BuyTheBlazers.com - for the community!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
sheed30 said:
I find it odd someone of you think there is no chance the Blazers leave here because Portland is a valuable franchise.

Can’t the same be said for Seattle and look what happened?

Silver is all about making money he doesn’t care about fans if you ask me. Making money is his first priority. He wants a team in Vegas badly and a team in Vegas will be a HUGE money maker for the NBA imo.

The first domino to fall will be who buys the team of-course and I’m pray we don’t move but I’m not so certain we’re definitely not moving as some think in here.
Click to expand...
It's simple - the NBA can make more money by leaving the Blazers in Portland. Plenty of franchises with worse revenue like the Pelicans or Hornets that can be moved if it comes to that.

Not to say Portland and the Blazers community can sit back and do nothing. Eventually they'll probably need to help with an arena. I expect that will happen. Sacramento did that and kept the Kings. Seattle did not and lost the Sonics.
 
I love that we now have so many threads all talking about the same topic.
MERGE
 
julius said:
The amount that they "lose out" on with the 2 extra teams, is made up by the amount of the expansion fees split among the 30 teams. The only reason they are poo-pooing expansion now is to up the price of teams for sale now AND the amount of money the expansion teams have to pay.

There is no logical reason why the NBA would want to move a team to Vegas at the expense of Portland and Seattle. It literally makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Expansion harms the worth of all existing NBA franchises. Do the one time fees make up for that? To some owners yes, to other owners no.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Expansion harms the worth of all existing NBA franchises. Do the one time fees make up for that? To some owners yes, to other owners no.
Click to expand...

How on earth does the expansion harm the worth of existing NBA franchises? If that was the case, they'd never expand leagues.
 
julius said:
The amount that they "lose out" on with the 2 extra teams, is made up by the amount of the expansion fees split among the 30 teams. The only reason they are poo-pooing expansion now is to up the price of teams for sale now AND the amount of money the expansion teams have to pay.

There is no logical reason why the NBA would want to move a team to Vegas at the expense of Portland and Seattle. It literally makes no sense.
Click to expand...

it really doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you. What matters is the thinking of the 30 owners, and by all reporting there's no motivation to expand this decade no matter how much time you spend arguing the math.
 
I've said this before, in this very thread, but it needs to be repeated.

Just saw this: The TV contract is 76 billion over 11 years. Or 247 per team per year for 11 years. Adding 2 teams drops that to 215 per team.

Think of it this way. The league expands and adds 2 teams. Each expansion fee is 5 billion (that # has been thrown around).

10 billion split among 30 teams is 333 million each team.

The loss of income for the teams, if they expand to 32 teams (with the TV contract) would go from 247 per team to 215.

And since the new teams won't come in for probably 2 season (at least) that means for the first 2 years, the #'s stay the same.

So years 3-11, the amount each team gets is 215.

Example:

Years 1 and 2: 494 million (2 years)

Years 9-11: 1.935 billion (9 years)

For a total of 2.429 billion over the life of the TV contract (with 32 teams).

Vs: 2.717 billion if they keep things the same (11x247).

For a grand total difference OF: 288 billion over 11 years, or ~26 million a season.

That 288 billion is *less* than what they'd make if they expanded the league to 32 with the expansion fee.
Click to expand...
 
Think of expansion as selling stock owners own in the NBA. Each owner needs to sell 5% and they get $300 million. Is that worth it?

For some owners yes - but for others no.
 
julius said:
I've said this before, in this very thread, but it needs to be repeated.
Click to expand...
Your only looking at one cost. After expansion owners would lose out on the subsequent TV deal, and one after that, and after that for decades or their lifetime or children's lifetime, etc.

Maybe it'll end up costing many billions of dollars to owners. Especially so to more wealthy owners that recently bought a team or that are in big markets.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Your only looking at one cost. After expansion owners would lose out on the subsequent TV deal, and one after that, and after that for decades or their lifetime or children's lifetime, etc.

Maybe it'll end up costing many billions of dollars to owners. Especially so to more wealthy owners that recently bought a team or that are in big markets.
Click to expand...

oh for the love of god...the new TV deals would be *bigger* because of the league being stronger/better markets.
 
julius said:
oh for the love of god...the new TV deals would be *bigger* because of the league being stronger/better markets.
Click to expand...
Then why don't pro sports have 200 teams?

Obviously there's a balance to these things. There's arguments for expansion. But there's very real disadvantages your glossing over.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Because owner went from owning 1/30th to 1/32 for eternity.
Click to expand...

Which is bigger:

1/30th of 76 billion (current TV contract)


OR

1/32nd of 86 billion. (current TV contract + expansion fees)

I'll take my answer off the air.
 
wizenheimer said:
it really doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you. What matters is the thinking of the 30 owners, and by all reporting there's no motivation to expand this decade no matter how much time you spend arguing the math.
Click to expand...
If it's was "free money" as some posters are claiming th NBA would've done it already. Theres both advantages and disadvantages.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Then why don't pro sports have 200 teams?

Obviously there's a balance to these things. There's arguments for expansion. But there's very real disadvantages your glossing over.
Click to expand...

please be serious.
 
julius said:
Which is bigger:

1/30th of 76 billion (current TV contract)


OR

1/32nd of 86 billion. (current TV contract + expansion fees)

I'll take my answer off the air.
Click to expand...
What about the TV contract in 40 years that's worth 500 billion?

Your ignoring the loss of ownership.

It's like comparing the cash of stocks when one person got divided and one sold.

The person who still own shares has something else your ignoring.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
What about the TV contract in 40 years that's worth 500 billion?

Your ignoring the loss of ownership.

It's like comparing the dividends of two stocks but ignoring someone who has also got 1000 more shares.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about owners who are worried about this little of a revenue share, then they are cheap ass owners.

The amount of money the league makes from expanding to Vegas and back to Seattle is a lot more money than their losses based going from 1/30th to 1/32nd.

If the cost of an expansion fee is 5 billion, guess what? that means every teams evaluation goes up too.
 
julius said:
If we're talking about owners who are worried about this little of a revenue share, then they are cheap ass owners.

The amount of money the league makes from expanding to Vegas and back to Seattle is a lot more money than their losses based going from 1/30th to 1/32nd.

If the cost of an expansion fee is 5 billion, guess what? that means every teams evaluation goes up too.
Click to expand...
No - the worth of every team would go down after expansion. Its a one time cash grab. When the league is at 32 teams they can't ever add a 31st or 32nd team again.

Maybe if the NBA waits a decade they will be able to charge $15 billion each for expansion so $30 billion total? Each team gets an even 1 billion.

I'm not even saying that expansion is bad or won't happen. I'm just saying there are very real financial downsides to it and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it doesn't happen. In particular owners that paid a lot recently for their franchise or are in big markets gain the least from expansion. It totally makes sense James Dolan and other owners are fighting to block it.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
No - the worth of every team would go down after expansion. Its a one time cash grab. When the league is at 32 teams they can't ever add a 31st or 32nd team again.

Maybe if the NBA waits a decade they will be able to charge $15 billion each for expansion so $30 billion total? Each team gets an even 1 billion.

I'm not even saying that expansion is bad or won't happen. I'm just saying there are very real financial downsides to it and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it doesn't happen. In particular owners that paid a lot recently for their franchise or are in big markets gain the least from expansion. It totally makes sense James Dolan and other owners are fighting to block it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use James Dolan as a good example.

Also. Show me where any league has had team values drop after an expansion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top