I am not quite sure what your point is. Billionaires own paintings do they not? Many of them collect art as an investment just as owners invest in teams as a business venture. Again, I really don't understand the point you are making. If you are comparing an artist to a basketball player, please keep in mind that art dealers make most profits on a painting.
Your analogy is flawed. A company creates divisions to focus on different areas of operations and avoid managerial confusion. For example, Toyota and Lexus serve different target markets and thus require the division. NBA teams do not operate this way. They are franchises: indepently owned and operated, but must abide by corporate guidelines. When owners compete for talent, they do so independently and not under the direction of the commissioner.
The two seasons prior to Katrina had the Hornets dead last (2004-2005) and second to last (03-04) in attendance (despite the fraudulent attendance reporting practices). Stern had his spin machine work overtime hiding the fact that New Orleans was a colossal mistake - and Shinn was desperate to stay in OKC (both years, attendance was 92+%). Stern dragged him back there kicking and screaming...no coincidence he put the team up for sale almost immediately after.
Irrelevant. The new (at the time) owner, Clay Bennett, said he had no intention of moving the franchise to OKC. All he wanted was a new arena. He used that pretext to move them back "home". Everybody in Seattle knows he was lying through his teeth from the beginning.
Woj puts it almost all on Paul Allen, calling him the "grim reaper." Says he only cares about this stuff because Allen's about to sell the team and trying to get as much profit as possible out of it. The sensationalism in this article is pretty funny, like the conspiracy about Stern faking being sick. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_owners_paul_allen_lockout_102111
Not much at all coming from either side today. I was afraid that more cancellations would come today. Glad that they haven't.
STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein No firm word yet when NBA will announce next wave of cancellations but one idea on table: Postponing start of season "until further notice" STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein Nothing has been decided yet, but implication is that they'd be canceling more than two more weeks like last time if NBA does go that route
HP, I agree that basketball players are essentially entertainers. But there are differences between different kinds of entertainers. They all need a system to do their work. A movie star needs the movie industry. A singer needs the music industry. A stand up comedian needs whatever venue he does his work. HOW MUCH they need the system depends on the kind of entertainment they are in. An athlete needs a competitive system. In addition to a competitive system (as different from individual sports) a team sport player needs a team, which is a very complicated construction. IMO, athletes need the system much more than most other forms of entertainment. Most serious sports fans care about the team more than the players. Sure people come to see LeBron, Kobe, Yao, etc. But when these guys are gone, fans continue to follow the teams without missing a beat. It's not the same as singers or movie stars. This is why I believe the health of the system is not only important for the owners, but also for the players too. Whether the owners are more evil then the players is totally irrelevant to me.
you are silly. yet no one can tell me why other entertainmet "talent" can make more money then athletes I guest you dont't get this. GO UNION
If there is a high demand to own NBA teams, why do you think prices will dramatically decrease in the next five years? High demand pushes prices up. The Rockets were 6th in payroll last year at $71 million, right at the luxury tax line. Just because Les doesn't spend like Mark Cuban does not mean he hasn't opened the wallet for Morey to operate. You can put Morey in every front office in the league, but it will have no bearing on whether the current CBA is sustainable. Why sell at a loss right when you're about to negotiate a CBA that can restore the franchise to profitability? If you own a McDonald's and are losing money because you pay your employees $100/hr you don't sell your business, you cut their overblown salaries.
you know that right? If you dont, I am so f**king prepared to show you the truth. what? say it...apparently no one else will listen to dobro et all.
First & foremost to a pro sports league is what makes the league COMPETIVITYELY FAIR on a BALANCED playing field. A game is to be won by talent and shrewd strategists, not only by who spends the most. Or else whats the point of having more than 15 teams (money of course) I'm for talent making their fair wages. But it doesnt make sense to have a bult-in comeptitive IMBALANCE. Revenue share, fat cats
I guest I dont't either. Your question is so poorly formed that I am not even sure you know exactly what you are trying to say. However, if you want to compare a movie star to an nba athlete, and ask why the movie star can make more, which again, has nothing to do with the current state of the negotiations, but lets just assume it does. In this case, we need to point out a few of the parameters. Before I start this, this is making my head hurt trying to compare other entertainment ventures to the nba. It is stupid. You can't really compare a blockbuster movie like Men in Black to the nba easily. A movie doesn't have the same type of expenditures as a league of teams will. There is also the unequal distribution of wealth among the teams that you won't find on a movie set. Actors aren't tied to one movie exclusively like an athlete is to a team. There is a level of unexpectedness with how much money a movie can generate, but the amount of money for an nba team is much more of a known quantity so the negotiations for the distribution of dollars are much more specific. A doubt an nba player would ever negotiate a salary based on a point system like big movie stars often do. You see where this is going yet? If not, let me break it down for you more. Will Smith in this case is Lebron James. Men in Black are the Lakers. The Legend of Bagger Vance is the Hornets. If movies were the nba, which movie do you think is more likely to attain his services? All because men in black has more money, a better budget, better writers, a more interesting story. But then, let's take it a little farther, and let's just say that each year the men in black lakers make 500 million in profit, while the Bagger Vance Hornets, lose money. The profit margins and distribution of well is greater and greater, there is going to come a time where the hornets say I don't want to play anymore. I can't compete and I am not making money. Also, at some point, since men in black, once it becomes a tired movie, people are going to stop forking over money to see even it. Thus, a balanced nba is necessary for the growth of all teams, even the lakers. Did I just say all of this crap?
it wasn't a question. but go on tell it like you mean it...tell it like you are talking to a 10yr old season ticketholder in a small market.
you know that right? If you dont, I am so f**king prepared to show you the truth. what? say it...apparently no one else will listen to dobro et all.[/QUOTE] What are you saying? Your post is broken. EDIT: Now my post is broken. WTF?
darrenrovell darren rovell by sam_amick Why the NBA owners will get a deal: hearing a home owned by Joe Smith, who has made $61M, is in pre-foreclosure. There's a lot more of that.
Wow you are not very bright.... I really don't understand the motif of your question. If you are talking about a pop diva or blockbuster actor, you need to consider the difference in revenue between the NBA and other fields of entertainment. Obviously they are not the same..... Further, you need to realize that in any field of the entertainment industry most of the profits are going to the record company, agent or dealer of the product. If for instance a musician gives most of his revenue to a record company just as a work of art mostly generates income for an art dealer. In both cases, the "talent" would be lucky to get 50% of profits. You are not only horribly misinformed, but in this case expect more revenue out of the NBA than that of what actually exists. I had previously mentioned the example of the MacArthur genius grant which awards 500k to people pushing the fields in the sciences, medicine, music and the arts as a whole(true musicians aren't rolling in dough) and a host of other worthy fields. Having spent time with a few of these people I know the boost the award gives to them financially. To put things in perspective, 500k is close to the league minimum. In other words, the brightest minds in our generation must be compensated through grants in order to attain the wealth of the leagues worst players. If you really want to play this angle, maybe this will put things in perspective for you.
The difference is that movie actors are their own contractors, and there is competition for their services from various studios that do not have the good of other studios in mind. The NBA is one entity, with different divisions.... While it is entertainment, it is not equivalent to other entertainers because they work for a company, maybe the old studio model would be more relevent but today they are individual contractors that work on a project by project basis. The players NEED the league to show their wares - without it they would not have access to millions unless Rucker park suddenly becomes a place for people to pay a lot to watch. I want the NBA to be a viable league, where everyone has a chance to compete and the front office that is the smartest has the best chance, not just a baseball situation where the bigger markets win all the time. DD
