[David Aldridge] Owner's are "tired of making these guys rich"

If they did as you say, they might be the ones in jail for slander.

The union IS their organization, ironically, they may de-certify, leaving them dis-organized.

I have said before, and agree with you here, that getting to the bottom of who is losing money and how much needs resolving. But Stern and the owners are shrewd, and a step ahead of the players in many areas, including this one where they are said to have "opened" their books already. It would a monumental effort and years in court to now go and prove false disclosure. And again, the owners know the players dont have that kind of time.

 

Some teams are on big market cities and get lots of attendees by default and big television contracts. Small market teams don't enjoy that luxury.

The players aren't getting profit but revenue - 57%. The remaining 43% is what's used on team expenses. What's left after that is the actual net profit or loss.

 

Hey, it worked well for the Wisconsin teachers, didn't it? Unions, hah - who needs 'em when you can always get a job at Walmart?

 

Do you know how much money the owners lose if they pull in absolutely no revenue at all? They still have to maintain all their facilities; yet they get no profit. Not only that but their long-term financial stability will be severely impacted especially for ****ty teams like Sacramento or Minnesota.

The only owners that have nothing to lose are the big-market owners. A conflict of interest arises here since owners are not entirely unified. Player-owner talks are difficult as-is; with a owner-owner conflict it just makes everyone nigh impossible.

I definitely would expect a significant portion of the NBA season to be lost if not all of it.

 

That is absurd, so players shouldn't be held accountable and should get guaranteed payment no matter for their performance or commitment? Its one thing if they have an injury, but if you sign a guy with potential like a stromile, or even someone like eddy curry, you expect them to put in the work and commmitment to improve and play well.

If you hired and took a chance on an employee, and he decided to start really mailing it in, half assing his job, and not performing. THen he tells you, no one put a gun to your head to hire me, you keep paying me regardless of how I do and what I do.

Are you kidding me? Players had an unrealistic deal in place and it is simply not sustainable. There is no accountability. They can goto Europe and get paid half the price, for less than half the spots, then say good by to the best marketing in the world, tv exposure, best infrastructure, doctors,insurance, professionalism in payment, practice and training facilities/staff, and all the comforts the nba has developed. IF anything, that is leverage for the owners on why they had it good.

Both sides have made mistakes, but this logic of yours is just flawed

 

The most to lose belongs to the big market owners actually. They are the ones that don't give a damn if this lockout works or not because they are profitable either way. And every game they don't play, they lose money. The smaller teams were not turning a profit and lost either way and have 50 million they don't have to pay in salaries, it was a loss for them anyway.

 

The players are tired of making clowns like Donald Sterling rich...so let's call it even.

Honestly I know this is just posturing by the owners but....trying to gang people up against the players, when they're coming to the table with truly reprehensible guys like Sterling on their side, inheritance billionaires like the Dolans & Arisons, subprime loan king Dan Gilbert,it's not exactly the most ethical, sympathetic crew on that side either, and the spectacle of them as more implicitly deserving - as opposed to the players, who people actually come to see, is kind of a joke.

 

IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU SIGN SOMEONE TO BAD DEALS.

OWNERS HAVE TO PAY 57% of REVENUE

 

Players are an investment, and like all investments they carry risks, some more than others. The fact is, most fans could have predicted that signing Eddy Curry or Erik Dampier to big money deals would have ended in disaster. Do you think someone like Morey or Kevin Pritchard would have signed Cato to a massive deal because of a couple of good preseason games?

The fact is, just because you have cap room or MLE money to spend, no one's forcing teams to sign guys like Jerome James to r****ded deals. I'm not saying the current system doesn't have flaws, but the owners seem to be looking for an idiot-proof deal that guarantees profits for every team and protects them from any risk. What many of them should be looking for are Front Offices that aren't grossly incompetent.

 

Again, it doesn't matter if you sign Jerome James to a r****ded deal.

You still pay the players overall the same amount.

 

I think it's ironic/sad commentary on the players part when they call the front offices incompetent for signing them to long term contracts.

It also stands to reason that many of the FO's wouldn't look so incompetent if they were able to get able to get out of bad contracts.

 

DTS, Arison and Dolan aren't driving the train. A missed season for them is a disaster. The small market owners are the hardliners.

 

They pay more than that every year in salaries, but I'm not arguing against lowering the players' share of revenues. I'm not against bringing it down to 52% or whatever, but it's the idea that owners should be protected against themselves wrt to player contracts that I think is stupid.

I don't even know what this means. They'd still be just as incompetent, there just wouldn't be serious consequences to their stupidity with non-guaranteed contracts.

 

They are not all ass wipes. There are nice guys like Houston's own dog castrating troll Leslie Alexander.

 

Huh??? That doesn't make sense. Had to think of an analogy to explain it. It Tom drives his Expedition 200 miles to a job that pays $100 a week, he is losing money. If he quits the job, he will not be in the negative, thus he will not lose more money. If owners are losing money, they will not lose more money if they stop financing the thing that is making them lose money. They wont make money, but they wont have to spend money either. And at this point they claim they were having to spend more than they were making.

 

The statement is flawed. Yes, the teams technically do lose money, that part is true, but the loss of a season has a small impact on their worth. That's more of a pertinent statement. The owners reduce the cost of salaries during a lockout, but they also reduce income. The two are almost a wash, with them still somewhat in the red. So yes, while they are still technically losing money, it's not as hard a hit to them as it is for the players themselves.

 

LOL how can you work diligently when there's a lockout and you aren't receiving any salary? That's like saying all the Walmart clerks should band together and come up with all of their own walmart. Even if by some miracle all the NBA players like Kobe, KG etc. decided to band together and leave the NBA, the team owners will just have a league-wide draft and start getting more college guys. While the league features the players, the players don't OWN the league. When Shaq retired people didn't stop watching the NBA, they started watching the next great thing, i.e. Dwight Howard. Since there will always be new players coming out every year, but potential owners don't grow in trees the owners are more important here.

The ball is all in the owner's court. ALL of it. This isn't the NFL, where it's all roses and everyone is just haggling over pieces of a multi-billion dollar pie. In that scenario both the players and the owners are losing money due to missed seasons, so there's a lot of incentives to end the lockout. In the NBA, some teams are actually losing money, so there's no incentive for them to continue paying these players.

 

The owners still have 2010-11 salaries to pay, front-office salaries, maintenance crew salaries, facilities to maintain, property taxes, yadda-yadda-yadda, so they are still spending but just not at the rate they would if there were players to pay.

What's interesting to note in this article - http://www.nba.com/news/lockout-faqs/index.html - is that most owners aren't going into poverty because of declining sales and lost revenue. In most cases, this is just one of their investments or "toys" as the article likes to put.

 

Not all owners own the stadium. And the ones who do, own it for more reasons than basketball. They have concerts, other events, parking ... concessions that go with that, and some have hockey teams, or get paid to host them.

In fact, the NBA was started as a way for stadium owners to have more events in their stadiums. That's a fact. Most of the original franchise owners already owned a stadium.