Unanimous vote to block relocation!!!!
- Thread starter Revrag
- Start date
interesting, indeed, if true. on the one hand, it sends the message that the prospective local ownership group intends to conduct its business dutifully, rather than on the backs of other owners. on the other hand, it could come across like bribery (or modest coercion depending on whether or not the owners may have asked this of vivek ranadive). the revenue sharing plan enacted as part of the new CBA was meant to level the playing field. this sorta cheats around that a bit...
but, on a separate note, i wonder if such a provision is meant to help pave the way for expansion in seattle. one of the major drawbacks to expansion under the nba's new revenue sharing plan is the adding of slices to the pie, which decreases the amount of revenue shared across the board. if ranadive pledges not to accept revenue sharing, that would clear up at least one of many issues to address regarding the pros/cons of expansion...
but, on a separate note, i wonder if such a provision is meant to help pave the way for expansion in seattle. one of the major drawbacks to expansion under the nba's new revenue sharing plan is the adding of slices to the pie, which decreases the amount of revenue shared across the board. if ranadive pledges not to accept revenue sharing, that would clear up at least one of many issues to address regarding the pros/cons of expansion...
I've been saying this for weeks. Hansen should be telling the NBA they will cover the losses of TV revenue till the new contract.
Plus it's a brilliant move for Vek if he plans to spend money on the team. The reason they are big receivers of sharing is the low payroll and low TV/sponsorship contracts. By increasing payroll and getting a better TV deal/sponsors they would be receiving lower shared payments anyways. If they plan on being a tax team they wouldn't get anything anyways.
Plus it's a brilliant move for Vek if he plans to spend money on the team. The reason they are big receivers of sharing is the low payroll and low TV/sponsorship contracts. By increasing payroll and getting a better TV deal/sponsors they would be receiving lower shared payments anyways. If they plan on being a tax team they wouldn't get anything anyways.
I think the warriors sudden surge from being at the bottom to being winners helped sell the league on Viveks abilities, I read that he owns a large chunk, around 35% and has significant say in basketball decsions, it was reported that lacob saw him leaving as a significant loss for the warriors in terms of braintrust.
I'm pretty sure that's a good faith pledge as in: "I vow that we will make a profit every season and contribute money to the league rather than leach off of it" rather than a formal concession that they won't be sharing in the same revenue sharing agreement that every other team is a part of. I don't think the league would even allow one team to willfully abstain from that. It's just one more way to emphasize that they want this team to be successful and plan to do their part rather than do what the Maloofs have done and remain owners in name while contributing nothing positive either to the team or the league it represents. That's how I interpret that anyway.
