Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cliff Clavin
- Start date
got_nugs
Footballguy
I heard a story today on the radio, summed up as the following:
Miami agrees to trade Glen Rice for Danny Manning. Miami declines to tell Rice until there is a 100% chance that this is going to go through. They get the commitment from LA this is going through. Miami tells Rice. Same day, Sterling tells Manning that he's being traded...but he is calling off the trade b/c he had a dream about Manning the night before. Trade never happens.
This was +/- 20 years ago, that declaration is a long time coming.
metoo
Footballguy
Can you leave us some emoticons?The "pom poms" are the same: flailing arms and jumping legs!You can put your Spurs pom poms up now. Pull out the heat pom poms.Way to go Spursssssssssssssss!!!! Even though I anticipate a game 7 on Saturday at home.....
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Blowout aside, that Westbrook dunk over Leonard was amongst the sickest I've seen.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Busted. The source of my FBG user name is a "CIA" meme tied to Coach Popovich on a Spurs message board.
Corporation
Angry Bovine
I was actually thinking he may try to have himself declared mentally incapacitated, which could have aided him in his argument against the league that "he didn't know/mean what he was saying on those tapes". Of course his past behavior doesn't help him on that since this is not a new thing for him, but would have presented an interesting argument.
Prince Myshkin
Footballguy
If the Clippers are worth 2billion, how much are the Lakers worth????
sports_fan
Footballguy
Clippers aren't worth 2 billion. Ballmer overpaid. Lakers are probably worth about 1.5 billion.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
They aren't? Well, they are to Ballmer, and I think others bid in the $1.5B or higher neighborhood. Eventually, if people keep "overpaying" for NBA franchises, it might be time to conclude that the teams are just worth more than we think.
These are businesses that clearly aren't being valued the way other businesses are. The supply of them is largely fixed, and very rich people see some value in them that goes way beyond profitability.
sports_fan
Footballguy
Abraham
Footballguy
It is nearly impossible for "people like us" to place a value on these kinds of things. Steve ballmer could have paid 14 billion dollars for the right to sit at half court, front row and still been a billionaire. People that buy sports franchises aren't working the purchase in to a budget like you or I would buy a new car. They are flush with cash and (as important) access to other peoples cash and credit in a way that you and I can't even imagine. The clippers tv deal is coming up soon, the league has never been more popular, it's one of the largest tv markets in the country and has a popular star entering his prime. BLlmer probably thinks he got a deal.
Abraham
Footballguy
I don't think you understand how economics work. Things are worth exactly what someone will pay for them in a free and fair market.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I disagree- they're worth whatever the market says they're worth. All the rumors were that there were several bidders in that range or close to it.
I'm not even sure the market overvalues them, though. The new CBA is a travishamockery, I'm embarrassed as a basketball fan that we had a small role in letting the owners get away with it. Plus holdings that both turn annual profits and always appreciate over time are few and far between. Has an NBA owner ever sold a team at a loss, even after adjusting for inflation? Plus there's the fact that owning an NBA team is awesome. Nobody turns a profit on a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean it's not worth $250,000 to ride around in an amazing car and get laid a bunch of times because of it.
sports_fan
Footballguy
I mean they may be worth it one day. Since franchise values have consistently risen over time you can justify overpaying. But they aren't worth 2 billion currently. Their TV viewership just isn't high enough.
And if the world ever spawns such a market, it will be interesting to put these theoretical laws to the test.
But as it is, this is just a case of a single rogue bidder with a practical infinitude of wealth who was willing to define worth on his own terms, for a toy he just had to have.
Doesn't make him a bad person or anything, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea you presented above, nor with economics in any meaningful sense.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I was happy about the Spurs win, but devastated that this Pop move fell flat on its face. My life needs more Matt Bonner.
Also- can we go with "Red Mamba" please?
Premier
Footballguy
Premier
Footballguy
Where you are wrong is the "single rogue owner" shtick. They had 3 bids around 1.5M.And if the world ever spawns such a market, it will be interesting to put these theoretical laws to the test.But as it is, this is just a case of a single rogue bidder with a practical infinitude of wealth who was willing to define worth on his own terms, for a toy he just had to have.
Doesn't make him a bad person or anything, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea you presented above, nor with economics in any meaningful sense.
It's ok to be wrong here guys. Nobody is grading you.
matuski
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Ty Lawson knows what's up:
in 2011 and the league returned to business under nearly identical terms without a single game missed. We kinda dropped the ball.
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
in 2011 and the league returned to business under nearly identical terms without a single game missed. We kinda dropped the ball.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
The TV contract is up for the Clippers and is about to be renegotiated, probably with Time Warner. That's what's driving the price up. Same thing happened to the Dodgers a few years back.
But the main thing to consider is that these franchises are so rarely available to purchase. Think of it as as a Van Gogh painting. The value is because there are so few.
But the main thing to consider is that these franchises are so rarely available to purchase. Think of it as as a Van Gogh painting. The value is because there are so few.
I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
maybe Ty Lawson should spend more time trying to get a head of the players' union and less time tweeting.
I know it's not really related, but the players can't blame the owners if they get a bad deal. They need to look at themselves.
I know it's not really related, but the players can't blame the owners if they get a bad deal. They need to look at themselves.
I think a lot of people were on the owners' side in the NFL lockout and were against the "greedy" players.Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Fans generally siding with owners is a very interesting phenomenon. It seems we generally side with labor in other businesses, but it seems like fans have become programmed to hate players for some reason.Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
I guess they don't view them as typical labor when are making millions. They see them making a bunch of money, clogging up their team's cap (a cap imposed to protect billionaire owners), and sometimes getting arrested.
For all the time spent worrying about character concerns with players, it took an owner being recorded to saying blatantly racist things to get real fan backlash.
Then there's Irsay, who's somehow barely a blip on the sports news radar, with no-nonsense Goodell clearly trying to figure out a way to not lay down a harsh punishment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Agreed. I think that most fans see players as "lucky" to be able to "play a kid's game" and think they should play for free. But owners should be entitled to whatever they get, apparently. It probably also relates to Abe's point about people having no concept of Ballmer spending $2 Billion and it not even mattering. I think that the wealth level of the owners is incomprehensible to most people so they don't even rationally process that portion. But they can understand a guy making a few million dollars. And they don't like them getting that to play a sport that they would have killed to get the opportunity to do for free.Fans generally siding with owners is a very interesting phenomenon. It seems we generally side with labor in other businesses, but it seems like fans have become programmed to hate players for some reason.Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
I guess they don't view them as typical labor when are making millions. They see them making a bunch of money, clogging up their team's cap (a cap imposed to protect billionaire owners), and sometimes getting arrested.
timschochet
Footballguy
Fans almost always side with on sports owners during any work stoppage for two reasons: first because it's hard to empathize with millionaires who attempt to use the working class language of union workers, and second, because they want the games to resume.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
Last edited by a moderator:
God Disguised As Michael Jordan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69vkEcc-zfc
Two players on the same court better than Lebron. That used to happen quite a bit in the 80's.
Two players on the same court better than Lebron. That used to happen quite a bit in the 80's.
It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.
hxperson
Footballguy
I agree that Jordan is better than Lebron, and I also agree that its not close right now.
I only take issue with you calling a guy who's teams have made the finals 4/10 years in the league (will likely be 5/11), never missed the playoffs or got eliminated before the second round since his second year in the league (when he came in as a high schooler and joined a team without a star), and hasn't missed the finals since joining a talented Heat squad, a choker.
Sure, he has had a handful of bad games in the playoffs, has missed some game ending shots, has looked defeated at times while on the Cavs, and maybe passed a bit more in the crunch then some would like, but pretty much every player I can think of (outside of Jordan) has done that and most are not labelled as chokers.
Premier
Footballguy
WowWhy are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
I said previously that he seems to have overcome it. There's really no way to describe what he did in that Mavericks series other than choking though. That series alone cemented this for me. But he's had several other disappearing acts that do live in the same neighborhood.
I'd also agree that this doesn't make him "a choker" in some senses - not if we're just comparing him to average NBA superstars. They do put up games or even series like this. But when we take the discussion to GOAT and you're competing against Jordan, it's a different story. This is enough to downgrade you when the guy you're competing against never showed up and laid 5 straight games of pedestrian to downright bad performances in the NBA finals among other low lights. Jordan probably didn't even have 5 games that bad in all of his finals appearances combined. It's a pretty key difference, one that Lebron can really never change no matter what happens with the rest of his career.
Last edited by a moderator:
I said they are entitled to "attempt" to turn a profit. If the players won't play for them at the salaries they are offering, that's their prerogative as well.My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I agree. They're entitled to attempt to earn whatever level of revenue they want. I'm not saying what they did was unlawful or unethical or something. I'm saying given that: (1) they always make a massive profit on the sale, and (2) owning a sports team is awesome, we as fans should have called out their "woe is me" routine as pure BS and shown greater allegiance to the players. Just like the NFL fans did in 2011. It's possible the result would have been the same as it was during the NFL lockout if we'd done so. Hopefully after seeing this $2 billion sale we'll do that next time around.I said they are entitled to "attempt" to turn a profit. If the players won't play for them at the salaries they are offering, that's their prerogative as well.My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trying to state this as shortly as possible, but being in the Bucks market and going through this on talk radio recently; part of what's driving up the value of sports franchises are tv viewing habits of everyone. Not sure if it is the majority yet but almost everything I watch is dvr'd. Skip the commercials and watch whenever I can or want to watch it. Advertising dollars for your regular shows will continue to go down because fewer people are actually watching the commercials. Most sporting events are still watched live, hence the commercials being viewed and heard. Not many people watch games after they already know the outcome so some are expecting advertising dollars during sports to explode even more during the future, making sports franchises worth more than ever.
hxperson
Footballguy
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or not, but if Sterling ends up fetching a sale price of $2bln plus for the Clippers, and therefore raising the theoretical values of all NBA franchises, can he use this increased value as evidence that he has done nothing to materially adversely affect the Association and its members, which is crux of the rule the NBA is using to enforce the sale?
Even if the NBA counters that the value of their franchises were that high prior to Sterling's comments being made public, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the NBA in that regard? And wouldn't the NBA possibly need to go beyond that, given that they might have to prove that the value was higher before Sterling's comments, depending on how "affect...adversely" ends up being defined (profits/advertising revenues, perception, market value, etc.)?
Even if the NBA counters that the value of their franchises were that high prior to Sterling's comments being made public, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the NBA in that regard? And wouldn't the NBA possibly need to go beyond that, given that they might have to prove that the value was higher before Sterling's comments, depending on how "affect...adversely" ends up being defined (profits/advertising revenues, perception, market value, etc.)?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The RSN deals for baseball teams are out of control for this exact reason.
Related: it also seems to be the place where people most tolerate conspicuous ads and product placement during programming. I'm sure that helps too. It's the one form of entertainment where ad revenue is alive and well and basically guaranteed to stay that way for the foreseeable.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
yup... record setting fine. That flop was just turrrrrrible.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/pacers--lance-stephenson-receives-record--10-000-flop-fine--teammate-roy-hibbert-fined--5-000--videos-200126806.html
Nobody in the NFL was claiming to lose money - I think that was a major distinguishing factor in the disparity of fan support. And with the lockout revenue splits and new TV deals, no NBA owner will be making that argument next time around either.I agree. They're entitled to attempt to earn whatever level of revenue they want. I'm not saying what they did was unlawful or unethical or something. I'm saying given that: (1) they always make a massive profit on the sale, and (2) owning a sports team is awesome, we as fans should have called out their "woe is me" routine as pure BS and shown greater allegiance to the players. Just like the NFL fans did in 2011. It's possible the result would have been the same as it was during the NFL lockout if we'd done so. Hopefully after seeing this $2 billion sale we'll do that next time around.I said they are entitled to "attempt" to turn a profit. If the players won't play for them at the salaries they are offering, that's their prerogative as well.My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Or if the employees didn't think they were being paid fairly, they could go somewhere else to work or not sign contracts in which they didn't believe they were getting paid unfairly.My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Good point. I guess I'm saying that the lesson of the Clippers sale, and to a lesser extent the Bucks sale, which was also well above valuations and estimates, is that we shouldn't believe their claims next time around. Even if they're not turning an annual profit, they're making money.Nobody in the NFL was claiming to lose money - I think that was a major distinguishing factor. And with the lockout revenue splits and new TV deals, no NBA owner will be making that argument next time around either.I agree. They're entitled to attempt to earn whatever level of revenue they want. I'm not saying what they did was unlawful or unethical or something. I'm saying given that: (1) they always make a massive profit on the sale, and (2) owning a sports team is awesome, we as fans should have called out their "woe is me" routine as pure BS and shown greater allegiance to the players. Just like the NFL fans did in 2011. It's possible the result would have been the same as it was during the NFL lockout if we'd done so. Hopefully after seeing this $2 billion sale we'll do that next time around.I said they are entitled to "attempt" to turn a profit. If the players won't play for them at the salaries they are offering, that's their prerogative as well.My local McDonald's franchise isn't entitled to turn a profit either. If the current ownersr not turning a profit they can sell and let someone else give it a try, or they can sell the building to someone who doesn't care about turning a profit and just loves burgers and fries as much as the rest of us do, or who correctly has determined that selling their piece of the golden arches at a 100% profit a few years down the road is worth a few small year-to-year losses (it's an imperfect analogy, cut me some slack).It's still a business. They are entitled to attempt to turn a profit the same way your local McDonald's franchise is. There are no guaranties that valuations will continue to skyrocket, and they are under no obligation to take a bath every year simply because they own a highly in demand property.Plus, these claims that would be owners would be lining up to pay billions for a franchise that loses tens of millions annually is empty rhetoric. I'd love to see that list of billionaires. The relatively deflated pre-lockout franchise values don't support that either.Why are owners entitled to make an operating profit on their teams when (1) it's a luxury property that anyone would kill to own even if they never earned a dime on it, and (2) they're virtually guaranteed that the value of the property will increase at well over the rate of inflation? That's the attitude that helped them get away with the last lockout.thecatch said:I don't know. (1) We can't audit their books, so it's understandable that we go by what they tell us; (2) Franchise values have spiked post-lockout - there may be cause and effect there, or it may be a product of the improved but cyclical economy (tougher to get $2b bids during a recession), either way we didn't know about this ex ante; (3) owners are still entitled to make an operating profit on their teams, so if a good chunk of the league was actually losing money year over year (see 1) I still don't have a problem with them making sure revenues exceed expenses, particularly if new purchasers are buying in "high" (see 2).Obviously if everyone has been extremely profitable the entire time and the whole losing money thing was a scam, all bets are off, but again that's tough for any outsider to confirm one way or another. Hardly dropping the ball.TobiasFunke said:Ty Lawson knows what's up:
I can't believe they got away with the lockout. What a scam. There were people in this thread actually taking the owners' side IIRC. NFL fans get a lot of crap for being easy marks, but they saw right through the owners'
Sports franchises are already special. I can't think of anything else that is both incredibly fun to own, makes you the envy of virtually everyone in town and also is guaranteed to sell at a massive profit. That's the American wet dream right there. If it costs you a little money in upkeep on a year-to-year basis, so be it. If you don't want to pay the upkeep, sell it to one of the thousands of people who happily will.
What they can't do, at least not from a PR standpoint, is get together with all the other fast food franchises in the country and agree to lock their doors until the fry cooks and burger flippers accept lower salaries. If they did that the public would tell them to go #### themselves, loudly and publicly, over and over. That's what we should have done with the NBA owners.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
I was shocked and impressed all at once. Got a good laugh out of me then I watched the video on Youtube.TobiasFunke said:
Similar threads
