Dodgers Notes: Ellison, TV Networks, Bullpen

Here's the latest on the Dodgers….

  • Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has told friends he will not bid for the club, reports Bob Nightengale of USA Today (via Twitter).  Estimated to be the third-richest man in America by Forbes Magazine, Ellison's sports connections include an America's Cup-winning yacht team, tennis tournament sponsorships and a failed attempt to buy the NBA's Golden State Warriors in 2010.
  • Also from Nightengale, he predicts the Dodgers will be sold for $1.73 billion, roughly $1.3 billion more than Frank McCourt originally paid for the team in 2004.
  • The Fox and Time Warner media outlets are both considering bidding for full or partial ownership of the Dodgers, reports Ramona Shelburne for ESPN Los Angeles.  A stake in the team would help the winner avoid what is expected to be a "fierce" battle between the two companies for the Dodgers' media rights once their current deal expires after the 2013 season.
  • The Dodgers may still have a need for another left-handed reliever, writes Steve Dilbeck of the L.A. Times.

31 Responses to Dodgers Notes: Ellison, TV Networks, Bullpen Leave a Reply

  1. bringbackandruw 4 years ago

    I like the last tid-bit “oh and btw the dodgers might be looking for a reliever”

  2. BrocNessMonster 4 years ago

    Why waste money on complimentary pieces?  We aren’t contenders this year.

  3. Red_Line_9 4 years ago

    McCourt only paid $430,000,000 for the Dodgers?

    • This is shocking to me as well.

      I also find it humorous that he planned to bulldoze Fenway had he bought the Red Sox

    • BlueSkyLA
      BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      Fox NewsCorp had really run the franchise into the ground and they were pretty desperate to sell. They also kept the media rights, so that reduced the buyout price. Also, if you look at what baseball franchises were selling for circa 2004, it’s not far out of line.

      • Red_Line_9 4 years ago

        If you could make over a billion dollars selling a team…why would you not be selling.  I’m just surprised given the general economic state since 2004…how a team could see their value surge quite like that.  I can hardly believe the media rights will add that much value to a franchise….but maybe I’m wrong.  I suppose it’s “perceived value”

        Well, if media contracts are going to become that much of a chunk of a teams value…..MLB can lay Kansas City-Pittsburgh-Milwaukee to rest.

        • BlueSkyLA
          BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

          You raise some good points. First, I think MLB may be setting a dangerous precedent with the handling of the Dodgers sale. By filing for bankruptcy, McCourt has successfully altered the normal franchise sale process radically in his favor. So why would any owner who wants out not declare bankruptcy? The evidence suggests that they’d net a whole lot more from the sale if they did.

          Second, you are completely right about the built-in problems of small-market teams. Only MLB has allowed this situation to get so totally out of whack. Baseball needs revenue sharing more like the NBA. Getting this done would require leadership from the commissioner, so with the jellyfish back for two more years, those who see this as baseball’s biggest problem have a long wait ahead of us.

          • Red_Line_9 4 years ago

            I’m not aware of the current split on TV revenue…for example..what the Pirates make from the TV revenue when they are visiting LA. 

            It also doesn’t make terrible TV sense if too much of the schedule is littered with teams that no one has an interest in watching the Dodgers play.  The Dodgers can’t play the Giants…etc 162 times a year.

            There has always been economic disparity in the game, but at a certain point the fairness and integrity of the on field product is sabotaged if a handful of teams strangle the baseball economy.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            I don’t know the splits but it’s clear from the numbers that not enough revenue is pooled currently. We’ve got about a 5:1 disparity in payrolls between the have and have not teams in baseball. In the NBA it’s still a lot, but more like 2:1. The luxury tax sure isn’t cutting it.

          • Red_Line_9 4 years ago

            There also needs to be stipulations that revenue sharing is used to increase the onfield product and general competitive state of the teams that are getting the most aid.  It makes little sense to have a small market team running profitably..for what it is anyway…and have the wealthy owner of that team basically pocketing the revenue sharing check. 

            For the good of the game and competition..the money needs to be going to some sort of product development.  It doesn’t have to be spent on every high priced free agent….but to international player development….the draft….etc.

            Money, clearly isn’t the entire answer behind winning a World Series, but we have way too many teams and paying customers who have little hope that there teams can compete even on even an intermitant basis.  Considering that many of these fans have helped fund these new stadiums through their taxes….They should get a voice.

          • BlueSkyLA
            BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

            You won’t get many amens around here for that kind of thinking, but I agree with you completely.

          • Red_Line_9 4 years ago

            Well, it’s kind of like the old argument about legislating morality…’s impossible to do.  Baseball just needs more baseball people looking out for the future of the game and not just the immediate financial situation…because..ultimately…every team will suffer if teams fail.

  4. James Attwood 4 years ago

    It would have been far more fun if the Dodgers had new ownership in place this offseason. Darvish, Pujols, Fielder, Reyes, Buhrle,Wilson, Papelbon, the list of star-studded talent that was out there this season just goes on, and new ownership is going to need/want to make a big splash. The list of names for next season, though still nice, is nowhere near as impressive, and there will be less “positional competition” too.(Fielder or Pujols? Papelbon or Madson or Bell? Wilson or Darvish? Rollins or Reyes?)

    Any new owner is going to have some significant work to do in-house before shopping the market, but the cash in-flux, especially if neither brodcast company gets in, could be huge.

    • vtadave 4 years ago

      Starting pitching pool looks quite good though – Cain, Greinke, Hamels. Of course at least one or more could sign extensions…

      Position player pool…bleh.

  5. legaryd 4 years ago

    That 1.73 billion figure is complete BS.  It would take a hundred profitable years just to pay off the debt on the team.

    • BlueSkyLA
      BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      That number is sort of made up, but north of $1.5b is hardly out of the question. A new media deal could be worth three times that much, and if they can start filling the stadium again — it could very well pencil out.

  6. Dodger fans better hope neither Fox or Time Warner buy the Dodgers.  McCourt will see more money but either one will run the team in the same manner as Fox NewsCorp previously ran the team, looking only for profits and marketability.

  7. thebigbangdito 4 years ago

    didnt know prince pitched…  “reliever”

  8. bringbackandruw 4 years ago

    Well you have to remember media rights (which are huge) are about to expire in 2013, a lot of potential investors are looking at that. There’s a LOT of money to be made negotiating a new deal to the Dodger’s broadcasting rights (its one of the reasons why Frank McCourt fought so hard to retain the team + a slew of lawsuits). Not to mention it is the Dodgers who have a very big fan base. The value is purely speculative but many potential buyers are looking at the “Yankees of the west” in the Dodger franchise. 

  9. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Forbes is now saying that a bid in the neighborhood of $1.4b is realistic because of all the concessions MLB made to McCourt in order to persuade him to sell.

  10. bringbackandruw 4 years ago

    Well, like i was saying the value is purely speculative. It’s like overvaluing a home, except on a much larger scale. If a potential buyer thinks he can build a championship team then who’s to say in 10 years time it wont be worth that or more? I agree with you that this is a bit ridiculous but yeah I just like making arguments for the other side =D

  11. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    This is a lot less like buying a house and a lot more like buying an investment property. It’s entirely a dollars and cents proposition. Nobody will bid more than they believe will generate a reasonable return on investment.

  12. Red_Line_9 4 years ago

    The dodgers for all intents and purposes have ALWAYS been seen as a the “Yankees of the West”  They’ve always been a marque property.  But to make them a good deal..someone needs to get a good deal on them.  It makes no real sense to pay what the Dodgers are perceived to be worth down the road.  That is like buying shares of stock too high.

  13. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Your information is out of date. Forbes recently revalued the franchise substantially upwards for the reason I stated above. You could look it up, I did. Either way, Forbes does not set the values of baseball franchises.

  14. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Be assured that all of these buyers are very smart businesspeople. They know how to do a pro forma analysis. The Dodgers will be bought as an investment, which means calculating some reasonable return on investment today and a presumption of improved value for later.

  15. Red_Line_9 4 years ago

    The Dodgers could be an incredible value for the right price…like anything else.  But I just cannot see much wiggle room as an investment if the sale price is so unreasonable.  LA, clearly, has more profit potential…but I’m not sure they can be sold on that basis.  There’s a great deal of debt there as well.

  16. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    A reasonable price is what the projected return on investment dictates. The existing debt belongs to McCourt. He will have to pay it off with the proceeds of the sale. The only debt liability potentially carrying over to a new owner is a settlement of the Stow situation.

  17. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    If you read what I wrote, you will know that I was talking about their recently revised valuation done after the court settlement terms were known. Please look this up so we don’t have to debate what Forbes has said.

  18. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    McCourt’s debt has no bearing on the valuation of the team. Nothing you have added changes any of that.

  19. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Debt is not relevant to the valuation of the franchise. Period, full stop. There wasn’t any point in even bringing up McCourt’s as far as I can tell. I am not valuing the franchise. I have only pointed out what Forbes has said. With each post you make less sense.

Leave a Reply