Re: Salary idea

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 09:16 AM 11/20/98 -0500, "ramani_rite"@lnmta.bentley.edu wrote:

>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??

The best thing about your proposal is how it links actual revenue
fluctuations with salaries, both up and down, eliminating the grounds for a
lot of the fight over what can and cannot be afforded. The biggest problem
is that it pretty much offers an open invitation to owners to step up the
sorts of revenue hiding activities that are at the heart of a lot of the
players' mistrust of the owners to begin with, ever since a cap was first
created requiring calculation of revenue (funnelling profits into the arena
business while leaving costs on the hoops side, our own Mr Gaston's division
of the Cs LP into a hoops related LP and a separate investment oriented one,
etc). And makes fights over exactly what revenue to include even sharper.
It's easy to say it should only be the directly hoops related stuff, but the
players don't agree. While the owners feel that money beyond gate relating
to their private situation (e.g. naming rights fees) that are arguably not
wholly hoops related (other teams/acts play there) shouldn't be included.
Not to mention the core problem of what % to split. While leaving open the
same sorts of problems with draft picks, etc on capped out teams that Jim
mentioned my pointing out before. The problem isn't flexibility thrugh
exceptions IMO, because truly rigid systems are more apt to stress out and
break. What needs to be addressed more is limiting how the exceptions can be
applied, making them still truly exceptions rather than assumed right in
everyone's mind. What do I mean? Take the Bird Exemption. The players have
literally threatened blolod in the streets if it's eliminated. Yet most
won't ever be affected by it, except for getting cut or offered lower pay
because someone else already swept up the pot. Yet everyone of them BELIEVES
it's their right and that they will benefit, so reality hasn't a chance with
them.

Paul, please don't say I'm right again, even if you think I am. You're
scaring me : )

-Kim
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net