Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The attitude of the NBA players today is similar to that of society, in my opinion. Many people today want more than they can have. 20-30 years ago, credit was expensive. If you wanted something, you saved up until you could afford the item you wanted. You wouldn't buy an expensive car because the interest rate was 12%. You wouldn't charge an expensive pair of jeans to the credit card because interest was 20-30%. You wouldn't go on the expensive vacation because the Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) was not available at 3% and most likely non-existent due to the original mortgage at 15% and no significant equity had been built up through a massive property bubble. Basically, money has become easy over the last 10 years and people started living large.

    What does this have to do with NBA players today?

    These same values are evident in NBA players today. They do not want to put the work in and win on their own. Do you think Isiah Thomas would have left the Pistons to join up with Jordan and the Bulls? Would Ewing have left NY to join the Bulls? Would Larry cross the country to join Magic or would Drexler go south down the coast to join with Magic? These guys had loyalty to their franchises and wanted to win in their prime years on their own. They had pride and were not looking for short cuts. (Guys did try to join with others - like Malone in LA and Pippen in HOU - but that was at the end of their careers when they were shells of their former self and none of them were successful).

    When you look at Garnett/Allen/Pierce, they were three guys who all had success on their own (success meaning deep playoff runs). Towards the end of their career, they banded together and won, but they were assembled via trade and their original franchises (Minnesota and Seattle/OKC were fairly compensated).

    The difference between what they did and what Bosh/LBJ/Wade did is the 'Heatles' are all in their prime. That, in my opinion, speaks volumes of them as people and competitors. I consider this to be no different than guys on the playground unable to keep King of the Court, so two of the best players join another top player on his team weakening the competition (i.e. competitive balance) and thus holding court. Sure they are winning but it really is hollow.

    This new big 3 mentality and entitlement is a reflection of society today. Look at how the CEO's of big banks operate on Wall Street. The rich get richer and screw everyone else - including their own workers as they lay off thousands to protect their own pay and bonus. This, in my opinion, is like LBJ/Wade/Carmelo/Bosh all wanting the max contracts and to win as well because they can't do it on their own. So they say, "Lets join together, screw over the rest of the league, and tell each other how awesome we are." - (or in Wade/LBJ case, make fun of Bosh while they compliment each other).

    It might be a little extreme but when I see LBJ, Wade, Carmelo, Bosh, and Amar'e* all on one team, I see 4 franchise players and one franchise foundation piece (Bosh) on 2 teams versus 5. That is great for 2 franchises but pretty sh!tty for the other 2.5 (Bosh doesn't count as a whole franchise). If there was a hardcap, players would not be able to do this because after 3 years, the max players salaries would eat up 90% of the cap, there would be no exemptions to continue to attract talent (and why would they go there in the first place? For the chance to WIN), and teams with top talent and money would not get to have another $6M each season to buy a championship piece when the previous year signing was a bust (yes, you, Mike Miller) therefore creating accountability.

    The accountability of an organization/management comes back to how I ended post #800:

    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    As a fan I want factors teams can control being the reason for success or failure rather than factors they cannot control - mainly player leverage in teaming up with friends or wanting to play in a certain city.
    (*Amar'e got to NY by fair means - offer was not matched by PHX)

    Comment


    • Matt52 wrote: View Post
      The current system does not generate profits. The league as a whole is losing money, something which the players admit. Revenue sharing in the current system is sharing losses and it does not fix the underlying problems.
      that is a COMPLETELY different issue than asset allocation though.

      If one wants both:

      1) more profitability

      2) asset allocation

      Then they don't necessarily NEED a hard cap. There are other ways to approach it. Such as, for example, pay cuts to players and revenue sharing.

      Revenue sharing does the same thing a hard cap does, just from the other end. It limits and one individual team's ability to make as much money and gives other teams the ability to spend more money.

      Tell me when the Clippers were getting national attention before this past season.
      And the clippers are one of the 'destination teams'? I'd also mention the clippers are already a have team, they turned a profit while other teams weren't (even prior to Blake)... so again, my point.... a teams ability to make money does not mean a player wants to play for said team.

      Toronto, again, another example.

      Your multitude of different reasons all have players going to more desirable cities for reasons other than basketball. A hardcap gives each team more of an opportunity to satisfy the number one goal of most professional athletes: the chance to win
      so are you going to tell me this isn't a star driven league and you don't need a franchise player to win?

      I was under the impression you believed a franchise player was a necessity? If that is the case though, a team will be unable to win (consistently), without a star player... thereby making the ability to keep or obtain a star player paramount. If salary is not necessarily the reason a star player stays or comes, which they have already shown to be true, then only limiting a players ability to make money does not necessarily address the problem.

      Again, the only way that $ will keep a player in a city is if that city can offer money above and beyond what any other city can offer, including putting a value on things above salary. But now doing that also puts a huge burden on that player (or more specifically the team's payment of that player) to be able to be 'the guy' AND not get injured etc.

      When I say attention, I am talking national attention. The amount of local attention can certainly distort things because of their market size. National attention is what matters because national attention means you are either a) winning or b) controversial. The Leafs are a bad example as over 1/3 of the population of Canada is in the GTA where the majority of our national media is also based.
      So are you telling me that the Knicks when they are bad get just as little National attention as say Milwaukee? Again I beg to differ. I don't think its even close.

      Metropolitan areas NY 20 mil, LA 12, Chi 10, Toronto 5.5 (which is 1/6th not 1/3rd but not really that important).

      So tell me how does, again I'll use Milwaukee, a metropolitan area of 1.8 (which is Milwaukees metro size) ever compete with one of 20 while both teams are 'bad' or even 'good' for that matter? Are there more likely to be more Knicks fans nation wide or Milwaukee fans? I'm willing to bet if we took both Edmonton's and Toronto's populations out of the equation, there are more Leafs fans than Oilers fans in this country. I'll say that can be viewed as having just as much to do with Toronto's deeper heritage as anything else... which is another issue a hard cap can not adress.

      The hardcap allocates dollars evenly and therefore helps allocate talent evenly unless top players are willing to play for significantly less money.
      Exact same situation with revenue sharing without forcefully limiting a teams ability to spend if they choose to.

      I'm not saying players should not have the right to move. The issue is when the players leverage their moves at the expense of their former franchise. That is not fair to the fans and it does not help competitive balance around the league.
      how do you possibly do this without actually limiting a players ability to move? Vince Carter did it while already under contract. I shouldn't need to expand on that.

      I do find it funny how you cherry picked my response leaving out this comment
      seriously you want to get into this? Should I list all the comment of mine you ignored? In all honesty I think alot of the arguments you made are bunk, and if not (such as putting teams on a level playing field) serve the exact same purpose as revenue sharing would. But if you feel its so necessary:

      A hard cap places every team on the same footing financially. In the expired CBA, once teams get the max players they then can recruit year after year using MLE and veterans minimum for guys searching for a championship to round out the roster and Bird's Rights to extend the talent they already have. That is how DAL and LAL are able to get $30-35M above the $58 soft cap.
      So does revenue sharing. Every team would make equal $ and would therefore be able to spend an equal amount.

      It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly. It is the same amount of money. That right there shows you the players don't care about competitive balance, they want top dollars AND the leverage to get those dollars where they want.
      I addressed this already. It is inaccurate. The players have already said that teams need to improve revenue sharing. Revenue sharing addresses competitive balance... the owners are only willing to address one side of 'competitive balance'.

      Huge red herring.

      The issue is players want to control WHERE they get paid at the expense of the fans in certain markets that year in and year out serve as a doormat or farm team to those at the top who have the resources to pay numerous top talents AND attract new talent year after year via exemptions.
      and again.... a Hard Cap does NOT guarantee this changes.

      IF the league really wants to change this, they need to stop focusing on the players, and sell the teams instead. Change the rules. Start calling travels, carries, 3 in the key, bring back hand checking, no more star calls, put refs under a microscope etc. But Stern has already been adjusting the rules to allow the players, and especially the better players, more freedom on the court... which leads to more exciting things... which the league then sells to fans.


      A hard cap is nothing but a red herring that fans have bought into. Revenue sharing address the exact same issues a hard cap does... but owners are selling it to fans, especially small/poor market teams, as 'proof' that they want to improve things.
      Last edited by GarbageTime; Sat Oct 15, 2011, 11:08 AM.

      Comment


      • As a fan I want factors teams can control being the reason for success or failure rather than factors they cannot control - mainly player leverage in teaming up with friends or wanting to play in a certain city.
        and if a team falls into a situation where they CANNOT afford to pay a player they want to keep because they are limited by a cap.. exactly how now are they controling their own success or failure? If a player says I don't want to play for your team trade me to a destination of my choosing, what does a team do? Just let that player rot on the bench. They can do that already

        This is a star driven league, where only a few players are needed and fewer make the difference. The players will ALWAYS have leverage in what they want because of this.

        If player leverage is your problem, NBA Basketball is not the sport you should be following. They have designed the league this way under stern... they never intended for it I'm sure and it clearly back fired on Stern no doubt.... but honestly, this is a result of David Sterns policies and approach to the league.

        Change the rules, change the marketing, change the approach amd change all the things that made this league profitable and there you go.... a nonplayer driven league. Problem solved.

        Comment


        • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
          that is a COMPLETELY different issue than asset allocation though.

          If one wants both:

          1) more profitability

          2) asset allocation

          Then they don't necessarily NEED a hard cap. There are other ways to approach it. Such as, for example, pay cuts to players and revenue sharing.

          Revenue sharing does the same thing a hard cap does, just from the other end. It limits and one individual team's ability to make as much money and gives other teams the ability to spend more money.
          Revenue sharing does not address the league, as a whole, operating at a loss.


          And the clippers are one of the 'destination teams'? I'd also mention the clippers are already a have team, they turned a profit while other teams weren't (even prior to Blake)... so again, my point.... a teams ability to make money does not mean a player wants to play for said team.

          Toronto, again, another example.
          You specifically said LA. The Clippers are in LA.

          Now you are changing arguments. A team's ability to make money has nothing to do with what I have said. Competitive balance.

          so are you going to tell me this isn't a star driven league and you don't need a franchise player to win?

          I was under the impression you believed a franchise player was a necessity? If that is the case though, a team will be unable to win (consistently), without a star player... thereby making the ability to keep or obtain a star player paramount. If salary is not necessarily the reason a star player stays or comes, which they have already shown to be true, then only limiting a players ability to make money does not necessarily address the problem.
          I really have no idea what you are interpreting or implying with the questions. Quit changing the subject from what I have written.

          If you truly believe money is not extremely important, change the system so players 'sacrifice' changes from $13M over 6 years to $30M over 2 and you'll see how important money becomes.



          Again, the only way that $ will keep a player in a city is if that city can offer money above and beyond what any other city can offer, including putting a value on things above salary. But now doing that also puts a huge burden on that player (or more specifically the team's payment of that player) to be able to be 'the guy' AND not get injured etc.
          Exactly, the current system allows players to leverage their will on franchises and the financial loss is currently not enough to be a deciding factor.

          If your best player is injured, usually a team will struggle - that happens in current system or with a hard cap. Michael Redd?

          So are you telling me that the Knicks when they are bad get just as little National attention as say Milwaukee? Again I beg to differ. I don't think its even close.
          New York's attention the last few years has been scandal and conflict based combined with the movement to lure LeBron. You are welcome to your opinions, as am I. Those types of issues get scandal no matter where a team is based.

          Metropolitan areas NY 20 mil, LA 12, Chi 10, Toronto 5.5 (which is 1/6th not 1/3rd but not really that important).
          Obviously attention is more in larger areas because there are more TV stations, newspapers, etc. I thought I made that clear - guess not. Notice I said GTA (Greater Toronto Area) as that is the Leafs market which is also referred to as the Golden Horseshoe which extends from Oshawa to Niagara Falls. Why do you think the Leafs will not allow Hamilton to get a franchise? That market is 1/3 of the population of Canada.


          So tell me how does, again I'll use Milwaukee, a metropolitan area of 1.8 (which is Milwaukees metro size) ever compete with one of 20 while both teams are 'bad' or even 'good' for that matter? Are there more likely to be more Knicks fans nation wide or Milwaukee fans? I'm willing to bet if we took both Edmonton's and Toronto's populations out of the equation, there are more Leafs fans than Oilers fans in this country. I'll say that can be viewed as having just as much to do with Toronto's deeper heritage as anything else... which is another issue a hard cap can not adress.


          Exact same situation with revenue sharing without forcefully limiting a teams ability to spend if they choose to.
          The league is operating at a loss. Revenue sharing does not fix this. Operating at a loss is revenue smaller than expenses.

          Take away the exemptions and the top talent cannot join forces and use exemptions year in and year out to round out the roster. Place more talent around the league and we have competitive balance. More competitive teams typically (which means usually as Atlanta shows it is not always the case) have better bottom lines (and the Clippers are the other end to the exception to the rule).



          how do you possibly do this without actually limiting a players ability to move? Vince Carter did it while already under contract. I shouldn't need to expand on that.
          And Vince Carter screwed over a franchise by quitting and making his desires publicly known. That speaks more to the character of Vince Carter.

          The problem is players want the best of both worlds: they want to get max or near max money AND pick their location. Pick one or the other. The current system allows them to have both.

          The Carmelo Anthony rule and the changes to contract length owners are proposing fixes this.


          seriously you want to get into this? Should I list all the comment of mine you ignored? In all honesty I think alot of the arguments you made are bunk, and if not (such as putting teams on a level playing field) serve the exact same purpose as revenue sharing would. But if you feel its so necessary:
          I always show the entire quote as to not take things out of context.

          So does revenue sharing. Every team would make equal $ and would therefore be able to spend an equal amount.
          The league would share LOSSES therefore no one is making money. The league operates at a loss. Each team would share a loss of approximately $3M per season.

          Why don't we just have every player earn $4.7M per season. That sounds fair. $2,120,000,000 (53% BRI) divided by 450. Then, we take every players off-court earnings that are not related to basketball related income and then divide that equally as well. This insistence on revenue sharing among owners should be used with the players as well - it is only fair.


          I addressed this already. It is inaccurate. The players have already said that teams need to improve revenue sharing. Revenue sharing addresses competitive balance... the owners are only willing to address one side of 'competitive balance'.
          22 teams operating at a loss and the league as a whole operating at a loss does not address financial sustainability of the league.

          LeBron and Wade don't share their endorsements with fellow members of the players association. Why should Buss or Dolan share their local television contracts with the other owners? They can have their own local contracts as other players can have their own endorsements. It sounds to me like a double standard.


          Huge red herring.



          and again.... a Hard Cap does NOT guarantee this changes.
          A hard cap does guarantee more top talented will not be concentrated UNLESS players are willing to play for below market value. If they do, so be it, that is their choice. But again, in the current system, players can play where they want and make top money at the benefit of the minority and the sacrifice of the majority.


          IF the league really wants to change this, they need to stop focusing on the players, and sell the teams instead. Change the rules. Start calling travels, carries, 3 in the key, bring back hand checking, no more star calls, put refs under a microscope etc. But Stern has already been adjusting the rules to allow the players, and especially the better players, more freedom on the court... which leads to more exciting things... which the league then sells to fans.
          How does this stop LBJ or Bosh screwing over cities? How does this stop Carmelo from holding the Nuggets hostage? How does this stop teams from adding talent via exemptions that other teams cannot afford?


          A hard cap is nothing but a red herring that fans have bought into. Revenue sharing address the exact same issues a hard cap does... but owners are selling it to fans, especially small/poor market teams, as 'proof' that they want to improve things.
          Much like Billy Hunter, I do not feel you have offered any arguments that address the true nature of the situation.

          If you want revenue sharing to fix all, the league has to operate at a profit.

          If you want the owners to share all revenues outside of basketball related income among one another, then convince the players to share all their endorsements with each other. Same concept. And good luck convincing the players to do that (and rightfully so).

          Comment


          • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
            and if a team falls into a situation where they CANNOT afford to pay a player they want to keep because they are limited by a cap.. exactly how now are they controling their own success or failure? If a player says I don't want to play for your team trade me to a destination of my choosing, what does a team do? Just let that player rot on the bench. They can do that already

            This is a star driven league, where only a few players are needed and fewer make the difference. The players will ALWAYS have leverage in what they want because of this.

            If player leverage is your problem, NBA Basketball is not the sport you should be following. They have designed the league this way under stern... they never intended for it I'm sure and it clearly back fired on Stern no doubt.... but honestly, this is a result of David Sterns policies and approach to the league.

            Change the rules, change the marketing, change the approach amd change all the things that made this league profitable and there you go.... a nonplayer driven league. Problem solved.
            If a player is lost due to a hard cap, as a fan, my anger is going to be with management for not planning or recognizing this happening. Also, if the player is lost to another team, did my team have a back up plan? Was there another player available to step in via draft, free agency, or another trade?

            A player who says trade me should still keep working to the best of their ability. They are under contract and a professional would honour that contract (unlike Vince Carter). A professional would also keep those wishes internal as to not hurt their current employer. Once the terms of the contract ends they can go where they want or a team can try to get fair market value via a trade for that asset. Unfortunately, not every player is going to handle a situation the correct way and that is going to happen regardless of the system as we've seen it in the past in the NFL as well.

            Star players have an advantage in every league. They are the epitome of supply versus demand. The current NBA system allows them to concentrate their talents and place more star players on one team - that is the problem as it creates less competitive balance throughout the league. See the playground example in another post.

            The current labour dispute is a means to fix the system for the betterment of the league both competitively and financially.

            Change the system: problem solved.

            Comment


            • Revenue sharing does not address the league, as a whole, operating at a loss
              Again 2 seperate thoughts. Either we are talking about profitability of the league or asset allocation.

              You specifically said LA. The Clippers are in LA.

              Now you are changing arguments. A team's ability to make money has nothing to do with what I have said. Competitive balance
              Indeed... but cities are not necessarily destinations teams are they. Feel free to split hairs. .

              The argument is not different. The reason for hard cap is because some teams ability to make money and other teams inability thereby creating a situation where one can afford to spend more and other can't.

              I believe you are intentionally avoiding the point.


              really have no idea what you are interpreting or implying with the questions. Quit changing the subject from what I have written.

              If you truly believe money is not extremely important, change the system so players 'sacrifice' changes from $13M over 6 years to $30M over 2 and you'll see how important money becomes.
              No I am not. You said that most players priority is to win ("satisfy the number one goal of most professional athletes: the chance to win "). But how is a team able to win in the NBA? By having superior players. Your idea is that with a level playing field (hard cap) all teams will have an equal chance of keeping and obtaining those superior players. My point is:

              1) Revenue sharing has the same effect as a hard cap

              2) A hard cap doesn't guarantee a player wants to stay/come as other influences will be involved.

              I have also clearly stated that if a team can far out pay another team they will more likely attract said player, but there are serious consequence/risks (which are amplified under a hard cap) to those much higher salaries

              Exactly, the current system allows players to leverage their will on franchises and the financial loss is currently not enough to be a deciding factor.

              If your best player is injured, usually a team will struggle - that happens in current system or with a hard cap. Michael Redd?
              And I'm not saying keep the current system, I'm saying bring in revenue sharing. And a team struggling due to injuries will be worse under a hard cap as they will be unable to compensate for that by going over the cap if they choose to.


              Notice I said GTA (Greater Toronto Area) as that is the Leafs market which is also referred to as the Golden Horseshoe which extends from Oshawa to Niagara Falls. Why do you think the Leafs will not allow Hamilton to get a franchise? That market is 1/3 of the population of Canada.
              Indeed... so what if we extend the Knicks, LA, Chicago etc to that same size area? How many more people do they have as their 'markets' than Milwakee, Minnesota etc.

              Please use relative arguments. .

              I always show the entire quote as to not take things out of context
              no you haven't. I'm not going to bother pointing them all out to you though its really not that important....


              The league is operating at a loss. Revenue sharing does not fix this. Operating at a loss is revenue smaller than expenses
              again SEPERATE IDEAS. Very important. SEPERATE IDEAS.


              And Vince Carter screwed over a franchise by quitting and making his desires publicly known. That speaks more to the character of Vince Carter.

              The problem is players want the best of both worlds: they want to get max or near max money AND pick their location. Pick one or the other. The current system allows them to have both.

              The Carmelo Anthony rule and the changes to contract length owners are proposing fixes this.
              So a hard cap would do nothing for the Vince Carters of the world. One of my points exactly. A hard cap does nothing for a players character, desires or needs.

              And, AGAIN, a Carmelo rule can be instituted with or without a hard cap. Hardly relevant to needing a hard cap.


              The league would share LOSSES therefore no one is making money. The league operates at a loss. Each team would share a loss of approximately $3M per season.

              Why don't we just have every player earn $4.7M per season. That sounds fair. $2,120,000,000 (53% BRI) divided by 450. Then, we take every players off-court earnings that are not related to basketball related income and then divide that equally as well. This insistence on revenue sharing among owners should be used with the players as well - it is only fair.
              Again seperate ideas

              as for the 2nd part. Go ahead. I could really care less. You are mistaken if you truelly believe I care what the players make. I don't.

              This is all about the inaccuracies of a hard cap and what it will do and where the real problems lie and an reasonable solution to both sides issues (thats in italics because the owners are not being honest about their issues. In that competitive balance is only actually important to a few of them)

              22 teams operating at a loss and the league as a whole operating at a loss does not address financial sustainability of the league.

              LeBron and Wade don't share their endorsements with fellow members of the players association. Why should Buss or Dolan share their local television contracts with the other owners? They can have their own local contracts as other players can have their own endorsements. It sounds to me like a double standard.
              first off one really needs to not believe everything they read without proof. Please list the 22 teams losing money and how much. Blind faith brings nothing to the argument.

              Why is it fair for Buss or Dolan to make as much money as they can, while Lebron James or Kobe can't? "Sounds like a double standard".... careful with those types of arguments, especially when they work both ways.

              How does this stop LBJ or Bosh screwing over cities? How does this stop Carmelo from holding the Nuggets hostage? How does this stop teams from adding talent via exemptions that other teams cannot afford?
              completely? you can't. Which was more or less my point to begin with.

              Atleast by not marketing players and emphasizing them you take some of the power out of their hands.

              Much like Billy Hunter, I do not feel you have offered any arguments that address the true nature of the situation.

              If you want revenue sharing to fix all, the league has to operate at a profit.

              If you want the owners to share all revenues outside of basketball related income among one another, then convince the players to share all their endorsements with each other. Same concept. And good luck convincing the players to do that (and rightfully so).
              I know because you are one of the people who have apparently bought the owners swamp land in florida. If you take a step back from your stance that the owners are right, and a hard cap is the solution, you may actually understand what I'm getting at.

              There are many other ways the league can achieve profitability without a hard cap, and a hard cap in and of itself doesn't mean profitability either. (see NHL and the number of teams a hard cap has not helped financially). Could it help? Sure. But again that has nothing to do with asset allocation.


              You know why alot of owners don't want NFL style revenue sharing? Because those very guys you mentioned, Buss and Dolan etc. (who are also the ones who destroyed the soft cap system) don't want to share. They don't care how profitable/competitive Milwaukee is... if they did they would have stopped spending as much. In fact its better that other teams are consistently worse. Like all things business, making your opposition worse can be just as profitable as making your own business better. Less competition (or bad competition) means more demand for your product. Worse competition means more experienced employees to head hunt from.

              While a hard cap will not be friendly to those same teams, it is more profitable for them than revenue sharing. In this way the small teams are getting something, and the big teams aren't losing as much. But still they can out attract their opposition because of their location. They may not be able to bring in as many players, but they will still always have an edge over others. There will still be competitive imbalance... they will still be more profitable than the milwaukees and be able to have an easier time maintaining consistently competitive teams.

              Atleast with revenue sharing, that competitive imbalance will be just as profitable for Milwaukee as it is for LA.

              A hard cap IS a red herring.

              Comment


              • I have finally understood, GT. You want a socialist borderline line communist system in the NBA.

                More revenue sharing of basketball related income in the NBA is a solid idea, one which the NBA has agreed needs to be addressed and reportedly has a plan that quadruples the current amount shared. In case you are not aware, this is what is comprised of BRI:

                Basketball Related Income (BRI) essentially includes any income received by the NBA, NBA Properties or NBA Media Ventures. This includes:

                Regular season gate receipts
                Broadcast rights
                Exhibition game proceeds
                Playoff gate receipts
                Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena)
                Parking
                Proceeds from team sponsorships
                Proceeds from team promotions
                Arena club revenues
                Proceeds from summer camps
                Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments
                Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances
                Proceeds from beverage sale rights
                40% of proceeds from arena signage
                40% of proceeds from luxury suites
                45% - 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
                Proceeds from other premium seat licenses
                Proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald's Championship and other NBA special events.

                http://basketball.about.com/gi/o.htm...ycap.htm%23Q13

                So teams already share quite a bit with players and no doubt they could share a little more of this among themselves.

                The idea of sharing all assets of teams over the entire league is ridiculous. The league is 30 individual teams businesses working together, not 1 large organization with 30 departments.

                The fact that you have dismissed the argument of players sharing endorsement money with other players shows your concept of asset allocation is flawed. If the players would never do it in a million years, why should the owners?


                Buss and Dolan (and every other owner) attempts to make as much money as they can outside of the above quoted sources of income exactly as LeBron and Kobe (and every other NBA player) attempts to earn as much money as they can outside the lines of the court.

                Outside of basketball related income, owners should not be required to share anything. This is the same as top players accepting max contracts - this is their revenue sharing with the rest of the players. Top players have already accepted a limit of their con court basketball related earnings, top players do not and should not be required to share anything else.

                Personally I don't have the inclination to debate the merits of your argument anymore. I hear what you are saying I just don't agree and, quite frankly, I think you are wrong - and I'm sure you feel the same way.

                Comment


                • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                  If a player is lost due to a hard cap, as a fan, my anger is going to be with management for not planning or recognizing this happening. Also, if the player is lost to another team, did my team have a back up plan? Was there another player available to step in via draft, free agency, or another trade?
                  A player who says trade me should still keep working to the best of their ability. They are under contract and a professional would honour that contract (unlike Vince Carter). A professional would also keep those wishes internal as to not hurt their current employer. Once the terms of the contract ends they can go where they want or a team can try to get fair market value via a trade for that asset. Unfortunately, not every player is going to handle a situation the correct way and that is going to happen regardless of the system as we've seen it in the past in the NFL as well.

                  Star players have an advantage in every league. They are the epitome of supply versus demand. The current NBA system allows them to concentrate their talents and place more star players on one team - that is the problem as it creates less competitive balance throughout the league. See the playground example in another post.

                  The current labour dispute is a means to fix the system for the betterment of the league both competitively and financially.

                  Change the system: problem solved.
                  and you feel you can't say that now? Ridiculous!


                  As for the 2nd part. It is... but the owners are NOT trying to do that. They are trying to improve their profitability (which is fine) but without addressing the real problems. Because addressing the real problem, is going to hurt their bottom line.

                  The owners created Frankenstein. They built a system around a few players... they sold those players.... they gave the players more control. They did this because it was amazingly profitable for them for a very long time.

                  When the Frankensteins realized what the owners had done, they took advantage of it themselves and used that power to begin using the owners to achieve their own goals (much like the owners have done to them). They demanded trades, control, more $ whatever.

                  Now some of those Frankensteins are causing problems for everyone. The owners solution? Its not stop building frankensteins, its not share in fixing the mess frankensteins are making... its try and limit the power of the frankensteins.

                  Frankensteins will keep making a mess if one keeps building them. Atleast with revenue sharing, if one builds a frankenstein that same person helps pay for the for the damage they do.

                  (sarcasm)But god forbid you limit an owners ability to make frankenstein in the first place, thats not as profitable.

                  Comment


                  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    and you feel you can't say that now? Ridiculous!


                    As for the 2nd part. It is... but the owners are NOT trying to do that. They are trying to improve their profitability (which is fine) but without addressing the real problems. Because addressing the real problem, is going to hurt their bottom line.

                    The owners created Frankenstein. They built a system around a few players... they sold those players.... they gave the players more control. They did this because it was amazingly profitable for them for a very long time.

                    When the Frankensteins realized what the owners had done, they took advantage of it themselves and used that power to begin using the owners to achieve their own goals (much like the owners have done to them). They demanded trades, control, more $ whatever.

                    Now some of those Frankensteins are causing problems for everyone. The owners solution? Its not stop building frankensteins, its not share in fixing the mess frankensteins are making... its try and limit the power of the frankensteins.

                    Frankensteins will keep making a mess if one keeps building them. Atleast with revenue sharing, if one builds a frankenstein that same person helps pay for the for the damage they do.

                    (sarcasm)But god forbid you limit an owners ability to make frankenstein in the first place, thats not as profitable.
                    I'll let someone else explain it better than I am capable of. In this article you are Wade and I am Stern:


                    Heat guard Dwyane Wade has stated that commissioner David Stern’s desire to increase the NBA’s competitive balance, or parity, is “unrealistic.” With the current system as his context, Wade may have a hard time imagining how small-market teams could ever have a level playing field with large-market teams. After all, the current system allows three All-Stars in their prime to coalesce on a particular franchise, all having six-year deals. Under this system, that same team would be able to add roughly $10 million in quality role players annually who would be willing to take far less than their fair market value to be part of a historically unique team. Heat president Pat Riley wisely maximized his chances of long-term success under the league rules as currently constituted.

                    If the rules of the recently-expired CBA were still in play, the Heat would annually recruit minimum salary veterans (who would probably be worth several million annually to other teams), a mid-level exception player (who would be paid about $6 million but would command much more elsewhere [think Kirk Hinrich, Antawn Jamison, Ron Artest, Steve Nash, Tim Duncan or Chauncey Billups in 2012]), and a bi-annual exception player every other year. By about 2013-14, the team’s payroll would bloat to over $100 million (a remarkable $71.1 million is already committed in guaranteed contracts to Heat players in 2013-14).

                    Wade was recruited to Miami under the promise of a nine-figure Heat payroll that would all but ensure him more championships. The opportunity of a lifetime indeed! Riley, again in incredibly shrewd fashion, has committed so much to his payroll that if the NBA system were to change and grandfather in pre-existing payrolls, his team could have a tremendous advantage for years to come (apart from the advantage of having Wade, LeBron James and Chris Bosh).

                    Contrary to Wade’s dismissal of greater parity being “unrealistic,” it is totally realistic if the system were to be changed. Here’s how… First, as I’ve discussed in prior pieces, a hard(er) cap would need to be instituted at a number that all teams would be able to meet and to profit at, so long as they ran their businesses reasonably well. Being that the NBA has already offered to guarantee its players at least $2 billion per year under the new CBA (the final figure will be higher), $2 billion divided over 30 teams is $66.7 million. In the event that the players’ agreed upon BRI share exceeded the $2 billion hard cap, all players would be adjusted up by the same percentage.

                    All but eight teams were able to reach the $66.7 million payroll figure last year, and those that did not included large-market teams who have the capacity to spend more (Chicago, New Jersey/Brooklyn, Los Angeles Clippers, Washington) (MATT52: or had star players still on rookie deals which are set to expire and significantly raise payroll), teams with billionaire owners who have spent more in the past and would do so for a competitive team in the future (Minnesota and Cleveland), and teams that could justify spending more if it bought more competitiveness (Sacramento and Oklahoma City). If the teams with the highest payrolls weren’t so high, teams with the lowest payrolls could justify spending more because it could actually mean playoff appearances and possibly even playoff success.

                    Going back to Wade’s comments, he said, “Let’s just take the owners and the NBA saying we want every team to be competitive. We want every team to have the same chips to start with. You tell me that corporations and business around the world that every one is equal and I’ll show you a lie. You have some up here, you have some down here. That’s the game. We have some huge markets. We have some small markets.”

                    First of all, it’s a lie to compare each specific NBA team to different corporations in a capitalistic economy because they are franchises and effectively business partners who exist under one corporate entity that is the NBA. The NBA can and should make decisions that maximize revenues for the NBA as a united front. So, it is totally possible that the NBA’s owners could vote on a scheme that resulted in shifting some of the favoritism away from large-market teams. In fact, this would be sensible if it resulted in the NBA as a whole becoming more profitable.

                    So, if the NBA could devise a system that would result in more fans attending franchises’ games where they were not before without compromising the attendance in markets that already attract sellout crowds, it would be in the NBA’s best interest to make this change. And that’s exactly what Stern is trying to do.

                    Secondly, Wade is off base when he suggests that the NBA’s stance is that all teams should have the same chips to start out with. First, unless the NBA breaks up Miami’s Big Three, all teams won’t have the same chips. What is more, even if all teams had only a set amount to spend, and even if they all spent the exact same amount, large markets would, on average, have a recruiting advantage (e.g. you’ll never see a superstar like Kobe forcing a trade to Charlotte or a Big Three coalescing in Milwaukee). Stern and most of the NBA owners want a system where all teams can, every so often and if run at least decently, have a chance of making the playoffs and possibly advancing. Such a system will have more fanbases more excited at any given time, and it will make the NBA more money.

                    Wade went on to say, “To me, it’s not about who has the most chips. I think it’s about who manages their chips the right way. That’s why I think we have a management problem. Small markets have won championships. San Antonio is a very small market and they have four championships in the last 10 years or whatever the case may be.”

                    Conveniently, Wade picked the example of the most well-run front office in the league in the San Antonio Spurs, a front office that was both lucky (to get Tim Duncan and to have their key players remain healthy and together) and good (in drafting amazingly well, especially internationally). However, the NBA owners’ point is that a small-market franchise shouldn’t need to be run as well as the best-run team in order to give their fans hope of a championship. While management matters so much right now, it should matter even more.

                    Under the present system, a team can much more easily escape a bad contract or withstand the injury of a key player if it has a deeper team due to a higher payroll. The problem right now is that it’s not about who manages their chips in the best way. When Miami is up to a $100 million payroll in 2013-14, it won’t matter how well Charlotte manages its payroll. Under the current system, they won’t have a chance.

                    Read more: http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/tol...#ixzz1as9pse52

                    Comment


                    • Matt Tolnick at HoopsHype.com offers his suggestions to a fair deal.


                      Here’s how to make the NBA more equitable, to make the average NBA game more compelling, and, most likely, to make the NBA more profitable.

                      1. Institute a much harder (if not hard) cap at a figure that all teams can realistically meet while making a fair profit.

                      2. Require that all teams over the course of the CBA spend at least a given percentage of the cap (ideally 85+ percent), or else face probation, steep fines, or even forced sale.

                      3. In the case of a hard cap, devise a different form of revenue sharing to compensate small-market teams from the anti-competitive effects of stars gravitating to larger markets. Note: If this new system has the pro-competitive effects that it is designed to, revenue sharing may not be necessitated in future CBAs.

                      4. After the rookie scale contract, do not peg maximum contracts to years of service. There is no reason that Blake Griffin’s salary should be artificially depressed based on his years of service when his value between the ages of 25-29 will be greater than his value at ages 30-34.

                      5. Increase the league’s maximum salary to $30 million. Wade was right on the money when he stated that the NBA’s superstars are tremendously undervalued and are probably worth $50 percent million annually.

                      6. Give home teams a more significant advantage when going after their free agents. Allow maybe a 20 percent greater maximum salary with the home team. So if the maximum salary was $30 million, a superstar would leave at least $30 million on the table (not factoring in annual bumps) in a five-year deal by leaving the team that drafted him.

                      7. Allow every team the opportunity to cut one player with a “guaranteed” contract every two or three years. The team’s salary cap space would be freed up as a result of this move, but a portion of the player’s remaining salary would be paid into a revenue sharing pot to be split among teams not electing to make cuts. This would allow teams not to be as crippled by bad signings as they currently are, and it would encourage teams to be a bit bolder with their signings, thus driving up player salaries. Important for fans, this would force players to act as though every year were a contract year. A cut player could be immediately re-signed by another team, and the league would pay at least some of the difference in the player’s original contract and the contract that he signed after being cut.

                      8. Allow teams to grandfather in pre-existing contracts to the new hard(er) cap but require that they pay a tax for every dollar over the cap, and also disallow them to sign any player other than minimum salary players and rookies until they fall under the cap. Such teams would always have the option of trading players for draft picks and players with lesser salaries in order to avoid the tax.

                      This idea would make for an interesting league, as it would be much harder for teams to be rich in star talent and also have deep benches. Orlando, Boston, Los Angeles Lakers, Chicago and New York would have to decide between having multiple stars and having deep benches. An NBA under this system might allow teams with no superstars but with 7-8 starter-quality players the opportunity to meaningfully compete against star-powered teams.

                      http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/tol...g-more-parity/

                      Comment


                      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        I have finally understood, GT. You want a socialist borderline line communist system in the NBA.

                        More revenue sharing of basketball related income in the NBA is a solid idea, one which the NBA has agreed needs to be addressed and reportedly has a plan that quadruples the current amount shared. In case you are not aware, this is what is comprised of BRI:




                        So teams already share quite a bit with players and no doubt they could share a little more of this among themselves.

                        The idea of sharing all assets of teams over the entire league is ridiculous. The league is 30 individual teams businesses working together, not 1 large organization with 30 departments.

                        The fact that you have dismissed the argument of players sharing endorsement money with other players shows your concept of asset allocation is flawed. If the players would never do it in a million years, why should the owners?


                        Buss and Dolan (and every other owner) attempts to make as much money as they can outside of the above quoted sources of income exactly as LeBron and Kobe (and every other NBA player) attempts to earn as much money as they can outside the lines of the court.

                        Outside of basketball related income, owners should not be required to share anything. This is the same as top players accepting max contracts - this is their revenue sharing with the rest of the players. Top players have already accepted a limit of their con court basketball related earnings, top players do not and should not be required to share anything else.

                        Personally I don't have the inclination to debate the merits of your argument anymore. I hear what you are saying I just don't agree and, quite frankly, I think you are wrong - and I'm sure you feel the same way.
                        Incredibly hypocritical. A hard cap is just as socialist as revenue sharing. Just a completely ridiculous statement on your part.

                        You never did... you kept avoiding my points. Don't get me wrong, I know you never had any intention of accepting anything less than what the owners want.... right now you are upset about not having basketball (which is understandable) and took a side (which is understandable to). But that anger is, if I do say so myself, clouding your judgement.

                        There is NO WAY to eliminate competitive imbalance in the league short of putting ridiculous restrictions on players (regardless of revenue sharing or a hard cap) that limit their ability to change teams. Atleast the league could help limit that imbalance while then sharing from the profitability of that inevitable imbalance. All while giving teams more individual choices if they choose to use them. They can still do that while taking out all their exceptions and adding all Carmelo rules they like.

                        Comment


                        • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                          Incredibly hypocritical. A hard cap is just as socialist as revenue sharing. Just a completely ridiculous statement on your part.

                          You never did... you kept avoiding my points. Don't get me wrong, I know you never had any intention of accepting anything less than what the owners want.... right now you are upset about not having basketball (which is understandable) and took a side (which is understandable to). But that anger is, if I do say so myself, clouding your judgement.

                          There is NO WAY to eliminate competitive imbalance in the league short of putting ridiculous restrictions on players (regardless of revenue sharing or a hard cap) that limit their ability to change teams. Atleast the league could help limit that imbalance while then sharing from the profitability of that inevitable imbalance. All while giving teams more individual choices if they choose to use them. They can still do that while taking out all their exceptions and adding all Carmelo rules they like.

                          I've addressed every major point you've had. Your answer to everything is 'asset allocation'.

                          The owners allocating their assets is akin to the players allocating their endorsement money.

                          There are ways to address competitive imbalances. The first way would be to ensure teams cannot spend upwards of $110M on salary and luxury tax. The players percentage of BRI divided among 30 teams equally is competitive financial balance. As Matt Tolnick at HoopsHype.com writes:

                          All but eight teams were able to reach the $66.7 million payroll figure last year, and those that did not included large-market teams who have the capacity to spend more (Chicago, New Jersey/Brooklyn, Los Angeles Clippers, Washington) (MATT52: or had star players still on rookie deals which are set to expire and significantly raise payroll), teams with billionaire owners who have spent more in the past and would do so for a competitive team in the future (Minnesota and Cleveland), and teams that could justify spending more if it bought more competitiveness (Sacramento and Oklahoma City). If the teams with the highest payrolls weren’t so high, teams with the lowest payrolls could justify spending more because it could actually mean playoff appearances and possibly even playoff success.
                          Your second bolded section is exactly what the NBA is attempting to do - the players will not go for it.

                          The money issues have been addressed or are within reach of a compromise, both Hunter and Stern have admitted this. It is the system holding things up now and a system that ensures no team can outspend another will ensure no team has a competitive advantage over another team. Again, here is Matt Tolnick addressing this competitive advantage teams will have:

                          Heat guard Dwyane Wade has stated that commissioner David Stern’s desire to increase the NBA’s competitive balance, or parity, is “unrealistic.” With the current system as his context, Wade may have a hard time imagining how small-market teams could ever have a level playing field with large-market teams. After all, the current system allows three All-Stars in their prime to coalesce on a particular franchise, all having six-year deals. Under this system, that same team would be able to add roughly $10 million in quality role players annually who would be willing to take far less than their fair market value to be part of a historically unique team. Heat president Pat Riley wisely maximized his chances of long-term success under the league rules as currently constituted.

                          If the rules of the recently-expired CBA were still in play, the Heat would annually recruit minimum salary veterans (who would probably be worth several million annually to other teams), a mid-level exception player (who would be paid about $6 million but would command much more elsewhere [think Kirk Hinrich, Antawn Jamison, Ron Artest, Steve Nash, Tim Duncan or Chauncey Billups in 2012]), and a bi-annual exception player every other year. By about 2013-14, the team’s payroll would bloat to over $100 million (a remarkable $71.1 million is already committed in guaranteed contracts to Heat players in 2013-14).
                          Last edited by mcHAPPY; Sat Oct 15, 2011, 02:11 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Carmelo Anthony isn’t happy the NBA owners and commissioner David Stern seems to be wiping the floor with the players’ union in the public relations battle over the lockout.

                            “I don’t think think we’re getting our message out there,” Anthony said. “The owners are definitely doing a great job getting their message out.”

                            Anthony, who spoke at Modell’s Sporting Goods in Times Square while promoting Mission Athletecare’s Power Grip liquid chalk, suggested the reason the owners have been successful in relaying their message to the public is because the Players Association is outnumbered.

                            “They have David Stern and the owners, we only have Derek Fisher,” Anthony said.

                            Anthony suggested the players should hold a press conference and give their point of view to help improve their public image.

                            http://www.hoopsworld.com/anthony-pl...g-message-out/

                            David Stern and Adam Silver have been the mouth pieces for 30 owners.

                            How many players have we heard from in addition to Billy Hunter, Maurice Evans, and Derek Fisher on behalf of 450 players?

                            Hunter did not do the same media circuit that David Stern just did?

                            This reminds me of one of my daughters books titled, "Boo Hoo Bird."

                            Comment


                            • I've addressed every major point you've had. Your answer to everything is 'asset allocation'.
                              Directly from you:

                              It is now apparent this lockout is no longer strictly about dollars - it is the allocation of the dollars. The players want to continue allocating the dollars unevenly throughout the league whereas the owners want to distribute it evenly.
                              so was this a false statement or not?

                              A hard cap is all about asset allocation. So is revenue sharing. They are both asset allocation, just from different ends.

                              The owners allocating their assets is akin to the players allocating their endorsement money

                              No its not. Its akin to players allocating their salaries, which is exactly what the owners are asking for. No one is asking the owners to allocate their revenues from all sources. Just basketball.

                              There are ways to address competitive imbalances. The first way would be to ensure teams cannot spend upwards of $110M on salary and luxury tax. The players percentage of BRI divided among 30 teams equally is competitive financial balance.
                              as would dividing all profits among owners. Makes no difference. Either offers a team the ability to spend equally.

                              If you simply want to address a teams ability to spend equally then either should be just as suitable. Revenue sharing, however, offers more limitations for some, less for others (LA, NY, Chicago etc will be most hurt by this, as would what ever teams with the best 'players' as their potential profits would be reduced), while a hard cap limits all teams ability to spend (should they want to, or be in a good situation to).

                              Your second bolded section is exactly what the NBA is attempting to do - the players will not go for it
                              that has nothing to do with a hard cap though (ie. removing exceptions, Carmelo rule etc)... but rather with the lockout itself. As I said many many times... we need to seperate ideas here.

                              With or without a hard cap those exceptions and rules can be used. Whether the players want that or not is completely outside the scope of this. The players said they'd go for a $90 mil hard cap... if a hard cap is all that matters everyone could get what they want at that price.

                              The money issues have been addressed or are within reach of a compromise, both Hunter and Stern have admitted this. It is the system holding things up now and a system that ensures no team can outspend another will ensure no team has a competitive advantage over another team
                              again both routes are coming to the same, but inprobable, objective. Revenue sharing gives each team the ability to spend the same amount of money. This just gives them the option to spend what they choose to. I'm willing to bet players would be for revenue sharing instead of a hard cap. The problem is the owners (atleast some of them) find this is completely unacceptable. The owners only want the appearance of competitive balance.

                              Atleast the players aren't lieing about not caring about it. The owners are.

                              Comment


                              • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                                Directly from you:



                                so was this a false statement or not?

                                A hard cap is all about asset allocation. So is revenue sharing. They are both asset allocation, just from different ends.
                                When basketball related incomes are exceeding basketball related expenses, revenues are negative.


                                No its not. Its akin to players allocating their salaries, which is exactly what the owners are asking for. No one is asking the owners to allocate their revenues from all sources. Just basketball.
                                Sharing team basketball income is what the owners, and I, are talking about. I'm not talking about outside sources or owners other revenue streams. Did you read the breakdown of BRI?

                                Every team has a local TV contract - why should the Lakers, Raptors, Knicks, Bucks, Spurs, Houston have to share that? They already share a national TV contract. Why should every team have to share the proceeds from their luxury suites and arena signage? Where is the incentive for a franchise to be run profitably if they are going to get a bailout at the end of the year from those who do a good job?

                                Back to the players, every player has the opportunity to get endorsement money that is directly related to their performance in the NBA. Your example would be akin to having players who perform extremely well or are extremely marketable sharing their windfalls with those who do not perform or are not marketable.

                                So you are missing my point.

                                as would dividing all profits among owners. Makes no difference. Either offers a team the ability to spend equally.

                                If you simply want to address a teams ability to spend equally then either should be just as suitable. Revenue sharing, however, offers more limitations for some, less for others (LA, NY, Chicago etc will be most hurt by this, as would what ever teams with the best 'players' as their potential profits would be reduced), while a hard cap limits all teams ability to spend (should they want to, or be in a good situation to).
                                It makes a huge difference. Again, where is the incentive for teams to operate to the best of their ability? A friend of mine is a radiologist: he had the choice to work in two areas of Canada, in one area all the radiologists pooled their money and split it evenly, in the other area they kept their salaries separate and could make as much or as little as they wanted. Guess which area he picked? Separate. Why? Because those who work hard are continually complaining about those who f*ck the dog, day in and day out.



                                that has nothing to do with a hard cap though (ie. removing exceptions, Carmelo rule etc)... but rather with the lockout itself. As I said many many times... we need to seperate ideas here.
                                A hard cap means there are no exemptions. That is the heart of the lockout. They are interrelated and one of the same. I'm starting to wonder if you have a good grasp of the concepts here.

                                With or without a hard cap those exceptions and rules can be used. Whether the players want that or not is completely outside the scope of this. The players said they'd go for a $90 mil hard cap... if a hard cap is all that matters everyone could get what they want at that price.
                                The players did not say they would go for a hard cap at $90M they said they would with a BRI share of 65% which is a hard cap of $86.7M. If the owners are losing money with a share of the BRI at 43%, how are teams going to remain operational with a 35% share?

                                Oh right, allocating assets. Like I said, get the players to sign off on sharing their endorsements equally. I know you said it is not the same, but it really is. To this I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


                                again both routes are coming to the same, but inprobable, objective. Revenue sharing gives each team the ability to spend the same amount of money. This just gives them the option to spend what they choose to. I'm willing to bet players would be for revenue sharing instead of a hard cap. The problem is the owners (atleast some of them) find this is completely unacceptable. The owners only want the appearance of competitive balance.

                                Atleast the players aren't lieing about not caring about it. The owners are.
                                Expenses differ from team to team based on local rents, arena situation, local tax rates, geographic location. Just splitting all revenues does nothing to give an even playing field. A hard cap on the other hand makes every teams largest expense equal thereby creating on court financial parity.

                                I'm willing to bet players would be for revenue sharing instead of a hard cap just as much as owners would be for all player endorsement contracts subsidizing NBA contracts.



                                As an aside, I've already given a link showing exactly what is included in BRI. Maybe I'm missing something so when you say allocate basketball assets or revenues, what exactly are you referring to? Please give specifics.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X