Don't matter if there is all the financial justification in the world (in your opinion) the simple fact remains:

Who is gonna pay these players if the NBA does not? New league? ONly if the players are so indignant that they are willing as a matter of principle to take a cut themselves to prove their point.

Ok, if Tom Cruise gets 20 mil a picture profits on his film drops because of increasing production costs its not his fault. If Brad Pitt lowers his fee to $16 mil and the two of them are up for the same role, and assume both are the same draw then Cruise has a choice if he wants to work and his phone is not ringing, either wait or lower his fee.

"THE TRUTH", its all a matter of relevace. Who is gonna compete with the NBA?

Stat talks about Europe now but has he thought about insuring his contract with the NBA. Even if he never wants to return to NYC once a lock out ends he HAS to play for NY. SO he will need insurance. Same for a new league BTW.

The truth? The longer they wait, the more it will cost.

nixluva wrote:In all the many posts I think some of you who are arguing against what I'm saying have missed my points. I do think as do the players that there needs to be a lowering of salaries. I just happen to think that the owners have exaggerated the current situation so that the could make their argument look more dire. When you look at the league as a whole only 4 teams will be at or over the cap after this season! The owners have self corrected in terms of overspending on players. So if the players are agreeing to take less and the owners have already cut back, there isn't really a huge problem. The next issue is profitability and evening the playing field for poor teams and rich teams.

The only way to get the competitive balance right is to either hard cap or revenue share or both. The players don't like the idea of a hard cap since it can artificially put a ceiling on what they can make. Tho technically the BRI split is a hard cap. The difference is that it's not a cap on the individual teams. So a NY can go ahead and pay STAT and Melo etc. what they are worth cuz they can afford it, which gets back to the parity issue. The only thing left is to at least revenue share, which is something the league could've done YEARS ago rather than always taking more money out of the players hands, which doesn't solve the competitive balance issue. Just cuz they limit the payout to players doesn't change the fact that a Memphis, Charlotte or New Orleans doesn't generate enough money to compete with a NY, Chicago or Miami.

This is the farce the owners have pushed on the public for decades. "Oh the problem is the players make too much"! The players are making what the market bares in the better cities. The cities that can't generate the same revenues are at a disadvantage. I happen to think the owners could give the players 52% and still make a profit if they had revenue sharing. But they'd also have to fix the problem with teams in cities that really can't make it. Go look at the revenues for each team and in particular the teams that are really in trouble with double digit Million dollar losses. 50/50 BRI and Caps won't fix those teams problems. If you lower the players to 50/50 that only gains the league 9 mil per team and some teams are deeper in the whole than that. Player salaries aren't their only issue.

I don't think we are missing the point.. Let me put it this way.. if the owner came out and said.. OK, we are not losing money.. we just are not making enough to feel we can protect our investment over the long haul.. and they do have a hefty investment... That alone would be enough for them to justify a restructuring of the NEW CBA agreement.. and I say new, because the owners stood by the last CBA while losing money, or not making enough.. this is not a re-negotiation.. that deal is done.. this is a Negotiaton.. either way, the owners have to be happy with a deal.. it is their league.. and lets be honest, by the way NBA players have been paid, these owners are generous, they are not out to screw these guys.. so what other reason can it be nix? maybe they are really losing money...

Nalod wrote:

I just happen to think that the owners have exaggerated the current situation so that the could make their argument look more dire.

Ok, there it is. You said it. Its your opinion. YOu can't find any statistical proof. IT might not exist. It does not matter. The league can say: " we are fat filthy rich owners and we want to get fatter "!

And the players say: " Not fair"

the owners say: " then go get paid elsewhere "

Players: " Cricket "

Owners: " enjoy playing in Slovokia bitches"

Stat says : "I love history!, lets play dress up"!

Lebron says: "I should not speak"

Wade says: "respect me!"

Billups says: "Sheit"!

Stern says: " Watch me, I'll cancel more"

Russian says: "Ka-Ching"

Yao ming: "played it perfectly"

Melo say: "La La La"

Stat says: "Got 700 pair of shoes!"

Pierce says; "Who pays for wheel chairs?"

Kobe says: "adiamo"

Dolan says: "What Isiah says"

Isiah says; "Agents meddling fools meddling where they should not be"

Nalod says: "Im scared, Isiah making sense"

Stat says: "Im not Jewish this year"

ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Dolan says: "What Isiah says"

Nalod, i don't even know where to start with the rest of this.... hahahaa

BUT seriously, if the owners came out and said we are not losing money, but we would like to make more..so that we can protect out investments longterm... what happens then?

Nalod wrote:

nixluva wrote:I might add that Samuel L. Jackson has a net worth of $150 Million. All this for reading scripts in front of a camera. Entertainers often get paid a lot more than it would seem someone should for entertaining people. Don't begrudge an athlete for making money. Do you just go to any old basketball game just cuz you love the game? Do you go to just any old movie or do you go to one that will entertain you the most.

Just look at the list I posted again and notice that some teams showed a loss, but not that much of a loss that it's insurmountable. The Jazz aren't in bad shape for the future. The Sixers aren't in bad shape either. Goodness knows that the Nets have a bright future in Brooklyn. Then there are small market teams that are doing great like OKC! The Spurs have been successful in a small market. This shows that it's possible even with the players getting the salaries that they've been getting. Of course the easiest thing to do is just pay the players less, but let's not forget that they're the entertainment!!! None of this is worth a darn without the players that draw the fans.

Entertainers, in particular movie stars are paid to bring in revenue. Oscar's are just nice rewards which can help a picture no doubt but movies are not just about the actors.

Many do participate based on the gate than just an upfront pay. Top draws can command 20mil a picture. It is seen as a solid investment.

If you want a piece of the gate you have to factor in expenses, not just the actors salary. Advertisement costs are huge for a film. Special effects, sound engineering, music, editing, catering, equipment rental, production salaries, paying for the script, travel, all figure into the costs. Without it a picture cannot be made. Without a good production an actor is left looking bad.

I'd like to see a breakdown of costs a little more. There is a #4 after "operating income" and perhaps there was a breakdown.

OK let's deal with REALITY Nalod. NBA franchises have consistently outperformed their appraisals. One of the new owners of the Warriors Joe Lacob said that he made a great investment and expected to be able to improve his teams value and revenues. He said that NBA franchises gained value and he expected to be able to sell at a profit despite paying so much for the team.

Joe Lacob and Peter Guber paid $450 Mil for a Warriors franchise said to be worth $363 Mil by Forbes!!!

The Warriors were bought by a group headed by venture capitalist Joseph Lacob and Mandalay Entertainment Group chief executive Peter Guber in November for $450 million, a record price for an NBA franchise that did not include an arena. The deal was financed with $300 million of equity, $108 million of debt from NBA credit arrangements and $42 million of debt from lenders outside the NBA's borrowing facility. Although the Warriors are a mid-tier revenue team and play in an antiquated building, bidding for the team was hot because of the large number of rich people in the Bay area (Oracle CEO Larry Ellison tried to get the team) and the team's lease to Oracle arena expires in 2017. The new owners also have the right to sell part of their market to a second NBA team. Lacob (who sold his minority stake in the Boston Celtics in order to buy the team) and Guber are looking for minority investors for money to expand the marketing and revenue capabilities of the Warriors. The new owners recently inked a contract extension to the Warriors' cable deal with CSN Bay Area that will boost revenues.

Nalod wrote:In any case Nix your making assumptions that simplify your position that teams can just make money if they move some teams around.

Have you considered that with the ecnonomic slowdown that teams might not be able to increase revenue at the same pace going forward and TV revenue may not be increasing as it did? Your basis is usually "its unfair for players to take a cut" and "owners are rich, so it don't matter", and "they'll make more in the future".

Well those are not givens are they?

Then there are different circumstances. The Magic lost $23 mil but that is really about mismanagement cuz they're in a new stadium and a large enough market. Another big loser was the Bobcats. They are in a bad market and with a $20 mil loss they would not be saved by getting back $9-$10 Mil from the players, which is what the 50/50 split would be for each team. Many of the other teams claiming losses aren't anywhere near as bad. Some could easily turn around their fortunes without having to squeeze the players to death. More importantly the league needs revenue sharing and the owners know it. They may not want to do it, but it's something they should've done a decade ago.

franco12 wrote:nix - I almost never agree with you- at least as far as our team- but there is no way someone with $450MM blows it on a money losing proposition.

I bet no NBA franchise is losing money.

The thing is that not every owner is as successful in creating extra revenue streams. The less successful teams in small markets will never be on the same footing as the bigger markets without revenue sharing of some sort. Just try getting Dolan or Buss to give up a huge piece of their profits for some other owner to line his pockets!!! There's a reason it hasn't happened in all these years. Blaming it all on the players is a smokescreen.

Nalod wrote:

nixluva wrote:

franco12 wrote:nix - I almost never agree with you- at least as far as our team- but there is no way someone with $450MM blows it on a money losing proposition.

I bet no NBA franchise is losing money.

That's the thing, the Millionaires and Billionaires are lining up to get in and have been doing so since the current CBA was signed. It hasn't been a detriment to franchises selling at massive profits. Plus there are ancillary factors that the league doesn't address. There are real estate deals that are enhanced due to the ownership of a franchise. We don't know all the ways these owners are making money that isn't going into the BRI, but I have no doubt that they have ways. These are the same big businessmen who know all the Tax loopholes. You think they can't figure out how to avoid having certain revenue streams be included in the BRI?

The thing is that not every owner is as successful in creating extra revenue streams. The less successful teams in small markets will never be on the same footing as the bigger markets without revenue sharing of some sort. Just try getting Dolan or Buss to give up a huge piece of their profits for some other owner to line his pockets!!! There's a reason it hasn't happened in all these years. Blaming it all on the players is a smokescreen.

Its not about "Blame".

No body is blaming the players. No body is saying the players are at fault.

Its about the owners protecting themselves and their elite status to make money and keep the value of the franchise from dropping.

Theoretically, the knicks and Lakers teams are most valuable. If you were to put them on a monopoly board they are the most expensive properties and to buy them you would expect to pay the most, and receive the highest rent (return) for that investment. Why should they have to spread the wealth around in fairness? The Yankees do draw the best on the road and thats when other teams profit. The lakers are a big draw and the knicks are once again doing well will also draw well on the road.

Back to point nix.....maybe its not fair. But what the Phuck will the players do about it? Play elsewhere? Where is the leverage? Should players share in endorsement deals outside of the NBA? Can Lebron spin off, hire 9 other guys to play with and sell 20,000 seats and televise it? Nope.

Also, this is a big reason why the Warriors are worth more than the amount Ellison was willing to pay:

he new owners also have the right to sell part of their market to a second NBA team. Lacob (who sold his minority stake in the Boston Celtics in order to buy the team) and Guber are looking for minority investors for money to expand the marketing and revenue capabilities of the Warriors. The new owners recently inked a contract extension to the Warriors' cable deal with CSN Bay Area that will boost revenues.

There is potential for higher revenue, their building lease expires in a few years, and if they want, they can move to San Jose if they want, or be compensated if a team wants to move to San Jose. I don't believe if Sacremento moves to Anaheim they have to pay anyone to move in that turf, but Warriors are protected in San Jose. ONce upon a time Nets had to pay 6 million to knicks in 1976 to move into NY when they came into the NBA. Knicks were offered Dr. J but instead took the money. Pre Dolan BtW.

So warriors when you look at the potential of their market is worth a bit more by some standards. Ellison is not stupid to try to buy a team on the cheap but the league is pretty solid when protecting its franchise values. You seem to think thats evil.

Charlotte has some hidden potential on a regional basis should the team finally win and build a fan base. Charlotte Metro area is pretty large but they can also draw gate and TV coverage from Greenville SC, Spartanburg SC, Columbia, SC, and the whole darn state of NC who adores its first son (Jordan). This state loves basketball and supported the Hornets and would even more so the Bobcats. Jordan has yet to come close in realizing the potential on a regional basis. It takes a winning culture to build a fan base and then you can sustain some "rebuilding years". Cats have yet to establish that base.

Nix, its just business.

great point there in bold. I go to charlotte quite a bit, I have friends there, just a couple of hours drive there for me. Everyone I meet there are excited about the bobcats, and there is a potential there, columbia, spartanburg and greenville are all pretty good size cities, not big cities, but decent sized cities, I know, I have family in all 3 in which I visit quite a bit... The potential is there. .. and yes you are correct nalod, it is a business....

You have produced more "FACtS" it is true, because its your arguement.

Owners could have done a lot of things 10 years ago. You seem to think that because they did not they should suffer and yet if the players received a bloated salary structure they would be penalized by having that structure removed rather than perhaps many were over compensated.

Be it as it may there are other issues like the Rookie scale where players like Dlee were underpaid while they out performed their contract and had he gone in the second round he would have been better.

Maybe 50-50 is where the owners ultimately want to be. I think now players are willing to go to 53%.

What is not in your numbers is the trends of revenue and if the teams are projecting continued softness in the numbers. The league can control the price of the franchise artificially because its a limited market. They also can protect revenue by negotiations as we are currently involved in. What the warriors got perhaps was more incentives and promises that equate to a higher price justification. One of the owners was a minority partner with the celtics so its not like he was a noob coming in. They kept ownership in the family sort of.

My point is the system may be rigged and it may be unfair but the JUSTIFICATION may be correct in the numbers. Still, we don't have all the numbers in front of us. ITs your opinion that the teams can make it work and the players should not suffer the consequences. You may be right.
My opinion is the players have no leverage. The owners think the players will submit eventually. The owners think a lockout and loss of revenue is a worthwhile economic investment to get a more favorable deal despite the short term loss. The players are willing to test them. The agents will favor the players and Stern works for the owners.

BTW, look up what the new owner paid for the Pistons. Im pretty sure old man Davidson left a bunch of debt on the books for them to clean up. Detroit got hit hard the last few years.

The league is going for parity for teams to spend the same amount and small market teams, who have lower expenses (I think its less expensive to run the arena in OK than MSG in labor heavy expensive NYC)and paid a lower price for a team than big market ones and the profits pretty much stay where the teams have their local TV markets. That just makes sense.

My hope is both parties come out of this feeling good about the deal they struck and the economic viability of the league withstands the economic turn around. In some aspects the spending habits of corp. america and ticket buyers may be changed for some time. That I don't have a handle on but if so, the owners are very worried.

I won't go pt by pt as you have. Thank you for doing so.

I contend the team values are artificial not market driven. I think the owners protect their profit thru revenue sharing and thus are willing to fight to keep it.

I think Attendance is a function of ticket price and the gate for many teams does not even cover player salary, so its on other sources. Measurement of the gate is not a measuremnt of profitability.

And even if you are totally right, I contend this over and over again, the players don't have leverage because its not their league.

It does not matter what an owner paid for it.

Its like buying a house. Don't matter what the seller paid for it, its what the price is. You can justify a market based on what others are paying for like kind property. If its improved, then it goes for a higher price. Someone put the money in the improvements.

NBA owners have set franchise values. Its theirs to set. They will fix up the Hornets and resell it.

Where will the players come close to making this kind of pay for play?

Another league? That is not happening in the near future.

Nix, Im not saying who is right or wrong. IM just saying negotiations require leverage.

You want the "Truth"? You can't handle it!

Nalod wrote:I think your wrong on a few things. Its my opinion.

I won't go pt by pt as you have. Thank you for doing so.

I contend the team values are artificial not market driven. I think the owners protect their profit thru revenue sharing and thus are willing to fight to keep it.

I think Attendance is a function of ticket price and the gate for many teams does not even cover player salary, so its on other sources. Measurement of the gate is not a measuremnt of profitability.

And even if you are totally right, I contend this over and over again, the players don't have leverage because its not their league.

It does not matter what an owner paid for it.

Its like buying a house. Don't matter what the seller paid for it, its what the price is. You can justify a market based on what others are paying for like kind property. If its improved, then it goes for a higher price. Someone put the money in the improvements.

NBA owners have set franchise values. Its theirs to set. They will fix up the Hornets and resell it.

Where will the players come close to making this kind of pay for play?

Another league? That is not happening in the near future.

Nix, Im not saying who is right or wrong. IM just saying negotiations require leverage.

You want the "Truth"? You can't handle it!

You're not arguing on the point of this thread! No on is arguing who has the leverage in this negotiation. The players have already given ground on the BRI, so even they aren't arguing nothing should be done. Their point and mine is that the owners are looking to take more from the players than is necessary. Taking more from the players won't solve the leagues issue with competitive balance and actually won't make teams in the red tens of millions profitable. The player give back only makes the really deficient teams a little less underwater. The league needs to finally do revenue sharing or else things will never change. Also teams need to do a better job managing their finances and looking for new revenue streams.

Team values have to start with an appraisal and the league isn't setting that value. The only team the league controls the price of is the Hornets which they currently own. What has been the biggest factor in the sale price is buyer competition. There are so many rich buyers looking to get in that it drives the price up, just like multiple buyers looking to get the same home.

I think your counter arguments are starting to wander a bit. It's better if we limit the scope to a point or two, cuz things are drifting away from the premise of the thread. Yes some NBA teams have been losing money, but not every team and most are close enough to being profitable that it won't take much to change their fortunes. No drastic moves need to be made for the vast majority of the teams. It's a select few teams that are in real trouble financially. The owners are exaggerating the leagues problems in order to make their case look stronger.

It appears to me that the owners are laying most of the burden on the players to fix the leagues problems when in fact the owners could share revenue and help fix the problem, but they haven't done so over the course of the last 2 CBA's and we still don't know if they will this time.