Hawks To Be Sold

[AHF]

Someone needs to reiterate this to the folks over at peachtree hoops blog because they have about 3 posts mentioning singular owner (hell even jason walker got this wrong!).As for this being gutsy during a lockout, I'm not that certain about that. They do retain control over Philips which probably generates more money per concert than game (ignoring a pro rated TV contract deal which is the big money maker). But if you are referring more to not knowing what the CBA structure is like (which I think you are), well owning a franchise was a profitable venture before and it will only improve more towards the owners after the negotiations. This is looking like the prime time to buy in my opinion, now if I could only raise enough capital...

It isn't a single owner but it never was going to be. Operationally, it is a single owner situation, though, because you have one majority owner who will be running the show and has the authority to make all decisions by himself. The remaining ASG owners aren't going to have any authority or voting power, etc.

[Guest]

It isn't a single owner but it never was going to be. Operationally, it is a single owner situation, though, because you have one majority owner who will be running the show and has the authority to make all decisions by himself. The remaining ASG owners aren't going to have any authority or voting power, etc.

I'm ignoring the A$G that is sticking on. It's the Meruelo Group making the purchase, not Alex. It's a singular controlling group, not an individual owner. The MG has more than just capital from Alex in their portfolio, he is just the chairman.

[niremetal]

As for this being gutsy during a lockout, I'm not that certain about that. They do retain control over Philips which probably generates more money per concert than game (ignoring a pro rated TV contract deal which is the big money maker). But if you are referring more to not knowing what the CBA structure is like (which I think you are), well owning a franchise was a profitable venture before and it will only improve more towards the owners after the negotiations. This is looking like the prime time to buy in my opinion, now if I could only raise enough capital...

Yeah, I was referring to the CBA structure. I agree that it's more likely to be favorable to the owners than the old CBA. The problem is that the basketball world as a whole is becoming a much more dynamic place. You've got a few All-Star players getting ready to play overseas or flirting with the idea. I have to figure that will make the Euroleague teams getting those players more profitable overnight - which will generate revenue to sign even more NBA-caliber players. If the lockout drags on long enough and/or the pendulum swings far enough in the payroll control direction, there's a real risk that the NBA talent pool would become diluted. You've already got an economy that makes luxury box sales and big TV contracts a less certain thing than they were before. I just don't think it's possible to predict what the market will look like for basketball after the lockout ends, especially if it drags on into the start of the season and has a significant negative impact on the quality of play, 1999 style.

[KB21]

I agree......................the problem I see is we may not have basketball people in charge.I dont think Rick Sund is a decent GM, heck I dont think we have ever had a decent GMI'm not sure about Larry Drew as a head coach. He never got Josh Smith under control this year.

I'm not 100% convinced that Rick Sund ever got a chance to show if he was a good GM or not in Atlanta. He's been around a long time, so for some reason, he has been able to stick in the league. However, I do fault him for being a veteran GM who signed on to become Michael Gearon's lap dog, so to speak.It will be interesting to see what the Mereulo Group does with the front office staff. Any front office staff change will very likely also come with a coaching staff change, one where the new front office staff will be allowed to hire whom they see fit.

[sturt]

I wouldn't look for any changes for the 2011-12 season, though. It is normal that new ownership wants a chance to evaluate first. Potentially big changes for 12-13, though, depending on what the CBA looks like. I'd even say "likely" big changes, short of us making the conference finals.

[DrReality]

Bet Stern is happy he's a minority owner. Will add to his quest to be "world wide"

[Guest]

Yeah, I was referring to the CBA structure. I agree that it's more likely to be favorable to the owners than the old CBA. The problem is that the basketball world as a whole is becoming a much more dynamic place. You've got a few All-Star players getting ready to play overseas or flirting with the idea. I have to figure that will make the Euroleague teams getting those players more profitable overnight - which will generate revenue to sign even more NBA-caliber players. If the lockout drags on long enough and/or the pendulum swings far enough in the payroll control direction, there's a real risk that the NBA talent pool would become diluted. You've already got an economy that makes luxury box sales and big TV contracts a less certain thing than they were before. I just don't think it's possible to predict what the market will look like for basketball after the lockout ends, especially if it drags on into the start of the season and has a significant negative impact on the quality of play, 1999 style.

It's going to be a unique negotiation. I think you are alluding to the NBA slowly losing some monopoly power due to euroleagues (very good point). This should counteract the owners demands to lower the percentage of revenue devoted to players. If the owners think they can get the percentage down to NFL levels (huge monopoly power) then they are smoking something. I find it hard to believe that demand for the NBA will change though after the lockout is over (unless a substantial amount of stars leave), studies generally show demand remains unchanged after work stoppages in sports. I only hear anecdotal evidence of demand changes from strikes which usually comes from baseball traditionalists. As for macroeconomic concerns, wouldn't those apply to all business ventures in the US? So unless you advocate investing outside of the US then the opportunity cost of investing in the Hawks decreases just as the expected revenue as well.I guess I don't disagree that there are risks involved in this move, but risk is always present. It might be better to think about the riskiness of this move in a relative context, is it really much more risky than other $300 million investments?