CBA Circumvention ??

[Jammer]

My question is why is it not CBA circumvention if a player, i.e. LeBron James, gets to have personal assistants, personal trainers, friends or whatever on the payroll of a team? Shouldn't the friends salary necessitate a reduction in the player's maximum salary available? And has anyone ever raised this issue with the NBA before?

[Scoot McGroot]

My question is why is it not CBA circumvention if a player, i.e. LeBron James, gets to have personal assistants, personal trainers, friends or whatever on the payroll of a team? Shouldn't the friends salary necessitate a reduction in the player's maximum salary available? And has anyone ever raised this issue with the NBA before?

There are no salary restrictions on the salaries paid to coaching staffs, front office personnel, ticket sales, training staff, etc. If a team wants to either overpay these positions, possibly hire untrained staff for these positions, or have overinflated staffs, that's up to the owners, as it would come solely out of their own pockets, not BRI or revenue sharing.

[Jammer]

Thanks for the reply. But my point is, if a team hires a "coach" for some aspect of a players game where the player really picked the coach, not the team, shouldn't that players maximum salary be reduced by that amount and count against the cap. Say LeBron has a personal trainer, physical therapist and "assistant" on the Lakers staff that he said to hire, and the Lakers said yessir. Shouldn't those salaries reduce LeBron's maximum salary and count against the cap, since in reality he dictated their hiring, and the Lakers simply took them on based on LeBron saying their his crew. Would apply no matter what player specified to a team to bring on staff as his personal servant.

[Smitty731]

LeBron James is the one paying his assistants and the like. Not the Lakers. The Lakers don't have any of his friends or associates on their payroll. How James chooses to spend his money is his business.

[Scoot McGroot]

Thanks for the reply. But my point is, if a team hires a "coach" for some aspect of a players game where the player really picked the coach, not the team, shouldn't that players maximum salary be reduced by that amount and count against the cap. Say LeBron has a personal trainer, physical therapist and "assistant" on the Lakers staff that he said to hire, and the Lakers said yessir. Shouldn't those salaries reduce LeBron's maximum salary and count against the cap, since in reality he dictated their hiring, and the Lakers simply took them on based on LeBron saying their his crew. Would apply no matter what player specified to a team to bring on staff as his personal servant.

Smitty states above that Lebron pays his personal assistant, so that can be ignored. But, in a hypothetical like this, the team still chooses whether or not to fill these non-roster positions (and thus, not covered under any sort of salary cap or the like).

It's like saying that LeBron should be deducted the cost of the landscaping at the arena if he happened to say "I like Roses outside" and have the landscaping count against the cap. The team can choose whether or not to honor those wishes, and simply put, the landscaping, or non-roster positions for the Lakers are not connected or governed by the salary cap in any way, shape, or form. Same for coaches and GM's.

[DBoys]

Mega superstars will have an inordinate amount of control over EVERYTHING within the franchise, because that's just how life works in a league where such a player makes a massive difference in a team's ability to win and draw fans.

To take it even one step further, let's imagine LeBron has the ability to get one head coach fired and another hired. Yet we don't even think of wondering if the coach's salary should be charged as part of LeBron's salary, even though he might be hand-picked by LeBron and certainly is going to spend a large part of his efforts working to help LeBron and do what LeBron prefers. If someone or something impacts that superstar's life or play, he very well might have a huge say in what is decided by the entire franchise, in who is hired and fired, and more. That's life.

[DoItALL9]

Thanks for the reply. But my point is, if a team hires a "coach" for some aspect of a players game where the player really picked the coach, not the team, shouldn't that players maximum salary be reduced by that amount and count against the cap. Say LeBron has a personal trainer, physical therapist and "assistant" on the Lakers staff that he said to hire, and the Lakers said yessir. Shouldn't those salaries reduce LeBron's maximum salary and count against the cap, since in reality he dictated their hiring, and the Lakers simply took them on based on LeBron saying their his crew. Would apply no matter what player specified to a team to bring on staff as his personal servant.

What's the true concern? Do you believe if the Lakers hired all of LeBron friend's on staff that the Lakers would in some way have a competitive advantage?
What would be the test if someone was qualified for a position vs just being LeBron's friend?

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[Laimbeer]

To take it to an extreme, what if a player signed for the max and the franchise agreed to pay his wife 20M per to be his personal trainer?

[DBoys]

We all know that the moon is not made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat it then?

[Biff Cooper]

To take it to an extreme, what if a player signed for the max and the franchise agreed to pay his wife 20M per to be his personal trainer?

This would be in violation of the Circumvention clauses of the CBA.

[J_T]

To take it to an extreme, what if a player signed for the max and the franchise agreed to pay his wife 20M per to be his personal trainer?

This would be in violation of the Circumvention clauses of the CBA.

And that is the way I understand the OP. Where is the line? Players could be hiring coaches or "coaches". So all the arguments in this thread are invalid, apart from the one that says that LeBron is the one paying his staff. Which I always thought was the fact, for some players agents make arrangements and there are people travelling with players or do things for them.

If the team was actually paying for player's staff, that could be seen as circumvention. There are some borderline cases for sure, that can be justified. For example a team can hire services of a coach who they know will work with their star player during summer. They do it so that they can assure that the player will have exactly the type of development and preparation that they want player to have. I don't think that's CBA circumvention, the coach is paid normal wage, follows team's program and reports back to the team. If that coach would have been paid a million for the summer job, that's a different case. I am wondering how and who would be deciding where the line is, though.

[Scoot McGroot]

To take it to an extreme, what if a player signed for the max and the franchise agreed to pay his wife 20M per to be his personal trainer?

This would be in violation of the Circumvention clauses of the CBA.

And that is the way I understand the OP. Where is the line? Players could be hiring coaches or "coaches". So all the arguments in this thread are invalid, apart from the one that says that LeBron is the one paying his staff. Which I always thought was the fact, for some players agents make arrangements and there are people travelling with players or do things for them.

If the team was actually paying for player's staff, that could be seen as circumvention. There are some borderline cases for sure, that can be justified. For example a team can hire services of a coach who they know will work with their star player during summer. They do it so that they can assure that the player will have exactly the type of development and preparation that they want player to have. I don't think that's CBA circumvention, the coach is paid normal wage, follows team's program and reports back to the team. If that coach would have been paid a million for the summer job, that's a different case. I am wondering how and who would be deciding where the line is, though.

Long time after, but..

Eh, basically it's not an NBA consideration unless the money is being funneled to the player. If it's to the coach/trainer/assistant, for services rendered? Who cares? Now, if it's $2m a year to a friend as an "equipment manger" that the friend then sends $1.5m up to the superstar friend? That's circumvention. But if an owner chooses to take less profit for themselves in order to have a more full staff, or a better compensated staff, no issues. The belief is that those people would keep the money, rather than pay it to the superstar already on a max salary.

[J_T]

This would be in violation of the Circumvention clauses of the CBA.

And that is the way I understand the OP. Where is the line? Players could be hiring coaches or "coaches". So all the arguments in this thread are invalid, apart from the one that says that LeBron is the one paying his staff. Which I always thought was the fact, for some players agents make arrangements and there are people travelling with players or do things for them.

If the team was actually paying for player's staff, that could be seen as circumvention. There are some borderline cases for sure, that can be justified. For example a team can hire services of a coach who they know will work with their star player during summer. They do it so that they can assure that the player will have exactly the type of development and preparation that they want player to have. I don't think that's CBA circumvention, the coach is paid normal wage, follows team's program and reports back to the team. If that coach would have been paid a million for the summer job, that's a different case. I am wondering how and who would be deciding where the line is, though.

Long time after, but..

Eh, basically it's not an NBA consideration unless the money is being funneled to the player. If it's to the coach/trainer/assistant, for services rendered? Who cares? Now, if it's $2m a year to a friend as an "equipment manger" that the friend then sends $1.5m up to the superstar friend? That's circumvention. But if an owner chooses to take less profit for themselves in order to have a more full staff, or a better compensated staff, no issues. The belief is that those people would keep the money, rather than pay it to the superstar already on a max salary.

Ok but this could then be used as a way to persuade player to sign. Would that be ok or not? Example... If you sign with us, we will pay up to 3M per year to "your" staff. Many of these are close friends or family members. For example Kawhi's uncle, KP's brother etc. And let's just assume that they keep the money. Would you prefer to sign for a team that on top of your salary also pays a million to your sister, mom, best friend...?

[Scoot McGroot]

And that is the way I understand the OP. Where is the line? Players could be hiring coaches or "coaches". So all the arguments in this thread are invalid, apart from the one that says that LeBron is the one paying his staff. Which I always thought was the fact, for some players agents make arrangements and there are people travelling with players or do things for them.

If the team was actually paying for player's staff, that could be seen as circumvention. There are some borderline cases for sure, that can be justified. For example a team can hire services of a coach who they know will work with their star player during summer. They do it so that they can assure that the player will have exactly the type of development and preparation that they want player to have. I don't think that's CBA circumvention, the coach is paid normal wage, follows team's program and reports back to the team. If that coach would have been paid a million for the summer job, that's a different case. I am wondering how and who would be deciding where the line is, though.

Long time after, but..

Eh, basically it's not an NBA consideration unless the money is being funneled to the player. If it's to the coach/trainer/assistant, for services rendered? Who cares? Now, if it's $2m a year to a friend as an "equipment manger" that the friend then sends $1.5m up to the superstar friend? That's circumvention. But if an owner chooses to take less profit for themselves in order to have a more full staff, or a better compensated staff, no issues. The belief is that those people would keep the money, rather than pay it to the superstar already on a max salary.

Ok but this could then be used as a way to persuade player to sign. Would that be ok or not? Example... If you sign with us, we will pay up to 3M per year to "your" staff. Many of these are close friends or family members. For example Kawhi's uncle, KP's brother etc. And let's just assume that they keep the money. Would you prefer to sign for a team that on top of your salary also pays a million to your sister, mom, best friend...?

Meh. Not really. In all these years, it hasn’t really happened yet and it would require an owner willing to also lose money off the top, off their portion of income, so to speak, which also really hasn’t happened often yet. Once you get to a max salary, your next thoughts are likely taxes, and what teams/location offers me the best chances to succeed. I don’t know that a few million on top to other people would necessarily sway me either way. Now, if those people kicked a portion back in any way to the player, that would be circumvention of the CBA if an attempt to pay the player more than they’re eligible for. Otherwise,

[shrink]

We all know that the moon is not made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat it then?

Whiskers?