- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NBAPA wants NBA to use new TV money to cover health insurance for former players
Posted on 7/7/15 at 9:20 am to TheCaterpillar
Posted on 7/7/15 at 9:20 am to TheCaterpillar
And that parallels to the rest of the league. You were right earlier when you said Gronk was a bad example. But not because he's making more than these guys, but because he's making less and making it into more
1
Posted on 7/7/15 at 9:25 am to wildtigercat93
quote:
And that parallels to the rest of the league. You were right earlier when you said Gronk was a bad example. But not because he's making more than these guys, but because he's making less and making it into more
He's literally making almost double the average NBA salary. You mentioned an absurdly high NBA salary. I am sure I can find some for NFL players.
Again, now I’m serious, last time I’m discussing this.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 9:29 am to TheCaterpillar
"He's literally making almost double the average NBA salary"
Compare his first real contract with out all the fluff (knock off 10 or 15 mil of his overall contract number), vs the average numbers that free agents are getting in the NBA right now. That's a comparable situation. And Gronks numbers would be average or below average
Compare his first real contract with out all the fluff (knock off 10 or 15 mil of his overall contract number), vs the average numbers that free agents are getting in the NBA right now. That's a comparable situation. And Gronks numbers would be average or below average
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 9:30 am
Posted on 7/7/15 at 10:06 am to lsusa
quote:
Morally and ethically? Considering those guys played a part in building what are multi-billion dollar industries today then helping them with a basic life need which in all likelihood is affected by the work they did is absolutely the "right" thing to do. And quite frankly, I don't care if they were the guys who were higher paid players and squandered it.
This. And they are talking about $10-20M out of an annual take around $2.5B. Even if it comes out of the player's half of the tv revenue (~$1.25B), we're talking 1-2% of the overall money. Call it a tithe. It's smart, affordable, and the right thing to do.
Maybe this gets guys to start thinking about life post basketball.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 11:12 am to corndeaux
Those former NBA players in the 70s and 80s made a hell of a lot less than the average player today. You gotta remember, those were the days when the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay. Talking about Tristian Thompson's current contract is laughable.
This list shows the league minimum in 1985-86 was $70,000. That's about $146,000 today. LINK
I think it's a very forward thinking way to help out retired players, so they can get some of the current riches from the league. It's the sort of thing a players association ought to do, to look after vulnerable former members.
This list shows the league minimum in 1985-86 was $70,000. That's about $146,000 today. LINK
I think it's a very forward thinking way to help out retired players, so they can get some of the current riches from the league. It's the sort of thing a players association ought to do, to look after vulnerable former members.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 11:24 am to Bench McElroy
Circle of life people. Old adages are old adages for a reason. And one particular fits here. "A fool and his money are soon parted"
Also has to do with "da culcha" that makes it cool to throw your hunneds on the ground. Even the broke thugs in the inner city take their entire life savings of six thousand dollars in hundred dollar bills everywhere they go with a rubber band, freely waving it around and throwing it on the ground one after another to look cool.
Also has to do with "da culcha" that makes it cool to throw your hunneds on the ground. Even the broke thugs in the inner city take their entire life savings of six thousand dollars in hundred dollar bills everywhere they go with a rubber band, freely waving it around and throwing it on the ground one after another to look cool.
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 11:26 am
Posted on 7/7/15 at 11:26 am to timbo
TTs contract was brought up about money management, not about former players or insurance
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:24 pm to wildtigercat93
What are the players going to give up for insurance for former players?
The owners should not have to pay former players insurance. They can get COBRA.
The owners should not have to pay former players insurance. They can get COBRA.
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:39 pm to sms151t
quote:
What are the players going to give up for insurance for former players?
Why do they have to give up anything?
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:40 pm to wildtigercat93
Why should the owners give up anything?
The players are who want it so they are going to give something up in return.
I do not think the owners should budge on this, they do not owe insurance to a former player.
The players are who want it so they are going to give something up in return.
I do not think the owners should budge on this, they do not owe insurance to a former player.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:42 pm to Bench McElroy
I always kind of thought that all that money you make doing your job is supposed to be used to buy the stuff that you need, like health insurance.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:45 pm to sms151t
quote:
Why should the owners give up anything? The players are who want it so they are going to give something up in return.
The NBA has thrived on not using this logic.
It's chump change to do this insurance with the former players and is well worth the goodwill.
ETA and so we are clear, I am not arguing that they have an obligation to pay the insurance
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:47 pm to wildtigercat93
The NBA has thrived on the play and tv. The owners gave up something last lockout and wont do it again. They want to expand profits. The players will not get this concession this time. They may get it in the future.
If there is a lockout we will find out how the players really think of Silver, as he will have to back the owners. If the new head of the NBAPA takes them on strike, forget it, the players will sit for a long time, because the owners will bleed them dry.
As much as I hated Donald Fehr (MLB now NHL), he knew what he was doing. This lady, not sold on her yet.
If there is a lockout we will find out how the players really think of Silver, as he will have to back the owners. If the new head of the NBAPA takes them on strike, forget it, the players will sit for a long time, because the owners will bleed them dry.
As much as I hated Donald Fehr (MLB now NHL), he knew what he was doing. This lady, not sold on her yet.
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 7/7/15 at 12:54 pm to sms151t
quote:
If the new head of the NBAPA takes them on struke, forget it, the players will sit for a long time, because the owners will bleed them dry.
the issue isn't big enough to go on strike about, take a step back. 10-15 mil is an easy cost for some good PR and happy players. I don't think it's going to be a cat fight
Plus the NBA has had the ability to bleed the players dry for their entire history, most live check to check. Despite that, they still have the best pay/benefits structure of the major leagues (that I know about).
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:01 pm to sms151t
quote:
The owners gave up something last lockout and wont do it again. They want to expand profits. The players will not get this concession this time
Are you trying to say the owners made concessions during the 2011 lockout? What did they give up?
quote:
This lady, not sold on her yet
No one can be worse than Billy Hunter during the last negotiation. Unpossible.
This $15M is a pittance in the overall BRI the players get. It is microscopic in the total tv revenue of $2.5billion. You're telling me the owners/players might fight over paying out $7.5M? Or that the players would balk at paying $15M out of over $1B a year for former members? I don't buy that at all.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:07 pm to corndeaux
They gave up on the percentage of revenues. I guess you missed that one.
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:09 pm to brgfather129
quote:
but not every former NBA player made tens of millions over the course of their career.
This is so true... Just like the NFL... The other problem is that the retired NFL players are WAY WAY more beat up than Former NBA players....... Some can hardly walk.....
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:10 pm to sms151t
You mean the players. Their BRI % went from 57 to 49-51.
ETA- In that switch, the owners took back ~$300M annually. Tell me about their concessions again.
ETA- In that switch, the owners took back ~$300M annually. Tell me about their concessions again.
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:12 pm to corndeaux
No the players were offered 43% of all revenues, the players countered with 53% and it was settled at 51% then they added a hard cap and luxury tax.
The players won on that. The owners are not going to give in again.
Did the NBAPA ever officially reform after dissolving for an anti-trust suit?
The players won on that. The owners are not going to give in again.
Did the NBAPA ever officially reform after dissolving for an anti-trust suit?
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 7/7/15 at 1:14 pm to sms151t
quote:
No the players were offered 43% of all revenues, the players countered with 53% and it was settled at 51% then they added a hard cap and luxury tax.
The players won on that. The owners are not going to give in again.
57% to 49-51% is winning? Giving up $300M is winning? More punitive luxury tax strongly deterring teams from spending more on player salaries is winning?
The players saw a 6-8% decrease in their share of the pie, but they won because it wasn't 14%? Your idea of concession is funny.
This post was edited on 7/7/15 at 1:16 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News