Marty Mac: Maloof's handling of decision was gutless

[nbrans]

Whoa, you don't think sports is good business? Look, the people who own teams are capitalists, not philanthropists. The value of the Kings has gone up something like $200 million since the Maloofs took over the franchise.

I think you guys have been listening to the "poor" woe-is-me owners a little too much. Of course they play the "we don't make money card," they want everyone to fund their arenas.

 

[VF21]

The value may have gone up but so have salaries, and virtually every other expense.

Do some research. I actually think you'll be a little surprised. Millionaires don't become millionaires by owning sports franchises. They own sports franchises because they're already millionaires and looking for ways to spend their money.

The Maloofs would only really capitalize on their investment if they sold the team.

 

[Bricklayer]

Whoa, you don't think sports is good business? Look, the people who own teams are capitalists, not philanthropists. The value of the Kings has gone up something like $200 million since the Maloofs took over the franchise.

I think you guys have been listening to the "poor" woe-is-me owners a little too much. Of course they play the "we don't make money card," they want everyone to fund their arenas.

If you plan on staying in the business, no, its not particularly good business. Its an aberration. A gold plated yacht that MIGHT just pay for itself, if you're lucky.

If you plan on just getting in, basking in the glow, and getting out, its still not great business. But it is kind of like a real estate investment, or buying art. Not worth anything while you have it, but can maybe one day be sold for a tidy profit.

P.S. there's nothing philantrophic in getting famous + having a huge prestige toy. That's all about ego, and getting a chance to pay with a big ole adult toy. Give me a billion dollars I might consider it myself, bad business or not.

 

[Odoylerules]

the value of owning a franchise definitely comes into play when the franchise is sold. yes, the kings have lost about 30 mil since the Maloofs bought the team, but look at it like owning a house. If your mortgage payment is 2k a month, that's a 24k loss per year, plus other various repairs and whatnot. but there are certain tax breaks (interest write offs, etc), and when you do sell your home (depending on the market) you generally see the equity gain outweigh in many cases the amount you paid in mortgage payments.

the kings franchise has skyrocketed in value since the Maloofs took over, and they don't necessarily need to sell the team to capitalize. remember, the kings allow the maloofs to build some of their other enterprises. do you not think that The Palms has benefited from the Kings? Not just in the advertising on Kings broadcasts that push the casino/hotel, but the connections to other players/celebrities that make the Palms the place to be in Vegas....

recently, the Maloofs had a band that is signed to their label (Maloof/Interscope) play at a Kings viewing party. the exposure is priceless.

Not for nothing, but the Maloofs have been fairly savvy at maximizing the potential of their franchise, both on and off the court...especially when you consider they are in a smaller market. The benefits far outweigh the losses.

and remember this- these guys have been involved in the NBA since their father owned the Rockets. they have all the money in the world, and are serious businessmen. but let's be honest: these guys are highly competitive, and are not afraid of glamour and spotlight. They know the type of exposure an NBA title would bring....plus they just flat out WANT IT. They may watch the bottom line, but don't think for a second that their hearts aren't in it as well....they truly are Kings fans, just like us. Except...um...they own the team. But I think you get the drift....

 

[Warhawk]

the value of owning a franchise definitely comes into play when the franchise is sold. yes, the kings have lost about 30 mil since the Maloofs bought the team, but look at it like owning a house. If your mortgage payment is 2k a month, that's a 24k loss per year, plus other various repairs and whatnot. but there are certain tax breaks (interest write offs, etc), and when you do sell your home (depending on the market) you generally see the equity gain outweigh in many cases the amount you paid in mortgage payments.

Well, not quite, since they have already bought the team (the mortgage payment in your example) and the annual losses are on top of that, not a part of it. They are paying the "mortgage" and then are throwing in another few million a year on average to cover annual losses. That would just be a very expensive item under your "various repairs and whatnot"....

 

[DoDiGaG0]

The Maloofs made their decision to let go of a good coach who couldn't win the big one after 8 seasons.

I disagree - game 7 vs. the lakers

missed like 7 freethrows in the fourth and 2 wide open jumpers

we would of blown right past the Nets

Adelman DID do enough to win it all that year

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Sorry Slim. Please accept my sincere apologies for not knowing what I was talking about.

right back at you...

Hey, you're the one who strolled into the thread all quick to refute Čarolija's argument like *you* were an authority on the subject... don't come back around after the fact and act all indignant just because you were proven wrong.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The overhead costs alone are mind-boggling. From what I've read - and I'll see if I can find a recent article I was looking it on another board recently - those claims aren't just paper losses.

I'm not doubting that it may be true, but I do recall back when the MLB was last in jeopardy of another lockout or strike the owners and Bud Selig claimed that over 75% of the teams were losing money and that some reporters actually went and disproved this claim as bogus and the result of accounting tricks. I think one example was unsold tickets being counted as negative income. Another would be primo seats with high face values that aren't really sold for those values. The team gives them away or sells them at a discount and then realizes the rest of that money as a loss or operating expense. Do that with a few hundred seats and a luxury box or two and you're "losing" a couple million a night.

 

[Superman]

The Maloofs made their decision to let go of a good coach who couldn't win the big one after 8 seasons.

And replace him with who?

It's a bad idea to fire one of your most important employees without having an adequate replacement in line to step in and do the job, and in doing so alienate the majority of your fan base and possibly any potential coaching candidates because of the way you handled the dismissal of the last coach.

-------------------

And to whoever said that the Kings aren't willing to spend money...

Who have they had the opportunity to open the vault to that they haven't opened the vault to? If anything, they've overpaid for players (Webber in hindsight, Bibby, Miller). Any other time they've let a player walk, it was primarily for basketball reasons (Vlade, Jim Jackson, Tony Massenburg, etc.).

When Ron Artest's contract is up, they will pay him, granted he continues being such a big part of the team's success. Bonzi will get a modest offer, no doubt; they won't break the bank for him, and they shouldn't, for basketball reasons.

What kind of money do we want the Maloofs to spend? What opportunities have they had to spend, seeing as how we've been over the cap every season they've been in charge?

 

[Prophetess]

ya know sup, it's good to see ya posting again. love the sig.

 

[thesanityannex]

Hey, you're the one who strolled into the thread all quick to refute Čarolija's argument like *you* were an authority on the subject... don't come back around after the fact and act all indignant just because you were proven wrong.

I didn't stroll into the thread acting like I knew everything. If you would take the time to read, I said I'm not well informed on these issues. All I've ever heard from the media is that the Spurs built their team to win and built them cost effective. So..............I came to the conclusion that the Spurs were probably under the cap. Was I wrong, obviously. Did it warrant the type of response I got from you, nope. But your responses are typical.

 

[VF21]

I didn't stroll into the thread acting like I knew everything. If you would take the time to read, I said I'm not well informed on these issues. All I've ever heard from the media is that the Spurs built their team to win and built them cost effective. So..............I came to the conclusion that the Spurs were probably under the cap. Was I wrong, obviously. Did it warrant the type of response I got from you, nope. But your responses are typical.

At this point, I'm thinking the best thing to do is close the thread.