Why the Toros?

[lotr1trekkie]

What exactly is the benefit to the Spurs for owning the Toros? Without sarcasm, can anyone answer the question? 28 other teams don't own a NBDL team, why do the Spurs?

[fyatuk]

If they own the Toros, they can control the system that is used there and develop of style of play there that will develop players and induct them into the Spurs way of doing things. Basically they can make sure people get trained the way they want them to be.

At least, that's how I understood it.

[J.T.]

So they don't have to use the ass end of the roster to "learn the system for a year" anymore.

[AFBlue]

I guess it creates somewhat of a Minor League system for the Spurs because even if they don't technically "own" the Toros' players, they now control who plays for the Toros.

You probably won't see any Toros purchased on long-term contracts this year, but the 07-08 Toros season will still be an important one.

Reason being, the Spurs can closely evaluate the Toros' players and decide if any of them is worth signing to a deal to be a part of this team long-term beginning in the Summer of 08 when the Spurs should have significant roster space.

It's not a bad deal at all. In fact, the Spurs may be heralded for utilizing this technique for recruiting players down the road as pioneers....much like they are held in high regard for their ability to find International gems and being at the forefront of that movement.

[urunobili]

where do you think Mahimni will play?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

If I were the Spurs I'd of bought a Euro-team. I think they could have influenced more control with less scrutiny and more CIA capability.

Of course there may be some ownership rules against this, who knows.

[manustarting2gd]

It's not a bad deal at all. In fact, the Spurs may be heralded for utilizing this technique for recruiting players down the road as pioneers....much like they are held in high regard for their ability to find International gems and being at the forefront of that movement.


Yep, L.A. and now S.A. . Long term upside is obvious. Hell I'd let Beno and Marvin Williams pull a Jordan Farmar for us.. Austin is only an hour away.. hmm. :clap :nerd

[ShoogarBear]

While in favor of the idea, I agree that the benefits are not totally clear.

Suppose the Toros find some young hotshot swingman? The Spurs have no right of first refusal, so anyone could sign him. I don't buy that it's a great recruiting tool. You think some guy on the Toros will refuse a contract offer from the Twolves because he's holding out for the Spurs to call him up?

The only obvious tangible benefit is that anyone already under contract who is sent down from the Spurs will be (presumably) playing for a team that teaches their system.

[hsxvvd]

A couple of questions...

1) Long term contracts in the NDBL? Is there such a thing on any team? isn't the concept that these are young guys... can't they only play 2 years?

2) Does the LA team play the Triangle? and I guess is this what we expect the Toros to do, that being the Spurs' equivalent to Lakers' Triangle. If that makes sense.

[timvp]

I was talking to someone in the know recently and they brought up a good point ... it's much easier to doctor the books to show a loss for a minor league franchise that attracts a couple hundred fans than it is to show a loss for an NBA team that has won three championships in the last five years.

Operating the Toros will help in terms of showing some red when it comes to SS&E, which can be useful for the forthcoming issue regarding extending the tax increase on hotels and rental cars.

CIA Holt.

:smokin

[kris]

I was talking to someone in the know recently and they brought up a good point ... it's much easier to doctor the books to show a loss for a minor league franchise that attracts a couple hundred fans than it is to show a loss for an NBA team that has won three championships in the last five years.

Operating the Toros will help in terms of showing some red when it comes to SS&E, which can be useful for the forthcoming issue regarding extending the tax increase on hotels and rental cars.

CIA Holt.

:smokin

I call SB.

[fyatuk]

Operating the Toros will help in terms of showing some red when it comes to SS&E, which can be useful for the forthcoming issue regarding extending the tax increase on hotels and rental cars.


Now how would that help SS&E on that issue, when that issue has nothing to do with them? They aren't even part of the equation for the extension.

[timvp]

Now how would that help SS&E on that issue, when that issue has nothing to do with them? They aren't even part of the equation for the extension.

Sorry to do it to you but . . .


Voters to be asked to extend venue tax
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA073007.01A.Venuetax.33ad7f5.html
Tracy Idell Hamilton
Express-News

San Antonio sure could use a performing arts center. After all, it's the only major city in the country without one.

It also needs sports fields — dozens of them.

And wouldn't it be nice to finance the southern half of the proposed 13-mile linear park along the San Antonio River, given the uncertainty of promised federal funding?

Three years before the county is scheduled to pay off the AT&T Center, and nearly a year before voters are asked to extend the tax that paid for it, groups with big ideas about how to improve the city and boost tourism are jockeying in public and behind the scenes to have their projects considered.

That's what happens when an annual revenue stream of up to $19 million comes up for grabs.

Earlier this month, three groups of residents met for the first time to decide what projects ought to be funded in the areas of river improvements, amateur sports and cultural facilities. Most have an interest or expertise in the area they've been asked to study.

The committees were given a heads-up by consultant Michael Sculley that the venue tax would now be referred to as the "visitor tax" to remind local voters that tourists, not residents, will pay it. Then County Judge Nelson Wolff, who is spearheading the effort, told each group to prioritize a list of projects, starting with the assumption that they would each have roughly a quarter of the $250 million figure he's using as an estimate of what could be brought in over the next 20 to 30 years.

That amount, calculated more than a year ago when Wolff was interested in using the venue tax for pro baseball or football, is quite conservative, considering the tax has already brought in roughly $109 million in just seven years.

It has to be, Wolff says, because markets are cautious about what they will finance without the backing of property taxes.

"In all likelihood, it will be more," he said.

The final 25 percent of the revenue, Wolff has decided, should go for upgrades to the AT&T Center, Freeman Coliseum and the buildings that house the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo. The Community Arenas Board, the Spurs and the San Antonio Livestock Exposition, which runs the rodeo, will hammer out those needs, he says.

But the San Antonio Hotel and Lodging Association, whose support Wolff needs to put the projects before voters, has said in no uncertain terms that river improvements ought to receive $125 million of the potential total.

That group has been pushing support for that figure to chambers of commerce and other community groups and has even created a Web site, supportyoursariver.com.

"The other proposed uses all have merit," said Bill Brendel, general manager of the Emily Morgan Hotel and vice president of the association.

But they are lower priorities, he said, and should be funded after the river gets its $125 million.

Hotel owners and rental car companies fought the venue tax in 1999, arguing that it could drive away tourism. Perhaps because those fears were not borne out, hotel owners this time around have embraced the tax, preferring to steer the debate.

Car rental companies, however, joined by tax reform and consumer groups, have begun a nationwide push to end the practice of additional car rental taxes to fund local projects.

It remains to be seen whether any of those groups will mount an organized effort to oppose extending the tax in San Antonio.

The $125 million figure roughly correlates with the amount river boosters say is necessary to complete the Mission Reach of the San Antonio River Improvement Project, an ambitious and expensive effort to develop 13 miles of the river north and south of the River Walk.

About half the cost of the Mission Reach is supposed to be funded by the Army Corps of Engineers, which straightened out the river decades ago in an effort to control flooding.

The corps' responsibility is to essentially recreate what it destroyed then, bringing back the river's natural flow and the ecosystem around it. Local funding will add hike and bike trails and picnic areas.

County commissioners Tuesday voted to proceed with the first stage of the Mission Reach, although there is no guarantee that federal funds are on the way. If the government does not reimburse the county, the venue tax revenue will be crucial to the project.

The river committee will have plenty of competition.

The sports committee at first looked like it might have the easiest and least expensive job, potentially freeing up funds that could go toward the river. Sculley, former director of the Maricopa County Sports Commission in Arizona, has said two or three amateur sports complexes could be built for $40 million to $45 million.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the sports committee. The scope of potential projects kept getting bigger, Sculley said. For example, a group pushing an eight-plex basketball court added a building for indoor sports to its plans.

Plus, members of the committee "all want to know, 'What about my kids?'" Sculley said. "Everyone wants to make sure there's a project in their part of town."

That sentiment is understandable, he said, given the severe shortage of playing fields in the city, but it will make the decision-making more difficult.

The cultural committee has its own set of challenges. Cost estimates for a performing arts complex could run four or five times higher than the $62.5 million or so the committee has to work with. That means it'll need to find more money somewhere.

Placement of the center also may be an issue. To keep it clearly within the laws governing the venue tax, a performing arts center should be near a convention center, said Jim Plummer of Fulbright & Jaworski, who explained to each committee the parameters of the state law that made the tax possible.

Other sites probably could be fit into other provisions of the law, Plummer said, but because HemisFair Park would clearly conform, and because Wolff and Mayor Phil Hardberger have given it their blessing, the committee members voted at their first meeting to consider it before they look elsewhere.

And while each committee is being asked for specific proposals, how the money would be spent on the AT&T Center remains a mystery.

Spurs owner Peter Holt has said the center will need upgrades to keep it competitive with other arenas around the country and suggested a portion of the venue tax could pay for those improvements.

What those improvements might be, however, is anyone's guess. Spurs officials will say only that they must keep an eye on other arenas and upgrade accordingly. Wolff, who supports spending taxpayer money rather than asking the Spurs to pay, suggested they could be anything from wider seats to new restaurants.

However a proposal to upgrade the AT&T Center is ultimately configured, if it has commissioners' support, it will go on the ballot. The three committees' roles are advisory, which leaves the ultimate call on those proposals to commissioners, as well.

How many ballot initiatives voters might be asked to approve is another unknown. Voters could see one ballot question or four — one for each area where the money would be spent. In what county officials view as a worst-case scenario, the state attorney general may require that each project within an area have its own initiative: If four sports complexes were requested, four initiatives would be required.

If all goes as planned, the committees will turn over prioritized projects to commissioners in early January, in time to go before voters in May.


It's pretty safe to say the Spurs are part of the equation :lol

The time is coming for the Spurs to again play the "we're losing money" card. That's when having something that is bound to lose money (I don't think anyone can pretend the Spurs are losing money at this point) like a D-League team comes in handy. The red from the purchase and daily costs of the Toros will go a long way toward the Spurs being able to point to a need for the extension of that tax.

It's how these things play out. They'll get their $5-6M a year or whatever it works out to be for "AT&T Center Upgrades" and find ways to translate that into cash via added restaurants, added suites, more parking or whatever else they can cook up.

[spursincharge]

Players in the D-League sign one year deals...no long term deals available

[timvp]

Players in the D-League sign one year deals...no long term deals availableThat was probably the selling point when pitching the idea to Holt. No team covets short-term contract quite like the Spurs.

:smokin

[lotr1trekkie]

I remember reading somewhere that only 1st or 2nd year players could be in the NBDL & after that they go to CBL. Correct? Also players could only be assigned 3 time a year? Correct? My initial question was really about player development not an IRS issue. Are the Spurs planning to sign three prospects[ Mahinmi, Sandidze , Williams or others] and then have them get playing time in Austin? Like someone else pointed out, if you find a gem he has the right to anywhere else.

[Holt's Cat]

Sorry to do it to you but . . .



It's pretty safe to say the Spurs are part of the equation :lol

The time is coming for the Spurs to again play the "we're losing money" card. That's when having something that is bound to lose money (I don't think anyone can pretend the Spurs are losing money at this point) like a D-League team comes in handy. The red from the purchase and daily costs of the Toros will go a long way toward the Spurs being able to point to a need for the extension of that tax.

It's how these things play out. They'll get their $5-6M a year or whatever it works out to be for "AT&T Center Upgrades" and find ways to translate that into cash via added restaurants, added suites, more parking or whatever else they can cook up.


That Luxury Tax is a bitch.

:greedy

[fyatuk]

Sorry to do it to you but . . .
It's pretty safe to say the Spurs are part of the equation :lol


:oops My bad, I completely forgot about that ATT Center improvements.

I've been paying too much attention to the river improvements and the youth sports complexes they want to build with it...

[lotr1trekkie]

I really don't get the Spurs claiming that their losing money on the Toros convincing voters to fund a tax extension. If it ain't about player development it's AAA stupid!

[TDMVPDPOY]

so if we train these guys...


then what happens if the spurs dont sign them but another team does???

its like training someone to play against you = bone head move.

[fyatuk]

I really don't get the Spurs claiming that their losing money on the Toros convincing voters to fund a tax extension. If it ain't about player development it's AAA stupid!

If they "lose money" on the minor leagues such as the Toros and Rampage, they can show that SS&E as a whole is losing money and claim that "Spurs" (meaning the company, not the team, but implying the team) is losing money, therefore the improvements to the AT&T center would be needed for the team to remain competitve.

[Holt's Cat]

The basketball reason is that the Spurs can control the development of their properties in the NDBL. That means the offensive and defensive schemes the Toros run as well as the amount of PT each player receives as well as off the court matters such as weight training.

[AFBlue]

I remember reading somewhere that only 1st or 2nd year players could be in the NBDL & after that they go to CBL. Correct? Also players could only be assigned 3 time a year? Correct? My initial question was really about player development not an IRS issue. Are the Spurs planning to sign three prospects[ Mahinmi, Sandidze , Williams or others] and then have them get playing time in Austin? Like someone else pointed out, if you find a gem he has the right to anywhere else.

The rule concerning number of playing years for NBDL players is limited to players who are under an NBA contract.

So any rookie with a guaranteed contract that gets sent down to the NBADL cannot do so beyond his second season.

But if a player is not technically signed by the parent club, no limit exists. They could play in the NBADL for 10 years if they wanted.

And the Spurs do have the rights to Mahinmi and Sanikidze....so they can't go anywhere else without the Spurs trading them.

On Marcus Williams it's an interesting question. If he plays in the NBADL, and the Spurs fail to offer him a contract, I guess his rights are forfeited by the team.....wonder why it's different for international players.

[fyatuk]

On Marcus Williams it's an interesting question. If he plays in the NBADL, and the Spurs fail to offer him a contract, I guess his rights are forfeited by the team.....wonder why it's different for international players.

The rule is if a drafter player spends a year not playing basketball professionally and not under contract with any professional team, his rights would be forfeited and he could reenter the draft.

The European players could get out of the teams that drafted them, but they'd have to spend a year completely free of any contracts before their rights would be forfeited.

If Marcus Williams plays in the NBDL (or CBA or anything like that), even if its not a Spurs contract, his rights should be protected as far as I know.

[AFBlue]

The rule is if a drafter player spends a year not playing basketball professionally and not under contract with any professional team, his rights would be forfeited and he could reenter the draft.

The European players could get out of the teams that drafted them, but they'd have to spend a year completely free of any contracts before their rights would be forfeited.

If Marcus Williams plays in the NBDL (or CBA or anything like that), even if its not a Spurs contract, his rights should be protected as far as I know.

If that's the case, then add Marcus Williams to the mix for potential players with rights still held by the Spurs.

Still, I think they'll end up signing Williams to a 2yr min deal with an option in yr 2.

[ShoogarBear]

The European players could get out of the teams that drafted them, but they'd have to spend a year completely free of any contracts before their rights would be forfeited.Danny Ferry went and played European ball for two years after being drafted by the Clippers, and far as I know did not spend a year without a contract. Yet, when he returned, it was with the Cavs.

Did Cleveland trade for his rights, or did he sign as a free agent? If the latter, that would indicate the rule is different for US players.

[lotr1trekkie]

The Spurs 12 man roster is filled. 3 spots on the IL. Therefore you sign Mahinmi and Williams and play them in Austin. Practive with the team whenever possible. That makes sense. I really don't know if the Rampage produce enough red ink for the Spurs to demand improvements at the AT &T. Coyotes pay most of the cost for the team. They have been swimming in red ink since the Iguanas were shut down. Minor league hockey should be played at the Freeman. $10 parking isn't in most minor league hockey fans budget not $5.50 for a beer.