The players don't take any losses...lol...they are employees not shareholders. They still get paid. DD
No DaDakota. Their income depends on how much the NBA makes. That's the whole reason why BRI matters. Teams make more = Players make more. Players get 57% of the share. Stop correcting people when you're wrong.
Technically its right at ~51/51% of the overall total income when it is ~57% of BRI. Right now their offer of 52.5% of BRI, it would actually be <50% and pretty close to 49% of the total income.
Employees in a business that can't survive without them. And they are contract based employees, so they do indeed incur losses.
What? Who said BRI doesn't matter? I am saying the players have not given up anything, they are still going to get paid for the contracts they sign. They have no risk on the line, if the franchise loses $200 million they still get paid. A 50/50 split is more than fair, the owners want their franchises to be in the black and for the league to be more competitively balanced. I know everyone wants basketball, me too, but I want them to fix this mess first. No matter what it takes. DD
First of all, if a franchise loses $200 million a year, it will go bankrupt. Don't sensationalize. The players have sign their contracts, but remember the owners keep some money in escrow. If the totals of all player contracts go above the BRI, the money goes back to the the owners. So guess what happens with a 52.5% BRI? Say for the next NBA seasons it is less then the ~$2 billion the players got last year, even if an example players' contract signed 3 years ago says he should get $5 million that year, he will won't. He will get less. The overall income split is already at ~50/50 when you calculate out a 52.5/47.5 BRI split. By some calculations it is already at a 49/51 split in favor of the OWNERS. To fix the mess, why not force teams to FIRE their GM's and Administration who signed bad contracts for television, arena, sponsorships, coaches, & players. Aren' t they part of the problem too?
You call them commodities, others call them assets. What's the difference? If they are truely "replaceable", then why haven't the owners done so already?
WTF are you talking about? Lots of franchises and organizations have lost that much in valuation, and now they are going into debt on a yearly basis on some franchises. Do you guys know that Indiana nearly went bankrupt because of this? There is a problem whether you understand it correctly or not and the owners are doing the right thing here by forcing a change in the system to a more reasonable split. Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is. DD
You do know that you are not legally able to do that in a labor dispute if you locked them out, right? I would guess you don't know that based upon your post though. DD
Please provide a list of NBA franchises that are worth $200M less than what their current owners purchased them for.
Your quote was " they are a commodity that is replaceable". Now if they legally can't do that, why do you state they can?
The point is if the players do not want to sign on the dotted line they can go get a job like everyone else, or go to Europe. They can go to work in Europe right now playing ball, it would give them a little more leverage. Hell, if Lebron signed in Spain and blew out a knee the owners would cave so fast..... DD
I think the Cavs lost that value when Lebron left......there is a list somewhere, I think in this thread even, but I am too lazy to go find it....you can take my word for it, or not..lol. DD
Here is a link to current NBA team's and how they did last year and their current valuations and the difference up or down between the last 2 years. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html DD
That's what the players might do if they don't like the owners version of the new CBA. Nice job of not abswering my question.
