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

[coldfish]

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".

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

[musiqsoulchild]

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".

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

If this was a publicly traded firm, they would run it differently.

Its not.

And after 3 lean years with a KNOWN and ANNOUNCED rebuild, the drop in revenue would have been anticipated.

However, what they did NOT anticipate is that the players dont care about Chicago anymore. Which is why they had to cut short the rebuild and start with Otto Porter.

This shows adeptness and flexibility on the part of the organization and a willingness to correct their mistakes. Which they have always done ( Noc, Ben Wallace, Doug et al).

[League Circles]

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".

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

You're either being intentionally or accidentally misleading to cast the Bulls as a poor financial performer.

Yes, growth rates and revenue are among the many, many things investors look at. Even more important are profit as a function of capital investment.

By the data I've found on statista.com, the Bulls were in a three way tie for 7th in revenue with Dallas and Boston, just barely behind Brooklyn. When you correct for cost of living and disposable who knows how those 4 teams shake out. Keep in mind these numbers, while published in February, are for the 17/18 season when the Bulls were very deliberately tanking.

Cleveland was also ahead of them, and likely is way behind them now that lebron is gone.

That leaves the Lakers, who have had actual revenue drops unlike the Bulls a number of times including just a few years ago. It leaves out the Knicks who have the money of new york, a terrible team, and two of the very best teams in the league in Houston and GS, who arw also huge markets with arguably a lot more money than the Chicago marlet especially among target demographics.

Then there is the whole issue that we have no idea how much money reinsdorf is effectively hiding through his TV deal to realize on the other end instead of on the Bulls and where he has to share Revenue.

I think you are really mischaracterizing what the Bulls Market actually is. It's not 30 NBA teams. It's everything the people can do with their dollars for entertainment. I would wager that essentially every team in the NBA is doing extremely well in that correctly defined Market space. Is the gap between NBA teams closer than they used to be? Yes. That is a result of teams like the Bulls and Lakers Paving the way for decades to make people in places like Milwaukee enough to go spend hundreds of dollars to go to an NBA basketball game. but when you look at actual return on investment which is what a business fundamentally is the Bulls continue to absolutely clean up.

I guess I've become a little bit confused on exactly what you are criticizing.

[Leslie Forman]

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".

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

You are right, but oddly, I don't think League Circles's obtuse view of things is totally irrelevant, because…

…I think that's how the Bulls ownership actually thinks. They have never, ever shown that they really give a damn what's happening with the rest of the NBA/MLB.

In publicly traded company terms, Jerry is basically '80s-'90s General Motors. The man does not give a flying F about those stupid little Hondas or Toyotas.

You just wanna hope they don't turn into Sears.

[League Circles]

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".

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

You are right, but oddly, I don't think League Circles's obtuse view of things is totally irrelevant, because…

…I think that's how the Bulls ownership actually thinks. They have never, ever shown that they really give a damn what's happening with the rest of the NBA/MLB.

In publicly traded company terms, Jerry is basically '80s-'90s General Motors. The man does not give a flying F about those stupid little Hondas or Toyotas.

You just wanna hope they don't turn into Sears.

I guess Burger King on congress should be more concerned with what burger King on division is doing rather than what panera, blue apron, and marianos are doing.

The Bulls have been leaders in many aspects of change in the nba.

You guys are wildy confused if you think the nba teams are primarily in competition with each other. They're business partners! They share resources, revenue, marketing etc.

[johnnyvann840]

-----------
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.
....

Not sure where 3.8% is coming from, but the returns are exponentially higher than that from an equity standpoint. How is it a pyramid scheme?

The Bulls were valued at just a billion dollars only FIVE years ago. Today, they are valued at $2.9 billion. That is not 3.8%, that is 190% over a 5 year period. Just over the last three years the team has grown in value over $600 million.

The Clippers in 2010 were valued at just $295M. Today they are worth an estimated $2.2B. That is a percentage increase or ROI of 645.76% over 9 years.

Thing is that even if the returns were negative which they are so far from being, you have to realize that there are a lot of mega wealthy billionaires who just want to own all or part of an NBA team (or other sports franchises). The type of person who has $60M to make an "ego purchase" with, or to own a piece of the Bulls just wants to own a piece of the Bulls.

Bottom line is that a franchise is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. Like I said, these are ego purchases for the richest of the rich. Ballmer wanted to make sure he was the highest bidder at the time the Clippers were on the block, so he threw what was considered and absurd number out there. Well, he MADE THE MARKET. Now, all the other teams have jumped up in value at crazy rates.

For instance, before Ballmer bought the Clippers, they were thought to be worth around $600-700M. These franchises are not going to go down in value any time soon either because there will always be billionaires out there who just want to own an NBA team. They don't care if they lose money every year in operating expenses because they know they have something that other billionaires want and would be willing to over pay for. It's just one of these things that no matter what you do, you almost cannot F it up.

[League Circles]

-----------
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.
....

Not sure where 3.8% is coming from, but the returns are exponentially higher than that from an equity standpoint.

The Bulls were valued at just a billion dollars only FIVE years ago. Today, they are valued at $2.9 billion. That is not 3.8%, that is 190% over a 5 year period. Just over the last three years the team has grown in value over $600 million.

The Clippers in 2010 were valued at just $295M. Today they are worth an estimated $2.2B. That is a percentage increase or ROI of 645.76% over 9 years.

Thing is that even if the returns were negative which they are so far from being, you have to realize that there are a lot of mega wealthy billionaires who just want to own all or part of an NBA team (or other sports franchises). The type of person who has $60M to make an "ego purchase" with, or to own a piece of the Bulls just wants to own a piece of the Bulls.

Bottom line is that a franchise is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. Like I said, these are ego purchases for the richest of the rich. Ballmer wanted to make sure he was the highest bidder at the time the Clippers were on the block, so he threw what was considered and absurd number out there. Well, he MADE THE MARKET. Now, all the other teams have jumped up in value at crazy rates.

For instance, before Ballmer bought the Clippers, they were thought to be worth around $600-700M. These franchises are not going to go down in value any time soon either because there will always be billionaires out there who just want to own an NBA team. They don't care if they lose money every year in operating expenses because they know they have something that other billionaires want and would be willing to over pay for. It's just one of these things that no matter what you do, you almost cannot F it up.

The 3.8% is Bulls profit last year as a function of Forbes made up valuation.

That's the thing about these valuations from Forbes. They are absolute guesses made for the purpose of entertaining fans like us. As you indicate their valuation was drastically wildly off for the Clippers. These are not Commodities. We have no idea if someone is willing to pay 1.5 billion for the Bulls or 4 billion or whatever. Most likely, for Ballmer, the value of having a team in LA to compete with the Lakers had enormous ego value.

You indicate that he bid the most by a wild amount. That indicates that it's not accurate that there are people lining up to pay as much as he paid. If there were someone would have just outbid him by a few million or whatever.

It's very plausible in the entertainment industry which make no mistake is exactly what the Bulls are in for entities to decline in value and revenue. The same could become true of the nba in 5 years, 10 years, whatever.

Ask the Weinstein group how quickly something popular and in demand and valuable can decline in the entertainment industry. Most billionaires know this which is why they are not lining up to pay billions of dollars for something that returns three or four percent.

Jay-Z made an ego purchase in the Brooklyn Nets and later sold that ego purchase I am pretty sure for a loss if I recall correctly, despite Forbes fantasy, made up valuations.

You just can't project valuations to keep going up in the way that the Ballmer purchase would imply. These Investments are definitely not being valued based on their profitability and we have no idea what offers are made around the league to buy teams that are turned down so they're not based on actual offers either. They're basically all based around a midlife crisis decision by Steve Ballmer. That's why they are so unreliable and practically meaningless. The Bulls could be anywhere between the most valuable and maybe the 20th most valuable team in the NBA.

But, they are absolutely one of the most profitable.

[johnnyvann840]

Jay-Z did not sell his interest, which was minuscule, anyway, in the Nets for a loss. He sold because he wanted to run an agency and you cannot represent players if you own part of a team. He only had a million dollars into it. But he made huge returns because of the share of Barclays Center he got.

We cannot look at the NBA as a typical business investment because it just isn't. It's a game for the mega wealthy. That is one of the Bulls problems is that JR runs his team like a business and it puts the team at a huge disadvantage against some of these owners who just want a toy to play with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2013/04/19/jay-z-sells-nets-stake-earns-warren-buffett-like-return/

Jay-Z Sells Nets Stake, Earns Warren Buffett-Like Return

Jay-Z is retiring again--this time not as a musician, but as a co-owner of the Brooklyn Nets.

The hip-hop mogul officially announced the news via his Web site, Life + Times:

Being a member of the Nets organization surpassed some of my greatest ambitions. It was never about an investment; it was about the NETS and Brooklyn. My job as an owner is over but as a fan it has just begun. I’m a Brooklyn Net forever."

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. FORBES reported that Jay-Z would have to sell his stake in the team nearly three weeks ago, after he announced his intention to start representing professional athletes through his Roc Nation Sports. Given the new business venture, the NBA's rules required him to relinquish his stake, as Jay-Z confirmed in his statement.

So what sort of return did Jay-Z get on that Nets investment? It's hard to say for sure--no buyer or purchase price has been disclosed--but there's evidence that his gains were on a Warren Buffett type of level.

Jay-Z purchased his stake in the Nets in January of 2004, investing a reported $1 million in the team. As of this fall, he held one-fifteenth of one percent of the Nets, according to the New York Times, but owned one fifth of one percent of the $1 billion Barclays Center.

[League Circles]

Jay-Z did not sell his interest, which was minuscule, anyway, in the Nets for a loss. He sold because he wanted to run an agency and you cannot represent players if you own part of a team. He only had a million dollars into it. But he made huge returns because of the share of Barclays Center he got.

We cannot look at the NBA as a typical business investment because it just isn't. It's a game for the mega wealthy. That is one of the Bulls problems is that JR runs his team like a business and it puts the team at a huge disadvantage against some of these owners who just want a toy to play with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2013/04/19/jay-z-sells-nets-stake-earns-warren-buffett-like-return/

Jay-Z Sells Nets Stake, Earns Warren Buffett-Like Return

Jay-Z is retiring again--this time not as a musician, but as a co-owner of the Brooklyn Nets.

The hip-hop mogul officially announced the news via his Web site, Life + Times:

Being a member of the Nets organization surpassed some of my greatest ambitions. It was never about an investment; it was about the NETS and Brooklyn. My job as an owner is over but as a fan it has just begun. I’m a Brooklyn Net forever."

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. FORBES reported that Jay-Z would have to sell his stake in the team nearly three weeks ago, after he announced his intention to start representing professional athletes through his Roc Nation Sports. Given the new business venture, the NBA's rules required him to relinquish his stake, as Jay-Z confirmed in his statement.

So what sort of return did Jay-Z get on that Nets investment? It's hard to say for sure--no buyer or purchase price has been disclosed--but there's evidence that his gains were on a Warren Buffett type of level.

Jay-Z purchased his stake in the Nets in January of 2004, investing a reported $1 million in the team. As of this fall, he held one-fifteenth of one percent of the Nets, according to the New York Times, but owned one fifth of one percent of the $1 billion Barclays Center.

I don't have time to dig it up right now, but long story short, all that article does is speculate what he sold his share for, admit they don't know whether he invested more after his initial.

I literally watched a video at one point of jay z in an interview saying something along the lines of he lost money on his nets investment. I may be wrong. Forbes is garbage though. It's like the national enquirer of finance.

[johnnyvann840]

https://www.netsdaily.com/2013/9/18/4746916/jay-z-sells-barclays-center-stake-as-well-as-nets

[musiqsoulchild]

That is one of the Bulls problems is that JR runs his team like a business and it puts the team at a huge disadvantage against some of these owners who just want a toy to play with.

Nailed it. Thats pretty much the only reason why I prefer Reinsdorf to any other owner out there who might buy the Bulls.

The known devil is much better than the unknown billionaire who wants a toy to play with.

Guess what happens to toys - they get forgotten quickly. Or worse, they keep getting sold off once the toy isnt tenable anymore on the financial end of things (Minny and present OKC are examples)

[League Circles]

That is one of the Bulls problems is that JR runs his team like a business and it puts the team at a huge disadvantage against some of these owners who just want a toy to play with.

Nailed it. Thats pretty much the only reason why I prefer Reinsdorf to any other owner out there who might buy the Bulls.

The known devil is much better than the unknown billionaire who wants a toy to play with.

Guess what happens to toys - they get forgotten quickly. Or worse, they keep getting sold off once the toy isnt tenable anymore on the financial end of things (Minny and present OKC are examples)

X 10000

[Michael Jackson]

The man issue I have with the valuation of the NBA franchises in general is where is the Apex of value. Is it assumed that it will continually grow? I personally think we must be close to the apex as we have seen remarkable valuation growth in the last twenty and especially the last 10 years. The fact that Prokhorov is looking to sell his ownership, is a strong indicator to me that he sees peak value. He is incredibly wise IMHO and I tend to pay attention to his moves... I mean new owners are not likely to see the astronomical growth we have seen going forward... Not saying that there won't be growth the international market is still growing but the domestic product has to be near its market saturation point. I get the argument that it is a rich persons game but compared to what Ballmer paid to what he would sell for today, it almost makes it unrealistic and highly unreachable. It limits who can play the game significantly too, if the potential new owner of the Bulls needs at least 3 billion to get in the game as opposed to needing say 800,000 million. You are already in rare air and that number has to shrink a lot, so the market demand has to go down a bit... I may very well be wrong but I don't see a huge pool of NBA team buyers out there that can afford the luxury and to not treat it like a business. I might be wrong and clearly would be if the Oil Barron's start taking interest in owning the product etc....

[johnnyvann840]

That is one of the Bulls problems is that JR runs his team like a business and it puts the team at a huge disadvantage against some of these owners who just want a toy to play with.

Nailed it. Thats pretty much the only reason why I prefer Reinsdorf to any other owner out there who might buy the Bulls.

The known devil is much better than the unknown billionaire who wants a toy to play with.

Guess what happens to toys - they get forgotten quickly. Or worse, they keep getting sold off once the toy isnt tenable anymore on the financial end of things (Minny and present OKC are examples)

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I like the fact that JR isn't foolish and does pay attention to the balance sheet. I mean.. obviously staying in the black is better for everybody. The thing I would like to see is the ownership group be willing to be a little less profitable, while remaining profitable willing to spend more to put a better product on the floor.

I don't even think he's been as bad an owner as a lot of people do. I will say that I don't like Michael running things, though, at all, so I wouldn't mind a sale. Also, I cannot stand Gar Forman so I want him gone yesterday. I just think JR (or Michael at this point) has stuck with GarPax for far too long now and strongly think we need a change of management. Problem is none of that is likely to happen so we just have to hope the product on the floor becomes good enough, through luck in the draft or wise acquisitions, that the purse strings loosen up some and the team is willing to spend into the tax. It's kind of a catch 22 situation though- JR says he will pay tax for a winner, but you kind of have to be willing to spend a little more at some point to get to that level.

[johnnyvann840]

Also, spending a little more and profiting a little less is only temporary if the team starts winning. With winning comes playoff revenue, more merch sales, greater fan interest. More money.

[musiqsoulchild]

Also, spending a little more and profiting a little less is only temporary if the team starts winning. With winning comes playoff revenue, more merch sales, greater fan interest. More money.

I agree with the general cycle that you mention. However, its very tiered in the NBA playoffs.

And theres no direct correlation between spending into the LT and buying a playoff round. If there was, then we'd be doing it EVERY damn season.

I will repeat myself here - because we agree on almost everything we are talking about here:
1) Bulls will not pay LT for a first round playoff team
2) Bulls will not pay LT for a second round playoff team
3) They might pay LT but definitely not the repeater for an ECF team
4) They will play LT but not the repeater for a championship caliber team

Thats pretty much evidence backed. And also backed by sound financial numbers when you consider the impact of the incremental spending necessary to go into LT beyond the soft cap floor.

[League Circles]

Also, spending a little more and profiting a little less is only temporary if the team starts winning. With winning comes playoff revenue, more merch sales, greater fan interest. More money.

Thing is, spending more now in an effort to win more can easily cause you to lose more later than you would have by locking yourself into deals that only make short term sense. Like the Cavs with JR Smith, Tristan, Shumpert etc.

[johnnyvann840]

Also, spending a little more and profiting a little less is only temporary if the team starts winning. With winning comes playoff revenue, more merch sales, greater fan interest. More money.

Thing is, spending more now in an effort to win more can easily cause you to lose more later than you would have by locking yourself into deals that only make short term sense. Like the Cavs with JR Smith, Tristan, Shumpert etc.

Yeah, but they also won a Championship. I would trade a few crappy seasons three or four years from now for a Title next season. I mean, hell, we've endured two of the worst seasons in franchise history, anyway, these last two years and haven't even sniffed the playoffs let alone a CF's or Finals appearance.... and aren't likely to this season. It's like the Raptors going for it with Kawhi. Do you think those fans would take that deal back and give up that Championship. They will remember and cherish last season for decades while nobody will care if they suck in a couple of years for a season or two.

[League Circles]

Also, spending a little more and profiting a little less is only temporary if the team starts winning. With winning comes playoff revenue, more merch sales, greater fan interest. More money.

Thing is, spending more now in an effort to win more can easily cause you to lose more later than you would have by locking yourself into deals that only make short term sense. Like the Cavs with JR Smith, Tristan, Shumpert etc.

Yeah, but they also won a Championship. I would trade a few crappy seasons three or four years from now for a Title next season. I mean, hell, we've endured two of the worst seasons in franchise history, anyway, these last two years and haven't even sniffed the playoffs let alone a CF's or Finals appearance.... and aren't likely to this season. It's like the Raptors going for it with Kawhi. Do you think those fans would take that deal back and give up that Championship. They will remember and cherish last season for decades while nobody will care if they suck in a couple of years for a season or two.

Agreed. Thing is, I think if JR had the chance to add Kawhi to arguably the best team in the east, or bolster the roster around the second GOAT, I think he'd do it. But he won't, and IMO shouldn't, do that to move from a lottery team to say a 7th seed, as the actions taken to achieve that may very well keep you mediocre for years into the future, whereas had you been more prudent, maybe you'd have peaked at a 2 seed with the same core and wiser, more patient additions.

[coldfish]

You being intentionally obtuse just to be a contrarian.

The Bulls revenue is tanking versus the competition. They were ranked 9th last year and I believe that is their lowest ever ranking. For their market, they may be the worst performing corporation in terms of revenue and profit growth, which is how investors evaluate companies. The goal of any management is to not get overtaken by all of his competition and its absurd to insinuate anything differently.

If this was a publicly traded company, the CEO would have been fired because companies are evaluated based on their market segments.

You are right, but oddly, I don't think League Circles's obtuse view of things is totally irrelevant, because…

…I think that's how the Bulls ownership actually thinks. They have never, ever shown that they really give a damn what's happening with the rest of the NBA/MLB.

In publicly traded company terms, Jerry is basically '80s-'90s General Motors. The man does not give a flying F about those stupid little Hondas or Toyotas.

You just wanna hope they don't turn into Sears.

I guess Burger King on congress should be more concerned with what burger King on division is doing rather than what panera, blue apron, and marianos are doing.

The Bulls have been leaders in many aspects of change in the nba.

You guys are wildy confused if you think the nba teams are primarily in competition with each other. They're business partners! They share resources, revenue, marketing etc.

You can't even believe what you are typing. Do you seriously believe that if the Lakers get a big new local TV deal, every other team isn't noticing it and trying to match or exceed that deal? They benchmark each other on everything from seat prices to employee pay to TV deals. If one team is lagging behind everyone else in terms of growth, its an indication that they aren't being managed properly.