NAPHEESA MURDERS WNBA COMMISSIONER CATHY ENGELBERT IN EXIT INTERVIEW

[Harry B]

It’s kind of philosophical debate. Cause while the owners aren’t directly making money, they are losing money to fund an appreciating asset value. So indirectly they might be making dumb money.

But can you factor in unrealized gains in negotiations? Of course you can, that’s how big start ups pay top talent top dollars with small revenues. The equity value is based on future income, and the players of today are the ones creating that future income stream. In the nba they don’t even care about all that as it is a mature league, with large cash flows today. It’s like comparing working at JP Morgan or some new fintech company. JP Morgan can pay you cash comfortably and still make insane money, but the new fintech company might have pay you and increase their losses and also give you options.


So people think about this “losing money” in a very simpleton way.


But on the other hand, how much have they lost up until now, and shyt like that makes the discussion harder. As it varies greatly per owner. Also, as compared to the new fintech company, there’s really no better alternative. Capitalistically speaking, you get what you can negotiate for. It’s the entertainment business not healthcare, agriculture or something

 

[Flywin Lannister]

If you want a prime example on why women are called emotional... this is it



"We have the best players in the World, the best players in the World and the WORST Leadership in the World"



Sounds like a kid crashing out after you take your phone or tablet away from them

Technically speaking.. she’s not lying.

The WNBA has the best women’s basketball players in the world.

They’re really bad compared to NBA players or FIBA players and it’s impossible to watch for most of us, but those are the best women.

I can come up with max 5 players who can actually ball, of their entire league..

It’s only in the name of equality that the NBA keeps this project alive - which is fine, they just really need to wake up and realize that does not mean they are “world class athletes” who deserve equal pay to NBA players.

 

[Flywin Lannister]

It’s kind of philosophical debate. Cause while the owners aren’t directly making money, they are losing money to fund an appreciating asset value. So indirectly they might be making dumb money.

But can you factor in unrealized gains in negotiations? Of course you can, that’s how big start ups pay top talent top dollars with small revenues. The equity value is based on future income, and the players of today are the ones creating that future income stream. In the nba they don’t even care about all that as it is a mature league, with large cash flows today. It’s like comparing working at JP Morgan or some new fintech company. JP Morgan can pay you cash comfortably and still make insane money, but the new fintech company might have pay you and increase their losses and also give you options.


So people think about this “losing money” in a very simpleton way.


But on the other hand, how much have they lost up until now, and shyt like that makes the discussion harder. As it varies greatly per owner. Also, as compared to the new fintech company, there’s really no better alternative. Capitalistically speaking, you get what you can negotiate for. It’s the entertainment business not healthcare, agriculture or something

Word, good points

And adding to that

We have to keep in mind that for years now the NBA has been keeping the WNBA alive financially speaking.

They made no profit
They only cost money
Nobody was CHECKing for them (sponsors)

The Caitlin Clark Angela Reese rivalry sparked a lot of social media and mainstream interest all fuelled by

Clark’s incredible play (the biggest WNBA hater’s respect that she can ball)

Race (black girl vs white girl)

This has translated over to the WNBA. College basketball ironically is responsible for the WNBA’s biggest boom.

Oddly enough: the same WNBA players that wanted bigger audiences keep doing everything possible to injure the very person who got them that big audience.

So any investor can see that this is a self-imploding operation from aggressive injury causing players taking out the stars out of jealousy, to horrendous officiating, to terrible leadership.

So besides all your valid points @Harry B - there’s also so much wrong with this as a product -Angela Reese is one of the biggest stars and her basketball skills are really, really questionable - that investing or investing more seems unadvisable unless it’s like a per project for a very wealthy person who doesn’t care about profit (a rare find..)

 

[No1]

Word, good points

And adding to that

We have to keep in mind that for years now the NBA has been keeping the WNBA alive financially speaking.

They made no profit
They only cost money
Nobody was CHECKing for them (sponsors)

The Caitlin Clark Angela Reese rivalry sparked a lot of social media and mainstream interest all fuelled by

Clark’s incredible play (the biggest WNBA hater’s respect that she can ball)

Race (black girl vs white girl)

This has translated over to the WNBA. College basketball ironically is responsible for the WNBA’s biggest boom.

Oddly enough: the same WNBA players that wanted bigger audiences keep doing everything possible to injure the very person who got them that big audience.

So any investor can see that this is a self-imploding operation from aggressive injury causing players taking out the stars out of jealousy, to horrendous officiating, to terrible leadership.

So besides all your valid points @Harry B - there’s also so much wrong with this as a product -Angela Reese is one of the biggest stars and her basketball skills are really, really questionable - that investing or investing more seems unadvisable unless it’s like a per project for a very wealthy person who doesn’t care about profit (a rare find..)

Nîgga shut up @Harry B made good points you just used a bunch of words stab Caitlin Clark and shyt on the other players.

 

[feelosofer]

It’s kind of philosophical debate. Cause while the owners aren’t directly making money, they are losing money to fund an appreciating asset value. So indirectly they might be making dumb money.

But can you factor in unrealized gains in negotiations? Of course you can, that’s how big start ups pay top talent top dollars with small revenues. The equity value is based on future income, and the players of today are the ones creating that future income stream. In the nba they don’t even care about all that as it is a mature league, with large cash flows today. It’s like comparing working at JP Morgan or some new fintech company. JP Morgan can pay you cash comfortably and still make insane money, but the new fintech company might have pay you and increase their losses and also give you options.


So people think about this “losing money” in a very simpleton way.


But on the other hand, how much have they lost up until now, and shyt like that makes the discussion harder. As it varies greatly per owner. Also, as compared to the new fintech company, there’s really no better alternative. Capitalistically speaking, you get what you can negotiate for. It’s the entertainment business not healthcare, agriculture or something

This is one of the most mature takes regarding where the WNBA is at the moment.