They "should" have been able to make money under the previous arrangement. They could have. They ran their teams like idiots, and did or maybe did not break even. The lockout and subsequent "negotiation" of a new CBA is their solution to this/their problem.
Get to know an NBA owner!
- Thread starter r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t
- Start date
They "should" have been able to make money under the previous arrangement. They could have. They ran their teams like idiots, and did or maybe did not break even. The lockout and subsequent "negotiation" of a new CBA is their solution to this/their problem.
I like your series here and agree that it's pertinent to know that owners are masters in getting others to foot the bill and or/bullying their way into a bigger payday. But this quote is where I break ranks with you. The players' line is that the reason some teams aren't doing so well is that they're not being run smartly. While that may be true for some, that's just too easy of an excuse and ignores the real competitive balance problems that exists in the NBA system. The reason teams are overspending is in large measure because they can't be competitive without it. Other than outspending your opponent, almost the only thing you can do in today's NBA to create a winner is luck into a loyal superstar draft pick (Durant, Duncan, Dirk, Stockton, Malone) or be a high destination glamour city (and usually some combination of the two works best).
I'd like to see the players get paid a good portion, even 57%, if as Numberica implies the net income of the NBA makes that feasible. But the one thing the players seem to be standing for above all else is the current system in which teams have little choice other than to drive the market up for marginal stars in hopes the team will luck out and the players turn into authentic stars. When Carmelo and Wade give interviews complaining that the fans don't really understand the players' position, but also essentially saying that fans shouldn't expect all teams to have a good chance to be competitive, it's hard to have sympathy for them. Their "blood issue" isn't money, it's the cap on individual team spending. Why? It just sounds like the players are digging in most strongly over their "right" to create super-teams in glamour cities.
Is there not some solution in which competitive balance could be addressed while also ensuring the players get a healthy chunk of the earnings?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Revenue sharing and a sliding scale for players' revenue share based on total revenue should be on the table, just like in the NHL model. If the CBA changes drastically in favor of the owners, and the economy magically goes into boom mode (...), the owners (especially the big market owners) will be laughing all the way to the bank (you know, like they did in the 80s and 90s).
A punitive LT or flex cap helps too. I also think the mid-level is a little out of control (it seems to be the bastion for contract-year phenoms that either normally aren't very good, or are on their way out and trying to get every penny they can before they crap out [Posey]). I also think something resembling a franchise-tag is pretty damn important since we've seen what happens when a Lebron James ups and leaves (not to mention the forced-hand deals the Nuggets and [to a lesser degree] the Jazz [felt] they had to make to prevent such a catastrophe).
In placing such restrictions on free agency and the longevity of deals, I think allowing the players to make the share they've been making is AT LEAST fair. One of the bigger problems I have with the owners stance is that it's SO predicated on finances and not on parity/system issues, besides that I don't buy their cooked-book numbers for a lot of reasons. There are so many system issues to tackle, and the storyline I keep hearing is "GAAAHH WE'RE ****ING BROKE GUYS!! GIMME!!!!"
In placing such restrictions on free agency and the longevity of deals, I think allowing the players to make the share they've been making is AT LEAST fair. One of the bigger problems I have with the owners stance is that it's SO predicated on finances and not on parity/system issues, besides that I don't buy their cooked-book numbers for a lot of reasons. There are so many system issues to tackle, and the storyline I keep hearing is "GAAAHH WE'RE ****ING BROKE GUYS!! GIMME!!!!"
Do you think the players would even touch that? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they would.
I may be totally off base here, but it seems possible that one of the reasons the owners' proposals started so low on salary was to induce players to bend on system issues. The players would realize that if they wanted to retain salary then they'd have to compromise on the system. But the players seem to have no interest at all in seeing the system change, so we're stalemated.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
If the majority of owners were making good money, they would have already caved. No business owner is going to sacrifice the profits of doing business for the losses of not doing business unless there aren't profits to doing business. That's why the owners have leverage.
No doubt the owners are looking to get over. They've got 2008 on their side, 2 CBA's that favored the players, and they want payback. The players need to stop looking for what is 'fair' with a microscope. They need to be practical. If everything goes right they'll be fighting over the riches in 7 years.
No doubt the owners are looking to get over. They've got 2008 on their side, 2 CBA's that favored the players, and they want payback. The players need to stop looking for what is 'fair' with a microscope. They need to be practical. If everything goes right they'll be fighting over the riches in 7 years.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You honestly have a problem with a taxpayer taking advantage of a legal loophole? I think anybody who doesn't take advantage of every deduction available to them is an idiot. I applaud those who return extra money to society, but not through government where bureaucracy is out of control and waste is rampant. If you want to pay extra pick a good charity (and use it as a deduction, of course).
Extorting the local population to build an arena using government funds is an entirely different thing. One thing I respected about LHM was that he built his own arena. I'm sure he got some tax breaks for the project and I'm comfortable saying that they've paid for themselves many times over.
If you lived in SLC pre-Jazz you know what a massive risk LHM took. That risk changed this community for the better and I have no problem whatsoever that he and his family have experienced tremendous economic benefit as a result. Are there circumstances where someone gets rich through the exploitation of others? Yes. Is that the case for the vast majority of successful people in America? Absolutely not. So keep waving that little American flag of yours because it represents a wonderful country of unprecedented opportunity.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Ya, not so much. Times are changing, friend. Most Western countries score better on the GINI index (an index of income inequality) and have a higher degree of social mobility (as per the London School of Economics 2005 report). One of these countries, Norway, also has higher GDP per capita (PPP, per CIA World Factbook), and several others are just behind (Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, etc.). The United States can't by a long shot claim to be THE land of opportunity anymore.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
You realize I was looking at income equality AND social mobility AND GDP per capita, right? Norway beats the US in all three of those, and several other countries beat the US in two and are within 10% on the third.
And that's ignoring measures of life expectancy, health and happiness, which also tend to work against the United States.
It's more than a little disingenuous to state that the United States is a land of unprecedented opportunity. That's simply false.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
It's nice to see you support your baseless assertions with absolutely nothing. Brilliant.
And, fwiw, the United States doesn't lead the world in net migration rate (although it is quite high). Once again, Canada (along with Australia, Italy and others) is ahead of the United States (Norway is much further down the list).
And, fwiw, the United States doesn't lead the world in net migration rate (although it is quite high). Once again, Canada (along with Australia, Italy and others) is ahead of the United States (Norway is much further down the list).
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
What actual activity behavior? Care to back up this statement with something? Anything? A ridiculous illustration of confirmation bias.
Like I said, several countries have higher net migration rates. A few of those countries also score higher in income distribution, social mobility, happiness, health and life expectancy (again, so far as you trust these measures, some of which are, admittedly, highly subjective). Strangely enough, Canada is one of the countries that has the US beat on ALL of the listed stats, although as I've stated they lag behind the US in GDP per capita by about 10% (I'd guess this gap narrows with the continuing economic troubles in the US...Canada hasn't been hit nearly as hard).
There is little basis to say that the US is currently a country of unprecedented opportunity. If you care to explain why you've stated as much, I'm open to changing my mind.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is even a mild stretch to call America a land of opportunity. The reason I added the word unprecedented is because I believe the level of opportunity that has existed in America is unparalleled by any nation in the history of the world. Apparently you either think that era is over, or that it only existed in my mind. I'm not going to write a doctoral thesis on it for you and if you don't see it the same way we'll have to agree to disagree. Go to Norway if you'd like. We have some Norwegian friends down the block who would be thrilled to rent their Oslo house to you if they're able to extend their work visas so that they can remain in America as long as possible.
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. I never said the United States wasn't a land of opportunity. It is.
2. There are many countries where opportunity is just as available (or more available) as in the United States. As such, the level of opportunity currently available in the United States is not unprecedented.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Note: In Forbes 2011 ranking of best countries for business, the United States came in 10th, behind (among others) Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and...Norway.