NBA News & Notes

[adam81king]

They literally made this against the rules because of Green Bay. Expecting the city to pay for stuff while they are making billions is one of the worst grifts in the world.

If you externalize the costs, they need to externalize the profits. It's just that easy.

Yeah. Cities pay for a large chunk of stadiums/arenas, salaries are paid by revenue, other than the initial cost to purchase a team, these folks are printing money. And taxpayers are the bank.

 

[jjvors]

This is a big reason why I've long held the belief that *cities* should own teams, not billionaires looking to make as much as they can.

That's a good idea and it has worked with Green Bay and the Packers, but how many cities are willing to put up the money to own and operate a team? So far, it's just the Packers.

 

[adam81king]

That's a good idea and it has worked with Green Bay and the Packers, but how many cities are willing to put up the money to own and operate a team? So far, it's just the Packers.

Its not allowed in the NFL, and am pretty sure it'd be unapproved in the other sports (ownership has to be approved by current owner votes). Im also very certain many cities would be willing to buy/own the team and willing to hire the necessary staff to run it. You dont think Clevelanders would buy shares so they could be part owner of the Browns? Buffalo? Philly? Detroit?

 

[jjvors]

Its not allowed in the NFL, and am pretty sure it'd be unapproved in the other sports (ownership has to be approved by current owner votes). Im also very certain many cities would be willing to buy/own the team and willing to hire the necessary staff to run it. You dont think Clevelanders would buy shares so they could be part owner of the Browns? Buffalo? Philly? Detroit?

It makes me wonder why the NFL and the other owners wouldn't allow it. It'd tap the wealth of a whole city. Why would they care who the other owners are?

 

[Cavatt]

Its not allowed in the NFL, and am pretty sure it'd be unapproved in the other sports (ownership has to be approved by current owner votes). Im also very certain many cities would be willing to buy/own the team and willing to hire the necessary staff to run it. You dont think Clevelanders would buy shares so they could be part owner of the Browns? Buffalo? Philly? Detroit?

This is exactly right. My uncle's prized possession is his certificate of ownership of the Green Bay Packers. Hell, I live 5 hrs away and I would by some shares if it was an option. What if it cost money because we were in the tax? That would be sort of fun provided it was spread out. "damn Championship cost me 200 bucks!"

It would be more democratic and owners couldn't hold sports teams hostage. It simply works too well and gets the city too invested. You could never Clay Travis or Art Model a franchise unless you wanted them to leave.

I would not recommend the citizens getting a vote on whether to fire the coach

 

[Cavatt]

It makes me wonder why the NFL and the other owners wouldn't allow it. It'd tap the wealth of a whole city. Why would they care who the other owners are?

Just ask why the NFL has made it against their rules when the one that is owned this way is one of the most popular franchise with the most dedicated fanbase with national appeal. You are right it doesn't make sense to us.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That's a good idea and it has worked with Green Bay and the Packers, but how many cities are willing to put up the money to own and operate a team? So far, it's just the Packers.

Huge difference in the NFL where the national TV contracts pretty much guarantees sufficient revenues all around, especially with the hard cap

Try that in the NBA or MLB, and you'd see an awful lot of teams fold or become completely non-competitive because deficit spending by cities to help finance a team, especially during hard times, just wouldn't happen.

Big markets would do fine. Small ones would get killed.

 

[PIP]

 

[Ohioplayer00]

 

[2 For The Brew]

Its not allowed in the NFL, and am pretty sure it'd be unapproved in the other sports (ownership has to be approved by current owner votes). Im also very certain many cities would be willing to buy/own the team and willing to hire the necessary staff to run it. You dont think Clevelanders would buy shares so they could be part owner of the Browns? Buffalo? Philly? Detroit?

Cavalier shares were available for private citizens in the 70s - real shares, not the bullshit the GB Packers put out there.

Not realistic today because NBA teams are too small financially to afford compliance costs required for public ownership. Also there is less interest in public subscription of equity than you might think. This isn’t a bake sale. Nor would public owners contribute to cash calls required from time to time.

 

[PIP]

 

[PIP]

 

[cavsfever]

Has never even averaged 10 ppg in the NBA…shows what you can get these days for being a decent defender who can shoot 3s

 

[macbdog]

Why wasn't Donovan Mitchell on one of these?

 

[Omar The Horse]