Hunter Believes Lost Season Could Force Contraction - "The Kings could be one team"

[Fear the Putin]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216015/Hunter_Believes_Lost_Season_Could_Force_Contraction

If the NBA loses the 11-12 season, Billy Hunter believes some teams may not survive the damage.

"If everybody begins to dig into their respective positions, then I think the league will be decimated. It took us five years to recover from the 1998 lockout and there's probability that we may never recover [from this lockout]," Hunter told ESPN before Friday's sit-down with players. "I think there will be some teams that won't survive. Particularly if the season gets shut down, there will be teams that will not be around next year."

The Kings could be one team subject to "forced contraction", according to Hunter.

Can the Maloofs sell already? The Kings have become their only business and if this season won't get off the floor, who knows...

 

[Gary]

It wouldn't be the Kings. I am almost 100% sure of it.

If it's any team it would be Charlotte, or New Orleans.

 

[Spike]

Wouldn't it make sense that owners living by the margins would actually benefit from a lockout? If the Kings lost money as a team, that means they had to spend more than they brought in.

 

[D13]

Stupid comment trying to scare people and get movement in the negotiations. If anything it should motivate the players union more. They would be losing 30 plus (I'm assuming it'd be at least 2 teams) of players they represent and get money from. Agents would be freaking out too. Any money they are fighting for would be more than lost... forever (or until you get expansion again).

Also, the Kings were one of the few teams that made money last year. (because of our low payroll)... and the new CBA that the owners are trying to hashing out would help the Kings even more with better revenue sharing.

...if Stern said it, specifically mentioning the Kings, I'd be more concerned.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Stupid comment trying to scare people and get movement in the negotiations. If anything it should motivate the players union more. They would be losing 30 plus (I'm assuming it'd be at least 2 teams) of players they represent and get money from.

You know, you're right. The owners are the side that would be doing the contraction, not the players. And the players have a ton to lose if contraction happens - one of the reasons that Stern was holding that over the players' heads earlier in the year. Hunter threatening that...has no teeth and no real purpose. Does that suggest the players are getting ready to fold and trying to get the last push they can get as far as the PR war goes?

 

[Section 101]

You know, you're right. The owners are the side that would be doing the contraction, not the players. And the players have a ton to lose if contraction happens - one of the reasons that Stern was holding that over the players' heads earlier in the year. Hunter threatening that...has no teeth and no real purpose. Does that suggest the players are getting ready to fold and trying to get the last push they can get as far as the PR war goes?

It's a threat to the agents. They are the ones who lose the most.

 

[Trueblood]

Hunter is clueless when it comes to NBA teams and relocation issues. I have no idea why he would say that unless the Maloofs have personally told him that they no longer want the team and are willing to sell. In that case, the league could contract them a lot easier than if the Maloofs want to hold on to the team.

 

[VF21]

Hunter is clueless.

Fixed.

 

[Entity]

I'm sick of that guy. i believe if he was out of the picture this would be resolved by now.

 

[PurpleHaze]

I'm sick of that guy. i believe if he was out of the picture this would be resolved by now.

Yep, Hunter's a lawyer and you know what they say about that breed... Everybody hates lawyers, until you need one - then you hate them more!

 

[LPKingsFan]

Yep, Hunter's a lawyer and you know what they say about that breed... Everybody hates lawyers, until you need one - then you hate them more!

Pssst... hate to break it to you, but so is/was Stern

 

[Warhawk]

And so is our own Bricklayer. Go easy on him, will ya?

 

[Larry David]

It's probably not going to happen, and Billy is trying to rile up the media and fans ... but contraction makes a lot of sense for most of NBA owners.

They rake in a boat load of national TV money. When the BRI split goes to 50/50, right off the top they give half to the players. Then the teams chop it up 30 ways. And the small and mid market teams are screaming it's not enough and want to dip into the big markets' local TV deals.

If you're in the top 1/3 of the league, why would you pay teams like the Kings a few million to "share," when you could just pay less to contract the team now, recoup that money in 4-6 years, and make more money later.

The NBA makes more sense at 28 or 26 teams from the talent, business, and schdule standpoints. The big market teams will make even more money and have to share less to keep less small markets alive. The smallest markets will get more money and some sharing.

And it maks sense for the players. You're going from 57% to 50-51%. If you don't want to take that big of a hit, get rid of 30 jobs. That's best for the majority of the players.

This isn't even on the table now, but if/when the season goes away it makes sense for both sides.

 

[Kingster]

More wailing and gnashing of teeth, signifying nothing.

 

[bajaden]

More wailing and gnashing of teeth, signifying nothing.

Unless I hear it in a dark alley, then I worry!

 

[King Baller]

Hey Billy if this happens I am done with the NBA. And while I am at it, Stern if there is not a 2011/2012 season I am done with the NBA and to the Maloofs, move the Kings out of Sacto and I am done with the NBA.

See I can make statements just like those guys.
KB

 

[Trueblood]

My thing with contraction is this. Why screw the fans out of their teams if there are ways to keep them financially viable? And there are ways. It's called revenue sharing and less money to the players.

Also, the players lose out because those are jobs that are going out the window. Get rid of 4 teams and you're looking at anywhere from 50 to 60 jobs. That's the worst thing that the union could do.

Plus, the owners of those teams have to be willing sellers. Most of them want to make it work. If it doesn't work in one city then they'll make it work in another. If they aren't willing to sell their team then you can't just contract them. It's much easier said than done.

Finally, the owners aren't just saving the money that isn't going to the players anymore. Some media person speculated that you could get the lockout over with right now if you contracted 4 teams because that would mean a savings of roughly $240 million for the owners. What he doesn't realize is that those bottom 4 teams are still generating revenue. Even if it's at the lower end of the bar, those teams are still making at least $90 million a season so you lose out on $360 million. Not to mention all the employees and arena workers who would be out of a job. You're losing another 2,000 gigs right there to go along with the players, coaches and front office people. Sure, the money that goes to all of them plus the extra costs of operations added on to the $240 million will outweigh the $360 a bit to the point where they're in the red but they wouldn't be saving the full $240 million. More like $50 million and that's simply not even close to being worth it when you look at all the jobs lost and fans without their team anymore.

 

[Larry David]

Contraction works best when you've got willing owners, but unless you got some copy of the leagues charter that I'm not aware of they have the right to reclaim the franchise by some type of majority vote. Whether it's a super cuts or an NBA team, you buy the franchise and if enough people argree for a valid business reason they pay you fair value and it's absorbed back in.

See people get confused about NBA ownership. Stern can't take the clippers from sterling, but he said that the owners retain that right but he doesnt. It on the Simmons pod. So if 20 or so owners decide they'd rather liquidate the kings than pay to prop them up, then it's over. There are two main reasons you don't do it. First, there will likely be a fight and or suit over the value. Of course, having owners saying they can't make any money on the record in the paper, crappy books, and some frachise values dropping helps. Second, the bad press. However, once the season is gone how much do you think casual fans will care when stern is contracting the bucks, while blaming the players for the lost season and promising to bring back a better league. The NBA has too many team for revenue and arena reasons. I don't know if it will happen, but a lost season is the perfect and maybe the only time.

If you are a 11th or 12th man, this is bad for you. If you are a ninth man, you don't get as big of a pay cut but you are on the block. But for at least 60% of the league its a good deal. If I had to choose between taking a 7% cut and taking a 4-5% cut and work firing the worst two people at the office, I know how I'm voting. It's bad for some players but not all. Probably not most.

With tickets becoming harder and more marketing money needed to sell them, the big boys have to prop them up. And the little teams fight over the few good players in the league. A harder cap and 4 less teams is a financial boom for the big teams, which will be mostly profit. A big chunk of that money will go to the mid and small who can sign one or two better players. They can probably get the votes for this.

When the season goes away, this could happen

 

[Warhawk]

If you are a 11th or 12th man, this is bad for you. If you are a ninth man, you don't get as big of a pay cut but you are on the block. But for at least 60% of the league its a good deal. If I had to choose between taking a 7% cut and taking a 4-5% cut and work firing the worst two people at the office, I know how I'm voting. It's bad for some players but not all. Probably not most.

Interesting. Because a couple years ago when things were getting tough at my company for a short while we all took short-term (year or so) ±10% cuts to keep everyone employed. I have since gotten a raise to be above that starting point. And my wife's school district did the same thing a year or so ago. Not sure when she might get a raise again in this economy but the district pulled together to minimize cuts to teachers, librarians, etc.

Maybe not everyone is like you?

 

[Section 101]

Interesting. Because a couple years ago when things were getting tough at my company for a short while we all took short-term (year or so) ±10% cuts to keep everyone employed. I have since gotten a raise to be above that starting point. And my wife's school district did the same thing a year or so ago. Not sure when she might get a raise again in this economy but the district pulled together to minimize cuts to teachers, librarians, etc.

Maybe not everyone is like you?

It depends on the specific cirmcumstance. But as an NBA player and basketball player in general there are a very limited amount of jobs and the career is very short. It's better to take a bigger paycut and play longer than smaller one and have years cut short due to lack of jobs available. Because at some point that player LD mentions no longer is a 9th man and nows the 12th man.

 

[kennadog]

No athlete should be expecting to be set for life by what they earn as an athlete. It's usually a short career, only a few make the really big money, and anybody could have a career-ending moment at any time. The vast majority better be planning on a second career.

 

[TheWileyVet]

Fug that guy. Kings won't be subject to contraction

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

No athlete should be expecting to be set for life by what they earn as an athlete. It's usually a short career, only a few make the really big money, and anybody could have a career-ending moment at any time. The vast majority better be planning on a second career.

NBA athletes could expect that if they knew how to manage money. Even the NBA bottom feeders generally make a few million in their NBA careers. If you can't live comfortably on a few million for the rest of your life, you've got serious spending problems.

 

[Hoovtrain]

NBA athletes could expect that if they knew how to manage money. Even the NBA bottom feeders generally make a few million in their NBA careers. If you can't live comfortably on a few million for the rest of your life, you've got serious spending problems.

Agreed. Some guys may not have 50+mil in the bank and be able to retire right away, but if they have half a brain and manage their money is a responsible fashion, they should be able to lead a more than comfortable life.

 

[nebs]

From the last lockout..

"Sure NBA Players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too."

http://itsjustmoney.blogs.com/its_just_money/2006/04/sure_nba_player.html