PDA

View Full Version : Frank McCourt agrees to sell Dodgers



remdog
11-02-2011, 12:09 AM
....says he inquired several months ago about the Dodgers, but lost interest when team owner Frank McCourt valued the club at $1 billion.


It was, at least to me, an intresting article in the way Cuban valued the Dodgers and also percieved the costs of reviving the franchise.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-1102-dodgers-mark-cuban-20111102,0,1855684.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+ Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

remdog
11-02-2011, 01:32 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2011/11/mccourt-agrees-to-sell-dodgers.html

Rem

remdog
11-02-2011, 01:35 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2011/11/full-statement-on-dodgers-sale.html
The Blackstone Group is a financial firm that makes both leveraged buyouts and advises on mergers/acquisitions.

REDREAD
11-02-2011, 01:15 PM
Wow.. asking price was 1-1.2 billion.. That's a bit steep considering how leveraged the Dodgers are.. It will be interesting to see what they are finally sold for.

I wonder if Cuban got the asking price from John Allen :lol:

remdog
11-02-2011, 04:28 PM
RR: I've seen a couple of articles that speculate that, if the bidding gets frenzied, that the Dodgers could go as high as $1B. I'll try to see if I can find them again.

That aside, if the Dodgers don't get a new owner until Opening Day that's a big opening in the free agent market. If a team like the Reds can find a way to take advantage of one less big money player it might be a window of opprtunity for them.

Rem

Chip R
11-02-2011, 04:31 PM
McCourt's Revenge: Selling to Marc Cuban. :D

remdog
11-02-2011, 04:36 PM
I've lost track; can an owner in MLB also own, say, another major sport like, for example, and NBA frnachise?

Rem

remdog
11-02-2011, 04:38 PM
Can a mod change the headline to something like 'McCourt agrees to sell the Dodgers'? It's probably more germain to the subject at this point.

Rem

RBA
11-02-2011, 05:01 PM
I think Cuban has mellowed a little bit. However, I believe MLB owners may consider Cuban riff-raff and the wrong side of their politics as it is an exclusive club.

redsmetz
11-02-2011, 07:40 PM
No offense meant to the OP, but could a Mod fix the spelling of Dodgers in the title?

Brutus
11-02-2011, 07:51 PM
I've lost track; can an owner in MLB also own, say, another major sport like, for example, and NBA frnachise?

Rem

Most definitely they can. I think baseball tends to dissuade it, but there's nothing stopping an owner of another sports franchise owning a baseball team.

RedsManRick
11-02-2011, 11:07 PM
Is the bidding process binding?

remdog
11-02-2011, 11:12 PM
Is the bidding process binding?

All I know is what I've seen in the articles I've mentioned above but I would still think that MLB (meaning PudBud)will have a choice of which bidder would be acceptable. In that case I can see the highest bidder not necessarily geting the win.

Rem

nemesis
11-02-2011, 11:39 PM
All I know is what I've seen in the articles I've mentioned above but I would still think that MLB (meaning PudBud)will have a choice of which bidder would be acceptable. In that case I can see the highest bidder not necessarily geting the win.

Rem

Which means Cuban has a snowballs chance. Such a shame.

Brutus
11-03-2011, 02:12 PM
All I know is what I've seen in the articles I've mentioned above but I would still think that MLB (meaning PudBud)will have a choice of which bidder would be acceptable. In that case I can see the highest bidder not necessarily geting the win.

Rem

Correct. Baseball and the owners can both reject a prospective bidder. New owners have to be approved by a super majority, if memory serves me correct.

UKFlounder
11-03-2011, 02:46 PM
I thought I read that this would be done through a bidding process in bankruptcy court, but baseball could pre-approve the bidders. If I read correctly, baseball would not get to pick one of the bidders - it would go to the highest bid - but the reality is if they approve all the bidders, they pretty much are getting one of their primary choices anyway.

UKFlounder
11-03-2011, 02:53 PM
Here's an article about it.

Fred Claire, Steve Garvey & Peter O'Malley are 3 of the people trying to assemble groups to present bids, if approved

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7186149/ex-los-angeles-dodgers-gm-fred-claire-trying-assemble-bid

remdog
11-03-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm trying to remember/correlate how the proceedings went with the BK bidding with the Rangers. Some of the groups mentioned as interested buyers for the Dodgers apparently had interest in the Rangers. IIRC, Nolan Ryan's group was not necessarily the highest bidder but they were the bidder that MLB preferred. Or, am I having a 'brain cramp'?

Any thoughts?

Rem

Chip R
11-03-2011, 04:36 PM
I'm trying to remember/correlate how the proceedings went with the BK bidding with the Rangers. Some of the groups mentioned as interested buyers for the Dodgers apparently had interest in the Rangers. IIRC, Nolan Ryan's group was not necessarily the highest bidder but they were the bidder that MLB preferred. Or, am I having a 'brain cramp'?

Any thoughts?

Rem

The Greenburg/Ryan group submitted a final bid that was $12M more than Cuban's group.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8212/who-owns-the-texas-rangers (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8212/who-owns-the-texas-rangers)

bucksfan2
11-03-2011, 04:46 PM
The Greenburg/Ryan group submitted a final bid that was $12M more than Cuban's group.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8212/who-owns-the-texas-rangers (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8212/who-owns-the-texas-rangers)

I could be wrong but wasn't Cuban's bid the better bid? I thought the Grenburg/Ryan group took on a large amount of debt in order to purchase the Rangers. Cuban's wouldn't have been nearly as risky.

RFS62
11-03-2011, 10:59 PM
Mark Cuban will never, ever own a major league baseball team.

The owners will NEVER allow him in. It's not about politics. It's about his willingness to defy the league he's already a member of at will.

It will never happen, no matter how much money he offers.

redsmetz
12-16-2011, 05:22 AM
An update on the Dodgers bankruptcy hearings viz selling future TV rights:

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/judge-criticizes-fox-in-dodgers-rights-case/?ref=baseball

Chip R
01-28-2012, 11:10 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-dodgerssale

remdog
01-28-2012, 05:45 PM
There is some general thought in La that if McCort (the parking attendant as Plaske calls him) holds on to the land that surrounds the stadium that a new owner and, possibly the City of LA will move to build a new stadium (possibly in DT LA) and tear the old one down. (famous shrug).

I've always liked Dodger Stadium. It's always been a pleasant place to watch a ballgame----safe, easy to move around easy in/out for cars----well intil McCort got his mitts and piliged it.

Rem

KronoRed
01-28-2012, 09:37 PM
It would be sad to see Dodger stadium gone, but a guy like McCourt would probably try and build a super wal-mart in the parking lot.

RedlegJake
01-29-2012, 12:30 AM
I hope the Dodgers get an ownership group that wants to win. The Dodgers as hapless clowns seems strange. Growing up in the early Koufax-Drysdale-Osteen-Perranoski days just after the move to LA my memories are of strong Dodger teams and always pretty bitter rivalries with the Reds who were always a bare step behind them it seemed until the BRM years. Now in a different division and no longer that good its kind of sad. I used to hate them but now that they aren't any good I fins myself wishing that they were better. (I was just a tad too late to remember the angst of the move from Brooklyn -but my Dad sure did - he hated them for leaving Brooklyn but said it was inevitable that someone went west and he was just thankful it wasn't the Reds, Crosley sold the Reds about the same time and there was worry because the new owner wasn't a Cincy native but it was said Crosley extracted a promise that DeWitt would not move the team before he signed off on the final papers)

RBA
03-27-2012, 11:30 PM
Magic Johnson led group picked to buy Dodgers.

Magic Johnson's group wins Dodgers auction

http://www.latimes.com/

savafan
03-27-2012, 11:35 PM
$2 billion? Is that a professional sport franchise record selling price?

KronoRed
03-28-2012, 01:49 AM
McCourt gets to keep half the parking lots, can't wait to see that blow up.

RedFanAlways1966
03-28-2012, 07:24 AM
McCourt gets to keep half the parking lots, can't wait to see that blow up.

I wonder if he really gets a 1/4 of the parking lots... with the ex-wife getting the other 1/4. ;)

cumberlandreds
03-28-2012, 08:47 AM
$2 billion? Is that a professional sport franchise record selling price?

ESPN said it was.

RedsBaron
03-28-2012, 09:55 AM
I was listening to "Mike & Mike" on ESPN as I drove to work this morning. I didn't catch the name of their guest, but they had someone on who claimed the $2 billion sales price was far in excess of the FMV of the Dodgers, adding that if the Dodgers were worth that sum then the Yankees are worth $5.5 billion and the Dallas Cowboys are worth $7 billion.

Roy Tucker
03-28-2012, 10:19 AM
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

RBA
03-28-2012, 02:42 PM
What will the new owners have left for payroll?

IslandRed
03-28-2012, 07:39 PM
Hard to say. I haven't seen any reports defining how much of the purchase price was cash and how much is being financed.

But we know the crosstown Angels just signed a TV deal worth $150 million per year, and the Fox deal Selig nixed (because McCourt had set it up to get a cut before the Dodgers did) was worth even more, $3 billion over 17 years, so figure they'll do at least that well, maybe better with respected ownership and a rejuvenated fan base. I don't know the numbers but you'd assume they believe they can cover the debt service and still act like a big-market club.

bucksfan2
03-29-2012, 10:50 AM
I read a blurb that said McCourt made a 25% annual return on his money considering the sale price of the Dodgers. McCourt is a genius!

Always Red
03-29-2012, 11:19 AM
I wonder if he really gets a 1/4 of the parking lots... with the ex-wife getting the other 1/4. ;)

Nope, she got out early for 130 million or so.

As it turns out, the parking lots are worth more than that marriage was. :D

Wonder if she has had a serious talk with her advisers since the 2 billion dollar sale??

Sea Ray
03-29-2012, 02:07 PM
Goes to show when you're rich, fair market value doesn't matter. You just pay whatever it takes to attain your heart's desire. I wonder where this money's coming from? Magic Johnson is no billionaire, is he?

IslandRed
03-29-2012, 04:11 PM
Goes to show when you're rich, fair market value doesn't matter. You just pay whatever it takes to attain your heart's desire. I wonder where this money's coming from? Magic Johnson is no billionaire, is he?

Magic's been more successful than a lot of people realize*, but no, he's just the public face of a large group with a lot of deep pockets, including Mark Walter, who will be the controlling partner where MLB is concerned. Today's reports are saying the purchase is going to be made with cash and debt assumption. If the club doesn't have to deal with the debt service from the purchase, that's a big deal.

* I've seen it said, paraphrased, that Magic succeeds in business the same way he succeeded as a point guard -- he breaks down defenses, draws attention, then gets the ball to the right people.

oneupper
03-29-2012, 04:26 PM
Magic's been more successful than a lot of people realize*, but no, he's just the public face of a large group with a lot of deep pockets, including Mark Walter, who will be the controlling partner where MLB is concerned. Today's reports are saying the purchase is going to be made with cash and debt assumption. If the club doesn't have to deal with the debt service from the purchase, that's a big deal.

* I've seen it said, paraphrased, that Magic succeeds in business the same way he succeeded as a point guard -- he breaks down defenses, draws attention, then gets the ball to the right people.

Debt assumption means that they are going to assume the debt that the team already has (i.e. they buy the team with debt).

The "cash" portion is only cash in the sense that the previous owners will receive it. The new owners may be financing that cash outlay also.

So, yes there will be debt, Virginia.

IslandRed
03-29-2012, 04:36 PM
Debt assumption means that they are going to assume the debt that the team already has (i.e. they buy the team with debt).

The "cash" portion is only cash in the sense that the previous owners will receive it. The new owners may be financing that cash outlay also.

So, yes there will be debt, Virginia.

True, but MLB knows where the money is coming from. After getting burned by McCourt after letting him buy the team entirely with borrowed money against their own rules, you'd think they'd check the debt-to-capital ratio this time.

oneupper
03-29-2012, 04:52 PM
True, but MLB knows where the money is coming from. After getting burned by McCourt after letting him buy the team entirely with borrowed money against their own rules, you'd think they'd check the debt-to-capital ratio this time.

I'm not sure exactly what they check. There are many ways to structure these things. You can put the debt directly on the team, which is the most transparent way and which MLB would probably find out about. OR, you can put the debt on the ownership consortium (the holding company, if you will), which does not have to report its finances to MLB (as far as I know...maybe Brutus can help here). OR each partner finances his own portion (own funds or debt). OR any combination of the above.

These things can carry several layers of debt and it may or may not be apparent.

IslandRed
03-30-2012, 11:57 AM
Yeah, I don't know all of MLB's rules either. But after McCourt, one would expect that MLB wouldn't approve the sale if the new ownership group would have to suck huge amounts of money out of the team to cover debt service. You'd think. Of course, it would be better for the Reds if they did have huge debt service.

redsmetz
04-10-2012, 10:17 PM
Interesting piece in the Times about the financing of the Dodgers deal

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/a-costly-toy-subsidized-by-others/?ref=sports