06-19-2009, 11:31 AM
<!--quoteo(post=45147:date=Jun 19 2009, 07:32 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 19 2009, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How is Ricketts more at fault than Zell because of the credit markets? And if you are buying something, and feel you were misled by a portion of the sale (which is a very long term contract like the broadcast rights) wouldn't you try to get the most fair deal possible? The problem is the Trib being so secretive and lumping most of their Cubs revenue into the broadcast division. They did this to play a virtual shell game for tax purposes. Zell and the Trib are the ones who need to clarify their structure and financial statements, not Ricketts. They have everything in place to close the deal. Zell has been a dick throughout this entire process. And don't even get me started on him dealing under the table with Blago on selling Wrigley.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When one party agrees to purchase something for $XX then decides that it doesn't want to purchase it for that amount. At the same time, that party decides they are still willing to purchase it for less due to how they finally decided to value a portion of the deal and due to changes in the finance market, I consider the first party at fault.
As you mentioned, the Tribune most likely set up the structure for tax purposes but in addition the Trib may have wanted to hide money from baseball revenue sharing arrangements. Now these same structures set up in the late 80's and 90's make it a more complex deal to value - which all parties were aware of before starting discussions. All these structures were in place for years before Zell was involved with the Tribune so I don't see how he is at fault.
What I believe is happening is that the Ricketts did not anticipate the changes in the credit markets nor the recessions ability to hit into the valuation as much as it has so now they want to cut a better deal.
Zell wants to get the most for his asset and doesn't want to take 6% less than original deal so he is reopening the bidding phase.
We will see if either party blinks. Hopefully soon so the deal can be completed and payroll can be added for the 2009 season.
When one party agrees to purchase something for $XX then decides that it doesn't want to purchase it for that amount. At the same time, that party decides they are still willing to purchase it for less due to how they finally decided to value a portion of the deal and due to changes in the finance market, I consider the first party at fault.
As you mentioned, the Tribune most likely set up the structure for tax purposes but in addition the Trib may have wanted to hide money from baseball revenue sharing arrangements. Now these same structures set up in the late 80's and 90's make it a more complex deal to value - which all parties were aware of before starting discussions. All these structures were in place for years before Zell was involved with the Tribune so I don't see how he is at fault.
What I believe is happening is that the Ricketts did not anticipate the changes in the credit markets nor the recessions ability to hit into the valuation as much as it has so now they want to cut a better deal.
Zell wants to get the most for his asset and doesn't want to take 6% less than original deal so he is reopening the bidding phase.
We will see if either party blinks. Hopefully soon so the deal can be completed and payroll can be added for the 2009 season.