Re: interesting NBA notes

[David A Wickerham <aw623@bfn.org>]

Maybe we need a salary cap on owners.  Any money left over would go to
reducing ticket prices or extending game broadcasts.  Sounds like a nice
dreaam.





On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, James A. Hill wrote:

> Yes it's a shame that ownership who built the team out of their risk capital
> and sweat equity should have to sell out to those who will look at ownership
> as another Rolex watch.  That will really improve the league.  A few more
> Clipper type owners will be better then ownership that works to run a viable
> team?  The Blazers?  What a joke.  Dallas is fun and I like Cuban's
> involvement but he will do more to screw up the league then make it better.
> 
> The league needs more Gaston's.  Lower the salary's, lower the ticket
> prices, food etc...  People refer to the yahoos who boo Walker at the Fleet
> Center.  When money is the only price of admission these are the folks your
> going to get.  The atmosphere is like the movie "Rollerball".  You yourself
> offered that if tickets to a development league were $8 you'd go to every
> game.  Minor league hockey and baseball in the Boston area are 3 X that per
> game.
> 
> I'll support local ownership over someone who is buying into the league for
> ego.
> 
> As far as saying "the players are at fault" I would say lets cap payroll at
> $20 mm per team.  Period.  Why choose $50mm over $20mm?  Then let's disallow
> guaranteed contracts.  Then let's create revenue sharing between teams and
> create a fund that they have to pay into and make the teams pay for their
> own stadiums.
> 
> A league that operates on the basis of "he who has the most money wins" is a
> not a "league", IMO.  If the basis of the league is competition between
> teams, your model will not work.
> 
> Your reference to Bob Kraft is interesting as he was a true fan for many
> years.  A season ticket holder who sat in the stands in one of the most
> miserable stadiums in the world.  There is a love for the team that drives
> his ownership.  Not a charm on his bracelet.  Someone who wants to run a
> class organization.  Not some guy that needs to buy a team to make friends.
> 
> I strongly doubt Kraft bought the team for the benefit of his tombstone. His
> philanthropic activities are more then enough to cover that.
> 
> <Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>
> To: "James A. Hill" <jahill@leasingservice.com>; "Celtics"
> <celtics@igtc.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 6:08 AM
> Subject: Re: interesting NBA notes
> 
> 
> > At 18:40 12/07/01 -0400, James A. Hill wrote:
> > > >Who out there is paying to see Paul Gaston and Rich >Pond make money
> and
> > > increase "shareholder value". >The Celtics are a national institution.
> > > They are like a >public trust.
> > >
> > >Without the owners there would be no pro sports. National Trust?  You
> > >advocate wealthy ownership losing money to field a competitive team.
> >
> > True, but I also advocate wealthy people buy yaughts, ferraris, vintage
> > wines and trophy girlfriends.
> >
> > We talk of "luxury tax" because that's precisely what owning a team is: a
> > luxury. A vanity purchase.
> >
> > Foremost, it is a luxury. You can bet your life the Patriots football team
> > owner Bob Kraft is perfectly aware his tombstone no longer has to read
> > "RIP: husband, father and paper products manufacturer". That's the degree
> > of historical irrelevance upon death that 99% of millionaires and Fortune
> > 500 CEOs can look forward to once they are 6-feet under.
> >
> > Trouble is you also own part of your city's passion and history....one of
> > Boston's most treasured institutions in the case of the Celtics
> > organization. Great for the ego, but there is more to it than that.
> >
> > If you can't afford to maintain a yaught and its crew of Ralph Lauren
> > models, then you shouldn't buy it. That's just common New England good
> > sense. You'd be out of your league alongside all these millionaire
> > neighbors in the yaught club.
> >
> > So how the heck should we react if Paul Gaston, or anyone else, suggested
> > with a straight face that he was entitled to make a profit off his yaught
> > investment and the expensive jewelry he bought for his girlfriend?
> >
> > You'd say he's got his priorities all wrong. (If you were his PR firm,
> > you'd say "blame the players for the ticket prices!"). Easy target.
> >
> > Gaston is going to make his big profit, and hopefully make Dad proud, the
> > day he sells the team to an entity that can afford both the luxury AND the
> > responsibility of ownership. He tried his best, but in the end he can't
> > afford the luxury of ownership. He should take the 400 million or
> whatever,
> > pay his taxes, and spend the rest all the way to the grave.
> >
> > But until they sell, he and CEO Rich Pond can really just shut up with any
> > sanctimonious BS about the poor, small market owner. In any other
> analogous
> > free-market context, they would deserve the perfect ridicule of both their
> > fellow wealthy peer owners and the common fans.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
	  Dave Wickerham
	  aw623@freenet.buffalo.edu
	  Saratoga Springs, NY