Comments on: Timberwolves owner talking to several prospective buyers

By: skinsfanwill

skinsfanwill — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:28:59 +0000

What he really wants is to keep making money for a few more years and possibly get a ring out of the deal while he has his chance. But as long you they keep putting talent on the floor like Stiemsma , Brandon “No knees” Roy, Andrei “Scared of his own shadow” Kirilenko, then this city will not see a championship.

By: coats2m

coats2m — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:42:52 +0000

Perhaps the hold up here is having to “learn” how to run the franchise under Glen Taylor…Seriously, when was the last time the Timberwolves were even relevant in the league?

By: liddogg33

liddogg33 — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:59:39 +0000

Dang… Woulda loved to see Kevin Love lead the SONICS RETURN!!!!

By: nbascreed

nbascreed — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 01:00:05 +0000

Hey echcech, that was my point but I may have been to verbose. If buying a team really is just a “thing” that billionaire’s do for fun (e.g. buying an island or a tricked out 747) and not for the P&L then why wed yourself to restrictive stipulations such as no move.

100% agree with your last sentence!

By: iambadkid2

iambadkid2 — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:11:58 +0000

Minneapolis-St. Paul is actually the 14th biggest market in the league, just ahead of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale and more than double that of Oklahoma City and San Antonio (source:http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/).

By: echech88

echech88 — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:18:57 +0000

Owning a sports franchise is not usually pursued as an investment where profits are essential. People (with big egos) buy teams to play with and try to win championships.

There’s no reason a team couldn’t succeed in Minnesota just like they have in OKC, Portland and San Antonio. Good management and winning overcomes market size.

By: nbascreed

nbascreed — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:18:21 +0000

I think smart successful businessmen are looking at the Pera deal and thinking “what’s the point”? If the asset is cash flow neutral at best (Wolves are negative) AND the value has been in decline why do I as a successful billionaire want the additional burden of a silly “no move” clause? Unless Glen’s going to discount the purchase price such that “said investors” equity immediately cancels out X years of projected losses (NBA and owners would NEVER allow such folly) then it’s really a no brainer for “said investor” to walkaway from this deal as long as no move clause is present.

Just my take.

By: eugenesaxe

eugenesaxe — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:47:13 +0000

Is he really the best person to “learn the business” from?