Bloomberg: Carlyle Group/David Rubenstein In Talks To Purchase Orioles

[Billy F-Face3]

This thread is off to the races...

 

[Pickles]

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.

[Frobby]

Just now, interloper said:

Seeing as he has a TV show on Bloomberg, do you think he just told Bloomberg about this and they published the story? Maybe to needle Angelos a little, cause a little pressure from the press? Probably not, but ya know. 

I think there’s a decent chance he gave Bloomberg the scoop here.  I couldn’t say why he’d decide to go public, but if he was going to do it, it seems likely he’d use Bloomberg as the vehicle.  

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Have they?  What's Bisciotti done that's so objectionable?  

A lot of times that stuff isn’t announced in public.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Pickles said:

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.

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.  

[Tony-OH]

The only thing I can say is that two separate people have given me these indications long before they were in this article. 

This is why I said in another thread that a change of ownership this offseason may be in the cards and may be part of the reason for the lease not being completed.

[Pickles]

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?

[MTMan13]

29 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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?

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 issued at higher levels (debt / cap or leverage) than public companies typically support. The whole movement happened over 40 years starting in the 80s, and has resulted in private pools of capital owning an increasing portion of businesses and cash flows in the USA, spurred wealth accumulation by the elites through carried interest structures etc. It was all directly financed by the taxpayer through low central banking borrowing rates inconsistent with the levels of risk / money supply in the economy, which common people are generally fans of because it helped us get cheap mortgages, consume more etc. 

I work in investments (not LBOs), and while the impact of the private-equitization sucks in the aggregate, there wasn't anything nefarious or illegal about it. 

As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.  

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE'RE RIDDING OURSELVES OF PETER ANGELOS. READ THE ROOM! 

Edited December 7, 2023 by MTMan13

[Justinlstn]

...could it be..a Christmas miracle?!

[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.

[btdart20]

54 minutes ago, Pickles said:

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.

I wouldn't say it's a one-for-one deal, but I can buy it as a general trend.  

Which would also mean Rubenstein enjoys the thrill of the hunt, understands market dynamics, understands the risk/reward Elias' portfolio model of org building, and wants to make a profit.  And he understands for a business to be profitable, he has to have a good product. 

Or he's retired with more money that he knows what to do with and wants a hobby.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

The only thing I can say is that two separate people have given me these indications long before they were in this article. 

This is why I said in another thread that a change of ownership this offseason may be in the cards and may be part of the reason for the lease not being completed.

I think a lot of us are realizing this point today. The lease deal not being signed might be more than the usual incompetence we've been used to from the Angelos family.

If there's going to be a new owner by Opening Day 2024, then it makes sense for the new owner to finalize the terms of the lease with the state of Maryland.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

2 minutes ago, Justinlstn said:

...could it be..a Christmas miracle?!

[Frobby]

Here is Rubenstein’s Wikipedia page for anyone who’d like a thumbnail sketch of the guy.  

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I wouldn't say it's a one-for-one deal, but I can buy it as a general trend.  

Which would also mean Rubenstein enjoys the thrill of the hunt, understands market dynamics, understands the risk/reward Elias' portfolio model of org building, and wants to make a profit.  And he understands for a business to be profitable, he has to have a good product. 

Or he's retired with more money that he knows what to do with and wants a hobby.

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.