BuzzerBeater Forums

It does not matter who you work for, you should still always remember who is you employer.
You can't assume 8 profitable teams will cover 22 teams losses yearly.

yes but you also have to think about that in the other way, when 8 team would and could easily pay more.

You can not say, guarantee the poorest team the income you could achieve a championship team, which making the richest even richer and just for the "fair play". If you want to have fair play, you can not ask for it on the cost of others.

And you forget that many owners, uses the franchises for looses just for the tax, that are also burokratic games.

Make a free market, and let make the team earing and losses like they work - evn when trades get easier and maybe the draft is dead - that is the way you should go when i look at your arguments.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 10/15/2011 4:08:10 PM

yes but you also have to think about that in the other way, when 8 team would and could easily pay more.

That's where the overly expencive luxury tax comes to play. So if you want to go over the cap you pay significantly more and this money get's spread out to all teams below luxury tax. Currently the tax is too small to even bother those rich teams.

This money goes to the owners, and not to the players who are worth this money, in the eye of the people who pay them. And yes the owners say Butler is worth the doule amount of salary he get, when they sign him above the luxory.

but when the owner don't want long term contract, they shouldn't offer then.

When owner want to make profit, they could mostly pay less salary they ain't forced to overpay.(yes there are 1-2 team below the minimum)

Butler is worth the doule amount of salary he get, when they sign him above the luxory.

This shows you are not familiar with the new luxury tax proposal. For example, Lakers payed 20 mil luxury tax (for going over the tax limit with 20mil). With the new system they would pay 53,7 mil (for going 20mil over the tax limit). That's a big difference. The tax rises exponentially with 5mil intervals. I'm not particularly fan of the 5 year taxation plan (where you can exceed the cap max twise or pay really high tax, 10+ per dollar). Plus the great addition to this is that teams over the luxury tax can not use those mid level and other exceptions.
The contract problem will be smaller when the rich team just can't buy everyone over.
Like I said in an earlier post, too many rules and regulations for veteran guaranteed contracts and rich teams able to go over tax and steal players easily with exceptions etc. I think it was the players suggesting 12 player rosters. Pretty funny imo, stabbing 90 players in the back, who would not have a spot in a team any more, just to keep the better players earning more (less spots on a team, more salary per spot under luxury tax).

the new luxory tax, is still just a proposal. But the problem with it is the same.

The lkakers think a player is worth 10m over luxury, then they could pay them 3 m and pay unconnected buissness parters 7 Mio. Also it get harder to make it.

So the overall contract must get smaller so that the rich team can not spend the money they earn with the players, at the player. And the player get money that the poor team get rich(but will be still relativ poor to the big market teams who earn like crazy) on the cost of the players.

Maybe you should go look at the TV contract the lakers signed a few months back and then compare the 53.7 million to it and correct me if im wrong they can pay twice as much as that with the revenue they get from it..... the nba can just share the revenue they have and fix a lot of things.... n i do want a hard cap im not disagreeing with it... but this is a players game no1 cares about the owners... theres no most valuable owner award but there is a most valuable player.... the nba is nothing without its players so why should they take a pay cut when they have worked their whole life to be basketball player(owners didnt do anything they got there money from stuff thats unrelated to basketball).... the players are its biggest and only asset.... theres no NBA without the players but there will be players without the NBA.... and they can go to europe and play... kobes getting 2 mil to play 1 game.... and thats his value... he gets 25million a season and hes underpaid cause of what he can do..... you cant replace them thats what you gotta realize... you will see more kobe jerseys at lakers game then the whole laker team combined and that goes for every star player... if you take them out you got nothing.... owners are important but the nba isnt like a normal business... 57-43 may not be fair but 53-47 definetly is

You can't just hide 7mil of a 10mil contract. This will eventually come out and NBA has strict regulations about these schemes. Otherwise everyone under contract in europe that was drafted would of been bought out using these unconnected businesses.

so the amount other club pay a player but he had to give it to the other clubs(2/3 of it), saves the NBA from a european invasion?

This lockout has nothing to do with european players. Do you even understand what we are talking about here?:D BRI procentage split for owners makes teams profitable (as a business), new luxury tax will make the league a bit more competitive (limiting the rich teams from spending excessivly), shorter contracts are overall better (as salarys raise annually by guaranteed % with contract rules) - perhaps even 3y contracts max would be better. More player movement and more "contract earning" seasons:)

Otherwise everyone under contract in europe that was drafted would of been bought out using these unconnected businesses.

This lockout has nothing to do with european players.

ok i properly connected your first sentence, to european players sry.

shorter contracts are overall better (as salarys raise annually by guaranteed % with contract rules) - perhaps even 3y contracts max would be better.

why you had to forbid long contracts, when both partys like to sign short ones? So you can allow the long contract fror them who still want them.

procentage split for owners makes teams profitable (as a business),

i really underrstand that owner want to be profitable, and i is really honorabe that they do it on the cost of the players and not asking themself why they give so big contracts(because they didn't attacked the minimum salary and nearly all teams are above their salary limit). And let finacee themself, from the team who still want to pay big paychecks, so that they get 2 bucks for every bug they pay for PLAYERS aboutof the luxiory limit.
You can not take the poorest particpant, and design the system that he makes guaranteed and good earnings, while the finacial solid company are limited to the same expense and makes big money.

The tv contract was 3billion, so that's 150mil yearly. Perhaps that's why there was a extra clause in the luxury tax. 5 year span, teams can go into luxury tax 2 times. If they go there the third time, they pay triple the value. So the Lakers 53.7mil, would turn into 153mil, for going 20mil over the cap. Now we can speculate how many teams would even spend that extra 30mil, for going over cap, with 20mil. Perhaps 2? (Lakers, Knicks???), 3 (Mavs????????), everyone else would really think about it. I'm 100% sure, no team would pay 130mil, for going over 20mil, the third time, not even Lakers.
First thing you need to realise is, that the only ones paying for stuff in the organization are the owners. Everyone else is an employee, who get's paid and cashes his check, whatever the team income is. Businesses are made to profit. It's obvious, that if the system does not work, the guys in charge will say, how we move on. The guys in charge are the guys who pay the bills.
To my knowledge championships get won by teams, it's not that D.Nowitzki alone was 2010-2011 champion, it was a team owned by the owner. You can start your own 1v1 tournament and hand out championships.

players so why should they take a pay cut when they have worked their whole life to be basketball player(owners didnt do anything they got there money from stuff thats unrelated to basketball).... the players are its biggest and only asset.... theres no NBA without the players but there will be players without the NBA

You have never prolly worked in your life or you have no education what so ever. I think that the NBA-s biggest asset is their teams and their fans. Being part of something, rooting for your hometeam. Players get traded, the teams stay the same. How many people from Cleaveland love James now?:) Obviously there are players that have more national appeal and their jerseys get bought everywhere, even here in europe. No doubt Kobe is bringing more money in, than his salary is. But there are only few of these kind of players. About the playing in europe part, some have come to play here, they have not actually shined here. Not really the impact everyone was hoping for + none of the european teams can pay those sums of salary. Where would you put all those 450 players, to China???:)
This responce has been open in my browser for 2 days now. Not been keen on writing this on weekend. It's bizarre how someone can side with players, who make millions, instead of sideing with the owners. who are losing millions in a closed system. I guess we will have to wait and see. Sure I'm sad I can't watch NBA games via League Pass, but I understand. I will start to watch again when they have struck a deal. I put my money on owners getting what they rightfully should get. Noone should be forced to run a business while loosing money.
Sorry for the wall of text:(

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/16/2011 1:56:28 PM