NardDogNation wrote:Too bad Herb Kohl was one of the rare exceptions and isn't in the NBA anymore. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall the Bucks being concerned about the luxury tax in years past or on spending big for players. It seems that Kohl wasn't only a good owner but a better man.

He was one of the leaders of the lockout though.

Personally I don't think it should be left to good will- I think players and employees deserve and should get a guranteed share in the money when a team is sold.

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Too bad Herb Kohl was one of the rare exceptions and isn't in the NBA anymore. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall the Bucks being concerned about the luxury tax in years past or on spending big for players. It seems that Kohl wasn't only a good owner but a better man.

He was one of the leaders of the lockout though.

Personally I don't think it should be left to good will- I think players and employees deserve and should get a guranteed share in the money when a team is sold.

If an owner falls upon hardship and has to sell his team for a loss, should players and employees have to lose money also? Should the Players and Employees provide capital to run the team? Service any debt?

Players get paid based on market worth.

They absolutely don't- the whole salary cap deliberately stops them from getting market worth- there was an article a while back about what guys like Lebron would actually get if it was left up to the market.

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Too bad Herb Kohl was one of the rare exceptions and isn't in the NBA anymore. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall the Bucks being concerned about the luxury tax in years past or on spending big for players. It seems that Kohl wasn't only a good owner but a better man.

He was one of the leaders of the lockout though.

Personally I don't think it should be left to good will- I think players and employees deserve and should get a guranteed share in the money when a team is sold.

If an owner falls upon hardship and has to sell his team for a loss, should players and employees have to lose money also? Should the Players and Employees provide capital to run the team? Service any debt?

Players get paid based on market worth.

They absolutely don't- the whole salary cap deliberately stops them from getting market worth- there was an article a while back about what guys like Lebron would actually get if it was left up to the market.

Yes, your right. Even Jordan didn't get paid his Bulls worth until his last two years. Then Reinsdorf pulled the plug on the dynasty some say prematurely. Why? Dude was losing money. Did anyone ask jordan to take a cut? IF they did, think he would have told them where to go?

The system is not fair to all across the board. At every angle there has to be some compromise.

How can they be losing money when they are posting record profits and have teams selling for $2.1 billion? Let's not also forget that they've stagnated the salaries for their overhead since '99, which leads me to believe that the owners are full of ****. If such a significant portion of the league was losing money, do you really think you'd see such a high demand for people trying to purchase a team? How many years has Larry Ellison been waiting to become a majority owner?

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Too bad Herb Kohl was one of the rare exceptions and isn't in the NBA anymore. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall the Bucks being concerned about the luxury tax in years past or on spending big for players. It seems that Kohl wasn't only a good owner but a better man.

He was one of the leaders of the lockout though.

Personally I don't think it should be left to good will- I think players and employees deserve and should get a guranteed share in the money when a team is sold.

If an owner falls upon hardship and has to sell his team for a loss, should players and employees have to lose money also? Should the Players and Employees provide capital to run the team? Service any debt?

Players get paid based on market worth.

They absolutely don't- the whole salary cap deliberately stops them from getting market worth- there was an article a while back about what guys like Lebron would actually get if it was left up to the market.

Yes, your right. Even Jordan didn't get paid his Bulls worth until his last two years. Then Reinsdorf pulled the plug on the dynasty some say prematurely. Why? Dude was losing money. Did anyone ask jordan to take a cut? IF they did, think he would have told them where to go?

The system is not fair to all across the board. At every angle there has to be some compromise.

How can they be losing money when they are posting record profits and have teams selling for $2.1 billion? Let's not also forget that they've stagnated the salaries for their overhead since '99, which leads me to believe that the owners are full of ****. If such a significant portion of the league was losing money, do you really think you'd see such a high demand for people trying to purchase a team? How many years has Larry Ellison been waiting to become a majority owner?

You think every team always makes money every year?

You understand some leverage their purchase? At the time, Sterling paid $12mil and that was a lot back then relative to revenue. They took the risk.

Owners "own" the game! Is it fair?

Is that the question???

Lets celebrate Kohls generosity than rehash the old conversations. Not all owners are bad people. Maybe others are generous but don't seek publicity.

NBA is a business, not a charity. Players have a % of the game. How much will always be up for debate.

If a profit is more of a crap shoot in the NBA as you say, publicity must be the only incentive they have to own one. So I don't think these guys are by nature, the bleeding heart type. Kohl, after all, was a U.S. senator and I'm sure that owning that team resulted in him having a cache of local businessmen and community leaders tucked into his back pocket.

IMO though, Kohl seems to be a conscientious and respectable man. I've got no qualms with him but I don't think that the owners are sympathetic figures either. For every feel good story by men like Kohl, you get 3 where douchebags like Dolan fire security and concession standworkers to save a few hundred thousand. Let's also not forget that they are from a social class of men that cry poverty because of high taxes but magically find several million, if not several hundred million to buy political candidates and elections.

I agree with you until you go on what I highlighted. Your being very general and forgetting the super rich are also very philanthropic. You'll find good and bad among all classes of people!

Nalod wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Too bad Herb Kohl was one of the rare exceptions and isn't in the NBA anymore. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall the Bucks being concerned about the luxury tax in years past or on spending big for players. It seems that Kohl wasn't only a good owner but a better man.

He was one of the leaders of the lockout though.

Personally I don't think it should be left to good will- I think players and employees deserve and should get a guranteed share in the money when a team is sold.

If an owner falls upon hardship and has to sell his team for a loss, should players and employees have to lose money also? Should the Players and Employees provide capital to run the team? Service any debt?

Players get paid based on market worth.

They absolutely don't- the whole salary cap deliberately stops them from getting market worth- there was an article a while back about what guys like Lebron would actually get if it was left up to the market.

Yes, your right. Even Jordan didn't get paid his Bulls worth until his last two years. Then Reinsdorf pulled the plug on the dynasty some say prematurely. Why? Dude was losing money. Did anyone ask jordan to take a cut? IF they did, think he would have told them where to go?

The system is not fair to all across the board. At every angle there has to be some compromise.

How can they be losing money when they are posting record profits and have teams selling for $2.1 billion? Let's not also forget that they've stagnated the salaries for their overhead since '99, which leads me to believe that the owners are full of ****. If such a significant portion of the league was losing money, do you really think you'd see such a high demand for people trying to purchase a team? How many years has Larry Ellison been waiting to become a majority owner?

You think every team always makes money every year?

You understand some leverage their purchase? At the time, Sterling paid $12mil and that was a lot back then relative to revenue. They took the risk.

Owners "own" the game! Is it fair?

Is that the question???

Lets celebrate Kohls generosity than rehash the old conversations. Not all owners are bad people. Maybe others are generous but don't seek publicity.

NBA is a business, not a charity. Players have a % of the game. How much will always be up for debate.

If a profit is more of a crap shoot in the NBA as you say, publicity must be the only incentive they have to own one. So I don't think these guys are by nature, the bleeding heart type. Kohl, after all, was a U.S. senator and I'm sure that owning that team resulted in him having a cache of local businessmen and community leaders tucked into his back pocket.

IMO though, Kohl seems to be a conscientious and respectable man. I've got no qualms with him but I don't think that the owners are sympathetic figures either. For every feel good story by men like Kohl, you get 3 where douchebags like Dolan fire security and concession standworkers to save a few hundred thousand. Let's also not forget that they are from a social class of men that cry poverty because of high taxes but magically find several million, if not several hundred million to buy political candidates and elections.

I agree with you until you go on what I highlighted. Your being very general and forgetting the super rich are also very philanthropic. You'll find good and bad among all classes of people!

No, all billionaires aren't douchbags but an overwhelming majority seem to be. Even in the NBA, the aggregate sum of their actions seem immoral. 450 players gave 30 men $3 billion in concessions over a decade (7% of shared revenue) and then those 30 men still bitch about being broke at a time where profits are at a record high and overhead is trending downward. Even the so called generous acts of those types are incredibly self-serving and far from the spirit of philanthropy e.g. Carnegie Hall and Rockefeller Center.