# Randolph jumps on the "I need extra $$ for NBA approved duds' bandwagon



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Zach is even dumber then I thought...gets a huge contract, has been injured and not productive and then he goes and jumps on this bandwagon?  



> Perhaps Zach Randolph, Portland's 24-year-old potential all-star, confirmed James' thesis. Moments after griping about the NBA's new dress code, *and getting in line as the umpteenth player to suggest the league pay for his code-worthy duds*


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...613&call_pageid=969907729483&col=970081562040


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

That this bandwagon exists and is as popular as it is doesn't surprise me. Basketball players are among the biggest cheapskates on the planet with regards to spending money when they don't want to (tips, etc.) We've heard stories forever about players trying to get free meals, free this and thats, and so on when they are richer than any fifty people in a room. NBA players asking for free stuff isn't anything new, that's for sure.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BlazerCaravan said:


> That this bandwagon exists and is as popular as it is doesn't surprise me. Basketball players are among the biggest cheapskates on the planet with regards to spending money when they don't want to (tips, etc.) We've heard stories forever about players trying to get free meals, free this and thats, and so on when they are richer than any fifty people in a room. NBA players asking for free stuff isn't anything new, that's for sure.


Very sad and very true...I remember when Damon was pissed last year when the team took away per diems for breakfast while traveling on the road. It was like he couldn't afford to eat otherwise or something.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The players are just pissed because the league is forcing them to have good taste. They would rather spend their money on tacky gold chains, flashy jewelry, ugly tattoos, and hot pink cadillacs.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

This is the first I've heard about it....and its not even a direct quote (not about him wanting money from the league anyway). I know the Toronto Star is a legit paper....but I'm wondering if they're getting it confused with another statement here....


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Geeze thats horrible.Nba players are some of the richest people in america but they are cheapskates.Its very sad though.I remember when i was little i was around 2 when clyde the glyde was at either the rose garden my mom and dad took me to the game and my dad was carrying me down to get clydes autograph and he was carrying me and he said clyde said i was a very cute baby and they even have a picture of my dad clyde and me. I still have clydes autograph on my little baby sock hat thing.
Why can't nba player be like the old greats.


----------



## theGame (Feb 19, 2005)

I can't believe how studpid these players are. They don't make sense. They complain about the cost of a suit, but they can afford to spend $300 - $400 on a throwback jersey. When are these guys gonna grow up. If I were rich I would wear a suit every day. I can't beleive they are complaining about it. It's a freakin business. It's like going into a law firm to pick a lawyer and the lawyers working there are wearing throwback jerseys and stupid looking medalions.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

It is stupid, and Zach continues to prove his stupidity. The problem is that players these days seem to be controlled by the business side of the sport instead of just the sport. I'm sure nothing will come of their complaints, they're just trying to nickle and dime and see just how much they can get away with, like many business men. These guys have been handed everything else a man could want, why not try for more? It's worked in the past.

On a related topic, it's no coincidence that the NFL is the most popular sport in America and it's the one 'BIG 3' sport without gauranteed contracts.. I think it effects the performance by the players (some more than others), even if it's subconscious. If I'm Miles, I'm getting paid big bucks for the next half a decade, so why try on every play? I'll just try real hard when I'm in a contract year. Gotta go with what works.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I think it might be a good idea to have non guarnteed(sp) contracts that way players allways try hard.On a non related topic baseball should have replay specially in the worldseries and playoffs.Also it was dumb for bud selig to make astros open the roof.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Players would also be criticized if they threw money around and 'forgot their roots.' I don't blame them, most players don't come from rich backgrounds. If they're going to have spend a lot of money on clothing, it should be on what they really want to wear, ie throwback jerseys.



> Why can't nba player be like the old greats.


Zach does work hard, whereas Drexler slacked off in practice. I really doubt the 'good old days' were that great.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

suits are expenisve, especially a for a whole year's worth :whoknows:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

If i had 4 mil a year i could get suits.The people on the i need money for clothes are the really rich ones.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

#10 said:


> Players would also be criticized if they threw money around and 'forgot their roots.' I don't blame them, most players don't come from rich backgrounds. If they're going to have spend a lot of money on clothing, it should be on what they really want to wear, ie throwback jerseys.
> 
> 
> Zach does work hard, whereas Drexler slacked off in practice. I really doubt the 'good old days' were that great.


couple grand buys you 3 decent suits..that's all you really need. What's a couple grand out of a million..multi millions?


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Still a couple grand too much to be spending on clothes, IMO.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

#10 said:


> Still a couple grand too much to be spending on clothes, IMO.


Mine to..but when you have millions that oppinion is probably a bit different.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

As silly as it sounds at first blush, the players do have a point.

Rich or not, they are the ones being ask to suffer the inconvenience and expense of this new policy - while neither they nor their team benefit in any way. To make matters worse, they know that they NBA makes a good chunk of change marketing the same retro/throwback jerseys that the players are now banned from wearing! 

Having arbitrary and meaningless rules is just as bad as having no rules at all.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I agree the remarks made by players to that effect sound dumb, but I think what they are saying is if they are required to wear a uniform off court then the league should provide it. There is a certain logic to it in a weird way. But it's not going to happen. Hell, I had to buy clothes for my job when they said no jeans and that's about all I own.


----------



## KJay (Sep 22, 2002)

The Naysayers will look at this and complain but that's 90% of the media. There's the complaining media. Heck yeah they should get some money for "uniforms" on the sidelines now. They get that in college ,why not now.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The NBA should give em each 200 bucks and tell em to go to the mens warehouse, and see how they like it.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

KJay said:


> The Naysayers will look at this and complain but that's 90% of the media. There's the complaining media. Heck yeah they should get some money for "uniforms" on the sidelines now. They get that in college ,why not now.


Last time I checked colleges didn't pay you millions to play basketball for them...enough said.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> As silly as it sounds at first blush, the players do have a point.
> 
> Rich or not, they are the ones being ask to suffer the inconvenience and expense of this new policy - while neither they nor their team benefit in any way. *To make matters worse, they know that they NBA makes a good chunk of change marketing the same retro/throwback jerseys that the players are now banned from wearing! *
> Having arbitrary and meaningless rules is just as bad as having no rules at all.


A good and valid point but one with many holes IMO. 

Does the banker who has to wear a suit to work every day get the same benefit then since he would rather wear a jeans, a t-shirt and some flip flops. Frankly I don't think they have much to complain about, many employers in today's workplace force employee's to buy their set uniforms by taking the cost of the uniform out of their paychecks. NBA players are not having to do this, they are being alllowed to choose what they wear from a wide variety of options. 

And unfort. the part of your post in bold is just flat out wrong. Having worked in NBA retail for 5 years with the Blazers I learned this; the NBA makes a pre-determined set amount on marketing deals from clothing companies each year. Thus their revenue is not based on the amount of product sold (jerseys, hats, t's, shorts etc. ) sold. Basically Reebok/Adidas pays a set amount each year for rights to all "on court wear", HardWood classics pays a set amount each year for rights to retired players names and team logos for throwback jerseys etc. Thus these companies may lose money from not having the indirect marketing of players wearing their products off the court but the NBA will not. The contracts with these companies are rarely renegotiated since the NBA license is in such high demand in the sports apparel world. 

Yes the NBA does have it own clothing line which they do make a small amount of revenue on. This line does not produce any of the items players are prone to wearing though. The NBA line generally consists of low cost / lower quality items such as T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats. They do not make player or throwback jerseys at all.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

#10 said:


> Zach does work hard, whereas Drexler slacked off in practice. I really doubt the 'good old days' were that great.


The good old days are what jaded me to the point of holding my present views. If the good old days took place in front of today's media circus... they might want to switch places.

I have read reported accounts of Zach not always being the 1st to show last to go guy to the gym (especially last year), and there was that practice incident with Nate. Is Zach really a problem? How the heck should I know? Was Drexler? Was Billy Ray? Was Walton? Are problems worth tolerating if you can bring it? 

I'm with Tim Duncan in feeling that the new dress code is... _"basically retarded."_ IMO it's just silly to have these guys pantomiming to America that they're bankers or some bleep during a basketball game. Personally I'm much more concerned if they're engaged and rooting on their teammates then what the injured guy is wearing or what sort of throwback LaBron was wearing during his postgame interview... and that doesn't mean much to me either. 

I know that I'm not alone in not liking to wear a suit and tie. Besides making you sort of stiff, in general they're just too hot for me. Because I'm not comfortable in them, I don't equate them with looking good. To me it's looking uncomfortable. To me the league has gone a lot further then they needed to. Banning headphones I'd understand... requiring a collared shirt is a reasonable decorum request IMO.

I can't say that I've ever thought twice about what any player was wearing pre or post game. I guess we come in all colors. Sorry but I just dont care about fashion or get it why others do. As a fan I primarily tune in for the game and the game only. I guess I want to hear some interjected player/coach comments postgame but I'd rather just see the highlight reel a few more times. 

Conversely here's David Stern from a recent ESPN article...

_"We've gotten more ink on the dress policy than the preseason," Stern told ESPN.com. "But that shouldn't surprise us. Magic Johnson, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Latrell Sprewell, Allen [Iverson's] rap record. It's the NBA, we're an accelerator, and actually, that's OK. We're live, unscripted drama. We're a soap opera, on the court and off the court."_

:dead: 

Can't they just start the season already?

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> As silly as it sounds at first blush, the players do have a point.
> 
> Rich or not, they are the ones being ask to suffer the inconvenience and expense of this new policy - while neither they nor their team benefit in any way.


You must be joking. Every player in the NBA ALREADY HAS A SUIT!! If they don't like the one they wore on draft night when they shook hands with David Stern, they can pick from numerous other ones hanging in their closets. You have to wear a suit when you go to an awards ceremony, a banquet, a league function, a wedding, a funeral, or to church. 

Most men over the age of 18 have a suit, unless they are dirt poor, and NBA players are far from that. They already have suits--they just want something to ***** about.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> And unfort. the part of your post in bold is just flat out wrong. Having worked in NBA retail for 5 years with the Blazers I learned this; the NBA makes a pre-determined set amount on marketing deals from clothing companies each year. Thus their revenue is not based on the amount of product sold (jerseys, hats, t's, shorts etc. ) sold. Basically Reebok/Adidas pays a set amount each year for rights to all "on court wear", HardWood classics pays a set amount each year for rights to retired players names and team logos for throwback jerseys etc. Thus these companies may lose money from not having the indirect marketing of players wearing their products off the court but the NBA will not. The contracts with these companies are rarely renegotiated since the NBA license is in such high demand in the sports apparel world.
> 
> Yes the NBA does have it own clothing line which they do make a small amount of revenue on. This line does not produce any of the items players are prone to wearing though. The NBA line generally consists of low cost / lower quality items such as T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats. They do not make player or throwback jerseys at all.


I didn't know that. Interesting.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I didn't know that. Interesting.


Nor did I until I worked there...ownership of the NBA license was one of the major factors in Adidas's recent purchase of Reebok.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I think there are good arguments on both sides. My take is that Stern has been a mastermind in marketing the NBA. He has taken a sport that used to televise the championship games on a delayed basis at night and marketed the sport to the tune of record contracts with the networks. He has been creative, aggressive and innovative when it comes to marketing the NBA. His goal now is to globalize the sport. I don't think you would find many who would question his effectiveness in marketint the NBA. For now, I'll defer to his decision on this as a way to make the NBA more marketable . . . he may be wrong this time who who am I to question Stern when it comes to marketing the NBA

Of course I give the same deference to Jerry West moves as a GM and he hasn't exactly had the midas touch as of late. Start the rumor now, West to Portland. West and Allen's cash, now that is something to get excited about.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

My employer requires me to wear cloths to work. GASP! They should buy them for me! Also... when I am traveling for the company they expect be to wear professional attire! Oh the anarchy! Now granted... some jobs do give you money for duds... when I was applying for a job with the Whitehouse Communication Agency it included money for suits. It isn't unheard of them to ask for money for cloths... but it sounds more like when I tell my son he has to do something he doesn't want to and the but... but... but... buts... start.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Some business men have to take money from their pay checks for suits so why not nba players.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Last time I checked colleges didn't pay you millions to play basketball for them...enough said.


colleges give them free college.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> colleges give them free college.


Last time I checked college didn't cost anywhere near a million dollars...and I wonder how many of those players actually take advantage of that "free college."


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Last time I checked college didn't cost anywhere near a million dollars...and I wonder how many of those players actually take advantage of that "free college."


right. but they still get free college, free housing, and everything else.

i don't see why it's such a bad thing these players are suggesting the league should give them money for suits. yes, the players make millions of dollars. but unless i'm mistaken, the players don't have to pay for their uniforms. they are provided by the league. so if the league is requiring them to wear certain things when they are off the court, i don't think it's ridiculous that the players ask the league to pay for those too. it doesn't matter that they have millions of dollars. it's the idea that the league can require a player to wear something off the court, but at the same time say the players have to buy these things themselves that the players are against.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Last time I checked college didn't cost anywhere near a million dollars...and I wonder how many of those players actually take advantage of that "free college."


I'd imagine a pretty decent percentage of top prospects who later go on to pro careers took handouts and the like in college. I think like a lot of other crimes that people get caught doing, those guys that are caught are probably only the tip of the iceberg as to whats really going on. College sports is a bigtime business, and we've seen the amounts of money that these guys are getting offered on more then a couple occations. 

I'd imagine that some top prospects are probably clean of this sort of thing, but I've only guesses if it's a lot, the majority, or the exception. 

STOMP


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

So...

Are the players saying they want the league to pay for the suits because the cost would be too high, or are they saying they want the league to for the suits because, as the league is requiring a dress code outside of the court, it is unfair to make players pay for the clothes - which they ordinarily wouldn't wear in the setting the league is requiring them to - themselves? 

Hmmmm, think about it. It's not that ****ing difficult to figure out. This isn't a money issue, like so many fans are trying to make it out to be. I think it's a question of fairness. Now, whether or not you agree that it's unfair to make the players pay for the clothes is a matter of opinion. But acting like these players are being greedy is a misperception of their complaints. Get it right, and quit inventing reasons to constantly ***** and moan at these guys. Damn...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> So...
> 
> Are the players saying they want the league to pay for the suits because the cost would be too high, or are they saying they want the league to for the suits because, as the league is requiring a dress code outside of the court, it is unfair to make players pay for the clothes - which they ordinarily wouldn't wear in the setting the league is requiring them to - themselves?
> 
> Hmmmm, think about it. It's not that ****ing difficult to figure out. This isn't a money issue, like so many fans are trying to make it out to be. I think it's a question of fairness. Now, whether or not you agree that it's unfair to make the players pay for the clothes is a matter of opinion. But acting like these players are being greedy is a misperception of their complaints. Get it right, and quit inventing reasons to constantly ***** and moan at these guys. Damn...


i usually don't agree with you about a lot of things, but this is exactly right.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> right. but they still get free college, free housing, and everything else.
> 
> i don't see why it's such a bad thing these players are suggesting the league should give them money for suits. yes, the players make millions of dollars. but unless i'm mistaken, the players don't have to pay for their uniforms. they are provided by the league. so if the league is requiring them to wear certain things when they are off the court, i don't think it's ridiculous that the players ask the league to pay for those too. it doesn't matter that they have millions of dollars. it's the idea that the league can require a player to wear something off the court, but at the same time say the players have to buy these things themselves that the players are against.


Does a business man want to wear a suit and tie to work..doubtful. Does a contruction worker want to wear pants and heavy work boots and long sleeves on a hot day? Do food service people want to wear hair nets? 

Basically it is generally accepted in our society that if you want to get paid you abide by the rules your employer sets for you. Why should it be any different for NBA players?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> So...
> 
> Are the players saying they want the league to pay for the suits because the cost would be too high, or are they saying they want the league to for the suits because, as the league is requiring a dress code outside of the court, it is unfair to make players pay for the clothes - which they ordinarily wouldn't wear in the setting the league is requiring them to - themselves?
> 
> Hmmmm, think about it. It's not that ****ing difficult to figure out. This isn't a money issue, like so many fans are trying to make it out to be. I think it's a question of fairness. Now, whether or not you agree that it's unfair to make the players pay for the clothes is a matter of opinion. But acting like these players are being greedy is a misperception of their complaints. Get it right, and quit inventing reasons to constantly ***** and moan at these guys. Damn...


If it isn't a money issue then why are players asking for the NBA to pay for their clothes? 

Them protesting that the rule is unfair is completely different then them saying, "ok we'll abide by your rules but you have to pay for the clothes you want us to wear."


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Very good point sa.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Does a business man want to wear a suit and tie to work..doubtful. Does a contruction worker want to wear pants and heavy work boots and long sleeves on a hot day? Do food service people want to wear hair nets?
> 
> Basically it is generally accepted in our society that if you want to get paid you abide by the rules your employer sets for you. Why should it be any different for NBA players?


In the other examples you noted, the dress code was pre-existing. In the NBA's case, it's been imposed after a long-*** time. Also, pants and heavy boot for construction workers and hair nets serve actual purposes - protection and health. Obviously, the NBA dress code has nothing to do with those kinds of things, and is merely a social consideration - an image thing. 

Also, it's true that the players work for the NBA, but do you also realize that these players *generate* money for the NBA? ****, at almost every single job, employees don't generate income for their employers in the same way players do for the NBA, or any other team sport. The real selling point is these guys' talent. In a business setting, you're usually selling a specific product or service, and don't depend on the employees in the same way the NBA depends on its players. Honestly, if the players organized and had the will to do so, they could leave the current owners and start their own league, and after a certain amount of time, they'd still fill arenas up. It's not like the NBA is doing this incredible job marketing something, and that's the reason they make money. Of course - and perhaps unfortunately - the NBA is partially a business, and does require enormous amounts of marketing, organization, and business savvy, and the NBA should get credit for handling the massive amount of work that goes into it. But let's not fool ourselves - the players are the real ones generating money, not the owners. In light of that, the whole "do what your employers say" clique is shifted a little bit. Not that the players should do whatever the hell they want, but the power of the employer is less relevant in this situation.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> If it isn't a money issue then why are players asking for the NBA to pay for their clothes?
> 
> Them protesting that the rule is unfair is completely different then them saying, "ok we'll abide by your rules but you have to pay for the clothes you want us to wear."


No, the two are related. Basically, they are saying, "If you want us to wear certain clothes, you should have to pay for it." Not because the cost is a concern, but because they wouldn't wear the clothes otherwise. This makes perfect sense to me. Why should a player go drop money on a suit he wouldn't wear otherwise? If the NBA is mandating certain clothing outside of the court, why should the players pick up the tab? It seems like a slap in the face to me. 

The NBA players who have talked about the NBA paying for their clothes are coming from a perspective of obligation and responsibility, not money.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> In the other examples you noted, the dress code was pre-existing. In the NBA's case, it's been imposed after a long-*** time. Also, pants and heavy boot for construction workers and hair nets serve actual purposes - protection and health. Obviously, the NBA dress code has nothing to do with those kinds of things, and is merely a social consideration - an image thing.
> 
> Also, it's true that the players work for the NBA, but do you also realize that these players *generate* money for the NBA? ****, at almost every single job, employees don't generate income for their employers in the same way players do for the NBA, or any other team sport. The real selling point is these guys' talent. In a business setting, you're usually selling a specific product or service, and don't depend on the employees in the same way the NBA depends on its players. Honestly, if the players organized and had the will to do so, they could leave the current owners and start their own league, and after a certain amount of time, they'd still fill arenas up. It's not like the NBA is doing this incredible job marketing something, and that's the reason they make money. Of course - and perhaps unfortunately - the NBA is partially a business, and does require enormous amounts of marketing, organization, and business savvy, and the NBA should get credit for handling the massive amount of work that goes into it. But let's not fool ourselves - the players are the real ones generating money, not the owners. In light of that, the whole "do what your employers say" clique is shifted a little bit. Not that the players should do whatever the hell they want, but the power of the employer is less relevant in this situation.


So given that logic, if the NBA "talent" is not packing the seats and the owners lose money, do they still have to pay the players?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> In the other examples you noted, the dress code was pre-existing. In the NBA's case, it's been imposed after a long-*** time. Also, pants and heavy boot for construction workers and hair nets serve actual purposes - protection and health. Obviously, the NBA dress code has nothing to do with those kinds of things, and is merely a social consideration - an image thing.
> 
> Also, it's true that the players work for the NBA, but do you also realize that these players *generate* money for the NBA? ****, at almost every single job, employees don't generate income for their employers in the same way players do for the NBA, or any other team sport. The real selling point is these guys' talent. In a business setting, you're usually selling a specific product or service, and don't depend on the employees in the same way the NBA depends on its players. Honestly, if the players organized and had the will to do so, they could leave the current owners and start their own league, and after a certain amount of time, they'd still fill arenas up. It's not like the NBA is doing this incredible job marketing something, and that's the reason they make money. Of course - and perhaps unfortunately - the NBA is partially a business, and does require enormous amounts of marketing, organization, and business savvy, and the NBA should get credit for handling the massive amount of work that goes into it. But let's not fool ourselves - the players are the real ones generating money, not the owners. In light of that, the whole "do what your employers say" clique is shifted a little bit. Not that the players should do whatever the hell they want, but the power of the employer is less relevant in this situation.


It doesn't matter how the money is made or what part of the organization generates it. It matters who controls it. In most major corporations the revenue is generated by the masses and distributed by the select few. The NBA is no different. Let the NBA players strike and then try to go find someone else who will pay them millions to play basketball. 

Sure the players could all leave and try to creates their own league etc where they didn't have to abide by these rules but as you note their are many other factors that make the NBA a sucess. Frankly a majority of the NBA's players do not have the skills or abilities to handle these other factors. 

You must remember a huge amount of the NBA's income is based on marketing and TV deals. Thus it's based on the perception the public has upon it and it's players. You just need to realize a majority of the American public perceives someone nicely dressed in a suit, collared shirt, slacks etc better then they do someone dressed in baggy pants and a throwback jersey. Do commercials on network television show people this way trying to sell common products? 

All the NBA is doing is trying to best market themselves to the masses. Yes these masses are not the same demographic that most of their players come from. It's just a fact that most of this country is caucasian and most of the NBA is not. It's a game of percentages. You can try to market to the younger generation which supports the hip hop style adopted by many NBA players but you will lose money doing so. It's a simple fact the majority of the people with money to spend are in the 35-60 year old old generation. And it's also a simple fact these people just don't like that hip hop style of dress adopted by many NBA players.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Roddney the article stated Randolph complained about "paying" for the clothing. Perhaps they misrepresented what he was complaining about... but it sure looked to me like it was the money thing.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Roddney the article stated Randolph complained about "paying" for the clothing. Perhaps they misrepresented what he was complaining about... but it sure looked to me like it was the money thing.


Does Randolph pay for the jersey he wears during games? The socks... the shoes? These guys get everything handed to them on a silver platter... geez they even get a meal stipend on the road. Is it any wonder that they'd expect this suddendly required expense to be picked up too? 

Ya'll might not relate to their world, but this seems like a par for the course request to me.

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

STOMP said:


> Does Randolph pay for the jersey he wears during games? The socks... the shoes? These guys get everything handed to them on a silver platter... geez they even get a meal stipend on the road. Is it any wonder that they'd expect this suddendly required expense to be picked up too?
> 
> Ya'll might not relate to their world, but this seems like a par for the course request to me.
> 
> STOMP


Understandable argument, yet I think many of us would suggest that these players shouldn't get everything handed to them on a silver plater. Plus this isn't a uniform we are talking about here. IMO it's simply about dressing in a manner apropriate to the majority of your viewing audience.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

These guys enter the court in warmups with their team logos on them right? No one has a problem, so why don't we just have them wear that same uniform to the games from their hotels or houses? They are changing into them any way. After the game they put on another on the court set of sweats and go home or back to the hotel. For those of us who have played sports, wearing a suit after a game is the last thing you want to wear. 

This really is an easy fix. Team sweats to and from the games, dress as you want outside of that!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

YardApe said:


> These guys enter the court in warmups with their team logos on them right? No one has a problem, so why don't we just have them wear that same uniform to the games from their hotels or houses? They are changing into them any way. After the game they put on another on the court set of sweats and go home or back to the hotel. For those of us who have played sports, wearing a suit after a game is the last thing you want to wear.
> 
> This really is an easy fix. Team sweats to and from the games, dress as you want outside of that!


Agreed...according to the rule they can wear "team approved" sweats when leaving the arena and during post-game interviews but not when arriving or for pre-game interviews. That's the one part of the rule I disagree with. Let them wear team approved sweats all the time if they want to.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> So...
> 
> Are the players saying they want the league to pay for the suits because the cost would be too high, or are they saying they want the league to for the suits because, as the league is requiring a dress code outside of the court, it is unfair to make players pay for the clothes - which they ordinarily wouldn't wear in the setting the league is requiring them to - themselves?
> 
> Hmmmm, think about it. It's not that ****ing difficult to figure out. This isn't a money issue, like so many fans are trying to make it out to be. I think it's a question of fairness. Now, whether or not you agree that it's unfair to make the players pay for the clothes is a matter of opinion. But acting like these players are being greedy is a misperception of their complaints. Get it right, and quit inventing reasons to constantly ***** and moan at these guys. Damn...


 :usa: :cheers: :clap:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

David Stern must have watched "Coach Carter"...


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So given that logic, if the NBA "talent" is not packing the seats and the owners lose money, do they still have to pay the players?


You're talking about something else. My point was that the main source of revenue generation is the players, as opposed to most businesses, where the main source of revenue generation is the product, service, or CEOs of the business. Using that, I'm saying the whole argument of "the owners cut the check, do what the **** they say" is shifted (not negated) in the NBA, since the players - not the structure of the "business" - are the real generators of the income. In other words, the players have a little more power than the typical employee. 

I guess I don't understand the connection you're making. Could you clarify a little more for me?


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Roddney the article stated Randolph complained about "paying" for the clothing. Perhaps they misrepresented what he was complaining about... but it sure looked to me like it was the money thing.


Oh, no, I agree that he was talking about the "paying" thing. But the underlying argument out of that is that the players want the NBA to pay for the suits because the players don't think they can afford it; that they're being too greedy with their money. I'm counterring that by saying the players aren't suggesting the league issues a stipend based on their inability or unwillingness to pay based on finances, but on the league mandating the type of clothing they wear. I don't know about you, but if my employer told me I had to wear a certain thing to and from work, I wouldn't spend a dime on it. It's the principle, not the economics of the matter.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Understandable argument, yet I think many of us would suggest that these players shouldn't get everything handed to them on a silver plater. Plus this isn't a uniform we are talking about here. IMO it's simply about dressing in a manner apropriate to the majority of your viewing audience.


A uniform is required for them to play the game, and now a suit is required for them to wear to and from the game... since both are required by the league, I don't see why the player foots the bill on the vastly more expensive (and unnecessary) items that the league wants them to wear for their own PR concerns. 

and since when do the majority of the viewing audience care one iota what the guys wear? I think you're projecting your personal views on people who could largely care less. You, and some other fans, may not like the way that atheletes get catered to, but thats the way it is from Jr High on. I suspect that thats the way this will turn out as well. 

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> It does matter how the money is made and what part of the organization generates it, in terms of power and responsibility. If you wanna believe that the structure of the NBA is the main selling point, let me ask you this: How many people are gonna go to games with replacement players? Again, since the main thing generating profit for the league is the talent of the players, you have to take more than the "cut the check" approach when talking about players adhering to organizational standards, because since the ability of the *players is generating so much profit, they should have a larger stake and say in the rules the league abides by. *


Keep in mind the NBA players union is the strongest union in any professional sport. Check out the rights of NFL players and how much say they have in how their league is run if you really want something to get angry about. I am not saying I agree with either but the NBA players do have better representation then most. 




> Of course, but you'll see that this is different in the NBA. You think David Stern is making what a lot of the players are? I don't think so, or at least would hope not. I believe something like 50% of the the NBA costs is players' salaries. To me - and I may be wrong - that's an enormous amount going to "employees". Why? Cause their talent makes it so.


I said the money was distributed by a few not paid to a few. The money is generated by the players but not controlled unless they choose to strike and frankly they aren't going to be willing to strike over a issue like this since their are much bigger issues to worry about. Thus they essentially have no power over this particular issue. 



> So basically what you're saying, is, bow down to the racist attitudes and stereotypes the masses of white people have about black people, for the sake of money? That's bull****. If some white dude doesn't like the way Allen Iverson dresses, and won't support the NBA because of that, **** em - upside down hanging from a ceiling fan in a moving truck. And this is precisely the problem of letting racist, white people run the league, and I'll put part of the blame on the players for not taking some control. Basically, as has happened over and over in African-American history, blacks get stereotyped and demonized, and as a result their images are constructed and deconstructed to fit and dismantle these stereotypes. It's bull****. Like AI said, it's what's inside that counts. If white America doesn't like the way these black dudes are dressing, **** em. We don't need those dollars then. There is more at stake and more purpose here than money. But as usual, society wants to pimp black players.
> 
> All that said, I really don't want to turn this into a highly racial issue yet again, because as I've seen and experienced on BBB.net, it brings everything to a screeching halt. My main issue here is that given the players' talents and abilities, they need to have more say over ****. Secondly, quit making the NBA into such a business venture. Obviously, there is responsibility on both ends, but this specific case falls on the owners' shoulders. It's a game, keep it that way.


I don't disagree with a single thing you have said here, and I am not "saying" anything. It's a decision the NBA has made not me so take your anger and expletives and direct it at them. Also note I was pointing out that I think it's a issue of age not a issue of race. I wish the NBA was just a game but it isn't it's a business. It's not about racism it's about money and I agree that it's sad that money takes precedence but such is the product of a capitalist society. 

It's obvious you are quite inteligent so consider cutting out the swear words, they just make you look immature and ignorant and take away from the intelligent and insightful meaning of your post. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I think giving interviews and dealing with the media is definitely a part of being an NBA player... so in that respect they are still on the job and I don't have a problem with the league trying to say what they wear.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

STOMP said:


> A uniform is required for them to play the game, and now a suit is required for them to wear to and from the game... since both are required by the league, I don't see why the player foots the bill on the vastly more expensive (and unnecessary) items that the league wants them to wear for their own PR concerns.
> 
> and since when do the majority of the viewing audience care one iota what the guys wear? *I think you're projecting your personal views on people who could largely care less. You, and some other fans, may not like the way that atheletes get catere*d to, but thats the way it is from Jr High on. I suspect that thats the way this will turn out as well.
> 
> STOMP


Once again..this is not a isse about me, it's a issue about the NBA and those who govern it. They made a decisions so if you want to get upset with them for "projecting their personal views" then by all means go for it. I was just pointing out why I think they made the decision they made.

Yes I do think players should earn their money and not be served everything on a "silver plater" just because they are NBA players. Michael Jordan thinks this as well if you happened to see his 60 minutes interview. If wearing certain clothes is part of what the league deams they need to do to earn their paychecks then I think they should do it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Once again..this is not a isse about me, it's a issue about the NBA and those who govern it. They made a decisions so if you want to upset with them for "projecting their personal views" then by all means go for it. I was just pointing out why I think they made the decision they made.


I was responding to your phrasing of things like- _many of us would suggest_ and _appropriate to the majority of your viewing audience_- as if you're a part of the majority opinion on this matter... IMO most fans really didn't care one way or another... I think it's mostly a publicity/PR stunt by the guy who made this decision, David Stern.

Did you read that gleeful quote of his I posted about how pleased he was with all the press chatterings over the dress code? He happily compared the league to a soap opera as if thats a good thing. He's just pulling our collective chains for ratings. I wish the comissioner was concerned more with improving the game and league then spending any time with this sort of stuff.

STOMP


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

nba players have kids to feed too....


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

STOMP said:


> I was responding to your phrasing of things like- _many of us would suggest_ and _appropriate to the majority of your viewing audience_- as if you're a part of the majority opinion on this matter... IMO most fans really didn't care one way or another... I think it's mostly a publicity/PR stunt by the guy who made this decision, David Stern.
> 
> Did you read that gleeful quote of his I posted about how pleased he was with all the press chatterings over the dress code? He happily compared the league to a soap opera as if thats a good thing. He's just pulling our collective chains for ratings. I wish the comissioner was concerned more with improving the game and league then spending any time with this sort of stuff.
> 
> STOMP


Ahh I see, sorry I misunderstood. Although I do think I am part of Sterns "intended apropriate viewing audience" in that I am a male between the ages of 18 and 60. Particulary between the ages of 25-60 since older folks generally have more $$ to spend. Not true in my case though.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> And this is precisely the problem of letting racist, white people run the league, and I'll put part of the blame on the players for not taking some control. Basically, as has happened over and over in African-American history, blacks get stereotyped and demonized, and as a result their images are constructed and deconstructed to fit and dismantle these stereotypes.


Newsflash....

That same "white people" regime (meaning Stern) has been running the NBA since the mid-80's.....And the NBA has gained in popularity while he's been at the helm....

I disagree that with your theory that blacks have been stereotyped for their image for years....How come the dress code wasn't an issue when Magic Johnson, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Karl Malone, Clyde Drexler, Isiah Thomas and all the other great black players that have played over the years and molded the NBA?....Because those guys didn't make themselves look like idiots with their whole thuggish ruggish anarchy attitude.....They had respect for the fans, their management, the league, the city they played in....

Its a fairly simple concept that shouldn't be such an issue, you show up to work and follow the rules mandated by the league office just like everyone else does....The fact that its even issue to these players and their lame excuses for it being an issue, like not being able to afford a suit just goes to show that some of the players in the league have **** for brains....


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Its a fairly simple concept that shouldn't be such an issue, you show up to work and follow the rules mandated by the league office just like everyone else does....The fact that its even issue to these players and their lame excuses for it being an issue, like not being able to afford a suit just goes to show that some of the players in the league have **** for brains....


when did anyone say they couldn't afford a suit?

they just said if the nba is going to require them to wear a suit, the nba should pay for the suits. that is a fairly simple concept to grasp that a lot of people seem to be having trouble with. no one is suggesting they can't afford a suit. they just want the nba to pay for things that the nba requires them to wear. is it really that ridiculous of a concept?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> when did anyone say they couldn't afford a suit?
> 
> they just said if the nba is going to require them to wear a suit, the nba should pay for the suits. that is a fairly simple concept to grasp that a lot of people seem to be having trouble with. no one is suggesting they can't afford a suit. they just want the nba to pay for things that the nba requires them to wear. is it really that ridiculous of a concept?


it was on the Dan Patrick show the other day and they had a big segment pretty much poking fun that a player would use that as an excuse.....The player who said it escapes me though....And it was a star player too...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> it was on the Dan Patrick show the other day and they had a big segment pretty much poking fun that a player would use that as an excuse.....The player who said it escapes me though....And it was a star player too...


no player that i know of has said they can't afford a suit. they have come out and said they don't want to buy suits and think the league should pay for their suits since the league is requiring them to be worn. there is a difference.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

but Rocketeer... I really don't buy that they wouldn't have a problem if the league bought them all suits... I think it would just change the tune of what they were complaining about.


----------

