Owners' Presser on 10/20/2011

[LB3533]

Here is video of the Owners' Press Conference.

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/cba_news/2011/10/20/20111020_labor_Owners_full_presser1.nba


Some interesting responses from Adam Silver, especially when reporters asked him about some of the differences on the "system". Silver always responded in the mold: "I don't want to get into anything specific".

That kind of response is disturbing. What are the owners hiding?

Both Silver and Holt also used words & phrases like: "sustainability" (economical/financial) & "opportunity" (to make profits) for all 30 teams.

In my view, the NBA and its teams have not only been sustainable....they have been growing & even sprouting up in Canada. No team has folded.

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

[Roy H.]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

[wdleehi]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

The systems should reward those who's teams are good, not punish them.


What happens if suddenly the Celtics had the choice of winning or making money? 

Do we even want the Celtics to have to face that question?

[Inside-Out]

I think it's a false choice (winning vs. profits).

It's just easier to throw money at an underperforming team via overpaying for players that aren't right than to get the right pieces that fit together.

Memphis (without Gay and his max deal) is a good example of a small market team that could be competitive without a huge salary.  But they signed Gay to a max deal only to find out that he isn't as necessary as they thought.

Competent PG's, smart coaching, tough defenders, and balance of talent/abilities make competitive teams, but too many teams are so desperate to take the fast-track that they would rather make the one high-profile signing than build a whole team.

No "system" will save owners from themselves, which seems to be what they owners are looking for.

[wdleehi]

I think it's a false choice (winning vs. profits).

It's just easier to throw money at an underperforming team via overpaying for players that aren't right than to get the right pieces that fit together.

Memphis (without Gay and his max deal) is a good example of a small market team that could be competitive without a huge salary.  But they signed Gay to a max deal only to find out that he isn't as necessary as they thought.

Competent PG's, smart coaching, tough defenders, and balance of talent/abilities make competitive teams, but too many teams are so desperate to take the fast-track that they would rather make the one high-profile signing than build a whole team.

No "system" will save owners from themselves, which seems to be what they owners are looking for.

See the NFL.


Every team can earn money and still spend a whole lot. 

Teams that are good are rewarded with extra income chances.

[fairweatherfan]

If nothing else hopefully this will put a stake through the "KG ruined the deal!" meme, since the whole premise of that was that the owners offered 50/50 and the players were totally going to take it.  Well, they offered it again and the players weren't having anything to do with it. 

Not really any kind of consolation, though.

[Chris]

If nothing else hopefully this will put a stake through the "KG ruined the deal!" meme, since the whole premise of that was that the owners offered 50/50 and the players were totally going to take it.  Well, they offered it again and the players weren't having anything to do with it. 

Not really any kind of consolation, though.

And even Stern can't be blamed for this one.  This shows pretty clearly that the issue isn't the people involved, it is just two sides who are too far apart to agree.

...well, unless this was all a scheme by Stern, who refused to let them come to an agreement while he was out sick, and ordered the owners to stalemate, so he could swoop in and save the day later this weekend. 

[Gainesville Celtic]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

I completely disagree. The owners already have a system where they can do both -- compete AND bet profitable.

But they're playing a shell game with the question of profit. The owners are defining "profitiability" as do they make more than they spend in year X.

The 76ers were purchased for $130M in 1996
The 76ers were sold for $280M in 2011

That's $180M over 15 years or $12M a year.

So even if the 76ers lost $10M a year, every year for 12 years straight, the owners ***STILL*** made a $30M profit.

Yes this is just one team but I'd bet $30 that its similar for every other NBA team.

[Roy H.]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

I completely disagree. The owners already have a system where they can do both -- compete AND bet profitable.

But they're playing a shell game with the question of profit. The owners are defining "profitiability" as do they make more than they spend in year X.

The 76ers were purchased for $130M in 1996
The 76ers were sold for $280M in 2011

That's $180M over 15 years or $12M a year.

So even if the 76ers lost $10M a year, every year for 12 years straight, the owners ***STILL*** made a $30M profit.

Yes this is just one team but I'd bet $30 that its similar for every other NBA team.

If I invested $130 million in 1996, and ended up with a $30 million profit (in 2011 dollars), I'd be pretty disappointed.  That's what, a 1.4% annual rate of return?  The owner would have been better putting his money in an ING savings account.

[bdm860]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

I completely disagree. The owners already have a system where they can do both -- compete AND bet profitable.

But they're playing a shell game with the question of profit. The owners are defining "profitiability" as do they make more than they spend in year X.

The 76ers were purchased for $130M in 1996
The 76ers were sold for $280M in 2011

That's $180M over 15 years or $12M a year.

So even if the 76ers lost $10M a year, every year for 12 years straight, the owners ***STILL*** made a $30M profit.

Yes this is just one team but I'd bet $30 that its similar for every other NBA team.

If I invested $130 million in 1996, and ended up with a $30 million profit (in 2011 dollars), I'd be pretty disappointed.  That's what, a 1.4% annual rate of return?  The owner would have been better putting his money in an ING savings account.

But in Gainesville's example, that's only if the owner lost $10m a year for 12 straight years while running the team.  Manage your team badly, and still make 1.4% per year as you said, that's not a bad deal, when really there shouldn't be any kind of reward for consistently poor management.

[Celtics18]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

I completely disagree. The owners already have a system where they can do both -- compete AND bet profitable.

But they're playing a shell game with the question of profit. The owners are defining "profitiability" as do they make more than they spend in year X.

The 76ers were purchased for $130M in 1996
The 76ers were sold for $280M in 2011

That's $180M over 15 years or $12M a year.

So even if the 76ers lost $10M a year, every year for 12 years straight, the owners ***STILL*** made a $30M profit.

Yes this is just one team but I'd bet $30 that its similar for every other NBA team.

If I invested $130 million in 1996, and ended up with a $30 million profit (in 2011 dollars), I'd be pretty disappointed.  That's what, a 1.4% annual rate of return?  The owner would have been better putting his money in an ING savings account.

I'm sorry, but if the only reason you buy a pro sports franchise is to maximize profits, then I as a fan say "do the sports fan the favor of spending your millions or billions on a different kind of investment."  

These sports franchises always go up in value.  The fact that the percentage isn't as astronomical in value as other investments of the super rich, means diddly squat to me.  

These guys make bank on arena rights and surrounding real estate, as well.  I can't believe anyone actually expects me to cry over the fate of a single one of these owners.

I'm obviously not on the owners' side, but I'm not on the players side anymore, either.  I understand wanting to make a stand against exploitation with your millionaire union brothers.  Workers united, and all that jazz.  But, come the heck on, guys.  

How in the world am I, the devout, diehard fan, of the NBA supposed to believe in you anymore?  How in the world am I supposed to care what you do?  Sit patiently and wait for you to get over your grown man temper tantrum, sitting in the corner, holding your breath with your arms folded, muttering "I won't, I won't, I won't . . ."?  

There's a few of us out there, and we reside in this blog, and others like it, the kooks and crazies, the addicts who need  to get our Jones filled, no matter how damaging it is to our health.  We need it.  Everybody else--the non-fanatical, rational, casual, basketball fans--have turned away long ago.  Even the professionals paid to write about the sport have turned to emotional rants about this lock out.  

How long can I wait for you, Paul, Kevin, Ray, Rajon?  If this thing ever gets settled will our relationship ever be the same?  I have opened up my soul and my heart to you guys.  I really have.  I know it's not rational, but to me, that's the essence of the sports fanatic, the true supporter; not just unwavering support for the colors of the jersey, but for the guys who sweat inside that jersey.  And, I've been there.  I've shouted 'till I was hoarse, I've jumped up and down like a child, I've paced rooms like an expectant father, I've sat with baited breath barely able to watch, I've cried, I've laughed, I've invested way more time in you guys than anyone in my family thinks is sane.  And this is what I get for my loyalty, my involvement, my passion?

This?  I guess my issue is I never cared about the owners.  Who cares about the owners as a sports fan?  The tears that streamed down my cheeks in June of 2008 where not for Wyc Grousbeck and Steve Pagliuacca.  They were for Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Doc Rivers,and the rest of them, as well as for me, and all the other Celtics fans who have lived and died with this sports team, shared this bond, crazy as it may be.

This is what we get? This?

Thanks guys, thanks alot.  I think I'll go throw up now.

[greenpride32]

To me managing your business improperly is giving over 57% of you revenues to your employees.  Aside from the players there are still other employees to pay; the coaches, GM, scouting, ticket sales, marketing, etc.  If you already have to give up such a large percentage of sales(not even profit), you need a very high profit margin to be successful.

The small market and competive issue is completely different subject.  A small market team can maintain a smaller payroll and be profitable, but they'll never be able to sign any superstars and their chance of winning is very slim.  How can you ever build a fan base?  Who would want to own such a team?      


I find it ridiculous people are still saying the owners are not losing money.  If their business was profitable why would they want to shut it down?  There is no further proof needed than that.  

The bottom line is the NBA is not as popular as the NFL, and it's not even close.  The big dollar contracts in the NBA didn't start coming until the late 90's and it's starting to prove pretty quickly the league can't sustain those; unlike the NFL and even MLB.

[Q_FBE]

There is no labor peace on the NBA front. I think this one is on the owners more than the players due to the "have" owners vs the "have not" owners. I have read the accounts where Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cavaliers, became the mouth piece for the owners side. This probably made Dave Stern ill knowing full well he would get his "have not" coalition together and torpedo the season as part of his get even package at Lebron James. I now do not expect there to be an NBA season and I believe that 6 teams will fold, including the Cavaliers.

We'll talk again soon.

Regards Q

[TheReaLPuba]

There is no labor peace on the NBA front. I think this one is on the owners more than the players due to the "have" owners vs the "have not" owners. I have read the accounts where Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cavaliers, became the mouth piece for the owners side. This probably made Dave Stern ill knowing full well he would get his "have not" coalition together and torpedo the season as part of his get even package at Lebron James. I now do not expect there to be an NBA season and I believe that 6 teams will fold, including the Cavaliers.

We'll talk again soon.

Regards Q

Maybe the contraction of several NBA teams is what the league needs.

If there are so many teams really losing money then it's healthier for the league if they just fold.

[hpantazo]

I do not agree with Holt and some of the other small market owners...you just cannot expect to be competitive AND earn a profit.

In most cases you can't have one of those 2.

Well, that's the owners' entire point.  They want a system where they can have both, and it's an achievable goal.  However, to have it, the system needs to change.

The systems should reward those who's teams are good, not punish them.


What happens if suddenly the Celtics had the choice of winning or making money? 

Do we even want the Celtics to have to face that question?

This is why I agree in some way with the owners that the system needs changing. The celtics are a big market team, and can overpay if they want to, but still can't attract any big name free agents because they all run to LA and Miami. What big name FA have the C's ever signed? Sure they signed a few over the hill guys like Sheed, but I'm talking about top tier free agents in their prime. A fair system where teams like LA can't sign every available all-star in their prime would be totally fair in my book, and help out the celtics in the long term, even if we are a big market team.