NBA borrows 175 million, note about the Magic's operating condition

"In this economic environment, it's tremendous that the league can place such a facility," said Alex Martins, chief operating officer of the Orlando Magic. "It certainly helps us bridge the time period between now and when we move into our new events center in 2010. We've been operating at a $15 [million] to $20 million [annual] loss over the past half-dozen years, so it helps us."

almost 3 years ago NBA Observer 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ha...I like the Rashard tag.

How can teams that are operating at such losses get the support/money for new arenas? What about a new, expensive stadium is going to make the franchise profitable?

"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote: 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, And a doughnut with no hole is a Danish.' He was a funny guy."

by Ugh It Live! on Feb 17, 2009 11:31 AM CST reply actions

The luxury suites

I think their building has among the fewest luxury suites in the league. That’s where teams make a lot of their money. And that’s why the recession is hurting NBA teams so much, because their corporate clients are cancelling their suite rentals.

Why resort to name calling?
-Dionysus2.0

because I wish to insult you personally
-your friendly BullsBlogger

by Big D on Feb 17, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

Right...so the answer is to build

more suites that can go un-occupied? Both of the Florida teams have trouble filling seats, maybe the bigger problem here is one that’s been discussed in the NHL, too many teams.

"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote: 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, And a doughnut with no hole is a Danish.' He was a funny guy."

by Ugh It Live! on Feb 17, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions

Hold the pity party for the Magic's billionaire ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_DeVos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_DeVos

The could probably find enough money in the couches in the family mansions to build a new stadium.

Maybe we can?

by Granny Waiters on Feb 17, 2009 7:27 PM CST reply actions

I've heard analysis by economists to the effect that none of these teams are

actually “losing” money, even when they claim that they are. The thinking is that shrewd multimillionaires would not keep buying sports franchises if they were all losing money; therefore there is some gain somewhere, some incentive whereby these owners are making money. Meanwhile, public statements about losing money may be technically true on certain accounting statements. Can any accounting types comment on this theory?

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Feb 17, 2009 11:09 PM CST reply actions

If the owner makes himself president

and pays himself a salary of $12M and the balance books show the team lost $10M, did the team really lose money?

Maybe we can?

by Granny Waiters on Feb 17, 2009 11:24 PM CST up reply actions

Do you really think this is the type of thing that's happening, though?

That owners are paying themselves for running the team? There must be more to it than that…

by bullhockey on Feb 17, 2009 11:36 PM CST up reply actions

Specifically, I'm thinking it may be tax write-offs on losses and amortization

that benefits the owners. This way, they get some gain out of recognizing a paper loss on their multimillion dollar investment in buying the franchise.

by bullhockey on Feb 17, 2009 11:38 PM CST up reply actions