What's new
By:

Bring on the Scabs!!

If the owners can hire replacement players, can the players find replacement leagues? I read one source that said no, the players couldn't do that, but that wouldn't seem fair to me. Of course were talking "legal" here, not "fair". Anyone know for sure?

Quality basketball players can make a pretty good salary in Europe these days.
 
Jazz4ever said:
Oldtimer, there is no chance they will bring in replacements. No one will pay to see guys that you can probably find at your local YMCA. D-League and the WNBA are good examples of why NBA players have massive bargaining power.
The lockout happens by default as the CBA contract has legally expired.
Click to expand...
Church Ball - now playing at a Stake Center near you!!!
 
Colton

David Stern answered that exact question a couple of days ago on ESPN. The Answer is absolutely. The players are free to go over seas, start their own league or do whatever they would like during the lockout. The problem is that they have no physical place to play and can't make even a fraction of what the owners pay them.
 
colton said:
If the owners can hire replacement players, can the players find replacement leagues? I read one source that said no, the players couldn't do that, but that wouldn't seem fair to me. Of course were talking "legal" here, not "fair". Anyone know for sure?

Quality basketball players can make a pretty good salary in Europe these days.
Click to expand...

It could be done legally, this is America after all. It would be no different than the D-League, just on a much larger scale. The teams would probably start off renting college arenas, and maybe a few cities could find the investment necessary to build their own stadiums. The risk as an investor in one of these new franchises is the NBA saying "ok we give" after several years of planning. Europe has the room to support a few star players, but most teams (and countries) are poor. I don't think the owners are worried about the euro leagues as a threat at all.
 
I would be interested to see who some of these other players jazz fans would go to see. First name that comes to mind is lance allred. Then maybe Kevin Krueger. Maybe give Morris almond another shot.
 
oldtimer said:
What I'm saying is the owners are right and the players are wrong. The owners took the risk, invested hundreds of millions of dollars and deserve to make a profit. Even if player' wages were cut substantially they still make more than every other league.
Click to expand...

Hey, I bought stock last year in XYZ company and I deserve to make a profit. I risked my money and now the stock is down. I demand that management at XYZ cut their salaries and make me profitable. Is that how it works?

Also, note that the players just want a percentage of the action, not a set amount. Thus as the revenues goes up they get more, as it goes down they get less. Right?

Look, I don't like $120 tickets and $20 mill/year salaries anymore than anyone else. But I am sick and tired of seeing the little guys get slapped down these days so the multi-millionaires can become multi-multi-millionaires. Now I realize the players are not such "little guys" but the idea is the same.
 
zman1527 said:
Okay, Zippy, how do you know that any are losing money at all? If 22 are losing money, why are not the owners selling these bad investments??? With the accounting games they can play, no one can know if any one of them is losing money at all. You trust the owners in this? Okay, I have a wonderful MBS rated AAA for ya. Sure those illegal dishwashers in East LA are good for the mortgage payments. LOL

You never heard of a billionaire selling out of a bad investment? Happens all the time. And if they did the new owner would have a better financial situation presumably: if owner A bought if for $300 million and it is actually losing money, maybe someone can buy it for $150 million. Then you have a better proposition.

Sure the players make good jing and they should be very happy with that. But they are only asking for a percentage. If revenue goes down, so does their take, right? I think they ought to go for 50:50 and stick with that. That will sound fair to everyone.
Click to expand...

Why 50/50?
 
zman1527 said:
Okay, Zippy, how do you know that any are losing money at all? If 22 are losing money, why are not the owners selling these bad investments??? With the accounting games they can play, no one can know if any one of them is losing money at all. You trust the owners in this? Okay, I have a wonderful MBS rated AAA for ya. Sure those illegal dishwashers in East LA are good for the mortgage payments. LOL

You never heard of a billionaire selling out of a bad investment? Happens all the time. And if they did the new owner would have a better financial situation presumably: if owner A bought if for $300 million and it is actually losing money, maybe someone can buy it for $150 million. Then you have a better proposition.

Sure the players make good jing and they should be very happy with that. But they are only asking for a percentage. If revenue goes down, so does their take, right? I think they ought to go for 50:50 and stick with that. That will sound fair to everyone.
Click to expand...

Its pretty tough to sell a team for which you paid $300M ($250M borrowed) for $150M. Bankers and other partners don't like that.

What you are saying is that they made a bad investment. If they give in now, you become right. If they win this war, and can still make their loan payments as well as some profit, you are wrong.

They will not give in easily.
 
zman1527 said:
SalmonHobo said:
Why 50/50?
Click to expand...
Because it sounds fair.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a little bit more to it than that. Most reports that I've read have said that if the 57% figure got reduced to 52%, the league as a whole would break if they had 100% revenue sharing. The 50% figure seems very reasonable to me in that it wouldn't require 100% revenue sharing, but it would require a large amount of it; and it wouldn't guarantee that ALL owners made a profit, but it should make it so that a well-run franchise would be able to do so.

In short, I think 50-50 is a reasonable level.

It's also fairly close to half way between what the players were offering (54.5%?) and what the owners were requesting (43%?). (I can't remember the bargaining numbers off the top of my head.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top