Man the NBA salary cap is totally ludicrous.

[feelosofer]

The luxury tax is a bigger issue, it basically forces a small market team to have maybe one star player and a bunch of roles, its tough to get a Miami or LA situation where superstars are taking huge paycuts.

 

[beenz]

The luxury tax is a bigger issue, it basically forces a small market team to have maybe one star player and a bunch of roles, its tough to get a Miami or LA situation where superstars are taking huge paycuts.

miamis didn't take huge paycuts. they took a slightly less than the max. And I mean slightly.

also, last I checked neither the lakers nor clippers have players taking paycuts. blake just signed a huge deal, and cp3 is waiting til the end of the season just so he can get even more money out the clippers.

and regarding the lakers. bean is making like $22M and dwight and gasol are basically max players as well.

 

[23Barrettcity]

miamis didn't take huge paycuts. they took a slightly less than the max. And I mean slightly.

also, last I checked neither the lakers nor clippers have players taking paycuts. blake just signed a huge deal, and cp3 is waiting til the end of the season just so he can get even more money out the clippers.

and regarding the lakers. bean is making like $22M and dwight and gasol are basically max players as well.

That guy stern they let dumbass hunter give them the deal which is a lose pretty much all around .
Does anyone know how much the hockey players lost ? They seemed like they gotta fair deal as opposed what I thought they would get . The nba needs to hire Donald fehr let the owners start sweating for the next negotiation.

 

[feelosofer]

miamis didn't take huge paycuts. they took a slightly less than the max. And I mean slightly.

also, last I checked neither the lakers nor clippers have players taking paycuts. blake just signed a huge deal, and cp3 is waiting til the end of the season just so he can get even more money out the clippers.

and regarding the lakers. bean is making like $22M and dwight and gasol are basically max players as well.

You're talking about huge markets that can afford to pay those taxes, also they are operating over their respective caps. Talented small market teams are the losers, teams like Memphis, Denver, Jazz etc.

 

[DoubleJ13]

The luxury tax is a bigger issue, it basically forces a small market team to have maybe one star player and a bunch of roles, its tough to get a Miami or LA situation where superstars are taking huge paycuts.

Lakers don't have anybody taking paycuts. Most of their team is playing on contracts from way before this CBA.

miamis didn't take huge paycuts. they took a slightly less than the max. And I mean slightly.

also, last I checked neither the lakers nor clippers have players taking paycuts. blake just signed a huge deal, and cp3 is waiting til the end of the season just so he can get even more money out the clippers.

and regarding the lakers. bean is making like $22M and dwight and gasol are basically max players as well.

Clippers are fine though, they might pay the tax next year but after that most of their contracts are gone. The CBA basically lets you get 2 max guys, 1 slightly less than max guy, & then you fill out your roster with cheap/rookie deals.

Kobe, Dwight, & Pau alone make the cap for the Lakers. Kobe & Pau alone make the cap next year before adding Dwight's new contract on top of Nash & MWP (if he picks up his option).

 

[tremonthustler1]

Totally agree. I said from the jump before the lockout that NO NBA owner was losing bread.

This isn't true. This was proven. Why do you hold onto this theory? How is it possible that you can see the Bucks and think "man, Kohl is eatin?"

 

[FTBS]

Been saying this for the longest. The true moneymakers in the sport fukked themselves by trying to form like voltron an shyt. No pity from me. They were in a true position of power and squandered it

The only reason nikkas are willing to form "voltron's" is because you have these asinine max contracts which limit how much a guy can ask for and thusly make money less of an issue. If the home team could offer whatever they wanted then there is no way you could get multiple "max" guys on the same team unless you drafted them.

 

[JetLife]

This isn't true. This was proven. Why do you hold onto this theory? How is it possible that you can see the Bucks and think "man, Kohl is eatin?"

He's most likely talking about long term value vs. year over year revenue numbers.

Sure the Bucks may be losing some millions in the past couple of years, but over the life of the ownership I can almost guarantee they're still ahead. Owners talking about losing revenue in like 1-3 years misses the forest for the trees in the sense the true value of ownership is the overall value of the team at time of sale. It's their tricky spin to give them leverage at the bargaining table.

If the Bucks REALLY TRULY were losing money at an abhorrent rate, Kohl would've sold years ago when the y/y net was negative in multiple years. Even then, he bought the Bucks for 19m and it's currently valued at 312m. There's absolutely NO WAY the Bucks have lost 293m over the life of his ownership. When he sells he's taking home at least a 200m windfall.

If NBA teams were in such bad shape, we'd see a lot more owner turnover and more than likely contraction b/c certain teams just wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. But that doesn't happen.

Ultimately, NBA owners are uber rich conglomerates and these NBA teams are their toys, not their main source of income. Having a team is a status symbol and opens up inroads to local government and celebrity.

Running teams at a 0 net profit or even a negative is probably a huge advantageous tax write off against the profit they make in the public sector. In the public sector, their businesses have to make profit or else their stock tanks. Since NBA teams aren't publicly held, they can run them at a negative profit in the private sector, balance that against their profits in the public sector for tax purposes, and no one can stop them. NBA teams are a perfect tax shelter at the highest level and a huge shiny toy for the 1% of the U.S.

 

[Loose]

Penalizes small markets and drafting as well ( look at my team for ex)

 

[Newzz]

Kobe Bryant's making 27.8 mill in 2012 and 30.5 mill in 2013

 

[tremonthustler1]

He's most likely talking about long term value vs. year over year revenue numbers.

Sure the Bucks may be losing some millions in the past couple of years, but over the life of the ownership I can almost guarantee they're still ahead. Owners talking about losing revenue in like 1-3 years misses the forest for the trees in the sense the true value of ownership is the overall value of the team at time of sale. It's their tricky spin to give them leverage at the bargaining table.

If the Bucks REALLY TRULY were losing money at an abhorrent rate, Kohl would've sold years ago when the y/y net was negative in multiple years. Even then, he bought the Bucks for 19m and it's currently valued at 312m. There's absolutely NO WAY the Bucks have lost 293m over the life of his ownership. When he sells he's taking home at least a 200m windfall.

If NBA teams were in such bad shape, we'd see a lot more owner turnover and more than likely contraction b/c certain teams just wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. But that doesn't happen.

Ultimately, NBA owners are uber rich conglomerates and these NBA teams are their toys, not their main source of income. Having a team is a status symbol and opens up inroads to local government and celebrity.

Running teams at a 0 net profit or even a negative is probably a huge advantageous tax write off against the profit they make in the public sector. In the public sector, their businesses have to make profit or else their stock tanks. Since NBA teams aren't publicly held, they can run them at a negative profit in the private sector, balance that against their profits in the public sector for tax purposes, and no one can stop them. NBA teams are a perfect tax shelter at the highest level and a huge shiny toy for the 1% of the U.S.

A rising tide lifts all boats, thus why the BRI was such a major sticking point whether you were an owner that plays to win or an owner who plays to make money. It's also why you hear how some teams doing well is so good for basketball.

If the Bucks REALLY TRULY were losing money at an abhorrent rate, Kohl would've sold years ago when the y/y net was negative in multiple years. Even then, he bought the Bucks for 19m and it's currently valued at 312m. There's absolutely NO WAY the Bucks have lost 293m over the life of his ownership. When he sells he's taking home at least a 200m windfall.

You have to factor in inflation, expenses, and several other factors. The factors that team has going against them moving forward will hurt them to the point where yes, the team will be valued a lot, but you'll be lagging behind so much in terms of arena revenue, tv deals, sales, and obviously team performance, that it won't be worth it going year to year, then you see teams get sold. The issue is that an owner will buy, but most likely won't keep them in that city (which is reason #1 why Kohl refuses to sell).

It's like this. If the Bucks are worth $293 and over the next 8 years lose $80 mil, you can't look at it and go "I'm still a little under $200 mil on the plus side." You go, "I just lost $80 mil. WTF is going on?"

As for ownership turnover, in the last 15 years, 19 teams have been sold to new ownership. That's A LOT of turnover in that span of time (in other words, on average, you'll see a new owner every year. And there's more on the way).

 

[JetLife]

You have to factor in inflation, expenses, and several other factors. The factors that team has going against them moving forward will hurt them to the point where yes, the team will be valued a lot, but you'll be lagging behind so much in terms of arena revenue, tv deals, sales, and obviously team performance, that it won't be worth it going year to year, then you see teams get sold. The issue is that an owner will buy, but most likely won't keep them in that city (which is reason #1 why Kohl refuses to sell).

It's like this. If the Bucks are worth $293 and over the next 8 years lose $80 mil, you can't look at it and go "I'm still a little under $200 mil on the plus side." You go, "I just lost $80 mil. WTF is going on?"

But that's just again looking at short term profits vs. long term valuation, which is exactly what the owner's want the casual fan to think about. In the next 8 years, even if they lost 80m, team valuation will still rise and potentially outpace that loss. Besides, they can't lose that much since they only lost 500k in the last audit per the Forbes link below. Only the billionaire owners are incurring double digit million losses, which is a drop in the bucket for them.

I really truly doubt these owners (who have been vetted by the NBA Board of Governor's as being financially stable ... they don't approve owner's who can just barely afford a team and need the team for income, and who's average net worths are more than likely in the billions for new owners especially) look at the short term putting the clamps on their lifestyles. These guys have made more money in other ventures by being intelligent financially and understand the long term valuation is the only goal.

As for ownership turnover, in the last 15 years, 19 teams have been sold to new ownership. That's A LOT of turnover in that span of time (in other words, on average, you'll see a new owner every year. And there's more on the way).

But, what where the financial standings of these organizations at time of sale? Did any sale involve an organization that lost valuation from start of ownership (not likely) or were a net loss over time for the owner (maybe?i have no clue ...)? We'd need to do a deep dive before we can outright say "Every new owner in the NBA was a result of financial issues." I'm not saying your wrong, I just honestly have no clue the impetus of recent team turnover.

Off hand, it just seems like really old tenured guys cashing out and selling to younger billionaire groups.

Looking at this ...

NBA Team Values: The Business Of Basketball - Forbes

There are 6 teams with an operating income in the negative of more than 1million

Team (Value) - Owner (value) Forbes List

Brooklyn Nets (530m) - Prokhorov 13.2b #57 on the Forbes
Portland Trailblazers (457m) - Allen 14.2b #48 on the Forbes
Memphis Grizzlies (377m) - Pera 1.5b #10 Forbes youngest billionaire
Minnesota Timberwoles (364m) - Glen Taylor 1.8b #149 on the Forbes list
Atlanta Hawks (316m) - Atlanta Spirit Group
Charlotte Bobcats (315m) - - 500m

The only teams who truly would be at risk with multiple years of losses would be maybe MJ & Atlanta (I have no clue who is a part of that group). Looking at how much the players lost in salary potential vs. the fact really only maybe 2 teams are at risk (but in reality, they can just sell at a profit ...) ... the whole "teams are operating at a loss" narrative is a specious argument to me.

Once a team is sold at a loss or is contracted, then I'll believe these billionaire groups have lost faith in the NBA as a good investment and the league is in trouble.

 

[Hersh]

none of the owners were really losing money.. they just r good accountants

 

[tremonthustler1]

But that's just again looking at short term profits vs. long term valuation, which is exactly what the owner's want the casual fan to think about. I really truly doubt these owners (who have been vetted by the NBA Board of Governor's as being financially stable ... they don't approve owner's who can just barely afford a team and need the team for income, and who's average net worths are more than likely in the billions for new owners especially) look at the short term putting the clamps on their lifestyles. These guys have made more money in other ventures by being intelligent financially and understand the long term valuation is the only goal.

It's not that the owners aren't financially stable. The Maloofs didn't go broke because the Kings fell apart. Rarely does an owner sell because the team cost them their empire. They do sell because they don't see the team either producing the kind of profits they prefer or it becomes too much of a hassle. Glen Taylor's not trying to sell the T'wolves because he's going broke. He's selling because he hasn't turned a profit since KG left and at his age, he's over the day-to-day handling of a team.

Owners in any sport hate spending their own money. They wanna spend their basketball money, especially once they've established a stable income of revenue. It's hard for owners to cry poor in the sense that they're going broke. It's easy for an owner to say "I'm losing money, and because of that it's making it damn near impossible to sustain any competitive product. Help me, or I'll get someone else who will run the team better... somewhere else." It's that line of thinking that gets fans to side with owners that they otherwise can't stand when it comes to labor negotiations.

But, what where the financial standings of these organizations at time of sale? Did any sale involve an organization that lost valuation from start of ownership (not likely) or were a net loss over time for the owner (i have no clue)? We'd need to do a deep dive before we can outright say "Every new owner in the NBA was a result of financial issues." I'm not saying your wrong, I just honestly have no clue the impetus of recent team turnover.

You don't get approved unless you have very good financial standing. You always get checked out first. A group like the Maloofs couldn't buy a team if they tried today, but back in '99, they had the Palms when everything was going well. They were Mark Cuban before Mark Cuban.

And ask any Atlanta Hawks fan about the Atlanta Spirit Group. They are loathed. That group doesn't even like each other.

 

[Yayo Toure]

the owners were never losing money. They messed with the numbers, big time. They devalued the worth of the players by classifying them as depreciating assets and as a result the numbers showed that the franchises were operating at a loss.