Slightly OT: How is Bryant Gumbel not fired for his comments about David Stern?

[jlprk]

Sorry but the owners run real companies and are far more responsible with money on average. Why should someone in the real world not make more money than a basketball player? Only a handful of players deserve a raise.

Only a handful of owners deserve to be bailed out of their irresponsible errors. Many players invest their money in businesses.

2010-11 profit: PLayers, ~$2B
owners, ~ NEGATIVE $180-300M

THAT's the situation the owners want to rectify.

The league losing money was disproven in articles right after the lockout began. 1) Owners won't show their detailed financial statements. 2) The loss comes from amortization of the initial purchase price, and it's the owners' fault for overpaying. 3) The increase in costs, compared to BRI, from 10 years ago to now is all in elective owner-related costs, not in player salaries. On and on. I forget but there were more.

You should take a look at some of the comments made by NFL owners. Basically guys like Jerry Jones were saying that they will owners long after the players playing now are still players. In other words, shut the fuck up, help us out or we will simply get new players and start building the league up again. To say the owners are nothing without the players is a wrong statement. The players might be the ones we show up to watch, but they aren't the one's paying for the building, lights, concession workers, janitors, parking guys, refs, coaches, balls, trainers, etc.

If there needed to be a new NBA, some players would likely cross over to play in it because the money and perks would be so much better. New college graduates would enter the league each year as well. Looking at the big picture, the players need the owners a whole hell of a lot more than the owners need the current players

Everything there is wrong. Try reversing owners with players and it makes more sense.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The league losing money was disproven in articles right after the lockout began. 1) Owners won't show their detailed financial statements. 2) The loss comes from amortization of the initial purchase price, and it's the owners' fault for overpaying. 3) The increase in costs, compared to BRI, from 10 years ago to now is all in elective owner-related costs, not in player salaries. On and on. I forget but there were more.

It was "disproven" by Nate Silver, but then acknowledged by Billy Hunter. That's why I put "180M" (Hunter's number) to "300M" (owners' number).

"The owners' fault for overpaying." OK, but not you're saying it's the owners' fault that they don't want to overpay again in player salaries? Where's your consistency?

And are you really trying to say that salaries haven't increased since the last CBA?

 

[oldmangrouch]

"The owners' fault for overpaying." OK, but not you're saying it's the owners' fault that they don't want to overpay again in player salaries? Where's your consistency?

No one is stopping the owners from making smart choices with their money. Some owners don't want to invest in their teams - so they want to require that no owner can invest in his team. Tyranny of the lowest common denominator.

 

[PapaG]

When the NFL went to a hard cap, they balanced the cap/lower salaries/nonguaranteed deals with concessions on other issues (eg pensions and FA rules). In other words, it was a give-and-take situation.

What are the NBA owners offering? Maybe they should try *negotiating* instead of bullying and ultimatums. (wow, what a concept!)

Thanks to revenue sharing, NFL owners were pretty much all making money, outside of maybe Jacksonville. The owners had an incentive to get back to work, and the players had a bit of leverage because of that.

Comparing the NFL to a second-rate league like the NBA or MLB makes no sense. In the USA, it's the NFL, followed by NCAA football, and then a third-tier with MLB and the NBA in it.

 

[PapaG]

Only a handful of owners deserve to be bailed out of their irresponsible errors. Many players invest their money in businesses.

Irrelevant, tangential, and nonsensical. It's a jlprk Trifecta.

The league losing money was disproven in articles right after the lockout began. 1) Owners won't show their detailed financial statements. 2) The loss comes from amortization of the initial purchase price, and it's the owners' fault for overpaying. 3) The increase in costs, compared to BRI, from 10 years ago to now is all in elective owner-related costs, not in player salaries. On and on. I forget but there were more.

The NBAPA themselves know that there are teams losing money. That's why they are offering 4% off of the BRI split from the previous CBA. Some owners wants a bigger percentage. You killed your own argument here. If the owners were making money hand over fist, the players certainly wouldn't be ceding 4% of the BRI off the top, would they? I'd be asking for a larger share of that pie.

Everything there is wrong. Try reversing owners with players and it makes more sense.

I've posted with you for enough years to know you rarely are trying to make a valid point, but it appears you tried in this thread. Now I know why you rarely do...

 

[PapaG]

No one is stopping the owners from making smart choices with their money.

Seems like they are making a smart choice here. Stop the league and stop spending money until a more favorable framework is in place.

Some owners don't want to invest in their teams - so they want to require that no owner can invest in his team.

Every single team has to pay at least 75% of the salary cap under the current CBA. I think you're confusing the NBA with MLB, where there is no minimum number to be spend on players?

Tyranny of the lowest common denominator.

Hyperbole. As we've seen, the players have many other opportunities to play basketball for money. That's not tyranny on the part of the owners.

 

[huevonkiller]

Thanks to revenue sharing, NFL owners were pretty much all making money, outside of maybe Jacksonville. The owners had an incentive to get back to work, and the players had a bit of leverage because of that.

Comparing the NFL to a second-rate league like the NBA or MLB makes no sense. In the USA, it's the NFL, followed by NCAA football, and then a third-tier with MLB and the NBA in it.

NBA players are the highest paid professional athletes in sports, so they have no credibility. Most of them go bankrupt after retiring anyway.

If the players really want to bitch about the 53-47 BRI thing then take away their other rights. They don't need to fly to games in private jets or use expensive private buses. All these things are luxuries that they take for granted.

The worst players in the league are horribly overpaid. The Union exists to help them and not the players that are actually great.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Hyperbole. As we've seen, the players have many other opportunities to play basketball for money. That's not tyranny on the part of the owners.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I am talking about tyranny amongst the owners themselves. You have one group of owners trying to tell another group of owners how to spend their money.

I do find it interesting that Sterling - one of the most tight-fisted owners - is reputedly one of the loudest voices against the lock-out. You would expect him to be firmly among the hard-liners...if this was really about the money.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The worst players in the league are horribly overpaid. The Union exists to help them and not the players that are actually great.

And who is largely responsible for that? STERN! He is the one who has always insisted that if teams want to buy a player out/release him the player must still count against the salary cap.

 

[PapaG]

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I am talking about tyranny amongst the owners themselves. You have one group of owners trying to tell another group of owners how to spend their money.

I do find it interesting that Sterling - one of the most tight-fisted owners - is reputedly one of the loudest voices against the lock-out. You would expect him to be firmly among the hard-liners...if this was really about the money.

The other owners can always sell their team and start their own league. If the majority want a lock-out, that's how democracy works in a league with a shared interest.

I also think Donald Sterling is against the lock-out because he has Blake Griffin on his roster, and on a rookie contract, and is going to sell out a lot of games and have a lot of eyeballs watching his games in the LA market. Sterling has never been known for his foresight, and as a real estate guy, I'm going to guess he isn't as liquid as he was five years ago. P

 

[PapaG]

And who is largely responsible for that? STERN! He is the one who has always insisted that if teams want to buy a player out/release him the player must still count against the salary cap.

Actually the small-market owners wanted that provision, and with the current frugality of Paul Allen, Blazers fans should want it as well. Unless the idea is to let the Lakers sign FAs to huge contracts, cut the ones underperforming after a few years, and simply reload with another star FA.

 

[oldmangrouch]

In some respects they have shared interests - and in others they are competitors. That balance is being lost.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Actually the small-market owners wanted that provision, and with the current frugality of Paul Allen, Blazers fans should want it as well. Unless the idea is to let the Lakers sign FAs to huge contracts, cut the ones underperforming after a few years, and simply reload with another star FA.

In MLB, even the small market teams cut their losses and waive players who are malcontents/distractions/ unable to perform. The benefits go beyond dollars and cents.

 

[PapaG]

In MLB, even the small market teams cut their losses and waive players who are malcontents/distractions/ unable to perform. The benefits go beyond dollars and cents.

Would you rather see the MLB system in the NBA, where local/team revenues supercede a collective national revenue structure? MLB team are also able to waive players, but not contracts, but really, on the the large market teams can afford a big contract, and then be able to designate that player for assignment without worrying about a salary cap.

 

[Shooter]

There are 30 owners and over 400 players.

No single owner should be making more money than their 15 players combined.

Why not? Is there some unwritten mathematical formula regarding what owners can make versus what players can make?