View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
scottpot29 Star Player
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 2538 Location: OC
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | So the Lakers think they can beat OKC? Please Fakers have no bench and Durant and Westbrook are better than their whole team. Gonna be funny when Faker fans see their team get bumped in the 2nd. idiots |
|
Sounds like Jeff from Tarzana. _________________ Wow. Luke has gone full (bleep) on us. - DB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002 Posts: 18410 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
gumby wrote: | Turd Ferguson wrote: | 24 wrote: | GoldenThroat wrote: | pjiddy wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I really hate how this league punishes well-run, successful teams. So if you have a bad team, you can rebuild through the draft. But don't rebuild too well! |
How is the league punishing them? |
Massive luxury tax. |
The "big market" only competes is the biggest crock I hear in sports. Miami is one of the worst sports towns in America. OKC isn't a big market, Spurs isnt a big market.
As far as free agents, Chicago had cap space for 10 years and no one wanted to go near there who was anything elite. No one wanted to go to Boston, hell Chris Paul even with Boston being good didn't want to go there. History says the last 20 years, big markets are not the only teams that compete. Utah, SA, Portland, Indiana, Sacramento, OKC, all, in the last 20 years were in the finals or damn near close to winning it all being small markets. In baseball, the royals, pirates, a's cant even get close to having one ounce of a chance of getting to the world series.
If you want to control the players, get rid of free agency. Otherwise, run better franchises and shut up. |
And that's really your answer there.
For all the lockout tried to do for small markets, what did it really do?
Nothing.
(at least nothing to protect failing franchises with amateur ownership/front offices from producing terribly run teams)
Bye. |
Stop believing the BS you're fed.
The lockout had nothing to do with parity and everything to do with money. If it were about an even playing field, you wouldn't see free agency become a situation in which every star will now insist on becoming a FA so that he can get more money (and create a risk of walking), instead of the new CBA making it more lucrative for a player to re-sign with his current team.
Small market teams just wanted the big market teams to give them a lot more money, and they got exactly that. You saw that with the Chris Paul veto when Dan Gilbert complained not because of competitive balance, but because the Lakers would be saving 20 million in lux tax that would directly impact his own bottom dollar. He WANTED the Lakers to have a huge payroll so that he could get a larger kick-back.
That's the reality. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scottpot29 Star Player
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 2538 Location: OC
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
If by assumptions you mean I don't have LA's P&L in front of me, therefore I have to assume some year to year figures based on some concrete stuff, then yes, I am making assumptions.
If you mean i'm making assumptions in the way that people saying "we're going to make 150 million in profit", or your assumption that I'm saying LA is going to go bankrupt, you know, things that fly directly in the face of the evidence, then no, i'm not making those kinds of assumptions.
We know bottom line what LA has been taking in in revenue over the last several years within a fairly close estimate, along with reasonable estimates of profits. We know a reasonable range of what the increased Time Warner revenue will be. We know what LA is going to be shelling out in revenue sharing (as part of the new CBA, separate from tax). We know what LA's salaries are this year and likely to be (within a certain range, barring major deals) next year, and we know the luxury tax implications of that.
Therefore, we can make solid assumptions (again, using the accounting term here, not the "pulled it from my ass" definition) of LA's profitability based on those things.
And yes, there is a significant likelihood that LA is going to operate at a aggregate loss over this season and next. That's not a huge deal, since they have ample access to operating loans and the losses this period will not be permanent (seeing how LA can and likely will get under the luxury tax in 2014, and how their success/ marketing appeal will drive ticket and other revenue sources, and how there is almost certainly an escalator in the TW deal).
Whether or not the Lakers "can afford it" and whether or not it is a loss from the accounting standpoint are two completely separate issues. |
Don't do that 24. I have too much respect for you. Don't take offense to a reply that was not intended for that purpose. You can tell when somebody takes offense when all of the sudden they start throwing out words they wouldn't use in a normal conversation to prove a point. That is beneath you.
Again, bottom line....nobody is going bankrupt. If the Lakers take a loss, which IMO there is no way the Buss family would do that since this is their business and how they make money, then they will make it up in later years. Of course, they may have taken a loss before and I just haven't heard about it, which is completely possible.
The main assumption I was talking about was the contract from Time Warner. It may be front end loaded for all we know. Maybe that is why this all makes sense for the Buss family. I guess I just have faith in the Buss family that they wouldn't do anything that would make them take a loss. I could be wrong though. _________________ Wow. Luke has gone full (bleep) on us. - DB
Last edited by scottpot29 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002 Posts: 18410 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | scottpot29 wrote: | AY2043 wrote: | Wino wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I tell you, if they lose to the Lakers it is going to be very hard for them to justify and afford to pay those guys the big bucks they are going to command. It's NOT like they have Times Warner handing them billions! |
Actually, they are, thanks to whiny small market owners and their revenue sharing... |
No. Lakers give out money, but NOTHING compared to what they get back in from Time Warner. Time Warner and the Lakers have an exclusive deal. It has nothing to do with the rest of the teams. The National contract gives out to every team from ABC, ESPN, TNT. But the local rights, which Time Warner has, is exclusive to each team. Just from Time Warner alone next year, the Lakers look to profit 150 to 170 million.
To give you a comparison, usually in a championship year, the Lakers would profit about 50 million. The Time Warner channel starts this year....good job Lakers.... |
I don't know where people are getting this 150 million in profit figure. Last year, the Lakers made around 225-250 million in revenue (and 100 mil + in gate revenue), including around 30-40 million in local TV. Their new deal is reportedly at around 150 million a year average, but likely isn't paid at a flat rate. It likely starts somewhere between 80-100 million with a bump each year over the life of the contract.
So LA is likely seeing around 65 mil max increase in the TV deal this year. But, they also have to pay around 50 million in revenue sharing off the top (not related to luxury tax), so they are 15 mil ahead. Of course, they're spending around 15 million more in salary, and the same in extra tax, so just based on the TV deal, they are around 15 mil behind last year, and would have to raise seat prices, for example, by 15% just to break even.
Put another way, LA has a projected revenue of likely 300-330 million in revenue. They have 50 mil in revenue sharing, 100 mil in salary, and 30 mil in luxury tax this year. That's 180 million, leaving 120-150 million remaining. But of course they have their stadium costs, operating expenses, executive salaries and such. |
The Time Warner deal is actually 200 million annually and if it was to start smaller and then grow, Time Warner would be paying HUGE annual amounts by year 10. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to do that, as TW would be setting themselves up for a huge hurt/hit down the road.
Can you give a link to where you got this information, because it contradicts a lot of stuff out there and I'd like to take a look at it, please. Thanks so much, 24. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scottpot29 Star Player
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 2538 Location: OC
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
LakerJam wrote: | 24 wrote: | scottpot29 wrote: | AY2043 wrote: | Wino wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I tell you, if they lose to the Lakers it is going to be very hard for them to justify and afford to pay those guys the big bucks they are going to command. It's NOT like they have Times Warner handing them billions! |
Actually, they are, thanks to whiny small market owners and their revenue sharing... |
No. Lakers give out money, but NOTHING compared to what they get back in from Time Warner. Time Warner and the Lakers have an exclusive deal. It has nothing to do with the rest of the teams. The National contract gives out to every team from ABC, ESPN, TNT. But the local rights, which Time Warner has, is exclusive to each team. Just from Time Warner alone next year, the Lakers look to profit 150 to 170 million.
To give you a comparison, usually in a championship year, the Lakers would profit about 50 million. The Time Warner channel starts this year....good job Lakers.... |
I don't know where people are getting this 150 million in profit figure. Last year, the Lakers made around 225-250 million in revenue (and 100 mil + in gate revenue), including around 30-40 million in local TV. Their new deal is reportedly at around 150 million a year average, but likely isn't paid at a flat rate. It likely starts somewhere between 80-100 million with a bump each year over the life of the contract.
So LA is likely seeing around 65 mil max increase in the TV deal this year. But, they also have to pay around 50 million in revenue sharing off the top (not related to luxury tax), so they are 15 mil ahead. Of course, they're spending around 15 million more in salary, and the same in extra tax, so just based on the TV deal, they are around 15 mil behind last year, and would have to raise seat prices, for example, by 15% just to break even.
Put another way, LA has a projected revenue of likely 300-330 million in revenue. They have 50 mil in revenue sharing, 100 mil in salary, and 30 mil in luxury tax this year. That's 180 million, leaving 120-150 million remaining. But of course they have their stadium costs, operating expenses, executive salaries and such. |
The Time Warner deal is actually 200 million annually and if it was to start smaller and then grow, Time Warner would be paying HUGE annual amounts by year 10. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to do that, as TW would be setting themselves up for a huge hurt/hit down the road.
Can you give a link to where you got this information, because it contradicts a lot of stuff out there and I'd like to take a look at it, please. Thanks so much, 24. |
Here is a link from Kevin Ding saying the contract is worth 4 billion over 20 years or 5 billion over 25 years if the option is picked up.
Link _________________ Wow. Luke has gone full (bleep) on us. - DB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gumby Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 2500 Location: Inland Empire
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
LakerJam wrote: | gumby wrote: | Turd Ferguson wrote: | 24 wrote: | GoldenThroat wrote: | pjiddy wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I really hate how this league punishes well-run, successful teams. So if you have a bad team, you can rebuild through the draft. But don't rebuild too well! |
How is the league punishing them? |
Massive luxury tax. |
The "big market" only competes is the biggest crock I hear in sports. Miami is one of the worst sports towns in America. OKC isn't a big market, Spurs isnt a big market.
As far as free agents, Chicago had cap space for 10 years and no one wanted to go near there who was anything elite. No one wanted to go to Boston, hell Chris Paul even with Boston being good didn't want to go there. History says the last 20 years, big markets are not the only teams that compete. Utah, SA, Portland, Indiana, Sacramento, OKC, all, in the last 20 years were in the finals or damn near close to winning it all being small markets. In baseball, the royals, pirates, a's cant even get close to having one ounce of a chance of getting to the world series.
If you want to control the players, get rid of free agency. Otherwise, run better franchises and shut up. |
And that's really your answer there.
For all the lockout tried to do for small markets, what did it really do?
Nothing.
(at least nothing to protect failing franchises with amateur ownership/front offices from producing terribly run teams)
Bye. |
Stop believing the BS you're fed.
The lockout had nothing to do with parity and everything to do with money. If it were about an even playing field, you wouldn't see free agency become a situation in which every star will now insist on becoming a FA so that he can get more money (and create a risk of walking), instead of the new CBA making it more lucrative for a player to re-sign with his current team.
Small market teams just wanted the big market teams to give them a lot more money, and they got exactly that. You saw that with the Chris Paul veto when Dan Gilbert complained not because of competitive balance, but because the Lakers would be saving 20 million in lux tax that would directly impact his own bottom dollar. He WANTED the Lakers to have a huge payroll so that he could get a larger kick-back.
That's the reality. |
I'm not arguing with you about money. It's always been about money, it's not a charity, it's a business. That's the reason we're in this new mess with players still able to force owners hands.
I don't care about parity since the Lakers benefit either way. But if the other owners want to compete short of being in a great market they actually have to be SMART. Smarter than Mitch and smarter than what their market can draw in revenue and FAs. That's why they don't make money or enough of it. Not just simply because of location. They don't field a good team to make profit that regular way, then they ask for a handout instead to maintain instead of looking to make a gain the right way. Easier to put the hand out than work.
Just wish the media would stop trying to fabricate the parity angle and acknowledge lousy ownership for failing franchises. This isn't the NFL model. The new CBA was a bailout of sorts for the crappy teams.
Bye. _________________ "This trophy removes the most odious sentence in the English Language. It can never be said again that 'the Lakers have never beaten the Celtics.'" -Dr. Jerry Buss (1985) R.I.P., 33 x M.V.O. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 Posts: 31935 Location: Manhattan
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
gumby wrote: | Just wish the media would stop trying to fabricate the parity angle and acknowledge lousy ownership for failing franchises.
Bye. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dvdrdiscs Star Player
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 6274
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chronicle wrote: | gumby wrote: | Just wish the media would stop trying to fabricate the parity angle and acknowledge lousy ownership for failing franchises.
Bye. |
|
Counter argument for Lakers only win because they attract big named players due to big market: New York. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
T3R Star Player
Joined: 16 Aug 2012 Posts: 2734 Location: L.A.
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Love this thread.
They mad. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Watson Star Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 Posts: 1337
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
dvdrdiscs wrote: | Chronicle wrote: | gumby wrote: | Just wish the media would stop trying to fabricate the parity angle and acknowledge lousy ownership for failing franchises.
Bye. |
|
Counter argument for Lakers only win because they attract big named players due to big market: New York. |
Don't forget the Los Angeles Clippers and the New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets. The Clippers, Knicks, and Nets have zero titles between them since the NBA/ABA merger. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
LakerJam wrote: | 24 wrote: | scottpot29 wrote: | AY2043 wrote: | Wino wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I tell you, if they lose to the Lakers it is going to be very hard for them to justify and afford to pay those guys the big bucks they are going to command. It's NOT like they have Times Warner handing them billions! |
Actually, they are, thanks to whiny small market owners and their revenue sharing... |
No. Lakers give out money, but NOTHING compared to what they get back in from Time Warner. Time Warner and the Lakers have an exclusive deal. It has nothing to do with the rest of the teams. The National contract gives out to every team from ABC, ESPN, TNT. But the local rights, which Time Warner has, is exclusive to each team. Just from Time Warner alone next year, the Lakers look to profit 150 to 170 million.
To give you a comparison, usually in a championship year, the Lakers would profit about 50 million. The Time Warner channel starts this year....good job Lakers.... |
I don't know where people are getting this 150 million in profit figure. Last year, the Lakers made around 225-250 million in revenue (and 100 mil + in gate revenue), including around 30-40 million in local TV. Their new deal is reportedly at around 150 million a year average, but likely isn't paid at a flat rate. It likely starts somewhere between 80-100 million with a bump each year over the life of the contract.
So LA is likely seeing around 65 mil max increase in the TV deal this year. But, they also have to pay around 50 million in revenue sharing off the top (not related to luxury tax), so they are 15 mil ahead. Of course, they're spending around 15 million more in salary, and the same in extra tax, so just based on the TV deal, they are around 15 mil behind last year, and would have to raise seat prices, for example, by 15% just to break even.
Put another way, LA has a projected revenue of likely 300-330 million in revenue. They have 50 mil in revenue sharing, 100 mil in salary, and 30 mil in luxury tax this year. That's 180 million, leaving 120-150 million remaining. But of course they have their stadium costs, operating expenses, executive salaries and such. |
The Time Warner deal is actually 200 million annually and if it was to start smaller and then grow, Time Warner would be paying HUGE annual amounts by year 10. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to do that, as TW would be setting themselves up for a huge hurt/hit down the road.
Can you give a link to where you got this information, because it contradicts a lot of stuff out there and I'd like to take a look at it, please. Thanks so much, 24. |
I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. BTW, such deals are almost always graduated, just like the national deal is, for a variety of reasons, mostly that inflation/revenue tends to grow, and a fixed income is not preferred.
What is it that you're finding contradictory? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Stuntman Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 673
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | LakerJam wrote: | 24 wrote: | scottpot29 wrote: | AY2043 wrote: | Wino wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | cheetos82 wrote: | OKC fans don't know any better.... For years we've had to deal with Sac, Dallas, Phx fans who were CERTAIN they had the better teams and will only improve upon the previous season. Then they always fall short.... And their chances are gone. They don't know how hard it is to maintain greatness in this league. OKC has never had this kind of success so you'll have to excuse them. It's like never having a girlfriend and falling in love for the first time. Everything seems so perfect and wonderful and optismistic and infinite.... Until that cold hearted (bleep) decides to dump you and go out with a college guy or the captain of the football team. |
The truth is that OKC's window is short, as well. They'll likely have to let Harden or Ibaka walk in summer of 14. Maybe both. |
I tell you, if they lose to the Lakers it is going to be very hard for them to justify and afford to pay those guys the big bucks they are going to command. It's NOT like they have Times Warner handing them billions! |
Actually, they are, thanks to whiny small market owners and their revenue sharing... |
No. Lakers give out money, but NOTHING compared to what they get back in from Time Warner. Time Warner and the Lakers have an exclusive deal. It has nothing to do with the rest of the teams. The National contract gives out to every team from ABC, ESPN, TNT. But the local rights, which Time Warner has, is exclusive to each team. Just from Time Warner alone next year, the Lakers look to profit 150 to 170 million.
To give you a comparison, usually in a championship year, the Lakers would profit about 50 million. The Time Warner channel starts this year....good job Lakers.... |
I don't know where people are getting this 150 million in profit figure. Last year, the Lakers made around 225-250 million in revenue (and 100 mil + in gate revenue), including around 30-40 million in local TV. Their new deal is reportedly at around 150 million a year average, but likely isn't paid at a flat rate. It likely starts somewhere between 80-100 million with a bump each year over the life of the contract.
So LA is likely seeing around 65 mil max increase in the TV deal this year. But, they also have to pay around 50 million in revenue sharing off the top (not related to luxury tax), so they are 15 mil ahead. Of course, they're spending around 15 million more in salary, and the same in extra tax, so just based on the TV deal, they are around 15 mil behind last year, and would have to raise seat prices, for example, by 15% just to break even.
Put another way, LA has a projected revenue of likely 300-330 million in revenue. They have 50 mil in revenue sharing, 100 mil in salary, and 30 mil in luxury tax this year. That's 180 million, leaving 120-150 million remaining. But of course they have their stadium costs, operating expenses, executive salaries and such. |
The Time Warner deal is actually 200 million annually and if it was to start smaller and then grow, Time Warner would be paying HUGE annual amounts by year 10. Doesn't really make a lot of sense to do that, as TW would be setting themselves up for a huge hurt/hit down the road.
Can you give a link to where you got this information, because it contradicts a lot of stuff out there and I'd like to take a look at it, please. Thanks so much, 24. |
I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. BTW, such deals are almost always graduated, just like the national deal is, for a variety of reasons, mostly that inflation/revenue tends to grow, and a fixed income is not preferred.
What is it that you're finding contradictory? |
The Lakers have the biggest BBall fan base in the world and just added two extremely marketable players. How many of us have already put in orders for new jerseys? Some people probably ordered the Home Away & Alternate jerseys for these guys and once the retro & designer jerseys & T's are out they'll buy those too.
Throw in the posters, penants and collectibles and theres alot of revenue. Millions upon millions of dollars that werent there because the team's core was the same as it had been for years. Merchandising money is going to be huge. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Laker Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2002 Posts: 17108
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. |
Mychal Thompson said 5 BN/25 years on the radio yesterday.
KEVIN DING also reports 4BN/20 years with an option to go 5/25.
In context, the Lakers' TV revenue goes from $30 million to $200 million annually, so if they pay $50 million in revenue sharing and $80 million in luxury taxes, they're STILL FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AHEAD (ceteris paribus). _________________ On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 37474
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Laker wrote: | 24 wrote: | I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. |
Mychal Thompson said 5 BN/25 years on the radio yesterday.
KEVIN DING also reports 4BN/20 years with an option to go 5/25.
In context, the Lakers' TV revenue goes from $30 million to $200 million annually, so if they pay $50 million in revenue sharing and $80 million in luxury taxes, they're STILL FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AHEAD (ceteris paribus). |
This deal in and of itself might be the impetus for a real struggle over a hard cap in a few years. I don't think this is what the league had in mind when negotiating the last CBA. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ThreePointBomber Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2010 Posts: 3234 Location: Inland Empire
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Lakers only win championships because Stern wants the Lakers to win a championship. Bobcats would never have a chance to get a Dwight Howard, becuase the Lakers pay off everybody to get the best players. (bleep) this league its so korupt dumb Laker bandwagins i gotta listen 2 now. |
_________________ The most important shot in basketball. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ThreePointBomber Star Player
Joined: 14 May 2010 Posts: 3234 Location: Inland Empire
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Lakers going to win a championship this year? Who the (bleep) is going to guard DWade |
_________________ The most important shot in basketball. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 37474
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers only win championships because Stern wants the Lakers to win a championship. Bobcats would never have a chance to get a Dwight Howard, becuase the Lakers pay off everybody to get the best players. (bleep) this league its so korupt dumb Laker bandwagins i gotta listen 2 now. |
|
korupt bandwagins ftw |
|
Back to top |
|
|
slee01333 Starting Rotation
Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 278
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers going to win a championship this year? Who the (bleep) is going to guard DWade |
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
56 Star Player
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 Posts: 4381 Location: San Diego, CA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers going to win a championship this year? Who the (bleep) is going to guard DWade |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cheetos82 Star Player
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 1010
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DriftNslide wrote: | VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers going to win a championship this year? Who the (bleep) is going to guard DWade |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Laker wrote: | 24 wrote: | I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. |
Mychal Thompson said 5 BN/25 years on the radio yesterday.
KEVIN DING also reports 4BN/20 years with an option to go 5/25.
In context, the Lakers' TV revenue goes from $30 million to $200 million annually, so if they pay $50 million in revenue sharing and $80 million in luxury taxes, they're STILL FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AHEAD (ceteris paribus). |
If that's the true number, then yes, in out years. But a 200 million dollar a year deal won't start there. It will escalate by some figure. And bear in mind, the increased TV deal will also increase the revenue sharing, since it is tied to "profit", which is determined after league average salary commitment and certain costs. So as the TV deal goes up, as much as 30% of the annual increase will go to revenue sharing.
If the deal starts at say, 100 million (65 more than the previous 35), next year it would be around 110 million, or plus 75. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerJam Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Aug 2002 Posts: 18410 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
24 wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | 24 wrote: | I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. |
Mychal Thompson said 5 BN/25 years on the radio yesterday.
KEVIN DING also reports 4BN/20 years with an option to go 5/25.
In context, the Lakers' TV revenue goes from $30 million to $200 million annually, so if they pay $50 million in revenue sharing and $80 million in luxury taxes, they're STILL FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AHEAD (ceteris paribus). |
If that's the true number, then yes, in out years. But a 200 million dollar a year deal won't start there. It will escalate by some figure. And bear in mind, the increased TV deal will also increase the revenue sharing, since it is tied to "profit", which is determined after league average salary commitment and certain costs. So as the TV deal goes up, as much as 30% of the annual increase will go to revenue sharing.
If the deal starts at say, 100 million (65 more than the previous 35), next year it would be around 110 million, or plus 75. |
I'm certainly not privy to the details of the Lakers/TW contract, so I can't speak to what the annual payments will be ... the Lakers and TW are crtainly free to structure their deal however they wish. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
City_Dawg Retired Number
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 46878 Location: Coming soon and striking at your borders.
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers only win championships because Stern wants the Lakers to win a championship. Bobcats would never have a chance to get a Dwight Howard, becuase the Lakers pay off everybody to get the best players. (bleep) this league its so korupt dumb Laker bandwagins i gotta listen 2 now. |
|
This guy does realize Micheal Jordan is his owner, right? _________________ *sighs*
!... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
56 Star Player
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 Posts: 4381 Location: San Diego, CA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
City_Dawg wrote: | VujacicForThree wrote: | Quote: | Lakers only win championships because Stern wants the Lakers to win a championship. Bobcats would never have a chance to get a Dwight Howard, becuase the Lakers pay off everybody to get the best players. (bleep) this league its so korupt dumb Laker bandwagins i gotta listen 2 now. |
|
This guy does realize Micheal Jordan is his owner, right? |
Don't mattur. We too koropt main |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scottpot29 Star Player
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 2538 Location: OC
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
LakerJam wrote: | 24 wrote: | Dr. Laker wrote: | 24 wrote: | I've seen lots of figures for the TW deal. Mostly 3 billion over 20, which in more recent months has grown to 4 billion. I don't know which to believe, so I'm going with the 3 billion number unless I get something concrete, just to err on the conservative side. |
Mychal Thompson said 5 BN/25 years on the radio yesterday.
KEVIN DING also reports 4BN/20 years with an option to go 5/25.
In context, the Lakers' TV revenue goes from $30 million to $200 million annually, so if they pay $50 million in revenue sharing and $80 million in luxury taxes, they're STILL FORTY MILLION DOLLARS AHEAD (ceteris paribus). |
If that's the true number, then yes, in out years. But a 200 million dollar a year deal won't start there. It will escalate by some figure. And bear in mind, the increased TV deal will also increase the revenue sharing, since it is tied to "profit", which is determined after league average salary commitment and certain costs. So as the TV deal goes up, as much as 30% of the annual increase will go to revenue sharing.
If the deal starts at say, 100 million (65 more than the previous 35), next year it would be around 110 million, or plus 75. |
I'm certainly not privy to the details of the Lakers/TW contract, so I can't speak to what the annual payments will be ... the Lakers and TW are crtainly free to structure their deal however they wish. |
Or it could start at 110 million, or it could start at 120 million, or it could start at 150 million, or it could start at 160 million, or it could start at 170 million.....kind of a big difference when you are talking about zero profit, or 10 million dollars profit. Bottom line....again....the Buss family is not in the business of taking losses, as far as I know. If anybody knows if the Buss' have EVER taken a loss for a full year, please let me know. _________________ Wow. Luke has gone full (bleep) on us. - DB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|