RE: Salary idea

["Shawn Roth" <ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net>]

Nice idea, but there is at least one problem.   For a small market team, say the
Cavs, 25% of their total revenue(50% of 50%) is a lot less than say, the Lakers.
(I'm guessing of course, I don't have the Lakers/Cavs balance sheets in front of
me.)  So the large market teams could afford to pay a lower percentage to a
player and still pay the same amount of actual dollars to a team with lower
total revenues.  So large market teams could have a larger number of high priced
players.  The union would not go for this, because players are chancing their
overall dollars earned on the actual success of the team.  Under a system like
this I have a feeling many small teams would fold.

Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: uunet!igtc.com!owner-celtics
[mailto:uunet!igtc.com!owner-celtics]On Behalf Of
uunet!lnmta.bentley.edu! ramani_rite
Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 9:17 AM
To: uunet!igtc.com!celtics
Subject: Salary idea




I have an idea...(the question who doesn't)

Instead of having players signing contract in dollar terms, instead sign
them to
percentage contracts.

The league and the players union will decided (hopefully soon) what
percentage of total revenues the player's salary will go towards.
Out of that percentage, the individual player will sign a contract worth a
percentage of the revenue percentage. (Is this clear? Did everyone
understand?)

The team management then has to decide whether a player is worth 50% of the
revenue percentage and whether he can sign the other 11 players in total
the other 50%. Mangement can not go over 100%. If management signs a player
to a 51% contract when they already used 50%, the contract is immediately
nullified, the only option is signing the player less than or equal to 50%.
Having said that in the case where they need an extra body after using all
100%, they can only spend the league minimum. (Whatever that becomes)

Any opinions??

Ritesh Ramani