Ranking the top NBA markets

[WiggyRuss]

That "willing to spend" billionaire owner in OKC just gave away Melo to dump his salary. That team will be dismantled as soon as they continue to struggle. Billionaires will grow bored with their playthings and sell them if they can't get them to win.

Lakers consistently spent to keep their players and add talent while in contention. I guess you could argue that the Cavs have done the same, just that they are only in contention with Lebron in town.

BTW, the third richest owner in the NBA (behind Allen and Prokhorov) is Philip Anschutz, who owns a stake in the Lakers at $10.3B in net worth. Your boy Gilbert is 7th at $3.9B. That would seem to make the Lakers ownership group MUCH richer than Cavs'.

27% minority

 

[shopson67]

27% minority

...and? You're the one who said ownership GROUP.

 

[tlance]

The problem is that the argument plays both ways. The state with the HIGHEST income tax rate has clearly been a destination for a long time.

I can't say that it has no impact. But I would like to see some better evidence to support the claim.

Has San Antonio been able to attract big name free agents? Or Dallas? Or Orlando? Heck has Miami, outside of the Lebron move?

And if you look at some other big name FA signings it gets murkier.

As I said, I'm sure it is a factor but it doesn't appear to be a very big factor.

I tell you what.

150 years from now when we have a statistically significant sample size, we can revisit.

Sound good?

 

[flyerhawk]

I tell you what.

150 years from now when we have a statistically significant sample size, we can revisit.

Sound good?

LOL. Sure.

 

[trojanfan12]

But i think we can all 100% agree that Aldridge did not go to the Lakers and went to the Spurs based mainly upon tax rates.

Really?!? How can we say that? Especially considering how badly the Lakers fucked up their pitch to LA. If memory serves, the Lakers were rumored to be his first choice until he actually met with Jim Buss.

From what I recall, his first comment about it was that he wanted to hear about how things were going to work on the court and their entire pitch was about off the court stuff.

 

[trojanfan12]

The Cavs can and have spent far more into the luxury tax than the Lakers. The Thunder are going to have the highest payroll in history. The Nets had the single biggest spending season in history before the Thunder will break that this year.

As far as ownership groups go, the Lakers ownership group is probably not in the top 10 of wealthiest owners in the league.

20-30 years ago, the money that many franchises spent was based upon their basketball revenue. The Lakers have, and still have the most revenue for a basketball team.

but when you have guys like Gilbert, Ballmer, Allen, Arison, Cuban etc. that could buy and sell the Buss' 5 times over, and treat their teams as hobbies rather than income generators, you see what we have been seeing- such as a team in a "middle of the country" that drafted its way to contention like OKC, spending more in a season than the Lakers have ever spent in a season since they have a billionaire owner that can go DEEP into the red for his basketball team.

The Cavs went deeper into the luxury tax because they had to. It's really that simple.

What you apparently still don't grasp is that it doesn't matter how much an owner has. It depends on whether or not they can and/or will go over the cap.

Also, the Lakers have a deal with Time Warner that pretty well pays all of the bills including any luxury tax. The Buss family could be worth no more than you or I and it doesn't matter because of the Time Warner deal.

 

[CitySushi]

Are you saying they can by more stock because they live closer to the company?

Do you think that's what I meant? LOL. That's pretty dense if you believe that I think you can only be an investor if you live in close proximity to a business.

If you're looking to invest in start-ups and networks and there is a central hub for doing so, don't you think there's any value to being closer to the action? Its one thing for your manager or financial advisor to say "hey, this business is up and coming, let's invest in it" versus being potentially having a larger role with the company. There are so many opportunities in tech out here that you have to be knowledgeable and have trusted insight to make the most of your investments. There's more to the bay area than just Google, Facebook and Apple, lol.

 

[tlance]

I know the 2 reasons Duh Heatles picked Miami over NY.

1. Miami weather > N.Y. weather
2. James Dolan

Of course.

I think free agency decisions come down to the following factors:

Essential factors:

1) organizational culture: do you have a winning culture and a competent front office?
2) Market size: you don't have to be a top 3 market to get an elite FA, but you better be above average in terms of market size
3) Community ties: return to home town, etc.

Secondary factors:

1) Climate: this one is pretty important, IMO. If a city like NY or Chicago checks box number 1, they are in play. Otherwise players tend to prefer warm weather in somewhat smaller markets. I have also heard reports that playing in warm weather cities is thought to extend careers.

 

[tlance]

Of course.

I think free agency decisions come down to the following factors:

Essential factors:

1) organizational culture: do you have a winning culture and a competent front office?
2) Market size: you don't have to be a top 3 market to get an elite FA, but you better be above average in terms of market size
3) Community ties: return to home town, etc.

Secondary factors:

1) Climate: this one is pretty important, IMO. If a city like NY or Chicago checks box number 1, they are in play. Otherwise players tend to prefer warm weather in somewhat smaller markets. I have also heard reports that playing in warm weather cities is thought to extend careers.

Oops.

Premature post.

#2 on secondary factors is supposed to be taxes

 

[WiggyRuss]

The Cavs went deeper into the luxury tax because they had to. It's really that simple.

What you apparently still don't grasp is that it doesn't matter how much an owner has. It depends on whether or not they can and/or will go over the cap.

Also, the Lakers have a deal with Time Warner that pretty well pays all of the bills including any luxury tax. The Buss family could be worth no more than you or I and it doesn't matter because of the Time Warner deal.

my point is that the old time owners of the NBA, the Miller's, the Pollins', the Buss', the Kohl's, Stepien's etc. ran their teams as businesses because they were their PRIMARY businesses. They bought into the NBA for practically nothing and now have assets worth 2, 3 , maybe even 4 billion dollars- and those franchsie values pale in comparison to money they have outside of the NBA.

Now we have billionaire owners and captains of industry like the Ballmer's (Microsoft- computers), the Gilbert's (real estate, loans, etc.), the DeVos' (Amway), the Arisons (cruise lines), the Cuban's (software), the Prokhorovs (mining), Bennets (natural gas), Lacob (computers), Gore's (private equity funds) etc. etc. that now own NBA teams who's primary wealth has nothing to do with basketball. They buy these NBA teams as status symbols and hobbies.

It of course all comes down to what an owner is willing to spend.

Paul Allen is the 2nd richest owner in the league and mostly operates his team outside of the luxury tax.



As a person that deals with estate tax's quite frequently, the Buss and Lakers situation is EXTREMELY interesting. Imagine buying an asset worth say, 10M dollars and then having it appreciate to say 2 billion dollars and having to pay 40% tax on that transfer at death.

This USED to happen a lot with family farms. A farmer would buy a piece of property for next to nothing. 50 years later that property is now in a metropolitan zone and the fair market value of the property is 100x more than when the farmer bought it. How can a cash poor farmer pay the estate tax, on say, a 10M dollar piece of property (4 million dollars). Usually they would have to SELL the property just to pay the estate tax due on the property.

I would imagine that a large piece of the Time Warner deal is funding the estate tax payments on the Lakers. Imagine having to pay 40% estate tax on the Lakers when you died. What would the fair market value be? The Clips had just been sold for 2 billion. Its probably no stretch to value the Lakers at 3B. That means when Buss died, unless he wanted to sell the team, he would have to shell out- if the Lakers were valued at 3B, would have to pay estate tax at 3B x 40% or, 1.2B dollars!!!! Of course the Buss' do not have 1.2B dollars, not even CLOSE sitting around as their primary business was always the Lakers---- so they have option- instead of selling the team to pay those estatee taxes--- to elect to stretch out those payments under 26 U.S. Code § 6166 - Extension of time for payment of estate tax where estate consists largely of interest in closely held business under section 6166 of the tax code for 10 years.

So they would have 10 years to pay back that 1.2B

just like the family farmer would have 10 years to pay back the 4M, instead of being forced to sell his farm to pay the estate tax all at once.

I would imagine that the Time Warner revenue is largely funding the 1.2B or so in estate tax that Jerry Buss owed when he died.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

my point is that the old time owners of the NBA, the Miller's, the Pollins', the Buss', the Kohl's, Stepien's etc. ran their teams as businesses because they were their PRIMARY businesses. They bought into the NBA for practically nothing and now have assets worth 2, 3 , maybe even 4 billion dollars- and those franchsie values pale in comparison to money they have outside of the NBA.

Now we have billionaire owners and captains of industry like the Ballmer's (Microsoft- computers), the Gilbert's (real estate, loans, etc.), the DeVos' (Amway), the Arisons (cruise lines), the Cuban's (software), the Prokhorovs (mining), Bennets (natural gas), Lacob (computers), Gore's (private equity funds) etc. etc. that now own NBA teams who's primary wealth has nothing to do with basketball. They buy these NBA teams as status symbols and hobbies.

It of course all comes down to what an owner is willing to spend.

Paul Allen is the 2nd richest owner in the league and mostly operates his team outside of the luxury tax.



As a person that deals with estate tax's quite frequently, the Buss and Lakers situation is EXTREMELY interesting. Imagine buying an asset worth say, 10M dollars and then having it appreciate to say 2 billion dollars and having to pay 40% tax on that transfer at death.

This USED to happen a lot with family farms. A farmer would buy a piece of property for next to nothing. 50 years later that property is now in a metropolitan zone and the fair market value of the property is 100x more than when the farmer bought it. How can a cash poor farmer pay the estate tax, on say, a 10M dollar piece of property (4 million dollars). Usually they would have to SELL the property just to pay the estate tax due on the property.

I would imagine that a large piece of the Time Warner deal is funding the estate tax payments on the Lakers. Imagine having to pay 40% estate tax on the Lakers when you died. What would the fair market value be? The Clips had just been sold for 2 billion. Its probably no stretch to value the Lakers at 3B. That means when Buss died, unless he wanted to sell the team, he would have to shell out- if the Lakers were valued at 3B, would have to pay estate tax at 3B x 40% or, 1.2B dollars!!!! Of course the Buss' do not have 1.2B dollars, not even CLOSE sitting around as their primary business was always the Lakers---- so they have option- instead of selling the team to pay those estatee taxes--- to elect to stretch out those payments under 26 U.S. Code § 6166 - Extension of time for payment of estate tax where estate consists largely of interest in closely held business under section 6166 of the tax code for 10 years.

So they would have 10 years to pay back that 1.2B

just like the family farmer would have 10 years to pay back the 4M, instead of being forced to sell his farm to pay the estate tax all at once.

I would imagine that the Time Warner revenue is largely funding the 1.2B or so in estate tax that Jerry Buss owed when he died.

Nobody is going to read all of that shit. Stop trying to copy and paste your crap to make you look more intelligent.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Nobody is going to read all of that shit. Stop trying to copy and paste your crap to make you look more intelligent.

I do not have to "post crap" to make myself look intelligent. I am intelligent. I am not surprised some one with your lack of brain power cannot comprehend a concept such as the one I outlined in the above post. It is WAAAAAAAAY above your poor little head.

Here is the short version--- in response to the "Time Warner" revenue- depending on what the Lakers were valued at when Dr. Buss died, in order to keep the team in the Buss family, the Buss family without selling the team, would have to divert a huge amount of revenue to paying down the estate tax

when you buy an asset for 20M like Buss did, and its worth, maybe 2B or more when you die- you have to pay a TON of tax to transfer it

me and you do not have to worry about this since, for indivudals, there is no tax on anything less than about 5.6M dollars.

everything tansferred over 5.6 when Buss died (double that since he was married--- and the new tax bill doubled it again but its irrelevant for him since he died before the new tax bill was passed) you have to pay 40% tax on.

That is a LOT of cash. Even if the Lakers were only valued at 1.5B, that means they would have to pay about 600M in cash to the government.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I do not have to "post crap" to make myself look intelligent. I am intelligent. I am not surprised some one with your lack of brain power cannot comprehend a concept such as the one I outlined in the above post. It is WAAAAAAAAY above your poor little head.

Here is the short version--- in response to the "Time Warner" revenue- depending on what the Lakers were valued at when Dr. Buss died, in order to keep the team in the Buss family, the Buss family without selling the team, would have to divert a huge amount of revenue to paying down the estate tax

when you buy an asset for 20M like Buss did, and its worth, maybe 2B or more when you die- you have to pay a TON of tax to transfer it

me and you do not have to worry about this since, for indivudals, there is no tax on anything less than about 5.6M dollars.

everything tansferred over 5.6 when Buss died (double that since he was married--- and the new tax bill doubled it again but its irrelevant for him since he died before the new tax bill was passed) you have to pay 40% tax on.

That is a LOT of cash. Even if the Lakers were only valued at 1.5B, that means they would have to pay about 600M in cash to the government.

Nobody is going to read all of that shit. Stop trying to copy and paste your crap to make you look more intelligent.

 

[trojanfan12]

my point is that the old time owners of the NBA, the Miller's, the Pollins', the Buss', the Kohl's, Stepien's etc. ran their teams as businesses because they were their PRIMARY businesses. They bought into the NBA for practically nothing and now have assets worth 2, 3 , maybe even 4 billion dollars- and those franchsie values pale in comparison to money they have outside of the NBA.

Now we have billionaire owners and captains of industry like the Ballmer's (Microsoft- computers), the Gilbert's (real estate, loans, etc.), the DeVos' (Amway), the Arisons (cruise lines), the Cuban's (software), the Prokhorovs (mining), Bennets (natural gas), Lacob (computers), Gore's (private equity funds) etc. etc. that now own NBA teams who's primary wealth has nothing to do with basketball. They buy these NBA teams as status symbols and hobbies.

It of course all comes down to what an owner is willing to spend.

Paul Allen is the 2nd richest owner in the league and mostly operates his team outside of the luxury tax.



As a person that deals with estate tax's quite frequently, the Buss and Lakers situation is EXTREMELY interesting. Imagine buying an asset worth say, 10M dollars and then having it appreciate to say 2 billion dollars and having to pay 40% tax on that transfer at death.

This USED to happen a lot with family farms. A farmer would buy a piece of property for next to nothing. 50 years later that property is now in a metropolitan zone and the fair market value of the property is 100x more than when the farmer bought it. How can a cash poor farmer pay the estate tax, on say, a 10M dollar piece of property (4 million dollars). Usually they would have to SELL the property just to pay the estate tax due on the property.

I would imagine that a large piece of the Time Warner deal is funding the estate tax payments on the Lakers. Imagine having to pay 40% estate tax on the Lakers when you died. What would the fair market value be? The Clips had just been sold for 2 billion. Its probably no stretch to value the Lakers at 3B. That means when Buss died, unless he wanted to sell the team, he would have to shell out- if the Lakers were valued at 3B, would have to pay estate tax at 3B x 40% or, 1.2B dollars!!!! Of course the Buss' do not have 1.2B dollars, not even CLOSE sitting around as their primary business was always the Lakers---- so they have option- instead of selling the team to pay those estatee taxes--- to elect to stretch out those payments under 26 U.S. Code § 6166 - Extension of time for payment of estate tax where estate consists largely of interest in closely held business under section 6166 of the tax code for 10 years.

So they would have 10 years to pay back that 1.2B

just like the family farmer would have 10 years to pay back the 4M, instead of being forced to sell his farm to pay the estate tax all at once.

I would imagine that the Time Warner revenue is largely funding the 1.2B or so in estate tax that Jerry Buss owed when he died.

That's a lot of words to not really address anything I said.

 

[Wamu]

That's a lot of words to not really address anything I said.

 

[WiggyRuss]

That's a lot of words to not really address anything I said.

what i am saying is that a large large portion of that Time Warner revenue is likely being diverted to pay the enormous estate tax bill- but it at least allows the Buss family to retain the franchise.

As I said- a lot of times families have to sell an asset like that to pay the estate tax. Even a multi-billionaire like a Gilbert or Arison or Allen is not likely to have 600M in cash lying around to write a check to the IRS for.

Instead they stretch it out over a 10 year period. Or they could have taken out a loan against the revenue generated by the team to pay down the estate tax and are paying that loan off over a course of years. Thats probably what did happen if you ask me- all though the NBA may have rules against a team using their ownership interest as collateral for a loan.


So- in the shortest number of worlds possible: A ton of the Time Warner money is probably going to pay estate tax which allowed the Buss family to keep the team instead of forcing them to sell.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Really?!? How can we say that? Especially considering how badly the Lakers fucked up their pitch to LA. If memory serves, the Lakers were rumored to be his first choice until he actually met with Jim Buss.

From what I recall, his first comment about it was that he wanted to hear about how things were going to work on the court and their entire pitch was about off the court stuff.

my wording was bad--- as i explained to Shopson- taxes were probably a very very very small part of the picture- if at all.

 

[Scapegoat]

Do you think that's what I meant? LOL. That's pretty dense if you believe that I think you can only be an investor if you live in close proximity to a business.

If you're looking to invest in start-ups and networks and there is a central hub for doing so, don't you think there's any value to being closer to the action? Its one thing for your manager or financial advisor to say "hey, this business is up and coming, let's invest in it" versus being potentially having a larger role with the company. There are so many opportunities in tech out here that you have to be knowledgeable and have trusted insight to make the most of your investments. There's more to the bay area than just Google, Facebook and Apple, lol.

That's honestly what you got out of that post?

 

[CitySushi]

That's honestly what you got out of that post?

 

[Scapegoat]