reds ownership “poorest of the rich”

[Roy Tucker]

A fairly recent list.

https://patch.com/ohio/cleveland/the...est-u-s-forbes

Cincinnati-based companies, while lucrative and profitable, are conservative as hell. We don’t have any media moguls or dot com types.

[foster15]

As of October 2020, there were 614 billionaires in the U.S. Of that number, probably 90% have absolutely no interest in owning a professional sports franchise. That leaves around 60 billionaires who might be interested. Perhaps two-thirds of those 60 already own a franchise, leaving about 20 who might be in the market. Of those 20, only perhaps 2 are the flamboyant, devil-may-care personalities who are the type to throw caution to the wind and be willing to throw money around and get into bidding wars with all the big guys. But those flamboyant billionaire playboys aren’t going to be in Cincinnati. They are going to be in New York or Los Angeles.

It’s as someone stated, the only billionaires that are drawn to the Midwest, are the Carl Lindner types. So, we are going to end up with ownership groups of millionaires, who are trying to become billionaires. They aren’t going to get into bidding wars with billionaires.

I didn't know billionaires could only own one sports team?

[M2]

The way this manifests itself, IMO, is the Reds have a controlling owner rather than a majority or sole owner. The non-controlling owners do have some sway (they have a board) and it makes for a more conservative ownership structure in terms of spending money and operating outside the box.

[westofyou]

The way this manifests itself, IMO, is the Reds have a controlling owner rather than a majority or sole owner. The non-controlling owners do have some sway (they have a board) and it makes for a more conservative ownership structure in terms of spending money and operating outside the box.

Yep, it's a country club ownership, they all board room their decisions based on bottom line thinking only, the group is the menace not a single owner

[Roy Tucker]

Groupthink is pretty common.

My boss has told me to be the disrupter in meetings and challenge the groupthink. Since I’m of retirement age and don’t have to worry about my job, it’s kinda fun playing that role.

[MikeS21]

I didn't know billionaires could only own one sports team?

I need to look at this because I think I read somewhere that some professional sports prohibit owners from owning franchises in different sports. Obviously that’s not true for every sport, but I think it’s true in some sports.

[Big Klu]

Ted Turner used to own the Atlanta Braves and the Atlanta Hawks.

Mike Ilitch owned the Detroit Tigers and the Detroit Red Wings.

Jerry Reinsdorf owns the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Bulls.


That's just three, off the top of my head.

[westofyou]

Ted Turner used to own the Atlanta Braves and the Atlanta Hawks.

Mike Ilitch owned the Detroit Tigers and the Detroit Red Wings.

Jerry Reinsdorf owns the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Bulls.


That's just three, off the top of my head.

I think the NFL prohibits it

But not MLB, John Henry owns part of Liverpool IIRC

[Big Klu]

I think the NFL prohibits it

But not MLB, John Henry owns part of Liverpool IIRC

But the NFL allows owners to own English football clubs as well. Shad Khan owns the Jaguars and Fulham FC.

[UKFlounder]

I thought the NFL changed that rule for Wayne Huizenga to own the Dolphins and Marlins

I think the NFL prohibits it

But not MLB, John Henry owns part of Liverpool IIRC

[CaiGuy]

Every team operates within the revenue they generate. The wealth of the owner or controlling owners doesn't enter into that.

The Reds make and spend plenty of money to be competitive if they were well run.

[M2]

But the NFL allows owners to own English football clubs as well. Shad Khan owns the Jaguars and Fulham FC.

MLS teams too, though that's largely because the league was started by NFL guys who wanted to generate revenue in their stadiums outside of football season.

[M2]

Every team operates within the revenue they generate. The wealth of the owner or controlling owners doesn't enter into that.

The Reds make and spend plenty of money to be competitive if they were well run.

I think they have the money to take an honest shot on a more regular basis. However, the group model seems to push them more often towards the safe, highly profitable model of milking league revenues and keeping the payroll modest. That way all the owners get their beaks wet enough to feel like they got a drink. Could they win with that model? Sure, but they'd have to be close to perfect, and close to perfect is exceedingly hard to do.

[BRM13]

I think they have the money to take an honest shot on a more regular basis. However, the group model seems to push them more often towards the safe, highly profitable model of milking league revenues and keeping the payroll modest. That way all the owners get their beaks wet enough to feel like they got a drink. Could they win with that model? Sure, but they'd have to be close to perfect, and close to perfect is exceedingly hard to do.

I think this is correct. This might be saying the same thing M2 has pointed out, but the partnership structure the Reds have means that to run operating losses over any extended period of time probably requires capital calls from the other partners. Depending on exactly how the veto power is set up, this might be close to impossible to get them to agree to. So regardless of what Castellini may or may not want, a few ownership shares held by poorly capitalized groups (or groups more interested in profits than winning) could severely limit the Reds ability to run losses (read invest) in order to win more over time. I'm not saying Castellini isn't a problem (I don't really know), just that any tendency of his to err on side of profitability is exacerbated by ownership structure.

[DayGameRedLegs]

Hopefully Reds discover next Money Ball