How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    A regular poster here has been bad mouthing the ownership of the Celtics calling them cheap and saying that this ownership doesn't have the financial muscle of other owners in the NBA.

    Well .... Guess what???

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/01/23/the-celtics-score-how-bostons-value-doubled-to-730-million-in-just-10-years/

     

    > For the record, there are two teams in the NBA worth more than $1 billion this year, and the Celtics aren’t one of them–at least according to us–but they are getting closer. This year FORBES values the team at $730 million, number four in the league behind the New York Knicks ($1.1 billion), Los Angeles Lakers ($1 billion) and Chicago Bulls ($800 million). That’s a 51% increase in the Celtics‘ value over last year, thanks to a new television deal that will double cash flow. <

    > They’re making a bundle, generating an estimated $19 million in operating profit on revenues of some $143 million last year versus the league averages of $12 million and $123 million. And they’re doing it without owning the building they play in, one of the toughest tricks in pro sports. <

    > Toiling around the middle of the NBA pack in sponsorship revenue a decade ago, the Celtics now rank in the league’s top five (an improvement that mirrors their rise in FORBES’ annual valuations). They struck equally lucrative television deals. An agreement with Comcast gives the Celtics a 20% equity stake in the regional sports network CSN New England, while roughly doubling the club’s local TV revenue to $40 million annually, with provisions for steep increases over the next 20 years. <

    > “These are sophisticated financial guys,” says Marc Ganis, a sports business consultant who has worked with many NBA teams. With myriad investments and business relationships, he notes, they’re able to tap their personal business networks for sponsorships, suite dollars and other support. Good thing. When you don’t own your building, “you’re far more dependent on how you run your basketball team,” he says. <

    > The boldest move was Garnett, who came in a trade from the Minnesota Timberwolves (with Ainge practically swindling his former teammate Kevin McHale, Minnesota’s GM) with two years remaining on a six-year, $126 million deal. After two subsequent extensions Boston will wind up paying the big man $140 million for eight seasons, until he’s 39. It’s risky. The club’s full executive committee reviewed the deal, seeing it as a make-or-break moment.

    “If it works, it’s a championship. If it doesn’t, it’s a financial burden,” Grousbeck says. “Every single guy said, ‘I’m in, and if anyone wants to be out I’ll do their piece’.'” Given Garnett’s central role in returning the Celtics to NBA glory and four years of consistent sellouts, it is working so far. “Winning after taking a risk makes it all the more fun,” he says. <

    > “I just turned down a ridiculous number for this team,” Grousbeck says before we head down to our seats, unable to contain himself. How ridiculous? He’s a dealmaker, a longtime private equity guy, and he knows we’re in the middle of doing FORBES’ annual valuations of NBA teams, so of course he’ll whisper it but won’t say on the record and won’t disclose who made the offer. But if it had worked out, he insists, it would have dwarfed the $360 million he and a group of investors, including fellow private equity pal Steve Pagliuca, paid for the team back in 2002. Pushed, Grousbeck offers this: “There are franchises in the NBA that will be worth a billion dollars,” he says. “If there aren’t already.” <

     

    Now, I offer this up ... There's no way a bunch of smart financial people turn down $1B for their NBA franchise and then watch it fall precipitously in value because they are too cheap to spend money on players to maintain or increase the value of their investment. That's ludicrous and if anything, it should give fans more confidence that this ownership group is comitted to this franchise and seeing to it that it's value increases after turning down such an offer. There's only one way to do that and that's to put a quality product on the floor and I have every confidence that they will do just that.

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    Very interesting article.  Thanks for posting it. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

    Now, I offer this up ... There's no way a bunch of smart financial people turn down $1B for their NBA franchise and then watch it fall precipitously in value because they are too cheap to spend money on players to maintain or increase the value of their investment. That's ludicrous and if anything, it should give fans more confidence that this ownership group is comitted to this franchise and seeing to it that it's value increases after turning down such an offer. There's only one way to do that and that's to put a quality product on the floor and I have every confidence that they will do just that.

     

     

    James Posey wanted a 4-year deal for 24m. The Celts only wanted to give Posey a 3-year deal.

    Because of future luxury-tax concerns, Boston was apparently reluctant to offer Posey, 31, more than a two- or three-year deal starting at the league's midlevel exception (just under $5.6 million) in spite of Posey's considerable contributions to the Celtics' first championship since 1986.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3492206

     

    Tony Allen wanted a 3-year deal for 9m. But the Celts were only willing to give a 2-year deal for 6m, 3m per year for 2 years.

    And the Celtics owners are not cheap?

    If you didn't have fungus for brains, you would have known these facts.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




    Up yers you IDIOT!!!!  Danny didn't want to give T Allen a 3 yr deal cause he want to clear cap space for that third year. Everyone here knew that except you apparently. It was no secret and had nothing to do with ownership ... It's called Cap Mgmt!

    Posey was too old to warrant a 4 yr deal despite what he helped the C's accomplish and the team that signed him found out why as did Larry Bird and Indy ... He wasn't "worthy" the last TWO years of his 4 yr deal so DANNY WAS RIGHT!!!

     

    http://www.hark.com/clips/kbcgtvgdwr-idiots

     

    http://www.quizrocket.com/idiot-quiz

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    Mployee8,

    good article.  This is a competely different slant and new set of information.  Thanks for sharing and I agree, the brass want this team to contend....they don't want to start over.  My guess is that they will aim high on the stars in free agency.  But, they'll likely fail because the biggest stars don't want to come to Beantown for many reasons (cold, old, they don't know the Celtic  "tradition" and don't care about it, etc.).   We won't get big names even if the ownership WANTS to spend some money.

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    Tony Allen made 2 clutch FTs to beat the Thunder and the Griz advance to the west finals for the first time in franchise history.

    The Celtic owners are not cheap?

    Tony Allen only asked for an additional 3m and they refused.




    Your proving yourself to be the biggest idiot on these boards every hour now ... Take a break and refresh the few braincells you still have left!

     

    PS: Tony Allen also wanted to be in a bigger role ... like starting or 6th man off the bench and the C's wouldn't make that commitment either.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from teejaytee70. Show teejaytee70's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    Tony Allen wanted to start and play starter minutes.  It wasn't a financial decision on his part.  Memphis offered a more substantial role than 8th guy off the bench.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    More Doc Rivers mismanagement of his players..

    TA was a defensive stud and was coming on offensively... on the break and drives to the basket.. Doc should have played him more and made him a bigger part of the team.

    TA said he felt overshadowed by Bostons superstars (Big 3)... "OVERSHADOWED"... this is what happens when a coach drools and pampers only his stars and treats the rest with indifference... its why so many players leave Boston mumbling about how they were treated

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Number6Fan. Show Number6Fan's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    This could have been a good thread had not Fierce jumped in with his monomaniacal Mployee8-bashing, and Karl with his Doc bashing. Can people exercise self-control?  This is really tiresome.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Number6Fan. Show Number6Fan's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    Fierce --

    Posey was a defendable basketball decision -- DA didn't think he had four years left in him; he's been proven right, and you'd be the first to complain about the wasted cap money tied up in the final two years of his contract.

    TA didn't even give the Celts an opportunity to jump in. 

    Decisions like that are what you pay a GM for, cheap or not.  Just because you have money, doesn't mean you throw it around like Jimmy Buss or James Dolan or that Russian Nets guy.

    I am thankful every day that Wyc and Steve own the Celtics.  Remember Paul Gaston?  John Y. Brown?

    And please, you and Mployee stop this silly McCoy/Hatfield thing you have going on.  It's really tiresome.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Number6Fan. Show Number6Fan's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    James Posey wouldn't have helped the Celtics defend Kobe and shoot open 3s in the 2010 NBA Finals?

     



    Not the way he was playing for NO is 2010.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mployee8. Show Mployee8's posts

    Re: How do the Celtics Compare Financially to their Peers/Adversaries?

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    In response to teejaytee70's comment:

     

    Tony Allen wanted to start and play starter minutes.  It wasn't a financial decision on his part.  Memphis offered a more substantial role than 8th guy off the bench.

     



    Remember, the Celtics had Rondo and Perk as starters. If you put Tony Allen with Perk and Rondo, that's 3 players who are not good shooters. That's like playing 2 vs. 5.

     

    The reason why Tony Allen can start with Memphis is he's the only one who's not a good shooter. Conley, Gasol, Zach Randolph, and Gay/Prince are a threat from the perimeter or the 3pt line. So playing 4 vs. 5 is not a big deal because TA makes up for his lack of shooting on the defensive end.

    Saying that Doc only pampers his stars is dumb. Doc even demoted Ray Allen, removed him from the starting 5, in favor of Avery Bradley last season.



    If you put Tony Allen with Perk and Rondo, that's 3 players who are not good shooters. That's like playing 2 vs. 5.

    So in essence you just made my argument. If Tony didn't fit so well and Danny only wanted to offer two years for cap mgmt purposes, why does he accomodate Tony/Agent in that case. Lucky for Tony and unlucky for us that Memphis swooped in and gave him what he wanted ... otherwise Danny played his hand well.

    Secondly, you can't have it both ways Fungus! You can't call the C's cheap when it comes to Tony and then expect them to pay Pierce $15MM at this stage of his career "cause it's the right thing to do." Do you ever think about how contradicting the statements you make are?

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share