I have tried to keep an open mind but no matter how you look at things, I can't begin to see things from the owners position. If you listen/read the comments and statements from the owners and David Stern, you can tell that they are being less then truthful. Stern is using words like "vast majority" and "virtual unanimity" tells me and everyone else that there is no unified agreement within the owners as a collective. How can you, in good faith, bargain with the players if you are not all on the same page? The answer is you can't. I understand, business wise, when you are going through a collective bargaining, both sides ask for more then they can get. Its where you start and then leave room to negotiate up or down. I'm good with that but the owners want to get back the money that they "lost" during the previous CBA. WTF?! How can you look the NBA players in the face and ask/demand that they give you back money you "lost" because of poor business decisions you made? Sounds like the federal bank bailout all over again. No one is rewarded for making mistakes. I have never been and no one I know ever has. What makes the owners any different? Not a damn thing! Let's break it down:
The Salary Cap:
As is, there is a "soft cap". There is a set dollar amount for all teams but there is a "luxury tax" added when teams spend beyond the cap. A good idea but it is not a high enough amount to make any of the "big market teams" to not go over the cap. That leaves teams like the Bobcats, Bucks and Kings in a position where they can't offer players the amount of money they are seeking to play for a team. The easy fix is to raise the penalty amount. If you go over the cap by $1 million, then you should have to pay $5 million in luxury taxes. Sounds steep? Good. Then those "big market teams" won't act as if there is no salary cap. It would also lower player paydays as well. If a player wants to play for a particular team, then he would have to take a pay cut to do so. If you are laughing at players taking less money think about how many players are being over paid like Rashard Lewis, who would make $22.1 million this season. That is $3 million short of what Kobe Bryant is making. SMDH!! Lewis hasn't been a factor in since '09 and not worthy of this money. He has been in the league since 1998 and only 2 all-star selections. That isn't a $20 million player! I don't blame Lewis at all. Some owner/GM decided he was worth it and now they want to complain about paying him and players like him because they aren't producing on the court. That is no ones fault but the owners. They shouldn't be bailed out for bad business decisions. Greedy bastards.
Split of Basketball Related Income or BMI:
Under the previous CBA, the players got 57% of the BMI and rightly so. Basically, the owners made endorsement and TV deals using the players as equity/collateral to get companies to pay through the nose. So why would the players get the bigger share? Its the players that put people in the stands. I have been to quite a few NBA games in 4 cities and never have I seen a fan wearing a jersey or T-shirt with an owners name on it. Nike, Reebok, Converse or Adidas don't have a shoe marketing an owner. Kids on the playground don't call out Jerry Buss or Jerry Reinsdorf name as they go to the hole or take a 3-point shot. So once again, the owners are acting as if the NBA would be nothing if not for them. LOL!! What's worse is that the players offered to lower their percentage to 54%. That amounts to $500 million over the duration of the new CBA. The owners want to bigger share, for no other reason then to recoup "losses" from the last CBA. Get the hell outta here with that. If I was a player, I wouldn't give in on that either.
Guaranteed Contracts:
This is the only issue where I am on the owners side. The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts and rightly so. Players are paid to play and produce on the court, if you aren't doing that then you shouldn't get paid. A good example is Grant Hill. He got hurt, doing his job, and it took some years before he was effective for a team again. He had a guaranteed contract so he got paid even though he played 82 games over a 3 year span. I like Hill but as an owner, I would not have wanted to pay someone who wasn't doing what I was paying him to do. Get rid of the guarantees and add more buyout clauses, just like in the NFL. DONE!
Revenue Sharing:
This is only a issue because the players were able to get a clause that allows them to have to sign off on any revenue sharing. What the owners do with their share is their business but the owners can't agree among themselves how to share so that isn't on the players. Once again, the "big market teams" want to make the money they generate or receive and let the "small market teams" fend for themselves. Example: The Lakers don't want to give the Bobcats a piece of the Lakers TV deals. The owners feel that since they individually made deals for their teams then they should reap all the rewards but they want to players to bridge the gap in revenue sharing between the owners. C'mon man!
D!
No comments:
Post a Comment