http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0216/064tab.html Don't quite understand what all the numbers mean though.
The current value is the amount of all assets (eg. player contracts, equipment, fan store items) subtract liabilities (which debt % is a good indication of). Revenue is the total amount the Rockets received from various sources (tickets, TV income, etc) and operating income is revenue subtract expenses (eg. team flight, payroll). It shows that the value of the team increase 9% in the last year. So if that's already taken in consideration the effects of inflation, Les should be happy.
Yet, they rank 100 on the fan's list of best value for the money spent on a ticket? Something seems a tad out of whack there.
...am I the only person that first thought the thread was titled "Rockets #11 in 2004 NBA Team Violations"? I was thinking, "what..we're not number 1?"
Does the Rockets 9% team increase in profit have any effect on our capspace? Or is this just a stat for those investors out there? It's always nice if the Rockets can increase their payroll.
So, in other words, Leslie "Cheap b*stard" Alexander made $15M in profit and got $20M + in asset appreciation, yet he couldn't find money to sign Posey or Antonio Daniels. Yet people think the problem is in JVG or Steve Francis...
WRONG. It means that the Rockets are worth more as a team. That could be due to many factors, for example: 1. Inflation 2. Steve's payroll grew to MAX this year 3. We shifted our production to India and so were able to produce more It absolutely DOES NOT mean that Les has any more disposible income compared to last year. He might or he might not, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the team, unless if he was to sell it.
Just curious but before he was an owner of the Rockets what was his cashcow at the time? For that matter McLane too with the Astros.
where did you find the definition of "current value"? it sounds more like "equity value" than "asset value" in financial term. I couldn't find the footnote.
Equity value is already stated by the income figure. The net income (revenue - expenses) is taken to the balance sheet as Owner's Equity. As you can see, the income figure (Equity value) is clearly different than the current value.
So basically what I'm saying is that, you would be right in saying I can't be 100% sure current value is assets - liabilities. But I am 100% sure that current value ISN'T income, therefore, equity value.
Operating income (the last column) is the difference between revenues and expenses, it has nothing to do with appreciation. The Cheap b*stard pocketed $15M in income from the Rockets last year. In addition, the value of the franchise rose by 9% to $278M. That means it rose from $255 to $278M for a gain of $23M. This is not cash, it's like your house apreciating or your stocks going up. It still makes you richer even if you can't spend it right away. It's certainly not a crime to make money, but it is not a crime to hate him for that as well. Since he's making these money from us, the fans, and our hearts are hurting for the team, it sure pisses me off that he doesn't spend what's needed to improve the team. It's like you live in a small town and there is only one restaurant in town and the owner starts to use cheap and crappy ingredients in the meals (Mark Jackson, Piatkowski instead of A. Daniels and Posey), gets a subsidy from the mayor, yet still charges higher prices for the meals. Is he commiting a crime? No. Wouldn't you be mad, though?
Let's see what you are talking about. Income IS revenue - expenses, there is absolutely no contention in that. It has nothing to do with appreciation, but IT DOES HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH INFLATION. Supposed your income was 10 K, if your income increased by 1% (which in Les' case we don't know, because it isn't revealed here) yet the inflation rate in America last year was (factual) somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5%. It doesn't take even the simplest economic model to tell you that you are worse off this year than last year. Net income (much like "real" GDP) is useless without inflation. Last time I checked, Les also has to pay about 40% to the IRS for the 15 million. Further cutting his profit margins. If it gets any thinner, I have absolutely no idea what Les is doing in the basketball business. The franchaise's value rose 9% which as I've said already, DOES NOT directly lead to Les' disposable income. So you are accusing him of being cheap when it doesn't help him directly? Les does not have more money on his hands, unless if he was to sell the team TODAY. Now that I think of, current value is probably only the assets of the organization, without subracting the liabilities. How is Les cheap player wise? Instead of overpaying for Posey (as if we need another MoT, Cato, Moochie or Matt Maloney), he got us JJ, Pike and AG. JJ is actually having a better year than Posey, so there goes your entire argument. He also dropped EG even though he was going to have to pay for him either way. Les may not be Mark Cuban, but he's definitely NOT cheap.
Again, Posey had nothing to do with signing of JJ. Posey was our RFA, we could have matched Grizzlies offer. Whether Posey is overpaid or no is debatable, but I would much rather trust the greatest GM of all time (J.West) than some dude on a message board. Did Leslie match Posey's offer? No! He went for the cheaper and far worse option, Piatkowski, a slow, non-athletic, guy who couldn't even shine when he was with the Clips. It is true though, that besides being cheap he was also able to fill the mandatory quota of 2 pathetic white guys that Leslie has imposed ever since he bought the team, continuing the glorious tradition of Richard Petruska, Zan Tabak, Pete Chillcutt, Serge Zwikker, Matt Maloney, Brent Price, Dan Langhi, J. Creampuff Collier, and Bostian "No-Shot" Nachbar. If we had just matched Posey and not signed Pike, we could have our entire MLE exception intact and our swingmen would have been Rice and Posey. Then when we dumped Rice to the Jazz, we could have signed JJ the same way as we did. And with the MLE (or part of it) we could have signed A. Daniels who was interested to play for us, had he been paid. Would that have been good for the team? Check this from today's paper: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/159424_thie05.html
Let me get this straight. You are calling him for being cheap despite the fact that he spent the same amount of money on JJ, AG and Pike (actually more) than matching Posey? How could he be cheap when he actually spent more money? You can say he's stupid, but you can't say he's cheap. Did Les wince when Rudy and CD offered MoT, Cato or Mooch the big contracts? Just thought you might like to know, MoT will be paid around 10 million in 06 - 07. So Les drafted Boki and signed those players? Did Les even know who the hell Zan Takak is before we signed him? I thought that was Rudy and CD's job with CD pulling the trigger. Sure CD might have said "hey Les, we're trading blah blah" and Les said "OK," that doesn't change the fact that Les is a businessman, not a basketball guru. He does not make the personel decisions. What it boils down to is, I don't think you know what the term cheap means.
Oh and of course, like Les can see the future and see CD was going to dump Rice and save him money. Not matching JP and Rice were independent actions altogether.
