GuberCo-owner of Golden State Warriors, Peter Gruber, is also part of the group of buyers.
Right.GuberCo-owner of Golden State Warriors, Peter Gruber, is also part of the group of buyers.
They are now.$2B for a team valued at 1.4B? Hell the Yankees aren't even valued at $2B.
If you are part of a group that just bought something for $2B, you are business savvy.'Ministry of Pain said:Magic Johnson? Not everything that man has touched or down since he left the NBA has worked out and I'm sorry but Magic Johnson IMO is not all that business savvy but you can disagree all you like.
Heard they have over 100B in assets to work with. Money wont be a problem.What's the word on the financial situation of these guys?Obviously, they are doing well if they can afford to pay $2B for the team, but is it known whether or not that 2B will make it harder for them to invest properly into the team and stadium?Clearly, MLB has never been very interested in the answer to that question.
Why would you expect Selig to force a sale below market value? To punish McCourt?Nobody would benefit if this occurred except the new ownership group.'Ministry of Pain said:Really fell out of love with Baseball in the early mid 90s, the strike pretty much killed it for me. I was slightly interested in the McGuire Sosa stuff but you knew something wasn't right. I moved to Los Angeles in 2000 and went to Dodgers Stadium for the 1st time...wow what a difference it makes going to a stadium with a very deep and passionate fan base. I used to sit up in the top level behind home plate, tix were $6, bring in your own bags of peanuts, popcorn, water bottles. We started going to a lot of games, lot of good times. When I left in 2007 the ten was going thru a lot of changes, most of them not good. I'm just shocked they sold for $2B and I really blame Bud Selig for not stepping in and allowing this franchise to be sold for way more than the value. He is happy because it drives up the price for all the teams, the other owners are happy, sad day for Baseball IMO. Magic Johnson? Not everything that man has touched or down since he left the NBA has worked out and I'm sorry but Magic Johnson IMO is not all that business savvy but you can disagree all you like.
A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
You're completely ignoring the time value of money.A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
Fair enough. So what are they looking at in a worst case scenario, a $3.25B deal, paid over 20 years, would net something around $2.5B on the TV deal alone?Regardless, they are in line for a substantial profit based on that by itself.'dparker713 said:You're completely ignoring the time value of money.'Limp Ditka said:A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
Since there are no operating costs involved in running a professional sports franchise you are correct.Fair enough. So what are they looking at in a worst case scenario, a $3.25B deal, paid over 20 years, would net something around $2.5B on the TV deal alone?Regardless, they are in line for a substantial profit based on that by itself.'dparker713 said:You're completely ignoring the time value of money.'Limp Ditka said:A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
That's right. They are ####ed since this TV deal will be their only source of revenue.Since there are no operating costs involved in running a professional sports franchise you are correct.Fair enough. So what are they looking at in a worst case scenario, a $3.25B deal, paid over 20 years, would net something around $2.5B on the TV deal alone?Regardless, they are in line for a substantial profit based on that by itself.'dparker713 said:You're completely ignoring the time value of money.'Limp Ditka said:A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
Just fairly simplistic to imply that the TV deal will provide them with a healthy profit. I mean, sure, if they put no money into the product it could, but if that was your main concern, I doubt that you'd pay that much for the asset.That's right. They are ####ed since this TV deal will be their only source of revenue.Since there are no operating costs involved in running a professional sports franchise you are correct.Fair enough. So what are they looking at in a worst case scenario, a $3.25B deal, paid over 20 years, would net something around $2.5B on the TV deal alone?Regardless, they are in line for a substantial profit based on that by itself.You're completely ignoring the time value of money.A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.
At a minumum they're going to have to put in $1.5 to $2B alone (more like $3B plus) over the next 20 years and thats only in players salaries.Just fairly simplistic to imply that the TV deal will provide them with a healthy profit. I mean, sure, if they put no money into the product it could, but if that was your main concern, I doubt that you'd pay that much for the asset.That's right. They are ####ed since this TV deal will be their only source of revenue.Since there are no operating costs involved in running a professional sports franchise you are correct.Fair enough. So what are they looking at in a worst case scenario, a $3.25B deal, paid over 20 years, would net something around $2.5B on the TV deal alone?Regardless, they are in line for a substantial profit based on that by itself.You're completely ignoring the time value of money.A good point was made by Bruce Levine, who is one of the Chicago Baseball beat guys for ESPN Chicago, about the $s involved in this.During the off season, Angels and Rangers TV rights went for $3B over 20 years. The Dodgers TV deal is set to expire in the next year and odds are their deal surpasses those other two. So buying the team for $2B today, pretty much just netted them at least a $1B profit on the TV deal alone.