Again? When has it ever NOT sucked? Actually I take that back.......We have HAD a PLAN all of these years?!?!?!?! Jay didn't "Hire" Nick per say. At least that's not how I understand it. I could be wrong here, so anyone who knows please clarify. As I understand it Nick was looking to start an MLS expansion team and recruited Jay Sugarman as the Money Man in a partnership. They formed Keystone Sports & Entertainment together along with the other main investors at that time. I don't think it's entirely Nick Sak's fault either. He's done a lot of good work on the Business side of things for Union in terms of Sponsorships (Bimbo, PPL, Toyota) and bringing in more investors (Richie Graham in particular). He also helped get the team a better TV deal with Comcast after being exiled to Live Well network during year Zolo. That said he has made mistakes. The biggest is inserting his foot in his mouth at nearly every public opportunity he gets. The fact that Jay Sugarman was basically Kaiser Sozer until this past December doesn't help Nick. Sugarman doesn't want anything to do with the public spotlight, so he defers to Nick. Nick basically has to walk into the fires of hell and deal with everything as the public face. Unfortunately the fact that he throws gallons of gasoline on the already raging inferno, instead of gallons of Fire Suppressant..............rightfully makes him public enemy #1a, 1b, & 1c in the fanbases' eyes. The above shouldn't exonerate Jay Sugarman from any fault in this mess. If he doesn't have the commitment, financially and personally, to run this club correctly and put a winner on the field then he needs to help bring in more investors who can and do. As a businessman he has to understand that having a good product on the field will only help his investment grow, right?
I don't think the value on the open market is tied to the performance as much as we might think. Sugarsaks' revenue right now sure will take a hit, but given the buy in for the last several expansion teams, that this is a top four market with a good stadium, the return on a sale would be high. If they bought in at $40, I'd have to think 90-110 would be possible in a sale. The advantage here is that its turn key.
Sure, they have made a fat wad of cash already, but my point is improving on that through wise investment. I think I read the Chivas owners got $70m or so back. We are a long way from that, but it's the potential low end of the franchise value if they do absolutely nothing and attendance craters. Alternatively, with Sak's proverbial "couple of million bucks" (probably most wisely spent on technical staff, IMO), they could make the team a LOT more competitive and keep attendance (=revenue = value) up. There is a lot of upside here as billf says, if it was a thriving organization.
Plus the fact that they have a stadium means it's probably worth even more than that now all things considered and they didn't have to pay much for it.
A pleb like me can only dream of failing at my job for 6 years, but having my investment grow by 60-70 million.
It's not difficult. Sugarman is the majority owner. He calls the shots. Sak is a minority owner. Sak serves at Sugarman's pleasure. Sak is almost certainly under some sort of employment contract with buyout and termination clauses that keep him in place. As a minority owner, Sak is entitled to see the books by law but really not much else. Sugarman could entirely remove him from the operations if he so wished, although he'd probably have to spend quite a bit of money to do so unless it was for cause (similar to Nowak).
That quote is from June 29, 2015. The Union was 5 - 10 - 4 (1.oo PPG) at that point in the season. We've gone 3 - 5 - 2 (1.10 PPG) since. Is that considered acceptable?