For Potential Dodger Owners, How Much Is Too Much?
January 11, 2012 at 10:41 am | Posted in Frank McCourt, Thomas Barrack | 63 CommentsSomewhat lost in all the ownership hoopla of the last few days was this interesting tidbit buried in Bill Shaikin’s Saturday Los Angeles Times story on Stanley Gold & the family of the late Roy Disney potentially teaming up to bid on the team:
With Fox Sports and the Dodgers still in litigation, a mediator recently broached the idea of Frank McCourt selling the team to Fox so that McCourt could get a guaranteed sale price and Fox could secure the Dodgers’ long-term television rights, according to a person familiar with the talks.
Under that plan, Fox then would have facilitated a sale to another party, but the trial balloon was shot down over the potential price McCourt might accept to forgo an auction. According to the person familiar with the talks, Fox proposed a price in the range of $1.2 billion, McCourt proposed a price in the range of $2 billion, and neither side expressed much interest in meeting halfway.
Dodgers spokesman Robert Siegfried and Fox spokesman Chris Bellitti each declined to comment on the mediation. Bellitti, however, wanted to make one point clear on behalf of Fox.
“The company has no interest in ownership of the Dodgers,” he said.
Let’s say that this is true, and while we can’t know for sure that it is, Shaikin’s reporting has rarely been wrong throughout this whole ugly saga. If this is information is accurate, it could be an early indication that the sale price of the team might be quite a bit higher than any of us had originally thought; for some time, the prevailing public opinion (at least in my view) has been that the team and stadium could fetch between $1-1.2b. Now it seems that McCourt may have turned his nose up at a real, not just perceived, offer of $1.2b; as Shaikin notes earlier in the story, McCourt may think somewhere around $1.6b is doable. ESPN’s Buster Olney looked at the heavyweights involved and went further, suggesting that the sale price could be somewhere close to two billion dollars.
If that sounds like an obscene amount of money, well, it is. If you had two billion dollars in singles and stretched them end-to-end from here to the moon… you’d still have an absolutely ludicrous amount of money despite having wasted so much of it an unnecessary example of your wealth. To date, the largest sale price in MLB history is the $845m the Cubs (along with Wrigley Field) were purchased for in 2009, and that also included a 25% piece of Comcast SportsNet Chicago. I think you can certainly wonder if the Dodgers are really worth potentially twice as much as the Cubs went for, because while there’s no doubt that the Dodgers are a crown jewel of Major League Baseball, it’s not like the Cubs are exactly the Charleston Chiefs. I get that there’s Hollywood money and the appeal of looking like a savior to rescue a devastated franchise, but even so, that seems like an enormous leap in franchise valuation.
On its own, that doesn’t really bother me so much, other than the fact that McCourt probably gets to walk away from this being richer than ever. If that’s the price the market will pay, then that’s what it will pay, especially when the latest potential bidder, Thomas Barrack, can only be described as “cartoonishly rich”. (No, really, just look at the final section of his Wikipedia page: “As of September 2011, he is the 833rd richest person in the world, and the 375th richest in the United States, with an estimated wealth of US$ 1.1. billion. He owns a Gulfstream IV and lives on a 1,200-acre mountain ranch near Santa Barbara, California. In the summer, he lives in a castle in the South of France.” A castle!)
But I think it’s worth asking, what comes next after that kind of outlay? It’s not as though you purchase the team and then that’s the last check you ever have to write, especially if you want to win fans back with increased player payroll and stadium upgrades. That’s a whole lot of money, enough that even Thomas Barrack – shown at right – couldn’t afford to do it on his own. In order to make this work, the new owner is going to have to come up with the funding needed to purchase the team plus likely have dozens or hundreds of millions available beyond that. And most importantly, we’re going to need to make sure that this deal isn’t over-leveraged on debt, which was the mistake that got Frank McCourt into all this trouble in the first place. Obviously, a big appeal of buying the team is expecting the riches you’ll get from a new television contract, though that’s not necessarily an immediate income.
There’s always a bright side, and in this case, it’s a significant one: it’s hard to believe that a new owner would spend all this money to get the club and squander all that goodwill by not spending to improve the team. While it’s all but certainly not going to come in time to get Prince Fielder, we could see that influx coming by the July trade deadline or at the latest by next winter’s free agent market. It’s just another info point we have to keep in mind when observing the bidding process; simply being “a billionaire” might not be enough.
63 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
For all the bluster and speculation, the truth is, nobody knows what exactly is going on.
After all, we don’t even know what precisely each of these groups are actually bidding on.
For some who are cheaper/poorer, they’re probably just bidding on the Dodgers and Dodgers Stadium (and not the parking lot). For the truly serious, they will bid on everything that McCourt bought (Dodgers/stadium/parking lot). There is a lot of value associated with all of that. And at the end of the day, I can safely predict that nobody will actually write a cheque in the whole amount. There will be financing. It’s simply a fact in today’s financial engineering.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Oh yeah, I totally agree with that last part – no one’s writing a check for $2b. There will be some loans involved, and that’s fine. I just want to be cautious that we don’t end up with someone who needs a loan for like 80% of the team.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
Oh ya, well, the last go around there were all kinds of weird and outlandish conflicts of interest due to the incestine relationship between Fox, who is MLB’s national TV partner as well as regional partner to well over half of the MLB, exerting influence over the sales decision of the Dodgers. And then loaning McCourt most of the money needed to purchase the loan (one of which McCourt actually defaulted on, hence the final resolution of the parking lot in Boston). One can only hope that Bud Selig has been chastened by that experience and will not circumvene any rules governing debt in their vetting of various ownerships for McCourt to pick. One can only hope.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Yeah, what I’m holding out hope for here is just that the spotlight on this is going to be so bright because of McCourt that they can’t let the team go to anyone who isn’t fully capable to handle it.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
I know it borders on hereticism to give McCourt any credit but you know, the fact that there are so many credible bidders this time around (and the value of the “assets”) is partly due to his ownership of the team.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
How so? I agree that the team is worth more now than when he arrived, and he’ll reap the benefits of that. But when I think of reasons why, I think of:
1. Increase in MLB franchise valuations since 2004 thanks to sale of other teams
2. Increase in MLB revenue overall driving up prices
3. Ability to negotiate new TV deal and/or start new regional network, as opposed to 2004 when deal was locked in
4. Appeal to ego of being seen as “savior” after McCourt disaster
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
Thomas Barrack owns Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. I’m not sure if that’s the same 1,200 acre mountain ranch near Santa Barbara referenced as his home, but the geography is right – Neverland is about 30 minutes from Santa Barbara. That might be even more cartoonish than his castle.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— January 11, 2012 #
I don’t know why I laughed so hard at the Donald Duck cartoon. It made this whole web of speculation worthwhile to me.
Comment by Paul— January 11, 2012 #
I don’t think Family Guy has been funny in about 8 years, but every time I see the Donald Duck image, I just keep thinking of one great bit FG did, showing Donald diving into his pool of coins and swimming… except that, since metal is not liquid, he dives in and breaks every bone in his body.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
Um, isn’t this Scrooge McDuck?
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Uh, right.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
Actually, it was Peter diving into the pool of coins and breaking every bone in his body and realizing his mistake.
Comment by realmofotalk— January 11, 2012 #
Ask and ye shall receive…
Comment by Goober— January 11, 2012 #
Mike, you mention that the new owner can show goodwill by spending for FAs after 2012, but is anyone useful/worthwhile coming up in that group?
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 11, 2012 #
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/04/2013-mlb-free-agents.html
Not a whole lot of bats aside from Josh Hamilton, but a ton of pitching. Matt Cain, Zack Greinke, Dan Haren, Cole Hamels, Shawn Marcum, Brandon McCarthy, Anibal Sanchez, Ervin Santana, James Shields. Obviously, some of those guys will get re-signed, and Kershaw’s a bigger priority.
Unfortunately, some genius had to go sign a whole bunch of lame veterans to two year deals.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
Damn these nested comments not letting me comment directly.
Mike,
1/2. Yes, rising tide lifts all boats, McCourt has certainly benefited there. However, he has also renovated Dodgers Stadium (though I agree that he hasn’t done so fast enough or as extensive as it needs to be). As much as we despise the overly commercialisation of the outfield walls, it is yet another example of the expanding of the commercialising of the team (and increase in revenues).
3. This was available to any bidder in 2004 as well. So, it’s neither a positive or negative.
4. Well, that as it may be, it still doesn’t change the fact that they are actually bidding.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
For 3, is that true? I don’t have the details in front of me, but I believe that McCourt bought the team with a deal in place for many years ahead, not so near completion as it is now.
Comment by Mike— January 11, 2012 #
I’ll have to dig it up, but I recall one of the conditions of the Dodgers sale to McCourt was to renegotiate the TV contract and lengthened to 2013. It was widely cited as one of the reasons why McCourt was selected (and why they gave short shrift to Eli Broad when he bellied up with his last minute all cash offer).
Though I have always wondered whether Broad was serious about that or merely posturing to get some positive PR.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
833rd richest person in the world?? That guy thinks that’s impressive? :P
Comment by DodgersKings323— January 11, 2012 #
the top 832 are all Nigerian princes though.
Comment by Bip— January 12, 2012 #
I think it just came down that McCourt can’t get out of the contract with Fox for the bidding rights. The contract will run through as it has been previously written to the surprise of nobody. Frank really wastes his time on fruitless battles.
Comment by SV Narine— January 11, 2012 #
Frank McCourt, every lawyer’s best friend!
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Can you say Cole Hamels – Los Angeles Dodger?
Comment by Grabarkewitz— January 11, 2012 #
Could you imagine going Clayton Kershaw, Cole Hamels, Zach Lee, RDLR, and who cares who the 5th starter in that rotation is?
Comment by Paul— January 11, 2012 #
Just have to get rid of Harang, Capuano and Lilly. Not a daunting task, but eating around $20 million will be the issue. As for the fifth starter, it could either be Billz, if he gets his act together or – my choice – Allen Webster, if Ned doesn’t trade him for some 38 year old broken down veteran who was good in 2002.
Comment by grabarkewitz— January 11, 2012 #
How does payroll work? I thought I’d read somewhere that teams cannot just increase their payroll at will, that there is a sort of checks and balance system in place. So, if a new owner comes in, could they just increase the Dodger payroll to 150M+ right our of the gate or would they have to have some sort of debt balance before that would be possible? If so, do we know what the current cap would be for the team with their current debt? Also, is it next season when a lot of the ridiculously backloaded salaries finally come off the books, like Ramirez, Pierre, etc.? I believe Schmidt is finally paid up now correct? Man, was that a waste.
It’s going to take a huge payroll if the new owner expects to compete in 2013, with the way Colletti has already overloaded the current payroll.
Comment by Wil— January 11, 2012 #
Especially given the lack of free agents or fodder in the farm system to trade for actual productive players.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 11, 2012 #
Baseball is the most permissive in American sports in terms of control of the league onto each individual team’s payroll. As long as the owner wants to spend, they are permitted to do so. There _is_ a salary cap but it is a soft cap as teams are permitted to spend above the cap so long as they pay a luxury tax. Deferred salaries are I believe counted towards the cap but again, that doesn’t need to act as a deterrent so long as the owner is willing to pay the tax. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Luxury_tax_in_Major_League_Baseball
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Oh ok, thanks Greg. I knew about the luxury tax but wasn’t quite sure how that worked. That’s good to know. I feel a little better about the 2013 season now knowing that. Before I figured it would just have to be a 2012 re-run.
Comment by Wil— January 11, 2012 #
Not True
The DEBT to EBITDA formula gives Bud the right to monitor every team’s profitability and therefore their player salaries, i.e. the Dodger’s player salaries for the last 3 years. The total of certain types of Debt can not exceed 8 times EBITDA. Bid gives waivers all of hte time when the team shows that future year payments of player contracts are not detrimentally effected. If the Dodgers are purchased with no Debt then only the salalry cap will apply.
Comment by Ken— January 11, 2012 #
As you say, there are many loopholes and waives that owners can apply for and have been given by MLB.
There are many ways to easily skirt these issues by shuffling the money around. Specifically though, you’re right that there are rules at the organisational level (above the salary cap) such as the debt to EBITDA but that is something that teams will hit only if they have astronomical payrolls. That is to say, it is so far out of band that it’s not really an issue.
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Don’t think it will take a huge payroll to compete. Just a wise one. Plenty of teams have gone to and won the series recently with the same or lower payrolls than the Dodgers currently have.
Comment by Jon#7#22— January 11, 2012 #
Agreed that high payroll isn’t necessary but LA is the second largest market in the country and the Dodgers have a proud tradition. No reason why they shouldn’t be in top 5 payroll instead of bottom 5. (okay, that second one might be a slight exaggeration.)
Comment by Greg— January 11, 2012 #
Right, I wasn’t trying to imply that the Dodgers should suddenly have a 150M payroll, that was just an example. But it would need to go a good deal higher than McCourts’ payroll level to be World Series caliber competitors before 2014. That was the point I was trying to get at. Assuming that’s the type of team the new owner expects to field and that they want to try to do it that quickly.
Comment by Wil— January 11, 2012 #
FWIW, just because McCourt turned down an offer for 1.2 bil, it doesn’t follow that the market will bear 2 bil. McCourt is better served by seeing what comes out of a 10+ investor bidding war than taking the first offer from Fox, but that doesn’t mean the bidding war will suddenly double the expected value of the team.
Also, it’s not like McCourt has a recent track record of making great decisions.
I would take his decline of the offer as relatively insignificant.
Comment by Joshua Maxson— January 11, 2012 #
Totally agree with you. I think Frank actually leaked that to try to stir up a frenzy. Cold, green eye shade types are going to call BS on $2bln. In that sense, you have to give credit to Mark Cuban for putting a ceiling on it. And he’s a smart guy for selling Broadcast.com for billions to AOL just before the tech bubble burst. So he can see a frothy market.
Comment by RS— January 11, 2012 #
Just for exactness’ sake. Cuban suckered my former employees at Yahoo, not AOL, into spending $5 billion on Broadcast.com. We passed on buying Google, You Tube, and numerous other successes, but started Cuban on his career.
Is it any wonder I got laid off after nearly a dozen years?
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 12, 2012 #
Thanks for the corrections. Well Yahoo turned down MSFT’s $34 buyout in what might be the stupidest corp. decision in a decade. So chin up friend, they haven’t exactly shown the best judgment in the world.
Comment by RS— January 12, 2012 #
My yardstick for Internet success: If Yahoo is unable or unwilling to buy a company, they will be a huge success. If Yahoo goes ahead with the purchase, it’ll be a disaster.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 12, 2012 #
Word on the street is Manny wants back into the MLB. I know we’re all chuckling a little bit, but you have to ask yourself which you’d prefer: Juan Riveira’s guaranteed mediocrity, or a nutcase “buy low (I mean really, really low)” lottery ticket with something to prove, just two seasons removed from a good offensive season? On a team that isn’t expected to go anywhere, I might just roll the dice if the price were right.
Comment by Paul— January 11, 2012 #
Juan Rivera by far. Manny is a headache, and has to serve a 50 game suspension. Maybe as a bench piece for the vet min, but you know Manny would cause a ruckus. There was a reason we shipped him out when we got a chance, and why he’s burned bridges wherever he goes.
Comment by SV Narine— January 12, 2012 #
“While it’s all certainly not going to come in time to get Prince Fielder,”
So you’re saying there’s a chance? I’m holding out hope that Prince knows he can go to the Dodgers if he waits it out. What does that guy need with spring training anyways?
Comment by eskeskeys— January 11, 2012 #
Well, he does need to hit that buffet table, and he’d probably rather do it at team expense.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 11, 2012 #
> if the Dodgers are really worth potentially twice as much as the Cubs went for, because while there’s no doubt that the Dodgers are a crown jewel of Major League Baseball, it’s not like the Cubs are exactly the Charleston Chiefs. <
No, but they're securely fastened to their longstanding association with former owners WGN/Tribune Co and so have no gazillion$ contract lying in wait for them. The Dodgers do; the market here is bigger than in Chicago; the newest contract talks will start at $3 billion and, with the new ownership and all the jewels they may unearth in free agency to put on tv, may rise to $6 billion (you read it first here; i've been saying for over a month the Dodgers could go for $1.4 billion, and in the last two weeks have upticked that in messages like this to $1.6; i've been saying the tv deal could go for $5 billion but, considering the NECESSITY for Fox to keep the Dodgers or perhaps lose a channel to Time-Warner on the cable dial, Prime Ticket, thereby losing MORE than $5 billion, the final tv take for the next owner may very well end up @ around $6B).
$2 billion—what it could take to secure $6 billion, JUST for tv—is, for that reason, not at all beyond the realm of possibility. What keeps making me at least think it could keep rising by the time the bids are in is the growing competition. You're right, Mike, in stating that these guys are not writing a check on their own money, and part of it will be in loans. But there are so many bidders with so many billions, when you get them all in a bidding fight $2 billion might just be the ticket. Again, for people with that kind of money, who do not foolishly lose much of it on bad investments, these are not McCourt-types who will be left near bankruptcy after their bid wins the team and hopefully the parking lot (which we should expect from guys from this stratum of wealth)—which will provide them even more wealth as they use their resources to develop it, including building that NFL stadium ON THEIR DIME and finally bringing pro football back to LA, right next door to Dodger Stadium, and all the wealth THAT would bring them—our next owner will EASILY have the wherewithal to spend over $200 million a year on players IF THEY WANT TO.
I mean, what is $200 million when you've got billions to buy the team with, to borrow on, and to develop the property with? Throw in that you KNOW $5-6 billion is coming to you over the life of a measly 20-year tv contract, spending on the product to secure the players you need to make sure the fannies are in the seats in the Stadium and otherwise glued to the couches in front of their 3D screens watching perennial pennant-winning Dodger Baseball is NOTHING to such buyers. To do any LESS than guarantee the most attractive product would be stupid on their part. NOT spending on the team would be something poor people did, like McCourt, not these guys.
I have no doubt Arte Moreno saw this way before any of us did, and which is why he got Albert. He didn't want the Angels to become irrelevant in SoCal to the coming Dodger juggernaut. Which bodes tremendously well for us to settle in for what looks to me like it could be THE golden age for LA baseball. Not only will a future big bopper Prince Fielder-type FA be wrapped up in Dodger blue, so New Owner can compete with Arte and his Albert, we could very well see the equivalent of Red Sox-Yankees every year in LA, with more than one Freeway World Series in our future.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 12, 2012 #
Mike, i’m sure you’ve seen this scary new story from Shaikin on Alan Casden teaming up with McCourt:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-shaikin-mlb-meetings-20120112,0,3634457.story?track=-slug
This is very worrisome to me in that Casden and McCourt could make a deal, Casden not bidding on the land but bringing McCourt in as his partner, who picks Casden as the new owner, to build New Dodger Stadium somewhere downtown (where??? the NFL downtown site would be the SMALLEST in pro football), demolishing the present one, and building god knows what on what would remain as McCourt’s land.
The plot sickens.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 12, 2012 #
Yes. Not a very big fan of that.
Comment by Mike— January 12, 2012 #
“They knock down stadiums all the time,” Casden told The Times then. “Dodger Stadium is not an antique. It’s not Frank Lloyd Wright. It’s a nice place to play baseball, but there are far better.”
That statement alone should disqualify him.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 12, 2012 #
Agreed. Even with the bid structure of this deal, doesn’t the new owner still need to voted on by the other owners? If they do, this would disqualify Casden immediately as the owners wouldn’t vote in someone who has any ties to McCourt. The same way the probably wouldn’t vote in Cuban.
Comment by SV Narine— January 12, 2012 #
MLB gets to delete Casden from the bidding pool by not passing his name on to McCourt. Since MLB will have vetted every bidder they pass along, their veto or vote on whoever McCourt picks will be a formality. Don’t forget, as well, that the bankruptcy judge weighs heavily in favor of the winning bid being approved by MLB, and MLB knows the judge is not to be disputed. Their vetting of the bidders should be enough to satisfy them. They didn’t have the ability to do so in the Texas Rangers bidding, and meekly accepted the winning bid of Nolan Ryan’s group, which they did not want, out of their typically braindead reasoning on what would constitute a good owner (Ryan’s 2 for 2 in the AL since he became co-owner).
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 13, 2012 #
MLB didn’t want the Nolan Ryan group? Actually, that’s the group that MLB preferred all along and bankruptcy court forced them to pay more than their initial bid.
Comment by Greg— January 13, 2012 #
All i know is that when the Ryan goup was announced by the court, MLB refused to approve them unless they took on a partner, a doofus fat cat from Joisey who stuck out like a wool suit in a room full of cowboy hats who’d hung around like McCourt in the MLB good ol boy stable waiting for a team to own, who then got into trouble for saying some dumb things in public and who Nolan Ryan then had to buy out, thank you very much for nothing MLB.
IF MLB preferred Ryan’s group all along, something happened to shake up that preference after they cast the winning bid and MLB feigned cold feet.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 13, 2012 #
No matter how much sentimental value we have about Dodger stadium, i think we can agree that it’s going to be knocked down and rebuilt at some point. Plenty of old stadiums with tons of history have been torn down. I don’t want it to happen, but we shouldn’t act like it won’t, nor that it shouldn’t, happen.
Comment by Bip— January 12, 2012 #
While Dodger Stadium eventually may be torn down, the basic structure is good, and,with proper maintenance, there’s no reason it can’t last another hundred years. (Look at Wrigley and Fenway — even Tiger Stadium was in pretty good shape.) Even if they wanted to build a new stadium, where could they put it that would offer the same amenities and setting? Do we really want something jammed in near the Staples Center with a lovely view of the 110 and Santa Monica freeways?
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 12, 2012 #
Peter O’Malley’s plan was the ideal one for Chavez Ravine, siting an NFL stadium there, built on the Dodgers’ dime to get that cash cow moved in next door and o btw they’d get to own part of it. It makes great sense to move the Dodgers temporarily into that, while of course the NFL team played there 4 Sundays over 9 weeks in September and October, and then gut and rebuild the stand-alone new baseball stadium near if not in the footprint of the current one.
Whoever builds the NFL stadium gets a team, and right now the two possibilities are waiting for each other to start building, and it ain’t happening. I think Magic’s desire to co-own the Dodgers AND the land has a lot to do with his experience with the downtown football site and the lack of bucks to get it done. Imagine if McCourt keeps the land and co-owns a football stadium with the next owner. Parking prices for baseball and football could approach the cost of tickets.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 13, 2012 #
accidentally posted this on an earlier post, meant to post it on this one: http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/383169_10150677100313508_45084588507_11753921_1683266007_n.jpg
This goes back to what Mike was saying about international spending. This picture was on facebook titled as “15 of the dodger’s top prospects” going to some winter camp or whatever. Notice that they’re almost all white. I don’t know if the non-white prospects, many of whom may live out of the country, just find it hard to attend a winter camp, but still, this should emphasize his point.
Comment by Bip— January 12, 2012 #
Is that Loney in the back? Think I see Dee and Sellers too. Wonder what this is.
Comment by Mike— January 12, 2012 #
From like the third post down on http://www.facebook.com/Dodgers :
“Fifteen of the Dodgers’ top prospects were in town this week for the team’s annual Winter Development Program, which included workouts, community visits, informational seminars and social events throughout Los Angeles. James Loney, Dee Gordon and Justin Sellers also dropped by to work out with the prospects.”
Comment by Bip— January 12, 2012 #
Ramona Shelburne looks into whether Josh Macciello is for real.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7455184/josh-macciello-wants-own-los-angeles-dodgers
Comment by Mike— January 12, 2012 #
There just seems something hinky about the guy.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— January 12, 2012 #
So he’s literally relying on a gold mine… and we thought the Chinese-backed money seemed illegitimate.
Comment by Paul— January 12, 2012 #
[...] on this. While Olney’s points are valid, we’ve been talking a lot this week about just how much money the Dodgers are expected to go for – by all indications, it’ll be record-shattering. I [...]
Pingback by Thursday Notes: Old Money, New Money, and the Unlikely Prince « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 12, 2012 #
[...] like Fielder would increase the sale value, but I’m not convinced it’s that simple; as we’ve seen, the club is almost certainly going to go for $1.5 billion or more, shattering the previous MLB [...]
Pingback by Someone Please Sign Prince Fielder Already « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 22, 2012 #
[...] likely we are looking at a final sale price that’s between $1.5-$2 billion. I worried a few weeks ago that such a ludicrous sale price could have repercussions down the road, and that has the even more [...]
Pingback by Monday Notes: Ownership & Prospects « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 30, 2012 #