Mierda de toro: Hatford, home of so many bad ideas, tosses another one on the pile

Dancing on the fertilizer pile

Before we get to the Greenwich Time article, here’s a word from Google AI, responding to the question “what is the annual subsidy amount of the NBA’s contribution to the WNBA?”

The NBA doesn't provide a single fixed annual subsidy amount to the WNBA; rather, it covers the league's operational losses, which have historically been around $10 million annually but are projected to be much higher, possibly around $50 million in 2024, according to recent reports. The NBA's financial support for the WNBA is a long-term investment to sustain the league, which has never turned a profit since its inception. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Historical and Projected Losses

• Early Years: For many years, the WNBA had an average annual loss of over $10 million, a figure consistently cited by former and current NBA commissioners. [1, 5]

• Recent Projections: More recent estimates from late 2024 suggest that the league and its teams are expected t

That’s the background — the WNBA has never made money, and never will. And Here’s the GT article, that includes, as these idiot schemes always do, the word “investment”. I do not think that word means what these people think it means.

Could the state really invest public money in the CT Sun? Here's how it might work

In an effort to keep the Connecticut Sun from leaving [Uncasville], state officials are weighing a solution with little precedent in American sports: using public money to buy a stake in the team.

The idea represents somewhat of a last-ditch effort to save a WNBA team that has called Connecticut home for more than 20 years. The state's apparent preference would be for a private owner to buy the team and keep it in Connecticut, possibly with the help of state money for a practice facility.

But as the WNBA and its parent organization, the NBA, object to a plan to move the Sun to Hartford, Gov. Ned Lamont and his administration have sought to get creative, floating the possibility of direct public investment in the team through the state's pension fund.

Here's what to know about the possibility.

How would this work?

As CT Insider's Dan Haar reported earlier this month, state investment in the Sun would likely take the form of a minority stake in which the Mohegan Tribe continues to control the team. Lamont indicated last week the state could work in partnership with a private investor, former Milwaukee Bucks owner Marc Lasry.

Unlike the more common arrangements in which states or cities help fund privately owned stadiums for teams to play in, this arrangement would leave Connecticut with equity in the Sun, meaning the state could collect dividends and profit from any future sale.

In this scenario, the state would also likely build a practice facility for the team, which it would own. The Sun would continue to play at Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, though it could also host a small number of games in Hartford.

The plan is designed to circumvent the WNBA, which has blocked proposals to move the Sun to Hartford or Boston because it doesn't consider either city next in line for a franchise. Connecticut officials believe the league would have less ability to block a state partnership with the Mohegan Tribe since it wouldn't require relocating the team.

Any investment in the Sun would be at the discretion of Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell, who oversees the state's pension fund and the rest of its investment portfolio. At a news conference last week, Russell said he was open to the arrangement, presuming his office determined it "would be in the benefit of pensioners."

In a statement Thursday, Russell said Lamont was leading negotiations and that no deal had been reached.

"My position hasn’t changed," Russell said. "As always, any decision to invest state pension funds would be guided by the goal of achieving the best risk-adjusted returns for the retired teachers and dedicated state workers who depend on us for their retirement security."

What kind of precedent is there?

At least in American sports, there is little precedent at all for this sort of arrangement, says Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College who has extensively studied sports finance.

…. While some have compared the proposal to the Green Bay Packers' unusual ownership structure, Zimbalist noted, this would be meaningfully different, with the state acting as a large stakeholder, in place of the many small stakeholders who own the Packers.

Zimbalist said leagues typically view public ownership as needlessly complicated.

"The reason why leagues historically have not allowed it to happen is because they don't want to deal with the politics that are involved with city ownership," he said. "If behind each owner is an unwieldy, bipartisan political mess, then it becomes rather impractical."

Asked last week if he was worried the WNBA would block the state from investing directly in the Sun, Lamont said he doesn't "think there's any issue there."

What could be the benefits? [And what price, entertainment and “state pride”? ‚— Ed]

Most obviously, the plan could have the benefit of keeping the Sun in Connecticut, something Lamont and other top public officials say is important to them. It would preserve the state's lone major-league professional sports franchise at a time when the WNBA is surging in popularity, generating entertainment and state pride for tens of thousands of residents.

"The Governor and I are advocating, fighting to keep (the Sun) in Connecticut, because they have an extremely loyal fan base here, and we want to continue to grow it," Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz said last month, echoing comments from Lamont and others.

“Beyond that, it could pay off for state taxpayers and pensioners if the investment proves wise and Connecticut is able to profit off its ownership of the team. The governor noted last week that sports teams often appreciate in value and that the Mohegan Tribe had profited significantly since buying the Sun in the early 2000s. “

Ask Mohegan Sun if it was a good deal they made 20 years ago," Lamont said. "We've got private investors in alongside us — they like the nature of this investment and think it's a really good long-term return."

[And that’s why our pseudo-Indians want to sell it, eh? If private investors are so eager to particpate, why is there a need to force taxpayers to pay for this? — ED]

What could be the downsides? Well, gee.

At a news conference Thursday, Connecticut Republicans criticized the Democratic Lamont administration for failing to provide detail about the proposal and for what they called irresponsible use of public money. 

"You would think common sense would dictate that investing funds should simply be based upon what's a good investment," Senate Republican Leader Stephen Harding said. "There needs to be structure and fiscal responsibility and a level of respect for taxpayer money and for public employees' money."

The lawmakers argued that pension money should be used solely for the purpose of earning the highest return on investment, not for spurring economic development or tourism.

In response, Lamont spokesperson Rob Blanchard accused Republicans of "inserting politics into the Governor's economic efforts"

Nothing political about the Democrats’ proposed boondoggle, no siree, “it’s for the good of the people.” Uh huh.