Multiple offers for TribCo

by wicubfan on Oct 25, 2006 4:30 PM CDT Comment 19 comments

This bloomberg article details several interested parties in the company that owns our favorite baseball team:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a90PTCD4v7_c

It looks like Oct 27th is the deadline for bids for the corporation. It promises to be a real interesting winter.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting

I've always maintained (and still do) that the Tribune wouldn't sell the Cubs. But I've never argued that they wouldn't sell themselves.

On the other hand, I don't see how a new faceless corporate owner would be any better.

A new owner would be more likely to spin off the LA holdings (The LA Times, KTLA) than they would spin off the Cubs, methinks.

Save the cheerleader. Save the Cubs.

by Josh77 on Oct 25, 2006 8:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This sounds logical...

... which is why the breathless tracking of every Tribco move by others seems pointless.

Whether we want this ownership gone or not, the reality is, we are probably stuck with it.

by Al on Oct 25, 2006 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

if you think there is 0% chance of the trib and the Cubs going different directions thats true. The analyst however points out that many different scenarios could take place. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I do think it's worth keeping an eye on.

by wicubfan on Oct 25, 2006 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

... it's worth keeping an eye on, not reading every tea leaf as it it's going to happen tomorrow.

by Al on Oct 25, 2006 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't....

this the point of the blog Al?

he hath no fury like a cubs fan scorned

by timeforachange on Oct 25, 2006 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

n/t

by Al on Oct 26, 2006 8:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

who knows. Maybe nothing will change with a new company owning the Tribune, but I don't think we are stuck with this ownership unless the Tribune doesn't sell. I'm not an expert, but it looks pretty likely that there will be a new owner.

Or will it not be considered a new owner because the Cubs aren't the ones being sold? Like I said, I'm not an expert, and if anyone can explain to me what could happen to the Cubs if the Tribune sells itself I would appreciate it.

I like the 'breathless tracking'. It's been pretty informative, and usually has good support for the predictions or interpretations.

Cubbie Blue will always sPaRkLe in my eyes, but please stop losing. PLEASE!

by sparkles721 on Oct 25, 2006 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does it?

It's been going on for months. Not a single thing has happened yet.

by Al on Oct 25, 2006 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Al...

I would explain it to you if I could, but I'm not Chuck and if he came and explained you probably wouldn't listen anyway. I don't know if there has been serious bidding in the past, but there are offers being made now and it looks like the Trib is really going to take them. If by 'thing' you mean sale then you are right nothing has happened. By what I have read on Chuck's blog things have happened that are leading to these events.

Didn't they just say they wanted to close this deal thing by the end of the year? Again, I'm no expert, but that's what it sounds like.

Cubbie Blue will always sPaRkLe in my eyes, but please stop losing. PLEASE!

by sparkles721 on Oct 25, 2006 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure does..

the board just voted to speed up bonus and retirement payments to top executives if ownership changes. Sounds like they want to sell ASAP.

by wicubfan on Oct 25, 2006 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we speculate

about a lot of things here that don't happen for a long time, or don't happen at all. i think you may have let your dislike for chuck/debating with chuck make you dislike discussing the whole issue of the cubs being sold. it certainly is a big deal, and the ramifications of them being sold are certainly worthy of debate.

by tomas21 on Oct 26, 2006 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure it is.

Just not every single time an article appears about some offer or another, when it isn't clear even IF this is going to happen.

by Al on Oct 26, 2006 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

POS

That's an acronym. Figure it out.

Yes. Don't jump on every article about the Trib.

Just DO jump on every article about A Rod. Or Gary Sheffield. Or Daisuke Matsuzaka.

You are such a hyporite it goes beyond belief. Your silence to Sparks above is typical.

Please delete my Ivychat account. You don't have to delete my old posts, just delete the Ivychat account.

Oh, and since you are "worried" about people posing as me, why don't you delete that "FauxChuck" account while you are at it? Or was that "worry" just more crap oozing from your finger tips?

One last thing:

Nothing as happened yet? Patience.

by Ivychat on Oct 27, 2006 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is a big deal.

I think we should talk about it more than we do, but maybe I'm making a sale bigger than it really is. I don't know about these things.

Cubbie Blue will always sPaRkLe in my eyes, but please stop losing. PLEASE!

by sparkles721 on Oct 26, 2006 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Months is a short time

It takes much more time to complete a deal transferring ownership of a coporation than it does to say work out a deal in transferring ARod's contract to another team.

Replace the ivy with hemlock

by jc60625 on Oct 26, 2006 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since this is in my baliwick some thoughts

Private Equity (PE) is the market I serve and it is now obvious that the Tribune colossal conglomerate is done. The probable scenerio will be for the company to be split among the three suiters who are comprising the buyout team (Providence, Apollo and Madison Dearborn where Madigan is a partner)

The properties will probably go along industry lines where broadcasting goes one direction, publishing goes another and the other Tribune investments to another.

Relevancy is the Cubs...where I predict from whispers in the market that an LBO with another money suiter will emerge. Current Tribune management moves demonstrate that the Cubs will be headed by their marketing guy John McDonough in a LBO where silent money partners balance the buy out. Meaning, no strip down version.

The payout is that the Cubs broadcast rights will probably be 5 to 6 times that of now plus but no more WGN, so get used to MLB.tv if you are remote.

Ultimately it could be a better accountable foundation to engineer a winning attitude.

Bill Veeck planted Ivy during 'The Depression', and over time the Ivy Walls has become the most distinct symbol of Wrigley Field.

by Ivy Walls on Oct 25, 2006 10:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

What happens to the tax liability ?

in your set up. We know the Cubs will face A
HUGE tax liability if sold by Trib, could a single
entity handle that? I have no clue so I am asking

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Oct 26, 2006 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd still think that over-the-air

broadcast rights in Chicago would stay on WGN -- but whether or not they'd stay on Superstation WGN is another story. I don't see all Chicago b-cast rights going to Cable only -- that hasn't happened in the largest markets yet. (Middle, to small markets -- yes, that's the case. No over-the-air TV coverage at all.) Even the Yankees/Mets have local TV deals, same with the Dodgers/Angels and Giants/A's. There are not a LOT of local over-the-air games, but a precious few remain.

I cannot imagine ANY other station/company in Chicago that would be able to pony up the money for broadcast rights, outside of WGN -- they seem to have been able to work around the old WB to schedule games. (and probably could around The CW Net) But the Big 4 owned/operated Chicago net stations would not bump net programming for the Cubs. The only variable would be Comcast -- which has shown the interest to start their own national cable sports net. Since they own the rights to sports cablecasts in many markets already, perhaps they'd overpay for Chicago rights -- to help piece a network along, compiling product from their other cities.

by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Oct 25, 2006 11:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

imagine the cub fan base

without superstation WGN. wrigley would be nothing. they may not need it anymore though with mlb.tv and extra innings as you say, but for the future fans, do they need it? i wouldn't give it up, but what do i know about marketing the cubs to the US of A

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Oct 25, 2006 11:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs