Similar to the crying clownGuess I'm finally going to have to learn how to pronounce Pagliuca, huh?
Similar to the crying clownGuess I'm finally going to have to learn how to pronounce Pagliuca, huh?
It’s pronounced “Paygggg-$$$$$”Guess I'm finally going to have to learn how to pronounce Pagliuca, huh?
Laugh clown, the people paid their moneyIt’s pronounced “Paygggg-$$$$$”
I agree with your last point, but not the rest. If the fix was in for Pags, they could skip the bidding (just as the Mavs did).The way the news came out, the timeline, multiple contract extensions announced, it just felt to me like things may have already been agreed to, albeit unofficially.
Id be pretty surprised if it wasn’t Pags.
The NBA does not allow you to own part of a team and take bets on that team (this was previously an issue with the Maloofs). Zero chance Wynn would handicap their sportsbooks like that.FWIW I think it was Mannix who said that we might see a casino company try to come in. Wynn Resorts already has Encore in Boston. They've got a fuckton of money -- in cash, no less -- and are expanding their casino brand into more markets. I wouldn't be shocked if they came in and tried to bid... but it seems like Pags is probably the answer.
Ahhh, fair. Then again, the league is heavily in bed with casinos. I'm sure they could find a way to make it work.The NBA does not allow you to own part of a team and take bets on that team (this was previously an issue with the Maloofs). Zero chance Wynn would handicap their sportsbooks like that.
I don't think the NBA wants to get into the business of allowing a major NFL owner into the NBA. They don't even let Kroenke own the Nuggets (his wife does).How liquid would Kraft be? I’m sure he is pulling a ton of cash out of the Patriots annually, but most of his wealth has to be tied up with the Patriots, real estate, and the paper company.
There are already several casino owners involved in NBA ownership with Adelson (Sands) with the Mavs, the Rockets owner owns a good piece of Golden Nugget as well. I think Gary Loveman, the old Harrah’s CEO, has been a Celtics owner for over 20 years if he still has his share.The NBA does not allow you to own part of a team and take bets on that team (this was previously an issue with the Maloofs). Zero chance Wynn would handicap their sportsbooks like that.
Thanks.
I wonder given that the Celts are a tenant and not owners and don't have access to certain income flows that the above teams have and reflecting the projected higher cash flow from TV, and given a current weakness in commercial real estate markets whether it might make economic sense to develop a 2nd stadium in greater Boston
Between West Link Park and the Lottery on the Dorchester/Southie border? The park just north of Andrew?Building a new place costs money, too, and there's of course nowhere to build in Boston. I honestly don't see it happening. The new owner(s) would be stepping into an absolute hornet's nest.
Or the reverse---if you were going to pay $5 bil-plus for Celtics you might think that adding the stadium and the far less expensive hockey team (somewhere in the $1.5 bil - $2 bil range) to it is the best overall economics.I wonder if the Jacobs/Delaware North might bid for the Cs to protect their interests and vacancy rates.
The Jacobs just told FSG that they weren’t interested in selling, they would tell Celtics ownership the same. I couldn’t see them possibly getting involved as a limited partner either. The Celtics get a great deal, they pay no rent in exchange for Delaware North getting the concessions.Or the reverse---if you were going to pay $5 bil-plus for Celtics you might think that adding the stadium and the far less expensive hockey team (somewhere in the $1.5 bil - $2 bil range) to it is the best overall economics.
The only way you'd build a new arena for Celtics is if you attached it to another development project - Allston Yards or whatever other ones are burbling about. And that's a very, very slow and complicated path. Plus, what's been reported is they are in a lease for TD Garden through 2036 so while that's a negotiation, it's a big cost item to deadl with as well
Depends how many winter concerts they can host (where they also would get rent which is massive there compared to most venues of its size, my WAG is only MsG is more expensive.)I wonder if the Jacobs/Delaware North might bid for the Cs to protect their interests and vacancy rates.
They have 4+ yearsI absolutely do not expect Delaware North to sell, to be clear. I just think it's more likely that Celtics owners explore it than that they build a new arena elsewhere...which to me is extraordinarily complicated and slow.
IIRC, they aren't barren, just a lot of industrial lots. The T has a big bus depot there as well. I'm not sure the locals would be on board either. They didn't respond too kindly to the joint Pats-Sox Megaplex concept in the 90's.Between West Link Park and the Lottery on the Dorchester/Southie border? The park just north of Andrew?
Aren’t those fairly barren lots of land next to T access?
The point was if the Celts new owners need greater cash flow to finance a $5B purchase, which seems logical, it would seem the cash flow for various stadium rev sources would be required. Right now the Celts are deprived of those source of income as the tenants and not owners of the venue. So a new stadium is needed for concerts, parking, concession, suites, etcDepends how many winter concerts they can host
Plus, I can't see the city being cool with using available space for a completely unnecessary 2nd pro arena when we have such a housing shortage.IIRC, they aren't barren, just a lot of industrial lots. The T has a big bus depot there as well. I'm not sure the locals would be on board either. They didn't respond too kindly to the joint Pats-Sox Megaplex concept in the 90's.
Hub on Causeway redevelopment included a 38 story residential tower. Maybe building both is the way to get each done.Plus, I can't see the city being cool with using available space for a completely unnecessary 2nd pro arena when we have such a housing shortage.
I wonder if it winds up being something where the final sale value is reduced by a percentage of the luxury tax payments to align incentives.It's a weird situation whereby Wyc will be the governor until '28, but the stake (and the financials) is planned to transfer this year (if they find the appropriate buyer, of course). I would have to assume that whomever the new owner(s) are, that transaction will also include some agreement as to what the financials of the Celtics will look like until 2028. There is no way that someone is going to simply just be on the hook for 100s of millions in luxury taxes without a say in that decision. To put it another way, there's no way that the new owners are just going to give Wyc their credit card and let him do whatever the heck he wants. They may be fine with paying luxury taxes before they take over, or they may not, but either way - I'm sure that will be part of the sale agreement.
I agree.I’d be really curious if anyone knows the ownership percentages. My unconfirmed understanding is that Irv owns the majority, then Wyc and the rest of the group.
What we do know is Pags acquired an additional 8% from Pallotta in 2020 and almost bought the Nets years ago in a deal that would have made him sell his minority stake in the Celtics.
I continue to think this is Wyc and family selling their stake to a Pags led group, but we’ll see.
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/james-pallotta-boston-celtics-minority-stake-sale-steve-pagliuca-bain-nba/
I'm 200% in favor of kicking around ideas and brainstorming. So, don't take what follows as criticism so much as taking the brainstorm seriouslyJust kicking around some probable outcomes.
Don't get me started on trying to build residential right now. [/Takes another shot of Bourbon]Plus, I can't see the city being cool with using available space for a completely unnecessary 2nd pro arena when we have such a housing shortage.
It wouldn’t shock me if Anne Grousbeck didn’t want to own the Celtics. I have zero information on that. However let’s assume:I agree.
With nothing really to go on, I think there is an agreement in place to sell a controlling interest to Pags with the understanding, (with a discount to the sales price) Wyc will retain some extended period of being the public face of the Celts and act as Pags consigliere.
I think the estate planning might be more for Wyc's old man who is close to 90 than it is for Wyc.
Pure speculation.
Fascinating post. Thanks for the detail (and the laughs).I'm 200% in favor of kicking around ideas and brainstorming. So, don't take what follows as criticism so much as taking the brainstorm seriously
As it happens, a certain amount of my day job involves the financing of/investing in greater Boston real estate
snip
That all sounds pretty coherent and maybe isn't far from the case, or likely has some parts aligned with what's the case.or im wrong.
Please help keep this idea out of the universe. I don't want C. Montgomery Jacobs anywhere near the Celtics.I wonder if the Jacobs/Delaware North might bid for the Cs to protect their interests and vacancy rates.
The way you lay it out makes sense and I wouldn't be surprised if it's, as the strategy consultants like to say, directionally corrector im wrong.
The combo of large real estate plus GP stake as a tax shelter can lead to nearly infinite wealth in a world where eat the rich sentiment grows. Expect more premiums for franchises where you can own the team and assets around it ala the Mavs, Pats, Revs, Clippers, Mets, etc.
Jeremy Jacobs at this point is less lucid than Irv Grousbeck. Notice you haven’t seen him in a couple of years.Please help keep this idea out of the universe. I don't want C. Montgomery Jacobs anywhere near the Celtics.
Yeah. You can only depreciate your purchase price, once you fill that up with assets you need the next thing. Which is why that expanding real estate makes for a great pairing.The way you lay it out makes sense and I wouldn't be surprised if it's, as the strategy consultants like to say, directionally correct
Another (in the grand scheme of things small, but probably material) piece that I've wondered about w/r/t the timing is that Massachusetts rolled out the 4% 'millionaire's tax' last year, which creates an additional incentive to get the taxable income from your K-1s down. And dovetails with your point about the benefits of doing this deal in stages, spread out over a bunch of years
Don't high stick the messenger. I'd be surprised if the hot dog king of Buffalo wasn't kicking around the idea to guaranty against the possible loss of a AAA tenant, some dark nights in da Garden and a new/sexier competing venue in the future. I'd let the #s guys crunch some #s. Whats the downside of getting a bid package.Please help keep this idea out of the universe. I don't want C. Montgomery Jacobs anywhere near the Celtics.
Ha. Yeah, it's a good business move. I have some PTSD from almost 50 years of that guy humping the city of Boston and laughing to the bank. Can count on one hand the number of possible owners that I'd hate more for the Celtics.Don't high stick the messenger. I'd be surprised if the hot dog king of Buffalo wasn't kicking around the idea to guaranty against the possible loss of a AAA tenant, some dark nights in da Garden and a new/sexier competing venue in the future. I'd let the #s guys crunch some #s. Whats the downside of getting a bid package.
"...If what someone (Wyc, Pags, etc.) wanted was short-to-medium-term positive cash (say, next 5-7 years), then launching the predevelopment of a major commercial real estate project would take them in the opposite direction. "
I reject that thats the aim of Celtics existing ownership. If they wanted to generate positive short-intermediate cash, they'd cut costs and milk the new massive TV deal.But rather, I suspect they would prefer to maximize enterprise value and my thought, and I could be dead wrong, is to control the assets and related cash flows from those assets. And owning the venue is probably the best way to max value. And I never said it would be fast or easy, just that if someone was about to drop $3B-$6B for control of the Celts, paying the Bruins rent and missing out on the related benefits of venue ownership, is probably not the best path forward.
Fuck the Celts had the Fried Chicken King of Kentucky as owner and he was brutal and almost drove Red out of town. I don't want the Delaware North/Hot Dog Kings of Buffalo calling the 3 point shots, but from their perspective it might make sense.Ha. Yeah, it's a good business move. I have some PTSD from almost 50 years of that guy humping the city of Boston and laughing to the bank. Can count on one hand the number of possible owners that I'd hate more for the Celtics.
But at least the front office and ownership are lining up some cost certainty with all the recent extensions, and not leaving tough decisions with the new group. For the most part the team will be working on the margins with respect to financial decisions between now and '28, unless something drastic on-court happens in the near future. The first significant decision will be Porzingis. It will be unpopular in the immediate aftermath if he is let go due to the apron after next season, but fans would eventually talk themselves into it as the team did make this year's championship run with very limited support from him. (What will be MORE unpopular in retrospect and could screw the team over cap-wise in future years, is if they do a Chris Sale-esque deal with Porzingis where you get 30-40 appearances over a couple future years while paying a huge salary. But that is a different topic...)It's a weird situation whereby Wyc will be the governor until '28, but the stake (and the financials) is planned to transfer this year (if they find the appropriate buyer, of course). I would have to assume that whomever the new owner(s) are, that transaction will also include some agreement as to what the financials of the Celtics will look like until 2028. There is no way that someone is going to simply just be on the hook for 100s of millions in luxury taxes without a say in that decision. To put it another way, there's no way that the new owners are just going to give Wyc their credit card and let him do whatever the heck he wants. They may be fine with paying luxury taxes before they take over, or they may not, but either way - I'm sure that will be part of the sale agreement.
As long as those appearances are heavily weighted toward playoff availability, and the results (as I strongly suspect) frequently resemble Finals Game 1, please just tell me where I sign up for that....The first significant decision will be Porzingis. It will be unpopular in the immediate aftermath if he is let go due to the apron after next season, but fans would eventually talk themselves into it as the team did make this year's championship run with very limited support from him. (What will be MORE unpopular in retrospect and could screw the team over cap-wise in future years, is if they do a Chris Sale-esque deal with Porzingis where you get 30-40 appearances over a couple future years while paying a huge salary. But that is a different topic...)
FWIW, Less than a month ago Charlie Jacobs said the family would "love" to buy another team.You guys don’t have to worry about Jeremy Jacobs buying the Celtics:
A) He’s 85 years old himself, and supposedly not in great health, that’s why he divided up Delaware North among his kids a few years ago.
B) New sports arenas don’t get built in Boston. The Krafts have been trying to build a stadium for how many years? Hell the last stadium that got built was Jacobs’ current building 30 years ago, and they made him jump through so many hoops on land that he actually owned that he almost said fuck it and moved the team to New Hampshire.
C) The Celtics pay no rent in exchange for Delaware North getting the concessions. Now this relationship benefits both sides, DN gets guaranteed concession revenue for 41 to 57 nights per year, and the Celtics don’t pay for a building. From what we know about the Jacobs ownership of the Bruins, why would they try to raise probably a half billion dollars to try to get involved in the Celtics, when they could just book like 50 more concerts per year and make more money (since the concerts pay to use the building)?
Asked if the family would like to buy another sports team, Jacobs said, “I’d love to. I don’t have a target in mind and I would be very cautious about saying anything at this moment in time about what might be on the horizon. But yeah, of course, of course.”
This ain't wrongIf they wanted to generate positive short-intermediate cash, they'd cut costs and milk the new massive TV deal. But rather, I suspect they would prefer to maximize enterprise value and my thought, and I could be dead wrong, is to control the assets and related cash flows from those assets. And owning the venue is probably the best way to max value.
Them being horrible owners is based on 50 years of owning an original six team with a huge and loyal fanbase and delivering one cup in that timeframe.Also, DN has done well by the Bruins since the cap went into place (barring the first year or two after it went into place where they badly botched the landing). Views of DN and the Jacobs being "cheap" are based on sports radio bullshit from 20 years ago.
This is just crap. You know, a lot of people on this board are fans of both teams right?Bruins fans are the worst.
John Henry is getting crucified on the main board for delivering four titles in a little over 20 years. Criticize Jacobs for being horrible owners, and Bruins fans talk about how the guy "spends to the cap", disregarding how the guy has milked this fanbase for a fortune and given them one title in half a century.This is just crap. You know, a lot of people on this board are fans of both teams right?
More threads are good!Them being horrible owners is based on 50 years of owning an original six team with a huge and loyal fanbase and delivering one cup in that timeframe.
Bruins fans are the worst.