Pickles
-
Posts
5801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
Just now, MTMan13 said:
Brother I dont know you and I'm not trying to start a fight, but Carlyle is not a VC fund. Today it's a massive asset manager with multiple strategies, but it started as a leveraged buyout fund (think Apollo, KKR). Carlyle and funds like them got rich by levering the piss out of cash flowing businesses that they bought at relatively inexpensive multiples (drifted much higher over time as LBOs became commoditized and hyper competitive), with tons of ultra cheap debt indirectly funded by the taxpayer through low central banking borrowing rates.
As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
I feel like I can hate the player and the game.
I'm not saying this guy is some evil dude, though I have my suspicions. And it isn't just how he "made his money."
I'm saying none of the above gives any indication that he's going to be a good team owner, and I'm very skeptical how a business model as you described above would prepare someone to run a baseball team.
In the same way that making billions as a trial lawyer did not prepare Peter Angelos to run a team.
-
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
Nope, I'd never do that. I think I just wanted some clarification on what you said but since you can't do that you resort to accusing me of what you love to do.
But while we're being honest, I absolutely DO want to celebrate the demise of Angelos' ownership. But I'm not asking anyone to get naked, you freak.
What exact clarification do you want Moose?
Be very clear: What do you want me to clarify for you?
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
You leapt from he started as a government lawyer to starting a VC to becoming a billionaire without really painting a timeline for anything, leading one to believe that you might have thought that he acquired his wealth quickly and somehow nefariously.
You found his "arc" interesting but declined to say why.
Glad we cleared up that you just totally put words in my mouth. Weird. I thought you find that kind of thing disagreeable.
Let's be honest: You just want to celebrate the demise of Angelos' ownership. And anyone who isn't naked with a lampshade on their head, you're going to criticize as being a party pooper.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
Japan recently found like 7K new islands. I'm sure at least a few are for sale.
This guy's probably only in the market for one with a weird satanic temple on it. They got any of those for sale?
-
2 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:
I am chomping at the bit for a new owner. This one gives me pause.
I have the same exact stance.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
What does Wikipedia say?
You know you can crap on that guy's post and wIkIpEdIA all you want, but is what he said wrong?
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I’m sure he did some shady things…as all rich people do. So what?
Have they? What's Bisciotti done that's so objectionable?
-
2 minutes ago, Frobby said:
That’s quite an accusation from somebody who knows almost nothing about the guy.
For me, I want an owner who doesn’t need revenue from his ballclub to finance his lifestyle, and can basically run the team on a break-even basis and be happy.
I know about the guy, well in advance of these rumors. Don't forget guys, I grew up in DC too. I know how the town works.
I'm not trying to get too high and mighty here, belive it or not.
I'm just skeptical, and no, I don't believe ANY ownership change is automatically GOOD ownership change, as seems to be the default setting around here.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
Not really.
First, he started his VC fund with a group of people, it wasn't just him. Their backgrounds were in finance and government and it started with a fairly modest sum of money, like 5-10 million. They acquired a lot of companies based in defense and there's a lot of money in that.
You make it seem like he did it overnight, the Carlyle Group started in the mid to late 80s, this just didn't happen all of a sudden.
Did I say his gross corruption happened over night, or is that putting words in my mouth?
-
3 minutes ago, Emory Eagle said:
This is total nonsense, no offense.
Where's the nonsense?
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
None of that also has to do with your initial panic that this guy might not live another 10 years and the fear that we'd have to go through the rigors of another sale of the team, but here we are.
I also never said that I delve into debates on semantics, that's just you putting words in my mouth which is another wheelhouse of yours.
Oh, you poor abused soul. I apologize for my bullying of you.
Panic? Well, I hate to make a semantic argument, but you could hardly classify my initial post which you objected to as panicked. That would certainly be putting words in my mouth.
I have a right to be skeptical about this guy, or any new owner, thank you very much.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
No one becomes a billionaire without cutting corners
Cutting corners is one thing. Gross corruption is one thing.
I find the guy's career arc interesting.
He's a government lawyer. He starts a VC fund in DC. He becomes a billionaire. He gives a lot of "charity" to government organizations. That's a tidy little loop there, isn't it?
-
2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
Oh, I've got plenty of evidence as to what kind of guy you are. If judging by your posting style, I'm fairly confident you like to pick nits whenever at all possible and delve into debates on semantics with a disagreeable streak an inch deep and a mile long.
You can say that Angelos ran his team like a trial lawyer, you might not be wrong in that regard but I think the overriding perceptions of him came down to him being a cheapskate (you call it haggling) and being thin skinned (Jon Miller).
As for "gross corruption" I don't care. I really don't. Just win and spend a little money on the emerging core. Keep Elias here. That's really it.
But none of that has to do with the initial charge against me of disliking all billionaires or whatever. Glad we cleared up that you just pulled that out of your ass. Hope that's not too disagreeable for you.
Glad we could also clear up that you don't disagree with me about characterization of Angelos' ownership tenure, besides some semantic debate. Which is weird because you never delve into debates on semantics. In fact, you find it quite disagreeable apparently. Weird.
If this guy turns out to be some great owner, awesome. I'll love it. There's nothing to suggest that, and just "Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead!" is not a accurate or full assessment of what is obviously a huge development for the Orioles.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Moose Milligan said:
You strike me as the type of guy that doesn't like people that are obscenely wealthy no matter how they made their money. If you're here to gripe about billonaires in general, well, I guess you're a hammer and everything is a nail.
Angelos, by and large, was a credit to the community outside of what he did to the Orioles. You can say what you want about him but he's been a charitable guy...IIRC there was one year where he donated a few hundred thousand to keep Baltimore city pools open and he did it anonymously.
That said, I am not sure how someone runs a baseball team like a trial lawyer. I'm not sure how Bisciotti made his money in personnel (staffing and recruiting) and then ran his football team as such and that made him successful in running said team. Like, personnel and recruiting is important in any arena.
I don't care that Rubenstein is a lawyer and into VC. I don't care how he made his money and I'm not sure why anyone really would, as long as it's legal. Lots of people make money leveraging relationships, this isn't a bad thing.
You have any evidence for what kind of guy I am? Ya don't, but you're sure going to paint with that broad brush.
Peter Angelos running his team like a trial lawyer is exemplified by him haggling over every little thing, over refusing to invest in the future, over trying to "win" every single deal, from the players, to the managers, to MLB, to the TV networks. He was a terrible baseball owner.
That said, I have complimented him before for his charitable givings, particularly to the city.
I do care how Rubenstein made his money, and I do think it reflects on how he'd run his ball club. You can call "leveraging relationships;" others might call it gross corruption.
-
Just now, MTMan13 said:
That's what I'm suggesting (hoping?) his participation would look like here.
Then why not just hope Bisciotti buys the team straight up? That's always been my hope.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Who is Peter Bisciotti? Is he Steve’s evil twin?
LOL. He's Bizaroo Bisciotti.
-
Just now, MTMan13 said:
That's really funny - I never saw that quote, but there is some truth to that statement. The valuations are also absurd. You're only buying a sports team today out of love for the team, vanity, access, or to park capital in a largely risk insulated security. There are no real "bargain buys" to be had.
Don't forget, he initially came into the Ravens org as a minority owner. He only did that with the OPTION to buy, because as he said, minority ownership is a terrible deal.
-
Just now, MTMan13 said:
Sure, but you have significantly less "lame duck" risk where the group is not acting in the best interests of the team because of a power void.
While David's net worth is significant, $4bn would seem to not be enough for him to be a >50% shareholder of the team. Suspect we're a >$2bn price tag based on the Mets revenue multiple (and 2023 Revenue was undoubtedly much higher than the 2022 number I'm using). No idea how much debt is allowable in these deals (the NFL has limits), but presumably the required equity check is >$1bn. Seriously doubt a $4bn net worth family would allocate more than $400-500MM to own a professional sports team. So hopefully he's got a big group of rich Baltimore fans who each own 5-10%. Would be cool to see Biscotti take a piece and have a pre-wired succession plan to be the majority owner of the team once David needs to step down.
Who knows though, he's probably a competing bidder!
Bisciotti once described minority ownership as gifting an interest free loan in exchange for a box seat. I don't know how many Baltimoreans want to hand over 10s of millions of dollars to be a glorified season ticket holder.
-
I don't like this dude for a number of reasons, and yes, I've heard of him before a week ago.
But I will say this: How these billionaires make their money can you tell a lot about how they're going to run their organizations.
Peter Angelos made his money as a trial lawyer and he ran his baseball team as one. It was disastrous on a numbrer of levels.
Steve Bisciotti made his money in personnel, and he's ran his football team as such. And it's been very successful.
Rubenstein is a lawyer and investment capitalist, who seems to have made his money largely because of a lot of friendly relationships with people inside the Beltway.
That doesn't inspire me with confidence.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, MTMan13 said:
That's not how modern sports ownership conglomerates work. The groups that bought the Lakers, Broncos, WFT, etc all had a roster of shareholders who put up a percentage behind a frontman / lead capital provider. It's much more corporate, and correspondingly has less key-man risk.
As an aside, how can anyone nitpick over the Orioles being sold? Satan might be a better owner than Pete.
But when he dies, and his family wants to liquidate his controlling share, they're going to have to sell and we'll have a new controlling owner.
-
2 minutes ago, interloper said:
Aren't most ownership groups... a group? I would think he'd have a succession plan. Maybe he buys it and delegates power to someone else.
It's still his money. If he dies in six years, they're going to have to sell the team.
-
Just now, interloper said:
Well you do have a phalic pickle with a butt/nutsack as your profile photo.
Dude, it's just a pickle to me. LOL.
The fact that so many of ya'll see a penis, says a lot more about you than me.
-
4
-
-
Just now, ThisIsBirdland said:
I would assume most professional sports team owners are billionaires, and there are clearly massive differences between how some owners invest their resources in the team versus others.
John Angelos has managed the last few years with a requirement to maintain a minimal payroll, and that was acceptable during the lean years of the rebuild. Now that we're through the rebuild, it would be nice to see a return to the payrolls this team had 10 years ago. I would hope a new ownership group would provide that payroll increase, and also avoid the narcissistic, nepotistic publicity stunts we've had to endure the last couple years.
The payroll is increasing. That's just a fact. People are always going to want it to go higher, but as long it doesn't get in the way of winning, I don't care. Payroll is not the most important thing about winning.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:
Maybe this guy has some money to throw around, will keep Elias and his crew in the fold for a long time and really actually get out of the way.
Jeez, Pickles. Try some positivity for once.
I'm positive all the time. I'm accused of "sucking off" Elias pretty consistently.
I'm just being honest. I would feel much better with a different ownership group.
-
1
-
Bloomberg: Carlyle Group/David Rubenstein In Talks To Purchase Orioles
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Or maybe he just wants the prestige and an investment opportunity that is almost impossible to lose.
He might turn out to be a great owner; he might turn out to be an awful owner.
I'm simple agnostic, and not going to celebrate what I'm not convinced is a positive development, though it may well be.