new aticle in the bee regarding the Maloofs and the move.

[PurpleHaze]

That kind of goes without saying since you have to be rich to buy one. That doesn't mean you buy it to lose money though.

No, but you don't buy a team to get rich - as I said. If you understand IRS and corporate tax code you know loses (meaning zero profits) are not entirely a bad thing since you can often write them off. The profits made in a sale (ROI) are subject to capital gains taxes (often a substantial %) and are what you might want to shelter against by writing off loses when and wherever you can - as a smart owner.

 

[jpsls]

Not true. Calvin Griffith of the Twins when they moved from DC had one business, the Twins. They did fine.

The real rich guys who have managed to make money off their teams depend on a bunch of cannon fodder like team, the Kings, to contine to make more and more money. They feed off of guys who are wiling to lose money. Now we know where that leads.

That was before free agency though. Once free agency hit, the Twins lost their best players and went into the tank; Griffith eventually had to sell the team.

 

[Glenn]

Because they are the Cowboys and Yankees, two of the most prestigious franchises.

This is the damn point. The prestigious teams get rich and depend on the rest to make sure they get rich.

 

[Glenn]

On a year-to-year basis, if your team is in a small market, you will lose money or at best break even. Owning an NBA team is not just about the money. There is an acquired fame to owning a pro sports franchise.

Name the famous owner of the Timberwolves. I absolutely cannot believe that fans, the ones complaining about the high ticket costs, are defending this league and its business model.

 

[Glenn]

That was before free agency though. Once free agency hit, the Twins lost their best players and went into the tank; Griffith eventually had to sell the team.

What's the point?

 

[jpsls]

The point is that owners need to be rich (not fringe millionaires) in order for a franchise to prosper nowaways. Do you think the Twins of the 1970's could spend the necessary money on scouting, free agency, draft picks, coaching, and international scouting to succeed in today's market?

 

[jpsls]

Name the famous owner of the Timberwolves. I absolutely cannot believe that fans, the ones complaining about the high ticket costs, are defending this league and its business model.

I'm not supporting the business model. I'm just saying that's the reality.

 

[The Hammer]

No, but you don't buy a team to get rich - as I said. If you understand IRS and corporate tax code you know loses (meaning zero profits) are not entirely a bad thing since you can often write them off. The profits made in a sale (ROI) are subject to capital gains taxes (often a substantial %) and are what you might want to shelter against by writing off loses when and wherever you can - as a smart owner.

Exactly. And this also just drives home the point that all this speculating on the real financial picture of the Kings, let alone the Maloofs, will always be just that.

Also, there are other ways to profit from the ownership of a team besides direct revenue and increase in value at time of sale. It IS a status symbol... and it doesn't matter if we know the famous owner of the t wolves. Everybody who is somebody in the business world in Minnesota does. And that's who you make deals with anyway. There's a difference between fame and status.

 

[Glenn]

I'm not supporting the business model. I'm just saying that's the reality.

I think the day will come when the NBA owns more teams as the people who want to make money will stay away from this. Don't tell me about writing off losses either. A loss is a loss and you don't get it back on taxes. What other business is run on the basis that the owner will lose money?

 

[Gary]

Anyone want to invest in a professional team with me? I heard that's how people make money lol.

 

[macadocious]

No, but you don't buy a team to get rich - as I said. If you understand IRS and corporate tax code you know loses (meaning zero profits) are not entirely a bad thing since you can often write them off. The profits made in a sale (ROI) are subject to capital gains taxes (often a substantial %) and are what you might want to shelter against by writing off loses when and wherever you can - as a smart owner.

which was my point. These guys bought teams and generated an enormous amount of wealth from those teams. They were not realized profits, but they were profitable investments.

 

[jpsls]

which was my point. These guys bought teams and generated an enormous amount of wealth from those teams. They were not realized profits, but they were profitable investments.

NBA owners make profit once they SELL the team. Shares in an NBA team do not yield high dividends. The NBA is not your typical business model where you put a franchise where it will make the most profit. If that were the case, there would be no team in Utah, Charlotte, Sacramento, Denver, Milwaukee, etc.

 

[jpsls]

I think the day will come when the NBA owns more teams as the people who want to make money will stay away from this. Don't tell me about writing off losses either. A loss is a loss and you don't get it back on taxes. What other business is run on the basis that the owner will lose money?

That is why the NBA is for the super wealthy, not fringe millionaires. The losses are chump change to most owners anyways because they have other business ventures where they profit. What do the Maloofs have? Maloof Money Cup? I think that's the problem.

 

[Glenn]

NBA owners make profit once they SELL the team. Shares in an NBA team do not yield high dividends. The NBA is not your typical business model where you put a franchise where it will make the most profit. If that were the case, there would be no team in Utah, Charlotte, Sacramento, Denver, Milwaukee, etc.

As to the former, there are no shares in the NBA. There are no dividends. As to the latter, if the Kings move, the rest of the small market teams will move when their arenas no longer meet "NBA standards" whatever the hell that means. Why rebuild when there is more to be made elsewhere? These people didn't get rich by being stupid.

 

[Glenn]

That is why the NBA is for the super wealthy, not fringe millionaires. The losses are chump change to most owners anyways because they have other business ventures where they profit. What do the Maloofs have? Maloof Money Cup? I think that's the problem.

Ask the banking system, Chrysler, etc. what chump change is and you'll see they can go broke just like you and me.

 

[jpsls]

Ask the banking system, Chrysler, etc. what chump change is and you'll see they can go broke just like you and me.

You're comparing the maloofs 8 million per year losess by ownings the Kings to Chrysler's losses and the banking sector? The Kings are not hemorraghing money. Let's get that out of the way.

 

[SacTownKid]

I really wish people would stop saying things like this. It's getting asinine. Of course the team needs to be profitable. Sports franchises are not just play toys for rich people. They are businesses. Man this thought process tilts me so much.

I've heard multiple times throughout the years that this is indeed what NBA teams are.

 

[SacTownKid]

which was my point. These guys bought teams and generated an enormous amount of wealth from those teams. They were not realized profits, but they were profitable investments.

Not for the Maloofs most likely. Depends on how much they owe on the team, but they paid somewhere like 156 million for them back in '98 and if they only own 51% and the recent valuation of the team came in at under 300 million last year, well....not a whole lotta gain there! Wonder if they figure a move to LA would raise the value of their "asset", hmmmm....

 

[Glenn]

You're comparing the maloofs 8 million per year losess by ownings the Kings to Chrysler's losses and the banking sector? The Kings are not hemorraghing money. Let's get that out of the way.

Now you are skittering away from the issue. Well, my issue anyway. It seem to me that many are of the mind that rich people have money to blow. It is perfectly understandable where that attitude comes from. But rich people get into trouble just the same. Are we talking about the same thing?

No one is immune to adversity and I think a systen that depends on people losing money just to become famous is just a hiccup in the economy from going belly up. The economy belched and I cannot for the life of me believe that it didn't hurt more than the Maloofs and their partnership. Our situation is the perfect storm of adversity. A family that got hit hard with an arena that sucks. I would bet lots of money that if there were other teams that had the same pairing of events occurring, there would be more moving and I mean to the big cities that can allow them to be inept and still make money.

 

[jpsls]

I agree. Rich people can get into trouble just like anybody else. What I am saying is that 8 million is not signficiant loss to most NBA owners. There are teams that lose as much or more money than the Kings, but I only see one team who wants to bail on the city. So, are the Maloofs in trouble because of the Kings, or because of their other business (Palms).

An arena is not going to fix all the problems. Conseco Fieldhouse is the best arena in the NBA, but the Pacers routinely run in the red. Are their owners looking to build a new arena or skip town? If the problem is luxury suites, how come all these owners who are losing money aren't clamoring demanding the city to build a new arena?

The Maloofs want to move the Kings because the Palms is failing. I thought they said the two were separate entities and one doesn't affect the other, but I guess the broke owners lied again and want the fans to suffer.

Maybe it's the fact that people don't want to pay to watch a lottery team year in and year out.

 

[Glenn]

I agree. Rich people can get into trouble just like anybody else. What I am saying is that 8 million is not signficiant loss to most NBA owners. There are teams that lose as much or more money than the Kings, but I only see one team who wants to bail on the city. So, are the Maloofs in trouble because of the Kings, or because of their other business (Palms).

An arena is not going to fix all the problems. Conseco Fieldhouse is the best arena in the NBA, but the Pacers routinely run in the red. Are their owners looking to build a new arena or skip town? If the problem is luxury suites, how come all these owners who are losing money aren't clamoring demanding the city to build a new arena?

A lot of teams lost money and that was to be expected. There is only one team with an inadequate arena for, what is it? A decade?

I agree wholeheartedly that the arena may not be the cure all for the Kings. An "NBA quality" arena has lots of luxury suites. Who in Sacramento will fill those? The arena will revitalize downtown Sacramento but may not do much for the the bottom line of the Kings especially if the arena is built by the city.

I didn't really understand the last paragraph as I have no knowledge of the area. Indianapolis isn't the biggest city in the world. Sacramento is not a good city for pro sports. Minimal corporate money. There's that money thing again. Just an opinion, of course, but the indications are there.





I was a season ticket holder for 10 years in a row of lottery teams (or whatever it was). At a point, it got painful and I coudn't give away the tickets.

 

[Gary]

I agree. Rich people can get into trouble just like anybody else. What I am saying is that 8 million is not signficiant loss to most NBA owners. There are teams that lose as much or more money than the Kings, but I only see one team who wants to bail on the city. So, are the Maloofs in trouble because of the Kings, or because of their other business (Palms).

An arena is not going to fix all the problems. Conseco Fieldhouse is the best arena in the NBA, but the Pacers routinely run in the red. Are their owners looking to build a new arena or skip town? If the problem is luxury suites, how come all these owners who are losing money aren't clamoring demanding the city to build a new arena?

The Maloofs want to move the Kings because the Palms is failing. I thought they said the two were separate entities and one doesn't affect the other, but I guess the broke owners lied again and want the fans to suffer.

Maybe it's the fact that people don't want to pay to watch a lottery team year in and year out.

Bingo..

Why else would they have all these "up front" loans for moving? You really think it's all going to go into an account marked "SACRAMENTO KINGS ONLY"? Something is screwy in Maloof land.

 

[Gary]

A lot of teams lost money and that was to be expected. There is only one team with an inadequate arena for, what is it? A decade?

I agree wholeheartedly that the arena may not be the cure all for the Kings. An "NBA quality" arena has lots of luxury suites. Who in Sacramento will fill those? The arena will revitalize downtown Sacramento but may not do much for the the bottom line of the Kings especially if the arena is built by the city.

I didn't really understand the last paragraph as I have no knowledge of the area. Indianapolis isn't the biggest city in the world. Sacramento is not a good city for pro sports. Minimal corporate money. There's that money thing again. Just an opinion, of course, but the indications are there.





I was a season ticket holder for 10 years in a row of lottery teams (or whatever it was). At a point, it got painful and I coudn't give away the tickets.

Then maybe they shouldn't let fringe millionaires like the Maloofs buy small market teams..

 

[jpsls]

You mean Sacramento's lack of corporate presence went unnnoticed for 26 years by the NBA?

 

[Glenn]

Then maybe they shouldn't let fringe millionaires like the Maloofs buy small market teams..

They were fringe billlionaires. Who's going to buy the Hornets? The NBA has to take a deep breath and like the rest of us, realize the bubble has broken and may not come back. That's a tad on the political side but there are many economists who do not see a return to the excesses of the recent past and that there needs to be a permanent belt tightening. I would endure a season lockout if the NBA addressed this cockied business model.

 

[jpsls]

I don't see every small market NBA owners looking to relocate the team. The fact that the Maloofs can't wait until after the CBA (one they may assist small market teams) shows it's the Maloofs and not Sacramento that is the problem.

 

[Glenn]

You mean Sacramento's lack of corporate presence went unnnoticed for 26 years by the NBA?

I don't exactly know what you mean but it was noticed by Luckenbill, Thomas, and the Maloofs.

 

[jpsls]

I don't exactly know what you mean but it was noticed by Luckenbill, Thomas, and the Maloofs.

Ron Burkle disagrees.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't see every small market NBA owners looking to relocate the team. The fact that the Maloofs can't wait until after the CBA (one they may assist small market teams) shows it's the Maloofs and not Sacramento that is the problem.

well here is where Sacto has pie on its face -- no other small market has been moronic enough to let an arena issue reach critical mass. Whatever Sacto's other merits or demerits as a market, that is really the base of all evil here. If Sacto comes off as anything but a bunch of small town blunderers, and a building is either built or in the process of being built, I don't think the Maloofs could have any real shot at convincing the NBA they need to move, and wouldn't even be daring to try. Sacramento created its own monster here.

 

[The Hammer]

They were fringe billlionaires. Who's going to buy the Hornets? The NBA has to take a deep breath and like the rest of us, realize the bubble has broken and may not come back. That's a tad on the political side but there are many economists who do not see a return to the excesses of the recent past and that there needs to be a permanent belt tightening. I would endure a season lockout if the NBA addressed this cockied business model.

Reports up here in Seattle that a computer money group has already bought the Hornets and will move them here, and there are plans for an arena to be built in Bellevue. There's an insane amount of computer money on the Eastside of Seattle in case you don't know. It's going to essentially become a Microsoft/Apple/Google/Real Player/Adobe type sponsored team.

There was always enough money up here to get it done, just that the city of Seattle is so friggin packed with sports hating hipsters (still traumatized from not getting picked for kickball, you know, the kind of people that actually organize adult kickball so they can finally have the last word on that) that they could never muster the political will to get an arena done.

It's similar to Sac in that respect... enough corporate base/big enough market, but political problems when it came to an arena... hence they circumvent the city of Seattle and build an arena in Bellevue... an incredibly fast growing city with about 10 new large highrises built in the last ten years bigger than all the buildings in Sac.

This is Bellevue: