Bill Simmons: Bucks close to being sold
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
numero-ocho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 18190
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:31 am    Post subject:

That's disappointing they're going to stay in Milwaukee. The Bucks are a team in serious need of a fresh start. Seattle is a great sports town. Look what it did for MLS.

Moving out of Milwaukee to Seattle would have aligned the divisions much better.
_________________
"Suck it up. Don't be a baby. Do your job." - Kobe Bryant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:31 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Hmm.

1.The team is being sold to two hedge fund managers from New York who have no apparent connection to Milwaukee.

2. None of the Milwaukee people who are listed above (in my April 11 post) are involved.

3. The sales price is $550M, which is way too high for a team in Milwaukee. On paper, the Kings sold for $534M, but that included the arena. The Bucks do not own their arena. Accordingly, the sale price for the Bucks is significantly higher than the sales price for the Kings, even though Milwaukee is probably an inferior market.

Hello, Seattle Bucks. The new owners and the league will make a show of trying to work out the new stadium, but then it will all be over.


Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:52 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Hmm.

1.The team is being sold to two hedge fund managers from New York who have no apparent connection to Milwaukee.

2. None of the Milwaukee people who are listed above (in my April 11 post) are involved.

3. The sales price is $550M, which is way too high for a team in Milwaukee. On paper, the Kings sold for $534M, but that included the arena. The Bucks do not own their arena. Accordingly, the sale price for the Bucks is significantly higher than the sales price for the Kings, even though Milwaukee is probably an inferior market.

Hello, Seattle Bucks. The new owners and the league will make a show of trying to work out the new stadium, but then it will all be over.


Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


By bigger do you mean more rabid? Because the Sacramento market is the 20th largest media market, while Milwaukee is 35th.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:49 am    Post subject:

Looks like the team is staying in Milwaukee. Good.

Quote:
New Bucks owners Wesley Edens & Marc Lasry announce they paid $550M & will invest $100M for new arena. Outgoing owner Herb Kohl giving $100M

— Brian Windhorst (@WindhorstESPN) April 16, 2014
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:35 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


I ran the numbers on the first page of this thread in response to similar comments by you about Seattle. You don't seem to realize how small Milwaukee is. The Packers aren't even in Milwaukee to start with, and if it was possible to move the Packers, it would have happened decades ago. But in fact it is not possible to move the Packers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:37 pm    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Looks like the team is staying in Milwaukee. Good.

Quote:
New Bucks owners Wesley Edens & Marc Lasry announce they paid $550M & will invest $100M for new arena. Outgoing owner Herb Kohl giving $100M

— Brian Windhorst (@WindhorstESPN) April 16, 2014


If Kohl is giving $100M for the new arena, then the $550M sale price is sort of misleading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:04 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


I ran the numbers on the first page of this thread in response to similar comments by you about Seattle. You don't seem to realize how small Milwaukee is. The Packers aren't even in Milwaukee to start with, and if it was possible to move the Packers, it would have happened decades ago. But in fact it is not possible to move the Packers.


The Packers are their local team, even if they are 2 hours away. Most of the Packer fans are from Milwaukee and the surrounding area. You don't seem to realize that most NFL teams aren't even located in the NFL city centers anymore. Heck the 49ers are going to be using the San Francisco name even though they are moving to a location nearly an hour away. The Cowboys aren't even in Dallas and are in Arlington, a town 30 minutes away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:14 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Hmm.

1.The team is being sold to two hedge fund managers from New York who have no apparent connection to Milwaukee.

2. None of the Milwaukee people who are listed above (in my April 11 post) are involved.

3. The sales price is $550M, which is way too high for a team in Milwaukee. On paper, the Kings sold for $534M, but that included the arena. The Bucks do not own their arena. Accordingly, the sale price for the Bucks is significantly higher than the sales price for the Kings, even though Milwaukee is probably an inferior market.

Hello, Seattle Bucks. The new owners and the league will make a show of trying to work out the new stadium, but then it will all be over.


Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


By bigger do you mean more rabid? Because the Sacramento market is the 20th largest media market, while Milwaukee is 35th.


You are confusing media market with being a sports town. Sure there are bigger media markets than Milwaukee, but do those towns have an audience for sports? Look at Miami, they are a top 20 media market, but nobody shows up for games unless its the playoffs. Look at the Marlins attendance, the Miami Heat before Lebron, a failed MLS franchise for examples. We can also use San Diego as another example. They are slightly bigger than Milwaukee, yet 2 NBA teams left for other cities, the Padres are in the bottom half of attendance in MLB, despite the fact that they are the 2nd largest metropolitan area in California.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:04 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
Looks like the team is staying in Milwaukee. Good.

Quote:
New Bucks owners Wesley Edens & Marc Lasry announce they paid $550M & will invest $100M for new arena. Outgoing owner Herb Kohl giving $100M

— Brian Windhorst (@WindhorstESPN) April 16, 2014


If Kohl is giving $100M for the new arena, then the $550M sale price is sort of misleading.


Agreed. But he also is keeping a "significant" percentage of the team. He won.

Quote:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10790404/milwaukee-bucks-announce-sale-team

Kohl, a longtime U.S. senator who bought the team for $18 million in 1985, made keeping it in Milwaukee a condition of the sale. It's also believed Kohl, while relinquishing majority control, will retain a significant percentage of the team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:28 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
24 wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Hmm.

1.The team is being sold to two hedge fund managers from New York who have no apparent connection to Milwaukee.

2. None of the Milwaukee people who are listed above (in my April 11 post) are involved.

3. The sales price is $550M, which is way too high for a team in Milwaukee. On paper, the Kings sold for $534M, but that included the arena. The Bucks do not own their arena. Accordingly, the sale price for the Bucks is significantly higher than the sales price for the Kings, even though Milwaukee is probably an inferior market.

Hello, Seattle Bucks. The new owners and the league will make a show of trying to work out the new stadium, but then it will all be over.


Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


By bigger do you mean more rabid? Because the Sacramento market is the 20th largest media market, while Milwaukee is 35th.


You are confusing media market with being a sports town. Sure there are bigger media markets than Milwaukee, but do those towns have an audience for sports? Look at Miami, they are a top 20 media market, but nobody shows up for games unless its the playoffs. Look at the Marlins attendance, the Miami Heat before Lebron, a failed MLS franchise for examples. We can also use San Diego as another example. They are slightly bigger than Milwaukee, yet 2 NBA teams left for other cities, the Padres are in the bottom half of attendance in MLB, despite the fact that they are the 2nd largest metropolitan area in California.


I'm not confusing anything. I was asking you which you meant. My next question is how is that relevant to the fact that the bucks don't draw well at all, never getting out of the bottom 8 in the last 8 years, and never out of the bottom 5 in the last 3?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38750

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:04 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
24 wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Hmm.

1.The team is being sold to two hedge fund managers from New York who have no apparent connection to Milwaukee.

2. None of the Milwaukee people who are listed above (in my April 11 post) are involved.

3. The sales price is $550M, which is way too high for a team in Milwaukee. On paper, the Kings sold for $534M, but that included the arena. The Bucks do not own their arena. Accordingly, the sale price for the Bucks is significantly higher than the sales price for the Kings, even though Milwaukee is probably an inferior market.

Hello, Seattle Bucks. The new owners and the league will make a show of trying to work out the new stadium, but then it will all be over.


Milwaukee is a bigger sports town than Sacramento....all they have are the freaking Kings...
You have the Packers and Brewers as well in that market so apparently the NFL and MLB think its big enough to support a team.


By bigger do you mean more rabid? Because the Sacramento market is the 20th largest media market, while Milwaukee is 35th.


You are confusing media market with being a sports town. Sure there are bigger media markets than Milwaukee, but do those towns have an audience for sports? Look at Miami, they are a top 20 media market, but nobody shows up for games unless its the playoffs. Look at the Marlins attendance, the Miami Heat before Lebron, a failed MLS franchise for examples. We can also use San Diego as another example. They are slightly bigger than Milwaukee, yet 2 NBA teams left for other cities, the Padres are in the bottom half of attendance in MLB, despite the fact that they are the 2nd largest metropolitan area in California.


I'm not confusing anything. I was asking you which you meant. My next question is how is that relevant to the fact that the bucks don't draw well at all, never getting out of the bottom 8 in the last 8 years, and never out of the bottom 5 in the last 3?


They don't draw well in recent years because the on the floor product is poor. That is what a change in ownership is hopefully going to accomplish. Market size is only one of the factors, it is not the determining factor in the success of a franchise. You look at the Nets, they are located in the #1 media market in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area yet they were ranked #30 in attendance in 2 of the last 5 years. You cannot field a crap team and expect people to come out and give away their hard earned money for a terrible product.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:13 pm    Post subject:

Milwaukee has been a weak sister for decades.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject:

Here is Bill Simmons' piece on the sale. It has a lot of talking points, most of which I agree with.

Quote:
Meanwhile, Milwaukee made history Wednesday by breaking the NBA purchase-price record while also serving as our new floor for “here’s the lowest number anyone is getting for a 2014 NBA franchise.” What did Lasry and Edens agree to purchase? A small-market team, no franchise star, no state-of-the-art arena, a 25-year legacy of losing (save for 2001), apathetic and tortured fans, Larry Sanders’s entire TMZ archive, O.J. Mayo’s buffet bills, black-sheep brother status in the local sports scene … I mean, they basically landed the Greek Freak, a top-three lottery pick, some revenue-sharing money and a chance to tell people they own an NBA team while secretly hoping they don’t ask “Which one?”

But you can’t rationally assess the “value” of anything when ego is involved. What’s the value of sitting courtside as everyone watches YOUR team? What’s the value of having an NBA superstar laughing at your jokes, treating you like you’re the president and pretending you’re his buddy? What’s the value of walking into a restaurant in Italy and telling the maître d’, “I’m the owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, I’d like a table”? What’s the value of having a potential business partner say to you, “Hey, I heard you own the NBA team that has Durant and Westbrook”?

What’s the value of having a real chance of being handed the Larry O’Brien Trophy – as you’re being watched by 20 million people, as you’re surrounded by famous athletes, as you’re about to be covered in champagne — before you begin screaming in delight and waving the trophy in the air?

What’s the value of walking down the street, having a fan nervously approach you … and then watching tears well in his eyes as he graciously thanks you for saving his team?


Quote:
The SuperSonics’ still-indefensible Oklahoma City move inadvertently changed the business of basketball, proving the right star (or stars) could transform a team in the smallest market into a marquee juggernaut. We wondered if that was true during LeBron’s aborted prime in Cleveland, but Durant and Westbrook eliminated any and all doubts. It doesn’t really matter where they play, just like it doesn’t really matter where Anthony Davis plays, and it doesn’t really matter who drafts Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker.

The OKC hijacking also created the league’s first extortion city — Seattle, the NBA’s version of L.A.’s Potemkin NFL franchise. These days, the mere threat of Sonics 2.0 can get a state-of-the-art arena built in other markets and bump up bidding wars by $100 million–$125 million. It’s hard to call multibillionaires “tragic” figures, but frustrated kajillionaires Steve Ballmer and Chris Hansen are the greatest owners the NBA never had. They made a shockingly lavish offer for the Kings (nearly $800 million if you added everything up)3 and the biggest offer for the Bucks (more than $600 million, from what I heard). Two committed billionaires desperately trying to bring the NBA back to a passionate market, willing to spend their own money on an arena and knowing they can fill every suite and courtside seat … and they can’t get a team? Incredible.


Quote:
In general, the disparity between the haves and the have-nots seems to be closing fast. Milwaukee fetched $100 million more than Golden State four years ago. The belatedly appreciated Spurs drew a 10.4 rating for 2013’s Finals against Miami, comparable to Lakers-Celtics in 2010 (10.6) and nearly 150 percent higher than Cavs-Spurs in 2007. And what about Dwight Howard jumping from the Lakers to the Rockets? Would that have ever happened 10 years ago? It doesn’t matter where you play anymore. Stars are more likely to gravitate toward great owners and great situations than great cities. That’s a good thing.

So, are 30 franchises enough? The NBA could command $800 million easily for Seattle’s expansion team — awarding about $27 million to each owner — but there’s concern within Adam Silver’s circles that there isn’t quite enough talent to support a 31st team. Did you follow Tankapalooza 2014? If you watched the Lakers defend pick-and-rolls with Bob Sacre and Kendall Marshall, or you ever uttered the words, “I kind of like Henry Sims,” you know what I mean. We don’t need MORE basketball teams, at least anytime soon. That means Seattle will remain Extortion Ground Zero for the foreseeable future.


http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:48 am    Post subject:

As time goes by, this whole thing is looking increasingly like smoke and mirrors. From an interview with the new owners:

Quote:
Q: What if this arena plan fails? Some people have suggested there is a provision in the sale agreement that if you are unable to secure an arena, the NBA would buy the team back from you and start anew. Is that in your sale agreement?

A: Edens: I don't think it's appropriate for us to comment about the sale agreement. It's really the NBA's place if they want to make a comment on that.

I can just say that it's not allowed to not happen. We don't really believe that getting an arena built is anything but an absolute positive outcome for everybody. There's no real energy or value in coming up with other alternatives. We are going to build an arena. We are going to be part of the community. The Bucks are going to be a great basketball team. That's our goal and that's what's going to happen.

Lasry: I couldn't have said it better.


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/a-qa-with-the-bucks-buyers-b99251592z1-255891281.html

So wait a minute here:

1. They claim that it is a $550M deal, but then we hear that Sen. Kohl is retaining some interest in the team. This tells me that the deal is "valued" at $550M. In other words, $550M is not the real purchase price. For example, if these guys are paying $330M for a 60% interest, 100% of the franchise would be "valued" at $550M based on that price.

2. As part of the deal, Sen. Kohl is agreeing to make a "gift" of $100M toward the new arena. In other words, he is netting $450M even under the best case scenario.

3. Now we hear that the new owners have the right to punt the team back to the league if they can't get a new arena.

This smells like a scam to inflate NBA franchise values. If so, Bill Simmons fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Then again, we've seen in the past that he is fairly easy to manipulate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47565

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:46 am    Post subject:

The Bucks should be moved to Seattle or maybe Las Vegas.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:13 am    Post subject:

Perhaps a stupid question, but are players' salaries included in the sale price?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject:

No, they aren't. The asset being sold is an interest in whatever entity holds the franchise rights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:13 pm    Post subject:

The fallacy of thinking it doesn't matter where the stars play is not calculating, for example, the difference between the average take from tickets and local media deals. Based on a quick back of the napkin calculation, that's roughly 6% of NBA revenues right there. If LA becomes an average NBA franchise in the true sense of things, roughly 1 out of 18-20 dollars of league-wide revenue goes POOF! along with it. That is unless you believe okc can generate 2500 court side seat prices or 200 million a year in local TV deals.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lowest Merion
Retired


Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 10720

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:36 pm    Post subject:

I agree with AH here. There are so many moving parts with these kinds of deals, and I'm guessing we're just privy to the tip of the tip of the iceberg. I read the Grantland article from which AH quoted yesterday. I will admit that I like Simmons more than I probably should, sorry 'bout that, but he's just pleased that he was more or less breaking the news of the sale, finite details be damned. I may be completely wrong, and I don't really care one way or the other, but I highly doubt Simmons nailed every detail of the deal. Hell. I'd bet my house on it. This just isn't how these kinda deals work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BennyLava
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 3582

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:59 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

So, are 30 franchises enough? The NBA could command $800 million easily for Seattle’s expansion team — awarding about $27 million to each owner — but there’s concern within Adam Silver’s circles that there isn’t quite enough talent to support a 31st team. Did you follow Tankapalooza 2014? If you watched the Lakers defend pick-and-rolls with Bob Sacre and Kendall Marshall, or you ever uttered the words, “I kind of like Henry Sims,” you know what I mean. We don’t need MORE basketball teams, at least anytime soon. That means Seattle will remain Extortion Ground Zero for the foreseeable future.



What about the celtics with their Rondo and Sullinger losing to the 76ers? Why not reference that. ass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:24 pm    Post subject:

BennyLava wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:

So, are 30 franchises enough? The NBA could command $800 million easily for Seattle’s expansion team — awarding about $27 million to each owner — but there’s concern within Adam Silver’s circles that there isn’t quite enough talent to support a 31st team. Did you follow Tankapalooza 2014? If you watched the Lakers defend pick-and-rolls with Bob Sacre and Kendall Marshall, or you ever uttered the words, “I kind of like Henry Sims,” you know what I mean. We don’t need MORE basketball teams, at least anytime soon. That means Seattle will remain Extortion Ground Zero for the foreseeable future.



What about the celtics with their Rondo and Sullinger losing to the 76ers? Why not reference that. ass.


Exactly. Simmons being Simmons. Is it any wonder that Nash shows up on the pre-show today? ESPN has gone all in with BS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB