Not my thing either.
First Avenue Entertainment LLLP was the corporate entity set up by Nintendo of America to control its ownership shares in the Seattle Mariners, following its purchase of the team in 1992.
www.sportspressnw.com
No I get that. This is again going to be ignorant as F but was explain by my attorney is that my net worth is a shit load more than I actually have so it just seems weird that a dude with a portfolio and the head of a corp (which honestly I didn’t know until your article) that owns multiple billion dollar valued company, his holdings in T-Mobile and whatever other stuff wealthy men like him have money invested in.
In laymen's terms; In most cases, unless otherwise indicated by some sort of weird rule, with most businesses whoever has the biggest share of the company is the majority owner. So technically it can be 50.0001% and they'd be majority owner. Technically, a group could purchase a 50.0001% stake in a company and be the majority owner. That group could be led by one majority owner within the group. Meaning that Stanton could technically own 50.001% of the group that has a majority stake in the Mariners. Thereby making him the "owner," despite his stake being a lot less than we think it could be.
That is what I was trying to find. His company owns 90% of the Mariners, but how much does he own of his company? We know he must own at least what you said to be called the majority owner. I was just curious if it was more. I guess it doesn't really matter since he has final say.
Ya no clue. I highly suspected that there were a crap load of investors. But that actually makes it worse IMO. You can justify if Stanton’s net worth is barely above a billion to not spend a crap load. But you and I have spoken to death my theory of you have to spend money to make money. Which they indirectly acknowledge with purchasing Root Sports and a few bars (I don’t know if they purchased any of the restaurants) around the park.
I just saw that article you posted, just read it and it said it was 17 people including Stanton. I think that he would have have a majority stake in the company that has the 90% stake in the Mariners, but we wouldn't know what the distribution of the equity stakes are. Not positive on any of this, but if he has the largest equity stake amongst those 17 people, he's considered the owner. 100/17 = 5.88%. So in theory, he could own 10% of that 90% stake, with the 16 others owning an average of 5.625%.
The article that @NWinAZ sent indicates that it was Stanton and 16 other people who bought the 90% share in the company. If you read my other post, you can see there's a possibility that Stanton might have the largest equity stake amongst those 16 people, but that could be as low as 6% of the 90% stake in the team.
Good info. I didn't think of it that way but it makes perfect sense and it makes perfect sense why they don't spend. 17 people over their collective heads instead of one big backer like most teams have. Nice work.
I tried finding out as well for many hours and I am clueless on this stuff so it makes me feel better that someone like you couldn't track it down. You are leap years ahead of me on this financial stuff. Thanks for your hard work it.
Lol kind of went down the click hole and started getting agitated I couldn't figure it out so figured I'd just give up.
It actually makes me start to wonder how many professional sports franchises are structured. This could actually be a very common arrangement, especially given the fact that sports franchises are so valuable these days.
Maybe, but not sure about the big markets like Mets and Yankees. Dodgers ave several owners I believe. It does open my eyes though. I always assumed majority owners owned at least 51% shares but you proved that isn't necessarily the case at least with the M's.
From the info you put out it seems like how the Sonics were Schultz. He was the “owner” but had several other investors/minority owners. Think it was Sonicgate that broke down the whole structure of it and how it made it very hard to get an arena deal done plus the whole sale he made with Bennett could’ve been shot down with 1 more no vote.
New starting point at 450mil?
No idea. I bet it will be closer to a NFL contract where it’s a ridiculous numbered contract but a crap load of incentives, kind of like how Julio’s deal actually is. The dude has already had one TJ and came back better but it is super hard cause we know for certain his floor is a HOF RF and how much did Judge just get and Ohtani is better.
Judge got a 9yr 360mil so starting point could be 9 or 10yrs at 400.
Yeah but I’m saying the headlines are going to end up with Ohtani gets a 10 year 600 plus million dollar deal but I’m amusing it’s going to be the same deal Trout got but with pitching incentives that if met push it closer to a billion than 400 million. Much like how we were all excited that Julio signed an 18 year deal or whatever it was but it was an 8 year extension with some incentives then a collection of incentive laden club options. If Julio isn’t a star, he won’t be on the Mariners by 30.
