GSH
07-11-2011, 12:22 PM
Two good articles on the lockout, that are worth reading. The first was on nba.com http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/07/07/new-york-times-labor-dispute-wrapup/index.html
A quick summary of some of the points of that article (with commentary):
Last Tuesday, a blogger for the N.Y. Times wrote an article stating that the NBA really made a profit of $183M last season, rather than the loss of $340M claimed by the owners. He based his conclusions, largely, on estimated financial numbers compiled by Forbes over the last decade or so. The article got picked up by the tinfoil hat crowd, who accepted it as authoritative, because it confirmed what they want to believe.
That article has since been discredited - but you won't see a retraction from the N.Y. Times, or the blogger. Instead, in response to being discredited, the blogger simply bitched that the NBA does not give their financial information to people like him. Presumably that justifies using meaningless estimates, and fabricating the rest.
You also won't hear any of the tinfoil hat people saying, "Gee... I guess the facts just weren't there to support that article." In fact, if you read most sports forums or blogs, you will find the myths from that article being regurgitated over and over. They continue to insist that the league is "hiding" profits - not only from the union, but from their audit firms, and the IRS. Maybe they believe that the IRS is in on the deception, I don't know. The conspiracy net just keeps getting wider and wider.
If you aren't sure who to believe, consider this: the league has turned over all of the audited financial statements, as well as federal and state income tax returns, to the players' union. You will note that the players union hasn't leaked any of the audited financial data to the press. They haven't come forward and said, "See? We told you the owners were really raking in the profits." Why do you think that is? And please, don't anyone suggest that it is because they "aren't supposed to reveal any information". Even the White House and the CIA can't prevent leaks. You can bet that if it was to their advantage, the union would find a way to make the information known publicly. They haven't done so. It's probably safe to say that the league didn't make $183M last season, like the Times article claimed.
Since you, the reader, are part of the jury in the court of public opinion, it's probably worthwhile to hear from both sides.
-----------------------
The second article is by Ken Berger, exploring ways to end the lockout. http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15301853/nfl-provides-model-for-nba-to-repair-dysfunctional-cap It's worth reading the whole article, but there are a couple of paragraphs that I especially liked. One states what should be obvious - you either have a cap or you don't. A "soft cap" is no cap at all, and a "flex cap" is still a hard cap. The second details perfectly what is wrong with the idea that "no one is forcing the owners to overpay players."
The players want to maintain a soft cap with a plethora of exceptions that allow teams to exceed it. The owners have proposed what they call a "flex cap" with a $62 million midpoint and undefined upper and lower limits. Any salary system with an upper limit is, by definition, a hard cap. And by the same logic, any cap that can be exceeded isn't a cap at all. I am with the players (and the agents) when they point out that nothing in the current system forces owners to overpay players with multiyear guarantees and the like. The problem is, the tools currently at management's disposal aren't giving low-revenue teams a chance.
Often, the teams that are in the worst shape are the ones in the middle -- not the five highest-paying or the eight lowest-paying, but the 17 teams in no-man's land. Those teams -- like Portland, Houston and Atlanta, all of which will pay luxury tax for this past season -- have an untenable choice: Spend beyond their means, lose money and create the illusion that they are competing for a championship; or make like Sacramento and Minnesota (i.e. spend the bare minimum and have really entertaining halftime shows with Frisbee-catching dogs).
A quick summary of some of the points of that article (with commentary):
Last Tuesday, a blogger for the N.Y. Times wrote an article stating that the NBA really made a profit of $183M last season, rather than the loss of $340M claimed by the owners. He based his conclusions, largely, on estimated financial numbers compiled by Forbes over the last decade or so. The article got picked up by the tinfoil hat crowd, who accepted it as authoritative, because it confirmed what they want to believe.
That article has since been discredited - but you won't see a retraction from the N.Y. Times, or the blogger. Instead, in response to being discredited, the blogger simply bitched that the NBA does not give their financial information to people like him. Presumably that justifies using meaningless estimates, and fabricating the rest.
You also won't hear any of the tinfoil hat people saying, "Gee... I guess the facts just weren't there to support that article." In fact, if you read most sports forums or blogs, you will find the myths from that article being regurgitated over and over. They continue to insist that the league is "hiding" profits - not only from the union, but from their audit firms, and the IRS. Maybe they believe that the IRS is in on the deception, I don't know. The conspiracy net just keeps getting wider and wider.
If you aren't sure who to believe, consider this: the league has turned over all of the audited financial statements, as well as federal and state income tax returns, to the players' union. You will note that the players union hasn't leaked any of the audited financial data to the press. They haven't come forward and said, "See? We told you the owners were really raking in the profits." Why do you think that is? And please, don't anyone suggest that it is because they "aren't supposed to reveal any information". Even the White House and the CIA can't prevent leaks. You can bet that if it was to their advantage, the union would find a way to make the information known publicly. They haven't done so. It's probably safe to say that the league didn't make $183M last season, like the Times article claimed.
Since you, the reader, are part of the jury in the court of public opinion, it's probably worthwhile to hear from both sides.
-----------------------
The second article is by Ken Berger, exploring ways to end the lockout. http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15301853/nfl-provides-model-for-nba-to-repair-dysfunctional-cap It's worth reading the whole article, but there are a couple of paragraphs that I especially liked. One states what should be obvious - you either have a cap or you don't. A "soft cap" is no cap at all, and a "flex cap" is still a hard cap. The second details perfectly what is wrong with the idea that "no one is forcing the owners to overpay players."
The players want to maintain a soft cap with a plethora of exceptions that allow teams to exceed it. The owners have proposed what they call a "flex cap" with a $62 million midpoint and undefined upper and lower limits. Any salary system with an upper limit is, by definition, a hard cap. And by the same logic, any cap that can be exceeded isn't a cap at all. I am with the players (and the agents) when they point out that nothing in the current system forces owners to overpay players with multiyear guarantees and the like. The problem is, the tools currently at management's disposal aren't giving low-revenue teams a chance.
Often, the teams that are in the worst shape are the ones in the middle -- not the five highest-paying or the eight lowest-paying, but the 17 teams in no-man's land. Those teams -- like Portland, Houston and Atlanta, all of which will pay luxury tax for this past season -- have an untenable choice: Spend beyond their means, lose money and create the illusion that they are competing for a championship; or make like Sacramento and Minnesota (i.e. spend the bare minimum and have really entertaining halftime shows with Frisbee-catching dogs).