Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

I think something that's been missing in the players strategy in these negotiations,is lack of any demands of their own. Maybe they lost this thing years ago when they allowed all the run up and talk to be about what the league wanted, and nothing about what they wanted. Even today, if you take the NBPA and say congrats, you've outlasted the owners and you've "won" this battle: what's the deal then? What do they want? For things to just stay the same? Seems they just don't want to both be backed into a corner and take it up the rear, but maybe they forgot from the outset of these negoiations to have any demands of their own. Right now, I feel they feel like they are getting clobbered, and they are. Because all they are doing and have been doing is trying to minimize their consessions, maybe if they had a few demands of their own there'd be more give and take. I feel it also may be true that players were losing this from the outset and they knew it. Maybe they knew that, at some level even they had to accept the owners needs are legit, in terms of system and money, and that's why they went into this lacking any demands of their own and on damage control from the outset.

Also, I have no faith the players can even visualize a sucessful outcome forthemselves. I can't see anyway players win this, and even if they could they haven't made clear what that would look like. I don't think they've even internally entertained the idea they could win, all they know is they can't accept this. But I'd encourage them to think long and hard about how this ends, I have a hard time seeing how the players can benifet at all at this point.

[BorisDK1]

That's good for the NBA. The PA has pointed to the Statement of Operations. Out of the Nets 05 and 06 books:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... als-110630

In other words, $41.5 million of the Nets' $49 million operating loss in 2005, and $40.2 million of its $57.4 million in 2006, is there simply to make the books balance. It is part of the purchase price of the team, being expensed each year. This doesn't mean they cooked their books, or that they tried to pull a fast one on the players. It is part of the generally accepted accounting practice to transfer expenses from the acquisition to the profit and loss over a certain time period. However, it's an argument that doesn't hold water in a discussion with Hunter and the players association, who would claim that the Nets didn't really "lose" a combined $106.4 million in those two years, but rather that they lost $7.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively.

We've been through this many times. Why do they (and you) ignore the $13 million in interest expense in 2006 and $7 million in interest in 2005? You do have to include those if you're being at all reasonable. The Nets lost - in terms of operations - $40 million in two years. That is not acceptable for any league to have one of its franchises lose that much, especially given the relative on-court success of the Nets at that time. But when you look at the Statement of Cash Flows, which gives the best financial picture of an enterprise, you see how much cash the team had hemorrhaged.

Numerous studies have confirmed that institutional investment firms rank free cash flow ahead of earnings as the single most important financial metric used to measure the investment quality of a company.

Source

We have done this before, so you can go ahead cram your patience up your ass. So you now apparently seem to believe the 22 team/300 million single year loss figure is strictly cash flow statement information? Teams income statements have nothing to do with that? That's nice and all, but I don't care.

[/quote]
Of course you don't care. You keep making the same insistence, that somehow the players don't have to concern themselves with interest costs, the owners are lying and this one case where you have an owner with ulterior motives in the use of the team to develop real estate shows that many others probably are doing so as well, that cash flows don't matter, etc.

[ranger001]

To me the proof is the length of the lockout. You don't insist on drastic changes and run the risks involved in a court battle when you already have a very profitable business model.

That really depends on what the final deal looks like. Missing even profitable games today in favor of a much more profitable CBA for the next 15 years could be considered an investment. I think most of this is about owners grabbing as much as they can before implementing revenue sharing. And ultimately if they are playing a brinksmanship game with players there was never going to be an agreement until some game checks got missed. To be sure that they got the best deal they could at this CBA expiration, they needed to test and break player resolve. I agree with Hunter when he says this has all been scripted.

I'd agree except that the threat of decertification makes it very much a gamble for the owners. If you have a profitable business model would you really risk it all with the possibility of the union decertifying and having the nightmare scenario of draft, salary cap and max salary all declared illegal?

[floppymoose]

Boris, if you really think interest on team purchase price should come out of the players BRI share, then you don't understand nearly as much as you think you do.

[C Court]

^^^ Only way it makes sense is to include revenues and/or losses from the sale of the franchises as basketball related income... and the owners aren't willing to do that.

[Fairview4Life]

Of course you don't care. You keep making the same insistence, that somehow the players don't have to concern themselves with interest costs, the owners are lying and this one case where you have an owner with ulterior motives in the use of the team to develop real estate shows that many others probably are doing so as well, that cash flows don't matter, etc.

I don't care because I am done with your little condescending douchebag act. Your argument comes down to "here's what I think the NBA CFO was saying, and you are all wrong". **** that. I was civil through you questioning my integrity and intelligence, "forgetting" my arguments and then misrepresenting them (from 'the NBA cooked their books', to 'the Nets made a profit in 05 and 06'), telling us how the the CFO of the NBA would be in serious trouble for lying to a reporter of all things, to spending pages asking where amortization and depreciation appeared in the 05 and 06 Nets documents and ignoring the fact you were reading the 04 documents, and now you have moved on to cash flow statements being the answer? That is your big gotcha? If you wanted to deal strictly with CFS's (I know the acronym too!), then you should have just come out and said so. There was no need to embarrass yourself with your hyper confident "where are the amortization and depreciation in the SOO?" nonsense. You could have just said "the SOO doesn't matter, cash flow is king", and we could go back to our previous arguments on players paying off team purchase loans by giving up BRI. Instead, I am going to ignore your future prickish replies.

[Indeed]

A hard cap could be at 73 million easily since many teams will pay below like the Raptors in there current state.
Sharing is required LAL make 150 million in local rights whether gate revenue is included is likely debatable.

Currently 71m = 57% sharing
(71m / 57%) * 50% = 62.3m (how can it changes to 73m easily?)

That is the maximum!
Yes it would be 57% again many teams will be well under the Raptors would likely be in mid 50's.
I believe actually come in about the 50/50 split

Sorry, still not quiet understand what you mean, but I think the maximum of the hard cap is 63m, and no way it gets to 73m unless the revenue jumps 20% in a lockout season.
Most teams could be at 58m, therefore, the Raptors only has 12m to spend for 2 more roster spots.

Note, there is no luxury tax for a hard cap system, please see NHL salary cap.

[Sifu]

What's lost in all of this is revenue sharing. The NBA owners should agree to share revenue. And then they can debate how they classify revenue to share. The Have Not owners will be all over the Have owners with respect to revenue classification.

Hash out those details first, and then it would be fair then to use that as a starting point for talks with the players.

[Indeed]

Something like this is okay. Not completely satisfying but a deal both sides can live with.

And that's why I don't understand why both sides are claiming to need to know the exact percentage of BRI before attempting to construct a hypothetical system. We know that both sides aren't going to agree on a split past 47% - owners and 53 % percent players so we know that there won't be a greater deviation than 3 going either way...so why not attempt to construct a system based on all three of those hypothetical numbers?! That way, although it would likely be up for debate and fine tuning, we do have a skeleton of what we're looking at AND we'd be tackling both issues at the same time.

Like for example:
BRI Split: 53% - Players, 47% - Owners
Flex Cap system: Teams can only go over the cap if they are; a) signing rookies, extending or b) Exceptions (MLE or Injury). Franchise Tag, one player per team and would not count against cap. Max salary rollback. Cap set at 58 million. Teams over the cap pay a 2-1 tax and becomes harsher the longer you stay in the tax (3 years =2-1; 4yrs+ = 4 -1)Elimination of the S&T. Minimum spending is 45 mil
MLE: Rolled back to about 4.7 - 5 mil/yr. 3 years + Team Option
Contracts: Elimination of 6 year contracts. Longest is 5 years. Rookie contract scales stay the same except for a slight roll back and more incentive ties. Slight rollback on existing contracts.
Amnesty: Gilbert Arenas rule . Another amnesty clause. The amnestied player won't count against the cap but must be paid in full over a period of 5-8yrs maximum.
Length of CBA: 6 Years

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams.

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance.

Something in this mould I think would help to bring a competitive balance by distributing talent around the league. A competitive league is a profitable league so the numbers would obviously need some tweaking but something like this I think is fair for both sides. Players and owners stand to make money or break even.

I doubt the owner wants to eliminate S&T. It is a benefit for teams to get back some assets.

A farm system is needed, so rookie contract makes more sense. If they are able to contribute in the NBA (perhaps over 1000 minutes, about 13m per game), they keep the rookie salary, otherwise, they should be paid less.

The tax can be changed to 2-1 for 5% above the cap, 3-1 for 10% above the cap, 4-1 for 15% above the cap.
Then you can fix the trade system, perhaps removing trading with salary range, having TPE and cash to acquire draft picks and count as an asset in a trade.

I guess the S&T can still exist under this proposed system...which means that the Traded Player Exception would still exist which is fine by me. I think it can be very useful for rebuilding.

In regards to the tax, I'd rather an instant tax imposed like how I originally had it instead of waiting until 5% of current salary is reached before imposing a tax because it'll force teams and owners to think harder before making any signings or extending rookies. Hopefully, then it force teams to release talent which hopefully could create so parity in the league. For example, a team like Memphis; should they decided to resign Gasol and Battier, that means they'd have to move Mayo. This means there would be more player movement and more chances for teams to have the pieces to compete. Under the system above, teams above the tax would have 3 years to compete before paying a SUPERHEAVY tax of 4-1.

DEFINITELY removed the salary restrictions when trading.

Pretty fair system I think.

Once we reduced the contract guarantee years, should we redefine the MLE? The MLE is purely for teams who are above the cap to sign players.

There are so many problems with the current system, and the way it negotiates seem like it is breaking the system to make sure both sides are happy (in terms of money), but not for the game.
Really concern about the game more than the money (RBI and contract years).

[Indeed]

^^^ Only way it makes sense is to include revenues and/or losses from the sale of the franchises as basketball related income... and the owners aren't willing to do that.

This is a tough one. Who should get the bonus from the sale on player's side? Would it be the player played 10 years ago, or the players right now? Didn't all of them contribute as well?

[Indeed]

As much as Jose's contract looks so tempting to cut, he is the only real PG we have on the team, and there aren't too many good PGs on the FA market. Linas is the one who needs to get cut because we can easily get another 3/4 to replace him; plus he is injury-prone. Get rid of Linas and replace him with Thad Young/Jeff Green.

I think getting rid of Jose's contract is a must. Do you really think it would make a difference in any way if Jose was our PG or not? We'd stink either way.

We need to start making a commitment to defense. Establish a group of young players that play hard defensively. It all starts with getting rid of players like Jose & having these guys hold each other accountable. Over the long term, we'd be much better off getting out of Jose's contract & giving some young, defensively capable PG's a shot.

As for Linas, can't say I disagree with you there. There are a few players that need to be shipped out. Kleiza's contract is a little easier to absorb than Jose's though.

We have no need for a 30 year old defensively incapable, injury prone PG that has no penetrating ability.

I agree regarding Jose. Why we want to keep a real PG when he doesn't fit our team? Same for Bargnani; if he doesn't fit, maybe we should make changes for the good of everyone.

As for Linas, I think he will play better when we have someone who can create. I feel Weems and Linas are having trouble when Jose slows the play and couldn't create on half court. I think a playmaker who can start the break and share for the finish would motivate both of them.

[Laowai]

BRI at 50/50
{The BRI can be at 50/50 but a hard cap can be higher not every team will be at 73 million many will be closer to the minimum of 52 million )
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.
( currently 15 teams under that minimum some significantly like Denver and SAC others like Raptors at 47 million will get over the minimum but not by much by adding a free agent like Aaron Gray.)

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance. (The split could go slightly over with the max cap at 73 million but unlikely)

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams. ( This is to be split with owners to equal the playing field )

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.( The hard cap 6 or 7 million over true BRI) Rebuilding teams likely closer to minimum other teams right at cap but none over )

[Indeed]

BRI at 50/50
{The BRI can be at 50/50 but a hard cap can be higher not every team will be at 73 million many will be closer to the minimum of 52 million )
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.
( currently 15 teams under that minimum some significantly like Denver and SAC others like Raptors at 47 million will get over the minimum but not by much by adding a free agent like Aaron Gray.)

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance. (The split could go slightly over with the max cap at 73 million but unlikely)

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams. ( This is to be split with owners to equal the playing field )

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.( The hard cap 6 or 7 million over true BRI) Rebuilding teams likely closer to minimum other teams right at cap but none over )

I don't think so.
The reason the owner is arguing for hard cap is to avoid richer owners to spend above the luxury tax, thus every owners make a profit.

I think the hard cap will be at 63m, and probably the owners want it at 55 - 58m to begin with.

[Laowai]

BRI at 50/50
{The BRI can be at 50/50 but a hard cap can be higher not every team will be at 73 million many will be closer to the minimum of 52 million )
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.
( currently 15 teams under that minimum some significantly like Denver and SAC others like Raptors at 47 million will get over the minimum but not by much by adding a free agent like Aaron Gray.)

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance. (The split could go slightly over with the max cap at 73 million but unlikely)

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams. ( This is to be split with owners to equal the playing field )

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.( The hard cap 6 or 7 million over true BRI) Rebuilding teams likely closer to minimum other teams right at cap but none over )

I don't think so.
The reason the owner is arguing for hard cap is to avoid richer owners to spend above the luxury tax, thus every owners make a profit.

I think the hard cap will be at 63m, and probably the owners want it at 55 - 58m to begin with.

MY GOD............I stated that this neither what owners want or what players want But what a independent arbitrator might come up with in binding arbitration
PLease read what I said not what you think I said

[Indeed]

BRI at 50/50
{The BRI can be at 50/50 but a hard cap can be higher not every team will be at 73 million many will be closer to the minimum of 52 million )
Hard Cap at 73 million this is about 6,5 million over the 66.6 million Cper team in a 50/50 split on BRI
Currently only 3 teams are over that cap excluding signing of draft picks and restricted free agents.
SAS 100k over Orlando @ 1.8 over and LAL @ 18m over. Any team currently over the cap can sign only draft picks and must pay 4 to 1 tax.
While this looks excessive to a team like LAL it isn't the Lakers could go to a team like SAC give them Walton and pay his salary and give up a 1st and give World Peace to another team. In a 2012/13 season they will be under the cap because of expiring contracts.. Any player option not picked up could not resign with previous team. Players who completed contract could be resigned so Tim Duncan could resign with SAS.

Minimum spending per team 52 million below that threshold a team would have to pay a 2 to 1 tax.
( currently 15 teams under that minimum some significantly like Denver and SAC others like Raptors at 47 million will get over the minimum but not by much by adding a free agent like Aaron Gray.)

If the 66.6 million isn't made the NBA will pay into a pool to compensate the players equally on the balance. (The split could go slightly over with the max cap at 73 million but unlikely)

All contract currently on the books will be honored and no amnesty will be allowed.
Rookie contracts 5 years with team options after 2nd year with current salary base.
No maximum contracts but team must remain under the salary cap.
3 year contracts w 4th year team option, 1 star player exempt maximum 6 years.
No exemptions
6 year CBA

Owners to have a reasonable profit sharing agreement maybe something like 50% of local TV rights and 30% of ticket revenue to be evenly shared by all teams. ( This is to be split with owners to equal the playing field )

Revenue on BRI to go up or down depending on income every year.( The hard cap 6 or 7 million over true BRI) Rebuilding teams likely closer to minimum other teams right at cap but none over )

I don't think so.
The reason the owner is arguing for hard cap is to avoid richer owners to spend above the luxury tax, thus every owners make a profit.

I think the hard cap will be at 63m, and probably the owners want it at 55 - 58m to begin with.

MY GOD............I stated that this neither what owners want or what players want But what a independent arbitrator might come up with in binding arbitration
PLease read what I said not what you think I said

Sorry, maybe I didn't get it all right, but would there be luxury tax when you have a hard cap system? NHL does not have luxury tax because it is a hard cap system (said it on Wiki).

[C Court]

^^^ Only way it makes sense is to include revenues and/or losses from the sale of the franchises as basketball related income... and the owners aren't willing to do that.

This is a tough one. Who should get the bonus from the sale on player's side? Would it be the player played 10 years ago, or the players right now? Didn't all of them contribute as well?

You're right, which is a big reason why you can argue that franchise sale revenues shouldn't count as BRI. That said, then it becomes more difficult to justify the players' being responsible for loan interest on franchise purchases.

[Laowai]

^^^ Only way it makes sense is to include revenues and/or losses from the sale of the franchises as basketball related income... and the owners aren't willing to do that.

This is a tough one. Who should get the bonus from the sale on player's side? Would it be the player played 10 years ago, or the players right now? Didn't all of them contribute as well?

You're right, which is a big reason why you can argue that franchise sale revenues shouldn't count as BRI. That said, then it becomes more difficult to justify the players' being responsible for loan interest on franchise purchases.

Then you must be in favor when you sell your home and make a substantial profit to give parts of the money to the plumber, electrician and the kid that mows your lawn. Not every owner has made a profit take Bobcats previous owner, NO, and many of the owners have sustained losses over the years.

The players have got paid every dime during that time give me a break. None have put up one cent to build a franchise and in fact many have damaged franchises by leaving and playing well below expect standards. Prime example Vince Carter.

[Indeed]

This is a tough one. Who should get the bonus from the sale on player's side? Would it be the player played 10 years ago, or the players right now? Didn't all of them contribute as well?

You're right, which is a big reason why you can argue that franchise sale revenues shouldn't count as BRI. That said, then it becomes more difficult to justify the players' being responsible for loan interest on franchise purchases.

Then you must be in favor when you sell your home and make a substantial profit to give parts of the money to the plumber, electrician and the kid that mows your lawn. Not every owner has made a profit take Bobcats previous owner, NO, and many of the owners have sustained losses over the years.

The players have got paid every dime during that time give me a break. None have put up one cent to build a franchise and in fact many have damaged franchises by leaving and playing well below expect standards. Prime example Vince Carter.

What do you mean by profit? Are you the owner? Would you say they make a profit if their team bought stuff or spend from his other businesses (eg. has his own advertising company, and spend through that company alone)? Would you say they make a profit if they have the team takes his own personal expense?

At last, who said you won't lose money for doing business? Who would bail me out if I am a small business owner but not a banker? And please stop the non-sense of rich people cannot lose money.

[Rapsfan07]

Once we reduced the contract guarantee years, should we redefine the MLE? The MLE is purely for teams who are above the cap to sign players.

There are so many problems with the current system, and the way it negotiates seem like it is breaking the system to make sure both sides are happy (in terms of money), but not for the game.
Really concern about the game more than the money (RBI and contract years).

This scenario is purely hypothetical. I'm very sure the players wouldn't accept a reduction in guaranteed years AND that drastically reduced MLE but something of that nature I think make rosters more manageable. And from my understanding (I could be wrong), the MLE is equal the average player salary. If we roll back salary (rookie scale contracts, max contracts and by nature of having a harsher tax), players will get paid slightly less and therefore drop the value of the MLE.

I also agree that the current system is a mess. And you're right, IMO both sides seem more concerned about the money than the game. And IMO, the best thing for the game would be parity and that's why the system I proposed I think would be good for the NBA. I don't want it to be too easy to win a chip...like for example, it's almost a new team every year. I think there should be some hard times, some struggle, some resistance because if you've ever gained anything under those circumstances, you know that it feels much better and feels like its worth more. I guess what I'm really saying is I want every team to have as equal a chance as possible. Raptors should have just as good a chance to sign a FA as any other team. Same for Minny. It won't ever be completely equal because some places are simply better than others. But the NBA should have and fulfill its responsibility of building a league where every team truly has a chance instead of being a farm for contenders.

[C Court]

This is a tough one. Who should get the bonus from the sale on player's side? Would it be the player played 10 years ago, or the players right now? Didn't all of them contribute as well?

You're right, which is a big reason why you can argue that franchise sale revenues shouldn't count as BRI. That said, then it becomes more difficult to justify the players' being responsible for loan interest on franchise purchases.

Then you must be in favor when you sell your home and make a substantial profit to give parts of the money to the plumber, electrician and the kid that mows your lawn. Not every owner has made a profit take Bobcats previous owner, NO, and many of the owners have sustained losses over the years.

The players have got paid every dime during that time give me a break. None have put up one cent to build a franchise and in fact many have damaged franchises by leaving and playing well below expect standards. Prime example Vince Carter.

Your analogy is ridiculous. I don't pay my plumber or electrician on a revenue share basis like the owners pay NBA players because that's not the system home owners and contractors operate under.

Look, the NBA owners and players agreed to a system where they share BRI. Guys working at my house don't operate under those rules.

In fact, the owners were in favor of the concept because it provided players with an incentive to grow the business known as the NBA. BRI revenue sharing was the owner's idea in the first place.

As for the Bobcats, why in the hell does Charlotte have a franchise in the first place? They failed as the Hornets and they're failing as the Bobcats. Why should an owner be guaranteed a profit if he puts his team in a city that can't sustain the franchise? If a business owner puts a Baskin Robbins ice cream shop in the Arctic and it loses money, why should we feel sorry for the franchisee?

On the other hand, Mark Cuban LOST money and he's quite happy to do so because he won an NBA Championship.