Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 76
  1. #26
    Hell Yea I'm A Spurs Fan
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Post Count
    1,794
    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.

  2. #27
    Five Rings... Kori Ellis's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    64,671
    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".
    Last edited by Kori Ellis; 02-27-2005 at 11:52 PM.

  3. #28
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    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.

  4. #29
    Maaaaaannnn fuck.... E20's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Post Count
    15,142
    How come people call Holt, Holt-Cat?

  5. #30
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    74,377
    spurs have 2 rings
    they have not had to pay a luxcury tax to get those rings
    why should they have to now?

  6. #31
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    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.

  7. #32
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    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 compe ors, 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.

  8. #33
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,442
    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 in this league. The last six les 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.
    Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-28-2005 at 12:08 AM.

  9. #34
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    74,377
    did the yankees win the le last year
    the owner had to pay a 26.5 million dollar fine and they still lost

  10. #35
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    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 in this league. The last six les 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?

  11. #36
    Damn You Commies T Park's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,054
    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 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 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.

  12. #37
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    I rest my case.

  13. #38
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,442
    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 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 en led 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 le this year.

    Congratulations.

  14. #39
    Damn You Commies T Park's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,054
    Im sure people would love for the Spurs to loose so they can blame Pop and Holt for trading Malik.

  15. #40
    Spurs are Lottery Bound. SequSpur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    20,887
    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 out.

  16. #41
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    45,483
    At least we only traded Malik, and probably got back a fair return. The Lakers traded Shaq to avoid tax jail, and got (comparatively) in return. I distinctly remember Buss saying that he would NOT pay the tax. What a cheap bas .

  17. #42
    Damn You Commies T Park's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,054
    All of you need to get your facts straight
    That never stopped you before.

  18. #43
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    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 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 en led 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 le 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? , 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.

  19. #44
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    T Park, if you are going to talk to me or about me, at least be man enough to address me.

  20. #45
    5. timvp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    59,905
    "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.

  21. #46
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    45,483
    Part of the "business" is to put a good team on the floor.

  22. #47
    Five Rings... Kori Ellis's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    64,671
    ex, you know that's not what Pop meant with that quote.

  23. #48
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    45,483
    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 compe ive in the long run. For the contribution level, I would rather have paid Beno that money.

  24. #49
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,442
    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? , 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.

  25. #50
    Five Rings... Kori Ellis's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Post Count
    64,671
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •