If Holt-CAT were so cheap...

[exstatic]

would he have paid Sean Elliott the non-guaranteed half of his contract after he had his transplant? There was language specificly put into his deal, because after the aborted Detroit/Houston trade it was known that Sean had kidney disease. Also, would the Spurs constantly run a 14 or 15 man roster/DL when they only need pay 12?

Cheap is Donald Sterling who asks why he has to buy socks for the players.

[Kori Ellis]

Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.

Call it cheap or call it smart.

[texbound]

I completely agree with you. Everyone wants to call Holt cheap, but he stepped up with Manu, Parker (to an extent) and even Malik. There's a difference between being cheap (Sterling) and being financially responsible. There's about 28 teams that wish their teams management ran things like the Spurs management. Look at it this way, if the Spurs wanted to clean house and start from scratch in about 5-6 years they wouldn't have that far to go.

[texbound]

Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.

I'm not sure what the ticket prices in SA are, but, IMO, if the Spurs went into the luxury tax then you can almost guarantee a big increase in prices. Wizards games prices are outrageous, and they haven't won anything in 25 years.

[timvp]

would he have paid Sean Elliott the non-guaranteed half of his contract after he had his transplant? There was language specificly put into his deal, because after the aborted Detroit/Houston trade it was known that Sean had kidney disease. Also, would the Spurs constantly run a 14 or 15 man roster/DL when they only need pay 12?

Cheap is Donald Sterling who asks why he has to buy socks for the players.

As far as Sean Elliott's contract, there were two-years and $10M on the contract after the 1999 championship. So you are telling me that if Peter Holt were cheap he would have torn that contract up after the championship to save $5M? He would have been lynched :lol

And also, Elliott hasn't seen much if any of that money. The only way the Spurs got Holt to build a practice facility was to have Elliott to pay for it and whoever owns the Spurs in like 20 years will pay back Elliott. Very nice thinking there Holt. It's not like every other team in the league has one or anything. :shootme

Regarding holding 14 or 15 players on the roster, that costs about $1M total ... considering that the NBA pays for most of the minimum contracts for non-rookies. Plus every team in the league carries more than 12 players so it's not like it's a luxury or anything.

There really isn't any argument to say Holt isn't cheap. He stole more than a $100M from Tim Duncan and the day that he eventually sells the team, he's going to profit something like $300M. Add that to the profit he's turning on a yearly basis, and you start to understand how cheap he is.

To not allow your team to compete at a financial level comparable to most teams in the league is a sign of a bad owner.

Period.

[SequSpur]

If the Spurs didn't have Tim Duncan, all this cap crap and playing the financial game would be out the window.

There would be no championships, no playoffs, only annual lottery appearances and the Spurs would still be playing in the alamodome or gone to another city.

Holt can play the game because he has had 1 or 2 of the better players in the NBA.

Lets give credit where credit is due.

Tim Duncan.

[Mark in Austin]

Holt is just doing whatever he needs to do to avoid the luxury tax.

Call it cheap or call it smart.


I call it premature. The luxury tax threshold will likely change with the new collective bargaining agreement. (The trade I have heard is players agree to reduce the maximum number of years on a contract in exchange to raising the luxury tax threshold.)

[exstatic]

I call it premature. The luxury tax threshold will likely change with the new collective bargaining agreement. (The trade I have heard is players agree to reduce the maximum number of years on a contract in exchange to raising the luxury tax threshold.)
And if the threshhold doesn't change? It's probably better to bet against that at this point. Betting for it can get you stuck in contract jail for a LONG time.

[ShoogarBear]

And also, Elliott hasn't seen much if any of that money. The only way the Spurs got Holt to build a practice facility was to have Elliott to pay for it and whoever owns the Spurs in like 20 years will pay back Elliott.

You've gotta be kidding me.

If you're not:

1. How did he talk Sean into it? "Gee, Sean I'm sorta strapped for cash, can you help a brotha out?"

2. Why doesn'c Sean charge rent?

3. How much did the damn thing cost, anyway?

[Brodels]

As far as Sean Elliott's contract, there were two-years and $10M on the contract after the 1999 championship. So you are telling me that if Peter Holt were cheap he would have torn that contract up after the championship to save $5M? He would have been lynched :lol

And also, Elliott hasn't seen much if any of that money. The only way the Spurs got Holt to build a practice facility was to have Elliott to pay for it and whoever owns the Spurs in like 20 years will pay back Elliott. Very nice thinking there Holt. It's not like every other team in the league has one or anything. :shootme

Regarding holding 14 or 15 players on the roster, that costs about $1M total ... considering that the NBA pays for most of the minimum contracts for non-rookies. Plus every team in the league carries more than 12 players so it's not like it's a luxury or anything.

There really isn't any argument to say Holt isn't cheap. He stole more than a $100M from Tim Duncan and the day that he eventually sells the team, he's going to profit something like $300M. Add that to the profit he's turning on a yearly basis, and you start to understand how cheap he is.

To not allow your team to compete at a financial level comparable to most teams in the league is a sign of a bad owner.

Period.

:lol

You've let your emotions take over your basketball sense in the last few days. Unbelievable.

Holt has given long-term contract to Duncan, Manu, Parker, Barry, and Rasho over the past couple of years or so. He's paid Bruce, he's paid Pop, and he kept an average bench player making a starter's salary for several years even though he could have unloaded him in the past.

Holt doesn't dish out money like Mark Cuban, but he's an owner with a successful team in a small market. Cheap is Donald Sterling, and owner who salivates at the thought of putting together a roster of players collectively making the CBA minimum.

You're talking about an owner in San Antonio. And he's given out recent long-term deals to several players. And many of those contracts extend many years and involve a lot of money.

I think he's been pretty responsible with his money. The team has competed at a high level, kept it's best players, and has not gotten stuck with many bad contracts. The Spurs are going to be over the cap for years. That's right - Holt has given the O.K. to management to put the team over the cap for years.

I simply can't imagine what you want. If you are hoping for Holt to spend like Mark Cuban, you're rooting for the wrong team. It's not ever going to happen. But when you consider that the Spurs are a small market team, I simply cannot imagine how you can expect him to do more than shell out several long-term contracts and commit his team to being over the salary cap for years. That's not being cheap. It's not being freewheeling, either.

It's being reasonable. If you expect more, you'll be complaining for a very long time.

[Spurminator]

If there's one common thread amongst every professional sports team in the world, it's that all of them have fans who think their owner is a cheapskate.

[timvp]

You've gotta be kidding me.

If you're not:

1. How did he talk Sean into it? "Gee, Sean I'm sorta strapped for cash, can you help a brotha out?"

2. Why doesn'c Sean charge rent?

3. How much did the damn thing cost, anyway?

Not kidding. It's the truth.

1. Story goes the front office was desperate for Holt to build a practice facility. He refused to spend his own dime so someone asked around and found that Elliott was willing to defer payment in order for the team to build the practice facility. That's why when it was open, Pop joked that it should be called the "Sean Elliott Center" ... seeing as he paid for it.

2. Good question. His thumb print doesn't even allow him access, if you can believe that.

3. The estimated costs at the beginning was $6M and I believe it ran a little over that, IIRC.

[ShoogarBear]

Unbelievable.

Really bottoms out my opinion of Holt.

[Useruser666]

I wish we had a team like Portland, New York, or Dallas who has owners willing to spend the big bucks on their team! :shootme

[whottt]

Brodels...don't forget Holt almost let Parker walk go unsigned over 2 million...this after Parker already went halfway on the difference.

Pop and Duncan had to make a public plea to get that deal done.

I don't think he's as tight as TimVP does...but IMO as successful as the Spurs have been...with the support they have...he's getting a lot more out of this team than he is putting back into it...

Be glad we got a couple of small market geniuses(who are also lucky) like Pop and RC, and a lot of players who place an emphasis on winning...or else he would like Sterling...if the team were even still in SA.

[timvp]

:lol

You've let your emotions take over your basketball sense in the last few days. Unbelievable.

I'm not emotional at all. I'm happy Rose finally got traded and is free to do what he can do. I think Nazr has a chance to do good things in SA, but I'm far from convinced at this point.


Holt has given long-term contract to Duncan, Manu, Parker, Barry, and Rasho over the past couple of years or so. He's paid Bruce, he's paid Pop, and he kept an average bench player making a starter's salary for several years even though he could have unloaded him in the past.

Wow. He did all that while staying in the lower third of NBA salaries. Big deal.


Holt doesn't dish out money like Mark Cuban, but he's an owner with a successful team in a small market. Cheap is Donald Sterling, and owner who salivates at the thought of putting together a roster of players collectively making the CBA minimum.

I never compared Holt to Sterling. Sterling is another creature.


You're talking about an owner in San Antonio. And he's given out recent long-term deals to several players. And many of those contracts extend many years and involve a lot of money.

So? He's paying right at the cap like he has the last five years or whatever. No change.


I think he's been pretty responsible with his money. The team has competed at a high level, kept it's best players, and has not gotten stuck with many bad contracts. The Spurs are going to be over the cap for years. That's right - Holt has given the O.K. to management to put the team over the cap for years.

First off, being responsible has to do with the management. Pop and RC have done a great job of not sticking the team with any bad contracts.

Secondly, the Spurs will be right at the cap or right over the cap ... but rest assured it will be below the luxury tax threshold. That's been the plan and will continue to be the plan.


I simply can't imagine what you want. If you are hoping for Holt to spend like Mark Cuban, you're rooting for the wrong team. It's not ever going to happen. But when you consider that the Spurs are a small market team, I simply cannot imagine how you can expect him to do more than shell out several long-term contracts and commit his team to being over the salary cap for years. That's not being cheap. It's not being freewheeling, either.

All I ask is the Spurs play to win. If they made the Rose trade for any other reason than to get better, that is BS. As I've said countless times, the only way this trade lowers the salary numbers in coming years is if:

A) Nazr sucks so bad that the Spurs don't re-sign him.
B) Nazr is good enough that some other team signs him to more than the Spurs are willing to pay.

Even if Mohammed is average or shows any sign of potential, believe you me he'll get offers FAR surpassing what the Spurs owed Malik. You are kidding yourself if you do not accept this as truth.


It's being reasonable. If you expect more, you'll be complaining for a very long time.

Again, I just don't accept an owner who isn't trying to win. If you trade a player to cut costs in the middle of the season when you are the best team in the league because you MIGHT face luxury tax problems THREE years down the road, that is silly. And if you are that worried about a luxury tax penalty, why not wait until the CBA is extended this summer to see what the rules are?

Think Spurs fans, think.

[Mark in Austin]

And if the threshhold doesn't change? It's probably better to bet against that at this point. Betting for it can get you stuck in contract jail for a LONG time.

Please. :rolleyes I wasn't advocating adding 10 million a year in payroll.

We'll know for sure what the threshold will be this summer; possibly even before the end of this season. It is not unreasonable to decide to wait and see what it will be set at BEFORE trading Rose; especially since it won't be until the start of next season, when Parker's contract extension kicks in, that we'll start getting close to bumping up against the current threshold.


What this move tells me is that either:

1. Pop and RC really believed they needed a more legit center to compete for a championship this year, or

2. Holt decided that to him, Malik wasn't worth the money he was being paid anymore.

[Mark in Austin]

All I ask is the Spurs play to win. If they made the Rose trade for any other reason than to get better, that is BS. As I've said countless times, the only way this trade lowers the salary numbers in coming years is if:

A) Nazr sucks so bad that the Spurs don't re-sign him.
B) Nazr is good enough that some other team signs him to more than the Spurs are willing to pay.

Even if Mohammed is average or shows any sign of potential, believe you me he'll get offers FAR surpassing what the Spurs owed Malik. You are kidding yourself if you do not accept this as truth.


Excellent point.

[ChumpDumper]

So? He's paying right at the cap like he has the last five years or whatever.Since when is breaking the tax threshold "right at the cap."

You're too smart to misrepresent that way.

When someone can tell me exactly how much money the Spurs lost in the dome and how much real profit they stand to make in the next 25 years, I might join in on all this bashing.

Remember how much money some of us thought Sarunas Jasikevicius was making in Europe? It's easy to say one thing or another about money when you don't actually use numbers.

[ChumpDumper]

Excellent point.If it were only about Nazr, that would be all there is to it.

Whatever you think about Scola (I've seid numerous times I don't know how he'll pan out), the Spurs have already made up their minds about him. To think the Spurs expected to do anything but bring Scola in and play Malik even fewer minutes for even more money if he stayed is not realistic.

[timvp]

Since when is breaking the tax threshold "right at the cap."

You're too smart to misrepresent that way.

When someone can tell me exactly how much money the Spurs lost in the dome and how much real profit they stand to make in the next 25 years, I might join in on all this bashing.

Remember how much money some of us thought Sarunas Jasikevicius was making in Europe? It's easy to say one thing or another about money when you don't actually use numbers.

Since when have the Spurs broke the tax threshold? When I said right at the cap I should have said that the Spurs stay right below the luxury tax threshold. And they've been doing it for years.

The Spurs lost some at the Dome, but Holt has probably made up that money by now. And if he hasn't, he's bound to profit hundreds of millions of dollars once he decides to sell the team. He's not doing charity work here. He's a rich man who is getting richer by the year.

The real value in owning a franchise is how much you can sell it for, not how much profit it makes on a yearly basis. The handful of millions you do or don't profit in any given year is dwarfed by the eventually selling price.

That's the nature of the business.

[ChumpDumper]

When I said right at the cap I should have said that the Spurs stay right below the luxury tax threshold.Then say it. They've see-sawed between cap and tax thresholds because that's the way the contracts were arranged. It's all up from here.
The Spurs lost some at the Dome, but Holt has probably made up that money by now. As I said, it's easy to say.
The real value in owning a franchise is how much you can sell it for, not how much profit it makes on a yearly basis. The handful of millions you do or don't profit in any given year is dwarfed by the eventually selling price.And? If he doesn't plan to sell anytime soon, what model is he supposed to work on? The "lose money every year and hope to sell at a price to make it all up" model?

If money were the sole issue, we'd all be cheering on our Anaheim Spurs. That's the nature of the business.

[GoSpurs21]

From what I remember Elliot only deferred 2M of his salary, which was to be paid back over 3 years. Do you remember the main reason for building the practice facility was....ding ding ding....to keep Tim Duncan from joining the Magic.

As for going over the luxury tax, the Spurs have been over the past two years. But because they were only over it by a few hundred thousand dollars they received a rebate check.

[Kori Ellis]

As for going over the luxury tax, the Spurs have been over the past two years. But because they were only over it by a few hundred thousand dollars they received a rebate check.

No, they were over the salary cap. They weren't over the luxury tax threshhold.

[timvp]

Then say it. They've see-sawed between cap and tax thresholds because that's the way the contracts were arranged. It's all up from here.

I did say it. If you would have looked at the rest of that post, you would've seen what I meant. Sorry I didn't spell it out in ever sentence.


As I said, it's easy to say.

Yeah, it is. I'm not Peter Holt. I'm not privy to his financial records. What other way can I "prove" how much he makes or doesn't make. Most reasonable people can look at facts and deduce good guesses. I have done that.


And? If he doesn't plan to sell anytime soon, what model is he supposed to work on? The "lose money every year and hope to sell at a price to make it all up" model?

He's making money every year. If he keeps the team, he'll make tons of money over the next 20 years. If he sells the team, he'll make tons of money.

I don't see how you are defending a guy who pinches pennies to the point that Pop and Duncan had to call him out in the press to shell out two million dollars to lockup the franchise point guard. A guy who wouldn't build the practice facility on his own dime. A guy who might have forced the Spurs to trade a player so that three years from now they might go over the luxury threshold.

The Spurs should play to win.

[GoSpurs21]

No, they were over the salary cap. They weren't over the luxury tax threshhold.I think we were, but you can be up to several million over the luxury tax and still get a rebate. I'm too tired to look up the numbers, but will try to find them tomorrow. If I remember right the salary cap was around 45M and the luxury tax was around 52M.

[Kori Ellis]

I think we were, but you can be up to several million over the luxury tax and still get a rebate.

I guess we aren't using the exact semantics correctly... here's the detail.


The CBA does not specify how this money is to be distributed to the teams. It simply says that such money is the exclusive property of the NBA, and that its use and/or distribution is at the league's sole discretion. The NBA's Board of Governors met during the 02-03 season to determine the rules for the distribution of this money. Note that these details have been relayed by a number of reliable sources, but may not be 100% accurate. In addition, the NBA Board of Governors could decide to change these rules at any time.


A "cliff provision" was established to protect teams that end up slightly over the tax threshold (essentially protecting them from "falling off a cliff:"). This is important because the tax threshold isn't determined until many months after teams make their personnel decisions. A "cliff threshold" is designated at 65% of BRI. Teams above the tax threshold (approximately 61.1% of BRI) but below the cliff threshold (65% of BRI) are penalized less severely than teams above the cliff threshold.


Also note that every team receives at least some of the escrow & tax money. In many cases, the money received more than offsets any luxury tax they pay. In addition, all teams benefit from a reduction in the amount of benefits they are required to pay. The following rules govern the distribution of the tax and escrow money:


Tax money:


Teams under the tax threshold receive a full share (1/29) of the tax money.


Teams over the cliff threshold do not receive any of the tax money.


Teams between the tax threshold and cliff threshold receive a pro-rated amount between $0 and a full share, based on where they are between the two thresholds. For example, a team midway between the tax threshold and cliff threshold in 02-03 receives 50% of a share of tax money.


Not all tax money is distributed under this formula. See "Surplus," below.


Escrow money:


All teams receive at least a minimum share of the escrow money. In 02-03, a minimum share is 70% of a full share. In 03-04 it is 40%, and in 04-05 it is 0% (so in 04-05, teams over the cliff threshold receive no money from escrow). The money each team receives is this minimum share, or their tax share, whichever is greater. For example, in 02-03 a team that gets an 80% tax share also gets an 80% escrow share, and a team that gets a 50% tax share gets a (minimum) 70% escrow share.


Not all escrow money is distributed under this formula. See "Surplus," below.

Surplus:


The above formulas do not result in all of the tax and escrow money being distributed (for example, in 02-03 $106.9 million was left over). Some of this money (about $3 million in 02-03) goes to the Toronto Raptors to help account for currency differences. Some (about $24.2 million in 02-03) goes to teams with permanently disabled players (see question number 15). The rest (about $79.7 million in 02-03) is divided evenly among all NBA teams.

So once teams cross the tax threshold, they start forfeiting both luxury tax and escrow distributions. They stop losing escrow distributions 30% (60% in 03-04) of the way to the cliff threshold. They lose tax distributions in the entire range between the tax threshold and cliff threshold.

So I guess what we are trying to say is that Holt will never go over the "cliff threshold".

[timvp]

Well it depends what you consider the "luxury tax threshold". The NBA gives out a number that is considered the cut off for paying the luxury tax. But you can still be over that number a little bit and still get the rebate.

So I guess it depends if you consider the figure given out by the NBA as the "luxury tax threshold", or rather the real figure after calculating the leeway.

[E20]

How come people call Holt, Holt-Cat?

[ducks]

spurs have 2 rings
they have not had to pay a luxcury tax to get those rings
why should they have to now?

[timvp]

spurs have 2 rings
they have not had to pay a luxcury tax to get those rings
why should they have to now?

They're not. And they weren't for any year except for possibly three years from now.

[timvp]

How come people call Holt, Holt-Cat?


The Holt family business tradition goes back to the mid-1880’s in California when Benjamin Holt produced his first horse-drawn “Link-Belt Combined Harvester,” starting a tradition of invention and innovation that has endured for generations.

Later, Holt produced some of the earliest steam traction engines and also charted a new direction – an unheard of level of customer service for Holt Manufacturing Company, an emphasis still at HOLT CAT today, which utilizes a values-based leadership process.

Finding that heavy farm equipment bogged down in the loose soil of the San Joaquin River Delta, Holt put his inventive mind to work again, using self-laying tracks instead of wheels on his new invention. On November 24, 1904, the first successful track-type tractor, the “Caterpillar,” crawled across a California wheat field, making history every foot of the way. Its commercial success was assured once Holt found a way to power it with a gasoline engine in 1908.

As the company grew, Holt moved the tractor manufacturing operations to a more central location in Peoria, Illinois, where Caterpillar Inc. is still headquartered.

The impact of the Caterpillar tractor went far beyond agriculture. In World War I, it fought the mud of the Western front, towing equipment for the Allied military forces and was the inspiration for the development of the British tank, which profoundly altered ground warfare tactics.

In 1925, Holt Manufacturing Company merged with one of its longtime competitors, Best Tractor Company, to form Caterpillar Tractor Co., consolidating the dealerships of both companies into a network of strong, independent Caterpillar dealerships known for their responsive service.

One of Holt’s sons, William K. “Bill” Holt, established the first Caterpillar dealership in Mexico in the mid-1920s, initiating what would be a long-standing business relationship between the Holt Companies and Mexico which continues successfully today. In 1933, Bill Holt was authorized to operate the dealership for the 60 southern counties of Texas.

Holt’s inventiveness continued to flourish in Texas. Seeing the need for specialized land-clearing equipment, Bill Holt encouraged the development of the Holt root plow during the 1940s. After developing the root plow, in quick succession he developed Holt root rakes and other brush management implements.

Today, the Holt land-clearing equipment is sold all over the world, a tribute to the second generation of Holt ingenuity.

In the 1950’s, Bill Holt brought two of his nephews into the dealership – B.D. Holt and Holt Atherton. In 1961, B.D. Holt purchased Bill Holt’s assets in the 20 southern counties of the William K. Holt territory and established B.D. Holt Co. as a Caterpillar dealer with headquarters in Corpus Christi. His years of leadership resulted in successful diversification and further growth for the company including the vision to invest in packaging gas compression equipment for the petroleum marketplace.

In 1969, B.D. Holt and his partner Mark Hulings formed Energy Industries, Inc. to manufacture and market gas compressors powered by Caterpillar engines. Energy Industries enjoyed tremendous success and as part of the Holt Companies’ business strategy, it was sold in 1993.

In 1963, Holt Atherton purchased Bill Holt’s assets in the northern 40 counties of the William K. Holt territory and established Holt Machinery Co. with its headquarters in San Antonio. In 1972 he built a modern, new branch store to serve the Austin market. Manufacturing facilities for land clearing equipment and water wagons were greatly expanded in 1975 and in 1978 a branch store was established in Laredo to service that area.

Peter M. Holt, B.D. Holt’s son, joined the B.D. Holt Co. in 1973, later becoming Chief Executive Officer of the Holt Companies and pushing forward with a diversification program. In 1985, he was appointed as Caterpillar dealer for the western half of Ohio. This move enabled Holt to reduce its dependence on Texas’ natural resource-based economy.

In 1987, B.D. Holt Co. acquired controlling interest in Holt Machinery Co. and merged the two territories of the original William K. Holt Machinery Co. to form Holt Company of Texas.

As the Holt Companies expanded, Peter M. Holt saw the need to develop a long-term vision and growth process. He wanted to reinforce the Holt tradition of quality products and service to customers, and he recognized the importance of involving the workforce in the progress and goals of the companies. The result was the creation of the Holt Companies mission statement and core business values in 1988, which serve as the centerpiece of a quality oriented, values-based management process called Values-Based Leadership®.

Since the inception of Values-Based Leadership, the Holt Companies experienced significant growth in sales and profits, which has been accompanied by a spirit of shared responsibility, enhanced collaboration and a commitment to maintain the tradition of quality products and service for customers in a dynamic business environment.

On April 1, 2002, Peter M. Holt, chief executive officer of Holt Company of Texas announced Holt’s purchase of certain assets of Dallas-based Darr Equipment Co. This purchase made the new company, HOLT CAT, one of the largest Caterpillar dealers in the world.

The purchase of Darr’s Texas operation is consistent with Holt’s vision of stability and effective strategic growth. With this acquisition, HOLT CAT doubled in size, adding full-service stores in Fort Worth, Irving (Dallas), Longview, Texarkana, Tyler and Waco; Cat Rental Stores in Fort Worth, North Dallas and Waco; and specialty operations in Bridgeport and Irving.

[ChumpDumper]

I did say it. If you would have looked at the rest of that post, you would've seen what I meant. Sorry I didn't spell it out in ever sentence.Actually for the sake of the other posters, it's good practice; there are few points of confusion worse than that between the cap and tax thresholds.
Yeah, it is. I'm not Peter Holt. I'm not privy to his financial records. What other way can I "prove" how much he makes or doesn't make. Most reasonable people can look at facts and deduce good guesses. I have done that.Really? How much do you think he's made so far? How much to you think he lost in the dome? How much debt do you think he carried from the previous owners? Be reasonable.
He's making money every year.Reasonably speaking, I don't believe this is the case. Definitely not before the construction of the SBC Center.
If he keeps the team, he'll make tons of money over the next 20 years.Quite possible, but who ever predicted the cap's going down two years back?
If he sells the team, he'll make tons of money.More than likely, but wouldn't a reasonable person conclude the valuation of the franchise depends in no small part on how it is run?
I don't see how you are defending a guy...Not an out and out defense; but reasonable folks understand the business side as well as the basketball size
The Spurs should play to win.They do, but it's been proven over and over again that spending even twice the cap doesn't get you shit in this league. The last six titles have been won by teams that have made many personnel decisions based almost solely on money. Reasonable people would conclude that this might be the model to follow until Paul Allen and James Dolan are polishing multiple trophies.

[ducks]

did the yankees win the title last year
the owner had to pay a 26.5 million dollar fine and they still lost

[timvp]

Actually for the sake of the other posters, it's good practice; there are few points of confusion worse than that between the cap and tax thresholds.

My apologize to those posters who were offended.


Really? How much do you think he's made so far? How much to you think he lost in the dome? How much debt do you think he carried from the previous owners? Be reasonable.Reasonably speaking, I don't believe this is the case. Definitely not before the construction of the SBC Center.Quite possible, but who ever predicted the cap's going down two years back?More than likely, but wouldn't a reasonable person conclude the valuation of the franchise depends in no small part on how it is run?

What am I, Peter Holt's accountant? I'm not going to sit here and look up all the figures to give his week by week earnings for the last decade. It's safe to say that if he sold the team right now, he'd make hundreds of millions of dollars. It's safe to say that he's turning a profit every year now that he has the SBC Center. Unless you can come up with something better than asking me questions that would require me to have access to Peter Holt's check book to answer, I'll take it that you know I'm right too.


They do, but it's been proven over and over again that spending even twice the cap doesn't get you shit in this league. The last six titles have been won by teams that have made personnel decisions based almost solely on money. Reasonable people would conclude that this might be the model to follow until Paul Allen and James Dolan are polishing multiple trophies.

Are you reading what I'm saying? Where did I say I want him to spend like the Blazers or the Knicks?

All I'm saying is that the franchise shouldn't be put in a position that they have to make a panic trade in the middle of a season because the owner might not get a rebate check three years from now. Is that so hard to comprehend?

[T Park]

but reasonable folks understand the business side as well as the basketball size


How dare you use business common sense.


If it weren't for Holt, wanting and hoping for a deal with the county, and trying to do the northside project.

This team, with other owners, wouldve upped from that shit ass Dome deal and blown to New Orleans or somewhere else.


This ownership and management have done nothing but win since theyve been in power.


Now they are horrible.

I really wish Donald Sterling WAS the owner, then the babys would have something to cry about.


All over a undersized bench player who purposely did shit to gethimself benched, and pulled childish BS hijinks like pulling his goddamn jersey over his head.


I love Malik, I think hes one of the best human beings EVER to strap on a pair of sneakers, I think, IMO, hes one of the greatest people in the city of San Antonio.


But theres a line in business between letting your feelings for someone get in the way of being intelligent.


Paying a player like Malik, that money, at the time, made sense, now, it doesnt.

We may disagree or not, but to call out ownership, IMO, is silly.


I garuntee Clipper fans wish Donald were as cheap as Peter Holt.

[timvp]

I rest my case.

[ChumpDumper]

Unless you can come up with something better than asking me questions that would require me to have access to Peter Holt's check book to answer, I'll take it that you know I'm right too.That's the entire point; if you don't know the actual numbers, "tons" means nothing. I could just as easily say he is "tons" in debt from the original sale and years in the dome. I'd be just as right. It's ok to admit you don't know something. I sure as hell don't know; one could probably cobble something toghether from old Forbes issues, but pretending to speak with authority on the team's finances is specious at best.
All I'm saying is that the franchise shouldn't be put in a position that they have to make a panic trade in the middle of a season because the owner might not get a rebate check three years from now. Is that so hard to comprehend?You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but Malik has been on the block so long and we got back a guy who can actually play (you can bash him all you want and forget Malik's inconsistency, but the fact remains), even if Scola can't his first year. We'll have to see, but the I-told-you-so crowd has their main reason for losing the title this year.

Congratulations.

[T Park]

Im sure people would love for the Spurs to loose so they can blame Pop and Holt for trading Malik.

[SequSpur]

This team is winning and making money because of Tim duncan. All of you need to get your facts straight and it doesn't take a bank statement to figure that shit out.

[exstatic]

At least we only traded Malik, and probably got back a fair return. The Lakers traded Shaq to avoid tax jail, and got shit (comparatively) in return. I distinctly remember Buss saying that he would NOT pay the tax. What a cheap bastard.

[T Park]

All of you need to get your facts straight

That never stopped you before.

[timvp]

That's the entire point; if you don't know the actual numbers, "tons" means nothing. I could just as easily say he is "tons" in debt from the original sale and years in the dome. I'd be just as right. It's ok to admit you don't know something. I sure as hell don't know; one could probably cobble something toghether from old Forbes issues, but pretending to speak with authority on the team's finances is specious at best.

Alright, whatever. I'm not going to continue this warped conversation regarding this topic. You won't believe anything regarding how much money Holt is making unless you get it from the man himself. That's fine.

For those of us who have followed the value of the franchise over the years and notice that Holt's investment has more than doubled, we'll know the truth.


You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but Malik has been on the block so long and we got back a guy who can actually play (you can bash him all you want and forget Malik's inconsistency, but the fact remains), even if Scola can't his first year. We'll have to see, but the I-told-you-so crowd has their main reason for losing the title this year.

Congratulations.

Um ... where have I bashed him. I've just said I'm not sold on him. I'm not going to get fooled by a Knick who puts up good numbers. Remember Charles Smith? Remember Charlie Ward? Hell, you could say the same thing about Matt Carroll. He looked decent on the Knicks last year and then when he was with the Spurs, he looked like a wayward fan.

ChumpDumper, you've already agreed with my assessment of the trade? Did you forget that already? I said that it was much better than trading him for someone like Cliff Robinson but I'd need to see him play first to decide whether it was a worthy trade or not. You said you agreed with that.

If Nazr puts up seven points and five rebounds a game, the Spurs made a good trade. If he's the 12th man, the Spurs made their team weaker just to assure Peter Holt gets a check three years from now.

[timvp]

T Park, if you are going to talk to me or about me, at least be man enough to address me.

[timvp]

"We've been together a long time," Popovich said of Rose. "He doesn't want to go, and were it not for the business involved, we wouldn't want him to go."

For those of you just joining us in this thread, that is my main beef. If this was just a business transaction, it's total BS. If it was a basketball related deal to improve, I'm fine with it.

[exstatic]

Part of the "business" is to put a good team on the floor.

[Kori Ellis]

ex, you know that's not what Pop meant with that quote.

[exstatic]

I think it's at least part of it. I think they got a player more suited to their size needs at backup PF/C, and shed some future salary obligations that weren't in their interest. Malik had been sliding down further in the rotation, and you can't pay a player like that what he was making, and still keep competitive in the long run. For the contribution level, I would rather have paid Beno that money.

[ChumpDumper]

Alright, whatever. I'm not going to continue this warped conversation regarding this topic. It's not warped, just incomplete. For everything you say you know, there's five things you definitely don't know. What's also known is this is a small market with very little corporate support. If someone wants to win at any cost and actually make money, this is not the place to do it.
Um ... where have I bashed him. I've just said I'm not sold on him. I'm not going to get fooled by a Knick who puts up good numbers. Remember Charles Smith? Remember Charlie Ward? Hell, you could say the same thing about Matt Carroll. He looked decent on the Knicks last year and then when he was with the Spurs, he looked like a wayward fan.So you don't have a negative view on Nazr, his defense or his heart? Coulda fooled me.
ChumpDumper, you've already agreed with my assessment of the trade? Did you forget that already? I said that it was much better than trading him for someone like Cliff Robinson but I'd need to see him play first to decide whether it was a worthy trade or not. You said you agreed with that.And? What have I done to make you think differently from a basketball standpoint? All I've done is put the trade in its full context. Every owner has his limits. Every one. You don't like that of our owner's and that's fine
If Nazr puts up seven points and five rebounds a game, the Spurs made a good trade. If he's the 12th man, the Spurs made their team weaker just to assure Peter Holt gets a check three years from now.Since you can't tell me that's happening for sure right now, it's pretty much like any trade regardless of the finances. That's what makes it better than your average salary dump.

[Kori Ellis]

So you don't have a negative view on Nazr, his defense or his heart? Coulda fooled me.

Does anyone have a positive view of his defense? Saying that he's not a good defender doesn't mean that you hate the guy. He has a decent offensive game. He's a good rebounder, especially on the O boards. But he's not a good defender. That doesn't mean I'm hating on him.

I can say Bruce Bowen isn't a creator and it doesn't mean I hate him. Same thing.

[ChumpDumper]

Saying that he's not a good defender doesn't mean that you hate the guy.Try criticizing Malik's game in one of theses threads....

[timvp]

So you don't have a negative view on Nazr, his defense or his heart? Coulda fooled me.

I guess you've been fooled. Link to a post where I question his defense and/or heart. You must be getting me confused with Whottt.

I haven't watched enough Knicks games this year to make a judgement one way or another on Nazr Mohammed. And even if I had been able to stand the site of a couple more Knicks games, I still wouldn't know enough to say that I'd know exactly how Nazr was going to fit. Players from the Knicks have a bad habit of sucking on the Spurs.


And? What have I done to make you think differently from a basketball standpoint? All I've done is put the trade in its full context. Every owner has his limits. Every one.

:lol

Congrats. You just constructed a five sentence paragraph with no rhyme, reason, meaning or context. I don't know how to respond to that even if I wanted to.


Since you can't tell me that's happening for sure right now, it's pretty much like any trade regardless of the finances. That's what makes it better than your average salary dump.

I'll take wait and see approach to this trade. The Spurs should be privy to all the game tape necessary to figure out if Nazr is good or not.

Again, if this was a basketball move, I'm happy. If this was a straight up salary dump, I'm not happy.

Got it?

[ChumpDumper]

Congrats. You just constructed a five sentence paragraph with no rhyme, reason, meaning or context. I don't know how to respond to that even if I wanted to.Not my problem. I feel the same way I always did about the trade from a basketball standpoint. The fact that Nazr can play and could give the Spurs things Malik could not makes it different from a flat out salary dump. You figured that out without comprehending five senteces.
I'll take wait and see approach to this trade.Me too, just as I said.
Again, if this was a basketball move, I'm happy. If this was a straight up salary dump, I'm not happy.

Got it?That you don't know yet speaks volumes.

Got it?

[timvp]

That you don't know yet speaks volumes.

Got it?

So if Nazr sucks, you'll consider this a good trade? If Nazr is awesome and the Spurs lose him in next summer, you'll consider this a good trade?

Questions.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, it also depends on Scola. These things don't happen in a vacuum. If Nazr gets beat out by Horry or Massenburg, how is that so different a result than Rose, regardless of your opinion of when you think he should have played?

A consistent frontline rotation including Nazr would probably have to be considered a success from a basketball standpoint in this system.

[T Park]

But Nazr doesnt have a philly steak sandwich resteraunt.

He hasn't been here 8 years.

Duh.

[Kori Ellis]

Kori, let it go.

Let what go?

[Sec24Row7]

For the love of God people.

The Spurs aren't here to entertain you, there is no reason to own a damn team if it isn't going to make money yearly or appreciate for resale.

Holt and his partners spend the money they need to to make this team a contender and they always will.

Don't forget that he spent a ton of money this summer on Manu and Tony, he is OVER the cap, and he has to give away a SIGNIFICANT percentage of his profit to the family that owned the ABA team that was not incorperated into the NBA as ALL former ABA teams have to.

That is a HUGE hit and makes dealing with salaries even TRICKIER.

The same goons that bitch at owners for not paying people enough are the same people that bitch about beer prices and ticket prices.

Ticket prices for the spurs are at the bottom of the league or damned close to it.

We have a new arena that the city under Ed "I'm a dipshit" Garza couldn't compromise with him on to get it downtown where it should be.

Our team has the best record in the league and has won 2 championships in the last 5 years.

Why the Fuck WOULD he spend more money than he needed to?

Some of you people really need to understand how the real world works.

[MosesGuthrie]

The Spurs should play to win.

They are 42-13. With all due respect, you really don't think they are playing to win? I didn't like to see Malik leave but I also know its not personal, its business. I have watched pro sports all my life and I have seen it morph into the multi-billion dollar business it has become. I don't like it but that is what it is. Personally I am all about the name on the front of the jersey. Holt did piss me off with what he did with Parker this summer but two championships in six years (and on track for a third this year) to me is better than a team like Dallas who spends money out the ass but has nothing to show for it. Holt is frugal, and it might cost the Spurs one day...so far the team has remained competitive and a championship contender. The Spurs were not going to win the title this year because of Malik Rose, but they are not going to lose it because of Malik Rose either.

just my .02

[MosesGuthrie]

and he has to give away a SIGNIFICANT percentage of his profit to the family that owned the ABA team that was not incorperated into the NBA as ALL former ABA teams have to.

The owners of the St. Louis Spirit. Actually what they are guaranteed is one full share of every TV contract.

[exstatic]

Actually what they are guaranteed is one full share of every TV contract.

Part of the NBA/ABA merger was that only the four former ABA teams have to pay into that One Share. That means that Denver, SA, NJ, and Indy only get .75 of a share of TV revenues. Those owners have gone over that contract with a microscope, and the only way out is a HUGE buyout. The last time I looked, they were asking $100M.

Still think Holt-CAT is cheap, operating with one limb tied behind his back, so to speak?

[MosesGuthrie]

I stand corrected. Thank you, sir. :)

[Sec24Row7]

No, the last thing they OFFERED was 100 million and the royalty owners just laughed at them.

Why get bought out for 100 million when you are making 30-50 million a year for just sitting home and having a mailbox and the checks keep getting bigger.

That would be stupid.

[exstatic]

Question: if these two gentlemen were to die, would their estate still collect, or does the payday end with their demise? Anyone know?

[Sec24Row7]

The contract gives no end date for the percentage.

It says "infinitum" so that "override", just like a regular override can be passed on to heirs.

Since it is strictly cash coming in, I would imagine that these men have already done some estate planning and have given some of it away to their kids in order to avoid huge estate tax hits.

[Rick Von Braun]

Most people don't understand that the NBA is a business.

The owner of any business has one goal only... to win (and I am not talking in a basketball sense).

The problem is that people (fans) tend to get very emotional with sports (including myself), so sometimes we lose perspective.

If you don't like the service/product provided, don't consume it.

[Jimcs50]

It is the owner's responsibility to put the best team out there in order to give them the best chance to win.

I do not think Holt is cheap at all. The Spurs have some of the best facilities in the NBA, they have been winners in 90% of their seasons. We Spurs fans should thank our lucky stars that we have this team to root for, instead of a team like Atlanta, Denver, New Jersey or the Clippers, teams that come from much larger markets, but never seem to do anything with that extra revenue to win games on a consistant basis.

[exstatic]

Thanks, Sec24. Damn, I'd like to be one of their kids! :lol

[timvp]

Don't forget that he spent a ton of money this summer on Manu and Tony, he is OVER the cap, and he has to give away a SIGNIFICANT percentage of his profit to the family that owned the ABA team that was not incorperated into the NBA as ALL former ABA teams have to.

That is a HUGE hit and makes dealing with salaries even TRICKIER.


:lmao

You do know that accounts for only about three million dollars, right?

[exstatic]

Too bad its more like 12 million.

Well, there you go. Malik, over the tax = $12M. Coincidence? I think not...:lol

[exstatic]

Actually, they have separate deals for Cable (TNT 2.2B/6 years) and broadcast TV (ABC/ESPN 2.4B/6 years), so the annual "cut" is more like 24 Mil per team when you add them together, and divide by 32 teams and 6 years. 30 mil wasn't so far off.

InsideHoops TV contract info (http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-tv-contracts.shtml)

[Kori Ellis]

So, it's $4M a year per team?

[timvp]

Yeah eventually those St. Louis mofos are going to bank huge money, but right now to say that Holt is handcuffed by it is underestimating how much the Spurs bring in and pay out in a given year. Holt just had to pony up $3M to send away Rose.

[MosesGuthrie]

hell, i'd take 4 mil a year for life. :)

[exstatic]

Actually, they have separate deals for Cable (TNT 2.2B/6 years) and broadcast TV (ABC/ESPN 2.4B/6 years), so the annual "cut" is more like 24 Mil per team when you add them together, and divide by 32 teams and 6 years. 30 mil wasn't so far off.

With the TWO deals in place, a former ABA team's share is $6M to make a "share" ($24M) for the STL blood suckers.

[Sec24Row7]

Don't forget Local/NBALeaguePass/Radio

There are 30 NBA teams as well not 32.

4.4 billion/30=? + I think that teams that are on TV more get more money hence a greater percentage of the major TV contracts.

That's roughly 24.4 million a year JUST for those two contracts.


now... not every team has to pay the other ABA owners, just the ABA teams.

25% of all 4 teams... so the St Louis guys get 24.4 million and each of the teams get 18 million.

For JUST those two contracts.

There are TV bonuses for Playoffs and number of appearances for which they get their 1/4 share as well.

It's a huge hit to have to take... and severely reduces your profitability, ESPECIALLY in a small market where the majority of your money is going to be coming from the NATIONAL TV contracts anyway.