Former A.B.A. Owners Ozzie and Daniel Silna Earn Millions From N.B.A.

I saw this last year, I think, when the lawsuit was filed. My opinion, it's pure simple greed!

How much money is enough? They received $17.5 million this past year and nearly $300 million without having a team for 30 years and they want more? It's sad that the 4 former ABA teams are still paying for this 30 years later and that the judge is apparently going to grant these two even more.
 
They should have just took the St. Louis team and then booted them later. LOL.
 
I saw this last year, I think, when the lawsuit was filed. My opinion, it's pure simple greed!

How much money is enough? They received $17.5 million this past year and nearly $300 million without having a team for 30 years and they want more? It's sad that the 4 former ABA teams are still paying for this 30 years later and that the judge is apparently going to grant these two even more.

They made a great business deal. Its not "greed" (and, yes, greed is good).

At the time, the NBA was tiny blip on the nation's sports radar. They made a deal for a share of the future TV revenue, and it exploded. Good for them.

BTW, the story is wrong in one respect. The Kentucky team was not "placated with a one time payment". In fact its owner, then boy genius and Kentucky governor, John Y. Brown (Mr. Phylis George for those of you old enough to remember) had the same deal as St. Louis, but sold it back to the NBA for $3.3, which he used to buy the Celtics, which he then ran into the ground.
 
I don't fault the Silna brothers one bit...in fact, when they NBA starts paying me 17M per year I will gladly start watching their games. My time is valuable and I'm going to start charging the networks if they want me to watch their shows too. ;)
 
They made a great business deal. Its not "greed" (and, yes, greed is good).

At the time, the NBA was tiny blip on the nation's sports radar. They made a deal for a share of the future TV revenue, and it exploded. Good for them.

BTW, the story is wrong in one respect. The Kentucky team was not "placated with a one time payment". In fact its owner, then boy genius and Kentucky governor, John Y. Brown (Mr. Phylis George for those of you old enough to remember) had the same deal as St. Louis, but sold it back to the NBA for $3.3, which he used to buy the Celtics, which he then ran into the ground.

Brown didn't buy the Celtics. He bought the Buffalo Braves which became the Los Angeles Clippers.
 
Brown didn't buy the Celtics. He bought the Buffalo Braves which became the Los Angeles Clippers.

Brown owned the Buffalo Braves, and Irv Levin owned the Celtics. They basically swapped franchises (some players were also involved), and Brown took ownership of the Celtics and Levin moved the Braves to San Diego where they became the Clippers.

Ugly, ugly period in Celtics history.....
 
Brown owned the Buffalo Braves, and Irv Levin owned the Celtics. They basically swapped franchises (some players were also involved), and Brown took ownership of the Celtics and Levin moved the Braves to San Diego where they became the Clippers.

Ugly, ugly period in Celtics history.....

Hmmm... I didn't know that.
 
They made a great business deal. Its not "greed" (and, yes, greed is good).

At the time, the NBA was tiny blip on the nation's sports radar. They made a deal for a share of the future TV revenue, and it exploded. Good for them.

BS

Good (very lucky) business deal YES , but it is still greed pure and simple nothing more. greed is not always a good thing.
 
I've known about this about 20+ years ago when I first read "Loose Balls," David Pluto's book about the ABA. Great read if you can get a copy, especially the stories about a young Bob Costas and his early days as a broadcaster. Very funny stuff.
 
BS

Good (very lucky) business deal YES , but it is still greed pure and simple nothing more. greed is not always a good thing.
greed
what would you have them do ?
give it back to a billion dollar corporation ?
this word greed is used to much these days.
greed = envy or i hate capitalism..... total bs
 
BS

Good (very lucky) business deal YES , but it is still greed pure and simple nothing more. greed is not always a good thing.

Nothing greedy at all. It's a great business deal is what it is.
 
Nothing greedy at all. It's a great business deal is what it is.

It was a good yet very lucky business decision, not debating that.
It is just pure greed to file a lawsuit 30 yrs later wanting more. Bad business decisions and scams have probably cost them most of their money and they're looking for the NBA to bail them out
 
Umm, no actually, they are doing fine. They have a disagreement about the defination of the word "media" in their contract and have asked the courts to decide it.

You work for a living? If your boss said he would pay you $500 for the week, and only paid you $400, you wouldn't object, because it would make you "greedy" and people would accuse you of having p***ed away the $400?
 
Umm, no actually, they are doing fine. They have a disagreement about the defination of the word "media" in their contract and have asked the courts to decide it.

You work for a living? If your boss said he would pay you $500 for the week, and only paid you $400, you wouldn't object, because it would make you "greedy" and people would accuse you of having p***ed away the $400?

That analogy has nothing to do with this. However I do work for a living. 24/7 365 days a year. I look at the boss in the mirror every morning. I make myself available to my clients at anytime and its what sets me apart from the competition that have tried to take my business and none can come close to the results I get.

Do a little research on them. They have lost quite a bit of money. So we will have to disagree, because in my book it is greed.

Sent from my blazing fast galaxy s3 using SatelliteGuys
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)