PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Generation Owners



JEDean89
11-14-2014, 07:28 PM
I got to say if there is one sign that your franchise is headed down the dump it is if it has been passed on to the owners son. James Dolan, Josh Kroenke, Jimmy Buss, these guys all have a few things in common.

1) They all did absolutely nothing with their lives other than inehrit their parents team.
2) Are way, way, way too involved with day to day basketball operations despite not having hardly any credibility.
3) Their franchises account for 3 of the 4 worst in the league.

It is scary that the league will only be seeing more of these 2nd generation owners. My guess is the high turnover rate of owners will cease here soon, and that this will be a problem for years to come. Maybe I am just overreacting since my 2 favorite teams are run by entitled manchildren, but hey, I don't know if I can survive Dolan 2.0.

Bruno
11-14-2014, 07:50 PM
as bad as it is, at least these teams are still owned by individuals. hear me out.

there will be a time in a few decades when every NBA team is owned by a faceless conglomerate. it will be the only sustainable method of ownership in a world where NBA teams have skyrocketed in value in the multi-billions. these guys are exactly as you've described them to be, but I'll take a family business over a faceless conglomerate anyday. it's just more personal.

there aren't a lot of individuals out there who can spend 2-5 billion dollars on an NBA team.

beasted86
11-14-2014, 08:02 PM
I got to say if there is one sign that your franchise is headed down the dump it is if it has been passed on to the owners son. James Dolan, Josh Kroenke, Jimmy Buss, these guys all have a few things in common.

1) They all did absolutely nothing with their lives other than inehrit their parents team.
2) Are way, way, way too involved with day to day basketball operations despite not having hardly any credibility.
3) Their franchises account for 3 of the 4 worst in the league.

It is scary that the league will only be seeing more of these 2nd generation owners. My guess is the high turnover rate of owners will cease here soon, and that this will be a problem for years to come. Maybe I am just overreacting since my 2 favorite teams are run by entitled manchildren, but hey, I don't know if I can survive Dolan 2.0.

Overreaction. Ted Arison to Micky Arison was the best move for the Miami HEAT franchise.

Quinnsanity
11-15-2014, 12:03 AM
as bad as it is, at least these teams are still owned by individuals. hear me out.

there will be a time in a few decades when every NBA team is owned by a faceless conglomerate. it will be the only sustainable method of ownership in a world where NBA teams have skyrocketed in value in the multi-billions. these guys are exactly as you've described them to be, but I'll take a family business over a faceless conglomerate anyday. it's just more personal.

there aren't a lot of individuals out there who can spend 2-5 billion dollars on an NBA team.

I doubt this on several levels. First, franchise valuation booms come in waves. We just hit a peak. With the new TV deal squared away, we know what teams are going to be worth for the next decade or so, and honestly I'd expect the marginal increases to get smaller with time, as NBA teams were fairly undervalued for most of the league's history and now that has been corrected. Second, very few NBA teams are actually owned entirely by individuals, especially teams with new owners. The usual case is that there is a principal who puts up a good chunk of the money along with a group of minority owners and some bank loans (as professional sports teams are assured a certain and public amount of revenue, banks will always be willing to lend out money for their purchase). So typically, it's not one man putting up those billions, but rather owning somewhere in the 50-70% range while only paying less than that up front out of his own pocket. There are exceptions, most notably the Buss family which purchased 100% of the Lakers several decades ago and has never sought minority partnership (though it is now technically owned by a trust operated by the six siblings), but it is fairly rare that one person puts up all of the cash.

Corporations also aren't really interested in buying professional sports teams because it creates several conflicts of interest, conflicts the leagues aren't all that interested in either. CBS used to own the Yankees and Disney used to own the Angels. How do you think that would work when the time came to negotiate television contracts? How could the other owners trust either to act in good faith. Or, let's say Apple bought a team. They would lobby heavily not to allow Microsoft to advertise during games, eliminating a revenue stream. There's even the potential that a team could circumvent the salary cap by paying a player almost nothing in basketball income but then giving him an overpriced advertising deal, and as he would technically be an employee of that same organization I don't know how much legal footing the other teams would have against that. I could list dozens of issues similar to these. It puts the other owners in really difficult positions and sets the corporations up for both legal and PR issues. There are other issues (most notably, the potential downside to roster building, as economics tend to favor losing while PR favors winning), but this is the biggest. Both the leagues and the corporations want to steer clear of these scenarios. Look at who owns NBA teams. Most of the older owners made their fortune in real estate, a largely faceless venture. Most of the new owners come from Wall Street and hedge fund backgrounds, again, largely faceless. There certainly are owners who come from production-driven backgrounds, we have two (Ballmer and Allen) from Microsoft, for instance, but generally there are strings attached. Neither Ballmer nor Allen are active in Microsoft management anymore. In other cases, the league simply doesn't view the owner's other businesses as occupying an important enough segment of the market to care (think the Arisons, as there isn't much Cruise-line advertising in the NBA, or Dan Gilbert with Fathead, who largely owns the entire market share for that product). It is exceedingly rare that the sitting CEO of a major corporation with a noted public image buys a professional sports team. This is why.

Finally, NBA teams would lose a TON of value if they were owned by corporations instead of people. Remember, most major corporations are publicly traded, and therefore they must disclose their revenue and overall finances. NBA teams are NOT publicly traded, and therefore are allowed to keep their books closed. In doing so, they improve their bargaining position with the players and depress salaries. If NBA teams became subsidiaries of publicly traded corporations, they would then technically be publicly traded. They'd likely have to open their books, and therefore increase operating costs when it comes to labor.

There are some other factors, but these are the biggest. The NBA will never be primarily owned by corporations. It just doesn't make sense for any of the parties involved.

Bruno
11-15-2014, 06:35 PM
I doubt this on several levels. First, franchise valuation booms come in waves. We just hit a peak. With the new TV deal squared away, we know what teams are going to be worth for the next decade or so, and honestly I'd expect the marginal increases to get smaller with time, as NBA teams were fairly undervalued for most of the league's history and now that has been corrected.
Right, the current TV deal runs for 9 years. I was referencing a scenario in a two or three decades, when were a second, maybe a third TV deal further down the road then we are today. With the possibilities of increased revenue and profits, I think it's possible for NBA franchises to be worth 2-5 billion dollars a piece. I think thats conservative considering the fact that the Clippers just sold for 2B, but those were spectacular circumstances.

As far as marginal increases and trying to get down to the dollar with true predictions for the future, I think it would take a lot of math and a lot of speculation that neither of us are willing to do. we don't know what teams will be worth in the 2030's and early 2040's.

I read the rest of your post but don't have time to respond right now. i will though, nice post.