RealGM

This list shows the team, Owners, and year they purchased
Not meant so much for chatter but to give you names so you can research the facts for yourself
Simply google any of these guys and find out how much money they make not lose. Better yet check Forbes and see where they rank on the Billionaires list....lol



Franchise:: Owner:: Owned Since

Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Spirit, LLC (Michael Gear, Governor) 2004
Boston Celtics (H. Irving Grousbeck, Wycliffe Grousbeck, Stephen Pagliuca, The Abbey Group) 2002
Charlotte Bobcats Michael Jordan 2010
Chicago Bulls Jerry Reinsdorf 1985
Cleveland Cavaliers Dan Gilbert, Gary Gilbert, Dan Katzman, Usher Raymond, Gordon Gund 2005
Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban 2000
Denver Nuggets Kroenke Sports Enterprise (Stan Kroenke) 2000
Detroit Pistons Tom Gores, Palace Sports & Entertainment 2011
Golden State Warriors Peter Guber, Joe Lacob 2010
Houston Rockets Leslie Alexander 1993
Indiana Pacers Herbert Simon 1983
Los Angeles Clippers Donald Sterling 1981
Los Angeles Lakers Jerry Buss 1979
Memphis Grizzlies Michael Heisley 2000
Miami Heat Micky Arison 1995
Milwaukee Bucks Herb Kohl 1985
Minnesota Timberwolves Glen Taylor 1995
New Jersey Nets Mikhail Prokhorov, Bruce Ratner, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter 2010
New Orleans Hornets National Basketball Association 2010
New York Knicks Madison Square Garden, Inc. (James Dolan, Chairman) 1997
Oklahoma City Thunder Professional Basketball Club, LLC. (Clayton Bennett, Chairman) 2006
Orlando Magic Orlando Magic, Ltd. (RDV Sports, Inc., Richard DeVos, Chairman) 1991
Philadelphia 76ers Comcast Spectacor (Ed Snider, Chairman) 1996
Phoenix Suns Robert Sarver 2004
Portland Trail Blazers Paul Allen 1988
Sacramento Kings (Joe, Gavin, Phil, George, Jr., Adrienne Maloof), Robin E. Hernreich 1998
San Antonio Spurs Spurs Sports & Entertainment (Peter Holt, Chairman & CEO) 1993
Toronto Raptors Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (Richard Peddie, CEO) 1998
Utah Jazz Larry H. Miller Sports and Entertainment (Greg Miller, CEO) 1985
Washington Wizards Monumental Sports & Entertainment (Ted Leonsis) 2010

By far the richest owners is Toronto with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund assets likely in excess of 50 billion. They also run the team as a business and not a rich mans play thing. They do have it up for sale with all assets and 80% MLSE for 2.5 billion.

World's Multi-Billionaire Team Owners *

37 Trailblazers - Paul Allen $13.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _1217.html

39 Nets - Mikhail Prokhorov $13.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _JW8Z.html

176 Magic - Richard DeVow $4.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _GLPH.html

189 Heat - Mickey Arison $4.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _OAU8.html

367 Knick - Charles Dolan $2.6 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _XPDU.html

400 Mavericks - Mark Cuban $2.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _IXMB.html

437 Pistons - Tom Gores $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _DK81.html

437 Timberwolves - Glen Taylor $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _3SB7.html

* Some franchises are owned by companies, and are not listed here. OK, so who'd I miss?

Laowai wrote:By far the richest owners is Toronto with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund assets likely in excess of 50 billion. They also run the team as a business and not a rich mans play thing. They do have it up for sale with all assets and 80% MLSE for 2.5 billion.

You apparently do not understand the concept of wealth. The OTPF has alot of assets but they also have alot of liabilities in the form of future pension payout obligations. If someon has $1 billion in assets and they owe a $1 billion then they are worth zilch. Actually OTPF is probably one of the least wealthy owners in the league.

Septhaka wrote:

Laowai wrote:By far the richest owners is Toronto with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund assets likely in excess of 50 billion. They also run the team as a business and not a rich mans play thing. They do have it up for sale with all assets and 80% MLSE for 2.5 billion.

You apparently do not understand the concept of wealth. The OTPF has alot of assets but they also have alot of liabilities in the form of future pension payout obligations. If someon has $1 billion in assets and they owe a $1 billion then they are worth zilch. Actually OTPF is probably one of the least wealthy owners in the league.

Yeah how can a pension fund be rich when it promises to defeund itself. Its not an asset its a liablity which explains why its up for sale. A pension fund is a pyramid scheme.

Warspite wrote: A pension fund is a pyramid scheme.

Actually it's a Ponzi scheme, not a pyramid scheme.

Septhaka wrote:If someone has $1 billion in assets and they owe a $1 billion then they are worth zilch.

Except a guy with 1 billion in assets and owing 1 billion probably lives in a mansion, has 10,000 dollar suits and drives a Benz. A guy who has $1 in assets and owes $1 is a bum.

shrink wrote:World's Multi-Billionaire Team Owners *

37 Trailblazers - Paul Allen $13.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _1217.html

39 Nets - Mikhail Prokhorov $13.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _JW8Z.html

176 Magic - Richard DeVow $4.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _GLPH.html

189 Heat - Mickey Arison $4.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _OAU8.html

367 Knick - Charles Dolan $2.6 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _XPDU.html

400 Mavericks - Mark Cuban $2.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _IXMB.html

437 Pistons - Tom Gores $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _DK81.html

437 Timberwolves - Glen Taylor $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _3SB7.html

* Some franchises are owned by companies, and are not listed here. OK, so who'd I miss?

This is all good, but assets don't = revenue, and I thought this was merely an issue of revenue sharing. Just because someone has more money does that mean he should have to give more of it away?

dustfinger wrote:This is all good, but assets don't = revenue, and I thought this was merely an issue of revenue sharing. Just because someone has more money does that mean he should have to give more of it away?

Did anyone in this thread say that?

Dunkenstein wrote:

Warspite wrote: A pension fund is a pyramid scheme.

Actually it's a Ponzi scheme, not a pyramid scheme.

That's correct.

An example of a pyramid scheme is Amway, which was co-founded by Orlando Magic owner Rich DeVos.

shrink wrote:World's Multi-Billionaire Team Owners *

37 Trailblazers - Paul Allen $13.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _1217.html

39 Nets - Mikhail Prokhorov $13.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _JW8Z.html

176 Magic - Richard DeVow $4.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _GLPH.html

189 Heat - Mickey Arison $4.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _OAU8.html

367 Knick - Charles Dolan $2.6 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _XPDU.html

400 Mavericks - Mark Cuban $2.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _IXMB.html

437 Pistons - Tom Gores $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _DK81.html

437 Timberwolves - Glen Taylor $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _3SB7.html

* Some franchises are owned by companies, and are not listed here. OK, so who'd I miss?

Surprising to see the owner of the Trail Blazers higher than other NBA team owners.

Septhaka wrote:

Laowai wrote:By far the richest owners is Toronto with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund assets likely in excess of 50 billion. They also run the team as a business and not a rich mans play thing. They do have it up for sale with all assets and 80% MLSE for 2.5 billion.

You apparently do not understand the concept of wealth. The OTPF has alot of assets but they also have alot of liabilities in the form of future pension payout obligations. If someon has $1 billion in assets and they owe a $1 billion then they are worth zilch. Actually OTPF is probably one of the least wealthy owners in the league.

it really not that simple. The net assets for OTP are 107 billion (current assets minus current liabilities) with annual return 14% in 2010 or around 13 billlion. Moreover, annual benefit contributions exceed the 4 billion in annual benefit payout by 1.8 billion. This not a Ponzi scheme. It's a very healthy plan. From this perspective the OTP is the richest out of all the owners.

The problem here is that there are future liabilities as well as future economic and interest rate environments to consider. The OTP believes there is a future shortfall of around 17 billion. These are very conservative assumptions from what I gathered.

So what to believe? I tend to look at the number of 107 billion in net assets to make my judgement.
And one thing I know about working with actuaries is that they make things a lot worse when trying to project the future.

Marlowe wrote:

Septhaka wrote:

Laowai wrote:By far the richest owners is Toronto with the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund assets likely in excess of 50 billion. They also run the team as a business and not a rich mans play thing. They do have it up for sale with all assets and 80% MLSE for 2.5 billion.

You apparently do not understand the concept of wealth. The OTPF has alot of assets but they also have alot of liabilities in the form of future pension payout obligations. If someon has $1 billion in assets and they owe a $1 billion then they are worth zilch. Actually OTPF is probably one of the least wealthy owners in the league.

it really not that simple. The net assets for OTP are 107 billion (current assets minus current liabilities) with annual return 14% in 2010 or around 13 billlion. Moreover, annual benefit contributions exceed the 4 billion in annual benefit payout by 1.8 billion. This not a Ponzi scheme. It's a very healthy plan. From this perspective the OTP is the richest out of all the owners.

The problem here is that there are future liabilities as well as future economic and interest rate environments to consider. The OTP believes there is a future shortfall of around 17 billion. These are very conservative assumptions from what I gathered.

So what to believe? I tend to look at the number of 107 billion in net assets to make my judgement.
And one thing I know about working with actuaries is that they make things a lot worse when trying to project the future.

If your definition of net assets only includes current assets and current liabilities, then your definition is not net assets. Net assets includes current and long term. Net working capital is current assets - current liabilities, but that by definition isn't necessarily informative of net assets.

Hi Hartford,

In the OTP's annual report they exclude future cost of pensions from their calculation of "Net Assets". OTP's calculation of Net assets accounts for Investments, Investment Income, Individual Pension Contributions, Government Pension Contributions, Pension Benefit Payments and Operating Expenses.

When OTP includes their future cost of future retirees there is a pension shortfall in their valuation.

You can see the annual report here:

http://docs.otpp.com/AnnRepFinancials2010.pdf

Marlowe wrote:Hi Hartford,

In the OTP's annual report they exclude future cost of pensions from their calculation of "Net Assets". OTP's calculation of Net assets accounts for Investments, Investment Income, Individual Pension Contributions, Government Pension Contributions, Pension Benefit Payments and Operating Expenses.

When OTP includes their future cost of future retirees there is a pension shortfall in their valuation.

You can see the annual report here:

http://docs.otpp.com/AnnRepFinancials2010.pdf

Good stuff thanks.

I really (really) quickly skimmed but assets increased 5 and future liabilities increased 15 so 2010 was a very very bad year. [A slightly better 11 in assets if you ignore the actuarial number]. Oh, and that is in Billions. Not sure any NBA owner has lost 10 billion in a single year.

The securities sold under agreement to repurchase increased from a touch under 10b to ~ 28.5b. That is a huge increase, and even more some as a percentage. It seems quite substantial as a percentage of net assets (Pension funds and leverage aren't often equated). I'm guessing these are repo's on something like Fannie Mae's (Canadian equivalent? ~ any real insight so I don't get bored and google it would be appreciated), but if so the fund is taking a significant interest rate risk in whatever they are moving those funds into. Call me old fashioned, but investment liabilities for a pension fund don't make me happy.

Then again, I'm really not happy with 3/8ths of all equity investments being non-publicly traded, ~17 billion worth. Non publicly traded has the disadvantage of being 1) hard to get a good (traded) value of, and 2) being hard to trade (quickly), if not 3) prone to valuation misstatement. And the fund has as more exposure to the Brazilian currency as it does to the yen... I don't mind an aggressive equity allocation but the fund appears to take slightly more concentrated risk oriented positions then I might expect.

Or put shortly, the fund received in contributions 2.7b and paid out 4.5b last year. Ideally those numbers would be much closer as future benefits are always projected to ballon (and have been behaving like that, so its not some crazy assumption) so the equivalent of an underwriting loss of 67% is a non starter for keeping those future benefits.

If I'm 30 and I'm (forcibly) paying into the system, I'm expecting to get 60% of what I'm now promised. If I'm 65, I'm a little nervous but feeling safe. That is the big difference between a hybrid pay as you go pension and a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scheme actually breaks its promise and fails while a pay as you go pension simply redefines the level of existing and future benefits.

HartfordWhalers (Great handle BTW....my favourite Hockey Jersey of all time).

I believe the repos are likely Canadian T-Bills. But I am not absolutely certain.

Basketballnet wrote:

shrink wrote:World's Multi-Billionaire Team Owners *

37 Trailblazers - Paul Allen $13.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _1217.html

39 Nets - Mikhail Prokhorov $13.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _JW8Z.html

176 Magic - Richard DeVow $4.5 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _GLPH.html

189 Heat - Mickey Arison $4.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _OAU8.html

367 Knick - Charles Dolan $2.6 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _XPDU.html

400 Mavericks - Mark Cuban $2.4 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _IXMB.html

437 Pistons - Tom Gores $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _DK81.html

437 Timberwolves - Glen Taylor $2.2 bil
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/bil ... _3SB7.html

* Some franchises are owned by companies, and are not listed here. OK, so who'd I miss?

Surprising to see the owner of the Trail Blazers higher than other NBA team owners.

I wanna say he use to be worth $22 billion a while back, but don't quote me on that. I figured he'd be the wealthiest single owner of the bunch.

eckoner wrote:This list shows the team, Owners, and year they purchased
Not meant so much for chatter but to give you names so you can [b]research the facts for yourself
Simply google any of these guys and find out how much money they make not lose. Better yet check Forbes and see where they rank on the Billionaires list....lol[/b]



Franchise:: Owner:: Owned Since

Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Spirit, LLC (Michael Gear, Governor) 2004
Boston Celtics (H. Irving Grousbeck, Wycliffe Grousbeck, Stephen Pagliuca, The Abbey Group) 2002
Charlotte Bobcats Michael Jordan 2010
Chicago Bulls Jerry Reinsdorf 1985
Cleveland Cavaliers Dan Gilbert, Gary Gilbert, Dan Katzman, Usher Raymond, Gordon Gund 2005
Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban 2000
Denver Nuggets Kroenke Sports Enterprise (Stan Kroenke) 2000
Detroit Pistons Tom Gores, Palace Sports & Entertainment 2011
Golden State Warriors Peter Guber, Joe Lacob 2010
Houston Rockets Leslie Alexander 1993
Indiana Pacers Herbert Simon 1983
Los Angeles Clippers Donald Sterling 1981
Los Angeles Lakers Jerry Buss 1979
Memphis Grizzlies Michael Heisley 2000
Miami Heat Micky Arison 1995
Milwaukee Bucks Herb Kohl 1985
Minnesota Timberwolves Glen Taylor 1995
New Jersey Nets Mikhail Prokhorov, Bruce Ratner, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter 2010
New Orleans Hornets National Basketball Association 2010
New York Knicks Madison Square Garden, Inc. (James Dolan, Chairman) 1997
Oklahoma City Thunder Professional Basketball Club, LLC. (Clayton Bennett, Chairman) 2006
Orlando Magic Orlando Magic, Ltd. (RDV Sports, Inc., Richard DeVos, Chairman) 1991
Philadelphia 76ers Comcast Spectacor (Ed Snider, Chairman) 1996
Phoenix Suns Robert Sarver 2004
Portland Trail Blazers Paul Allen 1988
Sacramento Kings (Joe, Gavin, Phil, George, Jr., Adrienne Maloof), Robin E. Hernreich 1998
San Antonio Spurs Spurs Sports & Entertainment (Peter Holt, Chairman & CEO) 1993
Toronto Raptors Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (Richard Peddie, CEO) 1998
Utah Jazz Larry H. Miller Sports and Entertainment (Greg Miller, CEO) 1985
Washington Wizards Monumental Sports & Entertainment (Ted Leonsis) 2010

"He named names"

THESE OWNERS MAKE MILLIONS/BILLIONS THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY MORE! That is one of the most common sentiments by fans and players in this lockout. This is happening all around the world on a macro level. Honestly, I could care less how much they make or are "worth"! Any net gains the owners make with their other business' should not be a reason as to why a group of people push for more money and make the owners look like the bad guys.

What they make from their other business ventures should not even be part of the debate. That is not the issue and I hope people learn to separate the 2. What is the issue is that a lot of them are losing money with these specific ventures. Yeah, they are rich and they could choose to subsidize the losses from their NBA teams with the gains made in their REAL companies. They choose not to and they have every right to! That is the smart/right choice and shows you why they are successful in business in the 1st place. They do not let emotion get the best of them. These owners love sports (Mark Cuban), but if its not economically viable, then you've got to try and restructure. If they can't restructure to make it viable, then no season

Let's say the owners made the other choice. They conceded to the NBPA and decided it was worth it to use money from their profitable business' to keep the league going and make the players happy. Do you know what precedent that would set for the players, union leaders who represent them, and shareholders of the company that the money is being siphoned from? What do you think they would do? I am guessing the players/union reps would progressively ask for more and more a couple years down the road. This is what they have been doing. All the way to the point where the league is no longer profitable. This explains how you can get a contract like Gilbert Arenas'. You should get rewarded if you perform well. No doubt! Hence the huge contract. Shouldn't that work to some degree in the opposite way as well? I am also guessing the shareholders wouldn't like the idea of profits from the business they invested in going to a different business where they receive no reward. The shareholders would sell.

This is one of the main reasons why the owners, despite their Net Worth, will not use money from profitable business' to subsidize their NBA franchises. They understand the money is from 2 separate things and should be kept that way. The board of directors at Microsoft would never let Paul Allen do this. It would mean a sell off in the stock thus making it harder for Microsoft to raise investment for future expenditures. Also, it would mean the $13.5 bill he is "worth" would be more like 9,8,7,etc... billion due to a fall in share price.

Please realize that there would be no nationwide platform that handsomely rewards athletes in the terms of salaries and endorsements if it wasn't for the owners. They provide the seeds of the potential fruit tree for the players. WEALTH DOES NOT COME FROM LABOR OR RESOURCES. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE INGREDIENTS NEEDED FOR THE CREATION OF REVENUES, BUT WEALTH ORIGINATES FROM THE HUMAN MIND. Please do not punish or blame the people who create an idea, or take an idea and expand on it b/c the world needs these people. Now more than ever! There are enough knuckleheads out here.

bullsballer wrote:This is one of the main reasons why the owners, despite their Net Worth, will not use money from profitable business' to subsidize their NBA franchises. They understand the money is from 2 separate things and should be kept that way. The board of directors at Microsoft would never let Paul Allen do this. It would mean a sell off in the stock thus making it harder for Microsoft to raise investment for future expenditures. Also, it would mean the $13.5 bill he is "worth" would be more like 9,8,7,etc... billion due to a fall in share price.

I think the profitability and net worth of the owners outside the NBA is relevant. The player salaries have not increased as a percentage over the CBA. It the teams and leagues choosing to spend money on other things that has lead to their losses(or lower profits).

Where I think net worth and profitability come into play. If profit was the primary motivation and labor costs are fixed these guys should be able to make the teams and league profitable. The net worth comes into play because operating profits are not their primary motivation for owning a team. It is like a guy making 80K a year losing $50 at a poker tournament. Yeah he would prefer to win, but the entertainment is his primary motivation for playing.

I'm lazy (and still without proper non phone internet - thanks irene), anyone with a quick breakdown of how many owners directly or indirectly own their arenas?

Reason I am asking is to get a quick sense of the direct cost of a lost season to the owners; i.e. If owners lost 400 million with a season it doen't follow that they break even without a season. Particularly if 350 or so million of that loss is interest on team debt and is incurred even with a lock out.
(Which isn't to say the magnitude of loss wouldn't be greater for the players, just to suggest that a cancelled season = savings for owners seems dubious at best.)

Fwiw, I love the poker analogy above, but think it fails to capture the ability of an owner to eventually sell at a profit. An nba team is more akin to a wealthy individual witha wine collection. Each year it costs money to maintain, but you get to open bottles for ompany and yourself and if you ever decide to you can sell it at auction for at least its inflationadjusted cost (although lessthen the gain from a normalasset