Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

    Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

    The biggest battle in the NBA lockout right now might be the public relations battle. Are the losses the owners are claiming real or fictional?

    The tension mounted earlier this week when a New York Times blog post used Forbes numbers to say the league operated at a $183 million profit for the 2009-10 season, the last year where numbers are available.
    The NBA fired back and disputed the numbers and a column in Forbes, of all places, said that in 2009-10 the league's 30 teams had an aggregate loss of $340 million that year.

    Not many teams have balance sheets that are publicly available, but there is one team whose balance sheets anyone can view and it happens to be a team that at least claims to have lost a ton of money.
    With that in mind, we were provided the financial statements of Nets Sports & Entertainment LLC, that included the finances of New Jersey Nets properties in 2009 and 2010 (through June 30). The team was owned through April of 2010, by Bruce Ratner, chairman and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies.


    If you go through the report, audited by PWC, and you understand how the NBA reported what was in this document to the Players Association, you will understand that it's not out of the realm of possibility that the league's owners were losing north of $300 million for years.

    If you want to look at the entire document, you are welcome to click here, but for those who just want the quick breakdown of how this all works, just read on below. It should be noted that this doesn't necessarily include everything related to the basketball team, some of that information may also lie in other companies Ratner and his partners had overseen, including the real estate at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn (Forest City Ratner) and their stake in the new Barclays Center (Brooklyn Arena Holding Co.).

    I will use the 2008-09 season instead of the 2009-10 season because the transfer of ownership to Mikhail Prokhorov means that the 2009-10 season is three months short of a full year of financials.

    For the 2008-09 season, the documents reflect that the Nets lost $77,227,184. That number is reached thanks to the team pulling in $78,783,677 in operating income, including $26 million in ticket sales and $32.5 million in total broadcast revenues. Operating expenses were $147 million, off mainly $66 million in salaries and $33.3 million in "amortization of intangible assets." When the team's $13.3 million interest expense is added, the Nets loss for the 08-09 season hits $77.2 million.

    Now let's break it down for you. Assuming the operating income is accurate, there are three questionable line items within the operating expenses that are worth exploring. The most important is the $33.3 million amortization, since it's the largest number and often the number that the players union says is creative accounting.

    So let's explain it first and then how it's reported. When a person buys a team, the price paid is distributed throughout various expense lines, the amortization line is one of those places. It's not voodoo accounting, it's actually part of generally accepted accounting practices. But the point is, that the NBA doesn't include that line item when it breaks out the losses to the union. So subtracting that number, the Nets loss that season, as the owners reported to the union, is probably closer to $44 million.

    I said that there were two other numbers, which could be disputed. Let's look at those. The first one is depreciation, which in this sense is the allocation of costs distributed over a certain period of time. In this case, the reported depreciation by Nets Sports & Entertainment is $2,041,611.

    The players association says that depreciation shouldn't be included in the losses. The owners say it absolutely should because it does reflect the cost of expenses that could be related to growing revenues. If the players get a certain percentage of revenues, the owners claim they should be responsible for some of the costs to get to those higher revenues.

    The other disputed number is interest. The Nets for the 2008-09 season had $13,412,981 in interest. The players association again says that that shouldn't be included in the losses. With depreciation, the actual loss might not be taken in the year it is credited to. With interest, the ownership is actually writing a check. The players can argue they shouldn't share in this, but there's no debate that that is a real loss.

    Finally, let's explore the bigger number. For the 2008-09 season, NBA owners told the players they lost a single-year record $370 million. Not only that, a record 24 teams lost that amount of money. Consider that amount of money an aggregate loss. Sources have told me that those 24 teams lost approximately $485 million, which leaves the six profiting teams with a net gain of $115 million.

    So now take the Nets loss of $44 million that year. That means that the Nets share of the losses were nine percent of the total losses. If all teams used generally accepted accounting practices, is it possible that 23 other teams lost an average of $19.1 million that year? Of course it is.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/43674877
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

    The two numbers I would contend with are the amortization figure and the interest figure. I would verify who those loans are with. If the loans are from one entity to another entity owned by the same team owner, some of that interest will be imputed interest, which is basically paying entities under the control of the same person. That number could be fabricated based on intercompany loans as opposed to the owner making contributions to (or taking distributions from) the organization, depending on the corporate set-up of the ownership group.

    As for the Amortization. Typically the amortization is based on the amount that was actually paid for the company up front. Any amount that was paid over and above what the company valuation is, is considered amortizable expenses. Those are then spread over the life of the asset (or company). So if they spent $380M and the team's book value was $300, they would have amortizable costs on a yearly basis over say 20 years, is $4M per year. But the owner came out of pocket for this expense at one point, and would probably want to speed up the recovery of that money in its expense timeline to prevent paying more taxes. There is some ambiguity over the expensing of the intangible asset, as the life of the asset could be changed to increase costs. This is typically set up front and taken over several years, but again this payment has already been incurred. When the team is sold, it considers Goodwill and other intangible assets, which the owners hope would net them a gain on their initial investment, so if I were the Players' Union, I would look at the amortization expenses as they pertain to the sale of teams. If the teams are being sold above goodwill, the owners will make money in the end. This is almost counter intuitive to their argument, though because the teams would be taking fewer expenses now to have a bigger gain in the end. Doesn't make much sense for the owners to lie about amortization. The only thing they would change that effects anything would be the life of the asset, which the PA would have a qualm about.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

      pacergod2,

      According to that article, the numbers that the NBA reported to the union doesn't include amortization, i.e. they reported a Nets loss of $44m vs the $77m that would have included amortization. It does include about $13m in interest charges, and $2m in depreciation charges. Taking out those "disputed" expenses, and it's a still substantial $29m loss for 08-09 for the Nets.

      I think most people would agree that the Nets are losing money - that's why they're hell-bent on moving to Brooklyn after all. Makes you wonder though, whether the $15m expense in interest and depreciation is representative of other teams. Multiply that by 30 and you get $450m - a very substantial amount. It's no wonder that the union is disputing whether these expenses are valid or not.

      The question then is whether these costs should be extracted from the players or the owners. The owners are saying that these are the costs of doing business; the players on the other hand say these costs are on the owner (i.e. taking on debt to purchase the team) and not valid operational costs.

      I think if you lock up 10 accountants in a room for a year, you might still not get a consensus at the end. It's not really a matter of right or wrong isn't it - it really comes down to who in your opinion should be paying for these things. So it boils down to negotiation, which frankly is what the whole lockout is about all along.

      These PR battles are a nice distraction, but in the end all that matters is who can hold out longer.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

        Wintermute if you check those balance sheets you will find some more "dubious" posts.

        and in no way are the Nets representative, this "ownership" had only one goal, development of real estate, and it got the required permits.

        The value of that alone is more then the value of the Nets in their hay-days.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

          Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
          The two numbers I would contend with are the amortization figure and the interest figure. I would verify who those loans are with. If the loans are from one entity to another entity owned by the same team owner, some of that interest will be imputed interest, which is basically paying entities under the control of the same person. That number could be fabricated based on intercompany loans as opposed to the owner making contributions to (or taking distributions from) the organization, depending on the corporate set-up of the ownership group.

          As for the Amortization. Typically the amortization is based on the amount that was actually paid for the company up front. Any amount that was paid over and above what the company valuation is, is considered amortizable expenses. Those are then spread over the life of the asset (or company). So if they spent $380M and the team's book value was $300, they would have amortizable costs on a yearly basis over say 20 years, is $4M per year. But the owner came out of pocket for this expense at one point, and would probably want to speed up the recovery of that money in its expense timeline to prevent paying more taxes. There is some ambiguity over the expensing of the intangible asset, as the life of the asset could be changed to increase costs. This is typically set up front and taken over several years, but again this payment has already been incurred. When the team is sold, it considers Goodwill and other intangible assets, which the owners hope would net them a gain on their initial investment, so if I were the Players' Union, I would look at the amortization expenses as they pertain to the sale of teams. If the teams are being sold above goodwill, the owners will make money in the end. This is almost counter intuitive to their argument, though because the teams would be taking fewer expenses now to have a bigger gain in the end. Doesn't make much sense for the owners to lie about amortization. The only thing they would change that effects anything would be the life of the asset, which the PA would have a qualm about.
          Waaaaay off topic here, but who is that woman in your avatar? She is gorgeous.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

            I seriously doubt some weekend warrior accountants are going to go through their books and find "dubious" posts.

            Like I've said multiple times in the past week. The NBPA has had every team's books for quite some time now. They've hired some of the best lawyers in the country, have the ability to hire some of the best accountants, and still haven't shown where/how the NBA is wrong.

            I seriously doubt a non-professional is going to stumble upon something that hasn't been combed over multiple times by someone getting paid thousands of dollars on the hour.

            The NBPA needs to wake up to reality and start negiotating with actual facts instead of their misguided opinions. All that's happening is merely delaying the enevitable.

            Until the accept the fact that the NBA is not in a good financial position, their "talks" are pointless. All it's doing is making the lockout last longer.
            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Like I've said multiple times in the past week. The NBPA has had every team's books for quite some time now. They've hired some of the best lawyers in the country, have the ability to hire some of the best accountants, and still haven't shown where/how the NBA is wrong.
              I don't think this is factually accurate. At all.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                I don't think this is factually accurate. At all.
                Which part? The first part is fact, the second part is opinion but the NBPA are idiots if they didn't hire the best lawyers and accounts to comb through the NBA books.

                But yes, the NBPA is in possession of every single team's books. They were required by federal law to hand them over to the union because they were claiming losses.

                The NFL didn't hand their's over, because they were claiming a profit.
                “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Which part? The first part is fact, the second part is opinion but the NBPA are idiots if they didn't hire the best lawyers and accounts to comb through the NBA books.

                  But yes, the NBPA is in possession of every single team's books. They were required by federal law to hand them over to the union because they were claiming losses.

                  The NFL didn't hand their's over, because they were claiming a profit.
                  The last part. They massive loss claims made by the owners have been proven to be inaccurate and grossly exaggerated. Some individual teams have lost money recently due to the poor economy. Many, many businesses have. But the league losses haven't even come near what is being thrown about by the NBA. The players have recognized that profits have fallen in this economy. They've offered back, and then some, what the NBA has actually lost. Yet they're not even in the ballpark with what the NBA is asking for. The NBA isn't out to recoup their recent small losses. They're out to add to their billions knowing full well that the economy will eventually rebound and a new TV deal is in the works. The CBA which resulted from the last lockout is claimed to be such a cherry deal for the players that the NBA could not possibly continue without wholesale changes. Yet, who won the last lockout? By all accounts, it was the owners in a bloodbath. Every rule the owners are looking to impose is to protect themselves from themselves.

                  My favorite part of this whole thing is that everyone thinks the lockout will be good for the smaller market teams like Indiana who make small profits. The Pacers haven't been uncompetitive because of a lack of money. They've been uncompetitive because they have spent massive amounts of money in the wrong places. That a low and hard salary cap will put us on a more even ground with the teams who make massive profits is patently false. With revenue sharing, the salary cap could be $100 million and the Pacers could compete. The players want revenue sharing. The owners do not. The fight to level the playing field between the big markets and little markets is being portrayed as the fight between the owners and players. When in reality, the only fight for a level playing field is within the owners' camp themselves. And they're not interested in it.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                    The NBPA hasn't shown any of that. We've had a couple of articles on the issue, and every single one has been taken to task. The first article about depreciation was even edited later correcting the mistakes the writer had made.

                    The NBPA is claiming that the losses have been exaggerated, but they've failed to prove anything.

                    EDIT: And the Pacers aren't making a profit, not even a "small profit." If they were making money, then why did PS&E need to restructure their deal with the CIB? The city of Indianapolis isn't going to pay out more in expenses, while PS&E collect a profit and end up paying less. That doesn't make any sense.

                    If the Pacers were collecting a profit, then the deal wouldn't have needed restructuring.
                    Last edited by Since86; 07-08-2011, 10:52 AM.
                    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      The NBPA hasn't shown any of that. We've had a couple of articles on the issue, and every single one has been taken to task. The first article about depreciation was even edited later correcting the mistakes the writer had made.

                      The NBPA is claiming that the losses have been exaggerated, but they've failed to prove anything.
                      Agreed. What the NBAPA has done so far sounds an awful lot like typical union rhetoric in the face of a difficult financial time for their industry to me.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                        Originally posted by Indra View Post
                        Waaaaay off topic here, but who is that woman in your avatar? She is gorgeous.
                        Our own Pacermate, Shea.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Exclusive: Recent New Jersey Nets Books Reveal Huge Losses

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I seriously doubt some weekend warrior accountants are going to go through their books and find "dubious" posts.

                          Like I've said multiple times in the past week. The NBPA has had every team's books for quite some time now. They've hired some of the best lawyers in the country, have the ability to hire some of the best accountants, and still haven't shown where/how the NBA is wrong.

                          I seriously doubt a non-professional is going to stumble upon something that hasn't been combed over multiple times by someone getting paid thousands of dollars on the hour.

                          The NBPA needs to wake up to reality and start negiotating with actual facts instead of their misguided opinions. All that's happening is merely delaying the enevitable.

                          Until the accept the fact that the NBA is not in a good financial position, their "talks" are pointless. All it's doing is making the lockout last longer.
                          100% agree. Most of the articles that I have read merely state the players disagree with the figures, but haven't really provided anything of substance as to why.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X