A few days ago I was wondering about John McCaw
Posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pm by Scott
A few days ago I was wondering about John McCaw…
~
Scott Says:
March 5th, 2006 at 6:27 pm e
“BTW, what local millionare sold his hockey team while the NHL was in lockout?”
John McCaw?
Mr. Baker Says:
March 6th, 2006 at 8:41 am e
John McCaw?
Yes, that’s the guy.
Paging John McCaw’s wallet, paging John McCaw’s wallet…
~
So, what is in the news today?
Vancouver group has NBA hoop dream
Last updated Mar 9 2006 12:04 PM PST
. . .
Howard Kelsey says he speaks for a group, led by Vancouver Canuck owners Francesco Aquilini and John McCaw, that has a proposal to have an existing NBA franchise re-locate to B.C.
“We have what very few cities have, what you would call a plug and play – practice facilities are here right now, and they’re downtown, as opposed to Richmond where they were last time the team was here. You have a ready-to-go GM Place which is one of the best arenas in North America.
“As long as you’ve got a GM Place, and as long as you got eight or 9,000 fans it’s a no brainer,” said Kelsey.
Kelsey says the group is putting an official proposal together in hopes of securing a team – possibly the Portland Trailblazers
. . .
Read the rest of the story here.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, there’s John McCaw, he has some money, and wants an NBA team. Maybe he buys the Blazers and Allen buys the Sonics, maybe somebody else buys the Soncs… or maybe McCaw just buys the Sonics.
The situation is very fluid right now.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
I brought up Vancouver at realGM around 6 weeks ago as a possibility. It could be used as a temporary site during Key re-build or they could just say they are planning on moving there to try to gain leverage to get the rebuild financing in next year or two or actually move there after 2010 and then say we are only coming back if you rebuild.
I didnt think John McCaw wanted back in the pro sports game. I thought John Staunton his former executive employee and later investment partner in several big companies and currently 3rd largest, roughly 25% owner of the Basketball Club of Seattle was more likely to step up to a more prominent role.
The BC story seem to show a pretty soft level of interest. ‘We’d like another tenant for nights not used by the hockey team’ is the way I read it, not basketball is a burning desire. They are one player among 6 or more cities than will get mentioned along the way.
I am waiting to see what the Sonics say next. I assume they are likely to wait until after the Seattle city council gets to April, has their planned review and makes some indication if the Council is willing to enter serious negotiations to put a mutually acceptable financing deal and lease together to shop to Olympia by late fall. If they say something in the next week, it is likely to be we’re unwilling to wait, dont think anything acceptable will be done and are now actively shopping for a new city. I dont think Schultz is prepared to say that yet, but I could be wrong.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:00 am
it will absolutely break my heart to see the Sonics go else where.
Its kinda sad to see a part of seattle culture disappears because of the disinterest from local councils…
March 10th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Take it from someone who lives in Vancouver, the odds of the NBA relocating here are somewhere between slim and none. In fact, even slim is giving it too much credit. It would make absolutely no sense for the NBA to take a team from Seattle or Portland and move it to Vancouver, a market that has already demonstrated a complete lack of interest in basketball. Sports radio talk show hosts here routinely pillory the NBA for being evil due to the way the Grizzlies left town, and when the Grizzlies were here, their scores were usually mentioned somewhere after WHL scores and curling results.
Add in the lousy attendance the Grizzlies got (and, yes, I know the figures look decent, but I was at those games and the butts-in-seats numbers were way lower, not to mention that half the people there got free tickets) and this is a complete and utter pipe dream.
As for McCaw, the people in Vancouver couldn’t wait to see him leave. If you’re looking for an owner who will take absolutely no interest in the team, the ultimate hands-off guy, he’s your man. If you’re looking for a pro-active guy who will try to get the city excited about basketball, look elsewhere.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:54 am
I just don’t see how Vancouver would be on the list for relocation before OKC and Vegas…
March 10th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I guess McCaw didnt completely leave but he went from owner of GM place + owner of Griz and owner of hockey team to just part owner of hockey team (I think).
The other two guys in the story may have more interest in this.
If Aquilini (and/or McCaw) personally travelled and tried to negotiate with a team I will pay attention to this city option. If all the noise is from Howard Kelsey the ex basketball player & fan of the game (and perhaps also trying to generate a business opportunity with a role for himself) I wont really. Lots of cities have those.
McCaw could have allowed his name to be mentioned in this PR release about Vancouver interest now as a favor to John Stanton. Billionaire buddies sometimes do each other favors.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Thanks for the tip Nuss, the bad part is that McCaw does have a bunch of money and that could at least inflate the price of either the Blazers or Sonics selling price, even if the Commish would not approve putting a team there anytime soon.
The tone of the story wasn’t all that different from other people that own an arena and want to fill it with something. That’s the ruin of sport.
I’m hoping that he and is finds another hobbie, maybe he moves to Smithers to rehabilitate some bears in his back yard, dresses up in a bear suit.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Either Allen or McCaw as owners of the Supes would be sweet. I also believe either owner would be interested in putting up a fair share of the dough needed to build a NEW arena.
Come to Bellevue, my dear Sonics!
March 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
McCaw was also doing his current business partners a favor supporting their interest in another tenant to improve GM revenues. I think Aquilini owns at least part of GM place so his interest makes sense (it wouldnt if he was just the hockey team owner - why split the city with a competitor).
The interview clip at the BC article site mentioned Blazers looking at moving nothing about Sonics. But Blazers seems very unlikely to get to move even if they tried bakruptcy. I assume if they tried move it would be injunction granted in Oregon.
Sonics more realistic, but mainly as short term option. I could see Vancouver giving the Sonics a 2-3 year lease if they wanted one in any of the scenarios I mentioned above. Why not, space to fill…
March 10th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Blazers have a lease through 2025 at the Rose Garden.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I really expect the team to announce that the franchise is up for sale sometime next month. Then they’ll play hardball with cities like vancouvers, but the end game is to stay here. This is a solvent basketball market. It’s not one that the owners or the league would like to abandon.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Vancouver has stayed messy from one situation to another including the recent past:
http://www.tsn.ca/pocket/news_story.asp?ID=115927
I agree with myk David Stern probably would put them low on the list unless a team really wanted to go there, For permanent move they wouldnt have the strongest economic case of all competing sites, though it could be considered acceptable and some owners might like the city personally and that could play a role. Temporarily used remains the most likely chance in my view.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
It costs 30 million paid to the league, to move a team. Not that another city or owner wouldn’t offer enough money to buy or move but 30 million is… a lot more.
Maybe they stay and move to Bellevue, but Washington State doesn’t want to reward the Sonics for leaving Seattle.
I agree with Brian, I do expect that they will look to sell rather than be the bad guys that move them, and there’s that 30 million not discounted if they can find a local buyer.
With the Griz long gone and the Blazers in worse shape than the Sonics I don’t see the league wanting to move the Sonics either.
I think that’s where it ends, in Seattle with a new owner, it just becomes more expensive to keep them.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I forget some of the detail and am tired of looking for confirmation. I think McCaw and Aquilini both own 50% of GM place as well as the hockey team. Nuss set me straight if that isnt right.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“I also believe either owner would be interested in putting up a fair share of the dough needed to build a NEW arena. ”
Why? Those guys have zero obligation to pay one cent more towards a new arena just because it’s Seattle. I wouldn’t expect Allen or McCaw to foot the bill for “a fair share” (whatever that means) unless they’re contractually obligated to do that in the terms of the sale.
TK said:
“Sonics more realistic, but mainly as short term option. I could see Vancouver giving the Sonics a 2-3 year lease if they wanted one in any of the scenarios I mentioned above. Why not, space to fill… ”
I’m a little confused … You mean play at GM Place while the Sonics get a new arena built? I can’t see any scenario where any self-respecting NBA team or the NBA itself would even think about getting into a 2-3 year lease scenario unless it’s a natural disaster/Hornets thing. The NBA’s already failed in Vancouver — miserably. I don’t see the league being eager to revisit that failure, empty arena or not. They can sell out every night in OKC or Vegas. As has been mentioned they’d be lucky to draw flies in Vancouver.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
(A “temporary” move to Vancuver by current ownership might not trigger a $3O million fee, similiar to New orleans / OKC situation where none has been paid (yet) because the move was blessed as temporary. I think Stern would allow this for hardball arena bargaining purposes if asked, if this isnt settled by 2010. )
But I agree a new principal owner from here, with more corporate friends willing to buy suites from him and a better legislative presentation/style is the likely outcome. And Stanton is the leading contender to just buy most or all of Schultz’s shares.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
“You mean play at GM Place while the Sonics get a new arena built? ”
Yes as I said either while they rebuild or as temporary move after 2010 hoping to trigger a financing package for a rebuild. They could trot out some language like “We still hope and expect a financing package will be assembled and stand prepared to return to Seattle when it is ready. Our lease with Vancouver is an operational decision necessitated by the delay. It is not a permanet move though it could become that if this long overdue issue is not addressed for Seattle basketball fans and all Key arena event goers who would benefit from and enjoy a fully modern facility.”
March 10th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Vancouver can be rationalzed as staying in the market, keeping visibility /even modest travel access for the fanbase. And the owners can still get up and watch the team (I dont know how big that factor is but if they they want to see the team and strut around their suite Vancouver maybe the easiest choice. Las Vegas and San Jose could work temporarily for the owners but would not be as good for the fanbase or if they were still trying to apply pressure to get the arena deal.)
OKC could work as a permanent move for a new owner but I cant see them used for a Sonic temporary move.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
— It seems odd that a local owner would step up and want to buy the team if they are really in as bad of shape as they claim. I mean I won’t underestimate the ability of a rich man who thinks he can always do it better than another guy. However, Howard Shultz is pretty well off and if he (and his deep pockets) can’t make it, who would be able to step up and buy the team with even deeper pockets??
— Sonics better get this settled by next year’s All-Star game, I think after the game is in Las Vegas the NBA will be dying to get a team down in that market.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
If the Sonics get an arena financing package in next 18 months, Vancouver is a temporary home option. The other main one would be the TacomaDome and I dont think they want to repeat that.
Vancouver as a hardball negotiating strategy temporary home open is in fact acknowledging that both the Sonic owners and the NBA dont really want to leave Seattle permanently.
If they didnt care that much they just move; but I think they dont want to move permanently away and wont right away but will use every option to try to get that bigger, bigger money making for them arena, including maybe using a temporary move strategy.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Stanton estimated worth at $1 billion
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Name_28.html
Schultz not on the list, might be a little short of that billion.
I dont know how Stanton’s daily routine goes but I think he mainly an investor now. Schultz is Chairman of Starbucks, not necesarily tied to day to day operations, but I assume he is still putting in big hours for his main business.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“Saving” a team is certainly noble civic-minded contribution and he does things in that spirit and it also could be good PR (Stanton has considered running for Governor or Senate) …and after being a minority partner with Sonics and Mariners before that (mid or late 90s), being principal owner might be a desired next challenge, to see how well he can do (very successful in telecom biz)
March 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“Yes as I said either while they rebuild or as temporary move after 2010 hoping to trigger a financing package for a rebuild. They could trot out some language like “We still hope and expect a financing package will be assembled and stand prepared to return to Seattle when it is ready. Our lease with Vancouver is an operational decision necessitated by the delay. It is not a permanet move though it could become that if this long overdue issue is not addressed for Seattle basketball fans and all Key arena event goers who would benefit from and enjoy a fully modern facility.”
They’d play in the Tacoma Dome long before they’d move to Vancouver. I just don’t see Vancouver as even a remote possibility. They couldn’t draw at all before.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“Vancouver as a hardball negotiating strategy temporary home open is in fact acknowledging that both the Sonic owners and the NBA dont really want to leave Seattle permanently. ”
Huh? I would see that move as acknowledging the league and the team were VERY serious about leaving Seattle. Tacoma Dome would be a pain in the ass, but it’s still within reasonable driving distance. Vancouver isn’t and if the gov’t gets their way with requiring a passport for day trips to Canada, trust me, NOBODY’S going up there.
I have to say that using Vancouiver as some kind of hardball negotiating point has way more potential to backfire in mgmt’s face. It’s an empty threat and everyone knows it. As Brian pointed out, Seattle’s a solvent market for the NBA. Vancouver wasn’t.
————————————————————————
Schultz: If you don’t build us a new arena, we’ll relocate to Vancouver.
Walker: (little kid voice): Yeah! We’ll take our ball and go home!
Licata: (laughs manic Dave Chappelle laugh): Go for it. We’ll miss you. You think you’re losing money here, enjoy getting 3-4000 in the gym every night, half of whom actually paid their way in, and getting cornholed by the Canadian exchange rate.
Schultz, Walker: Oh.
Licata: Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. (Leans over intercom) Send in the representative from Rick’s on Lake City Way, Miss Jones.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
—Like I said I don’t underestimate the power of a very successfull businessman thinking he can turn around the Sonics. However, if the Sonics are truly losing my like they claim…I think it would be foolish for any man to buy the team without an arena.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Is it me, or is this whole situation sounding eerily like Charlotte circa 2002? Owner complaining that recently rebuilt/built stadium is insufficient, threatening to leave, city digging in its’ heels …
TK: You’re correct, McCaw (and Aquilini) owns 50% of both GM Place and the Canucks. It’s under an umbrella group known as Orca Bay, which used to own the Grizzlies as well, before selling them off prior to their departure from Vancouver. Most Vancouverites were thrilled when McCaw sold, thinking that meant the team’s financial future would change for the better.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The huge difference between Charlotte and Seattle is that in Charlotte you had a convicted felon who was just a flat out a-hole. In Seattle you have a civic leader, note filanthropist, and guy who’s employees give him a 97% approval rating asking for the arena. Schultz is a guy this city should be lining up to strike a deal with. There is simply nothing in his record to indicate he would be anything but fair.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Vancouver in 2010 as bargaining strategy could backfire true but if you are down to your very last strategy (that is what the Vancouver in 2010 option is) then you dont really have anything additional left to lose.
Vancouver wouldnt be to make money but I dont think it would lose much more money than going to Tacoma. As a novelity lost but back for a short time I think Vancouver’s metro could generate 10-12,000 ticket sales and Tacoma might not be much more than that if they stay a below .500 team. And they might offer better lease terms than Tacoma Dome which usually has a busy schedule of other events and probably isnt dying to go thru all the scheduling hassle again.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
One of my number dislikes about living in Seattle is how we (our political leaders) have to wait to do everything until the last minute.
Instead of being proactive and building an arena we need to wait until the moment they are about to leave, which of course puts the city in a worse bargaining position and causes for the arena to be built in a rush (i.e. with many cost overruns)…
The same could be said about replacing the Viaduct, it needs to be replaced as soon as possible, but we wait years to rebuild it. Not until the thing actually collapses will something actually get done
March 10th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
The border crossing documentation is an issue I didnt factor in, and it would be a deterrent, but I think there is a strong possibility that gets pushed back / modified.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
“Vancouver in 2010 as bargaining strategy could backfire true but if you are down to your very last strategy (that is what the Vancouver in 2010 option is) then you dont really have anything additional left to lose.”
Its not even a last strategy. Something tells me the Olympics being there that year will more than off-set the Sonics move up.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Ticket sales is only about a third to 40% of all revenue I believe. The bulk of the money is from national tv revenue, and in most market healthy local tv revenue-apparently pretty small here- and merchandising. Strong ticket sales and luxury box revenues can have a big impact on profit in most markets.
Here a new arena if it worked as they expect (no guarantee it will change spending patterns) it would just get them back to even. To make annual operating profit they’d have to improve local tv deal or significantly increase merchandising and the best, probably only, way to do that is win a lot.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Ok I laid out the Vancouver scenario and we discussed pros & cons. Some dont buy it, fine I understand the skepticism. I only gave it about a 20-30% chance as one of several options they could select from, so enough on that.
Mostly likely they give it one more try to negotiate deal with Seatte City Council and Olympia.
I dont think I’ll try to analyze or predict on this much more,
or share further opinion unless something solid happens.
Could be 6, 12, 24, 36 or 48 more months of maneuvering.
Other things more appealing or productive.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
I think your reasoning behind everything is sound — for a prospective move to Tacoma for a season or two. I just don’t see Vancover as a viable alternative, even in the short term. I don’t have time to look for the stories right now but I seem to remember some bitter rhetoric from the citizens and elected representatives of the City of Vancouver against the NBA in general.
As I recall the situation, McCaw sold the Grizzlies to Michael Heisley who intended to move the team out of Canada ASAP … and the NBA didn’t really do a damn thing to impede Heisley from doing just that. So it’s kind of odd to me that the City itself would be all that excited about the NBA coming back when David Stern was the one guy with the power to help them keep their original NBA team, and he didn’t so much as lift a finger to help them. What’s to keep the league from screwing ‘Couver over again to land a team in Vegas or OKC? That’s exactly what would end up happening.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Just to set the facts straight. Fransisco Aquilini, co owner with Joh McCaw went on record to say that Howard Kelsey was wrong and shouldn’t have said what he did.
He went on to say that there has been no soliciting of Paul Allen in regards to the Trailblazers and Paul Allen has not contacted him.
He said while his group wants an NBA team for Vancouver, nothing has materialized.
So this was a case of one spokesperson saying the wrong thing ans having the story blow up and make front page news in the paper, on TV, and radio here in Vancouver.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Thanks for the reality update. I was somewhat suspicious of Kelsey overspeaking.
Aquilini/MCCaw just sound like building owners willing to take on a tenant. I dont see neither buying a team.
“He went on to say that there has been no soliciting of Paul Allen in regards to the Trailblazers and Paul Allen has not contacted him.” Probably because they could get them sued for tampering with a signed contract?
Blazers lease to 2025 seems to take them completely off the move market unless the NBA or Allen buys the building and releases them from the lease then sells the building to a real estate mogul or Portland or an Indian tribe wanting an entertainment center /casino complex.
Unless the Sonics ask to go there during rebuild or after 2010, Vancouver isnt a top NBA candidate city. However I wouldnt be surprised if they get a team back there by 2020. Maybe playing some of the home games in Asia as part of a global extension.
One more point clarification: If the Sonic tried a ’stay nearby but put pressure on Seattle for an arena strategy’, Vancouver is different might be preferred instead of Tacoma because if they go to Tacoma, the fans grumble but most get to the games and the opponents say no need to invest- “this suits us fine.” Not that much pressure. With Vancouver, the dollars completely leave the greater Seattle metro, fans complain more and maybe businesses affected by Sonic games and fans help apply enough pressure for a return. The difference might be considered important for getting that extra pressure. Because the temporary move isnt about Vancouver itself at all, it is only valuable for pressure and if you want pressure go for the most pressure. Going further away totally alienates city and fans. Vancouver is the most extreme yet perhaps workable pressure strategy. In my oponion. But not my decision so I’ll try to stop again.
Another