1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[espn]Charles Barkley may donate TNT salary

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by tinman, Oct 11, 2011.

  1. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,654
    Likes Received:
    2,940
    What a noble gesture. Oh wait, he makes $40 gazillion dollars from annoying, overplayed T-Mobile commercials with Dwight and D-Wade.

    That must be a nice safety cushion to fall back on. ;)
     
  2. napalm06

    napalm06 Huge Flopping Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    26,397
    Likes Received:
    29,590
    Somehow I doubt you did a real analysis on every line item in their real books, pinpointing exactly where the losses are occurring. However next I'd be interested in knowing exactly which teams/owners are doing this.
     
  3. JayZ750

    JayZ750 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2000
    Messages:
    25,294
    Likes Received:
    13,081
    what's more is the insinuation that buying the team with debt is somehow a sham. No, that's how some things are bought/sold... including pretty much everyone's house. If it is interest (and principal, which I'm sure DD knows wouldn't show up on a P&L anyway) payments that are creating the loss, it's still a loss. If you can't make the payments on your house, it doesn't mean you are being shady and actually can afford to make the payments on your house.

    The owners overpaid, and over-leveraged their businesses, in the case of newer owners in smaller markets. So yes, it is "their fault" they are in this situation, to an extent. But that doesn't make it wrong. If you overpay for a business, or your house, and do so using too much debt, you try to salvage the situation.

    That's not to say there isn't some shady accounting going on. Perhaps the owners are running through a bunch of miscellaneous expenses through their P&Ls - butlers, or vacation homes or something... but I doubt it's meaningful. Especially in the case of teams with multiple shareholders, significant debt, etc. finances are likely fully audited.

    I personally believe what Chuck believes. I haven't seen any numbers, but from what I've read/heard, it seems to be a "small market" issue, where a number of teams in smaller markets are having an extremely difficult time making any money, and not just because of leverage, but on a pre-leverage basis, because they just don't have the same amount of revenue coming in as the larger market teams, with better tv deals and more stadium revenues.

    I don't like lining billionaires pockets anymore than I like lining millionaires pockets... but we've already seen one team effectively "fold" and be taken over by the NBA. The NBA could have let it fold completely, and then you'd see 12 more NBA players out of a job. Maybe that's what should happen anyway? But I think unlike the NFL where it really was about everyone getting richer and each side trying to get "more richer" than the other, here it's about players being overpaid and the league losing money.

    the players fault? no. they took what the owners, sometimes stupidly, gave them. and they didn't make those owners overpay for those franchises. but on the whole they are getting a crapton of money for being a professional athlete. and as such, their options are limited. They can't go work for Shell if their current employer ExxonMobile tries to cut their salary in half because of financial difficulties (bad example, I know).

    But they can collectively bargain. And are doing so, but will ultimately do more harm the longer they hold out. The owners aren't going to capitulate all of a sudden, or ever really and agree to their demands. Might the owners eventually, when half the season would have passed, move from 50 to 51? Possibly, but the players would have lost a season's worth of salary, and the league will undoubtedly be harmed from the lockout anyway, meaning that bump will be effectively meaningless to the players. If I'm them, I'm accepting the 50% split, and more strictly negotiating the other points.
     
  4. mortiki85

    mortiki85 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    3
    the baseball comment is spot on, and players do make too much money, especially just to sit on the bench and do nothing but practice, even he guys that aren't active because only a certain number of guys can be on the bench, they're still pulling a minimal salary (which is determined by how many years they've been in the league) and don't even have to sit on the bench. I'm not siding with either, because they're both full of it. I just find it funny when the players are wondering why they're not being taken seriously when they have Fisher as their president.
     
  5. Asian Sensation

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 1999
    Messages:
    17,940
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    He'll defer it alright. To the craps table that is.
     
  6. greenhippos

    greenhippos Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    49
    [​IMG]
     
  7. 3814

    3814 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,433
    Likes Received:
    72
    Beat me to it...

    ... he already donates or defers all of his money to the casinos...
     
  8. Pizza_Da_Hut

    Pizza_Da_Hut I put on pants for this?

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    11,323
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    So wait, he can stay pissed off at the Rockets for not giving him roughly his TNT salary now, but he's willing to give away his TNT salary if no games are played?... So his TNT salary is only worthless if he's not going for a championship?...
     
  9. rrj_gamz

    rrj_gamz Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    15,595
    Likes Received:
    197
    Agreed...I suspect someone will cave and it won't be the owners...
     
  10. Icehouse

    Icehouse Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Messages:
    13,424
    Likes Received:
    3,766
    The situation can be salvaged with true revenue sharing. But I guess it makes more sense to punk the players for it, and them blame them in the media.

    If Katrina doesn't hit then that team doesn't fold. If the league isn't stubborn about keeping the team in NO, which I applaud them for doing, then that team doesn't fold. That team could have easily relocated to OKC or been bought by the same dudes who stole OKC from Seattle (and then the Sonics don't have to move). Aside from that team which the league won't allow to relocate, I doubt there is any team that someone else isn't interested in buying.
     
    #30 Icehouse, Oct 12, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  11. JayZ750

    JayZ750 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2000
    Messages:
    25,294
    Likes Received:
    13,081
    Agreed, but that's easier said than done - not just because of what it would require the large market teams to give up, but because a lot of decisions have been made, financially, and with regards to future planning, based on the current non-revenue sharing system. Not that there couldn't be some plan in place to ease into a revenue sharing system, just that it'd be a complex change, and for obvious reason one not hugely supported by the large market teams.

    But I'm all for it.

    But I still would contend that the players deserve "punking". That is, further reduction in compensation. I concur with Barkley's view. NBA players are making too much, with too much guaranteed, for too little, having not taken any hits to pay.

    but those things did happen. moreover, if they moved, through purchase or otherwise, then they would have moved and not have been viable in the small market they were in. the comment with regards to revenue sharing would help these small market teams, of course, if it could be agreed upon.

    but we don't have revenue sharing and we do have small market teams losing money.

    In either case, ultimately, the collective bargaining process is in place, and both sides have the opportunity to negotiate as they see fit, and bear the brunt of those negotiations, in regards to public perception, and actual hit to their financials. notwithstanding opportunities to play in Europe, or Amare's new league idea, it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby the owners "cave" first, or more, then the players from here on out. this may be because of infighting amongst small market/big market owners, but ultimately would also point to which side has what options, ultimately, in whatever systems can be agreed upon in the NBA. My view is that the small market owners are hurting enough, and the large market owners have made enough, and will continue to do so, that for different reasons, they will jointly holdout longer than the players. Small market owners ships are going down potentially anyway, large market owners can afford to hold out.
     
    #31 JayZ750, Oct 12, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2011
  12. tinman

    tinman Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 1999
    Messages:
    98,324
    Likes Received:
    40,932

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now