Sending in KG - what did they think was going to happen?

[nickagneta]

Here's.my problem with the whole situation and the part that I think loses credibility for tue owners. Its a $4 billion industry which means the average team is bringing in $130 million in revenue. 57% goes to player salaries if you stay around the cap. Lets say the average team is over the cap at 60% or $78 million in player salaries. Thar leaves the average team with $58 million to pay non playing personnel salaries and overhead. Most if not all teams have leases and very friendly ones at that. So where is all the other money going?

And I don't want to hear about payments for the purchase of the team because that should have been pre-figured into any good business model. And actually, most owners finance a huge portion of their teams for tax break purposes not because they cant afford to buy them outright.

Also, if the owners claims of losing more than $300 million a year as a total business model are true, why are they willing to settle at a 50/50 split which amounts to a savings of less than $300 million?

Lastly, if owning an NBA franchise is so tough to make a profit at why did the team with one of the worst home attendances over the last five years just get sold in the midst of a  lockout.

Individual teams can be at 60%, but the league overall doesn't pay above 57% of the revenue in  salaries.

If the players' salaries are more than 57% of the revenue, then players have to give back that money to the owners at the end of the year.

This is a very important point that owners and their PR machine have been trying to obliterate from the public discussion. It's important because it shows that if the league started losing money as they claim, it has nothing to do with salaries but with the fact that owners were stupid enough to sky-rocket their other expenses in the middle of a recession.

So, the owners are trying to solve an issue created by their mismanagement by addressing the only expense that they were able to keep under control.

I've seen this happening many times throughout my professional career: is the distinctive mark of badly run corporation - when cost cutting is needed, pick the easy solution and not the right one. It always ends badly. I suspect that if owners had their way the financial costs of NBA franchises would climb even more from the already unsustainable numbers and in a few years we'd be talking about a government bail-out. The NHL got a very owners friendly deal just 2 years ago - and many teams are already saying they simply don't even have money to pay the minimum salary roll.

*And this doesn't even include the non-BRI part of the revenue that the owners pocket right away.

Thanks CaptJack. Yeah, I am aware at what happens if the total BRI is over 57%. My example went over that to prove a point. That the owners on average are bringing in a ton of money at 43% of the BRI and that last year 22 out of 30 teams went over the $58 million salary cap and that 7 went over the $72 million figure that an average team would have for salaries if they paid out the 57% of the BRI.

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

[BballTim]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

[nickagneta]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

And yet since they are guarding those expenses so tightly, we really don't know for sure if $50-60 million isn't enough.

Do we know how much of a salary the owners are pulling out? What about friends and relatives on the payroll doing nothing? What about the amount of use of privately held vehicles and planes that are used for non-basketball related reasons? What about expense accounts that are used for personal reasons and not basketball related reasons? When you are a billionaire and live a certain lifestyle, one of the perks of ownership is using that corporation to do the things I described above. For billionaires, those things I listed above could lead to millions and millions of dollars worth or perks that they might not want people to know about.

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

And yet since they are guarding those expenses so tightly, we really don't know for sure if $50-60 million isn't enough.

Do we know how much of a salary the owners are pulling out? What about friends and relatives on the payroll doing nothing? What about the amount of use of privately held vehicles and planes that are used for non-basketball related reasons? What about expense accounts that are used for personal reasons and not basketball related reasons? When you are a billionaire and live a certain lifestyle, one of the perks of ownership is using that corporation to do the things I described above. For billionaires, those things I listed above could lead to millions and millions of dollars worth or perks that they might not want people to know about.

Huh?  Who is guarding those expenses?  The owners have opened their books to the players completely, for all things that are considered part of the business, and they have been giving the thumbs up from the authorities that the numbers given to the players are on the level.

[dtrader]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

Again though...this is all speculative.  None of us have any idea what luxuries are afforded to the players by each team, who pays for them, whether or not they are partially funded by sponsorships, etc.  We know the players salaries (to a degree), but beyond that, its impossible for any of us to say or even make an educated guess at what teams actually spend.  Its easy to look at an arena, and say wow...that must cost a fortune to run, but with no solid numbers to represent outside investment, tax assistance and abatements, sponsorships, etc....we just cant say where the money is going on the owners side.

Saying that the owners have "opened their books completely" sounds a bit far fetched to me.  I doubt there has ever been a multibillion dollar business currently involved in a contract negotiation that could make or cost them millions (if not billions), that has been completely transparent with their accounting. 

I've heard more reports indicating that the numbers presented by ownership are skewed than I have about them being accurate.  Do any of the sources behind those stories know enough to make their claims...I dont know. But I think it would be foolish to take either sides claims as 100% non biased facts while theyre angling for a negotiating advantage.

[nickagneta]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

And yet since they are guarding those expenses so tightly, we really don't know for sure if $50-60 million isn't enough.

Do we know how much of a salary the owners are pulling out? What about friends and relatives on the payroll doing nothing? What about the amount of use of privately held vehicles and planes that are used for non-basketball related reasons? What about expense accounts that are used for personal reasons and not basketball related reasons? When you are a billionaire and live a certain lifestyle, one of the perks of ownership is using that corporation to do the things I described above. For billionaires, those things I listed above could lead to millions and millions of dollars worth or perks that they might not want people to know about.

Huh?  Who is guarding those expenses?  The owners have opened their books to the players completely, for all things that are considered part of the business, and they have been giving the thumbs up from the authorities that the numbers given to the players are on the level.

Come on Chris...What the players were shown were profit and loss statements provided for tax purposes. They don't include itemization of expenses or itemization of payroll for non-player personnel. Those were NEVER shown to the players and even the P & Ls were never released publicly.

http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss

This is a link to deadspin.com's site and their look at the P & L's provided by the Nets for three years. Notice, no itemization of General and Administrative operating expenses of over $11 million.


Also, let's not forget the $8million write off on interest expense for purchasing the team in the first place.

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

Again though...this is all speculative.  None of us have any idea what luxuries are afforded to the players by each team, who pays for them, whether or not they are partially funded by sponsorships, etc.  We know the players salaries (to a degree), but beyond that, its impossible for any of us to say or even make an educated guess at what teams actually spend.  Its easy to look at an arena, and say wow...that must cost a fortune to run, but with no solid numbers to represent outside investment, tax assistance and abatements, sponsorships, etc....we just cant say where the money is going on the owners side.

Saying that the owners have "opened their books completely" sounds a bit far fetched to me.  I doubt there has ever been a multibillion dollar business currently involved in a contract negotiation that could make or cost them millions (if not billions), that has been completely transparent with their accounting. 

I've heard more reports indicating that the numbers presented by ownership are skewed than I have about them being accurate.  Do any of the sources behind those stories know enough to make their claims...I dont know. But I think it would be foolish to take either sides claims as 100% non biased facts while theyre angling for a negotiating advantage.

I feel pretty confident that the teams would put every cost they possibly can on those books.  If its through a "sponsorship" or not (which would be part of BRI), ownership would make sure those expenses show up, if for no other reason than to claim them as expenses on taxes.

From what I understand, there are two complaints about the numbers given by the owners.

1. The 300 million in loss calculation included things such as interest being paid on loans taken out to buy the teams, which the players did not believe should be part of the calculations.  However, even then those are taken out of the calculations, the league was still losing money (I think something closer to $150-200 million).

2. The players believe that things that were not previously considered BRI, and which are not considered income for the actual teams by standards and practices (or whatever the organization is), should be part of the calculation. These are things such as an owners who become part owners in the network that caries their NBA team.  Owners however, believe these are personal ventures that the players do not take any financial risk in, therefore, should not be recieving income from (aside from the income they get from the actual TV rights deals).

Now, those are very legitimate concerns.  However, they have nothing to do with the question of what the teams do with the ~$60 million they get from the BRI per year.  Those numbers were given to the players, and have not really been disputed.  In fact, the players have showed how much they believe them, by agreeing, pretty much from the beginning to give up a percentage that would cover the losses shown on those sheets (the number without including the debt owed from buying the team).

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

And yet since they are guarding those expenses so tightly, we really don't know for sure if $50-60 million isn't enough.

Do we know how much of a salary the owners are pulling out? What about friends and relatives on the payroll doing nothing? What about the amount of use of privately held vehicles and planes that are used for non-basketball related reasons? What about expense accounts that are used for personal reasons and not basketball related reasons? When you are a billionaire and live a certain lifestyle, one of the perks of ownership is using that corporation to do the things I described above. For billionaires, those things I listed above could lead to millions and millions of dollars worth or perks that they might not want people to know about.

Huh?  Who is guarding those expenses?  The owners have opened their books to the players completely, for all things that are considered part of the business, and they have been giving the thumbs up from the authorities that the numbers given to the players are on the level.

Come on Chris...What the players were shown were profit and loss statements provided for tax purposes. They don't include itemization of expenses or itemization of payroll for non-player personnel. Those were NEVER shown to the players and even the P & Ls were never released publicly.

http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss

This is a link to deadspin.com's site and their look at the P & L's provided by the Nets for three years. Notice, no itemization of General and Administrative operating expenses of over $11 million.


Also, let's not forget the $8million write off on interest expense for purchasing the team in the first place.

Why should those made public, we are not part of the negotiations?  And why is that not enough to work from?

[nickagneta]

So then you are admitting that millions in hidden perks for the owners can be hidden in those financials provided to the players.

Take a look at the whole thing.

I saw an arena cost of $22 million per year.
I saw a players salary amortization of $68 million.
I saw an unitemized general administrative expense of over $11 million
I saw an interest write of of over $8 million.

Some completely legal things and yet things that could be called into question as waste or perks for owners or hidden payrolls for friends or family.

I just don't see by looking at those old P & Ls how a team can't get by making a profit when they are getting $50-60 million a year in revenue above and beyond what they pay their players.

[dtrader]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

Again though...this is all speculative.  None of us have any idea what luxuries are afforded to the players by each team, who pays for them, whether or not they are partially funded by sponsorships, etc.  We know the players salaries (to a degree), but beyond that, its impossible for any of us to say or even make an educated guess at what teams actually spend.  Its easy to look at an arena, and say wow...that must cost a fortune to run, but with no solid numbers to represent outside investment, tax assistance and abatements, sponsorships, etc....we just cant say where the money is going on the owners side.

Saying that the owners have "opened their books completely" sounds a bit far fetched to me.  I doubt there has ever been a multibillion dollar business currently involved in a contract negotiation that could make or cost them millions (if not billions), that has been completely transparent with their accounting. 

I've heard more reports indicating that the numbers presented by ownership are skewed than I have about them being accurate.  Do any of the sources behind those stories know enough to make their claims...I dont know. But I think it would be foolish to take either sides claims as 100% non biased facts while theyre angling for a negotiating advantage.

I feel pretty confident that the teams would put every cost they possibly can on those books.  If its through a "sponsorship" or not (which would be part of BRI), ownership would make sure those expenses show up, if for no other reason than to claim them as expenses on taxes.

From what I understand, there are two complaints about the numbers given by the owners.

1. The 300 million in loss calculation included things such as interest being paid on loans taken out to buy the teams, which the players did not believe should be part of the calculations.  However, even then those are taken out of the calculations, the league was still losing money (I think something closer to $150-200 million).

2. The players believe that things that were not previously considered BRI, and which are not considered income for the actual teams by standards and practices (or whatever the organization is), should be part of the calculation. These are things such as an owners who become part owners in the network that caries their NBA team.  Owners however, believe these are personal ventures that the players do not take any financial risk in, therefore, should not be recieving income from (aside from the income they get from the actual TV rights deals).

Now, those are very legitimate concerns.  However, they have nothing to do with the question of what the teams do with the ~$60 million they get from the BRI per year.  Those numbers were given to the players, and have not really been disputed.  In fact, the players have showed how much they believe them, by agreeing, pretty much from the beginning to give up a percentage that would cover the losses shown on those sheets (the number without including the debt owed from buying the team).

Obviously they'll report absolutely every COST they can.  I'm saying that they might be less than transparent on the benefit side (such as the tax and depreciation issues mentioned)...and thats something none of us would know.

[CaptainJackLee]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

Again though...this is all speculative.  None of us have any idea what luxuries are afforded to the players by each team, who pays for them, whether or not they are partially funded by sponsorships, etc.  We know the players salaries (to a degree), but beyond that, its impossible for any of us to say or even make an educated guess at what teams actually spend.  Its easy to look at an arena, and say wow...that must cost a fortune to run, but with no solid numbers to represent outside investment, tax assistance and abatements, sponsorships, etc....we just cant say where the money is going on the owners side.

Saying that the owners have "opened their books completely" sounds a bit far fetched to me.  I doubt there has ever been a multibillion dollar business currently involved in a contract negotiation that could make or cost them millions (if not billions), that has been completely transparent with their accounting. 

I've heard more reports indicating that the numbers presented by ownership are skewed than I have about them being accurate.  Do any of the sources behind those stories know enough to make their claims...I dont know. But I think it would be foolish to take either sides claims as 100% non biased facts while theyre angling for a negotiating advantage.

I feel pretty confident that the teams would put every cost they possibly can on those books.  If its through a "sponsorship" or not (which would be part of BRI), ownership would make sure those expenses show up, if for no other reason than to claim them as expenses on taxes.

From what I understand, there are two complaints about the numbers given by the owners.

1. The 300 million in loss calculation included things such as interest being paid on loans taken out to buy the teams, which the players did not believe should be part of the calculations.  However, even then those are taken out of the calculations, the league was still losing money (I think something closer to $150-200 million).

2. The players believe that things that were not previously considered BRI, and which are not considered income for the actual teams by standards and practices (or whatever the organization is), should be part of the calculation. These are things such as an owners who become part owners in the network that caries their NBA team.  Owners however, believe these are personal ventures that the players do not take any financial risk in, therefore, should not be recieving income from (aside from the income they get from the actual TV rights deals).

Now, those are very legitimate concerns.  However, they have nothing to do with the question of what the teams do with the ~$60 million they get from the BRI per year.  Those numbers were given to the players, and have not really been disputed.  In fact, the players have showed how much they believe them, by agreeing, pretty much from the beginning to give up a percentage that would cover the losses shown on those sheets (the number without including the debt owed from buying the team).

[Chris]

Still the average NBA team is getting about $50-$60 million per year to take care of all expenses relating to the team other than player salaries. If that is so, how in the world are they not profitable?

Rent and/or mortgages on facilities (Arenas, offices, practice facilities, weight room, etc.) Salaries (and fringe) for coaches, front office staff, sales staff, marketing staff, facilities staff, etc.  General office overhead.  In-game entertainment.  Marketing.  Investments in things such as new scoreboards, websites, etc.  

$50-60 million does not go all that far, when you are talking about a business as large as an NBA team.  And what the owners are arguing is that if they did not cut the money from the players share, they would have to cut it from things such as marketing, in-game entertainment, their forays into new technologies, and other things that are done to try to grow the business, and help stay ahead of the curve, as fans get more and more comfortable staying home to watch games than paying to go to games live, and build more revenue (which would benefit both the players and the owners).

  Don't forget travel expenses as well.

Yup, and all of the luxuries that are afforded to the players, and that the players would whine day and night if they didn't have.

Again though...this is all speculative.  None of us have any idea what luxuries are afforded to the players by each team, who pays for them, whether or not they are partially funded by sponsorships, etc.  We know the players salaries (to a degree), but beyond that, its impossible for any of us to say or even make an educated guess at what teams actually spend.  Its easy to look at an arena, and say wow...that must cost a fortune to run, but with no solid numbers to represent outside investment, tax assistance and abatements, sponsorships, etc....we just cant say where the money is going on the owners side.

Saying that the owners have "opened their books completely" sounds a bit far fetched to me.  I doubt there has ever been a multibillion dollar business currently involved in a contract negotiation that could make or cost them millions (if not billions), that has been completely transparent with their accounting. 

I've heard more reports indicating that the numbers presented by ownership are skewed than I have about them being accurate.  Do any of the sources behind those stories know enough to make their claims...I dont know. But I think it would be foolish to take either sides claims as 100% non biased facts while theyre angling for a negotiating advantage.

I feel pretty confident that the teams would put every cost they possibly can on those books.  If its through a "sponsorship" or not (which would be part of BRI), ownership would make sure those expenses show up, if for no other reason than to claim them as expenses on taxes.

From what I understand, there are two complaints about the numbers given by the owners.

1. The 300 million in loss calculation included things such as interest being paid on loans taken out to buy the teams, which the players did not believe should be part of the calculations.  However, even then those are taken out of the calculations, the league was still losing money (I think something closer to $150-200 million).

2. The players believe that things that were not previously considered BRI, and which are not considered income for the actual teams by standards and practices (or whatever the organization is), should be part of the calculation. These are things such as an owners who become part owners in the network that caries their NBA team.  Owners however, believe these are personal ventures that the players do not take any financial risk in, therefore, should not be recieving income from (aside from the income they get from the actual TV rights deals).

Now, those are very legitimate concerns.  However, they have nothing to do with the question of what the teams do with the ~$60 million they get from the BRI per year.  Those numbers were given to the players, and have not really been disputed.  In fact, the players have showed how much they believe them, by agreeing, pretty much from the beginning to give up a percentage that would cover the losses shown on those sheets (the number without including the debt owed from buying the team).

Obviously they'll report absolutely every COST they can.  I'm saying that they might be less than transparent on the benefit side (such as the tax and depreciation issues mentioned)...and thats something none of us would know.

But from what I understand the players are refusing to work with those numbers anyways.  They have made it clear that they won't recognize those things as losses that need to be made up.

And lets remember, these numbers are only negotiating tools, they have nothing to do with the actual CBA.  They are just the basis for the owners argument, and the players can pick and choose which parts they want to take at face value, and which parts they don't.

I also think this is a big reason why having a mediator in their can help out immensely.  He can give them an unbiased view on those numbers, and call either side out if they are being unreasonable, either by throwing out bloated numbers, or refusing to believe good numbers, under the basis that they simply don't trust each other (which I think has been a HUGE issue).

[nickagneta]

I also think this is a big reason why having a mediator in their can help out immensely.  He can give them an unbiased view on those numbers, and call either side out if they are being unreasonable, either by throwing out bloated numbers, or refusing to believe good numbers, under the basis that they simply don't trust each other (which I think has been a HUGE issue).

This I agree with.