Get to know an NBA owner!
- Thread starter r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t
- Start date
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
He is extorting money from the city and he uses the wording most likely to get it. There was not a chance in hell that the franchise wasn't going to survive. And on a related point, you started this whole thing by saying that the government bailed out Amway and the Orlando Magic. Even if you stretch the definition of bailout so far that strong arming a city into investing in an arena (which I assume they are charging the Magic rent for in addition to earning revenue from other events), you haven't even tried to support your assertion that the government bailed out Amway. I'm pretty sure the reason you're avoiding that portion of your claim is that it's absolutely false.
Yes, they are paying rent. $1 million per year for 30 years. That is approximately 4% of what they paid to "rent" the services of Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis last year. And, after 30 years the city will have recouped about 7% of their investment in the arena.
Concerning other events, from the Orlando Sentinel:
Amway is very aggressive in their campaigning for tax breaks. Here is Mrs. DeVos,
and,
and they also counsel their "distributors" to avoid taxes by the way they structure their "distributorships". see https://www.google.com/?q=amway+tax+breaks for more.
perhaps not exactly a bailout, but the end result is a loss of tax revenue for government.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
If your goal is to convince me that government is inefficient and corrupt you've succeeded. If you think that means I'll agree that when an individual or business takes advantage of a tax break it's equivalent to a costing the government money you've failed. Now, that's enough of beating this dead horse.
I joined this forum because I love the Jazz and Jazz basketball. Visiting always used to put me in a good mood and I'd often laugh out loud as I read. Now, because of this stupid lockout, I'm much more likely to find myself in the middle of an idiotic argument than an enjoyable exchange. I've finally realized that JazzFanz is currently something that I can do without. Ciao.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
A few people have written some vague articles alleging that the owners are not actually losing money, but whether they are currently profitable or not is not relevant to whether they are justified in demanding a significant cut from the out-of control share that is 57% (not to mention 55% or 53% IMHO, which is supported by the fact that no industry pays their employees so much as percentage of operating expense--not even health care).
This reduced cut is still higher than any other of the major sports. I guess that if they had offered a cut of 1% to 56%, you'd be able to say the same thing.
For the past decade, they have "offered up" (i.e., paid) the highest average salaries in major professional sports; that's what they've done. And even at 50-50 share, that luxurious average will remain intact.
That sounds more akin to the mantra of the players, not the owners. A back-of-the envelope analysis can show that the operating profitability of a basketball team is both risky and modest on average--to the tune of $6 million, far less than the superstars or even the average NBA player has been making. In other words, the average profit of a team has been less than the average profit (salary) of each player.
And yet, you're playing apologist for the players.
If anything, this is a case for the players taking less money. Otherwise, it's not relevant to the argument.
Not particularly relevant to whether the owners are justified in putting the player BRI on par with other major sports (and/or other alternatives for players, which are far lower than even a 50-50 provides for most of them).
If anything, the sale of franchises can animate new owners to want to cut league-wide costs to become more competitive--financially if not on the court.
Glad you think that the players should sacrifice more, given that a majority of the NBA teams (including the Jazz, which is generally regarded as well managed) have suffered through financial results ranging between meager profitability and significant losses during the past few years.
There is little correlation between the last outstanding NBA championship and whether the players get 57% or 50%.
There's enough data out there to make a reasonable conclusion that the owners are averaging a modest operating profit and ROI at best.
Yeah, and that's whay a lower BRI helps to solve the problem of bad contracts and mismanaging the rosters of teams--just like regulation of fraud helps to solve the problem of fraud.
First of all, this isn't abailout; this is a return to a BRI that is in line with other major teams.
Also, because the excessively high BRI share for players is the #1 problem. In the past, owners overpaid for players because they believed that it would make their teams more competitive--just like Wall Street firms invested in risky investments because they believed that it would make their firms more competitive. In both cases, regulation (or contractual self-regulation) is an antidote.
If you actually pay money to see players play, then you should be a proponent of reducing the player salaries, which has a better chance at reducing ticket prices (or preventing them from rising as quickly) than a higher cost structure would.
Welcome aboard, cowhide.
Last edited:
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
......Joe! Keep reading my posts.....they are bound to cheer you up!!!
I've worked in a couple of businesses (restaurants) where 50-55% of expenses going to labor was typical.
As has been mentiond, the NHL is currently at 57%.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
My source is as follows: "The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%)." https://www.shrm.org/Research/Artic...thSalariesasPercentageofOperatingExpense.aspx
Not affirming that it is correct, just confirming that there was a source.
Looks like I do stand corrected on this. https://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366
However, some major key differences are that the NHL has a hard cap on maximum salary ($7.8 million, which is only modestly higher than the average salary in the NBA). Minimum salary is about $500,000.
Furthermore, and no less significantly, all existing player contracts were reduced by 24% in the 2005 NHL CBA.
Imagine the NBA superstars being presented with such a salary ceiling or instant pay cut.
Lastly, the NHL has invoked a hard cap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap
So while it appears that I was incorrect regarding the player share, there are some other conditions in the NHL CBA that continue to bolster the notion that the NBA players are whining punks who are hurting themselves--and the sport--by letting this drag out, and are also risking further losses in negotiation beyond just a few percentage points. The owners are hurting the sport, too, but it is partly because they want to get the cost structure under control.
The real clincher is that the average and maximum salaries are soooo much higher in the NBA. The players are greedy and foolish not to accept that the overinflated honeymoon period is over and that 50-50 is still lavish.
Both the NHL and the NBA have 82-game seasons. I'd reckon that the risk of injury--at least dentally
, is higher in hockey.
My source is as follows: "The three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%) and educational services (50%)." https://www.shrm.org/Research/Artic...thSalariesasPercentageofOperatingExpense.aspx
Not affirming that it is correct, just confirming that there was a source.
Looks like I do stand corrected on this. https://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366
However, some major key differences are that the NHL has a hard cap on maximum salary ($7.8 million, which is only modestly higher than the average salary in the NBA). Minimum salary is about $500,000.
Furthermore, and no less significantly, all existing player contracts were reduced by 24% in the 2005 NHL CBA.
Imagine the NBA superstars being presented with such a salary ceiling or instant pay cut.
Lastly, the NHL has invoked a hard cap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap
So while it appears that I was incorrect regarding the player share, there are some other conditions in the NHL CBA that continue to bolster the notion that the NBA players are whining punks who are hurting themselves--and the sport--by letting this drag out, and are also risking further losses in negotiation beyond just a few percentage points. The owners are hurting the sport, too, but it is partly because they want to get the cost structure under control.
The real clincher is that the average and maximum salaries are soooo much higher in the NBA. The players are greedy and foolish not to accept that the overinflated honeymoon period is over and that 50-50 is still lavish.
Both the NHL and the NBA have 82-game seasons. I'd reckon that the risk of injury--at least dentally
Probably because the NBA brings more money in, also a single NHL team has around 25-30 people on it's roster I think. NBA has 12-15.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....how can that be Brow? I thought waiters and waitresses get paid by tips not from house money!
Not all restaurants have waiters and watiresses. Among other things, I've been a manager at Burger King and the Great American Chocalate Chip Cookie Company. At the latter, the largest expense was labor, about 50-55% (depending on sales volume). Burger King was closer to 35% (meat gets a smaller margin than butter and clocalate chips, so it's a grater percentage of the cost).
Thank you for staying with us during that brief interruption.
Now we'd like to introduce Steve Ballmer, the soon-to-be owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Mister Ballmer is the former "worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company", Microsoft, a position which he held from 2000 to 2012.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamha...een-fired-cisco-ge-walmart-sears-microsoft/3/
Mister Ballmer has agreed to purchase the Clippers from Donald Sterling* for $2 billion, quadrupling the highest ever previously paid for an NBA franchise: $550 million for the Milwaukee Bucks just a few months ago. Ballmer has extensive experience overpaying for business and services during his time at Microsoft, including:
The value of Microsoft stock declined substantially during Mister Ballmer's time as CEO, from the high $50s to mid-$30s when he announced his retirement. In an interesting twist of fate that very announcement caused the stock to surge in value and resulted in a $3 billion personal windfall for Ballmer. He currently owns 333 million shares of Microsoft stock valued at more than $10 billion.
*- We did not profile Mister Sterling in this thread before he was forced to sell the Clippers. We regret this oversight.
Now we'd like to introduce Steve Ballmer, the soon-to-be owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Mister Ballmer is the former "worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company", Microsoft, a position which he held from 2000 to 2012.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamha...een-fired-cisco-ge-walmart-sears-microsoft/3/
Mister Ballmer has agreed to purchase the Clippers from Donald Sterling* for $2 billion, quadrupling the highest ever previously paid for an NBA franchise: $550 million for the Milwaukee Bucks just a few months ago. Ballmer has extensive experience overpaying for business and services during his time at Microsoft, including:
- aQuantive: Paid $6 billion for the advertising company to compete with Google. Eventually wrote it off as a loss.
- Yahoo!: Offered $44 billion and was rejected. Yahoo! currently has a market cap of $35 billion.
- Skype: Paid $8.5 billion, more than double the next highest bidder.
- Nokia: Paid $7.2 billion for the fading handset manufacturer.
The value of Microsoft stock declined substantially during Mister Ballmer's time as CEO, from the high $50s to mid-$30s when he announced his retirement. In an interesting twist of fate that very announcement caused the stock to surge in value and resulted in a $3 billion personal windfall for Ballmer. He currently owns 333 million shares of Microsoft stock valued at more than $10 billion.
*- We did not profile Mister Sterling in this thread before he was forced to sell the Clippers. We regret this oversight.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Nice work... This story gonna get weird. OKC karma? Too soon?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Suicide?
Probably ingested drugs or got drunk and decided to plow into the wall. He was facing up to 20 years in prison.
Probably ingested drugs or got drunk and decided to plow into the wall. He was facing up to 20 years in prison.