If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   According to one expert, the Mets may be worth $1.5 billion dollars. Guess the owners Madoff like bandits after all   (espn.go.com) divider line 33
    More: Unlikely, Mets, Bernie Madoff, Fred Wilpon, Marc Ganis, bandits, Sport management, Arash Markazi, Dodgers  
•       •       •

379 clicks; posted to Sports » on 28 Mar 2012 at 11:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-28 09:31:08 PM
That does not mean all Major League Baseball teams will see a sizable jump in value because of the impending deal for the Dodgers.

"This only relates to the top, top of the food chain," Ganis said. "It only relates to the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, the Mets. That may be it. Maybe there is some relevance to a lesser degree to the Giants and the Padres. But no one should expect this has any meaningful impact on the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals or the Cleveland Indians. It's really just the big-market clubs that have unique local broadcasting opportunities."


Is it just me, or is that a microcosm of the state of our economy? The rich got richer. The Pirates and Royals got farked.
 
2012-03-28 09:50:17 PM
How is that unlikely? The Mets have the following going for them:

1) A percentage of New York, which still gives them more than most MLB markets
2) A gorgeous new stadium
3) SNY

Assuming you have good ownership that can actually take make the above work for them, I'd think that price would almost be a bargain for the Mets. Especially given what the Dodgers just sold for.
 
2012-03-28 09:56:58 PM
And now that I actually read TFA, I realize SNY is actually a bit of a problem. But I still don't think $1.5 billion for the Mets is outrageous.
 
2012-03-28 10:19:45 PM
Could someone please translate that headline?
 
2012-03-28 10:29:23 PM
Hey, it's fugging New Yawk.

/new yawk
 
2012-03-28 11:19:43 PM

FreakinB: And now that I actually read TFA, I realize SNY is actually a bit of a problem. But I still don't think $1.5 billion for the Mets is outrageous.


I'd be surprised if a team like the Mets (or Yankees or Red Sox) wasn't sold along with the paired network... obviously we'll have to wait and see when one of those teams goes on the market again, but I doubt anyone would buy the Mets for that kind of price but leave ownership of SNY with the Wilpons

The teams themselves don't really make money, it's the ancillary benefits of owning the team that create money-making opportunities
 
2012-03-28 11:28:42 PM
Holy Cow!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-28 11:29:24 PM
I am most upset that this would bring up the teams in larger markets and proven big name teams...it is going to be harder for Arthur Blank to buy the Braves in the next couple of years.

=(
 
2012-03-28 11:45:14 PM
Part of the reason the Mets are worth a fraction of the other big-market clubs is that they own their television network, SportsNet New York, and are essentially locked into that arrangement.

This makes no sense to me. If they own their own TV network, shouldn't that give them more flexibility? How are they "locked in" to a deal with their own network?
 
2012-03-28 11:47:47 PM

Gdiguy: FreakinB: And now that I actually read TFA, I realize SNY is actually a bit of a problem. But I still don't think $1.5 billion for the Mets is outrageous.

I'd be surprised if a team like the Mets (or Yankees or Red Sox) wasn't sold along with the paired network... obviously we'll have to wait and see when one of those teams goes on the market again, but I doubt anyone would buy the Mets for that kind of price but leave ownership of SNY with the Wilpons

The teams themselves don't really make money, it's the ancillary benefits of owning the team that create money-making opportunities


Oh yeah, I'm not saying SNY wouldn't be included. But according to the article, the fact that the Mets are locked into their TV deal holds down their value. It makes sense, I know the Rangers got some massive deal and the Dodgers look to be next. The Mets don't have a chance at something like that unless they get out, even if it is their own network.
 
2012-03-29 12:22:39 AM
My Oakland A's still worth the price of a mule? :(

/Wonder what this does to the value of the Dallas Cowboys
 
2012-03-29 12:27:00 AM
The Buffalo Bills are worth more than the Mets in Canadian dollars.
 
2012-03-29 12:28:09 AM
Fred Wilpon is a big enough asshole that I wouldn't be surprised if he someday attempted to charge LaGuardia flyovers a fee for viewing ball games.
 
2012-03-29 12:35:43 AM
Just watched the Shark and Ducks game. Apparently, knocking the goal posts off the moorings while the goalie is pulled + ringing the puck off the posts and out of bounds = "impending goal"


Sorry for the threadjack, just pissed off.
 
2012-03-29 12:58:28 AM

muck4doo: /Wonder what this does to the value of the Dallas Cowboys


Well they are more than likely worth more than the Yankees. I doubt Jones would ever sell the team though and when he dies, I assume his son gets the team.
 
2012-03-29 01:41:34 AM
I wonder how much the price of tickets, concessions, parking, and licensed merchandise will go up to cover the new owners acquisition costs? I can't wait to see Magic Johnson being the ownership groups's public face explaining skyrocketing player salaries, and the evil player's union for forcing the ownership to raise costs, and insisting MLB is still the best family entertainment value.
 
2012-03-29 01:45:12 AM
I'm not sure how much 15 billion dollars dollars is, but it sure sounds like a lot.
 
2012-03-29 01:46:21 AM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: /Wonder what this does to the value of the Dallas Cowboys

Well they are more than likely worth more than the Yankees.


Just because football teams tend to be worth more than baseball teams doesn't mean that the most valuable football team is worth more than the most valuable baseball team. Come on. We're talking about the Yankees.

According to this story, the Cowboys are worth $1.85 billion and the Yankees are worth $1.7 billion, but that's from September and predates this Dodgers sale. The Jacksonville Jaguars sold for something like $750 million late last year, and while that team isn't nearly as valuable, I have a hard time seeing such a wide range in NFL franchise values that would allow the Cowboys to be worth more than the $4 billion that this thread's story predicts for the Yankees.
 
2012-03-29 02:05:43 AM

FishyFred: Just because football teams tend to be worth more than baseball teams doesn't mean that the most valuable football team is worth more than the most valuable baseball team. Come on. We're talking about the Yankees.


Come on, we're talking about the Cowboys. Evidence might be needed if you wish to claim that a franchise worth less than the Cowboys currently would sell for more. It probably would be close to tied anyway. The best argument from your side is that the Yanks have more international love but the Cowboys still make more money right now. I also DO so a wide range in numbers from a team like Jacksonville compared to teams like Dallas, either NY team, the Packers, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington, Philly, or New England.
 
2012-03-29 02:10:05 AM

TheJoe03: I also DO so a wide range in numbers from a team like Jacksonville compared to teams like Dallas, either NY team, the Packers, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington, Philly, or New England.


Why? I thought TV revenue for the NFL was split evenly among the teams.
 
2012-03-29 02:19:39 AM

FishyFred: Why? I thought TV revenue for the NFL was split evenly among the teams.


I doubt merchandise is, plus the stadium counts towards worth of a team. Jacksonville being a small market team with limited merchandise sales struggles to compete with the big market and/or more popular teams. The difference is less than the MLB, of course, but small markets still struggle and make a lot less money than major markets.
 
2012-03-29 02:35:09 AM
On that note, I must say that the NFL has figured out how to keep small markets alive way better than the MLB or NBA (which I think might be part of why the NFL is as popular as it is). I honestly think the MLB could care less about fairness in that regard, which is obvious due to their lack of a salary cap OR floor. I think the last time the Cowboys won was right when the cap came into effect but I still think a cap is good for sports.

/off topic at this point.
 
2012-03-29 05:27:57 AM
dodgers just got 2 billion... so yeah... anything is possible.
 
2012-03-29 08:06:45 AM
What? I didn't know Chipper Jones was selling them.
 
2012-03-29 09:08:31 AM

FreakinB: How is that unlikely? The Mets have the following going for them:

1) A dwindling percentage of New York, which might give them more than most MLB markets
2) A gorgeous new stadium which sits half empty unless the Yankees are there or it's $5 ticket day
3) SNY, which remains largely unwatched, largely due to its association to the Mets


Sorry man, every time I get into a Mets discussion I have to remember my Mets fan cousin giving me so much crap in 1986.
 
2012-03-29 09:12:47 AM

FreakinB: Gdiguy: FreakinB: And now that I actually read TFA, I realize SNY is actually a bit of a problem. But I still don't think $1.5 billion for the Mets is outrageous.

I'd be surprised if a team like the Mets (or Yankees or Red Sox) wasn't sold along with the paired network... obviously we'll have to wait and see when one of those teams goes on the market again, but I doubt anyone would buy the Mets for that kind of price but leave ownership of SNY with the Wilpons

The teams themselves don't really make money, it's the ancillary benefits of owning the team that create money-making opportunities

Oh yeah, I'm not saying SNY wouldn't be included. But according to the article, the fact that the Mets are locked into their TV deal holds down their value. It makes sense, I know the Rangers got some massive deal and the Dodgers look to be next. The Mets don't have a chance at something like that unless they get out, even if it is their own network.


I've read that the Mets/Wilpons' minority partners in SNY (Comcast and Time Warner) have right of first refusal if the Wilpons try to sell their stake. Not sure the Wilpons could sell the Mets/SNY as a package. Bankruptcy might change stuff though. Tricky situation.
 
2012-03-29 11:48:43 AM

TheJoe03: On that note, I must say that the NFL has figured out how to keep small markets alive way better than the MLB or NBA (which I think might be part of why the NFL is as popular as it is). I honestly think the MLB could care less about fairness in that regard, which is obvious due to their lack of a salary cap OR floor. I think the last time the Cowboys won was right when the cap came into effect but I still think a cap is good for sports.

/off topic at this point.


Actually the NBA and the NFL have done a good job keeping small market teams competitive. If you look at it the small market teams in the NBA compete at a much higher level than they do in the NFL and way higher than they do with MLB. The way the NBA and NFL are able to accomplish this is with the salary cap. If MLB had a real salary cap, and not a "luxury tax" you would see small market teams consistently competing with the large market teams.
 
2012-03-29 12:46:34 PM

ongbok: TheJoe03: On that note, I must say that the NFL has figured out how to keep small markets alive way better than the MLB or NBA (which I think might be part of why the NFL is as popular as it is). I honestly think the MLB could care less about fairness in that regard, which is obvious due to their lack of a salary cap OR floor. I think the last time the Cowboys won was right when the cap came into effect but I still think a cap is good for sports.

/off topic at this point.

Actually the NBA and the NFL have done a good job keeping small market teams competitive. If you look at it the small market teams in the NBA compete at a much higher level than they do in the NFL and way higher than they do with MLB. The way the NBA and NFL are able to accomplish this is with the salary cap. If MLB had a real salary cap, and not a "luxury tax" you would see small market teams consistently competing with the large market teams.


I think 8 or 9 teams have won in the NBA in the last 30 years.
 
2012-03-29 12:47:54 PM

ongbok: TheJoe03: On that note, I must say that the NFL has figured out how to keep small markets alive way better than the MLB or NBA (which I think might be part of why the NFL is as popular as it is). I honestly think the MLB could care less about fairness in that regard, which is obvious due to their lack of a salary cap OR floor. I think the last time the Cowboys won was right when the cap came into effect but I still think a cap is good for sports.

/off topic at this point.

Actually the NBA and the NFL have done a good job keeping small market teams competitive. If you look at it the small market teams in the NBA compete at a much higher level than they do in the NFL and way higher than they do with MLB. The way the NBA and NFL are able to accomplish this is with the salary cap. If MLB had a real salary cap, and not a "luxury tax" you would see small market teams consistently competing with the large market teams.


..so are we just ignoring that THE smallest market in baseball (and not even a Top 40 overall in the US) won the NL Central last year? Or that the second smallest won it the year before? Or that MLB in general has higher diversity in champions over the past few decades than the NFL (and MUCH higher than the NBA's) despite having the lowest percentage of teams that make post-season?

The whole "small market" thing in baseball is a myth. There's cheap owners (KC, Pitt, B'more), poor fanbases (TB, Miami [and Atlanta to an extent, but they somehow avoid the "small market" tag]) and bum deals (Oakland.. there's no reason a team in the Bay Area should be considered "small market", but they really do get the ass-end of the stick from their arrangement with the Giants, but it's kinda their own fault), but to think that any of these teams (except through a few cases of mismanagement) are crying poverty is laughable.
 
2012-03-29 01:30:38 PM

Freak: Part of the reason the Mets are worth a fraction of the other big-market clubs is that they own their television network, SportsNet New York, and are essentially locked into that arrangement.

This makes no sense to me. If they own their own TV network, shouldn't that give them more flexibility? How are they "locked in" to a deal with their own network?


IIRC SNY's partially owned by Comcast.
 
2012-03-29 01:35:42 PM
The Mets are the greatest proof that being in a big market isn't a recipe for winning.
 
2012-03-29 06:07:08 PM

The Bestest: There's cheap owners


That's a huge issue, a salary floor is something that needs to be done in the MLB, way too many owners spend a bare minimum for maximum profit. I feel bad for folks in KC and Pittsburgh.
 
2012-03-30 11:58:22 AM

TheJoe03: The Bestest: There's cheap owners

That's a huge issue, a salary floor is something that needs to be done in the MLB, way too many owners spend a bare minimum for maximum profit. I feel bad for folks in KC and Pittsburgh.


Thats what we get in KC for having a owner who made his money at Wal-Mart
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report