Jump to content

Dollar Bill

Premium Membership
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    155

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dollar Bill

    Angel Stadium deal is dead

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Robrock30 said:

    I have been following this story from NY and I don't understand the drama here.  This deal is a win win for Angels and Anaheim tax revenue and development.  Just cut a deal for tax credits 80 - 20 tax abatement to provide low and moderate income housing and infrastructure and transportation improvements.  Cut a deal and everyone wins.  Makes too much sense.

    That's pretty much what they did. But, when the opponents' concern is whether the Angels paid fair value for the land and then the FBI says the mayor gave the Angels the confidential city appraisal to use in negotiating against the city in the hopes of a million-dollar campaign contribution ...

    Angel Stadium deal is dead

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    Tired of playing in an airplane hangar in front of mostly Dodger fans?

    It's true for Diamondbacks, Marlins and Rays: where people can see a variety of teams in spring training every day, they're not as likely to pay higher prices to see regular season games. Expansion to Arizona and Florida was a huge MLB mistake. 

    LA Times: Private Equity firms invest in baseball because revenue is plentiful

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

    Don't be hateful.  Can you disagree with someone without getting hateful?

     

    So here's a few things to consider about that article:

    1. Why is 2002-2021 the correct time frame to evaluate investment returns?  Will other periods show the same thing?  (Remember, they did not in the case of the Braves valuation, which we went thru more recent valuation window).  If you look at the Forbes history, you'll see fairly flat valuations from 2002-2014, then a big jump from 2015-2017, decelerating again from 2018 to now.  Which window best represents what will happen to future valuations?

    2. The total return quoted here is for average MLB franchise.  Not total valuations of all franchises.  Do you know why Shaikin would do that?  Have you considered what the median valuation looks like?  Or what the total appreciation return would be the 24 teams excluding the big ones (NYY, LAD, BOS, CHC, SF, NYM)?  If you want to assert that owning the Yankees is a great investment, I might agree with you on that.  Not so much the Royals, Pirates, Twins, Mariners, etc.

    3. The S&P return for 2002-2021 is incorrect.  My guess is Shaikin is excluding dividends, which is a freshman-level mistake.  It hugely affects rate of return numbers.

    4. The franchise valuation does not agree with the only publicly available one, the Forbes estimates.  No idea where Shaikin got his.

    5. The Forbes valuations do not include capital expenditures or owner-subsidized negative cash flows which must be included in cost basis for correct calculation of returns.  If the Arctos ones do, then his disagreement with Forbes is even bigger.  Owning the S&P 500 doesn't require you to build a new stadium, so the cost basis for owning the S&P 500 is whatever you put in at investment date - that's it.  Not necessarily true for MLB owners, unless they have operated cash flow positive every single year.

    6. Note the Arctos guy is projecting outsized future returns and currently under-valued assets.  That's what private equity funds specialize in.  If you read his statements carefully, he's not asserting outsized returns in the past 2002-2021 time window.  Bill Shaikin is the one making that assertion, while making elementary financial errors.

    Remember what was asserted - that owning an MLB franchise in the past has led to "obscene" returns not available to us common people. 

    The Arctos guy is *maybe* asserting that will be true in the future.  You and Bill Shaikin are asserting that has happened since 2002, but Shaikin has got the basic math incorrect.

    Thanks for reading. The returns for the S&P and franchise sales were taken from data presented at the conference, as the story says, so I can't speak to how they were calculated. But I would note that the Forbes valuations are estimates, as you say. MLB teams do not open their books to Forbes, so Forbes does its best to assess revenues, expenses, etc., and then estimates a franchise value accordingly. The true value, of course, is what someone is willing to pay for it. When the Dodgers hit the market a decade ago, Forbes estimated the franchise value at $800 million. The team sold for $2.15 billion. The Mets sold for more. The Marlins sold for $1.3 billion, the Royals for $1 billion.

    Accounting is a big part of this, of course. That's why McCourt split what we used to know as "the Dodgers" into a baseball company, a stadium operations company, and a parking lot company (and Guggenheim added a media company). That's why Arte is trying to develop the Angel Stadium parking lot -- not via the Angels, but instead through a company called SRB Management. That was one of the points the Arctos guy made: there are ancillary opportunities available, and those revenues are not shared -- not with other owners, and not with the players. 

    New York Times Acquire The Athletic

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    16 hours ago, SurfWriter said:

    I should make clear that I don't know sh-t about The Athletic and don't understand why the NY Times is investing in it.  I think it's a mistake on their part, especially at a time when they and other daily newspapers and outlets are struggling to survive.  So I guess they see it as both a good investment and a way of expanding their readership.  But I'm still waiting for someone on this site to explain why The Athletic is a worthwhile investment and helps the NYT expand their readership in a meaningful way.  I'm open to hearing a rational explanation.  And I'll have to do my duty by checking out what The Athletic contains these days.

    This is an optimistic analysis of the deal:

    https://thelogic.co/opinion/letter-from-the-editor-the-new-york-times-deal-to-buy-the-athletic-is-a-win-for-journalism/?utm_content=bufferb4311&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Would you still be an Angels fan if the team relocated?

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    On 12/21/2021 at 2:20 PM, mmc said:

    This is a joke right?  There’s a reason it took the NFL forever to come back to LA.  Southern California is really not a sports hotbed at all, with the exception of the Lakers and maybe the Dodgers sports fans here are as fairweather as it gets when it comes to attendance, there is way too many other things to do here.  It is not anywhere near the sports market as many places in the Eastern part of the country

    The reason it took the NFL forever to come back to L.A.: The local governments here said, "We'd love you back, but you pay for the stadium." The NFL didn't like that precedent. Kroenke didn't care because he was planning a development so big he could pay for the stadium and make tons of money on the rest.

    OC Register: Hoornstra: Why it’s still OK to boo the Astros

    in LA Angels | MLB Daily

    Posted

    On 10/30/2021 at 9:26 AM, yamsi12 said:

    I never understood why they chose the only other Texas team to be in the AL west. Always figured it would be the dbacks or Rockies. Made more sense to have a Texas team in both leagues.

    Neither the Diamondbacks nor the Rockies had any interest in replacing three visits from the Dodgers each year with three visits from the Astros. MLB needed an NL Central team to move, and the lure for the Astros was three visits from the Rangers each year (plus - probably more importantly - the Astros owner got a discount on his purchase of the team).

×
×
  • Create New...