HartfordWhalers wrote:Johnny Bball wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:
I mean you clearly don't.
Lets go step by step, slowly with numbers.
1) Do you get that non-controling shares are worth 30-40% less than the franchise value you keep saying they can be sold for? Franchise value is for ownership with control. The price for minority partners has always been less. {See quote in article or quote in post you ignored or do research on why minority owners sued in the Minnesota case even, or ...}
This seems a real basic one and reduces your margin of profit by over 'a dollar', yet you keep repeating it suggesting it is an issue. If we can get this one, we can go on to harder ones...
Wow....
The "non-controlling shares" would never go at that much of a discount and given the fact we have just seen what minority stakes (with ZERO voting rights) were just sold for in Toronto and Dallas, being based on the
entire team valuation and of far more. What you are even proposing is beyond unlikely. And if they did go at a discount, it's not likely going to be further from $2.94, or $2.50 if you like, and closer to $1.50.
Again the entire point is.... why take the reporting that they were having such a hard time at face value? You did get that part of the question right? There have been two buyers in other locations that just stepped up and paid far more for no discount.
But again, I'm not out of my lane here, before we "move onto harder ones", it's not me that still doesn't understand my own question.
Reallly understanding how that other thread was shut down again though.
Well, then you appear to disagree with the article you are agreeing with:
The easiest way to explain this dilemma is that limited partners typically receive a 30-40% discount on their investment because LP stakes don’t have any control or liquidity
And again, since you missed it:
{This is why Taylor was sued, his minority investors wanted out at 1.50 so much they even sued and lost.}
As for your claims about the Dallas ownership, you seem to be wrong here as well. That was for a full controlling ownership.
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment has a host of assets including across multiple sports and stadium, but happy to address this once you get through all the points you have missed along the way.
No it was not. Teachers Pension Fund bought a minority shares in the holding company of Tannenbaum and have no voting rights at MLSE because they own it through the holding company that Tannenbaum owns Majority of and owns all the voting share of. Full pop. Yes some owners own their arenas etc.
Yep, Cuban sold a majority share, yeah, yet still controls the team's operation. Which still is a bit of a weird deal for which to pay full pop.
But apparently pacers owner also increased his minority stake at a 3.47 billion valuation, full pop, so were are back to more than one example. And .... that's only because I'm not digging more for other examples that are assuredly there.
When we have just seen what valuations were given to minority and non-voting shareholders, no, it's not right when applied to NBA ownership.
I'm tired of your thinly veiled insults, especially when you can't get to what the point even was.
Edit; The lawsuit... they wanted out because they would get 4% a year as long as this sale took instead and tie up their cash and inflation and interest rates have made that 4% a bad deal. But yeah... it has no real bearing on my point anyway and its you looking for any fly **** in pepper.
