[usa today] Les only worth $80 million - tied for "poorest" owners

Like I said, you could be right, but don't shoot the messenger here (and I know about Paul Allen's MS business).

However, I think that if it was indeed 1998, then Allen would have at least done one thing right, namely, purchased the Blazers for 70 mil. Although he did everything wrong afterwards, that's great value in 1998, even for the Blazers (I'm assuming of course, that value isn't wrong as well). If it was 1998, his IRR would have been 19.74%. That is good return any day.

As for Allen himself, I think he's a techie. He's the type that can build but can't apply. He has no business savvy (Bill Gates, hate him or not, had all that). However, I think MS wouldn't have gotten off the ground with either Gates or Allen alone. Remember Allen was the one that actually introduces Gates to the PC.

 

You are right. This is why net worth of somebody that has business is not that all useful. It's really cash flow of those owners. As an active businessman, sitting on too much cash is not 100% good thing. The markert size and profiblity of NBA teams are probably more important to a team's future.

 

Kinda funny, Cuban sold one of his company to Yahoo for 5 billion and he's only worth 1.3 billion?

 

I don't think Cuban owns the entire share of the company. People didn't invest in broadcast.com for nothing. When the company is acquired by Yahoo for big time cash, those investors get their pieces.

 

If we all skip one meal a day, and send the difference to Les, I think we can together save him from this embarassment. Give now.If you have any heart at all, we must come to his aid. Call now, 1-800- SAV-ELES. Operators are standing by.

 

No, you had some good work there.

Microsoft is really successful on their bussiness model rather technolgy, so Gates IMO is more crucial. Allen really didnt do anything after MS.

 

Cuban is investing in HDTV program heavily.

 

I don't think I agree with that argument. While it is true that today, business is more important than tech to MS, I really don't think that was the case when it all started. In other words, you have to give props to Paul Allen for having the vision to recognize the future of the PC market as well as the importance of softwares, both of which were non-existant at the time. In other words, a large part due to Allen, MS was able to get a step in the market much before everybody else. That (and later IBM's idiocy) gave them a distinct advantage. So you are right that Gates had more contribution, perhaps much more, but I don't think we should undermine Paul Allen's contributions. I also think his impact on MS would have been greater if not for cancer.

 

Jobs was doing the similar thing in Machintosh that period. Technology wise, PC didnt have innovations that were breathtaking. Lots of the concepts were not original. The success of MS was that Gates saw the future while others didnt. I always feel it ironic for Apple to preach think differently. Jobs sure didnt believe so 20 years when he tried to dominate with Mac. All companies have ambition to monoplize, but Gates really succeeded at doing it. However, Linux is a real threat to MS in the future. I wouldnt put my Money on MS. Neither would I bet on palm pilot.

 

You are right, the PC wasn't innovative. What was innovative was the work done at PARC. But isn't that my point? Xerox had the future sitting in their laps and they didn't do anything about it. They let years slip by before somebody just took their idea. That person was Paul Allen. Paul Allen realized that vision. He took one of the first PC's made and showed it to Bill Gates. He said, "hey this is really cool, we should do something with this."

So while I'm not gonna say that Bill Gates would actually have finished college had Allen not existed, but let's just say that it definitely was an experience.

Could Bill Gates have gotten to where he is today without Allen? Absolutely. Could Allen have gotten where he is today without Gates? Probably not. Which is in effect, why I acknowledge the greater contribution of Bill Gates. However, life would have been much more difficult for both without the other. For one thing, Bill Gates would have just a wee bit more competition when he got started.

As for Linux, as much as I love it (and loathes anything associated with Microsoft), I'm not holding my breath on it. It's open source and lack of ownership is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Think about it, everybody knew it was superior long ago, why hasn't it taken its rightful market share? To use Linux you must actually know something about the computer (although it is getting easier), which at this point many people don't.

There's also the lack of promotion and lack of technical support provided by Microsoft when the end user (with limited computer knowledge) invariably get themselves in trouble. Think about it, if there's a virus going around on Linux systems (unthinkable, I know), who responds? Who would do something about it?

While I can see a corporation with enough finances to maintain a tech department realizing the advantages of Linux and using it, I just don't see it being applied as much in the PC market. But the Microsoft Halloween papers do make me feel good.

In any case, regarding Allen, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But do you realize how far we have come from our original topic? I think it was about Les' purse.

 

Well, since you brought it up, Les is cheap

 

Les is hurting from the stock market.

 

I am not sure how this turn into Allen vs Gates discussion, nonetheless ...

Linux is going to take over the server market, 30% of the pie? Scary thing is once it's over, MS has nothing to with it, none. Lack of ownership probably wouldnt work in the personal computing market. IBM and other PC maker might follow the model of Sun that thrives on hardware business using OS as kick. Software will follow once the domino is falling. Of course, I am pulling this out of my azz, so dont take it seriously. But competition is good, at Gates cant just sit there making money by fixing bugs it creates in the first place.

 

Man this cant be accurate, im sure he has more money than that

 

LOL

 

Les is a guy worth $80+ million, with a check he forgot about in his back pocket... for $369 million smackers. Oh, to have his problems!

 

Well the guy went through a divorce maybe a year or two ago so he was probably originally at $160 million.

 

Let's see:

A = L + OE

A, that's the team value of the Rockets, $369 million. Which portion does Les have claim to? That's right, the OE, cuz Les only has a residual claim on the Rockets' assets.

And without a published copy of his F/S there isn't a damn thing anybody on this board knows what that amounts to. It is very plausible that the Rockets are highly leveraged, especially after building the TC and all. For all we know, the residual claim could be 1 million. Also for all we know, Les' net worth of 80 million probably already include his claim on the assets.

He's not a poor man by anybody's definition, but he certainly didn't milk the Rockets for all it's worth and not gave a damn about the team. When the Rockets do well, Les' investment value goes up too.

 

I wonder if the numbers are right.

This proved US reporters can be as crappy as Sina reporters.

Usatoday Coaches Salary report


Kings Coach Adelman's take


AUBURN HILLS, Mich. - Kings coach Rick Adelman picked up USA Today on Wednesday and said he immediately realized he needed to make two phone calls.

Adelman was incredulous to see himself named the NBA's highest-paid coach with a deal of $6.9 million this season and $20 million overall. He wasn't shocked enough to provide an accurate figure of his salary this season or the extension he signed Feb. 1. But Adelman said he was amazed a national paper didn't show more intelligence or responsibility.



"After I saw that in the paper," he said, "I called the (Kings) office. But that was after calling my accountant. There's a lot of money I've been missing if that was right. I'm in Sacramento, not in New York. Why would anybody think I would be the highest-paid coach in the league?

"My name has never even been mentioned in those circles. Shoot, I'd better check my next pay stub to see if something has changed that I don't know about.

"You would think somebody would make a call to somebody and say, 'We're running this story, and we wanted to know if we were even in the ballpark.' Because they aren't even close on that one, and there are at least three or four others (coach's salaries) in there I know are wrong. It just blew my mind to read that."

 

Now I know why Les does not want to spend as much as most people here want him to. He could not afford the championship diamond rings for the team.