Never said it didn't. But let's say the lease is up, and the owners of the arena want to change the deal. Or the team realizes they need to build a new arena. So, after buying the team for (a min) of 2 billion, they're going to then have to come up with another (at least) billion? Please tune into reality. Or, and hear me out, just having an owner who is a billionaire is smarter, more logical, and realistic? and if 100K shares don't want to kick in 250 extra per year, maybe they don't want to. Also, Paul Allen didn't own the team for 40 years. He owned it from 1988 until his death, in 2018. That's 30 years (which means the team would've averaged being in the hole, $25 million PER year). His riches is why the team is still here, and has the arena. Having an ownership set up like the GBP's is a pipe dreams pipe dream, not based in any kind of reality nor is it a way to even remotely be able to compete in the NBA today.
Sure. The shareholders are going to make a $2 billion investment without considering the condition of the arena... Riiight. If the team doesn't have an arena that will last it will be worth less money and financing for a replacement will be planned for before it's needed. Welcome to the world of business! Unless said owner wants to move the team to another city. Or is a shitty owner. That's $21 per month. Nobody who buys a $2k share in a basketball team is going to bat an eye at $21 per month... that you're even arguing it could be an issue makes me suspect you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. My bad. Look, the math still works! Woo hoo! Do you honestly think the CEO of a nonprofit would run the team like Paul Allen ran it? Don't you think they'd have surplus to fall back on? The fact that it's a nonprofit actually makes that MORE likely to have reserves rather than less likely. You keep saying that, yet you haven't shown a bit of evidence to support that theory. The best I've seen so far, is that the NBA just wouldn't allow it.
your argument there seems to be in favor of what I'm saying. The NBA would more likely allow the team to move than be owned by the fans. the fact that you think this is plausible makes me suspect you have no grasp of reality here. sports teams are not nonprofits... There's a reason the NFL doesn't allow fans (stock holders, etc) to own teams. It's not a stable business model to follow. What happens when there is an economic downturn (considering the NBA business model pales to the NFLs)? Or what happens if...actually you know what? This is such a stupid idea it's not even worth debating. The fact that this amount of time has been wasted discussing it is laughable.
Just to answer your questions about expenses and when a team takes losses. The Packers have kept up with that because the NFL hasn't always been the cash making model it is right now. The Packers obviously haven't asked their nonprofit shareholders for more money. They've offered up more shares. That's how they've done it and it served them well when they needed to. Again, there is no way that this happens but there is a viable way that it would work in the alternate universe where it did happen.
This is basically the first thing I said (not being snarky, just agreeing). The (current) NFL business model isn't the same as the NBA's. They have far more $$ coming in, make a LOT of money on merch and game concessions, etc. Look at the costs per minute for ad time during the SB. The NBA just doesn't have the ability to rely solely on tv deals (etc) for their teams to run themselves. The NFL is a totally different beast. And when the NFL wasn't a cash cow (at least to the degree it is now), it still was a money making business.
You've made one legitimate point. The NBA won't let it happen. I don't disagree. However, it's interesting to discuss the details. The fact that you are wasting time and energy posting about something you claim you don't care about without actually addressing anything (other than insulting the people who are actually trying to have a discussion) is incredibly laughable. You're right about that.
I was actually involved in an effort to buy all or part of the Blazers when PA put the team up for sale years ago. The idea was simple, to use a large foundation(s) like the Portland Public Schools Foundation to solicit donations from the public, have things structured so those donations are tax-deductible, then the foundations purchase all or part of the team. Then put a $3 surcharge on each ticket sold to go back to the foundation(s). It was a way to get large and small donors to donate and to keep the team here locally. The group that Terry Porter was putting together did contact me after Oregonlive did an article on it. From what I understand the NBA is structured differently than the NFL and community ownership similar to Green Bay's is not permissible.
Well community ownership isn't permissible in the NFL either. If you read up on Green Bay Packers Inc. they are only allowed to exist because they've been grandfathered in. The NFL for every team other than Green Bay has a strict rule that there has to be one owner that owns at least 30% of the team. There can be groups behind that owner but they have to have one identifiable majority owner. The Packers are just an exception.
