04-09-2010, 12:13 PM
<!--quoteo(post=87406:date=Apr 9 2010, 11:10 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Apr 9 2010, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=87397:date=Apr 9 2010, 10:57 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Apr 9 2010, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->In retrospect he overpaid, but at the time it was the market price. This is oversimplifying the issue.
I deal with private equity every day. Private company valuations are marked to "market" every quarter. It doesn't mean the valuations are accurate or reflect debt and equity fully. The process of closing on the sale of a baseball franchise has a time lag embedded into it. Ricketts isn't a fool for paying $800 mil for a team that many thought was worth $900 mil to $1 bil at the time. Then the economy collapsed.
What is your point?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recall the Tribune was attempting to bring new parties into the Cubs sale as late as last year. If the agreed upon sale price was overvalued, have a hard time believing that the seller would still be attempting to find another a new buyer to purchase at an even greater overvalued price?
It comes down to what's more likely: the Cubs value has decreased by $119 MM or Forbes valuation methodology is faulty?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I gotta go with the notion that Forbes is just talking about the team and the Ricketts deal included more than that.
I deal with private equity every day. Private company valuations are marked to "market" every quarter. It doesn't mean the valuations are accurate or reflect debt and equity fully. The process of closing on the sale of a baseball franchise has a time lag embedded into it. Ricketts isn't a fool for paying $800 mil for a team that many thought was worth $900 mil to $1 bil at the time. Then the economy collapsed.
What is your point?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recall the Tribune was attempting to bring new parties into the Cubs sale as late as last year. If the agreed upon sale price was overvalued, have a hard time believing that the seller would still be attempting to find another a new buyer to purchase at an even greater overvalued price?
It comes down to what's more likely: the Cubs value has decreased by $119 MM or Forbes valuation methodology is faulty?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I gotta go with the notion that Forbes is just talking about the team and the Ricketts deal included more than that.