I used to be an owner of the Boston Celtics.
It was a limited partnership NYSE traded stock. We owned 500 shares. At some point in the 90's they dissolved the partnership and we were cashed out. We made a decent return on it though.
Get to know an NBA owner!
- Thread starter r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t
- Start date
I used to be an owner of the Boston Celtics.
It was a limited partnership NYSE traded stock. We owned 500 shares. At some point in the 90's they dissolved the partnership and we were cashed out. We made a decent return on it though.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Time for a one paragraph expose on you. You're clearly a capitalist and that means you have some nasty skeletons in your closet. How many tax dollars are you costing the government by taking advantage of legal loopholes? Who is the "we" that you speak of? What environmentally unfriendly businesses have you exploited to amass your fortune? What have you done to cheat the system? C'mon. Spill the beans.
And... we're back! The next owner we will get to know is Rich DeVos of the Orlando Magic. Mister DeVos is a cofounder of Amway, the largest "network marketing" company in the world. His position at the top of the Amway pyramid has "earned" him an estimated $4.2 billion fortune.
Amway and the Orlando Magic have been the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks from both federal and local governments. The Orlando Magic debuted in 1989 at the Orlando Arena, which was financed entirely by local government at a cost of $195 million (in 2011 dollars). Within just a few years, Mister DeVos deemed the building obsolete and began campaigning for a new arena. Eventually he threatened to move the team to another city. In 2006, local government approved the building of a new arena for the team. The brand new "Amway Center" was completed in 2010 at a cost of $480 million, of which $50 million was contributed by Mister DeVos. The remaining cost of the building was financed by the public. The 22-year old, since-renamed "Amway Arena" is slated for demolition later this year.
Mister DeVos and his family are avid Republicans and have contributed millions of dollars to the party over the years.
Amway and the Orlando Magic have been the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks from both federal and local governments. The Orlando Magic debuted in 1989 at the Orlando Arena, which was financed entirely by local government at a cost of $195 million (in 2011 dollars). Within just a few years, Mister DeVos deemed the building obsolete and began campaigning for a new arena. Eventually he threatened to move the team to another city. In 2006, local government approved the building of a new arena for the team. The brand new "Amway Center" was completed in 2010 at a cost of $480 million, of which $50 million was contributed by Mister DeVos. The remaining cost of the building was financed by the public. The 22-year old, since-renamed "Amway Arena" is slated for demolition later this year.
Mister DeVos and his family are avid Republicans and have contributed millions of dollars to the party over the years.
Last edited:
Sorry for quoting myself, but this reminds me of a display I saw a few years ago at the Space Needle in Seattle. Up on the observation deck there is an arrow, or something, pointing out the site of the old Kingdome.
For those of you who don't know, the Kingdome was replaced by two stadiums, the Mariners' Safeco Field and the Seahawks' CenturyLink Field. The Mariners are owned by Nintendo of America (total assets of $1.6 trillion). The Seahawks are owned by Paul Allen (net worth of billions of dollars). Both of the new stadiums were financed by the public, for more than $700 million.
It is no wonder that the Sonics plea for a new arena was rejected by the voters.
Last edited:
GOP-ers/Tea-partiers/whoever those of you are that see nothing wrong with "taking advantage of legal loopholes":
How do you feel about teams using (see also: demanding) public money to build their stadiums on top of their need to pad their profit margins by skirting taxes to people with less money? All good? Let them do what they want?
The players that earn nearly all of the revenue for the teams and wanting (marginally) more than half of that are such slimy, greedy jerks.
I'll be sitting here waving my little american flag.
How do you feel about teams using (see also: demanding) public money to build their stadiums on top of their need to pad their profit margins by skirting taxes to people with less money? All good? Let them do what they want?
The players that earn nearly all of the revenue for the teams and wanting (marginally) more than half of that are such slimy, greedy jerks.
I'll be sitting here waving my little american flag.
You don't think the financial situation of ownership is relevant to the negotiation?
Oh, look what we have here! Another NBA owner! He is Aubrey McClendon of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Mister McClendon has accrued his $1.2 billion fortune working for Chesapeake Energy. He was the highest compensated CEO of any S&P company in 2008, earning $112 million in that year alone. Chesapeake Energy's business involves hydraulic fracture extraction of natural gas in shale, or "fracking". The fracking business has been described as the "new Enron" and a "giant Ponzi scheme". Natural gas extraction companies have been accused of overstating both the amount of shale gas reserves and the profitability of the final product. In 2004, Mister McClendon made a $250,000 contribution to the "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth", a group opposed to the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. The group accused Kerry of being dishonest about his service in Vietnam.
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
I guess there's two sides to the negotiations - the "bottom line" aspect (which I guess concerns the revenue split) and the basketball "league" related rules and adjustments. So touche, I guess that's fair with respect to the former. However, I just feel as if any issue the owner's are taking with "revenue" are actually just symptomatic of larger issues they have with the way the league is being run. To me it comes down to the basketball. Why else would these obviously rich owners be making such a stink? Its the basketball context.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Or because they've had lots of experience minimizing risk and increasing profits by leveraging their position of strength for public handouts and concessions from just about everyone.
This article claims to represent the "bargaining position of each NBA owner":
https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions
Here is the alleged position of each owner that has been profiled in this thread:
Hawk:
Dove:
Besides Kroenke, the "Hawk" list looks a bit light in the wallet to me. The "Doves" are all loaded.
https://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions
Here is the alleged position of each owner that has been profiled in this thread:
Hawk:
- Grousbeck (Celtics)
- Kroenke (Nuggets)
- Kohl (Bucks)
- Holt (Spurs)
- Miller (Jazz)
- Leonsis (Wizards)
Dove:
- Arison (Heat)
- Prokhorov (Nets)
- McClendon (Thunder)
- DeVos (Magic)
Besides Kroenke, the "Hawk" list looks a bit light in the wallet to me. The "Doves" are all loaded.
I'm not anti- (or pro-) owners, or players. I do think the knee-jerk public support of the owners is ridiculous. These guys are a joke. Six of the ten profiled in this thread essentially inherited their wealth. Kroenke married his. Prokhorov and DeVos are scammers, and McClendon probably is too.
I guess my "take" would be that this is simply a case of ownership using leverage to extract money from the players, thus improving their bottom-line a bit. What can the players do? The owners see the opportunity to make another buck, and they're taking it. Like Hot Rod used to say, it is "like shooting fish in a barrel".
Last edited:
What concessions should the owners make? I haven't seen anything to suggest they they have offered any, will offer any, or that anyone thinks they might offer any. They've somehow done a great job convincing a large chunk of people that they're giving players concessions by demanding fewer things but still giving nothing previous to the OWNERS locking out THE PLAYERS.
Let's try to remember that last part.
It depends on how you define legal loophole. I don't have a problem, for instance, with a real estate developer or manufacturer accepting freely given government incentives to locate a business enterprise in a city or state. Those businesses contribute to the tax base and create jobs. Incentives like this are common practice regardless of which party the business supports. Do you think it's just Republicans who take advantage of "loopholes"?
I've never been a big fan of teams using public money to build arenas or stadiums but each city has to weigh the cost benefit. In the case of the Amway Center, I think the building is owned and operated by the city so they derive revenue from it's operation and tax dollars from increased business activity that results from the team playing in Orlando. If DeVos contributed 50 million it was to the City's project because according to Forbes he doesn't own the building. Amway also bought the naming rights for 40 million.
I think the players deserve every penny possible from a viable business model. I haven't seen anyone's books, and don't have any idea how much the owners are actually losing, but I don't think the owners should have to subsidize the league. I don't care how rich they are, they should at least be able to break even. I don't think the fact that they are wealthy is a good argument for why they should lose money. The players are wealthy too. And if their hard cap motives are pure, I would love to be able to compete for a championship once in a while.
Again, we don't know how much money has been lost NET as a WHOLE. The NBA salary cap has gone up every year, including these doom and gloom years where owners are losing 19 quadrillion dollars (TM). How does that happen? It looks to me like the owners want the players to give back for crappy management that the teams have been running. If it were the other way around, players would be on strike because they didn't know how to use their own money. To my knowledge and despite players as a whole being morons with their money, that hasn't happened.
And that's besides that the disparity in income is based on little else besides a franchise's geographic location. Revenue sharing fixes a whole lot of this boobing by those poor, poor owners. Well, except for the poor, poor owners that are making the most and don't want to share (but should, since everyone shares in the product of the league anyway).
I'm getting on a tangent again. The heart of my point is that it makes no sense for the cap to keep going up (as it's based on total income) simultaneous to a supposed sudden era of losses for owners. If the owners want to prove how they're losing one entire ***-cheek, they can release their ledgers for examination. Their actual ledgers. The ones that show what they're claiming for asset amortization and all of that fun, slimy crap.
And that's besides that the disparity in income is based on little else besides a franchise's geographic location. Revenue sharing fixes a whole lot of this boobing by those poor, poor owners. Well, except for the poor, poor owners that are making the most and don't want to share (but should, since everyone shares in the product of the league anyway).
I'm getting on a tangent again. The heart of my point is that it makes no sense for the cap to keep going up (as it's based on total income) simultaneous to a supposed sudden era of losses for owners. If the owners want to prove how they're losing one entire ***-cheek, they can release their ledgers for examination. Their actual ledgers. The ones that show what they're claiming for asset amortization and all of that fun, slimy crap.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Absolutely.
I can't speak for rustbucket, but my big gripe is the one-sided coverage these negotiations are getting. As stated so well in the other thread by kicky, there's been little talk of the owners losing out if the two sides don't come to an agreement. Why is that? There's been little talk of increased revenue sharing as a viable solution. Why? Everyone seems to be focusing on the owners' talking points, and it's hard to have an intelligent and fair conversation when one side isn't given a fair shake. Maybe this is a sign that the players need better representation.
I'm especially excited to introduce to you our next NBA owner. The owner of the New Orleans Hornets is The NBA. The NBA is unique among owners, since it is not a human being, nor an entity representing a group of human beings. The NBA is simply "the league". The NBA has an estimated net worth of at least $10 billion, which means it is just the third most wealthy of all the owners. Much of The NBA's riches were accrued during the 80's when it was able to negotiate network and cable television contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The NBA has also been able to acquire public financing for new arenas for nearly every team, thus increasing the value of its franchises by billions of dollars. The NBA moved teams away from cities that wouldn't agree to its terms (Charlotte and Seattle). The commissioner of The NBA is David Stern. It is unknown exactly how much compensation Mister Stern receives. Many of the team owners reportedly do not know. It has been speculated in the media that Stern's annual compensation is somewhere between $10 and $23 million.
Last edited: