Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nets Luxury Tax Bill Is More Than The Raps Payroll!l

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Just a few random thoughts:

    1. Share the OKC versus Nets ownership sentiment! Wouldn't it be nice to see MLSE go into tax range (with a reason - building up a contender, of course)?!
    2. The Nets are not done. They may not win it next season, but there is still time on Proharov's watch for the next off-season to make some changes... right pOOka?!

    Comment


    • #17
      Fully wrote: View Post
      I'd much rather see guys like Prokhorov spending big (albeit recklessly) to try and win a championship over an ownership group like OKC's who appear unwilling to go a cent over their budget even if it costs them a chance to win it all.
      I hope there is a bit of tongue in cheek in that. The CBA was tightened up to avoid that kind of recklessness. Even other "big boys" have started to curb their overthecap spending habits. Even with all that spending I believe that team is unlikely to go deep into the playoffs...and even so it will be a one-off and soon to crash with very little prospect for the future having given away their draft picks. It is an unsustainable model, shortsighted, no guarantees and not one that true Nets fans of bb can applaud. I thought OKC could have bit the bullet last year to achieve a ring and probably have ended with a lesser haul after Harden became a RFA but they chose differently.

      ps...I also believe Prokhorov has a battle of wits he is waging against Dolan in NY...their own mini economic/pissing contest.

      Comment


      • #18
        Bendit: I find that first point about CBA wanting to avoid such situations is poor economics. Big, free-wheeling spending combined with revenue sharing brings money for the entire league. Baseball needs teams like the Yankees to have global reach, soccer needs teams like Barcelona and Man United for the casual fan to give a damn. Parity is all well and good for the hardcore fan but at the end of the day leaves half your clubs struggling to survive like the NHL. In fact the NHL should learn a little something (a lot of things actually) from the NBA and allow going over the cap with just a penalty/tax that gets divied up to the have-nots of the league.

        And Prokhorov is definitely battling Dolan, but more than just egos they're battling for the big piece of a billion dollar pie.

        Comment


        • #19
          Bendit wrote: View Post
          I hope there is a bit of tongue in cheek in that. The CBA was tightened up to avoid that kind of recklessness. Even other "big boys" have started to curb their overthecap spending habits. Even with all that spending I believe that team is unlikely to go deep into the playoffs...and even so it will be a one-off and soon to crash with very little prospect for the future having given away their draft picks. It is an unsustainable model, shortsighted, no guarantees and not one that true Nets fans of bb can applaud. I thought OKC could have bit the bullet last year to achieve a ring and probably have ended with a lesser haul after Harden became a RFA but they chose differently.

          ps...I also believe Prokhorov has a battle of wits he is waging against Dolan in NY...their own mini economic/pissing contest.
          I wasn't talking specifically about Brooklyn's moves this summer and the last; my original statement was meant more in a macro sense. As a fan, I would much prefer my owner have the free spending gun-slinger mentality where he's attempting to win at any cost over an owner whose desire to win it all stops abruptly once it begins to decrease their profit margin.

          Comment


          • #20
            Letter N wrote: View Post
            Bendit: I find that first point about CBA wanting to avoid such situations is poor economics. Big, free-wheeling spending combined with revenue sharing brings money for the entire league. Baseball needs teams like the Yankees to have global reach, soccer needs teams like Barcelona and Man United for the casual fan to give a damn. Parity is all well and good for the hardcore fan but at the end of the day leaves half your clubs struggling to survive like the NHL. In fact the NHL should learn a little something (a lot of things actually) from the NBA and allow going over the cap with just a penalty/tax that gets divied up to the have-nots of the league.

            And Prokhorov is definitely battling Dolan, but more than just egos they're battling for the big piece of a billion dollar pie.
            "...combined with revenue sharing...". If it were only true. I confess not to know the details of whatever rev. sharing regs. there are but I would bet it does not come close to those enacted by the NFL. Parity isnt so bad...the NFL is the most successful of them all with parity and real (as real asonecan have it) revenue sharing. I also point out that Barcelona (publicly owned) and MU have exceptional debt loads (in the half billion $ plus range) to build their brand. No doubt the banks keep them solvent simply because the equity in the clubs are great. And what of the leagues these clubs inhabit? Seriously, only 2-3 other clubs have an outside chance of winning their league championship. Soccer as you know subsidize their coffers and their fan interest by participating in a myriad of other in-season international championship contests and is the most played, eyeballed and bet-on game on the planet. I dont think it's a fair comparision to the NBA. I dont even know where to begin re your admiration for the Yankees...so I wont other than I dont know a more disliked team in pro sports in N. America because of the sheer elitism their economic clout (location/history) allows them. The NHL's major problem is expansion to geographic areas with demographics not in tune with the game. They have also diluted their player quality as a result but they are learning to share and have certainty of costs with a view to parity.

            I concede that Prokhorov & Dolan are anomalies and will be drawn in by the reality of the CBA at some point as others have been (Cuban, Buss). Another Miami is unlikely...too many on that team have taken personal shaves on their stipends and have bucked the greed is good principle...until of course they tire of it. My own view is that if the vast majority of the franchises have an equal shot at acquiring/retaining top tier talent using a hard cap system, this will result most often in competitve contests and hence generate the most interest and sustain this. Teams who fail with equal opportunity provided will do so most likely due to its own bad management. As a fan of an outlier team that is all I can ask for....not be a subservient part of an org. which allows but 3-5 of 30 members to constantly drink the good stuff. That is just not fair.

            ps...there is much written on this subject in these forums prior to the lockout....thats if you are interested

            Comment


            • #21
              Parity sucks.. it's boring. And to be honest I don't think it can work in the NBA because one player can impact wins so radically unlike in other team sports.

              Even though there are always a few champions in the NBA I like dynasties, and teams having to climb a ladder to get to the top. Toronto is a big city and the Raptors are owned by billion dollar corporations. With the right management on board (ie, TL), they could buy a championship.. the cap makes things interesting because it requires a rock solid management team to create a team but in the end it doesn't really matter for the most part.

              Elite players want to be paid and they want championships.. its never going to end no matter how much of a system they put in place. The Raptors should capitalize on this as they should have the capital to do what Brooklyn is doing or LA/NY have done in the past.

              I don't think Brooklyn has the right talent (KG/Pierce/JJ are old, DW is no longer elite, and Lopez has a history of being injured). They only have a 1-2 year window and have not many means to get better.. but it's nice to have a 1-2 year window to work with - I know I would be excited if I was a fan of the team that Prokhorov and King built.

              Comment


              • #22
                Craiger wrote: View Post
                this is how NBA lockouts happen
                They obviously did not completely fix this issue with last lockout. N

                Comment


                • #23
                  Buying a team for a two-three year run like Brooklyn has done is not something I'm in favour of. I'm not sure I'd like to see the Raptors go that route. San Antonio has been very successful building and sustaining a winning franchise while keeping their payroll relatively in check. There are probably various reasons for this, but I don't think its necessary to be a luxury tax team in order to build a competitive franchise. As a fan of the franchise, I'd rather see a commitment to smart management and the development and sustainment of a winning culture. I would be more proud of the franchise for achieving that, than I would be of it for assembling a team in such a way that requires it to pay a total of 3-4 team salaries just to make a run at a championship for maybe a year or two.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    DanH wrote: View Post
                    In theory, his net worth is the amount he could have if he cashed out on all his investments right now. Even assuming he takes a 20% or so hit by selling, that leaves over 10 B. At $200,000,000 per year, and assuming only half his expenses are basketball team related, that means in 25 years he runs out of money.

                    But the reality is that he is earning money constantly, even just looking at the basketball side of things, in 2012 the Nets brought in 84 M in revenues versus about 100M in total costs. I imagine that goes up with more success. So the impact is probably halved at the least just through basketball income, let alone his substantial other income. So yes, he'd be pissing away his fortune, but it would be a long trip to the urinal.
                    As I said in another thread, the value of the Nets has gone up considerably, some 50% last year; so he didn't lose money last year.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Prokhorov is not a man known for giving lots of fucks



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                        As I said in another thread, the value of the Nets has gone up considerably, some 50% last year; so he didn't lose money last year.
                        The value of the team is relevant for his total value, but not for his ability to absorb operating costs long term. The discussion was about whether he could afford the operating costs of the Nets - that amount cannot come out of the value of the team, as he would have to sell the team to capitalize on that increase. So although you are correct, and he is in no way actually losing money, that is irrelevant to the point I was making.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          psrs1 wrote: View Post
                          They obviously did not completely fix this issue with last lockout. N
                          Honestly I don't think they ever intended to and if anything it may well have made it worse. (on a relative basis smaller markets will have tougher time paying more vs bigger markets)

                          If there is anything David Stern is, its intelligent.

                          I'm confident in saying he was claiming to be selling a Ferrari, but gave small market fans a pinto at the Ferrari price.

                          Three years into the new CBA, established top talent is more concentrated at the top of the food chain than it has been in decades.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                            As I said in another thread, the value of the Nets has gone up considerably, some 50% last year; so he didn't lose money last year.
                            That is not a realized profit until he sells.

                            Until he sells, he is losing money.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              DanH wrote: View Post
                              The value of the team is relevant for his total value, but not for his ability to absorb operating costs long term. The discussion was about whether he could afford the operating costs of the Nets - that amount cannot come out of the value of the team, as he would have to sell the team to capitalize on that increase. So although you are correct, and he is in no way actually losing money, that is irrelevant to the point I was making.
                              It was a reaction to "pissing away his fortune", which isn't just about the ability to afford operating costs, but maybe I misunderstood you.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                                It was a reaction to "pissing away his fortune", which isn't just about the ability to afford operating costs, but maybe I misunderstood you.
                                Well, even in that context, the team's value won't keep rising the way it did last year indefinitely. At some point it plateaus, and he truly starts losing money.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X