If the Angels win the World Series, is there a chance that Eisner might not sell the Anaheim Angels Baseball team?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Anaheim Angels
- Thread starter Disney4648
- Start date
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
I think they sell because their market value is increased.
Toonfinder
New Member
actually talk is that Disney is pulling the Angels off the market. Apparently Jay or whatever his name is (Pressler's replacement) going to fight hard to keep them within Disney's control.
but this is just word coming across my laptop so what does it know right
but this is just word coming across my laptop so what does it know right
Toonfinder
New Member
not the board... but rather Jay Rasulo fighting to keep the Angels within the control of Disney. It'll be interesting to see what Jay does in the coming months whether the Angels win or lose the series (I'm hoping for a win, but won't know unless I hit one of the bars at WDW that's showing the game on Saturday and/or Sunday)...
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
Isn't this good marketing? Buy low, sell high. There has never been a better time for Disney to sell the Angels.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Oh, I think they’ll still be selling low if you count all the money they’ve lost in this investment over the years but at least they hopefully won’t be selling as low… Didn’t Disney get into this for the same reason they got started with the Mighty Ducks? I mean, they got nice movie tie-ins that they didn’t really have to play licensing fees for out of it so maybe the loss isn’t quite as bad as it might seem. :veryconfu
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
All the money they have lost? I think that depends on who you are asking or who is doing the telling. The owners, of course, claim they are losing money. The players association claims that the owners are rolling the money in. Anybody's guess here is good. Also, sports franchises seem to always sell for more than they were initially bought for, though I don't know what Disney paid for the Angels or what their asking price is for them.
The Angels haven't done very well at all except for a few years (I think 2) since Disney has owned them. Attendence wasn't that great, revenues weren't that high, a total remodeling of their park (I'm pretty sure all the big rock/mountain area was part of it).
The team has lost money I think every year including this year possibly.
Owners having money doesn't mean the team is making money. I could have billions of dollars, but have a team where my payroll is 100 million and I'm getting 10-15K people per game. Thus losing money.
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
Disney bought the Angels after Gene Autry died in 1998 and they haven't had a decent season until this year (they finished 41 games out of first last year). As for them losing money every year, it's hard to tell in baseball economics just what exactly is going on with profits and losses. Again, it depends on who you talk to and how you crunch your numbers. I agree with you that they are probably not a money-making commodity for Disney, but this is a great time to sell them. One final thing, if you've got a payroll of $100 million and you're only drawing 10-15k per game, you're in serious trouble! Although I don't know what the Angels payroll was this season, I do know that it was not in the Top 10 of baseball payrolls. I'll continue to look for it.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
They took complete ownership at that time. I'm pretty sure that they had a stake in them before that point though. I could be wrong and don't have the time to research it at the moment but I'm just about positive they had been partial owners before that time...
Another thing taking away from Disney's bottom line is that when they re-did the stadium a few years ago, Disney payed for it. In most cases, the teams get out of paying just about all expense related to the stadiums. I remember that the Tampa bay Bucks were threatening to leave unless the city of Tampa built them a new stadium - Tampa built it and the only time that they have to pay anything for use is if it is a sellout game and then it is some ridiculously low percentage.
There are also stipulations in the sale that the team can't be moved from the area which is probably a sticking point for a lot of potential buyers.
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
But as with anything Disney, they don't skimp on their architecture and give great attention to the details. I thought the outfield looked pretty neat.
And the Angels need to stay where they are. Only franchises that are really suffering (Tampa Bay, Montreal) need to be moved. Plus, a new owner can't move the team without a 3/4 majority vote of the other owners, I think.
SpongeScott
Well-Known Member
And I wasn't arguing either! Just a good, friendly discussion of ideas. Those do still exist, don't they?:animwink:Originally posted by MrPromey
Oh, I’m not arguing with you on either point. I think Disney definitely took the high road with the way they handleled that but unfortunately, that’s not how you make money in that business…
As for the Tampa Bay thing, () that is a whole other can of worms!
