Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    First of all, I don't buy those numbers, but lets use them.

    I have a feeling that 2 of those 8 make a lot more together, then the remaining 6.

    I also feel that the bottom 2 of the league, are probably loosing more than 6 above them combined.


    Therefore snipping the ends is not a bad strategy when looking at the general atmosphere in the league.

    If the "top two" have a disproportionate share of revenues, than maybe the league needs to come up with a fairer revenue sharing model. Maybe NY and LA need to have their markets shrunk, just like Toronto had its extended to Canada. It may be better for the league as a whole, rather than seeing inordinate waste of money by someone like Dolan and Thomas year after year and his club still in the black.


    EDIT: I don't see why Density can not be an issue in market determination. It's just seems more advanced and fairer that way. (And its simple and efficient solution, everything else gets tossed into the kitty for teams to split, and league to run itself.)

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. -Robert Sobel
    That is from Tom Liston's piece on the front page - I highly recommend the read.

    Comment


    • Most logical fix: Contraction (from CBSSports.com)

      And the question is: If the NBA is losing so much money -- $300 million last season and $1.845 billion during the six-year collective bargaining agreement that just expired -- then why continue to pour good money after bad into markets that have proved beyond any doubt they cannot support an NBA team without massive transfers of wealth that have failed to make them viable?

      The idea was floated, mostly as a negotiating ploy, last October after a Board of Governors meeting in New York. That was the day Stern dropped this bombshell, which had been alluded to before but never driven home with so much certainty: The owners were seeking a $750 million to $800 million annual reduction in salaries in a new CBA, or a rollback of 33 percent.

      The owners have since moved $650 million off that initial proposal, offering the players a flat $2 billion in salary and benefits over a 10-year CBA, while the players have offered to slow the growth of salaries by $100 million a year. The two sides finally were scheduled to meet Friday -- at the staff level, with no big wigs, owners or players -- for the first time since the owners imposed a lockout on July 1. They are a long way from holding an actual bargaining session, much less agreeing to a new deal.

      But if the owners and players want to find hundreds of millions more to close the gap, they should look no further than eliminating the two teams that are the biggest drains on a business model the NBA says can no longer operate in this much red. Before addressing which teams need to go, we need to understand the pros and cons of contraction -- and some history.
      Aside from the financial benefit of eliminating teams that cannot support their own operations, contraction would have a ripple effect that would make the NBA more competitive, more compelling and thus more profitable. For starters, you'd have only 28 teams sharing the approximately $930 million a year in national broadcast rights money, amounting to an additional $2 million per team each season until the agreements with ABC/ESPN and TNT expire in 2016. You'd have two fewer teams collecting luxury tax money (a net benefit to the other 28 of $4.6 million based on expected tax payments for the 2010-11 season), and two fewer teams needing to participate in a revenue sharing program the NBA says it wants to triple from $60 million to at least $180 million a year in conjunction with a new CBA.

      Not inconsequentially, you'd eliminate about $100 million in player salaries and benefits, some of which would be repurposed over time to more deserving players. Desirable players from the two teams contracted would be distributed among the remaining 28 teams -- the best way would be a draft or some sort of lottery -- with the essential, on-court result of contraction being that the worst 30 players in the NBA would have their jobs eliminated. That's sort of how it goes in the real world, no?

      Contraction wouldn't be good for those players, but it would be the most effective antidote imaginable for the dilution of talent that has been one of the crippling symptoms of overexpansion. It wouldn't be a dollar-for-dollar net benefit, since -- presumably -- higher-paid players would be absorbed by other teams to replace lower-paid players. But in general, eliminating two 15-man rosters would get the owners closer to the 50-50 split of basketball-related income they are seeking. The owners would benefit, and so would the 420 or so players who remained.

      If we have learned anything from the past quarter-century of NBA basketball, it's that fans love super teams. The vast majority of teams that have been successful during this time have been built around two or three superstars (the Lakers and Celtics of the '80s, the Bulls of the '90s, the Lakers and Spurs of the '00s, the Celtics of the '10s and now the Heat). Other than Miami, which fell short of a title in its first try after teaming LeBron James and Chris Bosh with Dwyane Wade, these teams have won. They've also captured the imagination of fans, driven TV ratings and thus driven revenues -- not dragged them down.

      The free-agent bonanza of 2010, along with star-studded teams in L.A., Boston, Chicago and New York, not to mention high-dollar teams like Dallas and mid-majors like Oklahoma City, resulted in a record $3.8 billion in league-wide revenues last season. No matter what kind of system the NBA devises, that number that will continue to face a headwind from a handful of incapable markets where success and profit simply are not possible without massive transfers of wealth and talent from the teams people want to watch.
      Opponents of contraction often argue it's too expensive; by the time the departing owners are paid off, governments are reimbursed for all the arena debt they've incurred and penalties are paid to break leases with those arenas, the numbers add up. While this may be true in Memphis and Charlotte, where the debt obligations and lease penalties amount to hundreds of millions, it is not true in Sacramento and Milwaukee, where the teams are on year-to-year leases with their antiquated buildings. And it's certainly not true in New Orleans, where, after all, the other 29 owners already own the team.
      Sadly, until the owners and players embrace the notion of less being more, the NBA will continue to slog through a long, painful lockout with each side futilely trying to find hundreds of millions of dollars that's sitting right there under their noses -- right on the balance sheets of the league's worst-performing teams.

      And until then, taxpayers in New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis and Minneapolis will continue to pay for money-losing teams with years of debt and taxation schemes that politicians haven't even begun dreaming of yet -- all in the name of veiled threats about the teams leaving town or never showing up in the first place if they don't pay up.
      And yet for every city struggling with the cost of having an NBA team that can't compete or pay its bills, there's another one -- fueled by a new crop of politicians -- ready to fork over millions of money that isn't theirs and tax revenues that may never be generated. So to Sacramento, where the public pilfering to finance a new arena for the Kings has only begun, and Milwaukee, where lawmakers have so far resisted paying for a new arena for the Bucks to replace the 23-year-old Bradley Center, I have some advice:

      Save your time and money. The NBA would be better off without you -- and you, more importantly, without it.
      http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...to-get-smaller

      Nice to see they mentioned Toronto as a profitable franchise instead of the often automatic reference usually associated with the topic by a good number of media.

      Comment


      • Matt52 wrote: View Post

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. -Robert Sobel
        That is from Tom Liston's piece on the front page - I highly recommend the read.
        Again, Matt52,

        I don't know what this has to do with me. I simply said I do not trust their numbers, until we have the books I don't see why anyone should. I have made this clear to you over and over and over again.

        ...and you come up with weak stuff like above. How do you figure I am making up facts? Why shouldn't I not take your tone personally when you either are showing clear hostility or a disregard/lack of reading comprehension?

        As for culling extremes, it is standard analytically practice in science and statistics. If you did not understand the methodology I am sorry, but it surely did not have to be your opportunity to twist my words and stand over them.


        EDIT: Dude, I reread that message, and seriously. Where did I say anything was fact? I made a postulation using sound reasoning and mathematical distribution rules. The two highest earning teams most likely represent significant profits, and the 2 loosing teams represent significant losses. This is a postulation in term of approaching this problem. As to why you would use such a cheap reply to that, look in the mirror and ask yourself are you trying to understand me or are you trying to be Mr Cool dude on a message board? (the last reply stunk of the later)
        Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Sat Jul 16, 2011, 11:59 AM.

        Comment


        • Once again, comments gone personal which I will not address.

          The issues that I have discussed throughout the thread are negative cash flow, relying on asset appreciation to cover losses, the use of amortization and depreciation, the non-factor of capital gains/losses in the discussion, and the issues of owner credibility given the immense public scrutiny any and all comments will garner from PA lawyers and CRA/IRS. All of these issues show the owners have a legitimate case for the lockout - and it is just not my opinions backing these arguments.

          Also, the more information that comes out, it appears the players best case scenario still has the owners losing quite a bit of money. Billy Hunter saying the league ONLY lost $120M and a team like NJ didn't lose $106.4M rather ONLY $24.7M with negative cash flow of $65M over two years. It is quite clear the players are not realistic to the realities of the economic climate today. 2011 and moving forward is vastly different than 1998 and 2005.

          Given that many of the arguments presented in the discussion involved amortization and depreciation, it is interesting to see from Tom Liston's article on RR homepage:

          I’ll also offer the response to the Deadspin article from Carol Sawdye, the NBA’s Chief Financial Officer:

          We did not include purchase price amortization in the financial data that we gave to the players and all of the net loss numbers we have used both with the players union and disclosed publicly do not include purchase price amortization. Put simply, none of the Nets’ losses or the league losses previously disclosed are related to team purchase accounting. [emphasis added]

          Since their are plenty of lawyers involved on both sides watching every word – I’ll take the CFO’s claim at face value.
          I second that.

          It is also good to see that I am not the only one who believes relying on capital appreciation as a means to cover losses is a questionable decision:

          Here are the comments Berri quoted from Joe Lacob, the new-ish owner of the Golden State Warriors:

          Look, sports franchises appreciate 10% a year on average over three decades, the last three decades. There’s no reason to think this won’t appreciate in value. So that is the least of my worries. We will make money on this team in appreciation of value.

          While we could debate efficient markets all day, there are many examples where fundamental value and prices diverge for a period of time. The U.S. housing market (traditionally viewed as stable) was the subject of countless quotes very similar to Mr. Lacob’s. Since U.S. homeowners can write off mortgage interest on the tax returns (“Accounting shenanigans! Borrowing money to pay more than you have and getting a tax bonus? Bidding up assets? Those darn owners.” Maybe Billy Hunter should also tell home owners their interest isn’t real.) Housing prices in seven metropolitan areas appreciated by more than 80% in five years only to decline 50%+ in several cases in future years.

          As the housing bubble grew, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said something worth noting:

          …this vast increase in the market value of asset claims is in part the indirect result of investors accepting lower compensation for risk. Such an increase in market value is too often viewed by market participants as structural and permanent.

          Sounds like that just may apply to NBA franchise asset growth arguments as well. Asset prices eventually find fundamental levels. And in the NBA, some reasonable cash flow is needed to sustain $300 million+ valuations (although scarcity value will reduce ROI “hurdles” vis-a-vis many other investments)

          The questions for the players should become:

          1) How much do we want to contribute to help solve the obvious problem of an overall unprofitable league? (not all the onus should be on the players btw)
          2) How much money am I willing to lose waiting to find out how much I am going to lose from any new agreement? (because we can be guaranteed the owners are not going to be the one's to fold).

          Considering the owners were originally seeking a $750 million to $800 million annual reduction in salaries in a new CBA (a rollback of 33 percent) and their final offer had removed $650M off that initial proposal, I think the owners were actually negotiating in good faith. This would result in $100-$150M taken off league losses. This combined with a maximum on player salaries and increasing league revenue sharing from $60M to $180M should create an environment where most teams are profitable and competing on an even footing. When owners are making money because they are not losing money operating the players need to start asking themselves, "Is this worth losing games, a season, or more over?"

          The reason I began the interaction is because, as numerous sources have shown, the arguments presented to RR posters was one-sided at best. Hopefully the other posters/readers have a better understanding of the true issues and can make an informed decision hearing arguments from both sides.

          It seems that when the arguments or facts go against certain claims, the posts become quite personal and intelligence is questioned. Luckily I'm fine with that as it should be very much apparent that the owners have a legitimate concern here - which was the whole point of posting in the first place.

          In the end, hopefully owners and players can both come to a mutually beneficial arrangement that doesn't cost fans or people relying on the spin-off from the league as a means of providing for themselves or their families.

          As I've stated frequently, I don't care about millionaires versus billionaires, what I care about is creating a league that offers an equal opportunity for each franchise to compete. It just so happens this vision rests more on the owners side of the fence.

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            Billy Hunter saying the league ONLY lost $120M and a team like NJ didn't lose $106.4M rather ONLY $24.7M with negative cash flow of $65M over two years. It is quite clear the players are not realistic to the realities of the economic climate today. 2011 and moving forward is vastly different than 1998 and 2005.
            Yet the NBA almost always has no problem selling teams that are 'losing money'.

            I totally agree that the league needs a change, but I find it hard to believe that teams are losing the money they claim. Hockey can't find an owner for alot of their teams, yet there is always new one right around the corner in the NBA. Even if they are losing money, the investors seem to think there is serious potential for growth/profitability down the road, which makes me think, new CBA or no new CBA, the NBA is headed in the right direction financially.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=GarbageTime;94124]
              Yet the NBA almost always has no problem selling teams that are 'losing money'.
              I'm not too sure that is totally accurate. Detroit was for sale for nearly 2 years, NOH could not find an owner. Charlotte was sold to Jordan at a loss for Robert Johnson. Most relocations occur after an owner willing to keep the team locally based is not found.

              I agree the situation is not as bad as the owners are claiming. That is evident from their final offer which returned $650M to the players. However, even with the PA's assertions the teams are still losing real money i.e. the expenses are greater than the revenues.

              I totally agree that the league needs a change, but I find it hard to believe that teams are losing the money they claim. Hockey can't find an owner for alot of their teams, yet there is always new one right around the corner in the NBA. Even if they are losing money, the investors seem to think there is serious potential for growth/profitability down the road, which makes me think, new CBA or no new CBA, the NBA is headed in the right direction financially.
              I'm not too sure a comparison to the NHL is the best one. The NBA is a global league whereas the NHL is more North American based with an emphasis on the "North". A lot of those teams in hockey were forced in locations that should never have been with the thinking southern US cities would eventually accept the game - it obviously hasn't worked out that way in every southern US city. Even the ones where it has it seems they only attend when winning - kind of like the Atlanta Hawks, fans only show in the playoffs.


              Regardless of details, we are both in agreement the league needs to change. I do not agree with the owners original demands - that was a bit excessive. Unfortunately the players want things to remain the same and that just isn't realistic.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Matt52;94126]
                GarbageTime wrote: View Post

                I'm not too sure that is totally accurate. Detroit was for sale for nearly 2 years, NOH could not find an owner. Charlotte was sold to Jordan at a loss for Robert Johnson. Most relocations occur after an owner willing to keep the team locally based is not found.

                I agree the situation is not as bad as the owners are claiming. That is evident from their final offer which returned $650M to the players. However, even with the PA's assertions the teams are still losing real money i.e. the expenses are greater than the revenues.



                I'm not too sure a comparison to the NHL is the best one. The NBA is a global league whereas the NHL is more North American based with an emphasis on the "North". A lot of those teams in hockey were forced in locations that should never have been with the thinking southern US cities would eventually accept the game - it obviously hasn't worked out that way in every southern US city. Even the ones where it has it seems they only attend when winning - kind of like the Atlanta Hawks, fans only show in the playoffs.


                Regardless of details, we are both in agreement the league needs to change. I do not agree with the owners original demands - that was a bit excessive. Unfortunately the players want things to remain the same and that just isn't realistic.
                No doubt... I just think the most realistic answer here is probably contraction. Just like the NHL is failing because some of its clubs are in a bad hockey market, the NBA, while not as geographically specific, is in a lot of markets that likely won't be consistently profitable or breakeven. I'd bet even 2 or 3 teams contracting would make a huge difference in league. (although I don't think anyone wants it). Offers more competition for the same jobs (which will force salaries down) and increases the talent level per team (more competitive).

                Most of the other teams will be in fine (better anyways) shape in the long run, or atleast once the American economy turns around

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=GarbageTime;94129]
                  Matt52 wrote: View Post

                  No doubt... I just think the most realistic answer here is probably contraction. Just like the NHL is failing because some of its clubs are in a bad hockey market, the NBA, while not as geographically specific, is in a lot of markets that likely won't be consistently profitable or breakeven. I'd bet even 2 or 3 teams contracting would make a huge difference in league. (although I don't think anyone wants it). Offers more competition for the same jobs (which will force salaries down) and increases the talent level per team (more competitive).

                  Most of the other teams will be in fine (better anyways) shape in the long run, or atleast once the American economy turns around
                  Post 302 above speaks to contraction and mentions many of the points you brought up. It is an interesting read.

                  Comment


                  • Here is an interesting video that has Warren Buffet talking about the capital stimulus plan that congress passed that allows US corporations to write off 100% of their capital costs in the first year.

                    His firm Berkshire plans on making 7 Billion worth of capital expenses this year and writing 100% of them off against taxes owed.

                    [relevant reference for this discussion starts at 2:30]
                    http://mrctv.org/videos/warren-buffe...e-jet-rhetoric

                    This law has been in play for the last season. NBA teams would have to have clueless accountants not to take advantage of it, it would come at the expense of profits. That is why it would be nice to see capital investment alongside those loss figures.

                    In an environment like that, as a CEO I would spend as much as I could get away with on capital investment. Even booking losses that I can WRITE OFF with a sweet ass CBA that will make me so much money that I will not be able to keep it unless I have some nice ones previously booked.


                    I still ask, if the NBA has nothing to hide why can't they show us the books? We know the revenue streams and they are LARGE and GROWING. Supposedly stronger than in history of the league, yet the league just can't balance its books, nor does it want to show them to us.
                    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Mon Jul 18, 2011, 08:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=GarbageTime;94129]
                      Matt52 wrote: View Post

                      No doubt... I just think the most realistic answer here is probably contraction. Just like the NHL is failing because some of its clubs are in a bad hockey market, the NBA, while not as geographically specific, is in a lot of markets that likely won't be consistently profitable or break even. I'd bet even 2 or 3 teams contracting would make a huge difference in league. (although I don't think anyone wants it). Offers more competition for the same jobs (which will force salaries down) and increases the talent level per team (more competitive).

                      Most of the other teams will be in fine (better anyways) shape in the long run, or atleast once the American economy turns around
                      The best thing that can happen from these talks is that the lowest rungs on the pole, sweat it out with regards to contraction, and the big fish sweat it out for equally as significant reasons as revenue sharing.


                      When both of these groups say to themselves, "What the F have we gotten ourselves into", this crap will become rare. If the players bend over, this will be ongoing every 5 years, people need to be put on the hot plate for this HORRIBLY SELFISH decision. If Stern is having a single good night sleep this month, than things are very wrong.

                      If they want to steer the ship towards the coral, they need to know the hazards, they also need to know that fans are not stupid, at least not the majority of us.

                      (I fully believe if owners were truthful with the players from the start, if there was something to this, it would of been worked out. This is just greed at its finest, and IMO its not the players. Everyone knew this was league plan all along, the proposal on the table is dog crap. No respectable contract lawyer would touch it with a ten foot pole. The league knew where talks were headed when they put the dog pile on the table. They are steering this ship.).





                      Just so you guys know, these assholes will write off the losses of this year against the NEW, more advantageous CBA next year. So when you hear that the big clubs don't mind, that is why, the losses are not substantial if its a one year thing. Also, if I am not mistaken, the NBA has TV rights that are independent of labour agreements. As in its for a duration, no games played. So Stern is in a good position. (but you cant string your butter-er for long)

                      EDIT: IMO, the PA needs to go after REVENUE SHARING with large clubs like LA and NY (they pull Sterns strings). Push density instead of area, and this will make them shake. They will settle. Ask for market determination boundaries to be determined by population density, everything else goes into the global kitty to be divided by ALL teams.

                      They expended the market for Toronto, therefore a precedent has been set into league law that the boundary is movable/changeable for the benefit of the union. This would be an obvious grip to anyone trained in law. Are the divisions fair? Can they be challenged, have the markers moved in the past to accommodate? No, yes, yes. (all 3 positive confirmations for our bid)

                      "Watson, release the hounds. "

                      LOL

                      EDIT2: BTW, this lot will fight against themselves if you give it time... they are owners, not everyone has 1 year to waste in their plans. I promise you the players can be more solid than the owners. On the outside the owners will look strong, but when they break they will break overnight. The players need to fight they need to drag this out to 2 years if need be, put their greed to shame, let them go at each other like piranhas. Some of the owners are quite hungry.

                      EDIT3: Do it for the future players, show that you can take more than one year. The players should stand strong! If they can go 2 years they win. (for future players too, the loss to this bunch will pave the contracts for the next bunch... if the PA is a true union, it will recognize and sacrifice) This would be a sacrifice by the top earning players, which would loose the most in the short term, but the totality of league contracts would gain, I think is fair all things considered. I also think the top earners are in the best position to make this sacrifice. The players need to act like a team, and beat the owners.
                      Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Tue Jul 19, 2011, 01:56 AM.

                      Comment


                      • As we discussed in last Friday's NBA PM, the players' salaries might not be the real culprit if, in fact, the league's claims of $300 million in losses is true (something the players' union and The New York Times' Nate Silver dispute wholeheartedly).

                        The league has accrued around $3.8 billion in basketball related income for the 2010-2011 campaign. The players' cut—57 percent—is nothing to sneeze at and may require some adjustment for the sustainability of the league. But the massive overhaul the NBA is proposing (hard salary cap and a significant reduction in the players' take of BRI), might not be addressing a central issue: the owners could be overspending on everything besides the players.

                        The league's non-player expenses are being brought under the spotlight by the likes of Matt Moore of CBSsports.com and SBNation's Tom Ziller. The latter looked at the NBA's audited financials and discovered the "other" expenses outpaced payroll expenses and revenue growth from 2006 until 2009, and only in 2010 did the league see a reduction in "other" expenses.

                        Writes Ziller:

                        In 2007, 2008 and 2009 "other expenses" grew more than revenue or payroll did. From 2006 to 2007, revenue and payroll each grew 6.6 percent. Given the NBA's claimed losses, non-payroll expenses grew 9.8 percent between those seasons…

                        If you adjust to keep non-payroll expense growth at the same level as revenue growth—essentially coupling claimed expenses with revenue, which isn't an actual suggestion for a new CBA but an exercise to show the impact of rapidly growing non-salary costs—you'd knock around $340 million off of the league's reported losses over the past five years. That doesn't fix the problem entirely—remember, the league says it lost $1.5 billion over that span—but it's something worth keeping in mind.


                        That doesn't absolve the players from having to adjust their take (57 percent of $3.8 billion is a lot, even if they are the reason we're watching) but Ziller's work suggests the owners would do well to rein in their own spending too (as for what the "other" expenses are, that's anyone's guess—can we get rid of all mascots, cheerleaders and non-basketball entertainment?)

                        Of course the league has recently cut staff and closed offices in Paris and Tokyo in addition to the aforementioned reduction in "other" expenses that occurred in 2010, so the owners are at least somewhat cognizant of this. But there's still so much ambiguity. Are the owners' books right, or are the players' questions over financial statements valid? And if the numbers are inaccurate, is it the players or the owners that ultimately have to make the biggest adjustment?

                        As always, perception is a large component. The players could be shamed into agreeing to the owners' terms if the public thought they were simply overpaid, spoiled athletes. But if NBA audiences sided with the players, choosing to believe that league should operate on the remaining 43 percent of BRI, could the owners be motivated to adjust their terms as well?

                        For the fans, this might come down to a simple question of "Who do you trust?" And if that's the case, the league doesn't stand a chance.

                        The fans know the players—or at least they know them more than they know the owners.

                        Fans see the intense looks on the faces of Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. They know the precise manner with which Ray Allen runs a curl around an off-ball pick. Fans are exposed to players' disappointments, triumphs and every grueling moment in between.

                        What fans don't see—and frankly don't want to see—is businessmen and women handling everything behind the curtain. To fans, commissioner David Stern is a waiter; someone who serves up portions of Blake Griffin and Tim Duncan, but who can't really take credit for the quality of the meal. The waiter can certainly screw up the dinner, but if and when the consumer is happy, he or she passes their compliments on to the chef, not the wait staff.

                        No, it's not fair. The NBA has worked hard to find new revenue streams and essentially propel the league and the sport into an international phenomenon. The work of Stern and Co. has been critical to the financial success of the players, but if the league is willing to wage a popularity war with the men who wear the uniform, it is going to lose 10 out of 10 times.

                        Simply releasing some financial statements and claiming $300 million in losses won't satisfy the public because the league is far too popular not to be profitable. Fans don't read audits. They watch the games, often times in packed arenas, and they're starting to wonder where their hard-earned money is going.


                        Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1SXxoLs67

                        What Raskin fails to realize is real inflation over the last 4 years (the way numbers used to be calculated and before necessities such as food or energy are removed from current government inflation numbers) is running at about 8-10% annually or over 35% the last 4 years. Of course other expenses are going to go up. I'm sure the average fan who pays bills can relate to this - I can.

                        Comment


                        • Raptors.Com releases 2011-2012 NBA Schedule

                          Haven't looked at it yet BUT if there is a 2011 season this is the raptors schedule

                          http://www.nba.com/raptors/schedule/

                          EDIT: There isn't any local TV or Radio as of yet, but it does like we'd have 3 NBA tv games and 1 ESPN game.
                          "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                          "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                          "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                          Comment


                          • MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
                            Here is an interesting video that has Warren Buffet talking about the capital stimulus plan that congress passed that allows US corporations to write off 100% of their capital costs in the first year.

                            His firm Berkshire plans on making 7 Billion worth of capital expenses this year and writing 100% of them off against taxes owed.

                            [relevant reference for this discussion starts at 2:30]
                            http://mrctv.org/videos/warren-buffe...e-jet-rhetoric

                            This law has been in play for the last season. NBA teams would have to have clueless accountants not to take advantage of it, it would come at the expense of profits. That is why it would be nice to see capital investment alongside those loss figures.

                            In an environment like that, as a CEO I would spend as much as I could get away with on capital investment. Even booking losses that I can WRITE OFF with a sweet ass CBA that will make me so much money that I will not be able to keep it unless I have some nice ones previously booked.


                            I still ask, if the NBA has nothing to hide why can't they show us the books? We know the revenue streams and they are LARGE and GROWING. Supposedly stronger than in history of the league, yet the league just can't balance its books, nor does it want to show them to us.
                            The most one can write off against taxes is the amount in taxes one owes.

                            I am not claiming to have knowledge of US tax law. However, I am certain of this in Canada and I feel confident it would apply in the US as well. If I am wrong, I apologize.

                            When you pay taxes it means you made money. $1 in expense cancels taxes on $1 in revenue.

                            Having greater expenses than revenues does not give you more money back from the government - the most you can get back is the amount you paid in. Yes, one could go back in previous years but that assumes a profit was made (i.e. taxes were paid). One could also carry expenses over to future years to put against taxes owed but that again assumes a profit will be made at some point in the future.

                            22 NBA owners, according to their books, do not have enough revenue to cover expenses. Taxes can be removed from the equation because they didn't make any money to begin with so they have nothing to be taxed on.

                            If the corporate tax rate for Buffet is 15% (I am making that up), the $7B worth of capital expenses is not going to save Berkshire Hathaway $7B in taxes, it is going to save the company $1.05B in taxes (15% of $7B).

                            There is no doubt capital expenses can be used to save money on taxes, unfortunately, a company needs to have profits (revenues greater than expenses) to be taxed. If a business is running negative cash flow, taxes are the least of their worries.

                            Of course all this relies on believing owners are losing money on an operational basis. If you don't believe that then I guess it really doesn't matter.

                            Comment


                            • Sterm to meet with FIBA representatives

                              I would not be shocked at all if Stern and the Owners tell FIBA to stick it and after the lockout block all NBA players under contract from playing in any world events if FIBA continues to let players proceed to find deals in Europe.

                              With the NBA lockout threatening to impact this summer's qualifying tournaments for the 2012 Olympics, commissioner David Stern is scheduled to meet Tuesday with the president and the secretary general of FIBA, the sport's international governing body.

                              FIBA secretary general Patrick Baumann and president Ivan Mainini traveled from their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, for the meeting at NBA headquarters in Manhattan.

                              A spokesman for FIBA would not disclose the exact topics on the agenda, but it's expected to include two important issues: the prohibitive cost of securing insurance for foreign NBA players who wish to play for their national teams this summer, and the legal ramifications of FIBA issuing letters of clearance to players such as Deron Williams who have signed contracts with overseas teams.

                              When the lockout took effect July 1, the NBA suspended a program it operated in accordance with FIBA that provided an infrastructure for national federations seeking to purchase insurance policies for the NBA contracts of their best players.
                              Source: RealGM.com

                              Comment


                              • This subject of overtly stopping players from playing elsewhere while being locked out is a legal minefield for Stern/NBA. They could be sued for denying players to seek employment and denial of basic rights(?). That is why todate Stern has shrugged his shoulders on the subject...and why they are being cagey about publicizing the agenda. I dont know why he is even meeting with them. The Euro teams will be getting on the wrong side if they get too deep with the signing of nba players. I dont think they want to cross the nba. I just dont see what the longterm upside is for them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X