NBA stars looking to play in Europe: I like it

Deron to Turkey? I like it.

Even though I agree with the owners I still want them to negotiate with the players. If players are getting paid during the lockout, it may keep the owners at the bargaining table a little longer. There has to be fear on both sides for a deal to get done. I don't want the owners getting cocky. Hopefully this will help.

 

Both sides should get whatever leverage they can. Can the NBA players make as much in Europe as they do currently in the US? Probably not (at least not this generation of NBA players) but they can still likely make millions. However, I don't think NBA owners can make as much with the "next 200 best" players either. So both sides could survive without the other, but both have incentive to make the NBA (as currently constituted) work.

 

I will laugh my ass off if he gets injured and it costs him a gazillion dollars. The players have been too greedy for too long, and all the owners are doing is trying to even it out.

 

millions is a lot more then nothing. Players have a limited time to ply their trade, so it only makes sense that more and more will play elsewhere if this drags on. I don't have a rooting interest in this lockout except to see matters settled. Since players not becoming desperate does seem like real motivation for the owners (who are paying for empty stadiums) to try come to an agreement, I like it too.

if the players eventually cave to every owner demand, is anyone here naive enough to believe their game day ticket will be any cheaper?

STOMP

 

They shouldn't be cheaper though.

Business is business. If I as an NBA owner drop 350 million or so to buy a team, then a "profit" of 2 million a year doesn't cover my investment.

 

Then sell or better yet don't buy in. No one forces an owner to buy a team or overspend on players. Across the board the value of NBA franchises has continued to escalate. Hard to feel pity for multi-billionairs who choose to be represented by douchebag Stern

Neither side represents my interest in watching good hoops so I won't be happy if either is thought to have won or lost this standoff, only that it's over

STOMP

 

I've always believed ticket cost is totally independent of player salaries. If the NBA could get more revenue from increasing ticker price they would, they don't increase prices further because people would buy less tickets and it would decrease total revenue. The league already maximizes ticket revenue. However high or low a teams payroll is will be irrelevant.

 

WTF? Larry Miller bought the Jazz for $25 million. It is now worth 342 million. They could have lost 10 million a year for 25 years and still pocket almost 100 million dollars. Even in that scenario it is a good investment.

 

There are many more owners that have recently bought teams though. Larry Miller is the exception. Most owners bought high because of the great job Stern has done.

 

it would be interesting to see how many NBA owners have ever lost money after they sold the team. I bet not many

 

So what? The cost they paid for the franchise is not simply money lost that they need to recoup through profits. They own the franchise and can re-sell it at a future time. Unless you're contending that the franchises are losing value (i.e. become worth less over time, inflation adjusted, than they were bought for), it makes no sense to say "The profits aren't covering the franchise cost." Buying the franchise is an investment. The gross income needs to cover the operating costs, not the cost of purchasing the franchise. If the gross income more than covers the operating costs, then they're earning profits on top of any franchise appreciation that they realize over time.

 

What ever. The Jazz didn't lose 10 million every year either. Some years they made a hell of a lot of profit. Even as one of the smallest markets in the NBA. Bottom line is if a team makes 2 million a year profit, they will do just fine when it comes time to sell. It's not like they are "flipping teams" for a quick buck.

 

Cause the real ROI on a team is when you sell it. At least that's what the rhetoric I've heard spewed. I've got no numbers to back that up.

 

That's really an absurd way to look at it. If you want to compare it to other investments, compare it to stocks. Annual revenue is akin to dividends. Nice little returns of cash, but not really the reason you own the stock/franchise. The real money comes when you sell the stock/franchise.

Or compare it to owning rental property. You try to offset most of your mortgage/utility/etc costs with rent income (ticket sales/tv/merchandising), but few landlords get wealthy on that. Most make their real money when they sell.

 

Since when is buying a sports team an "investment"? If that's your reason for buying it, then fuck off and let some rich fan who's prepared to lose tons of money come in. I'll tell you one owner who treats it like an investment: Donald Sterling. You want more like that?

 

On NBA players going to Europe: I don't think it'll make much (if any) difference. Williams has supposedly agreed to a contract which ends the minute the lockout ends. He'll be earning TONS less than he would in the NBA. If anything, he might start seeing a lower wage in the NBA as reasonable and be more willing to capitulate to the owners' demands. And a combination of the NBA players' unwillingness to go overseas and the lack of teams with real (i.e., 1/10 what the NBA would pay) money over there will make this a tiny trickle rather than the flood it would have to be.

What it would require would be the best player from every team playing in a way that put them at significant risk of injury.

 

For every millionaire player who might head to Europe, there are 10+ others left behind as well as draftees. And those players votes count just the same as the LaBrons of the world. The leverage isn;t with the star players, it's with the players who actually need the money and who are trying to make their mark in the league.