Forbes: Mavs #5 Most Valuable NBA Franchise

[LonghornDub]

Top 5:

1) Knicks ($1.1B)
2) Lakers ($1B)
3) Bulls ($800M)
4) Celtics ($730M)
5) Mavs ($685M)

Article with link to full list: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...aluable-teams/

Enjoy. We'll see if this thread baits some of the responses I think it may.

[nowhereman]

Mavs were #4 last year, but less valuable. They swapped places with Boston this year. In their comments, Forbes chalks some of the value up to Dirk, the playoff run, and the sell-out streak:

The Mavericks sold out an NBA-best 432 straight regular season games heading into the 2012-13 season. Credit 12 straight playoff appearances and the popularity of 11-time All-Star Dirk Nowitzki, as well as Mark Cuban, who markets his franchise harder than any other owner in pro sports. The Mavs have consistently lost money under Cuban thanks to high payrolls that triggered the luxury tax. But last year's $2.7 million bill was the lowest of the past 7 years.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Doesn't surprise me, but I doubt there is too much off a drop off in value after 5. If the Kings sold for 525, then I'd say that is the going rate for a crap franchise these days.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Doesn't surprise me, but I doubt there is too much off a drop off in value after 5. If the Kings sold for 525, then I'd say that is the going rate for a crap franchise these days.

It's a pretty big drop-off. The Heat are #6 behind the Mavs, but are worth $50M less. Number 10 is the Spurs at $527M (over $150M less than the Mavs). The Bucks (#30) are worth less than half as much as the Mavs ($312M).

The selling price of the Kings is a different figure entirely. That was only 65% of the shares, anyway, but it's not based on the franchise's value (at least, not wholly). They sold for that much because, in an arm's length transaction, both the buyers and the Maloofs know that a move to Seattle will likely increase the franchise's value over the coming years. That expected increase is factored into the price.

[chumdawg]

Are you sure the selling price was only for the controlling interest(s)? I always thought the selling price reported was the franchise valuation, with the cash changing hands being rated according to the percent of shares transferring.

In other words, instead of "Joe Blow bought Franchise X for $500MM" meaning that he paid $500MM for half of it, "Joe Blow bought Franchise X for $500MM" meaning that he bought 50% of something valued at $500MM for a price of $250MM.

[adonis]

Only the Knicks and Bulls from that list have respectable records right now. This league has changed dramatically over the past few years. Small markets like the Spurs, Clippers, Thunder and Grizzlies are ruling the West now.

[sike]

And where did they rank when Cuban bought the team?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Are you sure the selling price was only for the controlling interest(s)? I always thought the selling price reported was the franchise valuation, with the cash changing hands being rated according to the percent of shares transferring.

In other words, instead of "Joe Blow bought Franchise X for $500MM" meaning that he paid $500MM for half of it, "Joe Blow bought Franchise X for $500MM" meaning that he bought 50% of something valued at $500MM for a price of $250MM.

In fact, you're absolutely right. Some of the earlier stories I read phrased it incorrectly, but your assumption is apparently spot on per more credible sources:

Sources told ESPN.com that NBA teams were formally notified Sunday night that the Kings have been valued at $525 million and that the Maloofs and a group led by hedge fund manager Chris Hansen have executed a purchase and sale agreement, which the NBA confirmed through a statement Monday morning.

. . .

The agreement to transfer the 65 percent majority stake in the Kings to the Seattle group headed by Hansen and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer represents the 53 percent owned by the Maloofs and an additional 12 percent from minority owner Bob Hernreich

Ups to chum.

Now I wonder, though: within the past month or two, have the share prices started to reflect the near-certainty in long-term increased value from the likely move to Seattle?