Fenway Sports Group in Talks to Buy Pittsburgh Penguins

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,709
Rhode Island
Business being business, I would imagine that Jacobs has been approached by FSG about selling out. It would be natural for them to at least want his NESN stake. They were either immediately rebuffed or Jacobs gave them an outrageous valuation so they moved onto another target. No one should expect them to sit tight and wait for other local franchises to come available. Money is burning a hole in their pocket and they want to grow the empire.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
50,346
Why are some here pissed at FSG for buying the Penguins? Why should they give a rat's ass about the Bruins or any other team for that matter when it comes to business ventures that make sense for them? If they look at it as a sound investment that they will make money in, that's the only thing that matters. I could care less that they will own the Penguins while I'm a Bruins fan. It really doesn't matter at all. FSG is in the game to make as much money as possible in all corners of the sports world and that's what they're doing. It's not going to affect my viewing of the Red Sox or the Bruins knowing that the Red Sox owners own a Bruins rival team. I'm not going to turn on the TV and even remember who owns what team. All I care about is that my favorite teams win.
Some people apparently see sports teams as public trusts and not business ventures.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
8,092
Some people apparently see sports teams as public trusts and not business ventures.
Because to us they are.

We can understand that ownership has a different perspective. But it doesn't have to be our perspective, and we don't have to agree or like it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Because to us they are.

We can understand that ownership has a different perspective. But it doesn't have to be our perspective, and we don't have to agree or like it.
We have experience with the Red Sox being run as a public trust of sorts. The results have been a lot better since they sold to the capitalists.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
8,092
We have experience with the Red Sox being run as a public trust of sorts. The results have been a lot better since they sold to the capitalists.
Oh come on: this isn't about the how the team operates, it's about extra-Sox activities.

Again, how is that an argument for why we have to like it?
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
31,969
the district
Anyone who was alive and sentient in the early 90s knows how bitterly those Bruins-Penguins playoff series were fought.

I don't like this. I don't like the Penguins. I don't like that the Red Sox ownership is now going to own a direct competitor to the Bruins. It sucks.
I get it, I do. I don't like the Penguins either -- I remember having my 11 year old heart broken by them.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Oh come on: this isn't about the how the team operates, it's about extra-Sox activities.
It’s absolutely about how the team operates.

It’s different in the NFL, where they have a pooled-revenue model. It might even be different with the salary cap dynamics in the NBA or the NHL. In MLB, however, resources generated by success on the business side directly contribute to on-field success. Having a team that is a well-run business therefore is, or ought to be, of concern to fans with a serious interest in the game. (It is obviously fine just to enjoy watching, cheering and chatting at the water cooler. That’s not a bad description of how I enjoy hockey.)

The Red Sox illustrate this. In my lifetime, they have been owned by a family who bought in decades before professional sports became big business, by a trust, and by a group of entrepreneurs. The third owner has obviously enjoyed far more on-field success than the first two combined. I do not believe for a second that that’s a coincidence. The introduction of true entrepreneurism might be the single biggest factor in the franchise’s reversal of fortunes. (Does an old-school owner or a staid trustee put Theo Epstein in charge of the baseball operation?)

In the modern age, anyone wealthy enough to buy a pro sports team is going to have outside business interests. If it’s important to you that the owner of the local team makes his real money running a private-equity fund or a box factory or whatever rather than other professional sports ventures, that’s your prerogative. Personally, I’ll take the one who does the best job running the team and isn’t otherwise an embarrassment.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,929
Oh come on: this isn't about the how the team operates, it's about extra-Sox activities.

Again, how is that an argument for why we have to like it?
I despise the Penguins and still picture Ulf Samuelsson as the incredibly punchable face of the franchise, but I'm also used to FSG owning a sports rival because I root for a different English Premiere League team. It's actually not that hard to root for a team and not care what happens to the other subsidiaries of the corporate overlords. Or actively root against them. Lebron sorta kinda maybe owns part of the Sox now, right? I still think he's a dick and root against him in life. It's not like I root for something bad to happen to John Henry, but if one of his many homes (or his yacht) burned down, I don't think I'd care. All I care about when it comes to FSG is the Red Sox doing well.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
43,714
I despise the Penguins and still picture Ulf Samuelsson as the incredibly punchable face of the franchise, but I'm also used to FSG owning a sports rival because I root for a different English Premiere League team. It's actually not that hard to root for a team and not care what happens to the other subsidiaries of the corporate overlords. Or actively root against them. Lebron sorta kinda maybe owns part of the Sox now, right? I still think he's a dick and root against him in life. It's not like I root for something bad to happen to John Henry, but if one of his many homes (or his yacht) burned down, I don't think I'd care. All I care about when it comes to FSG is the Red Sox doing well.
Don’t forget Matt Cooke

FTP
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,643
ct
I despise the Penguins and still picture Ulf Samuelsson as the incredibly punchable face of the franchise, but I'm also used to FSG owning a sports rival because I root for a different English Premiere League team. It's actually not that hard to root for a team and not care what happens to the other subsidiaries of the corporate overlords. Or actively root against them. Lebron sorta kinda maybe owns part of the Sox now, right? I still think he's a dick and root against him in life. It's not like I root for something bad to happen to John Henry, but if one of his many homes (or his yacht) burned down, I don't think I'd care. All I care about when it comes to FSG is the Red Sox doing well.
Building off this post which seems to suggest that Shaggy doesn't care what off the field interest an owner of his favorite team has or what businesses the owner might invest in. Suppose George Bush somehow bought one of the local teams such as the Red Sox or the Pats. Assuming he spent well on payroll and let the experts run the show, would you be opposed to it because of his political leanings? Would you be leary giving money to the team knowing part of that dollar might be indirectly supporting the Republican party? Where do you draw the line?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,929
Building off this post which seems to suggest that Shaggy doesn't care what off the field interest an owner of his favorite team has or what businesses the owner might invest in. Suppose George Bush somehow bought one of the local teams such as the Red Sox or the Pats. Assuming he spent well on payroll and let the experts run the show, would you be opposed to it because of his political leanings? Would you be leary giving money to the team knowing part of that dollar might be indirectly supporting the Republican party? Where do you draw the line?
Dude, you're going to have to work a lot harder on coming up with your Sports Owner Boogeyman.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,823
Building off this post which seems to suggest that Shaggy doesn't care what off the field interest an owner of his favorite team has or what businesses the owner might invest in. Suppose George Bush somehow bought one of the local teams such as the Red Sox or the Pats. Assuming he spent well on payroll and let the experts run the show, would you be opposed to it because of his political leanings? Would you be leary giving money to the team knowing part of that dollar might be indirectly supporting the Republican party? Where do you draw the line?

lol, what?

We all give money to people far worse than George Bush whether we are aware of it or not. If Donald Sterling owned the team, I'd might stop watching until the Sox were sold to a different group.

There is a point, but giving money to the Republican party isn't one. Most of the players in baseball are Republicans and you are paying their contract already. What's the difference? You are already doing it.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,881
George Bush would probably be one of the less morally corrupt owners. Now if like, the Saudi's bought a team, that would be a better question.