PDA

View Full Version : If the NBA is seriously thinking about expansion



Tg11
10-22-2017, 01:40 PM
If the NBA is seriously thinking about expansion in the next few years and perhaps expanding to make it a 32 team league...32 teams instead of 30 then which 2 cities could I see getting NBA teams realistically?

If NBA is serious about it they have to go to a big market which means Vegas

Vegas have an NHL team now with the Golden Knights joining the NHL and the Raiders are moving to Vegas from Oakland so they can definitely support an NBA team especially in that market

And the second city that I can see getting an NBA team would be:

Seattle and why? Because not only do they have a rich history ingrained in the NBA but they more than have the means and the infrastructure

Heediot
10-22-2017, 01:44 PM
lol how many times u going to make an expansion thread?

Raps08-09 Champ
10-22-2017, 02:40 PM
I think we have this thread every other week.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-23-2017, 12:19 PM
Did Seattle build a new arena yet?

lakerfan85
10-23-2017, 12:31 PM
They need to contract instead of expanding..

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-23-2017, 12:31 PM
They need to contract instead of expanding..

Players union wouldn't allow that. Be less of a chance to get into the league. Also NBA would lose money cause the teams getting contracted would need buyouts of like $2B each.

Vinylman
10-23-2017, 12:37 PM
Players union wouldn't allow that. Be less of a chance to get into the league. Also NBA would lose money cause the teams getting contracted would need buyouts of like $2B each.

yeah... because the **** teams are definitely worth that much LOL

Vinylman
10-23-2017, 12:40 PM
The talk about expansion is just to appease the **** team owners who aren't making any money so they can collect a franchise fee which doesn't have to be shared with the players...

the last thing the league needs is two more **** teams.

lakerfan85
10-23-2017, 12:41 PM
Players union wouldn't allow that. Be less of a chance to get into the league. Also NBA would lose money cause the teams getting contracted would need buyouts of like $2B each.

2 Billion? Where did you get that number from?

warfelg
10-23-2017, 12:48 PM
yeah... because the **** teams are definitely worth that much LOL

They'll say "earnings potential" is what would be lost and really have a great case.

Vinylman
10-23-2017, 12:49 PM
They'll say "earnings potential" is what would be lost and really have a great case.

Who? Memphis?

Get real

effen5
10-23-2017, 12:58 PM
They need to contract instead of expanding..

Contract the eastern conference.

warfelg
10-23-2017, 12:59 PM
Who? Memphis?

Get real

That is real. There's only 30 NBA teams in a multi-billion dollar industry. Any owner could easily argue long term earnings potential means a contraction buyout would have to be a really high number to begin with. And that's an easy argument to make.

Most owners of contracted franchises in the past, or in smaller leagues, get the value of the average team in the league PLUS a % of revenue over a period of time.

I could easily see a contraction of a team costing the NBA $750mil-$1bil up front, plus another $500mil-$1bil over the next 10-15 years in revenue.

As someone who's been part of a business that had part of it bought out I can tell you it's really expensive to buy out like that.

Vinylman
10-23-2017, 01:19 PM
That is real. There's only 30 NBA teams in a multi-billion dollar industry. Any owner could easily argue long term earnings potential means a contraction buyout would have to be a really high number to begin with. And that's an easy argument to make.

Most owners of contracted franchises in the past, or in smaller leagues, get the value of the average team in the league PLUS a % of revenue over a period of time.

I could easily see a contraction of a team costing the NBA $750mil-$1bil up front, plus another $500mil-$1bil over the next 10-15 years in revenue.

As someone who's been part of a business that had part of it bought out I can tell you it's really expensive to buy out like that.

Dude ... lets use your numbers ... you just knocked the NPV down to less than $1.2 Billion...

I have run an M&A group for a $2 billion company and I can appreciate different valuation models but my point was simple... there is no way the buy out would be based on what a top 5 team is worth...

something in the middle like $1.2 billion would with a NPV of $1 billion is more reasonable.

Valuations are high right now ... the question is the repeatability of the national TV deals next go around... will they go down? to early to tell but I would argue we are seeing a peak right now (see nfl) and the downside risk is much greater than the upside potential....

I am not even certain how the owners would finance such a buyout since the vast majority aren't rolling in cash...

It is all moot anyway since there is no way contraction will occur.

warfelg
10-23-2017, 01:35 PM
Dude ... lets use your numbers ... you just knocked the NPV down to less than $1.2 Billion...

I have run an M&A group for a $2 billion company and I can appreciate different valuation models but my point was simple... there is no way the buy out would be based on what a top 5 team is worth...

something in the middle like $1.2 billion would with a NPV of $1 billion is more reasonable.

Valuations are high right now ... the question is the repeatability of the national TV deals next go around... will they go down? to early to tell but I would argue we are seeing a peak right now (see nfl) and the downside risk is much greater than the upside potential....

I am not even certain how the owners would finance such a buyout since the vast majority aren't rolling in cash...

It is all moot anyway since there is no way contraction will occur.

You realize you basically agreed with me right?

I basically gave up the upfront number of being smaller. What would kill a contraction buyout is the owners wanting for lost income over X years. That's what would hurt the NBA more than anything.

I can tell you if I was an owner even if they gave me average value, I would want at least a 1/60th (1/2 of what you were getting) in revenue share over the fact that you are taking away my team and I'm not choosing to give it up. That's the part that would make a contraction not worth it.

And I agree it won't happen. Expansion is more likely, but I think we're about 15-20 years away from that.

Seattle needs a team, and I think we got 2 options:
~The Griz if they keep struggling to attract in Memphis
~The Pelicans if the Benson family inheritance is as messed up as they say

Vinylman
10-23-2017, 02:05 PM
You realize you basically agreed with me right?

I basically gave up the upfront number of being smaller. What would kill a contraction buyout is the owners wanting for lost income over X years. That's what would hurt the NBA more than anything.

I can tell you if I was an owner even if they gave me average value, I would want at least a 1/60th (1/2 of what you were getting) in revenue share over the fact that you are taking away my team and I'm not choosing to give it up. That's the part that would make a contraction not worth it.

And I agree it won't happen. Expansion is more likely, but I think we're about 15-20 years away from that.

Seattle needs a team, and I think we got 2 options:
~The Griz if they keep struggling to attract in Memphis
~The Pelicans if the Benson family inheritance is as messed up as they say

I agree with your revised number... not the $2 billion... and I never look at payouts over time at the gross value.

I think we both agree that it won't happen... relocation is probably smart but the poor owners are looking for expansion so they can cash in on the fee... personally, if I was an owner of a marginal franchise I would be putting the team up for sale ... the recent increase in values makes sense to sell now as further upside is severely limited.

warfelg
10-23-2017, 02:26 PM
I agree with your revised number... not the $2 billion... and I never look at payouts over time at the gross value.

I think we both agree that it won't happen... relocation is probably smart but the poor owners are looking for expansion so they can cash in on the fee... personally, if I was an owner of a marginal franchise I would be putting the team up for sale ... the recent increase in values makes sense to sell now as further upside is severely limited.

Oh yea.

If I owned a struggling small market team I would call every rich *** in Seattle/Washington and saying "get a group, submit a bid, be the hero Seattle wants" and see what I can get.

And I think they just aren't looking at the expansion fee, I think some (especially small market owners) would push for cap reform as part of this in order to either (1) increase player movement or (2) reduce star player movement.

Some of the hot spots will be listed with LV, Seattle. Dark Horses could be San Diego, Virginia Beach, Buffalo.

I think I would like to see Seattle, San Diego (I would wait on Vegas as NFL and NHL are going to run that town for a while). Shift New Orleans to the east.

NBA model:
2 conferences, 16 teams per conference, 4 divisions, 4 teams per division.
EAST:
~Gulf Coast= NO, Orlando, Miami, Atlanta
~Rust Belt= Indy, Toronto, Washington, Charlotte
~Metro Belt= Knicks, Nets, Philly, Boston
~Great Lakes= Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit

WEST:
~Red River= San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, OKC
~Big Sky= Memphis, Denver, Utah, Minnesota
~Baja Trail= Lakers, Clippers, San Diego (expansion), Phoenix
~Cascade Range= Golden State, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle

Big Sky, followed by Rust belt are geographically the biggest divisions. Other than that you got a max 3.5 hour flight for an in division game.

Love to see them take an NHL approach to the all star game. 5v5 tournament via teams in division. 2 7min halves. Have dunk teams/dance teams/in arena personalities perform between games/halves.

Could do the playoffs like they do in the NHL but rather them keep the same format so if 3 teams from 1 division make it then 3 teams make it.

Vinylman
10-24-2017, 07:42 AM
Oh yea.

If I owned a struggling small market team I would call every rich *** in Seattle/Washington and saying "get a group, submit a bid, be the hero Seattle wants" and see what I can get.

And I think they just aren't looking at the expansion fee, I think some (especially small market owners) would push for cap reform as part of this in order to either (1) increase player movement or (2) reduce star player movement.

Some of the hot spots will be listed with LV, Seattle. Dark Horses could be San Diego, Virginia Beach, Buffalo.

I think I would like to see Seattle, San Diego (I would wait on Vegas as NFL and NHL are going to run that town for a while). Shift New Orleans to the east.

NBA model:
2 conferences, 16 teams per conference, 4 divisions, 4 teams per division.
EAST:
~Gulf Coast= NO, Orlando, Miami, Atlanta
~Rust Belt= Indy, Toronto, Washington, Charlotte
~Metro Belt= Knicks, Nets, Philly, Boston
~Great Lakes= Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit

WEST:
~Red River= San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, OKC
~Big Sky= Memphis, Denver, Utah, Minnesota
~Baja Trail= Lakers, Clippers, San Diego (expansion), Phoenix
~Cascade Range= Golden State, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle

Big Sky, followed by Rust belt are geographically the biggest divisions. Other than that you got a max 3.5 hour flight for an in division game.

Love to see them take an NHL approach to the all star game. 5v5 tournament via teams in division. 2 7min halves. Have dunk teams/dance teams/in arena personalities perform between games/halves.

Could do the playoffs like they do in the NHL but rather them keep the same format so if 3 teams from 1 division make it then 3 teams make it.

I agree with the bolded but the expansion fee has been a big topic at the governors meeting for teams that aren't making any money... it is like an instant $135 million per team if the fee is $2 billion and two teams are added.

I agree that the league needs major changes to increase the competitiveness but I doubt much happens as the super teams are easy to market to the casual fan... As in most major sports these days the hardcore fan is pretty much ignored so the product can be marketed to a wider audience as that revenue model is much greater.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-24-2017, 10:24 AM
2 Billion? Where did you get that number from?

Owners already suggested $2B buy in if they give up a piece of the tv pie.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-24-2017, 10:45 AM
Yeah I shouldn't of said $2B. But supply and demand. Yeah big markets been selling for $2B+. Yeah maybe small market team gets desperate maybe sells for $1.5B. But still if a buy in is $2B a small market team could always hold out for $2B.