EPTNBA 2014-2015 Regular Season - Page 28
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On November 14 2014 06:21 Haiq343 wrote: Her more important point is that the owners are replaceable. One of the totally baffling things about the past lockout was the union 'leadership' (lol billyhunter) didn't recognize they have all of the power. People don't give a shit about the Lakers, they want to watch Kobe. The stars drive the league and somehow let the owners totally bully them into giving tons of money so franchises could be worth even more. It's nice to see that Roberts understands they don't have to let that happen again. during the last lockout, there was this discussion about the players creating their own league. without the owners, and therefore, without the NBA, could the players actually pull it off?? if they can't, then the owners arent really replaceable. i mean, ya you could replace jim buss or whatever with another person and it would be fine, but it isnt about that one person, its about what that person has control over. obviously, if given enough time, i could see some sort of player's league made, but how many players would sacrifice that many money earning years to make it happen? i mean think of how many things they need to make happen. find new arenas to play in, create another however many teams they need (this might ultimately be the hardest part), sponsorship, tv deals etc. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 07:17 zev318 wrote: during the last lockout, there was this discussion about the players creating their own league. without the owners, and therefore, without the NBA, could the players actually pull it off?? if they can't, then the owners arent really replaceable. i mean, ya you could replace jim buss or whatever with another person and it would be fine, but it isnt about that one person, its about what that person has control over. obviously, if given enough time, i could see some sort of player's league made, but how many players would sacrifice that many money earning years to make it happen? i mean think of how many things they need to make happen. find new arenas to play in, create another however many teams they need (this might ultimately be the hardest part), sponsorship, tv deals etc. She's speaking more about fungibility, not, hypothetically, stripping the infrastructure. Her point is, there's probably more billionaires than Lebron James in the world. Tomorrow Jimmy Buss can be replaced by Bimmy Juss. The league will continue without the slightest effect on the product. This is not the case for Anthony Davis. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2014 07:17 zev318 wrote: during the last lockout, there was this discussion about the players creating their own league. without the owners, and therefore, without the NBA, could the players actually pull it off?? if they can't, then the owners arent really replaceable. i mean, ya you could replace jim buss or whatever with another person and it would be fine, but it isnt about that one person, its about what that person has control over. obviously, if given enough time, i could see some sort of player's league made, but how many players would sacrifice that many money earning years to make it happen? i mean think of how many things they need to make happen. find new arenas to play in, create another however many teams they need (this might ultimately be the hardest part), sponsorship, tv deals etc. rent extractors are typically also hard to displace because they control some fixed inputs, some political/legal power or have a natural monopoly already in place. so the idea of replaceable is not about the possibility of removing but what functional value is created by ownership. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 14 2014 04:16 cLutZ wrote: Except her sentiments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the CBA and labor economics. On November 14 2014 04:32 slyboogie wrote: I'm not one to appeal to authority but this is, by all accounts, the finest trial lawyer in the United States. I like how she "fundamentally" does not understand the sphere in which she's operating. but u do. lol ur shit sucks as bad as ever dude. Perhaps I should have said "statements" or "rhetoric" instead of "sentiments" to convey my point. I in no way believe that she does not know how the CBA works, instead she is intentionally misrepresenting it to gain an advantage with the public. There are 3 (4, kinda) ways to expand the amount of money that the players, as a whole, get. I think that she knows this and is simply using these talking points because they are better for soundbytes. 1. Expand Basketball Related Income (BRI). This is happening through tickets, TV, etc. 2. Expand the definition of BRI. This is a major failure of the previous union leadership as some teams are quite adept at getting some tangential things not included (parking, rentals, etc). 3. Expand your % of BRI. Currently is 50/50, used to be a higher % for the players. Her main goal is probably clawing this back. [4] Fundamentally overhaul the system (aka Decertify and blow it all up). This potentially could result in higher total money going to players because it could eliminate the salary cap and revenue splits entirely. However, it could backfire as well as it might result in removing the salary floor and could result in contraction (aka lost NBA jobs). Great players would almost certainly be paid more, but low and lower-middle tier players would probably get squeezed. This is a gamble but, in my opinion, a decent gamble. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
You don't need to decertify to remove a salary caps, it is only a necessary maneuver to challenge a league protected-monopoly status, which the NBA does not officially have in legislation, only in Appelate Court precedence. Only the MLB has federal Anti-trust protection. Why would you accuse her of sound bytes? Her sentiment is incredibly unpopular because the NBA has already managed to co-opt the term salary cap into the narrative of competitive balance. She's stating a fact. Any consideration of your points one through three is conceding that you are negotiating in a salary cap world. A preset percentage of revenue assigned as a labor cost is, by its very definition, a salary cap. You can grow the pie, you can increase the percentage of your slice of pie but you'll never get the slice of pie you're worth in a pie-cap world. Edit: the pie things not totally true, labor can have such a high percentage of revenue that the business becomes unprofitable or untenable. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 09:27 Jerubaal wrote: It's no use arguing; this is about ideology not facts. Have I finally crushed your cowardly Trotsky-heart? | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-legalize-sports-betting.html?_r=0 | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On November 14 2014 09:42 Ace wrote: oooooooooooooooooooooo http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-legalize-sports-betting.html?_r=0 Wow, this is a big deal. Definitely an easy way to increase popularity in the United States. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On November 14 2014 09:41 slyboogie wrote: Have I finally crushed your cowardly Trotsky-heart? I am rocking a rather Trotsky-ish (ite?) beard/mustache atm. And 1) There are barely any journalists that can do such things justice. The idea that sports journalists can give it treatment is laughable. 2) It's just too polemical to have a reasonable discussion. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On November 14 2014 10:37 oneofthem wrote: so what. he is risking horrific injury to make millions of dollars. his future is set Fixed it for ya. I have no problem with him feeling this way. He said it was how he felt, so be it. I just don't like people trying to twist it everywhere. This does not make him tough, this makes him soft. This does not make him dedicated, rather it means you should question his decisions of the last few years and going forward. For once I agree with Barkley. Also, dah fuck is Sacramento doing >.< | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the bulls are not forcing him to play. they probably want to save him for the playoffs, while being responsible to rose as a person.. this is a basic level of decency that some fans don't get. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
| ||
