Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
When do tickets for the moon game go on sale? Sign me up.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
When do tickets for the moon game go on sale? Sign me up.
The New York Times recently reported that the Owners claims that they are losing money is made-up. Having read the entire article I was amazed at how shockingly bad the analysis was in that article.
According to Nate Silver of the New York Times:
"Even as it stands, however, the Forbes data suggests that the league is still profitable. Its operating income — revenues less expenses (but before interest payments and taxes) — is estimated to have been $183 million in 2009-10, or about $6 million per team. The N.B.A.’s operating margin (operating income divided by revenues) was about 5 percent in 2009-10 and has been about 7 percent during the life of the current labor deal.
A 5 percent or 7 percent profit is not dissimilar to what other businesses have experienced recently. Fortune 500 companies, for instance, collectively turned a 4.0 percent profit in 2009 and a 6.6 percent profit in 2010 (both figures after taxes). Profit margins in the entertainment industry, in which the N.B.A. should probably be classified, have generally been a bit lower than that."
I've never seen more fallacious reasoning in an article, an article which by the way has been repeated in numerous places. Nobody disputes that accounting rules allow for some creative accounting and clearly not every team claiming to have lost money did. The fact that you can depreciate players like goods on a shelf is ridiculous. However, to conclude that three teams made 150 million dollars profit and there was a total of 183 million in profit, actually strikes against his entire argument. Mr. Silver divides 183 million by 32 teams and claims that each team on average made 6 million. Huh?? 3 teams made 150 million and the rest of the teams at most could split the 33 million left over. That is not a recipe for sustained growth. Given the facts as alleged in this New York Times article that was supposed to favor the player, I absolutely believe the league has no choice but to lock out its players.
According to Nate Silver of the New York Times:
"Even as it stands, however, the Forbes data suggests that the league is still profitable. Its operating income — revenues less expenses (but before interest payments and taxes) — is estimated to have been $183 million in 2009-10, or about $6 million per team. The N.B.A.’s operating margin (operating income divided by revenues) was about 5 percent in 2009-10 and has been about 7 percent during the life of the current labor deal.
A 5 percent or 7 percent profit is not dissimilar to what other businesses have experienced recently. Fortune 500 companies, for instance, collectively turned a 4.0 percent profit in 2009 and a 6.6 percent profit in 2010 (both figures after taxes). Profit margins in the entertainment industry, in which the N.B.A. should probably be classified, have generally been a bit lower than that."
I've never seen more fallacious reasoning in an article, an article which by the way has been repeated in numerous places. Nobody disputes that accounting rules allow for some creative accounting and clearly not every team claiming to have lost money did. The fact that you can depreciate players like goods on a shelf is ridiculous. However, to conclude that three teams made 150 million dollars profit and there was a total of 183 million in profit, actually strikes against his entire argument. Mr. Silver divides 183 million by 32 teams and claims that each team on average made 6 million. Huh?? 3 teams made 150 million and the rest of the teams at most could split the 33 million left over. That is not a recipe for sustained growth. Given the facts as alleged in this New York Times article that was supposed to favor the player, I absolutely believe the league has no choice but to lock out its players.
Last edited:
maybe because you would still have some deep-pocketed owners, or owners who don't have massive loans to pay down, etc. who'd be willing to pay whatever it takes to sign big-name players? So you try to equalize the salaries a little bit more.
but really, I haven't a clue.
ok, probably another really dumb question here, but how is the players' portion of revenue sharing actually divvied up between the players on a team? Do they get a percentage equal to their percentage of total team payroll? Or is it split evenly between them? Or some other formula?
If anyone has an answer they can explain in a dumbed down fashion for me, I'd be grateful
Revenue sharing vs. Good CBA
Both are desperately needed and both will be done. The problem is the order in which they are done. The players believe revenue sharing should come first. If every team shared 100% of their profits each team would have made 6 million dollars last year, at least if you believe the New York Times and the assertion that NBA teams as whole actually made money vs. lost money as the NBA claims. Thus, if there was a higher percentage of revenue sharing they wouldn't have to give back so much in salary. The players want the owners to work on revenue sharing first and then the CBA.
The owners believe that the players should have zero say in how teams split revenue amongst themselves and the two issues should be separate issues completely. I know of no other business where employees could dictate that their bosses should revenue share and then decide how much to pay employees. That being said it hasn't hurt the NFL negotiations. The NFL players know what percentage is shared and it is helping craft a deal that works for both sides. The NBA should be doing everything it can to get a deal done, and if revenue sharing would help get the deal, then do it first. My personal feeling is that even with revenue sharing, the players are still going to be asked to take huge pay cuts to make it work. Even if most NBA teams made 3 million a year and the mega teams made 8 million a year, that is not enough profit to sustain 300 million dollar investments.
I believe that revenue sharing among NBA teams is going to be a long drawn out fight. They might as well get started. The current system looks too much like baseball, where 5-6 teams have all the money and the rest never get a chance to compete for a championship. Both the CBA and Revenue sharing needs to be fixed and who cares which comes first, just get er done.
Both are desperately needed and both will be done. The problem is the order in which they are done. The players believe revenue sharing should come first. If every team shared 100% of their profits each team would have made 6 million dollars last year, at least if you believe the New York Times and the assertion that NBA teams as whole actually made money vs. lost money as the NBA claims. Thus, if there was a higher percentage of revenue sharing they wouldn't have to give back so much in salary. The players want the owners to work on revenue sharing first and then the CBA.
The owners believe that the players should have zero say in how teams split revenue amongst themselves and the two issues should be separate issues completely. I know of no other business where employees could dictate that their bosses should revenue share and then decide how much to pay employees. That being said it hasn't hurt the NFL negotiations. The NFL players know what percentage is shared and it is helping craft a deal that works for both sides. The NBA should be doing everything it can to get a deal done, and if revenue sharing would help get the deal, then do it first. My personal feeling is that even with revenue sharing, the players are still going to be asked to take huge pay cuts to make it work. Even if most NBA teams made 3 million a year and the mega teams made 8 million a year, that is not enough profit to sustain 300 million dollar investments.
I believe that revenue sharing among NBA teams is going to be a long drawn out fight. They might as well get started. The current system looks too much like baseball, where 5-6 teams have all the money and the rest never get a chance to compete for a championship. Both the CBA and Revenue sharing needs to be fixed and who cares which comes first, just get er done.
Last edited:
Moevillini
I am not an expert, but the revenue sharing is amongst teams not players. Teams share the revenue which helps the teams losing money. Since the teams aren't losing money or are not losing as much money they don't have to ask for the players to give back so much in salary.
In the old CBA players were entitled to up to 57% of the BRI. The NBA would withhold a certain portion of the players salary from each check and at the end of the year if the players salaries exceeded 57% of the BRI that withheld portion of the players salaries was returned to the team that owned their rights. If salaries were determined to be less than 57% of the BRI the withheld portion was then given to the players.
I am not an expert, but the revenue sharing is amongst teams not players. Teams share the revenue which helps the teams losing money. Since the teams aren't losing money or are not losing as much money they don't have to ask for the players to give back so much in salary.
In the old CBA players were entitled to up to 57% of the BRI. The NBA would withhold a certain portion of the players salary from each check and at the end of the year if the players salaries exceeded 57% of the BRI that withheld portion of the players salaries was returned to the team that owned their rights. If salaries were determined to be less than 57% of the BRI the withheld portion was then given to the players.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...no matter how you cut it and the pie....NO NBA players should be making $100,000 bucks a game! NO PLAYER! So the owners are going to SQUEEZE the players until they scream! Even at the current NBA salary of 5 million per player....that comes out to $60,000 bucks a game!
So owners should make $50+ million a year, just for being rich and even as they can just do that every year and not have to concern themselves with their window, their health, or at the threat of being moved at any given time?
People don't watch the games to root for their favorite ownership group, you ****ing brilliant genius.
I know this is dumb and I shouldn't do it but I respectfully disagree with both CarolinaJazz and Numberica. I know both of you are great posters and contribute a lot to the board but here is why I disagree with both of you.
I don't care what either group makes as long as the system works. If the players make 20 million a year and the system works, great. If the owners make 50 million and the system works then great. The problem is that most players don't make 20 million per year and most teams don't make 50 million per year and the system is still broken. I try never to get caught up into how much or how little people make.
I agree to pay high ticket prices because I want to see my favorite players. That is all I can control, buy a ticket or buy the league pass or don't. I'm a Jazz fan so I do. I want basketball not a lockout. The players and owners need to find a system that works.
I don't care what either group makes as long as the system works. If the players make 20 million a year and the system works, great. If the owners make 50 million and the system works then great. The problem is that most players don't make 20 million per year and most teams don't make 50 million per year and the system is still broken. I try never to get caught up into how much or how little people make.
I agree to pay high ticket prices because I want to see my favorite players. That is all I can control, buy a ticket or buy the league pass or don't. I'm a Jazz fan so I do. I want basketball not a lockout. The players and owners need to find a system that works.
Numberica, with all the respect in world, I still disagree. No we don't watch ownership groups, although I laughed when Larry dressed up in his short shorts and Jazz uniform, but we are Jazz fanz. How many times have I seen a player on the Jazz who was loved, but when he left to go to another team a poster says he is now the enemy. I didn't watch Brewer, Boozer or Kover when they went to the Bulls. We are Jazz fans and the Jazz are an extension of the their ownership group. So in a way we do cheer for a specific ownership group.
Now I totally get your point that people pay to see the stars and without the stars, the NBA doesn't make as much money. I am just one of the few that would pay to watch replacement players, because I am a basketball and a Jazz fan. Of course prices would need to come down.
Now I totally get your point that people pay to see the stars and without the stars, the NBA doesn't make as much money. I am just one of the few that would pay to watch replacement players, because I am a basketball and a Jazz fan. Of course prices would need to come down.
DutchJazzer
Banned
Let me start over. You don't know my point. I - like most sensible people - think that both parties are at fault and that they should and will meet somewhere in the middle of their proposals. Like I believe most informed and sensible people believe, I believe the players are greedy but not anymore greedy than owners, who are undoubtedly fudging numbers so they can make money hand over fist. We as fans are the casualties, and the only way to make our voice heard is to boycott the product, and that's not happening for me as I love NBA basketball.
CJ is one of the dumbest posters on this site and yet somehow one of the longest tenured. If players aren't allowed to earn more than $5 million a year (or whatever similar nutty figure that he's yelling from his front porch/gold mill) then they - relative to the earnings of the league - are slaves. That is ********. The players need the organization, but the organization needs the players. They are the best in the world at what they do by a wide margin and the NBA makes a ****-load of money. Why should the actual PLAYERS just get **** on like CJ's proposing. It's absolute garbage. It's plainly stupid, and I'm sure he knows it.
I think guaranteed contracts need to go (or be marginalized significantly). I believe in the flex cap system. I believe there should be something resembling a franchise tag. But BRI for players shouldn't go down one bit. I believe everyone should have to earn what they make and that a rather slim majority of players do. Players like Bobby Simmons, James Posey, Jamaal Tinsley, and AK make it hard to believe that guaranteed deals are fair.
Fishsticks
Banned
I don't care about how much money anyone is getting as long as this CBA levels the playing field. For a fan thats all we should be concerned about. The big three phenomen really is ruining the league. If teams countinue to be allowed to lure the best players and stack their teams simply because where the team is located, the league is doomed.
Fishsticks
Banned
The price is a bit steep.
Too funny: you find out the owners have been lying to your face and you still support them? A $183 million overall profit versus their creative accounting loss of $323 million is a difference of oh, say, a half of a billion dollars. LMAO. Go on worshipping those hard working mega-millionaires who lied to you.
On another issue though, as to the above numbers it looks like this issue is really among owners and sharing revenue more evenly. That is what a guy on tv just said. He also said that a few owners made their recent purchases for big bucks based on a promise by Stern to ream the players.
zman you are unreal. I agree with you that revenue sharing is needed. I even agree that the players are fairly asking the owners to fix revenue sharing first. Yet you ignore that and focus only on the half of my argument that the CBA is also broken.
If your going to criticize my post at least read the New York Times article and try to understand my argument. In the New York Times article it claims that 3 teams made 150 million and the league as a whole only made 183 million. That leaves 33 million to be split amongst 29 teams. Hardly a successful business model. If you accept the New York Times view of NBA finances, (the NBA made 183 million last year) and you totally reject the NBA's claims they lost hundreds of millions, there is still a problem. Even if there is 100% revenue sharing, which there wont be, each team only would make 6 million in Earning before taxes and depreciation assuming they make 183 million again next year. Why should teams only make 6 million a year while players are making a guaranteed 15-20 million. The players have nothing at risk and yet they are guaranteed to make more money than the team. So under the best case scenerio, ie. rejecting the NBA claims to have lost hundreds of millions and allowing 100% revenue sharing, a CBA change is still necessary.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you are an NBA player because you can only see your side of the argument.
If your going to criticize my post at least read the New York Times article and try to understand my argument. In the New York Times article it claims that 3 teams made 150 million and the league as a whole only made 183 million. That leaves 33 million to be split amongst 29 teams. Hardly a successful business model. If you accept the New York Times view of NBA finances, (the NBA made 183 million last year) and you totally reject the NBA's claims they lost hundreds of millions, there is still a problem. Even if there is 100% revenue sharing, which there wont be, each team only would make 6 million in Earning before taxes and depreciation assuming they make 183 million again next year. Why should teams only make 6 million a year while players are making a guaranteed 15-20 million. The players have nothing at risk and yet they are guaranteed to make more money than the team. So under the best case scenerio, ie. rejecting the NBA claims to have lost hundreds of millions and allowing 100% revenue sharing, a CBA change is still necessary.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you are an NBA player because you can only see your side of the argument.