Steve Ballmer to buy the Clips for $2 Billion | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Steve Ballmer to buy the Clips for $2 Billion

Status
Not open for further replies.
nelsonmuntz said:
You really called it at $2 bn. Oh wait, you didn't. You are just being a again.

When you call something, you get to talk smack.
Expand ...

Actually, Nelson, talking smack to you about the Clippers sale would be like talking smack to a toddler that you just beat in basketball. Anyone who was paying attention, including many people on the Boneyard, knew the team would fetch upwards of $1.5B as a floor.

Your position was that the team could get around $550M today but would definitely not be sold until after Sterling died at which point the purchase price - by some logic that only you understand - would be down to about $400M. Your theory of "lost revenue streams" or some such garbage.

When it was pointed out to you that it's actually a seller's market, that there's a long list of potential buyers desperate to get in on the lucrative tv and media rights deals around the corner, and that the value of even moribund franchises are skyrocketing, you said that that was "nonsense."

It's not even that you were wrong - everyone gets things wrong - it was the stridency with which you asserted that you were right and everyone else is wrong that is so funny.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
Actually, Nelson, talking smack to you about the Clippers sale would be like talking smack to a toddler that you just beat in basketball. Anyone who was paying attention, including many people on the Boneyard, knew the team would fetch upwards of $1.5B as a floor.

Your position was that the team could get around $550M today but would definitely not be sold until after Sterling died at which point the purchase price - by some logic that only you understand - would be down to about $400M. Your theory of "lost revenue streams" or some such garbage.

When it was pointed out to you that it's actually a seller's market, that there's a long list of potential buyers desperate to get in on the lucrative tv and media rights deals around the corner, and that the value of even moribund franchises are skyrocketing, you said that that was "nonsense."

It's not even that you were wrong - everyone gets things wrong - it was the stridency with which you asserted that you were right and everyone else is wrong that is so funny.
Expand ...

We call that being "aggressively ignorant."
 
B Vogel said:
Hey little boy, He who laughs last, laughs best. Sterling makes a few stupid comments, idiot liberals and overpaid athletes and you genius fall all over themselves crying, wailing and moaning "Mr. Sterling used a bad word", and Sterling gets $2 Billion back on a $13 Million investment. My Lord, what an awful punishment.
Expand ...

You're right, it was a brilliant move for Sterling to manufacture grounds upon which the league could force him to sell the team now and incur a huge capital gains tax rather than wait for his heirs to sell it and save a boatload. You're out of your element. Stick to turning tricks and being a bigoted creep or whatever you do to keep the lights on in Tampa.
 
B Vogel said:
Hey little boy, He who laughs last, laughs best. Sterling makes a few stupid comments, idiot liberals and overpaid athletes and you genius fall all over themselves crying, wailing and moaning "Mr. Sterling used a bad word", and Sterling gets $2 Billion back on a $13 Million investment. My Lord, what an awful punishment.
Expand ...

1) What Sterling said wasn't just "a few stupid comments" they were racist comments and highly offensive.
2) Sterling never wanted to sell the team so to say he is now laughing about it is ridiculous.
3) Having a bunch of money doesn't change the fact that he is still a miserable old man.
 
UConnDan97 said:
If I was a multi-billionaire, I'd be doing that same dance, but with my clothes off...
Expand ...

Really depends on how big your package is. As a billion(s)aire That's one of the few things that can still be taken from you (your respect, not your penis).
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
Really depends on how big your package is. As a billion(s)aire That's one of the few things that can still be taken from you (your respect, not your penis).
Expand ...

False. As a multibillionaire, you pay some really good CGI people to make it swing and sway. For anyone in the audience that saw "the real thing", you pay them each $100,000 to keep their mouths shut... ;)
 
UConnDan97 said:
False. As a multibillionaire, you pay some really good CGI people to make it swing and sway. For anyone in the audience that saw "the real thing", you pay them each $100,000 to keep their mouths shut... ;)
Expand ...

I'd probably go with a prosthetic penis? Dirk Diggler style. Keep all those hundy larges in the kitty.

That said, it would be very entertaining to have a working holographic penis.
 
As I said, I've rethought this whole thing. This whole thing must have been billiantly concocted by Sterling to pump the value so he cash cash out at a super premium. The value has gone up 4x since this bs began!! Apparently race bating behavior is so predictable, that you can make a ton on it. Move over Al Sharpton.
 
Fishy said:
Actually, yes.

"If I get interested in the Clippers, it would be for Los Angeles. I don't work anymore, so I have more geographic flexibility than I did a year, year-and-a half ago. Moving them anywhere else would be value destructive."

Again, you don't pay $2B for something and then move it from LA to Seattle.
Expand ...
That's not speculating... Yeah I have no idea what he's thinking. But as long as its not written into the sales contract, I have a tough time taking him at his word (guess Ive watched too many of his shareholder meetings and product launches.) As for why he might want to move the team to Seattle, aside from what I mentioned initially, the population and corresponding demographics calculations are far less simple than second biggest city versus Seattle. The LA CSA is worth somewhere around 19mil people, while Seattle is maybe 4.75, so roughly a quarter the raw population. That said, Seattle doesn't have to compete with another intown franchise (as well as 2 others instate and another in Phoenix) that arguable has the best sports history of any major league team in the western US. Also as Im sure some of you are aware, western states often have a singular identifying city acting as a hub for population identification (Seattle is to WA, what Denver is to CO, what Salt Lake is to Utah, etc.) Taking that into account, you could feasibly raise the eligible fan base of Seattle to that of all of WA, 7 mil. And while no one is going to argue that Vancouver BC is a basketball hotspot, it is totally unclaimed basketball territory, 2.5hrs from Seattle with 3 mil more people. As the population numbers close between the two areas, demographics become increasingly important. WA has had a steadily increasing population and quality of life for some time, and while LA has remained a growing city at roughly the same 5% rate, the demographics of its growth are far less favorable, in terms of both absolute wealth and expendable wealth. Anyways, you guys can fill in all the blanks here. I live in Seattle and I want an NBA team, but the Clips have a good 10yr Staples Center deal and Seattle, is probably 5yrs away from a new, deliverable indoor arena, so I would bet 5yrs as the minimum time horizon if Ballmer did care to move them. That or maybe he will use some of his new ownership clout to funnel a new franchise to one of his Emerald City buddies. I did have the opportunity to meet him a couple times through work (no, I do not know him) and he is a very competitive, type-A individual so I wonder how well he could maintain the Clips in LA as a second fiddle when the Lakers reorg. As for the $2 billion price, I think he bid way through the market, but w/ $25 billion in his pocket, he is making a statement that he certainly wants a team for more than simply investment value.

What were we talking about? Holographic shlongs or something?
 
He's not moving. A move to Seattle would depress the value of the franchise. There's just no two ways about that. The argument about "sharing" the Los Angeles market vis-a-vis owning the market in Seattle is really a red herring when you think about how these teams make money. He's also not going to get his purchase blessed by the other owners unless it's conditioned on an agreement not to move. Oh, and there's nine years left on the Staples lease..
 
.-.
BigErnMcCracken said:
He's not moving. A move to Seattle would depress the value of the franchise. There's just no two ways about that. The argument about "sharing" the Los Angeles market vis-a-vis owning the market in Seattle is really a red herring when you think about how these teams make money. He's also not going to get his purchase blessed by the other owners unless it's conditioned on an agreement not to move. Oh, and there's nine years left on the Staples lease..
Expand ...
I disagree that the move would necessarily or certainly depress the value. Although its possible, its far from fact. I also feel that the $2bn bid was more representative of his lack of regard for any team's valuation, and more about pride, desire, and dik-measuring. I think he overpaid, but I don't think he gives a b/c he can afford it, and has no intentions of opening up the floor to commentary regarding his purchase and future plans. He'll reassure the league of the Clippers near term home in LA, but like I said, I watched too many shareholders meetings and product launches to concern myself with the words coming out of his mouth.
 
I'm not sure why you keep going back to words coming out of his mouth when there is objective evidence for you to consider. Among other things, he has to agree to keep the team in Los Angeles for the owners to approve the sale. The team is not moving to Seattle. End of story. Also, I have no dog in this fight but I think you would have tough time convincing a neutral observer that relocating from Los Angeles to Seattle would not adversely affect the value of the franchise. You can make all the creative arguments about demographics and Vancouver etc. that you want.

Incidentally, with respect to the price, my understanding is that Tony Ressler's group bid $1.2, David Geffen bid $1.6, and then Ballmer bid $1.8. I think that the Sterlings then forced him up to $2, so it's not a number he just pulled out of the air.
 
There is nothing objective about " he has to agree to keep the team in Los Angeles for the owners to approve the sale." All contracts and agreements have termination dates, I have yet to read anything where one is even implied. There are exactly zero NBA teams perpetually tied to any city. No owner would want or agree to that for obvious reasons. The creative arguments I very briefly suggested are actually the basis for statistical business-case analysis, or business intelligence, and its what I make my living on, and fortunately for me, I'm pretty good at it. With regards to the $2bn price tag, I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but it actually makes more sense when analyzing future franchise value with appreciation, versus buying new, the longer out you look at it, in this case as you mentioned, 9yrs till the Staples Center lease is up. No where have I suggested it would be a quick relo. and I wouldn't be surprised if it never happened at all. But in the 5-10yr time horizon, a relocation could easily make sense, especially if you've got $25bn and just simply want to.
 
I wish Fred Wilpon was that racist. Gotta get rid of him. If the clippers could fetch $2bn I wonder what the mets would go for.
 
Gringo said:
I have to be honest your post is way to long and I didn't read past the first few sentences. With that said he's not moving the team to Seattle. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...-ballmer-agrees-purchase-los-angeles-clippers

And yes if I had billions of dollars I'd CGI the biggest schlong in the world....horse size.
Expand ...

Then you could strut like California Chrome after winning the Preakness.

http://dmv.barstoolsports.com/rando...alifornia-chrome-after-winning-the-preakness/

(would have posted the gif directly, but thinking of Tom's health here...)
 
.-.
superjohn said:
PacificStorm, that must be an insanely potent strain of weed.
Expand ...

No need for weeds in this case, that's lame -- just using my two graduate degrees and Wall Street experience. Use some logic. Ballmer could even increase the payoff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,317
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom