Michael Bloomberg Joins Lore/Rodriguez Ownership Group

[Mattya]

Well I knew the posts would get more silly by the day, but Taylor defenders complaining about illegal immigration in this thread wasn't on my bingo card.

[shrink]

Well I knew the posts would get more silly by the day, but Taylor defenders complaining about illegal immigration in this thread wasn't on my bingo card.

A. I don’t think there are any “Taylor defenders.” Being worried about the Lore group does not make anyone a Taylor defender.

B. You think someone bringing up “Climate Change” is better?

Let’s all get out of politics in this thread.

[shrink]

Getting back on topic, I think this discussion gets divided by one over-arching fact. Glen has been majority owner the last two years, so when ARod and Lore want something, Glen pays 80%, then 60%, and the Lore group paid 20% and then 36%. As fans, we have benefited from Glen’s checkbook. If Lore’s group takes over next year, will they still spend when the bulk of it comes out of their own pocket? Since they have only been minority owners, they haven’t had that chance to show us.

In my mind, they cleared one hurdle by adding Bloomberg. We don’t have any idea what the precise financial relationship is, but now it looks a lot more likely that they may be able to pay for the things they promise.

The question becomes, “WILL they?” We know what they have promised, and some of us believe them and some are more leery. Your faith in their willingness to pay shouldn’t be based on your dislike for Glen.

[Mattya]

Well I knew the posts would get more silly by the day, but Taylor defenders complaining about illegal immigration in this thread wasn't on my bingo card.

A. I don’t think there are any “Taylor defenders.” Being worried about the Lore group does not make anyone a Taylor defender.

B. You think someone bringing up “Climate Change” is better?

Let’s all get out of politics in this thread.

A. You know we can see your stances on this board right?

B. The only way you could take "Minnesota is well suited to attract people because of climate change" as political, is if you are stupid and don't think climate change is real.

C. If your then response is to complain about democrats allowing illegal immigrants to rob your house, you should just take a break from consuming politics and touch some grass. Which you should be thankful you live in a state well suited to grow grass despite climate change.

[karch34]

Getting back on topic, I think this discussion gets divided by one over-arching fact. Glen has been majority owner the last two years, so when ARod and Lore want something, Glen pays 80%, then 60%, and the Lore group paid 20% and then 36%. As fans, we have benefited from Glen’s checkbook. If Lore’s group takes over next year, will they still spend when the bulk of it comes out of their own pocket? Since they have only been minority owners, they haven’t had that chance to show us.

In my mind, they cleared one hurdle by adding Bloomberg. We don’t have any idea what the precise financial relationship is, but now it looks a lot more likely that they may be able to pay for the things they promise.

The question becomes, “WILL they?” We know what they have promised, and some of us believe them and some are more leery. Your faith in their willingness to pay shouldn’t be based on your dislike for Glen.

Glen has been paying more if that’s how the finances break. I don’t know if it's as simple Connelly is 3m/yr for Lore-Rod and $5myr for Glenn. Those mechanisms are a mystery to me. I know it all gets ascribed to the majority owner for sure.

[thinktank]

Well I knew the posts would get more silly by the day, but Taylor defenders complaining about illegal immigration in this thread wasn't on my bingo card.

A. I don’t think there are any “Taylor defenders.” Being worried about the Lore group does not make anyone a Taylor defender.

B. You think someone bringing up “Climate Change” is better?

Let’s all get out of politics in this thread.

It’s not political to point out that Minnesota is the #1 equipped state to deal with climate change. That’s a market motivator. That’s REALITY.

[TimberKat]

Well I knew the posts would get more silly by the day, but Taylor defenders complaining about illegal immigration in this thread wasn't on my bingo card.

A. I don’t think there are any “Taylor defenders.” Being worried about the Lore group does not make anyone a Taylor defender.

B. You think someone bringing up “Climate Change” is better?

Let’s all get out of politics in this thread.

It’s not political to point out that Minnesota is the #1 equipped state to deal with climate change. That’s a market motivator. That’s REALITY.

So Duluth will truly be the San Francisco of the Midwest once we warm up 10 degrees?

[Mattya]

A. I don’t think there are any “Taylor defenders.” Being worried about the Lore group does not make anyone a Taylor defender.

B. You think someone bringing up “Climate Change” is better?

Let’s all get out of politics in this thread.

It’s not political to point out that Minnesota is the #1 equipped state to deal with climate change. That’s a market motivator. That’s REALITY.

So Duluth will truly be the San Francisco of the Midwest once we warm up 10 degrees?

No Duluth just isn’t as disaster prone because of climate change. You won’t see wet bulb temperatures as often as the south, and you won’t see fires as much as the Mountain West. So cost of living will likely be much lower just for insurance costs.

[C.lupus]

Yikes, this thread.

Every now and then I wonder what's happening on RealGM. Then I see a thread like this and remember why I stopped posting.

[younggunsmn]

It’s not political to point out that Minnesota is the #1 equipped state to deal with climate change. That’s a market motivator. That’s REALITY.

So Duluth will truly be the San Francisco of the Midwest once we warm up 10 degrees?

No Duluth just isn’t as disaster prone because of climate change. You won’t see wet bulb temperatures as often as the south, and you won’t see fires as much as the Mountain West. So cost of living will likely be much lower just for insurance costs.

You will have an easier time talking to a scientologist than a climate cultist.
My god read what you are writing.
My favorite part was when Greta Thunberg tweeted in 2018 that the earth was ending in 5 years.
She must have been listening to a lot of David Bowie music that day (great song).
California has major fire problems partly because the environmentalists won't let them manage their forests.
That's what happens with one party rule. It will happen here too if one party rule lasts another cycle or two.

It's not like people in the south and west haven't been dealing with heat and water issues for thousands of years.
It's just that for most of human history those areas have been very sparsely populated.
Because they weren't meant to be heavily populated.

We are at the mercy of forces unthinkable magnitudes greater than ourselves and our ability to impact the universe.
The sun (flaming ball of nuclear fusion about 1.3 million times the volume of earth) flips its magnetic axis every 11 years which causes ebbs and flows of solar radiation and activity.
We are currently at the peak activity level of that cycle.

The earth's magnetic poles drift about 35 miles a year and over just the last 200 years magnetic north has moved from Canada to Greenland to Siberia.
It does this because of fluctuations in the density of the giant spinning ball of liquid metal 2000 miles below the surface we call the core.
Earth's magnetic field is also what protects us from solar radiation and all sorts of other bad things, and small fluctuations in the magnetic field can have measurable consequences.

Earth will die and be reborn many more times with and without our help before the sun dies.
That's why the smart people with the big money are putting it into trying to make humans a space faring species at the moment.
We were literally in an ice age just 10,000 years ago where the mean temp dipped 11 degrees. Without our influence.
We are a happy little accident.

There are a lot of legitimate things in the environment to be concerned about (depleting aquifers, deforestation, plastic in the ocean to name a few), but Carbon hysteria is an absolute Grift that has the added side effect of forcing billions of people into poverty, which allows collectivists of all brands and stripes to grab more and more power as they sell themselves as the solution to the poverty they created.
Fracking bad but lithium strip mine good.
Pipeline bad but Warren Buffett diesel powered railroad good.

You don't like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Plant a tree it literally eats carbon dioxide.
We should be planting trees as quickly as we can grow them, they are amazing and wonderful for so many different reasons.

Anyway, this thread got derailed because I responded to a ridiculous assertion that the Minnesota market was going to blow up because climate change will make most other places suck, and for that I apologize.

[younggunsmn]

Sure, they could stay in their country with higher murder rates, significantly worse living conditions, worse educational services, worse healthcare [US isn't dead last in Healthcare ], non-democratic government, ect.

What an elitist attitude.
Many Latin American immigrants I talk to love their home countries.
They go back on vacation when they get time off.

But they are here because there is still opportunity left here that socialism destroyed in their home country.
Socialist governments in nearly every country south of the USA, for decades, but it's the lack of education, housing, and healthcare that makes people leave en masse?

The great bargain of America was that you got to have your own little corner of it.
Own a home, start a family, be self sufficient.
If you have something to lose, to protect, you are much much less likely to harm your neighbor or break the law.
This concept is the cornerstone of western civilization.

A big problem in the US today is that this is becoming harder and harder to obtain and keep, and many people really don't have much to lose. And the government providing you with enough to get by, doesn't give you anything to have as your own.
It's becoming almost impossible right now for the average person to buy a house.

When people come here, they should have the a chance to earn that American dream, and when they are lured here to come illegally with false promises of that, to me it is very sad.

Unless you have very special skills, you will never be able to negotiate a raise in your standard of living from your boss if there are people ready and willing to replace you.
And that is the whole point from an economic perspective of the politicians and big business that have pushed immigration for decades.

[younggunsmn]

Getting back on topic, I think this discussion gets divided by one over-arching fact. Glen has been majority owner the last two years, so when ARod and Lore want something, Glen pays 80%, then 60%, and the Lore group paid 20% and then 36%. As fans, we have benefited from Glen’s checkbook. If Lore’s group takes over next year, will they still spend when the bulk of it comes out of their own pocket? Since they have only been minority owners, they haven’t had that chance to show us.

In my mind, they cleared one hurdle by adding Bloomberg. We don’t have any idea what the precise financial relationship is, but now it looks a lot more likely that they may be able to pay for the things they promise.

The question becomes, “WILL they?” We know what they have promised, and some of us believe them and some are more leery. Your faith in their willingness to pay shouldn’t be based on your dislike for Glen.

Norm Green (North Stars), Red McCombs (remember rumors of him wanting to move to San Antonio), Clay Bennett (Sonics), what do they have in common? They were all cash poor and moved their teams or tried to.
Outside of major markets, pro sports teams are not profit-making enterprises. They're equity building enterprises.

But you can't afford to take a loss or pay the interest on the operating costs and investment, in order to build that equity, if you are cash poor.

Even if Bloomberg (Or anyone else with deep pockets) invests, Lore still has to maintain a big enough stake to be controlling owner, or he isn't making the decisions. That means he has to personally fincance his share of any losses or his stake gets diluted.

Glen financed his operating losses over the last 30 years primarily by selling off shares and diluting his stake.

[thinktank]

Welp.

To bring it back on topic: If you can’t trust experts like AP Guy telling you the team isn’t moving, then your issue is you’re not identifying the valuable information you need to draw sound conclusions—probably on this and many other subjects.

But then, it takes humility and self-awareness to listen to experts, understand their consensus, etc.

[Mattya]

So Duluth will truly be the San Francisco of the Midwest once we warm up 10 degrees?

No Duluth just isn’t as disaster prone because of climate change. You won’t see wet bulb temperatures as often as the south, and you won’t see fires as much as the Mountain West. So cost of living will likely be much lower just for insurance costs.

You will have an easier time talking to a scientologist than a climate cultist.
My god read what you are writing.
My favorite part was when Greta Thunberg tweeted in 2018 that the earth was ending in 5 years.
She must have been listening to a lot of David Bowie music that day (great song).
California has major fire problems partly because the environmentalists won't let them manage their forests.
That's what happens with one party rule. It will happen here too if one party rule lasts another cycle or two.

It's not like people in the south and west haven't been dealing with heat and water issues for thousands of years.
It's just that for most of human history those areas have been very sparsely populated.
Because they weren't meant to be heavily populated.

We are at the mercy of forces unthinkable magnitudes greater than ourselves and our ability to impact the universe.
The sun (flaming ball of nuclear fusion about 1.3 million times the volume of earth) flips its magnetic axis every 11 years which causes ebbs and flows of solar radiation and activity.
We are currently at the peak activity level of that cycle.

The earth's magnetic poles drift about 35 miles a year and over just the last 200 years magnetic north has moved from Canada to Greenland to Siberia.
It does this because of fluctuations in the density of the giant spinning ball of liquid metal 2000 miles below the surface we call the core.
Earth's magnetic field is also what protects us from solar radiation and all sorts of other bad things, and small fluctuations in the magnetic field can have measurable consequences.

Earth will die and be reborn many more times with and without our help before the sun dies.
That's why the smart people with the big money are putting it into trying to make humans a space faring species at the moment.
We were literally in an ice age just 10,000 years ago where the mean temp dipped 11 degrees. Without our influence.
We are a happy little accident.

There are a lot of legitimate things in the environment to be concerned about (depleting aquifers, deforestation, plastic in the ocean to name a few), but Carbon hysteria is an absolute Grift that has the added side effect of forcing billions of people into poverty, which allows collectivists of all brands and stripes to grab more and more power as they sell themselves as the solution to the poverty they created.
Fracking bad but lithium strip mine good.
Pipeline bad but Warren Buffett diesel powered railroad good.

You don't like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Plant a tree it literally eats carbon dioxide.
We should be planting trees as quickly as we can grow them, they are amazing and wonderful for so many different reasons.

Anyway, this thread got derailed because I responded to a ridiculous assertion that the Minnesota market was going to blow up because climate change will make most other places suck, and for that I apologize.

My god read what you are writing.

Okay please debunk that Duluth is less at risk for wet bulb temperatures than the south and how it is less at risk for forest fires than the desert southwest.

The rest is just uneducated uncle crying about the latest fox news narrative tree after drinking too much at thanksgiving.

You could always just stop derailing the thread, instead of apologizing.

[Mattya]

Welp.

To bring it back on topic: If you can’t trust experts like AP Guy telling you the team isn’t moving, then your issue is you’re not identifying the valuable information you need to draw sound conclusions—probably on this and many other subjects.

But then, it takes humility and self-awareness to listen to experts, understand their consensus, etc.

But if those experts don't agree with my opinion, they must clearly be bought out by Bloomberg.

[Klomp]

Getting back on topic, I think this discussion gets divided by one over-arching fact. Glen has been majority owner the last two years, so when ARod and Lore want something, Glen pays 80%, then 60%, and the Lore group paid 20% and then 36%. As fans, we have benefited from Glen’s checkbook. If Lore’s group takes over next year, will they still spend when the bulk of it comes out of their own pocket? Since they have only been minority owners, they haven’t had that chance to show us.

In my mind, they cleared one hurdle by adding Bloomberg. We don’t have any idea what the precise financial relationship is, but now it looks a lot more likely that they may be able to pay for the things they promise.

The question becomes, “WILL they?” We know what they have promised, and some of us believe them and some are more leery. Your faith in their willingness to pay shouldn’t be based on your dislike for Glen.

Norm Green (North Stars), Red McCombs (remember rumors of him wanting to move to San Antonio), Clay Bennett (Sonics), what do they have in common? They were all cash poor and moved their teams or tried to.
Outside of major markets, pro sports teams are not profit-making enterprises. They're equity building enterprises.

Think about what you're saying....

Clay Bennett moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, his home state
Red McCombs wanted to move the Vikings to San Antonio, where he is from

See the connection? It's not moving to more "glamorous" markets. It's moving them to their home base.

So if you were concerned that the minority group wants to move the team to their home base, I might share your concern. Only problem with that logic is, I highly doubt the NBA wants a third team within the NYC market. Two teams seems to be the max, and I'm not even sure that's preferred for the league. Which leaves markets like Kansas City or Louisville, etc...except the minority group has zero connections to those markets.

[shrink]

Getting back on topic, I think this discussion gets divided by one over-arching fact. Glen has been majority owner the last two years, so when ARod and Lore want something, Glen pays 80%, then 60%, and the Lore group paid 20% and then 36%. As fans, we have benefited from Glen’s checkbook. If Lore’s group takes over next year, will they still spend when the bulk of it comes out of their own pocket? Since they have only been minority owners, they haven’t had that chance to show us.

In my mind, they cleared one hurdle by adding Bloomberg. We don’t have any idea what the precise financial relationship is, but now it looks a lot more likely that they may be able to pay for the things they promise.

The question becomes, “WILL they?” We know what they have promised, and some of us believe them and some are more leery. Your faith in their willingness to pay shouldn’t be based on your dislike for Glen.

Norm Green (North Stars), Red McCombs (remember rumors of him wanting to move to San Antonio), Clay Bennett (Sonics), what do they have in common? They were all cash poor and moved their teams or tried to.
Outside of major markets, pro sports teams are not profit-making enterprises. They're equity building enterprises.

Think about what you're saying....

Clay Bennett moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, his home state
Red McCombs wanted to move the Vikings to San Antonio, where he is from

See the connection? It's not moving to more "glamorous" markets. It's moving them to their home base.

So if you were concerned that the minority group wants to move the team to their home base, I might share your concern. Only problem with that logic is, I highly doubt the NBA wants a third team within the NYC market. Two teams seems to be the max, and I'm not even sure that's preferred for the league. Which leaves markets like Kansas City or Louisville, etc...except the minority group has zero connections to those markets.

I’m not sure what evidence there is of this. I’m sure it was a much bigger shock to go from one to two.

FWIW, NY market is four times as big as MIN, but only has two teams, and the economics of New York means tickets can be sold at a higher price. Last year, a successful Timberwolves team saw their average ticket prices climb from near the bottom to #18. NYK was #3, and BRK was #5 with a bad team.

[Klomp]

Norm Green (North Stars), Red McCombs (remember rumors of him wanting to move to San Antonio), Clay Bennett (Sonics), what do they have in common? They were all cash poor and moved their teams or tried to.
Outside of major markets, pro sports teams are not profit-making enterprises. They're equity building enterprises.

Think about what you're saying....

Clay Bennett moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, his home state
Red McCombs wanted to move the Vikings to San Antonio, where he is from

See the connection? It's not moving to more "glamorous" markets. It's moving them to their home base.

So if you were concerned that the minority group wants to move the team to their home base, I might share your concern. Only problem with that logic is, I highly doubt the NBA wants a third team within the NYC market. Two teams seems to be the max, and I'm not even sure that's preferred for the league. Which leaves markets like Kansas City or Louisville, etc...except the minority group has zero connections to those markets.

I’m not sure what evidence there is of this. I’m sure it was a much bigger shock to go from one to two.

FWIW, NY market is four times as big as MIN, but only has two teams, and the economics of New York means tickets can be sold at a higher price. Last year, a successful Timberwolves team saw their average ticket prices climb from near the bottom to #18. NYK was #3, and BRK was #5 with a bad team.

The NBA has not added a second team to a single market since 1985, when the San Diego Clippers moved up the coast (no I will never consider the Nets' 11-mile move from the Meadowlands as an addition to the NYC market, because they were already there). The NBA was a 23-team league then. If it was so important for the league to add a third team to one of these markets, they would have done so in the last 40 years in their growth from 23 to 30 (and soon 32) teams. This isn't like the NFL's past desperation to get back into the Los Angeles market.

[BlacJacMac]

Think about what you're saying....

Clay Bennett moved the Sonics to Oklahoma, his home state
Red McCombs wanted to move the Vikings to San Antonio, where he is from

See the connection? It's not moving to more "glamorous" markets. It's moving them to their home base.

So if you were concerned that the minority group wants to move the team to their home base, I might share your concern. Only problem with that logic is, I highly doubt the NBA wants a third team within the NYC market. Two teams seems to be the max, and I'm not even sure that's preferred for the league. Which leaves markets like Kansas City or Louisville, etc...except the minority group has zero connections to those markets.

I’m not sure what evidence there is of this. I’m sure it was a much bigger shock to go from one to two.

FWIW, NY market is four times as big as MIN, but only has two teams, and the economics of New York means tickets can be sold at a higher price. Last year, a successful Timberwolves team saw their average ticket prices climb from near the bottom to #18. NYK was #3, and BRK was #5 with a bad team.

The NBA has not added a second team to a single market since 1985, when the San Diego Clippers moved up the coast (no I will never consider the Nets' 11-mile move from the Meadowlands as an addition to the NYC market, because they were already there). The NBA was a 23-team league then. If it was so important for the league to add a third team to one of these markets, they would have done so in the last 40 years in their growth from 23 to 30 (and soon 32) teams. This isn't like the NFL's past desperation to get back into the Los Angeles market.

Also interesting that the Clippers relocation to Los Angeles remains the only franchise move in NBA history that was not approved by the NBA. So even the NBA didn't want a 2nd team in Los Angeles.

• Sterling was officially denied permission by the NBA to move the team to Los Angeles in both 1982 and 1984.

• After the 1984 rejection, Sterling moved the team to Los Angeles anyway, triggering a lawsuit filed by the NBA in federal court against Sterling, which aimed to return the Clippers to San Diego at threat of the league dissolving the franchise.

• Sterling ultimately prevailed over the league after a counter-suit and the team did not return to San Diego.

[younggunsmn]

Also interesting that the Clippers relocation to Los Angeles remains the only franchise move in NBA history that was not approved by the NBA. So even the NBA didn't want a 2nd team in Los Angeles.

• Sterling was officially denied permission by the NBA to move the team to Los Angeles in both 1982 and 1984.

• After the 1984 rejection, Sterling moved the team to Los Angeles anyway, triggering a lawsuit filed by the NBA in federal court against Sterling, which aimed to return the Clippers to San Diego at threat of the league dissolving the franchise.

• Sterling ultimately prevailed over the league after a counter-suit and the team did not return to San Diego.

Did not know that history.
Interesting.