Team by team owner's stance

[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).

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.

So, your suggesting that these billionaire businessmen are simply unable to run the business well enough to make a profit?  They are just too stupid to realize how to make more money?

Like you said, the 57% is fixed to the BRI.  However, it is hard to both maintain such a high revenue level, as well as grow it (which would benefit the players as much as the owners...and in many ways more) without continually investing.

If the owners just decide "OK, we need to pay the players 57%, so we need to cut the money elsewhere", then the overall revenue will suffer.  They would be forced to stop from investing in both maintaining and growing the business, just so the players can pocket more money. 

What makes more sense is that you dedicate more money towards growing the business, which will, in turn lead to larger revenues, and then figure out a split AFTER some of those investments. 

Lets put it another way.  Lets say you owned a Pizza shop.  You paid your cooks and waittresses about 30% above what they would make at any other pizza shop in town.  However, you were struggling to break even each week, just paying for the basics, such as the actual ingredients, rent, electricity, etc. 

You are getting by, but you also realize that it may not be sustainable, because eventually you are going to need to upgrade restaurant, get a new sign, etc.  Yes, could cut corners by getting cheaper ingredients, however, that would affect the product, and the revenue might drop faster than the costs. 

However, if you cut the employees pay, so it was only 15% above the closest competitor, you could afford to keep up the quality, and you would also have the money to be able to keep investing in the company going forward, to keep growing revenues.

Its never fun to have to cut anyones pay, but when it comes to business, it is a huge part of the equation.  Unions rose so that they would not be cut by an unfair amount, and collective bargaining is there so the unions and management can look at how the current system is going, and deciding whether it is sustainable. 

Currently, the owners do not believe it is a sustainable...and clearly the players agree, since their first offer included them taking less money. 

So, there is no debate whether the players are taking too large a portion of the pie here.  The question is, how much less of a portion is reasonable

[KGs Knee]

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.

So, your suggesting that these billionaire businessmen are simply unable to run the business well enough to make a profit?  They are just too stupid to realize how to make more money?

Like you said, the 57% is fixed to the BRI.  However, it is hard to both maintain such a high revenue level, as well as grow it (which would benefit the players as much as the owners...and in many ways more) without continually investing.

If the owners just decide "OK, we need to pay the players 57%, so we need to cut the money elsewhere", then the overall revenue will suffer.  They would be forced to stop from investing in both maintaining and growing the business, just so the players can pocket more money. 

What makes more sense is that you dedicate more money towards growing the business, which will, in turn lead to larger revenues, and then figure out a split AFTER some of those investments. 

Lets put it another way.  Lets say you owned a Pizza shop.  You paid your cooks and waittresses about 30% above what they would make at any other pizza shop in town.  However, you were struggling to break even each week, just paying for the basics, such as the actual ingredients, rent, electricity, etc. 

You are getting by, but you also realize that it may not be sustainable, because eventually you are going to need to upgrade restaurant, get a new sign, etc.  Yes, could cut corners by getting cheaper ingredients, however, that would affect the product, and the revenue might drop faster than the costs. 

However, if you cut the employees pay, so it was only 15% above the closest competitor, you could afford to keep up the quality, and you would also have the money to be able to keep investing in the company going forward, to keep growing revenues.

Its never fun to have to cut anyones pay, but when it comes to business, it is a huge part of the equation.  Unions rose so that they would not be cut by an unfair amount, and collective bargaining is there so the unions and management can look at how the current system is going, and deciding whether it is sustainable. 

Currently, the owners do not believe it is a sustainable...and clearly the players agree, since their first offer included them taking less money. 

So, there is no debate whether the players are taking too large a portion of the pie here.  The question is, how much less of a portion is reasonable

Generally I find you have reasonable opinions, but the above is just wrong on so many levels.  I get the premise of your arguement, but the analogy just doesn't apply.

You are basically arguing that the expenditures of the owners are legitmate, and it is truly impossible for them to make money paying the players 57% of all revenue.  The problem I have is, I have yet to see one iota of proof that the owners legitimately need to spend to the extent that they do.  Why are the NBA's expenses rising so much more so than other sports in North America.  The NHL is able to turn a healthy profit paying their players 58% of revenue, the NBA should be as well.

You claim that if the owners didn't spend to the amounts they do, the revenue wouldn't increase.  Proportionally the other leagues spend far less, any yet still see comparable revenues.  The easily reached assumption here would be, the NBA just spends it's money poorly.  The NBA owners need to get their own house in order before anything else.

End result is, 57% is a perfectly reasonable percentage of revenue for the players to be receiving.

[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).

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.

So, your suggesting that these billionaire businessmen are simply unable to run the business well enough to make a profit?  They are just too stupid to realize how to make more money?

Like you said, the 57% is fixed to the BRI.  However, it is hard to both maintain such a high revenue level, as well as grow it (which would benefit the players as much as the owners...and in many ways more) without continually investing.

If the owners just decide "OK, we need to pay the players 57%, so we need to cut the money elsewhere", then the overall revenue will suffer.  They would be forced to stop from investing in both maintaining and growing the business, just so the players can pocket more money. 

What makes more sense is that you dedicate more money towards growing the business, which will, in turn lead to larger revenues, and then figure out a split AFTER some of those investments. 

Lets put it another way.  Lets say you owned a Pizza shop.  You paid your cooks and waittresses about 30% above what they would make at any other pizza shop in town.  However, you were struggling to break even each week, just paying for the basics, such as the actual ingredients, rent, electricity, etc. 

You are getting by, but you also realize that it may not be sustainable, because eventually you are going to need to upgrade restaurant, get a new sign, etc.  Yes, could cut corners by getting cheaper ingredients, however, that would affect the product, and the revenue might drop faster than the costs. 

However, if you cut the employees pay, so it was only 15% above the closest competitor, you could afford to keep up the quality, and you would also have the money to be able to keep investing in the company going forward, to keep growing revenues.

Its never fun to have to cut anyones pay, but when it comes to business, it is a huge part of the equation.  Unions rose so that they would not be cut by an unfair amount, and collective bargaining is there so the unions and management can look at how the current system is going, and deciding whether it is sustainable. 

Currently, the owners do not believe it is a sustainable...and clearly the players agree, since their first offer included them taking less money. 

So, there is no debate whether the players are taking too large a portion of the pie here.  The question is, how much less of a portion is reasonable

Generally I find you have reasonable opinions, but the above is just wrong on so many levels.  I get the premise of your arguement, but the analogy just doesn't apply.

You are basically arguing that the expenditures of the owners are legitmate, and it is truly impossible for them to make money paying the players 57% of all revenue.  The problem I have is, I have yet to see one iota of proof that the owners legitimately need to spend to the extent that they do.  Why are the NBA's expenses rising so much more so than other sports in North America.  The NHL is able to turn a healthy profit paying their players 58% of revenue, the NBA should be as well.

You claim that if the owners didn't spend to the amounts they do, the revenue wouldn't increase.  Proportionally the other leagues spend far less, any yet still see comparable revenues.  The easily reached assumption here would be, the NBA just spends it's money poorly.  The NBA owners need to get their own house in order before anything else.

End result is, 57% is a perfectly reasonable percentage of revenue for the players to be receiving.

Well, it is pretty simple.  The NHL can afford to pay the players 58% of the revenue, because they do not invest enough in their future, in order to produce higher revenues.

You are absolutely right.  The NBA could afford to pay the player 57% of the revenue and make a profit.  However, they would be risking the revenue dropping...or at least not climbing. 

People seem to assume that the reason the revenues rise is only because of the players.  However, it is also because the owners are sinking a TON of money into promotions and infrastructure, which put them in position to make more revenue.

I personally think the players are hurting themselves if they suggest that the teams should still pay them 57% of the revenue, and find "other ways" to become financially viable.  Because what will happen is that the teams will stop investing in the product, and start running their teams like Jeremy Jacobs (at least pre hard cap) or Donald Sterling. 

They will put in just enough money to keep the fans coming in so they can make a profit, but not enough to truly take the sport to another level.

And what does that mean?  It means the players will be getting 57% of a significantly smaller pie than if the owners continue to invest in the league like they are currently doing. 

[KGs Knee]

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.

So, your suggesting that these billionaire businessmen are simply unable to run the business well enough to make a profit?  They are just too stupid to realize how to make more money?

Like you said, the 57% is fixed to the BRI.  However, it is hard to both maintain such a high revenue level, as well as grow it (which would benefit the players as much as the owners...and in many ways more) without continually investing.

If the owners just decide "OK, we need to pay the players 57%, so we need to cut the money elsewhere", then the overall revenue will suffer.  They would be forced to stop from investing in both maintaining and growing the business, just so the players can pocket more money. 

What makes more sense is that you dedicate more money towards growing the business, which will, in turn lead to larger revenues, and then figure out a split AFTER some of those investments. 

Lets put it another way.  Lets say you owned a Pizza shop.  You paid your cooks and waittresses about 30% above what they would make at any other pizza shop in town.  However, you were struggling to break even each week, just paying for the basics, such as the actual ingredients, rent, electricity, etc. 

You are getting by, but you also realize that it may not be sustainable, because eventually you are going to need to upgrade restaurant, get a new sign, etc.  Yes, could cut corners by getting cheaper ingredients, however, that would affect the product, and the revenue might drop faster than the costs. 

However, if you cut the employees pay, so it was only 15% above the closest competitor, you could afford to keep up the quality, and you would also have the money to be able to keep investing in the company going forward, to keep growing revenues.

Its never fun to have to cut anyones pay, but when it comes to business, it is a huge part of the equation.  Unions rose so that they would not be cut by an unfair amount, and collective bargaining is there so the unions and management can look at how the current system is going, and deciding whether it is sustainable. 

Currently, the owners do not believe it is a sustainable...and clearly the players agree, since their first offer included them taking less money. 

So, there is no debate whether the players are taking too large a portion of the pie here.  The question is, how much less of a portion is reasonable

Generally I find you have reasonable opinions, but the above is just wrong on so many levels.  I get the premise of your arguement, but the analogy just doesn't apply.

You are basically arguing that the expenditures of the owners are legitmate, and it is truly impossible for them to make money paying the players 57% of all revenue.  The problem I have is, I have yet to see one iota of proof that the owners legitimately need to spend to the extent that they do.  Why are the NBA's expenses rising so much more so than other sports in North America.  The NHL is able to turn a healthy profit paying their players 58% of revenue, the NBA should be as well.

You claim that if the owners didn't spend to the amounts they do, the revenue wouldn't increase.  Proportionally the other leagues spend far less, any yet still see comparable revenues.  The easily reached assumption here would be, the NBA just spends it's money poorly.  The NBA owners need to get their own house in order before anything else.

End result is, 57% is a perfectly reasonable percentage of revenue for the players to be receiving.

Well, it is pretty simple.  The NHL can afford to pay the players 58% of the revenue, because they do not invest enough in their future, in order to produce higher revenues.

You are absolutely right.  The NBA could afford to pay the player 57% of the revenue and make a profit.  However, they would be risking the revenue dropping...or at least not climbing. 

People seem to assume that the reason the revenues rise is only because of the players.  However, it is also because the owners are sinking a TON of money into promotions and infrastructure, which put them in position to make more revenue.

I personally think the players are hurting themselves if they suggest that the teams should still pay them 57% of the revenue, and find "other ways" to become financially viable.  Because what will happen is that the teams will stop investing in the product, and start running their teams like Jeremy Jacobs (at least pre hard cap) or Donald Sterling. 

They will put in just enough money to keep the fans coming in so they can make a profit, but not enough to truly take the sport to another level.

And what does that mean?  It means the players will be getting 57% of a significantly smaller pie than if the owners continue to invest in the league like they are currently doing. 

And yet, even with the NHL not investing as much (as the NBA, or as much as might seem necessary), their revenue has been increasing quite nicely of late, to the point they are almost on equal footing with the NBA in revenue.  That is ridiculous,  there is no way the NHL should be on par with the NBA.  Just look at TV ratings and merchandise sales.  The NBA is definitely more popular.

I totally agree the NBA needs to invest to increase revenue, but the problem is that they are obviously investing poorly.  Quite honestly, I believe the NBA could easily see equal revenues without spending anywhere near the amount they do, they just need to spend or "invest" it better.

This is a reflection of poor management and nothing else.

[Chris]

And yet, even with the NHL not investing as much (as the NBA, or as much as might seem necessary), their revenue has been increasing quite nicely of late, to the point they are almost on equal footing with the NBA in revenue.  That is ridiculous,  there is no way the NHL should be on par with the NBA.  Just look at TV ratings and merchandise sales.  The NBA is definitely more popular.

I totally agree the NBA needs to invest to increase revenue, but the problem is that they are obviously investing poorly.  Quite honestly, I believe the NBA could easily see equal revenues without spending anywhere near the amount they do, they just need to spend or "invest" it better.

This is a reflection of poor management and nothing else.

Fair enough.  But just to play it this way, if the players are going to tell the owners that they are losing money because they are not investing their money better, and that the owners should be responsible for their own actions, then couldn't the owners say...fine, then if we are only going to be allowed to make money based on our own performance, then lets do the same thing with you, and make contracts non-guaranteed.

So, players still get 57% of revenues, and the owners have to start carrying their own weight.  And then players get to also start earning their own pay checks.  So, Eddie Curry can't sit at home and collect paychecks by not performing. 

It goes both ways.  Players cant insist that the owners aren't doing their jobs of maximizing profits, and then want to be paid even when they are not performing. 

[KGs Knee]

And yet, even with the NHL not investing as much (as the NBA, or as much as might seem necessary), their revenue has been increasing quite nicely of late, to the point they are almost on equal footing with the NBA in revenue.  That is ridiculous,  there is no way the NHL should be on par with the NBA.  Just look at TV ratings and merchandise sales.  The NBA is definitely more popular.

I totally agree the NBA needs to invest to increase revenue, but the problem is that they are obviously investing poorly.  Quite honestly, I believe the NBA could easily see equal revenues without spending anywhere near the amount they do, they just need to spend or "invest" it better.

This is a reflection of poor management and nothing else.

Fair enough.  But just to play it this way, if the players are going to tell the owners that they are losing money because they are not investing their money better, and that the owners should be responsible for their own actions, then couldn't the owners say...fine, then if we are only going to be allowed to make money based on our own performance, then lets do the same thing with you, and make contracts non-guaranteed.

So, players still get 57% of revenues, and the owners have to start carrying their own weight.  And then players get to also start earning their own pay checks.  So, Eddie Curry can't sit at home and collect paychecks by not performing. 

It goes both ways.  Players cant insist that the owners aren't doing their jobs of maximizing profits, and then want to be paid even when they are not performing. 

I have no problem with guys like Eddie Curry not continung to get paid. Those type of players deserve to get cut, they're dead weight.

The only problem I have with non-gauranteed contracts is they are one sided.  If a player doesn't live up to their expected production (based on market value), they get cut.  But if a player exceeds their expected production (again, based on market value), they have no means of recourse.  There is a reason why the saying is "NFL contracts aren't worth crap, they might as well be written on toilet paper".  They're that easy to tear up.  The only option is to hold out, which is good for no one. Unless of course, owners want to allow players who exceed their contract value (based on production) to opt out of their contracts.

[The Walker Wiggle]

So, Eddie Curry can't sit at home and collect paychecks by not performing.

Well, it seems negotiations have moved past non-guaranteed contracts.

Still talk of non-guaranteed contracts and Eddie Curry go hand in hand, don't they? But isn't he a fringe example? (Also, someone who's suffered through a lot and who, when all is said and done, may still end up with another NBA job.) But how many other players would be waived next season? How many players were waived under the 2005 amnesty clause?

I'll never understand some fans' interest in a union giveback that wouldn't clearly improve play on balance. Is there any evidence that incentive clauses have been good for the game?

But non-guaranteed contracts certainly would've given us even more lavish spending in free agency and more holdouts.

Shorten contracts and leave it at that.

[Chris]

So, Eddie Curry can't sit at home and collect paychecks by not performing.

Well, it seems negotiations have moved past non-guaranteed contracts.

Still talk of non-guaranteed contracts and Eddie Curry go hand in hand, don't they? But isn't he a fringe example? (Also, someone who's suffered through a lot and who, when all is said and done, may still end up with another NBA job.) But how many other players would be waived next season? How many players were waived under the 2005 amnesty clause?

I'll never understand some fans' interest in a union giveback that wouldn't clearly improve play on balance. Is there any evidence that incentive clauses have been good for the game?

But non-guaranteed contracts certainly would've given us even more lavish spending in free agency and more holdouts.

Shorten contracts and leave it at that.

Well, there is a huge difference between the Amnesty clause and non-guaranteed contracts.  The reason it wasn't used much was because it only affected the luxury tax.  Players waived still had to be paid their entire salary, and they still counted on the cap.  So, unless the player was definitely not going to play again, most teams chose to not waive them, because they wanted to maintain the ability to actually get rid of the contract for good via trade.

For example, the C's wouldn't use the Amnesty provision on Raef Lafrentz, not because they expected him to be a productive player for them and they wanted him on their team, but they believed they could trade him at a later point as salary filler, and potentially save millions of dollars off his contract, which they wouldn't have saved had they used the Amnesty clause.  And of course they did do this, when they traded him for Ratliff (and in turn for KG).

But anyways, non-guaranteed contracts are not on the table, because they are a complete non-starter with the union.  They are willing to discuss the much more reasonable idea of reworking the split of revenues, but will never consider a deal that does not guarantee the players contracts, no matter how much they mail it in after signing. 

And I agree with the players on this.  Since they can't choose to void a contract if they outperform it, then owners shouldn't be able to void a contract either...although I do think owners should be able to cut them, and spread the money out over multiple years, like they do in the NHL.

Ultimately though, I just think that the players are getting too big a piece of the pie, and I truly believe that if the owners cannot rework the system to allow them to invest in the product without risking losing money, while the players have zero risk of losing money, then it will hurt the product in the longrun.

For me, the solution should be that the players and owners should agree on certain "costs" that are directly related towards growing the brand, and producing revenue.  Things such as investments in marketing and infrastructure, and subtract a portion of those costs from the total revenue before they make the split. 

That is because those are investments that benefit both the players and the owners, and therefore, both sides should be invested in them, and holding some of the risk. 

Once they do that, it will be much easier for them to make a fair projection going forward.

One of the owners biggest problems is the uncertainty of costs in the future, and the amount of money they will need to invest to keep up with new technologies in order to maintain revenues as media continues to change.  So, if they can take those risks out of the equation, I think they will be more willing to give the players a larger portion of whats left of the pie. 

And if the league continues to thrive, as the players think it will, then they players will be doing just as well as they are now.  But, if the league struggles as the market changes, and needs to scramble to reboot, the owners won't be stuck in a situation where they have to swallow significant debt to keep the league running, while the players continue to be paid like there is no issue.

[KGs Knee]

For me, the solution should be that the players and owners should agree on certain "costs" that are directly related towards growing the brand, and producing revenue.  Things such as investments in marketing and infrastructure, and subtract a portion of those costs from the total revenue before they make the split. 

I agree this would seemingly be a fair compromise to make for both sides.

If I were the players though, I would want some way of insuring that these "costs" are actually spent and not just pocketed by the owners.  Maybe give the players one vote on any applicable commitee.  This gives the players a voice and stake in the direction of investments.

Instead of making these off-the-top deductions a straight cash number, make them a voted upon matter(on a case-by-case basis), that would also have to meet certain criteria for what is allowable.  Dedcutions for investment would only be allowable if approved by commitee (in which the players would have a vote).

[Chris]

For me, the solution should be that the players and owners should agree on certain "costs" that are directly related towards growing the brand, and producing revenue.  Things such as investments in marketing and infrastructure, and subtract a portion of those costs from the total revenue before they make the split. 

I agree this would seemingly be a fair compromise to make for both sides.

If I were the players though, I would want some way of insuring that these "costs" are actually spent and not just pocketed by the owners.  Maybe give the players one vote on any applicable commitee.  This gives the players a voice and stake in the direction of investments.

Instead of making these off-the-top deductions a straight cash number, make them a voted upon matter(on a case-by-case basis), that would also have to meet certain criteria for what is allowable.  Dedcutions for investment would only be allowable if approved by commitee (in which the players would have a vote).

100% agree.  I think any deal that involved taking costs off the top would have to have very strict rules for exactly what those costs are allowed to go towards, and access by union lawyers to all records.

I really think if the players want the kind of share they claim they deserve, they need to be playing a bigger role on the business.  That means both taking some financial risk, but also having a vote in where the money they are risking is invested. 

[The Walker Wiggle]

But anyways, non-guaranteed contracts are not on the table, because they are a complete non-starter with the union.  They are willing to discuss the much more reasonable idea of reworking the split of revenues, but will never consider a deal that does not guarantee the players contracts, no matter how much they mail it in after signing.  

And I agree with the players on this.  Since they can't choose to void a contract if they outperform it, then owners shouldn't be able to void a contract either...although I do think owners should be able to cut them, and spread the money out over multiple years, like they do in the NHL.

Okay so mentioning the 2005 amnesty clause was a mistake as it distracted from my larger point. Non-guaranteed contracts would've encouraged even more extravagant F.A. spending, and more hold outs, without leading to greater parity, and only a handful of players, if that, would deserve to be waived in any given season. Although I admit I find injury related cuts more depressing than most.

I also don't understand deriding Eddy Curry but trusting implicitly the judgement of people who felt he was worth a $60 million contract in the first place.

[The Walker Wiggle]

For me, the solution should be that the players and owners should agree on certain "costs" that are directly related towards growing the brand, and producing revenue.  Things such as investments in marketing and infrastructure, and subtract a portion of those costs from the total revenue before they make the split.  

I agree this would seemingly be a fair compromise to make for both sides.

If I were the players though, I would want some way of insuring that these "costs" are actually spent and not just pocketed by the owners.  Maybe give the players one vote on any applicable commitee.  This gives the players a voice and stake in the direction of investments.

Instead of making these off-the-top deductions a straight cash number, make them a voted upon matter(on a case-by-case basis), that would also have to meet certain criteria for what is allowable.  Dedcutions for investment would only be allowable if approved by commitee (in which the players would have a vote).

Owners are already working very hard to make sure that as little of their profits are considered BRI as possible. Look no further than our own Wyc Grousbeck's pending media deal which includes a 20% stake in RSN. None of the income the Celtics owners will get from that stake will be included in BRI or, by extension, player salaries. (The deal is also reportedly front loaded, the better to skirt any phased in new revenue sharing system.)

The Celtics 4.73 average rating is up 53%  from the 2009-2010 season. The 116,000 homes that tuned in to each game represent the league’s fourth highest mark.

Which is to say, I doubt we'll ever see players given a "voice and stake in the direction of investments." I do like the suggestion.

[KGs Knee]

Owners are already working very hard to make sure that as little of their profits are considered BRI as possible. Look no further than our own Wyc Grousbeck's pending media deal which includes a 20% stake in RSN. None of the income the Celtics owners will get from that stake will be included in BRI or, by extension, player salaries. (The deal is also reportedly front loaded, the better to skirt any phased in new revenue sharing system.)

The Celtics 4.73 average rating is up 53%  from the 2009-2010 season. The 116,000 homes that tuned in to each game represent the league’s fourth highest mark.

Yeah, I am not at all a fan of this type of deal.  Sure, it's good for the Celtics, but, it comes across as almost trying to cheat the players out of money.

I am not sure what the solution would be though.  Outlaw this type of media deal?  Make the ownership stake an includeable part of the BRI calculation? 

The other issue is, how many teams are even capable of negotiating this type of media deal?  I don't beleive many are.  Thus, this potentially also ends up cheating the other teams out of a portion of any money shared in future revenue sharing plans.  It might very well be, the owners themselves will not like this type of deal.

[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. 

[Roy H.]

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.