What's new
By:

Did the Millers make money last year?

Gyp Rosetti

Gyp Rosetti

Banned
I'm curious if anyone truly knows whether the Millers, all business included, made money last year. I'm also curious if the Jazz did. I gotta think yes on the latter but I believe the NBA said they lost 300M last year.
 
Some of the NBA owners don't care if they lose money.
Like Cuban, etc. They have huge reserves to draw from.
They are in it to win championships.
But NBA owners cry about their collective situation.
 
slc said:
Some of the NBA owners don't care if they lose money.
Like Cuban, etc. They have huge reserves to draw from.
They are in it to win championships.
But NBA owners cry about their collective situation.
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question or help me.
 
I am virtually certain the Jazz lost money last season.

Player Salaries 74 mil- top 3 in the league last year. Our income was certainly not top 3.
 
Did they lose money on the Jazz last year? Yes. Plenty too. Did they lose money as a complete company? I don't know.
 
Anytime you pay the max to average AK's numbers and then miss many games due to injury en route to the lottery you're bound to lose money.
 
Tradtionally the Jazz score well on the P&L statement for a small market team with no NHL franchise sharing their arena. In part it is because the team has scant debt and owns EnergySolutions Arena. Last season the team posted a loss though as the Jazz were a luxury tax payer for the first time thanks to its high payroll. In addition to paying a $3.1 million tax, the Jazz were ineligible to receive the $3.7 million check that all non-tax paying teams received. The team remained the sixth-highest NBA team in attendance during the 2009-10 season with an average gate of 19,378. The Jazz also have seen their ratings on Fox Sports Net Utah continually increase the past two years. Through December of this year the team averaged a 6.3 rating, up 50% from last year, and the network has already topped a 9.0 rating on three occasions, matching last year's full-season total.
Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Utah-Jazz_322274.html

Now this was for the 09-10 season. So I think the salaries were fairly close to the same and the attendance and other income was a bit lower with the poor season. Jazz were definitely in the Luxury Tax zone. So if the Forbes formula is right they did lose a pretty decent chunk of change last year.
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
https://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Utah-Jazz_322274.html

Now this was for the 09-10 season. So I think the salaries were fairly close to the same and the attendance and other income was a bit lower with the poor season. Jazz were definitely in the Luxury Tax zone. So if the Forbes formula is right they did lose a pretty decent chunk of change last year.
Click to expand...
Yeah that seems about right. Last year's paid attendance was down to 19,049 and they had no playoff games either - although with the uniform change they did probably make some extra money in merchandise sales. Can't imagine they turned in a profit with their high payroll.
 
The Jazz are just marketing for the other business, so if they lose money on the Jazz in a year then they didn't get free marketing.
 
The Thriller said:
Anytime you pay the max to average AK's numbers and then miss many games due to injury en route to the lottery you're bound to lose money.
Click to expand...

Would you shut the duck up already? Jesus Christ, drop that point.

WE NEED REVENUE SHARING
 
I think it was Locke a few weeks ago who said that Jazz fans would **** their pants if they saw Utah's P&L statement for the 2010-11 season. He made it sound as if they didn't come close to making money.

That being said, the Miller's make money in every other avenue of business so I think they're ok. The Jazz are a labor of love for them and my guess is that during the years that the Jazz finish in the red, the Miller's are insulated enough to absorb it.
 
I've heard KOC and/or Greg say that the Jazz had an income of $100 million in the last year. I'm sure it's on a podcast or I could find something to reference but I'm not going to (right now).

If that's the case, the Millers probably made money (there can't be $20 million in fees beyond player salaries can there?).
 
According to forbes they made 120 mil in revenue last season... I imagine there was some profit made

edit: nevermind my numbers were out of date
 
Also just for informations sake: if you read LHM's book, you know that the Jazz turned a profit every single year that he was alive. Just saying.

The Jazz lost money every year before he was the owner. I think by the 2nd season he was the full owner the Jazz turned a profit.
 
MrBlue said:
Also just for informations sake: if you read LHM's book, you know that the Jazz turned a profit every single year that he was alive. Just saying.

The Jazz lost money every year before he was the owner. I think by the 2nd season he was the full owner the Jazz turned a profit.
Click to expand...
He also never spent as much money on salaries as Greg has been willing to the past couple of seasons.
 
The Jazz had to get a loan in order to match Paul Millsap's upfront contract. This tells me that they don't have a lot of reserve. The owners are claiming that 22 of the 30 owners lost money last year. I would bet the farm that the Jazz was one of the teams that lost money last year. I doubt the Miller's bank account can compete with the other owner's in the league. This is why this lock-out better make it easier for small markets to compete in the league. I think this lock-out will last a while.
 
The Millers are in the car business right? And the moneylending business? And own a bunch of movie theaters? I don't think there's any question they've lost money over the last 3 years. But they strike me as being a well run organization that was built to weather hard times. Not overleveraged gamblers who got caught with their pants down too badly when 2008 turned into 2009.

As for the Jazz, I'm sure they've lost money. They're a much stronger small market franchise than most given their ticket sales and loyal fanbase which keeps ratings high on their Fox contracts. But without revenue sharing, they have a cap ceiling as far as revenues they can actually generate. Their TV contract will always be substantially less than the big markets. Same with their corporate sponsorships. The difference is they don't need to tighten the belt as much to go back into the black. And whatever CBA is put in place will only help them going forward.
 
slc said:
Some of the NBA owners don't care if they lose money.
Like Cuban, etc. They have huge reserves to draw from.
They are in it to win championships.
But NBA owners cry about their collective situation.
Click to expand...
Most owners don't care if they lose short-term since the major profit is realized on the back end in terms of appreciation. Buy a team for several hundred million, hold for 10 years and the franchise doubles or triples in value. Whatever the Millers paid for the Jazz will be made up in spades when they sell the team and related assets. As long as cash flow isn't a problem, there's no need to fret if they "lose" $10-$15M/per. Besides, the $300M figure is what Stern WANTS us to believe. There are other revenues that aren't factored in and write-offs that probably offset a lot of that. I'm not on the side of the players but the losses are BS. I do however, favor a harder cap and a system that makes player movement more difficult - perhaps a greater difference between what the original club can offer vs. what a player can make signing with another team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top