- Thread starter
- #1
I'll start by saying, 1. I'm surprised to see him ranked that low, and 2. I'm vastly skeptical of websites that publish "net worth" of wealthy individuals, and here is why:
See my other post about the difficulty of trying to calculate someone's net worth at that level of wealth.Eh, is there one for the entire ownership group in total? I knew the Mariners have a group but didn’t realize the Yankees did until recently.
Ha........I'd take it with a whole Tablespoon of salt. No way complete assets/liabilities would technically be available for ownership of any pro team for any sportSee my other post about the difficulty of trying to calculate someone's net worth at that level of wealth.
In Stanton's case, I don't think it's publicly known how much his equity stake is in the Mariners. If it's say just 51%, that would put his stake in the Mariners alone at $1.1B. That post has his net worth at $1.1B almost suspiciously the exact same as a 51% stake in the Mariners. That would assume that either his entire net worth is invested in the Mariners (highly unlikely) or that he has a 51% stake in the Mariners that is offset by liabilities taken on. It wouldn't make any sense because I don't think someone would be able to obtain the information about what liabilities Stanton has.
To reiterate what I said in my other post, calculating the net worth of someone in that stratosphere of wealth is highly difficult and a borderline futile task unless you somehow have access to information on every single one of that person's liabilities, every single investment holding an individual has, and an accurate assessment of the value of those assets if liquidated at the moment of writing.
I would actually take that list, and just about every Forbes ranking with a grain of salt.
I guess don’t quote me. But he was a minority owner when Nintendo was the majority owner. Then however it exactly happened he got majority control which I think is just 51%. I’m not a financial person but to be majority owner doesn’t it have to be at least 51%? Cause if he doesn’t then wouldn’t the Mariners be run by a board of directors like the Packers? But no idea, cause it doesn’t seem possible that Stanton’s net worth is solely based off of his Mariners shares cause I would assume he still has financial stake in TMobile at least much like how Howard Schultz. Zuckerberg or Bezo’s aren’t the head of their respective companies anymore.See my other post about the difficulty of trying to calculate someone's net worth at that level of wealth.
In Stanton's case, I don't think it's publicly known how much his equity stake is in the Mariners. If it's say just 51%, that would put his stake in the Mariners alone at $1.1B. That post has his net worth at $1.1B almost suspiciously the exact same as a 51% stake in the Mariners. That would assume that either his entire net worth is invested in the Mariners (highly unlikely) or that he has a 51% stake in the Mariners that is offset by liabilities taken on. It wouldn't make any sense because I don't think someone would be able to obtain the information about what liabilities Stanton has.
To reiterate what I said in my other post, calculating the net worth of someone in that stratosphere of wealth is highly difficult and a borderline futile task unless you somehow have access to information on every single one of that person's liabilities, every single investment holding an individual has, and an accurate assessment of the value of those assets if liquidated at the moment of writing.
I would actually take that list, and just about every Forbes ranking with a grain of salt.
I think Chris Larson is the other guy mentioned in ownership.I guess don’t quote me. But he was a minority owner when Nintendo was the majority owner. Then however it exactly happened he got majority control which I think is just 51%. I’m not a financial person but to be majority owner doesn’t it have to be at least 51%? Cause if he doesn’t then wouldn’t the Mariners be run by a board of directors like the Packers? But no idea, cause it doesn’t seem possible that Stanton’s net worth is solely based off of his Mariners shares cause I would assume he still has financial stake in TMobile at least much like how Howard Schultz. Zuckerberg or Bezo’s aren’t the head of their respective companies anymore.
I know KJR hammers on the dude but for the life of me I can’t remember his name but there is a dude who has the second most shares/stake of the club which I interrupt as it is those two who have the most invested.
Yeah that’s right. I knew it was some generic name.I think Chris Larson is the other guy mentioned in ownership.