Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver killed CBA deal

[Anti Hero]

Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players' future earnings to be tied into the league's revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland's Dan Gilbert and Phoenix's Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks' James Dolan and the Lakers' Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.

F*ck Sarver (http://www.iamagm.com/news/2011/09/15/dan.gilbert.and.robert.sarver.killed.potential.dea l.during.tuesdays.big.cba.meeting)

[Theoo's Daddy]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: my timberlands would like to have a meeting with dan gilberts face.

[PJR]

Robert Sarver is a piece of shit who should have never been accepted as an owner. And we all know Dan Gilbert is still on his jilted lover steez. A deal will get done though. These dudes voices are loud, but not that loud. For every Sarver, and Gilbert, and Ted Leonis, there's a Jerry Buss, Mark Cuban, Micky Arison who will get the ball rolling.

[Knicksfever2010]

F*ck Sarver (http://www.iamagm.com/news/2011/09/15/dan.gilbert.and.robert.sarver.killed.potential.dea l.during.tuesdays.big.cba.meeting)

i bet wilbon will find a way to say that gilbert is being a racist because of the lockout. wilbon is a blowhard that can't get off the air soon enough

[Clippersfan86]

See Donald Sterling is considered the most frugal A hole owner in the league by some people.... yet he wasn't the one bit**ing about the split. Goes to show what people know. Thanks a lot Sarver and Gilbert :mad: .

[DuMa]

cheap ass mother****ers

[RRR3]

http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss333/jordanhead23_2009/Copyofs-DAN-GILBERT-LETTER-large-1.jpg

[kaiiu]

haha yall mad as fvck.

[Clippersfan86]

haha yall mad as fvck.

You're not mad because nobody is excited to see the Cavs this year, including you :confusedshrug: .

[kaiiu]

You're not mad because nobody is excited to see the Cavs this year, including you :confusedshrug: .
U mad as fvck. How u like that #1 pick the Clippers won this year? thats rite... yall traded it for Mo shot Mo problems...*******

[PJR]

U mad as fvck. How u like that #1 pick the Clippers won this year? thats rite... yall traded it for Mo shot Mo problems...*******

Who cares really. The Clippers core is set. The Cavs would trade their entire roster for Blake Griffin(including Kyrie):oldlol:

[kaiiu]

These ni99as mad as fvck :lol

[Sarcastic]

Stern said the deal was fair. It's not gonna get held up because of these jerk offs.

[guy]

I actually feel optimistic if its just those 2 owners that weren't okay with it. If its just 2 owners, I can't imagine them not getting a deal done.

But man, as much I hate Dan Gilbert, this just makes me hate Lebron even more. Is it really possible that the ultimate result of his "decision" would be possibly missed games or even a season? Not to say he didn't have his right, obviously Gilbert has a bigger axe to grind for how it went down.

[bagelred]

ESPN - In a stunning announcement today, the National Basketball Association has decided to contract the Phoenix Suns and Cleveland Cavaliers, thus reducting the total number of teams to 28. Robert Sarver and Dan Gilbert, owners of the teams respectively, were last seen being tossed outside the NBA Headquarters by a variety of NBA executives and security personnel.

More as this story develops........



Done and done.

[DirtySanchez]

Business and politics folks.

This sucks bottom line.

[jbryan1984]

I support my owner but damnit this needs to end. Gilbert knows he is going to lose money this season but he should be smart enough to at least make some.

[Droid101]

These ni99as mad as fvck :lol
Mad at what? At the fact that the owner of your shitty ass team is about to be worse off because the other 28 owners don't care about his bullshit? :lol

[kaiiu]

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ykb37q.jpg

[kentatm]

I'm sure its more than just two owners holding this up.

Those are probably just the two loudest.

From what I have read though all of this, it seems that the owners who also own NHL teams are the most likely to be a hard line group (http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/05/report-nhl-owners-tell-nba-brethren-losing-season-%E2%80%9Cworth-it%E2%80%9D/).

Also, while Sterling isn't reported to have said anything, I seriously doubt he would vote against making more money on his end.

[Droid101]

Also, while Sterling isn't reported to have said anything, I seriously doubt he would vote against making more money on his end.
If anything, he'd be with the big market teams AGAINST profit sharing. Dude makes bank and would have to give some of it up to the Clevelands and Milwaukees of the world.

[Tips4]

U mad as fvck. How u like that #1 pick the Clippers won this year? thats rite... yall traded it for Mo shot Mo problems...*******

Yea that pick that got you Tristan Thompson, who is Carl Landry at best. Instead of a young Center who can potentially be a borderline all star or all star at that. I think Dan Gilberts decision. Clips benifit from this deal too, its not like its Vince Carter for Eric Williams and low picks. Everyone needs to relax, at this time both side are going to release their Propaganda. Media is desprate for any news, they are willing to release both side's propaganda.

[Euroleague]

Apparently Sarver and Gilbert are the only NBA owners that are not retarded. The NBA lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years. It cannot survive if they do not have massive salary cuts.

It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.

[FourthTenor]

i bet wilbon will find a way to say that gilbert is being a racist because of the lockout. wilbon is a blowhard that can't get off the air soon enough

I dont mind wilbon in general bc hes a legitimate sports enthusiast inlike kornholio and others, but he does seem to have racial paranoia at times, especially when it comes to anything "establishment" etc

[Droid101]

It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.
Retarded all the way to the bank.

[FourthTenor]

Apparently Sarver and Gilbert are the only NBA owners that are not retarded. The NBA lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years. It cannot survive if they do not have massive salary cuts.

It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.

Cant speak to the numbers but youre right that we are in an era where EVERY business is cutting back salaries, employees, etc but the nba's immature and anti-establishment fans are like "omgz greedy owners! The players are right, owners are wrong!!! Players deserve more!!!"

Am i the only one that doesnt have a horse in this race? The owners have a league, the players have a union, each side is justified in how it wants to bargain. The mentality that "the guy at the top is always greedy and wrong and everyone else deserves to have his stuff" is so typical of the common nba fan.

This is real world business you morons, not some non-profit charity. Let the two sides do their business.

[Theoo's Daddy]

Cant speak to the numbers but youre right that we are in an era where EVERY business is cutting back salaries, employees, etc but the nba's immature and anti-establishment fans are like "omgz greedy owners! The players are right, owners are wrong!!! Players deserve more!!!"

Am i the only one that doesnt have a horse in this race? The owners have a league, the players have a union, each side is justified in how it wants to bargain. The mentality that "the guy at the top is always greedy and wrong and everyone else deserves to have his stuff" is so typical of the common nba fan.

This is real world business you morons, not some non-profit charity. Let the two sides do their business.



Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said

....

[millwad]

You're not mad because nobody is excited to see the Cavs this year, including you :confusedshrug: .

You're mad because you have no life and friends..

[Math2]

Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players' future earnings to be tied into the league's revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland's Dan Gilbert and Phoenix's Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks' James Dolan and the Lakers' Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.

Good, they shouldn't accept that deal...the players get 53 percent? They should be getting around 43 percent? And no rollbacks? That's also crap. They should put in rollbacks. The deal is pointless without it. And if the players don't accept, then they should just get new ones. They think they control this, and they should not. Thank you Gilbert and Sarver!
:applause:

[Euroleague]

....

http://m.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/new-forbes-report-shows-nba-lost-18-billion-over-last-six-years


New Forbes report shows NBA lost $1.8 billion over last six years

PUBLISHED Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:08:00 -0400

The NBA has lost $1.845 billion over the last six years, according to audited financial data obtained by Forbes magazine.

* 05-06: 19 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $220 million
* 06-07: 21 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $285 million
* 07-08: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $330 million
* 08-09: 24 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $370 million
* 09-10: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $340 million
* 10-11 (projected): 23 clubs ran at a loss, total loss of $300 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, a 4-5% cut is going to fix this problem. :rolleyes: :facepalm

Get real. The NBA does not make anywhere near the income to support the kind of salaries that NBA players demand. If they accept that deal the NBA will fold and cease to exist within 2-3 years, tops.

[Droid101]

http://m.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/new-forbes-report-shows-nba-lost-18-billion-over-last-six-years


New Forbes report shows NBA lost $1.8 billion over last six years

PUBLISHED Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:08:00 -0400

The NBA has lost $1.845 billion over the last six years, according to audited financial data obtained by Forbes magazine.

* 05-06: 19 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $220 million
* 06-07: 21 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $285 million
* 07-08: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $330 million
* 08-09: 24 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $370 million
* 09-10: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $340 million
* 10-11 (projected): 23 clubs ran at a loss, total loss of $300 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, a 4-5% cut is going to fix this problem. :rolleyes: :facepalm

Get real. The NBA does not make anywhere near the income to support the kind of salaries that NBA players demand. If they accept that deal the NBA will fold and cease to exist within 2-3 years, tops.
The Warriors were just purchased for almost double what Forbes stated their team value was.

So... basically, anything out of Forbes having to do with the NBA can safely be ignored.

But good job posting a link for once. At least you're improving on your trolling.

[JaskoX1]

Dan Gilbert just doing the Cavaliers justice.

Lets do this Gilbert.

[Euroleague]

The Warriors were just purchased for almost double what Forbes stated their team value was.

So... basically, anything out of Forbes having to do with the NBA can safely be ignored.

But good job posting a link for once. At least you're improving on your trolling.

As usual, you just make up whatever bull shit you can think of to support your "arguments". Even if it is totally illogical and delusional and has absolutely no relation at all to the topic being discussed.

[JaskoX1]

I support my owner but damnit this needs to end. Gilbert knows he is going to lose money this season but he should be smart enough to at least make some.
It's another year Baron Davis doesn't get payed. And the Commissioner is right.

FOUR teams have won 24 of the last 32 NBA championships since the 1980 season.

Lakers payroll; well over $100 Million

Sacramento at 45.

The "Salary cap" that the NBA has been operating under is virtually worthless.
As much as I wanted to see the new look Cavaliers, go to games with the pals etc. I think we can all agree on the above.

[Math2]

I don't get why the owners are offering so much. Why should the players get the bigger chunk? It makes no sense.

[Sarcastic]

It's another year Baron Davis doesn't get payed. And the Commissioner is right.

FOUR teams have won 24 of the last 32 NBA championships since the 1980 season.

Lakers payroll; well over $100 Million

Sacramento at 45.

The "Salary cap" that the NBA has been operating under is virtually worthless.
As much as I wanted to see the new look Cavaliers, go to games with the pals etc. I think we can all agree on the above.

How many titles did New York win when they were spending 100 million a year?

What did Orlando get by spending 90 million last year?

[Math2]

How many titles did New York win when they were spending 100 million a year?

What did Orlando get by spending 90 million last year?

Orlando is a contender...

And you seem to ignore LA....

NY was a decent team....

[JaskoX1]

How many titles did New York win when they were spending 100 million a year?

What did Orlando get by spending 90 million last year?
It's called terrible management. James Dolan, Otis Smith etc. Still doesn't justify the "Salary cap" which is worthless in the NBA.

[Sarcastic]

I don't get why the owners are offering so much. Why should the players get the bigger chunk? It makes no sense.

Do watch basketball to see players play or to see owners own?

[Math2]

Do watch basketball to see players play or to see owners own?

Why would the players deserve all that money by playing basketball, when the owners are the actually smart people. It's a waste of money to give it to most of the morons in the NBA.

[Sarcastic]

It's called terrible management. James Dolan, Otis Smith etc. Still doesn't justify the "Salary cap" which is worthless in the NBA.

Exactly. It's about having good management and has nothing to do with market size nor salaries.

[G-train]

Yea that pick that got you Tristan Thompson, who is Carl Landry at best. Instead of a young Center who can potentially be a borderline all star or all star at that. I think Dan Gilberts decision. Clips benifit from this deal too, its not like its Vince Carter for Eric Williams and low picks. Everyone needs to relax, at this time both side are going to release their Propaganda. Media is desprate for any news, they are willing to release both side's propaganda.

Nah that pick got them Kyrie Irving.

But the Clippers will have a lottery pick last season and removed Baron's contract so they should be ok. Mo Williams wont harm them.

[JaskoX1]

Exactly. It's about having good management and has nothing to do with market size nor salaries.
You totally just miss read my previously 2 posts. :facepalm

[Hater]

Do watch basketball to see players play or to see owners own?
That makes no sense. Do you think the Apple factory workers that make the iPods make more money than Steve Jobs?

I pay money for the iPod, not to meet Steve Jobs. See the stupidity of your pathetic argument?

[Kblaze8855]

Why would the players deserve all that money by playing basketball, when the owners are the actually smart people.

Which has what to do with the fact people pay billions of dollars to see the players and own things with their names on it?


It's a waste of money to give it to most of the morons in the NBA.

As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?

[Hater]

Which has what to do with the fact people pay billions of dollars to see the players and own things with their names on it?

Do you think the studios make less money than the actors in their movies? They provide the financial backing, so they'll receive the most compensation. How much money exactly have the players contributed to operate the NBA?

[Kblaze8855]

That makes no sense. Do you think the Apple factory workers that make the iPods make more money than Steve Jobs?

For one...yes. They did. Salary wise at least. Thousands of times more.

And comparing workers on an assembly line being compared to NBA players who are the product itself is just absurd.

A better question would be if the Ipods were themselves sentient and allowing their use to generate Apple its money...what would they be paid?

[Hater]

A better question would be if the Ipods were themselves sentient and allowing their use to generate Apple its money...what would they be paid?
Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.

[SpecialQue]

Stern is saying that the owners are unified.

http://www.lakersnation.com/nba-wraps-up-dallas-meeting-stern-says-owners-are-unified/2011/09/15/

[Kblaze8855]

Do you think the studios make less money than the actors in their movies? They provide the financial backing, so they'll receive the most compensation. How much money exactly have the players contributed to operate the NBA?

Case by case. Plenty of studios sink more money into the cast than they get back from the movie.

Look into what Eddie Murphy made for Pluto Nash compared to what it earned back. Or Affleck compared to Gigli.

Stars get thrown into movies that dont profit all the time. They get paid up front...because the movie turning a profit is not their problem. That is up to the people running the studio and what the yare willing to put into it and what they can expect back.

But the actors get theirs first. And those who dont(Reeves in the matrix movies for example...) get back end and make hundreds of millions.

[Hater]

Case by case. Plenty of studios sink more money into the cast than they get back from the movie.

Look into what Eddie Murphy made for Pluto Nash compared to what it earned back. Or Affleck compared to Gigli.

Stars get thrown into movies that dont profit all the time. They get paid up front...because the movie turning a profit is not their problem. That is up to the people running the studio and what the yare willing to put into it and what they can expect back.

But the actors get theirs first. And those who dont(Reeves in the matrix movies for example...) get back end and make hundreds of millions.
I'm talking about aggregate revenue for the movie industry. Do you think the actors as a whole take home a larger percentage of the revenue than the studios?

[Kblaze8855]

Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.


Yea the NBa is selling 2 million Lebron jerseys at 50 bucks a piece because people want to wear the game on their back.

The game is played on the streets. In HS. Everywhere. The only reason the NBA is what it is...is WHO is playing it. If they could get anyone to play the game and get the same attention and money they wouldnt pay the players millions to begin with.

What you think the owners dont replace them with guys in the junior college system for 30 thousand each because they are such nice guys?

THe players are the product. And that is why they get paid like it.

[RazorBaLade]

http://m.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/new-forbes-report-shows-nba-lost-18-billion-over-last-six-years


New Forbes report shows NBA lost $1.8 billion over last six years

PUBLISHED Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:08:00 -0400

The NBA has lost $1.845 billion over the last six years, according to audited financial data obtained by Forbes magazine.

* 05-06: 19 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $220 million
* 06-07: 21 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $285 million
* 07-08: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $330 million
* 08-09: 24 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $370 million
* 09-10: 23 clubs ran at a loss, total losses of $340 million
* 10-11 (projected): 23 clubs ran at a loss, total loss of $300 million

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, a 4-5% cut is going to fix this problem. :rolleyes: :facepalm

Get real. The NBA does not make anywhere near the income to support the kind of salaries that NBA players demand. If they accept that deal the NBA will fold and cease to exist within 2-3 years, tops.

do you know that in poker people can lose 80 thousand before they win 200? Poker is a long term game. NBA is a really really long term game.

Guess how much money Buss bought the Lakers for? 67 million. What would he sell it for now? Like 500 mil? If he, NY, LA, and 8 other owners sell their team, that loss of 1.8 billion becomes a gain of 500 million for the NBA. Thats how owners make money. You can lose 20 million a year for 10 years, but when you SELL your team, you ALWAYS sell it for considerably more than you bought it. Thats how business in a long term company works.

[G-train]

When its all said and done the owners offer the players too much money.
No one made them offer big deals. You will always field a competitive team even if your free agent walks to some rich guy who will over pay him.

Why? As there are a few hundred jobs in the NBA and there will always be good players to fill them at the right price if you are smart. You secure 2 good players and pay them well then dont overpay role players. Yet you contintually see bad players paid too well.

If you run a professional and well marketed organisation you wont have any trouble.

[Kblaze8855]

I'm talking about aggregate revenue for the movie industry. Do you think the actors as a whole take home a larger percentage of the revenue than the studios?


Again...case by case. For a movie full of nobodies that blows up and makes 100 million while paying the cast 200,000 thousand each? Or a movie fro ma major studio that has to pay Johnny Depp 40 million of a 200 million dollar budget and then spend 200 million more on ads and post production and wont really profit until DVd sales?

They are so different I cant put them under one umbrella.

Id have to look into some things. How royalties work for certian people for one. When Seinfeld sold its rights Jerry and Larry David got like 250 million in a lump sum then like 20-50 million a year after that.

It was a 1.7 billion dollar deal..

So I cant say what NBC got compared to the actors.

The bigtime actors probably find a way to get major money...like bigtime NBA players do. And they would make up for the small contract guys.

A movie making 200 million doesnt mean it made 200 million in profit. the margins arent always huge.

[Hater]

Yea the NBa is selling 2 million Lebron jerseys at 50 bucks a piece because people want to wear the game on their back.

The game is played on the streets. In HS. Everywhere. The only reason the NBA is what it is...is WHO is playing it. If they could get anyone to play the game and get the same attention and money they wouldnt pay the players millions to begin with.

What you think the owners dont replace them with guys in the junior college system for 30 thousand each because they are such nice guys?

THe players are the product. And that is why they get paid like it.
The current players could all retire and the NBA would continue. The Knicks sucked for an entire decade and the stadiums were still full every single night. Most people in the crowd didn't even know most of the players' names.

I'm not talking about just the sport of basketball, but the brand of entertainment the NBA provides. Their name, the franchises, they all have history. They have value on their own. That's how the Knicks can start Howard Eisley, Shandon Anderson, and Clarence Weatherspoon and still fill a stadium every night.

You can't just put great players together, make a random league, and expect that same $4 billion revenue. Look at that silly Vegas league they put together. The average attendance was 24-36 people per game. People think the league is just some middle man. They provide the platform.

[G-train]

Even OKC blew it.

Perkins is gonna get 9m in 2015. I wouldnt pay that dude more than midlevel.

In comparison, a guy like Splitter will be better than Perk in '14 and for half the price.

[eliteballer]

Wrong. The players aren't the product. The game is the product. The players are the most important component of the product, but they are not the entire product. We go to see the games played.

...really. You really trying to say that:roll:

[Hater]

Again...case by case. For a movie full of nobodies that blows up and makes 100 million while paying the cast 200,000 thousand each? Or a movie fro ma major studio that has to pay Johnny Depp 40 million of a 200 million dollar budget and then spend 200 million more on ads and post production and wont really profit until DVd sales?

They are so different I cant put them under one umbrella.

Id have to look into some things. How royalties work for certian people for one. When Seinfeld sold its rights Jerry and Larry David got like 250 million in a lump sum then like 20-50 million a year after that.

It was a 1.7 billion dollar deal..

So I cant say what NBC got compared to the actors.

The bigtime actors probably find a way to get major money...like bigtime NBA players do. And they would make up for the small contract guys.

A movie making 200 million doesnt mean it made 200 million in profit. the margins arent always huge.
The margins are huge if you add it all up. Otherwise, these giant conglomerates wouldn't be making these huge investments. There is no "case-by-case" basis. The question was for the entire movie industry. I'm not saying pick a movie here and there and the specifics don't matter at all. I think we both know the answer.

[Kblaze8855]

The current players could all retire and the NBA would continue. The Knicks sucked for an entire decade and the stadiums were still full every single night. Most people in the crowd didn't even know most of the players' names.

I'm not talking about just the sport of basketball, but the brand of entertainment the NBA provides. Their name, the franchises, they all have history. They have value on their own. That's how the Knicks can start Howard Eisley, Shandon Anderson, and Clarence Weatherspoon and still fill a stadium every night.

The owners are claiming the NBA isnt long term stable...now(they are lying im sure...but they are claiming it|). But you think that you replace the entire NBA with walk ons and dont miss a beat?

Have you any idea how much money would be lost just off not having the jerseys to sell?

If they literally stopped selling everything related to the players the league would be over with if only for the owners not wanting to put enough money in to carry it through the down time.

They still have to pay coaches and arena staff and all this...but attendance would be miserable. People wouldnt watch as much. Look what happened to the Cavs minus ONE player. Estimates put his financial impact in the hundreds of millions.

And with a new TV deal coming up? Disney would rake the league across the coals.

This would be a loss of billion and billions of dollars. Right away. And for an extended period of time.

The league could continue...if...and only if...the owners decided to lose far far far more money than they do now as they rebuild it. Shit if they got rid of the players with a new CBA in place the league still has the cap and floor in place and must give the scrubs replacing the players 52-57% of the money anyway.

It just would not work out the way you are thinking.



You can't just put great players together, make a random league, and expect that same $4 billion revenue. Look at that silly Vegas league they put together. The average attendance was 24-36 people per game. People think the league is just some middle man. They provide the platform.

A platform with nothing to look at doesnt generate money.

You need the platform and the attraction. Which is why they pay the attractions so much money. To get people to look at the platform the yspent all that money on.

[Kblaze8855]

The margins are huge if you add it all up. Otherwise, these giant conglomerates wouldn't be making these huge investments. There is no "case-by-case" basis. The question was for the entire movie industry. I'm not saying pick a movie here and there and the specifics don't matter at all. I think we both know the answer.

The margins are huge othwewise they wouldnt make movies? NBA teams spend hundreds of millions on teams and lose money. Studios put 170 million into waterworld. Pluto Nash cost 100 million and made 7. There are no huge profit margins in much of anything these days.

And the entire movie industry just makes no sense to compare to the NBA because there are movies made for 2000 bucks nobody gets paid for. The movie industry isnt the 20 bigtime movies that come out a year. Its mostly people who dont get paid much of anything making movies you never heard of.

because of it...I cant say. Its not a subject ive ever looked into. If you have the numbers feel free to provide them. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand. But I wouldnt mind knowing.

[Euroleague]

Which has what to do with the fact people pay billions of dollars to see the players and own things with their names on it?



As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?

The "people" are spending billions of dollars BELOW just what the NBA needs to break even. The "people" have clearly rejected the NBA product as it currently exists and thus, the players have to accept a pay cut, or else the league will go bankrupt.

A 5th grader should be able to grasp this.

[Euroleague]

Yea the NBa is selling 2 million Lebron jerseys at 50 bucks a piece because people want to wear the game on their back.

The game is played on the streets. In HS. Everywhere. The only reason the NBA is what it is...is WHO is playing it. If they could get anyone to play the game and get the same attention and money they wouldnt pay the players millions to begin with.

What you think the owners dont replace them with guys in the junior college system for 30 thousand each because they are such nice guys?

THe players are the product. And that is why they get paid like it.

You are a complete idiot.

[Euroleague]

do you know that in poker people can lose 80 thousand before they win 200? Poker is a long term game. NBA is a really really long term game.

Guess how much money Buss bought the Lakers for? 67 million. What would he sell it for now? Like 500 mil? If he, NY, LA, and 8 other owners sell their team, that loss of 1.8 billion becomes a gain of 500 million for the NBA. Thats how owners make money. You can lose 20 million a year for 10 years, but when you SELL your team, you ALWAYS sell it for considerably more than you bought it. Thats how business in a long term company works.

:roll: :oldlol: :oldlol: :lol :rolleyes: :facepalm

Yeah, you are a real genius. You probably are running for Congress in 2012 with such incredible economic wisdom.

[Euroleague]

...really. You really trying to say that:roll:

You guys are really showing what true morons you are.

[Point God]

if gilbert had it his way the lockout would last until lebron is 37

[Euroleague]

The owners are claiming the NBA isnt long term stable...now(they are lying im sure...but they are claiming it|). But you think that you replace the entire NBA with walk ons and dont miss a beat?

Have you any idea how much money would be lost just off not having the jerseys to sell?

If they literally stopped selling everything related to the players the league would be over with if only for the owners not wanting to put enough money in to carry it through the down time.

They still have to pay coaches and arena staff and all this...but attendance would be miserable. People wouldnt watch as much. Look what happened to the Cavs minus ONE player. Estimates put his financial impact in the hundreds of millions.

And with a new TV deal coming up? Disney would rake the league across the coals.

This would be a loss of billion and billions of dollars. Right away. And for an extended period of time.

The league could continue...if...and only if...the owners decided to lose far far far more money than they do now as they rebuild it. Shit if they got rid of the players with a new CBA in place the league still has the cap and floor in place and must give the scrubs replacing the players 52-57% of the money anyway.

It just would not work out the way you are thinking.




A platform with nothing to look at doesnt generate money.

You need the platform and the attraction. Which is why they pay the attractions so much money. To get people to look at the platform the yspent all that money on.

You are wrong on every single point you make. You clearly have no clue how to separate hype and marketing from economic fact.

[BarberSchool]

These ni99as mad as fvck :lol**Punches Kaiiu in his damn face**

[Hater]

The owners are claiming the NBA isnt long term stable...now(they are lying im sure...but they are claiming it|). But you think that you replace the entire NBA with walk ons and dont miss a beat?

Have you any idea how much money would be lost just off not having the jerseys to sell?

If they literally stopped selling everything related to the players the league would be over with if only for the owners not wanting to put enough money in to carry it through the down time.

They still have to pay coaches and arena staff and all this...but attendance would be miserable. People wouldnt watch as much. Look what happened to the Cavs minus ONE player. Estimates put his financial impact in the hundreds of millions.

And with a new TV deal coming up? Disney would rake the league across the coals.

This would be a loss of billion and billions of dollars. Right away. And for an extended period of time.

The league could continue...if...and only if...the owners decided to lose far far far more money than they do now as they rebuild it. Shit if they got rid of the players with a new CBA in place the league still has the cap and floor in place and must give the scrubs replacing the players 52-57% of the money anyway.

It just would not work out the way you are thinking.




A platform with nothing to look at doesnt generate money.

You need the platform and the attraction. Which is why they pay the attractions so much money. To get people to look at the platform the yspent all that money on.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it'd be exactly the same, but the NBA could still operate. The same way the league was still able to operate after losing its biggest stars to retirement. The league is bigger than any one or group of stars. The league makes the stars what they are. Like I said, refer to my Knicks example, if you're gonna use the Cavs example. You could suit up a random D3 basketball squad, and MSG would still fill to capacity.

[G-train]

You could reduce salaries by 25-50% and the NBA would still be as it is, and the players still multi-millionaires. Adn the teams should would make money.

Fact.

[Hater]

The margins are huge othwewise they wouldnt make movies? NBA teams spend hundreds of millions on teams and lose money. Studios put 170 million into waterworld. Pluto Nash cost 100 million and made 7. There are no huge profit margins in much of anything these days.

And the entire movie industry just makes no sense to compare to the NBA because there are movies made for 2000 bucks nobody gets paid for. The movie industry isnt the 20 bigtime movies that come out a year. Its mostly people who dont get paid much of anything making movies you never heard of.

because of it...I cant say. Its not a subject ive ever looked into. If you have the numbers feel free to provide them. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand. But I wouldnt mind knowing.
You don't give the employees a bigger share of your revenue. It just makes no damn sense. If I cared enough, I'd do the research. But I'm not gonna do the research just to prove myself right which I already know.

[Vragrant]

Sarver has always had a reputation of being cheap

[BarberSchool]

Sarver has always had a reputation of being cheap

http://www.austinpost.org/files/articles/adl.jpg

[Kblaze8855]

New York is new york. 25 million people can sell out a 20 thousand seat arena just off people wanting something to do. That has nothing to do with the NBAs likelyhood of survival without the players. Long as we look at one end....look at the other. the Hornets had to do a ticket drive to just get up the numbers needed so the owner couldnt claim disinterest and move the team. The Cavs before Lebron averaged 11,497 fans. And thats with NBA players on its roster.

What do you think happens when its walkons and guys from the CBA and eurocup castoffs are the stars?

There are teams that are going to go on life support surviving only off the owners willingness to burn through his fortune to keep the lights on.

This isnt a player or two retiring and young stars replacing him. This is the overnight removal of the NBA and replacing it with garbage and whoever you can get to come over from the respectable euroleagues.

People would rally around the new guysi n time and the Knicks Lakers and Bulls? be fine.

What do you do to keep the Hornets going when people dont care right now?

Sign Lil Wayne and make tickets 12 dollars anywhere in the house first come first served?

Teams would become literally impossible to support without just draining bank accounts. And not the way they get drained now. Imagine having to split revenue the same way with scrubs as you do the players now...only less ratings, less jersey sales, and 7 thousand people at the game.

Owners cry poverty now.

What you are talking about would literally kill every team without ownership who just loved the game enough to hold out for the youngsters to develop.

But some teams cant be maintained right off the bat.

If paul Allen the Russian guy and some of the other tycoon owners decided to keep the league afloat while some of the penny pinchers were thinking it over...league is fine.

But if not...eh.

The league could survive...with owners willing to lose money at a rate that makes them pray for the current situation. But if they are saying hat e have is killing them?

No stars/known players would be the final nail. At least if the players being booted doesnt void any CBA and they cant start from scratch paying guys nothing.

But thats a whole other discussion.

Plus just look at thej ersey sales list and do the math...

There are players who generate as much money(not pure profit...but revenue) just off their jersey sales as some teams entire payroll.

I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.

[Kblaze8855]

You don't give the employees a bigger share of your revenue. It just makes no damn sense. If I cared enough, I'd do the research. But I'm not gonna do the research just to prove myself right which I already know.


You keep saying that...despite the fact that clearly they do. And seem willing to continue or at least be close to it. The NFL has for years and just now stopped I believe(id have to look into exact numbers).

You say its not done...or shouldnt be...reality says it is...and is likely to continue. You not liking it doesnt change that those in power discussed it and it made sense to them. At least at times. something inthen umbers made the accountants and lawyers ok with it.

I cant say what that was. but I suspect the question of "Why give them more money?" was raised in every sports labor talk.

And then they...gave them more money.

Ask them why.

[BarberSchool]

I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.Those two choices are masterful. You sir are an artist. Props.

[Dasher]

The owners may mess around and destroy the NBA with this "run it like a business" talk because they are currently regulated as if they are charities.

[xcesswee]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it'd be exactly the same, but the NBA could still operate. The same way the league was still able to operate after losing its biggest stars to retirement. The league is bigger than any one or group of stars. The league makes the stars what they are. Like I said, refer to my Knicks example, if you're gonna use the Cavs example. You could suit up a random D3 basketball squad, and MSG would still fill to capacity.

The nba operates when the NBA biggest star's retire because those players are being replaced with younger stars. What about this hypothetical, you take all NBA players right now and put them in some other league. You take D3 players and D-League players and put them in the NBA. Which league is going to do better?

[RazorBaLade]

:roll: :oldlol: :oldlol: :lol :rolleyes: :facepalm

Yeah, you are a real genius. You probably are running for Congress in 2012 with such incredible economic wisdom.

prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.

[RedBlackAttack]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: my timberlands would like to have a meeting with dan gilberts face.
Ahhhhh Dan Gilbert. Former Eagle. :applause:

[tontoz]

Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book.

[Sarcastic]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg





How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?

[B]

Stern represents all the owners, not just Gibert and Sarver. There is still plenty of time to get a deal done without missing any games. This is good news in my book. This is now also being discussed on the radio in LA that it's not true at all. Some blogger made the story up. I guess we'll see

[Sarcastic]

Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?

[knicksman]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg





How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?

Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.

[G-train]

http://twitter.com/#!/cavsdan


Some of these NBA 'bloggissists' flat-out make stuff up and then try to dupe readers into believing their fiction is real. Sad & pathetic.




I'd take that as a denial.

[brantonli]

Apparently Sarver and Gilbert are the only NBA owners that are not retarded. The NBA lost $1.845 billion over the last 6 years. It cannot survive if they do not have massive salary cuts.

It will cease to exist under that proposed deal that they supposedly rejected. It just shows what retards guys like Stern, Buss and Dolan are if this is true.

Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil

[brandonislegend]

lol

[Sarcastic]

Because the revenues in both NFL and MLB are higher than nba. The higher the revenue, the higher the income?And thats the reason why sarver and gilbert are pushing for hard cap to have parity in NBA. Coz parity means more fans watching just like mlb and nfl. And more fans = more revenue.

Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.

People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.

[FourthTenor]

As opposed to what? Paul Allen buying another 160 million dollar boat? Mark Cuban spending 90 thousand dollars in the club?


lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.

The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.

Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol

More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.

[Sarcastic]

lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.

The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.

Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol

More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.

Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.

Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.

[FourthTenor]

Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.

People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.


Is 53% of 10 billion the same as 53% of 1 billion?

My god you are a retarded f@ggot and vag1na

[boozehound]

[QUOTE=brantonli]Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil

[boozehound]

Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.

Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.
really? transportation costs and equipment? a total disregard of the nba (or nhl.... oh yeah whats their average income)'s revenue compared to those sports? that is weak from you, sarcastic

that data above is from 2006 and is even more skewed in the nba's favor today.


Now, the players have every right to push their priorities in labor negotiation, but its pretty clear that their incredibly bloated salaries (and long term guarantees) are gonna come down.

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I can't believe you brought up average salary.

Here let's do some second grade math.

NFL makes 9 billion but needs 1500 players.
NBA makes 4 billion but needs 400 players.

Guess which league's players bring in more per player.

[Sarcastic]

Is 53% of 10 billion the same as 53% of 1 billion?

My god you are a retarded f@ggot and vag1na

My god no wonder you don't have a job. You don't know anything about math. Give my condolences to your parents. I am sure they tried their best. You are just an utter failure.

[Kblaze8855]

The MLB has rosters from at least 25 to as many as 40.

NFL has 53.

NHL has 20 to 23 active but alowed 50 total.

The NBA has 12 active and 15 total allowed.

4 billion coming in and 400-450 players.

NFL has 9 billion coming in and 1700 to 2000 players a season

NHL has under 3 billion for at least 700 players active but more than that in total.

MLb had 6.5 billion with 750+ players.


Is it really hard to see why the average NBA player makes more?

Just less people to spread the money around to.

[Sarcastic]

The MLB has rosters from at least 25 to as many as 40.

NFL has 53.

NHL has 20 to 23 active but alowed 50 total.

The NBA has 12 active and 15 total allowed.

4 billion coming in and 400-450 players.

NFL has 9 billion coming in and 1700 to 2000 players a season

NHL has under 3 billion for at least 700 players active but more than that in total.

MLb had 6.5 billion with 750+ players.


Is it really hard to see why the average NBA player makes more?

Just less people to spread the money around to.

Don't forget that the NBA has more black players than the other sports, so that ruffles extra feathers.

[OmniStrife]

I am ashamed as a Suns fan, and mad as ****!

[FourthTenor]

My god no wonder you don't have a job. You don't know anything about math. Give my condolences to your parents. I am sure they tried their best. You are just an utter failure.

Hah, argument fail.

You are an eternal vag1na.

You determine what side youre going to take (underdog/little guy) before you even look at any of the facts or perspectives.

You arent a man. Youre a woman. You have no brain, no testiklez, just one sopping wet vageen

[All Net]

Can anybody say this is a surprise? Sarver is no surprise here.

[blacknapalm]

owners like sarver are the reason why this lockout will go at minimum until january. hate to say it but i think we lose the whole season. too many owners are willing to give up most of the season to get their way and that's a hard cap. the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen?

if owners want a hard cap and no guaranteed contracts, they should be willing to give up some of the BRI. even with guys like buss and others willing to revenue share, i don't think it's enough to save it. maybe something like a 'franchise tag' like the NFL does could be a middle ground. remember, NHL went for a hard cap and there's rumblings that they're headed for yet another lockout. a hard cap doesn't automatically solve everything.

as far as gilbert, he's STILL acting like the scorned girlfriend. love how people were rooting for him when it was him vs. lebron, but without lebron, do you think gilbert would have as much money as he does? enough money to start building casinos right outside cleveland? that's the type of stuff that isn't even made transparent either in total revenues. gilbert can keep playing the victim and making a hard stance on guaranteed contracts and hard caps. or he can practice what he preaches about being a man of the people and loving the purity of the game.

despite all that, i know these two aren't the sole reason the deal isn't getting done. far from it....

[All Net]

owners like sarver are the reason why this lockout will go at minimum until january. hate to say it but i think we lose the whole season. too many owners are willing to give up most of the season to get their way and that's a hard cap. the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen?

if owners want a hard cap and no guaranteed contracts, they should be willing to give up some of the BRI. even with guys like buss and others willing to revenue share, i don't think it's enough to save it. maybe something like a 'franchise tag' like the NFL does could be a middle ground. remember, NHL went for a hard cap and there's rumblings that they're headed for yet another lockout. a hard cap doesn't automatically solve everything.

as far as gilbert, he's STILL acting like the scorned girlfriend. love how people were rooting for him when it was him vs. lebron, but without lebron, do you think gilbert would have as much money as he does? enough money to start building casinos right outside cleveland? that's the type of stuff that isn't even made transparent either in total revenues. gilbert can keep playing the victim and making a hard stance on guaranteed contracts and hard caps. or he can practice what he preaches about being a man of the people and loving the purity of the game.

despite all that, i know these two aren't the sole reason the deal isn't getting done. far from it....

I think by the time the seasons starts I think jan could be a realistic time frame :cry:

[fos]

Good for them. I like NBA basketball as much as anyone but the owners take all the risk and the players should not be making 52% let alone the 57% they were making. They own the teams and they take all the financial risks.

[knicksman]

Do you understand what percentage means? Seems like you don't.

People don't watch NFL because it has parity. People watch NFL because it has football. NCAA has no parity, and people still watch it. They had 2 unbeaten teams who weren't even allowed to compete for the title last year, and did that stop anyone from watching? Nope. People love football because they play football.

even if its percentage it doesnt mean that all expenses are also percentage based like salaries so there will be a point where revenues are capable of covering those expenses. And NCAA has parity thats why it has higher ratings than nba. or what you mean is ncaa football.

[Yung D-Will]

I actually feel optimistic if its just those 2 owners that weren't okay with it. If its just 2 owners, I can't imagine them not getting a deal done.

But man, as much I hate Dan Gilbert, this just makes me hate Lebron even more. Is it really possible that the ultimate result of his "decision" would be possibly missed games or even a season? Not to say he didn't have his right, obviously Gilbert has a bigger axe to grind for how it went down.

Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O

[knicksman]

I believe that owners wants to win. But if you dont give them a chance to win, then dont expect them to compete, they rather go cheap mode and aims to have an income on their investment. Thats why they want a hard cap coz they want to compete. If they only care about money or greedy as some of you think, then they wouldnt settle for a 53% split when they wanted 43 from 57. Theyre not even concerned if it remains the same at 57. All they want is a chance to compete. They already said that the financial aspect is not a concern for them.
Thats why the choice is either hard cap or bigger share of around 43%. Chance to compete or guaranteed income on their investment.

[the_wise_one]

Great job Gilbert. The fact that you pissed off Dolan and Buss shows that you're doing the right thing for the sports of basketball.

**** big market teams like LA & NY.

[bagelred]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

[Clutch]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol
Well said.I completely agree.

[Sarcastic]

even if its percentage it doesnt mean that all expenses are also percentage based like salaries so there will be a point where revenues are capable of covering those expenses. And NCAA has parity thats why it has higher ratings than nba. or what you mean is ncaa football.

You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.

NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?

[Sarcastic]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol


Hey man, don't you know? The Lakers only win because they play in LA. Playing in the city of LA guarantees that you win titles.

Just ask Sterling.

[knicksman]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

Coz theres still parity in baseball.




In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.





And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.

Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.

[knicksman]

You know which expense is not percentage based? The WNBA.

NCAA athletics does not have parity. The same teams win almost every year. In fact in the football BCS, they only allow certain teams from specific conferences to even play in the championship game. Teams can go undefeated for the season, but if you don't play in the proper conference you can't play for the title. The BCS would rather put teams with 1 loss from their conference than an undefeated team from one of the lower conferences in the title game. How is that parity at all? It's no wonder the SEC has had 7 winners of the national title. Their teams play in the title game every year. How do you think Boise State and TCU feel about that?

Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.

Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.

[Sarcastic]

Coz theres still parity in baseball.

Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?




Still dallas won with the highest payroll the same with lakers last year. Even if san antonio won four, still big market teams have dominated the past 50 years. I think they won around 40.

Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.






Thats the reason why they are not selling out coz nobody wants to see a league where its always lakers/boston in the finals.

Maybe for you, you dont want to see a powerhouse in those areas. But majority of people wants it. And thats the reason why nfl and mlb are successful coz their teams can compete.


Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?

[Sarcastic]

Not all expenses are percentage based. Just like advertising which is a fixed payment no matter how much your revenue is.

Still Ncaa basketball has parity and thats the reason why they have higher ratings than nba.

I just told you it doesn't have parity. Name me a small school that has won a football or basketball title in the past 20 years.

[FireDavidKahn]

Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?




Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.







Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?
:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:

1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.

If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.

[guy]

Wow I must compliment you I didn't know it was possible to somehow tie Lebron into this o.O

LOL. Hey man, if its Gilbert holding this up, good chance he's doing it cause of what happened in Miami. Not saying Lebron didn't have the right to leave, but the way he did it probably made owners pretty pissed, specifically Gilbert.

[Sarcastic]

:lol Ya right, market size has no effect on it. Just *some* of the benefits of being a big market team include:

1) Superstars want to be in big markets (of course there are a few exceptions) and will always find a way to eventually go to a big market team.
2) They can get away with gigantic pay rolls. If you really want parity in this league, revenue sharing is a must.

If you honestly think it is just a coincidence that big market teams have dominated the NBA championships for a while now, you are blind.

1) Besides Shaq, Lebron, and Bosh name another superstar that has left a small market team for a large market team? Actually I think Toronto is bigger than Miami, so I don't know if he should even be included.

2) I agree revenue sharing is a must, but we don't need parity. People don't like to watch parity. People like to watch great athletes dominate their field.

Do you think the PGA gets better ratings now that the last 10 major winners were all different, or do you think they get better ratings when Tiger Woods is destroying everyone?

Do you think track and field gets better ratings when they get a tight photo finish in the 100m, or do they get better ratings when Usain Bolt is blowing past everyone and setting records?

It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.

[bingo123]

Its all Lebrons fault :lol

[Dasher]

I'm not a big proponent of revenue sharing at all. It subsidizes incompetence, and may encourage even more accounting chicanery than the current system does.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.


Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.


In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.



Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.
Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.


I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol
This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?

More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done.


And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....
Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.

Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........
Again, 8 big cities or an entire country of fans?




Yeah, I said it........:lol
Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you?



In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.

[Sarcastic]

Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.

http://www.7springs.com/

[Apocalyptic0n3]

Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.

http://www.7springs.com/

Was not aware of that. My mistake. I suppose that is a minor contradiction now. Ironic how that happens.

[bagelred]

Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.


I admit I don't follow baseball as closely as basketball, but I've never heard a serious discussion of a hard cap in baseball.

You are proving my point with the Pirates. It's the BEST example. They can't pay and can't compete. Exactly. And the Yankees have a payroll a gazillion times higher. So don't we agree baseball is ridiculous in this way?


There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.


Yup, but you glossed over the point of the comment which is to say small payroll teams CAN compete. You just have to be more efficient and smarter about how you manage your payroll. True, large market teams can make more "mistakes" in essence because they have the money but small market teams can easily compete if you pay the right players and get a little lucky. Like I said, regardless of market size, three of the best teams this past year were in the bottom 10 of payroll.


Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.


They help ALOT. The thing that helps the most is the rookie scale contract. That benefits the small market teams TREMENDOUSLY. OKC gets Kevin Durant for 4/5 years at WAY below market value because of it. If they had to pay KD big money in his rookie year, they'd be screwed.

That being said, I think OKC will be just fine going forward and keeping all their players because they managed their payroll effectively. KD, RW, JH, KP are all going to get paid and really those are the only guys that matter. They'll be just fine, but until then, they've benefited tremendously from the rookie scale concept.


This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?

More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done.

Well the socialism thing was more an aside. I'm just making a point the disparity between people's thoughts in real life, where people hate these social programs and have this laissez faire attitude, yet when it comes to NBA players getting paid....NOW we have to restrict that and make everything "fair" and make sure "everyone can compete". I just thought that was amusing.

As to your other point, it really works both ways doesn't it? OK, Cleveland wasn't "benefitting" from those road games. But what about now? Now that Cleveland sucks again, isn't Cleveland benefitting when the Lakers show up and they sell out Quicken Loans? Are they giving that money back to the Lakers? No of course not. So I don't really understand the argument. If you simply think there should be complete revenue sharing amongst all 30 teams, that would be another discussion entirely.


Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.

Yes, of course the country does best when the entire country is watching their game. No brainer. And what attracts more of the country to watch nationally televised games? Lakers vs. Knicks? or Bucks vs. Bobcats?

No one is cutting off the small markets at all. Like we said, they can easily compete if they make smart decisions, just like OKC.

Why was the league so successful this year? Well, the main reason was we had a super team that everyone watched and generated tremendous interest. National television ratings were through the roof. Was that because of parity you think? If you place this hard cap and other restrictions on player movement, you'll never get these "super teams" again.


Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.

Well then maybe Sacramento doesn't need to have a team. Maybe the league needs to weed out the small markets that really can't afford a basketball team. Why does the entire league need to prop them up? Is the Sacramento market making or breaking the league?

Clearly its not going to be "8 big cities". But maybe "30 cities" isn't the answer either.

I hate to break it to you. But when the 8 big cities do well, the entire league tends to do very well. It even generates excitement in the smaller cities, because those 8 big cities are the signature franchises. You make it seem like if JUST give more help to the Milwaukee's and the Charlotte's of the league, that would be some tremendous help to the NBA. It won't.


Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you? You didn't get the self mockery with the :lol symbol? Read between the lines.


In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.

Like we said, the NFL model and the NBA model are completely different. Everything in the NFL is done on a national scale. The NBA doesn't work that way. Of course, you want small market teams to be able to compete, WHICH THEY ALREADY CAN. But this incessant need for 30 team parity, where "everyone needs to be equal" is not what attracts fans. Super teams, signature franchises, superstars are what drives the NBA....not parity.

[Sarcastic]

The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.

Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.

[FourthTenor]

I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.

The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc

Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.

Fans should be more prudent. People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. But fans are too ignorant.

[Sarcastic]

I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.

The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc

Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.

Fans should be more prudent. People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. But fans are too ignorant.


Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?

The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).

[Kblaze8855]

Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.

http://www.7springs.com/


Yea I mentioned that once when told they couldnt compete with ___.

Its a joke how people let cheap owners off.

These guys can in many cases pay whatever they feel like. They just choose not to do so.

[B]

The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.

Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year. Good Post. The NFL does not exhibit true parity. Don't look at the top of the league look at the bottom and you'll see the same teams year after year trading the bottom spots of the league.

[pauk]

**** dan gilbert.... no wonder lebron didnt stay... and no wonder Dan showed his personality after that..... but he always showed his horrible GM skills... dude is cheap as ****.... he only wants to make money.... he doesnt care about players (or his players goals of winning a championship)....

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=B

[FourthTenor]

Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?

The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).

Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them. Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.

You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.

Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.

[Droid101]

As usual, you just make up whatever bull shit you can think of to support your "arguments". Even if it is totally illogical and delusional and has absolutely no relation at all to the topic being discussed.
Hm, I was off in my numbers (it wasn't double) but the Warriors, according to Forbes, are worth $363 million.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html

The Warriors were just sold for $450 million.


Golden State Warriors owner Chris Cohan reached an agreement Thursday to sell the franchise for a record $450 million to Boston Celtics minority partner Joe Lacob and Mandalay Entertainment CEO Peter Guber.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5383261


So, which is it? Is Forbes right? Or are the actual value teams are sold for right?

[Sarcastic]

Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them. Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.

You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.

Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.

This is not true at all. The NBA has caps on individual contracts. If we let the market determine his value, I am sure James Dolan would have offered him at least $50 million per year. Hell, he would have given him stock in MSG if the league would have allowed it.

As for your other point, of course it's all relative. If the league were only making $2b a year instead of 4, then obviously the players would be making less money. But the fact is the NBA is projected to have rampant growth over the next 10 years, and the players want to be able to benefit from that. Under the owners proposal, the players would be locked into $2b every year for the next 10 years, meanwhile the league will probably be at 8 or 10 billion/year by that point.

Here's the history of TV contracts the NBA has.

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-tv-contracts.shtml

NBA CABLE TELEVISION CONTRACTS
Seasons
Station
Contracts Amount
1979-80 to 1981-82
USA
$1.5 million/3 years
1982-83 to 1983-84
USA/ESPN
$11 million/2 years
1984-85 to 1985-86
TBS
$20 million/2 years
1986-87 to 1987-88
TBS
$25 million/2 years
1988-89 to 1989-90
TBS/TNT
$50 million/2 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
TNT
$275 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
TNT/TBS
$397 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
TNT/TBS
$840 million/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
TNT
$2.2 billion/6 years

1953-54
DUMONT
$39,000/13 games
1954-55 to 1961-62
NBC
N/A
1962-63 to 1972-73
ABC
N/A
1973-74 to 1975-76
CBS
$27 million/3 years
1976-77 to 1977-78
CBS
$21 million/2 years
1978-79 to 1981-82
CBS
$74 million/4 years
1982-83 to 1985-86
CBS
$91.9 million/4 years
1986-87 to 1989-90
CBS
$173 million/4 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
NBC
$601 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
NBC
$892 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
NBC
$1.616 billion/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
ABC/ESPN
$2.4 billion/6 years



Notice the trend? They have a new contract coming up. Considering how successful last year was, do you think the contract will be more or less than the last one?

[Droid101]

prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.
Actually, they'd make even more.

The Warriors just sold for 25% more than what Forbes said they were worth ($363 million). Forbes says the Lakers are worth $643 million. If they were sold for 25% more than that (and it'd probably be higher, owning the Lakers is a status symbol), Buss would have profited $736.75 million dollars over what he paid for the franchise!

[FourthTenor]

But sarcastic, the market is the market. Both sides should be free to negotiate to whatever terms they want. Why do u care what the owners want? You seem predetermined to side with the players, i just dont understand why. Judging by your political beliefs inthe otc, it seems u just always think whoever is making less is entitled to a portion of others income determined by you and a bunch of outsiders based on what u arbitrarily determine is fair, rather than let two sides work it out themselves.

What compells you to play robin hood in a society where people have the freedom on their own to control their own destiny without your interference? Who made you the arbiter of whats fair?

The owners can shut down the league for good if they want. They dont owe the players a say in how to run it. The players can negotiate their say based on whatever their value is to the owners, and thats the business of those two sides. I just dont see why you arent neutral on this, but instead feel like you have to paint the owners as greedy and the players as victims. WhT is with you always doing stuff like that? How old are you? You seem so sensitive and feminine. Just sayin bro. Or sis.

[Sarcastic]

But sarcastic, the market is the market. Both sides should be free to negotiate to whatever terms they want. Why do u care what the owners want? You seem predetermined to side with the players, i just dont understand why. Judging by your political beliefs inthe otc, it seems u just always think whoever is making less is entitled to a portion of others income determined by you and a bunch of outsiders based on what u arbitrarily determine is fair, rather than let two sides work it out themselves.

What compells you to play robin hood in a society where people have the freedom on their own to control their own destiny without your interference? Who made you the arbiter of whats fair?

The owners can shut down the league for good if they want. They dont owe the players a say in how to run it. The players can negotiate their say based on whatever their value is to the owners, and thats the business of those two sides. I just dont see why you arent neutral on this, but instead feel like you have to paint the owners as greedy and the players as victims. WhT is with you always doing stuff like that? How old are you? You seem so sensitive and feminine. Just sayin bro. Or sis.


They did agree to terms in the last CBA. In exchange for giving the players 57% of BRI, the owners got concessions they wanted from the players such as minimum age, caps on individual salaries, etc, etc, etc. I am not siding with the players just to side with the players. During the baseball strike I felt the owners were in the right. The players were making over 60% of the revenue. What I don't understand from this lockout is why the owners would agree to a system in which they knew they would lose money every year, unless of course they are lying about their financials. According to them they have lost money every year of this CBA. Either they have the worst accountants in the world who told them to sign off on that deal, or they are lying. In my opinion they are lying. The losses they are claiming are due to interest, and ammortization. I guarantee every team has a positive EBITDA.

Of course the owners can shut down the league if they wanted. A new league would form very quickly. There is a huge market for a basketball league, and the NBA is lucky to have a monopoly on it granted by the government.

It's not that I think the players are victims. I think they should give in to some of the demands of the owners, just not all. Negotiations are not supposed to work that way. A good negotiation means that both sides come away pissed off, otherwise one got too much. The players have already conceded some positions and money. It's time for the owners to stop standing firm and give in to some of the players demands.

Even Stern came out and said the players new offer was fair.

[Euroleague]

New York is new york. 25 million people can sell out a 20 thousand seat arena just off people wanting something to do. That has nothing to do with the NBAs likelyhood of survival without the players. Long as we look at one end....look at the other. the Hornets had to do a ticket drive to just get up the numbers needed so the owner couldnt claim disinterest and move the team. The Cavs before Lebron averaged 11,497 fans. And thats with NBA players on its roster.

What do you think happens when its walkons and guys from the CBA and eurocup castoffs are the stars?

There are teams that are going to go on life support surviving only off the owners willingness to burn through his fortune to keep the lights on.

This isnt a player or two retiring and young stars replacing him. This is the overnight removal of the NBA and replacing it with garbage and whoever you can get to come over from the respectable euroleagues.

People would rally around the new guysi n time and the Knicks Lakers and Bulls? be fine.

What do you do to keep the Hornets going when people dont care right now?

Sign Lil Wayne and make tickets 12 dollars anywhere in the house first come first served?

Teams would become literally impossible to support without just draining bank accounts. And not the way they get drained now. Imagine having to split revenue the same way with scrubs as you do the players now...only less ratings, less jersey sales, and 7 thousand people at the game.

Owners cry poverty now.

What you are talking about would literally kill every team without ownership who just loved the game enough to hold out for the youngsters to develop.

But some teams cant be maintained right off the bat.

If paul Allen the Russian guy and some of the other tycoon owners decided to keep the league afloat while some of the penny pinchers were thinking it over...league is fine.

But if not...eh.

The league could survive...with owners willing to lose money at a rate that makes them pray for the current situation. But if they are saying hat e have is killing them?

No stars/known players would be the final nail. At least if the players being booted doesnt void any CBA and they cant start from scratch paying guys nothing.

But thats a whole other discussion.

Plus just look at thej ersey sales list and do the math...

There are players who generate as much money(not pure profit...but revenue) just off their jersey sales as some teams entire payroll.

I dont see God Shamgod and Jameel Pugh bringing that in right away.

Marketing and hype is NOT fact. All you are doing is spouting off nonsense hype and marketing that the NBA puts out. If you really think that "NBA stars" are what makes the NBA then you are totally clueless.

The NBA can take any player it wants to and make him a "star". That is why they change rules, have crooked refs, and spend hundreds of million of dollars on hype and marketing that makes gullible people like you believe the NBA is actually a serious competition, rather than the scripted sports soap opera that it actually is.

Your have a total lack of insight.

[Euroleague]

The nba operates when the NBA biggest star's retire because those players are being replaced with younger stars. What about this hypothetical, you take all NBA players right now and put them in some other league. You take D3 players and D-League players and put them in the NBA. Which league is going to do better?

The NBA rigs its league to create fake, manufactured stars. They can do it with any group of players they choose.

[Euroleague]

prove me wrong, spineless. Tell me that the buss family won't make upwards of 400 million for the NBA if lakers get sold. Give me one piece of data that says owners profits have not always hinged on reselling the team.

The Lakers earn money every year genius. What the hell do the Lakers have to do with this? The teams that lose millions every year are what this is about. And that is like 85% of the teams in the league.

Under your logic and way of thinking, the NBA would become a 6 team league.

[Sarcastic]

Marketing and hype is NOT fact. All you are doing is spouting off nonsense hype and marketing that the NBA puts out. If you really think that "NBA stars" are what makes the NBA then you are totally clueless.

The NBA can tale any player it wants to and make him a "star". That is why they change rules, have crooked refs, and spend hundreds of million of dollars on hype and marketing that makes gullible people like you believe the NBA is actually a serious competition, rather than the scripted sports soap opera that it actually is.

Your have a total lack of insight.

Complete bullshit. If that were true, the NBA could solve all it's problems by making 30 Michael Jordan's, one for each team, and the league would make billions. People can discern talent, and you are a fool if you think they can't.

There is a reason why there is only 1 Elvis Presley. There are millions of people who dress exactly like him, but there is only 1 true Elvis.

[Euroleague]

[QUOTE=brantonli]Have you seen how the NBA teams can make profit look like losses? They have this thing that somehow estimates how much a player decreases in value in $$$ terms, and put this as a -$XXX on their books, and voil

[Euroleague]

Yea Sterling is known for reinvesting back into his team.

Why does it cost the NBA owners so much to fly and house their 15 players, but the NFl can somehow fly and house 53 players plus more coaches and still turn profit. Don't you think the upkeep on a football field would be higher than a basketball court? The equipment costs should also be cheaper in the NBA than other sports. All they have is shorts, a tank top and a ball, compared to other sports which have pads, helmets, bats, sticks, etc., etc.

The average IQ in this thread is appalling.

[Euroleague]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I can't believe you brought up average salary.

Here let's do some second grade math.

NFL makes 9 billion but needs 1500 players.
NBA makes 4 billion but needs 400 players.

Guess which league's players bring in more per player.

NBA makes $4 billion and spends $4.3-$4.35 billion. That means the NBA loses $300-$350 million ever year. If you can't figure out that there is something wrong with this "business model" then you are simply retarded.

[Euroleague]

the NBAPA doesn't even know what they wanna do. fisher is saying they shouldn't decertify...and i really don't see why not. what's the worst that could happen?

They don't want to decertify because if they do then Euroleague clubs can outright sign any player they want to. If there is no union, and a lockout, there is no league and no contracts.

Big Euroleague clubs would immediately start signing all of the top NBA players. Which would basically end any negotiating power the union might currently have.

[Euroleague]

I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.

Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a 600% difference. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.

In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?

Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?

Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.

I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol

And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....


It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........



Yeah, I said it........:lol

So, you also are arguing for a 6 team NBA.........

[Euroleague]

Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?




Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.







Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?

NBA is, always has been a 2 team league. Celtics and Lakers. That is why the NBA is a very unpopular league in the USA and why it loses hundreds of millions each year.

People are sick and tired of the NBA and it's total rigged bull shit and being nothing but a 2 team league historically.

The NBA will not even exist and can't even compete with Euroleague financially as it currently exists. Those are the actual facts.

The average American can't even stand the NBA anymore. It is a horrible "product" and people would much rather watch college football or college basketball than the NBA. People are sick of the NBA rigging the league for certain teams and creating "stars" with rigged rules and refs.

On top of this, MLS and European soccer are rapidly eating up what was previously NBA revenue streams.

[Xover]

Let's just hope this doesn't end with everybody hating phoenix suns

[Droid101]

The NBA will not even exist and can't even compete with Euroleague financially as it currently exists.

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Par for the course, I guess.

[Euroleague]

It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.

Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.

No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.

Clever by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".

Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.

It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.

[Sarcastic]

NBA makes $4 billion and spends $4.3-$4.35 billion. That means the NBA loses $300-$350 million ever year. If you can't figure out that there is something wrong with this "business model" then you are simply retarded.

Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.

Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.

Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.

[Sarcastic]

Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.

No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.

Clevelrlie by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".

Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.

It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.


You gonna back up that claim with proof?

If the Spurs generate the most money as you claim, and the NBA is rigged, as you also claim, then why not have the Spurs win every year?

[Euroleague]

Well the socialism thing was more an aside. I'm just making a point the disparity between people's thoughts in real life, where people hate these social programs and have this laissez faire attitude, yet when it comes to NBA players getting paid....NOW we have to restrict that and make everything "fair" and make sure "everyone can compete". I just thought that was amusing.

It's not socialism. It's fascism. In America, it is truly shocking that people call fascism "socialism". It is becoming downright scary when the average American thinks fascism is socialism.

[Euroleague]

The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.

Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.

Wrong. The NBA format guarantees that whatever team Stern wants to win (with crooked refs) wins.

[Droid101]

No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.

You are the stupidest poster on any website I've ever heard of.

If the NBA is just rigging the league for the money, Kobe or Yao Ming will win the title every year, fact. Maybe LeBron James.

Your theories are whack-job, at best.

[Euroleague]

Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?

The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).

Once again this is complete nonsense. The NBA markets LeBron and their partners like Nike and Gatorade do the same in collusion. The NBA TV partners like TNT and ESPN do the same by endlessly hyping him.

The league makes rules to make him better than he really is (much better) and has the refs help him.

They start with creating this fake "superstar" early on (high school). They also spend millions of dollars to make FIBA and the Olympics rig the tournaments to allow him to win against "inferior foreign scrubs".

The NBA can do this same thing with literally thousands of players in the world. Many just as athletic or more than LeBron. They can also find one that actually has a brain, can actually shoot, and can actually play against a half zone defense.

LeBron can be replaced by the NBA in a micro second because the average NBA fan is just as retarded as you are and is too freaking stupid to grasp even the simplest of concepts. Such as hype and marketing is not reality, it is just a bunch of bullshit that is being sold to you. A bill of goods that mindless consumers like you buy.

The NBA can make another LeBron any day they want. All they have to do is get rid of the current one. The current "star" creation. Dumping all the current players would actually allow that to happen.

[Sarcastic]

Wrong. The NBA format guarantees that whatever team Stern wants to win (with crooked refs) wins.

Isn't Stern a Knicks fan? He grew up in NY. If he picks the teams to win that he wants, wouldn't he pick his hometown team in his largest market to win at least 1 title in the past 30 years?

[Euroleague]

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Par for the course, I guess.

NBA loses $300-$350 million every year.

Euroleague nets over $100 million every year.

The Euroleague is vastly ahead of the NBA financially.

[Euroleague]

Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.

Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.

Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.

You are such an idiot.

[Euroleague]

You gonna back up that claim with proof?

If the Spurs generate the most money as you claim, and the NBA is rigged, as you also claim, then why not have the Spurs win every year?

They don't now idiot. They did back 5 years ago though. You just obviously believe whatever you read on internet or whatever the media tells you. Or whatever you see in a commercial.

You are obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

[Sarcastic]

They don't now idiot. They did back 5 years ago though. You just obviously believe whatever you read on internet or whatever the media tells you. Or whatever you see in a commercial.

You are obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

Your schtick at first was kinda annoying, but now after reading more of your posts and seeing how well you can stay in character, I have a better appreciation for it. To be able to stay that dumb for so long definitely deserves kudos.

[Euroleague]

You are the stupidest poster on any website I've ever heard of.

If the NBA is just rigging the league for the money, Kobe or Yao Ming will win the title every year, fact. Maybe LeBron James.

Your theories are whack-job, at best.

Your IQ cannot be above 80.

You cannot rig the same team to win every year fool. Otherwise people like you will finally catch on, no matter how dumb. By changing up here and there then idiots like you say, "if it was rigged how come same team don't win every time, duh. See it ain't rigged."

Also, NBA is an extremely racist and incredibly, hugely immense ultra zealot patriot USA organization. Yao Ming, a Chinese player would never ever never ever be allowed to lead a team to an NBA championship.

Unless there is a direct script story line that the NBA pushes to idiots like you, such as "Dirk finally wins the big one" (which is nothing more than a rigged title gifted to Cuban to shut him up about all the other rigging the NBA does - like 2006 Finals).......

A German white boy would never sniff a title, whether he deserved it or not.

You probably actually believe that Bird-Magic was just all a magical coincidence too. Your level of naivete is ridiculous.

[Droid101]

You probably actually believe that Bird-Magic was just all a magical coincidence too. Your level of naivete is ridiculous.
:roll:

You are the biggest joke on the internet.

[SourGrapes]

Wrong. The Spurs always had the highest ratings internationally. They had the lowest in USA, but worldwide they had the highest. NBA made more money when Spurs were in finals than with any other team.

No coincidence why the Spurs won 4 titles, with the enormous cash they brought in. Of course, easily tricked and manipulated people believe this bullshit that they had the lowest ratings.

Clever by NBA marketing by only counting US ratings. See this way the average NBA idiot fan actually believes the NBA does not rig every playoffs. "See, see, NBA ain't rigged or Spurs would never be in the finals. Because they had the lowest ratings. Why would NBA purposely lose money if it was rigged? They would not let the Spurs in there if it was really rigged".

Meanwhile, the Spurs were the highest income team of all NBA with their huge international TV draws.

It is really pathetic how stupid NBA fans are.

prove it

show that the ratings were the best ever worldwide with the spurs in the finals, and that the nba made the most money with the spurs in the finals

[Euroleague]

prove it

show that the ratings were the best ever worldwide with the spurs in the finals, and that the nba made the most money with the spurs in the finals

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.

[97 bulls]

Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?
Lol great point

[SourGrapes]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.

that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)

[Peteballa]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.

:bowdown: :bowdown: Greatest troll ever

[kaiiu]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.
lol. Im enjoying this trollin for once. :applause:

[Sarcastic]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.

Fine. Here are the ratings that show the Spurs did not bring in the most money.

www.google.com

Secondary source:
www.bing.com

[Dasher]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.
:oldlol: :bowdown: :applause:

[Droid101]

Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.

prove it.

While the 2004 Finals showed improvement for ABC, the 2005 Finals sank back towards record-low levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings

Worldwide, it showed pretty high in China and Argentina, but the same lowness everywhere else.

Once again, you are an idiot.

[Euroleague]

that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)

That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.

You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.

Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.

Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.

[SourGrapes]

That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.

You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.

Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.

Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.

never happened. nice try though

[RazorBaLade]

Actually, they'd make even more.

The Warriors just sold for 25% more than what Forbes said they were worth ($363 million). Forbes says the Lakers are worth $643 million. If they were sold for 25% more than that (and it'd probably be higher, owning the Lakers is a status symbol), Buss would have profited $736.75 million dollars over what he paid for the franchise!

Thanks for that. Insane amount of money lol.


The Lakers earn money every year genius. What the hell do the Lakers have to do with this? The teams that lose millions every year are what this is about. And that is like 85% of the teams in the league.

Under your logic and way of thinking, the NBA would become a 6 team league.

No. You said that the NBA loses money every year. I'm telling you that the NBA profit system is built on one thing and one thing only, ownership of teams. Every year an owner sells a team, the NBA makes money for that year. Thats why a business model of losing billions is okay because at the end of the day one team sale can get you 800 million back.

The lockout IMO has nothing to do with money, I think a super rich guy like an owner knows that he is NOT gonna make a return on his money until he sells it if he buys the timberwolves or something. I think he knows he'll make bank if he sticks around for 10 years though. He might lose 40 million but then make 90. Its a long term game.

EDIT: my argument is on the basis that when you buy a team or hire a GM or do anything the NBA gets something from it. A portion or whatever. If thats incorrect then my argument is flawed and obviously incorrect.

[Sarcastic]

That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.

You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.

Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.

Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.

I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.

[SourGrapes]

I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.

your efforts are the kind that make this a good forum, but they're falling on deaf ears with this loser

[Math2]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg





How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?

WNBA

ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway

[Math2]

lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.

The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.

Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol

More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.

Agree

[Sarcastic]

WNBA

ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway

Agree.

They deserve 57%

[Math2]

Agree.

They deserve 57%

They deserve 43%.

[Sarcastic]

They deserve 57%.

Agreed.

[knicksman]

Baseball has 19 different World Series winners since 1980. Football has 15 in the same span. Which would you say has more parity? Did you have Texas and San Fran in the Series last year?

Thats why those 2 are above basketball right now because of parity.





Market size has nothing to do with why those teams won. If market size mattered, then the Knicks and Clippers would have at least 1 title between them in the last 30 years. Good management that makes smart decisions is what brought those titles to those teams. Chicago didn't win titles because they play in Chicago. They won those titles because they made a smart decision to draft Jordan, unlike Portland which passed on him for Sam Bowie. After Jordan retired, Chicago had about a decade of failure only recently got good again because they made a SMART decision to draft Rose (instead of Beasley). Boston also went through almost 20 years of being bad, until they finally made smart trades to get the Big 3 together. They didn't make those trades because they play in Boston.

Market size is definitely a factor. Its good management + market size=chip. Knicks and clippers doesnt have good management while lakers have both. Lots of teams are well managed too like utah, but the difference is that they dont have the market to support high payroll so theyre up to good management.








Would you rather see Sacramento vs Milwaukee in the finals? Do you think that will generate huge ratings?

Why should the Lakers or Celtics be penalized and not be allowed to make the finals if they are making good decisions, meanwhile rewarding teams like the Timberwolves who make idiotic decisions like drafting 2 point guards with back to back picks in the first round?

Its just not about the finals but the whole playoffs and regular season games. Thats the problem with nba coz they are only targeting the big market fans unlike nfl and mlb thats why they have higher revenues to support the salaries of players. If theres no parity the only fans that are watching are fans from big market teams coz they are the only ones with the chance of winning while if theres parity, fans from small market teams too would be interested in nba.

And do you think only boston and lakers are well managed teams and so they are the only ones who deserved a ring coz im sure most of the teams are well managed too, its just that they have a small market that cant support high salaries.

[knicksman]

I just told you it doesn't have parity. Name me a small school that has won a football or basketball title in the past 20 years.

of course its hard to win for small schools coz theres no draft but still they have more parity than nba and thats the reason why they have higher ratings.

[knicksman]

It's cute and politically correct for people to say they want parity, but people don't watch it when it actually happens. The worst rated finals ever had San Antonio vs Cleveland and NJ. You think that's just a coincidence? It's not like they didn't have star power. Duncan, Kidd, Lebron are all superstars. The NBA's biggest following comes from the large cities, and pandering to the small markets by isolating the cities out of contention is a bad business decision.

maybe because cleveland and nj doesnt have a chance against san antonio? If cleveland and nj have a chance then im sure more are watching thats why you need parity in order for them to have a chance

[knicksman]

Most of those losses are due to interest and amortization.

Any accountant can show a business is losing money. Google "hollywood accounting", and educate yourself.

Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.

So now amortization and interest are not expenses? Then dont expect your business will survive if you dont treat them as expenses

[knicksman]

Isn't Stern a Knicks fan? He grew up in NY. If he picks the teams to win that he wants, wouldn't he pick his hometown team in his largest market to win at least 1 title in the past 30 years?

if knicks didnt trade its picks, im sure they will have the number 1 pick instead of chicago, the second/third biggest market

[Sarcastic]

Thats why those 2 are above basketball right now because of parity.

Really? Baseball's history as our national past time, and the fact that everyone loves football has nothing to do with it?




Market size is definitely a factor. Its good management + market size=chip. Knicks and clippers doesnt have good management while lakers have both. Lots of teams are well managed too like utah, but the difference is that they dont have the market to support high payroll so theyre up to good management.

How much has market size affected the Spurs? You know, the team that has made the playoffs 20 of the last 21 years, while winning 4 titles. They must get help from god or something, since they have the 25th largest market yet have been good for over 2 decades.







Its just not about the finals but the whole playoffs and regular season games. Thats the problem with nba coz they are only targeting the big market fans unlike nfl and mlb thats why they have higher revenues to support the salaries of players. If theres no parity the only fans that are watching are fans from big market teams coz they are the only ones with the chance of winning while if theres parity, fans from small market teams too would be interested in nba.

And do you think only boston and lakers are well managed teams and so they are the only ones who deserved a ring coz im sure most of the teams are well managed too, its just that they have a small market that cant support high salaries.


Well let's look at the playoffs. How did Memphis, and OKC do? They seemed to get pretty far if I remember correctly. What round did the Knicks make it to?

[Sarcastic]

So now amortization and interest are not expenses? Then dont expect your business will survive if you dont treat them as expenses

They are, but they should not be counted against the team. When an owner buys a team, they usually don't do it in one lump sum payment. What they do is spread the payments over say 5 years with loans, and they charge the interest to the team. Why should the team be in any way responsible for the interest the owner has to pay for the loans he needed to buy the team?

[Sarcastic]

if knicks didnt trade its picks, im sure they will have the number 1 pick instead of chicago, the second/third biggest market

Right. So good management > market size.

[knicksman]

Really? Baseball's history as our national past time, and the fact that everyone loves football has nothing to do with it?

college basketball is more popular than college baseball and how come it didnt translate to the pro?





How much has market size affected the Spurs? You know, the team that has made the playoffs 20 of the last 21 years, while winning 4 titles. They must get help from god or something, since they have the 25th largest market yet have been good for over 2 decades.

Spurs has the most wins among the small markets. why dont we compare it to a team from the big markets with the most wins too. Boston 17 to spurs 4.

Whats next among the small markets?maybe detroit-3 to 2nd in the large markets which is lakers- 15. even chicago which is only 3rd among the big markets has more wins than spurs.









Well let's look at the playoffs. How did Memphis, and OKC do? They seemed to get pretty far if I remember correctly. What round did the Knicks make it to?

I never thought new york is competing this year esp with the injuries. I thought the start was next year. Just judge the team next year and observe how many free agents are joining them compared to memphis and oklahoma. New york are a first round exit this year yet most of the free agents like dalembert wants new york over oklahoma and memphis

[Sarcastic]

college basketball is more popular than college baseball and how come it didnt translate to the pro?

Because baseball has a minor league system which takes away from the talent pool for college. If the NBA had a minor league system, the interest in NCAA basketball would wane.






Spurs has the most wins among the small markets. why dont we compare it to a team from the big markets with the most wins too. Boston 17 to spurs 4.

Whats next among the small markets?maybe detroit-3 to 2nd in the large markets which is lakers- 15. even chicago which is only 3rd among the big markets has more wins than spurs.

Most of Boston's titles came when there were only 8 teams in the league. Chicago only has more because they were smart enough to draft Michael Jordan, who brought them 6 titles. Outside of Jordan's years, the Bull's history has been awful.











I never thought new york is competing this year esp with the injuries. I thought the start was next year. Just judge the team next year and observe how many free agents are joining them compared to memphis and oklahoma. New york are a first round exit this year yet most of the free agents like dalembert wants new york over oklahoma and memphis


Aside from Amare, who else is joining them? Amare would have signed with Phoenix if they offered him a max deal, but they were too cheap. So who else has left their small market team just to play in NY?

[knicksman]

They are, but they should not be counted against the team. When an owner buys a team, they usually don't do it in one lump sum payment. What they do is spread the payments over say 5 years with loans, and they charge the interest to the team. Why should the team be in any way responsible for the interest the owner has to pay for the loans he needed to buy the team?

Because its the team that uses those loans. If they are the ones reaping the benefits then they should be the one also shouldering the costs to get those benefits. Without those loans then that team wouldnt be there. Without that team, players are on other leagues receiving 1/4th of their salaries they receive in nba.

[SpecialQue]

Gilbert & Sarver = the Franklin & Bash of the NBA.

[knicksman]

Right. So good management > market size.

yes but if both are well managed then market size is the determining factor. and most teams are well managed, its just that the SOFT CAP makes it possible for other teams esp the big market teams to inflate the value coz they can offer anything they want. Thats why there are overpaid players which you blame it to the owners when in fact the soft cap system is the one inflating the values of players. With the hardcap, these big market teams cannot outbid knowing they dont have the capspace to sign him.

[knicksman]

Because baseball has a minor league system which takes away from the talent pool for college. If the NBA had a minor league system, the interest in NCAA basketball would wane.

Its just that basketball is really more fun to watch than baseball. But the nba was just mismanaged with lack of parity.







Most of Boston's titles came when there were only 8 teams in the league. Chicago only has more because they were smart enough to draft Michael Jordan, who brought them 6 titles. Outside of Jordan's years, the Bull's history has been awful.
We can also say that spurs got lucky with duncan. Without duncan, then there would be no rings for them too.













Aside from Amare, who else is joining them? Amare would have signed with Phoenix if they offered him a max deal, but they were too cheap. So who else has left their small market team just to play in NY?

melo who forced his way and chris paul too. maybe deron too if not for chris paul reserving first.

And in the past, shaq to lakers, tmac to rockets, kobe and magic forcing their way to LA.Kareem to LA too and now dwight to LA too. Thats a lot.

[longtime lurker]

yes but if both are well managed then market size is the determining factor. and most teams are well managed, its just that the SOFT CAP makes it possible for other teams esp the big market teams to inflate the value coz they can offer anything they want. Thats why there are overpaid players which you blame it to the owners when in fact the soft cap system is the one inflating the values of players. With the hardcap, these big market teams cannot outbid knowing they dont have the capspace to sign him.

You do know teams over the cap can't actually sign max contract free agents right?

[Sarcastic]

Its just that basketball is really more fun to watch than baseball. But the nba was just mismanaged with lack of parity.

We can also say that spurs got lucky with duncan. Without duncan, then there would be no rings for them too.

melo who forced his way and chris paul too. maybe deron too if not for chris paul reserving first.

And in the past, shaq to lakers, tmac to rockets, kobe and magic forcing their way to LA.Kareem to LA too and now dwight to LA too. Thats a lot.

Actually the NBA had it's best run when it had very little parity in the 1990s with Jordan. Prior to that in the 1980s, it was the Lakers vs Celtics that brought the league up in the first place. The NBA actually had TONS of parity in the 1970s, when 8 different teams won the title. The NBA couldn't even get on live TV when it had that parity, and I would bet that most people could barely even name the teams that won in the 70s.

Carmelo Anthony was traded to NY. The Nuggets didn't have to trade him, but by most accounts they got the better end of the deal when they got to deplete NY's entire roster.

Since when is Chris Paul a Knick? That's news to me, but I am ecstatic that it finally happened.

All the other situations you are talking about were through trades. It's also funny that you didn't bring up Barkley forcing his way out of Philadelphia (big market) to Phoenix (smaller market) in order to chase a ring. In his case it seems the player wanted to win, and market size didn't matter. He wanted the better organization that gave him a chance to win.

[longtime lurker]

I'm still trying to figure out where all these big market teams over the salary cap have signed stellar players just because they're a large market. LA got Ron Artest and Steve Blake??? New York were horrible for ever and they only got Amare because they had the cap room and they still overpaid for him.....Which game changer did Dallas sign? How about Boston? 2 broken down O'neals. I'm not seeing it...........

[Sarcastic]

I'm still trying to figure out where all these big market teams over the salary cap have signed stellar players just because they're a large market. LA got Ron Artest and Steve Blake??? New York were horrible for ever and they only got Amare because they had the cap room and they still overpaid for him.....Which game changer did Dallas sign? How about Boston? 2 broken down O'neals. I'm not seeing it...........

That's because it's not there. You can go up and down through all the greats in NBA history and almost all of them made their names with team that drafted them. Shaq is one of the only ones that got drafted and left his team for a larger market and got rings.

[knicksman]

Actually the NBA had it's best run when it had very little parity in the 1990s with Jordan. Prior to that in the 1980s, it was the Lakers vs Celtics that brought the league up in the first place. The NBA actually had TONS of parity in the 1970s, when 8 different teams won the title. The NBA couldn't even get on live TV when it had that parity, and I would bet that most people could barely even name the teams that won in the 70s.


Thats why the league sucks after him. Fans from small market teams are already abandoning nba. Why would they support a league that doesnt give them a chance? Thats why nfl and mlb have higher revenues coz theyre fanbase is the whole country while the fanbase of nba is just the big markets. The problem with the nba is that arenas are empties. And thats because they dont have hopes for their teams.





Carmelo Anthony was traded to NY. The Nuggets didn't have to trade him, but by most accounts they got the better end of the deal when they got to deplete NY's entire roster.

Since when is Chris Paul a Knick? That's news to me, but I am ecstatic that it finally happened.

I dont think they got the better deal. Time will tell but its not yet time to judge. Chris paul may not be a knick but it is where his interested. Did you hear him wanting to be in phoenix, san antonio,milwaukee?


All the other situations you are talking about were through trades. It's also funny that you didn't bring up Barkley forcing his way out of Philadelphia (big market) to Phoenix (smaller market) in order to chase a ring. In his case it seems the player wanted to win, and market size didn't matter. He wanted the better organization that gave him a chance to win.

but still they forced to be traded there or to be drafted by the lakers so its still like free agency. And Barkley had a conflict with management. Much more funny if he remains on that team.

[Hittin_Shots]

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/09/16/1226138/944198-albino-brown-seal-2.jpg

[Zackmorris]

Oh...the parity argument...

http://i56.tinypic.com/288vcc4.png

[madmax17]

But this is only one point (revenue sharing) the real problem is the soft (hard) salary cap, they can agree on everything except that it seems.