Originally posted by Otter:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
LOL at everyone blaming the players.
You seem firmly entrenched on the side of the players. Why?
I'm at best a very casual basketball fan. Looking at this thing from my perspective, it seems like neither side is really worth supporting.
One of your points is that the NBA had record breaking revenues last year, made $200M more than previous years. That doesn't necessarily translate in to profit. From what I understand, there isn't really revenue sharing in the NBA either, like the NFL. So if that $200M was generated by only the 16 playoff teams, for example, then that still leaves roughly half of the other teams with financials that remained the same or possibly got worse.
Now one thing that shouldn't be overlooked by the people chastising the players is that there is some very strange record keeping in the NBA. The owners have holding companies that own the stadiums and rent them to the team, so this looks like an expense to the team when really it's going back in to the owners pockets. And that treatment of player's salaries that effectively equates them to cattle certainly provides for a hit to profit without taking any cash away from the owners.
I don't see the last offer as an ultimatum either. There certainly seems to be a number of owners that want the season dead so that they can move to a 47% or less cut for the players, but there were also a number that are ready to write checks and get back to games. (See, Mark Cuban isn't such a bad guy) I think that last offer rejected by the players represents Stern pushing on the owners that don't want a season to compromise.
Just some random thoughts, musings, and occasional insight from a novice fan. (I gotta stop reading Don Banks)
This is about where I stand also. Couldn't one say that players have received more salary in 2010 than ever? That doesn't translate to the PA as a whole but more-so to a select few players. Now let's include their endorsement contracts.
It would be nice if everyone opened their books and then made a true "fair" deal, not for owners or players but for the NBA.
The other side is that in the last CBA, that 57% number makes it appear that the owners agreed to give the players a heavily favored deal. Yes, it is rare to request a drop of 7% in bargaining but it got to 57% through a few deals due to the fact that the NBA WAS making profit and the owners agreed to share it.
Now, I'm sure the NBA isn't making as much in NET as they were even if it was a record breaking year in sales.
The fact is, if the owners were being greedy, then how did they ever give the players 57% to begin with? I think it has more to do with the fact that the owners want it to be more balanced and the players are being greedy.