each NBA team would not be profitable regardless of market, and that is before considering the new TV deal. THe owners are trying to us the recession as an excuse to get a sweetheart deal out of the players.

the players have pretty much backed off their stance that the owners are not losing money. do you have any information that they don't have? paper losses? not all of those losses are paper losses, and having a brain or half a brain has little to do with making a profit in the nba under the old CBA...

The owners claimed they lost $300 million. That is without any TV revunue sharing among the teams. If you reduce player salaries by 10% across the board that is about $174 million saved right there. You shorten contracts by a year, make some changes to MLE, and add in revenue sharing, that $300 million loss disappears. In 2016, the new TV deal goes into effect that will net the league an extra $300-$400 million. Given that the $300 million occurred during one of the worst economic recessions in the last 30 years, there is no reason to believe all NBA teams cannot maintain profitability in the future. The owners are just trying to use the economic downturn as a means to work a sweetheart deal for themselves to guarantee hugh profits once the economy gets humming again.

wow, the nerve of business owners who dump hundreds of million of dollars into their business wanting to get a nice financial windfall... who do these greedy bums think they are.. give the players 60% and take your losses you rich fools....

come on man... if I am an owner, I want to make money!!!! players are getting paid more on average than any other sport. guranteed money. How are the owners being unreasonable here?

The bottomline is the players are the NBA. THat is who you pay to see, and the millions the owners are dumping into the business is merely the cost of buying the franchise. Most of the arenas are paid for by the taxpayers. No one is saying that the owners should not make a profit. But the NBA is not Exxon. If it were, then the antitrust laws would apply. It is a sport, and as such, it cannot be run like a business in the purest sense. The deal the players offered was a fair deal that would have made all teams profitable. The owners should have been a better job with their last TV deal. The networks pay the NFL $4 billion but the NBA only gets $900 million and the NBA has far more games. The only teams that are losing are small market teams and that is partly due to a lack of revenue-sharing. Again, no one is saying owners cannot or should not make money. That is a given, but an owner can own a team for 30 years. A player usually is only going to play for 6-10 years. Under the deal the players proposed, the owners would make a profit. It is as simple as that.

So the employees are now allowed to dictate how much profit a company should make? What anti trust laws did the owners violate? The owners should have done a better job with the TV deal? How about the players do a better job with the money they make? A player can only play for 6-10 years and that is why owners should just keep paying them guaranteed money? You don't seem to realize this but the owners can take their money to something else, a diiferent sport a new league or whatever. The players can't do jack **** without the owners, except go play in europe for much much less. In any negotiation it usually comes down to who has a greater need, and on this case it's clearly the players. I am amazed the owners even allow guaranteed contracts they should be abolished.

yea, agree, I am not sure why people are so against the owners wanting to make money, but people are OK with players and guaranteed deals, but frown when they hear that owners want to almost guarantee profits... I don't like 100% guranteed deals, I could see deals being guaranteed at 60%.. but no more..

loweyecue wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

TheGame wrote:

tkf wrote:

Nalod wrote:Many of those very players will be gone in 2-3 years and can't make that money back up.

Start a league in cities that have failed before?

Municipalities in this recession going to use capital to run entertainment franchises? Think about political backlash!

TV contracts?

I can see Entertainment companies like NBC-Universal or cable comanies doing it to create content.

With all the upfront costs associated when will the players actually see profits?

Good article but really not very plausable in my book.

Why can't those very Euro teams play some games here in the NBA arenas?

i AGREE, and who would actually run the team and call the shots? thats right, we would have to elect GM's and Presidents to run the team.. stinky politics to the max... the only one that will benefit are the politicians.. do you think these guys will run the team to benefit the league, or themselves...

when it comes down to it.. the owners are a special group of guys. There are just not many people in this world with 400+ mil to throw into a franchise and then be told to expect losses because A) they are rich and B) the owners have been losing money, so just continue doing so.

THey have not been losing money, or at least, the ones with half a brain have not be losing money. Most of their losses are paper losses, not real losses, and the owners are going to reap a windfall once the current TV deal runs out. THe new TV deal is going to add $400-$500 million in revenue. There is no reason that, if player salaries are rolled back 10% and the owners did more revenue-sharing, each NBA team would not be profitable regardless of market, and that is before considering the new TV deal. THe owners are trying to us the recession as an excuse to get a sweetheart deal out of the players.

the players have pretty much backed off their stance that the owners are not losing money. do you have any information that they don't have? paper losses? not all of those losses are paper losses, and having a brain or half a brain has little to do with making a profit in the nba under the old CBA...

The owners claimed they lost $300 million. That is without any TV revunue sharing among the teams. If you reduce player salaries by 10% across the board that is about $174 million saved right there. You shorten contracts by a year, make some changes to MLE, and add in revenue sharing, that $300 million loss disappears. In 2016, the new TV deal goes into effect that will net the league an extra $300-$400 million. Given that the $300 million occurred during one of the worst economic recessions in the last 30 years, there is no reason to believe all NBA teams cannot maintain profitability in the future. The owners are just trying to use the economic downturn as a means to work a sweetheart deal for themselves to guarantee hugh profits once the economy gets humming again.

wow, the nerve of business owners who dump hundreds of million of dollars into their business wanting to get a nice financial windfall... who do these greedy bums think they are.. give the players 60% and take your losses you rich fools....

come on man... if I am an owner, I want to make money!!!! players are getting paid more on average than any other sport. guranteed money. How are the owners being unreasonable here?

The bottomline is the players are the NBA. THat is who you pay to see, and the millions the owners are dumping into the business is merely the cost of buying the franchise. Most of the arenas are paid for by the taxpayers. No one is saying that the owners should not make a profit. But the NBA is not Exxon. If it were, then the antitrust laws would apply. It is a sport, and as such, it cannot be run like a business in the purest sense. The deal the players offered was a fair deal that would have made all teams profitable. The owners should have been a better job with their last TV deal. The networks pay the NFL $4 billion but the NBA only gets $900 million and the NBA has far more games. The only teams that are losing are small market teams and that is partly due to a lack of revenue-sharing. Again, no one is saying owners cannot or should not make money. That is a given, but an owner can own a team for 30 years. A player usually is only going to play for 6-10 years. Under the deal the players proposed, the owners would make a profit. It is as simple as that.

So the employees are now allowed to dictate how much profit a company should make? What anti trust laws did the owners violate? The owners should have done a better job with the TV deal? How about the players do a better job with the money they make? A player can only play for 6-10 years and that is why owners should just keep paying them guaranteed money? You don't seem to realize this but the owners can take their money to something else, a diiferent sport a new league or whatever. The players can't do jack **** without the owners, except go play in europe for much much less. In any negotiation it usually comes down to who has a greater need, and on this case it's clearly the players. I am amazed the owners even allow guaranteed contracts they should be abolished.

THe owners need to do a better job of running the league. You look at the tv deal the NFL has at $4 billion and the deal that the NBA has at $940 million and you see that David Stern has not done a good job of generating revenue for the league. If the owners want to take their money, let them go. Half the arenas in the US are owned by the city's anyway. It would not be all that difficult to start up a new league if you get some Euro-teams to expand into the US market.

What is wrong with a guaranteed contract? If we negotiate in good faith for a deal and as a player, I fulfill my end, why shouldn't I get paid? I agree that there should be more out clauses for guys that don't stay in shape, but you are looking only at the harm and not the benefit. Guaranteed deals are the reason there are no holdouts in the NBA. It helps teams that spend-wisely control their costs by lovking up their players for the longterm. If an owner can just cancel a contract whenever they want, then NBA players who feel they are underpayed are going to just refuse to play until they get a raise. Do you really want to go to that kind of system? The bottomline is owners need to start spending more wisely. Guys like Rashard Lewis should have never gotten the deals that they got, and I knew that when the contract was first signed. Now the players have to take a pay cut to protect the owners from their own bad decisions. The fact remains that the players did offer a paycut. The owners simply want to beat the players down to a point where guys like Kobe are only making $10 million and the average NBA players is only making $1-$2 million. Once the new TV deal comes in, the owners will be making more in PROFITS that they would be paying out in salaries, when the fact remains that the players are the ones that make up the league. EVERY OWNER IN THE NBA CAN BE REPLACED AND NOT ONE FAN ONE STOP GOING TO AN NBA GAME. No one goes to the games because of the owners.

knickstorrents wrote:

tkf wrote:yea, agree, I am not sure why people are so against the owners wanting to make money, but people are OK with players and guaranteed deals, but frown when they hear that owners want to almost guarantee profits... I don't like 100% guranteed deals, I could see deals being guaranteed at 60%.. but no more..

Player contracts are an open market system. Players are guaranteed contracts because that is the market demand. Player options and team options are common, but for top tier players guaranteeing years are one of the only ways to make your offer better than another teams, if you are offering the same amount of total money.

I am not against the owners making money. I AM against the owners claiming player salaries are the cause of teams losing money, when it is not clear that is the case. The now expired CBA was originally seen as a big win for the owners. 'Cost certainty' was attained by the owners (57% BRI is a fixed number, with escrow used to insure that percentage is attained). Even with this cost certainty, owners did not discipline themselves and did dumb moves.

To me, the major issue is NOT player salaries. It is over expansion, weak revenue sharing, and owners making dumb moves. Adjusting player salaries will not solve those core issues. It will just allow the owners to waste more money.

when has a Guaranteed deal ever become a market demand? I think 100% guaranteed deals are the biggest mistake in NBA history... I could see 60-70% , but 100% is ridiculous..

57% is not sustainable, when a business is losing money, you look at your biggest expenses, in this case it is players salaries, it is logical to examine that. to assume all owners are making dumb moves is not fair. I keep hearing that, well I guess the dumb move is paying these guys big money, the money they want... so what does that tell you?... lowering the salaries to me is the first place to start, first and foremost. I heard a former portland exec say, the ran that team as well as one could run it and theystill lost money. at some point fans and players are going to have to agree that these out of control salaries are hurting the league and the owners in particular...

Again, I keep seeing this "dumb moves" talk.. can you tell me the dumb moves made by all the teams that caused them to lose between 120-350 mil(depending on which side of the story you listen to).... there are some bad signings, guys like arenas and rashard lewis, but the league is not filled with dumb moves and you would need more than just a few bad moves to put the league in that type of shape where they are losing hundreds of millions... the only dumb move I see so far was the past CBA, and now they are hell bent on correcting that. I don't blame them..

knickstorrents wrote:

tkf wrote:Again, I keep seeing this "dumb moves" talk.. can you tell me the dumb moves made by all the teams that caused them to lose between 120-350 mil(depending on which side of the story you listen to).... there are some bad signings, guys like arenas and rashard lewis, but the league is not filled with dumb moves and you would need more than just a few bad moves to put the league in that type of shape where they are losing hundreds of millions... the only dumb move I see so far was the past CBA, and now they are hell bent on correcting that. I don't blame them..

So you are agreeing with me then, that player salaries are not the major cause of teams losing money? Sounds like it.

you need to check your ears if it sounds like I agree... LOL.. I dissagree with you.. salaries are a huge issue and problem...