Rockets, Alperen Şengün agree to 5-year, $185M deal

im saying on this team if Sengun didnt get the max nobody is going to get the max unless they going to be all stars. Sengun pretty much set the price for Rockets players

 

Sure, all 30 NBA teams are making money including the Houston Rockets and all 29 other teams.

Now name one that isn't

You can't, there's none

 

You can't really view this situation in a vacuum.

First, the Rockets had incentive to wait until next offseason to extend Sengun due his cap hold. Had he been the third pick in the draft, they probably extend him to the rookie max without question. However, with his extension, we are basically locked into being an over-the-cap team for the foreseeable future. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it changes the calculation.

Second, we have a lot cap uncertainty going forward. Do we extend Bari? Tari? What do we do with FVV? By the time Amen is due for an extension, we should have a very good idea about our team and its cap future.

In short, I doubt the Rockets will hesitate to give Amen the max if he earns it.

 

Did he or you provide anything saying that it includes it? All we have is total operating income that I provided which showed the losses. If you have something that shows otherwise ill take a look at it, but you didn't provide anything? What are you implying and what is the source? What source do you have that they are separate P&Ls and that every team has made money for the last several decades? If it includes a large asset like a stadium, wouldn't you depreciate that and recognize an even bigger loss on the P&L? Intuit Dome cost $2B to build, so you would depreciate that over its useful life if you want to include things like the stadium.

The person I was responding to said that every NBA team for the last several decades has been profitable. If you have something that shows this excludes specific revenue (it would also exclude the associated costs) you are making multiple assumptions. One that they excluded things, two that the things they excluded had a positive margin.

 

There is a reason that NBA franchise sale prices have been going up forever— they are extremely profitable.

When is the last time an owner sold for a loss? NEVER

 

Golden State Worriers worth 8 billion, that is pretty insane.

 

He didn't correct me, he made an assumption, but didnt provide any data, I have provided full financials below of the Knicks (this includes all revenue). Because when you look at full financial statements it paints a similar picture. My assumptions around expenses beyond operating profit were correct from the other limited info i previously provided. They made $25M in 2024 w a playoff run and their numbers also include the Rangers, and they still didnt make much. Even if you look at gross revenue compared to EV it is very low. That was my point all along, was that this is a trophy asset even among the most profitable teams when looking at it from an operating standpoint. I am using what is the most profitable team as an example, but if the combined Knicks and Rangers EV is $10B and you make $50M net a year with both teams having playoff runs, that seems like a trophy asset to me.

https://investor.msgsports.com/pres...TH-QUARTER-AND-FULL-YEAR-RESULTS/default.aspx

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ational-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

The Nets, Clippers, and Bucks will show a net income loss as well.

 

The Nets, Clippers and Bucks.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ational-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

Simple google search would prove you wrong again...

"2022/23 season

• The Nets reported an operating loss of $5 million, which was an improvement from the previous season's loss of $34 million. The Nets' revenue for the 2022/23 season was $367 million, down from the previous season's record high of $405 million. "

"

• In the 2022/23 season, the Clippers had an operating loss of $12 million.
  
  
• Tax losses
  According to ProPublica, the Clippers have reported $700 million in losses for tax purposes in recent years.

"

• Operating income: The Bucks' operating income was -$36 million. "

 

An asset is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it, not based on the income it generates as you think it would. That is why there are over valued stocks in the market, because emotions come into play. These are trophy assets for billionaires, we've had an increase in the number of billionaires over the years, who want to own 1 of only 30 teams. Look at the price of luxury items over the years, they have also increased because there are more millionaires and billionaires than ever. The Knicks example I gave where the value of the Knicks + Rangers is $10B, and net income is $50M shows that this is a ridiculously high multiple, if they cared about making money they would invest in anything else. You can google if sports teams are trophy assets, and there are plenty of articles on valuation. If you had $10B to invest, and bought some T-bills (risk free) @ 5% you would return $500M a year. If you own the Knicks + Rangers for $10B and you return $50M in your best year ever, how in the world would anyone justify this as some great investment when you can literally invest risk free and make 10X more?

https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/sports-entertainment/sports-franchise-valuation-0122/

"Professional sports franchises comprise a distinct market where teams typically sell at prices in excess of what would be expected based on traditional valuation methodologies. The decision for the buyer of a sports franchise in most cases is either emotionally driven, due to the attached sentimental value, or driven by the expectation to enjoy incremental economic benefits and synergies upon integration of the purchased business with their current business(es)"

https://investor.msgsports.com/pres...TH-QUARTER-AND-FULL-YEAR-RESULTS/default.aspx

 

lol who should I believe -- one of the most well known posters in @heypartner, or "BallSoHarden?"

Fertitta was few a few billion when he bought the Rockets. Now, worth well north of 10 billion. But hey, I'm sure the Rockets had nothing to do with that, right?

 

You missed the whole point guy. Tilman's net worth is tied to asset values, the Rockets doubled in value since he bought them, that IS my point. That the value comes from the appreciation of the asset, not from net income of the asset. Its not a case of believing it is common sense. The Rockets had everything to do with his net worth increasing, not sure why that is difficult to understand.

 

And I don't think you know anything about business if you think an NBA franchise's absolute and total revenue is captured in those charts you posted that reference operating revenue.

 

Financial statements were posted for the Knicks as well. What do you do for a living? Where would income be captured then?

https://investor.msgsports.com/pres...TH-QUARTER-AND-FULL-YEAR-RESULTS/default.aspx

Are the Knicks and Rangers not worth $10B? Does it not say they net $50M? What would the risk free rate be to invest? 5%? So $500M for a risk free investment, vs $50M for a risky one. You are saying its the best investment ever huh, not a trophy asset??

 

These financial statements literally prove heypartner's point.

"For fiscal 2024, the Company reported revenues of $1.03 billion, an increase of $139.7 million, or 16%, as compared to the prior year. In addition, the Company had operating income of $146.0 million, an increase of $60.9 million, or 71%, and adjusted operating income of $172.2 million, an increase of $57.2 million, or 50%, both as compared to the prior year.(1)"

 

My god are you a moron? it literally proves nothing. You would have to look at the rest of the expenses and the details of those expenses. The next big line item is related to operating costs and SG&A. It literally tells you what these are related to, just have to read it. It literally proves my point, that the original response was to, which is these are trophy assets, ALL revenue IS included here as well as ALL expenses. Lmao you literally copy and pasted a paragraph that is not relevant and think you did something, stay in your lane or at least know what you are talking about before insulting anyone.

If there were distributions being made they would be below the net income line, scroll down to the income statement.

 

Ugh, I so don't want to do this to you, but here we go.

They didn't "net" 50 mil. I'm not sure what you are looking at. Either you're looking at the difference between 2023 and 2024 (they netted 50 mil more this year), or a 3 month period. For 2024, the net operating income was 172.2m, which is an incredible profit. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you any clearer -- if you invest in an asset that's appreciating AND it's earning a substantial profit, then it's a fantastic investment, not a "trophy asset."

 

LMAO just realized you thought those charts said operating revenue, they say OPERATING PROFIT genius. We were talking about operating profit....which ties to the Knicks financials I sent. LMAOO WOWWW

 

lol, trying to dance around that fact that you misread the Knicks' charts, huh? Hilarious.

 

Dude , you are beyond clueless. Operating income is NOT Net Income. Operating Income is before taxes and interest expense. Their Net Income is $45M for 2023, scroll down to the P&L, its really simple there is a full P&L there with NET INCOME. Again the Knicks + Rangers are worth $10B if someone buys a business for $10B and Nets $50M that is not good. you can literally invest RISK FREE in a government T-bill and make 10X more.

$10B X 5% (Risk free T-bill)= $500M annually
$10B on Knicks + Rangers = Net profit is $45M in 2023.

I don't know how i can break it down any easier for you, but if you cant understand the difference between net income and operating profit even after it was explained you are beyond help.

 

loll dude I didnt misread it, you misread it. lmao. You literally called it revenue it was net operating income. Are you that stupid.