BuzzerBeater Forums

gotcha

Yes maybe we need to get two sides, one of whom earns billions and gets to have the real life fun and massive prestige of running a sporting team that they don't have to and they could sell off in a second for a massive fortune, the other of whom gets paid millions of dollars just to play basketball which most of us gladly do for free, and lets get them both to argue about a tiny few % of the huge cash cow and ruin the season for the normal fans due to their disgusting greed.

Sounds like fun.

I don't see how anyone can side with the owners. They have a MLB TV revenue plan, yet they want a hard salary cap, like the NFL. That doesn't work unless, you share your TV revenue, which teams like the Lakers, Mavericks, Knicks, Bulls, won't share. This is where the owners should be trying to recoup their losses. Not taking money away from their employees. I hate how when ever a company is losing money, its always the employees that have to sacrifice. Its never adjusted in prices of products or changing how revenue is assigned. The burden of loss, always falls on the employees.

On a side note, I'd love to see the NBA players, start their own league, like Amare suggested.

I am easily sideing with the owners. Whoever thought splitting BRI 43-57 with employees must of been an idiot. Perhaps teams were making easy money back then. Even 50-50 split is more than they should give. I'd love to have a laugh seeing any of those players trying to make their own league. Who is going to pay them salary? Nike? Adidas? Pepsi? They would say goodbye to their 1st class flights, good hotels etc. As a business owner why would you deliberately manage your team at a loss? If you are in a minus, you cut your losses where it is the easiest. Having read the CBA, there are so many flaws and easy giveaways to players that it shocked me. Why should you charge the fans more?, why would you cut the arena or team staff salarys. The easiest place to look is the players, who are making the most money (and the average player is broke after 5 years anyway). Better luxury tax will bring the salarys of players down, smaller contract lenghts, less exceptions - everything makes sence. It's idiotic that teams trade contracts of over 10mil, while the player himself has been retired for 3 years etc. All these "you must pay a 5 year veteran no less than", and "you can't pay a second year player no more than" restrictions should go imo. Pay the player what he is worth and create a luxury tax that does not make the Lakers/Celtics owner go "meh".
As an owner I would cancel the whole season (unless players accept their terms, which would make the teams profitable again, nomatter how small the profit is). Nobody is able to pay all those players salary, they lack the funds to create their own league, nobody actually wants them all in europe (as they are a bit above average against the handcheck defence, no first step advantage, no 1v1 game etc).
Y I know, too long did not read...

Remind me never to work for you. The owners are losing money for 1 reason. There is no revenue sharing amongst the TV revenue. This is why teams like New Orleans and Memphis are losing money, yet teams like the LA Lakers and Dallas can go 30 million over the Luxuray cap. I was under the impression, that the Lakers were only at 95 million last season, but somewhere (don't know where I saw it) it was reported they had a payroll of 115 million. That is nearly twice the 60 million salary cap. How can they afford this, but other teams, can't even afford their own players, who are well under the cap. Um let me explain it to you. TV Revenue.

Why does it matter that the average player is broke after 5 years? Your point. I don't get it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CBA. So what if people are bad at money management. Last time I checked, that wasn't a crime.

Should players contracts be shorted, sure, but the owners have no problem signing them. NONE. That is on the owners too, no one is making them offer these contracts.

I'm sure the with proper management and sponsorship, a new league would not be that hard to run.

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. The marketing deals and tv deals that teams make can not be meddled with. The only way you can spread the wealth is luxury tax. But if 22 teams are already in deficit, the luxury tax by itself, can not handle the losses. What if none of the richer teams go for the luxury tax? First priority should be getting teams into + on their own. If they start making decent earnings, then you can raise the luxury tax limit a bit. Thus raising the salarys of the players. There will always be richer and poorer teams, just because they are in different citys and have different market opportunitys. Going after their tv revenue is like going after star players endorsement deals and dividing those amongst all players under contract. Would that be fair. Would star players accept this kind of deal. Or if your salary is over some margin you will start paying the lower salary guys 1$ per every dollar you make over that limit.
People need to remember that players are the employees who play basketball for money. They get a paycheck nomatter how bad the team is doing and nomatter what is the teams moneytary situation at the moment. Owners fly them around the country pay their hotel bills, provide them with food, training facilities etc. They take all the risks and cover all the losses. They can't just say, oops there is no money left, can't pay your salary from now on. They have been nice enough to run their businesses in losses for some years now and paying for it from their own pockets. Business is run for profit, if something has been running in "-" for several years it's time to say stop and make changes or quit. Do you think they would have let games to be cancelled if they would lose more money? Last season was great and interesting, with the fanbase expanding. The only guys loosing here are the players. The more games get cancelled, the more they lose. Owners on the other hand win.
Average player broke in 5 years comment is made just to show, that they can not make the easiest mathematical calculations.

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/13/2011 6:46:03 PM

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.