Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:
15 minutes ago, royiv said:
Keep telling yourself that, bud. So your argument is that Cuban is a dumb businessman? Do you understand how silly that sounds? He’s just another billionaire. I used to think differently of him back when i lived in Dallas 20+ years ago. I thought he was different, but he’s not. 

Agreed. Cuban is a billionaire. Money will always come before the Mavs. He looks bad either way like you've mentioned. Either he didn't do his research on this group and he's dumb or he knew and just didn't give a shit because.... Money. I'll go with the latter.

He was given certain assurances, a gentleman's agreement if you will (lol aggies), that basketball decisions and running the basketball ops would still largely go through him. His exact quote, "Mark Cuban: "I fully expected to run basketball. The NBA wouldn't let me put it in the contract. They took it out, I thought the Adelsons would stick to their word because they didn't know the first thing about running a team. Someone obviously changed their mind."

He didn't get it in writing because apparently the NBA doesn't allow that and so this verbal agreement amounted to squat and the Adelsons went back on that and Cuban is pretty neutered.

Edited by Vegas64
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Has he expressed such a sentiment?  Being minority owner doesn’t mean keep quiet or toe the company line. 

He said he'd rather divorce his wife than trade Luka.  He said he never would have traded Luka as long as he was owner of the team.  Has he said the exact words "I wouldn't have sold the team if I knew they would have traded Luka"? I don't think so...? But he addressed that question when he said he never would have traded Luka and he had the contract state he would retain control of basketball operations but the NBA made him take it out. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

He said he'd rather divorce his wife than trade Luka.  He said he never would have traded Luka as long as he was owner of the team.  Has he said the exact words "I wouldn't have sold the team if I knew they would have traded Luka"? I don't think so...? But he addressed that question when he said he never would have traded Luka and he had the contract state he would retain control of basketball operations but the NBA made him take it out. 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

I think you assigning blame to Cuban by asserting he should have been able to see the new owners overriding his judgement on basketball operations, ceding final word to a GM that Cuban himself hired, and having that GM do something that almost no one else in the City of Dallas would have done is ridiculous. You yourself said you don't follow the NBA.  Yet you're opining on this like you're familiar with Cuban's previous actions.  He wouldn't have done anything that would have hurt the team like this.  He's sacrificed tens of if not hundreds of millions of dollars for the betterment of this team.  

FWIW, I had season tickets for the last couple of seasons at Reunion and at AAC until I moved to PHX, coincidentally the same year Nash went back for his Suns 2.0 stint. So I’ve given Cuban plenty of my hard earned money, probably a much larger percentage of my income than Cuban ever “sacrificed” for his hobby. I don’t think you understand the vast wealth of being a billionaire and that “sacrificing” $10 million here or there is like a nice night out for you and me.

I lost interest in the NBA about 15 years ago and only check the standings every now and then to see how the Rockets are doing since I now live in Houston and have a little curiosity in how they’re doing, but I’ve lived here six years and have been to a total of one game and that was as a guest of a vendor.
 

Cuban cares about money. That’s it. You’ve bought into his persona and I get it since I had, too. He chose one of the worst families in the country to sell a controlling interest in the team to so he really doesn’t care as much about the team as you’ve convinced yourself he does. He got his championship trophy 15 years ago or whenever it was and decided that after another finals run it was a good time to cash out on a very lucrative investment. Trust me, he sacrificed nothing financially for the Mavs. The Mavs made him more money than you and I will ever have in our lifetimes.

Posted
15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Except when it doesn't, and it never had when it came to the Mavericks until he sold the team.  How much money has he *willingly* lost on the team all these years for the sake of keeping ticket prices low?  How many times did he say losing games hurts worse than losing money?  

He never lost a dime on the Mavs. You’re buying the billionaire BS hook, line and sinker.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

He was given certain assurances, a gentleman's agreement if you will (lol aggies), that basketball decisions and running the basketball ops would still largely go through him. His exact quote, "Mark Cuban: "I fully expected to run basketball. The NBA wouldn't let me put it in the contract. They took it out, I thought the Adelsons would stick to their word because they didn't know the first thing about running a team. Someone obviously changed their mind."

He didn't get it in writing because apparently the NBA doesn't allow that and so this verbal agreement amounted to squat and the Adelsons went back on that and Cuban is pretty neutered.

 

9 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

He said he'd rather divorce his wife than trade Luka.  He said he never would have traded Luka as long as he was owner of the team.  Has he said the exact words "I wouldn't have sold the team if I knew they would have traded Luka"? I don't think so...? But he addressed that question when he said he never would have traded Luka and he had the contract state he would retain control of basketball operations but the NBA made him take it out. 

So I guess Cuban is just a dumbass with poor judgement and bad business acumen?

Posted
22 minutes ago, royiv said:

 

So I guess Cuban is just a dumbass with poor judgement and bad business acumen?

I wouldn't characterize him as that. My personal opinion is that Cuban, like any and all of us, care more about our money and bank accounts than a sports team or job, and priortized a nice exit for himself and that he thought he was clever and could have his cake and eat it too, knowing there was a risk of it not happening. But he also calculated that if the Adelson's didn't honor a verbal agreement, he's still okay with the deal.

What I think changes the above calculus is that he never once even considered it a possiblity of what happened. Heck nobody did, everyone thought it was a joke or fake news, it's talked about as the worst, one-sided, bone-headed deal ever. It's essentially a force de majeure event what happened and not something you seriously consider in any way before doing this deal.

With hindsight 20/20 I do actually believe Cuban would not do the deal with the Adelsons. Even if not for the love of Luka and Dallas, for his own brand that's been very tarnished, on a go forward basis. I think he waits it out or seeks out an alternative partner as the money will still be there (as seen by the Boston deal).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, royiv said:

Man, what a kick to the nuts for the Mavs fans and Luka to have to sit there and watch that knowing what the franchise did to them and him.

I'm not a Mavs or Luka fan and it was hard for me to watch.  Fuck Nico and the Adelsons.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mittens said:

I'm not a Mavs or Luka fan and it was hard for me to watch.  Fuck Nico and the Adelsons.  

Fuck the Lakers as well.   They always catch the benefit of some bullshit trade like this.  But this is the biggest bullshit trade in the history of sports. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, royiv said:

He never lost a dime on the Mavs. You’re buying the billionaire BS hook, line and sinker.

He's said many times over the years he's lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the Mavs.  But you do you former season ticket holder.  

Posted
1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

He's said many times over the years he's lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the Mavs.  But you do you former season ticket holder.  

What he said and what is reality aren't necessarily the same thing....that's his point, I think.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

He's said many times over the years he's lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the Mavs.  But you do you former season ticket holder.  

I would take anything Cuban has told you with a gigantic grain of salt, but what we do know is he bought the team for $285 million. He sold it for $3.5 billion. Explain to me how he lost money on the Mavs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, royiv said:

I would take anything Cuban has told you with a gigantic grain of salt, but what we do know is he bought the team for $285 million. He sold it for $3.5 billion. Explain to me how he lost money on the Mavs. 

I think he's making the point that Cuban could have made even more money--on top of the heaps and heaps that he did make--had he done things like raise ticket prices, etc.. So he lost that money.

Not the best argument.

Posted
1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

I think he's making the point that Cuban could have made even more money--on top of the heaps and heaps that he did make--had he done things like raise ticket prices, etc.. So he lost that money.

Not the best argument.

It’s a dumb argument. Cuban invested in the business and increased its value more than 10x. He also doesn’t understand that foregoing potential revenue doesn’t equal “losing money.” It was strictly a business decision he would have made to increase the value of the enterprise. Pissing off your customers is a good way to tarnish your brand, as Cuban and the Adelsons are currently seeing firsthand.

Posted
12 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I think he's making the point that Cuban could have made even more money--on top of the heaps and heaps that he did make--had he done things like raise ticket prices, etc.. So he lost that money.

Not the best argument.

It is like saying Costco’s profits/stock price will be even higher if they raise their product prices. Then they won’t be Costco with parking lots full 100% of the time. Costco’s “altruism” is a sound business policy. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

they are going to find out that nobody in Dallas really gives a shit about an aging dude, who is on his 3rd team, and that will be injury prone, like Davis.  The Kyrie injury is a killer as well.

Cuban did breathe new life into the Mavs, did some good fan experience things, but he made money because he bought into a monopoly(good for him) and had an all-timer for 20 years in Dirk to give fans hope every year.  Remains to be seen if he sold at the top.

They had that guy again and now they don't.  good luck.

good news is I can put more interest into the Stars and hopefully the Rangers.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

This makes me both sad and makes my blood boil.

Shit, that's how I feel and I don't even like the Mavs.  I've always liked Luka, though, except when he's torching the Nuggets.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Shit, that's how I feel and I don't even like the Mavs.  I've always liked Luka, though, except when he's torching the Nuggets.

The only way forward I can see for me is a) draft a Luka 2.0, but that's a generational talent so unlikely to happen (though we did have Dirk and then Luka, so who knows) or b) go ahead and relo the Mavs to Las Vegas and I'll give a new franchise with a fresh start my fandom.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, threesheets said:

P&Ls are hard apparently. His bs claim is about cash. Not value. Fuck him. 

Do you not know how p&l is calculated? It's not from value.

2 hours ago, royiv said:

It’s a dumb argument. Cuban invested in the business and increased its value more than 10x. He also doesn’t understand that foregoing potential revenue doesn’t equal “losing money.” It was strictly a business decision he would have made to increase the value of the enterprise. Pissing off your customers is a good way to tarnish your brand, as Cuban and the Adelsons are currently seeing firsthand.

 

3 hours ago, aggie08 said:

I think he's making the point that Cuban could have made even more money--on top of the heaps and heaps that he did make--had he done things like raise ticket prices, etc.. So he lost that money.

Not the best argument.

The first time I heard Cuban say he was operating the mavericks at a loss was in 2007, the year after we should have beat Miami.  The last time I heard him say it was two weeks ago.  He said it multiple times in between.  Of course he wasn't talking about the value of the team. P&L is an income statement figure. Revenue minus expenses.  Nowhere does market value of the team figure in. Same with operating cash flows. It's money in, money out.  For 20+ years he was paying out of his pocket to keep the Mavs running because he was running the team at a loss, despite having the longest sellout streak in the NBA.  He could have raised ticket prices to cover the deficit.  He didn't.  

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Do you not know how p&l is calculated? It's not from value.

 

The first time I heard Cuban say he was operating the mavericks at a loss was in 2007, the year after we should have beat Miami.  The last time I heard him say it was two weeks ago.  He said it multiple times in between.  Of course he wasn't talking about the value of the team. P&L is an income statement figure. Revenue minus expenses.  Nowhere does market value of the team figure in. Same with operating cash flows. It's money in, money out.  For 20+ years he was paying out of his pocket to keep the Mavs running because he was running the team at a loss, despite having the longest sellout streak in the NBA.  He could have raised ticket prices to cover the deficit.  He didn't.  

 

 

Have you seen the audited financial statements of the Mavericks? 

Posted
Just now, gsoda3 said:

Have you?

Nope, but I’m not the one who believes everything a billionaire says. The Cuban hero worship is weird. He doesn’t give a fuck about you.

Posted
1 hour ago, royiv said:

Nope, but I’m not the one who believes everything a billionaire says. The Cuban hero worship is weird. He doesn’t give a fuck about you.

You're inferring too much.  I don't even like him, but I believe him based on his history. You choose to disbelieve based on... what I don't even know.  

Posted
19 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

Had you even heard of the Adelsons before this deal? The only thing I knew them for was the Sands and even then it was only Sheldon Adelson I had any knowledge of.  Why are they the worst?  Because Miriam donated to Trump?  

Sounds like you're being irrational in your anger and assigning blame to Cuban in an unreasonable expectation he should have just known.

It is absolutely hysterical to suggest that Mark Cuban had no idea who the Adelson's were. Holy shit man lol

  • Haha 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It is absolutely hysterical to suggest that Mark Cuban had no idea who the Adelson's were. Holy shit man lol

I never said that.  I was asking why the Adelsons were one of the worst families in America.  Still haven't gotten an answer.  

Posted
10 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

What a stupid argument. There isn’t a big 4 sports owner that has lost actual money in a season since the early 90’s. 

Cuban’s full of shit. 

 

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Maybe Cubans Mavs fully funded the WNBA.  Did you consider that?  No.

There's no fucking way they were a "loss-leader" in Cuban's financial profile.

 

You either believe what Cuban says or you don't.  You don't. That's fine.  I've seen nothing in his actions that lead me to doubt what he said about running the team at a loss for all those years. 

 

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Tweets don't embed but this is a great tweet worth clicking on...

 

https://x.com/automaticnba/status/1760390300357300728

 

Again - valuation has nothing to do with operating profit or loss.

Posted
1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

Again - valuation has nothing to do with operating profit or loss.

If I pay 30k in housing expense over the same time period that my house value increases by 50k, can I legitimately claim to have lost money?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If I pay 30k in housing expense over the same time period that my house value increases by 50k, can I legitimately claim to have lost money?

If your grocery store is bringing in 100k a month while paying 120k in expenses then yes you are operating at a loss

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If I pay 30k in housing expense over the same time period that my house value increases by 50k, can I legitimately claim to have lost money?

Is owning your house a business? You know the answer to that.

Posted
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

I never said that.  I was asking why the Adelsons were one of the worst families in America.  Still haven't gotten an answer.  

Yeah because no one wants to get drawn into a CR debate in the basketball board

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

I never said that.  I was asking why the Adelsons were one of the worst families in America.  Still haven't gotten an answer.  

Justin Timberlake What GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
34 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Is owning your house a business? You know the answer to that.

Let me ask again differently then. This is not snark, this is me not being in the accounting space.  If unrealized asset value gains outpace actual asset losses, can you authentically say you run at a loss?  Only until you realize the gains, or even afterward as you talk about it?

Posted
43 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Let me ask again differently then. This is not snark, this is me not being in the accounting space.  If unrealized asset value gains outpace actual asset losses, can you authentically say you run at a loss?  Only until you realize the gains, or even afterward as you talk about it?

Yes.  Your running at a loss if your income in is less than your expenses out.  Of course Mark had the bank to cover it.  
 

now mark could be flat lying  idk, idc.  I’m a lakers fan.  
 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah because no one wants to get drawn into a CR debate in the basketball board

 

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Justin Timberlake What GIF

 

So... nothing business related?  Legitimately asking.  Because several of you have replied with versions of "how stupid is Cuban to not have known about them..." but it sounds like there's nothing to know about except whatever political projections have been cast.

 

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Let me ask again differently then. This is not snark, this is me not being in the accounting space.  If unrealized asset value gains outpace actual asset losses, can you authentically say you run at a loss?  Only until you realize the gains, or even afterward as you talk about it?

Net Profit is what determines if you're running a loss vs running a profit.  That number comes from the Income Statement which only looks at Revenues minus Expenses.  When companies report earnings, they're reporting the Revenue minus Expenses number.  Valuation of the company isn't considered anywhere on the Income Statement.  The value of the company has zero to do with whether or not you're running at a loss.  Real life example:  Amazon wasn't profitable for the first decade of its existence yet was already worth $20 billion (based on market cap valuation) right before they became profitable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Annual profit is of vital interest to tax accountants, and not many others. 
 
It is an accountant’s job to try to show as small of an annual profit as possible. One of the ways to do that is to depreciate assets, so that you can show them as expenses, reducing profit. I’ll also bet you that when Cuban bought the Mavericks from Perot, there was a nine figure sum called “Goodwill” that he has been amortizing. The Adelsons are now amortizing a ten figure number called “Goodwill”. 
 
Both of these can be true:

The Mavs annually showed a loss. 
 
Cuban made a bunch of money off the Mavs. 
 
America, fuck yeah!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, statsman said:

Annual profit is of vital interest to tax accountants, and not many others. 
 
It is an accountant’s job to try to show as small of an annual profit as possible. One of the ways to do that is to depreciate assets, so that you can show them as expenses, reducing profit. I’ll also bet you that when Cuban bought the Mavericks from Perot, there was a nine figure sum called “Goodwill” that he has been amortizing. The Adelsons are now amortizing a ten figure number called “Goodwill”. 
 
Both of these can be true:

The Mavs annually showed a loss. 
 
Cuban made a bunch of money off the Mavs. 
 
America, fuck yeah!

Edit to address the bolded part:  Valuations are often derived from annual profit so they're super important to everyone.

 

Yes.  A consideration that needs to be made about annual losses vs profit on a sale is the time frame.  

 

Mavs annually posting a loss means money has to come in every year from somewhere to pay the bills.  That money could come from cash on hand or it could have come from outside sources.  Cuban has always claimed he's put his personal money in. 

 

Cuban made a LOT of money selling his stake.  He bought the team in 1998? and sold in 2024.  It took 26 years to see that money. 

 

Edited by gsoda3
Posted
19 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

So... nothing business related?  Legitimately asking.  Because several of you have replied with versions of "how stupid is Cuban to not have known about them..." but it sounds like there's nothing to know about except whatever political projections have been cast.

 

Net Profit is what determines if you're running a loss vs running a profit.  That number comes from the Income Statement which only looks at Revenues minus Expenses.  When companies report earnings, they're reporting the Revenue minus Expenses number.  Valuation of the company isn't considered anywhere on the Income Statement.  The value of the company has zero to do with whether or not you're running at a loss.  Real life example:  Amazon wasn't profitable for the first decade of its existence yet was already worth $20 billion (based on market cap valuation) right before they became profitable.

Precisely.   I have family friends that owned a huge ranch in Montana.   Lost money every year but worth 8 figs.   Patriarch got murdered and the big titted  crazy sister gave it back to the Native Americans.  

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Yes.  A consideration that needs to be made about annual losses vs profit on a sale is the time frame.  

 

Mavs annually posting a loss means money has to come in every year from somewhere to pay the bills.  That money could come from cash on hand or it could have come from outside sources.  Cuban has always claimed he's put his personal money in. 

 

Cuban made a LOT of money selling his stake.  He bought the team in 1998? and sold in 2024.  It took 26 years to see that money. 

 

I’d like to see a cash flow statement 

(edited) … and a pic of the sister noted in the post right above. 

Edited by statsman

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...