The Cubs sale to a group headed by Tom Ricketts could now be finished by July, according to the Sports Business Journal:
JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America are set to commit to the deal as soon as the end of this week, the sources said. That commitment would allow Ricketts to submit his $900 million bid to the court that’s overseeing the bankruptcy filing of current Cubs owner Tribune Co. The court likely then would take 30 to 45 days to process the offer, one source said, leaving a potential closing ready by July.
MLB at that point could wait until its August owners meeting to approve the deal or could call a special owners meeting to address the sale earlier.
We're getting closer -- as ever, we await further developments.
0 recs | 98 comments
July would be an interesting timing ...
To what degree do you think resolving ownership will effect Hendry’s ability/willingness to pickup someone before the the trade deadline? I don’t think it will have much impact on 3-month rent-a-player situation, but I do think it will stifle any longer term, bigger deal, like the Harden move last year.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
Impossible to tell this early.
When they say July, they probably mean September.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
Didn't Hendry leave himself a slight cushion to acquire a player anyway?
dr stabbingworth - May 18, 2009
before or after
eating Gaudin and Vizcaino’s contracts?
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
With Vizcaino signing with Cleveland...
… net cost to the Cubs for those two contracts is about $5 million.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
how much was allocated for a move?
I know it would not be exact, but rough estimate (mentioned before) I believe was 5-10 area IIRC
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
Somewhere around there.
The Cubs are paying $1.6 million of Gaudin’s deal and (approximately) $3 million to Vizcaino. That was budgeted before the season started — in fact, Vizcaino’s salary was taken on as part of the Marquis deal, so had likely been accounted for before that.
Neither of those deals should affect anything in the future.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
Correct.
That was money spent already.
cubswynn - May 18, 2009
Isn't the difference between...
Wood and Gregg’s salaries around 5 million? Pretty poor allocation by Hendry.
kanderber - May 18, 2009
viz was a trade-off
with marquis’ contract.
nothing ever happens in a vacuum. this leads to that, and order occuring isn’t always order preferred.
tim815 - May 18, 2009
i remember that an aerosmith album
was supposed to come out in “late-May/early-June”. It came out just in time for Christmas.
tim815 - May 18, 2009
mlb trade rumors thinks there is a chance that
it may take until december for sale to get done
doofus cubs guy - May 18, 2009
I'd agree with this.
I doubt we will see any official transfer of ownership before the season ends.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
if that is true,
putting myself in Rickett’s shoes, I’d hope the team doesn’t make WS this year. You would want the big event for when you finally get the team. Wonder if that will have any affect on how Kenney/Hendry make decisions the rest of 09.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
If he's a real fan, he wants them to win it all
Whether he owns them or not
Shanghai Badger - May 18, 2009
And if he's a real business man...
… he wants the millions in revenue (apparel sales, sponsorship, increased gate) that would surely follow a WS win… the purchase of this team is highly leveraged against credit, and the sooner he can start seeing a return, the better.
Think about the post WS Red Sox… you think dude would be upset with all those extra hats being sold?
AndrewJStone - May 18, 2009
Andrew I think you make a good point.
Madison Cub Fan - May 18, 2009
his point is spot on
the additional sales in DVDs, CD, Shirts, etc, plus the ticket sales (and an increase in ticket prices could be justified with a WS win)
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
I don't think I agree ...
I can’t believe he is buying because he is a shrewd businessman and thinks owning the Cubs is a wise investment. It simply is not.
If he’s buying because he is a fan, and he wants them to win WS, would he still want to but after they won? I don’t know the answer, but I have to think Ricketts is like every other owner, he is in it for the personal satisfaction, ego, and well – glory of winning. Getting the team AFTER a WS win might be personally satisfying as a fan, but I think would diminish his ability to put his personal stamp on the team.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
Disagree.
He can still do that and, if successful, can have many more WS for himself.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
he could, but
I believe the Cubs as a perennial playoff team greatly enhances the value and attractiveness of the club to a prospective owner.
But, I also believe if the Cubs won last year, the value of the team would have diminished, because the magic of the 1st time in … years would be gone.
So, back to the post, in my opinion the sooner Ricketts gets control the sooner all the obstacles for the organization moving together for the common goal will removed.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
Ending the so-called "Curse of the Bambino"..
..hasn’t hurt the Bosox all that much. They still sell-out every game, and their value, according to Forbes, continues to grow.
calicubfan - May 18, 2009
So, by your logic...
… Ricketts is / should be rooting AGAINST the Cubs this season?
AndrewJStone - May 18, 2009
well,
he should be rooting for a quicker selling pace so he can be part of the sucess this year.
That said, if the sale really is pushed to Dec, then yes, if you are buying the team so that you can put your stamp on it, then he would hope that they do not win the series this year.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
Even if he took over tomorrow...
… he isn’t really part of the success this year, since the team has pretty much been put together by the current ownership & management.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
What if he ...
- authorized a blockbuster end of July deal?
- articulated an ownership vision and direction for club that has been lacking for ……. ever?
- brought in new upper level mgmt?
There is ample time for Ricketts to have a big influence this year — Look at Rocky Wirtz, made more moves in his first week than his dad did the last twenty years.
BatCubFan - May 18, 2009
I cannot imagine...
… a new owner sweeping out baseball management that has put together a contending team, in the middle of a season. That makes no logical sense.
What does make logical sense is for this deal to be completed after the season is over.
Al Yellon - May 18, 2009
Agree with the likelihood of after the season ...
but restate my belief that it would be a bad outcome for the 09 team.
BatCubFan - May 19, 2009
Chinese Democracy?
Wait, wrong band.
znohitter - May 18, 2009
Smile
was supposed to come out in 1967. Brian Wilson finished it in 2004.
Josh Timmers - May 18, 2009
Hey, as long as the Rickets have the
bank commitments and submit the bid, the remainder is probably bankruptcy formality.
As long as the paperwork is filed, all will happen in due course. I would also assume, if it’s not happening already, the Rickets would be asked to share opinions on any moves that would increase payroll.
N Oakley - May 18, 2009
I've got to believe that Ricketts will want to pare payroll at some point
The Ricketts family is taking on a large debt load folks. Hence why I think the Cubs best hurry up and win now because I have a strong suspicion that Hendry (or his successor) will be under orders to reduce the payroll from it’s current level of near $140 million.
BLou - May 18, 2009
Thank you.
Without your invaluable behind the scenes knowledge, I don’t know how I’d be able to follow this team.
N Oakley - May 18, 2009
Nice!
doofus cubs guy - May 18, 2009
Fine
The envisioned debt service on the Ricketts purchase will be $25 to $35 million per year. That’s an expense the Tribune Company never had to deal with. Plus the Ricketts are spending nearly $1 billion overall on the purchase of the franchise. They aren’t buying the Cubs to bleed money. A $140 million payroll under the circumstances seems out of line. So yes, I think Hendry or his successor will be under directive to get the Cub payroll down.
But hey, if you want to partake in that infamous excercise of some Cub fans who fantasty that every small market team on the planet can’t wait to hand over to the Cubs its most prized possessions in return for us taking on yet another big salary and sending them a bag of magic beans, then go for it. In my opinion Hendry’s mid-season moves will be restricted to relative low dollar investments.
BLou - May 18, 2009
I think we should trade
Aaron Miles for Babe Ruth. Cause I sure don’t want to trade Bobby Scales!
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
Good Grief...
Both Correct – however, the Cubs under the Tribune were never able to fully enjoy the gravy either. With the TV/Radio deals handcuffed with Tribune owned WGN, the team never received full market value. I also assume the Tribune took money back as the team was an operating subsidiary of a publicly traded company. Not having to tithe profits back to the corporate parent frees up something. I don’t pretend to believe the debt services is irrelevant, but also believe other revenues will open and other costs will evaporate. I’m not stating it will erase the debt service, but it should negate it’s full impact.
I don’t know why they are buying the team. Is it a short or long term investment? Pure passion for baseball? I don’t know they are buying the team to generate cash either.
Compared to what? Revenue, product on the field? How would we know? There are too many circumstances we don’t know to formulate an educated opinion on what the right payroll range should be.
Not even close to what was I wrote, but your opinion on this mid-season is reasonable.
N Oakley - May 18, 2009
the Ricketts are not exactly hurting for $$$
they sold a very small portion of TD Ameritrade to come up with almost half of the offer for the Cubs in cash. The Ricketts family still controls about 17.7 percent of Ameritrade’s stock.
Per Wikipedia (not always 100% right, but can give a little insight)
Thomas S. Ricketts
Education University of Chicago, A.B. 1988, M.B.A. 1993
Occupation Director, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation
Chairman and CEO, Incapital LLC.
Salary $171,212 as Director of TD Ameritrade
? as CEO of Incapital
Spouse(s) Cecelia Ricketts
Parents J. Joseph Ricketts
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
The wealth profile of the Ricketts is irrelevant
The Ricketts are purchasing the Cubs, partly to preside over a model franchise that wins ballgames but also driven by profit motive. They aren’t buying the Cubs as philanthropic endeavor. They are going to want a positive return on investment over time, to include eventually operating with a positive cash flow each year. A nearly $1 billion pricetag combined with a sizeable annual debt service is going to put definite pressure on payroll. The Cubs are already maximizing many revenue sources and it will take time to create new ones (like the talked about network, museum, etc.) Hence why I strongly believe a $140 million payroll is unsustainable and that Hendry or his successor will be under directive to get that number down.
Also, at some point Ricketts will have to come up with a plan for renovation of Wrigley or construction of a new ballpark. That’s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars that will have to be paid for and financed as well.
BLou - May 18, 2009
The total family assets is very relevant and
you are stating as facts datails nobody outside the organization and at the front of the transcation know. Please stick to facts.
N Oakley - May 18, 2009
true
Joe Ricketts alone has a net worth of approx 1.3 Billion. That would seem kinda important to me when looking at the finances of the team and prospective new ownership.
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
This whole site is speculation by amateurs
You should treat it as such.
dr stabbingworth - May 18, 2009
The wealth profile of the Ricketts is relevant
Since the owner needs to have a positive portfolio to be allowed to make decisions about bettering the on field quality, renovations to Wrigley and anythign else that the owner(s) decide they want to do.
Marc Cuban for prime example has gone on record of saying that you cannot own a team and expect to make money, it is a hobby. You hope to break even, and must have revenue coming from elsewhere. I tend to believe a multi billionaires opinion about this (especially when he owns a team as well) in comparision to the opinions here, not out of disrespet to anyone here, but based on the facts that Cuban is speaking from experience.
You are posting as if you have direct insight to their financial forcast, and what their drive toown the Cubs happens to be. Can you please direct me to where you get this information and knowledge?
If you are speculating, sure that is fine, but make sure you do not state your speculations as fact. Misleading people is what can cause problems, and loss of respect towards your post.
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
expect to hear
that you can go pound sand.
tootle - May 18, 2009
anything less and I might be saddened
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
even if it's
“get stuffed”? I realize that’s not the classic, but it’s got a good VORP and SLG.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
how would a get stuffed vs a pound sand
affect the KOWZR?
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
well
I’m not sure. They describe two different activities, I think they should have their own individual sub-stats.
TPS — Told to Pound Sand
vs
TGS — Told to Get Stuffed.
However, I think they both probably have about the same effect — it’s the equivalent of taking a base via a wild pitch vs taking a base via a passed ball.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
so its the BCB version
of a dropped third strike, safe at first
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
basically.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
Technical Balk?
znohitter - May 18, 2009
yes.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
I'd be sadden also
Here’s a question. Do you think in his real life he tells people to pound sand?
Madison Cub Fan - May 18, 2009
Maddie...
this IS his real life.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
does he walk with bags of sand in his pockets
and when he says it, he hands the bags out?
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
I should think
he’d need a wheelbarrow.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
+1
again…
blackhawk24 - May 19, 2009
you realize
this is all the more reason to keep people like Bobby Scales around, right? Sean Marshall is cost controlled. Riot, Fontenot, Scales, Wells, Soto, all are cost controlled.
It’s possible to put a team together that’s less expensive AND can win.
However, I would expect that the Ricketts know the status of all the Cubs’ players contracts — probably far better than any of us — and are probably in a position to tread water for a few years, to see what happens with Harden, Lee, Rami, Bradley, Dome and Soriano.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
and no money to resign Harden
our supposed savior . ( sorry couldn’t resist)
Doggie Stalker - May 18, 2009
only if he moves to the pen
sarcasm
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
heh
I should hope we re-sign Harden. I’d do a two year, incentives-laden deal, with the incentives based around his playing time, so that if he should get injured, we don’t take too much of a bath.
Harden’s not the savior, but he’s certainly been helpful.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
Are you kidding?
The family’s wealth is totally relevant to both the teams’ purchase and the subsequent payroll and ball park improvements. First, if they don’t have the cash and assets up front – especially in this economy – they don’t even get to buy the team. Second, if they don’t maintain a certain level of cash flow, the ball park doesn’t get improved and they will have to reduce payroll growth.
blackhawk24 - May 19, 2009
....and i don't think any of us know.....
a. if he plans on spending more or less than now
how much will be on ‘the big club’ and how much will be on1 scouting
2 development
3 branding
i hope that the big club is moderately downsized with more spent on scouting and development. if you have a better system, you don’t have to overspend for guys like soriano and marquis.
tim815 - May 18, 2009
Yep
Hopefully Tom Ricketts will insist upon smart front office management. Each year Jim Hendry has had to make very expensive forays into free agency….Lilly, Marquis, Jones, Soriano, Kosuke, Bradley. That’s totally unsustainable, even if you are somebody like the NY Yankees. Even the Yankees have built success around a model that includes a strong farm system that routinenly pumps out top talent to either plug n’ play or trade away for other needed pieces.
BLou - May 18, 2009
Here, I agree with you.
N Oakley - May 18, 2009
this is correct
and I agree
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
Obviously, the Cubs are not going to be able to sink large chunks of money into
expensive free agents every year. Only the Yankees and Mets can sustain that type of behavior. i highly doubt that the Ricketts have purchased the team to suck profits out of it and turn it into a perennial loser. I agree that the payroll may not increase much in the near future, I do not expect to see any significant dropoffs.
The Ricketts seem to be intelligent enough individuals to explore new revenue streams to tackle projects such as the Wrigley renovation without gutting the core of the roster.
willie mays hayes' gloves - May 18, 2009
seems like this has been pushed back several times
i’m not holding my breath. just hoping that continued negotiations don’t affect Hendry making any moves he’d like to—don’t think it will.
spain2323 - May 18, 2009
Does this mean it is too late for me to invest ?
I was just trying to finalize my $25 million for my non voting, non profit sharing piece. I took all my spare change to
TD bank and got over $400. Add that to my unemployment and I am getting close.
Doggie Stalker - May 18, 2009
can I throw in a few bucks to help with that?
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
what is the going rate
on ‘pounded sand’?
tim815 - May 19, 2009
If they're going to wait till July...
…or August, which probably really means September, they may as well push it back to the off-season to avoid the distraction to the team.
calicubfan - May 18, 2009
but when you do that
now you’re talking about it happening for real in December or January — and deals need to be made in the offseason.
Get the damned thing done. I don’t think the team cares THAT much.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
but if they do it in December or January
you are disrupting the Christmas Holiday, New Years, my BDay and the Cubs convention. February is no good also due to Valentines Day and pitchers and catchers reporting.
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
that's why you get it done
now. It’s not like the bankruptcy of Tribune is allowing the Cubs to renegotiate contracts with the players. I don’t see why doing it as fast as possible would bother them.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
either i missed your sarcasm
or you missed mine.
oh Drew, whatever will we do with you :=)
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
uh
I missed yours. :D
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
Drew, Drew, Drew
why in Gods name would my Bday be a reason to not close the sale….you goofball
Cubbie-Tim - May 18, 2009
hey
I think Cubbie Tim Day should be a national holiday, is what I think.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
I wonder if $900M is set in stone?
It seems just about every other asset in this country has nose-dived in value over the past year. I remember $1 billion being floated around a while back, and to think that figure dropped by 10%, it doesn’t seem too far fetched for the value to have dropped even more.
calicubfan - May 18, 2009
I would presume
that there are signed documents stipulating that the offer can’t drop.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
A few things...
… responding to posts above. First off, as has been said, we’re all speculating. With that in mind, the Cubs front office likely has known for some time the willingness of Ricketts in terms of spending. It was surmised that all potential owners were informed of the Jake Peavy ongoings. Ricketts likely has also indicated to Hendry and Crane Kenney what he forsees the budget being under his ownership. Many believe that Hendry’s jettisoning off DeRosa and Marquis to make room for Bradley was a sign of Ricketts’ budgetary preferences. If this is the case, this deal being finalized likely won’t have a major impact because Hendry has been working under Ricketts’ marching orders.
One final thing… BLou raised some interesting points. Some may be wrong, but they were conversation worthy and added to the debate. Yet some people were automatically dismissive and chided his posts. Why not argue the points and leave the histrionics out of it? Its like everyone wants to take the opportunity to bash the author, even when the comments are valid and worthy of discussion. Seems silly to me.
dmlichte - May 18, 2009
I thought that the responses to BLou were appropriate. He made the point
that he thought that the Cubs were going to reduce payroll after the sale. Several posters took the opposite view and some agreed with him. He made the point that the Cubs would not be jumping into FA as much as they had in the past and I, among others agreed with him. There was some superfluous discussion about ponding sand, but the points and counter-points were made and supported. I think you doth protest too much. You seem to feel the need to champion his cause, but I think he can stand up for himself.
willie mays hayes' gloves - May 18, 2009
this was appropriate?
Had anyone else said this, it would not have elicited the response. I don’t recall making comments in regards to BLou’s general presence and subsequent responses (at least not in the last 6 months) and I’d hardly say that my response here was championing his cause. I am, however, trying to champion the cause of good discourse and in general hoping this a place that doesn’t get bogged down in middle school type antics.
dmlichte - May 18, 2009
so this was appropriate?
But hey, if you want to partake in that infamous excercise of some Cub fans who fantasty that every small market team on the planet can’t wait to hand over to the Cubs its most prized possessions in return for us taking on yet another big salary and sending them a bag of magic beans, then go for it. In my opinion Hendry’s mid-season moves will be restricted to relative low dollar investments.
doofus cubs guy - May 18, 2009
for the most part...
… ya, I think that was fine. What’s wrong with it?
Whether BLou’s comments are appropriate or not, I don’t see the point of responding in kind. I’m not stupid, I know that many of BLou’s comments are not appropriate. I think people would be best advised just ignoring them. I think that if someone posts something stupid why not just go after the merit (or lack there of) of the argument? I just don’t get responding to a poster’s comment with a personal attack, especially when the comment is at least worthy of debate (right or wrong).
dmlichte - May 18, 2009
In other words...fight fire by watching it burn.
santoswoodenlegs - May 18, 2009
What’s wrong with it?
It’s dismissive, arrogant and douchey.
BlueMike reaps what he sows.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
but you're missing the point
Comments like that lead to the further deterioration of this blog. He reaps what he sows? What does that mean? That whenever he posts something it should be a race to see who can first throw a personal jab? Boy that sure helps elevate the discourse around here.
I don’t agree with his phraseology of the above comment, its not how I would have written it. That aside, its a point worth discussing. I don’t care who BLou or BlueMike is. I’ve been posting here since day one and I know that he and others can be childish and inane. But I think that when people respond in kind it detracts from what makes this a good place to talk Cubs baseball.
dmlichte - May 18, 2009
Not at all.
BLou makes this a less welcoming place to be. His dismissive and constantly repetitive statements demean Cubs fans and puts people off.
On the rare occasion when he has something to say, when anyone tries to discuss it with him like an adult, he just adds fuel to the fire by telling them to pound sand, get stuffed, or accuses them of being a sock puppet or “just another misguided cubs fan”.
It’s disrespectful. He gets what he deserves.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
I guess what I'm asking...
… is whats the benefit of disrespecting him back? Yes, he makes it a less welcoming place, so wouldn’t those instances of his being that kind of guy just be even less notable if people just ignored him like the child they feel that he is being? When people give him “what he deserves” it just further brings down the discourse here, IMO. It just seems to me that whenever he posts something its just a matter of time before someone posts something childish in response, whether its in response to a legit post or not, like they’re going to get some extra BCB frequent flyer points.
dmlichte - May 18, 2009
I'm not going to sit here
and tell you that every interaction I have with him is something I’m proud of. Nevertheless, bullies cannot be ignored — they must be confronted and defeated.
drewishdrewid - May 18, 2009
last year a bunch of us tried to ignore him
what happened? He got more and more vicious, calling a few people on here names which (Al correct me if I am wrong) got him banned for about third time.
So although I agree w/ you. It’s not that hasn’t been tried.
Madison Cub Fan - May 18, 2009
Fourth time, actually.
Al Yellon - May 19, 2009
Specific to this thread, you are probably correct.
I was being snarky and taunting my friend for his style. He’s been beating the drum on his read on how the debt load will, not may have a negative impact on the team financials. His first comment in this post was slanted more toward may, but my tolerance for his delivery is pretty short these days.
Am I always an ass, I don’t believe so, but could be wrong (and we’re not going to ask my wife to vote).
His assumptions on how the sale and financing by the new buyer will have a noticable, negative, impact on the running of the club and how the current organization has maximized available revenue sources are valid opinions. However, when reminded none of us know enough to state these as fact, we are sent to our rooms as pollyanna fans of happy thoughts.
I did intend to engage Mike in the discussion on guess versus fact and utilized a sharp poke to bring him out swinging. I did not intend to offend others.
N Oakley - May 19, 2009
it was a 'personal attack'
unless there really are some Cub fans (that are part of this discussion) who fantasty that every small market team on the planet can’t wait to hand over to the Cubs its most prized possessions in return for us taking on yet another big salary and sending them a bag of magic beans,
doofus cubs guy - May 18, 2009
can't we all just ..
get along?
cubnational - May 18, 2009
It's funny the "institutions" bankrolling
Ricketts’ financing got a collective $65B in TARP money. Wow… it’s amazing they could loan a piddly $450M (0.7% of the taxpayers money given to them) to an excellent financial risk like Ricketts’. <—- Insert Sarcasm Meter Here.
So now they’re ready to go to the courts, another months+ wait. Hopefully MLB will call a special vote instead of waiting until their August-scheduled meeting. Could it be that this will finally be over before 2 1/2 years?!
blackhawk24 - May 19, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.