Team by team owner's stance

[greenpride32]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.

Here's what I took away from reading the list:

There are 3 owners with NHL ties and willing to lose the season.  3 doens't sound like much but that's 10 percent.  I'm sure they are also sharing their NHL lockout stories and experiences with the other owners.

It seems more and more teams are owned by "business men" who are more concerned about the bottom line than with spending at all costs to win (ie a Cuban).

Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

[PosImpos]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

[LB3533]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

But it's not the players' fault or whatever where teams play in which market.

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

It's almost like this country is backwards....the rich asking for the less rich for more money....this happens all too often in society.

[PosImpos]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

But it's not the players' fault or whatever where teams play in which market.

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

It's almost like this country is backwards....the rich asking for the less rich for more money....this happens all too often in society.

the players set the market just as much as the owners do. 

just as it is within the player's rights to unionize and have a set of expectations for their employment, it is within the owner's rights to get together and come to a consensus about how they want the league to be run to their greatest benefit.  i don't see what's wrong with this.

the owners / business are finding ways to turn a profit . . . that is what they are doing now.  the labor agreement in recent years (along with numerous other factors) has made it difficult for them to see the kind of profits they'd like to see.  so they've decided to re-negotiate the terms of their contract with the players in order to better benefit their own interests.

[Roy H.]

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

Well, that's what they're doing.  They've decided that their labor costs are too high -- 57% of their total income -- and they're attempting to cut those labor costs.

That seems like an extremely reasonable business plan to me.

[paulcowens]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

I think that's exactly wrong.   Sports is about tradition, community, loyalty, devotion, etc..  It's not a business.  Sure, it is for the networks, etc., and if the owners want to change the numbers, they have to look at sharing TV revenue.  But in the larger picture, it's about everything but the famous "bottom line".   An owner who is in it for the bucks is pretty much like a pol that it is in it for the bucks.

[paulcowens]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

But it's not the players' fault or whatever where teams play in which market.

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

It's almost like this country is backwards....the rich asking for the less rich for more money....this happens all too often in society.

That's what this fight is really all about.  It's symbolic.  It's the Big Money types putting the workers in their place.

[paulcowens]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

But it's not the players' fault or whatever where teams play in which market.

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

It's almost like this country is backwards....the rich asking for the less rich for more money....this happens all too often in society.

the players set the market just as much as the owners do. 

just as it is within the player's rights to unionize and have a set of expectations for their employment, it is within the owner's rights to get together and come to a consensus about how they want the league to be run to their greatest benefit.  i don't see what's wrong with this.

the owners / business are finding ways to turn a profit . . . that is what they are doing now.  the labor agreement in recent years (along with numerous other factors) has made it difficult for them to see the kind of profits they'd like to see.  so they've decided to re-negotiate the terms of their contract with the players in order to better benefit their own interests.

Ok.  In that case, I think that every city in the country ought to cut ties with the teams and call in their loans.  Or else, they should offer loans to other 'business owners' who want to start their own leagues.  Let the players start their own teams.

No, see, what you want to do is redefine as 'free market' a situation that hasn't been free market FOR A CENTURY.  Come on, you know this.

[paulcowens]

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

Well, that's what they're doing.  They've decided that their labor costs are too high -- 57% of their total income -- and they're attempting to cut those labor costs.

That seems like an extremely reasonable business plan to me.

Fine. Then kick the teams out of the stadiums that communities built for them, rip away traditions of community support that in some sports go back over a century,  and let them join the entertainment free for all.  Or rocket the rent on those stadiums.  Let's really put your theory to the test in this and countless other ways.  Let's see if those teams and leagues really are the free marketeers you suggest that they are.

[Chris]

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

Isn't collective bargaining with the union "finding ways to turn a profit"?  The best way to turn a profit is to cut excess expenses, so why not start by cutting back on the highest expense they have, player salaries?

And its not "givebacks".  They are negotiating a new agreement.  So, currently, there is nothing to give back other than contracts that have already been signed (and I do not think the owners will, nor should, demand any of that money back).

[wdleehi]

Here's an interesting article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions about where each owner stands in terms of revenue sharing.



Teams in the championship mix and profitable for the forseeable future are the ones who just want the season (makes sense of course): Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Heat

Those teams, with the exception of the Thunder (who have a bevy of marketable stars and a rabid fanbase), also happen to be wealthy teams in large, lucrative markets.

I really can't fault most of the owners for wanting to change the system so that it is more feasible for them to turn a profit off of it. I can't say that I agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that professional sports teams are not supposed to make money for their owners.  NBA teams are businesses whose cost of operation numbers in the hundreds of millions.  It is totally unreasonable to expect owners to be happy treating them as expensive, money-burning hobbies.

But it's not the players' fault or whatever where teams play in which market.

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

It's almost like this country is backwards....the rich asking for the less rich for more money....this happens all too often in society.

That's what this fight is really all about.  It's symbolic.  It's the Big Money types putting the workers in their place.

Not really.


It is about two factions trying to split up large amounts of money. 


Right now, the workers (players) are making more then the Big Money (owners).


The issue is the Big Money has to take their smaller slice and pay for all the other things that allows them to make money. 

[PosImpos]

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

Well, that's what they're doing.  They've decided that their labor costs are too high -- 57% of their total income -- and they're attempting to cut those labor costs.

That seems like an extremely reasonable business plan to me.

Fine. Then kick the teams out of the stadiums that communities built for them, rip away traditions of community support that in some sports go back over a century,  and let them join the entertainment free for all.  Or rocket the rent on those stadiums.  Let's really put your theory to the test in this and countless other ways.  Let's see if those teams and leagues really are the free marketeers you suggest that they are.

i really don't see what this "free market" thing has to do with the teams wanting to actually make money.

if anything, it sounds like the owners want to make the NBA even less like a free market, with more stringent limitations on contracts, more measures put in place to maintain competitive balance, and robust revenue sharing.

the NBA as a whole is absolutely a business, and it seeks to make money.  each of the individual parts of that greater whole understandably want to make money, too.  i think that's perfectly reasonable.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I'm least sympathetic of major market "hawks" such as Grousbeck and Johnny-Come-Lately Ted Leonsis who are going to continue making money regardless. Even the notorious Donald Sterling wants a season.

But it's complicated. The Celtics are due for a fantastic, new media deal, which will be one of the best in the league. Once that's official, revenues will be strong, and then the focus may shift to the reality that this roster has a short window. With short-term TV money and a strong roster, worries are more about years from now - the owners' long offers are tailor-made to that.

The Celtics would be payers in any revenue sharing, especially when their new local TV deal is complete.

[PosImpos]

I'm least sympathetic of major market "hawks" such as Grousbeck and Johnny-Come-Lately Ted Leonsis who are going to continue making money regardless. Even the notorious Donald Sterling wants a season.

But it's complicated. The Celtics are due for a fantastic, new media deal, which will be one of the best in the league. Once that's official, revenues will be strong, and then the focus may shift to the reality that this roster has a short window. With short-term TV money and a strong roster, worries are more about years from now - the owners' long offers are tailor-made to that.

The Celtics would be payers in any revenue sharing, especially when their new local TV deal is complete.

The Celtics are set to have a great media deal in place, that's true.  As a franchise, there's little risk of them not at least breaking even.

I think the concern might be on the competitive side, however.  The Celtics are not in a great location to lure free agents, and with the Big 3 getting ready to retire, ownership has to be concerned about another prolonged competitive drought like the team went through after the original Big 3 hung up their sneakers. 

Perhaps Wyc is concerned about paying a lot of money for a team that isn't consistently making the playoffs or contending for a title -- in other words, a team that may not lose money, but doesn't bring in a lot of profit, either.  If that's the case, his priority would be to limit player salaries and / or put in place stronger measures to maintain competitive balance (e.g. re-work the draft, give teams greater ability to hold onto free agents, etc).

[mgent]

And isn't the onus on the owners/business men to have the responsibility for finding ways to turn a profit....instead of asking for hand backs from millionaires.

Isn't collective bargaining with the union "finding ways to turn a profit"?  The best way to turn a profit is to cut excess expenses, so why not start by cutting back on the highest expense they have, player salaries?

And its not "givebacks".  They are negotiating a new agreement.  So, currently, there is nothing to give back other than contracts that have already been signed (and I do not think the owners will, nor should, demand any of that money back).

Because that's not the problem.  Player salaries are fixed, 57%.  They increase at the same rate the BRI does.  They might be the highest expense, but the rest of the owners' spending is growing way too fast.  That's the problem, and I don't see how giving them more money is a smarter solution.  More likely it's just going to tempt them to spend even more.

It's a "reasonable business plan" for them because the money's coming out of the player's pocket, not theirs.  But it's certainly not a solution until they start making money faster than they are increasing their costs.