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.
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.
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.
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.
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?...
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.
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.
KD's article on the subject http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...t=AmznfHB6HmPY.2vdJet7ZHC8vLYF?urn=nba-wp9265
