Boston, MA – September 23: Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck, right, and president of basketball … More operations Brad Stevens spoke at a press conference to address the suspension of their head coach Ime Udoka. (Photo by John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Boston Globe via Getty Images
A group led by Bill Chisholm has agreed to purchase the Boston Celtics for a record $6.1 billion, ESPN’s Shams Charania reported Thursday. That price point was right in line with Forbes’ latest valuation ($6.0 billion) of the Celtics from December.
As Forbes’ Justin Teitelbaum and Brett Knight noted in October, the NBA’s new national TV contracts—worth roughly $76 billion over the next 11 years—along with record attendance and sponsorship are causing the value of the league’s franchises to skyrocket. They estimated that no NBA team would sell for less than $3 billion now.
Advertisement
Now that a sale agreement has been reached for one of the league’s preeminent franchises, the NBA can turn its attention to expansion. Tom Friend of Sports Business Journal reported Thursday that the league “is expected to begin exploring expansion in earnest” in the wake of this sale. ESPN’s Tim Bontemps added that it “could have an impact on the potential timeline” for expansion.
“For months, sources have said that process wouldn’t move forward until there was clarity on Boston’s situation, and where this sale price wound up,” Bontemps wrote. “Now that there is clarity—and at this kind of number—the league could revisit that timeline.”
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told reporters in September that there “was not a lot of discussion” about expansion at the league’s board of governors meeting, “but only largely not for lack of interest.” Instead, the league office told governors that they weren’t “quite ready” to entertain those discussions.
The board of governors typically meets in the spring as well, so the timing of this sale figures to spark a new round of expansion talks in the coming weeks.
The Expansion Timeline
This past September, Bontemps and ESPN colleagues Kevin Pelton and Brian Windhorst reported that both “league sources and people who are working on forming bidding groups” are aiming to have expansion teams up and running in the 2027-28 season. “Although starting in 2026-27 isn’t impossible, it has become more unrealistic,” they added.
Advertisement
At the time, they estimated that “a pair of new expansion teams could net the league north of $10 billion combined—meaning every team would receive a check for over $300 million as the new teams come into the league.” Given the NBA’s current rate of growth and the potential markets it could tap for expansion, that might wind up being on the low end.
Prior to the sale of the Celtics, the average value of the league’s 30 franchises had already jumped by 15% within the past year to $4.4 billion, per Forbes. The Golden State Warriors ($8.8 billion), New York Knicks ($7.5 billion) and Los Angeles Lakers ($7.1 billion) all had higher valuations than the Celtics, while the Los Angeles Clippers ($5.5 billion) and Chicago Bulls ($5.0 billion) weren’t far behind.
Once the NBA decides on how many expansion teams to add—it’s widely expected that it’ll add two in this round—cities and ownership groups will begin to place bids. After the league office finalizes the new teams, the next step will be to hold an expansion draft.
The expansion teams will be working with a smaller budget than the rest of the league’s teams for their first few seasons, which will put them at a disadvantage early on. They’ll have a salary cap worth 66.67% of the NBA’s salary cap in their first season and 80% in the second season. In the third year and beyond, they’ll have the same salary cap as every other team.
Contenders For Expansion Teams
Seattle and Las Vegas are considered the “heavy favorites” to land expansion teams, according to John Hollinger of The Athletic. Silver told ESPN’s Pat McAfee last February that “Vegas is definitely on our list.”
Advertisement
In July, Randall Williams and Kim Bhasin of Bloomberg reported that the “total price tag, including building a new arena, has the potential to hit $7 billion” if the league does award a team to Las Vegas. They added that the group that owns the Seattle Kraken is the “heavy favorite” to land an NBA team if the league expands to Seattle, but “the Vegas team appears very much up for grabs.”
Tim Booth of the Seattle Times noted that David Bonderman, the father of Kraken majority owner Samantha Holloway, was a minority owner of the Celtics prior to this sale. “The sale would divest the Bonderman family from any additional NBA ownership stakes as would be required in order to have ownership in another franchise,” he added.
After news of the Celtics sale broke Thursday, Holloway released a statement hinting at her ownership group’s interest in bringing the NBA back to Seattle.
“We understand that today’s news will pique the interest of NBA fans in Seattle,” Holloway said. “As we have said before, our ownership group is ideally positioned for an NBA team with Climate Pledge Arena and the incredible fans in Seattle, but we will always be respectful of the Commissioner’s process and timeline.”
Bontemps, Pelton and Windhorst reported in September that “the widespread belief among league and team sources” is that “Seattle and Las Vegas are the logical landing points for a pair of new expansion teams,” but other cities could always hop into the mix. They mentioned Mexico City, Montreal, Vancouver, Kansas City and Louisville as other possibilities.
Advertisement
Once the sale of the Celtics gets finalized, that figures to bring the NBA one step closer to adding a pair of expansion teams, whether in Seattle, Las Vegas or elsewhere.
Unless otherwise noted, all stats via NBA.com, PBPStats, Cleaning the Glass or Basketball Reference. All salary information via Spotrac and salary-cap information via RealGM. All odds via FanDuel Sportsbook.
Boston College enters the 2025 NCAA Division I ice hockey championship as the top seed and will face Bentley in Manchester, N.H., on Friday (File photo: Boston College athletics)
The field for the 2025 NCAA Division I men’s national championship is set with very few surprises. Boston College, Michigan State, Maine and Western Michigan are the four regional top seeds, while Bentley and Connecticut and both making the first appearances in their program’s history.
Complete Men’s NCAA D-I Tournament Bracket with ESPN channels
Top-seed Boston College will face Bentley in the opening game in Manchester, N.H., on Friday at 2:00 p.m. ET. Providence and defending national champion Denver will meet in the other semifinal at 5:30 p.m. ET, setting up a potential rematch of last year’s national title game between BC and Denver.
The tournament will begin in Toledo, Ohio, which is hosting its second NCAA regional. Boston University and Ohio State will square off on Thursday at 2:00 p.m. ET. Big Ten champion Michigan State will take on ECAC tournament champ Cornell at 5:30 p.m.
Advertisement
The other Thursday/Saturday region in Fargo, N.D., features NCHC champion Western Michigan as its top seed. They will face CCHA champion Minnesota State at 5:00 p.m. ET while Minnesota and Massachusetts square off in the nightcap at 8:30 p.m.
The final region to get underway will play Friday-Sunday in Allentown, Pa. Connecticut and regional host Penn State play in the early semifinal at 5:00 p.m. ET, while Maine and Quinnipiac will battle at 8:30 p.m.
The four regional champions will advance to the Frozen Four in St. Louis on April 10 and 12. Game times for the Frozen Four will be announced at a later date.
Boston Bruins (30-32-9, in the Atlantic Division) vs. Los Angeles Kings (38-21-9, in the Pacific Division)
Los Angeles; Sunday, 9 p.m. EDT
Advertisement
BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Kings -236, Bruins +194; over/under is 5.5
BOTTOM LINE: The Boston Bruins head into the matchup against the Los Angeles Kings after losing five games in a row.
Los Angeles is 24-3-4 in home games and 38-21-9 overall. The Kings have a +23 scoring differential, with 195 total goals scored and 172 given up.
Boston is 30-32-9 overall and 11-20-3 on the road. The Bruins serve 10.2 penalty minutes per game to rank second in league play.
Sunday’s game is the second time these teams match up this season. The Bruins won 2-1 in overtime in the previous matchup.
Advertisement
TOP PERFORMERS: Warren Foegele has scored 19 goals with 19 assists for the Kings. Quinton Byfield has seven goals and one assist over the last 10 games.
David Pastrnak has 34 goals and 50 assists for the Bruins. Morgan Geekie has scored five goals with one assist over the past 10 games.
LAST 10 GAMES: Kings: 7-2-1, averaging three goals, 4.8 assists, 3.6 penalties and 7.5 penalty minutes while giving up 1.8 goals per game.
Bruins: 2-7-1, averaging 2.1 goals, 3.3 assists, three penalties and 7.5 penalty minutes while giving up three goals per game.
INJURIES: Kings: None listed.
Advertisement
Bruins: None listed.
___
The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.
The Boston City Council is considering hitting companies like DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats with a new delivery tax on food orders as part of a city crackdown on their unruly drivers, but critics say consumers and restaurants will pay the price.
The Council is discussing a potential amendment to a “road safety and accountability for delivery providers ordinance” proposed by the mayor that would tack on a 15-cent delivery fee per order for national third-party food delivery companies that operate in Boston.
The potential new fee has proven to be contentious thus far.
The Massachusetts Restaurant Association sent a letter to the mayor and City Council outlining its opposition, but the councilor behind the idea says it’s a key approach to ensuring enforcement of the proposed ordinance, which aims to crack down on food-app delivery drivers who flout traffic rules.
Advertisement
“The 15-cent delivery fee is a necessary step to address the increased strain delivery traffic places on our streets,” Councilor Sharon Durkan, who proposed the fee amendment, said in a statement to the Herald. “This fee ensures we can effectively implement the ordinance and acknowledge the real costs these services impose on Boston.”
Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata, who chairs the subcommittee that has held hearings on the mayor’s proposed ordinance, said the new tax is “currently on the table as a possible addition” to the measure, which needs Council approval.
“It would theoretically be a 15-cent per order fee that would help cover costs of the enforcement of the ordinance,” Coletta Zapata told the Herald.
Stephen Clark, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, sent letters to Mayor Michelle Wu and the 13 city councilors last Thursday with the group’s concerns about the fee, which had been discussed that morning by the Council as part of a working session it held to tweak the ordinance.
“This will make delivery more expensive in the city and discourages consumers from ordering and doing business with restaurants in Boston,” Clark wrote.
Advertisement
“During a time when our attorney general is looking to limit additional fees and surcharges, it does not seem like the government should be adding new fees to Boston residents,” his letter states.
Clark’s letter also lists a number of concerns the Restaurant Association has with the mayor’s ordinance, which it says will lead to “rising delivery costs” and “increased red tape” and pose a “threat to restaurant and consumer privacy” through its data-sharing requirements.
“The proposed ordinance,” Clark wrote, “is intended to alleviate traffic congestion, but enforcing existing regulations will have a far greater impact. This proposed ordinance … does little to help the problem at hand and will only hurt our small local businesses and consumers who rely on third-party deliveries.”
In a phone interview, Clark clarified that the Restaurant Association is not necessarily opposed to the ordinance as proposed by the mayor. He said the group is open to “commonsense regulations going into effect” and conversations with city officials to tweak the measure’s language to address its concerns.
The Restaurant Association is staunchly opposed, however, to the potential new delivery fee being discussed by the City Council, Clark said.
Advertisement
“I wasn’t bashing the mayor,” Clark said. “I should have just CC’d the mayor. We were writing it to the City Council because they’ve had multiple working sessions on this, and the fee has originated from the City Council, not the mayor.”
Wu’s office said “the mayor did not include any fee or tax on restaurant orders in the original ordinance filed.”
The city has been in close conversation with the delivery companies and advocates to protect consumer privacy, the mayor’s office said.
“This ordinance holds large, national delivery companies accountable and will ensure drivers have insurance coverage while making our streets safer for everyone,” a Wu spokesperson said in a statement.
“Data gathered will help the city better plan for food delivery impacts, which has resulted in an alarming increase of dangerous driving, worsened congestion and double parking — all negatively impacting resident experiences and business operations.”
Advertisement
“We are optimistic that the final bill will earn broad support from neighborhood residents and businesses,” the Wu spokesperson said.
Coletta Zapata said the Council would have to take action on the mayor’s ordinance, and any potential amendments including the new fee, by the first week of April to comply with the 60-day order.
If the Council chooses to take no action, it would go into effect, with the language proposed by the mayor. A vote would have to be taken at the next weekly meeting, on April 2.
“Although I support much of the proposed ordinance, I will vote against it based on a new tax that will ultimately be passed on to restaurants and the public,” Councilor Ed Flynn said in a statement to the Herald. “It’s not the time for a new tax in Boston. We must demonstrate fiscal discipline and responsibility.”
Per the language of the amendment, the Boston Transportation Department “may periodically review and adjust the delivery fee, subject to a review and approval by the City Council, to ensure it remains effective.”
Advertisement
Durkan acknowledged that there’s a “clear debate about who bears these costs,” but said the “hearing really illuminated the Council’s commitment to exploring all avenues to prevent these fees from being passed onto local businesses or delivery drivers.”
“We should ensure a fair and balanced approach that holds third-party delivery companies accountable while protecting our local economy,” Durkan said.
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said he wasn’t buying it.
“Some Boston city councilors have never seen a tax or fee they don’t like,” Craney told the Herald. “In this case, they want to nickel and dime consumers which will only increase the price of food.
“City councilors who favor this have completely lost their bearing,” he added. “Elected officials should not be justifying any taxes or fees that will drive up the cost of food.”
