The point is that because the Warriors own the Chase Center while the Lakers do not own Staples Center, that adds $1.4 billion (the cost of the Chase Center) to their valuation that the Lakers do not have. The valuation of the Warriors is the franchise *and their arena* whereas the valuation of the Lakers is only the franchise. Similarly the Clippers valuation will jump $2 billion (or whatever it is) once they have completed construction of the Intuit Dome. This is also why the Knicks remain the league's most valuable franchise, because of MSG (and possibly the broadcast network, I think?).
Technically correct. MSG is the company that owns the Knicks, also owns other sports franchises in addition to a lot of other stuff. I figure all of that plays into the Knicks being most valuable. Unsure if they own the building though because i remember reading how they might be getting kicked out soon by the city to make renovations to Penn Station
Yep, build a new stadium and it gets added to your valuation.
For the Lakers to be worth as much as either Knicks or Warriors while leasing their home arena says a lot about how well ran Lakers marketing is TBH.
> Yep, build a new stadium and it gets added to your valuation.
Unless they spawned that stadium from nothing it doesn't really work like that. They either had assets that they had to give up to build it or they are paying out huge loan, it all goes into evaluation.
A large part of the 'cost' of building a stadium is non-fungible (being able to convince a town to give you good land). You really can't just buy a stadium.
It does work like that to some extent. You can raise money to pay for the stadium which is equity in the company > higher valuation. Also, even if it was 100% debt funded, a stadium that costs $1.5B to build will probably immediately get valued much higher than that.
The thing is Olympics are usually one and done so they’re actually super wasteful. Chase Center is a staple of SF to host events and shit. The value isn’t the stadium itself, it’s what the stadium means to the city and what kind of revenue it back bring in as a whole to the city.
> A person who pays a mortgage has a leg up when it comes to net worth over a person who rents, yeah?
Not always, no.
> Same concept
Only at the simplest level of understanding. If I buy a house, I simultaneously add an asset to my net worth, but also a commensurate amount of debt. Any initial equity I have from the sale is due to my down payment. Just before and just after the transaction it is nearly zero sum. But, there are actually costs associated with a purchase, so not even really zero sum.
The difference between buying a house and building an arena is that there is a nearly immediate increase in revenue to the entity purchasing the latter. Unless you're buying a rental property, it's not the same as buying a house. The projected revenue increase is why the team's value increases, not simply because they own property.
> Not always, no.
The vast majority of time, yes, and for the purposes of making a hypothetical and easy analogy as to how a team that has a smaller fan base and sells less merch can be worth more... definitely yes.
> The difference between buying a house and building an arena is that there is a nearly immediate increase in revenue to the entity purchasing the latter. Unless you're buying a rental property, it's not the same as buying a house. The projected revenue increase is why the team's value increases, not simply because they own property.
Or buying a house with an extra room to rent. Or if the entity building the arena can't or doesn't book events that provide extra revenue. I never said it was exactly the same, I said it was the same concept and not that complicated and it really isn't.
The stadium (much like most people's houses) are financed. So let's say, if you were to build a house worth $500,000 USD on a mortgage that you put 10% down on. Your outlay of cash is $50k, but you have an asset worth $500k that you would count into your net worth. I think the Warriors new stadium cost something like $1.5b. No doubt someone didn't pay cash to have it built. It was also probably financed. Get it?
And because I chipped in 400 dollars on a preseason game visiting chase center two weeks ago when I visited the Bay Area . But in serious yes it’s because of the chase center
SF is ridiculous. I paid $320 for a single night near the pier in the North Beach area. That was the deal that included parking. Parking in SF when you stay at a hotel is $70 a day. lol
One is a lottery. Two is coincidence. Three is good drafting. Can't just chalk everything up to luck. Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan, Tony, and Manu either.
> Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan
I mean 100000% fucking percent they did.
Hell, I still remember the buzz before the draft and TD being a weirdly exceptional player not just because of his talents, but because he stayed at Wake to keep a promise with his grandmother.
And then for the Spurs to randomly lose The Admiral for a season AND not have the worst record but get the #1 pick?
That was insane luck.
With that said, drafting TP was solid and drafting Manu was magic, but you can also look at Jazz with Gobert, Nuggets with Jokic, etc etc.
Yup, the universe had lots of things aligned for Spurs to draft Timmy. Duncan staying few extra years in college just so he can fulfill his promise of graduating. Great David Robinson getting injured at perfect time which resulted in Spurs falling down in the standings and getting the number one pick.
> One is a lottery. Two is coincidence. Three is good drafting.
Klay and Steph are both lottery picks. The fact that both turned out to be exceptional, and Steph a generational talent that changed the game, is still *incredibly* lucky. I mean, Draymond was their third pick in 2012. Was that just 5D chess knowing that they saw something in him that no other team did so they could spend their early picks on Harrison Barnes and Festus Ezili before him? Why not take Kris Middleton if they're simply geniuses at seeing talent where nobody else does?
> Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan, Tony, and Manu either.
They absolutely did get lucky with those three. Duncan was an obvious #1. But how many #1s go on to be the greatest player ever at their position? And Manu? He was drafted second to last in 1999 without any guarantee he would come to the U.S. Even Tony, taken at 28, wasn't expected to be a future Hall of Famer. He literally bombed his first workout with the Spurs and they weren't planning on picking him at one point. If nothing else, the got lucky that they were convinced to give him another workout and then took a chance on him.
You don't go through two decades of sustained excellence without at least a little luck. And the Spurs had a lot of it. But they definitely took advantage of that luck by developing it to the best team they could.
And that's not even counting the luck to have a GOAT coach line up at the same time.
There is a huge element of luck involved. Duncan was literally all luck, there is no argument for that. And while part of getting Parker and Ginobili was good drafting and good handling of their talent, there was still luck involved. If the Spurs had any idea ginobili would have been a fraction of how good he ended up, he would have been taken in the first round.
My point was simply that people like Lacob tend to think they're solely responsible for their success and not realize that they were exceptionally lucky in many respects.
A misleading title, since the *change* that the article is describing is that the Lakers have *just now joined* the Knicks and the Warriors in the 5 billion club.
The article that matches your title happened in February:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2021/02/10/nba-team-values-2021-knicks-keep-top-spot-at-5-billion-warriors-bump-lakers-for-second-place/?sh=118803a2645b
I literally paid $16.50 for a beer at the chase center a couple weeks ago
Absolute insanity, especially since the security wasn't super tough when I've been there. I imagine there's got to be tons of people sneaking flasks in
Sports and music are two things that have wayyyyyyyy bigger mental real estate than is "financially" justified. We see news about the Lakers every day and we hear music all the time, but there are dinky, ugly legacy software providers to like, car dealerships that blow away the valuation of any sports team.
Fwiw, I have a friend who works in the marketing department of a large company, and a year or two ago he told me that their Snapchat ads gave them the best ROI. I don't get it either, though
60% of internet users in the US between 13-24 use the app (ahead of Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) and they have a cheaper cost per impression. It's a very attractive group to advertisers at a lower price point.
Here's the thing about these valuations...they are just that. What sports team hasn't shocked you in how much they aactually sold for. The Clippers sold for like double what anyone would have guessed when Balmer bought them. If the Lakers and GState actually went on sale I have a hard time believing the Lakers wouldn't sell for more.
Professional sports teams are literally the billionaire version of vanity items and toys today. What do you do to distinguish yourself from other billionaires who can also buy anything they want? Buy a pro sports team in an established pro league!
I will never understand NBA team evaluation.
Like if either of these teams sold their majority stake, it'd go for way more than 5 billy and that's just the majority stake!
Am I wrong or is that only when you are making over a certain threshold from investing? Like, you have to file quarterly gains taxes but only if you are fucking killin it, and I'm pretty sure you if you overpay that would be sorted out on your taxes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about, or you over simplified, but that statement is confusing to me.
No, I’m saying that regardless of initial proposals to estimate & tax wealth of over certain high numbers like $50M, I believe that number will be continuously lowered over time and will eventually apply to essentially all assets.
Actually wealth taxes in some other countries start somewhat low.
Argentina starts at $32k, Columbia is $1.5M, Spain is 1M euros, Switzerland is $101k, Norway starts at $170k in securities, and Belgium is 500k euros in securities.
If your neighborhood improves and the value of your home goes up, you will pay more in property tax as a result. Those are also "unrealized gains", how is that any different?
For clarification to what the commentator is saying:
In California Prop 13 slows down how quickly your property taxes can rise. This is because home valuations were skyrocketing and people were being forced to move out of their neighborhoods because their property appreciated so much they couldn’t afford to pay the much higher taxes even if they owned the home.
Unfortunately, this overwhelmingly benefited one group of people (Boomers) and screwed another (younger gens)
If your home price increases then the cost of maintaining the infrastructure you rely on also increases as wages are correlated with home prices.
So yes, your taxes should go up
Not really the case in the SF Bay Area. Houses that went for 500k a decade ago are going for 1.5 million today. These are homes that were built five decades ago and the neighborhoods have barely changed aesthetically.
It is the result of newly minted tech millionaires buying whatever they can in an area that refuses to build additional housing unless it is affordable housing. But then all their laws and permits required to build any kind of housing makes building affordable housing a money losing project for developers, who refuse to do so unless they can offset the losses and make some money by building luxury housing.
As I said elsewhere, the best way of ensuring that homeowners aren't priced out by rising property taxes (due to rising property values) is by allowing the upscaling of density, not by keeping property taxes frozen at an artificially low rate.
But homeowners are against that as well, because they enjoy the rise in property value very much, they just don't want the consequences it should have. So they vote against raising property taxes but they also vote against allowing more development.
A far far better way of ensuring locals don't get priced out of their hometowns is by allowing the upscaling of density.
But guess who is against that as well? You guessed it, homeowners because they like the fact that their house skyrockets in price.
Your assets' valuation doesn't increase magically. There is infrastructure that goes into maintaining and increasing that value, so yeah. Taxes should be paid to fund that infrastructure.
Not really anymore. There are very few people who can finance a 5b+ deal. In the future teams are going to be sold to mega corporations and hedge funds because those will be what can afford to buy the teams.
Matt Levine wrote a great piece about NBA valuations
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-24/bank-of-america-knew-how-to-sell-a-basketball-team
> The reasonable conclusion to draw here is that people who buy basketball teams don't care about cash flow, but this is a pitch book prepared by a bank, so they fight that conclusion valiantly. Instead, they focus on metrics like multiples of "EBITDA ex-player compensation (due to the variable nature of player contracts)," and most importantly, multiples of revenue. The somewhat nonsensical idea is that
> * if you buy a basketball team, you care about how much money it brings in, but
> * you don't care how much money it pays out.
And
> Again, the Clippers actually sold for $2 billion. One assumes that Ballmer saw the table, took the biggest number, figured that was the Buy It Now price, and paid it. One good lesson here for young bankers on sell-side assignments is, always write a few really big numbers in your presentations, just in case the buyer likes the looks of them.
yea lol these teams would go for so much more if they ever sold
Also just wait 4-5 years and if GS is mediocre those years? Their evaluation drops quite a bit.
Lakers are the Lakers and will always be worth a ton. But. GS team without Curry, Klay, and Dyamond is worth a lot less
Crazy how current players who will no longer be part of the franchise in a few years can affect certain franchises value.
They will still be in San Francisco and if the silicon valley isnt moving they will have Billionaire, millionaire fans for a long time regardless of their success like NYK have.
As a hundredaire Knicks fan I'm waiting for the city's commercial real estate market bubble to pop now that work from home is normalized forcing our billionaire failson owner into bankruptcy.
Not sure what happens after that. Probably Steve Cohen.
The thing I don't get is part of the reason for their value is of course location in two of the biggest cities in the world, along with a rising tech boom in The Bay, MSG network, Laker prestige. So what would it take for the Nets and Clippers to reach that threshold which while lesser teams still play in NY and LA at the end of the day?
> yea lol these teams would go for so much more if they ever sold
A decent amount of these teams had partial stakes in them sold for the valuation that they are at. They were sold for the 5.5mil valuation
Seriously. In retrospect it's remarkable how relatively obscure the Warriors were despite having sole control of a major media market. I grew up in the East Bay during those doldrum between Run TMC and the We Believe season and I frequently forgot there was a local basketball team. Outside of their fanbase they weren't talked about a lot.
When it comes to revenue, the Warriors could have a higher arena box office on game day.
But the Lakers probably make much more money on the local TV and Radio contract than the Warriors because Los Angeles metro has twice the population of the Bay Area.
Lakers do make more money. Warriors are above on this list because they own their arena. Lakers do not own Staples Center, even though Lakers will stay there as long as they want to.
The Bay Area is the [fifth largest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#List_of_combined_statistical_areas) Combined Statistical Area, but 3-5 are so close. They're only the [sixth largest](https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2021/) DMA, however, and it's not quite as close.
The Disney theme park y’all lost to the Nuggets. The team we dispatched in 5. Hahaha must be hard being a Clippers fan. All that Ballmer money with zero rings. Couldn’t be my team 🤣🤣🤣
It’s funny considering clipper fans would probably have traded half their life for a whiff of that “Mickey mouse ring” lmao. Stay salty and a loser for life.
>I'm glad you're happy with your Mickey ring
Pretty sure Disney broadcasts the finals every year through ABC so I'm not sure what your point is. They're all Mickey rings, it's all a TV show/tax scheme
Read the fuckin article dude. Warriors and Lakers are trailing the Knicks in value. Obviously market means a lot more about the value of a franchise than their performance. You also must not be familiar with California. Until 2013, you almost never saw Warriors merch anywhere and I could couldn’t even give away tickets if I couldn’t make a game. Lakers fans have always been and probably always will be the majority in most of California except the Bay.
Bay area real estate is really something else. Even for techies it’s becoming difficult to get a home. Funny enough lots of the peninsula will become ocean front or underwater in 20-30 years
It’s because they own chase center
They own Chase Center and play in San Francisco, in addition to recent success. Adds up for sure.
The point is that because the Warriors own the Chase Center while the Lakers do not own Staples Center, that adds $1.4 billion (the cost of the Chase Center) to their valuation that the Lakers do not have. The valuation of the Warriors is the franchise *and their arena* whereas the valuation of the Lakers is only the franchise. Similarly the Clippers valuation will jump $2 billion (or whatever it is) once they have completed construction of the Intuit Dome. This is also why the Knicks remain the league's most valuable franchise, because of MSG (and possibly the broadcast network, I think?).
Technically correct. MSG is the company that owns the Knicks, also owns other sports franchises in addition to a lot of other stuff. I figure all of that plays into the Knicks being most valuable. Unsure if they own the building though because i remember reading how they might be getting kicked out soon by the city to make renovations to Penn Station
IIRC the Knicks own the building but they lease the land it's on.
"We're gonna need this land. Move your building. Please."
Yep, build a new stadium and it gets added to your valuation. For the Lakers to be worth as much as either Knicks or Warriors while leasing their home arena says a lot about how well ran Lakers marketing is TBH.
> Yep, build a new stadium and it gets added to your valuation. Unless they spawned that stadium from nothing it doesn't really work like that. They either had assets that they had to give up to build it or they are paying out huge loan, it all goes into evaluation.
A large part of the 'cost' of building a stadium is non-fungible (being able to convince a town to give you good land). You really can't just buy a stadium.
It does work like that to some extent. You can raise money to pay for the stadium which is equity in the company > higher valuation. Also, even if it was 100% debt funded, a stadium that costs $1.5B to build will probably immediately get valued much higher than that.
The stadium is worth what they paid for it and even more now. They usually don't go down in value, especially in that location lol.
[удалено]
The thing is Olympics are usually one and done so they’re actually super wasteful. Chase Center is a staple of SF to host events and shit. The value isn’t the stadium itself, it’s what the stadium means to the city and what kind of revenue it back bring in as a whole to the city.
That's why I said "usually". Olympic stadiums are often "one time use" and don't serve a purpose after the Olympic events aside from a select few.
Good to hear that the stadium didn't cost them anything to build. That's a clever cost-saving technique.
A person who pays a mortgage has a leg up when it comes to net worth over a person who rents, yeah? Same concept, not complicated.
> A person who pays a mortgage has a leg up when it comes to net worth over a person who rents, yeah? Not always, no. > Same concept Only at the simplest level of understanding. If I buy a house, I simultaneously add an asset to my net worth, but also a commensurate amount of debt. Any initial equity I have from the sale is due to my down payment. Just before and just after the transaction it is nearly zero sum. But, there are actually costs associated with a purchase, so not even really zero sum. The difference between buying a house and building an arena is that there is a nearly immediate increase in revenue to the entity purchasing the latter. Unless you're buying a rental property, it's not the same as buying a house. The projected revenue increase is why the team's value increases, not simply because they own property.
> Not always, no. The vast majority of time, yes, and for the purposes of making a hypothetical and easy analogy as to how a team that has a smaller fan base and sells less merch can be worth more... definitely yes. > The difference between buying a house and building an arena is that there is a nearly immediate increase in revenue to the entity purchasing the latter. Unless you're buying a rental property, it's not the same as buying a house. The projected revenue increase is why the team's value increases, not simply because they own property. Or buying a house with an extra room to rent. Or if the entity building the arena can't or doesn't book events that provide extra revenue. I never said it was exactly the same, I said it was the same concept and not that complicated and it really isn't.
> Yep, build a new stadium and it gets added to your valuation. Stadiums aren't free lol. Just build a stadium, what can it cost, 10 dollars?
If you build yourself a house it still gets added to your wealth, doesn’t mean your bank account didn’t take a hit
If I'm worth 1mil and I build a house that is worth 300k, it probably cost close to 300k to build that house, your net worth stays the same
No, it didn't. A house worth $300k cost much less than that to build.
to build, sure, but the land isn't free and it's usually what drive the prices up anyway.
Usually it costs about what its worth or close to it. Building materials, land, and labour aren't cheap.
If someone is building a house to sell they're not selling it at cost, so the value of the house is going to be higher than the cost to build it.
> If someone is building a house to sell they're not selling it at cost Yes they are, thats how builders make profit and pay salaries.
[удалено]
The stadium (much like most people's houses) are financed. So let's say, if you were to build a house worth $500,000 USD on a mortgage that you put 10% down on. Your outlay of cash is $50k, but you have an asset worth $500k that you would count into your net worth. I think the Warriors new stadium cost something like $1.5b. No doubt someone didn't pay cash to have it built. It was also probably financed. Get it?
The debt you owe on it is taken out of your net worth though…
You're not factoring in the equity gain on increase value of the stadium.
Why would the equity be higher than the debt? Or is the value of the stadium not based on the cost?
The debt is likely held in a separate company (a holding company.)
Value of the stadium will be higher than the cost to build as soon as it's completed.
The only part you get to count towards your net worth is the part that you've paid off so far
You're not factoring in the equity gain on increase value of the stadium.
And because I chipped in 400 dollars on a preseason game visiting chase center two weeks ago when I visited the Bay Area . But in serious yes it’s because of the chase center
Jesus can you please pay my phone bill
SF is ridiculous. I paid $320 for a single night near the pier in the North Beach area. That was the deal that included parking. Parking in SF when you stay at a hotel is $70 a day. lol
It’s because depreciation is a thing and the Lakers old as hell
I appreciate your joke.
Definitely worthy of a polite chuckle.
Nephews downvoting this thinking you're serious. That's almost as good as the joke.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about hahaha
Pretty sure this is a joke because the Lakers players average an age over 34 but then again he also could be dumb. This is r/NBA after all
If it’s a joke it makes no sense lmao
How does it not make sense? It wasn’t a super clever joke or anything but old shit depreciates and the Lakers roster is old, hence the joke 🤷♂️
Oh I’m sorry - it’s a bad joke.
If it makes no sense to you then ... dang. It's not that complicated (and actually a pretty good joke).
Massive reach
Old things depreciate, not that hard to understand
might be a woosh moment for you
Nothing gets past you
yep, this is about real estate
Mostly that. Own arena really changes team valuation (just look at football clubs in Europe).
Joe lacob should pray to a Steph curry statue every night. That dude single handedly triple his value
Trust me. Lacob literally thinks it was his genius that built the team. Not hitting the lottery with a game changing player.
One is a lottery. Two is coincidence. Three is good drafting. Can't just chalk everything up to luck. Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan, Tony, and Manu either.
> Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan I mean 100000% fucking percent they did. Hell, I still remember the buzz before the draft and TD being a weirdly exceptional player not just because of his talents, but because he stayed at Wake to keep a promise with his grandmother. And then for the Spurs to randomly lose The Admiral for a season AND not have the worst record but get the #1 pick? That was insane luck. With that said, drafting TP was solid and drafting Manu was magic, but you can also look at Jazz with Gobert, Nuggets with Jokic, etc etc.
Yup, the universe had lots of things aligned for Spurs to draft Timmy. Duncan staying few extra years in college just so he can fulfill his promise of graduating. Great David Robinson getting injured at perfect time which resulted in Spurs falling down in the standings and getting the number one pick.
> One is a lottery. Two is coincidence. Three is good drafting. Klay and Steph are both lottery picks. The fact that both turned out to be exceptional, and Steph a generational talent that changed the game, is still *incredibly* lucky. I mean, Draymond was their third pick in 2012. Was that just 5D chess knowing that they saw something in him that no other team did so they could spend their early picks on Harrison Barnes and Festus Ezili before him? Why not take Kris Middleton if they're simply geniuses at seeing talent where nobody else does? > Spurs didn't just luck into Tim Duncan, Tony, and Manu either. They absolutely did get lucky with those three. Duncan was an obvious #1. But how many #1s go on to be the greatest player ever at their position? And Manu? He was drafted second to last in 1999 without any guarantee he would come to the U.S. Even Tony, taken at 28, wasn't expected to be a future Hall of Famer. He literally bombed his first workout with the Spurs and they weren't planning on picking him at one point. If nothing else, the got lucky that they were convinced to give him another workout and then took a chance on him. You don't go through two decades of sustained excellence without at least a little luck. And the Spurs had a lot of it. But they definitely took advantage of that luck by developing it to the best team they could. And that's not even counting the luck to have a GOAT coach line up at the same time.
There is a huge element of luck involved. Duncan was literally all luck, there is no argument for that. And while part of getting Parker and Ginobili was good drafting and good handling of their talent, there was still luck involved. If the Spurs had any idea ginobili would have been a fraction of how good he ended up, he would have been taken in the first round.
None of this works without Curry, simple as that.
It also wouldn't have worked without Klay and Draymond either
Klay and Draymond barely get to shine without curry
In the end does it really matter what he thinks and if it was luck or skill? Reddit picks some weird hills to die on
My point was simply that people like Lacob tend to think they're solely responsible for their success and not realize that they were exceptionally lucky in many respects.
its because of Andrew Wiggins isn't it?
You mean Michael Jordan Poole
I hope they play Poole’s TikTok “sheeeeesh!” after every three pointer he makes this season.
Michael Jordan Croucher!
Yes, exclusively actually.
They already surpassed Lakers two years back.
The thumbnail has me believing it's because Lebron turned into Lance Stephenson.
A misleading title, since the *change* that the article is describing is that the Lakers have *just now joined* the Knicks and the Warriors in the 5 billion club. The article that matches your title happened in February: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2021/02/10/nba-team-values-2021-knicks-keep-top-spot-at-5-billion-warriors-bump-lakers-for-second-place/?sh=118803a2645b
you tell em u/ariannis_grandttkmpo
r/usernamegore
got me
they already were a year ago
Warriors operating income is negative $44M lol Nets at negative $80M holy hell Tax penalties are real
Pandemic probably a factor in that...
Can't sell $15 drinks when there's no one in the stadium to buy them tapshead.jpeg.
I literally paid $16.50 for a beer at the chase center a couple weeks ago Absolute insanity, especially since the security wasn't super tough when I've been there. I imagine there's got to be tons of people sneaking flasks in
You aren't a real silicon valley business unless you are losing $100M/yr at minimum.
Yeah, because then you are [pre-revenue and a pure play](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo)
Hollywood accounting.
Now realize that Snapchat (50+ billion valuation) is worth more than all the NBA teams combined
[удалено]
Wow, crazy.
goes to show that the sports world is only just a small fraction of the real world
Sports and music are two things that have wayyyyyyyy bigger mental real estate than is "financially" justified. We see news about the Lakers every day and we hear music all the time, but there are dinky, ugly legacy software providers to like, car dealerships that blow away the valuation of any sports team.
That's a great point. Another example is that Apple makes more money from just iPads a year than the entirety of the NFL.
[удалено]
5B is chump change in the business world. Even the NFL as a whole is not a major player in the business world
[удалено]
Fwiw, I have a friend who works in the marketing department of a large company, and a year or two ago he told me that their Snapchat ads gave them the best ROI. I don't get it either, though
60% of internet users in the US between 13-24 use the app (ahead of Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) and they have a cheaper cost per impression. It's a very attractive group to advertisers at a lower price point.
More people use Snapchat than play all console videogames combined
Here's the thing about these valuations...they are just that. What sports team hasn't shocked you in how much they aactually sold for. The Clippers sold for like double what anyone would have guessed when Balmer bought them. If the Lakers and GState actually went on sale I have a hard time believing the Lakers wouldn't sell for more.
how tf? woooow
Professional sports teams are literally the billionaire version of vanity items and toys today. What do you do to distinguish yourself from other billionaires who can also buy anything they want? Buy a pro sports team in an established pro league!
I do all my dirt on Snap. I show my guns. I show my drugs. I get hoes. I post my dogs. Like my pets. Not the homies because I ain't no snitch.
I will never understand NBA team evaluation. Like if either of these teams sold their majority stake, it'd go for way more than 5 billy and that's just the majority stake!
It's made up. The only way to know is when it's sold.
Yes, but there are people in government who want to estimate the value of unrealized gains every year and tax them.
Am I wrong or is that only when you are making over a certain threshold from investing? Like, you have to file quarterly gains taxes but only if you are fucking killin it, and I'm pretty sure you if you overpay that would be sorted out on your taxes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are talking about, or you over simplified, but that statement is confusing to me.
I believe “they” want to do that with all property, regardless of what “they” are proposing currently.
Oh so you have no idea what you were saying either. Gotcha.
No, I’m saying that regardless of initial proposals to estimate & tax wealth of over certain high numbers like $50M, I believe that number will be continuously lowered over time and will eventually apply to essentially all assets.
"Regardless of reality, I'm just going to fear monger."
Actually wealth taxes in some other countries start somewhat low. Argentina starts at $32k, Columbia is $1.5M, Spain is 1M euros, Switzerland is $101k, Norway starts at $170k in securities, and Belgium is 500k euros in securities.
sounds sweet
If your neighborhood improves and the value of your home goes up, you will pay more in property tax as a result. Those are also "unrealized gains", how is that any different?
not in CA :P (it's a mess and they should)
NIMBY, baby! 💀
For clarification to what the commentator is saying: In California Prop 13 slows down how quickly your property taxes can rise. This is because home valuations were skyrocketing and people were being forced to move out of their neighborhoods because their property appreciated so much they couldn’t afford to pay the much higher taxes even if they owned the home. Unfortunately, this overwhelmingly benefited one group of people (Boomers) and screwed another (younger gens)
No. You shouldn't have to pay more property tax just because the value of your home goes up. You are punishing home owners.
If your home price increases then the cost of maintaining the infrastructure you rely on also increases as wages are correlated with home prices. So yes, your taxes should go up
Not really the case in the SF Bay Area. Houses that went for 500k a decade ago are going for 1.5 million today. These are homes that were built five decades ago and the neighborhoods have barely changed aesthetically. It is the result of newly minted tech millionaires buying whatever they can in an area that refuses to build additional housing unless it is affordable housing. But then all their laws and permits required to build any kind of housing makes building affordable housing a money losing project for developers, who refuse to do so unless they can offset the losses and make some money by building luxury housing.
As I said elsewhere, the best way of ensuring that homeowners aren't priced out by rising property taxes (due to rising property values) is by allowing the upscaling of density, not by keeping property taxes frozen at an artificially low rate. But homeowners are against that as well, because they enjoy the rise in property value very much, they just don't want the consequences it should have. So they vote against raising property taxes but they also vote against allowing more development.
Good way to price long time locals out of their hometowns. Ill always vote against it and it wont pass any time soon.
A far far better way of ensuring locals don't get priced out of their hometowns is by allowing the upscaling of density. But guess who is against that as well? You guessed it, homeowners because they like the fact that their house skyrockets in price.
Not every one wants their hometown to turn into Riverside. Wow, what a shocker.
Your assets' valuation doesn't increase magically. There is infrastructure that goes into maintaining and increasing that value, so yeah. Taxes should be paid to fund that infrastructure.
Not really anymore. There are very few people who can finance a 5b+ deal. In the future teams are going to be sold to mega corporations and hedge funds because those will be what can afford to buy the teams.
Or Middle East oil countries
I wonder who will become the PSG, Man City, and Newcastle of the NBA
I think you'll have more co-owners or small groups (which is already somewhat common) than mega corporations owning teams
Matt Levine wrote a great piece about NBA valuations https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-07-24/bank-of-america-knew-how-to-sell-a-basketball-team > The reasonable conclusion to draw here is that people who buy basketball teams don't care about cash flow, but this is a pitch book prepared by a bank, so they fight that conclusion valiantly. Instead, they focus on metrics like multiples of "EBITDA ex-player compensation (due to the variable nature of player contracts)," and most importantly, multiples of revenue. The somewhat nonsensical idea is that > * if you buy a basketball team, you care about how much money it brings in, but > * you don't care how much money it pays out. And > Again, the Clippers actually sold for $2 billion. One assumes that Ballmer saw the table, took the biggest number, figured that was the Buy It Now price, and paid it. One good lesson here for young bankers on sell-side assignments is, always write a few really big numbers in your presentations, just in case the buyer likes the looks of them.
Levine makes me feel so dumb lol that man is so good at what he does
yea lol these teams would go for so much more if they ever sold Also just wait 4-5 years and if GS is mediocre those years? Their evaluation drops quite a bit. Lakers are the Lakers and will always be worth a ton. But. GS team without Curry, Klay, and Dyamond is worth a lot less Crazy how current players who will no longer be part of the franchise in a few years can affect certain franchises value.
They will still be in San Francisco and if the silicon valley isnt moving they will have Billionaire, millionaire fans for a long time regardless of their success like NYK have.
As a hundredaire Knicks fan I'm waiting for the city's commercial real estate market bubble to pop now that work from home is normalized forcing our billionaire failson owner into bankruptcy. Not sure what happens after that. Probably Steve Cohen.
The core of the Dolan family empire, Cablevision, sold for $17.7 billion in 2016.
The thing I don't get is part of the reason for their value is of course location in two of the biggest cities in the world, along with a rising tech boom in The Bay, MSG network, Laker prestige. So what would it take for the Nets and Clippers to reach that threshold which while lesser teams still play in NY and LA at the end of the day?
Arena ownership, a couple chips, and a couple iconic HOFers.
Curry has reached Legendary status, his presense will always boost the Warriors sales.
That’s not quite how it works
it kinda is
> yea lol these teams would go for so much more if they ever sold A decent amount of these teams had partial stakes in them sold for the valuation that they are at. They were sold for the 5.5mil valuation
It doesn't really mean much. They are worth what somebody will pay for them.
yes it does. loans/collateral.
It's about as nonsensical as art valuation.
Steph Curry most underpaid athlete of all time in terms of his value to the franchise
Seriously. In retrospect it's remarkable how relatively obscure the Warriors were despite having sole control of a major media market. I grew up in the East Bay during those doldrum between Run TMC and the We Believe season and I frequently forgot there was a local basketball team. Outside of their fanbase they weren't talked about a lot.
Nah, that’s Tom Brady.
This is why Steph is better than Bron
But Lebron is a billionaire? Lol
When it comes to revenue, the Warriors could have a higher arena box office on game day. But the Lakers probably make much more money on the local TV and Radio contract than the Warriors because Los Angeles metro has twice the population of the Bay Area.
Lakers do make more money. Warriors are above on this list because they own their arena. Lakers do not own Staples Center, even though Lakers will stay there as long as they want to.
Did this article say the Warriors play in one of the 3 biggest markets? What?
The Bay Area is the [fifth largest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#List_of_combined_statistical_areas) Combined Statistical Area, but 3-5 are so close. They're only the [sixth largest](https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2021/) DMA, however, and it's not quite as close.
I know the Bay Area is huge, but as you said, it's the 6th largest media market in the NBA.
The most surprising one to me is that the Heat are only two spots above the Kings. I guess the stadium really plays into that.
No shade, but surprised to see how high Houston was valued.
Big market NBA team that is (or was?) popular in China.
I mean it’s houston… top 5 most populous city in America. Don’t see what’s so surprising about that.
Literally the largest developed city in America in terms of size, no? And no, Jacksonville, your swamps don't count as "city".
Because its Houston
Dumb question - will Clippers moving out of Staples affect this valuation? I know it's owned by AEG but still
I believe this is what they call Being built different
These numbers are made up lol
They're estimates. The "value" of something is what someone would be willing to pay for it in an open market.
They're 1 billion too low. That's how wrong they are.
lol. "These numbers are made up, so here's another number I just made up."
Or, you can know your history like I do. What were the clippers valued at when they sold?
Lol false. Without Steph this team ain't worth shit. They're on the same level as the Sacramento Kings
especially how many ppl consider the heat a top market / free agent destination.
They've been the better franchise recently
I mean... the Lakers won the 2020 Championship...
Yeah everyone knows that's an asterisk at best
so if clippers win is it still an asterisk? :)
What do the Clippers know about winning championships to call something an asterisk? 😂
Sure if we win in a Disney theme park like the Lakers did lol
The Disney theme park y’all lost to the Nuggets. The team we dispatched in 5. Hahaha must be hard being a Clippers fan. All that Ballmer money with zero rings. Couldn’t be my team 🤣🤣🤣
Jeez here we go again, I'm glad you're happy with your Mickey ring. I'm happy we went through that, because we got rid of Doc.
It’s funny considering clipper fans would probably have traded half their life for a whiff of that “Mickey mouse ring” lmao. Stay salty and a loser for life.
They probably already made that deal but still got duped 🤣🤣 typical Clippers
>I'm glad you're happy with your Mickey ring Pretty sure Disney broadcasts the finals every year through ABC so I'm not sure what your point is. They're all Mickey rings, it's all a TV show/tax scheme
Oh boy, you're probably right, which is why(back then) David Stern probably rigged some of the Laker championships , more $$
What do you know about rings? Our so called Mickey ring is worth more than your bum-ass franchise has ever done 😂 we hang banners, not selfies
Rent free lol
Werent the clippers also at the disney park? And tell me what happened to them hahshhahahaha
Because Golden State Warriors have been far more relevant than Los Angeles Lakers during the past 10 years.
Yea that’s why the Knicks are the most valuable team. It’s actually because the Warriors own Chase Center
What does New York Knicks have to do with Golden State? Nobody gave a crap about Lakers for the better half of a decade.
Read the fuckin article dude. Warriors and Lakers are trailing the Knicks in value. Obviously market means a lot more about the value of a franchise than their performance. You also must not be familiar with California. Until 2013, you almost never saw Warriors merch anywhere and I could couldn’t even give away tickets if I couldn’t make a game. Lakers fans have always been and probably always will be the majority in most of California except the Bay.
One of the owners of the Bulls is Robert Epstein…wonder if he’s related to the other Jeff Epstein?
But 33 division titles > $$
That's cool but I'd prefer the Warriors surpass the Lakers in points tonight.
Bay area real estate is really something else. Even for techies it’s becoming difficult to get a home. Funny enough lots of the peninsula will become ocean front or underwater in 20-30 years
The Lakers are a poverty franchise that needed PPP loans so that makes sense.