The NBA isn't losing money: required lockout reading

[GSH]

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.)

No, Shoog, you aren't ignorant. That's why it surprised me. (And if you read my original post, it says "endorsement money". You just chose to ignore that part, and change the subject.) Yes. Tim left money on the table to give the Spurs room to get some supporting players. But you know that's the exception and not the rule in the NBA. Tim is an exceptional player, and the Spurs are an exceptional franchise. It's why we're both fans.

Try and settle down for a second, and listen to what I'm saying, instead of just reacting. I've said in virtually every thread that one of the biggest roadblocks is that the big market owners are making a windfall, and don't want any kind of meaningful revenue sharing. Check my posts, and you'll see that's true.

My beef is people who only see things one way: the big, bad, rich owners are 100% evil, and the players are 100% good. And the owners (and the league) provide virtually nothing of value. That's baby food.

I'll repeat the point once again. It intrigues me how some people are so casual about big market owners giving up part of their money to give to other owners. Money that they receive simply because they happen to be in a big media market. BUT... there are a lot of players who also receive incredible millions of dollars simply because they are in a big media market. Nobody ever even considers the possibility of having THEM share their windfall profits.

Why are (some) peoples' expectations for rich owners so different than for rich players? They say that it is the players that make the league, and that the owners don't want to give them their share. But LeBron earns $30 million per year on endorsements alone. Don't the same players contribute to his success? Could LeBron be great without them?

The NBA's total revenues are just shy of $4 billion. Nike's yearly revenues are over $19 billion. Maybe Nike should be required to put some of their profits into a pool for all the players? After all, they owe a lot of their success to the same players that the NBA owners are supposedly exploiting.

When you hear those things (the players or Nike sharing their profits), you immediately think they are silly. But do you think maybe the big market owners feel the same way about giving away money directly off their bottom line profits? I expect they feel like that money belongs to them... just like the players do, and just like Nike does. And just like YOU would if it was your money.

The real point is, it's not that simple and it's not that one-sided. And the more money at stake, the harder people try to hang onto it. It's human nature. And it's the reason the negotiations are going slowly.

[ShoogarBear]

No, Shoog, you aren't ignorant. That's why it surprised me. (And if you read my original post, it says "endorsement money". You just chose to ignore that part, and change the subject.)

Uh, wrong. Here is your original post, in its entirely. You talk only about contracts and salaries. Endorsements were at first a single word in one post, and now all of a sudden they are the major feature of your argument, because the argument about salaries was going nowhere.

Some of what the article says is correct, and some of it is bull . Either based on conjecture, or simply intentionally misleading. Typical of the NY Times. It does underscore one point that is absolutely true, but it only tells half of the story. The major roadblocks in the process now are 100% due to the fact that the league is controlled by the big market teams AND the superstar players.

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

But what the article doesn't mention is that the superstar players also have different interests than the second-tier players, which is having a big impact on the part of the negotiations involving contracts. And, once again, it's the players at the top who have all the leverage.

The article really pisses me off, though, when it talks about 17 of 30 NBA teams losing money like that is no big deal. And comparing that to baseball at a time when almost one-third of those teams were losing money. The difference is so stark, it's stupid to even think about comparing the two situations. I don't think the reporter is that stupid - they're being intentionally misleading. Which, to me, says they have an agenda. I don't have much patience for reporters with agendas.

You don't have to be a reporter to figure out that 17 of 30 teams are losing money, 6-7 teams are doing all right, and another 6-7 are making a ridiculous load of money. And you don't have to be a reporter to figure out that the players' salaries are similarly top-loaded. Any solution that doesn't address those problems is flawed before it ever gets started. But the people with the biggest sticks don't want things any other way.

Yes. Tim left money on the table to give the Spurs room to get some supporting players. But you know that's the exception and not the rule in the NBA. Tim is an exceptional player, and the Spurs are an exceptional franchise. It's why we're both fans.

You really don't get it, do you? Tim didn't leave money on the table in 2001 to get the Spurs supporting players. He left money on the table because he was REQUIRED TO BY THE NEW CBA.

Try and settle down for a second, and listen to what I'm saying, instead of just reacting. I've said in virtually every thread that one of the biggest roadblocks is that the big market owners are making a windfall, and don't want any kind of meaningful revenue sharing. Check my posts, and you'll see that's true.

My beef is people who only see things one way: the big, bad, rich owners are 100% evil, and the players are 100% good. And the owners (and the league) provide virtually nothing of value. That's baby food.

That's now the second time you've said that. Link? Maybe you should respond to what's actually being written instead of imaginary bogeymen.

Why are (some) peoples' expectations for rich owners so different than for rich players? They say that it is the players that make the league, and that the owners don't want to give them their share. But LeBron earns $30 million per year on endorsements alone. Don't the same players contribute to his success? Could LeBron be great without them?

The NBA's total revenues are just shy of $4 billion. Nike's yearly revenues are over $19 billion. Maybe Nike should be required to put some of their profits into a pool for all the players? After all, they owe a lot of their success to the same players that the NBA owners are supposedly exploiting.

When you hear those things (the players or Nike sharing their profits), you immediately think they are silly. But do you think maybe the big market owners feel the same way about giving away money directly off their bottom line profits? I expect they feel like that money belongs to them... just like the players do, and just like Nike does. And just like YOU would if it was your money.

The real point is, it's not that simple and it's not that one-sided. And the more money at stake, the harder people try to hang onto it. It's human nature. And it's the reason the negotiations are going slowly.

Individual endorsements are not covered by the CBA. I can't think of a single precedent where earnings outside of league revenues are included in a collective bargaining agreement. It's probably illegal, and it's certainly illogical. What if a player has a chain of car dealerships, should that be included? Should the NBA players look at earnings that the owners make outside of league revenues, too?

[GSH]

Uh, wrong. Here is your original post, in its entirely.

I was wrong, you are ing ignorant. As in, "Stupidity is hereditary, but ignorance is voluntary". You pick an unrelated post to tell me what I didn't say? That is just plain ing ignorant. (Why not go back to my "original post" on all of SpursTalk? Makes about as much sense.) This is the post that originated this part of the discussion - as if facts or logic matter to you:

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?

Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?

I got news for you, dumb . The largest chunk of money that makes big market teams so profitable is their local television deals. But those owners bought teams in those large markets for a reason. Now the players association is saying that they (the big market owners) have to take a large chunk of their profits, and give the money to other owners - so that those small market owners can afford to pay their players huge salaries. You can spin it any way you want, but that's what it comes down to. The players' union isn't interested in what's "fair"... they are trying to manufacture a situation where the deck is stacked in their favor.

It's not a of a lot different than if you paid a load of money for a McDonald's franchise in a great location, and then someone forced you to share your profits with someone who paid half as much for a McDonald's franchise in a ty location. If it was your money, you would be screaming like a ing banshee. But since it's the big, bad, rich NBA owners' money, you think nothing of it. And, yes, the "bad" is inferred from your ignorant, one-sided approach to the whole thing.

Personally, I think some further revenue sharing is going to have to happen. Mostly because the players have the owners by the balls, and the money has to come from somewhere. But in exchange for that, the owners need some protection from bad contracts, with players who just don't give a anymore. If that happened, the revenue sharing wouldn't have to be quite so punitive. But the players aren't willing to even discuss contracts. Why? Because too many of them like the idea of being set for life, whether they perform or not.

Let's see... teachers and postal workers who get paid to sit in a room, becasue they can't be fired. Auto workers who can't be fired, even when they show up for work drunk. NBA players who can't be fired, even when they fake injuries or show up for camp weighing 300 lbs. What do they have in common? SOMEONE has to pay for their slacker asses. And in the case of the NBA, the players' union says that it's the big market owners, who have lucrative local TV deals, who should pay for those bad contracts.

[baseline bum]

big bad owners

[Cane]

Even the players admit that the league is losing money but I'm not an accountant. The infamous Bill Simmons answered how he'd tackle the CBA, here's a fitting exerpt:

Issue No. 6: The NBA owners need to figure out revenue sharing before they can figure out a labor deal.

The Players Association keeps pointing out the 22 of 30 NBA teams are losing money because the eight teams that make money aren't sharing it. The owners' response (pretty weak): It doesn't matter how we lose $340 million, just that we're losing $340 million. The players' response to the response (just as weak): It's not $340 million, that's creative accounting! It's really like $90 million! The owners' response to the response to the response: No it's not! My response to the response to the response to the response: Can someone turn on an oven? I want to stick my head inside it.

----

Issue No. 1: The owners lost $340 million last season.
Issue No. 2: The players are currently getting too big of a revenue share.
Issue No. 3: Guaranteed contracts are too long
Issue No. 4 (in 3 parts): NBA superstars should make more money than they do; it should be easier for NBA teams to keep those superstars; and too many nonsuperstars make too much money.
Issue No. 5: Nobody is putting a gun to the owners' heads and telling them to overpay players.
Issue No. 6: The NBA owners need to figure out revenue sharing before they can figure out a labor deal.
Issue No. 7: The NBA owners need to get their house in order before they can figure out a labor deal.

....

Rest @ http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world

He shared some of my general criticisms of the NBA's system: Non-stars make way too much money for far too long. Struggling teams like New Orleans needs to relocate or get contracted.

I doubt the NBA loses an entire season but I don't think a real hard cap is in store either. Probably just a less-soft cap by taking away exceptions and etc

[benefactor]

I was wrong, you are ing ignorant. As in, "Stupidity is hereditary, but ignorance is voluntary". You pick an unrelated post to tell me what I didn't say? That is just plain ing ignorant. (Why not go back to my "original post" on all of SpursTalk? Makes about as much sense.) This is the post that originated this part of the discussion - as if facts or logic matter to you:




Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?

I got news for you, dumb . The largest chunk of money that makes big market teams so profitable is their local television deals. But those owners bought teams in those large markets for a reason. Now the players association is saying that they (the big market owners) have to take a large chunk of their profits, and give the money to other owners - so that those small market owners can afford to pay their players huge salaries. You can spin it any way you want, but that's what it comes down to. The players' union isn't interested in what's "fair"... they are trying to manufacture a situation where the deck is stacked in their favor.

It's not a of a lot different than if you paid a load of money for a McDonald's franchise in a great location, and then someone forced you to share your profits with someone who paid half as much for a McDonald's franchise in a ty location. If it was your money, you would be screaming like a ing banshee. But since it's the big, bad, rich NBA owners' money, you think nothing of it. And, yes, the "bad" is inferred from your ignorant, one-sided approach to the whole thing.

Personally, I think some further revenue sharing is going to have to happen. Mostly because the players have the owners by the balls, and the money has to come from somewhere. But in exchange for that, the owners need some protection from bad contracts, with players who just don't give a anymore. If that happened, the revenue sharing wouldn't have to be quite so punitive. But the players aren't willing to even discuss contracts. Why? Because too many of them like the idea of being set for life, whether they perform or not.

Let's see... teachers and postal workers who get paid to sit in a room, becasue they can't be fired. Auto workers who can't be fired, even when they show up for work drunk. NBA players who can't be fired, even when they fake injuries or show up for camp weighing 300 lbs. What do they have in common? SOMEONE has to pay for their slacker asses. And in the case of the NBA, the players' union says that it's the big market owners, who have lucrative local TV deals, who should pay for those bad contracts.

[ShoogarBear]

Internet rules on display:

1. When you can't discuss the facts, resort to name calling.
2. When you can't respond to the argument, put words in the other guys' mouth and argue against that.

What's clear is that you just have some sort of anti-union bug up your ass, and this is just another way to vent your rage.

[ShoogarBear]

Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?

And as has been pointed out eleventy billion times now, the players already took money from the top and redistributed it in the 1999 CBA. Fascinating how you are unable to acknowledge that.

It doesn't mean that the system is currently ideal, but the players have done it, and the owners have not.

[GSH]

Even the players admit that the league is losing money but I'm not an accountant. The infamous Bill Simmons answered how he'd tackle the CBA, here's a fitting exerpt:



Rest @ http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world

One of the best articles I've read. Too many of them are totally one-sided (like a lot of comments here). This one deals pretty honestly with the bull on both sides. It's worth reading the whole thing. I especially liked this from one of the late paragraphs, quoting Bill Simmons: The owners will claim they "fixed" the system, but really, they just swung the numbers more in their favor and kept Stern's "I never lost a franchise while I was in charge" streak alive, which rings just as hollow as Wilt's "I never fouled out of a game!" streak. Will anything actually get fixed?

The bottom line is, both sides are full of , and trying to swing the numbers more in their own favors. The fact that the owners are over-stating their losses doesn't mean that the players association is some noble gathering of oppressed workers. Billy Hunter has made it clear that they won't even consider some of the contract issues that absolutely must be solved. He (and some of the players) are no better than Stern (and some of the owners).

Rant all you want - all I've ever said is that there are two sides to this thing. But that suggestion doesn't sit well with some people. It's kind of hard to have a discussion with people who only see one side of things. Come to think of it, that's why there's a lockout to begin with.

And as has been pointed out eleventy billion times now, the players already took money from the top and redistributed it in the 1999 CBA. Fascinating how you are unable to acknowledge that.

It doesn't mean that the system is currently ideal, but the players have done it, and the owners have not.

1999 has absolutely nothing to ing do with today. And you proved my point - you see things totally one-sided. The players have done everything they have to do, and it's all on the owners. You're a lost cause.