Reply With Quote
This.
I don't know about baseball, but with the NFL both numbers are accurate. Players receive 57% (or whatever it is) of revenue described by a formula that gives the owners an expense credit and doesn't count certain things. It basically came out to 48% of total revenue the last few years.
Or at least, that's how I understand it.
This.
#6 is ridiculous. If you're Blake Griffin and you get chosen by the Clippers, not only are you guaranteed below market value your first 4 years, but now you can't leave that worthless franchise that cares much more about getting luxury tax subsidies than winning? Franchise player tags are bull . 4 year indentured servitude is bad enough already.
Here's my idea.
Everyone gets $1,000,000 per year and $500,000 put into some kind of retirement account or deferred annuity. So if you play one year and god forbid you get injured, you still made plenty of money for a year's work. Quit buying cars, houses, and jewelry.
Then the NBA will partner with the U.S. to bomb any countries that pay more than this.
I haven't hammered out all the details yet.
This is the key. In the NFL, the Cowboys and Giants doubtlessly make more than the Chiefs and the Jaguars, but not ridiculously more. (The Jags might be the one team capable of losing money.) I would love to see a graph comparable to the one above for the NFL.
As for the Forbes numbers, it's interesting how only the NBA is howling about how inaccurate they are. Baseball, football, and hockey don't seem to have a problem with them.
Going to wait for the Chuck's Notes version?
The whole small market/big market talk has very few to do with why there is a lockout. It's all about how the money is split between players and owners.
If the NBA want to have a more fair league, they can easily do it. For example, they can split half of the money generated by teams through local TV deals, tickets, merchandising, sponsorship... equally between the 30 teams. They can also put a hard cap at a very high level (like $80M).
Something to wonder is: Is it really good for the NBA to have a more fair league?
For example, the British soccer league is damn unfair with some teams heads and shoulders above others and it's generate tons of money.
Talking about the need of a new CBA to help small market is just PR BS from Stern and Co. That's why they don't want to talk about revenue sharing while negotiating the new CBA.
Well you gotta hold on to something, now, tlong
Too funny
The rookie scale was agreed to by the players under the last CBA. So they are to blame for that. Not really sure I'd call the amount they are making "indentured servitude".
Sounds like you want something like:
#7 A higher rookie scale given that only 2 years at any time would be guaranteed.
All the items I put out are intended to make the teams more compe ive (despite some horrible GMs out there) and profitable league wide. While it may look like a lot of restrictions on salaries, etc, you ultimately have to look at the % that is being given to the players of the gross income. I think that number needs to be much higher than what the owners are saying they need.
Last edited by bluebellmaniac; 07-06-2011 at 06:38 PM.
It's not even close to what Griffin would get on the market.
You're proposing an "either love your team or don't play" solution. That's crazy. If I'm Griffin I'm not throwing away my career in LA for a cheap owner. Of course Sterling will pay him the max deal since:
1. max deals are capped way below market value, especially for players with less than 10 years experience
2. Griffin can singlehandedly put fans in the stands
And then Griffin will never win a le when Sterling decides to let Gordon, Jordan, Kaman, Bledsoe, and Aminu all walk. Why does that sucker Sterling get to bind a hall of fame talent into being a guaranteed meal ticket for him?
Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh
The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.
This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.
I find that Houston Rockets number hard to believe
True. But true for lots of the top talent. Again that's what the players agreed to. So it's not like "the man" is sticking it to the players. It was a bilateral agreement.
I didn't mention anything about love. But you're right, it'd be nicer if the top talent wanted to play for a team. And of course they will play, we're talking max contract. NFL has it, NBA needs it. I proposed 3 players so that small markets can compete... which assumes revenue sharing.
A lot of players don't ever win les. Gervin never won a le. Stockton and Malone never won a le. But yeah, Griffin probably would be a franchise player and he'd have to play for the Clips... at a max contract. Hard to feel sorry for someone playing for a max contract though. He could of course make some noise through his agent and make it known he wants to win a le and that the FO needs to get some support around him.
The minimum team salary could be tightened up, so that the Sterlings of the NBA have less incentive to just throw in the towel after preseason. As for the reason, it's to make more teams compe ive. If it makes all the teams mediocre, then there are too many teams. Contract a couple or four teams. Also, crappy GMs who know nothing about team chemistry or building a quality team will suffer while teams like the Spurs will dominate.
I just hate seeing crappy Owners and GMs overcome their lack of knowledge by throwing $$$ at players. <*cough cough Cuban cough cough*>
I wonder if the Rockets have lucrative broadcast deals with Chinese networks...
College players never agreed to it. The NBA veterans looking to cover their own asses sold out the rookies.
So he's prevented from making what he's worth. So if he can't play for money, then he plays for legacy. Except his legacy is ruined by playing for an owner that doesn't care in the slightest about putting out a winner. And Griffin can make noise to the front office? Who cares? Why is Sterling listening? The only way Griffin can leave the team is by retiring in your scenario. The ability for a star player to walk is the only power he has to make his team get other good players. Don't you remember Tim Duncan signing a 3 year contract (instead of 7) in 2000 to make sure the Spurs put talent around him?A lot of players don't ever win les. Gervin never won a le. Stockton and Malone never won a le. But yeah, Griffin probably would be a franchise player and he'd have to play for the Clips... at a max contract. Hard to feel sorry for someone playing for a max contract though. He could of course make some noise through his agent and make it known he wants to win a le and that the FO needs to get some support around him.
An increase in the minimum salary isn't going to stop Sterling. Unless you make the minimum half the maximum or something ridiculous like that.The minimum team salary could be tightened up, so that the Sterlings of the NBA have less incentive to just throw in the towel after preseason. As for the reason, it's to make more teams compe ive. If it makes all the teams mediocre, then there are too many teams. Contract a couple or four teams. Also, crappy GMs who know nothing about team chemistry or building a quality team will suffer while teams like the Spurs will dominate.
Matthew Yglesias has this right. The owners are playing you for fools. First of all, year-on-year P/L is a single measurement. What about the value of the franchise? Secondly, they can play with the numbers to make it look like they are "losing" money. Third, who says the owners are supposed to make money? They're living a dream life if they have the money to buy a $300+ million franchise. Oh, the horror of having to run an NBA team. Tell you what, give me your ing team and I'll absorb the losses.
Anyone who sides with the owners in this debate are fools.
http://tinyurl.com/43txfl9
Almost All NBA Team Owners Have Made Profitable Investments
By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Michael Wilbon’s curtain raiser on the NBA lockout repeats the sin of looking at the fiscal state of sports-related firms with reference to their annual cash flow:The NBA, meanwhile, has teams losing real money. The league says 22 of 30 are operating in the negative; the players association would surely say it’s fewer than that. Either way, it’s reasonable — if not downright inescapable — to conclude there are NBA teams awash in red ink.Normally when we talk about firm performance we make at least some reference to share prices or other measures of equity value. This is especially true when we’re talking about owners who are, by definition, the people who own the equity. Microsoft is considerably more profitable than Twitter, but someone who bought a large stake in Twitter four years ago is in much better shape than someone who spent an equivalent sum buying a stake in Microsoft. I would say that this is especially the case when it comes to something like these sports teams since the accounting profit or loss can be easily manipulated. For example, the Washington Wizards are owned by the same corporate en y that owns the Verizon Center in which they play. By shifting around the Wizards’ rent payments to the arena you can manipulate the team’s cost structure in arbitrary ways. Similarly, if I owned a profitable team and wanted to make the profits go away I might hire myself and my friends at high salaries. None of this speaks to the actual value of owning the firm. What’s more, a sports team isn’t like a dry cleaning business. Owning and managing a basketball team would be fun. If Ted Leonsis offered to gift me the Wizards with the proviso that the team loses $10,000 a year that would come out of my pocket, I’d leap at the opportunity. Indeed, the number of people who would like to own an NBA franchise far exceeds the number of NBA franchises available. Which is why WR Hambrecht’s comprehensive analysis (PDF) of the financial stake of pro sports teams in the United States confirms the obvious point that NBA teams have a large and positive equity value:
When you think about it, the remarkable thing about pro sports is that it’s possible to make any money at all owning teams. If someone put the New York Knicks up for auction under the condition that any profits the team makes will be annually stacked up in Madison Square Park (former home of the Garden!) and lit on fire, I would expect to see a large number of bids by consortia of wealthy NYC-area basketball fans. Under the cir stances, it’s interesting that in recent years the vast majority of NBA owners have actually been making profitable capital investments:
It’s particularly worth noting that several of the teams who’ve lost the most franchise value have been fairly catastrophically mismanaged (I’m looking at you Minnesota), which is hardly the NBAPA’s fault. All things considered, the vast majority of the owners have nothing to complain about in terms of their financial fortunes over the past few years (years that have been unkind to the finances of many Americans!) and among the minority who may have “lost money” in some real sense, most primarily have themselves to blame and all are in possession of valuable financial assets. Even the lowly Memphis Grizzlies are estimated to be worth $266 million.
[UPDATE] Here’s a very useful post from Deadspin about how profits can turn into losses via the magic of accounting. There’s not even anything particularly dishonest about this. There’s a reason that accounting is a profession. You can’t just look at a firm in terms of naive cash flow, but once you go beyond that deciding what is and isn’t profitable gets complicated. The question “how much would I have to pay to take this team off your hands,” by contrast, admits of a fairly unambiguous interpretation.
Bruno, you know about the game. But the business side... not so much. And in case you didn't notice, you even contradicted yourself when you say that they can solve the problem by splitting half the money generated by TV, etc. equally between the 30 teams. What you're saying is that the problem is the split between the owners themselves - not the split between the owners and the players. And that's exactly right. The talking point is the split between the owners and the players... but the real issue is the split between owners.
The problem with your solution is that the big market teams don't want to split their revenues with the smaller-income teams. And those teams carry much more weight in the negotiations, precisely because of who they are. Soooo... the money needed to make the small market teams profitable has to come from somewhere else. It's EXACTLY a big market/small market issue.
And on the other side, who do you think is drawing the bright line around 5-6 year contracts, max salaries, franchise designations, etc.? Do you think it's the average players? Of course not - it's the superstar players who stand to cash in. Some of those points could be negotiable with the majority of the players, which could help end the lockout. But there are a few players at the top who will make sure that won't happen. It's the exact same situation as the one among the owners. And if you don't see that, it's because you don't want to.
To give some perspective, the Lakers had 3 players who accounted for 66% of their payroll. (Call it an average of 22% of payroll each, to make things easy.) That means that 11 other players shared the remaining 33% of their payroll - an average of 3% each. Do you think those other 11 guys really give a about whether Kobe might get a "franchise" designation? Do you really believe they would give up next season, and a year's salary, to protect his fat contract? Not a ing chance. But Kobe has more leverage in the discussions than all of those guys put together.
The talking points are one thing. But the sticking points are all about big market/small market and superstar/average players. And it's almost the EXACT same split in each group. 80% of the owners, and 80% of the players could get together and hammer out an agreement. But the 20% in both camps aren't about to give up their fat shares of the pies.
BTW Bruno - since you're such a big fan of redistribution, and want the big owners to give up part of their profits to the smaller owners. Why aren't you also suggesting that the superstar players should be giving up a share of their salaries and endorsements to their lower-paid union brothers? After all - if it is unfair for some owners to make more money because they happen to be in a bigger market, isn't it also unfair that some players make more because they happen to play in a bigger market?
One thing bother me I don't know if the league really lose money.Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh
The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.
This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.
But if you look at Dallas figures, it illustrate a huge bias in the numbers interpretation.
With the Mavs, Cuban wanted to buy a le not to make profit. How much an NBA le worth?
Orlando Magic? Owner Richard Devos. Net Worth $4.3 billion (Forbes)
Play the NBA finals in 2009.
New Jersey Net: Owner Prokhorov. Net Worth $13.4 billion (Forbes)
Made it clear he wants to build a team to contend.
With a hard cap, would all these guy still drop money in NBA teams?
They would have much less leverage on their team result and no guarantee to achieve anything. What would be the impact on the teams worth?
I don't know much about business in the NBA so I would be glad if someone can enlighten me.
I already replied to this. THE PLAYERS ALREADY DID THIS IN 1999.
Those sucker owners.
You know, screw the whole draft. They should just let Griffin pick his own damn team.
I guarantee if griffin picked his team
he would not pick hill to be his point guard
Strawman from a dip . I called Sterling a sucker owner.
You obviously have strong feelings about this, Shoog, because that's the most ignorant thing I've ever read from you. Show me 1 bit of evidence that any player ever shared his endorsement money with any other player. (Not donations to something like Mutombo's charity. You know what I mean.)
The point was that Bruno wants the big market owners to give part of their outsized profits to the owners of small market teams. Why shouldn't the same apply to the players? We all know that players earn MUCH more money in endorsements when they play in big markets vs. small markets. I think they should be forced into revenue sharing deals, just like the owners.
The logic for both is exactly the same. You will get pissed off about it because you obviously feel like all owners are s , and all players are somehow "good".
And, no. Whatever spin you want to put on 1999, it had nothing to do with equalizing the inequities between big and small market salaries. I'm just intrigued with people who are willing to casually take money from one owner to give to others - but can't even think about taking money from one player to give to others. They obviously don't believe that the people responsible for the structure of the league contribute anything of value. And that says it's about ideology, and not facts and logic.
ENDORSEMENT MONEY????
ENDORSEMENT MONEY????????????????????????????????????
And I'm the ignorant one, huh? It's obvious why you didn't answer the first time, if that's your argument.
The players have done infinitely more than the owners have to level the money from the top earners to the middle earners. (Of course, that's not saying much because the owners have done absolutely nothing.)
Since you seem to be allergic to facts, here're some more:
In 2000, Tim Duncan earned $3.9 million in the last year of his first contract. Shaquille O'Neal earned $17.1 million that same year.
Without the new CBA and player salary, what would be a reasonable guess as to what Tim Duncan would have gotten with his new contract? Answer: whatever Shaq earned.
Instead, in 2001 Duncan earned $9.6 million, while Shaq got $19.2 million.
So who do you think got Duncan's other $9.6 million? Answer: someone not at the top.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
