Shaz
Registered User
No they are not. Seattle would be a Revenue Contributer whereas Sacramento would be a Revenue Recipient.
Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part VII
- Thread starter JawandaPuck
- Start date
- Status
No they are not. Seattle would be a Revenue Contributer whereas Sacramento would be a Revenue Recipient.
I wasn't answering that, because the discussion was related to the claims that Sacramento will be a "taker" rather than a "giver", and that somehow the rejection of revenue sharing payments was dirty pool because Sacramento will always be a taker and Seattle will always be a giver.
Sacramento's potential doesn't need to be as high as or higher than Seattle's for Sacramento to be a giver. It just needs to make a profit of $10MM. Likewise, if Seatlle doesn't make a profit of $10MM, it could be a taker. But it's all just speculation on both sides. One of Hansen's big selling points is supposed to be how Seattle will always be a giver and that's A-OK. Yet when Sacramento promises the same thing, it's dirty?
Is this written in stone somewhere? How do you know?
Yes, and the 12th and 20th media markets both fall in the same revenue sharing tier.
superdeluxe
NAFO
if eligible. That is the big difference. Seattle won't be eligible, Sacramento will be. Sure there will be a upswing because everyone is going to be excited about the Kings staying etc. But that doesn't change where the economy is or the amount of Fortune 500 companies in the Sacramento area.
Shaz
Registered User
This is absolutely false. Fugu and Super Deluxe already hit the points on Seattle being a contributer instead of receiving.
superdeluxe
NAFO
Its semantics. Seattle and Sacramento are lumped together based on number of TV sets. The key word is 'if eligible'
If a team is profitable without revenue sharing, it receives a smaller or zero payment. Any payments from revenue sharing that would lead a team to have a profit over $10 million are eliminated.
If a team is profitable without revenue sharing, it receives a smaller or zero payment. Any payments from revenue sharing that would lead a team to have a profit over $10 million are eliminated.
You stated: "Would you call San Antonio a profitable market? They take money from the revenue sharing plan. ALL small markets do."
Now you say the key word is 'if eligible'. So which is it? Do ALL small markets take money, or only those that are eligible?
Yes, I linked to that and stated it more than once.
Claim #1: Sacramento and Seattle are in the same revenue sharing tier. Source: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q24 As defined by the NBA, 1MM to 2MM households is one of four tiers (the next-to-lowest tier). Sacramento #20 market, 1.388MM households. Seattle #12 market, 1.819MM households. Source: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...market-universe-estimates-for-2012-13/146976/
Claim #2: Teams with greater than $10MM in profits do not receive revenue sharing payments. Source: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q24
Claim #3: Sacramento and Seattle are both promising that they will be ineligible for revenue sharing. This seems widely accepted by everyone.
Claim #4: Sacramento says it will not take revenue sharing payments even if eligible, putting their money where their mouth is. Seattle makes the same pledge. First part reported by many sources, second by Chris Daniels.
Claim #5: Nobody knows if Sacramento or Seattle will realize more than $10MM in profit per year.
Last edited:
maruk14
Registered User
Not true:
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5 3h
Sources close to #NBASeattle group tell me they had, months ago, agreed to revenue sharing cap w/NBA.
Expand
Chris Daniels @ChrisDaniels5 3h
Those same sources say #NBASeattle team would not be a revenue sharing recipient, and that was part of their original deal with NBA
https://twitter.com/ChrisDaniels5
So - it appears Seattle agreed to these provision months ago if it was part of the original deal with the NBA. Also makes you wonder how involved the NBA was in the original transaction between the Maloofs and the Hansen group - seems to me they were part of the negotiation based on that quote. Would also explain why Hansen hasn't backed down and wants to force this to a vote.
Last edited:
Although I would still say #4 was widely accepted, it looks like Chris Daniels has just today reported otherwise. That's very interesting. I'm not sure that indicates the NBA was part of the negotiation between the Maloofs and Hansen, but it does make one wonder. Alternatively, Hansen may have had the foresight to include it on his own originally, and the NBA insisted the Sacramento group do likewise with their offer. New news!
Shaz
Registered User
Seriously I want expansion
As much as Sac and Sea are bickering over this, the NBA needs to do the right thing (They won't of course because Stern is a greedy ****)
As much as Sac and Sea are bickering over this, the NBA needs to do the right thing (They won't of course because Stern is a greedy ****)
EC09
Cleveland Sports Fan
Have to add 1 team to each conference. Seattle to the West, obviously. I'm thinking a team somewhere in Maine would do fantastic. Bangor perhaps?
I feel that if Sac is going to prevent the NBA from getting a donor market from seattle they should not ask for help financially. NBA gains nothing besides good PR by keeping sac.
Bullwine85
Registered User
Or you could add two teams to the west, considering the east will have two more teams than the west starting next year
GuelphStormer
Registered User
i have to admit, im a bit concerned by all the various predictions that a team which does not even exist will be so successful financially that it will not only make a profit, but that it will contribute to revenue sharing. do these confident predictions also include the idea that seattle would easily sell out every night? that it would easily be able to charge top ticket prices? some pretty high expectations being painted here. 
i have to admit, im a bit concerned by all the various predictions that a team which does not even exist will be so successful financially that it will not only make a profit, but that it will contribute to revenue sharing. do these confident predictions also include the idea that seattle would easily sell out every night? that it would easily be able to charge top ticket prices? some pretty high expectations being painted here.
As a non-Seattle SuperSonics fan (GO LAKERS!) who has lived in the Northwest for over a decade, I can assure you that, indeed, Seattle would sell out every game and could charge very unrealistic prices if they wanted to and people would still pay to go see them. People can talk about Seattle loving its Mariners and Seahawks all they want, but that city was a SuperSonics city first and it absolutely ripped the hearts out of their fans when that team was relocated. This is a city that had their team stolen from them and they have not gotten over it, so even though those expectations might seem high to you, they are realistic. It's not really even a prediction, in a way, but a statement of fact: if Seattle gets their team back at some point, they will sell out every game in short order and will be able to do so at virtually any price range they choose to set.
superdeluxe
NAFO
i have to admit, im a bit concerned by all the various predictions that a team which does not even exist will be so successful financially that it will not only make a profit, but that it will contribute to revenue sharing. do these confident predictions also include the idea that seattle would easily sell out every night? that it would easily be able to charge top ticket prices? some pretty high expectations being painted here.
These are educated/best guesses predictions based on the economic vitality and corporate support of the area, as well as TV contract rates. No one can know for sure what the Attendance is going to look like 20 years from now. Thankfully the NBA market is less dependent on Gate revenue
I appreciate your 'concern' about the viability of the Seattle market as it pertains to the NBA.
I'll let you all chew on this piece of breaking news out of Sacramento.....
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/08/5405733/nba-encouraging-sacramento-suitors.html
Another interesting development to be sure.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/08/5405733/nba-encouraging-sacramento-suitors.html
Another interesting development to be sure.
Mightygoose
Registered User
It doesn't seem like an ultimatum from the league by any stretch.
Looks to me like the league would just love to rid themselves of the Maloofs and any incentive will help.
EC09
Cleveland Sports Fan
maruk14
Registered User
Definitely - now we will see if the Sac group is willing to step up and put the full, original evaluation for the team in escrow or have they been playing all along hoping they didn't have to front the full amount and then negotiate a lesser amount after the NBA rejected the sale.
$525MM eval for the team in Sacramento is a big risk when the last Forbes numbers before the sale were $300MM.
Stern has already said their offer is binding in the NBA's eyes. The league will NOT allow them to negotiate a lesser amount. That was never an option.
superdeluxe
NAFO
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 3 Dallas Stars @ Colorado Avalanche - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 13Staked: $17,124.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
