Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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
Posted
21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They will when their new majority owners relocate them to Las Vegas.

It’s Vegas. They’ll go with something gaudy or extravagant maybe get input from the Liberace estate. 

Posted
3 hours 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.

Read up on how Adelson influenced the DoJ to reverse federal rulings on online gambling during Trump 1.0. 
 

And also:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sheldon-adelsons-casino-company-pays-7m-penalty/

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson

https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/08/28/sheldon-adelsons-sands-casino-to-pay-47-million-fine-for-failing-to-report-deposits-from-alleged-drug-trafficker/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/23/las-vegas-tycoon-sheldon-adelson-to-face-graft-accusations-in-us-court
 

I can keep going. Bottom line is that this is not a family known for being on the up and up with their business dealings.


 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours 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.

Well shes the kind of person that would trade one of the best players in the league who also happens to be a beloved player in the city he plays in and would likely have played another 15 years in said city for peanuts. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
22 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They will when their new majority owners relocate them to Las Vegas.

For the LAST time they are NOT leaving North Texas. The NBA will not abandon a Top 4 Media Market(this isn't Seattle or Vancouver), and the even BIGGER reason is that the League and Owners will make MORE by adding expansion team with the new Owners "Buy In", which would be something like triple what they'd have to pay to relocate(plus losing the market).  Follow the $$$

This trade was NOT to get the team to move. It was just stupid people making stupid decisions based on Ego.

Posted

Lol, blaming Cuban for this trade is so weak and stupid. I know the wound is still fresh, but come on, he never would have even shopped Luka. And no owner would expect the buyer of a new team to come in and trade the teams best player for a mediocre return. Could you imagine if the new Celtics owner sent Tatum to the Clippers for Kawhi? Nobody in their right mind would do that, but that's similar to what happened here. 

I think this was a weird cost cutting measure by the new owners to avoid paying Luka a supermax, to reduce roster costs, avoid luxury tax and squeeze every penny possible out of this franchise. They are operating the team like a private equity firm that adopted the Pittsburgh Pirates management method, not an NBA fan or someone who cares about winning.

Whether or not it has something to do with influencing Texas politics on gambling is still TBD, but it might be a part of the decision process. Just 3 days after this trade several high level Texas politicians, including Governor Abbott advocated publicly for legalization of gambling in Texas. I don't know if that conspiracy is true, but the timing sure is an interesting coincidence.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Drew said:

For the LAST time they are NOT leaving North Texas. The NBA will not abandon a Top 4 Media Market(this isn't Seattle or Vancouver), and the even BIGGER reason is that the League and Owners will make MORE by adding expansion team with the new Owners "Buy In", which would be something like triple what they'd have to pay to relocate(plus losing the market).  Follow the $$$

This trade was NOT to get the team to move. It was just stupid people making stupid decisions based on Ego.

I don’t think you understand: they ruined this franchise and hate us, and we want them to take it away.

 

Also, what the fuck is a “North Texas?” Is that where 469 is?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t think you understand: they ruined this franchise and hate us, and we want them to take it away.

 

Also, what the fuck is a “North Texas?” Is that where 469 is?

It’s all South Oklahoma anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

Posted
The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 
Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

The NBA shouldve blocked that trade. that’s a catastrophe. Even an average fantasy football commissioner would have vetoed that based on shenanigans.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

They are going to lose more than that if I had to guess. 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


The NBA shouldve blocked that trade. that’s a catastrophe. Even an average fantasy football commissioner would have vetoed that based on shenanigans.

The nba vetoing something that is very good for the lakers?

  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

If we’re talking conspiracy theories, mine is that the trade was a requirement of the NBA approving the sale of the Mavs to the Adelsons. (I don’t really believe this)

Posted
10 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

Adelsons are definitely the villains here, and Nico is the sycophant willing to shoulder the blame. He deserves all the hate he's gotten, but the Adelsons deserve as much if not more

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 

Most sure where you saw that, but I would agree. What’s more significant however is the destroyed enterprise value, probably well over $1B.

That’s why the conspiracy theories stick- the only way it makes financial sense is in the context of attaching the team to a new arena + casino complex, either in “North Texas” (IOW, not Dallas) but more likely in Vegas. 
Even if putting that play in motion was not the intent at the time of the trade, it is probably required now to salvage the investment. 

Posted
10 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

New owners tanking the teams value and will use it against the city of Dallas so they can move to Vegas for hotel chain superiority!

Posted
On 4/12/2025 at 2:14 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t think you understand: they ruined this franchise and hate us, and we want them to take it away.

 

Also, what the fuck is a “North Texas?” Is that where 469 is?

You know what the fuck north Texas is, since the new arena won't be in Dallas...most likely move the irving plot of land that Texas Stadium used to be on.

Also I want Nico and the Owners gone, not the Mavs.

I understand it hurt...they destroyed this fan base. But the Mavericks were more than just Luka. And while I may not support THIS team until AT LEAST Nico his strapped to a rocket and shot to the sun...they'll always be my team.

I don't get the folks jumping ship honestly.  I get giving up on the Mavs due to this...i just can't understand cheering for another team.  Be like if Texas shut down the football program. I wouldn't go find another college team. I just wouldn't watch basketball at all(and I haven't really much since the trade)

3 hours ago, immamac said:

They are going to lose more than that if I had to guess. 

way more IMO.

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Most sure where you saw that, but I would agree. What’s more significant however is the destroyed enterprise value, probably well over $1B.

That’s why the conspiracy theories stick- the only way it makes financial sense is in the context of attaching the team to a new arena + casino complex, either in “North Texas” (IOW, not Dallas) but more likely in Vegas. 
Even if putting that play in motion was not the intent at the time of the trade, it is probably required now to salvage the investment. 

They are not moving. This has been debunked so many times over.  The league will LOSE Money, not just the Mavs owner, for them to make this move, so it won't happen.

Once again, a Team will be in Vegas...but it'll be a new team with a massive buy in that the owners get a cut of.

They are not going to abandon a top 4 media market with no realistic team coming in it's place.

Posted

I just heard a funny detail about Nico - that he's the brainchild behind "Black Mamba." Is this true? I had always thought it was Kobe who arrogantly ripped a nickname from Kill Bill and claimed it as his own. If Nico was the vapid douchebag culprit of this criminal IP theft, it makes even more sense why he's such a huge Kobe simp. He thinks he co-created "Mamba mentality."

more I learn about this guy, the more there is to laugh at.  

 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Drew said:

 

They are not moving. This has been debunked so many times over.  The league will LOSE Money, not just the Mavs owner, for them to make this move, so it won't happen.

Once again, a Team will be in Vegas...but it'll be a new team with a massive buy in that the owners get a cut of.

They are not going to abandon a top 4 media market with no realistic team coming in it's place.

I've seen this brought up a number of times and never seen any documented support so it's just a theory to me at this point. Also, would it really matter to the owners if the Mavs moved to Vegas and DFW was awarded the new expansion as opposed to expanding directly to Vegas? I'm thinking Houston, Cleveland, Charlotte, that lost teams then got new expansion franchises. Either way, what the owner is doing is intentional, there is no one on earth who thinks that there was any caclulus upon which the trade made any sense especially considering the lack of return. 

  • Like 1
Posted

That's to say they would already have a team lined up.  But I would suspect ownership group adding a team to Vegas would be more lucrative to those types than back to Dallas.

Posted
1 hour ago, Drew said:

You know what the fuck north Texas is, since the new arena won't be in Dallas...most likely move the irving plot of land that Texas Stadium used to be on.

Yeah, I know what it is. It describes the region outside of Dallas that is not the City of Dallas. 
 

1 hour ago, Drew said:

I don't get the folks jumping ship honestly.  I get giving up on the Mavs due to this...i just can't understand cheering for another team. 

I can’t bring myself to root for another team but I really feel nothing for this organization all of a sudden, and if it leaves Downtown Dallas for Irving that would also feel like betrayal to me. The Mavs have always been a part of city life*. 
 

1 hour ago, Drew said:

They are not moving. This has been debunked so many times over. 

No, they’ve just asserted that they have no plans to move. That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen if they don’t get a stadium deal in “North Texas,” and while anything could happen, at this moment there’s not much taxpayer goodwill to pay for that, and even less for casino gambling. 
 

 

27 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Also, would it really matter to the owners if the Mavs moved to Vegas and DFW was awarded the new expansion as opposed to expanding directly to Vegas?


Probably, because Seattle is going to go before Vegas, and that will take a 3-4 years if it was announced today, so would likely  be 3-4 years after a move. 



 

*Im counting the Moody Coliseum playoff game in 1984 on account of the central location.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

The Athletic is reporting that the Mavericks expect to lose 9 figures in revenue as a result of the Luka trade. Jesus. 
 

Give me your best conspiracy theories. My favorite is the Adelsons are tanking the franchise so they can move to Las Vegas. 

My theory would be that they obviously want legal gambling here in Texas. She is very busy working on that. In the meantime, she wanted another big superstar in LA to draw people there, where they are closer to the casinos.

Posted

I don't think the Mavs will move to Vegas. If you're an NBA owner, would you want to sell a new expansion team in Vegas for 6-7 billion split 30 ways, or one in Dallas for 4-5 billion?  

The Adelsons bought that team and already set the price for it. Moving it doesn't net new money for the league, unless they include a relocation fee of 2 billion, but I doubt that happens. The league will find some other billionaires to buy the expansion teams in Vegas and Seattle at a price of 6-8 billion each. 

Posted
Just now, Dutchrudder said:

I don't think the Mavs will move to Vegas. If you're an NBA owner, would you want to sell a new expansion team in Vegas for 6-7 billion split 30 ways, or one in Dallas for 4-5 billion?  

The Adelsons bought that team and already set the price for it. Moving it doesn't net new money for the league, unless they include a relocation fee of 2 billion, but I doubt that happens. The league will find some other billionaires to buy the expansion teams in Vegas and Seattle at a price of 6-8 billion each. 

Why would the expansion fee for Dallas be that much less than for Seattle and/or Vegas?

  • Like 1
Posted
20 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

My theory would be that they obviously want legal gambling here in Texas. She is very busy working on that. In the meantime, she wanted another big superstar in LA to draw people there, where they are closer to the casinos.

How tanking the franchise help get legal gambling in Texas?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

The Adelsons bought that team and already set the price for it. Moving it doesn't net new money for the league

If there’s one thing the NBA Governors have demonstrated over and over, it is that they will allow any team to move if their local community doesn’t provide direct financial support for a new arena. 
 

That being the case, show me how the Mavericks organization has enough goodwill to get voter support for a giveaway (esp now, in a shakier economy, with higher financing and material costs due to tarriffs), or explain why the Adelsons would pay for one themselves without the additional revenue from a Casino complex.

Again, even if setting this situation up wasn’t the objective, they’ve already done the league a huge favor by sending the next historic great to the most important team, which is worth way more than an expansion fee. Why would the league stop them from doing what they want, if the taxpayers won’t pay up and the lege doesn’t give them what they need to make self-funding viable?

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

How tanking the franchise help get legal gambling in Texas?

See above- if the taxpayers won’t support an arena, political pressure on the lege to allow gambling so the Mavs can self fund increases. My bet is that it’s not enough as long as the people who own the Lt gov and senate are still ascendant. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If there’s one thing the NBA Governors have demonstrated over and over, it is that they will allow any team to move if their local community doesn’t provide direct financial support for a new arena. 
 

That being the case, show me how the Mavericks organization has enough goodwill to get voter support for a giveaway (esp now, in a shakier economy, with higher financing and material costs due to tarriffs), or explain why the Adelsons would pay for one themselves without the additional revenue from a Casino complex.

Again, even if setting this situation up wasn’t the objective, they’ve already done the league a huge favor by sending the next historic great to the most important team, which is worth way more than an expansion fee. Why would the league stop them from doing what they want, if the taxpayers won’t pay up and the lege doesn’t give them what they need to make self-funding viable?

See above- if the taxpayers won’t support an arena, political pressure on the lege to allow gambling so the Mavs can self fund increases. My bet is that it’s not enough as long as the people who own the Lt gov and senate are still ascendant. 

The part I don't get is why the state legislature as a whole would give a fuck about whether the Mavs move or stay. They've been against gambling for generations and nothing has really moved the needle including losing tons of revenue to the Oklahoma Indian tribes on the border. And I agree if she wants to move to Vegas the league isn't gonna do shit to stop her especially when she sets up that Dallas won't buy a new arena to replace what is already a fantastic venue, added to your point that she already bought their favor by sending a generational player to the most profitable team for peanuts.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

So what is is about AAC that a new arena is necessary?  If it’s attached to a hotel/casino complex I get it but shouldn’t they get the casino part legalized first before asking for money from Dallas county?  
 

and I haven’t heard peep about the stars in all of this- they happy to stay where they are?  They involved?  Would they be a possible tenant of the new place as a seperate transaction?

Posted
49 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I don't think the Mavs will move to Vegas. If you're an NBA owner, would you want to sell a new expansion team in Vegas for 6-7 billion split 30 ways, or one in Dallas for 4-5 billion?  

The Adelsons bought that team and already set the price for it. Moving it doesn't net new money for the league, unless they include a relocation fee of 2 billion, but I doubt that happens. The league will find some other billionaires to buy the expansion teams in Vegas and Seattle at a price of 6-8 billion each. 

Have you seen how well the teams who are in Vegas are doing financially? 

Posted

Nico has to be the dumbest motherfucker in sports management.

You trade away a generational player for a shit package, enraging your fan base so much that months later they are still calling for your firing, and the first words out of your mouth since the trade are…“There’s no regrets.”

Holy shit. It’s hard to fathom the lack of self-awareness and “don’t-give-a-fuck” it takes to say that. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 4/12/2025 at 1:37 PM, royiv said:

It’s all South Oklahoma anyway.

In Luka’s return game, Austin Reaves got much more applause than Jaxson Hayes when they introduced the lineup.

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...