Actually, there are some good, reasonable owners who would actually negotiate a deal. Their just aren't enough of them to control the cartel. Right now, the inmates are running the asylum, and will be at least until the season is lost.
Dude, you're just making yourself look worse every day. The NBA is SO far away from being a free market, it isn't even funny. It's an exclusive cartel of owners who are given a special anti-trust exemption ONLY if they allow the players to organize and collectively bargain. Any kind of salary cap, soft or hard, is also anti-free market.
You might find it hard to believe, but owners aren't that hard to find. With the exception being, perhaps, New Orleans, you're not going to be short of people out there willing to buy an NBA team.
On the other hand, there's no league without the star players. The owners can be replaced. The star players simply cannot.
There won't be an NBA without the top players. It would be called the NBDL and there would be no TV deals, etc.
The players have every right because they're the actual product, and they're the only thing that's unique here. I also dispute the notion that if there would have been no NBA, a guy like Kobe wouldn't have become a multimillionaire playing basketball, say, in Europe. He probably wouldn't have as much money, but he certainly would've earned a good share.
As a matter of fact, if it wouldn't have been because of Kareen, Magic, Phil Jackson, Kobe, Shaq, etc, the Lakers wouldn't be valued what they're valued, and Buss wouldn't be worth as much as he's worth.
Disagree. I think the owners have an important role, but there's no league without the players.
It would be unacceptable for the players because the financial numbers don't bear it out. This is a league that is (or was) in the upswing. And this is a deal for the next 10 years.
You forget that's not the players that make the veiled treats. It's a lockout, not a strike. The only people here threatening to cancel the season is the owners, since they're the only ones that can make that decision.
I realize that you're severely confused about the financials of the league. I also understand that there's more than one solution to this than just putting it all on the player's back. I have no concerns about the Spurs never being profitable again or relocating, because I understand that's not possible with what the union has offered, plus some other revenue sharing propositions that the owners need to work out on their own.
You have a talent for understatement.
Wow...do you know how to read? Do you have the capacity to think critically?Once again, the facts don't support your assertions. They're all here if actually care:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/
So, let's recap how you've moved the goalposts:
1. First, it was that teams couldn't compete financially. Shot down
2. Then it was that such teams hadn't competed for a pennant recently. Shot down twice.
3. Then it was that such teams, even when they succeeded, would still be likely candidates for relocation because they couldn't keep star players. Shot down.
4. Now you've moved the goalposts even further. Now teams must be able to compete for championships every year.
Hard to believe you actually typed that with a straight face.
Here we go:
1. Just go to Google and type "Tampa Bay Rays". There you'll find numerous articles do enting the financial problems they're having which is making it difficult for them to compete for players.
2. Again, just read my responses. It's very clear. I assume you speak and read in English. It's not unusual for a small market team to compete with shrewd scouting and player development but once they become free agents they can't sign them to long term deals. Evidence is the 2009 Tampa Bay Rays who were unable to keep multiple all stars from a team that just won the pennant in 2008. Can you imagine the outrage in SA if the Spurs drafted good players and found free agent diamonds only to lose them in a couple of years because they were outbid by the Lakers and Mavericks?
3. See #2 above.
4. Nope. My responses...when read for their plain and ordinary meaning...are straight through the uprights for you.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Questions I would pose to you. Along with the many you have yet to answer.
Wow...just pure delusion. I don't want to know what's in that Kool Aid you're drinking. It never occurred to me that a 50/50 BRI split was "putting it all on the players' backs". Whew!!
So tell me what some of these "other solutions" are that you know about. I'm waiting in bated breath. Trust me, if there were other solutions they would've been explored by now. Let me guess...increased ticket prices for everybody...that way the average family can no longer afford to attend any games. Let's see...how about fewer games on free TV!...that way we have to use pay per view to watch Spurs regular season games or a higher cable bill from Time Warner...or, how about higher prices for concessions like $10 for a beer and $7 for a pretzel. Yeah, I get it...go put it on the backs of the fans!!! The players, you know, they can't give back too much. They're en led to 53%...they're doing the league and its fans a FAVOR by only stealing 53%.
You see how ridiculous you appear?
If the players and owners agree to just split the baby and get this overwith then fans won't be hurt in the process. However, the players really aren't even thinking about the casual fan. They don't care at all. Owners are willing to sit out the whole season because there's no way they can go back and ask fans to yet again pay more out of pocket. Not in this economy.
Good luck to you, my brother. I hope you're prepared to not have basketball this season which would have possibly been Tim Duncan's last season in SA. He's a free agent after this season. If the players get what they want out of this deal, we won't be able to afford to re-sign Tim. Thanks for nothing NBAPA!!
Greedy bas s! Just accept the 50/50 deal and let's play some basketball!!
Don't get me started on the free market BS the players are trying to put out. Neither the players nor the owners want a pure free market. Each side is looking for guarantees and protections from certain risks that are inherent in the free market. If they want guarantees and protections then they need to be prepared to give up a lot of the potential rewards that a free market offers.
I'm all for a pure free market. My CBA would be no salary cap and all contracts non-guaranteed. You get paid to perform. If you can't perform you get let go. End of discussion. If you perform lights out, you get paid big time!
Players want guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed percentage of revenue. That ain't part of a free market.
What's the point of a contract that can be broken at will by the owner? If you want non-guaranteed deals be prepared to see players constantly holding out.
Oh, my. You really don't see it, do you? Your pure free market is not a free market.
Is that all you have? delusion and Kool Aid?
It's real easy to see why 50/50 is putting it all on the players back: At $38.17 million per BRI point, going 50/50 means the money swing is $267.19 million (7*$38.17). For a league that has audited losses of $300 millions, that mean the players would be covering 89% of the losses with the 50/50 split.
How's that not putting it all on the player's back? Do you need to borrow a calculator?
I presented some here. You probably didn't bother to read. I suggested a 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio increase in the luxury tax, coupled with an improved revenue sharing. The NBA has a terrible revenue sharing model, much worse than the NFL or even the MLB. This is something that will need to be done regardless of what the BRI split is going to be.
And owners will need to cut down in some expenses. Players are aware of the economic situation and have agreed to take a pay cut. Owners should also tighten up their expenses. A 4% reduction in their expenses from last season would cover the other $150 million, and put the league on the black again.
I never said any of that. Who's ridiculous?
Here you go again pretending it's the players locking out the league. One more time, this isn't a strike, it's a lockout. If there are no games right now, it has everything to do with the owners locking out the players, not the other way around.
Do you understand the difference between a lockout and a strike, right?
So you're telling me that the owners don't give a about the casual fan either... well, we all knew that.
I've no skin in this labor fight. I'm not an owner nor a player, and I try to view this from that angle. I understand both owners and players are fighting for what their think it's fair.
As a fan, I would rather watch basketball, but I'm fully aware there might not be a season. It's just basketball, entertainment. There's plenty of other sources of that out there.
I think Tim should just retire, tbh... but he's earned the right to do whatever he wants to do.
For Birn's 'free market basketball' to actually be free market, it would mean that the players could play for anybody, not just the current 30 teams. That means they could play for Rosie O'Donnell, if she suddenly started a team in St. Sault Marie or George Clooney if he decided to rent out Madison Square Garden every day there's not a Knick game, hire up Kobe Bryant and LeBron James away from their teams to play whenever they're not playing for their respective teams, and play against high school teams or Euroleague teams or whoever the they wanted.
But no. Birn's idea of a free market is just a market where labor has no rights and continually has to prove itself in order to gain any sort of self-sustaining stability.
That is, Birn's idea of a 'free market' is far from a free market. And like most free market Mouseketeers, he uses the phrase as a way of supporting owners over labor. And, in this case, supporting the NBA ownership over the players he purports to love.
Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.
Forget about the Spurs being compe ive, in Birn's idea of a free market the Spurs wouldn't exist, period.
That's actually not true. You should start by reading up the federal FMLA for starters.
And if my resume were sufficiently impressive, I could negotiate a multi-year, guaranteed contract.
I swear it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Said it about 3 pages ago:
Silly Marxist! The free market is inherent with risks and in order to participate and reap the rewards that it offers you must be man enough to accept the risks that are presented and work your ass off to perform. That's a beautiful thing my brother. Everyone that owns a business entered into that business with no guarantee of success.
Socialism is not the answer, my brother.
Birn, I think I'm going to ignore you. You don't really understand the issue. You keep using terms that you don't understand, the least of which is 'Marxist' and 'socialism', much less this canard of a free market. I think you're either a troll or somebody who needs to step back and start learning a bit more about economics, business, and labor relations, because otherwise you're basically demanding everyone listen to your discussions about the care and feeding of unicorns. It's not worth it and you're clearly not listening to anybody.
Not contracted labor. You are pretty ignorant across the board. Its about time to just mock you.
FMLA relates to medical conditions that prevent you from performing your job. I'm talking about just simply unable or unwilling to perform the essential functions of your job.
Emphasis mine, tbh
Whatever, Marxy. Don't feel bad...I've out-debated much smarter people than you.
Cheers!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
