For $325m, the Angels sign...

[Thomas]

21 minutes ago, aznhockeyguy said:

rte can essentially said screw it and sell the team, saddling the new owners of the team with the obligations of the stadium remodel/build and staying here until 2050. 

Wouldn't the value of the team and thus what Arte receives from the sale be directly correlated with the stadium situation?  This would be robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

[Dtwncbad]

Usually when a property sells you get some standard info.

Angel Stadium is a 0 bed/245 bath?

[Thomas]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

Usually when a property sells you get some standard info.

Angel Stadium is a 0 bed/245 bath?

For all the salacious rumors to have come out of the stadium over the years there has to be some beds somewhere in that stadium!

[Claude]

11 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Sure it's 'under market value' but what really is the value of that property with an empty stadium sitting on top of it? First you gotta pay to remove the stadium, then find someone willing to develop the land. Sure you probably come out ahead in the long run but I'm not sure it's worth it.

A gated community surrounded by restaurants, hotels and shopping would bring in millions. 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

For all the salacious rumors to have come out of the stadium over the years there has to be some beds somewhere in that stadium!

Well, Bobby Grich did play there for years so. . .

[Don]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Usually when a property sells you get some standard info.

Angel Stadium is a 0 bed/245 bath?

At least they got rid of the troughs in the 90s.

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Don said:

At least they got rid of the troughs in the 90s.

Dodger Stadium is 0 beds/25 bath/125 trough.

[aznhockeyguy]

5 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Sure it's 'under market value' but what really is the value of that property with an empty stadium sitting on top of it? First you gotta pay to remove the stadium, then find someone willing to develop the land. Sure you probably come out ahead in the long run but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Valid point, the city can put out bids for the land with the contingency that they pay for the removal and development of said site.  The city can put the responsibility of taking down the stadium to the developer.

3 minutes ago, ukyah said:

all of that writing for some really poor conclusions.

arte isn't selling the angels before a "new" stadium is built or the redevelopment. the angels will be worth considerably more after all that is completed. what if jerrah had sold the cowboys before his stadium was built? these guys aren't that stupid.

Ukyah,

Not necessarily, the Rams are getting a new stadium but many will point to their move to LA as the biggest reason for their valuation jump.  Dallas/Jerry got a lot of public subsidies for said stadium, https://www.keranews.org/post/cowboys-stadium-financing-passes-arlington.  And the biggest push in franchise valuations is mostly correlated to the rise of TV money for broadcasting.  Because the Angels/Arte will be responsible for the ballpark renovation/construction, I don't think the valuation will change too much. Take a look at the Texas Rangers example https://www.forbes.com/teams/texas-rangers/#523174a17da9. Since they were able to get a significant amount subsidized by Arlington, their team valuation increased due to the upcoming stadium.

 

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

I like the part where Arte steals the stadium at 33% of value but then sticks the new owner with the huge financial burden of owning the stadium.

As I said in my original comment that it was highly unlikely, but I can see it happening.  I guess you left that part out to fit your conclusion of my poor conclusion.  

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

Wouldn't the value of the team and thus what Arte receives from the sale be directly correlated with the stadium situation?  This would be robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

See my previous two comments above. Because the team is directly responsible for the new stadium, the new valuation will reflect this situation.  I don't think it'll be too much, just look at the Rams, very little public money for the new stadium, but the valuation of the team was mostly changed because of the move to LA.  It will be interesting how Arte will finance this.

[eaterfan]

AZN - not sure how it correlates, but NFL and MLB have vastly different revenue models. In MLB the driving factor for revenue is local TV money. The NFL doesn't really have that (preseason excluded) they have a national contract and strict revenue sharing. One area that really drives revenue discrepancies between teams is luxury box sales. Teams get to exclude much more of that from revenue sharing. As a result new stadiums with more luxury suites are a tremendous value driver for NFL teams. 

[ScottT]

Arte Moreno sure has squashed two big talking points of some people by keeping Trout and keeping the Angels in Anaheim.  I thought both would happen and I'd sure like to say I told you so to every single person that insisted Trout was gone or the Angels might move.  

 

[angelsnationtalk]

Watch now they can’t afford major pitching changes this year 

[angelsnationtalk]

31 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Dodger Stadium is 0 beds/25 bath/125 trough.

Let’s have Zillow or Trulia show us the commute map and crime maps 

[yk9001]

4 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Arte Moreno sure has squashed two big talking points of some people by keeping Trout and keeping the Angels in Anaheim. 

Who on earth ever thought they'd leave anaheim?

Link?

Every single location brought up here was anywhere from problematic to extremely problematic.

[ScottT]

Stupid and uninformed people thought there was a chance. 

[rafibomb]

 

 

[Inside Pitch]

54 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Sure it's 'under market value' but what really is the value of that property with an empty stadium sitting on top of it? First you gotta pay to remove the stadium, then find someone willing to develop the land. Sure you probably come out ahead in the long run but I'm not sure it's worth it.

The city still owes 500K+ from when they made an addition to the Stadium...    Pretty sure the last thing they wanted to do was take on the costs on tearing that big boy down and getting rid of whatever hazardous materials and the sort were used to build the place.   

From the article https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/04/angels-agree-to-stay-in-anaheim-through-2050-stadium-to-be-sold-for-325-million/

A city-commissioned appraisal – which is expected to be released publicly Wednesday – determined the land could be worth anywhere from $225 million to $475 million, but the highest potential values hinged on getting rid of the stadium (thus freeing the entire 153 acres for development) or keeping the stadium but cutting the parking requirement in half.

[failos]

Hell of a deal for the Angels.

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

The city still owes 500K+ from when they made an addition to the Stadium...    Pretty sure the last thing they wanted to do was take on the costs on tearing that big boy down and getting rid of whatever hazardous materials and the sort were used to build the place.   

From the article https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/04/angels-agree-to-stay-in-anaheim-through-2050-stadium-to-be-sold-for-325-million/

A city-commissioned appraisal – which is expected to be released publicly Wednesday – determined the land could be worth anywhere from $225 million to $475 million, but the highest potential values hinged on getting rid of the stadium (thus freeing the entire 153 acres for development) or keeping the stadium but cutting the parking requirement in half.

The way I see it, the value of that land is derived primary from its existence around Angel stadium. Remove the team from the picture and it’s hard to see why anyone would really want to develop there. Just look at the land across the street after all.

[nate]

2 hours ago, Calzone 2 said:

Nice fleecing Arte. Estimated value $900M.  

Dollars?

How is a 53 year old stadium in Orange County worth $900m?

[aznhockeyguy]

43 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

AZN - not sure how it correlates, but NFL and MLB have vastly different revenue models. In MLB the driving factor for revenue is local TV money. The NFL doesn't really have that (preseason excluded) they have a national contract and strict revenue sharing. One area that really drives revenue discrepancies between teams is luxury box sales. Teams get to exclude much more of that from revenue sharing. As a result new stadiums with more luxury suites are a tremendous value driver for NFL teams. 

 

Very true, but my point still stands that TV money is a prime factor in team valuations for both sports.  I think TV money will dry up for at least baseball, whether or not tech money (facebook, roku, twitter etc.) keeps it up remains to be seen as baseball is not a popular sport with younger viewers.  My main point was to address the point that new stadiums are a driving force in team valuations, which I conceded for other teams, but since the Angels will be responsible for their own stadium, the Angels wouldn't necessarily get a bump if they build a new stadium.

 

15 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

The city still owes 500K+ from when they made an addition to the Stadium...    Pretty sure the last thing they wanted to do was take on the costs on tearing that big boy down and getting rid of whatever hazardous materials and the sort were used to build the place.   

From the article https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/04/angels-agree-to-stay-in-anaheim-through-2050-stadium-to-be-sold-for-325-million/

A city-commissioned appraisal – which is expected to be released publicly Wednesday – determined the land could be worth anywhere from $225 million to $475 million, but the highest potential values hinged on getting rid of the stadium (thus freeing the entire 153 acres for development) or keeping the stadium but cutting the parking requirement in half.

 

That valuation paragraph wasn't in the article as I was writing my initial post.  If that's true then the Angels did get fair market value.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, aznhockeyguy said:

Valid point, the city can put out bids for the land with the contingency that they pay for the removal and development of said site.  The city can put the responsibility of taking down the stadium to the developer.

Who pays the cost doesn’t really matter, it’s that the cost needs to be paid that would be the driving influence behind any deal. That stadium is a huge cost burden to anyone who would think about developing the land. As IP’s quote pointed out those high land valuations come with the assumption that the land is clear and ‘ready to go’ for development.

[fan_since79]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Dangit, was really hoping for that Long Beach stadium that was 8 miles to the closest freeway.

Same here! I was looking forward to taking the shuttle bus from the Lakewood Mall through horrendous rush hour traffic on narrow downtown streets to the sparkling new stadium.

 

[fan_since79]

1 hour ago, ScottT said:

Stupid and uninformed people thought there was a chance. 

The mayor of Long Beach thought there was a good chance.

Still fits with your post.

[ten ocho recon scout]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

For all the salacious rumors to have come out of the stadium over the years there has to be some beds somewhere in that stadium!

Just outside of it.

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 hour ago, nate said:

Dollars?

How is a 53 year old stadium in Orange County worth $900m?

Theres shantys in santa ana going for 600K. So who knows.

To be fair, those 700 square foot cholo homes have tvs the same size as the new scoreboards. And parking is about the same. Fireworks or similar every night, etc.

Angel stadium has metal detectors, santana will at some point. Etc.