<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">James' $100 million deal with Nike doubles if he plays in Chicago, L.A. or New York. Cleveland papers reported earlier in the week that the chances of James signing an extension this summer have increased because of the Cavaliers' strong playoff performance</div> <u>Source</u> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives...or_los_angeles/ If he plays for either the Knicks, Clippers, Bulls, Lakers, Nets(assuming the move to BROOKLYN). Media hype would be crazy for this kid if he played for a franchise in one of these major cities...... a strong possibilty is the Nets. JayZ and James have grown a very strong relationship over the years. Another possibility is the Bulls. John Paxson and LeBron have a very good realtionship with eachother and can possibly lure James into Chicago. Or maybe LeBron wants to play along side kobe or even with the up and rising clippers. The Knicks also may have a chance at him with their incredible payroll and media attention.
i bet 100 million dollars he not going anywhere, hes gonna get an extension max contract with the cavs
I don't really believe that. what do major markets mean anymore? with television and the internet living in a bigger city doesn't have that much advantages anymore. LeBron is already the most marketable player in the league how does moving to NY or LA improve that? Kobe has been playing in LA his whole career and before the rape case he never signed a huge deal. Same for every player who's ever played for the knicks.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brasco:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't really believe that. what do major markets mean anymore? with television and the internet living in a bigger city doesn't have that much advantages anymore. LeBron is already the most marketable player in the league how does moving to NY or LA improve that? Kobe has been playing in LA his whole career and before the rape case he never signed a huge deal. Same for every player who's ever played for the knicks.</div> Major markets mean everything when you're talking about multi-million dollar deals. Kobe never signed a huge deal? Sure he did, McDonald's, Sprite, Adidas were all huge deals. Even Chris Mihm has a shoe deal with Pony because he's playing in Los Angeles. Living in a bigger city has a lot of advantages because of viewership. Los Angeles owns the 2nd largest TV audience in the nation. The difference for the TV revenue LA teams make versus a small market team is probably in the area of $200Million versus $60Million. The Lakers could have an empty arena for every game and still make huge profits just on TV revenue alone. In contrast, Gordon Gund sold the Cavs, because despite landing LeBron James in the lottery, the franchise was still losing money. Sure LeBron has plenty of exposure already, despite playing in Cleveland. However, just imagine the over saturation there would be if LeBron played in a larger market like New York or Los Angeles or Chicago. A network might be willing to pay an additional $1 Billion dollars to get the rights to air those games. Here's a really good article from 2005 from Forbes The Business of Basketball Now keep in mind this data is from 2005. The Lakers missed the playoffs last season, but still ranked #2 in revenue, right behind the Knicks. They also have a really good show called "SportsMoney" on their site. It's an insightful show if you're into the business side of sports.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Major markets mean everything when you're talking about multi-million dollar deals. Kobe never signed a huge deal? Sure he did, McDonald's, Sprite, Adidas were all huge deals. Even Chris Mihm has a shoe deal with Pony because he's playing in Los Angeles. Living in a bigger city has a lot of advantages because of viewership. Los Angeles owns the 2nd largest TV audience in the nation. The difference for the TV revenue LA teams make versus a small market team is probably in the area of $200Million versus $60Million. The Lakers could have an empty arena for every game and still make huge profits just on TV revenue alone. In contrast, Gordon Gund sold the Cavs, because despite landing LeBron James in the lottery, the franchise was still losing money. Sure LeBron has plenty of exposure already, despite playing in Cleveland. However, just imagine the over saturation there would be if LeBron played in a larger market like New York or Los Angeles or Chicago. A network might be willing to pay an additional $1 Billion dollars to get the rights to air those games. Here's a really good article from 2005 from Forbes The Business of Basketball Now keep in mind this data is from 2005. The Lakers missed the playoffs last season, but still ranked #2 in revenue, right behind the Knicks. They also have a really good show called "SportsMoney" on their site. It's an insightful show if you're into the business side of sports.</div> Yes i get your point but what seemed kind of false was why would nike double his deal to 200 mil just to go to LA or NY? The article details franchises and obviously a larger market would be bennefitial to a franchise but in terms of individual players, players like lebron,kobe t-mac will have more fans outside their home market than within. I dont live in cleveland myself as most fans of lebron around the world dont so i dont see how lebron in a larger market will attract more fans, which is what it come down too. I'm talking about the nike deal mainly.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">i bet 100 million dollars he not going anywhere, hes gonna get an extension max contract with the cavs</div> Max contract by staying with Cavs- $75 million Dollar amount received from Nets and Nike- $160 million Never seeing another Cleveland game on national TV- Priceless.
Well I think the Nike deal is a myth and was written to distract the Cavs for Game 7. The source of the article comes from a local Detroit paper and it's not uncommon for local papers to dish controversy against opposing teams. There's an old thread on JBB <u>Click Here</u> with some quotes from Ohio Plain Dealer newspaper, and I think Nike made an official statement regarding this b.s. clause in LeBron's Nike deal. David Stern also said it would violate NBA rules for obvious reasons. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">20. Can a team circumvent the salary cap by paying a player less but arranging for an affiliated company to also pay him, perhaps by way of an endorsement contract? I suppose it could happen, but the NBA will investigate if it suspects that an outside person or organization is paying a player on behalf or at the request of a team. If they find out that such an event has occurred, they will penalize the team. For the first offense by a team, the fine can be up to $2,500,000, forfeiture of a first round draft pick, and/or voiding the player's contract. The penalties increase for subsequent violations. Incidentally, with the new CBA they did away with the ability for players to become player-coaches. This is because it would be possible to circumvent the cap by signing a player as a player-coach, and paying him less as a player but overpaying him as a coach. </div> Source - http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Well I think the Nike deal is a myth and was written to distract the Cavs for Game 7. The source of the article comes from a local Detroit paper and it's not uncommon for local papers to dish controversy against opposing teams. There's an old thread on JBB <u>Click Here</u> with some quotes from Ohio Plain Dealer newspaper, and I think Nike made an official statement regarding this b.s. clause in LeBron's Nike deal. David Stern also said it would violate NBA rules for obvious reasons. Source - http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20</div> Yeah that was the thing that i found hard to believe i get your other points but Nike doubling its deal to 200 million that sounds a little much. That wouldn't even be a good business sense on nike's part.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brasco:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah that was the thing that i found hard to believe i get your other points but Nike doubling its deal to 200 million that sounds a little much. That wouldn't even be a good business sense on nike's part.</div> Well Nike would still make a killing even if the deal was doubled, however, the NBA and Nike would have to deal with PR backlash if this was true. Fans would be screaming about the integrity of both Nike and the NBA. I remember a few years ago Nike was accused of strong arming the Olympics or something because they weren't allowing Nike sponsored athletes to participate unless Nike had more control. I forget the exact event, but Nike stock took a hit after the story came out.
its not a myth its been known that if a player goes to a major market they get more, thats why kobe was about to play fornew york even though they couldnt offer him near anywhere the lakers clippers and suns were fofering
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting thedude9990:</div><div class="quote_post">its not a myth its been known that if a player goes to a major market they get more, thats why kobe was about to play fornew york even though they couldnt offer him near anywhere the lakers clippers and suns were fofering</div> The difference is having a kicker in your contract, which encourages you to sign with a larger market team. $100Million from Nike is pretty close to a max deal a team could offer him. This would be a violation of the CBA and detrimental to the league. Can you imagine if every superstar player had this incentive? The small market team owners would never allow it because it would make it even harder for them to keep their players.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">its not a myth its been known that if a player goes to a major market they get more, thats why kobe was about to play fornew york even though they couldnt offer him near anywhere the lakers clippers and suns were fofering</div> While your right they get more money in bigger markets, that may just be because they will sell more products, and perhaps get some sort of royalties on number of shoes sold, or they may get additional endorsement deals from local companies. Shapes statement makes sense, the League and Nike would take more heat than Kobe (ok not that much) if this was true.
Kobe and LeBron... It's so cool just thinking about it.. Highly unlikely but it's still nice thinking about it .
