Printable View
Is the gross profit of a franchise public knowledge? Does anybody here know how much profit the franchise they support grossed last season?
If you do know, can you break it down by profit from ticket sales, broadcast rights, merchandise sales, etc. Thanks.
the spurs don't release that info anymore. Ever since they started making tons of the att center, it's been nonpublic knowledge... when they were losing their asses, it was on the front page begging for more money.
I think every franchise except the Celtics, who are publicly owned, is like an LLC or LLP, and that means they don't have to disclose.
Is that the sequel to Grosse Point Blank?
True -- the Spurs ownership group is an LLC. As long as the shares of the entity aren't publicly-traded, it has no public disclosure or reporting requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
They had to borrow money to make payroll their last year or two in the ADome. Holt borrowed money (rumored $6M) from Sean Elliott to build the practice facility.Quote:
Originally Posted by SequSpur
I would say they're turning a profit, but not as huge as you'd make it out, Sequ. Their payroll is top 1/3 and their market size is damn near last. You make your money when you sell the team. I'd say few of the top teams make a lot year to year. They build the value of the franchise.
Rare is the sports franchise that admits to making a profit.
The exit is where the pro sports franchise investor makes their $.
The gate alone is around 100 million. If they can't make a profit with that amount plus parking, concession, tv, etc. then they should quit signing scrubs like butler, bonner, vaughn, white, elson and ely.
NBA salaries are supposed to be 51-55% of revenue. So that means they are banking 50 mill a year.
They can twist and add expenses, salaries, etc. to boost the loss, but they are bankrollin like a mofo.
Yep, they don't have any expenses beyond payroll. After all, those charter flights and hotels for the away games are free right?
I don't think any franchise gives the straight shot on whether they lose or make money. Most of the owners have so much money, it is kind of pointless. As said, they make the money if they sell. And there are perks to being a franchise owner---- box seats!
The Spurs are making a ton.....so is the NBA.
So it looks like all except the Celtics are closed books.
I wonder if the NBA franchise owners make their numbers known to each other.
Also, I wonder where owning a basketball franchise ranks as an investment. Is it as profitable ROI-wise as Wal-mart? As Papa John's? As GAP? As Oracle? As a baseball team?
Forbes usually does a yearly analysis of every team...
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/32/323002.html
I belive they include the team profit sometimes.
Oops...here's last years:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/...rs_323002.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by da_suns_fan__
Very cool info. Thanks da_suns_fan!
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SequSpur
122 mil RevenueQuote:
-67 player salaries
__________________________
55 mil left to squeek by on.
what are operating expenses? Forbes lists "operating income" of 12 mil.
Is that income from $8 beers and nachos?
Operating income means "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization" or shorter EBITDA.
EBITDA is now being used instead of gross profit.
Year to year operating profit/loss is inconsequential for these guys. What they're really interested in is increasing the overall value of the team so that they make a windfall profit upon sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
So since they list operating income EBITDA, why don't they also list op costs?Quote:
SlovenianGuy Operating income means "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization" or shorter EBITDA.
And what a goofy name to call op income, that being "op expenses". :rolleyes
Thanks for the info Slovenian Guy. So of the 12 million for EBITDA, how much do you think should be added to the revenue chunk, or is that already figured in as part of the 122 mil Revenue? And how much should be deducted for op costs, ie hotels, plane flights, trainers, et al?
Which is always interesting, since the overwhelming majority of them are also propped up by tax dollars for their stadium, parking, and concessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Sequ is right, when they need something, they're very forthcoming about their financial difficulties. Oh, well, the pattern has been set, and if you're going to compete, it's not going to be broken.
ShoogarBear I'll see if i can find it. Someone did a real study on how much the public gets back from forking over tax subsidies for multimillionaire team owners new stadiums. Bottom line it's load of choad how much the public benefits financially, -they dont. Owners-stadium hawkers also always like to schpeel how many jobs are created. Yet they don't like to publicise how much they are paying the stadium concessionaire workers or how its seasonal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
The value of the team usually comes from projected yearly income.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurtime
A team that is expected to earn $20 million year over year is obviously of more value than a team expected to earn "only" $15 million year over year. It's like buying stocks, pretty much.
EDIT: I am shocked that the Knicks are/were #1 in team value last year, given their out of control costs and dismal financial performance. But I suppose NY will always have a huge market, thus boosting their value and earnings potential once they have a competent management team who knows what the hell they are doing ....
Pretty boring sequel if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurschick
Yeah, I've seen a few of those reported. Nobody can prove that having a sports franchise significantly benefits a community in terms of bottom-line dollars. And it's annoying the way the teams beg for tax dollars when they need them, but then when it's convenient try to claim that they're a business just like any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Having said that, I certainly believe that San Antonio as a community is in a lot better shape because of the Spurs than if they never had them, or if they had left town in 1989 or 2001. I would argue on some level that it's analogous to having a good symphony, or zoo, or some other public/cultural attraction. The Spurs have supplanted the Alamo as the #1 thing people think about when they think of San Antonio.
Now if, for example, the Mavs were to leave Dallas, or the Bulls were to leave Chicago, I doubt that it would have very much impact on the city at all other than the hurt feelings and pride.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Earnings on what? Everything or just consessions?Quote:
Originally Posted by SlovenianGuy
122 mil revenue minues 67 player salaries.
Are they trying to buffaloe us into believing they have 45 million dollars of expenses leaving only 11 mil of profit? :lol
i'd have thought that you would learn by now - you know nothing about running an nba team and the spurs f.o. is very good at it. who's your next target, warren buffet? can you call bill gates completely incompetent? why don't you blast MIT for being a crappy school? it's pretty much what you are doing already.Quote:
Originally Posted by SequSpur
EBIT's usually used for operating income. Without delving into the intrincacies of financial reporting, they do have some overhead for team operations (coaches' salaries, front office salaries, scouts, travel, marketing, etc) and arena operations. But yeah, I'm not sure that approaches $45 mil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Exactly....How much did it cost to buy the franchise and what is it worth when sold......Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Speaking of public stadiums, SA made a great deal when they built the Alamo Dome (otherwise known as Cisnero's 2nd Folly) as a draw for the NFL and forgot about the necessity of parking spaces for large crowds.