Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0216/064tab.html
http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/forbes/2004/0216/nba_3.html

Bulls rank #3 overall behind only the Lakers and Knicks. A more telling stat is that the Bulls were #1 in Operating Income for fiscal year 2003. Holy crap.

Nice little shoutout to NCBulls too on the first link.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro economist Dan T. Rosenbaum says that 16 teams exceeded the cap, sending $173 million to their more fiscally responsible league-mates. Above we list the biggest offenders. Operating income figures in the table above include those payments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
To put this another way, the Bulls were arguably the worst NBA team in year 2003 yet made the most money.

Sheesh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
When I read that Bulls were number 3 in the thread, I said to myself I bet the Knicks and Lakers are before them, and they were. I think it has to do with population of the city and how big it is, etc.

Chicago needs to get good though :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Actually, I think this is an absolutely horrendous report for the Bulls and shows just what the true costs of tanking for Reinsdorf and the other owners have been.

The article shows the Bulls were valued at $303M in 199 and $356M in 2003. That sounds pretty good, right?

Wrong.

It's horriffic.

What?

It represents a 17.5% increase over those five years, and that is by far the lowest among the other top ten valued teams in the NBA. Over the same time period,

Knicks 35.5%
Lakers 66.8%
Mavs 184.0%
Sixers 67.3%
Celtics 64.8%
Pistons 37.9%
Spurs 132.0%
Suns 20.0%
Pacers 84.2%

Top Ten Raw Average: 71.0%

In light of what all these other teams have done, the Bulls growth in value of 17% represents a spectacular failure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,076 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
When I read that Bulls were number 3 in the thread, I said to myself I bet the Knicks and Lakers are before them, and they were. I think it has to do with population of the city and how big it is, etc.

Chicago needs to get good though :cry:
It has a lot to do with winning and star power too. In 1998 the Lakers were worth 268M, not they're worth 447M. The Mavs over the last 5 seasons went from 119M to 338M :eek: In 1998 the Bulls were worth 303M, now they're at 356M Again... holy crapola.

I never ever ever want to hear Jerry R or Pax complain about the luxury tax in terms of signing FAs or our own players. We were the most profitable NBA team last year for goodness sakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
Actually, I think this is an absolutely horrendous report for the Bulls and shows just what the true costs of tanking for Reinsdorf and the other owners have been.

The article shows the Bulls were valued at $303M in 199 and $356M in 2003. That sounds pretty good, right?

Wrong.

It's horriffic.

What?

It represents a 17.5% increase over those five years, and that is by far the lowest among the other top ten valued teams in the NBA. Over the same time period,

Knicks 35.5%
Lakers 66.8%
Mavs 184.0%
Sixers 67.3%
Celtics 64.8%
Pistons 37.9%
Spurs 132.0%
Suns 20.0%
Pacers 84.2%

Top Ten Raw Average: 71.0%

In light of what all these other teams have done, the Bulls growth in value of 17% represents a spectacular failure.
I hadnt looked at that too closely. good call. looks like we are severely underperforming the NBA index in that area
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
I've been saying this for quite a while now. You've got to spend money to make money.

In terms of increased value over this period, we're 27th out of 29 teams.

Here's the full list:

Nuggets 344.9%
Mavs 184.0%
Spurs 132.0%
Kings 131.1%
Raps 105.8%
Clippers 103.9%
Twolves 93.3%
MIL 85.1%
Pacers 84.2%
Hornets 74.2%
Griz 70.7%
Rockets 67.5%
Sixers 67.3%
Lakers 66.8%
Celtics 64.8%
Heat 62.8%
Cavs 60.2%
Nets 55.4%
GSW 44.6%
Atlanta 44.3%
Pistons 37.9%
Knicks 35.5%
Wizards 32.4%
Jazz 29.0%
Suns 20.0%
Bulls 17.5%
Seattle 16.0%
Blazers 11.0%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
I've been saying this for quite a while now. You've got to spend money to make money.

In terms of increased value over this period, we're 27th out of 29 teams.

Here's the full list:

Nuggets 344.9%
Mavs 184.0%
Spurs 132.0%
Kings 131.1%
Raps 105.8%
Clippers 103.9%
Twolves 93.3%
MIL 85.1%
Pacers 84.2%
Hornets 74.2%
Griz 70.7%
Rockets 67.5%
Sixers 67.3%
Lakers 66.8%
Celtics 64.8%
Heat 62.8%
Cavs 60.2%
Nets 55.4%
GSW 44.6%
Atlanta 44.3%
Pistons 37.9%
Knicks 35.5%
Wizards 32.4%
Jazz 29.0%
Suns 20.0%
Bulls 17.5%
Seattle 16.0%
Blazers 11.0%
Interestingly the 2 bottom teams are ownded by 2 of the greatest business men of our time. Paul Allen and Howard Schultz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!


I hadnt looked at that too closely. good call. looks like we are severely underperforming the NBA index in that area
Yup, we're getting absolutely hammered. It's actually amazing when you think about it. We're in the third largest market, have one of the best history's and biggest fan bases of any team in the league.

They had the proverbial golden goose and they've proceded to kill it, eat, crap it out, flush it down the toilet, use it for fertilizer, then cut all the roses that grew up and throw them in a bonfire. Truly a site to behold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0216/064tab.html
http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/forbes/2004/0216/nba_3.html

Bulls rank #3 overall behind only the Lakers and Knicks. A more telling stat is that the Bulls were #1 in Operating Income for fiscal year 2003. Holy crap.

Nice little shoutout to NCBulls too on the first link.
Thanks , great timming !

IMO this is why our players are expecting to get paid without
working hard. They are thinking that they already doing enough
to justify their paycheck.

:yes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!


Interestingly the 2 bottom teams are ownded by 2 of the greatest business men of our time. Paul Allen and Howard Schultz.
I was very surprised to see the Sonics there. I wonder what the deal is there... Schultz only bought the team in 01, however, so perhaps he borrowed against it to finance the purchase? Also the article says the city owns their arena and doesn't give up much in the way of revenues. My guess is that the combination of those things would account for it and it's mostly a temporary blip (you'd have to imagine they'd get the arena thing figured out sooner or later).

The Blazers... well, combine massive alienation with their fan base and massive salary and luxury tax payouts and they don't surprise me. Allen was throwing the circa 98-99 Internet stock business plan at the NBA and it failed dramatically. Well, not that dramatically... lots of internet companies aren't anywhere close to 110% of what they were in 98 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Jordan is repsonsible for at least 250 of that 356 million.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
well you have to consider how much money each team was pulling in 5 years ago. the final leg of the three peat (98) the team was est. at 303 million. for the next 5 years the bulls have been valued at greater than that number with a far inferior product. that's really amazing.

if you look at nugz, they were worth 59 million in 98. in 2003 it's around 218 mil. to me it's easier to pull an astronomical percentage when you have all this room to move upwards.

i dunno just something to consider i think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
Actually, I think this is an absolutely horrendous report for the Bulls and shows just what the true costs of tanking for Reinsdorf and the other owners have been.

The article shows the Bulls were valued at $303M in 199 and $356M in 2003. That sounds pretty good, right?

Wrong.

It's horriffic.

What?

It represents a 17.5% increase over those five years, and that is by far the lowest among the other top ten valued teams in the NBA. Over the same time period,

Knicks 35.5%
Lakers 66.8%
Mavs 184.0%
Sixers 67.3%
Celtics 64.8%
Pistons 37.9%
Spurs 132.0%
Suns 20.0%
Pacers 84.2%

Top Ten Raw Average: 71.0%

In light of what all these other teams have done, the Bulls growth in value of 17% represents a spectacular failure.
Hey MikeDC, I guess you aren't a big fan of dividends. Over this five year period, the Bulls likely earned about $250 million in profits. Add that in and the return on the Bulls rises to about 100 percent over the five-year period.

I don't have time to do this for all of the teams, but the Mavericks and Spurs likely lost money during this period, so the return would be less than above. After factoring in "dividends," I bet the Bulls are about average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts
Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!


Hey MikeDC, I guess you aren't a big fan of dividends. Over this five year period, the Bulls likely earned about $250 million in profits. Add that in and the return on the Bulls rises to about 100 percent over the five-year period.

I don't have time to do this for all of the teams, but the Mavericks and Spurs likely lost money during this period, so the return would be less than above. After factoring in "dividends," I bet the Bulls are about average.
You would have been better off putting 100 mil in my hedge fund on Jan 1 2003. Ok, pointless marketing! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,211 Posts
Originally posted by <b>dsouljah9</b>!
Jordan is repsonsible for at least 250 of that 356 million.
id say 349 of the 356 with Pippens return this year responsible for the balance! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!

Hey MikeDC, I guess you aren't a big fan of dividends. Over this five year period, the Bulls likely earned about $250 million in profits. Add that in and the return on the Bulls rises to about 100 percent over the five-year period.

I don't have time to do this for all of the teams, but the Mavericks and Spurs likely lost money during this period, so the return would be less than above. After factoring in "dividends," I bet the Bulls are about average.
I'm certainly a fan of dividends, but how sustainable are they when your value is declining relative to everyone else? I'm pretty certain they can't be that sustainable. High operating revenue and low expenses is great as long as you have a compliant fan base that buys into the program. I don't see how that's sustainable in the face of continued losing.

That, of course, is what we're talking about when we talk about valuing a firm. A firm's value takes into account and reflects it's debts and revenues. And what this shows is that while the Bulls have been sitting fat and happy living off the past, everyone else is catching up and increasing their value. Does that cost money and incur debt? Of course it does. But if it was bad debt they wouldn't be valued so highly (or, if Forbes isn't considering such things, their valuations are damn near meaningless in the first place).

And even if they were "about average", about average is pretty lame for a team in the third largest market and a team with the most success over the prior decade. Average is below average when you consider the relative advantages the Bulls had to start with. I don't see any way around that fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
To put this another way, the Bulls were arguably the worst NBA team in year 2003 yet made the most money.

Sheesh.
And some would praise Jerry R. for his part to play in this organization. OHHH he's such a good man for buying out Jay Williams' contract. The Bulls org. made the payoff back in good publicity. Meanwhile the fans are gouged for a terrible product. He's a "good" man though.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top