Reply With Quote
So what you're saying is......
Jazz franchise>Spurs
Surprising that a small market team like the Spurs will pay in to the revenue sharing scheme instead of receiving money from it.• Sneaky profitable teams: the Spurs, Jazz, and Nuggets, nos. 6-8 in the estimated net-profit rankings. All three finished under the tax, and the Jazz and Nuggets receive nice payouts from the revenue-sharing system. The Spurs will pay into that system, but they made a boatload on their own.
Considering Thunder were 5th at $29m profit, the Spurs look pretty healthy financially.
Full article here by Zach Lowe at Grantland
So what you're saying is......
Jazz franchise>Spurs
numbers add up
I wonder what kind of money they make in the playoffs, they must've made bank with b2b finals appearances.
Leonard should be able to increase that revenue, an exciting American star, Spurs haven't had too many of those.
Only if your only criteria for success is profitability.
I took that blurb to mean the Spurs were 6th in profitability and the Jazz were 7th (with the Nuggets 8th).
That's still impressive for the Jazz, who are not in a huge market like the Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics and also didn't even make the playoffs. That le run undoubtedly bumped the Spurs up several notches.
Actually considering Spurs made finals B2B and won a le, this team really makes very little money compared to the compe ion.
Lakers was way, way, way ahead of everyone without their most marketable player playing a single game.
Once GDP retires, Spurs becomes a 1st round fodder, this team will sink to the bottom half of the profitability chart.
Demographic in SA is just too poor compared to even Utah/Denver of the world. I see Holt scale back a lot post-Duncan era.
Last edited by hitmantb; 06-30-2014 at 04:57 PM.
The accounting gimmicks involved in limiting the professed 'profitability' of these teams are manifold.
No one in the Spurs management or ownership is going to the poorhouse any time soon.
At the nets for losing 140+ million
I mean, if we here at spurstalk ran a team, I don't think we could even lose that much money, ridiculous
Market size is just a small fraction of the league’s revenue sharing formula. The Spurs benefit greatly from a local taxation standpoint (and thus overall profitability) by being in the state of Texas.
congrats laker fans... you guys on top
I dunno about that, Miami have made 4 straight finals and this article implies that they aren't even in the top 8. With their success, the marketability of their stars and the fact that they aren't even paying the luxury tax, I find that very surprising.
I think the Spurs will continue to be profitable even in the lean times because the Spurs is the only show in town, I'm not sure I see fans giving up on the Spurs even through a few down years.
More and more of each team's profit will come from the next media deal, so wouldn't be so certain to write off the post-GDP Spurs. Deal will be HUGE.
I don't think we appreciate enough how low ticket prices are in San Antonio in comparison to other cities. Holt decided from the outset that he was going to pack the arena no matter what, and it's worked out tremendously for the Spurs. Most teams charge egregious prices for tickets, and that's why attendance is horrible throughout most of the league. Television rules, and if you're not willing to acknowledge that and lower ticket prices, fans will not show up. Period.
We'd be easily be first in profit if the Spurs charged anything close to what other teams do for going to games.
we're both joking
Wouldn't go that far, Lakers local TV deal is in the billions
congrats laker fans... you guys on topsee I told you Kirby is worth $48.5
this years playoffs made them 4.1 million which was the highest ever
9 bucks for a 16 oz at the games of course they are going to be profitable!
Amazing what happens when the network that paid a gazillion dollars to carry the NBA doesn't talk down the league's best teams and then complain about ratings throughout the playoffs.
If you ignore all the team success, they're virtually indistinguishable.
lakers make most of that off their local TV contract, which pays the same no matter how badly they suck.
The current CBA makes is harder to lose money because of increased profit sharing. In addition, the next national TV contract should further increase per team revenue. With player salaries capped at 50%, more of that revenue will be profit.
The Lakers are going to figure out a way to use that TV contract and the Bird rule to their advantage one of these days. They'll have five max players starting and probably another one coming off the bench.
They can say o to 150 million tax bill. That's why the Nets lost so much money this year, which in turn increased everyone else's profits.
That is my point. Their TV contract makes them so much money, 150 mil doesn't hurt them, and doesn't help the other teams enough to catch up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
