PDA

View Full Version : Nets lost $144 million this past season. $131 million more than any other NBA team!



jimm120
06-30-2014, 08:32 PM
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/30/report-nets-lost-144-million-this-past-season-even-prokhorov-seems-to-care/

The basketball side of the Netsí business is projected to have lost $144 million over the 2013-14 season, according to a confidential memo the league sent to all 30 teams in early June. (Grantland has reviewed and verified the memo with a half-dozen sources.) If that strikes you as out of whack, thatís because it is.

The NBA expects nine teams will end up having lost money once luxury-tax distribution and revenue-sharing payments are finalized. The Nets, with that monster $144 million figure, are the biggest losers. Next in line? The Wizards, with projected losses of about $13 million. Thatís right: The Nets lost $131 million more than any other NBA team last season. This is what happens when you pay $90 million in luxury tax for an aging roster and play in a market so large you are ineligible to receive any revenue-sharing help.


The other "losers" that ended up losing money were 8 other teams and those teams lost only around 13 million and down.

That is a whooping amount. Plus, they're gonna lose the things they got last season (Garnett and Pierce) AND will still not have draft picks!

jimm120
06-30-2014, 08:34 PM
And btw, these kind of losses remind me of the Knicks circa 2002-2009. SPending a TON on the team, but paying around $150 million a year to put out that losing roster.

bucketss
06-30-2014, 08:37 PM
no wonder that russian owner wants to sell now.

Lakers + Giants
06-30-2014, 08:44 PM
I think the Lakers made 100 mill, despite that being our worst season ever lmao. And we don't get any of the revenue share since the Lakers are in in LA.

CaptainROFL
06-30-2014, 09:42 PM
Where is domefavors lol. Looks like the owner doesn't want to spend that much and is looking to sell and jason kids was like, okay this team is gonna suck when management finally decides the plug the hole which is the entire nets roster

IversonIsKrazy
06-30-2014, 09:43 PM
holy ****.

Tony_Starks
06-30-2014, 09:47 PM
Meanwhile Lakers made the largest profit despite paying out the largest portion of revenue sharing.

Yep.

omdigga
06-30-2014, 09:47 PM
the blueprint to success....

jerellh528
06-30-2014, 09:49 PM
Meanwhile Lakers made the largest profit despite paying out the largest portion of revenue sharing.

Yep.

You saw that too? They made over 100 million profit and pay the most towards sharing but yet still people hope they stay irrelevant. The lakers are good for the league.

FriedTofuz
06-30-2014, 09:51 PM
Do me Favors be like : nets are championship contenders, so it's alright.

ChitownSports16
06-30-2014, 09:53 PM
Not one but two Poor runed franchises in NY and Nj.

Sactown
06-30-2014, 10:09 PM
You saw that too? They made over 100 million profit and pay the most towards sharing but yet still people hope they stay irrelevant. The lakers are good for the league.
I believe most of that stems from their TV deal... Had nothing to do with how they performed this season... Tickets hardly put a dent in revenue ... So between sponsors and TV the lakers are set and they will stay that way.. Same with the Knicks...

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-30-2014, 10:11 PM
I think the Lakers made 100 mill, despite that being our worst season ever lmao. And we don't get any of the revenue share since the Lakers are in in LA.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/grantland-exclusive-the-jason-kidd-mess-has-a-144-million-pricetag/

Yeah, the article says that the Lakers and Knicks are disqualified from ever being able to benefit from revenue sharing due to having such a large market but doesn't say anything about the Clippers or Nets being disqualified even though they are in the same market. Kinda bogus if you ask me.

If a guy was to buy the Lakers, he would have to pay way more than any other owner of any team, he would not be able to ever receive money like other teams do even if he is under the cap, he has the biggest obligation to provide welfare to the rest of the league, he cant use his resources to be able to sign anyone due to the cap, and he will have other owners, coaches, and players b1tching when he makes a smart move, and a commissioner bending to that b1thching to veto moves.

If I was a billionaire, I would buy the Cavs and just sit back and collect checks, cry about other teams making smart moves, and wait for the league to rig the lottery for me to get 3 number 1 picks in 4 years. Oops, Gilbert has already mastered that and he wont be giving up that gravy train.

numba1CHANGsta
06-30-2014, 10:15 PM
They need to clean house

Sactown
06-30-2014, 10:17 PM
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/grantland-exclusive-the-jason-kidd-mess-has-a-144-million-pricetag/

Yeah, the article says that the Lakers and Knicks are disqualified from ever being able to benefit from revenue sharing due to having such a large market but doesn't say anything about the Clippers or Nets being disqualified even though they are in the same market. Kinda bogus if you ask me.

If a guy was to buy the Lakers, he would have to pay way more than any other owner of any team, he would not be able to ever receive money like other teams do even if he is under the cap, he has the biggest obligation to provide welfare to the rest of the league, he cant use his resources to be able to sign anyone due to the cap, and he will have other owners, coaches, and players b1tching when he makes a smart move, and a commissioner bending to that b1thching to veto moves.

If I was a billionaire, I would buy the Cavs and just sit back and collect checks, cry about other teams making smart moves, and wait for the league to rig the lottery for me to get 3 number 1 picks in 4 years. Oops, Gilbert has already mastered that and he wont be giving up that gravy train.
Knicks and Lakers make billions more in TV deals and sponsors ... They are a brand the Nets and Clippers are not and do not get the luxury of those TV deals ... That's why

Cracka2HI!
06-30-2014, 10:26 PM
I don't care how much money that Russian owner has, this can't be a good way to run a business. Despite making the playoffs and advancing the Nets are clearly in the worst situation in the league. By at least $130 per season apparently.

MrfadeawayJB
06-30-2014, 10:43 PM
That's loose change to prokorov

smood999
06-30-2014, 10:46 PM
And btw, these kind of losses remind me of the Knicks circa 2002-2009. SPending a TON on the team, but paying around $150 million a year to put out that losing roster.

But I doubt the Knicks ended up losing money...they are the most valuable NBA team according to Forbes and it's been between them and the Lakers most yrs. The Knicks can spend and still be fine...just like this season. The Nets don't hold that type of value.

Mr.B
06-30-2014, 10:48 PM
I saw this the day they gave Joe Johnson all that money.

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-30-2014, 10:52 PM
Knicks and Lakers make billions more in TV deals and sponsors ... They are a brand the Nets and Clippers are not and do not get the luxury of those TV deals ... That's why

The Clippers and Nets have had all the opportunities to put good products on the floor to reap the same benefits the Lakers have. Why punish a team for having a successful business plan?

And wouldn't you agree, if a person is to pay about $2 billion more for one team than another owner paid for his, shouldn't the person paying $2 billion more get the same breaks if not more?

Its like buying the same exact house in California that you could in Wyoming for $500,000 grand more. When you pay more, you expect to reap the benefits of a better scenery, better weather, better food, better looking women, better schools. It would be un American to make the Californian pay more without the benefits. That is what is happening

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-30-2014, 10:55 PM
But I doubt the Knicks ended up losing money...they are the most valuable NBA team according to Forbes and it's been between them and the Lakers most yrs. The Knicks can spend and still be fine...just like this season. The Nets don't hold that type of value.

I wouldn't put much stock in what Forbes says. They valued the Clippers at about $575,000....

HYFR
06-30-2014, 11:13 PM
But I doubt the Knicks ended up losing money...they are the most valuable NBA team according to Forbes and it's been between them and the Lakers most yrs. The Knicks can spend and still be fine...just like this season. The Nets don't hold that type of value.

I wouldn't put much stock in what Forbes says. They valued the Clippers at about $575,000....

The clipper sale was an extreme outlier due to the sterling drama. The clippers real value would be close to what Forbes listed under normal circumstances

elledaddy
06-30-2014, 11:15 PM
I wouldn't put much stock in what Forbes says. They valued the Clippers at about $575,000....


most would put more stock in forbes than you saying you wouldnt put much stock in forbes.



And PS. LAC was valued at 575 million not 575 thousand, you trippin bruh. You take a L for that one.

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-30-2014, 11:24 PM
The clipper sale was an extreme outlier due to the sterling drama. The clippers real value would be close to what Forbes listed under normal circumstances

A teams value is what someone is willing to pay for it. Market dictates value. I see the Mona Lisa as an average painting of an average looking woman. I would pay maybe $50 bucks for it. But the free market values that painting at $100 million as of December 1962. Taking inflation into consideration the painting is valued at $780 million.

And how does the Clippers having a racist owner make the value go up? Business sense would say that the person forced to sell or have his team taken away would be on the short end of the leverage spectrum. I wonder if the Buss family is going to burn crosses on their front yards to make the Lakers value jump up to $6 billion

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-30-2014, 11:27 PM
most would put more stock in forbes than you saying you wouldnt put much stock in forbes.



And PS. LAC was valued at 575 million not 575 thousand, you trippin bruh. You take a L for that one.

So you're one of those guys that believes everything he reads huh? Good to know.

And the ...... signify the extra zero's. Wow, you really do believe everything you read. For a second you thought I meant $500 thousand and you thought that you had to correct me. haha, good lookin out bruh

Aust
06-30-2014, 11:34 PM
:laugh:

Westbrook36
06-30-2014, 11:52 PM
Billy King is a complete moron, amazed this guy still has a job after his AWFUL performance with the 76ers.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
07-01-2014, 12:30 AM
I saw this the day they gave Joe Johnson all that money.

Lol that was hawks

SILVER SEAVER
07-01-2014, 01:47 AM
A stubborn Russian billionaire who thinks he can just pick up albatross contracts, overpay for inconsistent players and expects results over night with a rookie head coach. Can't imagine why you're in the red.

SILVER SEAVER
07-01-2014, 01:50 AM
Lol that was hawks

What's stupider....the idiot who signs an inconsistent player to an albatross contract or the idiot who trades for it and let's them off the hook? That Joe Johnson contract has to be one of the worst if not thee worst handed out in my lifetime. A'mare's might be a close second.

colinskik
07-01-2014, 02:03 AM
So you're one of those guys that believes everything he reads huh? Good to know.

And the ...... signify the extra zero's. Wow, you really do believe everything you read. For a second you thought I meant $500 thousand and you thought that you had to correct me. haha, good lookin out bruh

So why wouldn't you just type the three zeros instead of the four ellipses? Not buying it.

DODGERS&LAKERS
07-01-2014, 02:09 AM
So why wouldn't you just type the three zeros instead of the four ellipses? Not buying it.

So you think that I think they valued the Clippers at $500 grand? Is that what your getting at?

dcenate05050
07-01-2014, 02:10 AM
blame kidd

SILVER SEAVER
07-01-2014, 02:16 AM
blame kidd

For what? Spilling his drink?

colinskik
07-01-2014, 02:18 AM
So you think that I think they valued the Clippers at $500 grand? Is that what your getting at?

I don't really know what you're thinking, nor do I care to be perfectly honest. Your explanation just seems lame, and on top of it you attempt to insult the guy. :eyebrow:

But really, three "0" as opposed to four "." Why?

DODGERS&LAKERS
07-01-2014, 03:07 AM
I don't really know what you're thinking, nor do I care to be perfectly honest. Your explanation just seems lame, and on top of it you attempt to insult the guy. :eyebrow:

But really, three "0" as opposed to four "." Why?
First, if you don't really care what I think, why respond to me? And then go on to ask me "why" I would use .... instead of ,000.

Second, I didn't attempt to insult him. I responded with the same snarkiness he unsolicidly engaged me with because I simply stated that Forbes is not the end all be all when it comes to accessing a teams worth. They were wrong on the Bucks, they were wrong on the Clippers, they were wrong on the Dodgers000000. (Yes, those zeros should be .... but now I just feel like f#$cking with you since for some reason it gets you and that other bruh all hot and bothered.

Lastly, the other guy knew what I meant, you know what I meant, And even the guy who gripped about it knew what I meant. Crying about it is equivalent to being the grammar patrol, and on a board dedicated to sports I don't have time for that.



So......just keep it movin. *Moving. I usually leave the "g" out but I don't want to have to respond to another post to explain that I actually do know how moving is spelled.

curtcocaine
07-01-2014, 03:43 AM
Lol

HYFR
07-01-2014, 04:23 AM
I don't really know what you're thinking, nor do I care to be perfectly honest. Your explanation just seems lame, and on top of it you attempt to insult the guy. :eyebrow:

But really, three "0" as opposed to four "." Why?
First, if you don't really care what I think, why respond to me? And then go on to ask me "why" I would use .... instead of ,000.

Second, I didn't attempt to insult him. I responded with the same snarkiness he unsolicidly engaged me with because I simply stated that Forbes is not the end all be all when it comes to accessing a teams worth. They were wrong on the Bucks, they were wrong on the Clippers, they were wrong on the Dodgers000000. (Yes, those zeros should be .... but now I just feel like f#$cking with you since for some reason it gets you and that other bruh all hot and bothered.

Lastly, the other guy knew what I meant, you know what I meant, And even the guy who gripped about it knew what I meant. Crying about it is equivalent to being the grammar patrol, and on a board dedicated to sports I don't have time for that.



So......just keep it movin. *Moving. I usually leave the "g" out but I don't want to have to respond to another post to explain that I actually do know how moving is spelled.

If you believe that the sterling drama had no effect on the inflated price of the clippers then IMO u are mistaken.

CityofTreez
07-01-2014, 04:34 AM
I wouldn't put much stock in what Forbes says. They valued the Clippers at about $575,000....

Where's the new Forbes magazine?

DitchDat
07-01-2014, 06:18 AM
Hiring Kidd was such a mistake. That's like giving a 16-y.o. a Maserati. That team needed someone with experience. And a bit more luck in the injury department. They gambled, they lost.

Sssmush
07-01-2014, 07:07 AM
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/grantland-exclusive-the-jason-kidd-mess-has-a-144-million-pricetag/

Yeah, the article says that the Lakers and Knicks are disqualified from ever being able to benefit from revenue sharing due to having such a large market but doesn't say anything about the Clippers or Nets being disqualified even though they are in the same market. Kinda bogus if you ask me.

If a guy was to buy the Lakers, he would have to pay way more than any other owner of any team, he would not be able to ever receive money like other teams do even if he is under the cap, he has the biggest obligation to provide welfare to the rest of the league, he cant use his resources to be able to sign anyone due to the cap, and he will have other owners, coaches, and players b1tching when he makes a smart move, and a commissioner bending to that b1thching to veto moves.

If I was a billionaire, I would buy the Cavs and just sit back and collect checks, cry about other teams making smart moves, and wait for the league to rig the lottery for me to get 3 number 1 picks in 4 years. Oops, Gilbert has already mastered that and he wont be giving up that gravy train.

word, word, and WORD!

Sssmush
07-01-2014, 07:09 AM
Nets FAIL

astonmartin10
07-01-2014, 07:14 AM
Lol that's a lot of money. I would understand losing that much money and winning but when your team well under performed and will continue you have to cut your losses and clean house.

2002-2009 New York Knicks Ver. 2.0

Vinylman
07-01-2014, 09:00 AM
meh...

most teams arena deals (ie profits) are wrapped into the TEAM profits... the Nets aren't... this "loss" is overstated in terms of the total business related to the Nets...

In addition, the losses will continue to shrink as the payroll does... most of this was related to the ridiculous LT they have to pay

imagesrdecievin
07-01-2014, 02:57 PM
Proky isn't looking to sell. He is waaaaay ahead of the game if you look at what he paid for his stake and what the team is estimated to be worth right now.

If I had cash I'd be doing it the same way. It takes time (and boatloads of cash) to build a brand. Don't be mistaken - that is exactly what he is trying to do - capitalize on the popularity of the Brooklyn move by winning as many games as his luxury tax dollars allows him to.

Rome wasn't built in a day. But if he continues to pump money into this venture the Brooklyn Nets will be much better off than the Clippers*.

When Proky says his goal is to turn Knicks fans into Nets fans he is talking about the children. 10 years from now I expect a much different perception of the Nets. They will not be considered 2nd class citizens in NY.

*I am referring to the cheapskate way Sterling has run the Clippers for years.

Sly Guy
07-01-2014, 03:35 PM
lol, the russian prince who thinks he can buy the world is afraid of a meager $144 million? I'm so very disappointed. What a pleb.

Sssmush
07-01-2014, 05:57 PM
Proky isn't looking to sell. He is waaaaay ahead of the game if you look at what he paid for his stake and what the team is estimated to be worth right now.

If I had cash I'd be doing it the same way. It takes time (and boatloads of cash) to build a brand. Don't be mistaken - that is exactly what he is trying to do - capitalize on the popularity of the Brooklyn move by winning as many games as his luxury tax dollars allows him to.

Rome wasn't built in a day. But if he continues to pump money into this venture the Brooklyn Nets will be much better off than the Clippers*.

When Proky says his goal is to turn Knicks fans into Nets fans he is talking about the children. 10 years from now I expect a much different perception of the Nets. They will not be considered 2nd class citizens in NY.

*I am referring to the cheapskate way Sterling has run the Clippers for years.

uh, yeah. The Nets are a freakin' national treasure. You could probably just set up a booth for people to come in and look at Paul Pierce and you could make back the entire $144M. that guys like the freakin Mona lisa

Sssmush
07-01-2014, 06:01 PM
lol, the russian prince who thinks he can buy the world is afraid of a meager $144 million? I'm so very disappointed. What a pleb.

what? that is like one bottle of vodka at the club in the Hamptons or whatever. I heard some austro-hungarian prince snorted that much coke out of a supermodel's butthole in like two hours yo

Sssmush
07-01-2014, 06:03 PM
that's the net loss, correct?

Miltstar
07-01-2014, 06:47 PM
no wonder the refs were pulling so hard for them to beat Toronto!

JEDean89
07-01-2014, 07:07 PM
lol, i still wonder who the nets fans are... did anyone actually expect the nets to do anything this year?