« Jo Anne Simon & More Questionable $$$ | Main | The Brooklyn Paper's Schizophrenic Endorsements »
September 4, 2009
Just How Effed Are the New Jersey Nets?
Can't Stop The Bleeding
by David Roth
Well, very. And in some surprising ways, if this very detailed, surprisingly well-sourced but fairly dry FAQ from Nets Daily is any indication.
On one level — the most obvious, which is the level on which I really shine — the Nets’ problems aren’t that surprising. They’re preparing to send an 18-win team onto the court in a honking, empty-but-noise-choked arena festooned with branding and logos on every flat and semi-curved surface; they’ve disrespected their fans in ways that few franchises could even conceive. And of course their ticket revenues fell by nearly a third between the ‘07-08 and ‘08-09 seasons, thanks in large part to what has to rank among the most assaultively unpleasant at-game experience in pro sports and a proudly and frankly half-assed approach to building a team. They’re a study in corporate charmlessness and also can’t shoot the basketball. There’s not much left to like.
But the depth and breadth of the problems limned in the Nets Daily piece is honestly stunning. Forbes reports that the team’s debt-to-value ratio is a staggering 71% — the highest in professional sports — and that the team is carrying $200 million in debt. There’s that, but it’s not just that. At some point, the delusion and incompetence of owner Bruce Ratner and his well-compensated crew — marketing tard-genius Brett Yormark, GM Rod Thorn, Director of Player Personnel Kiki Vandeweghe and coach Lawrence Frank combined to earn $12 million last year — becomes almost too much to take. Ratner is losing $35 million on a team he doesn’t give a shit about, and which he is struggling to fit into an arena that he has struggled mightily to get built. That all might be tagged as opportunity cost if his plans for how to turn the whole thing around weren’t so laughably far-fetched....
NoLandGrab: "Well-sourced?" Only if one counts having a lot of unattributed sources as being "well-sourced." Maybe "amply sourced." Then again, since Nets Daily's "Net Income" is anonymous himself, it's not surprising.
Posted by eric at September 4, 2009 9:28 AM