brackdan70 wrote:Celts17Pride wrote:Bontemps explained that Boston also has 11 players signed for the 2025-26 campaign for $225 million and would have a projected payroll of approximately $233 million with a draft pick and minimum salaried players added.
That is $45 million over the projected luxury tax and would give the Celtics a projected tax bill of $280 million when there are harsher penalties next offseason.
Between the players under contract and the tax bill, that would represent a payroll of approximately $513 million for the 2025-26 season.
Phoenix is expected to become the first team in history with a payroll over $400 million for the 2024-2025 season
A trade is coming either in 17 days or in the off-season. I highly doubt the Celtics are paying $513 million next year especially with the sale of the team happening real soon. It's just common sense.
I agree. That’s a pretty untenable expense line. I think that is well over revenue. Depending on the ownership group, that is possible something that could be endure for one season, but then a drastic reset would be needed…I agree though, in all likelihood something happens before the 2025/26 season gets rolling.
It entirely depends on a) if we win it all this season and b) the ultimate sale price and c) who the new owner(s) are.
If we go back to back, it's hard to justify making a trade for cost saving purposes that makes us worse. While the deficit would be pretty huge, the overall value of the team will go up significantly and have the potential to go even higher with a three-peat on the table. It'd be worth taking the hit for the potential benefit of that outcome.
If the ultimate sale price already has baked in the fact that the tax bill will be exorbitant, it won't be as onerous as it seems. Wyc & Co will take the hit in their capital gains thereby making it easier for the new ownership to wear the operating losses in the near-term.
And finally if we get a Ballmer-esque billionaire, it is actually viable to eat those losses. Most years the C's will net a profit, their value will continue to grow consistently over the JT/JB era given that we will be in the conversation in the East for at least the next decade before having to truly rebuild. To an extent it can be short term pain for long term gain. The flip side of that is that most of the above is true regardless, so what will likely be a shrewd business person might not care about taking a step back but it really comes down to how committed they'll be to winning.
Given the value of this ballclub, the growth over the last few decades and projected growth going forward it is by no means financially implausible to spend that much in terms of salaries and taxes. It'll most likely be a matter of will rather than feasibility. Even if we were to get a cash-poor owner/ownership group they'd be able to leverage the value of the club to settle those short-term deficits given the pretty much guaranteed future profits.
I'm not saying I don't think you're right, but just that it's not a necessity. If the current ownership group make a cost-saving move to line their pocket on the way out, they should be flamed for it and it shouldn't be accepted as an inevitability. If the new ownership does the same, they should similarly be flamed for it because ultimately they bought something they couldn't pay for and the fans suffer as a result. I don't like how it's being presented as an inescapable outcome because it's ultimately letting these guys off the hook. Just look at the returns Wyc & co have gotten on their initial investment, these guys and the future owners will get their returns no matter what, making those moves to further line their pockets shouldn't just be accepted as a unavoidable consequence.
