UltimateKnicks.com

I finally found some financial info on the NBA teams that is basic but gives a good look at what's really
going on with the teams in the NBA. This is from Forbes. It took me a while to compile it onto one page
as it comes from separate pages on each team. These are 2010 figures.

I haven't liked this abstract "league lost" x amount stuff. I wanted to know exactly what was going on with
each team.

1. Knicks 2. Lakers
Revenue4 $226 mil Revenue4 $214 mil
Operating Income5 $64.0 mil Operating Income5 $33.4 mil
Player Expenses6 $86 mil Player Expenses6 $91 mil
Gate Receipts7 $81 mil Gate Receipts7 $96 mil
Average Ticket Price $88.00 Average Ticket Price $113.00

3. Bulls 4. Celtics
Revenue4 $169 mil Revenue4 $151 mil
Operating Income5 $51.3 mil Operating Income5 $4.2 mil
Player Expenses6 $74 mil Player Expenses6 $88 mil
Gate Receipts7 $53 mil Gate Receipts7 $68 mil
Average Ticket Price $66.00 Average Ticket Price $69.00

5. Rockets 6. Mavericks
Revenue4 $153 mil Revenue4 $146 mil
Operating Income5 $35.9 mil Operating Income5 $-7.8 mil
Player Expenses6 $67 mil Player Expenses6 $81 mil
Gate Receipts7 $42 mil Gate Receipts7 $47 mil
Average Ticket Price $54.00 Average Ticket Price $55.00

7. Heat 8. Suns
Revenue4 $124 mil Revenue4 $147 mil
Operating Income5 $-5.9 mil Operating Income5 $20.4 mil
Player Expenses6 $78 mil Player Expenses6 $69 mil
Gate Receipts7 $41 mil Gate Receipts7 $50 mil
Average Ticket Price $59.00 Average Ticket Price $70

9. Spurs 10. Raptors
Revenue4 $135 mil Revenue4 $138 mil
Operating Income5 $-4.7 mil Operating Income5 $25.3 mil
Player Expenses6 $84 mil Player Expenses6 $72 mil
Gate Receipts7 $49 mil Gate Receipts7 $44 mil
Average Ticket Price $51.00 Average Ticket Price $64.00

11. Magic 12. Warriors
Revenue4 $108 mil Revenue4 $119 mil
Operating Income5 $-23.1 mil Operating Income5 $14.3 mil
Player Expenses6 $86 mil Player Expenses6 $70 mil
Gate Receipts7 $38 mil Gate Receipts7 $41 mil
Average Ticket Price $50.00 Average Ticket Price $38.00

13. Pistons 14. Blazers
Revenue4 $147 mil Revenue4 $127 mil
Operating Income5 $31.8 mil Operating Income5 $10.7 mil
Player Expenses6 $64 mil Player Expenses6 $64 mil
Gate Receipts7 $26 mil Gate Receipts7 $43 mil
Average Ticket Price $45.00 Average Ticket Price $52.00

15. Cavaliers 16. Jazz
Revenue4 $161 mil Revenue4 $121 mil
Operating Income5 $2.6 mil Operating Income5 $-3.9 mil
Player Expenses6 $90 mil Player Expenses6 $76 mil
Gate Receipts7 $54 mil Gate Receipts7 $42 mil
Average Ticket Price $56.00 Average Ticket Price $44.00

17. Sixers 18. Thunder
Revenue4 $110 mil Revenue4 $118 mil
Operating Income5 $-1.2 mil Operating Income5 $22.6 mil
Player Expenses6 $69 mil Player Expenses6 $62 mil
Gate Receipts7 $24 mil Gate Receipts7 $44 mil
Average Ticket Price $43.00 Average Ticket Price $52.00

19. Wizards 20. Nuggets
Revenue4 $107 mil Revenue4 $113 mil
Operating Income5 $-5.2 mil Operating Income5 $-11.7 mil
Player Expenses6 $73 mil Player Expenses6 $79 mil
Gate Receipts7 $25 mil Gate Receipts7 $34 mil
Average Ticket Price $38.00 Average Ticket Price $47.00

21. Nets 22. Clippers
Revenue4 $89 mil Revenue4 $102 mil
Operating Income5 $-10.2 mil Operating Income5 $11.0 mil
Player Expenses6 $64 mil Player Expenses6 $62 mil
Gate Receipts7 $21 mil Gate Receipts7 $24 mil
Average Ticket Price $45.00 Average Ticket Price $52.00

23. Hawks 24. Kings
Revenue4 $105 mil Revenue4 $103 mil
Operating Income5 $-7.3 mil Operating Income5 $-9.8 mil
Player Expenses6 $70 mil Player Expenses6 $72 mil
Gate Receipts7 $24 mil Gate Receipts7 $23 mil
Average Ticket Price $40.00 Average Ticket Price $

25. Bobcats 26. Hornets
Revenue4 $98 mil Revenue4 $100 mil
Operating Income5 $-20.0 mil Operating Income5 $-5.9 mil
Player Expenses6 $73 mil Player Expenses6 $74 mil
Gate Receipts7 $21 mil Gate Receipts7 $27 mil
Average Ticket Price $33.00 Average Ticket Price $33.00

27. Pacers 28. Grizzlies
Revenue4 $95 mil Revenue4 $92 mil
Operating Income5 $-16.9 mil Operating Income5 $-2.6 mil
Player Expenses6 $71 mil Player Expenses6 $59 mil
Gate Receipts7 $15 mil Gate Receipts7 $15 mil
Average Ticket Price $30.00 Average Ticket Price $25.00

29. Timberwolves 30. Bucks
Revenue4 $95 mil Revenue4 $92 mil
Operating Income5 $-6.7 mil Operating Income5 $-2.0 mil
Player Expenses6 $67 mil Player Expenses6 $69 mil
Gate Receipts7 $14 mil Gate Receipts7 $20 mil
Average Ticket Price $35.00 Average Ticket Price $42.00

According to this list the teams in 2010 were $144.90 in the hole on just the strict business and then
when you add the $26 mil they had to pay the players back, that comes to $170 mil. What I wanted to make
clear is that many teams are much closer to being able to make a profit than the league makes it sound like
by just stating that the league as a whole lost $300 mil this year.

This has been my main point in this whole argument. The owners are somewhat exaggerating the issue.
It seems to me that the issue is that some teams are really being run poorly and/or are in cities unable to
provide enough revenue for a team to compete against many of the other cities. However many teams are within range of being
able to get their affairs in order. Real Revenue sharing would address a lot of issues. Some teams may have to be moved!
Salaries are down and trending even lower. This year they undershot the 57% to the tune of 160 mil. I predict they'd be even
lower next year.

Where did you find this data? Did each team release their figures, and was it then independently audited?

SupremeCommander wrote:Where did you find this data? Did each team release their figures, and was it then independently audited?

This was from Forbes. I can't say what all the details were on how they got their figures except for what the teams reported last year. I can't imagine how else they got these figures.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/bask...

nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:Where did you find this data? Did each team release their figures, and was it then independently audited?
This was from Forbes. I can't say what all the details were on how they got their figures except for what the teams reported last year. I can't imagine how else they got these figures.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/bask...

thanks... interesting data

So you agree that the teams are losing money. And you feel that moving teams to different cities or simply cutting some franchises from the league is a better option then paying the players less? Players, I might add that are making 100-1000x more then the average man on the street.

The cost of relocating a franchise runs into the hundreds of millions and involves thousands of regular employees (ie not players but staff on more real-life wages) either losing their jobs or having to move to a different city. And you think this is the better idea?

It boggles my mind. These are players that are paid astronomical figures to play a sport that most of us pay for the privilege to play. And you think their right to these laughable wages supersedes the right of the league to turn a profit? I get that you think that you're fighting the good fight nixluva, but you're really not. Your buying into the idea that these players actually deserve these wages, which they don't. Market forces, dictated by the interest of the fans dictates their value. If the league is losing money, then by definition, theybare getting above market value. Why you think otherwise is beyond me.

firefly wrote:So you agree that the teams are losing money. And you feel that moving teams to different cities or simply cutting some franchises from the league is a better option then paying the players less? Players, I might add that are making 100-1000x more then the average man on the street.
The cost of relocating a franchise runs into the hundreds of millions and involves thousands of regular employees (ie not players but staff on more real-life wages) either losing their jobs or having to move to a different city. And you think this is the better idea?

The league is already playing the players less as it is. If they owners get their 50/50 split, that would only get them about $280 mil. That won't necessarily guarantee teams in bad cities would be able to turn a profit or be able to compete with the teams in cities that have fans who support their team better. That 280 mil would be about 9 mil per team and some of the worst teams are in the whole much deeper than that.

As for moving, the jobs lost will be regained in some other city. The cost is not as prohibitive as you might think. Ask the Maloof's if they wouldn't love to move to another city from Sacramento.

If you actually examine the info i've given you'd notice that some teams just haven't managed their money right. There's no reason for some of those teams to be over the cap the way they are. It's not the palyers salaries that are the problem. It's the inability of some teams to generate better revenue streams. Teams like the Knicks and Sixers are vested in Cable and Arena ownership. The Nets new owner will have a piece of the arena and that makes a difference. You have to have revenue sharing if you're going to have small cities in a league with big cities.

There's no question that regulation of overspending by teams operating above their finances is required. but the players don't want that at all. A greater share of revenues going to the players won't help that, nor will moat of the measures the players are asking for. The teams are demanding more of a share. While that won't fix the lack of equality entirely, it will certainly go further than what the players want, especially combined with tighter regulation of spending. So again, why you think the players' stance is the noble one is something I don't get. I don't disagree that the owners stance is also selfish, but what they want brings further equality to the league while what the players want goes against that.

I might add that Samuel L. Jackson has a net worth of $150 Million. All this for reading scripts in front of a camera. Entertainers often get paid a lot more than it would seem someone should for entertaining people. Don't begrudge an athlete for making money. Do you just go to any old basketball game just cuz you love the game? Do you go to just any old movie or do you go to one that will entertain you the most.

Just look at the list I posted again and notice that some teams showed a loss, but not that much of a loss that it's insurmountable. The Jazz aren't in bad shape for the future. The Sixers aren't in bad shape either. Goodness knows that the Nets have a bright future in Brooklyn. Then there are small market teams that are doing great like OKC! The Spurs have been successful in a small market. This shows that it's possible even with the players getting the salaries that they've been getting. Of course the easiest thing to do is just pay the players less, but let's not forget that they're the entertainment!!! None of this is worth a darn without the players that draw the fans.

nixluva wrote:I might add that Samuel L. Jackson has a net worth of $150 Million. All this for reading scripts in front of a camera. Entertainers often get paid a lot more than it would seem someone should for entertaining people. Don't begrudge an athlete for making money. Do you just go to any old basketball game just cuz you love the game? Do you go to just any old movie or do you go to one that will entertain you the most.
Just look at the list I posted again and notice that some teams showed a loss, but not that much of a loss that it's insurmountable. The Jazz aren't in bad shape for the future. The Sixers aren't in bad shape either. Goodness knows that the Nets have a bright future in Brooklyn. Then there are small market teams that are doing great like OKC! The Spurs have been successful in a small market. This shows that it's possible even with the players getting the salaries that they've been getting. Of course the easiest thing to do is just pay the players less, but let's not forget that they're the entertainment!!! None of this is worth a darn without the players that draw the fans.

Lol. I dont begrudge them. Movie studios aren't losing money, therefor SLJ is getting his value, whatever that may be. The NBA is losing money, therefore the players are getting more then they are worth. QED.

Does the revenue line include everything, such as team wide licensing, tv rights, etc.?

Does the Knicks line include the revenue that MSG the network generated from advertising?

And when talking about expenses, does this include all the money the owners have wasted on the WNBA?

There was an article, I think from Woj on Yahoo that basically stated the owners have wasted money on different initiatives - may be including something like overseas forays.

If you or I bought a restaurant, and we overpaid for it, took out a loan to pay for it, and its operations could not support a loan, should we be allowed to collude with other owners in town to all raise prices, and pay wait staff less?

Looks to me if they cut Salary they'd make more money.

I appreciate your digging to find info Nix. In many cases the gate does not even cover player salary.

Nalod wrote:Looks to me if they cut Salary they'd make more money.
I appreciate your digging to find info Nix. In many cases the gate does not even cover player salary.

The Nets had steep operating losses, but will ultimately make the previous owner Ratner and the current owner Prokhorov a shit ton of money, because without the Nets Ratner would have never been able to legally chase the previous land owners away via eminent domain. Both of those owners will make a killing and yet on paper it appears like the Nets' world is falling apart

Fuck the both of them. Both sides are greedy cunts

nixluva wrote:I might add that Samuel L. Jackson has a net worth of $150 Million. All this for reading scripts in front of a camera. Entertainers often get paid a lot more than it would seem someone should for entertaining people. Don't begrudge an athlete for making money. Do you just go to any old basketball game just cuz you love the game? Do you go to just any old movie or do you go to one that will entertain you the most.
Just look at the list I posted again and notice that some teams showed a loss, but not that much of a loss that it's insurmountable. The Jazz aren't in bad shape for the future. The Sixers aren't in bad shape either. Goodness knows that the Nets have a bright future in Brooklyn. Then there are small market teams that are doing great like OKC! The Spurs have been successful in a small market. This shows that it's possible even with the players getting the salaries that they've been getting. Of course the easiest thing to do is just pay the players less, but let's not forget that they're the entertainment!!! None of this is worth a darn without the players that draw the fans.

Entertainers, in particular movie stars are paid to bring in revenue. Oscar's are just nice rewards which can help a picture no doubt but movies are not just about the actors.

Many do participate based on the gate than just an upfront pay. Top draws can command 20mil a picture. It is seen as a solid investment.

If you want a piece of the gate you have to factor in expenses, not just the actors salary. Advertisement costs are huge for a film. Special effects, sound engineering, music, editing, catering, equipment rental, production salaries, paying for the script, travel, all figure into the costs. Without it a picture cannot be made. Without a good production an actor is left looking bad.

I'd like to see a breakdown of costs a little more. There is a #4 after "operating income" and perhaps there was a breakdown.

In any case Nix your making assumptions that simplify your position that teams can just make money if they move some teams around.

Have you considered that with the ecnonomic slowdown that teams might not be able to increase revenue at the same pace going forward and TV revenue may not be increasing as it did? Your basis is usually "its unfair for players to take a cut" and "owners are rich, so it don't matter", and "they'll make more in the future".

Well those are not givens are they?

Nixluva, it won't matter. Post all the financials you want. Show how thoroughly stupid the owners are at money management. Show how you can move franchises around and show a profit. (As if it's that simple)

You can't explain away the simple points below without returning to lame analogies to the movie/entertainment business that are just efforts at grasping at straws, along with bizarre pipe dreams about a player's league:

It boggles my mind. These are players that are paid astronomical figures to play a sport that most of us pay for the privilege to play. And you think their right to these laughable wages supersedes the right of the league to turn a profit? I get that you think that you're fighting the good fight nixluva, but you're really not. You're buying into the idea that these players actually deserve these wages, which they don't. Market forces, dictated by the interest of the fans dictates their value. If the league is losing money, then by definition, they are getting above market value. Why you think otherwise is beyond me.

jrodmc wrote:Nixluva, it won't matter. Post all the financials you want. Show how thoroughly stupid the owners are at money management. Show how you can move franchises around and show a profit. (As if it's that simple)
You can't explain away the simple points below without returning to lame analogies to the movie/entertainment business that are just efforts at grasping at straws, along with bizarre pipe dreams about a player's league:
It boggles my mind. These are players that are paid astronomical figures to play a sport that most of us pay for the privilege to play. And you think their right to these laughable wages supersedes the right of the league to turn a profit? I get that you think that you're fighting the good fight nixluva, but you're really not. You're buying into the idea that these players actually deserve these wages, which they don't. Market forces, dictated by the interest of the fans dictates their value. If the league is losing money, then by definition, they are getting above market value. Why you think otherwise is beyond me.

What people deserve is a matter of opinion and irrelevant.
As to the other part, owners too get money for what many fans would do for free. I'd love to own the Knicks and be able to fix them, for example. Again, what the public would do has no bearing.

atleast the nba opened up their books... the nfl wouldn't.

But nix, this goes back to what I said before, 170 mil or 300 mil, is still a lot of money and still unacceptable to the owners.. Do you think the owners should not gripe because they are "just" losing 170 mil instead of 300 mil? I still don't get it man...

Didn't the owners open their books to the players and the players association accepted the $300M in losses number?

nixluva wrote:I might add that Samuel L. Jackson has a net worth of $150 Million. All this for reading scripts in front of a camera. Entertainers often get paid a lot more than it would seem someone should for entertaining people. Don't begrudge an athlete for making money. Do you just go to any old basketball game just cuz you love the game? Do you go to just any old movie or do you go to one that will entertain you the most.
Just look at the list I posted again and notice that some teams showed a loss, but not that much of a loss that it's insurmountable. The Jazz aren't in bad shape for the future. The Sixers aren't in bad shape either. Goodness knows that the Nets have a bright future in Brooklyn. Then there are small market teams that are doing great like OKC! The Spurs have been successful in a small market. This shows that it's possible even with the players getting the salaries that they've been getting. Of course the easiest thing to do is just pay the players less, but let's not forget that they're the entertainment!!! None of this is worth a darn without the players that draw the fans.

the net worth thing to me is a bit overblown... I would love to see how much of that stuff can be liquidated to real cash, and quick. anyway, one thing about Samuel.. if he doesn't work, he doesn't get paid... NBA players have that luxury... sign a contract, break your leg, you still get paid.. all for running around in your shorts....

Andrew wrote:Didn't the owners open their books to the players and the players association accepted the $300M in losses number?

i don't think they opened their actual books. they presented them documentation that they'd lost $300M. the NBPA still disputes that number, i believe.

Knicks · NBA Financial Info By Team - The Truth! (page 1)