Maloofs Carls Jr Commercial
- Thread starter slugking50
- Start date
exactly. even if they sell the team at $350M, the Maloofs are only allocated their percentage (about 55%), so their cut is $192M. If they paid $150M, then their net is only $42M. Taxes cut that $42M in half, so they only walk away with $21M. I dont know if just Joe & Gavin own the team, or the entire family, but that $21M gets divided again by 2(J&G) or by 6(Maloof family). Anyway you look at it, its not alot of money.
No wonder they want an arena
No wonder they want an arena
This is actually one of the better posts. So as an accountant, I'd like to put in my 1/4 a cent
This post hit it on the head, especially the last sentence. The NBA has IMO a horrible business model. Player salaries are guaranteed before they're earned on the court & before the franchise generates revenue. Also since approx 30% of the league revenues are shared, smaller market teams are at a huge disadvantage in competing with its larger market brethren. With the league continuing to increase its minimum franchise requirements (i.e. arena requirements, security, % of season ticket seats) its difficult for small market teams to do business.
Bingo. 99.9% of sports team owners' primary source of income is business(es)other than the sports franchise. Any money they came up with to buy a team in the first place is due to their success in another venture.
I dont know where this person got this from, but this is the most incorrect statement of the topic. The sales price of the franchise may be greater than the purchase price, but if you factor in the profits and losses over the time of ownership, at the end of the day the owner breaks even. Most of these teams are owned for at least 20 years, so they'll be very good profit years, but also very bad loss years. And we won't even get into the taxes that have to be paid if a profit is realized from the sale
They're billionaires on paper. The $1B number is the estimated current value of all their businesses. I doubt that Joe & Gavin can go to the bank and withdraw like $500M in available cash. My ballpark figure would be approx $100-$200M, but its divided amongst six people (Collen, Joe, Gavin, George, Adrienne, Philip).
Also, you have to realize that the Palms and the Kings are owned by two different partnership groups. The Maloofs may be majority owners in both but they're definately not sole owners. The family only owns about 55% of the Kings, so the other 45% is a financial stake by another party.
This post hit it on the head, especially the last sentence. The NBA has IMO a horrible business model. Player salaries are guaranteed before they're earned on the court & before the franchise generates revenue. Also since approx 30% of the league revenues are shared, smaller market teams are at a huge disadvantage in competing with its larger market brethren. With the league continuing to increase its minimum franchise requirements (i.e. arena requirements, security, % of season ticket seats) its difficult for small market teams to do business.
Bingo. 99.9% of sports team owners' primary source of income is business(es)other than the sports franchise. Any money they came up with to buy a team in the first place is due to their success in another venture.
I dont know where this person got this from, but this is the most incorrect statement of the topic. The sales price of the franchise may be greater than the purchase price, but if you factor in the profits and losses over the time of ownership, at the end of the day the owner breaks even. Most of these teams are owned for at least 20 years, so they'll be very good profit years, but also very bad loss years. And we won't even get into the taxes that have to be paid if a profit is realized from the sale
They're billionaires on paper. The $1B number is the estimated current value of all their businesses. I doubt that Joe & Gavin can go to the bank and withdraw like $500M in available cash. My ballpark figure would be approx $100-$200M, but its divided amongst six people (Collen, Joe, Gavin, George, Adrienne, Philip).
Also, you have to realize that the Palms and the Kings are owned by two different partnership groups. The Maloofs may be majority owners in both but they're definately not sole owners. The family only owns about 55% of the Kings, so the other 45% is a financial stake by another party.
And BTW? Welcome to Kingsfans.com! Glad to have you aboard.
I'm guessing you didn't understand that the commercial was clearly made in fun. Nobody drinks a $6,000 bottle of red wine with a hamburger...
Edit:
Ah, yes, in the food and wine section:
Dunne on wine: The $6,000 burger deal: Which is the right wine?
By Mike Dunne - Bee Food Editor
http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/44704.html
I've been trying to figure out what Bordeaux that is in the controversial TV commercial showing the Maloof brothers eating Carl's Jr. burgers with an obviously dear wine. The combo, available only at the brothers' Palms hotel and casino in Las Vegas, costs $6,000. One has been sold since the promotion began 1 1/2 weeks ago. Joe Maloof bought it.
What he got was the standard $3.99 Carl's Jr. burger -- this is the sandwich the chain promotes as its Six Dollar Burger because it's reputedly as good as higher-priced burgers in upscale restaurants -- and a bottle of 1982 Chateau Petrus from the Pomerol district of Bordeaux. Made largely with merlot, it's customarily Bordeaux's highest-priced wine each vintage.
But the historic label on a bottle of Petrus is quite distinctive, and that doesn't look like it in the glimpses of the bottle viewers get while watching the commercial.
And it isn't. While the bottle in the spot looks classically French, the label is a generic fiction conceived for the shooting. "It's standard practice in commercials to mask brands that aren't the advertiser's product," explains Anne Hallock, public relations manager for CKE Restaurants Inc. in Carpinteria, which owns Carl's Jr.
Nevertheless, the '82 Petrus is what guests get when they order the combo at the Palms.
The quality of the wine is open to question. Noted wine critic Robert M. Parker Jr. has called the '82 Petrus "one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted." That was six years ago, however, and who knows how well the wine has been stored and aged?
Another high-profile critic, Stephen Tanzer, tried two bottles of the wine four years ago and found both samples "not up to the reputation of this vintage." It was "hugely tannic, even a bit dry, on the end," he sniffed.
Nonetheless, both writers gave the wine high scores, 98 out of 100 from Parker, 93 from Tanzer.
Today, a single bottle will cost between $2,500 and $5,500, according to a survey of wine shop Web sites around the country.
Sacramentans curious about how this fine French wine matches up with an American hamburger need not go all the way to Vegas to find out. The '82 Petrus is on the wine list at The Kitchen here for $3,600. Order it, and they'll throw in a burger at no extra cost, though it won't be from Carl's Jr.
The Kitchen's Josh Nelson, incidentally, brings up an intriguing factoid about the '82 Petrus. "It's believed to be the most- counterfeited wine in the world, with more on the market than was produced," Nelson said.
I've e-mailed the chateau's owner, Christian Moueix, who is in France right now. (He also owns a Napa Valley winery, Dominus Estate. ) He hasn't responded.
All I really wanted to ask is whether he might concur that a California zinfandel would be a better wine to pour with the Carl's Jr. hamburger, given zinfandel's customary sweet-fruit richness, solid spine and frisky spiciness. A robust zinfandel just seems a much more fitting companion with a nearly half-pound burger juicy with Angus beef and layered with sliced red onion, sliced red tomatoes, bread-and-butter pickles, mayonnaise and ketchup. There's a lot going on there, and I'm not sure a reserved French wine would be up to that sort of muscle.
Oh, yeah, and that's American cheese melting on the patty, not brie.
Last edited: