RealGM

Welp.

All I can say is ... if this continues, it just lowers Nash's chances at a title a little bit more ...

Someone said it in another thread - we may have seen Nash/Hill's last games in a Suns jersey.

Interesting analysis of How the Money Works


http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-h ... llion-loss

That was a confusing read. Not sure I fully understand it, but from what I got - NBA teams can make it look like they are making a loss because they can declare a players depreciating value as a monetary loss. Sound right?

The latest ESPN Today podcast talks about the lockout and the CBA. Pretty interesting.

gleonard1 wrote:That was a confusing read. Not sure I fully understand it, but from what I got - NBA teams can make it look like they are making a loss because they can declare a players depreciating value as a monetary loss. Sound right?

Basically, yes.

It's just trick accounting. From what I understand of it, the losses accumulated from "depreciating player value" is added to the operating expenses but since there's no real monetary value lost as this "loss" is just a numerical figure placed in the cash flow statement, they can put it down as a loss without actually losing money.

You can lower your tax obligations by lowering your profits. To lower your profits, you increase operating expenses. So if you list your asset as having a depreciating value then you can add that to your operating expense. But while it's true that there is depreciation (like a lot of assets) the real value of depreciation is not actually realised until you sell the asset and thus you could pretty much place any value on deprecation to increase your operating expenses. "Reasonably," of course. So with lower taxes (from the lower profits) and wiping away what is basically a paper loss, you show that you are operating at a loss but when in fact, you are still making a profit.

It's not all BS though. A lot of players are getting paid way more than they are actually worth (in terms of on-court production and ability to sell merchandise) and it's even more profound with the overpaid older guys who gets worse every year but would still get yearly pay increases to their already bloated contracts (VC, Shard, Arenas).

Not buying into the whole "teams losing money" issue. It is all a big hoax. Take time to read my comments below, please. Curious to get everyone's honest opinion. No name calling:

All the owners of NBA teams are somehow directly and sub-directly linked to the powers of the world rulers (Rothschild's, Bilderberg Group). It is inconceivable and impossible for these power-house groups - who will rule the world one day - to be losing money. They are not only making a lot of money, but want to ensure the "thugs" don't climb to the top. This is why they are trying to cap off the league's players with their salary and create hoax-accounting that make public think teams are losing money. No way no how!

It is a giant conspiracy to make the current billionaires even more money while at the same time more power, say, and structure. They were insulted to think that a group of 3 guys (Wade, Bosh, LeBron) can call each other and decide where to play and entice owners ---> for it should be the other way around. The owner must approach the player and say I want you to play for me.

Also, as Ric Buecher said, 6 of the owners also own hockey teams and experienced a lockout for an entire season. These 6 owners are well prepared for a full-season lockout and are telling the rest of the 24 owners that "not only do you get what you want, but you get more and then some" if you wait for entire season lockout. Since players would have lost an entire season and will be money hungry next year, they will finally give-in to ALL owner demands. This is exactly what happened with hockey, which currently has the most owner-friendly design in professional sports. These 6 owners also went on to say they regret not asking for more in the hockey lockout b/c they know they would have gotten it.

Pretty scary stuff if u think about it. These owners are all part of a small-tree of billionaires backed up by big banks and large families that make the Bildengerg Group (yes, ALEX JONES conspiracy stuff) and want to rule the world. The NBA is a very "thug" league with people they can take advantage of since most of them are kids who without the NBA would be in the street dead broke.

Very controversial stuff, but very true.

we should do what Gilbert Arenas said on twitter and lock out the owners lol

Privately, the agents will keep pushing for union decertification. They’ll push for the courts, for chaos, and pray the threat will get the owners to back away from their nuclear demands. The union still hopes those less adamant over the hard cap – the Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat, for example – will wrest control from the hardliners, including the Phoenix Suns, Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... ers_063011

I knew we would be leading the charge on that one.

@TheMan44 - honest opinion? There is no global conspiracy. Some of the guys pushing for this hardcap are absolute cheap skates who made their millions on real estate and are now struggling to survive during this economic downturn (/cough Sarver). I do agree the owners do not want the players dictating where and when they will play for specific teams, but I don't think its a control issue, but rather a monetary issue. Look at the Cavaliers, that franchise probably depreciated in value by a few million dollars once LeBron left. The majority of owners, obviously, do not want the players dictating that they will all join together to play in a "big market" as that would be the death knell of teams like the T-Wolves, Hornets, Bobcats, Spurs, Trailblazers, Grizzlies, etc.

You make it sound like the owners are all on the same page as part of this secret global conspiracy group, however, it sounds like some of the owners are pretty split on whether or not to follow through on this hard cap idea. I'm not arguing that money and greed isn't the name of the game during this lockout, but its not a huge conspiracy or anything, just rich guys versus other rich guys arguing about how to play a game fairly and how to split the "winnings".

I'm of the opinion that the players are fractured into those who support Hunter and those who don't. While the owners are also fractured into those who are pro-hardcap and those who are anti-hardcap.

What this means is that this entire situation is one giant cluster****. I don't expect any NBA for at least a year and it wouldn't shock me to see this last more than a year as the sides are not only far apart, but the sides themselves will have to sort out what exactly they want before they can even begin to negotiate and I expect that to last for several months at the minimum.

What the hell are we supposed to do? Argh.

carey wrote:

Privately, the agents will keep pushing for union decertification. They’ll push for the courts, for chaos, and pray the threat will get the owners to back away from their nuclear demands. The union still hopes those less adamant over the hard cap – the Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat, for example – will wrest control from the hardliners, including the Phoenix Suns, Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... ers_063011

I knew we would be leading the charge on that one.

Of f***ing course.

It's going a long one fellows!

The owners are looking to recup close to 500 mil dollars from players.

I see 2 ways.

First: Nothing important will change, lockout will be short.
2nd: NBA is done. Rebirth under new brand & licence.

i hate that the hard cap is being opposed so much. it would even things out and make the whole league more enjoyable.

edit:

after reading some of those articles it just makes me irritated.

"I understand when they say they're losing money and so forth. I get that," Jamison said. "We said we'd give a certain amount of that money back. But some owners have to take the onus on themselves because they put themselves in a situation where they're overpaying for certain guys.

i agree that the owners are being ridiculous by offering stupid contracts for players that end up not performing but the system has to change. a hard cap will force owners to not over-extend themselves and it would hopefully reduce the number of contracts that are bloated. i think the biggest problem i see with the players stance is that they don't seem to be thinking long term. it'll take a few years for the contracts to dwindle down and for the nba to really see a benefit from a hard cap system. if i were an owner i'd just drop the issue of the players giving money back and push for a hard cap.

someone should just start a new league.

NiGhtWiSh wrote:I see 2 ways.

First: Nothing important will change, lockout will be short.
2nd: NBA is done. Rebirth under new brand & licence.

If that means no more Stern or Sarver.... I'm in!

As a Suns fan I'm worried about the hard cap. It would make our bad signings even more debilitating. There is no cap solution to bad contracts without instituting an annual / bi-annual amnesty or removing guaranteed contracts all together. I'm worried that if Sarver does get his wish he will wind up regretting it.

What I find the most interesting is that a handful of the owners are also invoived in the NHL. They feel that missing the entire NHL season in 2004 allowed them to get everything that they wanted from the players, in fact some feel that they could have gotten even more.

Also, the dog-and-pony show that Lebron, Wade and Bosh put on last summer PO'd a number of the owners and cannot be overlooked in the owners' desire to take back control and make player movement much more restricted.

gleonard1 wrote:That was a confusing read. Not sure I fully understand it, but from what I got - NBA teams can make it look like they are making a loss because they can declare a players depreciating value as a monetary loss. Sound right?

It's a lot like Hollywood Accounting - where Batman ('89) still can be shown to be in the red so no legal need to pay percentages to those who have a piece of the net. Which is why Nicholson's deal was for a percent of the gross.

The owners have it even better, with some strange law and court rulings allowing them to have all kinds of fun with numbers. I'm not sure I got it all either - in fact, I know i didn't - but i got enough that I have less sympathy for even the small market owners than I did. Not that I don't have any; I think the Lakers/Celts/Knicks et al need to share the wealth more, just as a cost of doing business. The league needs to helpt the small markets compete somehow - be interesting to see how OKC does when they have to re-up all their young talent - will the city support them with enough sellouts to pay the bill?

One thing Stern hates is moving teams (which is why i was so surprised he acquiesced so fast when Heisley bought the Grizz). he's near the end of his reign - I don't think he wants to preside over an implosion

Here's a thought - new league. Players association sets up a new set of franchises with player and former player owners. Say 16 teams. Players play for a base salary and a percentage of profits. Hold a draft, start playing games. Play games in major and secondary markets and offer rights to promoters for a piece of the gate against a guarantee, like concerts. No way to lose money - ask the Stones/U2 etc.