RE: Dave Kindred, Who needs the players

[Jim Hill <jahill@leasingservice.com>]

Hi Steve, You bring up some good points.  I'm not sure how viable some
are.  To wit:

From: "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.

    But is is the owners league.  The fans only contribute (Buy tickets
etc...) When they want to or can afford to.  There are very few teams
that have the fan support of the Celtics.  But even with that fan
support you could buy tickets at the box office the last few years.  I
have been able to buy scalped tickets at the Garden/Center below face
value for the first time in 15 years!  The Celtics also needed to create
a seating section at $10 bucks a seat just to get fans in the door.
Every dime of revenue below projections comes from the owners pocket.
Have you seen Purvis return any money to the Celtics after dropping a
table on his foot in an off court incident?  Why should the owner have
to pay his wages in that situation?  Yet I believe Cowens and Bird both
offered to return money at one point or another based on their
perception that they did not deserve the full amount because of their
play.  Players like this helped build the league.

I believe that this situation has been created by a "power grab" by the
agents/union.  I believe a "hard cap" is reasonable depending on the
percentage of revenues.  Without it the owners are in the difficult
situation of having to tell a rising star with the accompanying ego,
that he is not worth $X amount of money.  The player then feels that he
is not being given the "proper respect" and leaves to another team for
less money!  We have seen this many many times.  The owners then get
raked over the coals by the player who left, the sportswriters and the
fans.  We have people on this list who suggest that Gaston sell the team
because he won't spend the money on Walker.  With a hard cap, the
acrimonious negotiating ends.  The famous/infamous Larry Bird exception
was created when the Celtics told Bird and his agent that they would pay
anything he wanted if the agents could figure out a way within the
rules.  But L. Bird had already earned every dime he was to get.

    I believe that there was an article describing the distribution of
revenue that projected that the TV revenue covered the players
salaries.  Hence my statement that salaries did not effect ticket
prices.  Of course there could be an argument made (I have made this one
myself) that with salaries being less then TV revenue, ticket prices
could be reduced with the difference saved.  The problem then would be
that you would need to know someone to be able to buy a ticket due to
supply being less then demand.  Unless you used a lottery to distribute
tickets.  Unfortunately, the scalpers/ticket agencies would then create
a secondary market for the tickets and reap the profits instead of the
teams getting the worth of the ticket.  Not really a better system in my
opinion.
I surely wouldn't object to the Celtics/NBA running more programs like
"Walker's Crazy Eight's" and the $10 ticket section for the "fans" with
thinner pockets/more important expenses like myself and many others.

<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.

I disagree that football isn't doing well.  I think it is doing great.
There are what, 57 players on a team plus the practice squad and the
international teams?  All of whom are earning, for the most part, a
great income relative to other college dropouts!  The teams will be
lucky to have one good player per position.  The NBA, with salaries in
the millions and only 12-15 players per team, don't even have one good
player per position on most teams including the World Champion Bulls.
Without a hard cap to create less player movement, excepting trades, you
will end up with 2 people making all the money and the other 10-13
players making the minimum.  This is the scenario that Gaston has spoken
out about.  You will have more NBA players going overseas to play for
the money in leagues that were elevated to respectability by the owners
of the NBA.  This will make for not only boring basketball in the USA
but a sizable shrinkage in fan support and stature of US basketball
around the world.  Does anyone really want to watch the top US college
draft picks going to Europe to play instead of into the NBA?  Don't
believe it won't happen.

<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.

The owners have to play within the rules of the NBA and the USA.  If the
'wolves didn't pay Garnett, he would have left the team because he was
"insulted" and most likely for less money then the 'wolves would have
wanted to "responsibly" pay him.

Don't be simplistic stating that the owners need to learn how to make a
budget.  What do you think, a leprechaun gave the Gaston family it's
pot-of-gold?  The owners, right or wrong, have determined what the
budget should be and want a hard cap to implement it.  The players and
their agents knew that the CBA would be re-opened if they exceeded the
voluntary cap on revenue distribution that they agreed to with the
owners in the last CBA.  The owners recognize that the agents/union will
not police itself as a group to stay within the agreed-to guidelines.
Did you see any player/agent/union official stating that a player had to
accept less money so as not to exceed the cap the player/union agreed
to?  They are not "begging the players to to protect the owners from
themselves".  They are saying; You exceeded the cumulative limits you
agreed to, with no end in sight.  We can not move forward without a
defined agreement so that we can work within our budget.

Fridays are always slow in the morning here.  If I bored you, I'm
sorry.  I'm just getting p%ssed off that a few hundred people can't find
a way to split a billion dollars so they can save for their retirement
at 35-36 years old.  I just want to see NBA basketball.  Maybe there
will be a star or two someday who is worthy of the kind of money that MJ
earned the last couple years for playing hoops.  Right now I can't name
anyone else.

Jim H.