Mariners franchise value could be up to $750 million

Seems Forbes may have been off the mark.

5 months ago Mariner Melee 16 comments 0 recs |

Comments

Very interesting.

I don’t see how it pertains to Prince like he implies. I don’t think franchise value has much to do with available cash, but I it seems like a good thing at least.

by the other side on Dec 18, 2011 3:33 PM PST reply actions

I don't think it applies to Prince either.

I thought I had read that our low payroll was self imposed anyways.

by Mariner Melee on Dec 18, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions

I wonder when Geoff Baker is going to start writing about baseball again.

I swear he is trying to turn the seattle times into a sports version of TMZ.

Dave Krieg!

by Pebohead on Dec 18, 2011 3:36 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

In an earlier tweet he noted that this higher appraisal of the value of the franchise meant that they should have a higher payroll.

This didn’t make any sense to me, as franchise value seems like it would go down with a higher payroll. Am I way out of line here?

by moyerLIVES on Dec 18, 2011 7:36 PM PST up reply actions

That is the key thing to remember when reading this article. In business valuation, value is driven by expected future profits. These two valuations both indicate higher values than in Forbes, and both these valuations had direct access to the Mariners’ financials. That indicates that the Mariners are and are expected to have relatively higher profits than Forbes utilized in their valuation. Therefore, the Mariners have greater profit that they could reinvest in the team with the primary investment likely being payroll. The high value indicates that the Mariners are generating a substantial return on their current payroll.

Also, I don’t think owners really care about the value of their franchise unless they’re going through litigation (i.e. a divorce) or selling their ownership interest. Personally, this tells me that the Mariners could up their payroll substantially and still have a healthy financial situation.

by kmb on Dec 19, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions

Well, in that case...

Let’s go 7/$700 mil for Prince. It leaves us with $50 mil leftover!

by Ghost Dad on Dec 18, 2011 3:47 PM PST reply actions 4 recs

With the value of the dollar dropping over 30% in the last 10 years, I'm surprised the team isn't worth $1 billion.

by Wilder. on Dec 18, 2011 7:42 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

I'm not inclined to support Muckraker Baker's effort to frame drawing attention to a divorce trial as baseball news.

Let him pretend Larson is McCourt and that he’s covering some big national story, if it helps console him that he’s not on some cooler baseball beat. Or have his little ~~ESPN audition tapes~~ Geoff Baker Live. I don’t have to read that shit.

by Chris_FB on Dec 19, 2011 11:09 AM PST reply actions 2 recs

Seems odd. Angels sold for 185M fresh off a WS win. I mean, inflation and all, but the Ms have been every shade of terrible since then.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 19, 2011 12:31 PM PST reply actions

I'm sorry, I think it was 180M actually.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 19, 2011 12:32 PM PST up reply actions

Probably a combination of inflation (which has gone up farily fast sans the market crash) and a return on the investment (team makes money, puts it back into team).

That plus long term tv deals, long term assets like a stadium and how it is controlled (state, team owned) and land.

"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot

by beastwarking on Dec 22, 2011 11:04 PM PST up reply actions

Somebody needs to link Geoff to an article about the McCourt so he can find out what happens when an owner turns his franchise value into cash

Rich people aren’t as liquid as Geoff seems to think they are(Cuban said he needed financing help in his attempt to buy the Rangers) and they only way to turn franchise value into payroll is to borrow against the franchise or sell pieces of it off.

by Vegasexpat on Dec 19, 2011 1:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Rich people are usually rich because they aren't very liquid.

You don’t get anywhere near the returns from liquid funds. They’re more likely to have a lot of funds relatively tied up.

by Aussie Mariner on Dec 19, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions

McCourt had almost zero money

his entire bid/purchase for the Dodgers was done with money borrowed against his parking lot assets.

by pdb on Dec 19, 2011 3:41 PM PST up reply actions

And then he borrowed against the Dodgers again and again after that!

by joof on Dec 20, 2011 8:55 AM PST up reply actions

The problem I have with Geoff's article is that he thinks the team taking borrowing at a 50% margin against the teams current value as determined by FORBES is an intelligent thing to do.

Ignore for a minute that he is using an unofficial tool to try to sway readers of his blog to turn against the ownership and never mind that even then, there is a lot of stuff that isn’t made public that could affect proper valuation.

But no, he wants to borrow (a lot) in a time of economic uncertainty, when a team has a dropping attendance since what, 2008, and who’s parent group just recorded a massive loss. I mean granted, borrowing is really cheap, I mean really really cheap right now. But my god what a boob. I swear to god he is making readers dumber by spouting this drivel. I thought about making a heart felt response, I really did but I just didn’t have it in me after an accounting final, an econ final, and a finance final all in one day. So instead, I posted random useless facts and those are just as relevant to baseball as his post was….

God he pisses me off

"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot

by beastwarking on Dec 22, 2011 11:12 PM PST up reply actions