Image ImageImage Image

Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls?

Moderators: HomoSapien, RedBulls23, dougthonus, kulaz3000, Ice Man, fleet, GimmeDat, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, AshyLarrysDiaper, Payt10

Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls?

1). Yes
86
83%
2). No
17
17%
 
Total votes: 103

musiqsoulchild
RealGM
Posts: 28,914
And1: 5,889
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Chicago

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#181 » by musiqsoulchild » Tue Aug 6, 2019 10:39 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.


How does that matter? The Bulls (thank you Chicago and MJ) would still be highly valued.
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 13,432
And1: 1,025
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#182 » by Michael Jackson » Tue Aug 6, 2019 11:09 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.



Realistically though they should be. I would assume Brooklyn and Clipps are both going to eat up market share in their respective markets the next few years plus they will get more national and global attention. Nothing shocking with that prediction. Chicago is also receding people daily. I’d be shocked if those two didn’t. Now if Atlanta over takes Chicago that is more interesting to me. They have the population to do it but I don’t know that the hawks have the hold that the Bulls do.
musiqsoulchild
RealGM
Posts: 28,914
And1: 5,889
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Chicago

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#183 » by musiqsoulchild » Tue Aug 6, 2019 11:27 pm

Michael Jackson wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.



Realistically though they should be. I would assume Brooklyn and Clipps are both going to eat up market share in their respective markets the next few years plus they will get more national and global attention. Nothing shocking with that prediction. Chicago is also receding people daily. I’d be shocked if those two didn’t. Now if Atlanta over takes Chicago that is more interesting to me. They have the population to do it but I don’t know that the hawks have the hold that the Bulls do.


Atlanta is a good call. Thats a booming population center with young professionals.
McBulls
General Manager
Posts: 7,591
And1: 3,539
Joined: Dec 10, 2006
   

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#184 » by McBulls » Wed Aug 7, 2019 2:06 am

An owner who helped MJ to play professional baseball instead of continuing to play basketball for his three-peat NBA championship team after MJ’s father died (who MJ thought wanted him to be a baseball player) is pretty special. Not many of us would have done the same thing.

On the other hand, an owner who encouraged MJ, Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson to retire or leave the team immediately after winning their sixth NBA title together should find something else to do.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 7,844
And1: 3,117
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#185 » by Leslie Forman » Wed Aug 7, 2019 2:23 am

Michael Jackson wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.



Realistically though they should be. I would assume Brooklyn and Clipps are both going to eat up market share in their respective markets the next few years plus they will get more national and global attention. Nothing shocking with that prediction. Chicago is also receding people daily. I’d be shocked if those two didn’t. Now if Atlanta over takes Chicago that is more interesting to me. They have the population to do it but I don’t know that the hawks have the hold that the Bulls do.

They really shouldn't, just like how the Mets and Angels are not bigger than the Cubs, or the Islanders and Ducks are not bigger than the Hawks.

Being the only franchise, and one with an internationally, culturally iconic brand in the easily third biggest, richest market of the country should be at least an automatic #3 valuation ranking every single year for eternity. It would take an immense lack of give-a-sh*tness to take a brand like this in a market like this, which is actually much more of a basketball town than even the people of this city think, IMO, to fall behind second-tier NY/LA teams, or the Celtics, or the Rockets, or whatever. It'd be a downright Wirtz-ian lack of leadership to let that happen.

I can assure you, however, that the Atlanta Hawks will not be one of those teams that overtakes them. Nobody gives a flying F about the Hawks there. They make less revenue than the Magic.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 32,106
And1: 16,654
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#186 » by johnnyvann840 » Wed Aug 7, 2019 4:18 am

dougthonus wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:I know what you're talking about Doug. But theres no dividend payout here. Theres no Bulls stock that appreciates in value.


So? People who have billions of dollars can wait for the final sale. Not everyone needs cash. In fact, most people rich enough to own an NBA team don't need cash.

I am fairly certain that we are using the profit model to pay off the Advocate Center. Thats what the company I work for did. They financed an acquisition and until the debt for that financing was paid off, we were ultra-profit prioritizing our decisions.


Sure, it doesn't mean those are the only viable models though.


Great points Doug.

Musiq, here's the bottom line (no pun intended). Let's just say you are a minority owner of the Chicago Bulls. Likely, one of JR's cronies who's been around from the beginning. Bought in for $250K back in 1985, giving you a 2% ownership interest in the franchise. Today, that 2% is worth $60 MILLION DOLLARS. Believe me if you wanted to sell your 2% of the Bulls to somebody for $60 million there would be investors lining up to buy that share, or say you just wanted to get a quick $30 million by selling half of your interest. It would not be hard... in fact JR or any of the other owners would gladly take it off your hands. So, cashing out would be easy. This is why the value of the team is much more important than the difference between net income of $98M for the year vs. $114M.

The value of the franchise is the real PRIZE and the bulk of the real money. Also, putting a better product on the floor (which can be made possible by spending a little more in team salary, if spent wisely, of course) is going to increase merchandise sales, possibly earn the ownership group playoff revenue, and increase fan interest, which is all much more important than reducing operation cost on that side of the balance sheet by ten or twenty million on a season. It's nothing in comparison. Sure, we could find some bean counter who doesn't understand the dynamics of it all and would tell you how equity can't pay the bills, but that just isn't a realistic way of looking at things in this environment. I'm not saying to go out and just piss away money for the hell of it. I'm saying don't handcuff yourself by restricting costs too much.

You think the minority owner cares more about making an extra $300K last year or making a return on his $250,000 investment of $60,000,000? The operation costs are almost negligible in real terms. Meaningless when we are talking about 2% of $10M or something to that effect.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 13,432
And1: 1,025
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#187 » by Michael Jackson » Wed Aug 7, 2019 12:04 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
Michael Jackson wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.



Realistically though they should be. I would assume Brooklyn and Clipps are both going to eat up market share in their respective markets the next few years plus they will get more national and global attention. Nothing shocking with that prediction. Chicago is also receding people daily. I’d be shocked if those two didn’t. Now if Atlanta over takes Chicago that is more interesting to me. They have the population to do it but I don’t know that the hawks have the hold that the Bulls do.

They really shouldn't, just like how the Mets and Angels are not bigger than the Cubs, or the Islanders and Ducks are not bigger than the Hawks.

Being the only franchise, and one with an internationally, culturally iconic brand in the easily third biggest, richest market of the country should be at least an automatic #3 valuation ranking every single year for eternity. It would take an immense lack of give-a-sh*tness to take a brand like this in a market like this, which is actually much more of a basketball town than even the people of this city think, IMO, to fall behind second-tier NY/LA teams, or the Celtics, or the Rockets, or whatever. It'd be a downright Wirtz-ian lack of leadership to let that happen.

I can assure you, however, that the Atlanta Hawks will not be one of those teams that overtakes them. Nobody gives a flying F about the Hawks there. They make less revenue than the Magic.



I don’t think it is fair to use the Cubs as a metric because of the WGN thing... they were the only team that had national exposure

I have absolutely no idea how this ranking was done might all be horse puckey, but I was looking for a split on the angels and dodgers fan base and this is what came up. I am hit sure I understand what they are getting at with this but some of it was interesting.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide31


The NHL is way harder to judge, but you are correct the Islanders by math should have a bigger draw than the Hawks, splitting that market down the middle is still larger than Chicago. It is almost amazing the Hawks retained such a large fan base after the way Bill ran it but there is value in being an original franchise. I kinda forget about the Ducks but that is a solid point, yet I don’t think that is a comparable hockey demographic to Chicago or New York. LA does love its kings though, so what do I know.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#188 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 12:23 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
Michael Jackson wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.



Realistically though they should be. I would assume Brooklyn and Clipps are both going to eat up market share in their respective markets the next few years plus they will get more national and global attention. Nothing shocking with that prediction. Chicago is also receding people daily. I’d be shocked if those two didn’t. Now if Atlanta over takes Chicago that is more interesting to me. They have the population to do it but I don’t know that the hawks have the hold that the Bulls do.

They really shouldn't, just like how the Mets and Angels are not bigger than the Cubs, or the Islanders and Ducks are not bigger than the Hawks.

Being the only franchise, and one with an internationally, culturally iconic brand in the easily third biggest, richest market of the country should be at least an automatic #3 valuation ranking every single year for eternity. It would take an immense lack of give-a-sh*tness to take a brand like this in a market like this, which is actually much more of a basketball town than even the people of this city think, IMO, to fall behind second-tier NY/LA teams, or the Celtics, or the Rockets, or whatever. It'd be a downright Wirtz-ian lack of leadership to let that happen.

I can assure you, however, that the Atlanta Hawks will not be one of those teams that overtakes them. Nobody gives a flying F about the Hawks there. They make less revenue than the Magic.

The valuations numbers are simply estimates to entertain pseudo businesspeople fans. They're not offers. They don't mean a whole heck of a lot. It's not like a stock price. Not like a used car value. It's literally a number that exists because some fans insist that such a number exists and are desperate to be told what it is.
musiqsoulchild
RealGM
Posts: 28,914
And1: 5,889
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Chicago

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#189 » by musiqsoulchild » Wed Aug 7, 2019 12:28 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:I know what you're talking about Doug. But theres no dividend payout here. Theres no Bulls stock that appreciates in value.


So? People who have billions of dollars can wait for the final sale. Not everyone needs cash. In fact, most people rich enough to own an NBA team don't need cash.

I am fairly certain that we are using the profit model to pay off the Advocate Center. Thats what the company I work for did. They financed an acquisition and until the debt for that financing was paid off, we were ultra-profit prioritizing our decisions.


Sure, it doesn't mean those are the only viable models though.


Great points Doug.

Musiq, here's the bottom line (no pun intended). Let's just say you are a minority owner of the Chicago Bulls. Likely, one of JR's cronies who's been around from the beginning. Bought in for $250K back in 1985, giving you a 2% ownership interest in the franchise. Today, that 2% is worth $60 MILLION DOLLARS. Believe me if you wanted to sell your 2% of the Bulls to somebody for $60 million there would be investors lining up to buy that share, or say you just wanted to get a quick $30 million by selling half of your interest. It would not be hard... in fact JR or any of the other owners would gladly take it off your hands. So, cashing out would be easy. This is why the value of the team is much more important than the difference between net income of $98M for the year vs. $114M.

The value of the franchise is the real PRIZE and the bulk of the real money. Also, putting a better product on the floor (which can be made possible by spending a little more in team salary, if spent wisely, of course) is going to increase merchandise sales, possibly earn the ownership group playoff revenue, and increase fan interest, which is all much more important than reducing operation cost on that side of the balance sheet by ten or twenty million on a season. It's nothing in comparison. Sure, we could find some bean counter who doesn't understand the dynamics of it all and would tell you how equity can't pay the bills, but that just isn't a realistic way of looking at things in this environment. I'm not saying to go out and just piss away money for the hell of it. I'm saying don't handcuff yourself by restricting costs too much.

You think the minority owner cares more about making an extra $300K last year or making a return on his $250,000 investment of $60,000,000? The operation costs are almost negligible in real terms. Meaningless when we are talking about 2% of $10M or something to that effect.


I get all of that Johnny.

But I would want to keep an asset that pays me a dividend EVERY year. A hefty one at that. While also growing in intrinsic stock price.

That's how the Bulls are.

And I guarantee that the next time someone sells, Reinsdorf will buy it and inch closer to being the majority owner. The exact opposite of what this board wants.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#190 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 12:44 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
So? People who have billions of dollars can wait for the final sale. Not everyone needs cash. In fact, most people rich enough to own an NBA team don't need cash.



Sure, it doesn't mean those are the only viable models though.


Great points Doug.

Musiq, here's the bottom line (no pun intended). Let's just say you are a minority owner of the Chicago Bulls. Likely, one of JR's cronies who's been around from the beginning. Bought in for $250K back in 1985, giving you a 2% ownership interest in the franchise. Today, that 2% is worth $60 MILLION DOLLARS. Believe me if you wanted to sell your 2% of the Bulls to somebody for $60 million there would be investors lining up to buy that share, or say you just wanted to get a quick $30 million by selling half of your interest. It would not be hard... in fact JR or any of the other owners would gladly take it off your hands. So, cashing out would be easy. This is why the value of the team is much more important than the difference between net income of $98M for the year vs. $114M.

The value of the franchise is the real PRIZE and the bulk of the real money. Also, putting a better product on the floor (which can be made possible by spending a little more in team salary, if spent wisely, of course) is going to increase merchandise sales, possibly earn the ownership group playoff revenue, and increase fan interest, which is all much more important than reducing operation cost on that side of the balance sheet by ten or twenty million on a season. It's nothing in comparison. Sure, we could find some bean counter who doesn't understand the dynamics of it all and would tell you how equity can't pay the bills, but that just isn't a realistic way of looking at things in this environment. I'm not saying to go out and just piss away money for the hell of it. I'm saying don't handcuff yourself by restricting costs too much.

You think the minority owner cares more about making an extra $300K last year or making a return on his $250,000 investment of $60,000,000? The operation costs are almost negligible in real terms. Meaningless when we are talking about 2% of $10M or something to that effect.


I get all of that Johnny.

But I would want to keep an asset that pays me a dividend EVERY year. A hefty one at that. While also growing in intrinsic stock price.

That's how the Bulls are.

And I guarantee that the next time someone sells, Reinsdorf will buy it and inch closer to being the majority owner. The exact opposite of what this board wants.

You think JR will buy more of the Bulls? He's sold off over time IIRC, originally owning either all of it or definitely a true majority stake.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 47,033
And1: 15,305
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
 

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#191 » by coldfish » Wed Aug 7, 2019 12:49 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.


Its worse than that. If you look, Forbes is still giving Chicago a lot of "goodwill" for being in Chicago and the Jordan years. The revenue is tanking. If that becomes a regular thing over an extended period of time and their revenue keeps falling, they could drop way down in valuation.

Right now, Boston, GS, Houston, LAC, Dallas and Brooklyn could catch them based on market size and team performance. I could see them dropping to 9th almost purely based on poor management.

This year is really huge for them. If this rebuild fails and they have to hit the reset button again, it could be another 3-4 years of the fanbase waiting for a playoff team. By then, there won't be much of a fanbase. Chicago won't support a loser forever. JR was able to buy the Bulls for a song and a dance in 1985 because the city really didn't support the team.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#192 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:03 pm

coldfish wrote:
Leslie Forman wrote:Assuming absolutely nothing changes with ownership, I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, both NY and both LA teams were ahead of the Bulls on these valuation lists.


Its worse than that. If you look, Forbes is still giving Chicago a lot of "goodwill" for being in Chicago and the Jordan years. The revenue is tanking. If that becomes a regular thing over an extended period of time and their revenue keeps falling, they could drop way down in valuation.

Right now, Boston, GS, Houston, LAC, Dallas and Brooklyn could catch them based on market size and team performance. I could see them dropping to 9th almost purely based on poor management.

This year is really huge for them. If this rebuild fails and they have to hit the reset button again, it could be another 3-4 years of the fanbase waiting for a playoff team. By then, there won't be much of a fanbase. Chicago won't support a loser forever. JR was able to buy the Bulls for a song and a dance in 1985 because the city really didn't support the team.

"The revenue is tanking"

(checks revenue, sees that other than the lockout year of 11/12, Chicago Bulls revenue has gone up every single year on record - at least since 2001).

The Bulls are not competing, as a business with the other 29 teams. They're competing with all other investments available on the market, especially all other entertainment industry investments.

The goal is not to have revenue growth rates that exceed other teams (that frankly teams like the Bulls are dragging along) any more than a team's on court goal should be to play with more "pace".
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#193 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:20 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:I know what you're talking about Doug. But theres no dividend payout here. Theres no Bulls stock that appreciates in value.


So? People who have billions of dollars can wait for the final sale. Not everyone needs cash. In fact, most people rich enough to own an NBA team don't need cash.

I am fairly certain that we are using the profit model to pay off the Advocate Center. Thats what the company I work for did. They financed an acquisition and until the debt for that financing was paid off, we were ultra-profit prioritizing our decisions.


Sure, it doesn't mean those are the only viable models though.


Great points Doug.

Musiq, here's the bottom line (no pun intended). Let's just say you are a minority owner of the Chicago Bulls. Likely, one of JR's cronies who's been around from the beginning. Bought in for $250K back in 1985, giving you a 2% ownership interest in the franchise. Today, that 2% is worth $60 MILLION DOLLARS. Believe me if you wanted to sell your 2% of the Bulls to somebody for $60 million there would be investors lining up to buy that share, or say you just wanted to get a quick $30 million by selling half of your interest. It would not be hard... in fact JR or any of the other owners would gladly take it off your hands. So, cashing out would be easy. This is why the value of the team is much more important than the difference between net income of $98M for the year vs. $114M.

The value of the franchise is the real PRIZE and the bulk of the real money. Also, putting a better product on the floor (which can be made possible by spending a little more in team salary, if spent wisely, of course) is going to increase merchandise sales, possibly earn the ownership group playoff revenue, and increase fan interest, which is all much more important than reducing operation cost on that side of the balance sheet by ten or twenty million on a season. It's nothing in comparison. Sure, we could find some bean counter who doesn't understand the dynamics of it all and would tell you how equity can't pay the bills, but that just isn't a realistic way of looking at things in this environment. I'm not saying to go out and just piss away money for the hell of it. I'm saying don't handcuff yourself by restricting costs too much.

You think the minority owner cares more about making an extra $300K last year or making a return on his $250,000 investment of $60,000,000? The operation costs are almost negligible in real terms. Meaningless when we are talking about 2% of $10M or something to that effect.

Why would someone be lining up to invest 60 million dollars for a 3.8% return? You can't say it's cause of the valuation gains because that's just a straight up pyramid scheme.

Jerry already sold to most of the minority owners well after buying the team IIRC, not that that counters your points just an FYI.

Btw everyone, most likely Jerry Reinsdorf has a much, much better idea of what the Bulls are worth than Forbes, because he's most likely getting offers from actual people with capital regulalry. I could easily see him getting offers for as low as maybe 1.5 billion all the way up to 4 billion. That's the realistic range of what actual billionaires might actually be offering, which is why these precise guesstimates by Forbes are so silly.

Like Ballmer might EASILY have been willing to pay a billion more, OR a billion less, for the Bulls than he did for the clippers.

Make no mistake, the forbes valuations are for fan entertainment only.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 44,356
And1: 4,702
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#194 » by dougthonus » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:28 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:I get all of that Johnny.

But I would want to keep an asset that pays me a dividend EVERY year. A hefty one at that. While also growing in intrinsic stock price.

That's how the Bulls are.

And I guarantee that the next time someone sells, Reinsdorf will buy it and inch closer to being the majority owner. The exact opposite of what this board wants.


Dividends are often a poor sign for growth. It's a statement that you believe you can no longer grow equity by reinvesting in your company so you give money back to investors. Dividend stocks are generally very conservative by nature and don't have nearly as much equity growth as non dividend stocks.

If you prefer dividend stocks, that's fine. However, the idea that you will get large equity growth and dividends is typically contradictory for the reasons outlined above. If a company believes it can invest to gain more equity growth than the dividend it pays out then it will generally do that.
User avatar
Ccwatercraft
Starter
Posts: 2,468
And1: 1,085
Joined: Jul 11, 2017
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#195 » by Ccwatercraft » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:31 pm

sell Reinsdorf's and other's share, just enough to give majority ownership to the love child of Steve Ballmer and Mark Cuban, if such a person can be found.
musiqsoulchild
RealGM
Posts: 28,914
And1: 5,889
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Chicago

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#196 » by musiqsoulchild » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:40 pm

dougthonus wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:I get all of that Johnny.

But I would want to keep an asset that pays me a dividend EVERY year. A hefty one at that. While also growing in intrinsic stock price.

That's how the Bulls are.

And I guarantee that the next time someone sells, Reinsdorf will buy it and inch closer to being the majority owner. The exact opposite of what this board wants.


Dividends are often a poor sign for growth. It's a statement that you believe you can no longer grow equity by reinvesting in your company so you give money back to investors. Dividend stocks are generally very conservative by nature and don't have nearly as much equity growth as non dividend stocks.

If you prefer dividend stocks, that's fine. However, the idea that you will get large equity growth and dividends is typically contradictory for the reasons outlined above. If a company believes it can invest to gain more equity growth than the dividend it pays out then it will generally do that.


I agree 100%. Bulls are analogous to a very mature company. Growth rates by default are tepid.

Everytime ColdFish brings up our poor growth rates, I tell him the same thing. We cant grow like a GSW or a Brooklyn or even an NY/LA. We are a super mature franchise and have a high market saturation.
musiqsoulchild
RealGM
Posts: 28,914
And1: 5,889
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Chicago

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#197 » by musiqsoulchild » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:42 pm

Ccwatercraft wrote:sell Reinsdorf's and other's share, just enough to give majority ownership to the love child of Steve Ballmer and Mark Cuban, if such a person can be found.


You wrote one sentence. The improbability of that becoming reality though is infinitesimally small.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#198 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:48 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:I get all of that Johnny.

But I would want to keep an asset that pays me a dividend EVERY year. A hefty one at that. While also growing in intrinsic stock price.

That's how the Bulls are.

And I guarantee that the next time someone sells, Reinsdorf will buy it and inch closer to being the majority owner. The exact opposite of what this board wants.


Dividends are often a poor sign for growth. It's a statement that you believe you can no longer grow equity by reinvesting in your company so you give money back to investors. Dividend stocks are generally very conservative by nature and don't have nearly as much equity growth as non dividend stocks.

If you prefer dividend stocks, that's fine. However, the idea that you will get large equity growth and dividends is typically contradictory for the reasons outlined above. If a company believes it can invest to gain more equity growth than the dividend it pays out then it will generally do that.


I agree 100%. Bulls are analogous to a very mature company. Growth rates by default are tepid.

Everytime ColdFish brings up our poor growth rates, I tell him the same thing. We cant grow like a GSW or a Brooklyn or even an NY/LA. We are a super mature franchise and have a high market saturation.

Bingo. 100%.

Do people think for example that Warriors fans were all just waiting for Myers and Co to spend more before they started dropping serious cash going to games etc?

No. Lots of people who USED TO be Lakers fans and people who USED TO not follow the nba til they got a job at google making 300k are now "warriors fans".

Chicago is a mature and frankly even decaying market.
User avatar
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 29,459
And1: 7,242
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#199 » by League Circles » Wed Aug 7, 2019 1:56 pm

For reference, another mature franchise, the Lakers, have since 2001 had a year over year revenue DECREASE 4 separate times compared to the Bulls ZERO (I'm omitting the lockout year drop for both teams in those counts).

The fact that revenue can actually drop in a mature market means that valuation growth rate guesstimates by forbes are highly, highly questionable.

People really underestimate the obvious potential for growth that the Nets and Clippers had for a long time and wrongly apply that to the Bulls.
User avatar
Ccwatercraft
Starter
Posts: 2,468
And1: 1,085
Joined: Jul 11, 2017
       

Re: Do people want the Reinsdorf’s to sell the Bulls? 

Post#200 » by Ccwatercraft » Wed Aug 7, 2019 2:22 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:
Ccwatercraft wrote:sell Reinsdorf's and other's share, just enough to give majority ownership to the love child of Steve Ballmer and Mark Cuban, if such a person can be found.


You wrote one sentence. The improbability of that becoming reality though is infinitesimally small.


Then I guess i'll have to ride it out.

oh and ps, sorry, its governship, is that a word?

Return to Chicago Bulls