Re: OWNERS, PLAYERS

[bocelts@scsn.net (R. Bentz Kirby)]

Here, here.  I will add my second as this is much of my point laid out in more
detail.  The players take no risk with guaranteed contracts etc and do not even
have to pay for their meals, lodging etc when on the road.  Basketball is a
game.  It doesn't really add value to the world, like say a garbage man does.
It is entertainment.  But the ones who put their money at risk deserve the
return.  If the players want to put themselves at risk, like having all
contracts related to performance, paying for their own medicals and road
expenses etc so the owners have a "partnership" with them, then maybe there is a
reason to pay them more.  But, just because they are the entertainers doesn't
entitle them to unlimited risk free return for playing a game.   How many of the
players in the NBA can make the same money being employed doing anything else in
the world?  I venture to say probably none of them.  How many of the owners
can?  Many of them can and do.

My point was that the players are just a selfish as the owners, but as Dorine
added, they don't even take the risk!

Dorine wrote:

> Noah, you did say “they (meaning the players) not the owners have a greater
> right to basketball related income”. Therefore, your statements that you
> didn't say that are untrue.  I very seldom get into these arguments, but it
> seems that lately every post someone makes is picked apart line by line by
> you, as though someone appointed you the expert among us and you have to
> answer anything and everything.
> Could you cut that out?  Please?  It's become very annoying, at least to me.
>     You're not the first one to say you don't go to the games to watch
> Gaston sitting there in his suit.  That is, I'm sorry to say, a childish
> statement.  Of course you don't, wouldn't we look silly sitting there
> starting at Gaston?  Any one of us, going into business, is expecting to
> make money, or at least to make a living.  We need employees and in this
> case it's basketball players.  They are paid better than most employees, but
> the owners should get more money, they are the ones who invested and take
> all the risks.  They invest many, many millions of dollars.  It's mind
> boggling, the amount of money it takes just to keep a club going, and that
> expense is paid for by the owners, be they a corporation or a single human
> being.  None of that expense is born by the players.  In the real world of
> work, you have to work your way up the ladder and prove your worth.  Even
> then you don't “demand” to be the highest paid, or you're probably out the
> door.  Do most of us have guarantied contracts?  No.  Can we sit at home for
> months or years and continue to receive our full paycheck indefinitely or at
> least for the life of our contract, and all our medical bills are paid for
> us?  No.
>     You are right, they are entertainers.  That's a given.  But actors,
> etc., are paid for a job, not guarantied to receive a certain amount for any
> movie they make.  They may have an “asking price”, but no maker of a movie
> has to pay it, and if enough of them won't pay it, he/she is not going to be
> working.  If it's true for other entertainers, then why are any pro sports
> players guarantied and paid on their potential?   When an actor, or any
> other performer, becomes a “star” they get the bigger bucks.  That's really
> all most of us are asking.  Prove you're one of the best, then demand the
> big bucks.
>     I know I'm rambling, sorry about that, but this whole argument, with
> these scenarios, gets a little silly.  Flame away, I just needed to get this
> out.
> Dorine



--

Peace,

Bentz
bocelts@scsn.net
http://www.scsn.net/users/sclaw