I'll agree to disagree on this. While it's true you can't predict how they're going to do over the years, it's clear that the management on the team would invest what it took to have a winning team, and the system allowed them to do that. Big money in sponsorship is associated with winners. Just being in a big market isn't enough (see Clippers, or the Nets who were able to negotiate a great 20-year TV deal with YES during their peak year in 2002).
Knicks are owned by Cablevision. Their TV deal is an integral part of the business. This is actually going to be a problem for players/union going forward too. IIRC, the Lakers deal also include a stake on the new TV station, and Boston did the same thing with their last TV deal. Under that arrangement, it's going to be extremely difficult to determine exactly what the income is.
This I agree with.
First, Do you realize that when Lakers signed their new TV contract, there were rumors about hard cap?
Second, check the Forbes list I've given to you and you will see the correlation between size market and revenues.
Third, money isn't enough to have a successful team. Knicks were a lottery team paying $50M in luxury tax few years ago.
Fourth, do you think a company will invest $3B over 20 years over something as unreliable as success on the court?
It's not really what you said; it completely kills the Spurs. Look at what could have happened in the early 2000s. The Spurs would have tried to use Bird Rights to sign Derek Anderson, since he was the best 2 guard they had since Gervin and since they desperately needed scoring in the backcourt. All of a sudden Ginobili comes in and blows up and the Spurs lose him in 04 because they used their 2 Bird slots on Duncan and Anderson. Anderson is really tough to trade because a Bird slot was used on him. And then when Parker's contract comes up in 2005? I guess they could have gotten around the Ginobili problem by letting Robinson walk to New York, but in 2001 they don't know Ginobili is that good yet.
Last edited by baseline bum; 11-12-2011 at 02:26 PM.
I don't think reducing agents power is the primary goal. Primary goals for owners are making more money an having a more balanced league.
A side effect of these goals is that it reduces agents power. I'm sure franchises are happy to see that effect but it isn't what has driven this lockout.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...48484/33244688
Stern is a bad-ass.If the union did decertify, Stern predicted the move would backfire.
"If the union is not in existence, then neither are 4 billion dollars worth of guaranteed contracts that are entered into under condition that there's a union, Stern said. "So if the agents insist on playing with fire, my guess is that they would get themselves burned."
It's far from sure owners would have the right to void contracts if there is a desertification. It was in fact something the league wanted to be settled in their complaint made in August about desertification.
you realized that I wasn't talking about the Spurs? and I wasn't proposing a slot system for bird rights (interesting option though), I said that the new tax will make it very expensive, if a team overpays by using the bird rights on a regular base.
and btw. Manu was NOT resinged on Bird rights. the whole Mercer and Hedo deal only happened b/c it guaranteed the Spurs enough cap room for Manu in 2004.
again. it's not about a few big contracts for every team. it's about this almost automatic use of Bird rights for resignings that leads to many smaller but still overpaying contracts. (you think Bonner gets this contract on the open market, or if it costs the Spurs twice or more the number that he gets? Bonner would be a typical minimum 1 million per veteran, based on what he delivers)
The Lakers have existed for over 60 years and only missed the playoffs 5 times. Of course they will be good in 4 or 5 years.
Don't compare the Knicks to the Lakers. The Knicks last le was when Nixon was in office. The Lakers rang 10 times since then.
Ironically, though, the Knicks might just be the Lakers' equal in revenue, which is the whole point of this exercise. Big market teams make loads of money, whether they're good or not.Don't compare the Knicks to the Lakers. The Knicks last le was when Nixon was in office. The Lakers rang 10 times since then.
Kobe being responsible for some of that.
The Lakers have existed for over 60 years and only missed the playoffs 5 times. Of course they will be good in 4 or 5 years.
That's one load of bluff by Stern. No owner is going to just void contracts and let players walk.http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...48484/33244688
Stern is a bad-ass.
It's far from sure owners would have the right to void contracts if there is a desertification. It was in fact something the league wanted to be settled in their complaint made in August about desertification.
As he's responsible for:::
Kobe: 5
tired old bag Duncan: 4
tee, hee.
Quit with the repe ive sh*t on this side of the board. I'm in no mood today ^
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/sp...osal.html?_r=1
I guess someone from the league leaked the NBA proposal to the NYT.
Article discussing the league proposal.
Bend over. I'll get ya in the in' mood today ^.
The players being able to terminate the CBA after 6 years is an improvement, but in the spirit of the 50/50 split this proposal is centered on, they should move the opt-out time to 5 years.
Sure. There were also rumors that the union wouldn't accept that.
I did look at the list. And I gather you didn't look past the first page. Teams like Atlanta, Denver, Philly, Nets or Clippers are in much bigger markets than San Antonio or Toronto, yet their revenues are smaller in every case, sometimes substantially smaller.
Never claimed that. I claimed the exact opposite: Success brings more money. "Big money in sponsorship is associated with winners."
No doubt about it. Long term sponsorship gambles are handed out all the time. Look at Nike betting on Lebron before he even entered the league for an example. And when it comes to locking in a popular and successful 'product', you always have to pay premium. Plus it's not like there's no contingency clauses in those contracts in case one side doesn't fulfill their obligations or if the economy changes drastically. Wouldn't be the first renegotiated contract.
Stern "void-contracts" treat has been there since day 1. As Bruno correctly said, it's part of their case who the judge recently deemed "thin". But the case is still ongoing. The CNNSI lawyer that normally comments on NBA matters called the claim "innovative", meaning, it never been tried before, and he didn't see much merit on it.
Media/MSM Media doesn't want this to go to the courts. They lose then. They make a dollar & dime now with these homespun negotiations. But, not in court. That's why Media wants this to end here. It's played out to the end. Stern says it. & Media knows it. Now they can suck the money from the fresh other end.
lol the media conspiracy spreads to all the forums.
If the shoe fits.
It doesn't.
Anywhere.
In my book it does.
The flaw in the notion on any forum is how much credibility and play an outlet would get by exposing such a conspiracy. People would eat that up just like the NewsCorp story.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
