John Angelos to Sell O's to 2 Other Billionaires

[wrathofhahn]

3 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

You get what you deserve, Baltimore and Angelos.

In all seriousness, don't see this ending well.  He probably orders the GM to strip the team for parts...trading away their entire farm system to create a JR-esque Washington Generals clone team.

$1.7+ billion purchasing price.  Predatory capitalism at its finest.  Got a great price without a premium for that farm system and unprecedented financial flexibility, at least.

 

Less than 300 murders in 9 years, 11,000 cars stolen last year with 450 this year so far, 30 year lease on a 32 y/o stadium. So as soon as they won their 100th game, who didn't see this coming.

Yeah I see it playing out the opposite. Angelos already has the team pretty well stripped down for payroll. He was one of the cheapest owner in sports.

Hedge fund managers don't treat sports teams commonly as their other investments. They treat it as a luxury yaht or sports car. They make their money other ways and view sports teams as expensive toys

[Quin]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

You could have gotten a better return in the S&P 500, I hope that wasn't supposed to be something impressive. 

That's the buy and sell price.

I know there's cost associated with running the team, but think of the annual earnings + influence that come with owning a Big Four sports franchise

[soulfly]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The franchise will not be sold in its entirety right away. According to Ourand, the Rubenstein group will initially acquire roughly 40% of the ownership stake. The remainder of the Angelos’ family share will be transferred once longtime owner Peter Angelos, now 94, passes away. Previous reports have indicated the family would incur significant capital gains taxes if they sell the franchise in its entirety before Peter Angelos’ death.

Which is exactly why JR has made it clear he is not selling while he is still alive. 

Jerry doesn't own the entire team.  Is he even majority owner?

[South Side Hit Men]

39 minutes ago, soulfly said:

Jerry doesn't own the entire team.  Is he even majority owner?

Beyond dementia like Peter Angelos has or other health issues which would prevent Jerry from continuing as managing partner, Jerry will continue to hold complete control, regardless of what the other minority owners want, based on the existing partnership agreement.

It benefits his heirs to not sell family shares until after his death, and there is no guarantee that Michael and family won't continue to hold a substantial stake in the club after Jerry dies, Significant tax savings and being bored with nothing else to do have always been the two stated reasons by Jerry as to why he intends to not sell the club.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, soulfly said:

Jerry doesn't own the entire team.  Is he even majority owner?

Has voting rights/power over everything dealing with franchise, but only 12-15% actual/shares ownership.

Maybe it has gone up to closer to 20% as older shareholders/board members have aged out and sold their shares back.

[soulfly]

29 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Beyond dementia like Peter Angelos has or other health issues which would prevent Jerry from continuing as managing partner, Jerry will continue to hold complete control, regardless of what the other minority owners want, based on the existing partnership agreement.

It benefits his heirs to not sell family shares until after his death, and there is no guarantee that Michael and family won't continue to hold a substantial stake in the club after Jerry dies, Significant tax savings and being bored with nothing else to do have always been the two stated reasons by Jerry as to why he intends to not sell the club.

Truly amazing that everyone else would have given that much power to him when it comes time to sell.  Him demanding that it happens after his death essentially screws the others partners that are still alive as far as the tax hit goes.  Though, I would have to imagine others co-owners have a first right of refusal to purchase his part of the team when he does pass.  Is it really possible that no one else involved with the team would have the ability to purchase his % and remain as is but with a new figure head?

[caulfield12]

4 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Rubenstein and friends will not own a controlling interest until Peter Angelos is dead.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/angelos-family-reportedly-selling-orioles.html

In terms of ownership involvement in Chelsea, Leeds fans have it right.

This is always the fear in UK of American "capitalists" looting their EPL clubs or bleeding them dry to reallocate monies elsewhere amongst the various business empires...Tom Hicks with Rangers and John Henry/FSG bring two prime examples.   Now Chelsea as well, combination of Dodgers/Boehly and Clear Lake/ARES/Baltimore groups.

Edited January 31 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Lots of talk they might be moving the Orioles to Raleigh or Nashville unless they can make commitments to serious improvements with the Baltimore facilities.. 

MLBRaleigh.com

 

https://theathletic.com/5239665/2024/01/30/orioles-sale-angelos-family/?source=user_shared_article

 

 “There’s no doubt that I feel I’m one of the few people in private equity that doesn’t own a sports team. All my friends bought sports teams and I said, ‘Look, your investors are not going to take you seriously by you diverting your attention to these sports teams.’ But I was wrong.” Rubenstein, who is from Baltimore, said, “It’s very difficult to buy a sports team and lose money. Some people have done it, but it’s very rare. In baseball and basketball, you make your money when you sell the team. In the NFL, you make your money all the time because it’s so profitable.”

Rubenstein predicted in the future, “you’re going to see baseball teams, basketball teams and others combine in one company and ultimately, those companies will go public.” He added investing in an MLB franchise is “not the highest profitability thing I hope to be doing in my investment career, but I do think that it’s not something I’m doing to lose money, if I do it.” CNBC's Becky Quick noted Rubenstein's answer on buying the O's or Nats was "not a no, but not a yes" (“Squawk Box,” CNBC, 9/1). This conversation took place at minute 34:00 in the podcast linked here.

Edited January 31 by caulfield12

[nrockway]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

You could have gotten a better return in the S&P 500, I hope that wasn't supposed to be something impressive. 

https://mercercapital.com/article/investors-view-major-league-sports/

seems like it outperforms equity markets these days. television networks pretty much only have professional sports nowadays as a consistent way to show advertisements to people and those TV deals are only going to increase, probably more rapidly, if the likes of Amazon and Hulu try to take those contracts away. Professional sports teams have even more revenue sources than during the 1990s and before with the (unfortunate) rise of gambling and their new-ish role as real estate developers. A professional sports team is a total cashcow which is precisely why these private equity people cannot be trusted to do anything besides try to derive maximum profit. I don't trust the idea that it's "just a toy", no it's a very sound and safe investment. I wish the league's regulations would adjust to this ecosystem, when was the last time some billionaire bought a team because he just loved the sport and not because he was money hungry? I can think of very few professional owners like this, maybe the more civic-minded Arab owners in soccer, but I don't think you really see this in the MLB. People will say Steve Cohen, but it looks to me like this guy realizes he has a team in New York and could possibly usurp the Yankees if he spends enough money in the short term. We'll see what Cohen does over the next decade but I think their contemporary payroll is an aberration.

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

https://mercercapital.com/article/investors-view-major-league-sports/

seems like it outperforms equity markets these days. television networks pretty much only have professional sports nowadays as a consistent way to show advertisements to people and those TV deals are only going to increase, probably more rapidly, if the likes of Amazon and Hulu try to take those contracts away. Professional sports teams have even more revenue sources than during the 1990s and before with the (unfortunate) rise of gambling and their new-ish role as real estate developers. A professional sports team is a total cashcow which is precisely why these private equity people cannot be trusted to do anything besides try to derive maximum profit. I don't trust the idea that it's "just a toy", no it's a very sound and safe investment. I wish the league's regulations would adjust to this ecosystem, when was the last time some billionaire bought a team because he just loved the sport and not because he was money hungry? I can think of very few professional owners like this, maybe the more civic-minded Arab owners in soccer, but I don't think you really see this in the MLB. People will say Steve Cohen, but it looks to me like this guy realizes he has a team in New York and could possibly usurp the Yankees if he spends enough money in the short term. We'll see what Cohen does over the next decade but I think their contemporary payroll is an aberration.

“you’re going to see baseball teams, basketball teams and others combine in one company and ultimately, those companies will go public.” He added investing in an MLB franchise is “not the highest profitability thing I hope to be doing in my investment career, but I do think that it’s not something I’m doing to lose money, if I do it.” 
 

Imagine Hahn held publicly accountable for negative return on equity in Free Agency, international spending or Fernando Tatis, Jr., if his moves were all scrutinized in a way that he actually had to respond to and be held accountable by the public/shareholders OR get the guillotine???

There are going to be some quick axes…more like the NFL and not five years, let alone a decade to demonstrate results.

Edited January 31 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, nrockway said:

https://mercercapital.com/article/investors-view-major-league-sports/

seems like it outperforms equity markets these days. television networks pretty much only have professional sports nowadays as a consistent way to show advertisements to people and those TV deals are only going to increase, probably more rapidly, if the likes of Amazon and Hulu try to take those contracts away. Professional sports teams have even more revenue sources than during the 1990s and before with the (unfortunate) rise of gambling and their new-ish role as real estate developers. A professional sports team is a total cashcow which is precisely why these private equity people cannot be trusted to do anything besides try to derive maximum profit. I don't trust the idea that it's "just a toy", no it's a very sound and safe investment. I wish the league's regulations would adjust to this ecosystem, when was the last time some billionaire bought a team because he just loved the sport and not because he was money hungry? I can think of very few professional owners like this, maybe the more civic-minded Arab owners in soccer, but I don't think you really see this in the MLB. People will say Steve Cohen, but it looks to me like this guy realizes he has a team in New York and could possibly usurp the Yankees if he spends enough money in the short term. We'll see what Cohen does over the next decade but I think their contemporary payroll is an aberration.

The British teachers I know to a man almost all hate the Middle Eastern oil oligarchs meddling with their teams…allegations of sports washing, etc.  A lot of the players that signed to go over there are already attempting to escape their contracts.

[nrockway]

9 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

The British teachers I know to a man almost all hate the Middle Eastern oil oligarchs meddling with their teams…allegations of sports washing, etc.  A lot of the players that signed to go over there are already attempting to escape their contracts.

yeah I don't say "civic-minded" as necessarily positive, just that I think these guys have motives beyond making as much money as possible in the short term. I imagine they want to shift the center of soccer from Europe to the Gulf or otherwise improve the region's international image. not to say they aren't making money hand over fist, but the logic of team ownership feels a little different than the likes of some entity like the Fenway Group.

[nrockway]

9 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

“you’re going to see baseball teams, basketball teams and others combine in one company and ultimately, those companies will go public.” He added investing in an MLB franchise is “not the highest profitability thing I hope to be doing in my investment career, but I do think that it’s not something I’m doing to lose money, if I do it.” 
 

Imagine Hahn held publicly accountable for negative return on equity in Free Agency, international spending or Fernando Tatis, Jr., if his moves were all scrutinized in a way that he actually had to respond to and be held accountable by the public/shareholders OR get the guillotine???

There are going to be some quick axes…more like the NFL and not five years, let alone a decade to demonstrate results.

I get the feeling that it would be worse for the sport if the teams were publicly traded. profit really becomes the sole motive when you're talking about that many shareholders, though of course there's also more transparency and money to build a stadium without relying so much on the taxpayer...or even to pay player salaries but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know if the GM would be held especially accountable for team performance, I imagine an individual's investment in a team would be bundled with everything else he's investing in and that the team's performance would not be highest priority so long as the investment is performing. 

 then again, as far as I can tell the Braves are the only publicly traded team in the MLB (I believe the Indians used to be) and they seem to be doing something right.

[Balta1701]

9 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I get the feeling that it would be worse for the sport if the teams were publicly traded. profit really becomes the sole motive when you're talking about that many shareholders, though of course there's also more transparency and money to build a stadium without relying so much on the taxpayer...or even to pay player salaries but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know if the GM would be held especially accountable for team performance, I imagine an individual's investment in a team would be bundled with everything else he's investing in and that the team's performance would not be highest priority so long as the investment is performing. 

 then again, as far as I can tell the Braves are the only publicly traded team in the MLB (I believe the Indians used to be) and they seem to be doing something right.

For a good long while the Cubs were owned by the publicly traded Tribune Co. I can specifically recall how one of their earnings reports in 2004 wound up having to specifically cite the buyout of Sammy Sosa's contract as an expense affecting their bottom line.

Sometimes the motivations get a bit different, there's less willingness to go into debt for any reason for a team like that for example, income might be required to stay in the black. I don't think though that it affected the way the GM was thought of - the GM is basically still in charge of the baseball side. There's little reason for example to believe that the Mets new president is directly involved in their efforts to try to secure a casino associated with Citi field for Cohen, it might affect the budget he has to work with but nothing else.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

I get the feeling that it would be worse for the sport if the teams were publicly traded. profit really becomes the sole motive when you're talking about that many shareholders, though of course there's also more transparency and money to build a stadium without relying so much on the taxpayer...or even to pay player salaries but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know if the GM would be held especially accountable for team performance, I imagine an individual's investment in a team would be bundled with everything else he's investing in and that the team's performance would not be highest priority so long as the investment is performing. 

 then again, as far as I can tell the Braves are the only publicly traded team in the MLB (I believe the Indians used to be) and they seem to be doing something right.

I think you are misreading this. My take is the statement reads that the entire league (all teams) would be a single publicly traded entity, similar to NASCAR owned by the France family. 30 owners would sell their shares (or retain a minority stake) in a single MLB entity. There would be a CEO of the organization, not one boob representing thirty boobs.

MLB would have to bribe Congress once again to avoid any change to their preferred anti-trust status.

They function in many ways as a single entity when it benefits owners in general, such as their revenue sharing scheme which rewards not paying players over fielding a competitive product for the 16 eligible teams.

[caulfield12]

37 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

I think you are misreading this. My take is the statement reads that the entire league (all teams) would be a single publicly traded entity, similar to NASCAR owned by the France family. 30 owners would sell their shares (or retain a minority stake) in a single MLB entity. There would be a CEO of the organization, not one boob representing thirty boobs.

MLB would have to bribe Congress once again to avoid any change to their preferred anti-trust status.

They function in many ways as a single entity when it benefits owners in general, such as their revenue sharing scheme which rewards not paying players over fielding a competitive product for the 16 eligible teams.

That would kill the motivation of a lot of mom and pop investors that have invested in the Celtics or Green Bay Packers just from a sheer fan standpoint of supporting their team without looking at profit motivation or eventually selling their shares on a free market.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/orioles-sale-time-john-henry-175253764.html
 

Now’s the time for John Henry to sell the Red Sox if they’re going to run the fourth highest payroll in the East and continue to finish in the basement…

 

“As it is, their job is about to get a lot harder. The Orioles, incredibly, have not signed a single free agent to a multi-year contract since Mike Elias took over baseball operations in 2018. But what they have done is build a Death Star of a minor-league system that just keeps pumping out No. 1 overall prospects like TIE fighters, the latest being Jackson (son of former All-Star Matt) Holliday.

The Orioles won 101 games last year without really acquiring anyone of note, and the prospect of them suddenly spending should send a shudder from Tampa to Toronto and points northeast.

It also potentially pushes the Red Sox even further down the AL East pecking order, with the very real possibility that someday soon they could own the division's fourth-highest payroll, ahead of only the impoverished Rays.

That they're doing so willingly remains borderline heartbreaking, and signals a change in philosophy that could doom them to second-division status for years, which raises the question: What's the point?

Why own the Red Sox (valuation: $4.5 billion) if you're going to treat them like a mid-market team? What's the point of overseeing one of baseball's signature franchises if the goal is simply winning 85 games and hoping to pull a Diamondbacks in October? Why cycle through chief baseball officers if you're not going to let any of them try?

It distinctly feels like Henry's heart isn't in it anymore, despite assurances from chairman Tom Werner that they plan to own the Red Sox for another 20 years. So what's the point?”

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/alternate-offseason-red-sox-couldve-181656240.html

No bridge year for Boston…what could have been?

Edited January 31 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

WTF seriously?

Tampa Bay spent $73 million last year. Baltimore $60 million. For the Orioles this may rise to $81 million in 2024.

2024 Projected Red Sox payroll potentially $200 million (https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/20/red-sox-brass-expects-lower-payroll-in-2024/).

But a day may come when Boston has the 4th highest payroll in the division? When exactly will this day be?

 

[South Side Hit Men]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

That would kill the motivation of a lot of mom and pop investors that have invested in the Celtics or Green Bay Packers just from a sheer fan standpoint of supporting their team without looking at profit motivation or eventually selling their shares on a free market.

Not familiar with the Celtics set up, but there are no dividend or other private ownership rights typically obtained with share purchases of the Packers, a nonprofit corporation. I'd guess the Celtics have a similar arrangement in terms of shareholder rights. Net profit for the Packers are either reinvested in the club or donated to identified local charities. It would be nice if every professional sports team had the same arrangement. They would never move, and fans could feel better about spending money on their teams,

Regardless, your article quotes indicated this was a possibility for the NBA and MLB, not the NFL which was deemed "profitable". Newsflash, all of these teams in the four major leagues are vastly profitable beyond perhaps a couple of isolated instances of gross incompetence and perhaps a few renegade owners who will spend beyond revenue like Cohen and possibly George Steinbrenner while he was alive.

38 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

WTF seriously?

Tampa Bay spent $73 million last year. Baltimore $60 million. For the Orioles this may rise to $81 million in 2024.

2024 Projected Red Sox payroll potentially $200 million (https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01/20/red-sox-brass-expects-lower-payroll-in-2024/).

But a day may come when Boston has the 4th highest payroll in the division? When exactly will this day be?

John Henry is the nut low, can't stand him between the Super League scam he spearheaded that was quashed and his cuts at Liverpool. I hate the Red Sox, so don't mind if I never see Boston in the postseason or even over .500 every again. Until fans stay away, Henry will keep screwing them over.

Red Sox April 9 Opening Day Per Seat (or SRO) Direct From Club Ticket Prices

• $50-$199 Standing Room Only, 
• $70-$105 Outfield and Bleacher seats.
• $112-$512 Additional Seating in the infield, foul lines and Green Monster seating.

- I couldn't actually access the ticket pop up or whatever else my PC is blocking from their website, but I would assume there are substantial fees and possible sales tax also due beyond the listed prices.

Edited February 1 by South Side Hit Men

[caulfield12]

Former NBAer Grant Hill (ties to area and Redskins/Commanders through father Calvin Hill), former mayor Kurt Schmoke and former NYC mayor/financier/billionaire Michael Bloomberg also involved with Orioles' investment group

 

Potential involvement of Sports Guy and Rolle Tide still uncertain as of press time.  Requests for comment were not responded to.

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39431143/cal-ripken-jr-grant-hill-group-agreed-buy-orioles

Edited February 1 by caulfield12

[nrockway]

6 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

I think you are misreading this. My take is the statement reads that the entire league (all teams) would be a single publicly traded entity, similar to NASCAR owned by the France family. 30 owners would sell their shares (or retain a minority stake) in a single MLB entity. There would be a CEO of the organization, not one boob representing thirty boobs.

MLB would have to bribe Congress once again to avoid any change to their preferred anti-trust status.

They function in many ways as a single entity when it benefits owners in general, such as their revenue sharing scheme which rewards not paying players over fielding a competitive product for the 16 eligible teams.

hmm, I have no real opinion on this structure, but it sets off conspiratorial alarm bells that a single entity would privilege certain markets or even fix games. for example, does a Yankees vs Dodgers World Series increase the share price more than a Royals vs Reds Series? I suppose corporations don't have a legal duty to maximize shareholder value, but it's still ostensibly their duty. I suppose that isn't the case with NASCAR, but then again I know nothing about NASCAR.

[caulfield12]

31 minutes ago, nrockway said:

hmm, I have no real opinion on this structure, but it sets off conspiratorial alarm bells that a single entity would privilege certain markets or even fix games. for example, does a Yankees vs Dodgers World Series increase the share price more than a Royals vs Reds Series? I suppose corporations don't have a legal duty to maximize shareholder value, but it's still ostensibly their duty. I suppose that isn't the case with NASCAR, but then again I know nothing about NASCAR.

Or Chiefs/T.Swift/49ERS over Lions/Ravens...

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

hmm, I have no real opinion on this structure, but it sets off conspiratorial alarm bells that a single entity would privilege certain markets or even fix games. for example, does a Yankees vs Dodgers World Series increase the share price more than a Royals vs Reds Series? I suppose corporations don't have a legal duty to maximize shareholder value, but it's still ostensibly their duty. I suppose that isn't the case with NASCAR, but then again I know nothing about NASCAR.

I stopped following NASCAR shortly after the institution of the Chase was instituted in 2004, which was followed by other developments such as "The Car For Tomorrow". Also lost Pontiac/Oldsmobile, several of the traditional Southern Tracks in favor of the cookie cutter tracks, the deaths of Dale Earnhardt and Alan Kulwicki, and retirement of my favorite drivers (The Alabama Gang, Ricky Rudd, and phase out of others like the Labonte brothers). NASCAR popularity peaked in the mid 2000s, but suffered severe losses of fans like me and lost about half of their fan base since.

In terms of MLB, the devil would be in the details. So far, only brand new team leagues without much money like the XFL (run by wrestling czar Vince McMahon) have been run under a single controlled structure until the MLS emerged from the ashes of the NASL, followed by Women's sports leagues (WNBA and WUSA) with mixed success. It has worked for individual competitor sports like NASCAR and the human cockfighting league UFC, and also scripted "sports" like wrestling.

This article discusses some of the pitfalls of the MLS single entity structure:

https://www.conductdetrimental.com/post/why-mls-s-single-entity-structure-should-be-shown-a-red-card

While it may be tempting to dump a Top 10 worst owner (perhaps Top 5), not sure if the Sox would pan out better under a single ownership structure, including whether said single entity would still even want two Chicago franchises. I rather bank on the hope of getting a new owner over this decade or soon thereafter then rely on a drastic change. Also fear for the sport as a whole, which I believe benefits from 30 competing separate interests, though that has been watered down significantly the past 30 years with the revenue sharing agreements which seem to incentivize about half the league to sit back, lose and make money off the dozen or so teams legitimately trying to compete each season.

[caulfield12]

https://global.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/39429359/baltimore-orioles-sale-new-owners-david-rubenstein-peter-angelos

Buy the Baltimore Orioles? There couldn't be a better time

Buster Olney, ESPN Senior WriterJan 31, 2024, 05:39 PM

 

"It's hard to imagine a time to buy the Baltimore Orioles that would offer new owners more growth potential in their pending purchase -- or a more willing fan base to woo. Assuming the sale by the Angelos family is approved by other owners, the hero potential is enormous for David Rubenstein and his group of minority owners.

The team is already loaded with some of the best stars of baseball's youngest generation, from Adley Rutschman to Jackson Holliday. Following years of tanking, the Orioles still have no long-term financial commitments. And Rubenstein & Co. will ride into Camden Yards wholly welcomed by a passionate fan base that has endured despite years of angry frustration with the ownership of Peter Angelos, who bought the franchise for $173 million in 1993, and in more recent years, with Angelos' son John.

The bar of leadership has been so low that all the new owners have to do to distinguish themselves is to sign just one of the organization's core youngsters to a long-term deal. If they manage to lock up Rutschman, Holliday and Gunnar Henderson into the future, the good folks of Charm City might rename roads for the new owners, with Calvert Street giving way to Rubenstein Way."

Edited February 2 by caulfield12