Tim Lieweke leaving?

[mcHAPPY]

1. True TL was focused on the NFL in LA but his big accomplishment there was coming within a whisker of building a stadium there without which a team doesnt happen. I understand Kroenke (St Louis Rams) wants to move there so that could be.

2. Not so sure the Clips couldnt be moved to Seattle. LAL still own LA and the Clips have a lousy arrangement @ Staples and get pennies on the $ for TV rights etc comparatively. I think Silver is secretly in love with Ballmer (took 24 hrs. to stamp the xfer). There is however Hansen in Seattle who wants a team there as well. That would be a good franchise.

The Clippers could be moved but why would they?

One of the reasons, besides insanity, that Sterling wanted to keep Clippers was due to ability to secure new TV deal that would bolster the value of the team.

The Clippers might be the ugly step child of LA basketball but the team also had one of the worst owners in professional sports history for the last 30 years.

New ownership combined with current roster and being in 2nd largest city in US are all much more lucrative selling points than a team in Seattle.


I noticed the discussion turned towards Seattle as a great basketball market. Please note the opposite is not what I said or implied. Seattle is a great basketball city and there is no other city I'd rather see have an NBA team than Seattle - after Vancouver. Ballmer isn't moving the team to Seattle. For him to move the team to Seattle he would have to royally screw up the current state of the Clippers. Oh and Seattle still needs a new arena too.

[BobLoblaw]

A new challenge? Don't you complete your 'last challenge' before moving onto a new one? Are the Toronto teams that good that they can't be better? And if they are, why not stay to enjoy the the championships? Debunked.

Family hated the winter? They knew what to expect moving to Canada. This is just silly. Debunked.

I don't buy it, unless there is something we don't know...

To be fair, Leiweke was leading a bigger company before this one. In that sense, this is a demotion for him. I could see him looking at bigger opportunities or at starting "his own" thing by forming an NFL ownership group.

[Employee]

I smell a promotion for Drake!

[Bendit]

The Clippers could be moved but why would they?

One of the reasons, besides insanity, that Sterling wanted to keep Clippers was due to ability to secure new TV deal that would bolster the value of the team.

The Clippers might be the ugly step child of LA basketball but the team also had one of the worst owners in professional sports history for the last 30 years.

New ownership combined with current roster and being in 2nd largest city in US are all much more lucrative selling points than a team in Seattle.


I noticed the discussion turned towards Seattle as a great basketball market. Please note the opposite is not what I said or implied. Seattle is a great basketball city and there is no other city I'd rather see have an NBA team than Seattle - after Vancouver. Ballmer isn't moving the team to Seattle. For him to move the team to Seattle he would have to royally screw up the current state of the Clippers. Oh and Seattle still needs a new arena too.

Of course this whole discussion of Ballmer, the Clippers and Seattle evolved as a "what if" exercise re Leiweke's future career opportunity!! I concede there is a certain amount of irrationality about it all beginning with the outrageous price which Ballmer forked over/overpaid. If I am not mistaken he admitted it so himself. Clearly he has too much money (in cash I think) and also clearly this is not a for any immediate-profit acquisition. Some info I came across on the matter of whether he paid too much...the most anyone has paid for a sports franchise (maybe an NBA team) is about 5.5 times earnings. The Clippers price was measured at over 12 times. And even with a renewal of TV contracts at a Celtics like deal with Comcast it would take Ballmer about 40 years to recoup his investment or alternatively sell the Clips at another whopping price. Ballmer also if one has followed his leadership at Microsoft has made some over payments for company acquisitions as well as sometimes of questionable viability to Microsoft's needs & success.

So, this is all to say that I come at this discussion with a certain irrationality....cause Ballmer is. Or just maybe he will surprise all of us. It is August and how much can one discuss about Jordan Hamilton

ps..Re the arena in Seattle...apparently Ballmer & Hansen had previously had an alliance to build one whilst pursuing the Kings a couple of years ago. Another half Bill. ?...not a problem!

[BobLoblaw]

Of course this whole discussion of Ballmer, the Clippers and Seattle evolved as a "what if" exercise re Leiweke's future career opportunity!! I concede there is a certain amount of irrationality about it all beginning with the outrageous price which Ballmer forked over/overpaid. If I am not mistaken he admitted it so himself. Clearly he has too much money (in cash I think) and also clearly this is not a for any immediate-profit acquisition. Some info I came across on the matter of whether he paid too much...the most anyone has paid for a sports franchise (maybe an NBA team) is about 5.5 times earnings. The Clippers price was measured at over 12 times. And even with a renewal of TV contracts at a Celtics like deal with Comcast it would take Ballmer about 40 years to recoup his investment or alternatively sell the Clips at another whopping price. Ballmer also if one has followed his leadership at Microsoft has made some over payments for company acquisitions as well as sometimes of questionable viability to Microsoft's needs & success.

So, this is all to say that I come at this discussion with a certain irrationality....cause Ballmer is. Or just maybe he will surprise all of us. It is August and how much can one discuss about Jordan Hamilton

ps..Re the arena in Seattle...apparently Ballmer & Hansen had previously had an alliance to build one whilst pursuing the Kings a couple of years ago. Another half Bill. ?...not a problem!

Fair points, but the NBA's new TV deal alone (if it adds 25-30% to NBA's total revenue as projected) will probably push that 12+ figure closer to 9.

Then I don't know how reliable Forbes' revenue estimations are, but they are placing Clippers' revenue below teams like Jazz, Pistons and Magic. Which sounds quite ludicrous considering that it's a much better team in a much better market. Their average ticket price is twice below the Lakers' average ticket price, despite them being a much better, more exciting team. They should be able to grow from within without even counting their new local TV deal. It won't happen overnight, but there's a lot of room to grow.

And then their new local TV deal is projected at about 125 mil a year by Bank of America.

Add it all up, and they could be in the viscinity of that 5.5 figure 5 years from now.

[LBF]

you'd have to be out of your mind to move a team out of la and into seattle. That's like going from toronto to hamilton.

hey!

[Bendit]

Fair points, but the NBA's new TV deal alone (if it adds 25-30% to NBA's total revenue as projected) will probably push that 12+ figure closer to 9.

Then I don't know how reliable Forbes' revenue estimations are, but they are placing Clippers' revenue below teams like Jazz, Pistons and Magic. Which sounds quite ludicrous considering that it's a much better team in a much better market. Their average ticket price is twice below the Lakers' average ticket price, despite them being a much better, more exciting team. They should be able to grow from within without even counting their new local TV deal. It won't happen overnight, but there's a lot of room to grow.

And then their new local TV deal is projected at about 125 mil a year by Bank of America.

Add it all up, and they could be in the viscinity of that 5.5 figure 5 years from now.

I was in part referring to this piece:

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-clippers.aspx


Seems like a pretty dubious investment on the face of it. I vote for the serious vanity option. The guys who bid the 1.2 bill. probably had a max. bid in their own minds...and they are serious moneymen (they own the Dodgers amongst other things). Geffen had the higher bid of 1.6 and he is a Hollywood staple who probably had showbiz idea spinoffs...who knows.

[Uncle_Si]

Value in the clippers isn't only the revenue stream. It's a very small group of people that get to say they own a major professional sports team. So the value is in the prestige associated to owning the team and that's based on tons of variables which likely include getting the team away from a racist piece of shit. (Oh and thereby making you the new super hero owner)

[BobLoblaw]

I was in part referring to this piece:

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-clippers.aspx


Seems like a pretty dubious investment on the face of it. I vote for the serious vanity option. The guys who bid the 1.2 bill. probably had a max. bid in their own minds...and they are serious moneymen (they own the Dodgers amongst other things). Geffen had the higher bid of 1.6 and he is a Hollywood staple who probably had showbiz idea spinoffs...who knows.

A lot of issues with that article.

One of the most glaring ones, it makes no sense to expect a team to pay off its purchase price via profit. So all those calculations in the article seem meaningless to me. He probably won't get that 2 bil back via team profit ever. Nor does he expect to. He can still sell the team, or his family can sell the team after he passes.

Secondly, what about tax savings? That's going to be a far more important source of "return on investment" than team profit. A team buyer is allowed to use full purchase price as a tax shield. Someone like Ballmer who's worth 20 bil will have a ton of personal income. Over the next few years he will be able to deduct 2 bil from his income as a loss for tax purposes. That should be nearly a billion return right there.

And finally, those revenue projections look very conservative. That article doesn't account for NBA's incoming bigger national TV deal at all, and it looks like they picked the lowest cable TV deal projection they could find. Besides, like I said, I suspect the Clippers revenue could grow via other sources as well, their revenue seems very low considering their location and team quality. In terms of revenue, they are basically a small market team right now. I suspect buyers saw a lot of potential, not just had some showbiz ideas.

[mcHAPPY]

Of course this whole discussion of Ballmer, the Clippers and Seattle evolved as a "what if" exercise re Leiweke's future career opportunity!! I concede there is a certain amount of irrationality about it all beginning with the outrageous price which Ballmer forked over/overpaid. If I am not mistaken he admitted it so himself. Clearly he has too much money (in cash I think) and also clearly this is not a for any immediate-profit acquisition. Some info I came across on the matter of whether he paid too much...the most anyone has paid for a sports franchise (maybe an NBA team) is about 5.5 times earnings. The Clippers price was measured at over 12 times. And even with a renewal of TV contracts at a Celtics like deal with Comcast it would take Ballmer about 40 years to recoup his investment or alternatively sell the Clips at another whopping price. Ballmer also if one has followed his leadership at Microsoft has made some over payments for company acquisitions as well as sometimes of questionable viability to Microsoft's needs & success.

So, this is all to say that I come at this discussion with a certain irrationality....cause Ballmer is. Or just maybe he will surprise all of us. It is August and how much can one discuss about Jordan Hamilton

ps..Re the arena in Seattle...apparently Ballmer & Hansen had previously had an alliance to build one whilst pursuing the Kings a couple of years ago. Another half Bill. ?...not a problem!

There is no question Ballmer's penchant for buying at the top. He has a long history of it.

But my original point was if Leiweke leaves - and it appears after this year the two year window is open allowing him to do so - LA might be a very probable venture. It has always been about the NFL for him. With a recently retired multi-billionaire on the LA sports scene, it is a new tire to kick to make his dream a reality. What better way for Ballmer to one up Paul Allen than to bring LA an NFL team and be majority owner and Leiweke to kick dirt in the face of Anschutz for bailing on Leiweke's dream.

[S.R.]

There is no question Ballmer's penchant for buying at the top. He has a long history of it.

But my original point was if Leiweke leaves - and it appears after this year the two year window is open allowing him to do so - LA might be a very probable venture. It has always been about the NFL for him. With a recently retired multi-billionaire on the LA sports scene, it is a new tire to kick to make his dream a reality. What better way for Ballmer to one up Paul Allen than to bring LA an NFL team and be majority owner and Leiweke to kick dirt in the face of Anschutz for bailing on Leiweke's dream.

If TL leaves after this season (and "I'm focused on this season" is extremely suggestive - why wouldn't he mention the multiple years left on his contract?), clearly it'll be because he's going to a higher profile situation. Working with Ballmer to bring the NFL to LA would definitely fit the bill - it's feasible, at the least. NFL + NBA in LA is easily more desirable to Lieweke and his family than NBA + NHL + MLS in Toronto.

Speculation, sure, but the list of situations that are higher profile than working with the multi-sports MLSE organization in a market the size of Toronto or greater is going to be quite short.

In any case, I hope MLSE continues in the direction Lieweke's pointed them. They ought to be brash with their aspirations considering their resources. Absolutely no reason to settle for mediocrity as the norm.

[BobLoblaw]

There is no question Ballmer's penchant for buying at the top. He has a long history of it.

But my original point was if Leiweke leaves - and it appears after this year the two year window is open allowing him to do so - LA might be a very probable venture. It has always been about the NFL for him. With a recently retired multi-billionaire on the LA sports scene, it is a new tire to kick to make his dream a reality. What better way for Ballmer to one up Paul Allen than to bring LA an NFL team and be majority owner and Leiweke to kick dirt in the face of Anschutz for bailing on Leiweke's dream.

If TL leaves after this season (and "I'm focused on this season" is extremely suggestive - why wouldn't he mention the multiple years left on his contract?), clearly it'll be because he's going to a higher profile situation. Working with Ballmer to bring the NFL to LA would definitely fit the bill - it's feasible, at the least. NFL + NBA in LA is easily more desirable to Lieweke and his family than NBA + NHL + MLS in Toronto.

Speculation, sure, but the list of situations that are higher profile than working with the multi-sports MLSE organization in a market the size of Toronto or greater is going to be quite short.

In any case, I hope MLSE continues in the direction Lieweke's pointed them. They ought to be brash with their aspirations considering their resources. Absolutely no reason to settle for mediocrity as the norm.

They should buy Chivas USA too, rebrand it and turn it into LA's no.1 soccer team! Another one up on Paul Allen (he's a minority owner of the Sounders)!

Um, decisions decisions. I want to have 20 billions too!

[007]

Did he actually do that much for the team besides landing Masai?

As long as MU is still here I don't care what he does.

[JordanMariam14]

Man.. I was hoping he'd stay to help us recruit Durant.

[godkingleonidas]

"And his family hated the winter."

*sigh*

LL COOL LIEWEKE!!!

He's going back to Cali!!!