Printable View
[QUOTE=SourGrapes]prove it
show that the ratings were the best ever worldwide with the spurs in the finals, and that the nba made the most money with the spurs in the finals[/QUOTE]
Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Does anyone else find it odd that all the major sports league claim profits except the one that chooses to run a woman's league as well?[/QUOTE]
Lol great point
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
:bowdown: :bowdown: Greatest troll ever
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
lol. Im enjoying this trollin for once. :applause:
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
Fine. Here are the ratings that show the Spurs did not bring in the most money.
[url]www.google.com[/url]
Secondary source:
[url]www.bing.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: :bowdown: :applause:
[QUOTE=Euroleague]Prove me wrong. Show me the worldwide ratings that show they were not.
prove it.[/QUOTE]
[quote]While the 2004 Finals showed improvement for ABC, the 2005 Finals sank back towards record-low levels.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings[/url]
Worldwide, it showed pretty high in China and Argentina, but the same lowness everywhere else.
Once again, you are an idiot.
[QUOTE=SourGrapes]that's not how this works. you introduce a point, the onus is on you to back it up. otherwise, we'll all just assume you are full of sh*t (too late)[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. [B]You are claiming the Spurs[/B] did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.[/QUOTE]
never happened. nice try though
[QUOTE=Droid101]Actually, they'd make even more.
The Warriors just sold for 25% more than what Forbes said they were worth ($363 million). Forbes says the Lakers are worth $643 million. If they were sold for 25% more than that (and it'd probably be higher, owning the Lakers is a status symbol), Buss would have profited $736.75 million dollars over what he paid for the franchise![/QUOTE]
Thanks for that. Insane amount of money lol.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]The Lakers earn money every year genius. What the hell do the Lakers have to do with this? The teams that lose millions every year are what this is about. And that is like 85% of the teams in the league.
Under your logic and way of thinking, the NBA would become a 6 team league.[/QUOTE]
No. You said that the NBA loses money every year. I'm telling you that the NBA profit system is built on one thing and one thing only, ownership of teams. Every year an owner sells a team, the NBA makes money for that year. Thats why a business model of losing billions is okay because at the end of the day one team sale can get you 800 million back.
The lockout IMO has nothing to do with money, I think a super rich guy like an owner knows that he is NOT gonna make a return on his money until he sells it if he buys the timberwolves or something. I think he knows he'll make bank if he sticks around for 10 years though. He might lose 40 million but then make 90. Its a long term game.
EDIT: my argument is on the basis that when you buy a team or hire a GM or do anything the NBA gets something from it. A portion or whatever. If thats incorrect then my argument is flawed and obviously incorrect.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]That's not how it works bud. You introduced a false point. You are claiming the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide ratings, which is a lie and is untrue.
You bring up a false claim and pass it off as fact, YOU have to provide proof.
Show me the proof that the Spurs did not have the highest worldwide TV ratings. Show me proof of this.
Prove it. Otherwise, you are obviously full of shit. Onus is on you pal.[/QUOTE]
I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I think I was the one that introduced the point, but I backed up my claim with undeniable stone cold facts.[/QUOTE]
your efforts are the kind that make this a good forum, but they're falling on deaf ears with this loser
[QUOTE=Sarcastic][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba3-blog480.jpg[/IMG]
How come the NHL can make profit with 55% of revenue going to players, but 52% is too high for NBA owners?[/QUOTE]
WNBA
ANd the players don't deserve 52 anyway
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]lol the owners % doesnt just all go in their pockets. If it did they wouldnt be losing any money and their'd be no lockout.
The owners share goes into the teams/league. You know, the flights, hotels, equipment, arenas, advertising, officials, etc etc.
Owners obviously get a sizable cut in salary but they arent just pocketing their share of the revenue unlike the players, lol
More revenue on the owners side probably means better product for the fans. But we know what this is perceived as. "big rich white owners vs little poor (lol) black players" so the liberal emos and the racially hypersensitive naturally side with the players when really fans have no reason to side with either. Its their negotiations.[/QUOTE]
Agree