BuzzerBeater Forums

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

"You have never prolly worked in your life or you have no education what so ever"
to thal all i gotta say is atleast a got life lol i dont sit here like you 24/7 so relax....... i knw how the thing works dont copy and paste stuff that i already know all im saying is if you could just divide that money up wouldnt every team have some kind of a revenue?....... i knw im not stupid but that championship wouldnt have been there if there was no nowitzki either......You gotta be an idiot to say the players arent the NBA's asset you need to chill out bud, i agree with the fans part obviously nothing would be there without the fans..... n yes a lot of the nba players havent done that great in the nba but there are basketball leagues around the world that are willing to pay for these players theres europe, china, australia, canada just formed a league as well they have options now n im not saying all 450 of those players want 2 mil a game.... there are like atleast 200 nba players taht will make an average amount in europe im sure a lot of teams can afford them and yes the stars may have a problem but they can still make it work........ and youre trading a player part yes cleveland doesnt like lebron but what will happen if they dont start winning games? what will u say to that? i think they would want lebron back..... You gotta understand players run the league theres no league without them they cant be replaced an owner can sell a team and all that but you cant come up with new players.... im not stupid if a team doesnt make money it wont exist.... but a lot of these problems can be solved with revenue sharing between the teams and a few other rules that dont involve players get a pay cut or alteast not a 50-50 i agree with 53-47...... n owners mite end up getting what they want but it will never be the right thing to do..... ps. get a life :)

And dont take personal shots at people thats when your education actually comes into play... youre telling me i have never had an education or worked in my life.... im sure if you did you would know how to talk... everyones stating their opinion about things it may make you angry but who do you think you are to say that? argue about the lockout if you can Einstein

If you know how things work then how can you post things like: "owners have done nothing their income comes from things unrelated to basketball", "owners can sell a team and all that". Seriously? You still think that a basketball team is ment to run into minus every year. Who is going to buy teams making a solid loss every year?
Don't worry there will always be players. Perhaps it takes a year, perhaps 2, players will get replaced with guys who want to play basketball. The players now are spoiled. For example J.Childress came to play in europe. If you are accustomed flying 1-st class, living in the best hotels etc. Driving 6 hours in a buss, flying economy class and sleeping in a hostel will change their minds. He said he will never come back here again:)
I just wrote that I could not finish my post because it was weekend? How did you manage to misinterpet that to me sitting here 24/7?:) Even suggesting that someone sits online 24/7, in a game, that requires you to log on 2-3 times a week is bizarre.
So my advise to you is: finish that elementary school, learn a trade (university might be too much for you), get a job. See who pay's what and who calls the shots and then we can discuss grown up things. GL.

Someone needs to get of their soapbox, and get back to reality.

1st, Even in this economy, there is no shortage of people that want to own NBA Franchises. Why? Its a license to print money. The players are not at fault. When the Maloof(sp?) brothers, can't even make money running casinos, maybe they shouldn't own and NBA Franchise.

2nd, the NBA has yet to show any numbers that these teams are losing money. We are suppose to take it at their word? If the proof is in the pudding where is the pudding?

3rd, Why should the players cave to these demands. NO one made them sign these contracts. If team x, wants to go over the salary cap and pay a penalty to do so, why shouldn't they be allowed. This is good for the players, and apparently good for the owners, if they have no problems do it.

It all goes back to revenue sharing, the owners want their cake and for no one else to eat it too. That is why the NFL has a successful ownership model. Each team knows how much they will get from the TV contract. Guess what, its more then enough to found their rosters. In the NBA, the owners don't want to share. Why would the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, want to share their revenue with the Hawks, Grizzles, Bobcats, etc? What this lockout is really about is the owners not want to share their TV contracts, so they are going to make the players suffer. Yeah thats fair.

Lastly, for someone so smart, you don't have to login 2-3 times a week, you only have to login, once every 6 weeks. :P

Lastly, for someone so smart, you don't have to login 2-3 times a week, you only have to login, once every 6 weeks. :P

You need to log in after every game, to set up lineups if there are injuries. There is no doubt I am smarter than you.

2nd, the NBA has yet to show any numbers that these teams are losing money.

Y it's really smart to lose games if you have a profitable organization. Let's alianate fans to get even more money, oh wait...
TV contracts are team based. Stations want to create channels based on those teams. With higher taxes the money get's spread to the teams below the cap.
We can't really compare 9bil (NFL) and 4bil (NBA) markets, can we? Split of BRI at 50-50 would bring all teams to profit. It's really funny how people still think that players can win here. Lockout lasts, all employees (including players) and everyone related to NBA games lose money. Most of the owners do not lose money (8 of them prolly do). They give up and continue the same CBA, most of the owners start losing money again. The longer the lockout the more everyone but the owners lose. Even if the players struck a bit better deal than 50-50 BRI later in the lockout, they still have lost a lot of money and that little win will not gain that money back. It's really that simple.