Quantcast
Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 9:25 am  |  59 responses

Does Billy Hunter Have His Own Agenda?


Billy Hunter recently predicted that the NBA would lose an entire season next year, and according to at least one former player, he may not always have the players’ best interests in mind. From the Portland Tribune: “Hunter has been the executive director of the Players Association since 1996. He has been through one lockout before, in 1998-99, when the season was shortened to 50 regular-season games. Over the past two months, I’ve spoken with several former players who have a good sense of what Hunter is all about as the head of the players union. They say he is charismatic and knowledgeable. One called him enough of a ‘wild card’ that he comes off as a bit scary to the league, a good thing for the players. I wonder, though, if Hunter is acting in the best interest of the majority of players, who can’t afford to lose a full season – a major percentage of the average career. ‘He has his own agenda,’ one former player tells me. ‘He’s about Billy. He doesn’t have the overall well-being of all the players in mind.’”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , ,

  • James cutler

    So based on ONE players anonymous gossip you chose to write an article questioning the man’s character?

    Regardless of if it’s true, slam should be ashamed. According to one anonymous commenter, slam editors like to look at pics of naked ducks.

  • http://www.slamonline.com UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER

    ^^^THIS DUDE GOING AGG AT SLAM

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    The article was somewhat slanted, but not totally off base.
    The players ultimately should be expecting to roll back the BRI to about 52-54 percent, and have max contracts at 4 years.
    But, that’s not all owners want, and this writer doesn’t realize that. The owners really want to change the amount of contracts that are guaranteed. They also want to severely limit the ability of stars to change teams or assemble super teams either through new free agency rules, or a hard salary cap. Neither of those things are in the long term best interest of players.
    If it was just about BRI and contract length, there would be a deal already. But it’s not. Changing those two things will not fundamentally change the structure of the NBA, and that’s what the newer owners want.
    Also, I think using the “average” salary is stupid. It’s just like when you’re taught to write about home prices. You don’t use the average because the higher salaries or home prices skew the average. You’re taught to use the “median” value, which is the value that is numerically in the middle. This gives a more accurate picture.
    And the use of the word “obscene” is ridiculous. The idea that players earning large amounts of money is “obscene” runs counter to the fundamental tenets of capitalism, which is the true American religion. It’s amazing how often people do that, even as they champion their right to earn healthy salaries writing about sports.

  • red man

    I kinda got that vibe from Billy Hunter, like he likes this back and forth kinda war..instead of looking for a real settlement..the players need to watch this cat.

  • LA Huey

    If the lockout was just about salary, a deal would be close at hand. Instead, it’s more about the owner’s gaining more “property” rights. The small markets saw what happened to Cleveland (LeBron) and Toronto (Bosh), how Utah (Deron) and Denver (Melo) reacted and now they’re scared. I wish we knew more details of the owner’s proposal…

  • Riggs

    its players vs owners, but its also big market owners vs small market owners as well.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Exactly LA Huey. The players would not be risking all of their money over just a small slice of their money.
    That’s what makes this column frustrating. If the players capitulate too soon, it will clearly be the beginning of the end. NFL owners have the most favorable salary structure in sports and they still want more. The players have to take a clear stand to slow down the march towards being the next NFL.

  • bike

    It would be interesting to know how some of these owners feel privately about the possible loss of a season. Some of the smallest market owners might use the argument they are losing money anyway so there is no point in having a season unless there are significant changes. But it would seem the biggest market owners, say NY or LA, might not be too crazy about losing an entire season’s revenue. Just makes me wonder if, behind closed doors, there is significant disagreement among the owners about how this should go down. Of course, we will never know.

  • http://www.kb24.com The Seed

    Who cares, everybody is All About the Benjaminis, Hunter is not a player, will get paid and knows owners are really losing money. Players please take a 20 to 30% paycut and feel blessed that you get to play a kids game and make money. Lets be honest, owners are losing money, too many bad teams in NBA, players are not fundamnetally sound, team hopping to win titles, so NBA players need to suck it up and put a cap on college players—should have to play for two years if have the rule and make a better pay scale based on achievement scale, with years in the league. The NBA where greed happens from players. I like DFish, I am a Lakers fan, but why is a role player the President of the players union. You know he wants more money. BOOK IT!!

  • T-Money

    The seed: you’re not very intelligent. / the freaking kid’s game argument, this is a billion-dollar industry that generates revenue solely because fans want to be entertained by kobes and lebrons. The players deserve every cent they make and if you do compare how much they make for the league vs their salary, the kobes and lebronz are grossly underpaid. In a true free market like in baseball they would eavh make 40 mil or more. Is Tom Hans stealing money? Celine Dion? People pay to be entertained and the entertainers should be compensated accordingly.

  • AMPduppp

    @The Seed: Derek Fisher took a 2 million dollar paycut back in ’07 to join the Lakers for his daughter’s medical treatment. Something tells me this dude is a little more selfless than you think…

  • http://bleacherreport.com/articles/791470-lebron-james-vs-dwyane-wade-who-is-the-better-player/page/8 nbk

    If you owned Hershey’s Chocolate company would you spend more money on your product (Chocolate) then you spend on yourself and the other managers?

  • http://www.slamonline.com UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER

    NBK, NO, BUT ID LIE AND SAY I WAS SO I COULD ARGUE TO THE CHOCOLATE THAT IT SHOULD TAKE A SIGNIFICANT PAYCUT DURING A BOOM FOR THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.

  • http://www.slamonline.com UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER

    ALSO, IM RELIEVED AT HOW STUPID AND WRONG SEED IS HERE. WHEW

  • Fat Lever

    Don’t the players vote on their president(legitimate question, I’m not sure)? If that’s the case, then they have no one to blame but themselves. LA Huey makes a good point too.

  • http://slamonline.com Neitel

    @The Seed…sometimes i wonder the same thing, why d-fish is the president of the players union, and i wonder maybe the ones representing the players, are the ones that graduated from college with a degree in business and money management skills. I mean, i saw Iguodala, D-Fish, John Wall…i saw a few players around d-fish, maybe some bringing support, or some had insight, cause in order to be in tha position, one has to wonder, what degree did you earned while in college? i dont think dwight howard or kobe, or even jermaine o’neal, would be president of the players union…

    The league should trim teams away, as sad as that is, i mean, you want to save money dont you? why 30 teams? and you talking adding teams in london in the near future, as part of a global reach?? that is a lot of investments, lots of plane tickets, lots of jet-lags, i mean…teams put more hours traveling airplanes and sometimes buses, than weekly sections of practice! and still, you have to perform night in & night out, sort of tough if you ask me. I hate to say to get rid of some teams, cause i was hurting when the sonics went away…i wont lie, it hurted…but, in order to save cash and have a balanced NBA, 30 teams are a bit too much…

    Players and Owners, both need to take pay cuts, period. I guess the economy is way too weak for either side to budge…like, this players and owners have mansions, pools and family’s to maintain, plus they have lambo’s, maseratti’s to fuel up…who would want to jeoperdize a few millions??

    This whole issue is about money, not about the fans, not the troops fighting in iraq and afghanistan (Hi, im in Kabul), not about anything else besides money. So…somehow Mr. Fish and Mr. Hunter will have to work something out with the owners to get this NBA back on track, before we start seeing more rucker park videos, with bogus 66 or 78 point explosions…btw, those were dope!

  • http://www.slamonline.com UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER

    ^^^^what degree did you earned while in college?

  • http://theurbangriot.com The Nupe

    There are a ton of arguments that can be made in terms of how Billy Hunter is doing and where/what his interest are. The vast majority of players will never get (or deserve) a max deal, nor have the kind of power to ‘demand’ a trade or hold a team hostage the way LeBron, Melo, D-Will etc. have done. If he’s truly looking out for the best interest of the players as a whole, then being more flexible around max deals and allowing owners to have a ‘franchise player rule’ (similar to the NFL) wouldn’t be issues that continue to keep the prospect of a lock-out going on. MOST players wouldn’t be impacted by these kinds of rule changes and I’m not sure if it would in any way ‘hurt’ the NBA. The NFL draft had better ratings than the NBA playoffs and the NFL in general has much better ratings than the NBA. So arguments that the NBA CBA doesn’t want to be more like NFL CBA don’t hold a lot of value. I’m not suggesting that it’s only because the CBA’s of each sport that tend to make the ratings differnces, just tired of hearing D-Fish (and others) say that moving to more of NFL style deal is bad for basketball. Personally, I’m for more stringet FA rules allowing small or large markets to keep their ‘franchise players’. If limiting max deals (in length and value) will get the CBA signed, I’m for that as well (and I would be willing to be MOST players would be for that too). Whatever happens, I hope it’s in the best interest of the game in general – let the fans have their stars on their teams – let the players who are consistantly the top get paid – let the owners build for the future as well. If things prove to be mis-aligned, then there will be another CBA to try to rectify things.

  • bike

    This lockout debate always amazes me at those who maintain the players deserve every cent they get and then turn around and knock the owners for paying some players too much money.

  • http://www.kb24.com The Seed

    @Neitel, Everybody trying to hate me, but think about. What business degree does Fish have makes him the President of NBA Players, I agree with you. I stated too many teams are in NBA everyone needs cuts, but players have to be first.
    ____________________________________________________________
    @T-MONEY—–THESE CATS HAVE TO FEEL BLESS TO PLAY A KIDS GAME, YALL CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT UNDERSTANDING where you come from has to bless you TO PLAY IN NBA. I make money working we all do and I used to be in sales and the whole point was to rip people off and sell my product at a high profit margin. I know the NBA is a corporate business, but it comes to a point where you have say as an NBA player, we need to cut our money and move on with my millions. I can care less about entertainers like Tom Hanks and others and what they get paid. Entertainers get paided for that money they agree on price. Money for NBA players are different, because it affects everyone and the future of the league. I am a Kobe fan and they could pay him less. Kobe can not use 130 million dollars in his lifetime so I would rather a league continue to play than Kobe gets his. Owners whole point of buisness is to make money. The Owners have more to lose, so they should get more money. IF I make or own a business I should get back a profit, not my employees get set for life, but I lose my business in 7 years. BOOK IT!!!

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Nupe
    When I mentioned the NFL it’s because the NFL allows teams to cut players at any time with the only penalty being a minimal salary cap hit. Players also sign lengthy rookie contracts and have no recourse for renegotiation besides camp holdouts which tend to alienate them from fans. The NFL’s salary structure treats players like easily replaceable commodities, and forces players to be loyal to teams even if they are underpaid, while allowing teams the flexibility to dump players if they happen to overpay them. No player’s union wants to be like the NBA. They all would prefer to be like the MLB.
    The franchise tag stuff is important not just for LeBron, but for your middle class players as well. But, what’s really important for them is length of contract and hard salary cap. With a hard salary cap middle class players will see a sharp reduction in their annual salary, and they will be less likely to get that one BIG contract that sets them up for life. If the max deal is a four year deal, and that hard salary cap is $45-$50 million, then players like Mike Miller and Chris Kaman and Udonis Haslem are the ones who will lose money. And since their are more of them then superstars in the League, they will drive the debate until the superstars get pissed enough to force a capitulation like they did in 1999.
    Basically, you can’t have a hard cap with lengthy guaranteed contracts. the only way a hard cap works is if reduce the guarantees on contracts. And that’s where the fight is going to be.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    And you don’t need a business degree to head a union. Most unions reps and heads in other fields don’t have business degrees.
    You know who had a business degree? The people at Enron. Lol.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    I can care less about entertainers like Tom Hanks and others and what they get paid. Entertainers get paided for that money they agree on price. Money for NBA players are different, because it affects everyone and the future of the league. I am a Kobe fan and they could pay him less. Kobe can not use 130 million dollars in his lifetime so I would rather a league continue to play than Kobe gets his. Owners whole point of buisness is to make money. The Owners have more to lose, so they should get more money. IF I make or own a business I should get back a profit, not my employees get set for life, but I lose my business in 7 years.
    That is complete bullcrap and poorly thought out bullcrap at that.
    You don’t care what entertainers make because they are paid money they agree to? The salaries of NBA players affect “everyone”?
    Do you honestly think that made sense? Like, for real. Wow.
    NBA players agree to salaries. Mutually agreed upon salaries.
    And, if you deride players for playing a “kids’s game” how can this “kid’s game” be important to everyone? That doesn’t make sense.
    And no, the owners don’t have more to lose. That’s an idiots guide to business. NBA owners don’t have more to lose anymore than Lehman Bros. had more to lose. The League provides them with a safety net, ask the Hornets. George Shinn got his money back.
    Most owners get their money back once they sell no matter how poorly they manage their business, ask the family of the Piston’s owners, or Abe Pollin’s family. Or Bob Johnson.
    And finally, this is America. Nobody guarantees you a profit regardless of your poor business decisions. That’s not how life works.
    Players make a lot of money. A LOT of money. So do owners and David Stern. Of the three groups, only one group has a fairly short career length that can be cut even shorter based on something like a blown knee.

  • http://Slamonline.com Caboose

    Unfrozen Caveman is quickly becoming the next Spanny minus the rants about Greece. I’m willing to bet his degree (if he has one) is in art history from the University of Phoenix. Sorry, but Caveman, most of what you say is just wrong and I know you don’t listen to reasonable arguments.

  • http://www.kb24.com The Seed

    Allenp
    Your right on alot of things, I wrote that fast, but I know NBA player agree to salaries, but the league is in jeopardy of losing money. So we need to cut somewhere and players should get the ax first in my book. Basketball is a kid, teen, adult game, It makes no sense to you because I see it differently. Most of us would play the game for alot less if we could. I wasn’t talented enough and did not have the right channels to work my way up. Its a kids game, and some of the NBA players are set for life and they need to appreciate their gift. Owners are protected with NBA clausese to get money back from NBA or by selling I know that, but thats not an idiots guide to business. THe whole point in having any business, washing cars in a car lot, opening a furniture business or owning a Sports team is to make MONEY-PERIOD!!! I can care less about the saftey net, no one buys an NBA team feeling, if I loss money, I still got the safety net of getting my money back. THE whole POINT is to make MONEY. I have a Business degree and worked for a Fortune 500 company in the past, did Cold Calls and can sell to anyone. Bob Johnson was not gaining money, but losing so he decided to sell. RIGHT. Bob Johnson paided some bobcat players well to live off of, then he sold his TEAM, because it was not profitable. I can care less if a player blows his knee, he stilled received money and its guarnteed. This is not the NFL, I cut your sorry tail league.

  • http://www.kb24.com The Seed

    —THIS IS an Owners side BOB JOHNSON, I am from NC, he lost money of sell.
    Johnson’s ownership of the team has been rocky since he paid the NBA $300 million for the expansion franchise in 2003, just over a year after the Hornets left Charlotte for New Orleans.

    The founder of Black Entertainment Television hasn’t come close to turning a profit because of poor attendance, lagging sponsorship sales and a failed attempt to start a regional sports television network.
    Finding an agreeable price may not be easy. Forbes magazine recently valued the team at $284 million, less than Johnson’s expansion fee. The team plays in a city hard hit by the financial crisis, and the credit crunch could hurt any deal of that magnitude.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    THIS is the BUYERS TAKE Micheal Jordan he paided 25 million less for TEAM
    CHARLOTTE, N.C. — With his $275 million purchase approved by the N.B.A. on Wednesday, Michael Jordan has become the new face of the Charlotte Bobcats. Now comes the hard part: he must remake the image of this troubled franchise both on the court and in the community, where fans have long been jaded about the league.

    _______________________________________________________________________
    The END OF THE STORY IS BOB JOHNSON bought the team for 300 million, sold it for 25 million less and in total according to new in Charlotte lost in all 100 million dollars in total on the BOBCATS
    Charlotte experienced little of that under Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who paid $300 million for the expansion franchise in 2003. The team never finished above .500 under Johnson. He lost as much as $100 million on the franchise. BUT OWNERS KNOW THEY HAVE A safety net TO GET MONEY BACK. TOO FUNNY!!!

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Bob Johnson overpaid for a franchise. I notice you ignored the Pistons argument, along with the Hornets.
    The point of business is to make money. To make money, you spend less than you take in.
    In basketball, that means not making bloated contract signings, drafting well and becoming entrenched in your local community. Bob Johnson’s Bobcats did none of that.
    But, it’s cool. You said you think players should take less money because they have been gifted with the opportunity to play basketball and you wish you could. That is pretty much what I expected.

  • http://bleacherreport.com/articles/791470-lebron-james-vs-dwyane-wade-who-is-the-better-player/page/8 nbk

    Putting a team in Charlotte a couple years after a team failed in Charlotte seems to be the issue. Other teams make money, even teams in small markets. The numbers that were reported by the NBA cannot be trusted, and here is reasoning, “In 2009-10, the NBA repeatedly offered projections that league revenues would decline as much as 5 percent, or $180 million, while also projecting losses of $370 million. Revenues were actually up in ’09-10 and the revenue projections were off by as much as $200 million. Yet, the loss figures were only adjusted by $30 million. So yes, we feel there is more than adequate basis for questioning their projections and financials,” Dan Wasserman (Union Spokesman)

  • LA Huey

    Children run lemonade stands and bake sales. Millions of people run teams in NBA 2K’s Association mode. Owners of NBA franchises SHOULD FEEL BLESSED to do what most basketball geeks would do for free: call the shots for an NBA team. Now, let’s remove this kind of point from further discussions.

  • seriousblack

    It absolutely amazes me how dumb the Seed’s arguments are. I honestly think a 5th grader could make more sense discussing this issue.

  • CubicleWorker

    Allenp your arguments have become rhetorical, stagnant, entertaining, illogical, increasingly rigid, and exponentially contradictory. I could seriously go through your posts all day and find contradictions but lets take one from this page alone… ” The idea that players earning large amounts of money is “obscene” runs counter to the fundamental tenets of capitalism” Do you not think that guaranteed contracts run against the fundamental tenets of capitalism???? You also said “The point of business is to make money. To make money, you spend less than you take in.
    In basketball, that means not making bloated contract signings, ” Keep in mind that under this CBA players are GUARANTEED 57% or BRI. That means that OWNERS ARE OBLIGATED TO SPEND 57% OF REVENUE ON PLAYERS SALARIES! That’s a direct result of the CBA, which is why the NBA is locked out and the CBA needs to be renegotiated!! Name a Fortune 500 company that is obligated to spend 57% of revenues on salaries…… didn’t think so

  • http://cnbc.com JTaylor21

    I love how some people call the NBA “kids game”, like you can fill up a school bus with a bunch of kids and ship them to the nearest arena and watch them play with the same skills and talent NBA players possess.
    If it’s a kids game, why aren’t you in the league then?

  • http://bleacherreport.com/articles/791470-lebron-james-vs-dwyane-wade-who-is-the-better-player/page/8 nbk

    Cubicle worker, you should recognize that the players are not just salaried employees but they are also the product. At the company where you work in a cubicle, does your company spend 57% of what it makes developing its product, or even more? — The salaried employees your complaining about fall under the 43% bubble, they are not the product (players).

  • LA Huey

    I don’t agree with everything Allenp says but I do agree with the inherent unfairness non-guaranteed contracts. With non-guaranteed contracts, a team can cut a player if he’s underperforming. However, if the roles are reversed and a player is unsatisfied with his organization, he’s still obligated to fulfill his end? He’s not allowed to tear up the contract and look for another employer?

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Cubicle
    Contracts are a key component of capitalism. You contract with someone for a good or service at a particular price. The price is set by the market. That’s the basics of capitalism.
    So yes, I think labeling contracts as “obscene” runs counter to capitalism. The backbone of the American economy is the idea that you can set your own price for your goods and services based on supply and demand. Therefore, if the demand is high enough for your supply, no price is obscene.
    But, honestly, I use the capitalism argument because this is America and people love capitalism. They think it’s wonderful.
    But, the NBA is not a true capitalistic endeavor. That’s why there is a draft, that’s why there is a salary cap, that’s why there is the whole set up with BRI. The NBA, with it’s talk of owners and trades, is not about capitalism, but pseudo-capitalism. However, since it operates in a capitalistic society and most of its fans champion capitalism, I use that argument to show them the ridiculousness of their requests that players forego the same capitalism they like to enjoy.
    The player’s negotiated a set percentage of BRI to be certain owners did not artificially depress the amount they paid to players in order to keep the lion’s share of the profits from their share endeavor. Similar to what owners did before there was a CBA and the reserve clause had not been struck down by courts.
    Owners agreed to this setup, but let’s not forget that just as players are guaranteed 57 percent, owners are guaranteed 43 percent. That means that if they pay employees too much money, and revenue declines, the players HAVE TO GIVE THAT MONEY BACK.
    Now, what business do you know of where you can demand that your employees refund money that was already paid them, or that they have no choice but to take less money than what is guaranteed under their contract simply because the business is struggling. In real life, as a business owner you are not guaranteed ANY profits. If your costs are so high that you can’t turn a profit that you either break even, or operate at a loss and go under.
    But, let’s take a look at BRI and what it is. Here is a list of the things included:
    * Regular season gate receipts
    * Broadcast rights
    * Exhibition game proceeds
    * Playoff gate receipts
    * Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena)
    * Parking
    * Proceeds from team sponsorships
    * Proceeds from team promotions
    * Arena club revenues
    * Proceeds from summer camps
    * Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments
    * Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances
    * Proceeds from beverage sale rights
    * 40% of proceeds from arena signage
    * 40% of proceeds from luxury suites
    * 45% – 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
    * Proceeds from other premium seat licenses
    * Proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald’s Championship and other NBA special events.

    As you can see from that list, the owners are allowed to prevent a larg portion of certain very lucrative sources of revenue like luxury suites and naming rights from even entering the BRI pot, which means they get the money they keep out the pot, plus their regular share of the money that goes into the pot. BRI also does not include revenue for fines, REVENUE SHARING or expansion fees.
    Furthermore, you have 30 owners dividing up 43 percent of all income except for that income that does not go into the pot, while you have 342 players dividing up 57 percent of all income. By ANY objective measure, the owners have the better end of the deal even though they have the smaller percentage.
    So no, the problem isn’t solely bloated contracts. A more serious problem is the fact that new owners failed to do the proper research when purchasing their teams, and now are looking to correct their mistake by crushing the labor force. If you agree with that, fine. If you don’t, so be it.

  • http://bleacherreport.com/articles/791470-lebron-james-vs-dwyane-wade-who-is-the-better-player/page/8 nbk

    ^^^^ going H.A.M.

  • AMPduppp

    Well… I think we found a better replacement for Billy Hunter….

  • http://www.bulls.com Enigmatic

    DAMN, son.

  • Andyy

    AllenP how do you know all this. I’d bet you know more than Billy Hunter

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Google search “NBA and basketball related income.” No magic. LOL>

  • zach

    CubicalWorker, Bike, and Seed just got owned by AllenP :-D

  • ai come back

    no this discussion stopped……..i was enjoying it so much allenp u a beast

  • http://www.triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    whenever I read AlleP’s post I start humming… “chris smoove is waiting on a nub…”

  • http://www.triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    wait up…predictive text wrecked me up… I start humming “chris smoove is waiting on a noob”

  • http://www.triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    And to continue this discussion – Does this mean the biggest argument comes down to Truth? Whether thats creative accounting or not??? The owners who are saying there are these huge losses on paper are being argued against by the players who go and play in stadiums that aren’t empty?…. why can’t we just leave things as they are. no one gets anymore… no one gets any less… jump ball!

  • http://dsjfklfl.com Jukai

    Whoa… WHOA… did you just see Allen litter the battlefield with corpses? Wow.

  • nkotb47

    Why is Larry Coon masquerading as Allenp in the comment SLAM comment section?

  • http://www.triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    Juks. This thread was pronounced dead on arrival.

  • Ben Ireland

    @The Seed
    You’re a moron… Fisher is the ultimate role player, and why would a star rep the Player’s Union? Most players don’t make star money… It’s obvious why a role player should be the head of the union, and Fish has done a damn fine job of it. Put Kobe or Lebron as head, the maybe 30 stars in the L make more money… The rest take less to afford it. Something tells me that that wouldn’t work out too well yeno…

  • burnt_chicken

    Thank you, AllenP.

  • http://thetroyblog.com Teddy-the-Bear

    I disagree with everything you outlined above, and you are lying. @ Allenp.

  • http://www.triplejunearthed.com/dacre Dacre

    snap.

  • http://gmail.com z

    i really wish allenp was in politics, cmon man just give us one rant about the ineptitude of our politicians. and by extension, the dysfunctionality of our whole politco-economic system

  • http://gmail.com z

    also, as far as the seed…i gotta preface what im about to tell you by saying that i appreciate your blind love for kobe alot. It provides a good counterweight to the kobe haters (jtaylor) and lebron lovers (the philo). but on this particular subject, you’re outta your element. Leave the grown up talk to the grown ups (allenp)

  • CubicleWorker

    How does everybody just jock ride Allenp all day???? One quote alone from his supposedly H.A.M. reply proves he’s had no idea what he’s been talking about for the past two months….
    **Furthermore, you have 30 owners dividing up 43 percent of all income except for that income that does not go into the pot, while you have 342 players dividing up 57 percent of all income. By ANY objective measure, the owners have the better end of the deal even though they have the smaller percentage**
    Allenp, understand the difference between INCOME and REVENUE. Revenue is the aggregate sum of money received by a business before paying expenses. Income is what’s left over after expenses have been paid, you either get Net Income (a profit) or a Net Loss (a loss).
    Ok so now let’s revisit your argument, you have 342 players sharing 57% of all REVENUE.
    Furthermore you have 43% of the remaining revenue going to;
    *all the office staff
    *marketing expenses
    *CEO salaries
    *The presidents
    *gm’s
    *Everyday workers for the teams (concession workers, guys who change the ice from hockey games into hardwood for basketball games, people who swipe your ticket etc etc etc)
    *promotions
    *equipment
    *the teams private jets (which im sure as f$&^ the players enjoy)
    *pilots for that jet
    *flight staff
    *coaches
    *assistant coaches
    *training staff
    *cheerleaders
    *security guards
    *David Stern
    *all NBA executive staff
    *all lower level NBA staff
    THEN, after ALL EXPENSES have been paid, if there is money left over, the owners get their share of NET INCOME/NET LOSS…. The NBA is claiming 22 teams are not making money after all of these expenses are paid. You can see now how amazing the players have it, 342 players are literally sharing 57% of all revenue, while thousands upon thousands are sharing the remaining 43% and the owners only MAKE money if there is anything left over. Apparently last year all of those expenses added up to $300Million more than total revenue… now you can see why there is such a major need for CBA reform.

  • CubicleWorker

    nbk, I actually work at the world’s largest professional services firm ($26B annual revenue) so yes in fact, the product is the employees. We are salaried and there is a bonus structure. If you want to relate the two, hypothetically if I was given a contract for $1 million over the next 5 years, but stopped showing up after a year and stopped maintaining my professional development don’t you think it would be unreasonable to be obligated to pay me for my “services” for the next four years, especially if the business was not profitable? I understand there are other factors, but think about it how unreasonable it would be to argue that I demand the right to keep getting paid at the same rate if I stopped performing at the level they assumed they were paying me to perform at.

  • CubicleWorker

    Seriously, the only reason I’m going into so much effort here is because Allenp is the biggest “pro-player” voice on this site and if he understood what was actually being negotiated he couldn’t logically maintain the position he has so strongly argued about.

  • CubicleWorker

    And nbk, to give smoe validity to your statement, yes salaries probably add up to more than 57% of revenue in my company, however the business also generates multi-billions in profit every year. If the business was losing money, they’d have to restructure the pay scale in order to become profitable… that’s what the CBA negotiations are about.. Also, Stern wants to freeze NBA players salaries at $2B/annually. If the company you worked for said “look, we’re not making money, we want to keep your salary at the same level for the next 5 years so we can make the business more profitable and be able to supply you with a pay check for years” you’d have two choices
    1) accept
    2) work elsewhere… that’s essentially what the players are threatening to do, except at a fraction of their usual earnings.

  • CubicleWorker

    And nbk, to give smoe validity to your statement, yes salaries probably add up to more than 57% of revenue in my company, however the business also generates multi-billions in profit every year. If the business was losing money, they’d have to restructure the pay scale in order to become profitable… that’s what the CBA negotiations are about.. Also, Stern wants to freeze NBA players salaries at $2B/annually. If the company you worked for said “look, we’re not making money, we want to keep your salary at the same level for the next 5 years so we can make the business more profitable and be able to supply you with a pay check for years” you’d have two choices
    1) accept
    2) work elsewhere… that’s essentially what the players are threatening to do, except at a fraction of their usual earnings.

Advertisement