Exactly. There are too many baseball teams as is, so any other city that they would move it to would not be as lucrative as Houston is. I just hope however buys it is willing to spend some money. You never know who we could get.
Who knows, maybe he knows his kids don't want the burden and would sell it anyway so he might as well handle it himself, could also be part of him wanting the cash to do estate planning for the rest of the McClane's etc.
I can think of nearly $700 million reasons..... I mean he bought it for $117, but can not recognize the appreciation without selling it. And a 6+ times return on his investment over 17 or so years is pretty good. DD
I suppose so. Sam's explanation makes a lot of sense, too. I just figured most sports franchises are basically golden gooses with the money they make... no reason to sell unless you're an old fart about to kick the bucket with no heir.
I don't think baseball franchises are that way at all. Or at least, Drayton said he was seeing operating losses most of the years leading up to the World Series year. If that's true, then he was losing money annually but making it up in the appreciation of the value of the franchise.
Not sure the validity, but here's a discussion from 2007. (random note: Austan Goolsbee - the guy in the first post - was one of Obama's inner circle economists during the campaign) http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/07/do_sports_franc_1.html Here's his full piece from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/business/yourmoney/22view.html?_r=2&oref=slogin After owners indulge their childhood fantasy of buying a team, they tend to switch to an adult perspective and start viewing the team as a business. And they typically conclude that it’s a bad business. ... Owners’ complaints about losses leave out the basic fact that capital gains are profits, too. And when scores of grown men desperately want to buy sports teams, there tend to be big capital gains. Take the Sonics. The team may have lost $60 million while Mr. Schultz owned it. But he bought it for $200 million in 2001 and sold it for $350 million five years later. So he ended up making something like $90 million (taxed at the favorable capital gains tax rate, no less) on top of the fame, prestige and free tickets he got while he was owner. If the Cubs do, indeed, sell for $1 billion, Tribune will have earned an annual return of almost 15 percent since it bought the team for around $20 million in 1981. Given the company’s recent problems, it’s probably the best investment it ever made. SO owning a sports team gives budding billionaires local stardom and a big return — no wonder that they are lining up to buy these teams. The only question that remains, I suppose, is why the vanity value of teams keeps climbing. You might have thought that this value would be about the same whenever there’s a sale, so that the capital gain wouldn’t be such a big component. But because ever-richer guys are bidding against one another, there has been persistent inflation in team values.
People seem happy to be rid of Uncle Drayton...might want to hold off until we know who is buying it. If it is an investment company, they might start reducing costs (IE payroll) I'd much rather have an egomaniac who wants glory (IE winning) who makes some bad decisions over a Marlins-type of owner (or group) who are just interested in turning a profit every season (though the Marlins have more WS wins ironically)
^ He's trying to get out. Why continue to let these stories out if he isn't interested in selling? No one but him and Crane knew about the potential deal in 2008, but he felt the need to make it public.
Where do you get that idea? If they were at the point of reaching a handshake deal, lots of people would have known. The Crane people would already have done their due diligence, looked at financials, etc. Everyone from lawyers to accountants to marketing people with both the Astros and the Crane group would had to have known about it at that point, not to mention all the people involved in financing the transaction, as well as Bud Selig and lawyers/etc within MLB.
Personally, my only beef with Drayton over the years is him getting rid of Hunsicker. Before that, I felt Drayton was a great owner who loved the team, signed the checks, and allowed his GM to do his thing. Post-Hunsicker Drayton really annoyed me though. But if the new prospective owner(s) are investors, I'd rather have Drayton by far.
Even if this group of investors doesn't make this purchase it's obvious Mclane is listening to offers and it's only a matter of time before the club is sold. If the Club is sold I could see some drastic changes in player personnel.
I don't know how group investors due in team ownerships, but as long as they are committed to winning and doing whatever it takes to win, I am all for it.
