Comments on: Warriors Come Out And Play http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Sun, 20 May 2012 09:14:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Tank http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2058 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:15:26 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2058 Re Silicon Valley, I as thinking more in terms of suite sales than pure attendance. I just wonder how big a difference that might be, since I'd guess there are more companies willing to pay up on Sand Hill Road than in Oakland, but maybe not. Re the Nets, I think the value of the basketball team is a pittance compared with the value of the real estate they were able to steal from its rightful owners (it's a pretty bad case of public domain abuse) by offering to move the team to Brooklyn. Re Silicon Valley, I as thinking more in terms of suite sales than pure attendance. I just wonder how big a difference that might be, since I’d guess there are more companies willing to pay up on Sand Hill Road than in Oakland, but maybe not.

Re the Nets, I think the value of the basketball team is a pittance compared with the value of the real estate they were able to steal from its rightful owners (it’s a pretty bad case of public domain abuse) by offering to move the team to Brooklyn.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2057 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:53:11 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2057 Btw, didn't the Russian Billionaire spend over $700 million to buy the Nets? Or is that Nets purchase like the Red Sox purchase almost ten years ago, which included the team - and NESN, and Fenway, etc, i.e. it was for more than just the team? I just googled, and looks like the $700 million does include partial ownership of the Brooklyn site that the Nets will be moving to. I don't see anywhere that the $700 million is broken down, i.e. X million for the team and Y million for the Brooklyn arena, and Z million for something else (?). I guess that since this sale only involves the Warriors team, then it's "clear" what the team-cost aspect is, and they can list it as "most ever" (at least for now). Btw, didn’t the Russian Billionaire spend over $700 million to buy the Nets? Or is that Nets purchase like the Red Sox purchase almost ten years ago, which included the team - and NESN, and Fenway, etc, i.e. it was for more than just the team?

I just googled, and looks like the $700 million does include partial ownership of the Brooklyn site that the Nets will be moving to. I don’t see anywhere that the $700 million is broken down, i.e. X million for the team and Y million for the Brooklyn arena, and Z million for something else (?).

I guess that since this sale only involves the Warriors team, then it’s “clear” what the team-cost aspect is, and they can list it as “most ever” (at least for now).

]]> by: Gonzo http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2053 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:32:36 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2053 Tank - attendance isn't the problem for the Warriors (last 5 years they have been ranked #10, 14, 6, 8 and 11 in the league). Rather it's all about the mgmt decisions made over the last 15 years. Bad draft picks, bad FA signings, etc. So, I'm not sure playing 1) closer to SF or 2) closer to Silicon Valley would really help all that much. Tank - attendance isn’t the problem for the Warriors (last 5 years they have been ranked #10, 14, 6, 8 and 11 in the league). Rather it’s all about the mgmt decisions made over the last 15 years. Bad draft picks, bad FA signings, etc. So, I’m not sure playing 1) closer to SF or 2) closer to Silicon Valley would really help all that much.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2051 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:50:38 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/warriors-come-out-and-play/#comment-2051 Without doing any background checks of the buyers, I'm going to ass-ume they are at least (a) smart businessmen (or man) in order to have the means to afford the price tag, if not also (b) huge sports fans (as many owners are, which is usually a good thing, IMHO - though not always, I suppose). Even if they're lifelong desire is to own an NBA franchise, or inexplicably, to specifically own the GS Warriors, the numbers have to crunch for them to pull the trigger. To that end, it's ongoing evidence to me personally what has been clear to me for a long time, owning a major pro sports franchise in the US makes good business sense. Whenever these people whine about how much money they're losing, I can do nothing but roll my eyes. This forlorn NBA has a franchise in Minnesota that just gave Darko Milicic a 4yr/$20 million contract. Say what you will about Joe Johnson getting a max deal from Atlanta, or the Celtics giving Paul Pierce a golden parachute at 4yr/$61 million as he enters his mid-30s - among so many other examples. All you need to know is that the NBA is doing well enough to lavish $20 million on Milicic. I'm not upset with Milicic. Bully for him (and his agent). I'm once again reminded of big white stiff Jon Koncack, who roughly 20 years ago was given a then-ungodly contract of 6yr/$13.2 mil (IIRC) by the Atlanta Hawks. People got on *him* for the contract. His response was simply, "The offered me that contract. Do you want me to say 'no'?" Nope. I believe in free markets. Koncack, and Millicic, and all the rest should go get whatever they can get... bless 'em. But when Millicic can get $20 million guaranteed (over *any* number of years), I simply request that David Stern and the NBA owners spare me the hypocrisy of claiming Financial Armaggedon. In short, if that's what the Warriors sold for, then that's obviously what they're worth. And if the GS Warriors are worth $450 million, then the NBA is doing *quite* well, thank you very much. Without doing any background checks of the buyers, I’m going to ass-ume they are at least (a) smart businessmen (or man) in order to have the means to afford the price tag, if not also (b) huge sports fans (as many owners are, which is usually a good thing, IMHO - though not always, I suppose). Even if they’re lifelong desire is to own an NBA franchise, or inexplicably, to specifically own the GS Warriors, the numbers have to crunch for them to pull the trigger. To that end, it’s ongoing evidence to me personally what has been clear to me for a long time, owning a major pro sports franchise in the US makes good business sense.

Whenever these people whine about how much money they’re losing, I can do nothing but roll my eyes. This forlorn NBA has a franchise in Minnesota that just gave Darko Milicic a 4yr/$20 million contract. Say what you will about Joe Johnson getting a max deal from Atlanta, or the Celtics giving Paul Pierce a golden parachute at 4yr/$61 million as he enters his mid-30s - among so many other examples. All you need to know is that the NBA is doing well enough to lavish $20 million on Milicic.

I’m not upset with Milicic. Bully for him (and his agent). I’m once again reminded of big white stiff Jon Koncack, who roughly 20 years ago was given a then-ungodly contract of 6yr/$13.2 mil (IIRC) by the Atlanta Hawks. People got on *him* for the contract. His response was simply, “The offered me that contract. Do you want me to say ‘no’?” Nope. I believe in free markets. Koncack, and Millicic, and all the rest should go get whatever they can get… bless ‘em.

But when Millicic can get $20 million guaranteed (over *any* number of years), I simply request that David Stern and the NBA owners spare me the hypocrisy of claiming Financial Armaggedon.

In short, if that’s what the Warriors sold for, then that’s obviously what they’re worth. And if the GS Warriors are worth $450 million, then the NBA is doing *quite* well, thank you very much.

]]>