Philippines Senior National Team Thread Vol. V

[ja.he2]

I'm basing my thinking on European teams. As much as possible, the teams stay in one place (although there are exceptions, such as English football team Wimbledon FC, which moved to Milton Keynes).

But, yeah. Even in Europe, the team name is the franchise, not the city.

That is one advantage if you represent a specific place - you relocate or change ownership without disturbing the franchise.

In PBA, once an existing team is sold to another, the franchise will lose as well together with its fanbase. For instance, Shell, Sta. Lucia , Red Bull and Pop Cola/Sunkist were remarkable franchises with remarkable franchise players and fanbases. I believe that teams like Terrafirma, Blackwater and Northport are nothing in comparison with the franchises I mentioned earlier. The problem, though, is that their team names are so intertwined with their franchises that once they leave the PBA, the franchise will be dissolved as well leaving their fanbases into oblivion.

 

[Inkwell2]

Problem is, who is rich enough to own a team and keep it in the region. Whether it's fan-owned or owned by one person, somebody has to keep the team running and keep it in the region.

However, I do think that corporations and companies ideally should be limited to sponsorships.

I agree with your point, but isn't the PBA making money? I know they lost money last year because of the pandemic, but before that were they making money?

Or is it just a losing money hobby for the rich owners?

I know they don't make much from the in person attendance as the games were usually very lightly attended before the pandemic. Are they making money from the TV deals they have?

It just seems weird to keep a league going that isn't making money. Why?

 

[Dotch2]

In the NBA, it is not the place that is controlling in the franchise but the monicker itself. For instance, New York Nets became the New Jersey Nets. Now, they are the Brooklyn Nets. You see, the franchise is not the place but the monicker itself.

Another example, Minneapolis Lakers became the Los Angeles Lakers. St. Louis Hawks became the Atlanta Hawks. New Orleans Jazz became the Utah Jazz. San Diego Clippers became the Los Angeles Clippers.

When some owners are buying shares of ownership in an NBA team, they are not buying the place but the monicker itself. Monicker = Franchise.

That's the reason why teams in the NBA teams retain the tradition and history of their franchise - because the franchise, in itself, is a separate entity that is distinct to the owners or company owning such team.

You mean the BRAND NAMEs right?! Some brand name are more valuable than others and will always be affixed to its host citiy. LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls, Dallas Cowboys, GB Packers... that if you relocate them, they will not make sense. Some are not, Clippers should have just changed their name after Balmer bought them from Sterling, and as to not associate the team with that loser owner.

Sonics branding and HISTORY remained in Seattle even when the original franchise was bought by the current OKC team. The original Charlotte Hornets is now the New Orleans Pelicans, but NBA and the Pels team owner decided it makes sense to start from scratch, and the NBA returned the Hornets and its history back to Charlotte. Michael Jordan quickly changed his team's name from BobCats to Hornets and annexed its history as well, So now, Zo, LJ, Mugsy and Dell Curry are part of MJ's franchise.

 

[zairex2]

I agree with your point, but isn't the PBA making money? I know they lost money last year because of the pandemic, but before that were they making money?

Or is it just a losing money hobby for the rich owners?

I know they don't make much from the in person attendance as the games were usually very lightly attended before the pandemic. Are they making money from the TV deals they have?

It just seems weird to keep a league going that isn't making money. Why?

From my observation, I don't think PBA is making money. You need atleast 85M to operate a ballclub in PBA. I think PBA teams are not getting that back. Its more of marketing than profit making venture. Thats why it is easily for teams to bail out if their main business goes down because PBA doesn't make a profit for ball clubs.

https://sports.inquirer.net/351108/the-business-of-basketball

 

[ja.he2]

You mean the BRAND NAMEs right?! Some brand name are more valuable than others and will always be affixed to its host citiy. LA Lakers, Boston Celtics, NY Knicks, Chicago Bulls, Dallas Cowboys, GB Packers... that if you relocate them, they will not make sense. Some are not, Clippers should have just changed their name after Balmer bought them from Sterling, and as to not associate the team with that loser owner.

Sonics branding and HISTORY remained in Seattle even when the original franchise was bought by the current OKC team. The original Charlotte Hornets is now the New Orleans Pelicans, but NBA and the Pels team owner decided it makes sense to start from scratch, and the NBA returned the Hornets and its history back to Charlotte. Michael Jordan quickly changed his team's name from BobCats to Hornets and annexed its history as well, So now, Zo, LJ, Mugsy and Dell Curry are part of MJ's franchise.

Yeah, you are right. I was actually looking for that word. Anyway, all of those you have mentioned in the second paragraph were reduced into written agreements or incorporated when the previous owner sold their franchise to the subsequent buyer.

- Seattle retained the Sonics branding but the Sonics' history is shared by both Seattle and the present-day OKC Thunder.

- The Hornets brand deal between Charlotte and New Orleans was in accordance to the agreement. Basically, there was a contract. Parang MOA I believe.

I never heard something like that in the PBA. Maybe the Barako Bull I, Air21- Barako Bull and Shopinas-Air21 branding but ,still, these franchises don't share common history. In fact, they f*cked up their respective franchises.

 

[Dotch2]

That is one advantage if you represent a specific place - you relocate or change ownership without disturbing the franchise.

In PBA, once an existing team is sold to another, the franchise will lose as well together with its fanbase. For instance, Shell, Sta. Lucia , Red Bull and Pop Cola/Sunkist were remarkable franchises with remarkable franchise players and fanbases. I believe that teams like Terrafirma, Blackwater and Northport are nothing in comparison with the franchises I mentioned earlier. The problem, though, is that their team names are so intertwined with their franchises that once they leave the PBA, the franchise will be dissolved as well leaving their fanbases into oblivion.

Exception is Purefoods.

NorthPort's franchise is a curious case. The franchise is originally owned by RFM. It was acquired when PBA expanded in the early 1990s. The RFM Franchise ( Swift, Sunkist, Selecta, Pop Cola) has a solid history, and one would argue it is one of the greatest franchises in the 1990s, with players such as Vergel Meneses, Kenneth Duremdez, Nelson Asaytono, Boybits Victoria, Al Solis and super imports Ronnie Thompkins and Fuckin Tony Harris. it also birthed Yeng Guiao's professional basketball coaching career.

RFM's franchise was transferred to Cosmos Bottling, but still under the same owner. But then, SMC's CocaCola unit bought the Cosmos Bottling company, lock, stock and barrel. and it became SMC's 4th team at that time. (Purefoods was earlier bought by SMC from the Ayalas becoming SMC's 3rd team). PBA treated it as an expansion team and SMC was hands off on the team.

Then another separate entity, Coca-Cola Co ( not under SMC) acquired the license from SMC. So this Coca Cola Tigers (also Powerade) now, was a trully independent team. and under new management, the team flourished with players like Rudy Hatfield, Reavis, Cariaso and Gary David and was coached by the likes of Chot Reyes.

Tigers then disbanded and its franchise was acquired by the current owner, NorthPort. Currently, NorthPort hasnt showed that it is worthy to be associated with that franchise and its rich history.

 

[ja.he2]

Exception is Purefood.

NorthPort's franchise is a curious case. The franchise is originally owned by RFM. It was acquired when PBA expanded in the early 1990s. The RFM Franchise ( Swift, Sunkist, Selecta, Pop Cola) has a solid history, and one would argue it is one of the greatest franchises in the 1990s, with players such as Vergel Meneses, Kenneth Duremdez, Nelson Asaytono, Boybits Victoria, Al Solis and super imports Ronnie Thompkins and Fuckin Tony Harris. it also birthed Yeng Guiao's professional basketball coaching career.

RFM's franchise was transferred to Cosmos Bottling, but still under the same owner. But then, SMC's CocaCola unit bought the Cosmos Bottling company, lock, stock and barrel. and it became SMC's 4th team at that time. (Purefoods was earlier bought by SMC from the Ayalas becoming SMC's 3rd team). PBA treated it as an expansion team and SMC was hands off on the team.

Then another separate entity, Coca-Cola Co ( not under SMC) acquired the license from SMC. So this Coca Cola Tigers (also Powerade) now, was a trully independent team. and under new management, the team flourished with players like Rudy Hatfield, Reavis, Cariaso and Gary David and was coached by the likes of Chot Reyes.

Tigers then disbanded and its franchise was acquired by the current owner, NorthPort. Currently, NorthPort hasnt showed that it is worthy to be associated with that franchise and its rich history.

Actually, the buyer of an existing PBA franchise is actually asked whether or not they will retain the records and history of the franchise they are about to buy.

- Alaska bought SMB franchise in 1986, Alaska elected not to retain SMB's records and history.
- SMB re-entered the league in 1987, SMB elected to retain their records and history before they left in 1986.
- Tanduay re-entered PBA in 1999, they elected to retain their records and history from 1975 to 1987.
- Coca-Cola/Powerade bought Pop Cola in 2001, they opted not to retain Pop Cola's record and history.
- TNT bought Pepsi in 1996, they opted to retain Pepsi's records and history. Therefore, the franchise has been in existence since 1990 (Pepsi's first year).
- Lina group bought Barako Bull franchise. They chose not to retain Barako's history. Instead, they used Air21 Express branding but a different team from the 1st Air21 Express team (Barako Bull).
- Air21 was renamed into Barako Bull. Barako Bull continued Air21 Express records and history since 2002.

 

[Dotch2]

Actually, the buyer of an existing PBA franchise is actually asked whether or not they will retain the records and history of the franchise they are about to buy.

- Alaska bought SMB franchise in 1986, Alaska elected not to retain SMB's records and history.
- SMB re-entered the league in 1987, SMB elected to retain their records and history before they left in 1986.
- Tanduay re-entered PBA in 1999, they elected to retain their records and history from 1975 to 1987.
- Coca-Cola/Powerade bought Pop Cola in 2001, they opted not to retain Pop Cola's record and history.
- TNT bought Pepsi in 1996, they opted to retain Pepsi's records and history. Therefore, the franchise has been in existence since 1990 (Pepsi's first year).
- Lina group bought Barako Bull franchise. They chose not to retain Barako's history. Instead, they used Air21 Express branding but a different team from the 1st Air21 Express team (Barako Bull).
- Air21 was renamed into Barako Bull. Barako Bull continued Air21 Express records and history since 2002.

-Crispa's franchise was bought by Shell. Shell, rightly so, didn't retain Crispa's records and history. Shell later sold its franchise to Welcoat (ROS).
-Great Taste / Presto's was bought by Sta. Lucia. then Sta. Lucia sold its rights when they can't afford to stay in the PBA, to Meralco
-Toyota sold its franchise to Lucio Tan's Asia Brewery under the name of Beer Hausen, and sometimes Manila Beer. I think the franchise was never sold to anybody after Manila Beer disbanded. Lucio Tan then re-entered the PBA under a new franchise, but on a familiar banner of Tanduay (not to be confused with the original Tanduay team of the 70's and 80's). That franchise lasted only several seasons and later sold it to Bert Lina's FedEx who had a complicated timeline (that Ja.He had enumerated) until it was later sold to Phoenix
- The original Tanduay team (YCO) traced its roots way back before PBA was formed and was owned by the old rich family of Elizaldes. That franchise was later sold to Purefoods. and we all know what happened next

Side Note: During the decades of 70's to early 2000s. the PBA had teams with internationally known, global brand names such as:

1. Toyota
2. Honda
3. Carrier
4. 7-Up
5. Shell
6. Sunkist
7. Pepsi
8. Coke
9. Powerade
10. Red Bull
11. FedEx
12. Burger King
13. KIA

Albeit, the teams were owned by local licensees or Philippine franchise holders of the said companies.

Interesting thing is when the mother companies of Shell and Coca Cola. took control from the local operators, they deemed it is not feasible to own a basketball team known only in the third-world country located in far-flung South East Asia

 

[Inkwell2]

From my observation, I don't think PBA is making money. You need atleast 85M to operate a ballclub in PBA. I think PBA teams are not getting that back. Its more of marketing than profit making venture. Thats why it is easily for teams to bail out if their main business goes down because PBA doesn't make a profit for ball clubs.

https://sports.inquirer.net/351108/the-business-of-basketball

Thanks! That is a good article.

Just another example of how bad this league is from a logistical point of view. So many things are wrong with the league, but they will never change because there is no incentive to change. One would change to make the league more successful/profitable, but the owners seem to be fine with it not being successful/profitable.

The owners know they are going to lose money and those under the owners are getting a paycheck so why do they want to change anything to make the league better?

 

[DAdmiral2]

^
Imagine the budget for just 1 PBA team , simply used for the Batang Gilas program, doesn't that make a whole lot more sense, the Philippine really is a basket case on how it manages funds and resources, it's broken , with huge systemic issues. it's one thing to already have relatively a small economy relative to population, it's a whole different thing , if funds and resources are mismanaged . It's really poor governance management, with systemic flaws.. simply said a bunch of amateur and incompetence runs the eco systems of the Philippines.

 

[ja.he2]

^
Imagine the budget for just 1 PBA team , simply used for the Batang Gilas program, doesn't that make a whole lot more sense, the Philippine really is a basket case on how it manages funds and resources, it's broken , with huge systemic issues. it's one thing to already have relatively a small economy relative to population, it's a whole different thing , if funds and resources are mismanaged . It's really poor governance management, with systemic flaws.. simply said a bunch of amateur and incompetence runs the eco systems of the Philippines.

For me, the business model of PBA is not really good. Multi-conference and all year long season, height limit, products as teams and one company owning multiple teams. This model is bound to fall may be not immediately but gradually.

I hope FilBasket will not do the same mistakes of PBA, MBA and MPBL. I'll probably watch FilBasket if they already decided to put foreign imports there.

On topic, I believe that Gilas mainstays will be the pros but not all-PBA. The way I see it, only 2-3 PBA will be called upon for both FIBA-Asia Cup and FIBA World Cup. The rest will come from pro leagues overseas.

 

[DAdmiral2]

Philippines mindset and economy are based on pure captialist mindset., the idea of a socialist for al welbeing is foreign to most. the problem is for a socia economic society and populaiton like the Philippines a capitalists system is flawed. it will create inequality and the rich will just take advantage of the poor or majority of the population. kaya na our political system is as such , It's a basket case and so disorganized , kaya wala talaga... the problem is most people don't even realise the root of why things are as such, casue it's always been like that, plus of course we are influeced by the US and Spain , which have flawed and un sound systems to begin with..

 

[PaVi2]

Yeah! And lets talk about the biggest miners in the world. Very progressive. But will close their eyes to the destruction of the planet for wanton mining. But yeah, lets not see that because the philippines is a basket case.

 

[ARMIR2]

Philippines mindset and economy are based on pure captialist mindset., the idea of a socialist for al welbeing is foreign to most. the problem is for a socia economic society and populaiton like the Philippines a capitalists system is flawed. it will create inequality and the rich will just take advantage of the poor or majority of the population. kaya na our political system is as such , It's a basket case and so disorganized , kaya wala talaga... the problem is most people don't even realise the root of why things are as such, casue it's always been like that, plus of course we are influeced by the US and Spain , which have flawed and un sound systems to begin with..

Inequality and socialism are broad concepts, subject to various meanings.Equality tells us nothing about quality,you can have equality in poverty, equality in misery, or equality in incompetence, ignorance or stupidity.” If you rank ‘countries according to whether they are closer to being a free-market economy or whether they’re closer to having a socialist or planned economy’ and based on ‘per capita income,’ you will find a general ‘pattern whereby those having a larger measure of economic freedom find their citizens enjoying a higher standard of living.None of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries” dominated by the free market.

 

[DAdmiral2]

^^
So here is the list : https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
quality of life index per capita..

obviously there are extent and extremes for everything, the one extreme is a pure capitalist system where every regulation is viewed as move towards being communist, even general socialist reforms for greater % of welbeing.

in the Philippines we don't even need to look for examples outside, it's obvious we have significant systemic issues , that's in grained for many years.. None of these issues anyone even thinks of addressing as it falls under the to hard basket to fix and is just accepted as always being the way to do things.

 

[Stevy2]

^^
So here is the list : https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
quality of life index per capita..

obviously there are extent and extremes for everything, the one extreme is a pure capitalist system where every regulation is viewed as move towards being communist, even general socialist reforms for greater % of welbeing.

in the Philippines we don't even need to look for examples outside, it's obvious we have significant systemic issues , that's in grained for many years.. None of these issues anyone even thinks of addressing as it falls under the to hard basket to fix and is just accepted as always being the way to do things.

The Philippines, on the other hand, is not a pure capitalist country; rather, it is a corrupt, protectionism-based state. It is a complex issue and you just can’t blame capitalism when it is the most successful economic model to date. I mean, just look at the duopoly of telecoms for many years as an example. A true capitalist nation will have more than 2 options.

This is a good article on why the Philippines economy is terrible

https://correctphilippines.org/filipino_first_fail/

Socialism can be successful when one has the resources, like Libya before the civil war, but more or less, they always end up collapsing or the quality of life is poor. Even China started to have more success when they adapted more capitalistic qualities.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

 

[ja.he2]

The Philippines, on the other hand, is not a pure capitalist country; rather, it is a corrupt, protectionism-based state. It is a complex issue and you just can’t blame capitalism when it is the most successful economic model to date. I mean, just look at the duopoly of telecoms for many years as an example. A true capitalist nation will have more than 2 options.

https://correctphilippines.org/filipino_first_fail/

Socialism can be successful when one has the resources, like Libya before the civil war, but more or less, they always end up collapsing or the quality of life is poor. Even China started to have more success when they adapted more capitalistic qualities.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

Well, someone is trying to hastily generalized things. SMH

 

[Stevy2]

Well, someone is trying to hastily generalized things. SMH

Sorry, did you mean me? Of course, this issue is so complex that it should be explained in greater detail. Was there anything that I missed? It is just a brief post, after all.

 

[ja.he2]

Sorry, did you mean me? Of course, this issue is so complex that it should be explained in greater detail. Was there anything that I missed? It is just a brief post, after all.

Not you brod. Haha

 

[DAdmiral2]

Well, someone is trying to hastily generalized things. SMH

Noting is purely one or the other ( it's not black or white) , there are degrees and extent for each extreme, being more capitalist or being more socialist
The Philippines is purely mismanaged with poor governance .. the outcomes and general welbeing of the population speaks for itself.
Capitalism definitley should be credited for a lot of the worlds gains, but it is also has a lot to answer for. at the end it's the right balance and extent of things, it's not one or the other. but definitly the Philippines is in the other extreme to its detriment