View Full Version : D.C. United Back on the Market
BudWiser
17 Jan 2006, 05:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701016.html
greenbill
17 Jan 2006, 05:10 PM
:confused: My instincts say this isn't good. :confused:
Can someone ease my worried mind?? Please? :(
Hunter R
17 Jan 2006, 05:11 PM
Ive heard rumblings that Barca are looking to buy a MLS side...
Winoman
17 Jan 2006, 05:14 PM
It would appear that Global Development Partners are on a losing streak with some of their proposed stadium deals (Richmond Braves, FAU) and need to regroup. It will be curious to see who's waiting in the wings.....
gocaps
17 Jan 2006, 05:18 PM
Well. That sucks.
GUTuna
17 Jan 2006, 05:35 PM
This is real bad news. Enough to rouse me out of my offseason slumber to post.
This puts the stadium deal at risk, no matter what they say. I just don't like being another team AEG doesn't want.
Dave Brother
17 Jan 2006, 05:47 PM
Well. That sucks.
Yep.
RMDad
17 Jan 2006, 05:50 PM
That doesnt sound particularly encouraging :(
Mark
Red&Black
17 Jan 2006, 05:52 PM
i'm not sure this totally sucks for a couple of reasons.
1. global was in it for the stadium not the team. this may allow united to find someone primarily in it for the team, not the development rights.
2. I doubt there is another industry that booms/busts as fast as real estate development. they may not have been the most stable owners.
3. AEG has been good to united overall, working with them another year isn't likely to hurt the side.
greenbill
17 Jan 2006, 05:57 PM
i'm not sure this totally sucks for a couple of reasons.
1. global was in it for the stadium not the team. this may allow united to find someone primarily in it for the team, not the development rights.
....
You're probably right there. But...did they pull out because to them it looks like the stadium deal will never go through? :(
Red&Black
17 Jan 2006, 06:00 PM
You're probably right there. But...did they pull out because to them it looks like the stadium deal will never go through? :(
no that's not what i'm hearing. i've spoken to a few folks over at DCU and things are fine. this was a good decision i'm told and United and AEG are fine with it and its the best decision for the long term. shouldn't affect the stadium.
i think we should look at this as a positive--we've already had an ownership that collapsed, with AEG that won't happen.
greenbill
17 Jan 2006, 06:01 PM
no that's not what i'm hearing. i've spoken to a few folks over at DCU and things are fine. this was a good decision i'm told and United and AEG are fine with it and its the best decision for the long term. shouldn't affect the stadium.
i think we should look at this as a positive--we've already had an ownership that collapsed, with AEG that won't happen.
Thanks. :)
PhillyMLS
17 Jan 2006, 06:04 PM
This is real bad news. Enough to rouse me out of my offseason slumber to post.
This puts the stadium deal at risk, no matter what they say. I just don't like being another team AEG doesn't want.
But didn't we hear that Phil wasn't too pleased with the sale of United when the deal was struck over the summer?
Red&Black
17 Jan 2006, 06:14 PM
But didn't we hear that Phil wasn't too pleased with the sale of United when the deal was struck over the summer?
from what i understand is the AEG didn't really want to sell but the offer was really good. as i understand it, while AEG sees business logic in the sale, they also really have strong feelings for United and don't really want to sell it, though they know for the league to succeed they need to diversfy ownership. as i understand it, AEG had some "sellers remorse" but i don't think that caused the change.
suppitty
17 Jan 2006, 06:15 PM
But didn't we hear that Phil wasn't too pleased with the sale of United when the deal was struck over the summer?
Yeah, but come on...AEG can't keep every team...
Yet they can't seem to get rid of the Quakes/Houston.
chayes
17 Jan 2006, 06:29 PM
For AEG it's all about stadiums and markets. Stadiums and markets.
By moving the Quakes, they went from a top 40 market to a top 10 market.
Now, if they keep United and build a stadium here and in Houston, it will give them stadiums (concert venues) in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 7th largest markets in the US. *(According to 2000 census figures).
Not too bad if you're trying to build vertical monopolies.
Yes, they do pay some lip service to building diversity in ownership groups within MLS, but the cynic in me says that the MLS teams are just a means to the end which is the stadiums themselves.
Sure, sell off the operating rights to an MLS team, as long as they keep operational control of the stadium and the revenue streams it generates.
tallguy
17 Jan 2006, 06:51 PM
i'm not sure this totally sucks for a couple of reasons.
1. global was in it for the stadium not the team. this may allow united to find someone primarily in it for the team, not the development rights.
2. I doubt there is another industry that booms/busts as fast as real estate development. they may not have been the most stable owners.
3. AEG has been good to united overall, working with them another year isn't likely to hurt the side.
I think that there's a lot of truth in this post, but the collapse of the deal has got to make United and MLS look kinda rinky-dink -- and who knows what kind of chain-reaction insanity may now burst forth from the D.C. Council.
beltwayrob
17 Jan 2006, 06:52 PM
Well my initial reaction was :eek: but after reading the article I gotta say I am pretty ho hum about the whole thing. It's definitely not a bad thing to have Global back completely out of the deal, especially if it looked like it wasn't a good fit. Afterall their interest was purely in the development of the stadium and surrounding area.
I think AEG hanging on to us for at least another season could be a good thing, and may still give them the opportunity to build the stadium.
Like the soap opera... "like sand through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives..." or something like that.
PhillyMLS
17 Jan 2006, 07:01 PM
from what i understand is the AEG didn't really want to sell but the offer was really good. as i understand it, while AEG sees business logic in the sale, they also really have strong feelings for United and don't really want to sell it, though they know for the league to succeed they need to diversfy ownership. as i understand it, AEG had some "sellers remorse" but i don't think that caused the change.
I know. I'm just saying that the original poster was worried we would be a SJ like team that AEG has no desire to keep. While they obviously would be happy with a big payday like the original deal, they probably aren't oppossed to biding their time with a team like DC.
bridgeviewturd
17 Jan 2006, 08:03 PM
:confused: My instincts say this isn't good. :confused:
Can someone ease my worried mind?? Please? :(
Settle down guys.. IN Mergers or selling or buying of assets, the buyer usually, but not always has to pay a penalty of some sort for backing out of a deal.
Since AEG was quick to give them their cash back without penalty, my best business guess is AEG wanted out of this and gave them their check back.
I think AEG saw that A they may have sold DC for too little considering the pending stadium deal etc etc.
Since these guys were realestate guys and AEG is big into running/owning property I think the differences came about with who controls the stadium and revenue splits etc etc.
I would place a small wager that AEG realized it didnt need them, could go it alone and cash in on the whole thing later.
So coming from a guy who traded Mergers and Acquistions for 5 years in CHicago, I think you guys can relax. AEG most likely pulled the plug on this one, for reasons that benefit them.