NBA rules say 20% max investment, per the above. That alone is a change from not being allowed at all as of a few years ago. But once the camel's nose is under the tent, so to speak, I imagine they'll have a voice to try and get those rules changed.What are the restrictions on letting those new minority owners take governance positions? That seems like the big carrot that needs to be offered.
I don't know but the article notes that they are limited to a 20% stake. It also notes the C's lost money and don't own their own arena and that this investor base doesn't like passive stakes. So the type and how much control the stake has is likely a factor.What are the restrictions on letting those new minority owners take governance positions? That seems like the big carrot that needs to be offered.
Here are your options;Oh god Ben Hogan lecturing me on sports washing and telling me to suck it up. Shoot me directly into the sun, please, if this is our future.
That's not fair. Shad Khan is Pakistani and while his team is terrible, his ethnicity has nothing to do with it.No Middle East owners please
Yeah I am not including Pakistan//India etc. mainly Saudi Arabia/Iran/Qatar and other sports washing. Sovereign Wealth funds from non-democratic states etc.That's not fair. Shad Khan is Pakistani and while his team is terrible, his ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
OTOH, for all the bruhaha about professional sports getting in bed with betters, I'm way more worried about their relationship with authoritarian governments. To me, that's a horrible trend I'd prefer our local teams resist.
Would you say he's the "Baynes of your existence"?Oh god Ben Hogan lecturing me on sports washing and telling me to suck it up. Shoot me directly into the sun, please, if this is our future.
Curious- how do the EPL everyday fans deal with it? Does everyone want that Man City money and pedigree?That's not fair. Shad Khan is Pakistani and while his team is terrible, his ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
OTOH, for all the bruhaha about professional sports getting in bed with betters, I'm way more worried about their relationship with authoritarian governments. To me, that's a horrible trend I'd prefer our local teams resist.
Oh SNAP!Would you say he's the "Baynes of your existence"?
Long story short is that everyone (in England) despises City for it. Maybe 20% of those would stop following their own teams for moral reasons if their own team was taken over (I have a Newcastle supporting friend who did that). The remainder would be super excited by the potential success, and demand that everyone else "Keep politics out of sport." International fans would largely not care at all unless the owner's country was at war with their own.Curious- how do the EPL everyday fans deal with it? Does everyone want that Man City money and pedigree?
Arena ownership is huge for valuations as it puts a ceiling on revenue and potential revenue growth. The contracts, W/L records, etc are mostly noise when looking at a valuation and/or purchase price. What it more important is the revenue opportunities down the road.Is this because of the large contacts, or lacking ownership of an arena, or just stupidity?
I think for these purposes, Knicks don’t technically own MSG, either, although it’s all controlled by Dolan, so that’s a technicality, not the reality.Yeah the Celts and Lakers are the only two NBA teams valued in the top 10 that don't own their own arenas.
I mean, he's an American isn't he?That's not fair. Shad Khan is Pakistani and while his team is terrible, his ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
OTOH, for all the bruhaha about professional sports getting in bed with betters, I'm way more worried about their relationship with authoritarian governments. To me, that's a horrible trend I'd prefer our local teams resist.
I really don’t see how that would be possible unless LeBron divests from FSG. An active player can’t own part of another team.
So, Lebron finishes up as a Celtic chasing one more ring.I really don’t see how that would be possible unless LeBron divests from FSG. An active player can’t own part of another team.
There are so many ways to square that, that it doesn't merit a worry. If they want to, they can. Off the top of my head:I really don’t see how that would be possible unless LeBron divests from FSG. An active player can’t own part of another team.
Considering their bids on top players, I expect them to be in the mix but eventually lose to a higher bidder.There are so many ways to square that, that it doesn't merit a worry. If they want to, they can. Off the top of my head:
(1) FSG partners create a new corporate vehicle for ownership of the Celtics that is not owned directly by FSG's parent corp. They'd probably have a complex ownership-vehicle structure anyway, to run profits through tax havens and such. But this one, FSG partners and LPs can buy into or not, and Lebron isn't invited. So they raise new capital for it that doesn't include him. He still owns his share of their stake in everything else.
(2) Lebron sells, or gives, his FSG stake to his wife. Maybe the league approves that. Maybe he's got to give it to someone else, or put it in a trust that he can't touch until he's been retired for X years. But he disposes of it in a way that satisfies the league that he has no conflict of interest. He'll have to do that if he wants to become a majority owner of a franchise after retirement anyway, so who cares, will be done sooner or later.
There are so, so many ways for them to make this happen if they want to. And if they're the top bid.
Good luck, Pags.
The guys who gave you Wally the Green Monster and Sweet Caroline could turn Lucky the Leprechaun's broad appeal and marketing power into a pot of gold to charm fans of all ages!!!Please no. FSG and its private equity skinflints are ready running one Boston sports franchise like a theme park. We don't need them to create another curated, sports experience out of what was once a competitive endeavor.
Amen. I'm so sick of this shit.Please no. FSG and its private equity skinflints are ready running one Boston sports franchise like a theme park. We don't need them to create another curated, sports experience out of what was once a competitive endeavor.
They will add seating on the Zakim and sell them for thousandsThe guys who gave you Wally the Green Monster and Sweet Caroline could turn Lucky the Leprechaun's broad appeal and marketing power into a pot of gold to charm fans of all ages!!!
Honestly it’s probably going to be some private equity group that buys this and every other team eventually.The Celts have survived worse owners than the guys who reversed the curse and won 4 championships. And who has a local guy with some power in the highest FSG circles and is not a dummy.
I'm not sure its good business to pay $6B for an iconic franchise and bleed it into the ground.
Comment should be pinned and awarded a Tommy Point!Considering their bids on top players, I expect them to be in the mix but eventually lose to a higher bidder.
I'll give them some benefit of the doubt there, given the inability of the NHL to get out of its own way.Keep in mind that they tried to buy the Bruins and the Garden and didn’t come up with a number that even made Charlie Jacobs think about it.
The Mookie trade destroyed any reasonable discussion of FSG for a bunch of the fan base.Red Sox and Liverpool have done well being owned by FSG, how big of a potential problem is this?
Just like the guys who bought the Celts when Irv and son and partners took over WBW. Probably salted with some Sovereign Wealth Funds investmentHonestly it’s probably going to be some private equity group that buys this and every other team eventually.
I mean they went and bought the Penguins right after they couldn’t buy the Bruins. So they probably have a more favorable financial outlook for NHL than other people do.Comment should be pinned and awarded a Tommy Point!
I'll give them some benefit of the doubt there, given the inability of the NHL to get out of its own way.
Don't be so pessimistic, there will be sovereign wealth funds from petrostates in the mix.Honestly it’s probably going to be some private equity group that buys this and every other team eventually.
...which raises the question: who the hell is Savage Sports, and why would they have a scoop that says otherwise?
PreachPlease no. FSG and its private equity skinflints are ready running one Boston sports franchise like a theme park. We don't need them to create another curated, sports experience out of what was once a competitive endeavor.
Horseshit. I don't care about the Mookie trade. I find the obsession among those who do humorous. But being top 5 in revenue and 13ish in payroll the last few years is Harry era Jeremy Jacobs milking of the cash cow. It stinks and it sucks, and I'd hate to see them do it to the Celtics too.The Mookie trade destroyed any reasonable discussion of FSG for a bunch of the fan base.
But they have a really elaborate plan to be competitive in a season or two that will be revealed when they are ready.Preach
Horseshit. I don't care about the Mookie trade. I find the obsession among those who do humorous. But being top 5 in revenue and 13ish in payroll the last few years is Harry era Jeremy Jacobs milking of the cash cow. It stinks and it sucks, and I'd hate to see them do it to the Celtics too.
Agreed.But they have a really elaborate plan to be competitive in a season or two that will be revealed when they are ready.
I don't care about individual transactions either. We have six years of data from which to operate as well as the Fenway Experience BS. If people want to ignore what is happening in front of their eyes because it ruins the illusion fine but we can talk about it.
FSG is trying to earn returns for its investors (their prerogative) and it appears they are trying to maximize them at present. What this means is that they will most likely avoid operating their teams at a loss to win, or at least not sustainably. Fans who like rooting for competitive teams will struggle with that and its ok to discuss it.