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

[League Circles]

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?

Sure they're noticing it. Sure they're trying to get as much as they can. I'm just saying, as a matter of fact, the Bulls are MUCH MORESO in competition with entertainment options (sports and non sports) outside the NBA than they are with their other 29 partners, with whom they've negotiated all sorts of co-dependencies and mutual benefits (revenue sharing).

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.

Or that they're in a more saturated market, or that they're hiding money by intentionally having a less favorable TV deal because they have a stake in the other side of that deal (a point I've brought up several times that remains unaddressed because it counters your thesis).

Focusing on growth rates while glossing over income is how bubbles inflate and people like Warren Buffett keep cleaning up through thick and thin.

Is the best typewriter company (if one still exists) a well managed company that represents a good investment just because it's best in it's too-narrowly defined market? Or should the market include computers and word processing software?

NBA teams are, at glance, generally all bad investments at their current, fake as hell Forbes valuations, yet probably generally all pretty good investments in their correctly defined market space (entertainment dollars).

I mean, the Bulls made more income last year than the Warriors on a drastically lower investment (and valuation not that that means anything).

People can say the Bulls are poorly managed from a fan perspective, and that may or may not be true. There's just no intellectually honest way to construe them as poorly managed as a business. People can't have it both ways, though I get that it brings people comfort to criticize virtually every aspect of something they love to follow.

The way you're trying to paint some of these metrics, again, is like saying the REAL winner in the NBA is the team that plays with the highest pace, or the team that hits the most threes, instead of the team that wins the most games.

For example, if the Bulls negotiate themselves to be in an environment where concurrent with their profits rising, their 29 partners also rise even moreso to get closer to the Bulls in revenue (or even profits, which is much more telling than revenue - a company can be atrocious and on the verge of collapse with enormous revenues), that is a unequivocal WIN for the Bulls.

[bullsnewdynasty]

There should be more pressure on Reinsdorf but nobody gives a **** because this is a Bears and Cubs town.

The Bulls are probably the 4th or 5th most popular team in Chicago. Fan interest has declined precipitously over the past few years, and it’s not just casuals either. This board alone used to get a lot more activity during the season.

[Michael Jackson]

There should be more pressure on Reinsdorf but nobody gives a **** because this is a Bears and Cubs town.

The Bulls are probably the 4th or 5th most popular team in Chicago. Fan interest has declined precipitously over the past few years, and it’s not just casuals either. This board alone used to get a lot more activity during the season.

That is true and that fact that it is a bears cubs town = a high tolerance for losing, in fact the highest tolerance of losing of all time.

[Am2626]

Don’t know if people saw this article. It came out 3 days ago and discusses this same topic. It also references a Twitter poll that went out on this and so far the results from that poll is that 90% of people want to see the Reinsdorf’s sell the team. Looks like this topic has gotten the Media’s attention. Wonder how the Reinsdorf’s are reacting to their negative perception from fans.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/pippenainteasy.com/2019/08/05/chicago-bulls-owner-jerry-reinsdorf-getting-heat-from-fans-should-he-sell/amp/

[Red Larrivee]

Wonder how the Reinsdorf’s are reacting to their negative perception from fans.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[transplant]

Quite a thread.

I completely agree that too much is being made of the Forbes valuations. As has been pointed out, they are guesses and based heavily on recent team sales. There are very few potential buyers out there and as long as teams are rarely sold, their value will be very high.

As for trying to analyze the financial health of the Bulls based on the Forbes numbers, it's real easy to paint an inaccurate picture. With the Bulls, you need to factor in that they are part owners of the UC and NBC Sports Net. This is especially important because what separates one franchise from another financially is heavily influences by what they make from home gate (and add-ons like concessions that are based on attendance) and local broadcast fees. The other big piece of revenue is national broadcast fees and these are divided equally.

It's reasonable to believe that the rebuild has had a negative effect on the Bulls' financial picture. How negative? There's too much missing information to make confident conclusions.

[Michael Jackson]

Don’t know if people saw this article. It came out 3 days ago and discusses this same topic. It also references a Twitter poll that went out on this and so far the results from that poll is that 90% of people want to see the Reinsdorf’s sell the team. Looks like this topic has gotten the Media’s attention. Wonder how the Reinsdorf’s are reacting to their negative perception from fans.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/pippenainteasy.com/2019/08/05/chicago-bulls-owner-jerry-reinsdorf-getting-heat-from-fans-should-he-sell/amp/

That article wasn’t very damning if Jerry. It was kinda fluff. It basically looked like a summation of many of my arguments.

[Am2626]

Don’t know if people saw this article. It came out 3 days ago and discusses this same topic. It also references a Twitter poll that went out on this and so far the results from that poll is that 90% of people want to see the Reinsdorf’s sell the team. Looks like this topic has gotten the Media’s attention. Wonder how the Reinsdorf’s are reacting to their negative perception from fans.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/pippenainteasy.com/2019/08/05/chicago-bulls-owner-jerry-reinsdorf-getting-heat-from-fans-should-he-sell/amp/

That article wasn’t very damning if Jerry. It was kinda fluff. It basically looked like a summation of many of my arguments.

Yeah I know but the Twitter Poll says that 90% of fans want the Reinsdorf’s to sell. There are close to 1500 people that have responded. That’s not a good look when that many fans are against them.

[Michael Jackson]

Don’t know if people saw this article. It came out 3 days ago and discusses this same topic. It also references a Twitter poll that went out on this and so far the results from that poll is that 90% of people want to see the Reinsdorf’s sell the team. Looks like this topic has gotten the Media’s attention. Wonder how the Reinsdorf’s are reacting to their negative perception from fans.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/pippenainteasy.com/2019/08/05/chicago-bulls-owner-jerry-reinsdorf-getting-heat-from-fans-should-he-sell/amp/

That article wasn’t very damning if Jerry. It was kinda fluff. It basically looked like a summation of many of my arguments.

Yeah I know but the Twitter Poll says that 90% of fans want the Reinsdorf’s to sell. There are close to 1500 people that have responded. That’s not a good look when that many fans are against them.

Yeah I don think Jerry is too worried about twitter polls nor should he be. Most owners are generally not well liked, I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg losses any sleep at night knowing most people loathe him. Being in any position of power pretty much guarantees you are going to have a lot of haters, none of that rattles the cages of any one successful they have long been immune to that.

[chitowndish]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

[Michael Jackson]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

Totally agree. Although 3rd generation is usually where it goes off the tracks.

The Buss family did not get Lebron. The bright lights of LA did. The marketing ability and his future post playing career is what drew him there.

[musiqsoulchild]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

Michael has great pedigree. And really good qualifications.

He worked the hard minor leagues in baseball. His chops are certifiable.

[League Circles]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

Michael has great pedigree. And really good qualifications.

He worked the hard minor leagues in baseball. His chops are certifiable.

I thought he just owned (gifted by Jerry?) a minor league hockey team. Is there any indication he did well as an owner?

[musiqsoulchild]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

Michael has great pedigree. And really good qualifications.

He worked the hard minor leagues in baseball. His chops are certifiable.

I thought he just owned (gifted by Jerry?) a minor league hockey team. Is there any indication he did well as an owner?

He has specific expertise in maximizing attendance and helping build new revenue streams.

he is a founding partner of International Facilities Group, a consulting company specializing in the development of sports and entertainment facilities across the country. Reinsdorf also serves as Chairman of the Harrisburg Senators (AA, Washington Nationals), where he oversaw $40 million in ballpark renovations and watched the team break several single-day and season long attendance records in 2010. Michael is a former owner of the Stockton Thunder, one of the premier franchises in the ECHL professional hockey league and during his five years of ownership, he saw the Thunder lead the league in attendance four of the five seasons

The parallels are close - over here he oversaw the construction of the Advocate Center and monetizing the Bulls stadium. The consulting group in which he is a Principal is called IFG. Among their clients are:

1) Bulls
2) Blackhawks
3) Washington Nationals

Ironic hahahaha.

Direct excerpt from the IFG website:

Once a facility is completed, IFG has the experience and resources necessary to ensure that it is managed successfully; the company offers a variety of asset management support services for venue owners and also operates facilities for public sector and private owners under long term, third-party management agreements.

Live entertainment is a vital economic and cultural catalyst of every public assembly facility; we have relationships with many of the industry’s top promoters of live entertainment as venues need to be planned, built and operated with the promoter, agent and artists’ interests in mind.

The company is dedicated to the following key principals that constitute a foundation of excellence in sports and entertainment facility development and asset management:

Continuous innovation in the evolution of venue project planning;
Facility design and technology that enhances the fan experience;
Developing venues to allow owners and tenants to take full advantage of essential sponsorship and revenue sources, and;
Maximize the facility's economic impact to the public.

Read that again - it reeks of the Bulls financial model.

[musiqsoulchild]

Quite a thread.

I completely agree that too much is being made of the Forbes valuations. As has been pointed out, they are guesses and based heavily on recent team sales. There are very few potential buyers out there and as long as teams are rarely sold, their value will be very high.

As for trying to analyze the financial health of the Bulls based on the Forbes numbers, it's real easy to paint an inaccurate picture. With the Bulls, you need to factor in that they are part owners of the UC and NBC Sports Net. This is especially important because what separates one franchise from another financially is heavily influences by what they make from home gate (and add-ons like concessions that are based on attendance) and local broadcast fees. The other big piece of revenue is national broadcast fees and these are divided equally.

It's reasonable to believe that the rebuild has had a negative effect on the Bulls' financial picture. How negative? There's too much missing information to make confident conclusions.

Agree with a 100% of your post.

The only part I would add is that there is enough information to make a confident conclusion that the rebuild was running into a financial negative (or more likely, a reduction in potential earnings):

1) Fred firing
2) Not hiring a new coach but promoting from within
3) Moving away from Dunn very quickly
4) Expending cap space on Otto Porter

All of these are classic indicators that last season itself the financial slowdown was real enough that steps were taken to address it.

[Peelboy]

Quite a thread.

I completely agree that too much is being made of the Forbes valuations. As has been pointed out, they are guesses and based heavily on recent team sales. There are very few potential buyers out there and as long as teams are rarely sold, their value will be very high.

As for trying to analyze the financial health of the Bulls based on the Forbes numbers, it's real easy to paint an inaccurate picture. With the Bulls, you need to factor in that they are part owners of the UC and NBC Sports Net. This is especially important because what separates one franchise from another financially is heavily influences by what they make from home gate (and add-ons like concessions that are based on attendance) and local broadcast fees. The other big piece of revenue is national broadcast fees and these are divided equally.

It's reasonable to believe that the rebuild has had a negative effect on the Bulls' financial picture. How negative? There's too much missing information to make confident conclusions.

Agree with a 100% of your post.

The only part I would add is that there is enough information to make a confident conclusion that the rebuild was running into a financial negative (or more likely, a reduction in potential earnings):

1) Fred firing
2) Not hiring a new coach but promoting from within
3) Moving away from Dunn very quickly
4) Expending cap space on Otto Porter

All of these are classic indicators that last season itself the financial slowdown was real enough that steps were taken to address it.

Of course, could also be:
1. Fred sucked, something that was patently obvious to many, and something which Pax had alluded to in past PCs over multiple years.
2. Midseason hirings are tough, not many good coaches sitting around - in fact I would guess that in the vast majority of midseason firings you replace for rest of season with one of the ACs. Then depending on whether you believe the coach did a good or bad job as the season went on, makes sense to retain him (for example, if you think the way he got the players on board and had them playing in Feb is real).
3. See 1...Dunn had had some spurts but also between injuries and poor play, had not demonstrated a ton. There are also the stats showing him as worst in the league in IIRC shooting or related categories.
4. Otto as a valuable guy and alternative to an FA signing when realizing that a team in the rebuilding state of the Bulls isn't going to attract FAs, and who was available for Portis and Jabari, was just a good basketball move.

I'm not saying it's not financials or that financials aren't playing a role, just that I'm not certain the things you cite provide evidence of that, as opposed to simply being basketball moves based on trying to rebuild. IMO it's entirely likely that the finances were negatively impacted, and also that that was forseen (since it's typically the case in rebuilds). What I'm not seeing much evidence of is that the rebuild plan/strategy was altered by a desire to stem financial losses, as opposed to being managed for basketball reasons. Again - could be the case, but I don't see any real evidence indicating that. It's along the lines of folks claiming the Bulls were cheap to dump Deng for a 2d round pick (or whatever) v resigning him when the truth is that resigning him would have been a bad basketball move from a resource utilization perspective and staying out of the tax provided basketball flexibility - again I would guess the finances played a role, I just doubt it was the primary role.

(Now the sale of the 2d round pick is clearly a financial move.....)

[musiqsoulchild]

Quite a thread.

I completely agree that too much is being made of the Forbes valuations. As has been pointed out, they are guesses and based heavily on recent team sales. There are very few potential buyers out there and as long as teams are rarely sold, their value will be very high.

As for trying to analyze the financial health of the Bulls based on the Forbes numbers, it's real easy to paint an inaccurate picture. With the Bulls, you need to factor in that they are part owners of the UC and NBC Sports Net. This is especially important because what separates one franchise from another financially is heavily influences by what they make from home gate (and add-ons like concessions that are based on attendance) and local broadcast fees. The other big piece of revenue is national broadcast fees and these are divided equally.

It's reasonable to believe that the rebuild has had a negative effect on the Bulls' financial picture. How negative? There's too much missing information to make confident conclusions.

Agree with a 100% of your post.

The only part I would add is that there is enough information to make a confident conclusion that the rebuild was running into a financial negative (or more likely, a reduction in potential earnings):

1) Fred firing
2) Not hiring a new coach but promoting from within
3) Moving away from Dunn very quickly
4) Expending cap space on Otto Porter

All of these are classic indicators that last season itself the financial slowdown was real enough that steps were taken to address it.

Of course, could also be:
1. Fred sucked, something that was patently obvious to many, and something which Pax had alluded to in past PCs over multiple years.
2. Midseason hirings are tough, not many good coaches sitting around - in fact I would guess that in the vast majority of midseason firings you replace for rest of season with one of the ACs. Then depending on whether you believe the coach did a good or bad job as the season went on, makes sense to retain him (for example, if you think the way he got the players on board and had them playing in Feb is real).
3. See 1...Dunn had had some spurts but also between injuries and poor play, had not demonstrated a ton. There are also the stats showing him as worst in the league in IIRC shooting or related categories.
4. Otto as a valuable guy and alternative to an FA signing when realizing that a team in the rebuilding state of the Bulls isn't going to attract FAs, and who was available for Portis and Jabari, was just a good basketball move.

I'm not saying it's not financials or that financials aren't playing a role, just that I'm not certain the things you cite provide evidence of that, as opposed to simply being basketball moves based on trying to rebuild. IMO it's entirely likely that the finances were negatively impacted, and also that that was forseen (since it's typically the case in rebuilds). What I'm not seeing much evidence of is that the rebuild plan/strategy was altered by a desire to stem financial losses, as opposed to being managed for basketball reasons. Again - could be the case, but I don't see any real evidence indicating that. It's along the lines of folks claiming the Bulls were cheap to dump Deng for a 2d round pick (or whatever) v resigning him when the truth is that resigning him would have been a bad basketball move from a resource utilization perspective and staying out of the tax provided basketball flexibility - again I would guess the finances played a role, I just doubt it was the primary role.

(Now the sale of the 2d round pick is clearly a financial move.....)

I should have been way clearer.

I am saying that all the things I cited are actual evidence of CHANGE in rebuild direction. Typically these things dont happen in a day or two.

There is a long drawn out meeting that results in a series of actions. Yes, Fred and Dunn sucked. And that sucking would have left us meandering for the upcoming season also if action was not taken. And if Jimbo wasnt hired mid-season the continuity needed to actually have a playoff worthy team THIS season gets impacted. Same with the Otto move.

Starting Jan of this year, the forces that be decided it was time to move on from the rebuild.

[kyrv]

I thought somebody bumped this thread from the 80's.

If JR wants to sell, I want him to sell. Most owners in sports have won fewer titles/year than he has, not sure we'd luck into someone better, but if they sell, good luck to us!

It would be funny if he sold to the rest of the investment team, then people would be happy...right? ;o

[JimmyJammer]

I know that we have not won a championship in 21 years, but how many owners can say that they have won six championships in the history of their franchise? In fact, only the Lakers and the Celtics have won more championships than the Bulls. You can attribute that to Jordan and whatnot, but he did not come to the league and start winning championships. A core of players and coaches had to be put around him in order to give the team the best chance to be successful. And, all of that happened as a result of great ownership and management. Beyond the dynasty years we have had some runs in the playoffs and some bad moments, but in the end the Bulls organization has been a well-run organization.

By the way, I believe great players choose not to sign with the Bulls because they realize that they will never have their way with this type of ownership, as even Jordan or Phil Jackson could not get their ways. For instance, all the **** LeBron and his circle got away with in Cleveland would never happen in Chicago. He would never have the influence to have us resign JR Smith, Tristan Thompson, among others, for that kind of money. This is actually the untold story of why great players are not coming to Chicago via free-agency.

[coldfish]

Yes, I'm not that worried about Jerry but I am worried about Michael. If he can surround himself with good decision makers that's good but at the end of the day the guy at the top has to make the hard decisions and his interview recently made me more concerned. He was talking about how nice people were and how great their families were as a way to defend their job performance and it was pretty shocking to me. Usually the children of really successful people struggle to understand how the real world works and I have that concern with him and I think this is what the Lakers are going through right now as well. Those guys got LeBron but it doesn't seem like anything is being run well there, they just handed over the keys. That's probably my biggest worry but I do think Michael will at least surround himself with good decision makers and listen but I don't have confidence he'd be able to make the hard decisions and I don't think there would be a emphasis placed on job performance.

Michael has great pedigree. And really good qualifications.

He worked the hard minor leagues in baseball. His chops are certifiable.

Michael has an awful pedigree. As tong po has said multiple times, this is a guy who is the son of a billionaire who went to the university of arizona and got no advanced education. He then went on to use his daddy's money to get all of his jobs. If he wasn't the son of Jerry, he would be having trouble getting that promotion to manager at Panera's.

When you hear him talk, he really doesn't seem like there is much going on upstairs.

As frustrating as it is to have Jerry as owner, the guy is obviously smart and shrewd. Michael, not so much.

Side note, since the pro Jerry crowd loves the name Dolan so much, let's go there. Dolan is the SON of the guy who made it rich and his every job is the result of his daddy . . . kind of like Michael.