Fans Need to Support the Players

I tend to side with the owners on this one. I say this because i we as fan's are paying the price at the turnstile with very high ticket prices to pay these fat contracts. I want the games to become affordable again.

Is your pay guaranteed? I know mine isn't. Why the hell should THEIRS be?

 

That's not very sound logic. The owners gave out those fat contracts in the first place. And why not ask the owners to take a paycut to make games affordable again for the fans rather than the players?

 

You know the whole point they're trying to shrink player share is because they're supposedly not profiting, right?

Nobody's doing this for the fans.

 

the players salaries (in total) are greater than the profits taken in by the owner ... are there any teams that make $40M-$60M in profits each year ?? if yes, then i would say that the owners should bite the bullet and lower the prices. if not, then the players will have to give up some.

 

Not a particularly fair comparison. The owner's employees are the sole reason their franchise is at all profitable. The foundation of the league is built on the back of the players. They're the ones out there playing every night. They're the ones that risk serious injury every night. They're the ones that have to endure the front lines of verbal and written assault from fans and the media.

That's not to say that the players aren't somewhat culpable in the current financial state of the NBA, and I certainly don't want to paint the players as some sort of 'Sisters of the Poor' charity case. They could stand to be a little less obtuse during these negotiations. But let there be no mistake, the biggest reason the NBA's financial structure fell apart is because the current crop of owner's acted like franchise's were multi-million dollar escrow accounts that would somehow magically increase in value over time, no matter what kind of managerial effort went into the business. These billionaires bought these franchises, put mediocre talent in place to run them, then sat back and waited for money to just simply grow on trees. That didn't happen, and now they're throwing a tantrum.

In what form of business are annual profits guaranteed? And these clowns want to be promised $30 million in guaranteed revenue each and every year, no matter how poorly they run their business? How can anyone blindly and unilaterally support such a thing?

 

Deckard, let me disagree with you. The large market clubs could care less if they lose a star player because they'll just pluck another one. The smaller market clubs know if they have a potential star player they HAVE to overpay him to have any chance for him to stay. Take Michael Redd of the Bucks, had a couple of decent years than the big clubs were going to pluck him because of his shooting ability. The Bucks management overpayed trying to keep him in MILWAUKEE. He gets nicked up, doesn't produce and the Bucks are stuck in limbo because 1 they can't afford to replace him and 2 the salary cap kills them for 6 years because they can't cut him and pick someone else up.

That's why the smaller market teams, are balking so much with the superstars all congregating together. Its near impossible to win in the first place but secondly when you finally get lucky to pick up a stud player, you either win immediately or he's gone. You can speak about Cleveland and Lebron as the perfect example, instead of being capable of building a young team around him, they were under the gun to win immediately because even with him being at his HOME TOWN for all intents and purposes, the threat of not putting a championship team around him immediately had them going for vets who were past their primes and they just didn't hold up. The same thing is happening in Orlando with the threat of the Lakers picking Howard up just like they did Shaq. Orlando is under the gun to win immediately so they make boneheaded moves that either work right away or blow up on you.

Think about it, 5 teams have won basically 85 percent of the league championships over the last THIRTY TWO YEARS. Compare that with any other major sport, baseball, football or hockey. They've had their dynasties also. And with 2 of those 5 being ours. And the distinct possibility exists that a sixth team will emerge for the next few years if the Heat get there act together. To me a HARD CAP is the only way to make this an even playing field so ALL the teams in the league are playing at a level playing field.

If all you want is the same elite teams winning year after year and the same small market teams being awful keep the status quo. For every team that had lady luck smile down on them for a small period of time, when lady luck leaves the teams completely bottoms out, never to be heard from again. To be honest, my opinion is that the league needs to drop down at least 2 teams if not more, have a hard cap and you'll see the league be more competitive and see better play because of it. It's all in the owners hands and this most likely will be there last chance to make things right or go the Stern way.

An example of the small market teams, do you really think now that Duncan is past his prime, if they don't get lucky in the draft again that they'll get anyone to go to San Antonio or if Ok.City gets the injury bug that they'll have any chance whatsoever of getting someone else in there????

 

I don't support anyone who has millions of dollars yet still isn't happy with sharring a little! So I dont support either group

 

Look I've already said the semantics of who pays for the franchise and blah blah is irrelevant because you falsely think some of these teams are operating at a 20 mil loss, lol. Yes, no one is disputing that if your business is losing 20 mil a year then something needs to change but that's just not true.

Just think to yourself, if what you're describing is ACTUALLY TRUE, then what kind of stupid owner would wait 5 years for the next CBA instead of cutting the 100 million of potential losses immediately lol (like the Nets example from 2005)? It's because it's not true and only an accounting thing.

Hate to break it to you, but neither side cares about how much you pay to go to games. The dispute is over how THEY split profits, not you.

 

DEAD WRONG. They care to the extent to which nobody purchases them.

Teams are playing to half sold arenas right now. Why? Because the prices are too high. Why? Cause their operating costs are too high. Why? Because player salaries are too high.

At the end of the day, this can only be good for fans who can't afford to go to games. The worst that comes of it is we see no change in ticket prices (meaning at least they don't go up).

This is a win for paying fans.

 

Actually, the league sold over 90% of all tickets this year:

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/sort/homePct

But anyway, ticket prices are independent of profits, prices are set by the market. This is economics 101. Are you saying that the richer corporations get the lower prices get lol??

 

I think both sides are wrong, and I don't care how they 'fix-it' but fix-it they all must do and Labor Day is the last time acceptable!!!

 

Smart strategy.

Except, you know, when there are 29 other guys that are willing to pay that employee more than you, and that employee happens to be one of only 10-15 people in the entire world that can do what he does for you, and your business is likely to go into the tank without them.

Then it's r****ded.

Better share them profits then.

 

jsb, I don't think there's that much disagreement between us. What you have described, IMO, amounts to the gist of what I posted. That what's driving this are conflicting desires by the owners. You described those conflicting desires pretty well. My point is that while player salaries, guaranteed contract length, and % of gross league income need some adjustment downward, the ultimate problem is the refusal of the large market teams to have true revenue sharing, revenue sharing that come much closer to parity. And no matter what mechanism ends up going into place, if teams are still willing to pay borderline stars max, or close to max salaries, that's hardly the player's fault. Bad management is not the player's fault.

You want some irony? The current deal, much attacked by the owners as "unfair" and "excessive," was viewed as a victory by them at the time. They felt that they got most of what they wanted. That it hasn't tuned out that way is the player's fault? Some info from today's New York Times in an excellent article about this:

Thirteen years ago, the N.B.A. locked out its players and started a protracted battle over the league’s financial future. Owners wanted cost certainty and a hard salary cap. The players union resisted, as players unions always do.

After 204 days and hundreds of millions of dollars lost, the parties adopted a new labor deal, just in time to stage a 50-game season. When the standoff was over, the owners had won new controls on salaries. The union had secured a huge share of league revenues. And Stern, the N.B.A. commissioner, had acquired a face full of gray scruff that stood as a frightful symbol of the 1998 lockout.

“As a basketball fan and particularly a fan of the N.B.A., I am elated,” an unkempt-looking Stern said in January 1999 after adopting the new deal. Asked last Thursday if the lockout had been worth it to get the deal he got, Stern gave an unequivocal, “Yes.”

Eight hours later, Stern shut down the league again, claiming that the system he fought for was now broken. The owners, as before, are seeking a hard cap and an assurance of profitability. The players union, as before, is fighting to protect past gains.

The 1999 deal contained three new cost controls: a luxury tax for high-spending teams, an escrow tax that capped the players’ share of revenue and, for the first time, a cap on individual player salaries — initially $9 million to $14 million. (Michael Jordan, for perspective, earned $33 million in his final season with the Bulls.)

These were revolutionary measures, celebrated by owners and decried loudly by player agents, who were furious with the union for accepting the deal.

“In ’99, the N.B.A. achieved total victory,” Arn Tellem, one of the league’s most powerful agents, said in a phone interview. “There’s not much more they could have achieved.”

Initially, the owners seemed to get the desired results. In the first season that the tax system was in effect, 2001-2, teams did not spend enough in the aggregate to trigger it. The next year, 16 teams paid $174 million in taxes (led by Portland, with an astronomical $52 million bill). The total number of tax-paying teams dipped to 12 in 2003-4, and the tax disappeared again in 2004-5, when aggregate spending again fell below the trigger point.

As recently as 2006-7, only five teams paid the tax — a dollar-for-dollar surcharge on payrolls that exceeded $65.4 million that season. But a year later, eight teams crossed the threshold, paying a combined $92.5 million in taxes. In 2009-10, with the threshold set at $69.9 million, 11 franchises went over, paying a combined $111 million in taxes.

Only seven teams paid the tax this past season, spending a combined $72 million over the limit. Three teams were egregiously over — the Lakers ($20 million), the Orlando Magic ($20 million) and the Dallas Mavericks ($19 million), who won the championship.

In fact, the last four champions were luxury tax-payers — a troubling trend for a league in which many small-market teams struggle to remain competitive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/s...rs-threaten-lockout-to-revamp-labor-deal.html

(this is a good read... worth clicking on the link for the rest of it)


OK, explain to me how this is equity between the teams? Of course, it's not. The large market teams are willing to pay well into luxury tax territory. That's the player's fault? The small market teams could either stay below the luxury tax threshold, or not. Their choice, a choice reflected in the contracts they agreed to. That's the player's fault? The last four champions all paid the tax. What does that tell you? They chose to go over the threshold, either because their media money allowed them to, or they had an owner, like Cuban, wealthy enough that he didn't care if his "hobby" went into the red. That's the player's fault?

In 1999, the owners felt like they'd won a grand victory. The players and their agents certainly felt as though they'd lost. Yet today the owners decry the deal they saw as victory then and blame the players for a deal the owners thought they'd won at the time. That's the player's fault? The real problem is a lack of equity beween the various teams in their different markets, and a willingness of the large market teams to game the system in order to field a contending team, and an unwillingness, so far, to agree to revenue sharing system that produces true equity. And I'm going to say it again. That's the player's fault?

 

I for one support basketball and other athletes getting paid, but when they get paid 20 times more than the average physician and 40 times more times more than your average paramedic, there needs to be some restructuring done. Yes the owners made a grave error by offering players salaries up to 22-23 million a year, but there should definitely be some sort of change sooner than later.

 

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps the players "want more and more money?"

I don't know who is right here, but it seems like you are automatically assuming the players are right because you equate them to "workers," and that fits your ideology.

What matters isn't ideology, but the points of dispute in splitting up the (very large) amounts of money and doing it in a manner that is fair to both sides and sustainable for the league.

I just want a deal that's fair and makes the NBA better.

 

1) Agents are a lower form of scum than lawyers
2) Whenever a labor deal is made, all parties say, OH THIS IS SO WONDERFUL
3) I agree we're not that far off but I'm not blaming the players per se...
4) But the players union and Stern more than anyone else gave us the system we've had

I'm not against the large market teams making money but sharing all resources isn't necessarily all wonderful either. And certain players are worth the money they make, Jordan as an example, he earned his 33M because he was a draw, everywhere he went the arena was maxed, not with ticket sales but fannies in the seats. Thats where the money's at. Just selling the ticket gets you revenue but fannies in the seats get you parking, drinks, food, team accessories and helps build area business'.

Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade and Yao when he was healthy put fannies in the seats wherever they played, they filled arenas, not just the home arena but everywhere they played. They also earned you the tv revenue because not only did the national ratings go up but the local ones did also. The Celtics as a name brand when they're winning put fannies in the seats.

The vast majority of players are strictly there for the paycheck. Dallas may be a better draw than the Milwaukee Bucks but its only because they have a brief history of winning but otherwise if I get a chance to see a game, I'm excited if one of the true stars are there, semi-excited if its a good team and rather blah if its anyone else. So I'm not against certain players getting there's but even a guy like Scola, who I really like and admire, he doesn't put a single fanny in the seats outside of Houston and he gets what 9-10M a year??? Really.

Personally I think there are too many teams that are not making a profit and are in such a poor market that they are not players in a championship caliber league except for the occasional luck year such as Memphis and New Orleans. Having said that basketball will be much better off with a hard cap, where someone is incapable of spending 40-50M more than another team, you want it more fair for the players, have a ceiling also but to try and say the Players Union is not the #1 road block (notice I didn't say only roadblock) to having a fair system is not true IMO.

PS.... Tried to rep you Deckard but until DD starts getting 1/2 the board worked up against him again, I guess I haven't repped enough of other people to be able to do so .

 

That's half the reason. The other half is that a lot of people would rather sit in front of their HD/3D setup and watch the game at their leisure instead trek to a stadium, find parking, sit with a view that is worse than what they'd see at home, use dirty restrooms and overpay for watered down beer. It isn't just the cost, it's the fact that positives of seeing a game don't outweigh the negatives, seeing a game in person is a lot harder than actually just sitting in front of your TV... or at least that's what I tell myself since I live so far from Houston...

 

I keep seeing "Oh well, its not the players fault that bla bla happened"

Alright, its not.

I keep seeing "The Owners were real happy in '99 when bla bla happened"

Well, times change. Its not '99 anymore, or didnt anyone notice? Doesnt matter who liked what then. What matters is what works now.

But now its time for a correction.

The players dont want one. This IS there fault.