| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RedEqualsLuck
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 4781
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/26/08 2:35 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
IIRC, the Russian "boom" was because they were ego-teams, not businesses... what may bode well for the W is it's strick adherence to a salary cap...
Other fallouts -- salaries lower across Europe. More players vying for fewer spots. Less change a player who might improve by playing abroad actually doing so (?).
For the W - it's secure, more europeans etc. coming over looking to suplement their now decreased income. Perhaps player pressure to modify the international schedule to better address the requirements of the W??
all pure speculation, of course....
_________________
When Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," he didn't include the word "except."
|
|
eurobasket
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 673
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/26/08 4:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A lot of the clubs in the established leagues work to predefined budgets and would find it difficult to move out of that ranges. They are not many players earning 200,000 Euro perseason in Spain. You just have to check out the budgets of these clubs.
In order for clubs to bring in the players from the Russian, Leagues they will have to release players currently on contract. One thing is for sure that will not be paid what they got in Russia.
Spain also has a quota for non EC players that they respect so they cannot sign players just to sit on the bench.
Also as previously mentioned, Sponsorship is hard enough for women's sport without the current financial crisis. So they will not be an increase in payment to the players.
They are clubs outside of the big leagues that may decide to pay the big bucks for these players but these teams are not in the EuroLeague or even in the EuroCup
Last edited by eurobasket on 11/26/08 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
HotForHammon
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 5008
Location: Hammonite Nation
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/26/08 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| The bad economy that hit the Russian League will hit everyone else too. With corporations doing badly, you can expect teams in the other foreign leagues to lose sponsorships too. That means some teams will fold and the remaining teams will pay less. For the WNBA, you will see lower attendance and possibly contraction for the weaker franchises. You may also see other less drastic budget cutting moves like teams carrying fewer players even if they have the cap space. It's hard to imagine how this won't hurt all leagues in some way. |
You have a good point here. I'm not sure about other organization around the league but this has been addressed several times already in our local media by Spurs Sports & Entertainment in how the econemy will effect all of it's teams. If you can believe the articles it something they started planning for over the summer. They did some internal restructuring and streamlining to help get through this accoroding to a recent Business Journal article. Not because they had to but because they expected a drop in ticket sales due to the ecomeny. We are already seeing the effects of this in ticket sales. Ticket brokers are stuck with more then half their inventory and selling at half face value because the organization planned some amazing ticket packages and discounts for Spurs games. They are doing the same with the Rampage hockey team and I would expect to see similar marketing for the Silver Stars. This will effect all sports eventually. |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24349
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/26/08 6:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| The bad economy that hit the Russian League will hit everyone else too. With corporations doing badly, you can expect teams in the other foreign leagues to lose sponsorships too. That means some teams will fold and the remaining teams will pay less. For the WNBA, you will see lower attendance and possibly contraction for the weaker franchises. You may also see other less drastic budget cutting moves like teams carrying fewer players even if they have the cap space. It's hard to imagine how this won't hurt all leagues in some way. |
I doubt you'll see much of that, because the WNBA has something that no European league can have (because it's probably illegal) - a salary cap minimum. For example, next season, the most each WNBA team is allowed to spend on player salary is $803,000; the least they are allowed to spend is $694,000. I think most teams will feel like spending a bit more, and potentially being in a playoff race and/or having a half-decent team, is worth that bit of extra cash. It's not a big enough saving to be worth intentionally under-spending.
In Europe, on the other hand, teams can restrict themselves to only spending as much as they can bring in via sponsorship, ticket sales, owner investment etc. If you only make 50,000 Euros per season then that's all you spend on players, or you're screwed. If it means the team is going to suck then that's tough luck, because that's all the money that there is to spend.
|
|
PattyforPresident
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 935
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/26/08 8:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
I doubt you'll see much of that, because the WNBA has something that no European league can have (because it's probably illegal) - a salary cap minimum. For example, next season, the most each WNBA team is allowed to spend on player salary is $803,000; the least they are allowed to spend is $694,000. I think most teams will feel like spending a bit more, and potentially being in a playoff race and/or having a half-decent team, is worth that bit of extra cash. It's not a big enough saving to be worth intentionally under-spending. |
Absolutely. Especially with the new influx of Russians trying to make a living. That extra $100,000 could mean a championship. Interest in the W isn't high, so if teams suck, it's going to hurt the bottom line a lot more. Conversely, a championship could generate huge buzz. So could a delicious PG like Ilona Korstin. Plus, team owners are so rich that it's really nothing. The economic downturn is having an effect on everybody, but it isn't killing Mr. Dolan. You've seen the Knicks payroll. $95,000 to sign Maria Stepanova would be like you or me buying a pack of gum.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/26/08 10:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PattyforPresident wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
I doubt you'll see much of that, because the WNBA has something that no European league can have (because it's probably illegal) - a salary cap minimum. For example, next season, the most each WNBA team is allowed to spend on player salary is $803,000; the least they are allowed to spend is $694,000. I think most teams will feel like spending a bit more, and potentially being in a playoff race and/or having a half-decent team, is worth that bit of extra cash. It's not a big enough saving to be worth intentionally under-spending. |
Absolutely. Especially with the new influx of Russians trying to make a living. That extra $100,000 could mean a championship. Interest in the W isn't high, so if teams suck, it's going to hurt the bottom line a lot more. Conversely, a championship could generate huge buzz. So could a delicious PG like Ilona Korstin. Plus, team owners are so rich that it's really nothing. The economic downturn is having an effect on everybody, but it isn't killing Mr. Dolan. You've seen the Knicks payroll. $95,000 to sign Maria Stepanova would be like you or me buying a pack of gum. |
First of all, no one else in the WNBA (or NBA) is as profligate as Dolan and Cablevision. Besides, Dolan doesn't treat the Liberty like the Knicks. People need to stop comparing the WNBA to the NBA. You had a local furniture store guy as owner of the Comets. There are other ownership groups made up of rich but not super-rich people. They likely own businesses that are struggling and/or hold assets such as stock and real estate that are worth significantly less than at the beginning of the year. If your income has decreased and your assets are worth 40% less, suddenly subsidizing a money-losing basketball team may feel like a burden. Then, you'd be surprised at the petty things people will do -- if not out of necessity, then out of frustration or as a symbolic gesture.
Secondly, if you're out of the race early and attendance is way down, then that $100,000 savings may start to look more tempting. We're not talking about cutting players in your rotation -- it's the 11th, 12th or 13th player who gets dropped. IR players don't even suit up, so if cash is tight, a team might wait until an injury occurs to add that extra player.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
PattyforPresident
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 935
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/27/08 11:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| PattyforPresident wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
I doubt you'll see much of that, because the WNBA has something that no European league can have (because it's probably illegal) - a salary cap minimum. For example, next season, the most each WNBA team is allowed to spend on player salary is $803,000; the least they are allowed to spend is $694,000. I think most teams will feel like spending a bit more, and potentially being in a playoff race and/or having a half-decent team, is worth that bit of extra cash. It's not a big enough saving to be worth intentionally under-spending. |
Absolutely. Especially with the new influx of Russians trying to make a living. That extra $100,000 could mean a championship. Interest in the W isn't high, so if teams suck, it's going to hurt the bottom line a lot more. Conversely, a championship could generate huge buzz. So could a delicious PG like Ilona Korstin. Plus, team owners are so rich that it's really nothing. The economic downturn is having an effect on everybody, but it isn't killing Mr. Dolan. You've seen the Knicks payroll. $95,000 to sign Maria Stepanova would be like you or me buying a pack of gum. |
First of all, no one else in the WNBA (or NBA) is as profligate as Dolan and Cablevision. Besides, Dolan doesn't treat the Liberty like the Knicks. People need to stop comparing the WNBA to the NBA. You had a local furniture store guy as owner of the Comets. There are other ownership groups made up of rich but not super-rich people. They likely own businesses that are struggling and/or hold assets such as stock and real estate that are worth significantly less than at the beginning of the year. If your income has decreased and your assets are worth 40% less, suddenly subsidizing a money-losing basketball team may feel like a burden. Then, you'd be surprised at the petty things people will do -- if not out of necessity, then out of frustration or as a symbolic gesture.
Secondly, if you're out of the race early and attendance is way down, then that $100,000 savings may start to look more tempting. We're not talking about cutting players in your rotation -- it's the 11th, 12th or 13th player who gets dropped. IR players don't even suit up, so if cash is tight, a team might wait until an injury occurs to add that extra player. |
Just because the market is down 40% from it's very highest point, doesn't mean every business and every person is worth (and making) 40% less. Businesses actually do still conduct business, they don't just rely on the stock market to make money based on past business. The typical WNBA owner can absolutely afford the extra $100,000 and it is like purchasing a pack of gum for you and me. Hilton Koch is the exception. Get ready for the facts about who these people really are and not empty speculation. Dolan is certainly not making as much money as the Mohegan Tribe. The Maloofs... you think they're starving? The Simons? Seems they own half the malls in the country. My mall (a Simon mall) doesn't have any empty stores and expansion plans are still in the works. Glen Taylor? $2.7 billion personal net worth. Sheila Johnson had to pick between electricity and running water last month too, right? William Davidson gave $30 million to his alma mater. You think $100,000 is really troubling him right now? You should have done your homework. Just because Dolan is the most out there and the most well known doesn't mean he's only one worth serious money. The aforementioned are all (still) billionaires. The Spurs ownership group owns the Silver Stars and they've obviously got the $100K too. The economic downturn is NOT killing any of them. Terwilliger and Alter are in real estate, an industry that has been slow at best of late, but they're not struggling. They're also so committed to their teams that they've both publicly stated that taking a loss is okay with them. The female owners in PHX, LA and SEA are worth a lot less money, I'm sure, but they're women and all seem very passionate and will probably be equally committed.
It's important to have a few extra players on your roster so you have subs in practice. The 11th, 12th and 13th players are already on the block to bring in the potential Europeans in search of secure, paying jobs. The extra $100,000 must be spent early to secure the best player newly available. You have to generate a buzz to make money in the W. It's worth $100,000 to win games and sell tickets and build for the future. To succeed in business you have to take risks and spend money. The smart owners are good businessmen who know this. Hilton Koch isn't smart. That's why the league took his team.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/28/08 12:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PattyforPresident wrote: |
Just because the market is down 40% from it's very highest point, doesn't mean every business and every person is worth (and making) 40% less. Businesses actually do still conduct business, they don't just rely on the stock market to make money based on past business. The typical WNBA owner can absolutely afford the extra $100,000 and it is like purchasing a pack of gum for you and me. Hilton Koch is the exception. Get ready for the facts about who these people really are and not empty speculation. Dolan is certainly not making as much money as the Mohegan Tribe. The Maloofs... you think they're starving? The Simons? Seems they own half the malls in the country. My mall (a Simon mall) doesn't have any empty stores and expansion plans are still in the works. Glen Taylor? $2.7 billion personal net worth. Sheila Johnson had to pick between electricity and running water last month too, right? William Davidson gave $30 million to his alma mater. You think $100,000 is really troubling him right now? You should have done your homework. Just because Dolan is the most out there and the most well known doesn't mean he's only one worth serious money. The aforementioned are all (still) billionaires. The Spurs ownership group owns the Silver Stars and they've obviously got the $100K too. The economic downturn is NOT killing any of them. Terwilliger and Alter are in real estate, an industry that has been slow at best of late, but they're not struggling. They're also so committed to their teams that they've both publicly stated that taking a loss is okay with them. The female owners in PHX, LA and SEA are worth a lot less money, I'm sure, but they're women and all seem very passionate and will probably be equally committed.
It's important to have a few extra players on your roster so you have subs in practice. The 11th, 12th and 13th players are already on the block to bring in the potential Europeans in search of secure, paying jobs. The extra $100,000 must be spent early to secure the best player newly available. You have to generate a buzz to make money in the W. It's worth $100,000 to win games and sell tickets and build for the future. To succeed in business you have to take risks and spend money. The smart owners are good businessmen who know this. Hilton Koch isn't smart. That's why the league took his team. |
If we haven't learned anything else through this financial crisis, we've learned that businesses always tell you they are financially sound until the day they suddenly collapse. Bear, Stearns? Lehman Brothers? AIG? All doing fine until they weren't. There is an impending commercial real estate crisis, and malls are among the most vulnerable assets. Also, if you follow hotel and casino stocks, you'd know that industry is having a crisis. These are capital-intensive businesses during the middle of a credit crunch. I'm not going to argue about specific situations. I never said all owners would reduce players, nor did I ever mention that they wouldn't pursue a quality player if available. My greater point was that the world economic crisis would affect all leagues -- including the WNBA. You don't have to get wiped out to feel the pinch. The effect is psychological. If you're wise, you cut back sooner rather than later. I used to be the finance director of a prominent non-profit dance company. Our board was full of millionaires, but it didn't mean they would throw money at the company with impugnity whenever we were in trouble. I'm sure those Russian millionaires who are bailing out of teams overseas aren't starving either. But when people pull back, they often cut across the board. And if these WNBA owners are so universally willing to spend, why is the salary cap only $803,000? More to the point, why is there a payroll minimum written into the CBA? Doesn't that tell you that the players union or the league office is afraid that some owner will spend even less than $694,000?
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
PattyforPresident
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 935
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/28/08 12:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| PattyforPresident wrote: |
Just because the market is down 40% from it's very highest point, doesn't mean every business and every person is worth (and making) 40% less. Businesses actually do still conduct business, they don't just rely on the stock market to make money based on past business. The typical WNBA owner can absolutely afford the extra $100,000 and it is like purchasing a pack of gum for you and me. Hilton Koch is the exception. Get ready for the facts about who these people really are and not empty speculation. Dolan is certainly not making as much money as the Mohegan Tribe. The Maloofs... you think they're starving? The Simons? Seems they own half the malls in the country. My mall (a Simon mall) doesn't have any empty stores and expansion plans are still in the works. Glen Taylor? $2.7 billion personal net worth. Sheila Johnson had to pick between electricity and running water last month too, right? William Davidson gave $30 million to his alma mater. You think $100,000 is really troubling him right now? You should have done your homework. Just because Dolan is the most out there and the most well known doesn't mean he's only one worth serious money. The aforementioned are all (still) billionaires. The Spurs ownership group owns the Silver Stars and they've obviously got the $100K too. The economic downturn is NOT killing any of them. Terwilliger and Alter are in real estate, an industry that has been slow at best of late, but they're not struggling. They're also so committed to their teams that they've both publicly stated that taking a loss is okay with them. The female owners in PHX, LA and SEA are worth a lot less money, I'm sure, but they're women and all seem very passionate and will probably be equally committed.
It's important to have a few extra players on your roster so you have subs in practice. The 11th, 12th and 13th players are already on the block to bring in the potential Europeans in search of secure, paying jobs. The extra $100,000 must be spent early to secure the best player newly available. You have to generate a buzz to make money in the W. It's worth $100,000 to win games and sell tickets and build for the future. To succeed in business you have to take risks and spend money. The smart owners are good businessmen who know this. Hilton Koch isn't smart. That's why the league took his team. |
If we haven't learned anything else through this financial crisis, we've learned that businesses always tell you they are financially sound until the day they suddenly collapse. Bear, Stearns? Lehman Brothers? AIG? All doing fine until they weren't. There is an impending commercial real estate crisis, and malls are among the most vulnerable assets. Also, if you follow hotel and casino stocks, you'd know that industry is having a crisis. These are capital-intensive businesses during the middle of a credit crunch. I'm not going to argue about specific situations. I never said all owners would reduce players, nor did I ever mention that they wouldn't pursue a quality player if available. My greater point was that the world economic crisis would affect all leagues -- including the WNBA. You don't have to get wiped out to feel the pinch. The effect is psychological. If you're wise, you cut back sooner rather than later. I used to be the finance director of a prominent non-profit dance company. Our board was full of millionaires, but it didn't mean they would throw money at the company with impugnity whenever we were in trouble. I'm sure those Russian millionaires who are bailing out of teams overseas aren't starving either. But when people pull back, they often cut across the board. And if these WNBA owners are so universally willing to spend, why is the salary cap only $803,000? More to the point, why is there a payroll minimum written into the CBA? Doesn't that tell you that the players union or the league office is afraid that some owner will spend even less than $694,000? |
Of course it tells me that they're afraid someone will spend less than $694,000. Let's not talk about what could be. Let's talk about what is. The owners can't spend less than that, so it doesn't matter. And the reason that the difference IS only $100,000 is to make it less of a stretch to a billionaire team owner to max out his salary cap. To be fair, don't all American sports leagues with salary caps also have minimum salary? It's for protection of the league and its teams. The Russian owners are spending a lot more money, making a lot less money, and currently struggling more than these W owners because of various circumstances (among them, being idiots and throwing a lot of money into ego projects that aren't going to make the money back). It's my opinion that an owner (a billionaire businessman or very rich women who doesn't want anything more than to push women to the point where they are equal to men) is more likely to say, if they feel this way, "fuck it, I'm not putting another dime into this pit that is the WNBA, you guys take the team and figure it out" or, "hey, any of you girls around here wanna put together an ownership group and buy a profitless sports franchise on the cheap that you can use to promote your feminist agenda if you feel so inclinced" than to save a mere $100,000 when he/she/they could be signing better players and selling tickets. People on the smaller scale in those industries you mentioned are certainly in trouble. Not the tycoons. Cablevision is pretty much invincible. Most people aren't cutting TV yet. The others are owned by the person. The other thing we've learned is that, a business might be in trouble, but the idiots at the top are trimming fat from the bottom and still giving themselves raises and giant bonuses. These are the people who own teams. Nobody's afraid they're going to cut the salaries on their NBA teams to the minimum. I'm not comparing, but there's a reason NBA owners who own W teams are still NBA owners who own W teams. They want them, or are intrigued by what could be, at least a little bit. All the losses are being written off anyway. It's crazy to assume they're just going to save $100,000 when they could throw their hands up and run, like Bob Johnson (another billionaire who wasn't interested in saving $100,000 when he could just up and quit).
|
|
|
|
