And this is the one reason I see where Paul Allen is coming from. Taking money from large market teams that don't need to work for their money could help level the playing field. There's literally no way for small market teams to compete financially with large market teams because of those local TV deals. That said, I'm not gonna get too concerned about the gains/losses of billionaires...
If you don't like what a small market team earns then don't buy a small market team. Portland didn't suddenly become a small market after Paul Allen bought the Blazers. If he didn't know what kind of market Portland was when he bought the team that's on him.
I'll bet you a donut that was Jimmy Dolan. Anyone who has ever been in business knows you can't "guarantee" profits.
Well I was not advocating one side or the other, but it's the owner who foots the bill if they lose money.
@HCP can you ask one of the players if they received the full 10% escrow distribution back? This will give insight if the league is making money.
An NBA franchise is more like a piece of art. You wait for it to appreciate in value and the money is made selling it.
It is my understanding that if the players receive the full 10% escrow funds back that the leagues BRI (basketball related income) was essentially lower than expected. If they receive less than 10% escrow it means the BRI was higher than expected and the players received money from there instead of the escrow money.
I personally believe that the NBA is on a collision course with massive disaster. The money is so large the players now have the power to control the league. The CBA as drawn up gives players that power to hijack a whole franchise (See LeBron and his yearly opt out), and does nothing to really promote parity and the ability for teams to keep their own players long term. Ultimately this will wear on fans, especially smaller market fans. They need to look at the success of the NFL and take some notes. Guaranteed contracts aren't going anywhere soon, but a hard cap sure would make it work better and stronger incentives for players to stay with their teams. I still believe a Salary Slot based system where each team has 15 salary slots they can assign each season each with a different soft cap percentage of the total salary cap, but able to exceed the individual slot caps by percentages based on how long a player has been with a team, with those rights tradable with the player. That would eliminate a teams ability to go get 4 superstars and would add more incentive to stay with their current team.
Figures lie and liars figure? If you buy a team for $250M and sell it for $2B and lose $10M/season, you made out like a bandit. And, read the last sentence below. The article is from 2016. https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/2016/01/forbes-tags-grizzlies-worth-at-780-million.html Since current owner Robert Pera acquired the team in 2012, the Grizzlies have seen their value continue to grow. And the current value is more than double the $377 million Pera paid for the team. The Grizzlies also produced $147 million in revenue during the previous season. Revenue sharing, which was part of the NBA’s current collective bargaining agreement, has put nearly every NBA team on the road to profitability. The only team that lost money in the last year was the Brooklyn Nets, which was also the only NBA in that column last year as well.
Cry me a fucking river. Some billionaires billion dollar "investment" loses 1% of its total value? Suck my dick.
Owners are there worst enemy there the ones sign the CBA and later cry about losing money. There the ones that agree to pay high salaries and again cry about losing money. So I am not crying about owners losing money.
I'm sure that losing money wasn't an objective for the Blazers, but I think that it was an understood consequence of their massive spending last summer. I suspect that they look at it as an investment that they hope pays off in a year or two.
You have this backwards. A percentage of the player's salary goes into escrow (holdings) until the end of the year. If the BRI is lower than expected, the owners take back a portion of the escrow funds to meet the 50/50 split agreed to in the CBA - while the remaining is distributed to the players. If the BRI is higher than expected, then the players get all the escrow money & the owners pay additional to the players.
Thanks for the correction. I re-read the document a few times and still wasn't fully clear. Thanks for the clarification. From what I know the players got all 10% back from last season, so the league is making money then.