$2 Billion?!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jlprk said:
Yeah, I said elsewhere that I think he had this whole thing planned. Every owner should pull this stunt to double his team worth.
Click to expand...

Sorry it only works once or twice otherwise the NBA gets a race issue and the whole thing is messed up
 
If the Clips are worth 2 bil, then what are the Lakers worth? I get that the NBA will negotiate a new (rumored to be, biggest ever) TV deal, but holy shit. Talk about over-valuation. I doubt there was much negotiation here-- seems like this dude made so high an offer that it could not be refused.
 
Ballmer bid to purchase the Bucks with the intention of moving them to Seattle. He was also involved in trying to get the Kings so they could be moved to Seattle I am sure that his bid for the Clippers has language in it that would make moving the team to Seattle an option. I don't believe Ballmer wants a team just for the sake of owning an NBA team regardless of location, he wants one in Seattle. So the league will review his offer and look at the offer see that there is no promise to stay in LA and accept a lower bid say to Geffen for $1.6bil.

The League isn't going to be able to ignore Ballmers bids forever, that's too much money being waived under their noses.
 
yuyuza1 said:
If the Clips are worth 2 bil, then what are the Lakers worth? I get that the NBA will negotiate a new (rumored to be, biggest ever) TV deal, but holy shit. Talk about over-valuation. I doubt there was much negotiation here-- seems like this dude made so high an offer that it could not be refused.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say, the if you add a good owner tot he team they have built, might take the LA market over from the Lakers, which is an organization gasping for air right now.
 
Schilly said:
Ballmer bid to purchase the Bucks with the intention of moving them to Seattle. He was also involved in trying to get the Kings so they could be moved to Seattle I am sure that his bid for the Clippers has language in it that would make moving the team to Seattle an option. I don't believe Ballmer wants a team just for the sake of owning an NBA team regardless of location, he wants one in Seattle. So the league will review his offer and look at the offer see that there is no promise to stay in LA and accept a lower bid say to Geffen for $1.6bil.

The League isn't going to be able to ignore Ballmers bids forever, that's too much money being waived under their noses.
Click to expand...
I dunno, man. If I were an owner of an NBA team, I'd rather be in the LA market than Seattle --even given that I'd have to share my market share with the Lakers.

Then again, moving a team from the Seattle market all the way down to podunk OKC doesn't make much sense from a business standpoint either
 
Paying $2bil then moving the team would be a disaster. On top of that if he bought the team for $2bil, it's not like he could easily get out from under that team if we wanted to, at least not for a while.
 
What is funny is NBA players tweeting complaining that owners obviously make too much money... but what they aren't realizing is the revenue from the sale is in the bank of a "Former" owner and the "New" owner, if it's Ballmer, didn't use money from basketball revenue to purchase it, and is now $2bill lighter in the liquid asset side of things.
 
Schilly said:
What is funny is NBA players tweeting complaining that owners obviously make too much money... but what they aren't realizing is the revenue from the sale is in the bank of a "Former" owner and the "New" owner, if it's Ballmer, didn't use money from basketball revenue to purchase it, and is now $2bill lighter in the liquid asset side of things.
Click to expand...

Still seems like players helping to build those brands, why shouldn't sale of a franchise be included in the revenue pot to be divvied up?
 
RR7 said:
Still seems like players helping to build those brands, why shouldn't sale of a franchise be included in the revenue pot to be divvied up?
Click to expand...
Why would it? IIRC the money figures are "Basketball Related Income", the sale of a franchise is by no means basketball related income at all. In any other business the employees, union or not, don't get a bonus cut if the Business is sold. They don't pay the bills, they don't have an ownership stake, why should they get a cut?
 
Schilly said:
Why would it? IIRC the money figures are "Basketball Related Income", the sale of a franchise is by no means basketball related income at all. In any other business the employees, union or not, don't get a bonus cut if the Business is sold. They don't pay the bills, they don't have an ownership stake, why should they get a cut?
Click to expand...

The team is a basketball team, how is it not basketball related?
You can't compare it to other companies. They're so different from a normal business.
They don't pay the bills on the stadium, but changing the name to moda center isn't just money in Paul Allens pocket.
I know it's not included, I think it should be though.
 
Schilly said:
Why would it? IIRC the money figures are "Basketball Related Income", the sale of a franchise is by no means basketball related income at all. In any other business the employees, union or not, don't get a bonus cut if the Business is sold. They don't pay the bills, they don't have an ownership stake, why should they get a cut?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. The only legitimate point they have would be that since the team owners are seeing massive gains through the inevitable appreciation of the asset itself, they should be more willing to split a larger portion of the annual revenue pie with the players. Of course, the owners bear all the league's expenses as well, so it's not as though they're just taking half the BRI and laughing all the way to the bank.
 
RR7 said:
The team is a basketball team, how is it not basketball related?
You can't compare it to other companies. They're so different from a normal business.
They don't pay the bills on the stadium, but changing the name to moda center isn't just money in Paul Allens pocket.
I know it's not included, I think it should be though.
Click to expand...
So would you have to write a check to every player that has played for that team over the last 33 years? They all helped build it. Who pays it anyway? Are the players also going to be financially responsible for a new stadium if one is built... I mean if they want the benefits they should take the risks as well.
 
Last edited:
RR7 said:
The team is a basketball team, how is it not basketball related?
You can't compare it to other companies. They're so different from a normal business.
They don't pay the bills on the stadium, but changing the name to moda center isn't just money in Paul Allens pocket.
I know it's not included, I think it should be though.
Click to expand...

It's not operating revenue, so it's completely different.

The proceeds from the sale are not going to a team owner, but a now-former owner, so the proceeds would not be subject to the CBA. Once he sells, he's no longer bound by the league constitution.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but sometimes opinions are simply wrong.
 
About.com:

"Basketball Related Income - BRI, for short - is a term used to describe most of the revenue generated by NBA teams. BRI includes revenue generated by:

Ticket Sales (regular season, exhibition and playoffs)
Television Contracts (ESPN, TNT, etc.)
Concessions
Parking
"Temporary" Stadium advertising"

Business equity does not come close to any of those contractual income sources. We live in a capitalist country, not a communist one. The players are employees, not owners. Owners take the risk, players don't.
 
Stevenson said:
About.com:

"Basketball Related Income - BRI, for short - is a term used to describe most of the revenue generated by NBA teams. BRI includes revenue generated by:

Ticket Sales (regular season, exhibition and playoffs)
Television Contracts (ESPN, TNT, etc.)
Concessions
Parking
"Temporary" Stadium advertising"

Business equity does not come close to any of those contractual income sources. We live in a capitalist country, not a communist one. The players are employees, not owners. Owners take the risk, players don't.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that it DOESN'T fall under it.
 
original.jpg
 
Stevenson said:
We live in a capitalist country, not a communist one.
Click to expand...

And yet, we're having this discussion because a team owner is being FORCED to sell his property, with no illegal activity on his part. A capitalist not communist country where the teams we are discussing divide large percentages of their revenue evenly. The league doesn't operate on "normal" economic standards. it's almost more communist than capitalist in its practice.
 
Blazers lease expires in what 8 years? I expect the team to move at that point. Bay area only has one team. Seattle doesn't have a team. Vegas has more disposable income. The Portland TV market can't compare to those deals. Comcast only pays the Blazers $10million a year! The Lakers TV deal is worth $3billion. I'm actually surprised clippers didnt sell for more to a TV network. They could buy the whole team which includes all broadcast rights plus have all the other benefits of ownership.
 
RR7 said:
And yet, we're having this discussion because a team owner is being FORCED to sell his property, with no illegal activity on his part. A capitalist not communist country where the teams we are discussing divide large percentages of their revenue evenly. The league doesn't operate on "normal" economic standards. it's almost more communist than capitalist in its practice.
Click to expand...

Well put.

Yet once the Sterling's receive the check, they're out of the communist bloc, back on the safe side of the Berlin wall, and no longer subject to Comrade Silver's oppressive regime. Hence, there's no reason why their assets should be divided amongst the proletariat.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Well put.

Yet once the Sterling's receive the check, they're out of the communist bloc, back over the Berlin wall, and no longer subject to Comrade Silver's oppressive regime. Hence, there's no reason why their assets should be divided amongst the proletariat.
Click to expand...

Again I understand that it isn't. And will never be. But they can easily put it in terms of any sale. You're required to give X percentage on profit made from sale minus taxes and whatever. Sales require an approval process and vote by the league so it's not like anyone is making a quick silent transaction and then goes haha I made a billion and you can't touch me.
 
Stevenson said:
This is called a distinction without a difference. The Blazers are voluntarily part of a an association and agree to abide by the terms of the agreements of that association. That's the contract they signed.

But the players have no contractual right to an owner's equity gain.
Click to expand...

Again I understand they do not currently. But by those same agreements of the association, they COULD. And is my opinion they should in some fashion
 
The reason they can't do it is it isn't a predictable recurring funds and technically it is usually considered a debt not an asset. Also where do you draw the line? All active NBA players, players only on that team, players that were on the team during the selling owners involvement?
 
Schilly said:
The reason they can't do it is it isn't a predictable recurring funds and technically it is usually considered a debt not an asset. Also where do you draw the line? All active NBA players, players only on that team, players that were on the team during the selling owners involvement?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you give them each a cut of it, like anyone on the team gets 5%. But that a percentage is included in basketball related income for that year, to adjust what the cap is and all that. So if normally they split up 5 billion, and x percentage goes to players, now the percentage increases with the sale.
 
I wouldn't laugh. What if Sterling wins?

$1B is a lot of money the owners will be on the hook for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top