[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Those nasty owners picking on those poor players....
Why are you wasting your time trying to have a legitimate discussion
with a socialist, I am sure you probably know that you will not change
his mind no matter how logical you make it. Logic never made sense to a
socialist, since all they know is to put their grubby little hands out
and say "gimme, gimme, and gimme some more. Their track record around
the world in running countries is just phenomenal. Did you ever wonder;
if the business community in the U.S. was so bad why they(socialists)
stick around to be a party to it. If it was up to them all businesse
would be owned by gov't and most of us know that the gov't can't run
anything properly let alone a profit making business.
Why am I on this tangent? I really rather read about absurd basketball
trades and messages from all the Antoine haters.
Jim Meninno wrote:
> >> [Meninno, James A.] Working for a living is not injustice.
> >Yes but ending up crippled thanks to any job is. I don't support the
> >military when they expose soldiers to pathogens and nerve gas. I don't
> >support mine owners when the subject miners to intolerable conditions.
> And I
> >don't support the owners when they try to bushwhack the players.
> Let's not be ridiculous here. The NBA is not injuring these players,
> basketball is. If they don't want to take the risk, don't play the
> game. I didn't blame my college when I tore my acl in an intramural
> >> If athletes
> >> don't want to end up with physical problems, they're in the wrong
> >> career.
> >Very true. But my original point was that since the players are subject
> >physical injury on the job, why not give them the portion of the
> >they deserve?
> They DO get a portion of the profits. They get over half of the
> revenues. The owners pay other expenses, as have been noted, like
> building arenas, private jets, meal money....
> >> But my point remains. This is irrelevant when discussing
> >> market value. Like any job, if your employer can't make a profit,
> >> won't have a job much longer.
> >Unless you work in a collective.
> Sorry, Noah, but calling yourself Socialist will not stop the bill
> collectors from coming when the jet or the arena payment is due.
> >> [Meninno, James A.] So you're saying the owners are right to take
> >> action to control the increase in player salaries? Good, I'm glad
> >> you're seeing sense now.
> >No I want them to excercise restraint on their own. We have reason to
> >believe(since the owners won't open their books) that the owners aren't
> >losing money like they say they are. They're just using this as
> leverage to
> >take more for themselves. They're just trying to impose a new cap in
> >to solidify their control of the leagues profits. They're hardly losing
> >money(at least as much) as they claim.
> So, this is their way of exercising restraint.
> >> [Meninno, James A.] I think you mean that the pie will be the same
> >> size, there's just fewer slices to share.
> >You're right. Correction taken.
> >> I have a hard time believing
> >> that the players would do a very good job of marketing and
> >> the league.
> >That's what consultants are for.
> They work for free, do they?
> >> That might not be a terrible thing from a basketball point
> >> of view (there's far too much marketing now) but from your
> >> of getting the player 'his fair share' I think it might be counter
> >> productive. Maybe you were right after all. The pie would be
> >I like your point about the marketing.
> > Yes the pie would be smaller, but even if the pie were half what it
> >before the players would still be getting about as much as they are
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. The players already get over half the pie. If you
> give them the whole pie they would have to use the rest for airplanes,
> hotels, meals, arenas, these consultants you want to hire.... Unless
> they can maintain the same revenues and do these things as efficiently
> as the current arrangement does, they will lose money compared to their
> current situation. That is the risk I'm talking about. Losing money
> might not seem like a big deal to you, because you seem to be a
> socialist, but I don't think the players share the 'good of the group'
> >> [Meninno, James A.] Let me see? A player's salary = team
> >> So Antoine should make the same as Bruce Bowen, right? Your
> >> will have players on the same team fighting over who is more
> >> and contributes more to the team. Want to judge it objectively and
> >> look at the stats? That would create all sorts of conflicts over
> >> playing time and shots. Imagine coaching a team that was rewarded
> >> way!
> >And players already aren't that way? Look at how players play in
> >years. I doubt the conflict would be much different at all.
> Now they have the team to negotiate with. You would have them fighting
> with each other about these things. A very, very bad idea for a group
> as immature as NBA players.
> >> [Meninno, James A.] I don't see players wanting to take the risk.
> >> have guaranteed contracts now and most players don't want to accept
> >> for the good of the team, even if the possibility of greater cash
> >> down the road, when the team is successful.
> >I do. Yes they do have guaranteed contracts but those contracts aren't
> >nearly as much as the money available. Unless the player's consultants
> >some extremely foolish mistakes they players would stand to gain more.
> See above. If they can't increase revenue or cut costs there's only the
> owner's profit to be had, whatever that is. Could be a loss this year,
> depending on who you believe. And that would be at considerable risk.
> No. There's no way they would be interested in that in the slightest.
> >> How would you ever get
> >> players to play for the Clippers then?
> >Easy it's a players league. They can remold the clips however they want
> >The only people who can mismanage it are the players. I doubt they
> could do
> >anywhere near as badly as Donald Sterling.
> Please. Your plan doesn't add quality players to the league. There
> will still be awful teams, and since that will mean the players on them
> are paid poorly, you would have a very hard time convincing anyone to
> play for them.
> >> OK, we'll get rid of the crappy
> >> expansion teams. Yeah, the players would love that. How many of
> >> would you like to put out of work?
> >We wouldn't. See my early response.
> See mine.
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com