Well, it works in Europe where a lot of sport leagues generate tons of money while they have a huge disparity between the level of theirs teams. I'm saying that there should have a huge disparity between NBA teams but a league can work well with teams not having the same level.
Lakers have signed a $3B TV contract over 20 years. Buss giving that money to teams like Spurs to make a more fair league while a more fair league will generate less money is crazy.
Like it or not but the NBA needs to have great team playing in the biggest market to be successful if it want to generate as much money as possible.
I'm not looking at what is the best for a fan or what is the more fair, I'm looking at what is the most efficient business wise.
Business wise, having devoted fanbase in small markets brings little. Just look at the Spurs: a lot of success and a devoted fanbase, are Spurs generating a lot of money? I don't think so.
Bruno knows what's up. You can't compare two sports, it's apples and oranges.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...urday-14645107
Players' association vice president Maurice Evans said things were "going pretty good" as he left the meetings to catch a flight.
doesn't it seem like the reverse for Buss and the Spurs is also true? Unless I'm mistaken about which monies are counted towards BRI . . . How fair is it for a small market team like the Spurs or the Bucks to have Laker and Knick tv deals blowing up the BRI disproportionately?
Now because of that LA and NY money into the pool the Spurs and small market teams have to pay up more of their smaller revenues to meet the % guaranteed to the players. Thanks to that NY and LA money the cap is higher, the floor is higher, everything if higher but the small market teams have to foot their share of the bill while getting none of the food on the table.
looks like EDIT "'some closing of gaps but remember how large gaps were to begin with'" per tweets about what Bonner has to say. No meeting tomorrow.
This case is getting CLOSED, goodbye full 11/12 season.
per tweets
Fisher : "still huge gaps."
Union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler: No discussion of BRI today, just system. Back at it Monday in small groups.
Larry Coon : "With insufficient progress today & no meeting tomorrow, I think we pretty much lost what little chance there was of starting season 11/1."
Wrap it up folks, this season is looking finished.
The two go hand in hand. A bad NBA matchup is much more lopsided than a bad NFL matchup. The NBA cultivates much more hype on individuals and big market teams. They make their own bed and suck in it.
The NBA had a great year compared to itself not to anyone else. The NFL develops similar hype with the actions of Philadelphia and make nearly twice as much. Fact is that the MLB, NBA model of income disparity has looked like compared to the egalitarian approach of the NFL.
You have no empirical basis whatsoever.
What's the point of having these long, outstretched meetings if there always gonna come out saying, "We're still far apart,"? Waste of time.
Yes the Spurs (and other small markets) aren't generating enough income. But the NFL is profitable even in small markets because of overall popularity. So Jacksonville, Tennessee, Minnesota, Carolina, Buffalo etc all make money. Whereas most small-market NBA teams will not become profitable if all they can do is throw money at second-tier stars to make the 2nd round of the playoffs once every 4 years.
That's a good point but while local TV revenues aren't shared, national TV revenues are. When you see how much they are on national Tv and their ratings, Lakers surely deserve a bigger share of the money than teams like Bucks or Bobcats.
Most of the small market teams spend too a lot more than the minimum team salary (75% of the cap). Even if big market teams push them to spend more, they aren't cornered to the point of spending as little money as the CBA allowed it.
For the future, I'm convinced that the natural way to solve this small market dilemma would be to move these teams to Europe.
Andfor the results of today's meeting.
Could we have a season, please?
It just sucks that both parties know their acceptable limits but the owner's (even though they have an idea of what is fair and what they are willing to do) have the leverage and no real need to rush in and make the deal. They can withstand this longer than the players and even though reaching a deal should be relatively simple and obtainable, there is no need for it besides the fact both sides just wanting to reach a fair compromise.
Its funny you bring up Europe. Lets look at the top sports franchises in the world.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45...chester-united
Sure enough Manchester United is tops with Arsenal, Chelsea and Real Madrid sprinkled throughout. Funny thing is that every NFL team is on that list.
So you can have a handful of teams have success in an completely free market environment such as you see in European soccer. No drafts and the like there btw. Or you can have universal success of the NFL.
Monopolization of a market is not a good thing. Maybe they don't teach that in France but they sure as do here.
Actually, the disparity of Euro soccer has really been draining and killing the actual sport. Soccer specifically, you have the top two leagues in Europe, Spain and England (lol Italy), are basically a two, three at most, pony race right now.
In Spain, half of the teams are broke and it's the exact same problem: Madrid and Barça get the bulk of the TV contract and little teams get pennies. I'm sure Madrid and Barça are maximizing revenue, but they're killing the league in the process.
Add up the top teams joining forces to destabilize FIFA so they don't have to lend players to National Teams and at some point fans are just going to have enough and tune them out.
If NBA owners had their way, 3/4 of that French team that just qualified for the Olympics wouldn't have played. I'm pretty sure that players didn't make much money on that, but I'm also pretty sure French fans are pretty happy that they were able to play and represent the country like they did. And that's the sport right there. It can't be always about maximizing revenue.
Boo whooo the owners are smart with their money...
(but i agree interest on debt is not the players problem)
Patrick Ewing said "Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too."
Latrell Sprewell
Look up the word “shortsighted” in the dictionary and you will see a picture of Latrell Sprewell. He famously turned down a $21 million contract because he said it wasn’t enough money to feed his family. Sprewell, who made over $96 million during his career, lost his $1.5 million dollar Italian yacht, named “Milwaukee’s Best”, in 2007. According to MSNBC, a U.S. marshal seized the yacht after Sprewell defaulted on his mortgage. His $5.4 million house went into foreclosure in May 2008. Don’t blame Sprewell for turning down the three-year, $21 million contract though. I mean really, who could live off a measly $7 million a year?
Kenny Anderson
Ringing up nearly $41,000 in monthly expenses, including child support to eight kids and his mother’s house payment, former NBA guard Kenny Anderson filed for bankruptcy in October 2005. How did his estimated $60 million dwindle to nothing? Easy. He kept 8 cars in the garage of his five-bedroom Beverly Hills home. He gave himself a monthly allowance of $10,000 that he dubbed “hanging out money.” He regularly handed out $3,000 to $5,000 to friends and relatives. Finally, he lost $5.8 million in a prenup agreement. Anderson, it seems, could not hold a dollar if it was taped to his forehead.
Scotty Pippen
Pippen unsuccessfully sued his former law firm for losing $27 million of his money through poor investments. (He had earned about $110 million in salary alone over a 17-year career.) In February 2007—around the same time as Pippen’s failed NBA comeback attempt—the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the player owed U.S. Bank more than $5 million in principal, interest and attorneys’ fees from a dispute regarding a Grumman Gulfstream II corporate jet that he’d purchased in 2001. Speculation has been that Pippen cannot withstand the lawsuits financially and needs to play again to make his bills.
Agents issue warning letter to clients
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/70...nts-joint-memo
A little Spurs-related Lockout News, albeit from a fan perspective:
NBA lockout won’t speed Tim Duncan’s retirement: Fan’s take
By Lisa Mason, Yahoo! Contributor Network 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
It's the worst-case scenario for San Antonio— this NBA lockout swallows all of the 2011-2012 basketball season and then star Tim Duncan(notes) retires. It's been said and said before, but will it happen?
While no one can say for certain (except Duncan himself and perhaps his agent), it doesn't look like this will happen, at least not anytime soon. Duncan's contract is set to expire after this season and many have questioned time and time again if he will retire at the end of the contract.
While most would deem it perfectly acceptable for Duncan to accept retirement after the many great years he has put in, Spurs fans are not eager to see him go, especially when the team still so desperately needs its aging stars.
If Duncan resigns after this contract ends, he will be 36 years old. This is not old at all by normal standards but in the pro basketball world, he is getting on up there.
The topic was brought up back in May and Coach Pop said he didn't think such a thing would happen. He offered his opinion that Duncan had most certainly not played his last game in a Spurs uniform and that he would be back for future seasons.
But Pop isn't the only one convinced that Duncan isn't going anywhere just yet. His point guard for the past 10 seasons, Tony Parker(notes) said at a basketball clinic in San Antonio on Saturday, October 1st that he doesn't think Duncan will be retiring so soon either.
"I don't know. I don't think so," Parker said. "I see myself playing at least two or three more seasons with Timmy."
That's good news from Parker for Spurs fans and while it's definitely unofficial news, it's good nonetheless.
More good news from Parker is that he believes the NBA will be back in action soon, despite much of the doom and gloom talk coming from others in regards to the labor talks and the NBA lockout. Perhaps Parker was just feeling a little extra peppy this Saturday or maybe, just maybe, his predictions will be right and we'll all get to witness some great basketball soon!
Lisa is a youth basketball coach, resident of Texas and long-time fan of the San Antonio Spurs and Silver Stars.
Looks like tomorrow will be the huge day and the last realistic day to have full regular season. If they can't find or at least be close to an agreement, the lockout will be long and ugly like in 98-99.
The players are so screwed.
This only ends early if the players cave and they don't look ready to do that right now. It looks like we're headed to long and ugly.
Good luck with that:
Stern and owners main argument for seeking huge paycut form players is that they have lost tons of money every year since they agreed to the last CBA in 2005.The agents also suggest to their clients in the letter that they demand to see the complete financial records of the owners over the past six seasons -- the period covered by the last labor pact, which was essentially an extension of the one negotiated in 1999 -- including their "related en ies (such as regional sports networks and arenas)."
An immediate question pop up:
Why owners have agreed so easily to such an awful CBA in 2005 ?
There are only 2 answers:
1) Owners are the worst bunch of businessmen of the world.
2) Owners are flat out lying when claiming such big losses. these are just accounting figures.
I'm going with 2). I'm' sure owners aren't fine with people looking to closely at their numbers. They played the clock with the NBAPA by giving them only partial numbers and only very late in the negotiating process. If NRLB has had access to all the numbers, owners will be screwed when this process will come to an end.
Well players wants 53/47 and owners 46/54 of the BRI for the players. I can see owners offering 50/50 pretending they do that to save the season. In fact, a 50/50 split would be a great victory for owners with players cutting their salary by 12.3%. And a 50/50 split without an official hard cap would look good enough to be voted by the players.
Good for the players for refusing to accept less than 53% of what could be 75% of of former revenue after revenue plummets due to fan and sponsor backlash after at least half a season is lost.
I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...
They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.
And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous: it may dilute the talent pool for a while, but other people can learn to play and be stars in basketball. It's not like these guys are the only people capable of learning how to throw an orange ball in a basket, especially if they spend their working-lives training to do it. And I'm also pretty sure people would rather have a diluted season than no season at all.
I understand this whole "standing unified" is part of the negotiating deal, but if they want to drive that bus straight off a cliff, then that will be their folly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
