| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11232
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/22/24 11:33 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
It's not a good "solution," but to imagine that competitive people, players and owners both, aren't going to do whatever they can to win ignores human nature. |
Thanks for once again 'splaining "the way it is."
We all get it.
It's because of that human nature that there are rules. Are you suggesting the league shouldn't even try to enforce a rule? |
They should try to make rules they can enforce. What those rules might be, however, is pretty difficult to figure out.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24414
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/22/24 12:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ChasingRatDogmaSalade wrote: |
Some part of "we" could have been aware that deals were likely to be struck if we made the introductions, but we still have no need to know what is in the deals. I'm pretty sure we don't know what is in any of the players' shoe deals or Mountain Dew deals, etc.
This is obviously unique in that they approached an entire team, but the basics of what happened—entity signs players to endorsement deal—are pretty generic and straight forward. |
This basic framework is why I won't be surprised if they struggle to find anything that's actually illegal in this deal. It's unusual, and many people may feel it goes beyond the spirit of the CBA, but I'm not sure they'll find anything it actually breaks.
They may just have to live with it until after the 2025 season when they'll likely be putting together a new CBA and can add language to deal more directly with something like this. And then once that one's signed, everyone can get started on figuring out how to bend that one to within millimetres of breaking it too  . |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3396
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/22/24 2:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| They may just have to live with it until after the 2025 season when they'll likely be putting together a new CBA and can add language to deal more directly with something like this. And then once that one's signed, everyone can get started on figuring out how to bend that one to within millimetres of breaking it too ;). |
Let it be so.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
jmh1982
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 88
Location: Tucson, AZ
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67163
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24414
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/22/24 8:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jmh1982 wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ChasingRatDogmaSalade wrote: |
Some part of "we" could have been aware that deals were likely to be struck if we made the introductions, but we still have no need to know what is in the deals. I'm pretty sure we don't know what is in any of the players' shoe deals or Mountain Dew deals, etc.
This is obviously unique in that they approached an entire team, but the basics of what happened—entity signs players to endorsement deal—are pretty generic and straight forward. |
This basic framework is why I won't be surprised if they struggle to find anything that's actually illegal in this deal. It's unusual, and many people may feel it goes beyond the spirit of the CBA, but I'm not sure they'll find anything it actually breaks.
They may just have to live with it until after the 2025 season when they'll likely be putting together a new CBA and can add language to deal more directly with something like this. And then once that one's signed, everyone can get started on figuring out how to bend that one to within millimetres of breaking it too . |
The issue is that not all teams are in a position to get a third party to give their players $100k each like the Aces are. This is why it creates an uneven playing field and should not be allowed.
The one thing I would say in support of it is that if it is determined to have been something that happened after free agency and it is only guaranteed for this season than it would be hard to find anything wrong with that. The issue is if it becomes something they do every year. That would point to some form of tampering. |
I'm well aware of what the issues are. I've raised several of them myself, and discussed a lot of them with people who've literally studied large chunks of the CBA. The problem is that "get" part. The Aces may not have "gotten" a third party to give their players that money (and/or no one may be able to prove they did). That third party may have just chosen to do it. And if so, under currently written rules, it may be no more illegal than Ionescu's Nike deal or Angel Reese signing with Good American denim. |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8289
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 8:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| craigmont wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
It's not a good "solution," but to imagine that competitive people, players and owners both, aren't going to do whatever they can to win ignores human nature. |
Thanks for once again 'splaining "the way it is."
We all get it.
It's because of that human nature that there are rules. Are you suggesting the league shouldn't even try to enforce a rule? |
They should try to make rules they can enforce. What those rules might be, however, is pretty difficult to figure out. |
Let's be clear. The league doesn't "make" any of the rules about money, salary caps, rookie scales, permitted endorsements, circumvention, or anything else.
All these rules are collectively bargained and agreed to. Collectively means, in a very real sense, that all the current rules have been "made" and agreed to by every single owner, team and player in the league. All of those parties should have a stake in following the rules, enforcing the rules, and making sure everyone else is doing so.
Otherwise, there would be lawlessness, advantage-taking, self-serving greed, unfairness, oppression, nihilism and ultimately chaos—as every unionized organization and every other contractual arrangement in any rational society has understood since time immemorial. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11232
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 9:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
>Otherwise, there would be lawlessness, advantage-taking, self-serving greed, unfairness, oppression, nihilism and ultimately chaos—as every unionized organization and every other contractual arrangement in any rational society has understood since time immemorial.
Which describes college sports.
The NCAA, of course, doesn't have collective bargaining -- so your point about "they" is correct. But the issue really is the amount of money in play. Alabama boosters, say, have always been willing to pay athletes more than Cal boosters, but the amounts are small enough they can't really be controlled by any financial mechanism.
And even though everything you say is correct and obvious, the NCAA and the powers-that-be in college sports were unable and/or unwilling to come up with any kind of system that controlled non-institutional spending. NIL has no rules, and barring a player union, it's hard to imagine how there can be any.
But even if you put in an NIL cap, college football would go back to bags of cash in apartment rooms, dads getting jobs and other inducements outside of the formal agreement.
The W's advantage is that they can negotiate with a union, but how will a union agree that its members can't make outside money? As pointed out, what's the difference between a Nike deal and a convention center deal?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1027
Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 9:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
The W's advantage is that they can negotiate with a union, but how will a union agree that its members can't make outside money? As pointed out, what's the difference between a Nike deal and a convention center deal? |
Obviously the difference is that previous deals have been with individual players rather than entire teams.
I haven't seen anyone say that players shouldn't make more money or shouldn't have endorsement deals, do ads, or otherwise make outside income.
A'ja Wilson makes money on a shoe deal for being A'ja Wilson. Should an entire team get bags of cash just for being Las Vegas Aces?
Like I said, what if it's known that signing with a certain team comes with a bonus? What if a wealthy Seattlite says "I have a million dollar signing bonus for any UFA that signs with the Storm?"
I know some of you would be all for that, but others of us would like to avoid a league of haves and have nots.
|
|
canadaball
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 525
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 11:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
LV owner Mark Davis has spoken out about the LVCA deal. Here are 2 accounts: https://sports.yahoo.com/mark-davis-nothing-wrong-with-aces-sponsorship-that-sparked-wnba-probe-points-to-caitlin-clark-shoe-deal-025027056.html#:~:text=Las%20Vegas%20Aces%20owner%20Mark,NFL%20spring%20meetings%20in%20Nashville......https://www.cbssports.com/wnba/news/mark-davis-breaks-silence-on-wnbas-investigation-of-aces-owner-says-team-did-absolutely-nothing-wrong/
As I have noted before, I am surprised the powers instituted this deal b/c it resurrects the old salary cap cheating that everyone from other teams , the league itself, and compliant media (100%) seemed so eager to bury and forget. The above article covers some ground, but, as usual, omits key context including current LV salary structure, and management refusal to admit guilt with Hamby.
More interesting is the Davis statement echoed in many places now, including this board, that the WNBA players are underpaid and deserve as much $ as possible. I agree, but let's look at the LV salary structure in that context: My #'s may not be completely accurate, but there are about 139 salaried players in the W, 59 of whom are playing under rookie scale (1-4 years) deals; thus there are about 80 veterans who could be paid anywhere from vet minimum ($77k) up to max ($208k) or even supermax ($252k). The Aces with all their stars have no player in top 16. https://sportsnaut.com/list/highest-paid-wnba-players/ Jackie Young just signed new deal (no raise) that will pay her just under $170k/yr. This means 34 players in W will make more. Look at Clark ($110k) and Stokes ($100k); I will leave out Parker and her $100k. There are only 14 veterans in W playing for that low level (interestingly, the Aces have 5 of them), which mean 64 WNBA veterans are making more than Clark/Stokes. The proper question for Mr. Davis is why he is running a relative sweatshop drastically underpaying his own players? We all know the answer, especially given the Hamby affair revealed guilt last year.
Last edited by canadaball on 05/23/24 12:04 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63976
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 11:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
I know some of you would be all for that, but others of us would like to avoid a league of haves and have nots. |
Seemed like Seattle was able to lure free agents by building new facilities. Are they have or have not?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1027
Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 1:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| craigmont wrote: |
I know some of you would be all for that, but others of us would like to avoid a league of haves and have nots. |
Seemed like Seattle was able to lure free agents by building new facilities. Are they have or have not? |
Which nobody has a problem with and none of.whom took pay cuts to sign or re-sign.
To answer your question, I'd say mid-tier. None of the owners are billionaires. They had to take on new investors to raise the money for the facility .
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11232
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/23/24 4:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's a very difficult situation.
So you're Kierstan Bell. Someone offers you $100,000. How long does it take you to say yes?
Then someone else says that's cheating and they want you to give the money back, and/or not get it in the future.
Someone says you don't deserve it, but Alysha Clark does. You say I always heard it was a team game.
I hear what you're saying about the rich dominating, but that seems to be where the league is, in between scuffling to survive and attracting billionaire owners. Don't have an answer, but rules that are easily broken aren't it.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8289
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/24 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
>Otherwise, there would be lawlessness, advantage-taking, self-serving greed, unfairness, oppression, nihilism and ultimately chaos—as every unionized organization and every other contractual arrangement in any rational society has understood since time immemorial.
Which describes college sports. |
Clay, your analyses and opinions make a lot more sense to me in the context of WCBB, where there is now increasing greed, power school/conference unfairness, nihilism and chaos attending the complete breakdown of amateurism and the concept of a student-althlete.
I don't know where you get your info that there are under the table deals and all sorts of "see no evil" hanky-panky in the WNBA.
Tiffany Hayes just came out of retirement to join the Aces. Gee, I wonder why. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11232
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/31/24 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
>Otherwise, there would be lawlessness, advantage-taking, self-serving greed, unfairness, oppression, nihilism and ultimately chaos—as every unionized organization and every other contractual arrangement in any rational society has understood since time immemorial.
Which describes college sports. |
Clay, your analyses and opinions make a lot more sense to me in the context of WCBB, where there is now increasing greed, power school/conference unfairness, nihilism and chaos attending the complete breakdown of amateurism and the concept of a student-althlete.
I don't know where you get your info that there are under the table deals and all sorts of "see no evil" hanky-panky in the WNBA.
Tiffany Hayes just came out of retirement to join the Aces. Gee, I wonder why. |
The first reason I think there are under-the-table deals is that we know rich WNBA owners are willing to cheat, and have been caught. I find it highly unlikely that all the cheaters have been caught.
Second, $50,000 is still a lot of money, even if you're making $500,000 a year. If you were making $100,000 a year, would $10,000 get your attention?
So I just don't think players leave that kind of cash on the table, especially when it's so easy to get the money to them in other, essentially untraceable ways.
Now maybe I'm just cynical, and maybe all the WNBA owners are honorably sticking to the rules, even though the elite players have their hands out and it's easy to get them the money.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63976
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 12:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I don't know where you get your info that there are under the table deals and all sorts of "see no evil" hanky-panky in the WNBA. |
Because if it was him in that position, he’d be cheating. So since Clay considers his thinking the norm, everyone else must be cheating. Remember, Clay was the person that so brightly stated in this forum that the WNBA needed to fix the draft lottery in order to have the best prospects go to major media markets…. in order to save the league. Yikes, such thinking.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Tiffany Hayes just came out of retirement to join the Aces. Gee, I wonder why? |
A better question is why did she go into retirement in the first place if she still had game in her? Any confessional tweets out there?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11232
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 10:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
(From Shades): So since Clay considers his thinking the norm, everyone else must be cheating. Remember, Clay was the person that so brightly stated in this forum that the WNBA needed to fix the draft lottery in order to have the best prospects go to major media markets…. in order to save the league. Yikes, such thinking.
Trust Shades to make things personal whenever possible, even if he has to dig 14 years in the past to do so ... which is one reason why there are fewer people here.
But to his point, what I actually said in that 14-year-old thread was that if the Liberty were in the lottery, it would be advantageous for the league to have New York win the lottery and put Maya Moore in NYC.
New York was not in the lottery and it didn't happen ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8289
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 10:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Tiffany Hayes just came out of retirement to join the Aces. Gee, I wonder why? |
A better question is why did she go into retirement in the first place if she still had game in her? Any confessional tweets out there? |
I have no idea whether Hayes has game left in her. I suspect she's mostly attracted like a moth to the $100K LVCVA handout, even if she just sits on the bench. |
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1901
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 11:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Are they really gonna shell out 100k to every contract signing? Or only the people that were on the roster when the deal was announced? This whole throng is sketchy as fuck but the “get the bag” crowd is going to excuse away all the shadiness.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16393
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 2:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| johnjohnW wrote: |
| Are they really gonna shell out 100k to every contract signing? Or only the people that were on the roster when the deal was announced? This whole throng is sketchy as fuck but the “get the bag” crowd is going to excuse away all the shadiness. |
Did Fair get to keep here $100,000? What about next year's? Or is it just a bonus for playing on the Aces?
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5430
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/01/24 3:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I never did like the assumption that the W somehow needed saving as in a damsel in distress. The W is a business. It was from the start. Startups often struggle in the beginning. As a business, they took measures to minimize losses and looked for more revenue streams. They're strategies weren't always as productive as they would like and it took time to get the right personnel in place. That's what businesses do. It is not trending up now just because of a new crop of high profile rookies. It is trending up because the organization is doing what it was supposed to do. |
|
|
|
