RealGM

Every bit as scary as KG’s health was the report by David Aldright on NBA.com yesterday that the Celtics will need to get part of the emergency funds from the league to cover their expenses.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/0 ... index.html

The Cs have fantastic ownership, the best we have had since Walter Brown. But these guys made their money in the world of finance, and that world has collapsed in the past six months. I fear the financial picture for our owners might really be sucking right now. They may need to grind the Celtics to make near-term profits or minimize near-term losses in a manner that was not under consideration a year ago. They may not have a choice.

This is the problem: for the Cs to avoid a serious dip back into the lottery after the Big Three have declined, the key was having a flush ownership that could take on big contracts, use the MLE, pay the luxury tax at times, purchase no. 1 draft picks a la Paul Allen. In short, give Danny a lot of tools to work with. In the current depression economy, a flush ownership has a lot of power to collect assets much cheaper than in the past.

If our ownership needs to cut costs to make payroll, we are in deep trouble. At worst, we become the guys Paul Allen cleans out, rather than the guys doing the cleaning out. At best we sit on the sidelines and watch the league pass us by.

As I said, this was arguably as depressing as any news from Celtics land in a very long time.

Wyc, say it ain’t so…

According to that article half of the teams in the league might use the NBA emergency fund.

This really is terrible news, let's just hope Aldridge was being a little over-dramatic here.
If things are so dire Wyc n co. Should sell part of the team to John Henry, he's supposedly raking in the cash in this economy.

Great. We are in the half that is broke? I guess misery loves company, but I'd rather be in the half that can cover its payroll.

Well, everyone's been hit to an extent by this economy, but when it comes to worrying about pro-basketball's (even the Celtic's) financial woes, I really just can't be bothered. I'll yell at the refs (from my couch), I'll cheer or jeer Danny's moves, I'll watch every game, but the financial problems of the mega-rich pro sports industry just don't have a place in my heart. Even if they affect the team, sad as that may be. I'm a die hard fan, but sports is just sports and there are millions of people out there losing their jobs, and though I am optimistic that we will recover I recognize that we are teetering on the brink of a crisis that could bring back the days of the great depression. I'm not criticizing you with this Elrod, I see where you are coming from, it's just something I refuse to let bother me. If the NBA were to financially collapse tomorrow (it's safe from doing so), I'd care more about the regular joe's who lost their jobs than the owners and athletes who've been making obscene amounts of money for so long. Pro sports could use a shake-up to bring them back to earth a little bit, when athletes need to make 20 mill a year and courtside seats can cost thousands of dollars, well **** their financial problems.

Wyc said he would pay the luxury tax if it helps the team to win the championship. Did he mean one championship title? Was he lying or what?

Bad-Thoma--

Your point is well taken. The problems of the Celtics owners and the Celtics franchise are small potatoes compared to the trials and tribulations of the bulk of the people on our planet right now, and more than a few of the people who post on this board.

That being said, an impoverished ownership group is going to make the Cs less competitive going forward, possibly much less competitive. I, for one, will feel better about the collapse of my retirement account and my post-tretirement job as greeter at WalMart if the Cs rack up a few more flags and field great teams between now and 2020. Watching Paul "Jed Clampett" Allen's Trail Blazers buying up our first round pick will be rubbing salt in my economic wounds.

--elrod

GreenGrizz wrote:Wyc said he would pay the luxury tax if it helps the team to win the championship. Did he mean one championship title? Was he lying or what?

I believe that was when the economy was much better off. Anyways, either Pierce and Allen(and maybe Garnett as well) take cuts next season or they sell the team. I believe they can change their salary if the need is dire enough, so I think that's what will happen.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:

GreenGrizz wrote:Wyc said he would pay the luxury tax if it helps the team to win the championship. Did he mean one championship title? Was he lying or what?

I believe that was when the economy was much better off. Anyways, either Pierce and Allen(and maybe Garnett as well) take cuts next season or they sell the team. I believe they can change their salary if the need is dire enough, so I think that's what will happen.

Dude WFT are you talking about? This is not the NFL. Players do not take pay-cuts or restructure their deal in the middle of the contract. In fact I do not even think the players union would allow it.

As for selling the team, who has the money to buy it? This team sold for 360 million dollars in 03 when the economy was much better. Who is willing to spend at least that much to buy the team?

Joebiscuit wrote:

Celtsfan1980 wrote:

GreenGrizz wrote:Wyc said he would pay the luxury tax if it helps the team to win the championship. Did he mean one championship title? Was he lying or what?

I believe that was when the economy was much better off. Anyways, either Pierce and Allen(and maybe Garnett as well) take cuts next season or they sell the team. I believe they can change their salary if the need is dire enough, so I think that's what will happen.

Dude WFT are you talking about? This is not the NFL. Players do not take pay-cuts or restructure their deal in the middle of the contract. In fact I do not even think the players union would allow it.

As for selling the team, who has the money to buy it? This team sold for 360 million dollars in 03 when the economy was much better. Who is willing to spend at least that much to buy the team?

I'm not certain, but I thought in all sports you can restructure your contract. Other basketball fans have made this statement. You have a lot of rich people out there who would be willing to buy the team. Wyc and company may stay in ownership, but you would just add another owner who could help the team out. Teams are changing ownership frequently so I don't see why a team as popular as the Celtics would have problems.

Stop overreacting. Every franchise in the NBA is more careful about the economic side of basketball. Why do you think lakers traded Radmanovic? Why didn`t the blazers or cavs take on a big contract? Every owner is hurting right now and the celtics are no exception...If anything we are in a much better position then majority of teams, IMO.

Frankly, none of us knows the cs financial situtation, nor that of the Cs ownersahip. So we can't make assertions one way or the other. All we know is that the Cs apparently need an emergency loan to make their payroll. Lots of other teams are in the same boat, but just as many are not in the same boat. I'd rather be in the boat that can make payroll without an emergency loan, expecially when the team is one of the top revenue generating teams in the league.

That, alone, is distressing. That is all we have to go on. A little clarification from Wyc would be nice.

The fact that the C's were even contemplating taking on Nocioni and his big contract shows that the owners are still willing to pay for a winner.

elrod enchilada wrote:Bad-Thoma--

Your point is well taken. The problems of the Celtics owners and the Celtics franchise are small potatoes compared to the trials and tribulations of the bulk of the people on our planet right now, and more than a few of the people who post on this board.

That being said, an impoverished ownership group is going to make the Cs less competitive going forward, possibly much less competitive. I, for one, will feel better about the collapse of my retirement account and my post-tretirement job as greeter at WalMart if the Cs rack up a few more flags and field great teams between now and 2020. Watching Paul "Jed Clampett" Allen's Trail Blazers buying up our first round pick will be rubbing salt in my economic wounds.

--elrod

Like I said, I see where you're coming from and didn't mean my response as a criticism of your OP. I'm just a bit jaded when it comes to pro-sports, some teams out there operate at a loss year in and year out yet players make these obscene salaries and seats can cost outrageous sums of money, it's just poorly run business. To much of the overall economic scene in sports is driven by what the big markets (such as Boston) can afford, while smaller markets struggle to be profitable and compete, even with a salary cap. Take for instance a player making a max contract of, for the sake of argument, 20 million a year, divide that by 82 games (a majorly over-simplified view for the sake of argument), it equals $243,902 per game. Throw in endorsement deals, and the money is staggering. Yet a team like Dallas has operated at a loss for 8 of the last 10 years while being competive, and the Knicks last year, while sucking it up for the most part and with the largest salary total in the league, operated in the black. The NBA said they would lay off 9% of it's work force, 80 people, after the economic down turn. Say, at a pure guess, those people averaged 50k a year, that would be 4 mil, less than the average NBA salary of 5.59 mil. Pure guess on my part, but you get my point. How much less would these guys have to make in order for teams to be comfortably profitable have an equal opportunity at competing? 10 percent? Even 20 percent? I'm done ranting, but in general this is why I could care a lick about the financial problems of the NBA in an economic down turn, even those of my beloved Boston Celtics, with a little less greed and a little more communal brains it wouldn't even be close to an issue.

MVP16 wrote:The fact that the C's were even contemplating taking on Nocioni and his big contract shows that the owners are still willing to pay for a winner.

Who know how true that rumor was? The only move the celtics made this deadline was moves to save payroll, unless of course they sign someone which is starting to look less and less likely.

"Financial problems" really doesn't have the same meaning when that phrase is used regarding quadzillionaires.

Joebiscuit wrote:

MVP16 wrote:The fact that the C's were even contemplating taking on Nocioni and his big contract shows that the owners are still willing to pay for a winner.

Who know how true that rumor was? The only move the celtics made this deadline was moves to save payroll, unless of course they sign someone which is starting to look less and less likely.

What makes that look unlikey? All speculation and rumor has pointed to Marbs and Joe Smith, I'd be highly surprised if even if it's not one or both of them someone else isn't brought in. They didn't cut much payroll in the first place and sent money along with Sam to make the trade happen.

As long as Wyc and company weren't caught up

in Bernie Madoff's obvious Ponzi scheme
(take a look at his SEC filings the past few years and
you'll know something's up, the filings scream duped investors)

or Stanford International Group's Ponzi scheme (Ditto if you look at their SEC filings);

I think everything should be allright.

If finances are tight and the Big 3 want to see some luxury funding for next year--their last likely year together--then the team out to sell them some ownership shares and use the proceeds accordingly. It'd be nice to have them on the ownership list once they retire anyway.

elrod enchilada wrote:Frankly, none of us knows the cs financial situtation, nor that of the Cs ownersahip. So we can't make assertions one way or the other. All we know is that the Cs apparently need an emergency loan to make their payroll. Lots of other teams are in the same boat, but just as many are not in the same boat. I'd rather be in the boat that can make payroll without an emergency loan, expecially when the team is one of the top revenue generating teams in the league.

That, alone, is distressing. That is all we have to go on. A little clarification from Wyc would be nice.

Elrod, you are making a jump in logic here...

Facts:

The league has provided a line of credit

the team is utilizing that line of credit.

its quite common for a company to utilize and existing line of credit instead of their own hard cash resources - especially in a time of recession.

When an outside source of credit is available and may not be down the line, utilizing said resource gives a team options that can actual expand their payroll capabilities, not restrict them.

The team may be more fiscally prudent or selective with their expenditures, but knowing that they are tapping into a credit resource does not mean the team is in dire financial straights.

My company is doing fine and we are utilizing our line of credit in order to maintain our cash reserve in the advent that this recession makes it a necessity to utilize.

Don't jump to conclusions - this may very well be a business decision, not a desperation move...likely actually...David Aldridge is awesome, but he's a reporter, not a business analyst...he could easily be reporting a story and making an assumption in his head that isn't accurate...