RE: Dave Kindred, Who needs the players

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

Jim,

	I have a few issues with what you have written here.  First of all, to say
that the NBA is the "Owners" league or the "Players" league is what got the
NBA into its current situation.  It should be the "Fans" league.  Not to say
that the fans should run the teams, but that the players and owners should
work together to create a team that fans want to watch, and can afford to
watch.  The NBA is crazy when it comes to ticket prices, concession prices,
and every other thing they get you for when you go to a game.  When I
journeyed over to the Palace last year, when it was all said and done I
spent about 75 bucks on tickets, food, program, parking, etc.. I can only
afford to do that once or twice a year.   "Fans"  should not be forced to
sell plasma to be able to go to a NBA game.  Also, how can you say that
players salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices?  Where does that
money come from, God?  I'm pretty sure that if the highest paid players made
a few hundred thousand a year, tickets wouldn't cost 25 bucks a piece for
nosebleed seats.

	I also have to take issue with a non-basketball related issue that you
brought up.  Football is not doing OK.  When you can only afford one good
player per position, that is not doing well.  That makes for boring
football.  It does bring parity to the league, but not exciting football.
When the Bears can almost beat the Steelers, then football is not good.
Enough said.

	Finally, it is crazy for an owner to pay Garnett 20 mill, but the Owners
did it to themselves.  Now they (the owners) are begging the players to
protect the owners from themselves.  I typically side the owners on most
labor disputes, but not in this case.  The owners can't figure out how to
create a budget so they can figure out what to spend, maybe they should
purchase a copy of Quicken.

Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From:	uunet!igtc.com!owner-celtics [mailto:uunet!igtc.com!owner-celtics] On
Behalf Of Jim Hill
Sent:	Thursday, October 08, 1998 3:11 PM
To:	Celtics-Talk List; Jim Hill`
Subject:	Re: Dave Kindred, Who needs the players

I think this is a silly argument by Paul (No personal attack here, just
my opinion) I have responded to each section.  I think this debate has
to much emotion involved at the expense of reality.

Here is Mark Piotrowski voicing the opinion he is entitled to:

<So, by Kindred's logic,  Paul Gaston or any of the other owners are
<justified, no ENTITLED, in wanting to make millions and millions of
<dollars, but Kevin Garnett is crazy for wanting to make $20 million.

Paul, What do you think business owners own the business for?  So you or
I can be entertained? I have not read a quote from any owner saying that
Kevin G. "is crazy" for wanting to earn $20MM.  Just that it "is crazy"
to pay a player that kind of money (without having earned it) without
the owner making theirs also.

<That's F*!king ridiculous.  (Well, It's ridiculous for anyone to make
<that much money, but that's a topic for another day).  Kindred says the
<owners are the ones that "put their financial butts on the line" and
<therefore deserve all the money they can make.  Last time I checked
<they wouldn't make a red cent if there weren't people like Garnett,
<Mercer, and yes Spreewell, putting the ball in the hoop, and hundreds
<other putting the actual butts on the court.

Paul this is silly also.  The game is bigger then the players.  The
OWNERS built this league.  The players did not.  If the players "only"
were paid two or three times the average national income, that wouldn't
be such a bad job.  It's not like when Bob Cousey was the highest paid
player in the league at what $14K.  And we would still watch with
whoever played, excepting perhaps "scabs".

Now before I get flamed, realize that the players from the last few
decades did contribute a huge amount to the success of the league.  But
today's 3rd year guy has not contributed much, if anything. I do not
believe they deserve more then the owners.

Remember the "Larry Bird exception" was created to pay a player who had
given everything to the game, league, team and fans and I have no
argument that Michael Jordan "deserved his $33MM for what he's done ala
LB.

<The "poor" owners feeling they are entitled to 10% profit (10% of $50
<million or so in revenues is a sh%tload of money!).  Young unproven
<players (a la Garnett and Walker) ask for and can get huge contracts
<based on potential.  BOTH are driving ticket prices out the roof and
are <taking seats for fans and replacing them with luxury boxes for
<corporate idiots who arrive in the 2nd Quarter, leave after the 3rd
<Quarter and don't know 3 players on either team.

Again, not to pick on you Paul, because others have voiced the same
opinion, but only to respond to your specific email.

    How much should the owners earn on their investment?  At what point
is a better investment somewhere else (Football expansion/WNBA?) and
they just close down the league?  If you can put your money in the bank,
risk free, and earn a better % on your money, why put up with the day to
day of running a business?

As far as the players being paid on potential, if there is no league and
no TV contract, there is no potential.

Also the salaries do not affect the ticket prices, it's the operational
expenses that are covered by the ticket prices.  You know, the chartered
jets and free throw coaches for these "professional" basketball players.

<People like Kindred just miss this point.  They act like the owners are

<over a barrell and are losing millions of dollars.  WRONG. If they
<were, as capitalists, they would sell the team.  They are not in the
NBA <to lose money.  The problem is is that THEY ARE JUST NOT <MAKING AS
MUCH AS THEY WOULD LIKE (they want 10% of <$50 million not just 3% of
$50 million).

Actually you seem to miss the point.  This is the owners league.  They
created it, they own it.  They want to limit their risk.  If the
salaries continue to get out of whack, the value of their investment
will go down.  It is illegal for the owners to conspire to limit the
salary of a specific player.  There is no benefit to the owners to sell
a team that for many of them  (Reinsdorf excluded) is their "American
Dream".  Instead a capitalist works to create a beneficial situation for
all involved.  Including themselves.  Let's be honest these players are
not taking a bus from game to game as Cousey, et al were.  The owners
are giving back to the players in many ways.

There are many sports leagues that have gone out of business because of
foolish, ineffective ownership.  We may see that soon with one of the
Women's Basketball leagues.  The NFL (today) works quite well with a
"hard cap" and non-gaurenteed contracts.

So in my mind the true questions are the following:

1. How would a hard salary cap of 50% of revenues, as currently
    defined, restrict these 12-15 player's per team from making "enough"
    money?
2. Is restricting the hard cap to 50% enough?
3. Should the cap be lower to ensure continued growth of the league?

<How much is enough for these idiots?

When you buy a team, you decide how much return you think is fair.
I personally feel an amount equal to what the highest paid player on the
team gets seems fair as a starting point.

<And they certainly don't want to give money they could use to buy a
<3rd vacation house to any uppity Basketball players.

Better the players should be able to buy that third summer house then
the employer being able to buy it?  This is another silly statement.

<They don't care if we, the real working fans, lose out by not being
able <to afford to go to the games, they'll just take the seats that we
can no <longer afford and make the entire stadium into 100 or so
individual <luxury boxes (which their corporate buddies can pay out the
rear for <and then write off their taxes).

Maybe the owners are concerned about the fans.  Maybe the owners want
the league to survive the next decade.  Maybe the owners want to see the
players work for their money like Larry B. instead of Latrill Sprewell
and Derek Coleman.

  The one thing I am sure of, the players who want the cash "for
respect" after two-three years in the league instead wanting to spend
some of that cash to build a championship team (Like Larry and Michael)
and "earning" respect, are the ones I define as greedy.

<The owners have no pity from me.  The players have not much more.
<They're both being greedy."

It's a matter of perception I suppose.  Paul you wrote a great email
with many ideas clearly defined.  It is why I was able to respond with
my thoughts.  I just hope that my opinions are as clearly defined as
yours.

<Sorry for the rambling,
<mark piotrowski

Thanks for participating.  <Jim Hill