Commercial bank: the term used for a normal bank to distinguish it from an investment bank. After the Great Depression, the U.S. Congress required that banks only engage in banking activities, whereas investment banks were limited to capital market activities. Since the two no longer have to be under separate ownership, some use the term "commercial bank" to refer to a bank or a division of a bank that mostly deals with deposits and loans from corporations or large businesses.
Community Banks: locally operated financial institutions that empower employees to make local decisions to serve their customers and the partners
Community development banks: regulated banks that provide financial services and credit to underserved markets or populations.
Postal savings banks: savings banks associated with national postal systems.
Private banks: manage the assets of high net worth individuals.
Offshore banks: banks located in jurisdictions with low taxation and regulation. Many offshore banks are essentially private banks.
Savings bank: in Europe, savings banks take their roots in the 19th or sometimes even 18th century. Their original objective was to provide easily accessible savings products to all strata of the population. In some countries, savings banks were created on public initiative, while in others socially committed individuals created foundations to put in place the necessary infrastructure. Nowadays, European savings banks have kept their focus on retail banking: payments, savings products, credits and insurances for individuals or small and medium-sized enterprises. Apart from this retail focus, they also differ from commercial banks by their broadly decentralised distribution network, providing local and regional outreach and by their socially responsible approach to business and society.
Building societies and Landesbanks: conduct retail banking.
Ethical banks: banks that prioritize the transparency of all operations and make only social-responsible investments.
woensdag 30 mei 2007
'Bankconsortium schrapt tot 19.000 banen'
Als ABN Amro wordt overgenomen door het bankenconsortium Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Fortis en Santander gaan er wereldwijd 17.000 tot 19.000 banen verloren. In Nederland gaat het om 7500 arbeidsplaatsen. Dat heeft de bankengroep gezegd tegen de vakbonden na een overleg dinsdagavond, zo liet vakbond De Unie woensdag weten.
Het consortium bracht dinsdag een bod uit op ABN Amro van ruim 71 miljard euro. De drie willen ABN Amro overnemen en opdelen.
Transactie-committee
In de overnamestrijd gaan de commissarissen van de bank een actievere rol spelen. De bank richt een zogenoemd transactie-committee op, bestaande uit drie toezichthouders van ABN Amro.
De commissie bestaat uit Arthur Martinez, voorzitter van de raad van commissarissen, en de commissarissen André Olijslager en Rob van den Bergh. Ze zullen met het bestuur van ABN Amro en zijn adviseurs doorlopend in gesprek gaan over de interesse van Barclays enerzijds en het bankentrio Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Fortis en Santander anderzijds.
De commissie bestaat uit Arthur Martinez, voorzitter van de raad van commissarissen, en de commissarissen André Olijslager en Rob van den Bergh. Ze zullen met het bestuur van ABN Amro en zijn adviseurs doorlopend in gesprek gaan over de interesse van Barclays enerzijds en het bankentrio Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Fortis en Santander anderzijds.
Gepaste beslissingen
Het bestuur van ABN Amro juicht het initiatief van de raad van commissarissen toe. ,,We verwelkomen dat de raad zich meer met belangrijke bestuurskwesties zal bezighouden. Dat is in het belang van de bank en alle betrokkenen eromheen'', aldus ABN Amro. ,,Wij gaan het bod nauwgezet overwegen en bekijken wat voor gevolgen het heeft voor ABN Amro, onze aandeelhouders en andere belanghebbenden''.
De drie commissarissen zullen hun bevindingen rapporteren aan de volledige raad van commissarissen. Deze raad kan vervolgens, bijgestaan door eigen financiële en juridische adviseurs, de ,,gepaste beslissingen nemen met in het achterhoofd de belangen van de bank en alle betrokkenen''.
De drie commissarissen zullen hun bevindingen rapporteren aan de volledige raad van commissarissen. Deze raad kan vervolgens, bijgestaan door eigen financiële en juridische adviseurs, de ,,gepaste beslissingen nemen met in het achterhoofd de belangen van de bank en alle betrokkenen''.
Verplicht
Financieel analist Gert-Jaap Kraan van Theodoor Gilissen vindt de stap van ABN Amro logisch, in het licht van het officiële bod van het bankentrio. ,,ABN Amro is dit min of meer verplicht naar zijn aandeelhouders toe. Ook omdat er binnenkort moet worden gestemd door de aandeelhouders voor het bod van Barclays of dat van het drietal.''
maandag 28 mei 2007
Korting voor donoren
Orgaandonoren krijgen vanaf vandaag korting op hun eigen uitvaart. Monuta uitvaartzorg en verzekeringen geeft mensen die één of meerdere organen afstaan € 150,- korting op hun uitvaart. De uitvaartonderneming geeft met de regeling gehoor aan een oproep van de Nierstichting. De Nierstichting wil met financiële prikkels bevorderen dat er meer orgaandonoren in Nederland komen. Monuta, met 130 vestigingen en 17.000 uitvaarten per jaar, de grootste uitvaartverzorger in ons land legde contact met de Nierstichting en besloot een speciale kortingactie voor donoren te starten. Elk jaar sterven er honderden mensen omdat er niet op tijd een vervangend orgaan beschikbaar is. Momenteel wachten er meer dan 1400 mensen op een orgaan. Volgens onderzoek zou een kwart van de Nederlanders niets voor donatie voelen. Monuta hoopt dat de kortingsactie niet lang duurt en dat er binnenkort geen tekorten meer zijn.
woensdag 23 mei 2007
Europese beurzen in rustig tempo omhoog
AMSTERDAM (ANP) - De belangrijkste beursgraadmeters in Europa gingen woensdag bij de opening voorzichtig omhoog, gesteund door aanhoudende fusie- en overnamegeluiden.,,Het gonst van de geruchten en dat zal voorlopig zo blijven'', zei Rik Zwaneveld, handelaar bij AFS Brokers.
De sportautofabrikant Spyker Cars kreeg een fikse draai om de oren op het nieuws dat het zijn merknaam in onderpand heeft gebracht bij een bank.
Na ongeveer drie kwartier handel stond de AEX, de hoofdindex in Amsterdam, 0,1 procent hoger op 540,92 punten. De MidKap, de index voor het middensegment won 0,4 procent op 737,39 punten. De beurzen in Londen, Parijs en Frankfurt klommen tussen de 0,2 en 0,4 procent.
Ahold
Het supermarktconcern Ahold behoorde tot de sterkere stijgers onder de hoofdfondsen in Amsterdam met een koerswinst van 1 procent. Beleggers reageerden enthousiast op de plannen van de onderneming om 1,89 euro per aandeel aan de aandeelhouders uit te keren.
Het telecomconcern KPN ging aan kop in de AEX met een winst van 1,9 procent. Het uitgeefbedrijf Wolters Kluwer (min 0,4 procent) was de grootste daler.
LogicaCMG
Bij de middelgrote fondsen liet LogicaCMG een klein herstel zien van de zware koersval van dinsdag. Het aandeel noteerde 1,2 procent hoger, goed voor de eerste plaats. Dinsdag kelderde het aandeel ruim 9 procent na het geven van een waarschuwing voor tegenvallende resultaten dit jaar. Citigroup heeft een koopadvies gegeven voor het aandeel.
De grootste daler op het Damrak was Spyker Cars met een verlies van 8,7 procent. Eerder op de ochtend was het aandeel zelfs meer dan 16 procent lager. Spyker heeft een jaar geleden zijn merknaam verpand aan Friesland Bank. De sportwagenfabrikant ontkent het nieuws van de verpanding te hebben achtergehouden. ,,We hebben alles volgens de regels gedaan'', aldus de woordvoerster.
De euro stond op de valutamarkten op 1,3420 dollar. Dinsdag bij het slot van de Europese beurshandel werd 1,3460 dollar betaald.
Bij de middelgrote fondsen liet LogicaCMG een klein herstel zien van de zware koersval van dinsdag. Het aandeel noteerde 1,2 procent hoger, goed voor de eerste plaats. Dinsdag kelderde het aandeel ruim 9 procent na het geven van een waarschuwing voor tegenvallende resultaten dit jaar. Citigroup heeft een koopadvies gegeven voor het aandeel.
De grootste daler op het Damrak was Spyker Cars met een verlies van 8,7 procent. Eerder op de ochtend was het aandeel zelfs meer dan 16 procent lager. Spyker heeft een jaar geleden zijn merknaam verpand aan Friesland Bank. De sportwagenfabrikant ontkent het nieuws van de verpanding te hebben achtergehouden. ,,We hebben alles volgens de regels gedaan'', aldus de woordvoerster.
De euro stond op de valutamarkten op 1,3420 dollar. Dinsdag bij het slot van de Europese beurshandel werd 1,3460 dollar betaald.
De sportautofabrikant Spyker Cars kreeg een fikse draai om de oren op het nieuws dat het zijn merknaam in onderpand heeft gebracht bij een bank.
Na ongeveer drie kwartier handel stond de AEX, de hoofdindex in Amsterdam, 0,1 procent hoger op 540,92 punten. De MidKap, de index voor het middensegment won 0,4 procent op 737,39 punten. De beurzen in Londen, Parijs en Frankfurt klommen tussen de 0,2 en 0,4 procent.
Ahold
Het supermarktconcern Ahold behoorde tot de sterkere stijgers onder de hoofdfondsen in Amsterdam met een koerswinst van 1 procent. Beleggers reageerden enthousiast op de plannen van de onderneming om 1,89 euro per aandeel aan de aandeelhouders uit te keren.
Het telecomconcern KPN ging aan kop in de AEX met een winst van 1,9 procent. Het uitgeefbedrijf Wolters Kluwer (min 0,4 procent) was de grootste daler.
LogicaCMG
Bij de middelgrote fondsen liet LogicaCMG een klein herstel zien van de zware koersval van dinsdag. Het aandeel noteerde 1,2 procent hoger, goed voor de eerste plaats. Dinsdag kelderde het aandeel ruim 9 procent na het geven van een waarschuwing voor tegenvallende resultaten dit jaar. Citigroup heeft een koopadvies gegeven voor het aandeel.
De grootste daler op het Damrak was Spyker Cars met een verlies van 8,7 procent. Eerder op de ochtend was het aandeel zelfs meer dan 16 procent lager. Spyker heeft een jaar geleden zijn merknaam verpand aan Friesland Bank. De sportwagenfabrikant ontkent het nieuws van de verpanding te hebben achtergehouden. ,,We hebben alles volgens de regels gedaan'', aldus de woordvoerster.
De euro stond op de valutamarkten op 1,3420 dollar. Dinsdag bij het slot van de Europese beurshandel werd 1,3460 dollar betaald.
Bij de middelgrote fondsen liet LogicaCMG een klein herstel zien van de zware koersval van dinsdag. Het aandeel noteerde 1,2 procent hoger, goed voor de eerste plaats. Dinsdag kelderde het aandeel ruim 9 procent na het geven van een waarschuwing voor tegenvallende resultaten dit jaar. Citigroup heeft een koopadvies gegeven voor het aandeel.
De grootste daler op het Damrak was Spyker Cars met een verlies van 8,7 procent. Eerder op de ochtend was het aandeel zelfs meer dan 16 procent lager. Spyker heeft een jaar geleden zijn merknaam verpand aan Friesland Bank. De sportwagenfabrikant ontkent het nieuws van de verpanding te hebben achtergehouden. ,,We hebben alles volgens de regels gedaan'', aldus de woordvoerster.
De euro stond op de valutamarkten op 1,3420 dollar. Dinsdag bij het slot van de Europese beurshandel werd 1,3460 dollar betaald.
vrijdag 18 mei 2007
How to Reconcile Economics and Politics
From Nigeria to Argentina, the success or failure of economic and development policies are intrinsically related to politics. How adept are economists who know what to do at bringing about change? Do they know how to do it? Should economists become politicians, or is there a risk that the politics of economics might blind them?
These were some of the questions discussed at ”Economists in Politics: Politicians or Technocrats?” held on the first day of the two-week long Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Knowledge and Learning Forum 2007.
A Clear Connection
"Economics and politics are very clearly connected and a lot of the issues we deal with in development are either successful or not successful depending on the political context,” said PREM Vice-President Danny Leipziger , who moderated the debate. “This is true when you look at privatization, tax reform, issues of competition policy, and labor market reform, to highlight just a few."
The speakers on the panel included Ricardo Lopez-Murphy, former defense and finance minister of Argentina, and presidential candidate; Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine and former trade and industry minister of Venezuela; and Ngozi N. Okonjo-Iweala, a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution and former finance minister of Nigeria.
"Is there a conflict between a good economy and good politics? I don't think so,” said Lopez-Murphy. “The good politician understands very well that macroeconomic consistency is vital to survive. If you make mistakes in macroeconomic policy, you will be dead before the long run.”
Nevertheless, there are differences in timing and priorities between economists and politicians, according to the panel, and they need to be well understood. Successful economists-turned-politicians understand this.
From Technocrats to Techno-Politicians
Politicians are often driven by the will to retain power, acting on a short-term basis, while economists must take into account the trade-offs in the long run. But sometimes, economists suffer from “tunnel vision,” tending to ignore the greater national debate when designing their policies.
“I'm not sure we’ve quite succeeded in the complete evolution from technocrat to techno-politician, but I think we need a way to bring the two together,” said Okonjo-Iweala. “Train the politicians to better appreciate what the technocrats have to say and train the technocrats to better appreciate what it takes to bring the politicians along to support your programs.”
Politics vs. Policy
The issue is far from being “clear-cut,” as the Naim, the Foreign Policy magazine editor, suggested by referring to the case of Venezuela.
“President (Hugo) Chavez epitomizes very bad policies and very bad economics, but excellent politics,” Naim said. “He is easily dismissed among the elites, but why is it that he’s so successful, while none of his predecessors enjoyed a similar situation?”
The key then, for both technocrats and politicians, is to learn from each other, and also to educate the public about the consequences of their policies. In order to have a better understanding and communication with the public, a system of checks and balances is needed, as well as the right institutions to support this process, according to the panelists.
Getting the Right Advice
What is the role of the international institutions in helping the countries ensure that the economic policies are both well-designed and viable? For Okonjo-Iweala, the best contribution that the international financial institutions (IFIs) can make is to provide advice based on country-ownership, sharing of best practices, and inclusion, to prevent reforms from being imposed. For that, IFI staff should first understand the issues at hand in the country by doing extensive analysis. This task generally takes time, but when people are able to properly diagnose the issues, the solutions are more likely to be well received by the population and their implementation more likely to succeed.
When Reforms Work
"Reforms work if you have a good sense of who the winners and the losers are, and if you have a good platform for dealing with the negative impacts of policy changes,” Leipziger concluded. “Economists like to look at the net welfare gain in societies, whereas politics is about winners and losers.”
These were some of the questions discussed at ”Economists in Politics: Politicians or Technocrats?” held on the first day of the two-week long Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Knowledge and Learning Forum 2007.
A Clear Connection
"Economics and politics are very clearly connected and a lot of the issues we deal with in development are either successful or not successful depending on the political context,” said PREM Vice-President Danny Leipziger , who moderated the debate. “This is true when you look at privatization, tax reform, issues of competition policy, and labor market reform, to highlight just a few."
The speakers on the panel included Ricardo Lopez-Murphy, former defense and finance minister of Argentina, and presidential candidate; Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine and former trade and industry minister of Venezuela; and Ngozi N. Okonjo-Iweala, a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution and former finance minister of Nigeria.
"Is there a conflict between a good economy and good politics? I don't think so,” said Lopez-Murphy. “The good politician understands very well that macroeconomic consistency is vital to survive. If you make mistakes in macroeconomic policy, you will be dead before the long run.”
Nevertheless, there are differences in timing and priorities between economists and politicians, according to the panel, and they need to be well understood. Successful economists-turned-politicians understand this.
From Technocrats to Techno-Politicians
Politicians are often driven by the will to retain power, acting on a short-term basis, while economists must take into account the trade-offs in the long run. But sometimes, economists suffer from “tunnel vision,” tending to ignore the greater national debate when designing their policies.
“I'm not sure we’ve quite succeeded in the complete evolution from technocrat to techno-politician, but I think we need a way to bring the two together,” said Okonjo-Iweala. “Train the politicians to better appreciate what the technocrats have to say and train the technocrats to better appreciate what it takes to bring the politicians along to support your programs.”
Politics vs. Policy
The issue is far from being “clear-cut,” as the Naim, the Foreign Policy magazine editor, suggested by referring to the case of Venezuela.
“President (Hugo) Chavez epitomizes very bad policies and very bad economics, but excellent politics,” Naim said. “He is easily dismissed among the elites, but why is it that he’s so successful, while none of his predecessors enjoyed a similar situation?”
The key then, for both technocrats and politicians, is to learn from each other, and also to educate the public about the consequences of their policies. In order to have a better understanding and communication with the public, a system of checks and balances is needed, as well as the right institutions to support this process, according to the panelists.
Getting the Right Advice
What is the role of the international institutions in helping the countries ensure that the economic policies are both well-designed and viable? For Okonjo-Iweala, the best contribution that the international financial institutions (IFIs) can make is to provide advice based on country-ownership, sharing of best practices, and inclusion, to prevent reforms from being imposed. For that, IFI staff should first understand the issues at hand in the country by doing extensive analysis. This task generally takes time, but when people are able to properly diagnose the issues, the solutions are more likely to be well received by the population and their implementation more likely to succeed.
When Reforms Work
"Reforms work if you have a good sense of who the winners and the losers are, and if you have a good platform for dealing with the negative impacts of policy changes,” Leipziger concluded. “Economists like to look at the net welfare gain in societies, whereas politics is about winners and losers.”
woensdag 16 mei 2007
Aandelen
Aandelen bieden werknemers de mogelijkheid om financieël en met medezeggenschap te participeren in het bedrijf waar men werkt.
Met aandelen worden werknemers mede-eigenaar en raken ze sterker betrokken bij de organisatie. Bij gunstige resultaten mogen deelnemers rekenen op een jaarlijkse winstuitkering in de vorm van dividend. Tegelijkertijd komt de waarde van het bedrijf tot uiting in de prijs van het aandeel: hoe beter het gaat, hoe meer het aandeel waard wordt. Werknemers krijgen bovendien toegang tot en stemrecht op de aandeelhoudersvergadering. Dit biedt mogelijkheden voor inspraak en medezeggenschap. Als werknemers gezamenlijk een behoorlijk aandelenpakket verwerven, kunnen zij op grond daarvan werkelijk meepraten. Dat is participatie in optima forma. Er kan ook worden gekozen voor een variant met certificaten van aandelen, waarbij het zeggenschapselement wordt beperkt of in banen wordt geleid.
Voordelen
Met aandelen worden werknemers mede-eigenaar en raken ze sterker betrokken bij de organisatie. Bij gunstige resultaten mogen deelnemers rekenen op een jaarlijkse winstuitkering in de vorm van dividend. Tegelijkertijd komt de waarde van het bedrijf tot uiting in de prijs van het aandeel: hoe beter het gaat, hoe meer het aandeel waard wordt. Werknemers krijgen bovendien toegang tot en stemrecht op de aandeelhoudersvergadering. Dit biedt mogelijkheden voor inspraak en medezeggenschap. Als werknemers gezamenlijk een behoorlijk aandelenpakket verwerven, kunnen zij op grond daarvan werkelijk meepraten. Dat is participatie in optima forma. Er kan ook worden gekozen voor een variant met certificaten van aandelen, waarbij het zeggenschapselement wordt beperkt of in banen wordt geleid.
Voordelen
- Grotere betrokkenheid bij het bedrijf en aansporing om mee te denken. Aandelen dragen bij aan een participatief klimaat.
- Mogelijkheid om mee te delen in de groei en waardeontwikkeling van het bedrijf en kans op financiële voordelen via dividend en koersstijging.
- De belangen van bedrijf en werknemers gaan parallel lopen. Dit draagt bij aan openheid, samenwerking en een participatief klimaat in de organisatie.
- Op de aandeelhoudersvergadering kan de organisatie gebruikmaken van kennis van werknemers over onderwerpen als investeringen en toekomststrategieën.
Nadelen
- (Beperkte) financiële risico's.
- Zittende aandeelhouders vrezen verwatering van hun bezit.
- Vrees van directeuren-grootaandeelhouders dat zij in hun vrijheid van handelen belemmerd worden.
Orientatie op aandelen
Bij de keuze voor aandelen als vorm van participatie spelen twee afwegingen. Ten eerste, de wijze waarop de met aandelen verbonden zeggenschap wordt vormgegeven. Werknemers kunnen soms veel invloed uitoefenen op de aandeelhoudersvergadering. Er kan ook worden gekozen voor participatie via certificaten van aandelen. In dat geval, is er sprake van beperkte zeggenschap voor werknemers. Verder moet de vraag worden beantwoord wie er mee mogen en kunnen doen. Hoeveel aandelen kunnen werknemers collectief en individueel verwerven? Dit hangt weer samen met de financiële draagkracht van werknemers en hun vertrouwen in de onderneming. 'Werknemersaandelen' vormen een veelzijdig onderwerp dat vraagt om een uitgebreide oriëntatie.
In de praktijk
Werkgevers dienen aandelen beschikbaar te hebben om werknemers te kunnen laten participeren. Dat kunnen bestaande aandelen zijn. Zijn die er niet, dan is er sprake van uitgifte van nieuwe aandelen. Werknemers richten zich in eerste instantie vooral op het financiële aspect: wat kost het, wat levert het op en wat zijn de risico's? De financieringsmogelijkheden moeten duidelijk zijn, evenals de voorwaarden voor deelname. Al deze aspecten vormen de spelregels in het participatiereglement. Een bijzonder punt van aandacht is verder de handel in aandelen. Dit maakt participatie tot een heel concreet en actief proces. De handel in werknemersaandelen kent altijd speciale voorwaarden.
Fiscale aspecten
Wanneer werknemers aandelen kopen in de onderneming, gebeurt er fiscaal gezien niets. Om het aandelenplan aantrekkelijk te maken, verlenen bedrijven echter nog wel eens korting of verstrekken een bonus, bijvoorbeeld twee aandelen voor de prijs van één. In dat geval moet er rekening mee worden gehouden dat de fiscus de hoogte van het betreffende bedrag interpreteert als loon waarover zowel werkgever als werknemer belasting is verschuldigd. Het bedrag dat bij de werknemer als loon wordt aangemerkt is voor de werkgever aftrekbaar van de vennootschapsbelasting. Dividendbelasting en dividendvrijstelling zijn met ingang van 2001 afgeschaft. In plaats daarvan vindt heffing plaats in box 3. Daarin geldt een heffingvrij vermogen voor inkomsten uit sparen en beleggen van 17.000. Boven dit bedrag geldt een forfaitair rendement van 4% waarover 30% inkomstenbelasting is verschuldigd. Dit betekent een effectieve belastingdruk van 1,2%. Door middel van de spaarloonregeling kunnen werknemers op fiscaal aantrekkelijke wijze aandelen verwerven in het bedrijf van de werkgever. Spaarloon vertegenwoordigt de voornaamste (fiscale) stimulans voor werknemersaandelen.
dinsdag 15 mei 2007
Reuters agrees to Thomson buyout
News and information group Reuters has agreed to be bought out by Canadian financial data provider Thomson in a deal worth about £8.7bn ($17bn).
The tie-up will create the world's biggest financial news and data firm, allowing the new company to leapfrog its main rival, US-based Bloomberg.
Other news firms are also eyeing deals as they seek to cut costs, squeeze rivals and increase their client base.
Reuters and Thomson reckon their deal will save them $500m (£250m) a year.
By mid-afternoon trading in London, Reuters shares had added 20.50 pence, or 3.4%, to 626p.
Broader reach
Thomson, whose publishing interests include law, tax and scientific research, has been expanding its non-data business.
Reuters will complement its news operations in the US and AFX in Europe, analysts said.
They added that a merged Thomson and Reuters would be in a stronger position to compete with Bloomberg.
The three companies are rivals in the "terminal" market, providing news and financial data on stocks, currencies and bonds to banks, traders and brokerages.
According to industry estimates released in April, Bloomberg has a 33% share of the terminal market, with Reuters controlling 23% and Thomson 11%.
Following the merger, the new company will be called Thomson-Reuters and will be listed on stock exchanges in London and Toronto.
It will have annual revenues of about $12bn and almost 49,000 employees.
"The shared expertise and complementary strengths of these two companies makes for a strategically compelling and financially attractive combination," said Niall Fitzgerald, chairman of Reuters.
Reputation
While the companies are keen for the tie-up to go ahead, it still needs approval from competition regulators, and some analysts questioned whether they would get the go-ahead.
Concerns about getting approval for the deal have held back Reuters' share price in past days, trimming some of its gains for this year. The company's shares have added more than 35% since the end of 2006.
At the same time, some observers have questioned whether the agreement will damage the reputation of Reuters' news service.
"For more than 150 years, Reuters has been one of the great independent news organisations. No longer," said the BBC's business editor Robert Peston.
Reuters' independence has been guaranteed by the structure of the business - which prohibits any individual from owning 15% or more of the company, Mr Peston explained.
However, "that prohibition is being waved for the Thomson family, which will end up owning 53% of the enlarged business", he said.
"Reuters journalists are unhappy," the BBC's business editor continued.
"There will be concerns that over time Reuters general news operations will become marginalised within an outfit that sees its future as supplying intelligence and tools to those who operate in global financial markets."
Top man
According to the terms of the deal, Reuters shareholders will get 352.5 pence in cash and 0.16 Thomson share for every Reuters share they own.
That values Reuters shares at 692p each, the companies said in their statement.
Reuters boss Tom Glocer will head the enlarged firm, while Thomson president and chief executive Richard Harrington will retire.
The Thomson family will own 53% of the new firm through its Woodbridge investment vehicle.
Mr Harrington, who joined Thomson in 1982, has been the driving force behind the company's plans to get rid of its newspaper holdings and concentrate on legal and finanical data, as well as electronic publishing.
The tie-up will create the world's biggest financial news and data firm, allowing the new company to leapfrog its main rival, US-based Bloomberg.
Other news firms are also eyeing deals as they seek to cut costs, squeeze rivals and increase their client base.
Reuters and Thomson reckon their deal will save them $500m (£250m) a year.
By mid-afternoon trading in London, Reuters shares had added 20.50 pence, or 3.4%, to 626p.
Broader reach
Thomson, whose publishing interests include law, tax and scientific research, has been expanding its non-data business.
Reuters will complement its news operations in the US and AFX in Europe, analysts said.
They added that a merged Thomson and Reuters would be in a stronger position to compete with Bloomberg.
The three companies are rivals in the "terminal" market, providing news and financial data on stocks, currencies and bonds to banks, traders and brokerages.
According to industry estimates released in April, Bloomberg has a 33% share of the terminal market, with Reuters controlling 23% and Thomson 11%.
Following the merger, the new company will be called Thomson-Reuters and will be listed on stock exchanges in London and Toronto.
It will have annual revenues of about $12bn and almost 49,000 employees.
"The shared expertise and complementary strengths of these two companies makes for a strategically compelling and financially attractive combination," said Niall Fitzgerald, chairman of Reuters.
Reputation
While the companies are keen for the tie-up to go ahead, it still needs approval from competition regulators, and some analysts questioned whether they would get the go-ahead.
Concerns about getting approval for the deal have held back Reuters' share price in past days, trimming some of its gains for this year. The company's shares have added more than 35% since the end of 2006.
At the same time, some observers have questioned whether the agreement will damage the reputation of Reuters' news service.
"For more than 150 years, Reuters has been one of the great independent news organisations. No longer," said the BBC's business editor Robert Peston.
Reuters' independence has been guaranteed by the structure of the business - which prohibits any individual from owning 15% or more of the company, Mr Peston explained.
However, "that prohibition is being waved for the Thomson family, which will end up owning 53% of the enlarged business", he said.
"Reuters journalists are unhappy," the BBC's business editor continued.
"There will be concerns that over time Reuters general news operations will become marginalised within an outfit that sees its future as supplying intelligence and tools to those who operate in global financial markets."
Top man
According to the terms of the deal, Reuters shareholders will get 352.5 pence in cash and 0.16 Thomson share for every Reuters share they own.
That values Reuters shares at 692p each, the companies said in their statement.
Reuters boss Tom Glocer will head the enlarged firm, while Thomson president and chief executive Richard Harrington will retire.
The Thomson family will own 53% of the new firm through its Woodbridge investment vehicle.
Mr Harrington, who joined Thomson in 1982, has been the driving force behind the company's plans to get rid of its newspaper holdings and concentrate on legal and finanical data, as well as electronic publishing.
maandag 14 mei 2007
Cerberus to buy Chrysler majority
US private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management is to buy a majority stake in car firm DaimlerChrysler's ailing US Chrysler arm.
The firm will pay 5.5bn euros ($7.41bn; £3.7bn) buy 80.1% - significantly less than the $36bn paid for Chrysler's 1998 merger with Daimler-Benz.
DaimlerChrysler shares rose 6.4% in afternoon trade on the German market.
The German-American firm will keep a 19.9% stake in the firm but Chrysler must foot pension and healthcare costs.
'Right conditions'
The deal was sealed after two months of talks between an array of potential bidders interested in buying the US operation.
It marks the reversal of a landmark deal in the automotive industry.
DaimlerChrysler shares rose 6.4% in afternoon trade on the German market.
The German-American firm will keep a 19.9% stake in the firm but Chrysler must foot pension and healthcare costs.
'Right conditions'
The deal was sealed after two months of talks between an array of potential bidders interested in buying the US operation.
It marks the reversal of a landmark deal in the automotive industry.
The future of Chrysler has been in the balance recently as it battled against huge losses that hit $1.5bn last year.
"With this transaction, we have created the right conditions for a new start for Chrysler and Daimler," said DaimlerChrysler chairman and chief executive Dieter Zetsche.
The acquisition comes nearly a decade after the $36bn merger of Chrysler and the former DaimlerBenz AG.
Along with other US car firms, Chrysler has suffered from falling profits and increased competition from Japanese car firms - slumping to fourth place in the US light vehicle market behind Toyota.
Like its US peers, the group has also embarked on a significant reorganisation plan, which includes 13,000 job cuts.
Tom LaSorda, president and chief executive of Chrysler Group, said the transaction would create a "standalone Chrysler that is financially stronger".
Worker worries
Founded in 1992, Cerberus specialises in snapping up ailing firms and reviving them by means of heavy cost-cutting.
It currently owns about 50 companies with combined revenues of more than $60bn.
Unions - who had been worried over job implications of any sale - welcomed the deal.
Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Autoworkers, said: "The transaction with Cerberus is in the best interests of our UAW members, the Chrysler Group and Daimler."
The UAW has a four-year contract with Chrysler that comes to and end in September.
"With this transaction, we have created the right conditions for a new start for Chrysler and Daimler," said DaimlerChrysler chairman and chief executive Dieter Zetsche.
The acquisition comes nearly a decade after the $36bn merger of Chrysler and the former DaimlerBenz AG.
Along with other US car firms, Chrysler has suffered from falling profits and increased competition from Japanese car firms - slumping to fourth place in the US light vehicle market behind Toyota.
Like its US peers, the group has also embarked on a significant reorganisation plan, which includes 13,000 job cuts.
Tom LaSorda, president and chief executive of Chrysler Group, said the transaction would create a "standalone Chrysler that is financially stronger".
Worker worries
Founded in 1992, Cerberus specialises in snapping up ailing firms and reviving them by means of heavy cost-cutting.
It currently owns about 50 companies with combined revenues of more than $60bn.
Unions - who had been worried over job implications of any sale - welcomed the deal.
Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Autoworkers, said: "The transaction with Cerberus is in the best interests of our UAW members, the Chrysler Group and Daimler."
The UAW has a four-year contract with Chrysler that comes to and end in September.
Analysts have said that making the firm profitable will demand that any new contract with the UAW includes lower costs, notably in health care.
Experts also said the deal illustrates the continued interest of Cerberus in the auto industry.
In 2006, GM offloaded a majority share in its finance arm, General Motors Acceptance (GMAC), for some $14bn to a group that was headed by Cerberus.
Analysts believe the private equity firm - which has been headed by former US Treasury Secretary John Snow since last October - might be considering merging the GMAC outfit with Chrysler Financial.
The name Daimler AG will replace DaimlerChrysler, pending shareholders approval.
Experts also said the deal illustrates the continued interest of Cerberus in the auto industry.
In 2006, GM offloaded a majority share in its finance arm, General Motors Acceptance (GMAC), for some $14bn to a group that was headed by Cerberus.
Analysts believe the private equity firm - which has been headed by former US Treasury Secretary John Snow since last October - might be considering merging the GMAC outfit with Chrysler Financial.
The name Daimler AG will replace DaimlerChrysler, pending shareholders approval.
zaterdag 12 mei 2007
Belangrijkste koersschommelingen Beurs van Brussel op 11/05 - 2007-05-11
(Belga) Belangrijkste koersschommelingen op de Beurs van BrusselGrootste stijgers: Zenitel + 3,01 pct tot 3,08 euro Atenor 2,24 42,38 Immobel 1,48 48,00 Delhaize 1,41 74,18 IPTE 1,33 5,32 Grootste dalers: Keyware Tech. - 11,76 pct tot 0,15 CMB 3,84 53,85 Recticel 3,53 10,10 Econocom 3,53 8,20 Dolmen 3,20 11,81 (DVA)
RTC offers money saving alternative to high gas prices
We knew it was bound to happen somewhere very soon, and on Tuesday it did. Gas prices in San Francisco are up over the $4 a gallon mark, and they're hitting record highs in Las Vegas, too. The Saving You Money Team wants to remind you that there is a cheaper alternative.
More drivers are hanging up their keys for a ride on the bus, and they're using the RTC's web page to help navigate from point A to point B.
The RTC says high gas prices are making the mass transit system more attractive to local drivers. "We expect we're going to see a big increase in ridership over the summer, because the long term forecast for gasoline prices is about 25 cents per gallon higher than last summer. So we know that we're going to be attracting a lot of people," said RTC General Manager, Jacob Snow.
When you look at the dollars and cents, a one month transit pass will only cost you $40; less than a tank of gas for most cars. Maybe it's time to give it a try.
More drivers are hanging up their keys for a ride on the bus, and they're using the RTC's web page to help navigate from point A to point B.
The RTC says high gas prices are making the mass transit system more attractive to local drivers. "We expect we're going to see a big increase in ridership over the summer, because the long term forecast for gasoline prices is about 25 cents per gallon higher than last summer. So we know that we're going to be attracting a lot of people," said RTC General Manager, Jacob Snow.
When you look at the dollars and cents, a one month transit pass will only cost you $40; less than a tank of gas for most cars. Maybe it's time to give it a try.
vrijdag 11 mei 2007
Mercedes SLR McLaren Roadster
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren super sports car is going to hit the market in the form of a soft top roadster. In common with Formula 1 vehicles of today, it, too, will be made of carbon fibre, a material that will endow the vehicle with a very high degree of safety as well as extreme torsional stiffness at the same high level as the coupé version.This gives rise, in combination with the racing-type chassis, to outstanding ride characteristics. The maximum speed of the new high-performance sports car, which is powered by an AMG V8 compressor engine delivering 460 kW/626 hp, is 332 km/h, therefore at the same high level as the coupé. Although, thanks to its fully retractable top, the Roadster offers undiluted open-air driving pleasure in the highest performance class, its occupants in no way lose out in terms of comfort or the vehicle's suitability for everyday use. Consequently, the new Roadster opens up a new dimension in refinement for open-top super sports cars.Like the coupé version, the new Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster once again unites the legend of the successful SLR racing models from the 1950s with the innovative technology of modern Formula 1 vehicles from the Vodafone-McLaren-Mercedes team. Typical stylistic elements, such as the arrow-shaped tip of the Formula 1 Silver Arrow, establish a visual link with the racing cars. The SLR leg-end of the 50s lives on stylistically in the distinctive lateral louvers, side pipes behind the front wheels and the wide-opening gullwing doors.
11/05/2007 Team Infomotori.co.uk
11/05/2007 Team Infomotori.co.uk
donderdag 10 mei 2007
First Photos—Porsche Turbo Drop-Top
’08 997 convertible matches coupe specs
By BOB GRITZINGER
Following a predictable pattern, Porsche will unleash the 911 Turbo Cabrio this fall, a little more than a year after the introduction of the 911 Turbo Coupe upon which the convertible is based.Like the coupe, the convertible is powered by a 3.6-liter, six-cylinder, twin-turbocharged boxer engine fitted with Variable Turbine Geometry, which improves the turbo function. The result is a powerplant that produces 480 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque; models equipped with the Sport Chrono Turbo Package get an overboost function that permits up to 505 lb-ft of torque.
The engine is mated to either a six-speed manual gearbox or a six-speed Tiptronic automatic, sending power to all four wheels. Porsche says the automatic model hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds—just 0.1-second slower than the coupe, despite an extra 154 pounds built into the cabrio to reinforce the chassis and for auto-deploying roll hoops. Manual transmission versions go 0-to-60 mph in 3.8 seconds. Top speed is 193 mph.The 2008 911 Turbo Cabriolet goes on sale in the U.S. in September, priced at $136,500.
woensdag 9 mei 2007
Drivers embrace planned traction control ban in '08
It is, to a Formula One purist, an awful sound.
Stand at the exit of many corners of F1 tracks and listen. As the cars accelerate out of the corner, the exquisite wail of the V-8 engines screaming up to 19,000 rpm is broken up by a string of guttural coughs and misfires and phlegmy spits.
That's the sound of the traction control kicking in. That's the sound of a computer doing the work and taking over instead of the driver using his finesse and skill to feed 750 horsepower to the back tires without them spinning too much and losing optimal grip.
For those purists, the good news is that traction control will be banned starting next year. There are some, however, who claim that this is bad news because F1 should be the height of technology and that traction control is part of the quest to build the ultimate machine.
Most of the F1 drivers disagree. The majority of drivers seem to be of the opinion that F1 is first and foremost a drivers' championship. It's about man (or woman) over machine, not vice versa.
Traction control has been banned before. At the end of 1993, new regulations wiped out many of the electronic driver and chassis aids -- everything from active ride suspension to traction control to antilock brake systems.
While it was easy for the tech inspectors to police most of the banned technology, this was not the case with traction control, which could be hidden deep in a car's software. There were constant allegations and outright accusations that some teams were using illegal traction control. These allegations often involved cars that were painted red.
Finally, the FIA gave up. It was better to let everybody use traction control (and launch control) than to let the fans continue to think that there was an uneven playing field.
Ironically, the sometimes comedic problems several teams had in getting their systems to work, not to mention that there was no change in the hierarchy of the teams, pretty much proved that nobody had been illegally using traction control in the first place.
Launch control, which used electronics to let the car make a perfect getaway from F1's standing starts, was subsequently banned again. But there is a fine line between launch control and traction control.
In 2008, the regulations call for all the cars to be fitted with a standard Electronic Control Unit approved and controlled by the FIA. Now that the FIA will have direct control of the ECU's software, there is no way a team can install a traction control system.
Race drivers being race drivers, just about all the F1 guys welcome the traction control ban. Every one of them thinks that they are better than the next driver, and this will be one of the areas in which they can prove it with their right foot instead of a computer making things equal.
"At the moment the drivers can go flat on the throttle from the apex [exiting a corner]," said Williams' technical director, Sam Michael. "From zero to 100 percent throttle. The engine doesn't necessarily do that, it is backing off, but the driver is just a passenger at that point. But you won't be able to do that next year because you will spin."
That's not to say that driving a car with traction control is easy. If the traction control settings are too severe, it slows down the car. The drivers and engineers spend a lot of time trying to find the optimal point at which the system kicks in. Jenson Button, for example, sets his car up so that it almost never uses its traction control.
At a recent FIA press conference drivers were asked what they thought about the looming traction-control ban. Here is what they had to say:
Felipe Massa: "I never drove a F1 car without traction control. It will be quite new for me, but it will be the same for everybody, so we just need to find the settings to make the car more stable. So it's going to be new for everybody. We just need to find ourselves quickly under the new rules."
Lewis Hamilton: "I think it will be better. I enjoyed driving GP2 without traction control and it puts more control of the car into the driver's hands. It's not easy driving; it's a different driving style, a different technique is required. It's going to make for exciting racing. You get up the inside of someone, you can really use the power to get yourself past on the exit of corners. But then also you have to learn to use your tires in a different way because obviously the more spin, the more the wear. It's going to be interesting, but obviously we're going to have to make a lot of changes to make it safe."
Jarno Trulli: "I think it's going to be interesting and definitely better. From my point of view, the more you give the car back to the driver, the better it is, or the better it is for me. I feel like I'm more in charge of doing things. At the moment, the cars are too easy. I'm really in favor of it."
Robert Kubica: "Well, I think it will be the same for everybody. So everybody will have to adapt a bit their driving, a bit the cars, a bit the setup to do this. Now F1 cars are built with this, and in some ways, we know we have this, so we choose some different way, maybe for next year. But we will know this and we cannot rely on traction control."
Heikki Kovalainen: "I think it's absolutely the way to go. Let's just stick in a third pedal, a clutch pedal under your feet, and put in the old H-box [gearbox]; that's the way to go in F1!"
While that horrible phlegm-filled coughing sound the engines make will be gone, banning traction control is not going to make a massive difference. The fast drivers will still be fast. And F1 cars will still be marvels of high tech.
We will not see, as Mark Webber points out, the cars doing huge power slides.
But we will see more driver errors and spins. The current breed of F1 car is a very twitchy beast, and it will be more nervous, especially in the rain, without traction control.
Let the best driver win!
Stand at the exit of many corners of F1 tracks and listen. As the cars accelerate out of the corner, the exquisite wail of the V-8 engines screaming up to 19,000 rpm is broken up by a string of guttural coughs and misfires and phlegmy spits.
That's the sound of the traction control kicking in. That's the sound of a computer doing the work and taking over instead of the driver using his finesse and skill to feed 750 horsepower to the back tires without them spinning too much and losing optimal grip.
For those purists, the good news is that traction control will be banned starting next year. There are some, however, who claim that this is bad news because F1 should be the height of technology and that traction control is part of the quest to build the ultimate machine.
Most of the F1 drivers disagree. The majority of drivers seem to be of the opinion that F1 is first and foremost a drivers' championship. It's about man (or woman) over machine, not vice versa.
Traction control has been banned before. At the end of 1993, new regulations wiped out many of the electronic driver and chassis aids -- everything from active ride suspension to traction control to antilock brake systems.
While it was easy for the tech inspectors to police most of the banned technology, this was not the case with traction control, which could be hidden deep in a car's software. There were constant allegations and outright accusations that some teams were using illegal traction control. These allegations often involved cars that were painted red.
Finally, the FIA gave up. It was better to let everybody use traction control (and launch control) than to let the fans continue to think that there was an uneven playing field.
Ironically, the sometimes comedic problems several teams had in getting their systems to work, not to mention that there was no change in the hierarchy of the teams, pretty much proved that nobody had been illegally using traction control in the first place.
Launch control, which used electronics to let the car make a perfect getaway from F1's standing starts, was subsequently banned again. But there is a fine line between launch control and traction control.
In 2008, the regulations call for all the cars to be fitted with a standard Electronic Control Unit approved and controlled by the FIA. Now that the FIA will have direct control of the ECU's software, there is no way a team can install a traction control system.
Race drivers being race drivers, just about all the F1 guys welcome the traction control ban. Every one of them thinks that they are better than the next driver, and this will be one of the areas in which they can prove it with their right foot instead of a computer making things equal.
"At the moment the drivers can go flat on the throttle from the apex [exiting a corner]," said Williams' technical director, Sam Michael. "From zero to 100 percent throttle. The engine doesn't necessarily do that, it is backing off, but the driver is just a passenger at that point. But you won't be able to do that next year because you will spin."
That's not to say that driving a car with traction control is easy. If the traction control settings are too severe, it slows down the car. The drivers and engineers spend a lot of time trying to find the optimal point at which the system kicks in. Jenson Button, for example, sets his car up so that it almost never uses its traction control.
At a recent FIA press conference drivers were asked what they thought about the looming traction-control ban. Here is what they had to say:
Felipe Massa: "I never drove a F1 car without traction control. It will be quite new for me, but it will be the same for everybody, so we just need to find the settings to make the car more stable. So it's going to be new for everybody. We just need to find ourselves quickly under the new rules."
Lewis Hamilton: "I think it will be better. I enjoyed driving GP2 without traction control and it puts more control of the car into the driver's hands. It's not easy driving; it's a different driving style, a different technique is required. It's going to make for exciting racing. You get up the inside of someone, you can really use the power to get yourself past on the exit of corners. But then also you have to learn to use your tires in a different way because obviously the more spin, the more the wear. It's going to be interesting, but obviously we're going to have to make a lot of changes to make it safe."
Jarno Trulli: "I think it's going to be interesting and definitely better. From my point of view, the more you give the car back to the driver, the better it is, or the better it is for me. I feel like I'm more in charge of doing things. At the moment, the cars are too easy. I'm really in favor of it."
Robert Kubica: "Well, I think it will be the same for everybody. So everybody will have to adapt a bit their driving, a bit the cars, a bit the setup to do this. Now F1 cars are built with this, and in some ways, we know we have this, so we choose some different way, maybe for next year. But we will know this and we cannot rely on traction control."
Heikki Kovalainen: "I think it's absolutely the way to go. Let's just stick in a third pedal, a clutch pedal under your feet, and put in the old H-box [gearbox]; that's the way to go in F1!"
While that horrible phlegm-filled coughing sound the engines make will be gone, banning traction control is not going to make a massive difference. The fast drivers will still be fast. And F1 cars will still be marvels of high tech.
We will not see, as Mark Webber points out, the cars doing huge power slides.
But we will see more driver errors and spins. The current breed of F1 car is a very twitchy beast, and it will be more nervous, especially in the rain, without traction control.
Let the best driver win!
zaterdag 5 mei 2007
Final play wasn't total Vinsanity
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- When Nets coach Lawrence Frank walked into the huddle to explain how he wanted his team's final play run in Game 6, the most surprised guy on the bench was Richard Jefferson. That play had been designed for him, not Vince Carter.
"Honestly, I haven't had the ball in my hands for a game-winning shot in I don't know how long, and especially a play drawn up for me, and especially with Vince Carter on the team," Jefferson said. "Since I've been here, he's probably hit seven or eight game- winners. But Vince was the first one over there to congratulate me."
Jefferson wasn't the only one stunned by the final play call -- or with the way his final possession went. The coaches for the Toronto Raptors, like everyone else in the building, expected the final shot to go to Carter. And when the ball went to Jefferson, they were convinced he'd go to his right. But Jefferson made the winning basket by driving right, spinning left and finishing with his left hand.
"That was the first time in the whole series he scored going left," one of the Toronto assistants told me outside the Toronto locker room.
Even Jefferson himself didn't quite believe he finished with his left hand, asking a TV cameraman in the locker room afterward to play back a shot of his game-deciding bucket with 8.3 seconds left so he could see for himself.
"Well, it's not that I have no left, but I am dominant right," Jefferson explained. "Honestly what's happened is this is the ankle I had surgery on [pointing to his right ankle] and this is the wrist I had surgery on [pointing to his left wrist] in the last two years, so jumping off this leg and finishing with this hand is something that I've probably gotten away from."
Jefferson also came up with the biggest defensive play of the game, reaching up to intercept Jose Calderon's not-lobbed-enough lob pass intended for Chris Bosh with 1.9 seconds left to wrap up New Jersey's 98-97 victory in Game 6 as the Nets moved on to face the Cleveland Cavaliers in the second round beginning Sunday.
This will be the fifth time in the past six years that New Jersey has gone on to the second round, and while they'll be the underdog against the Cavs, they're not to be taken lightly -- especially now that they're hitting a stride they had been waiting for throughout a season that included Jefferson missing 27 games due to ankle surgery, and especially with Jason Kidd exiting this series having averaged a triple-double with 14.0 points, 13.2 assists and 10.0 rebounds (the 10th time in NBA history a player has averaged a TD in a playoff series), and not to mention Carter having shaken off his early-series jitters to score 27, 30 and 21 in the final three games.
Of course, the thing that makes this all sort of surreal for the Nets is the fact that they were thisclose a couple months ago to basically blowing their whole team up, entertaining offers for Carter and Kidd right up until the morning of trading deadline day.
I cornered Nets president Rod Thorn in the locker room afterward and tried six different methods of asking him about the Kidd trade talks before growing exasperated and putting it to him like this: "Given how well Jason has played in this series, why would you even have considered trading him?"
"We'll, that's a very pertinent point you make," Thorn replied with his trademark West Virginia chuckle thrown in. "Since the trade deadline he's played absolutely great. Absolutely.
"You know, there are times when some of the best things you do are things you don't do," Thorn said.
Like calling the last play for Carter. Or trading Kidd.
The Nets did neither, and now look where it has led them -- to a place Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson and Shaquille O'Neal couldn't reach.
"Honestly, I haven't had the ball in my hands for a game-winning shot in I don't know how long, and especially a play drawn up for me, and especially with Vince Carter on the team," Jefferson said. "Since I've been here, he's probably hit seven or eight game- winners. But Vince was the first one over there to congratulate me."
Jefferson wasn't the only one stunned by the final play call -- or with the way his final possession went. The coaches for the Toronto Raptors, like everyone else in the building, expected the final shot to go to Carter. And when the ball went to Jefferson, they were convinced he'd go to his right. But Jefferson made the winning basket by driving right, spinning left and finishing with his left hand.
"That was the first time in the whole series he scored going left," one of the Toronto assistants told me outside the Toronto locker room.
Even Jefferson himself didn't quite believe he finished with his left hand, asking a TV cameraman in the locker room afterward to play back a shot of his game-deciding bucket with 8.3 seconds left so he could see for himself.
"Well, it's not that I have no left, but I am dominant right," Jefferson explained. "Honestly what's happened is this is the ankle I had surgery on [pointing to his right ankle] and this is the wrist I had surgery on [pointing to his left wrist] in the last two years, so jumping off this leg and finishing with this hand is something that I've probably gotten away from."
Jefferson also came up with the biggest defensive play of the game, reaching up to intercept Jose Calderon's not-lobbed-enough lob pass intended for Chris Bosh with 1.9 seconds left to wrap up New Jersey's 98-97 victory in Game 6 as the Nets moved on to face the Cleveland Cavaliers in the second round beginning Sunday.
This will be the fifth time in the past six years that New Jersey has gone on to the second round, and while they'll be the underdog against the Cavs, they're not to be taken lightly -- especially now that they're hitting a stride they had been waiting for throughout a season that included Jefferson missing 27 games due to ankle surgery, and especially with Jason Kidd exiting this series having averaged a triple-double with 14.0 points, 13.2 assists and 10.0 rebounds (the 10th time in NBA history a player has averaged a TD in a playoff series), and not to mention Carter having shaken off his early-series jitters to score 27, 30 and 21 in the final three games.
Of course, the thing that makes this all sort of surreal for the Nets is the fact that they were thisclose a couple months ago to basically blowing their whole team up, entertaining offers for Carter and Kidd right up until the morning of trading deadline day.
I cornered Nets president Rod Thorn in the locker room afterward and tried six different methods of asking him about the Kidd trade talks before growing exasperated and putting it to him like this: "Given how well Jason has played in this series, why would you even have considered trading him?"
"We'll, that's a very pertinent point you make," Thorn replied with his trademark West Virginia chuckle thrown in. "Since the trade deadline he's played absolutely great. Absolutely.
"You know, there are times when some of the best things you do are things you don't do," Thorn said.
Like calling the last play for Carter. Or trading Kidd.
The Nets did neither, and now look where it has led them -- to a place Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson and Shaquille O'Neal couldn't reach.
Nets edge Raptors to take series
Richard Jefferson scored with eight seconds left to steer New Jersey Nets to a 98-97 win over Toronto Raptors and a 4-2 play-off series victory.
Jefferson, who also made a vital leaping steal after his winning basket, led all scorers with 24 points, while Vince Carter added 21 for New Jersey.
The dramatic victory put the Nets into the Eastern Conference semi-finals against the Cleveland Cavaliers.
"We look forward to the challenge," said New Jersey coach Lawrence Frank.
The best-of-seven series against LeBron James's second seeds starts on Sunday in Cleveland.
The other Eastern Conference semi-final pits the top-seeded Detroit Pistons against the Chicago Bulls with the first game on Saturday in Detroit.
Jefferson, who also made a vital leaping steal after his winning basket, led all scorers with 24 points, while Vince Carter added 21 for New Jersey.
The dramatic victory put the Nets into the Eastern Conference semi-finals against the Cleveland Cavaliers.
"We look forward to the challenge," said New Jersey coach Lawrence Frank.
The best-of-seven series against LeBron James's second seeds starts on Sunday in Cleveland.
The other Eastern Conference semi-final pits the top-seeded Detroit Pistons against the Chicago Bulls with the first game on Saturday in Detroit.
zaterdag 28 april 2007
Richardson, Warriors Take 2-1 Series Lead
OAKLAND, Calif., April 27 (AP) --
Stephen Jackson swore he felt the arena shake at times, the sellout crowd swelling to its yellow seams with every basket, blocked shot and improbable turn in the Golden State Warriors' victory.
Every minute of this game seemed worth a 13-year wait for the Warriors' faithful fans who loved their club long before it even dreamed of being halfway to knocking the Dallas Mavericks out of the playoffs.
Jason Richardson had 30 points and eight rebounds, Baron Davis added 24 points and the Warriors steamrolled NBA-leading Dallas for the second time in three games, winning 109-91 Friday night to take a 2-1 lead in their first-round playoff series.
"The place was jumpin','' said Jackson, who had 16 points. "That's a great night.''
The Bay Area's first NBA playoff game since May 4, 1994, was a rollicking success for the eighth-seeded Warriors, who endured 12 straight losing seasons before coach Don Nelson got them back to the playoffs this spring.
And after dominating both ends of the court in another improbably comfortable win over the mighty Mavericks, the Warriors are halfway to what probably would be the biggest first-round upset in NBA playoff history - if Golden State can recapture this marvelous formula two more times.
"We just love playing them,'' Richardson said. "We get up for them. They're the best team in the NBA. We pretty much know these guys. ... I think they just had a bad game tonight. We can't be overconfident about this game. We've still got another couple of games to try to win.''
Game 4 in the best-of-seven series is Sunday night in Oakland, with Game 5 back in Dallas on Tuesday.
The biggest crowd in Warriors history - 20,629 fans wearing yellow T-shirts packed into the rafters of Oracle Arena - rarely sat down during Oakland's biggest party in years. The fans gleefully chanted "Overrated!'' at the flustered Mavs and Dirk Nowitzki, who had 20 points and 12 rebounds in another poor performance.
Monta Ellis scored 14 points for the Warriors, who extended their uncanny Mavs mastery with their seventh win in the clubs' last eight meetings overall, including a three-game regular-season sweep.
"I think we caught them off-guard tonight,'' Davis said. "We just played with an unbelievable confidence, a tenacity on defense. ... Our style of play is hard to guard, because you've got five guys that can penetrate and make plays.''
The Warriors led throughout the final 44 minutes, taking an 18-point lead in the first half and going up by 22 in the third quarter before coasting home. Richardson was largely unstoppable, mixing drives with four 3-pointers in the six-year veteran's first playoff showcase at home.
"I knew it was coming,'' Davis said of Richardson's brilliance. "What better time for him to break out than in his first home game?''
So what's wrong with the Mavs? Not even coach Avery Johnson seems to know. After posting the sixth-best regular season in NBA history, the Mavericks have looked inexplicably ordinary against the Warriors' speed and skill.
"We tried anything to get it going here, and we just didn't have it,'' Nowitzki said. "We know the pressure is going to be on us. We won 67 games, and we said all along our goal is a championship. Anything else would be a disappointment. The pressure is on a lot of shoulders.''
Nowitzki battled constant foul trouble in Game 3, and Golden State's hustling defense somehow turned the probable league MVP into a bumbler or a bystander on most Dallas possessions. His teammates were little help outside of Josh Howard's 20 points, with Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse both enduring poor shooting nights.
"We just didn't do a lot of the detail things that we've been doing all year,'' Johnson said. "We just didn't keep our cool. We're normally a team that keeps our cool. We look like they did in Game 2, which I'm really disappointed with more than anything, how we lost our composure.''
The Warriors shocked Dallas 97-85 in Game 1 with their uptempo offense and fearless play, but fell apart in the second half of an otherwise competitive Game 2. Davis and Jackson were ejected, and Jackson was hit with a $50,000 fine from the league Friday for his behavior.
But Golden State regained its momentum and maturity back home. The Warriors controlled the tempo and the Mavericks missed open shots while Golden State took a 61-48 halftime lead.
Davis was brilliant in scoring Golden State's final basket - rolling off Biedrins' pick and herding Nowitzki into the paint before banging home a layup and drawing Nowitzki's third foul with 3 seconds to go.
The Mavs' frustration bubbled over in the third quarter, with Howard, Stackhouse and Devin Harris all picking up technical fouls.
Notes: Nelson tweaked his starting lineup, inserting Andris Biedrins in place of Al Harrington. ... Actors Kate Hudson and Owen Wilson attended the game. Hudson and Davis, an aspiring movie producer, were high school classmates in Santa Monica, while Wilson is from the Dallas area.
vrijdag 27 april 2007
Mourinho launches Ronaldo tirade
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho has launched a furious tirade at Manchester United winger Cristiano Ronaldo.
Ronaldo, 22, had claimed that Mourinho "does not know how to admit his own failures" after the Blues boss's controversial comments on penalties.
But Mourinho hit back: "If Ronaldo says it is a lie penalties were not given against United, then he is lying.
"He needs to see he cannot fight with facts. If he is a liar, he will never reach the level he wants to reach."
Last weekend Mourinho insisted that there was a new rule in football, where United could not concede a penalty and Chelsea could not win one.
He was referring to spot-kicks both Sheffield United and Middlesbrough felt they should have been given at Old Trafford and a penalty he thought Chelsea should have had at Newcastle.
"The whole world knows how he is," Ronaldo was reported to have told Portuguese television.
"Mourinho always has to say something when he is not happy."
United are three points ahead of Chelsea in the Premiership with four games left, with the two sides meeting at Stamford Bridge on 9 May.
They will also face each other in the FA Cup final and both clubs are in the semi-finals of the Champions League.
"He needs to see he cannot fight with facts. If he is a liar, he will never reach the level he wants to reach."
Last weekend Mourinho insisted that there was a new rule in football, where United could not concede a penalty and Chelsea could not win one.
He was referring to spot-kicks both Sheffield United and Middlesbrough felt they should have been given at Old Trafford and a penalty he thought Chelsea should have had at Newcastle.
"The whole world knows how he is," Ronaldo was reported to have told Portuguese television.
"Mourinho always has to say something when he is not happy."
United are three points ahead of Chelsea in the Premiership with four games left, with the two sides meeting at Stamford Bridge on 9 May.
They will also face each other in the FA Cup final and both clubs are in the semi-finals of the Champions League.
donderdag 26 april 2007
Mavs finally break through against Warriors
DALLAS (AP) -- Tired of hearing about everything they did wrong in the playoff opener, the Dallas Mavericks sure did a lot right in Game 2.
Jason Terry scored 28 points, Dirk Nowitzki had 23 and Josh Howard led a 15-2 run in the third quarter that sent the Mavericks to a 112-99 victory over the Golden State Warriors on Wednesday night, evening their first-round series.
Dallas had lost six straight to Golden State dating to last season. The Mavericks' search for a skid-buster included a new, smaller starting lineup in Game 1, but that only resulted in a 12-point loss.
So coach Avery Johnson went back to the formula that won 67 games in the regular season and saw his club back in synch from the start. The center tandem of Erick Dampier and DeSagana Diop proved they can hold their own against Golden State's little guys, and sixth man Jerry Stackhouse bounced back from a scoreless opener to put up 17 points.
"Everybody talked about the Xs and Os and the decision Avery made to go smaller, but it really wasn't that," Stackhouse said. "It was just the fact we didn't compete. I thought we came out and really competed tonight for 48 minutes and the game went in our favor."
Then again, it was easier with the Warriors' two best players getting ejected.
Baron Davis was tossed with 0.2 seconds left in the third quarter and Stephen Jackson was lost with 4:34 left in the game. Golden State already was trailing when the technical fouls started piling up.
"We're not good enough to lose a player to an ejection, much less two," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "It hurt us when we lost Baron. I thought we had a shot at the time. It wasn't to be."
The series shifts to Oakland for Game 3 on Friday night, and there's little doubt the emotions will remain high.
The Warriors certainly won't be unhinged by this loss, just their second in the last 12 games. Nelson won't allow it. He's kept his club loose, telling everyone they were lucky to win the opener and that there was a better chance of him being hit by lightning than of his team winning Game 2. His task now will be harnessing Jackson and Davis' emotions.
Johnson expected Dallas to bounce back strong. The Mavericks have lost consecutive games only once since starting the season 0-4, and last year they recovered from two Game 1 losses to win Game 2 both times. They went on to win both series, too.
Still, this victory was a bit of a relief to the Mavs because it ended a five-game postseason losing streak that started in last year's NBA finals and it should quiet talk of Nellie and the Warriors having their number.
"We needed to turn it up," said Howard, who had 22 points and 11 rebounds. "They were aggressive at the start of the last game and we didn't respond. This time, we turned it around."
Dallas was finishing off its game-changing stretch when things started getting out of control.
The bad blood started when Terry dribbled into Jackson, drawing a foul, then kept going into Davis. Words were exchanged and there was some shoving, but officials broke it up by giving those three players technical fouls.
Davis got another tech, and an automatic ejection, for arguing about a foul with 0.2 seconds left in the third quarter. He was smiling and clapping at the time, which he said was to keep his teammates' spirits up.
"I wasn't trying to show up the refs," he said. "I was trying to keep my emotions in check. Emotion is what got us to the playoffs. We have to channel that emotion into playing better defense."
The game was turning into a rout when Jackson got his second technical. Whatever he said to get tossed wasn't nearly as bad as his reaction afterward. He wouldn't stop screaming at officials as he headed to the locker room, with teammate Matt Barnes trying to cover Jackson's mouth with his arms, then with a towel.
Jackson, who declined to comment, led the Warriors with 30 points, his most ever in a playoff game. He also had eight turnovers. Davis had 13 points, two assists and one rebound; he had 33 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists in Golden State's victory in the opener.
"I feel we're in good position," Davis said. "They're supposed to beat us by 20. There's no pressure on us. Tonight we were just out of fire."
Golden State opened the game strong, going on an 11-0 run in the opening minutes. The Warriors were up 23-16 soon after, but all their points had come from Jackson and Monta Ellis. That duo was a combined 9-of-10; everyone else was 0-for-8.
Ellis had 13 points in the first quarter but didn't score again until the final minute of the third quarter. He finished with 20 points. Jason Richardson had 14 with 10 rebounds.
Howard filled his stat sheet with five steals and two blocks. Nowitzki was 7-of-15 with seven rebounds.
"It was a physical game and emotional," Nowitzki said. "I think they got us in the first game and took us out of our game. I said after Game 1 we need to execute a lot better. We made a couple of adjustments that worked. Now they'll make adjustments going home and we'll go from there."
Notes: Golden State had 24 turnovers and only nine assists. ... The Mavs were quick to clean up some problems they had in the opener. By the middle of the second quarter, they already had topped their Game 1 totals for fast-break points and bench points. ... Davis had two fouls in the first 3:13, but didn't get another until there was 5:05 left in the third quarter. ... NBA general managers voted Nowitzki the league MVP -- in a survey, not an actual ballot. They don't get a vote for the real award.
http://www.nbcsports.com/nba_scoreboard/1381767/feature.html?qs=;tab=recap
Jason Terry scored 28 points, Dirk Nowitzki had 23 and Josh Howard led a 15-2 run in the third quarter that sent the Mavericks to a 112-99 victory over the Golden State Warriors on Wednesday night, evening their first-round series.
Dallas had lost six straight to Golden State dating to last season. The Mavericks' search for a skid-buster included a new, smaller starting lineup in Game 1, but that only resulted in a 12-point loss.
So coach Avery Johnson went back to the formula that won 67 games in the regular season and saw his club back in synch from the start. The center tandem of Erick Dampier and DeSagana Diop proved they can hold their own against Golden State's little guys, and sixth man Jerry Stackhouse bounced back from a scoreless opener to put up 17 points.
"Everybody talked about the Xs and Os and the decision Avery made to go smaller, but it really wasn't that," Stackhouse said. "It was just the fact we didn't compete. I thought we came out and really competed tonight for 48 minutes and the game went in our favor."
Then again, it was easier with the Warriors' two best players getting ejected.
Baron Davis was tossed with 0.2 seconds left in the third quarter and Stephen Jackson was lost with 4:34 left in the game. Golden State already was trailing when the technical fouls started piling up.
"We're not good enough to lose a player to an ejection, much less two," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "It hurt us when we lost Baron. I thought we had a shot at the time. It wasn't to be."
The series shifts to Oakland for Game 3 on Friday night, and there's little doubt the emotions will remain high.
The Warriors certainly won't be unhinged by this loss, just their second in the last 12 games. Nelson won't allow it. He's kept his club loose, telling everyone they were lucky to win the opener and that there was a better chance of him being hit by lightning than of his team winning Game 2. His task now will be harnessing Jackson and Davis' emotions.
Johnson expected Dallas to bounce back strong. The Mavericks have lost consecutive games only once since starting the season 0-4, and last year they recovered from two Game 1 losses to win Game 2 both times. They went on to win both series, too.
Still, this victory was a bit of a relief to the Mavs because it ended a five-game postseason losing streak that started in last year's NBA finals and it should quiet talk of Nellie and the Warriors having their number.
"We needed to turn it up," said Howard, who had 22 points and 11 rebounds. "They were aggressive at the start of the last game and we didn't respond. This time, we turned it around."
Dallas was finishing off its game-changing stretch when things started getting out of control.
The bad blood started when Terry dribbled into Jackson, drawing a foul, then kept going into Davis. Words were exchanged and there was some shoving, but officials broke it up by giving those three players technical fouls.
Davis got another tech, and an automatic ejection, for arguing about a foul with 0.2 seconds left in the third quarter. He was smiling and clapping at the time, which he said was to keep his teammates' spirits up.
"I wasn't trying to show up the refs," he said. "I was trying to keep my emotions in check. Emotion is what got us to the playoffs. We have to channel that emotion into playing better defense."
The game was turning into a rout when Jackson got his second technical. Whatever he said to get tossed wasn't nearly as bad as his reaction afterward. He wouldn't stop screaming at officials as he headed to the locker room, with teammate Matt Barnes trying to cover Jackson's mouth with his arms, then with a towel.
Jackson, who declined to comment, led the Warriors with 30 points, his most ever in a playoff game. He also had eight turnovers. Davis had 13 points, two assists and one rebound; he had 33 points, 14 rebounds and eight assists in Golden State's victory in the opener.
"I feel we're in good position," Davis said. "They're supposed to beat us by 20. There's no pressure on us. Tonight we were just out of fire."
Golden State opened the game strong, going on an 11-0 run in the opening minutes. The Warriors were up 23-16 soon after, but all their points had come from Jackson and Monta Ellis. That duo was a combined 9-of-10; everyone else was 0-for-8.
Ellis had 13 points in the first quarter but didn't score again until the final minute of the third quarter. He finished with 20 points. Jason Richardson had 14 with 10 rebounds.
Howard filled his stat sheet with five steals and two blocks. Nowitzki was 7-of-15 with seven rebounds.
"It was a physical game and emotional," Nowitzki said. "I think they got us in the first game and took us out of our game. I said after Game 1 we need to execute a lot better. We made a couple of adjustments that worked. Now they'll make adjustments going home and we'll go from there."
Notes: Golden State had 24 turnovers and only nine assists. ... The Mavs were quick to clean up some problems they had in the opener. By the middle of the second quarter, they already had topped their Game 1 totals for fast-break points and bench points. ... Davis had two fouls in the first 3:13, but didn't get another until there was 5:05 left in the third quarter. ... NBA general managers voted Nowitzki the league MVP -- in a survey, not an actual ballot. They don't get a vote for the real award.
http://www.nbcsports.com/nba_scoreboard/1381767/feature.html?qs=;tab=recap
Wimbledon Becomes Richest Grand Slam
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WIMBLEDON, England (AP) -- Wimbledon will be the richest Grand Slam in history, with both the female and male champion earning $1.4 million.
The only Grand Slam tournament on grass will offer total prize money of $22,572,011, an increase of 8.7 percent, organizers said Tuesday. The increase reflects the recent change to pay women the same as men from the first round to the final for the first time since Wimbledon began offering prize money in 1968. The pay equity was announced on Feb. 22.
''No tennis tournament has ever offered higher prize money than Wimbledon in 2007,'' All England Club chairman Tim Phillips said.
Last year, Wimbledon champion Roger Federer earned $1.17 million while Amelie Mauresmo took home $1.11 million.
At this year's Australian Open, Federer and Serena Williams each earned $1.05 million. The French Open will award champions $1.36 million.
Federer and Maria Sharapova, the 2006 U.S. Open champions, won $1.2 million each. The U.S. Open plans to announce its prize money in July.
Wimbledon, which runs from June 25 to July 8, also announced it would use instant replay technology for the first time, subject to final testing in May. The Hawk-Eye technology, used at the U.S. Open for the first time last year and at this year's Australian Open, will be on Centre Court and court No. 1 only.
Large screens will show replays on the two courts.
The exact protocol of Wimbledon's Hawk-Eye system has yet to be established. The U.S. and Australian Opens offer a player two challenges on line calls per set.
''There are slightly different circumstances on a grass surface,'' Wimbledon chief executive Ian Ritchie said. ''So we're looking at a bit of an alternative, maybe a bit of an extension.''
The existing cyclops technology will be moved to courts two, 14 and 18. Cyclops, which has been used at Wimbledon since 1980, is a system of infrared beams which helps determine if serves are in or out.
''We do feel it's a good thing to introduce,'' Ritchie said. ''We're all confident there won't be any issues arising in May and we'll be using it come the championships.''
Because of plans to install a retractable roof over Centre Court, the main venue has no roof this year. It will be the first time in the building's 85-year history that no roof will be on Centre Court. Three extra rows of bleachers on three sides have been built, with 500 extra seats available at this year's tournament.
Next year, there will be a non-moveable roof, with a hydraulic roof to be completed by 2009, and the capacity increasing to 15,000 from 13,800. The seats will be wider.
''People are getting bigger,'' Phillips said.
Wimbledon also announced plans for a new Court No. 2 to be ready in 2009.
WIMBLEDON, England (AP) -- Wimbledon will be the richest Grand Slam in history, with both the female and male champion earning $1.4 million.
The only Grand Slam tournament on grass will offer total prize money of $22,572,011, an increase of 8.7 percent, organizers said Tuesday. The increase reflects the recent change to pay women the same as men from the first round to the final for the first time since Wimbledon began offering prize money in 1968. The pay equity was announced on Feb. 22.
''No tennis tournament has ever offered higher prize money than Wimbledon in 2007,'' All England Club chairman Tim Phillips said.
Last year, Wimbledon champion Roger Federer earned $1.17 million while Amelie Mauresmo took home $1.11 million.
At this year's Australian Open, Federer and Serena Williams each earned $1.05 million. The French Open will award champions $1.36 million.
Federer and Maria Sharapova, the 2006 U.S. Open champions, won $1.2 million each. The U.S. Open plans to announce its prize money in July.
Wimbledon, which runs from June 25 to July 8, also announced it would use instant replay technology for the first time, subject to final testing in May. The Hawk-Eye technology, used at the U.S. Open for the first time last year and at this year's Australian Open, will be on Centre Court and court No. 1 only.
Large screens will show replays on the two courts.
The exact protocol of Wimbledon's Hawk-Eye system has yet to be established. The U.S. and Australian Opens offer a player two challenges on line calls per set.
''There are slightly different circumstances on a grass surface,'' Wimbledon chief executive Ian Ritchie said. ''So we're looking at a bit of an alternative, maybe a bit of an extension.''
The existing cyclops technology will be moved to courts two, 14 and 18. Cyclops, which has been used at Wimbledon since 1980, is a system of infrared beams which helps determine if serves are in or out.
''We do feel it's a good thing to introduce,'' Ritchie said. ''We're all confident there won't be any issues arising in May and we'll be using it come the championships.''
Because of plans to install a retractable roof over Centre Court, the main venue has no roof this year. It will be the first time in the building's 85-year history that no roof will be on Centre Court. Three extra rows of bleachers on three sides have been built, with 500 extra seats available at this year's tournament.
Next year, there will be a non-moveable roof, with a hydraulic roof to be completed by 2009, and the capacity increasing to 15,000 from 13,800. The seats will be wider.
''People are getting bigger,'' Phillips said.
Wimbledon also announced plans for a new Court No. 2 to be ready in 2009.
In Los Angeles, Lakers Are Losing to Impatience
By HOWARD BECKEL SEGUNDO, Calif., April 25 — A relentless, pounding anxiety permeates the Los Angeles Lakers’ training center. Phil Jackson senses it. Mitch Kupchak feels it. Kobe Bryant exudes it.
It would be there even if the Lakers were not down 2-0 to the Phoenix Suns in a first-round playoff series, which they are. It would be there even if they had not just absorbed a 126-98 rout in Phoenix on Tuesday, which they did. And it will be there even if the Lakers win Thursday’s Game 3 at Staples Center.
The problem goes to the heart of who the Lakers are and what they hope to be and the one player who can get them there: Kobe Bryant.
It has been five years since the Lakers raised a championship banner (a painful drought by their standards), and three years since they won a playoff series.
They have perhaps the greatest player in the game in Bryant and a Hall of Fame coach in Jackson. But they had a lackluster 42-40 season and appear headed for a second consecutive first-round exit from the playoffs.
These would be small concerns if not for the nagging questions that tug at Lakers officials day and night: How much longer can Bryant play at an otherworldly level before his skills erode? Can the Lakers squeeze in another parade or two before it happens? How long can the notoriously impatient Bryant wait for his young teammates to develop?
“He’s antsy,” Kupchak, the Lakers’ general manager, said. “And we recognize that we’ve got a talented and gifted guy that could get us to that level. We don’t want to waste that.”
Bryant is just 28 but, as he often says, it is not the age but the mileage that counts. Bryant, who entered the N.B.A. as a teen prodigy, just completed his 11th pro season. He has logged 128 playoff games — the equivalent of another season and a half. He will be 30 when he starts his 13th N.B.A. season in the fall of 2008.
For comparison’s sake, Michael Jordan played just 13 seasons at an elite level, not counting the season and a half he sat out to play baseball. Jordan was older when he entered the league, but, like Bryant, he taxed his body with a high-flying, high-impact approach to the game.
Lakers officials quietly speak of the shrinking window for returning to contender status before Bryant begins to decline. That he has had to overextend himself, averaging more than 30 points a game the last two seasons just to get them to the playoffs, does not help.
Since the moment the Lakers exiled Shaquille O’Neal to Miami in July 2004, the franchise has been defined by Bryant’s otherworldly talents. When Jackson returned in 2005, after a one-year sabbatical, expectations were instantly raised.
The talent level, however, has not been. After Bryant, the Lakers have just one All-Star-caliber player, the often-injured forward Lamar Odom. Their most promising prospect, center Andrew Bynum, is only 19.
The hope is that Bynum blossoms into a dominant low-post player while Bryant is still in his prime. Until then, the roster remains sorely lacking in star power. Luke Walton, a third-year pro, is a terrific role player. Jordan Farmar, the rookie point guard, has shown some promise.
Two weeks ago, Jackson himself wondered aloud if the team made a mistake by standing pat last summer after the Lakers’ spirited seven-game series against the Suns.
Bryant’s patience is showing signs of wear. He has noted several times in the past week that “we’re not the most talented team in the world.” The frustration was evident in his taut expression on the bench Tuesday night, and in his piercing stare as he emerged from the training room after Wednesday’s practice.
“I think now is the time,” Bryant said.
“We’ve had three years here where we’re trying to do some things. This upcoming summer and next season, this is really the time to start pushing a little bit and get to that contender level.”
Bryant feels an urgency that he did not five years ago, when he and O’Neal alternately feuded and dominated on the way to three consecutive title. His championship teammates have all moved on or retired.
There are times when Bryant seems wistful for that veteran cast as he prods, encourages and occasionally berates his young teammates. There is indeed a window, Bryant acknowledges, but said, “I don’t know what that window is.”
The Lakers’ effort to rebuild on the fly, without salary-cap space, has brought uneven results. Two years ago, they traded the swingman Caron Butler to Washington (where he has become an All-Star) for the enigmatic and frequently injured center Kwame Brown. Last summer, they signed the veteran shooting specialist Vladimir Radmanovic to a five-year, $30 million contract.
In January, Brown was accused of grabbing a stranger’s $190 birthday cake and throwing it outside of a Hermosa Beach club. In February, Radmanovic was fined $500,000 by the team after he separated his shoulder in a snowboarding accident and then lied about it.
The Lakers’ best shot at improving quickly would be to trade Odom or Bynum. But team officials consider those two players untouchable. Attempts to acquire the Nets All-Star Jason Kidd in February reportedly failed because the Lakers refused to include Bynum.
“He’s not in our plans to trade,” Kupchak said. “It’s one of those deals where you kind of don’t know what you have. You hate to do something too soon.”
Jackson has his own window. He has one year left on the three-year, $30 million contract he signed in 2005. His agent has opened negotiations on an extension with the team owner, Jerry Buss. Those talks will certainly take into account whether the Lakers have any hope of making a major move in the next few years.
“They’re paying me a championship salary to do what?” Jackson said. “Not to get to the playoffs — to get somewhere in the playoffs. I have accountability in that direction, too.”
The question remains one of acquiring or developing elite talent, and soon.
“They’ve got some decisions to make, if they want to build a contender now, or if you want to hold onto these pieces for five years from now,” Bryant said. “They got some tough choices.”
The problem goes to the heart of who the Lakers are and what they hope to be and the one player who can get them there: Kobe Bryant.
It has been five years since the Lakers raised a championship banner (a painful drought by their standards), and three years since they won a playoff series.
They have perhaps the greatest player in the game in Bryant and a Hall of Fame coach in Jackson. But they had a lackluster 42-40 season and appear headed for a second consecutive first-round exit from the playoffs.
These would be small concerns if not for the nagging questions that tug at Lakers officials day and night: How much longer can Bryant play at an otherworldly level before his skills erode? Can the Lakers squeeze in another parade or two before it happens? How long can the notoriously impatient Bryant wait for his young teammates to develop?
“He’s antsy,” Kupchak, the Lakers’ general manager, said. “And we recognize that we’ve got a talented and gifted guy that could get us to that level. We don’t want to waste that.”
Bryant is just 28 but, as he often says, it is not the age but the mileage that counts. Bryant, who entered the N.B.A. as a teen prodigy, just completed his 11th pro season. He has logged 128 playoff games — the equivalent of another season and a half. He will be 30 when he starts his 13th N.B.A. season in the fall of 2008.
For comparison’s sake, Michael Jordan played just 13 seasons at an elite level, not counting the season and a half he sat out to play baseball. Jordan was older when he entered the league, but, like Bryant, he taxed his body with a high-flying, high-impact approach to the game.
Lakers officials quietly speak of the shrinking window for returning to contender status before Bryant begins to decline. That he has had to overextend himself, averaging more than 30 points a game the last two seasons just to get them to the playoffs, does not help.
Since the moment the Lakers exiled Shaquille O’Neal to Miami in July 2004, the franchise has been defined by Bryant’s otherworldly talents. When Jackson returned in 2005, after a one-year sabbatical, expectations were instantly raised.
The talent level, however, has not been. After Bryant, the Lakers have just one All-Star-caliber player, the often-injured forward Lamar Odom. Their most promising prospect, center Andrew Bynum, is only 19.
The hope is that Bynum blossoms into a dominant low-post player while Bryant is still in his prime. Until then, the roster remains sorely lacking in star power. Luke Walton, a third-year pro, is a terrific role player. Jordan Farmar, the rookie point guard, has shown some promise.
Two weeks ago, Jackson himself wondered aloud if the team made a mistake by standing pat last summer after the Lakers’ spirited seven-game series against the Suns.
Bryant’s patience is showing signs of wear. He has noted several times in the past week that “we’re not the most talented team in the world.” The frustration was evident in his taut expression on the bench Tuesday night, and in his piercing stare as he emerged from the training room after Wednesday’s practice.
“I think now is the time,” Bryant said.
“We’ve had three years here where we’re trying to do some things. This upcoming summer and next season, this is really the time to start pushing a little bit and get to that contender level.”
Bryant feels an urgency that he did not five years ago, when he and O’Neal alternately feuded and dominated on the way to three consecutive title. His championship teammates have all moved on or retired.
There are times when Bryant seems wistful for that veteran cast as he prods, encourages and occasionally berates his young teammates. There is indeed a window, Bryant acknowledges, but said, “I don’t know what that window is.”
The Lakers’ effort to rebuild on the fly, without salary-cap space, has brought uneven results. Two years ago, they traded the swingman Caron Butler to Washington (where he has become an All-Star) for the enigmatic and frequently injured center Kwame Brown. Last summer, they signed the veteran shooting specialist Vladimir Radmanovic to a five-year, $30 million contract.
In January, Brown was accused of grabbing a stranger’s $190 birthday cake and throwing it outside of a Hermosa Beach club. In February, Radmanovic was fined $500,000 by the team after he separated his shoulder in a snowboarding accident and then lied about it.
The Lakers’ best shot at improving quickly would be to trade Odom or Bynum. But team officials consider those two players untouchable. Attempts to acquire the Nets All-Star Jason Kidd in February reportedly failed because the Lakers refused to include Bynum.
“He’s not in our plans to trade,” Kupchak said. “It’s one of those deals where you kind of don’t know what you have. You hate to do something too soon.”
Jackson has his own window. He has one year left on the three-year, $30 million contract he signed in 2005. His agent has opened negotiations on an extension with the team owner, Jerry Buss. Those talks will certainly take into account whether the Lakers have any hope of making a major move in the next few years.
“They’re paying me a championship salary to do what?” Jackson said. “Not to get to the playoffs — to get somewhere in the playoffs. I have accountability in that direction, too.”
The question remains one of acquiring or developing elite talent, and soon.
“They’ve got some decisions to make, if they want to build a contender now, or if you want to hold onto these pieces for five years from now,” Bryant said. “They got some tough choices.”
Abonneren op:
Reacties (Atom)