Dash Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 More on how far apart the owners and players are from an agreement: A source who deals with owners on a regular basis said that they remain determined to, if not break the union, break its current salary structure. The source said owners frequently speak of "being tired of making these guys rich" and are even contemplating asking for more, such as including income the players receive from their commercial endorsements and sponsorship money into the BRI pot -- the theory being the players wouldn't become famous and able to make such deals if not for the NBA infrastructure that puts them on television and other media. (Good luck with that one. And, yes, I asked my source if that were the case, why not cut players in for a slice of the action when owners sell their teams? I got something about there being a difference between the risks the players assume on the court and the risks owners take in financing their teams, got a headache in my eye and stopped listening.) http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/08/08/morning-tip-usa-basketball-update/?ls=iref:nbahpt1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbalala245 Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 That is [expletive]ing ridiculous. Asking to take players money from their endorsements now? It's time for the union to take a strong stance and de certify get this thing moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 No one is forcing them to make anyone rich. They can go the cheap route like Donald Sterling did and turn profits. You won't win, but you can make a profit. I find the owners to be hypocrites. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of them are fiscal conservatives who believein the free market with limited restrictions. Why not let the union decertify then? Let it be a truely free market. A free market means LeBron could get 50+ million a year from a team like New York and he'd never consider playing for a team like Cleveland or Memphis. A free market means no draft so Jared Sullinger or Harrison Barnes get to chose where to play. And no scaled contract so they can in theory get a 10+ million deal right off the bat. A free market means no age limit. So say farewell to the one-and-done rule. A free market means no roster limits. You could theoretically have a 20 man roster. A team, if they're willing to spend, can sign 20 quality players just for depth. But that's not what the owners want. They want to protect themselves from their own stupidity. Is it the players' fault that the Bobcats at one point had three head coaches salaries on the payroll? Is it the player's fault that owners are paying far beyond the market value of a franchise. The players clearly need to concede a few things because the current CBA is flawed, especially for small market teams. But some owners don't want to bargain in good faith. Some of what the owners are proposing is just flat out insane, that they're purposely willing to lose a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 ^^That last paragraph is completely on point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.