Team by team owner's stance

[Chris]

I am not sure I see the problem with owners having a stake in a media outlet that doesn't count towards BRI.  To me, that is an individual investment, which carries with it risk that is not directly related to the basketball team. 

The issue, I guess, would be if teams sold their media rights for vastly below market value, in return for a stake in the network.

It's a valid -- and in my mind, intelligent -- business decision, but it could be seen as circumventing the spirit of "basketball related income", as well as revenue sharing, as the players and fellow owners would receive less revenue then they could have fairly expected.

True.  If they are not getting maximum value then that is an issue. 

But that is also something the players can negotiate.  I personally believe that if players are willing to allow owners to take certain costs off the top before splitting up revenue, then they would be more open to allow more pieces into the equation of basketball revenue.

This goes both ways here.  The owners don't want to include investments like that as part of revenue, but the players won't let the owners count things such as depreciation as an expense.  There is a give and take there, which is why it is so hard to choose a side.  Both sides are just trying to get the best deal they can.

[nickagneta]

Since when, in America, if anyone enters a business endeavor whether through business ownership or investment, have they been guaranteed of making a profit? Where is it written in the CBA that owners are guaranteed to make a profit? Where is it written anywhere in America that if you invest money or own a business you MUST make a profit?

Here's the problem I have with the owners. They want guaranteed profits at the expense of the players they are paying for other people to come and watch play basketball. The players and the game they play are the product.

NO ONE IS GUARANTEED PROFITS!!!

You have to make them. If the owners as a cooperative want to make sure that all the owners within the cooperative are making money they need to do one of a few things:

1. Price set. In other words conspire beyond the free market to set prices that consumers pay for the product that would  ensure every owner makes money.

2. Share revenues. In other words have owners that are making lots of profits share those profits with those owners in the cooperative that are making profits so all in the cooperative are satisfied.

3. Collectively come to a decision to blackball workers within the labor force of the collective from seeking work in the cooperation of the industry unless they are willing to make money substantially less than they should be making for working within the cooperation.

Still, taking any or all of these steps doesn't guarantee profits for those owners. It only guarantees larger revenue streams of which the owners can do whatever they want.

At some point I think David Stern has to be held accountable for signing a really bad national television contract the last time he signed one and owners have to held accountable for signing bad to mediocre talent to extraordinarily stupid contracts. That comes with losses to the owners that haven't managed themselves well or developed their markets properly.

Don't get me wrong, the players need to give back to the game some to make this work and some way out of bad contracts for the owners and a lesser percentage of the BRI is definitely in order, but I don't think they need to give back to much to make basketball as a cooperative endeavor profitable. If at that point there's some owners that are profitable and some aren't, then the owners need to decide if each team is out for themselves to make a profit or they are in it all together to make a profit and share revenue.

[Roy H.]

Since when, in America, if anyone enters a business endeavor whether through business ownership or investment, have they been guaranteed of making a profit? Where is it written in the CBA that owners are guaranteed to make a profit? Where is it written anywhere in America that if you invest money or own a business you MUST make a profit?

Here's the problem I have with the owners. They want guaranteed profits at the expense of the players they are paying for other people to come and watch play basketball. The players and the game they play are the product.

NO ONE IS GUARANTEED PROFITS!!!

You have to make them. If the owners as a cooperative want to make sure that all the owners within the cooperative are making money they need to do one of a few things:

1. Price set. In other words conspire beyond the free market to set prices that consumers pay for the product that would  ensure every owner makes money.

2. Share revenues. In other words have owners that are making lots of profits share those profits with those owners in the cooperative that are making profits so all in the cooperative are satisfied.

3. Collectively come to a decision to blackball workers within the labor force of the collective from seeking work in the cooperation of the industry unless they are willing to make money substantially less than they should be making for working within the cooperation.

Still, taking any or all of these steps doesn't guarantee profits for those owners. It only guarantees larger revenue streams of which the owners can do whatever they want.

At some point I think David Stern has to be held accountable for signing a really bad national television contract the last time he signed one and owners have to held accountable for signing bad to mediocre talent to extraordinarily stupid contracts. That comes with losses to the owners that haven't managed themselves well or developed their markets properly.

Don't get me wrong, the players need to give back to the game some to make this work and some way out of bad contracts for the owners and a lesser percentage of the BRI is definitely in order, but I don't think they need to give back to much to make basketball as a cooperative endeavor profitable. If at that point there's some owners that are profitable and some aren't, then the owners need to decide if each team is out for themselves to make a profit or they are in it all together to make a profit and share revenue.

The big issue isn't that individual owners aren't profitable; as you say, that can be largely shored up with revenue sharing.  Rather, the issue is that the league as a whole apparently isn't profitable.  As a business model, that's not sustainable.

While, as an economic principle, the league shouldn't be guaranteed a profit, it darn sure better make one if the players don't want to kill the golden goose.  The league needs to remain healthy as a business if it's going to grow, and that means getting its labor costs in order.

[nickagneta]

Since when, in America, if anyone enters a business endeavor whether through business ownership or investment, have they been guaranteed of making a profit? Where is it written in the CBA that owners are guaranteed to make a profit? Where is it written anywhere in America that if you invest money or own a business you MUST make a profit?

Here's the problem I have with the owners. They want guaranteed profits at the expense of the players they are paying for other people to come and watch play basketball. The players and the game they play are the product.

NO ONE IS GUARANTEED PROFITS!!!

You have to make them. If the owners as a cooperative want to make sure that all the owners within the cooperative are making money they need to do one of a few things:

1. Price set. In other words conspire beyond the free market to set prices that consumers pay for the product that would  ensure every owner makes money.

2. Share revenues. In other words have owners that are making lots of profits share those profits with those owners in the cooperative that are making profits so all in the cooperative are satisfied.

3. Collectively come to a decision to blackball workers within the labor force of the collective from seeking work in the cooperation of the industry unless they are willing to make money substantially less than they should be making for working within the cooperation.

Still, taking any or all of these steps doesn't guarantee profits for those owners. It only guarantees larger revenue streams of which the owners can do whatever they want.

At some point I think David Stern has to be held accountable for signing a really bad national television contract the last time he signed one and owners have to held accountable for signing bad to mediocre talent to extraordinarily stupid contracts. That comes with losses to the owners that haven't managed themselves well or developed their markets properly.

Don't get me wrong, the players need to give back to the game some to make this work and some way out of bad contracts for the owners and a lesser percentage of the BRI is definitely in order, but I don't think they need to give back to much to make basketball as a cooperative endeavor profitable. If at that point there's some owners that are profitable and some aren't, then the owners need to decide if each team is out for themselves to make a profit or they are in it all together to make a profit and share revenue.

The big issue isn't that individual owners aren't profitable; as you say, that can be largely shored up with revenue sharing.  Rather, the issue is that the league as a whole apparently isn't profitable.  As a business model, that's not sustainable.

While, as an economic principle, the league shouldn't be guaranteed a profit, it darn sure better make one if the players don't want to kill the golden goose.  The league needs to remain healthy as a business if it's going to grow, and that means getting its labor costs in order.

But Roy, if the players give back and the owners only take it and make that money disappear through new scoreboards, more expensive and new lear jets, bonuses for ownership and other executives, etc., etc, etc. and then the owners are crying about profits in 6 years what then.

I own a business, you do too. You know what imaginative accounting and funny expense spending can do to profits and we can't even afford the CPAs and tax accountant lawyers the owners have. A lot of the speculative logic that is being used to question the owners makes a lot of sense, almost too much sense to completely believe everything the owners are talking about regarding the profitability of the business model. At least in my mind there is.

I refuse to believe that during the last CBA negotiations that the owners made a deal that would immediately put their entire business model into unprofitability. They are all way too smart as businessmen to believe that they got swindled by the NBAPA and the people handling that last negotiation.