Brettman: NBA, Blazers Dispute Paul Allen Reports
Allan Brettman of The Oregonian reports that NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver disputed multiple reports that Blazers owner Paul Allen delivered a message to the players union that led to a breakdown in Thursday's labor negotiations and that Portland Trail Blazers president Larry Miller disputed the notion that Allen is preparing to sell the Blazers...
--------------------------------
At the mediation Thursday, "Paul did not speak at the session with the players," Silver said.
"I do not understand why his presence has taken on a life of its own as if he was sent in to deliver a message to the players," Silver said. "In no way was his presence intended to send a message."
...
Also Friday night, Blazers president Larry Miller rejected the contention, contained in one account of the Thursday mediation session on a national website, that Allen was positioning the team for sale.
"Paul is just as committed to the team as he was when he purchased the team 23 years ago," Miller said.
--------------------------------
NBPA executive director Billy Hunter (here) and union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler (here) called out Allen publicly for his role in the NBA's labor breakdown. Another report referred to Allen as the "Grim Reaper" in the failed labor negotiations.
Here's Dave's take on Allen's role.
ed: post updated, bumped to front page
7 months ago
Corvid
58 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Great article, I just came here to post it too.
“I do not understand why his presence has taken on a life of its own as if he was sent in to deliver a message to the players,” Silver said.
It’s interesting to see the difference as more feedback comes out. It sounds like there were a lot of rumors that may not be accurate.
So Paul said nothing at all in the meeting, and didn't even respond to Hunter's direct question.
From that Woj wrote that Paul wants to sell the Blazers?
Talk about having an agenda? Woj = ZERO credibility.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 1:35 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Woj has had a long history disrespecting the Blazers, guy is a tool.
The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be tripping balls at any given moment.
Bring Back Dre.
sounds like it
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16
by Tyler Durrden on Oct 22, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Seems like alot of people in the media does that
One of these days a Blazer fan is going to have to explain to me why that happens.
Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.
by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 23, 2011 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
We're a small market team with a socially awkward owner.
We’re good enough to be seen as a threat sometimes, but not good enough to be respected, which just leaves the journalists and media to pick on the team and tear them apart because it’s an easy target without much repercussions when it comes to backlash for all the BS they spew, because hey, "it’s just those crazy weirdos in some podunk town in the PNW, who cares about their opinion?
The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be tripping balls at any given moment.
Bring Back Dre.
"Much Ado About Nothing"
“By joining with his fellow owners at a bargaining session, some accounts said, Allen was signaling he was a “hard-line owner,” even if he did not utter a word. " /Oregonian/
He said nothing,he did nothing,but his presence creates two news.The first, that Allen is responsible for the breakdown in the negotiations.The second, that he intends to sell the team.
And see what happens – how many comments in the media, forums,on the radio.For two days we are dealing with these “news”.
Obviously this lockout is a shame.
However, this polarizing dirty laundry media b.s. just makes me sick.
As munch as a news junky as I am, I prefer the mediators style of silence vs. a lame attempt to keep people interested while their job becomes less import type of a style.
It is the media's way to blow everything out of proportion
But what is it with the union. It sounds like they are the one’s that are on egg shells. PA is an owner as Kobe is a player, and both sides uses all the ammo they see fit.
It was said by someone in a earlier thread that both sides are looking out for their own best interest, and until they start looking out for BB best interest the bridges will be impassible. Well this is not a quote, but something to that effect.
hg
The sad thing is players are wrong about their best interest.
Owners are not going to move to where players want, no matter what, and, at the end of a lot of loses, players will have to surrender, maybe in worse terms than what they could have reached before. Cut loses now and sign the deal. Nobody among the players has the courage to tell the truth?
Rodman told them the truth
I think the rattle of loose change drown him out though. Gotta fight over that loose change. It’s like a few people I know that are out of work, waiting for that 20-30 dollar an hour job to pop up because that’s what they were making before. Not anymore, but they like to think they are doing the noble thing. Personally, I think they are doing a stupid thing. While I agree in the ideal behind the issue, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an employer’s market right now. Well NBA players welcome to economics 101. Get ready to be learned. Let’s see, no job for 6 months or take a pay cut and lose essentially one month’s worth of pay a year. Hmm, it would take 6 years to make up for the stubborness of holding out for more when it doesn’t have snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening. Do the math.
While I’m not saying it should be this way, (personally I think the owners are lying through their teeth) it’s the way it is. It’s funny to me because I would never tell the owner of my company that I need to keep my money and he needs to suffer losses or I’m out. They’d pack my boxes for me and send me on my way. Suddenly reality sets in and I shut my piehole. I am enjoying the beatdown that they are going to take.
Chris Rock Rich vs. Wealthy playing on repeat in my mind.
Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.
Opinion, Rumors and Spin, Spin, Spin....
Of course I have an opinion on the lock-out, the CBA negotiations and the absence of the N.B.A.. And like everyone I hear the rumors. But I’m trying NOT to react to the spin and realize everything I hear from both sides is coming from a ground spring of massive agenda.
That being said, IMO rumors and spin that Paul Allen has lost interest in The Blazers and is actually negotiating to create an enviroment that would be more conducive to his selling The Blazers I find more disturbing than storylines of CBA negotiation breakdown.
But THAT being said? Those rumors are being born out of the same enviroment.
Regardless of what the reality is, I don’t think we are going to know it until we get much closer to the reality itself. The only thing I know about Paul Allen, is that he is a very private individual, until HE decides he wants to write the book or show up within a 60 minutes segment.
So I’m pretty sure as long as it would NOT be in his best interest to admit to his immediate motivation, we aren’t going to know what it is…in other words, If he has lost interest in The Blazers and is planning for an eventual sale? We won’t hear about it until he decides he wants to tell us.
In the meantime, like all rumors and spin on some level I’m forced to simply believe what I’m told. Right now, Larry Miller and The Blazers are saying Paul Allen is as commited to The Blazers as he has ever been. Which is exactly what I’d expect him to say, whether that is true or whether Paul Allen is looking to get out of team ownership.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
These Players have had 20 months
to let the owners proposals sink in, and years to review what has transpired in the NFL and the NHL, yet refused to accept that the NBA would also change. Their entire strategy was to prepare the players for a lockout based on the concept that if they did not play, they could avoid making similar changes that the players in the other leagues had already accepted – forced or not.
The strategy was not a strategy, and they cannot win it. Hunter and Fischer were supposed to be the leaders for the players, yet failed to prepare them for the changes that were going to occur.
If they are angry, they have only themselves to blame. However, the last thing they want to do is admit to the players that they made a mistake. For whatever reasons, they deluded themselves and the players into believing that the NBA owners were not united and not serious. The owners have said repeatedly that they are going to level the playing field on salaries, so that small market teams, which are the large majority, can both compete and be profitable if well managed. Hunter and Fischer, however, refused to approach the negotiations with a strategy that would reasonably achieve this. You cannot have a soft CAP, regardless of the BRI split, and achieve this, for example. Yet they held onto it.
So, we will lose much of this season. They and the players, in turn, will be the biggest losers. After all, they lose 50% of the revenues plus any excess related to bird rights, amnesties, ME’s, etc. And this cannot be recovered.
There’s an old saying. If you point one finger at the other guy, don’t forget that there are four pointing back at you.
The players can now deal with the reality that they are out of options. The precondition to negotiations is that they accept the basics of a 50/50 split or something close, and a relatively or very hard CAP.
The owners drew the line in the sand. But they did it long ago. Hunter and Fischer, as well as the agents and the stars decided they weren’t really serious – now they know better.
The rules are going to be rewritten.
Fans and journalists may not agree with the owners, and may put out volumes of vitriol blaming them for the lockout, but at some point, they, like the players, will start to deal with the reality that it’s the owner’s league, and it will not start up again until this happens.
All of this vitriol and gossip journalism related to Allen is due solely to the fact that Hunter and Fischer spent the last 20 months pursuing their delusions, and Allen was there when it all finally came crashing down.
So, unable to admit that their strategy had failed miserably, they tried to blame Allen. I imagine if JC had been at the meeting they would’ve blamed him as well.
by ebenc on Oct 22, 2011 6:17 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Nah. It's not the "owners" league. It's the league's league.
The NBA will live long after all of these owners are gone. The league caters to the owners in this negotiation, because it realizes its future as a viable commodity is at stake. The owners aren’t going to accept the terms of the old CBA, nor should they. I don’t agree with their tactics, nor do I think “50/50” represents the actual split of BRI, assuming team finance % is included, but can see why they would hold this line. But the league will go back to catering to its players just as soon as a deal is reached.
Also, we’ve reached this point, we fans who are being used as a bargaining chip, because of Stern and the union’s inability to meet over the summer. This was orchestrated—especially the part where the players start to lose money. The owners know they’ll reach a much better deal this way. They could have easily worked all of these details out by now.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Oct 22, 2011 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
It's still the owners league
these owners, past owners, and future owners. Without the owners there would be no league. There are a lot more people willing to play in the NBA then able to own a team in the NBA. Money is power, and the owners are the money.
That's the golden rule..
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
by signal_lost on Oct 22, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
We had this discussion about Disney and Pixar.
Without Pixar, Disney might just give up putting out animated movies, because they just aren’t cost effective the way they used to be produced. They also seem to lack the creative spark of their golden age and early 90’s run of great pictures. Pixar innovated, won a rightful distribution deal, and later leveraged their way into an even better, long-term relationship with Disney where their creative autonomy is unrestricted. The NBA is more similar to this scenario than it is, say, a construction business where skilled and semi-skilled laborers make up the work force.
The players are the talent. They might not be THE product, but THE product would likely not exist were it not for the upper tier talent in the league. The NBA would either be a boring product or a silly dunk contest if not for the elite players. We know this. The owners know this. That’s why this negotiation is far more complex than a run of the mill “owners vs. workers” scenario.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Oct 22, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Pixar was losing money and ready to sell
…when Disney agreed to distribute Toy Story. Disney bought Pixar in 2007 I believe. Pixar wouldn’t be what it is without Disney intervention.
Without the NBA, players would likely be making muuuuuuch less and player branding wouldn’t be near as strong.
You greatly discredit creativity and innovation. n
There’s nothing terribly innovative about owning a pro sports franchise. Pixar had something far more valuable than money: great ideas and creativity.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Oct 22, 2011 9:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You must have been a liberal arts major
So was I, once, not so long ago…
Money talks, bruh. Don’t you know any starving artists, musicians, or actors who are incredibly talented, more so than most of the crap we get nowadays? It’s because you need money and networks to make money.
Another Pixar-esque example: Bill Gates did not have an operating system to sell to IBM when he and Allen started Microsoft. Gates, instead, bought MS-DOS from a person in Washington for $50,000, which he then distributed. Someone else had the idea; Gates and Allen had the combination of cash, connections, and reputation as Harvard students. The image of Gates building computers in his parents garage as a college drop-out is largely fictitious. It takes money to make money.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Gary Kildall, who created the CP/M operating system that IBM really wanted,
turned down IBM before they went to Microsoft. Kildall had far more creativity and innovation than Gates and Allen, but he didn’t have the business sense to make a deal with IBM. (Hmmm, sounds like the NBA players.) The operating system that Gates and Allen bought and sold to IBM was essentially a copy of Kildall’s CP/M. Today Kildall is known as one of the pioneer’s of personal computing and Bill Gates and Paul Allen are collectively worth $69 Billion.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, after I made my post I read into it a little more
Absolutely fascinating. What’s even more interesting, to me, is that for all the credit William Gates III gets for building Microsoft, he needed the financial backing of William Gates II to get it going in the first place.
Further proof that talent, athleticism, innovation, and creativity aren’t worth squat unless there’s some cash and business savvy behind them.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
As an engineer and business owner I highly value innovation and creativity.
But I can tell you that no one pays $7.5 Billion in stock for innovation and creativity unless someone else has spent millions to create a product and market for that innovation.
Alvy Smith and Ed Catmull would probably still just be doing research if not for George Lucas hiring them and giving them the opportunity to work on Return of the Jedi and later Star Trek II (which attracted John Lasseter), and then selling that computer animation division to Steve Jobs for $10M. Jobs then lost about $60M more looking for a market for their technology (which included selling an imaging computer that was adapted for medical applications) before finally landing a production deal with Disney to make Toy Story. i.e. Pixar and all that innovation and creativity would have died if not for Jobs spending $70M and hanging on long enough for the work of those creative people to finally get the right opportunity. The rest is history and Jobs profited to the tune of $7.5B for his $70M investment risk.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I value creativity and innovation...
…but it doesn’t get you where it used to without some serious $$$. Pixar would have sold out in 1997 or 1998. I’m sure Toy Story would have done ok without Disney’s intervention but we may never have had Cars, Monsters Inc and some of the others. Disney put Pixar on the fast track.
The owners have the arenas, management, a system, marketing channels and all the little things set in place for a professional basketball team. They have to manage all this and still stay profitable if possible. Every decision they make could flush millions down the toilet.
Once the player signs a contract they get their money whether they play or not. If a player doesn’t feel like bringing their best for a team they get traded or bought out. Players that get bought out get to play xbox 360 while they collect their checks. Anything other than a rookie contract pretty much guarantees the player a cool million a year.
I’m an entrepreneur. It’s hard for me not to feel like people aren’t giving the owners and the NBA enough credit for the business side of things. These are businessmen and investors. Even if they make mistakes, it’s not as easy as it looks. They can’t just sign a contract and be guaranteed 50 to 90 million profit over 5 years.
I do believe that everything you have said is true.
Listening to rumors and talk by Fisher, It is the unions belief that the Owners want to wait until the players miss their first paycheck and the they, the union wants to show the owners they are united and won’t fold because of a few paychecks missed. Until that hand is played out there won’t be an agreement. It has already rumored that the NBA is re-scheduling the 82 games starting later in the season; that is proof to me that somebody knows something we don’t.
This just my opinion added to yours—-not to debate you.
hg
The London Olympics start on July 27
Unless the NBA wants to send a USA Basketball college team and compete with that for TV ratings in the US an internationally, they can’t re-reschedule the 82 games very far back with a finals series that already goes ca. June 15 if there are 7 games. I would think a shortened season with around 50-60 games like after the last lockout is more likely at this time, with Stern and the owners probably still trying to save the Christmas games but willing to sign an agreement around Jan 7 and start around Feb 5 as the last point in time. And even that would result in a more compressed schedule with a lot of traveling and back to backs.
"The owners drew the line in the sand. But they did it long ago. Hunter and Fischer, as well as the agents and the stars decided they weren’t really serious"
Yes, this looks like the ‘strategy’ all along, with the ‘plan’ being to ‘stand strong’ regardless.
PA is just a handy fall guy, rather than simply acknowledge ‘we totally blew it’.
As far as ‘now they know better’, I’ll believe that when I see it. It may take a while for this to ‘sink in’, and that may well have been inevitable given the confused expectation that the owners position was just a ploy. The players are the ones whose ‘ploy’ fell flat, and the longer they ‘stood strong’ the sillier they looked. The ‘pride’ issue is probably bigger than the money issue at this point. The owners should start dropping the percentage to cover losses.
I’m looking forward to a better CBA that learns from the defects of the old one.
Wake me when the game is on.
Absolutely. Very Nicely Written. This has consistently been my position as well.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's likely
that the union was looking for a scapegoat from the owners’ side to offset the notion that Kevin Garnett torpedoed the last round of talks
what better boogie-man then the richest owner in sports?
And it’s pretty obvious at this point that there are some national writers like Woj and Berger that are more then willing to act as the waterboys for the union message.
by moldorf on Oct 22, 2011 6:33 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Reread the Woj article
He never claims PA spoke to the Players.(He does claim several times PA spoke in Owner meeting(s).) Woj claimed that Mr Allen’s mere presence on the side of the Owners was statement enough.
“Allen walked into the St. Regis Hotel, and the hardliners loved that they suddenly had the biggest spender of all firmly on the side of shutdown…”
“…where the owners marched Allen into the room like he was the biggest swinging bat in the room. Allen’s awkward sometimes, hates public discourses and hadn’t come to articulate a case. He was a presence to stand there, the richest American owner in sports warning the players that he was now an ally of the dark side. The owners knew Allen carried a symbolism with him…”
The Grim Reaper line was a perfect metaphor for the Player’s side. After all,the Grim Reaper is not supposed to be a talker,he just appears and death happens-in this case the death of the talks.(We can argue later how PC bad it was to use such a metaphor considering Mr Allen’s fight w/cancer.)
by Tisbee on Oct 22, 2011 8:12 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I think he clearly implied Paul spoke up as a hardliner owner at the meeting.
Nevertheless, Portland Trail Blazers billionaire Paul Allen stepped out of the shadows, declared himself as the hardest line of the hardliners and played the part of the improbable boogeyman in these dysfunctional labor talks.
How were the players to know (if it is even true – Portland fans don’t even know for sure where Paul stands on these issues) that Allen was declaring himself as a hardliner if he didn’t say anything at the players meeting? I think Woj was clearly implying that Allen spoke up at that players meeting. Then he says:
the most strident of the hardliners thrust himself to the forefront of fear that this could be a lost basketball season.
the most strident of the hardliners? Allen has said nothing publicly about the lockout. So how could Allen deliver a message to the players that he was the most strident of hardliners without saying anything? He can’t. The players didn’t know if he was there to take their pulse or deliver a message to them. They couldn’t know which if he didn’t say anything, yet Woj declares that it was Allen that killed the negotiations:
surely its seems that the man responsible for blowing everything up in Times Square wants nothing more than to be done with it all.
Yes, he never directly says that Allen spoke to the players, but he implies repeatedly he did, and draws conclusions (that Allen killed the negotiations) that depend on Allen having declared his hardliner position to the players.
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Rec, and I think you're right on
The Union would not be dumb enough to completely fabricate a story and feed it to a muckraker. Even as an anonymous source, that would damage your credibility with the journalist, and cripple the Union’s credibility if it came out that they just pulled a story out of thin air.
However, Woj would be an idiot NOT to embellish anything the Union, players, or agents did tell him. It generates page hits. Most likely, a few owners felt they were giving up too much, so PA and Peter Holt and a few others “hijacked” the BOG meeting and convinced the others to hold out. Word leaked about this (probably from a dove like Cuban, Buss, or Arison) and by the time the owners and players met again, with Allen in tow for the first time, PA was already being viewed as a catalyst. Woj learned about this, rubbed his hands, knowing, like Bill Simmons, that anything he writes about the Blazers will likely cause BEdge and PWE to explode, generating more page hits than he gets all year.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Never let the facts get in the way of a good, page-click-upping story.
"Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed." - G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man
Blazersedge.com || New to Blazersedge?
Actions -> Rec and Flag. Blazersedge works right when you use these two things.
by T Darkstar on Oct 22, 2011 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Again
Allen is one of 30 owners. There has never been the slightest indication that he was not in agreement with the position of Stern and his negotiators. The comment that he was “now” an ally of the dark side is nonesense. He was always an ally of the negotiations, and the implication that he had changed sides is a factual misrepresentation for which there is no evidence.
Secondly, the owners had already tabled the 50/50 and the players had refused to go there. Further, the owners had repeatedly tabled conditions for a hard, or relatively hard CAP, and the players had refused to go there as well.
Hunter and Fischer’s refusal to accept these two conditions were what ended the negotiations, not Allen. Now, you can argue that the owners ended the negotiations by refusing to compromise on these two issues, but this had nothing to do with Allen, other than the fact that he and the other owners had always supported these issues as a condition of agreement.
As far as the “Grim Reaper” analogy, the only reason it was used is because the talks were over, and Allen – from their view – personified the fact that until the players accepted the conditions laid out by the owners, the negotiations were over.
If he had not been there, it would have made no difference whatsoever.
Paul Allen as Grim Reaper? Maybe not -- talks may not be dead after all.
Howard Beck (NY Times):
Yet on Friday, people on both sides of the divide, speaking off the record, predicted there would be a phone call or two over the weekend and probably another meeting next week. That has been the pattern all month: every dramatic breakdown followed by a brief silence and then a surprising resumption of talks.
Beck also gives a brief summary of this week’s progress: agreements on amnesty, “stretch” exemptions, MLE
The pattern shows this is a big stage play
But the fans and the little people is being snow balled.
hg
There will be a one-time "amnesty" provision that will allow each team to waive a player (with pay) without his salary counting against the salary cap.
One-time. So not a permanent feature of the next CBA to get rid of bad deals (would be surprising if the players accepted something like that anyway). Hello ultra-quick and highly important decision on BRoy’s future with the Blazers by Allen or a GM to be named later.
Definitely a Paul Allen decision regardless of who the GM becomes.
I don’t see Paul leaving it up to anyone else to decide if Paul pays Roy not to play for the Blazers (and I’m betting he will play a couple more decent-to-good years for someone). Plus if they do cut Roy it will be to get under the cap so they can pay additional money for more player(s). It’s a huge financial decision with PR ramifications etc. And despite all the money at stake, I suspect there will be some emotional issues for Paul as well. He knows what Roy has meant to the Blazers and I believe that played a large role in Paul not selling the team a few years ago.
I can’t see why the players would object to the amnesty clause (and even an on-going permanent amnesty clause). It helps them. The player still gets paid in full AND can then sign and get paid by another team. So it’s potentially a financial windfall for the player. Plus it is an exception to the salary cap which potentially opens a job for another player (as opposed to the amnestied player just hanging on to collect his salary).
"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 22, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
"And despite all the money at stake, I suspect there will be some emotional issues for Paul as well."
Let’s hope Paul Allen is able to remove emotion from the equation and cuts bait with Brandon Roy.
"I Am Mine"
But if BRoy has a couple of good years or even three years of worthy playing
His contract would be up and could use his expiring contract to a better use then to pay him not to play for us.
hg
Doubtful
Even if he has 3 years of decent play, maybe even just a notch or two below where he was before, you have to consider the cost of luxury taxes, the cost of LMA deferring to Roy whenever he’s on the floor, the cost of Roy not getting along with any PG who wants to do more than jack up 3’s from the corner or top of the key, and the cost of giving up whatever capspace we might be able to create.
If the salary cap is lowered to around $50 million, we could still have $9-10 million to spend in 2012. If it comes in around $60-64 million like the owners originally proposed, it gives us room for a max contract or several impact players. That’s a pretty huge advantage to using the amnesty on Roy.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
The players have no problem w/buy-outs...so long as full contract is bought out
It’s a win-win for player,he still gets paid and gets out of a situation where he’s not wanted.(And depending on terms,he gets extra income from a new contract.)
The issue the players are having w/the proposed buy-out is how many yrs the team can stretch the buy-out.(For example,teams would like to pay-off a 2 yr,$10mil deal over 5 yrs instead of 2.)
The NHL deal included owners being able to buy-out players going forward at some 2/3s of contracts.
The real problem w/buy-outs is that rich teams can eat a large contract and not look back,but small money teams can’t afford to pay players to not play.
If the NBA was really worried about competitiveness and creative revenue sharing,it would allow teams to buy out 1 contract each yr,cap free,(perhaps w/max 3 contracts undergoing buyout at one time) and allow teams to trade an unrestricted First for the cash to buy-out a player.
For an example of how it would have helped a team,the Bucks could have traded their 2011 First to Lakers,Mavs,Knicks,Celts,etc for cash to buy-out Michael Redd. The Bucks would have shaved some $18mil off payroll and their claimed losses of $20mil+ would have mostly disappeared. And if Bogut and Jennings had been healthy all yr,they most likely would have been a Play-Off team an the revenue from that and better over-all ticket sales would have seen them turn a profit.
It seems to be the mentality of the players to play the court-room plea bargaining.
We will give you this if you will give us that; that way neither side has to say they gave in.
If in fact the owners are using these major areas as two separate issues, then the players has got to figure out a trade off in both issues that would benefit both sides instead of trade off of one or the other.
hg
You can blame the media...
But the quote from Kessler isn’t an exaggeration, it’s a quote, "They came with Paul Allen. We were told Paul Allen was here to express the views of the other members of the Board of Governors. And that view was, ‘Our way or the highway.’ " That is the players Lawyer, they guy in charge. Without that quote the media has nothing but guesses to work with. These people know that. They know that they only need to prime the pump and the media will take off. This will end only when the players realize that there is no saving face and they had better gather up what crumbs are left.
The plot thickens even more...!
This has more twists than the movie " The Disappearance Of Alice Creed", which is a great movie by the way.
This lockout needs to end., I’ve wasted too much time on this.
When does NCAA start?
What teams look good? Any in the Pac-10?
If the owners would agree the split TV revenue...
equally amongst all teams, this whole thing would be over. Instead they want to create a lob-sided system because they really don’t want small market teams to be evenly competitive with their star teams.
I don't think evenly competitive is actually possible
Owners would probably settle for closing the gap a little.
I’m still trying to understand why razing large markets to the ground sounds like a great way to even things out? Why would guys like Buss even think about completely piecing out the profit of a large TV deal that they worked for and earned with the strength of the Laker’s brand. (insert the cries of “players earned the TV deal” here without any thought as to building, branding, managing and marketing the team)
Profit sharing should help but when it’s time to tighten the belt financially you need to look where 57% of your profit is going.
"I don't think evenly competitive is actually possible"
It’s not. Nearly all of that has to due with the sport of basketball itself more than any collective bargaining or revenue sharing issues.
"I Am Mine"
I'm pessimistic about the benefits of revenue-sharing in the NBA, and I do agree that the main issue is the guaranteed share of BRI that players get
But, the big market teams do need someone to play. The Lakers do not have a $150 million TV deal because they play 6 games per year against the Heat, Knicks, and Bulls. The Globetrotters need the Generals, in a sense, and there isn’t much that’s unfair about the Generals benefiting financially from the fact that people will watch the Globetrotters beat them.
It could be complicated, but I think you could work out a deal where each team gets to keep a minimum of half their own TV deal. The other half would be shared among the teams, with each team’s share of another team’s deal weighted based upon the number of times per season the teams face each other.
No sharing of gate revenues, sponsorships, etc. Just the TV deals, and only half of them. There’s too much variation in team management and arenas to share all operating income.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
That's for sure.
The league is about the big cities and the big stars. That’s how TNT wants it too though.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Oct 22, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Simple and easy Revenue sharing is
Put 10% of ticket revenue and local media deals into one pot and give each team an equal share.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
