WELL----THEY DID IT, FIRST TWO WEEKS CANCELLED

MD, I don't know much about the insurance industry, but once there were rumblings about a lockout/possible cancellation of all or part of the season, would any insurance company have sold them a policy? R

RESO: Colonial Penn would have sold them a policy, as long as they were between 50-85 and could answer 3 simple health-related questions. The premiums would never increase, and the City of Memphis could never be cancelled. If ya' don't believe me, ask Alex Trebeck! (LOL)-MD!

RESO wrote:MD, I don't know much about the insurance industry, but once there were rumblings about a lockout/possible cancellation of all or part of the season, would any insurance company have sold them a policy? R

Reso/MDCelticfan,

Would an insurance company offer them a policy now? No. Would they have offered it back when the FedEx Forum opened in 2004, when there were still 6-7 years left on the CBA? Maybe. I don't disagree with MDCeltic fan, but I do think, at this point, it's water over the dam. We need to face realities now and the realities are that there are no such policies in place (even if they were available at one time).

A key question, one that has been brought up on other posts and in other venues, is that the damage done by a lost season goes well beyond the public relations damage to the league, the players and even on the tax revenues of the cities that host those franchises. It affects the restauranteurs, the hotdog and souvenir guys, the electricians/plumbers/tradesmen who work the arenas when a game's on. It affects the jobs in the community and that's another way the cities are losing tax revenues. People and companies, not including the owners and players, are losing money and/or their jobs. Unfortunately, the small mom-and-pop shops that survive off the business the league brings to the community can't just sail through it like the bazillionaire owners and damn-close-to bazillionaire players.

At a time when we're trying to figure out how to get businesses to feel confident about the progress of the recovery from The Great Recession and start hiring people again the effect of these cancelled games will only make that harder.

bob

.

bob

In thinking about this a little. You and I own a business that grows and we are doing well selling trinkets in our little corner of the world. We expand and continue to do well and expand even further...... then trinkets are not the "thing" anymore. Our same store sales are poor. We ARE loosing money. So what do we do? EXPAND to new areas. Hell no we get rid of the worst preforming stores and do the best we can with the stores that can break even or turn a profit. In other terms we downsize.

The NBA is just to big and some cities can't support the product now ( at least with these salaries, and those are really the fault of the owners) yet Stern still visualizes expansion overseas (at least he did a few years ago)

Remember this in baseball.

Baseball collusion refers to owners working together to avoid competitive bidding for player services or players jointly negotiating with team owners.

Collusion in baseball is formally defined in the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs." Major League Baseball went through a periods of owner collusion during the off-seasons of 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Seems Bron, Wade, and Bosh colluded but in the NBA guess it's OK.

Are the NBA owners doing this now?

Gotta get back on track here, the mind is wandering.


If there was contraction of some teams, players would loose jobs. The cities that loose teams may suffer some too but it may be the only way for the league to survive, unless the Players and owners can agree to lower everything. Owners might not make as much..........players the same.

Wonder how many owners actually worry about what their NBA team makes anyway? These guys didn't get rich by being stupid with money.

Your right no matter how this goes for now the trickle down effect is costing a lot of small people a large percentage of their income.

beat

Sort of a wandering post but my mind is all over today anyway.

sounds like this is going to get uglier before any resolution. They both seem to think they can lose the season and survive. The NBA should take a long, hard look at this before they toss the season aside. Die Hards may stick
around, but they could lose alot of fans because of the way these negotiations have taken place. I just wonder about all of this. Millionaires fighting each other! The rookies have got to be a little upset about it all, they haven't even
had a shot at making some money and may have to wait until all of this is
settled. The games people play.....

beat wrote:bob

In thinking about this a little. You and I own a business that grows and we are doing well selling trinkets in our little corner of the world. We expand and continue to do well and expand even further...... then trinkets are not the "thing" anymore. Our same store sales are poor. We ARE loosing money. So what do we do? EXPAND to new areas. Hell no we get rid of the worst preforming stores and do the best we can with the stores that can break even or turn a profit. In other terms we downsize.

The NBA is just to big and some cities can't support the product now ( at least with these salaries, and those are really the fault of the owners) yet Stern still visualizes expansion overseas (at least he did a few years ago)

Remember this in baseball.

Baseball collusion refers to owners working together to avoid competitive bidding for player services or players jointly negotiating with team owners.

Collusion in baseball is formally defined in the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs." Major League Baseball went through a periods of owner collusion during the off-seasons of 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Seems Bron, Wade, and Bosh colluded but in the NBA guess it's OK.

Are the NBA owners doing this now?

Gotta get back on track here, the mind is wandering.


If there was contraction of some teams, players would loose jobs. The cities that loose teams may suffer some too but it may be the only way for the league to survive, unless the Players and owners can agree to lower everything. Owners might not make as much..........players the same.

Wonder how many owners actually worry about what their NBA team makes anyway? These guys didn't get rich by being stupid with money.

Your right no matter how this goes for now the trickle down effect is costing a lot of small people a large percentage of their income.

beat

Sort of a wandering post but my mind is all over today anyway.

beat,

Stern has long pushed the International Marketing theme. When I was in Italy this summer I passed a shop that sells sports equipment/jerseys/etc. KG's, Kobe's and Wade's jerseys were in the window (NOT LBJs!!). That's $ coming from geographic areas that do not have franchises. That's why exhibition games are being played overseas even though Europe and Asia have their own leagues. That's why there was a franchise in Vancouver and is one in Toronto. To Stern and the owners, it's about more than just basketball-related income (that's the BRI you keep seeing thrown around in these discussions).

In the smaller markets where teams struggle to fill arenas, I don't think the economy would get hit that bad precisely because there isn't a large, rabid fan base filling the seats, buying the jerseys and having dinner in restaurants near the arena before/after the game.

Of course the owners are colluding and that's ok since the CBA has expired and, therefore, the prohitions have expired. At the time DWade did his thing, though, it was on. Define "colluding" without making it sound like a couple of friends in the same business having a beer or two and fantasizing (and then saying "Hey! This doesn't have to only be a fantasy!").

Where it will hurt is if we don't watch the games, when they're back. That will alarm the advertisers and will hurt the NBA take. Will we do that?

Where it will hurt is if we don't buy jerseys, nor allow our kids to buy them. Will we do that?

Where it will hurt is if corporations, who own many of the tickets at the arenas, due to them being priced out of many of our reaches, cancel their season subscriptions. Will they do that?

We are enablers in this hardwood dance of demons. We share some of the blame by not holding them accountable and punishing them for their bad behavior.

The league needs to contract. Mr. Potato Head needs to be slowly fed into a ricer (I got dibs!). Players should play and owners should stop whining about how they're not getting rich fast enough ESPECIALLY when a report just came out that showed that the richest of us increased their incomes during this recession while the middle class lost income.

bob

.

The list of players that have signed deals to play overseas or are interested in playing overseas is pretty extensive although most of the players probably fall into the "working class" of the NBA.

If your boss came to you tomorrow and said don't come back to work unless you are willing to take a 7% pay cut and also reduce job flexibility you would probably bite the bullet and accept what the boss wants. Why because you are scared shitless that you may not be able to find another job.

Well thanks to Stern's vision of global basketball, some of the working class players can find employment elsewhere while the big money dudes sit around on fat wallet. Can small market teams make money? The owners would have you believe that it cannot be done without a redistribution of revenue and a major reduction in salaries. I suppose OKC is an exception.

Well salaries are pretty extraordinary but it is the owners fault. Case in point Joe Johnson....and an Atlanta team that does not sell out every night. Even with knowledge that the CBA would be coming to an end, a slightly above average player like Joe Johnson signs a deal for more than anyone else. Is that the players fault?

To me I cannot take sides on this. My philosophy is not to be worried about rich people. I miss seeing my Celtics so anything that can bring this work stoppage to a end is good.

dboss

It's funny that you chose Joe Johnson from Atlanta. To me Atlanta started alot of this craziness years go, do you remember Jon Koncack and the crazy contract he got as a free agent! I can remember the shock around the league about his salary. So, I have no pity on these owners. They created these monsters, now they can't live with them!!

I love KG, I love what he has accomplished, but what person in the world
deserves a $126 million dollar contract? This is a game!!!!! I know I have hit a raw nerve in some, but it is a reality that is bothering alot of people out there struggling to make ends meet.

Wealthy as the owners are, I hold the palyers responsible for this strike. If they'd hired a good labor lawyer to negotiate their contract instead of sending in people like Duane Wade, KG, and Paul Pierce to negotiate with accomplished labor lawyer Howard Stern, they'd have a deal buy now. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Rosalie

I think the Hawks are a good example of a team that does not make good decisions.

The Jon Koncack (contract) opened a few eyes (Michael Jordan ) because he got a $2 million per year deal and he was an average player at best.

I really do not care how much the players make or how much the owners make. I just want to watch the Celtics play basketball.

W don't see how the players can be responsible for the strike. It is not like they decided not to show up for work. They were locked out by the owners. I might add that I have read countless articles that really brings into question what the bottom line for these owners really is.

dboss

The players went into battle unarmed. If they had proper counsel they could have directed their attack at the owners' weaknesses and come out with a contract that worked for them. The players played too much of a role in their own rnegotiatiions and relied too much on the advice of their own greedy agents. Again, with a smarter labor lawyer representing them they could have gotten more of what they want and less of what theyand we don't want - that is a lockout. Witness Don Fehr's result negotiating for the MLBPA with baseball's owners. Same issues. different result. Of course the owners suck. But they can afford to suck. The players needed to outsmart them but didn't.

dboss-I am with you all the way when it comes to just wanting basketball to start, period. As a fan since the late 50's through today, not having basketball in my life is a big minus. There isn't one person who knows me who doesn't ask me how I am handling not having the Celtics in my daily routine. Even my heart doctor told me Tuesday that every time he hears anything about the NBA I am the first person he thinks of!! Nice, huh??

I have a 91 year old Mom who just is beside herself because she doesn't have the Celtics to watch. She stays up all the time and looks forward to every game. She was a huge Satch Sanders fan way back when he played.
So, see, it is affecting all different people and they just think they will win back all the fans.

I know I will be there, but what about the young kids, will they start following the Bruins? The Patriots will always have their fans, I have followed them since their beginning. But the Celts hold a special place with me and this strike is driving me nuts~!

Rosalie:

I empathize with the plight of you and your family not having the Celts to watch. I'll miss them also. However, the greater good must be served here. Pat Riley used Wade as a puppet to orchestrate what happened in Miami with Wade, Bosh & James. You get the feeling Chris Paul wants to exit THE BIG EASY to join 'Melo & A'Mare in THE BIG APPLE. This cannot go on, if the NBA is to survive with equal footing for ALL teams. Players must be reminded they are labor, not management and do not hold the trump (not Donald) cards. When Ainge put the Celtic Big 3 together, he didn't steal anyone's franchise player. Everything was accomplished via trades. Allbeit, he mortgaged the Celtics future for a couple of short lived title runs, only one of whcih was successful. You could say one is better than what we didn't have for more than 20 years previous. If collusion among players isn't eliminated, and acts like what Riley masterminded must be punished and not permitted to occur in the future we'll have power teams, probably 4 or 5 and everyone else falls by the wayside. It is in the Celtics best interest not to put in with owners like Buss, Cuban etc. Free agents don't want to come to Boston until they are too old. Look at Shaq, Artis Gilmore, Dominique Wilkins etc. who came to the C's far past their collective prime. Dwight Howard probably already has checked out of Orlando, and envisions himself taking lobs from Kobe. A system that discourages and prohibits major market glitz and glamoour cities from league domination must be set in place. If that means snapping the NBAPA like a twig, so be it.

MD.

MD

Agree with most everything. The playing field needs to level for all teams. After the first pitch in Baseball is thrown each spring just how many teams have a real chance to make the post season. 1/2 at best and by July it is probably 1/3 at MOST.

Hoops has a salary cap but it sure appears to easy for teams to exceed it. And owners with deep pockets obviously can and do.

A hard cap is the only real answer with no allowance for exceeding it might be the only way to actually get a level field. You want a free agent star to come to your team and pay him perhaps 50% of your cap well you better find 14 good role players that are willing to play for less and some to play for peanuts. And what if that team tries to get a second "star" or a third. 90% of your cap is spent and they have to get players like you or me to fill out a roster. ( Kidding of course, I have no left hand)

Not opposed to a star player making all he can but by doing so the team he is on might not be quite as good as he would like.

Interesting and there appears to be no end in sight.

I'm sure King Stern will announce another couple weeks of cancelled games soon.

beat

Beat:

Look for the announcement of game cancellations through the Christmas Season to New Years by tomorrow or Wednesday, or as soon as Stern is over the flu bug.

MD.

This is a shame, but I am sure it is probably true. What good is a season that starts in January? It makes no sense to me. MD, you mention Cuban as one of the owners who is pushing the league in the direction that Riley set up last year. However, all I keep hearing is the Wyc Grousebeck is one of the owners who is forcing this lockout and is a hard nosed negotiator. Who do we believe?
The players, who are looking for ridiculous amounts of money? Or, the owners who are trying to completely change what they started themselves? One thing for sure, the small market cities will definintely come out on the bottom.
I am waiting for the contract to be signed and watch Chris Paul jump ship.
New York is just dying for him.

There are serious issues to address, and it's possible to make arguments in favor of each side, but I think both sides are ultimately unsympathetic.

Why the owners have a case:

1. Competitive and financial imbalance. Smaller markets need drastically increased revenue sharing, some to be competitive, some just to survive.

2. Length of contract/guaranteed contracts. There's just no way to guarantee that any athlete will be able to perform at a particular level for up to seven years. You can say that signing Rashard Lewis and Gilbert Arenas for that long is a management mistake, but even players who have a work ethic and pride in their game (for example, KG, Tim Duncan, and Kobe) can be subject to injuries that make guaranteed contracts that long a bad deal that can harm a franchise for years (Milwaukee has been hurt by Michael Redd's deal).

3. Mid-level player salaries. A player half as good as KG is not worth half of his salary. Elite-player salaries could be lower, but it's really the mid-level player salaries that inflate team salaries.

Why the players have a case:

1. They are the product. People tune in to watch the guys in uniform, not the fat cats in the owners' suite.

2. They're giving back a lot. Going from 57% of basketball-related income to 50% is a 12.3% cut. Isn't going to 52% -- an 8.8% cut -- more than enough?

3. A hard cap means the end of shenanigans like the Heat and Knicks, but it also means the end of teams like the Celtics and Lakers. If you have a hard cap at, say $60 million, what do you think that does to collections of talent like the Big Three plus Rondo? The only way it works is if you have star players in their first contracts, like Chicago does with Rose and Noah.

Why the owners are full of it:

1. These are supposed to be good businesspeople who were successful in other areas of a free-market economy, yet they are so undisciplined that they need provisions built into the CBA to protect them from themselves and their poor business decisions?

2. Just because you overleveraged yourself to buy a sports team does not mean that players are obligated to take salary cuts to help offset the service on your debt.

3. Whine, whine, whine. I am sick to death of David Stern spinning a "woe is me" tale on behalf of wealthy owners in this economy. I cannot have any sympathy for a group that includes Donald Sterling, James Dolan, and the ghost of George Shinn (who alienated fans in basketball-crazy North Carolina and then ruined the Hornets in New Orleans so completely that the league had to take over the franchise).

Why the players are full of it:

1. Saying that keeping seven-year guaranteed contracts is a "blood issue?" Get real.

2. The average fan can't afford to go to a game anymore. Continually inflating your salaries has raised ticket prices out of the reach of the average fan. And you want our sympathy?

3. In this economy, you expect people to sympathize with you because you're being forced to make only $6 million instead of $8 million?

Personally, I can't sympathize with either side. What a bunch of clueless idiots.

Outside

early on you infer players getting a 12.3% as too much that an 8.8% is more than enough.

then near the end saying players being forced to make $6 mill instead of $8 mill. Heck that's a 25% cut.

I do agree with most of what you say. Think salaries are way out of wack and the owners created that mess. Can't blame a player for taking all he can get. If a hard cap was in place I do not see it as an end to any team. Sure teams will have to bite the bullet for now but if every team sometime in the future had exactly the same amount of money to work with we certainly would see who is best with their money and what star players would be willing to take in order for their team collectively to be better. Pipe dream but who knows.

Heck only 4 months before pitchers and catchers report.

beat

I don't expect a season at this point seems the 2 sides are still miles apart.

Beat,

Regarding the numbers, the percentages were based on specific proposals I've heard regarding splitting basketball-related income, but the $6 million - $8 million thing was something I just pulled out of thin air. In essence, that particular arguments is, "Why should I sympathize with you making fewer millions of dollars when you've totally lost sight of the fact that you're making millions of dollars?"

My hard cap argument was tenuous at best. I was rattling my post off, wanted a third item for that category to match all the other categories, and couldn't think of anything better at the moment. The truth is that I'm angry at both sides and wasn't inspired to come up with great arguments for them.

That probably also reflects the fact that the players have done a really poor job playing the PR game; if they had, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with reasons why they're not settling. I know the owners have presented ridiculous proposals they knew would never fly, and I believe the owners firmly intended for games to be lost in order to weaken or break the players resolve, but if Billy Hunter was worth his salt, we'd know exactly why the players feel justified in not accepting a 50/50 deal.

I've avoided posting on this topic because I feel so negatively about it. There's a lot of difficult stuff going on in this country and in the world, and the thought of these guys squabbling over money makes me want to puke.

If the players want me on their side, they need to do three things:

1. Acknowledge that 50/50 is reasonable. From a PR standpoint, not accepting 50/50 is a really bad decision. Even if they won't accept all aspects of the deal, say that 50/50 is acceptable.

2. Come up with a compromise on the length of contracts and how much is guaranteed. Five years max, only a portion guaranteed, base it on team and personal benchmarks. I dunno, something. Why should fans have to watch stupidly long, fully guaranteed contracts for guys like Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Luke Walton, Michael Redd, Elton Brand, and Brendan Haywood eat up valuable roster dollars when these players don't perform? It's not Michael Redd's fault that he got hurt, but what's wrong with receiving half your salary in the case of an injury? The player still makes good money, and the team gets some relief to pay a replacement. Or if the guy is a dog like Lewis, why should he be guaranteed $19.5 million regardless of how well he plays? I'm self-employed, and my customers can cancel my contract any time if they're not satisfied with my performance. I'm not saying no guaranteed salary for players, but c'mon, quit sheltering non-performing players. And seven years is too long for any guaranteed contract, period.

3. Make a rollback of ticket prices part of the deal. Take a stand for the fan during hard times. Maybe it's mostly a symbolic gesture, but it's one players should have thought of.

See, once I get going on this stuff, I just start ranting. Maybe some of what I'm saying doesn't pass the logic test, but I'm just so mad about the whole thing.

Outside

Outside

Right now I don't miss the NBA one bit.

Suppose they cancel the season, do the college sophs and juniors stay? Where would the seniors go.......... ( to class perhaps )

Where I work we haven't had a new contract in close to 2 years now, and although our County is doing pretty well to even think of getting anything re: a raise is the pipe dream, too many people around here are settling for less and trying to save jobs.

Time will tell, always does.

beat

Sounds like continued progress...I think we may see a deal soon.

As much as I want the lockout to be over, I'm reluctant to get my hopes up. The owners are comprised of so many different factions with different objectives that I find it hard to believe that they're capable of ratifying anything. Does anyone know what percentage it takes to ratify the CBA - 50% plus one? 75%?

The more I've read, the more I've learned about yet another owner who is in the hard-line, let-it-all-burn group. Paul Allen supposedly just stared mutely at Billy Hunter last week when Hunter wanted to continue negotiations, which Allen-watchers said he does when he doesn't care anymore and means he wants to ruthlessly cut expenses so he can sell the team. Michael Jordan, who you'd think would understand the players' side, is supposedly one of the hardest of the hardliners, confirming yet again what a jerk he is as a human being.

The one thing both sides have done well is convince me that they're willing to lose a significant chunk of the season for their cause. For a while, I've looked at this mess and figured that, best case, we wouldn't have games until Christmas at the earliest and probably February like the last lockout, but the more I've read, the more I've come to believe that these guys were digging in to positions that are miles apart and that the possibility of losing the season was growing.

And now I'm supposed to believe that they might have an agreement by Friday? Which image am I supposed to believe? That a new dawn is coming? Or that it's the eye of the hurricane, a brief respite that marks the halfway point of the storm, not the end?

That's what my brain tells me. Yet my heart has me scanning websites hopeful for signs of a deal. Could it be?

Sigh...

We'll see.

I actually don't have any hope for a deal any time soon.

I think the biggest holdup with a deal centers around what the owners want most - a somewhat hard cap. Many teams are losing money each year. The owners want all teams to do more than just break even and with billions of $$ flying around, why shouldn't they? Why should the players (and agents) be the only ones with a guaranteed profit? The owners are the ones that are taking the greatest financial risk and should expect something back for their investment.

The current CBA has a one for one match for dollars spent above the salary cap penalty amount. The owners don't think that is enough and are pushing for more, perhaps even a 4 to 1 match. Any team that spends say, $20 mil. over the cap penalty, would have to pony up an additional $80 mil. under the wanted new rule, instead of just the extra $20 mil. under the old rule. That's a lot more than just the cost of doing business and winning a championship.

The teams that stay under the cap would share in this money, but that isn't the point. The goal is to keep the big money teams from out-spending everyone else because they just can (under the old rules). The big money teams could (and would) still go over the penalty limit, but not as much as they do now. This will keep the HUGE over-spending down and will tend to save the team owners from themselves. That's why I called it a "somewhat hard cap", because not many teams would want to go over it as much as in the past. The players, of course, want the free-spending ways to continue, but the owners are in it for the long haul.

The whole 50-50 sharing thing, up from 43 (owners) -57 (players) share will help the owners pay for the increased costs of chartered flights, hotel costs and the many other expenses that the owners carry. That number may move a bit, but the team owners are after bigger fish.

For what it is worth, that is why I believe the owners will hold out until they actually get what they want. The very health of the league is at stake. No one wants the league to contract (lose teams) but that is what will happen if the owners don't even things up a bit.

gyso wrote:I actually don't have any hope for a deal any time soon.

I think the biggest holdup with a deal centers around what the owners want most - a somewhat hard cap. Many teams are losing money each year. The owners want all teams to do more than just break even and with billions of $$ flying around, why shouldn't they? Why should the players (and agents) be the only ones with a guaranteed profit? The owners are the ones that are taking the greatest financial risk and should expect something back for their investment.

The current CBA has a one for one match for dollars spent above the salary cap penalty amount. The owners don't think that is enough and are pushing for more, perhaps even a 4 to 1 match. Any team that spends say, $20 mil. over the cap penalty, would have to pony up an additional $80 mil. under the wanted new rule, instead of just the extra $20 mil. under the old rule. That's a lot more than just the cost of doing business and winning a championship.

The teams that stay under the cap would share in this money, but that isn't the point. The goal is to keep the big money teams from out-spending everyone else because they just can (under the old rules). The big money teams could (and would) still go over the penalty limit, but not as much as they do now. This will keep the HUGE over-spending down and will tend to save the team owners from themselves. That's why I called it a "somewhat hard cap", because not many teams would want to go over it as much as in the past. The players, of course, want the free-spending ways to continue, but the owners are in it for the long haul.

The whole 50-50 sharing thing, up from 43 (owners) -57 (players) share will help the owners pay for the increased costs of chartered flights, hotel costs and the many other expenses that the owners carry. That number may move a bit, but the team owners are after bigger fish.

For what it is worth, that is why I believe the owners will hold out until they actually get what they want. The very health of the league is at stake. No one wants the league to contract (lose teams) but that is what will happen if the owners don't even things up a bit.

gyso,

Nice to see your post.

Doesn't a 53/47 split help do that? And maybe the league should contract, it will improve the product by eliminating some jobs and increasing competition for the ones left (speaking selfishly, I'd be ok with taking Bargnani if Toronto folded). If some teams are losing because they are the step-child in a 2 team media market (i.e. Lakers/Clips, Knicks/Nets) then the solution is for them to relo and own their market.

Personally, I don't think the owners will hold out forever. If saving the weak franchises is the issue, then missing an entire season isn't going to help that.

None of us are weeping huge crocodile tears for any of these individuals.

bob

.

One of my patients is brother to an NBA owner who flies his G-7 jet all around the country at the club's expense. That includes 2 $200,000 a year salaries for his on call pilots, fuel costs, hangar and airport fees, plus the $30+ million cost of the jet itself - again, all attributed as a club expense, even if he's flying to Phoenix for golf, SF for an opera, or Montreal for clothes for his wife. I don't feel sorry for any team owners, no, not at all. My patient is like the obverse side of the coin to his bro. He's given away $326 million to charity and drives an eight year old Lincoln he bought for $10,000 used.