NBA stars looking to play in Europe: I like it (1 Viewer)

[Pinwheel1]

Deron to Turkey? I like it.

Even though I agree with the owners I still want them to negotiate with the players. If players are getting paid during the lockout, it may keep the owners at the bargaining table a little longer. There has to be fear on both sides for a deal to get done. I don't want the owners getting cocky. Hopefully this will help.

 

[Minstrel]

Both sides should get whatever leverage they can. Can the NBA players make as much in Europe as they do currently in the US? Probably not (at least not this generation of NBA players) but they can still likely make millions. However, I don't think NBA owners can make as much with the "next 200 best" players either. So both sides could survive without the other, but both have incentive to make the NBA (as currently constituted) work.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I will laugh my ass off if he gets injured and it costs him a gazillion dollars. The players have been too greedy for too long, and all the owners are doing is trying to even it out.

 

[STOMP]

Both sides should get whatever leverage they can. Can the NBA players make as much in Europe as they do currently in the US? Probably not (at least not this generation of NBA players) but they can still likely make millions.

millions is a lot more then nothing. Players have a limited time to ply their trade, so it only makes sense that more and more will play elsewhere if this drags on. I don't have a rooting interest in this lockout except to see matters settled. Since players not becoming desperate does seem like real motivation for the owners (who are paying for empty stadiums) to try come to an agreement, I like it too.

if the players eventually cave to every owner demand, is anyone here naive enough to believe their game day ticket will be any cheaper?

STOMP

 

[Mediocre Man]

They shouldn't be cheaper though.

Business is business. If I as an NBA owner drop 350 million or so to buy a team, then a "profit" of 2 million a year doesn't cover my investment.

 

[STOMP]

They shouldn't be cheaper though.

Business is business. If I as an NBA owner drop 350 million or so to buy a team, then a "profit" of 2 million a year doesn't cover my investment.

Then sell or better yet don't buy in. No one forces an owner to buy a team or overspend on players. Across the board the value of NBA franchises has continued to escalate. Hard to feel pity for multi-billionairs who choose to be represented by douchebag Stern

Neither side represents my interest in watching good hoops so I won't be happy if either is thought to have won or lost this standoff, only that it's over

STOMP

 

[Draco]

if the players eventually cave to every owner demand, is anyone here naive enough to believe their game day ticket will be any cheaper?

I've always believed ticket cost is totally independent of player salaries. If the NBA could get more revenue from increasing ticker price they would, they don't increase prices further because people would buy less tickets and it would decrease total revenue. The league already maximizes ticket revenue. However high or low a teams payroll is will be irrelevant.

 

[Pinwheel1]

They shouldn't be cheaper though.

Business is business. If I as an NBA owner drop 350 million or so to buy a team, then a "profit" of 2 million a year doesn't cover my investment.

WTF? Larry Miller bought the Jazz for $25 million. It is now worth 342 million. They could have lost 10 million a year for 25 years and still pocket almost 100 million dollars. Even in that scenario it is a good investment.

 

[Mediocre Man]

There are many more owners that have recently bought teams though. Larry Miller is the exception. Most owners bought high because of the great job Stern has done.

 

[Pinwheel1]

There are many more owners that have recently bought teams though. Larry Miller is the exception. Most owners bought high because of the great job Stern has done.

it would be interesting to see how many NBA owners have ever lost money after they sold the team. I bet not many

 

[Minstrel]

There are many more owners that have recently bought teams though.

So what? The cost they paid for the franchise is not simply money lost that they need to recoup through profits. They own the franchise and can re-sell it at a future time. Unless you're contending that the franchises are losing value (i.e. become worth less over time, inflation adjusted, than they were bought for), it makes no sense to say "The profits aren't covering the franchise cost." Buying the franchise is an investment. The gross income needs to cover the operating costs, not the cost of purchasing the franchise. If the gross income more than covers the operating costs, then they're earning profits on top of any franchise appreciation that they realize over time.

 

[Ed O]

WTF? Larry Miller bought the Jazz for $25 million. It is now worth 342 million. They could have lost 10 million a year for 25 years and still pocket almost 100 million dollars. Even in that scenario it is a good investment.

If you ignore opportunity cost and inflation, sure. Of course, the real world doesn't work like that.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

it would be interesting to see how many NBA owners have ever lost money after they sold the team. I bet not many

How many NBA players have ever lost money by playing in the NBA?

I don't think there are many of those, either.

Ed O.

 

[Pinwheel1]

If you ignore opportunity cost and inflation, sure. Of course, the real world doesn't work like that.

Ed O.

What ever. The Jazz didn't lose 10 million every year either. Some years they made a hell of a lot of profit. Even as one of the smallest markets in the NBA. Bottom line is if a team makes 2 million a year profit, they will do just fine when it comes time to sell. It's not like they are "flipping teams" for a quick buck.

 

[Ed O]

What ever. The Jazz didn't lose 10 million every year either. Some years they made a hell of a lot of profit. Even as one of the smallest markets in the NBA. Bottom line is if a team makes 2 million a year profit, they will do just fine when it comes time to sell. It's not like they are "flipping teams" for a quick buck.

$2m a year on a $300m investment is shitty. Very few rational investors would make such a purchase. That's .67%.

Investors would be better buying Treasury investments from the US, which are considered the safest (if worst-paying) securities in the world.

Why would a rational investor pay so much for something with so shitty of a return?

Ed O.

 

[ebott]

$2m a year on a $300m investment is shitty. Very few rational investors would make such a purchase. That's .67%.

Investors would be better buying Treasury investments from the US, which are considered the safest (if worst-paying) securities in the world.

Why would a rational investor pay so much for something with so shitty of a return?

Ed O.

Cause the real ROI on a team is when you sell it. At least that's what the rhetoric I've heard spewed. I've got no numbers to back that up.

 

[mook]

$2m a year on a $300m investment is shitty. Very few rational investors would make such a purchase. That's .67%.

Investors would be better buying Treasury investments from the US, which are considered the safest (if worst-paying) securities in the world.

Why would a rational investor pay so much for something with so shitty of a return?

Ed O.

That's really an absurd way to look at it. If you want to compare it to other investments, compare it to stocks. Annual revenue is akin to dividends. Nice little returns of cash, but not really the reason you own the stock/franchise. The real money comes when you sell the stock/franchise.

Or compare it to owning rental property. You try to offset most of your mortgage/utility/etc costs with rent income (ticket sales/tv/merchandising), but few landlords get wealthy on that. Most make their real money when they sell.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Since when is buying a sports team an "investment"? If that's your reason for buying it, then fuck off and let some rich fan who's prepared to lose tons of money come in. I'll tell you one owner who treats it like an investment: Donald Sterling. You want more like that?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

On NBA players going to Europe: I don't think it'll make much (if any) difference. Williams has supposedly agreed to a contract which ends the minute the lockout ends. He'll be earning TONS less than he would in the NBA. If anything, he might start seeing a lower wage in the NBA as reasonable and be more willing to capitulate to the owners' demands. And a combination of the NBA players' unwillingness to go overseas and the lack of teams with real (i.e., 1/10 what the NBA would pay) money over there will make this a tiny trickle rather than the flood it would have to be.

What it would require would be the best player from every team playing in a way that put them at significant risk of injury.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Deron to Turkey? I like it.

Even though I agree with the owners I still want them to negotiate with the players. If players are getting paid during the lockout, it may keep the owners at the bargaining table a little longer. There has to be fear on both sides for a deal to get done. I don't want the owners getting cocky. Hopefully this will help.

For every millionaire player who might head to Europe, there are 10+ others left behind as well as draftees. And those players votes count just the same as the LaBrons of the world. The leverage isn;t with the star players, it's with the players who actually need the money and who are trying to make their mark in the league.

 

[Ed O]

That's really an absurd way to look at it. If you want to compare it to other investments, compare it to stocks. Annual revenue is akin to dividends. Nice little returns of cash, but not really the reason you own the stock/franchise. The real money comes when you sell the stock/franchise.

Or compare it to owning rental property. You try to offset most of your mortgage/utility/etc costs with rent income (ticket sales/tv/merchandising), but few landlords get wealthy on that. Most make their real money when they sell.

It's not at all absurd. The investment is only worth the net present value of the future cash flows.

Except to irrational investors.

Rental property values go up because rents do, whether because of inflation or other supply and demand variables.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Since when is buying a sports team an "investment"? If that's your reason for buying it, then fuck off and let some rich fan who's prepared to lose tons of money come in. I'll tell you one owner who treats it like an investment: Donald Sterling. You want more like that?

You're right that the EXPECTATION is that the team owners won't treat the teams like "real" investments.

But maybe they want to start doing so. I certainly think that they're free to try.

Ed O.

 

[Blazinaway]

From what I understand there are not that many roster spots open on Euro teams, so perhaps a few players will get signed, but not enough IMO to make a real difference

 

[e_blazer]

It seems to me that the more players who find employment in Europe the better, as far as putting pressure on owners to come back with a more moderate proposal. I think that they've downplayed the notion that many of these guys would get picked up by Euro teams and that the players would be likely to fold once they start missing games. If owners now have to worry that a significant number of guys will be able to avoid the full brunt of missed paychecks, they lose a key piece of their financial leverage. They also have to worry that franchise players may get injured while playing in Europe. While I'm sympathetic that the owners deserve a better deal than they currently have, the eventual answer to this thing is going to be found in some middle ground. The sooner that owners realize they don't have all of the leverage, the sooner they'll begin to move towards the middle.

 

[illmatic99]

$200K a month?

That's peanuts for a guy like Deron.

 

[illmatic99]

http://twitter.com/#!/Wessywes2

Man, d will going over the waters...hmmmmm might have to go check out @Patty_Mills or @rudy5fernandez or @nicolas88batum hmmmmm

 

[jlprk]

If I were in the NBA I'd get me a European contract as fast as I can. The risk of injury is smaller than here (fewer and less physical games) and even if injured, you still have a contract in the NBA to return to. I don't know why they say Deron Williams is risking injury. He could ruin himself like Roy and still have his Utah contract.

If young, I learn a lot. If old, I stay in shape. Either way, I make a lot of money and learn a foreign system that just might expand my game.

Pressure on players to settle because they're not making money? The same goes for owners. If it's true that the league lost $300M or whatever, then the average owner loses $10M per year. Therefore, owners should delay a contract as long as possible before returning to losing their $10M. They should also give away their money before they blow any more. This assumes that they're telling the truth about losing money.

When the Sonic owners sold to the Okies because they couldn't pay the bills, they made an enormous killing on the sale price, and the team turned out to have been an excellent investment. Why would owners keep paying such escalating purchase prices if it's such a bad investment? Answer: their financial statements have accounting tricks (amortizing the purchase price, overpaying themselves with private plane flights and other perks).

 

[Run BJM]

Any one know if Deron has spoken about his decision to go to Turkey yet? I'd like to know exactly what drew him to it.

Seems to make sense for an all-star type who may not be that well known internationally. Go play in Europe and get your name out to the foreign masses and try to get some international endorsement money. But if his intentions were to gain massive followers or big money via foreign endorsements you would think he would go to China where the money is reportedly better and people seem basketball crazy and love buying into random gimmicks like that (total Asian stereotype but I tend to think its true LOL).

Even if its not a money related move, there are reasons to play in Europe. They have to stay in shape during the lockout and most probably want to keep getting some type of income. Plus it gives the players leverage. Most likely none of them got to study abroad in college so why not take the chance to go live and work abroad for several months? Sounds like most likely anyone who goes to Europe wouldn't be there until the end of the season but maybe you even get a chance to get a Euroleague championship too.

 

[maxiep]

My interest in the strike isn't so much financial, as it is competitive. I'm interested that the League remain competitive, so that players can't collude to create these "super teams" unless they take a major financial hit. I also want to ensure the playing field is competitive enough that players can't get away from the crap towns in the league like Milwaukee, Portland and Oklahoma City and run to LA, Chicago and New York. I fear smaller markets will become farm teams for the big boys. If the NBA becomes MLB, I'm done.

On the player side, I want them incentivized. I'm tired of players signing contracts and informally retiring. I'm tired of them being out of shape, misbehaving and then holding their organizations hostage. And I'm tired of players just showing up for games rather than giving their all.

Incentives matter. A CBA can be negotiated that incentivizes all parties to behave their very best and act in the best interests of the game while acting in their own.

 

[PapaG]

Then sell or better yet don't buy in. No one forces an owner to buy a team or overspend on players. Across the board the value of NBA franchises has continued to escalate. Hard to feel pity for multi-billionairs who choose to be represented by douchebag Stern

Neither side represents my interest in watching good hoops so I won't be happy if either is thought to have won or lost this standoff, only that it's over

STOMP

There is a minimum payroll that must be met by each team according to the last CBA (75% of the yearly salary cap), so yes, owners are 'forced' to spend money on players that they may otherwise not want to spend.