Chad Ford and history

[HawkItus]

Sam (La Jolla)

Chad, why would Joe Johnson leave the Hawks for no extra money with a worse team?

Chad Ford

(1:34 PM)

You assume the Hawks will pay him the same amount of money that the Knicks would. I don't think Atlanta will be able, financially, to meet what the Knicks could do.

What is basing this off of? The Kolvi situation with the Thrashers? Bank records? The Hawks have payed everybody they wanted to pay. And if this is somehow true then Sund must pursue a trade now. Why wait until the Summer and possibly stall the momentum?

[spotatl]

the Hawks have never been willing to pay the luxury tax- thats likely what he is talking about. In order to keep the core of this team intact then the Team would pretty much have to pay the tax but no one knows whether they woudl or not.

[Diesel]

What is basing this off of? The Kolvi situation with the Thrashers? Bank records? The Hawks have payed everybody they wanted to pay. And if this is somehow true then Sund must pursue a trade now. Why wait until the Summer and possibly stall the momentum?

I think Ford is misreading the situation (badly).

Atlanta's investments are paying off.

Before, we couldn't get anybody in the Phil. We couldn't get a National TV date.

This year, we have had 15 Nationally Televised games (slated for 18).... and with us sweeping Boston and a possible strong showing in the playoffs, we will have as many or more next year.

The National Contract that the NBA made in 2007 means that the NBA will average $930 million from 2008 to 2016. So... 930 Million/200 games = 4.65 Million Dollars per game. = 2.325 Million for Hawks ownership.

That's not even including how much the Hawks can negotiate it's local media contracts for...

Right now, Atlanta Owners ought to be noting, when you improve the product on the floor, you improve your bottom line.

So all this talk about us being a broke franchise only mattered when we were 13-69.

Now, we're one of the top 6 teams in the game. There's money to be made....we're not going to neglect the on-court product in order to save salary cap money that we would just get back through profit sharing??

[niremetal]

the Hawks have never been willing to pay the luxury tax- thats likely what he is talking about. In order to keep the core of this team intact then the Team would pretty much have to pay the tax but no one knows whether they woudl or not.

Uh...that's just not true. At all. Do the math for next year, and even re-signing JJ at the max would put us safely below the tax threshold.

[dlpin]

Uh...that's just not true. At all. Do the math for next year, and even re-signing JJ at the max would put us safely below the tax threshold.

How can you say that when you don't know what the luxury tax will be?

Right now, the projected cap for next season is between 50 and 55 million. Luxury tax is partially based on the amount of the salary cap. If the salary cap goes back to 06-07 levels like many expect, the luxury tax should go back to around 65 million like it was that year.

The hawks have 8 players under contract next season for 47 million. For a player of JJ's experience the max is 35% of the cap. In a cap of 53, the max is 18 a year. That would put the hawks over the tax even before signing the rest of the mandatory players to the roster. So if the hawks round out the roster by signing minimum salary guys, and offer JJ the maximum, the payroll would be at the very least 68 million. Luxury tax this year was 69. If it goes to 65 like I said above, the hawks would be 3 million over the tax. That would mean that the hawks would go from receiving their share of the tax (last year it was 3 million) to paying taxes. That right there is a 6 million dollar swing in revenues.

[AHF]

I take anything Ford says about the Hawks with a big grain of salt. He has been ****ing on this team for quite a while. The only thing that surprises me about that comment is that he did not mention Chris Paul.

Edited February 9, 2010 by AHF

[lifelong]

I think Ford is misreading the situation (badly).

Atlanta's investments are paying off.

Before, we couldn't get anybody in the Phil. We couldn't get a National TV date.

This year, we have had 15 Nationally Televised games (slated for 18).... and with us sweeping Boston and a possible strong showing in the playoffs, we will have as many or more next year.

The National Contract that the NBA made in 2007 means that the NBA will average $930 million from 2008 to 2016. So... 930 Million/200 games = 4.65 Million Dollars per game. = 2.325 Million for Hawks ownership.

That's not even including how much the Hawks can negotiate it's local media contracts for...

Right now, Atlanta Owners ought to be noting, when you improve the product on the floor, you improve your bottom line.

So all this talk about us being a broke franchise only mattered when we were 13-69.

Now, we're one of the top 6 teams in the game. There's money to be made....we're not going to neglect the on-court product in order to save salary cap money that we would just get back through profit sharing??

revenue from the NBA's national television deals are split evenly among the teams (except for the ABA share the Silna brothers get), regardless of how many times a particular team appears on national television. what is the point of "2.325 Million for Hawks ownership" and how did you arrive at that number? what does that even mean?

the Hawks make no more direct revenue by being on national television. it's all about whether ownership can capitalize on the increased exposure among the fanbase.

[Diesel]

revenue from the NBA's national television deals are split evenly among the teams (except for the ABA share the Silna brothers get), regardless of how many times a particular team appears on national television. what is the point of "2.325 Million for Hawks ownership" and how did you arrive at that number? what does that even mean?

the Hawks make no more direct revenue by being on national television. it's all about whether ownership can capitalize on the increased exposure among the fanbase.

You are right in that the NBA teams share revenue. (BRI). A lot of which is luxury tax payment and nba merchandise sales, etc.

However, the National TV contract money is shared, but nobody said anything about it being shared equally. It is shared between 31 members.... however, I don't believe equally for this reason:

Each team has their own negotiated local TV contract.

A team like the Hawks jump from 1 National TV game to 18 National TV games. That local TV contract is worthless. IN fact, the team takes a loss If the National TV contract was shared equally. The reason being is that their negotiated local media has to get it's money back for those 18 games that it won't be covering.

You can't tell me that when MJ Played with the Bulls and the Bulls were on TV every week that the Bulls revenue vs. The Los Angeles Clippers revenue from the TV contract was the exact same? Does that make any sense to you?

Therefore, I have to believe that teams that play in more nationally televised games get a bigger share of the pot.

Check this article out.

Did you catch the wording?

"NBA owners have approved a new plan that increases the amount of shared revenue doled out annually to deserving teams to $49 million, up from $30 million, as owners try to close the gap between high- and low-revenue franchises."

Now check out this article...

"Here are some numbers to give you an idea of what I am talking about: In the NFL, the home team splits the gate 60-40 with the the away team. In the NBA, the home teams keep everything. In the NFL 70%-75% of team revenue comes from revenue sharing. In the NBA it is only 20%-25%. In the MLB 35% of each teams local media revenues (TV, Radio, etc.) are put into a pot and redistributed. There is no such agreement in the NBA. In the NBA $49 million was redistributed for revenue sharing (via the lux tax and the escrow system) in 2008, while the MLB redistributed $300 million in 2005. "

Right now, the high market teams get the most of the pots.

At the next CBA, I think this will be a subject for change.

I imagine that either everything is shared equally including Gate, local TV deals, National TV deals, Lux Tax...

or

The NBA will go through it's first period of contraction and may lose franchises like: Memphis, Bucks, Minnesota, and Bobcats....

[lifelong]

You are right in that the NBA teams share revenue. (BRI). A lot of which is luxury tax payment and nba merchandise sales, etc.

However, the National TV contract money is shared, but nobody said anything about it being shared equally. It is shared between 31 members.... however, I don't believe equally for this reason:

Each team has their own negotiated local TV contract.

A team like the Hawks jump from 1 National TV game to 18 National TV games. That local TV contract is worthless. IN fact, the team takes a loss If the National TV contract was shared equally. The reason being is that their negotiated local media has to get it's money back for those 18 games that it won't be covering.

You can't tell me that when MJ Played with the Bulls and the Bulls were on TV every week that the Bulls revenue vs. The Los Angeles Clippers revenue from the TV contract was the exact same? Does that make any sense to you?

Therefore, I have to believe that teams that play in more nationally televised games get a bigger share of the pot.

Check this article out.

Did you catch the wording?

"NBA owners have approved a new plan that increases the amount of shared revenue doled out annually to deserving teams to $49 million, up from $30 million, as owners try to close the gap between high- and low-revenue franchises."

Now check out this article...

"Here are some numbers to give you an idea of what I am talking about: In the NFL, the home team splits the gate 60-40 with the the away team. In the NBA, the home teams keep everything. In the NFL 70%-75% of team revenue comes from revenue sharing. In the NBA it is only 20%-25%. In the MLB 35% of each teams local media revenues (TV, Radio, etc.) are put into a pot and redistributed. There is no such agreement in the NBA. In the NBA $49 million was redistributed for revenue sharing (via the lux tax and the escrow system) in 2008, while the MLB redistributed $300 million in 2005. "

Right now, the high market teams get the most of the pots.

At the next CBA, I think this will be a subject for change.

I imagine that either everything is shared equally including Gate, local TV deals, National TV deals, Lux Tax...

or

The NBA will go through it's first period of contraction and may lose franchises like: Memphis, Bucks, Minnesota, and Bobcats....

so, in other words, you totally made up those numbers based on your own speculation and innuendo. for all we know, the deserving teams are the low revenue teams.

[Diesel]

so, in other words, you totally made up those numbers based on your own speculation and innuendo. for all we know, the deserving teams are the low revenue teams.

Pretty Much. IN one of the previous CBAs, the revenue sharing didn't involve National games. I was unaware that that had changed.

[frosgrim]

Not that I am a believer in everything Gearon Jr says, but he has indicated in the past that the Hawks would be willing to go into the luxury tax if it meant putting a winning team on the court.

Also, they Thrashers did offer Kovy a substantial contract.

I think the Hawks will match any offer given to JJ. The Kovy debacle only makes it more probable that will happen. The ownership group is on thin ice with the hockey base, and those of us who follow both teams have little faith in the group. They now need to do something, like keeping JJ, to indicate they are serious about winning. Nothing will kill attendance more than ownership showing they have no intention of trying to win.

[spotatl]

frosgrim- I thinkt he ASG would be willing to pay the luxury tax to keep a championship contending team together- but I don't believe that this core is at that point. This isn't a top 4 team in the league. And its a catch 22 because in order to become a top 4 team in the league I think the team would have to add talent by using the MLE and being willing to pay the luxury tax.

I think the way the ASG would pay the tax is if there were a blockbuster deal that added a MAJOR piece where the team thought they could vault into the top 4.

[drzachary]

I take anything Ford says about the Hawks with a big grain of salt. He has been ****ing on this team for quite a while. The only thing that surprises me about that comment is that he did not mention Chris Paul.

Amen!