PDA

View Full Version : Minority Ownership Shares


#1swisher
04-03-2014, 07:05 PM
Cubs are exploring the idea of selling minority ownership shares as a way to help finance the stadium renovation, according to multiple sources within Chicago’s business community.

Source confirmed the plans, describing those shares as a non-controlling interest while also cautioning that the Ricketts family hasn’t made any final decisions.

Major League Baseball would need to approve any new investors.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/cubs-exploring-sale-minority-shares-wrigley-renovation

Viva Medias B's
04-03-2014, 09:41 PM
The Green Bay Packers are the best known example of a team that is publically owned. The shares of the Packers stock is not like stock on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Shares do not appreciate or depreciate in value, and stockholders cannot capitally gain from them. I would imagine that if the Cubs were to make an IPO, it would be along these lines.

WhiteSox5187
04-03-2014, 10:55 PM
The Green Bay Packers are the best known example of a team that is publically owned. The shares of the Packers stock is not like stock on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Shares do not appreciate or depreciate in value, and stockholders cannot capitally gain from them. I would imagine that if the Cubs were to make an IPO, it would be along these lines.

I have a hard time seeing MLB approving a deal like that.

HomeFish
04-03-2014, 11:53 PM
How exactly does the Packers GM get hired?

MUsoxfan
04-04-2014, 12:04 AM
How exactly does the Packers GM get hired?

Brat cook-off champion

amsteel
04-04-2014, 12:09 AM
The Green Bay Packers are the best known example of a team that is publically owned. The shares of the Packers stock is not like stock on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Shares do not appreciate or depreciate in value, and stockholders cannot capitally gain from them. I would imagine that if the Cubs were to make an IPO, it would be along these lines.

Better known as a 'scam'

DSpivack
04-04-2014, 01:34 AM
The Green Bay Packers are the best known example of a team that is publically owned. The shares of the Packers stock is not like stock on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Shares do not appreciate or depreciate in value, and stockholders cannot capitally gain from them. I would imagine that if the Cubs were to make an IPO, it would be along these lines.
This isn't public ownership, though, this would just be the opportunity to buy shares of a privately held company. At least those who own Packers stock are invited to annual meeting and can vote on who is in charge of the team (a situation not unlike how the two big Spanish soccer teams, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, operate).

This, as I understand it, is even more meaningless than owning Packers stock. Whatever perks it entails, if any, is up to the sole discretion of the majority owners, in this case the Ricketts. As the story mentions, it is not unlike how Reinsdorf controls the Bulls and White Sox, as the managing partner of a limited number of minority partners (who owns how many shares is a bit of a mystery). It's unclear to me whether the Ricketts are seeking to sell small souvenir shares, if you will, of say a few hundred dollars a piece, or more substantial minority shares as with the many owners of the Bulls and Sox.

DSpivack
04-04-2014, 01:37 AM
How exactly does the Packers GM get hired?
Shareholders elect who has discretion over management decisions. Whether they elect the Board who then elects an Executive Committee to decide who is in charge of the team, or how exactly that works, I do not know. The current Chairman, CEO and President is Mark Murphy, former Northwestern AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Public_company

roylestillman
04-04-2014, 09:59 AM
I think this is an indication of what a mess Cub finances are right now. Their payroll is down to $92 million, 23rd in MLB. The punch line is only $77 million of that is for people currently on their roster. I can't believe the revenue projections (as developed by Crane Kenney) to pay for both the renovation and talent in the coming years. Also if anybody thinks that $300 million budget is going to hold up once they start tearing up that 100 year old pile of steel and concrete that's been sitting out in Chicago winters, they're dreaming.
The awkward Thanksgiving dinner issue in all of this is just think of all the the TD Ameritrade stock they had to sell in 2009 to come up with the $150 million or so for the down payment on the deal. 2009. What do you think that stock is worth now?

doublem23
04-04-2014, 11:42 AM
The awkward Thanksgiving dinner issue in all of this is just think of all the the TD Ameritrade stock they had to sell in 2009 to come up with the $150 million or so for the down payment on the deal. 2009. What do you think that stock is worth now?

In their defense, though, the value of the Cubs has improved at least 30% since they bought them, though, hasn't it? And that's even without the mega TV deal they're going to get next off-season when they finally kick WGN to the curb.

jdm2662
04-04-2014, 12:02 PM
It's not uncommon to have minority owners of sports teams or any business. This isn't revolutionary, and no, it's the same as what the Packers have.

#1swisher
04-04-2014, 12:44 PM
[/URL][URL="https://twitter.com/ScottLindholm/status/452077885193322496"] (https://twitter.com/ScottLindholm) #MLB (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MLB&src=hash) @mullyhanley (https://twitter.com/mullyhanley) Why the Cubs are looking for investors--note debt ratio pic.twitter.com/FEuixCQ79P (http://t.co/FEuixCQ79P)


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkYacP4CAAA_o9m.png (http://t.co/FEuixCQ79P)

#1swisher
04-04-2014, 02:56 PM
Warren Buffet interested in investing in the Cubs, according to a source.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/04/04/warren-buffett-interested-in-buying-piece-of-chicago-cubs/

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140404/BLOGS04/140409865

ChicagoG19
04-04-2014, 04:54 PM
Better known as a 'scam'

It also keeps the team from ever leaving Green Bay. I am sure the people in Minnesota and Buffalo would take this "scam" any day to not have to hear about their team potentially moving.

soxfanreggie
04-06-2014, 02:19 AM
Look at the operating income of the Astros and Rays. It appears they are taking full advantage of revenue sharing. As far as the minority sharers, if you can get fans to buy them and essentially get free capital, it's worth a look.

jdm2662
04-07-2014, 03:16 PM
I think this is an indication of what a mess Cub finances are right now. Their payroll is down to $92 million, 23rd in MLB. The punch line is only $77 million of that is for people currently on their roster. I can't believe the revenue projections (as developed by Crane Kenney) to pay for both the renovation and talent in the coming years. Also if anybody thinks that $300 million budget is going to hold up once they start tearing up that 100 year old pile of steel and concrete that's been sitting out in Chicago winters, they're dreaming.
The awkward Thanksgiving dinner issue in all of this is just think of all the the TD Ameritrade stock they had to sell in 2009 to come up with the $150 million or so for the down payment on the deal. 2009. What do you think that stock is worth now?

They don't have the cash flow to continue operating. Tom Ricketts borrowed $450 million from various banks to buy the team. The other $400 million came from his old man. Tom thought it would be cool and fun to own the Cubs. and why not? He thought he was buying an awesome product that sells out every game. Of course, he found out quick it's not all fine and dandy. He also probably thought since it was the Cubs, he'd be able to get a stadium deal from the city and state. That hasn't happened either. It costs eight figures just to maintain and operate Wrigley Field each year. He also didn't take into account when you take over something, you inherient contracts and situations that aren't quite ideal. He can fight with the roof top owners all he wants. The fact remains, as long as their signed contract is valid, the roof top owners can sue the Cubs if they feel views are obstructed. He can certainly do what he wants after the contract is expired, but it will be a while. The TV and radio deal with WGN was perfect for the Tribune Company. It's not so great now, which is why they are looking to leave WGN.

Yes, the value of the team has gone up in the past five years. However, you don't get that money unless you sell the team. And, since the team is in huge debt, you won't be seeing much of that money. It also hasn't helped the so called master rebuild plan isn't going as well as the Cubbie Loving media wants you to believe. Hell, all I heard last year is what the Sox plan was, etc. Well, the Sox are already ahead of the Cubs, even though the wonder kid Theo is not running things.

Mohoney
04-07-2014, 03:44 PM
They don't have the cash flow to continue operating.

According to the chart, they made a profit of $27 million. If the team keeps turning profits like that in the short term, that debt will dwindle pretty quickly.

jdm2662
04-07-2014, 05:03 PM
According to the chart, they made a profit of $27 million. If the team keeps turning profits like that in the short term, that debt will dwindle pretty quickly.

That doesn't take into account another $300+ million to finance the renovations. The money has to come from somewhere. And, credit is hardly a good way to go. Owning the Cubs wasn't the fun and cool thing Tom Ricketts thought it would be. I'd have to wonder if he still thought they would sell out every game if the team sucked ass.

jonred
04-15-2014, 12:52 PM
That doesn't take into account another $300+ million to finance the renovations. The money has to come from somewhere. And, credit is hardly a good way to go. Owning the Cubs wasn't the fun and cool thing Tom Ricketts thought it would be. I'd have to wonder if he still thought they would sell out every game if the team sucked ass.

I'm pretty sure that Ricketts will end up okay in this deal. The club is poised to generate a good deal of revenue through the renovations (ie a $140M contract with Budweiser) and upcoming TV contract. In the meantime, the the value of his investment has gone up $400M since he bought the Cubs. That's not a bad return, even with the debt load.

gobears1987
04-16-2014, 10:21 PM
That doesn't take into account another $300+ million to finance the renovations. The money has to come from somewhere. And, credit is hardly a good way to go. Owning the Cubs wasn't the fun and cool thing Tom Ricketts thought it would be. I'd have to wonder if he still thought they would sell out every game if the team sucked ass.

In the short run, that's a bad deal for him. If he owns that team for 30 years, I'll bet he doesn't regret the move.

The profits the team turned are probably going to pay off the personal debt the family took out to buy the team. I can't blame them for using the profits in that manner either. A $27 million profit would take a good chunk out of it.

soxfanreggie
04-16-2014, 10:31 PM
Considering that the Milwaukee Bucks just sold for $550 million, I don't think the Ricketts will have any trouble selling someday at a huge profit. There seems like enough of a supply of billionaires who will buy or pool their money and buy the team. If Theo can deliver on a World Series Title at some point, that all be a gold mine for them. Even if he has them in the right direction, it will make a ton of cash.

StillMissOzzie
04-19-2014, 03:42 AM
I'm no MBA, but my understanding is that there is a big difference between being a minority investor/share owner, and owning the kind of stock from the sale proposed by the Cubs.
Minority owners do get to share in the profits, even if they don't get to vote on business decisions and management direction and stuff like that.
Ownership of shares to be sold by the Cubs probably gets you an uber-cool membership card, a secret decoder ring, and a stock certificate suitable for framing. In other words, fleecing the blue sheep for easy cash.

SMO
:rolleyes:

soxfanreggie
04-19-2014, 06:03 PM
I'm no MBA, but my understanding is that there is a big difference between being a minority investor/share owner, and owning the kind of stock from the sale proposed by the Cubs.
Minority owners do get to share in the profits, even if they don't get to vote on business decisions and management direction and stuff like that.
Ownership of shares to be sold by the Cubs probably gets you an uber-cool membership card, a secret decoder ring, and a stock certificate suitable for framing. In other words, fleecing the blue sheep for easy cash.

SMO
:rolleyes:

If the Cubs can get away with that, more power to them. Any big investor is going to make sure they are protected in terms of profits. If they can pull a Green Bay Packers-play, they can rake in many millions for the price of worthless paper that entitles them essentially nothing.

DumpJerry
04-19-2014, 06:21 PM
Bottom line: you buy one of these shares, you get no voting rights and won't receive any return on your investment until the Ricketts sell the team.

Enjoy and thank you for your money.

soxfanreggie
04-20-2014, 09:39 AM
I know it's a long ways away, but it will be interesting to see what happens with the rooftop owners come the end of their agreement. You have to think Ricketts has a clock going of when he can do whatever it is in his power to block their view unless the Cubs are getting the huge benefit out of the rooftop revenues.

I don't think they'll end up selling shares, but I could see them selling off some small percentages at a nice premium to raise some big $$$ toward the renovations.

doublem23
04-21-2014, 11:04 AM
If the Cubs can get away with that, more power to them. Any big investor is going to make sure they are protected in terms of profits. If they can pull a Green Bay Packers-play, they can rake in many millions for the price of worthless paper that entitles them essentially nothing.

Yeah, for sure, **** how many millions of dollars did the Packers raise the last time they sold shares? And they're deal is even worse than what the Cubs might offer.

Sports makes people do dumb ****.

soxfanreggie
04-21-2014, 10:23 PM
Yeah, for sure, **** how many millions of dollars did the Packers raise the last time they sold shares? And they're deal is even worse than what the Cubs might offer.

Sports makes people do dumb ****.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article_spofford/article-1/Stock-sale-closes-shares-top-268000/19d9b0a8-f4ce-497b-b5ae-73f6c72fd973

$67 million in shares...almost 270k shares at $250 apiece. So basically they had a lot of people paying for a worthless piece of paper and the novelty to say they're an "owner." It covered almost half their upgrade costs. Interesting Bud Selig is a former Director of the Packers, which means he actually held a position that mattered. I'm not sure if he served on their Executive Committee or not though.

#1swisher
05-06-2014, 01:40 PM
Epstein admitted after the Cubs fell short on Tanaka that they were taking the unprecedented step of carrying over unused payroll from the 2014 budget into 2015 — a practice the Cubs have never allowed their baseball department in the past and which officials from several outside organizations said they’ve never seen.

Ricketts said that Epstein regularly asks for more money for his department but routinely gets denied as part of a business plan waiting for untold new wealth at some unspecified point in the future.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/27259590-573/white-sox-slugger-jose-abreu-exposes-cubs-fallacy.html#.U2kcIVf68u5