So apparently a certain someone has started blogging again.
Of course it would be wise in this situation, to tread lightly. To ensure that a certain someone felt at ease enough to want to come back and blog more. I never claimed to be wise.
Dude, after the hiatus that you have taken, these are the two blogs you coming roaring back with? You have fans, an adoring public. Your sparse entries are what keep the blog going as people check to see if maybe today is the day MBB will decide to post again. Perhaps you are rusty and need time to warm up, and this screed will just send you scurrying back in your shell. If so, I apologize to everyone if that happens. Business posts are fine, long winded numbers posts are fine, if a bit dry. Your readers expect a payoff after slogging through all the numbers and math. There needs to be a payoff!!
That's right, you heard me: See the title.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
They Paid How Much?!
Late last night, the news broke that the Los Angeles Dodgers had been sold at auction, to a group which includes former Los Angeles Lakers great Magic Johnson, for a record-breaking $2.15 billion.
The purchase price is an absolutely mind-boggling number, and appears to be way beyond what any reasonable valuation would yield.
The previous high price paid for a baseball team was the $845 million paid for the Chicago Cubs in 2009.
The previous high price paid for any North American sports franchise was the $1.1 billion Stephen Ross paid for the Miami Dolphins in 2009.
The previous high price paid for a sports franchise of any kind, anywhere in the world, was the $1.47 billion paid in 2005 (before the Great Recession, when valuations for everything were absurdly high) for Manchester United, one of the world's most popular soccer teams, which is said to boast a global brand recognition level on par with, if not greater than, that of the New York Yankees.
To be sure, most observers had expected the Dodgers to fetch a price well above $1 billion, perhaps as much as $1.5 billion. However, this number is well above what anyone would have predicted.
In fact, the Dodgers were sold via an auction process, with the team having filed for bankruptcy protection last year. There were two other bidders, who are believed to have offered something in the $1.5 billion range, but the $2.15 billion bid was so much higher than the other bids that the team was awarded to this investor group immediately, without even going through the trouble of additional rounds of bidding.
In addition to the enormous purchase price, there are some other interesting points to consider:
* On top of the price paid for the Dodgers, the new owners will have to invest something on the order of an additional $300 million to refurbish Dodger Stadium.
* Frank McCourt, who was probably the most reviled owner in all of American sports, is going to walk away with a gargantuan profit. He bought the Dodgers in 2004 for approximately $420 million, so this purchase price represents a profit of more than 400%, or a compounded annual return of about 23%.
* When McCourt bought the Dodgers in 2004, he financed his purchase primarily with debt. Yesterday's winning bid was described as a 100% cash offer, according to the Wall Street Journal.
* McCourt generated these otherworldly returns despite doing seemingly everything he could to destroy his investment, culminating with a bankruptcy filing. He loaded up the team with debt, and proceeded to run one of baseball's most storied franchises into the ground. McCourt hired his wife, Jamie, as CEO of the Dodgers, then fired her in 2009, on the day after the Dodgers were eliminated from the playoffs. She officially filed for divorce shortly thereafter, ending the couple's 30-year marriage. The McCourts went through a very ugly and public divorce, during which it was revealed that they had used more than $100 million from the team to purchase several homes and to finance their lavish lifestyle.
* In October 2011, the McCourts finally settled their divorce, with Frank paying Jamie approximately $130 million, in what is generally assumed to be the most expensive divorce in California history. In return, Jamie relinquished all claims to the Dodgers. Even after paying off all of the Dodgers' creditors, Frank McCourt will walk away with way more than $130 million. Somehow, I get the feeling that Jamie is not quite as thrilled with her $130 million today.
* Speaking of the former Mrs. McCourt, which is more likely, that she files suit in an attempt to get some of the proceeds of the Dodger sale, or that the Dodgers will once again fail to win the World Series? (Before you answer that, remember that the upward limit of a probability is 100%).
* In addition to the amount paid for the team, the purchasers are buying half of the land surrounding the stadium, currently owned by McCourt, for $150 million. Put another way, Frank McCourt valued his half of the real estate at about $20 million more than he valued his ex-wife.
Without a doubt, in the coming days, we'll hear plenty of justifications for the purchase price, as otherwise intelligent people twist themselves into pretzel-like shapes attempting to show how the number makes sense.
Let me save you all some time. The number doesn't make sense, and it never will.
Besides, I've already moved on to more pressing issues:
If the Dodgers are worth $2.15 billion, what are the New York Yankees worth?
The purchase price is an absolutely mind-boggling number, and appears to be way beyond what any reasonable valuation would yield.
The previous high price paid for a baseball team was the $845 million paid for the Chicago Cubs in 2009.
The previous high price paid for any North American sports franchise was the $1.1 billion Stephen Ross paid for the Miami Dolphins in 2009.
The previous high price paid for a sports franchise of any kind, anywhere in the world, was the $1.47 billion paid in 2005 (before the Great Recession, when valuations for everything were absurdly high) for Manchester United, one of the world's most popular soccer teams, which is said to boast a global brand recognition level on par with, if not greater than, that of the New York Yankees.
To be sure, most observers had expected the Dodgers to fetch a price well above $1 billion, perhaps as much as $1.5 billion. However, this number is well above what anyone would have predicted.
In fact, the Dodgers were sold via an auction process, with the team having filed for bankruptcy protection last year. There were two other bidders, who are believed to have offered something in the $1.5 billion range, but the $2.15 billion bid was so much higher than the other bids that the team was awarded to this investor group immediately, without even going through the trouble of additional rounds of bidding.
In addition to the enormous purchase price, there are some other interesting points to consider:
* On top of the price paid for the Dodgers, the new owners will have to invest something on the order of an additional $300 million to refurbish Dodger Stadium.
* Frank McCourt, who was probably the most reviled owner in all of American sports, is going to walk away with a gargantuan profit. He bought the Dodgers in 2004 for approximately $420 million, so this purchase price represents a profit of more than 400%, or a compounded annual return of about 23%.
* When McCourt bought the Dodgers in 2004, he financed his purchase primarily with debt. Yesterday's winning bid was described as a 100% cash offer, according to the Wall Street Journal.
* McCourt generated these otherworldly returns despite doing seemingly everything he could to destroy his investment, culminating with a bankruptcy filing. He loaded up the team with debt, and proceeded to run one of baseball's most storied franchises into the ground. McCourt hired his wife, Jamie, as CEO of the Dodgers, then fired her in 2009, on the day after the Dodgers were eliminated from the playoffs. She officially filed for divorce shortly thereafter, ending the couple's 30-year marriage. The McCourts went through a very ugly and public divorce, during which it was revealed that they had used more than $100 million from the team to purchase several homes and to finance their lavish lifestyle.
* In October 2011, the McCourts finally settled their divorce, with Frank paying Jamie approximately $130 million, in what is generally assumed to be the most expensive divorce in California history. In return, Jamie relinquished all claims to the Dodgers. Even after paying off all of the Dodgers' creditors, Frank McCourt will walk away with way more than $130 million. Somehow, I get the feeling that Jamie is not quite as thrilled with her $130 million today.
* Speaking of the former Mrs. McCourt, which is more likely, that she files suit in an attempt to get some of the proceeds of the Dodger sale, or that the Dodgers will once again fail to win the World Series? (Before you answer that, remember that the upward limit of a probability is 100%).
* In addition to the amount paid for the team, the purchasers are buying half of the land surrounding the stadium, currently owned by McCourt, for $150 million. Put another way, Frank McCourt valued his half of the real estate at about $20 million more than he valued his ex-wife.
Without a doubt, in the coming days, we'll hear plenty of justifications for the purchase price, as otherwise intelligent people twist themselves into pretzel-like shapes attempting to show how the number makes sense.
Let me save you all some time. The number doesn't make sense, and it never will.
Besides, I've already moved on to more pressing issues:
If the Dodgers are worth $2.15 billion, what are the New York Yankees worth?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The King Has Lost His Crown
As someone who has never tasted a hamburger (or any other menu item, for that matter) at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or any other chain, the battle for fast food market share should be meaningless to me. However, considering that I find the business world to be endlessly entertaining, I was fascinated to learn that there has been a change near the top of the U.S. fast food rankings.
According to recently released data, Wendy's has now overtaken Burger King as the #2 hamburger chain in the country, with $8.5 billion in sales at its 5,900 U.S. locations in 2011. Burger King generated $8.4 billion in revenues at its 7,200 locations in the U.S.
Of course, both chains remain distantly behind McDonald's, which cranked out $34 billion in sales at its 14,098 locations in the U.S.
On a per-store basis, McDonald's generated $2.4 million in sales per store, Wendy's $1.4 million and Burger King $1.2 million. I would never have guessed that McDonald's generates twice as much revenue per location than does Burger King.
Again, while I don't have a horse (or horse meat) in this race, I find this to be a stunning development. In my (outsider's) view of the world of Big Burger, it was always Mickey D's and the King slugging it out for superiority. Wendy's was their pesky little sister.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Burger King takes its loss of the #2 spot lying down. The company has a significant presence outside of the U.S., unlike Wendy's, and perhaps the U.S. market doesn't mean as much to their management anymore. Still, you'd have to think that they will do what they can to regain their place in the standings. Maybe, this will shake things up a bit, and the industry will take a page from the disposable razor industry's playbook.
Perhaps, in order to combat Dave's Hot & Juicy Triple Burger (1,060 calories, 67 grams of fat), currently offered by Wendy's, Burger King will introduce a Quadruple Whopper.
If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before we witness a hamburger sandwich with FIVE patties, as the meat race scales absurd new heights.
Just the prospect of such a menu item makes me excited, more than a little bit frightened, and upon reflection, completely indifferent.
According to recently released data, Wendy's has now overtaken Burger King as the #2 hamburger chain in the country, with $8.5 billion in sales at its 5,900 U.S. locations in 2011. Burger King generated $8.4 billion in revenues at its 7,200 locations in the U.S.
Of course, both chains remain distantly behind McDonald's, which cranked out $34 billion in sales at its 14,098 locations in the U.S.
On a per-store basis, McDonald's generated $2.4 million in sales per store, Wendy's $1.4 million and Burger King $1.2 million. I would never have guessed that McDonald's generates twice as much revenue per location than does Burger King.
Again, while I don't have a horse (or horse meat) in this race, I find this to be a stunning development. In my (outsider's) view of the world of Big Burger, it was always Mickey D's and the King slugging it out for superiority. Wendy's was their pesky little sister.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Burger King takes its loss of the #2 spot lying down. The company has a significant presence outside of the U.S., unlike Wendy's, and perhaps the U.S. market doesn't mean as much to their management anymore. Still, you'd have to think that they will do what they can to regain their place in the standings. Maybe, this will shake things up a bit, and the industry will take a page from the disposable razor industry's playbook.
Perhaps, in order to combat Dave's Hot & Juicy Triple Burger (1,060 calories, 67 grams of fat), currently offered by Wendy's, Burger King will introduce a Quadruple Whopper.
If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before we witness a hamburger sandwich with FIVE patties, as the meat race scales absurd new heights.
Just the prospect of such a menu item makes me excited, more than a little bit frightened, and upon reflection, completely indifferent.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Senseless on Sunday
This is the suburbs. You can park WHEREVER you want.
Why? Why? Why? If you are coming to a house to collect money, basically knocking on doors of people who's schedules you are not privy to, why? why? why? would you block their cars in their driveways.
It's not only unnecessary, it's pretty rude, and silly, and maybe even a little selfish. Or a lot selfish. Especially when parking in the driveway means the tail of your car sticks out four feet into the road. So you blocked our cars (you only need one of us to write a check, no sense in blocking TWO cars) AND impeded traffic on the street.
And you weren't even the only one today!
Why? Why? Why? If you are coming to a house to collect money, basically knocking on doors of people who's schedules you are not privy to, why? why? why? would you block their cars in their driveways.
It's not only unnecessary, it's pretty rude, and silly, and maybe even a little selfish. Or a lot selfish. Especially when parking in the driveway means the tail of your car sticks out four feet into the road. So you blocked our cars (you only need one of us to write a check, no sense in blocking TWO cars) AND impeded traffic on the street.
And you weren't even the only one today!
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Wow!
As much as I am feeling nostalgic about the eldest, the second is reaching milestones as well. In fact I don't know if I mellowed, or she is just naturally taking to driving better. But Second in Command (quite literally) got her permit right before Purim.
We have already driven almost one hour, and she constantly asks for more.
I guess I haven't yelled that much yet!
We have already driven almost one hour, and she constantly asks for more.
I guess I haven't yelled that much yet!
Milestones
My daughter got her license this year.
She got into the Seminary of her choice.
She regularly uses a purse.
She took the SATs.
She does errands on her own.
She held down the fort when MBB and I went away overnight.
She will get paid for working in camp this summer.
She enjoys a nice wine.
All milestones, all indicative of her getting older and more mature. But today, today is a milestone that is just making me tear up. Every time I think of it, I think of that moment after she was born, all swaddled in her blankets with a cute little hat, looking up at me. So serene, so peaceful, just looking at me with her big brown eyes, and then she blinked. Two big long blinks. She stole my heart.
Today seems to start a new chapter in her life, and by extension, ours as well.
Today she turns 18.
She got into the Seminary of her choice.
She regularly uses a purse.
She took the SATs.
She does errands on her own.
She held down the fort when MBB and I went away overnight.
She will get paid for working in camp this summer.
She enjoys a nice wine.
All milestones, all indicative of her getting older and more mature. But today, today is a milestone that is just making me tear up. Every time I think of it, I think of that moment after she was born, all swaddled in her blankets with a cute little hat, looking up at me. So serene, so peaceful, just looking at me with her big brown eyes, and then she blinked. Two big long blinks. She stole my heart.
Today seems to start a new chapter in her life, and by extension, ours as well.
Today she turns 18.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
It's Getting Clearer
I had a thought over the weekend. The same "rag" that blurred the face of the Statue of Liberty ran an ad trying to convince women and girls that they would have as much fun on Purim if they "stayed in their inner rooms," as they would have if they were in the more public rooms of their OWN HOMES when people (read: men and boys) came collecting.
Honestly, the idea that women should "stay in the tent,' is probably a right one, for the right time. But in a time when women are out in the world, why do we think it's OK, to pretend that in our world, it is the one place they cannot be out. I know I just said this in a previous post, but I thought of an extension. I mentioned before the idea that Tzniyus, and really the way a person dresses and acts, is a true reflection of their inside. Thus it is clear, that because there really are tzniyus issues, especially among those who should know better, it is merely a reflection of their insides.
Their insides are screaming:
"LOOK AT ME!!! NOTICE ME!!! I AM HERE AND I CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR SOCIETY AS WELL AS TO THE SOCIETY THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME OUT TO WORK IN. DO NOT PRETEND I DON'T EXIST, AND THAT I HAVE NO WORTH HERE,THAT I HAVE TO HIDE."
There is another people that covers up and hides its women and the Torah teaches us that they are the most promiscuous and amoral of all. Is that what we have become? Does every mention and thought of a woman need to be as an object? Can women really not be ANYWHERE for fear of what may happen to a male if she is?
Do these men who need to be shielded from the enticements of the modest women of our community shun working in Manhattan or going to any establishment that is not Heimishe?
They say the best way to get kids to love Yiddishkeit is to love it yourself and be truthful. Hypocrisy is the enemy of truth.
You betcha.
Honestly, the idea that women should "stay in the tent,' is probably a right one, for the right time. But in a time when women are out in the world, why do we think it's OK, to pretend that in our world, it is the one place they cannot be out. I know I just said this in a previous post, but I thought of an extension. I mentioned before the idea that Tzniyus, and really the way a person dresses and acts, is a true reflection of their inside. Thus it is clear, that because there really are tzniyus issues, especially among those who should know better, it is merely a reflection of their insides.
Their insides are screaming:
"LOOK AT ME!!! NOTICE ME!!! I AM HERE AND I CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR SOCIETY AS WELL AS TO THE SOCIETY THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME OUT TO WORK IN. DO NOT PRETEND I DON'T EXIST, AND THAT I HAVE NO WORTH HERE,THAT I HAVE TO HIDE."
There is another people that covers up and hides its women and the Torah teaches us that they are the most promiscuous and amoral of all. Is that what we have become? Does every mention and thought of a woman need to be as an object? Can women really not be ANYWHERE for fear of what may happen to a male if she is?
Do these men who need to be shielded from the enticements of the modest women of our community shun working in Manhattan or going to any establishment that is not Heimishe?
They say the best way to get kids to love Yiddishkeit is to love it yourself and be truthful. Hypocrisy is the enemy of truth.
You betcha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)