The Portland White Sox?

[NorthSideSox72]

There was an article about White Sox ownership last year where a couple of owners speculated JR's stake somewhere between 10 and 15 %. JR said their guess was significantly understated. When JR goes, the executors of his estate get control of the team.

 

I really don't think it will be ugly at all. Some have wanted out and got out. Some want to stay and let their heirs be owners. The bottom line is JR has made these people a ton of money. A lot of them are with him with the Bulls as well.

Sounds about right. People know their own stake, but don't necessarily have to know others' exact stake. I'm also guessing there is in essence a "living will" for the partnership in the event any partner (majority, minority or parity) passes on, in terms of control. Monetarily it would just fall under any other probate scenario, so all the partnership laws would have to care about is the executive control aspect. There could even be an agreed-upon dissolution or redistribution. No one really knows, except the owners.

 

[Leonard Zelig]

A few years ago the Portland Beavers were considering changing their name to the Wet Sox.

[Marty34]

There was an article about White Sox ownership last year where a couple of owners speculated JR's stake somewhere between 10 and 15 %. JR said their guess was significantly understated. When JR goes, the executors of his estate get control of the team.

 

I really don't think it will be ugly at all. Some have wanted out and got out. Some want to stay and let their heirs be owners. The bottom line is JR has made these people a ton of money. A lot of them are with him with the Bulls as well.

 

Agreed. With the way Selig and JR have controlled the sales of teams since they took over, I'd be willing to wager JR knows rght now who will buy the team.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Agreed. With the way Selig and JR have controlled the sales of teams since they took over, I'd be willing to wager JR knows rght now who will buy the team.

 

Good point, but remember Selig is gone after this year. Reinsdorf might not have the same control over the new commish like he does Selig.

[Balta1701]

Good point, but remember Selig is gone after this year. Reinsdorf might not have the same control over the new commish like he does Selig.

Do we really know that? Who is next in line? Couldn't it still be a Reinsdorf family member?

[Marty34]

Good point, but remember Selig is gone after this year. Reinsdorf might not have the same control over the new commish like he does Selig.

 

Read a quote from JR along the lines of nobody listened to him in the NBA so it was easy to give it over to his son. Wonder if he doesn't have the same say with the new commish if that wouldn't hasten his sale of the Sox.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Marty34

[southsider2k5]

Read a quote from JR along the lines of nobody listened to him in the NBA so it was easy to give it over to his son. Wonder if he doesn't have the same say with the new commish if that wouldn't hasten his sale of the Sox.

 

 

I know you will love this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if MLB tried to make Jerry the commissioner of baseball.

[Marty34]

I know you will love this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if MLB tried to make Jerry the commissioner of baseball.

 

It's better to control the commisioner than to be the commisioner.

[Big Hurtin]

How strong is MLB's position on keeping the White Sox in Chicago? I know MLB would vehemently oppose someone trying to relocate the Cubs. (Beyond the Chicago market, not necessarily Wrigley Field)

[harfman77]

How strong is MLB's position on keeping the White Sox in Chicago? I know MLB would vehemently oppose someone trying to relocate the Cubs. (Beyond the Chicago market, not necessarily Wrigley Field)

 

Its all about the $$$. If the Sox re-location will contribute more to the revenue sharing plan, MLB would be all for it. The Sox were set to re-locate about 25 years ago to the Tampa/St Pete area before the legislature stepped up to provide funding to keep the club in town.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...ine/MAG1067374/

 

 

[Marty34]

Its all about the $$$. If the Sox re-location will contribute more to the revenue sharing plan, MLB would be all for it. The Sox were set to re-locate about 25 years ago to the Tampa/St Pete area before the legislature stepped up to provide funding to keep the club in town.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...ine/MAG1067374/

 

The same logic can be applied to every team.

[Dick Allen]

Its all about the $$$. If the Sox re-location will contribute more to the revenue sharing plan, MLB would be all for it. The Sox were set to re-locate about 25 years ago to the Tampa/St Pete area before the legislature stepped up to provide funding to keep the club in town.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...ine/MAG1067374/

And a lot has changed in 25 years. The American League would be insane to abandon Chicago.

[harfman77]

The same logic can be applied to every team.

 

Not every team, there is no chance that the Yanks, Dodgers, or Angels would make more money in another market, but the argument is there for most.

 

The question I was responding to was if mlb would let it happen, and the answer is yes because they already did once.

[harfman77]

And a lot has changed in 25 years. The American League would be insane to abandon Chicago.

 

And one of the biggest things that has changed is that the gap between the marketability of the clubs has widened despite the Sox having more success in that time period.

 

I think that the Sox would not be able to re-locate though until Tampa was able to find a more stable home/market, and if that were to happen the Sox options for possible homes would not be very appealing. The Sox are penalized for playing in Chicago with the competitive balance draft and revenue sharing even though they don't experience the revenue (attendance or sponsorship's) that most teams in a market of their size do.

 

The next 5 years are crucial to the franchise. With the TV deal up in 2019, the Sox are going to have to put together a quality team to generate ratings to earn $$ in that next deal. Thats huge because that TV money is necessary in extending guys like Sale, Q, and Abreu whose contracts expire around that time.

[Marty34]

Why would a revenue behometh like the Sox be at the top of the teams to relocate?

[southsider2k5]

Why would a revenue behometh like the Sox be at the top of the teams to relocate?

 

Where do the Sox rank in MLB in revenue?

[Dick Allen]

Where do the Sox rank in MLB in revenue?

Right in the middle. There are 14 teams that had lower revenue in 2013, and 1 with the same. And that is with a horrible, horrible team and outdated TV contracts.

[Marty34]

Where do the Sox rank in MLB in revenue?

 

Middle-of-the-pack.

[southsider2k5]

Middle-of-the-pack.

 

And that makes them a behemoth?

[Marty34]

And that makes them a behemoth?

 

Yes, they are a sleeping giant.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, they are a sleeping giant.

Not sure I agree with the term behemoth here, but I agree with your overall point. 14th in revenue, as the clear 2nd team in a city, in a 99 loss season, and no post-season in 6 years... that's pretty good and indicates there is room for growth there.

 

[harfman77]

Yes, they are a sleeping giant.

 

The problem is, they have done about everything possible to wake the giant, they have consistently been competitive throughout the last decade, so it really hasn't been a question of not having an attractive product. I know many feel that the new parks location and design were major flaws, but they cannot do anything about those factors for the next 15 years. They have created side-businesses to help generate revenue. The Sox have some of the worst local TV ratings in baseball (second to the Astros last year), granted that it was a bad year. I just don't see what the Sox can do differently outside of a new stadium, and they are not getting a new stadium in Chicago until at least 2029 when their lease expires.

[Dick Allen]

The problem is, they have done about everything possible to wake the giant, they have consistently been competitive throughout the last decade, so it really hasn't been a question of not having an attractive product. I know many feel that the new parks location and design were major flaws, but they cannot do anything about those factors for the next 15 years. They have created side-businesses to help generate revenue. The Sox have some of the worst local TV ratings in baseball (second to the Astros last year), granted that it was a bad year. I just don't see what the Sox can do differently outside of a new stadium, and they are not getting a new stadium in Chicago until at least 2029 when their lease expires.

If they had Seattle's local TV deal, even with drawing flies, they would be in the top 6 in revenue. I think it is safe to assume they should draw more fans eventually as well. Last year was almost a bottoming out. This year could be low because of last, but then the trend should start going upward.

 

Money is no issue. The Sox were prepared to pay over $100 million for a player who had never played MLB before. That alone tells you all you need to know.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Dick Allen

[The Mighty Mite]

If they had Seattle's local TV deal, even with drawing flies, they would be in the top 6 in revenue. I think it is safe to assume they should draw more fans eventually as well. Last year was almost a bottoming out. This year could be low because of last, but then the trend should start going upward.

 

Money is no issue. The Sox were prepared to pay over $100 million for a player who had never played MLB before. That alone tells you all you need to know.

 

I'm probably one of the few senior citizens on this site and have been a Sox fan since the early 50s and have seen some great years and some bad years. Growing up in the 50s and 60s I did not witness a losing season until 1968 after 17 straight winning seasons plus a trip to the 59 World Series, the Sox were the number one team in the city as far as Chicago baseball goes, but even back then the neighborhood always came up as a problem and when things went bad in the late 60s and mid 70s the Sox almost moved. I don't know what things are going to be like around 35th and Shields when the stadium deal is over but so many fans especially out of towers will not make the trip to the Cell because of a fear of the neighborhood. If you put JR and the other owners on a lie detector machine I'm sure it would come out that to a man they wanted the new stadium somewhere else. So many things have happened through the years that have made us the almost forgotten baseball team in Chicago, I'm sure we all know what they are, it still pains me that the Cubs outdrew us in our great Championship year of 2005 and again in 2006 when most teams experience great attendence bumps after a Championship. Ownership down through the years has always been a problem, never able to make the post- season 2 years in a row, that's sad.

 

 

[caulfield12]

I'm probably one of the few senior citizens on this site and have been a Sox fan since the early 50s and have seen some great years and some bad years. Growing up in the 50s and 60s I did not witness a losing season until 1968 after 17 straight winning seasons plus a trip to the 59 World Series, the Sox were the number one team in the city as far as Chicago baseball goes, but even back then the neighborhood always came up as a problem and when things went bad in the late 60s and mid 70s the Sox almost moved. I don't know what things are going to be like around 35th and Shields when the stadium deal is over but so many fans especially out of towers will not make the trip to the Cell because of a fear of the neighborhood. If you put JR and the other owners on a lie detector machine I'm sure it would come out that to a man they wanted the new stadium somewhere else. So many things have happened through the years that have made us the almost forgotten baseball team in Chicago, I'm sure we all know what they are, it still pains me that the Cubs outdrew us in our great Championship year of 2005 and again in 2006 when most teams experience great attendence bumps after a Championship. Ownership down through the years has always been a problem, never able to make the post- season 2 years in a row, that's sad.

 

We did have around 3 million that year...but the bump for winning a World Series is gone by Year 5. The Cubs also had fun/entertaining teams at that time, coming off the 2003 disappointment. It's not like those teams felt like the last three years on the Northside.

 

In the case of the White Sox, 2007 and 2009 really killed all the forward momentum.

 

This whole situation is well-documented...Harry Caray, Sportsvision, erosion of the neighborhood in 70's and 80's, the almost opposite trendiness of the Northside simultaneously, the stadium, the lack of activities and nightlife in the area. There are a million reasons.

Edited April 9, 2014 by caulfield12