The NBA should force the sale of the Clippers to the players and coaches at 10% of their current value. The sale should be limited to the current players and coaches and each should have an opportunity to buy an equal share. Many teams are owned by a group of people, so why wouldn't it be fitting to be owned by a group of people who make the most money for the business. That would be profit sharing to the extreme.
Profit sharing is one way to look at it but it is also considered a bail out when someone is forced to liquidate their company like Wachovia taken over by Wells Fargo and Washington Mutual taken over by JP Morgan Chase. Obviously the Clippers are not in the same shape as those failed mortgage ridden banks, but it would only be fitting to Sterling's actions.
Forcing the sale to the players at this rate makes sense on so many levels.
1- Avoids players from deciding if they will leave the team if Sterling is still the owner.
2- Serves as justice for Sterling's discriminating ways.
3- Prevents Sterling from profiting from the forced sale of the Clippers at the peak of the franchise.
4- Allows the players the opportunity to profit by selling their shares at a premium if they desire.
1- Avoids players from deciding if they will leave the team if Sterling is still the owner.
2- Serves as justice for Sterling's discriminating ways.

4- Allows the players the opportunity to profit by selling their shares at a premium if they desire.
Sale Example:
If it is agreed that the Clippers were valued at $80 million, and there are around 20 current players and coaches, therefore each player could purchase their portion of the team for about $400 thousand.
If it is agreed that the Clippers were valued at $80 million, and there are around 20 current players and coaches, therefore each player could purchase their portion of the team for about $400 thousand.
Team Management:
It might not make sense for a player to own their own contract because they could obviously pay themselves too much. But on the other hand, they may see it as a business and would prefer to make their money on the collective efforts of the team, so they may take less so they can pay free agents more to become a better team. Either way a management team would need to be in place much like what already exists.
Who would oppose that?
It might not make sense for a player to own their own contract because they could obviously pay themselves too much. But on the other hand, they may see it as a business and would prefer to make their money on the collective efforts of the team, so they may take less so they can pay free agents more to become a better team. Either way a management team would need to be in place much like what already exists.
Who would oppose that?
No comments:
Post a Comment