quote:

---

In this protracted labor dispute, a group of largely conservative, right-wing billionaires are betraying the values and principles they allegedly hold dear: fix your own problems, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, quit looking for handouts.

The NBA is a $3-billion industry. It has global reach. The lack of discipline, the free-spending and irresponsible behavior of ownership, are the only reasonable justifications for 22 teams allegedly losing a combined $300 million. The economy is bad. The incompetence of NBA ownership is worse.

Rather than accept and deal with their culpability for its financial mess and look within for solutions — as its conservative philosophy dictates — NBA ownership has simply proposed sticking its hands in the players’ pockets for a seven-percent/$400-million kickback/bailout.

I’m surprised the Tea Party isn’t occupying NBA headquarters.

I’m equally shocked the NBA Players Association — a group comprised largely of self-made, up-from-poverty, bootstrap young men — hasn’t called the owners out for their blatant hypocrisy.

---

msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/nba-lockout-steve-nash-grant-hill-right-wing-conservatives-owners-are-hypocrites-want-wall-street-bailout-from-players-102611

Memo to Union Dog Defender:
I wish I could go to a franchise owner that I worked for and DEMAND a contract that pays me 57% (or 50%) of total core business revenue.

Oh wait, I live in the real world.

Break the union and move one.
"Bailout" my arse.

It's not a bailout if it's your own money that you're paying out.

Owners signed off on a shitty system.
Players profited big time.
Owners realize their idiocy and want correction.
Players already spoiled and don't want to give in to correction.
Fail all around.

I am just wondering but does anyone know the losses for the Mavs since Cuban took over??? (I'm assuming losses due to consistently high payroll)

quote:

---

I wish I could go to a franchise owner that I worked for and DEMAND a contract that pays me 57% (or 50%) of total core business revenue.

---

There are a lot of ways that the NBA work force is different from yours.

1. Did you get drafted into your business and location?

2. Do you like to have the choice to move in the middle of the year? Do you want NBA players to be able to switch franchises in the middle of the season? Do you even want players only signing 1-year deals? It is the owners that want the multiyear deal for the majority of the players. Overwhelmingly, NBA owners don't want free agency.

3. Are you in the top .1% of your profession?

4. If you want to say that the players work for the league, that's fine, but the league is making big money, so let's put away the mostly bogus statement that 22 of 30 teams lose money.

5. If you want to say the players work for the individual franchises, some of which are losing money, then lets make it like "the real world" and allow players to change organizations to whomever offers the most money. Give the top players a choice on where to play. They won't be headed to Cleveland or San Antonio or Memphis or Minnesota or OKC.

6. Break the union? When people give this statement, it is an indicator that they don't know how different pro sports are from regular jobs. Without a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between union and league, there is no draft, no drug testing, no cap on player salaries, and a whole lot of lawsuits.

Both sides are f***ing liars and both are idiotic fools for thinking that anyone in america gives a flying crap about the nba until after football ends in feb (really not until april when ncaa hoops are done).
Malcolm Gladwell wrote an absolutely fantastic piece on grantland.com recently that shows what a liar david stern is about the whole deal. Teams are claiming they are losing money, when in reality they are making tens of millions per year.

I do think a lot of teams are losing money on an annual basis with the huge declines in local advertising and ticket sales over the past couple of years.

still, I think most of the losses are self-inflicted with terrible contracts.

Let the players name their percentage of NBA revenues -- 60, 70, 80, 90, whatever. Then get back to basketball.

Since when do multi-millionaires need a union? To correct the past? The past is gone. Time for multi-millionaires understand how those who work and don't have millionaire resources make it. Sorry, no feeling sorry here.

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man," Psalm 118:8.

Again, see my post above, specifically statement #6.

Poor players, life is so rough for them. How will they afford all their hookers and marijuana if they only get 50% of the income?

I do think that it is both players and owners fault that this is happening. The bad players still want their ridiculous contracts and there is a handful of owners that are trying to do everything to screw the players and not haggle at all.

quote:

---

I am just wondering but does anyone know the losses for the Mavs since Cuban took over??? (I'm assuming losses due to consistently high payroll)

---

They are private so no one but the owners know for sure. The people I know with the Rockets and Spurs say that Cuban has lost 9 figures on the deal.

What this episode has mostly proven to me is how lousy players are at math. Most of these guys are losing money theyll never make up even if the owners cave and chip in an extra couple of percent. A couple percentage points of pie dont matter if you dont get to eat it, or if you stretch this thing out so long that the pie when you return has shrunk by more than the points you just "won".

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 11/16/2011 8:25p).]

All I know is that the average salary for an NBA player is more than the average NFL and MLB combined...the system was out of whack

quote:

---

All I know is that the average salary for an NBA player is more than the average NFL and MLB combined...the system was out of whack

---

The NFL carries 60 guys and the MLB carries 25 guys per team. NBA keeps 13. Less players = more money to go around.

Still, the NFL brings in massive amounts of revenue and the careers are much shorter. Plus, this isn't just a one on one comparison because the statistic is that you take the average NFL salary plus the average MLB salary and it is still less than just the average NBA salary.

I think the whole NBA is about to realize that the public may not care too much about the NBA missing out on a year.

quote:

---

Still, the NFL brings in massive amounts of revenue and the careers are much shorter. Plus, this isn't just a one on one comparison because the statistic is that you take the average NFL salary plus the average MLB salary and it is still less than just the average NBA salary.

I think the whole NBA is about to realize that the public may not care too much about the NBA missing out on a year.

---

You might want to reread this.

quote:

---

The NFL carries 60 guys and the MLB carries 25 guys per team. NBA keeps 13. Less players = more money to go around.

---

There are 450 NBA players compared to 1500 NFL players.

Who do you think will make more money?

Less people to split the pot means NBA players make way more money then then their NFL counterparts.

Plus you have to factor that A Superstar player has more impact in the NBA then any other sport.

Look at the Spurs with Tim Duncan, or the Cavs without Lebron.

New England was still really good in 2008 without Tom Brady (has my vote as the greatest quarterback ever).

If the Mavs lost Dirk they would suck.

There is a reason NBA players make a lot more then NFL players.

The players are the NBA. It's their personality and prowess that make the league what it is.

I personally hope that the players just say eff it and start their own league. There are enough venues in this country that they don't need the owners damn taxpayer financed stadiums and what else do the owners have, a bunch of cartoon maskots and some history books...

The owners are trying their best to put the players over a barrell. I for one hope they fail.

If players want a share of revenue, they should also get a share of the risk. Owners may purposely manage for a loss to reduce overall tax burden on their portfolios.

Players risk their careers every time they step on the floor, bro.

quote:

---

Players risk their careers every time they step on the floor, bro.

---

They don't have the financial risk that the owners do.

Just to bring this up, I do feel sorry for all the money these owners are "losing."

Poor George Shinn, the founding owner of the NO Hornets. He bought the Hornets for $32,500,000 in '87. The NBA purchased the Hornets from Shinn in December 2010 for about $318 million.

Now the NBA Saints owner Tom Benson has paid $338 million for the team.

Never understand why the value of these franchises keeps climbing, when the owners keep "losing" millions every year.


And yes, I'm very glad the lockout is over, but I'm not sure anything was solved with it except a bunch of lost games.

The NBA is a unique animal.

The NFL really has no competition in the world. The NHL is not what it was because players can go to europe and probably play in more competitive leagues and make more money. The MLS is a second rate league compared to FIFA and the european leagues.

The NBA has competition. There are other professional leagues around the world where players can make a pretty good living. The NBA is all about the BEST players in the worrld. The players make the league and the franchise. Any owner can run a franchise. The entertainment and the value is really driven by the players. Yes, owners assume financial risk but they are also rewarded very nicely for it.

Its not vry different than silicon valley startups. The VCs take the financial risk, but its the enpreprenuer developing the product driving the value . The guys who funded zuckerberg got rich, but there is no facebook without zuck. There is no google without sergey and larry. There is no apple without jobs and wozniak.

There is no NBA without the top 50 players. It becomes a second rate league without lebron, dirk, wade, howard, duncan, parker, melo, kobe, etc.

quote:

---

Poor George Shinn, the founding owner of the NO Hornets. He bought the Hornets for $32,500,000 in '87. The NBA purchased the Hornets from Shinn in December 2010 for about $318 million.

---

That's a 10.5% annual return. Not exactly explosive growth.

Not to nitpick, but the fact that something holds or increases in value is not entirely related to its potential to pay you a dividend.

It is similar to a land acquisition. While the market value of the land may increase every year, the potential to make money off of activities on the land is a separate market, all together.

quote:

---

That's a 10.5% annual return. Not exactly explosive growth.

---

Not exactly losing millions each year either.

For my perspective, that is an incredibly flawed - borderline stupid - quote linked by the OP.

A bailout or handout is when the government takes money from the citizens (under threat of force) and gives it to some corporation or citizen. The team owners are simply refusing to pay their employees as much. That's not a handout. It's a negotiation.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 4/18/2012 3:34p).]

One of the NBA's weaknesses is they are all about the individuals and not the teams, not a great long term marketing strategy IMHO and you can thank Stern for that.