RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Players that stay in America during the offseason
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JohnyK



Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 3411
Location: EU


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/15 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
I don't think Lisa Leslie or Swin Cash has ever played for an overseas team.


Both have played in Europe as pros.



_________________
http://lovewomensbasketball.com/ - International women's basketball coverage
LosLynxAngeles



Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 860



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/15 6:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I read that Elena makes $250,000 in endorsements a year and i'm sure that number has went up a decent amount since 2013. I'm sure Skyler makes over $400,000 in endorsements if not more with all of the new Nike stuff this year.

Candace Parker makes a reported $3 million dollars annually with wnba, adidas, Russia, and other endorsements and i'm sure she would still be making $2 million without russia.

I know those players are helped by their looks but I think these amounts show that if a player makes themselves personable and open to different things in the offseason they can make an additional $100,000 a year and that seems like a nice amount to be able to stay home where you can make other money as well while not spending your 20s in a communist country.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/17/15 11:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LosLynxAngeles wrote:


Candace Parker makes a reported $3 million dollars annually with wnba, adidas, Russia, and other endorsements and i'm sure she would still be making $2 million without russia.


If she can make 2 million a year without Russia I don't understand why she wants to raise her daughter over there. If you add in what her husband has made and makes, it seems like she's set for life already.


awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 4202



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:


Candace Parker makes a reported $3 million dollars annually with wnba, adidas, Russia, and other endorsements and i'm sure she would still be making $2 million without russia.


If she can make 2 million a year without Russia I don't understand why she wants to raise her daughter over there. If you add in what her husband has made and makes, it seems like she's set for life already.


As far as I know, her daughter is in the United States now. Shelden's done with his season, so he gets Dad duty for seven or eight months until I assume he heads back to China.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 12:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
tfan wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:


Candace Parker makes a reported $3 million dollars annually with wnba, adidas, Russia, and other endorsements and i'm sure she would still be making $2 million without russia.


If she can make 2 million a year without Russia I don't understand why she wants to raise her daughter over there. If you add in what her husband has made and makes, it seems like she's set for life already.


As far as I know, her daughter is in the United States now. Shelden's done with his season, so he gets Dad duty for seven or eight months until I assume he heads back to China.


Well, then it would be - with all the money she makes (allegedly 2 million a year) and has (with her former NBA-player husband) - why does she want to live in Russia and be away from her daughter and husband for so many months each year?


LosLynxAngeles



Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 860



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 8:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
awhom111 wrote:
tfan wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:


Candace Parker makes a reported $3 million dollars annually with wnba, adidas, Russia, and other endorsements and i'm sure she would still be making $2 million without russia.


If she can make 2 million a year without Russia I don't understand why she wants to raise her daughter over there. If you add in what her husband has made and makes, it seems like she's set for life already.


As far as I know, her daughter is in the United States now. Shelden's done with his season, so he gets Dad duty for seven or eight months until I assume he heads back to China.


Well, then it would be - with all the money she makes (allegedly 2 million a year) and has (with her former NBA-player husband) - why does she want to live in Russia and be away from her daughter and husband for so many months each year?


Last time it was reported Candace makes 1.1 million in Russia plus her 100,000 wnba salary, an adidas contract worth over 250,000 and a couple of other pretty decent sized endorsements i'm sure she makes pretty close to the alleged 3 million a year total. Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.

Candace said her and sheldon are doing this for the future so I guess they like living a very nice lifestyle and would like to continue it for the rest of their lives and i'm sure it does cost a lot. They have to be making a combined 4 million though as I am sure sheldon makes a good amount overseas.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 12:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LosLynxAngeles wrote:
Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.


Easy. It's a hobby, a vanity display, it's not a business. They don't care how much it costs or how much they lose.

It's not that hard to throw money around if you made billions through your "connections" at the time the old Soviet industries were privatized. It's pocket change. It's like buying another new diamond studded Rolex or Ferrari or Gulfstream. It's just something to show off and compete with your billionaire friends.

Don't try applying WNBA notions of what a team can "afford" based on attendance and revenue. That has nothing to do with it.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 12:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:
Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.


Easy. It's a hobby, a vanity display, it's not a business. They don't care how much it costs or how much they lose.

It's not that hard to throw money around if you made billions through your "connections" at the time the old Soviet industries were privatized. It's pocket change. It's like buying another new diamond studded Rolex or Ferrari or Gulfstream. It's just something to show off and compete with your billionaire friends.

Don't try applying WNBA notions of what a team can "afford" based on attendance and revenue. That has nothing to do with it.


But what I don't understand is, in America, while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams (with the exception of the recent LA Sparks purchase). So why does womens basketball have appeal to billionaires in Russia but not America?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 12:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:
Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.


Easy. It's a hobby, a vanity display, it's not a business. They don't care how much it costs or how much they lose.

It's not that hard to throw money around if you made billions through your "connections" at the time the old Soviet industries were privatized. It's pocket change. It's like buying another new diamond studded Rolex or Ferrari or Gulfstream. It's just something to show off and compete with your billionaire friends.

Don't try applying WNBA notions of what a team can "afford" based on attendance and revenue. That has nothing to do with it.


But what I don't understand is, in America, while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams (with the exception of the recent LA Sparks purchase). So why does womens basketball have appeal to billionaires in Russia but not America?


At what leagues in the US do owners throw tens of millions of their own money other than a short terms basis with the intent of making money? What are these "hobby" teams to which you refer?

And if it's a hobby, it's up to them, isn't it what hobby to pursue? Why not ask why filthy rich women like Orpah or Abigail Johnson don't throw millions of their money at a WNBA team? Why not tell Alice Walton that her hobby should be a WNBA team instead of art museums?

Russian billionaires are notorious for competing with each other to see who can be the most flamboyant in throwing around the billions that they looted.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 1:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

By the way, if you're going to complain that "while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams", here's a better target for your ire.

One of the Walton daughters, with a personal net worth in the many billions, happens to be married to the owner of the St. Louis Rams. She has as much or more money than he does. Instead of complaining why he doesn't throw millions of his money at a WNBA team, why not ask why SHE doesn't throw millions of her money at a WNBA team.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:
Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.


Easy. It's a hobby, a vanity display, it's not a business. They don't care how much it costs or how much they lose.

It's not that hard to throw money around if you made billions through your "connections" at the time the old Soviet industries were privatized. It's pocket change. It's like buying another new diamond studded Rolex or Ferrari or Gulfstream. It's just something to show off and compete with your billionaire friends.

Don't try applying WNBA notions of what a team can "afford" based on attendance and revenue. That has nothing to do with it.


But what I don't understand is, in America, while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams (with the exception of the recent LA Sparks purchase). So why does womens basketball have appeal to billionaires in Russia but not America?


Male sports teams are highly collectable and a very good longtime investment.
Have you seen what the teams sell for lately?



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 3:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
LosLynxAngeles wrote:
Not sure how UMMKC is able to pay her and diana a million each though.


Easy. It's a hobby, a vanity display, it's not a business. They don't care how much it costs or how much they lose.

It's not that hard to throw money around if you made billions through your "connections" at the time the old Soviet industries were privatized. It's pocket change. It's like buying another new diamond studded Rolex or Ferrari or Gulfstream. It's just something to show off and compete with your billionaire friends.

Don't try applying WNBA notions of what a team can "afford" based on attendance and revenue. That has nothing to do with it.


But what I don't understand is, in America, while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams (with the exception of the recent LA Sparks purchase). So why does womens basketball have appeal to billionaires in Russia but not America?


Male sports teams are highly collectable and a very good longtime investment.
Have you seen what the teams sell for lately?


My point exactly. There were struggling NBA teams for a number of years, but owners weren't spending money as a hobby, they were doing it with an expectation that they would turn things around and get rich. And they were correct. It's called an investment.

Russian billionaires aren't "investing" in women's basketball players. They have no expectations of making a financial return on their money. They're just collecting them and displaying them, like Faberge Eggs.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 8:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:


At what leagues in the US do owners throw tens of millions of their own money other than a short terms basis with the intent of making money? What are these "hobby" teams to which you refer?


They may make money off of the business - primarily if they sell it at some point - due to the fact that rich guys are lined up to buy, but they could have invested their money in condominiums and apartment buildings. I think they chose that "investment" primarily for its hobby and vanity benefits and would do so even if it didn't make any money.

Quote:

And if it's a hobby, it's up to them, isn't it what hobby to pursue? Why not ask why filthy rich women like Orpah or Abigail Johnson don't throw millions of their money at a WNBA team? Why not tell Alice Walton that her hobby should be a WNBA team instead of art museums?


Women aren't buying womens teams in Russia and running them at a loss for hobby and vanity reasons so their is no head-scratching comparison. Regarding not buying here in America, women just aren't gaga for watching sports the way men are and don't get thrills from hanging around top athletes the way men do. There also aren't as many women billionaires in either country. For every Oprah, there is many more Larry Ellisons, Steve Ballmers, Jerry Jones, etc.

Quote:

Russian billionaires are notorious for competing with each other to see who can be the most flamboyant in throwing around the billions that they looted.


Yeah, but I am just surprised that doing it with a women's team matters to them. It doesn't appear to in the US, but maybe the Sparks ownership will change that dynamic.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 8:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:


Male sports teams are highly collectable and a very good longtime investment.
Have you seen what the teams sell for lately?


OK, and how does that answer the question I asked? I am trying to find out why winning a championship with a womens team matters to a Russian billionaire, when it does not have similar appeal here.




Last edited by tfan on 02/18/15 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 8:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
By the way, if you're going to complain that "while filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity display, they don't buy WNBA teams", here's a better target for your ire.


I wasn't complaining about that.

Quote:

One of the Walton daughters, with a personal net worth in the many billions, happens to be married to the owner of the St. Louis Rams. She has as much or more money than he does. Instead of complaining why he doesn't throw millions of his money at a WNBA team, why not ask why SHE doesn't throw millions of her money at a WNBA team.


Again, I wasn't complaining about American billionaires not throwing money at womens sports.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 8:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Shades wrote:


Male sports teams are highly collectable and a very good longtime investment.
Have you seen what the teams sell for lately?


OK, and how does that answer the question I asked? I am trying to find out why winning a championship with a womens team matters to a Russian billionaire but not an American billionaire.


Depends on the billionaire. It would mean a lot more to Michael Alter than it would to James Dolan. Too many WNBA owners see the team as ancillary to their NBA team rather than as an asset on its own merit.

Of course it goes a lot deeper than that. Americans are socialized to think of women as lesser than men at a very early age, especially when it comes to sports. It's been that way for a very long time.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 9:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:


My point exactly. There were struggling NBA teams for a number of years, but owners weren't spending money as a hobby, they were doing it with an expectation that they would turn things around and get rich. And they were correct. It's called an investment.


How did you make the determination that NBA owners in the 1950's and 1960's were all doing it only to make money and not into it as a hobby and vanity project? Even today with multiple sports channels throwing billions to the teams and billionaires bidding the franchises to record levels (2 billion for LA Clippers), you see owners like Ted Leonsis, Joe Lacob and Marc Cuban sitting court side every game and going on sports shows or writing blog articles excitedly discussing the team. Cuban probably showers with the team. Even though they make money from it, it is their hobby. I doubt that Steve Ballmer was looking around for where to put his money and some investment adviser said that plunking down 2 billion on the Clippers would probably have the best return. I think he wanted to own a sports team more than other businesses. Not for profitability, but for the other aspects.





Last edited by tfan on 02/18/15 10:06 pm; edited 3 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 9:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:


Of course it goes a lot deeper than that. Americans are socialized to think of women as lesser than men at a very early age, especially when it comes to sports. It's been that way for a very long time.


But that is why I am puzzled as my assumption is that Russia is even more socialized in that way.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 10:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Shades wrote:


Male sports teams are highly collectable and a very good longtime investment.
Have you seen what the teams sell for lately?


OK, and how does that answer the question I asked? I am trying to find out why winning a championship with a womens team matters to a Russian billionaire, when it does not have similar appeal here.


I wasn't trying to answer your question. You should ask the Russian billionaires or research some articles about the subject. I was just disagreeing with your premise that American billionaires are just wasting their money on an elaborate hobby of popular male sports teams.

Quote:
filthy rich men buy male sports teams for a hobby and vanity



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned


Last edited by Shades on 02/18/15 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/18/15 10:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:


Of course it goes a lot deeper than that. Americans are socialized to think of women as lesser than men at a very early age, especially when it comes to sports. It's been that way for a very long time.


But that is part of why I am confused as my assumption is that Russia is even more socialized in that way.


Russians have been accepting of women in sports for a long time. The USSR invested heavily in women's sports and pushed the Olympics to expand its women's program to demonstrate they had achieved a level of gender equality far beyond any country in the west. The Bolsheviks approved women's suffrage immediately after taking control of the country, while at the same time Alice Paul was getting arrested for peacefully protesting at the White House. Equal Pay has been the law there since 1919. They had women serving in front line combat in WWII.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/15 3:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:

I wasn't trying to answer your question.


Well I think it needed more context, and you ultimately gave it in this reply. As one of the best and most prolific here, I make assumptions that all the information I need to understand your post is being provided.

Quote:
I was just disagreeing with your premise that American billionaires are just wasting their money on an elaborate hobby of popular male sports teams


Yeah, I guess the majority do make money these days, and some of them in major markets make lots of it, at least after the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement. 15 of 30 teams lost money in 2010-2011, but then they locked out the players and got them to shift more revenue to the owners.

But there is at least one billionaire who uses his NBA team as a hobby and vanity project - Marc Cuban. As of January 2012 he had lost money every year since 2003 - mostly because he is willing to pay "luxury tax" penalties each year ($18.9 million in 2010-2011) for going over the cap. And unlike Russian billionaires, Marc Cuban has no interest in owning a women’s basketball team even though it could give him more chances at a title, more camera time and more blogging issues.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/15 6:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cuban isn't losing money. You're looking only at cash flow and ignoring appreciation. Indeed the next year after your article the Mavericks made money for the year, and the Dallas Morning News commenting on the previous losses wrote:

"In the unlikely event you feel sorry for Cuban for losing so much money on his Mavericks venture, recall that in 2000 he purchased a majority stake in the franchise from Ross Perot Jr. at a valuation of $285 million. Today, according to Forbes, the Mavericks are worth $685 million, the fifth-highest valuation in the NBA."

That's a pretty good return. It's an investment.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/15 8:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The "losing money" thing is a matter of creative accouting anyway. If the Mavericks were really losing money every year their value wouldn't go up like that.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/15 10:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The real value in owning a sports team is the appreciation in franchise value over time -- and that's the biggest issue with the WNBA. Franchises not only haven't increased in value since the founding of the league, it could be argued that they have no value at all, in the sense that you could buy one by simply being willing to absorb the losses.

The day that a WNBA franchise is sold to an outside buyer for $10 million in cold hard cash (not some share of future revenue or whatever trick), is the day the WNBA's foundation is rock solid.



_________________
Oį¹ƒ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin