Nebula1 wrote:InsideOut wrote:How would you explain to the people that could care less about basketball and think the Bucks are a joke that the franchise is an asset? They don't care about basketball and the team has been bad for like forever and now they are being asked to pay a tax to build the team a new arena. If they are paying money for something they could care less about they may see that as a liability and not an asset. An asset to one person might be a liabilty to another. Think owning a car in New York city. You might think a person would be stupid for turning down a free used car and that person might think you would be stupid to taking it. It all depends on each person's situation.
That's not correct. Asset valuation is not based on personal perception or use.
A car, for example, is a poor investment as it is a depreciating asset. An NBA franchise, in the modern CBA environment, is an appreciating asset and the appreciation is protected by profit-sharing, salary caps, etc. Totally different investments.
It's the public fault they can't understand basic concepts like that. They see a team that's losing and has been losing and equate poor value. That's just stupid.
What the team and city has to do is show how the asset contributes to other revenue streams. It should be part of a bigger city plan and really Milwaukee should build something wonderful and advanced. Milwaukee has an opportunity here to be creative and be a leader. Yes it's hard to be a leader and it takes courage, but that's what it takes. Milwaukee has that opportunity.
The Bucks are one of the oldest franchises in the NBA and have a long history and a championship. Both the precious Packers and Brewers were equally bad for a decade+ before getting public support which helped both franchises become relevant again. The Bucks can do the same.
A diamond covered in dirt and sitting in a faulty ring is still a diamond.
I disagree and feel that asset valuation is based quite a bit on personal perception. In many cases perception is more important than reality. Why did Coke or IBM stock drop right after 911? Were those companies worth less because of those planes flying into buildings? Did people stop drinking Coke? Did Coke’s earnings take a hit because of those planes? Personal perception is the reason why and asset like and old Ferrari is worth $1 million one year and worth $5 million two years later. As an FYI, I think the Bucks are ranked the least valued major sports team in the country.
Why should some 80 year old grandma living in Slinger care if the Bucks are an asset? Why is she stupid if she doesn't want to pay for that? The Bucks are Kohl's asset and not hers so why should she care?
Public support didn't make the Packers relevant. They have always been relevant and that is why I had to wait 35+ years for season tickets. change at the top made both the Packers and Brewers winners. The Bucks need to make the same change in order to become winners and then they will become relevant.
The fact is Milwaukee has a lot bigger problems than the Bucks. I think I read that from 20000-2010 Milwaukee lost more jobs than any other major city. The city is losing people. The school system is near the bottom of the country. When you look at stuff like that where a bunch of millionaires play games isn't as relevant. The Bucks need to make it relevant by doing two things. First would be a management change that leads to winning enough to be relevant. Second would be like you mentioned and show what money the Bucks bring to the community. Someone needs to come up with that dollar amount.