RealGM

I don't try to get into the financial crap of the NBA, but after hearing the Bucks borrowed 55 million from the NBA, how are the Jazz doing financially in the past couple years? I remember the stat that 23 out of 30 teams are losing money, with all this new CBA stuff that is happening now. Where is the Jazz in all of this?

Jazz generally make a profit but this last year it sounds like they didn't.

Yeah, first time the Jazz have losy money in a long while. They aren't doing too bad overall.

hoops4life wrote:Jazz generally make a profit but this last year it sounds like they didn't.

Yeah, it sure is nice to have the Albatross off the books

AK wasn't the sole reason why they lost money.

Well, no. He did make more than the losses though. The Jazz only lost a few million because they were over the tax and had one of the higher payrolls in the league. They will likely make money next year with or without the playoffs.

hoops4life wrote:AK wasn't the sole reason why they lost money.

Yup. Missing the playoffs hurts too.

Define "loss", open the books, and we'll have something to talk about. Miller could have been screaming losses for a decade but personally making out like a bandit. That's how finance works, especially the high kind. How much cross promotion netted Miller's dealerships and other interests while showing a paper loss over at the old Delta Center.

I need something concrete to go on. An SL Trib article claiming 3 or 4 years of losses isn't worth reading a second time.

And, like Delaney said in another thread, team value isn't factored into the earnings either. Though the Jazz have had a year in the red last year, the team steadily rises in value.

It can be like owning a home. You pay $1,000 mortgage every month, after two years, you could say you are $24,000 in the red, but really the equity you've built up if the property value rises negates that $24,000 and you are playing in the green.

hoops4life wrote:Jazz generally make a profit but this last year it sounds like they didn't.

Thats actually not true. Mr. Miller was losing money pretty much every season on the Jazz to the tune of a few million. But it didnt hurt him because that loss was attributed as a marketing cost for his other businesses, i.e. restaurants, movie theaters, and car dealerships. When you have an empire...its worth taking a loss if that loss increases your overall brand awareness and customer equity.

Glad my marketing class wasnt a complete waste of money

And by losing money I mean his operating income on the Jazz was negative.

Bat wrote:And, like Delaney said in another thread, team value isn't factored into the earnings either. Though the Jazz have had a year in the red last year, the team steadily rises in value.

It can be like owning a home. You pay $1,000 mortgage every month, after two years, you could say you are $24,000 in the red, but really the equity you've built up if the property value rises negates that $24,000 and you are playing in the green.

Don't put too much stock into the idea. That got a whole lot of people in trouble when this recent recession sparked off. Producing real cash is everything in the end. Miller's basketball enterprise isn't exactly the high growth model which typifies operating in the red yet adding true value as you're suggesting. Putting extra emphasis on growing value--especially when that value is highly subjective to current conditions, speculation, market fluctuations, etc.--burns the vast majority in the end.

What we really need is a system that puts more money in escrow and pays players their value based on the real money results. This will keep more money paid to players as they age too. It could also be turned to a revenue generating trust in itself.

franklin wrote:

Bat wrote:And, like Delaney said in another thread, team value isn't factored into the earnings either. Though the Jazz have had a year in the red last year, the team steadily rises in value.

It can be like owning a home. You pay $1,000 mortgage every month, after two years, you could say you are $24,000 in the red, but really the equity you've built up if the property value rises negates that $24,000 and you are playing in the green.

Don't put too much stock into the idea. That got a whole lot of people in trouble when this recent recession sparked off. Producing real cash is everything in the end. Miller's basketball enterprise isn't exactly the high growth model which typifies operating in the red yet adding true value as you're suggesting. Putting extra emphasis on growing value--especially when that value is highly subjective to current conditions, speculation, market fluctuations, etc.--burns the vast majority in the end.

Well, the difference is there isn't a finite amount of houses, while only 30 NBA franchises exist, and even fewer have proven to be as stable as the jazz, with this kind of community support. Losing a couple of million for a few seasons won't affect the jazz long term.

Well sac and seattle have equal support, just not a team owned arena. Thats the jazz anchor. There arent enough ice capades or toby kieth concerts to make up that loss for the arena owners.