owners fault not players

[spaskychess]

owners are losing money, its not the players fault noone told orl to give lewis 6 for 112, or mil gooden 5 for 32, nj outlaw 5 for 35, or philly brand 5 for 80,or the whole pistons roster, these teams are screwing themselves, they should lose money? what do u think.

[Trueblood]

owners are losing money, its not the players fault noone told orl to give lewis 6 for 112, or mil gooden 5 for 32, nj outlaw 5 for 35, or philly brand 5 for 80,or the whole pistons roster, these teams are screwing themselves, they should lose money? what do u think.

I agree to a certain extent. The players shouldn't always have to take it up the rear during cba negotiations just because certain teams are foolish spenders.

OTOH, I think it's impossible for owners to be able to forecast the future. Every now and then you sign a deal that looks great at the time but winds up backfiring. The examples you gave are obvious screwups but there are also deals that look about right when signed but then backfire when a player gets hurt or simply doesn't live up to expectations.

Therefore, I think contracts should be limited in length to 5 years maximum and just 4 for players that leave their current team via free agency.

Keep the MLE for teams under the lux tax threshold but limit all MLE contracts to just 3 years.

If the owners really want to go for it all, they can try a system where all contracts exceeding 3 years have an out clause for the owners after 3 years but only 1 every five years can be terminated. For example, let's say we get a new cba that is for 10 years. The owners can trigger an out clause on one contract that backfires during the first 5 years of the cba and then one more during the 2nd five year phase of the cba.

If you look at the history of bad contracts, it's usually never more than one or two deals per team that messes up the entire payroll. If the owners can get rid of just one of those every 5 years then they should be in good shape, especially considering that the rest of the deals can run no more than 4 or 5 years at the most.

It's good for the players because since the out clauses aren't until year 3 of the deal, they are all guaranteed of getting 3 years worth of pay so they are protected in case they get injured, something that isn't their fault.

If the owners think they have to get rid of more than that then they are stupid spenders and should fire their GM for giving them so many deals in the first place.

Another benefit to the players is that there will be more free agent money available. By getting rid of a bad off the payroll, it will create more cap space for free agents to take advantage of that want to join that particular team. Good players get rewarded while the overpaid jake gets tossed. Owners, players and fans win. Overpaid jake loses.

[Ditchweed]

The league is dysfunctional, it needs to be fixed. The owners need to be able to make a profit, and there needs to be more parity in the league. Lower player salaries, a hard cap, and franchise tags are needed to accomplish that.

The players are living in the past and out of touch with what needs to be done.

[Laowai]

This is the small, medium & corporate owners versus the players and the huge spenders.

The total system needs to be revamped and that just that some teams spent foolishly on free agents and that isn't the players fault. The reality is that most franchises are losing money because they have to chase frivolous owners like LAL for 100 million plus. Teams like Indy, Bucks, Minny, Charlotte, NO, Memphis, SAC, Utah and OKC can't compete. a team like Phoenix which is making money but has a owner who was badly hurt in the financial crisis. 7 team also own NHL Franchises and saw the benefits of a long strike and relative financial stability it has brought a league that is basically ticket driven.

Look for MLE, Bi-Annual, TPE exemptions things of the past, Bird Rights will be overhauled and some type of hard cap associated with a reduction in contract length, contract guarantee, with a significant salary reduction. This was the last year that someone can buy a championship now team with smart management good drafting will prevail.

[Agenda42]

owners are losing money, its not the players fault noone told orl to give lewis 6 for 112, or mil gooden 5 for 32, nj outlaw 5 for 35, or philly brand 5 for 80,or the whole pistons roster, these teams are screwing themselves, they should lose money? what do u think.

The goodness or badness of contracts doesn't change the percentage take players receive of the BRI. Individual teams can get themselves into trouble by overspending, but the league as a whole would have profitability issues even if there were no bad contracts on the books.

[Trueblood]

owners are losing money, its not the players fault noone told orl to give lewis 6 for 112, or mil gooden 5 for 32, nj outlaw 5 for 35, or philly brand 5 for 80,or the whole pistons roster, these teams are screwing themselves, they should lose money? what do u think.

The goodness or badness of contracts doesn't change the percentage take players receive of the BRI. Individual teams can get themselves into trouble by overspending, but the league as a whole would have profitability issues even if there were no bad contracts on the books.

I don't know about that. Take away Kirilenko's $16 million last year and the Jazz make money instead of lose $5 million.

Take Peja off of New Orleans and they go from negative to positive.

If you get rid of bad deals and add revenue sharing then it will be very hard for teams to lose money.

[DBoys]

owners are losing money, its not the players fault noone told orl to give lewis 6 for 112, or mil gooden 5 for 32, nj outlaw 5 for 35, or philly brand 5 for 80,or the whole pistons roster, these teams are screwing themselves, they should lose money? what do u think.

The goodness or badness of contracts doesn't change the percentage take players receive of the BRI. Individual teams can get themselves into trouble by overspending, but the league as a whole would have profitability issues even if there were no bad contracts on the books.

I don't know about that. Take away Kirilenko's $16 million last year and the Jazz make money instead of lose $5 million.

Take Peja off of New Orleans and they go from negative to positive.

If you get rid of bad deals and add revenue sharing then it will be very hard for teams to lose money.

Not really true.

Last season was a pretty strong illustration that under the 2005 CBA the owners are screwed even when they are disciplined with their money, if we accept the loss figures that we've heard.

For years the owners have been bashed for having payrolls too high, but last season they paid the least amount that the CBA would have allowed. If they had spent less on player contracts, there would have been a surcharge tacked on to bring the total right back up. And still there were massive losses ...not fixable by better discipline with player payroll.

The total was somewhere north of $300 million lost? No matter how you share things, that's massive losses being shared, not profits.

[killbuckner]

Dboys- in the NFL the players got 63% of the revenues (after the owners took 1 billion off the top) and the teams were still successful. The NHL sat out a year to get revenues and now the players get 57% and the league is financially sound. To me its pretty clear that the problem isn't the 57% of revenue that players get, its bad management from the NBA owners and GM's thats causing the problem.

[DBoys]

"Bad management" is a convenient scapegoat. If you have a franchise-based business where virtually every one of them team has management that is unable to turn a profit, then perhaps you have to look outside the management and wonder if the financial setup you've placed on your franchises is out of whack.

[killbuckner]

Dboys- if that percentage of revenues works for the NFL and NHL both, why does that percentage not work for NBA teams if not due to bad management? Its a convenient scapegoat because its true. There are owners that WANT to give these players more money despite all the hindrances currently in place.

It still seems to me that the NBA just needs more revenue sharing- the large markets should be subsidizing the smaller markets to even things out.

[DBoys]

Dboys- if that percentage of revenues works for the NFL and NHL both, why does that percentage not work for NBA teams if not due to bad management? .

Both of those leagues have a hard cap on teams. The NBA does not. Is that the answer?

I'd accept the "bad management" explanation if the losses weren't virtually league wide. To accept that kind of explanation is to say that one league has hired all the smart GMs and the other has chosen to hire idiots. That doesn't pass the sniff test.

Are the NHL franchises all healthy and thriving?

[Agenda42]

I don't know about that. Take away Kirilenko's $16 million last year and the Jazz make money instead of lose $5 million.

Take Peja off of New Orleans and they go from negative to positive.

If you get rid of bad deals and add revenue sharing then it will be very hard for teams to lose money.

If you take Kirilenko off the Jazz, their individual team profit changes, but the league's overall losses remain the same. They're just distributed amongst the teams differently.

Revenue sharing is a vital part of both competitive balance and league wide profitability, but there also must be some adjustment to other areas of the business. I happen to think that NBA teams have vastly more debt than they ought to have given the nature of their operations, but I also think that some salary reduction is in order.

[Agenda42]

Are the NHL franchises all healthy and thriving?

Forbes' 2010 analysis has 14 profitable teams at $272M combined operating profits against 16 teams with $105M in combined operating losses.

This picture is not vastly different than the NBA, where Forbes' 2011 analysis shows 13 teams have $328M combined operating profits and 17 teams have $145M combined operating losses.

If anything, the NHL has an even bigger have/have-not disparity, with 3 teams taking home $177M (54%) of the total profits.

[killbuckner]

Both of those leagues have a hard cap on teams. The NBA does not. Is that the answer?

Hard cap or soft cap they all 3 still have the players getting around 55-57% of revenue. Both the other league share revenue to a far greater degree which is what eliminates the difference between large markets and small markets compared to the NBA.

[dustfinger]

I tend to take the players' side over the big, beheamouth corporate capitalists (i.e. NBA teams) in pretty much everything, but I wonder at what point the owners are trying to stop NBA players from becoming the money-grabbers that MLB players are. It seems like those guys make so much more (I haven't done the math, so don't quote me).

[Trueblood]

I don't know about that. Take away Kirilenko's $16 million last year and the Jazz make money instead of lose $5 million.

Take Peja off of New Orleans and they go from negative to positive.

If you get rid of bad deals and add revenue sharing then it will be very hard for teams to lose money.

If you take Kirilenko off the Jazz, their individual team profit changes, but the league's overall losses remain the same. They're just distributed amongst the teams differently.

Revenue sharing is a vital part of both competitive balance and league wide profitability, but there also must be some adjustment to other areas of the business. I happen to think that NBA teams have vastly more debt than they ought to have given the nature of their operations, but I also think that some salary reduction is in order.

It depends on how you define debt. I think one thing that can't be argued is that the NBA cost of operations outside of player payroll is much higher than it is in the NHL. Why that is...I don't know. I'm guessing that coaches, GM's and overall employees in the NBA just make more than NHL ones due to their being more demand for the job and overall visibility.

But I will say this. The numbers in the NHL are bleak and that's with an entire season cancelled to supposedly get their house in order. It makes you wonder what it would've wound up like had the owners caved earlier. Or is it that the landscape was so horrific that they realized that even with a cancelled season, they wouldn't be able to get exactly what they wanted but at least it would limit the losses to something that the owners could deal with whereas before, they were building swimming pools of red ink.

[Agenda42]

It depends on how you define debt. I think one thing that can't be argued is that the NBA cost of operations outside of player payroll is much higher than it is in the NHL. Why that is...I don't know. I'm guessing that coaches, GM's and overall employees in the NBA just make more than NHL ones due to their being more demand for the job and overall visibility.

I don't have data to compare here. I think it would be an interesting exercise. Unfortunately, the NBA seems to really not want me to know where the money is going. Coach salaries are largely public data, though. The top coaches in the NHL make $2M a season. The top NBA coaches make 4-5 times that, and the average NBA coach makes almost double that. Honestly I think most NBA teams aren't getting their money's worth here.

The reason I think debt is such an interesting topic in the NBA is that a lot of teams have been bought by new ownership that takes on huge debt to finance the purchase, then puts it on the team books. I think it's a driving factor for the lockout. Owners that have $10M a year in debt servicing costs can't afford to take a long-term view on profitability, they need changes now.

But I will say this. The numbers in the NHL are bleak and that's with an entire season cancelled to supposedly get their house in order. It makes you wonder what it would've wound up like had the owners caved earlier. Or is it that the landscape was so horrific that they realized that even with a cancelled season, they wouldn't be able to get exactly what they wanted but at least it would limit the losses to something that the owners could deal with whereas before, they were building swimming pools of red ink.

I'd say the numbers from the NHL look reasonable. I'm pretty confused as to some of the markets the NHL is in. Seriously, hockey in Phoenix? Overall, the league is quite profitable, and while there are no shortage of teams losing money, those losses are manageable in all but a couple cases. I think they just need a revenue sharing system and they've got a healthy product.

[Trueblood]

Well, I'm merely going by the Forbes numbers that put the NHL in basically the same boat that the NBA is in. You could very well be right and Forbes could be wrong but I've heard lots of chatter that the NHL has problems but realizes that there isn't much they can do now. They've gone as far as you can go since they've already cancelled a season and have pretty much let owners know that this is how it's going to be.

As for why they are in those markets, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Gary Bettman. He relocated franchises from traditional hockey markets like the Twin Cities, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hartford for Dallas, Phoenix, Denver and Raleigh, NC and then expanded to places like Atlanta and Nashville. I believe that the expansion to Anaheim and South Florida happened before his watch although I'm not positive. Anaheim and Florida entered the league in '93 and I think he became commish in '94.

In all fairness to Bettman, he admitted his mistake which set the tone for Atlanta moving to Winnipeg last month and he also expanded back to the Twin Cities to make up for losing the Stars 7 years earlier. Also, Denver turned out to be a decent market but at the end of the day, he thought he could market his league on such a level that he could make it work in the sunbelt and it backfired to the point where he was thrilled to be back in Winnipeg despite it being the 71st biggest market in North America and has a 15,000 plus sized arena making it easily the smallest in the league. But assuming they sell out every game, that puts them at 21st in the league which is still better than 9 other teams and given the demand that it will create, they can probably get to the middle of the pack in revenue due to more expensive tickets.

[Agenda42]

Well, I'm merely going by the Forbes numbers that put the NHL in basically the same boat that the NBA is in. You could very well be right and Forbes could be wrong but I've heard lots of chatter that the NHL has problems but realizes that there isn't much they can do now. They've gone as far as you can go since they've already cancelled a season and have pretty much let owners know that this is how it's going to be.

The difference between the NHL and the NBA appears to be that the NBA has much higher non-player operating costs. I'm not sure why they do, but that's what is driving the NBA lockout. Certainly lots or NHL franchises are losing money, but it's not an intractable situation for ownership.

As for why they are in those markets, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Gary Bettman. He relocated franchises from traditional hockey markets like the Twin Cities, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Hartford for Dallas, Phoenix, Denver and Raleigh, NC and then expanded to places like Atlanta and Nashville. I believe that the expansion to Anaheim and South Florida happened before his watch although I'm not positive. Anaheim and Florida entered the league in '93 and I think he became commish in '94.

You can draw a lot of the problems that led to the missed season in the NHL to these moves. Traditional hockey fanbases continue to produce very profitable teams.

[brownsmith89]

The difference between the NHL and the NBA appears to be that the NBA has much higher non-player operating costs. I'm not sure why they do, but that's what is driving the NBA lockout.

isn't that the owner's responsibility?

if he agrees to give 57% to the players, shouldn't he then work around that number?

for example, paying $300,000 to a harvard graduate, instead of paying $800,000 to a former player to be general manager. the owner should cut costs elsewhere instead of touching the agreed upon payment plan.