DIESEL TROLL Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Looks like Malcom Glazer might just be shooting for a new market for his Bucs in the near future....... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/story?id=1586935 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Its funny that somebody actually posted this. That was the 1st thing I thought when I read they are getting into Baseball. Anybody think they have loyalities to Tampa? I'm sure if they could get it by the NFL and the City of Tampa...they would move the team.....just like Philly's owner would move the Eagles to Boston if he could. Regardless, I don't see it happeneing. The Tampa fans are at an all time high right now.......they'd rage all over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOskins56 Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 From what I heard he would have to sell the Bucs first, then buy the Dodgers and later hope to land an NFL expansion team in LA. ESPN Sports Center reported that he is worth 750 million and that he could sell the Bucs for about 650 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIESEL TROLL Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 If Glazer could pulls this off, he would own the biggest fan market on the west coast........think about it, the only way to make big money is to......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by MOskins56 From what I heard he would have to sell the Bucs first, then buy the Dodgers and later hope to land an NFL expansion team in LA. I don't see why that'd be. The NFL fought Al Davis tooth-and-nail back in the late '70s to keep him from moving the Raiders to L.A., but Al ultimately won out in court and got to do what he wanted to. Then Georgia Frontiere paid the league a nominal "relocation penalty fee" of 30 mil for the right to move the Rams to St. Louis. If Glazer really wants to relocate the Bucs to the City of Angels, there's likely not a damn thing the NFL or anybody else can really do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Glenn X I don't see why that'd be. The NFL fought Al Davis tooth-and-nail back in the late '70s to keep him from moving the Raiders to L.A., but Al ultimately won out in court and got to do what he wanted to. Then Georgia Frontiere paid the league a nominal "relocation penalty fee" of 30 mil for the right to move the Rams to St. Louis. If Glazer really wants to relocate the Bucs to the City of Angels, there's likely not a damn thing the NFL or anybody else can really do about it. Al Davis will sue the Glaziers the minute that anything is signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 :laugh: You're probably right. He still thinks he "owns" the Los Angeles NFL market, even though he willingly vacated it almost 10 years ago now. Gotta love ol' Al, eh? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOskins56 Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Glenn X I don't see why that'd be. The NFL fought Al Davis tooth-and-nail back in the late '70s to keep him from moving the Raiders to L.A., but Al ultimately won out in court and got to do what he wanted to. Then Georgia Frontiere paid the league a nominal "relocation penalty fee" of 30 mil for the right to move the Rams to St. Louis. If Glazer really wants to relocate the Bucs to the City of Angels, there's likely not a damn thing the NFL or anybody else can really do about it. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/06/Bucs/Glazer_eyes_owning_tw.shtml Glazer eyes owning two L.A. franchises By RICK STROUD, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published April 6, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAMPA -- Malcolm Glazer's attempt to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers might seem like it came out of leftfield. But the Bucs owner would like to gain a sports stranglehold on the No. 2 television market in the nation. He knows NFL rules regarding cross-ownership would force him to sell the Bucs. But their value might never be higher than after winning a Super Bowl, with a new stadium and more than 40,000 on a waiting list to buy season tickets. Glazer plans to return the NFL to Los Angeles, by relocating another team or through expansion. With 25 years left on their lease with the Tampa Sports Authority, the Bucs are not a team Glazer could relocate. But Glazer has been telling people that Los Angeles "is a $1-billion market for the NFL," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. Certainly, no one is more familiar with its worth than Glazer, who sits on the NFL's finance committee and had an offer to move the Bucs to Hollywood Park in 1995. If he is successful in buying the Dodgers and their stadium, he could build a football stadium on their 300-acre Chavez Ravine site. "If a new owner of the Dodgers wants to build a privately financed, state-of-the-art facility on the Dodger stadium property, he would have my total support," former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley told the Los Angeles Times, "because I still believe it's the best site for a football stadium." Because Los Angeles has been considered the leading candidate for an NFL franchise since the Rams and Raiders left in '95, by selling the Bucs, Glazer would be in compliance with the policy that allows him to own two franchises in the same city. Glazer has a house in Beverly Hills, Calif., and his son Ed lives in Los Angeles. Though he took the Bucs from laughingstocks to world champions, Glazer never has been emotionally attached to the team or Tampa Bay. He still lives in West Palm Beach, and only one of his sons, Joel, lives in Tampa. As distractions go, Glazer's bid to buy the Dodgers and put the Bucs up for sale makes the Jon Gruden-Rich McKay feud a hiccup. But no one should be surprised. Glazer made his fortune buying financially distressed companies and selling them for profit. The Bucs are his property, not his passion. Besides, what could be better than winning a Super Bowl? How about winning a World Series? The best thing Bucs fans can hope for is News Corp., the entertainment giant that owns the Dodgers, makes a quick decision on one of four bids for the team. News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch already is business partners with Glazer, who paid $14-million for 2.9 percent of Manchester United, an English Premier League soccer club. Murdoch is the primary owner of the $1.58-billion club. No matter the outcome, how are Bucs fans, or players and coaches, for that matter, expected to feel secure about the team's ownership after this attempted venture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 I guess that answers that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Ah, yes. The Long-term Lease Agreement Strikes Back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Foolishly he agreed to the deal for the Dodgers only but not the cable so how is he gonna profit? And the team being talked about moving to LA is actually the Vikings. The thing is that the residents of LA like the current setup of no NFL team and no blackouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 LA is Lakerville, and Lakerville only. they're about as dead to Football as Washingtonians are to Baseball or Soccer. I mean, if an owner would rather have a team in St Louis than LA, what does that tell you about the market for Football there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave The thing is that the residents of LA like the current setup of no NFL team and no blackouts. Yup! Actually, L.A. gets a raw deal when it comes to its football reputation. It's ridiculous to think that you couldn't support a team here, in the second largest city - and perhaps the largest major metropolitan area overall - in America. A second one might not work, but one certainly can. The problem has been that our stadiums have been rotten. The Coliseum is a terribly outdated relic with 100,000 seats and no luxury boxes in it (good luck getting a sellout) in a bad part of town that a lot of people don't want to go to. The Rose Bowl is situated in a more attractive place but has the same seat capacity problem and is only marginally more modern. Angels Stadium is now baseball only and is in Orange County anyway. There are no other options. The reputation of Raiders fans - deserved I might add - along with the mediocrity of the Rams and Raiders over the last 10-15 years before they left didn't help things. A fresh start with a new, modern and smaller stadium and a "new" team (either an expansion team or a team that moved here that wasn't the Raiders or the Rams) would work as long as the management didn't totally suck. It's going to happen, it's only a matter of time. I'll just enjoy things as they are before it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIESEL TROLL Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 LA is Lakerville, and Lakerville only. they're about as dead to Football as Washingtonians are to Baseball or Soccer. I mean, if an owner would rather have a team in St Louis than LA, what does that tell you about the market for Football there! Easy there RIGGO-TONI, some of us are old enough to have loved and remember the SENATORS . I know they sucked, but the BRAVES use to doormats too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Dollar Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 :rotflmao: OK. noticing that no one in this thread is from Tampa I figured I'd shed some light on this. First off that article by Rick Stroud is like a national enquirer article. We here in Tampa know Rick Stroud and he is one of those shock writers that goes for the sell. Plus the fact that EVERY year this comes up makes it more fun. Rick is the boy who cried wolf only in this story the towspeople never wise up. Just sit back and think, the Bucs just won the Superbowl. Do you think there will be a better time for the Glazers to make money regarding merchandise sales and other marketing for the team? Selling them now would be a business snafu. Do you think they're value will go DOWN in the future? If they ever are going to sell, now would not be the time. Mr. Glazer is a smart businessmen, he did not inherite his millions, he worked his way up from a poor watch salesman. I doubt he'll do something stupid now. If anything waiting several years after reaping in the marketing blitz that has begun, would be a better time to sell, he'd still get a HUGE profit from the 192 mil he bought them for in 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.