All of this could have been avoided. we all knew they were full of it, and that they were only looking at team as a spin job and now it's just another toy in divorce game. No respect for team, for fans, or for franchise. it's shameful and I hope MLB forces them to sell and hope it's at recession prices so they can move back into one of the parking lots they traded for the team.
I also think the IRS should nail them for their 3 card monty attempt to put houses in 1 name and team in another. what kind of BS is that?
"All of this could have been avoided."
No--actually, it could NOT have been avoided. The sale was already in process to McCourt, as I recall. Broad stepped up a little too late because McCourt has having issues with the financing. Everybody on this board got overly excited, for no good reason. Broad would have been the option if McCourt failed.
htt p://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1711831
You may recall that, about a year before MLB approved Frank's purchase of the Dodgers, they denied his offer to buy the Angels for about half as much. At that time, they said he lacked sufficient resources to own a major league team.
About that time, Bud Selig's campaign to cripple large market teams in favor of more parity took hold, and Frank was approved to buy the Dodgers because he wouldn't easily be able to afford a high payroll.
eli only threw his name in AFTER the sale to mccourt was underway.
all these years later were still talking about him and it didnt cost him a dime. hes got a pretty good publicist.
so far under mccourt we have returned to nlcs TWICE, something we had not done in 20 years.
why do people insist on hanging mccourt based on what the ASSUME will happen?
lets wait and see what happens for once!
"eli only threw his name in AFTER the sale to mccourt was underway."
That was precisely my original point, and that's why I included the link.
Regardless of Selig's/MLB's motives, Broad should have still thrown his hat into the ring earlier.
"so far under mccourt we have returned to nlcs TWICE, something we had not done in 20 years."
And have made the playoffs four out of six seasons. If you take away the wild card appearance, it was three division titles in six seasons, which was something they hadn't done since 1978-83.
It's not enough for those of us who grew up back then, but it's better than what it was.
BTW, what is it with Broad anyway? He suggested O'Malley was in his camp(yes?), and got us all excited.He also teased us about trying to buy the LA Times from the Tribune Co. They went with Sam Zell instead, and now my beloved Times is spiraling down the drain.
"About that time, Bud Selig's campaign to cripple large market teams in favor of more parity took hold, and Frank was approved to buy the Dodgers because he wouldn't easily be able to afford a high payroll."
Bingo! That's the reason the Dodgers weren't able to make an offer and sign Vlad Guerrero when he was a free agent that off-season.
Tribune did not go to Eli Broad because he only really wanted the LA Times and planned to sell off the other businesses piecemeal. Remember, one of those Tribune business was (yes WAS) the Cubs so someone could make a very nice chunk of change even after taxes. Zell intended to keep the businesses together for the most part with the exception of the Cubs which he stated up front when his purchase was approved.
Not sure if folks realize that Tribune ownership had to seek out Zell because they weren't thrilled with the bidders. And quite frankly none of this would have happened had Tribune not purchased Times Mirror in 2000 and got themselves involved with the Chandler family. It may be your beloved Times but blame the Chandler family for where it is today. They forced Tribune's hand and the only way to disentangle themselves from that tax dodgers was to sell...sadly to an even bigger tax dodger.
You see, I was a Tribune employee when this all went down so it's why I know what happened.
Sure, the Times is going down the tubes with Zell, but it really started when Tribune bought the Times.
After Tribune got ahold of The Times, all of the troubling signs began showing up: more newswire, a shake-up of the editorial staff, more pictures, bigger ads and more fluff pieces. With Zell, they actually ran a fake article on the front page(TV show ad); they changed to larger fonts with color added (ooh!); there is less copy, bigger pictures, and the paper is physically smaller and thinner.
Sadly, with our dumbed-down populace, I doubt that papers will make a comeback. My only hope is that some civic-minded patron like Broad will take on the job of producing a newspaper that employs real journalism, without an overriding concern for profit. It seems that the idea of newspapers as a business is a losing proposition.
New ownership tends to bring shake ups at the top in any business. And those folks will then make changes as well. We don't have to like it but it happens and they are doing everything they can to sell newspapers. As for Zell, no excuse for him whatsoever because he has destroyed every newspaper in the Tribune stable.
Zell will probably sell off the LA Times (while retaining his customary 5% to avoid capital gains taxes) all in good time to make a fast buck. Then again, they next time he tries this ploy the IRS may have had enough of his tax avoidance shennanigans.
Sam Zell and Frank McCourt have much in common. Both real estate guys who load up with debt, pray a risk premium doesn’t reappear, and hope for the best. Unfortunately for both, a risk premium is back. Hopefully McCourt won’t have to go back to the debt markets for anything, like buying out Jamie’s share of the Dodgers. But nothing Zell has done with Tribune seems illegal in any way. Zell’s simply milking the system the way most of us do. Mortgage interest anyone?! Muni’s anyone?! Tax dodgers, Trolley Dodgers: What’s the difference?
I too worked for the Times. Even if Otis Chandler were still alive and calling the shots the paper would still be withering away. Perhaps not as quickly as under Tribune, but withering nonetheless. The environment, technology and this city have all changed. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal, every newspaper, even the NY Times is hemorrhaging right now.
BTW like Tribune, Otis Chandler was obsessed with profits and cash flow. Too his credit he generated them too. But that’s much harder to do in this era of internet aggregators.
Regards
Thanks for an informative post. A question for you:
I've heard that, while most of the better, big-city newspapers are less profitable than they were in the past (10 to 15% margins that are shrinking, instead of 20%), they remain more profitable than many other businesses. The reason for slashing costs, I've heard, is not so much to stop red ink, but to return to their customary level of black ink. People like Zell don't care about damaging a paper, only about turning the most possible profit. In the (not so) long run, that hurts the quality of journalism and (together with the emergence of new technologies and other factors) creates a cancer on the industry.
Is that correct?
Those are important questions you raise DodgersAngels. A few years ago the hypothesis of getting back to historical profit levels of 20%ish had great currency as print pubs including the Times were still profitable yet still laying off people. I don’t believe that to be the case any longer.
The cuts that you see today are real and for valid reasons. Newspapers have lost their key competitive advantages and franchises. None more so than classified advertising to Craigslist and the like. I think the next shoe to drop will be cinema advertising. Ask anyone under 40 to find a movie listing and they never turn to a paper. Always the net. Once Hollywood decides to stop selling to the 40+ audience I don’t know what newspapers will do.
The NY Times company is currently losing money. Now that does include a lot of subsidiaries (even a minority piece of the Red Sox). But their bread and butter operations of print journalism are reeling too. So bad that there’s talk of them unloading the Boston Globe. That would be a major embarrassment and leads me to believe that even big city newspapers (in literate university cities no less) no longer make money.
Some newspapers will tell you thanks to the net they now have more people reading their content today than ever before. That may be true. But they’ve yet to learn how to sufficiently monetize those additional pages read.
The LA Times once was a great “writer’s newspaper” with bureau’s worldwide. I would argue that it was once the best newspaper in the nation. As publisher, Otis Chandler was revered in the newsroom for opening many of those bureau’s. But he didn’t do that because he viewed the Times as a sort of public trust unconcerned with juicy profits. He opened those bureaus because he realized that to sell The Times in LA’s burgeoning suburbs he would have to offer thorough, restaurant quality journalism. And cover more than the police blotter or what was happening in city hall. In turn that would improve his shareholders’ return on equity. Times Mirror always trailed Tribune by a few basis points when it came to profitability. But they were certainly no misers themselves. And they made tons of money and god bless them.
Chandler’s were wise to sell at the right time. And Tribune failed to due their due diligence and was stuck with a tax bill from a text book publisher Times Mirror once owned. But the destruction we’re seeing at the Times and papers all over was going to happen regardless. Zell’s leverage only accelerated this. It was destined to happen anyway.
For an interesting insight into the Times and Chandler’s I recommend “Priviledged Son” authored by Dennis McDougal.
BTW back to the original topic. I don't think Broad ever wanted to own the Dodgers. Museums are more his thing.
Thanks again! What you say about the Times once being the nation's best paper is interesting in that its peak was really not so long ago. By any current standard, I think it's still an excellent paper—right up there with any in the world. But only because standards have fallen.
I never thought the Times made much on movie ads. My assumption was that it was largely a tradeoff. Until recently, it seemed like every time I went to a movie, an elaborate Times ad preceded the trailers. For me, there's still no quicker or easier way to find a movie listing, but if that were all I got out of the newspaper, I'd go online in a heartbeat. Before long, it looks as though Donald T. Sterling vanity ads may be the Times #1 revenue source. You'll probably see those Times trailers at Staples Center before Clippers games.
Something I find interesting is that I subscribe to the Times for around $20 per month, and I also get the Daily Breeze for about $5 per month. I know the Breeze is a much smaller operation than the Times, but they have pretty good local coverage, national and international coverage from wire services, a sports staff, columnists, etc. So how can the Times, with its much greater circulation, be in such dire straits when a decent paper like the Breeze survives on so much less? (I started getting the Breeze when the Times dropped its Sunday TV supplement.)
Nobody asked me, but…You mentioned the Times's expansion and emphasis on world news over local coverage. Plucky local coverage was one reason I always enjoyed the Herald Examiner (and its predecessors). They always put the Times to shame at dishing the dirt on City Hall. Plus great sports writers like Melvin Durslag, Bud Furillo, Jimmy Cannon, and Bob Hunter. And it came in the afternoon, so the news was that much fresher when I had a chance to read it. Even if the Times shuts down tomorrow, the paper I'll always remember most fondly will be the Herald.
As Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the paper."
Mort Sahl once had a memorable throwaway quip: "There are but two choices in life. Times or Herald Examiner."
From USA Today Dated 3/22/03
-Local man wants piece of DodgersBy John Nadel, The Associated PressLOS ANGELES — Los Angeles businessman and art connoisseur Eli Broad has confirmed his interest in being part of a group buying the Dodgers from News Corp. The 69-year-old Broad is the first local person to publicly acknowledge his intention to join a group headed by former New York sports executive David Checketts.
"I have known Mr. Checketts for a number of years and have the highest regard for him," Broad said in a statement issued late Thursday. "Mr. Checketts asked me to join him in the acquisition of the Los Angeles Dodgers and Fox Sports Net 2."
The desire of the group to purchase the regional cable TV network that airs Dodgers games, along with the Los Angeles Clippers and Anaheim Mighty Ducks games, may be a major stumbling block.
Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp., has been more interested over the years in acquiring rather than selling media outlets.
Checketts has reportedly offered to pay $600 million for the Dodgers and Dodger Stadium but only if he gains control of Fox Sports Net 2. He also reportedly wants to manage the cable channel's sister station, Fox Sports Net, which televises Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings and Anaheim Angels games.
"I am interested because of my love for Los Angeles, my interest in revitalizing downtown and for recognizing the need for Los Angeles-based ownership," Broad said. "I am hopeful that a deal will be consummated."
Broad, who is chairman of the financial planning company SunAmerica, previously was involved in a failed attempt to attract an NFL franchise to Los Angeles.
A telephone call to Checketts wasn't immediately returned. Andrew Butcher, a spokesman for News Corp., refused comment.
"There isn't much for us to say at this point. A club would reach an understanding of interest and then contact us," said Rich Levin, a spokesman for baseball commissioner Bud Selig.
News Corp. bought the Dodgers, Dodger Stadium and the club's Florida spring training site from the O'Malley family in 1997 for $311 million, and has investigated selling for some time. In October 1999, the company ceded operating control to Bob Daly, who bought a 10% share.-
I don't think enough is made of this aspect. Fox wanted a new owner that could buy the team while they still retained broadcasting rights. McCourt could barely afford the team, let alone the broadcasting rights. Selig had to work overtime in getting McCourt approved to placate Fox.
rupperts, I am a former Tribune Company employee who decided to jump ship before Zell could get his hands on my 401k to prop up his purchase. Made it out with one month to spare quite frankly.
As for the Chandlers, their obsession of cash flow and tax dodging is how Tribune ended up being for sale. The entanglement between the old TM and the Tribune Company was very difficult to untangle. Selling the company was the only way for Tribune to rid themselves of the Chandler heirs. Sadly, they couldn't find a buyer they were happy with and the Broad/Berkle group was all there was. Somehow, they found Zell and convinced him to purchase the whole thing. Honestly, as someone who was in Chicago where they spoke of this sale regulary, Zell was a dark horse that no one had heard of up until the very last minute. Whole thing was odd.
I think the leadership expected to stay in place but Zell gutted the place (unlike the new owner of the Cubs...big mistake there) and filled it with his radio brethern who know zip about print media or television.
You are right though...the WSJ is the only paper which seems to be keeping its head above water these days. Funny how they were the first to charge for online content on the web from pretty much day one too, isn't it?
