I guess the difference is that the $400 million did not go directly to Amway or the Magic so there was nothing to pay back. It went toward the construction of an arena that the City of Orlando owns. I'm not sure it qualifies as bailout money but I see your point. It probably benefitted the Magic more than the City of Orlando because publicly funded arenas don't generally result in a good return on investment for the cities that build them.
Get to know an NBA owner!
- Thread starter r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t
- Start date
I guess the difference is that the $400 million did not go directly to Amway or the Magic so there was nothing to pay back. It went toward the construction of an arena that the City of Orlando owns. I'm not sure it qualifies as bailout money but I see your point. It probably benefitted the Magic more than the City of Orlando because publicly funded arenas don't generally result in a good return on investment for the cities that build them.
It's a hard-knock life.
maybe we're just talking past each other. i consider government intervention on behalf of a failing private enterprise to be a bailout. the city of Orlando spent the money to build the arena for a private enterprise called the "Orlando Magic" that was allegedly losing so much money in the previous arena they were going to fail and skip town. someone else (you?) might call it "incentives", or "subsidies", or "troubled asset relief". to me, that is just semantics.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Failing and skipping town are not the same thing.
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%.