I missed this the first time reading about the NBA's new line of credit with Bank of America, but it struck me as odd the second time around. Here's the pertinent quote from Commissioner Stern, courtesy of the AP:
“They told us there’s no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league, and indeed, the credit facilities that had come up for other leagues were being termed out rather than renewed."
Here is what I am struggling with as I read that quote: To which league(s) is Mr. Stern referrring? Is he claiming that the NBA is more financially stable than the NFL? That the banks would rather loan money to his league than to Bud Selig's?
I don't pretend to have in-depth financial information on those leagues, but even a cursory look at the figures would tell you that's a bit odd, no? Ask yourself the question - you have unlimited funds and are looking to loan money to a professional sports league, with no emotional attachments to accompany the purchase, what league are you looking at first? Who's more likely to pay you back, the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, or the owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder? The Tampa Bay Bucs or the Orlando Magic?
Hey, if Stern is referring to the NHL, I've got no quibble with that. Or, if he's talking about the PGA Tour, or the Arena League, fine, I can accept that. NASCAR, sure, I can see it. But to throw out a blanket statement like "no chance of any additional funds being raised for any sports league," then paint yourself as the only league that's worthy of getting those funds, well, I've got to question that kind of a statement.
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, but it sure seems as though we're just being fed some more well-seasoned NBA BS by the King of BS himself.