Malone Sells Large Stake in Liberty Media

by gondeee on Oct 11, 2008 1:23 PM EDT in Sale of the Team Comment 12 comments

John Malone, the chairman of Liberty Media, the conglomerate which owns the Atlanta Braves, sold about two-thirds of his stock in the company as part of a repurchase program. And like many things in this turbulent market, the reaction was not a good one:

The chairman of the media conglomerate sold 4.5 million shares of it on Thursday. [...] Malone got $11.00 per share for his sell-off, a 12.4% premium from the stock's closing price on Thursday. Investors of Liberty Media were put off by the chairman's lack of confidence in the company, sending shares down 38.9%, or $3.74, to trade at $5.90, on Friday afternoon.

This divestiture of company stock by its chairman seems to signal a move towards Liberty being even more of a corporate entity beyond the control of Malone. The article goes on to talk about Malone's future plans, another move that could affect the Braves:

In September, Malone revealed plans to spin off Liberty Entertainment from Liberty Media. Liberty Entertainment is currently a tracking stock. If the plan goes through, the new Liberty Entertainment would comprise roughly 50% of the DirecTV Group and all holdings belonging to Starz Entertainment, FUN Technologies and Liberty Sports Holdings. It would also include 50% of GSN and 37% of WildBlue Communications.

The listing of "Liberty Sports Holdings" seems to indicate that the Braves would be a part of this new spin-off company. We've been told from the beginning of this purchase that Liberty Media's swap-purchase of the Atlanta Braves was simply a short-term marriage of convenience, and that once the tax-loophole restrictions had run out in several years the company would be put back up for purchase to, presumably, a single buyer. The creation of this new company, Liberty Entertainment, seems to signal a possibility that Liberty plans to hold onto the Braves longer than originally planned -- making it a key piece of this new entity.

This move and the actions of Liberty are of great concern to many Braves fans who view the control of the team by a faceless corporation as an impediment to the kind of attention and financial flexibility an individual owner would likely bring to the franchise.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'd like...

to put a big fat corroding hole in all the “golden parachutes” of these effing corporate bigshots. (I’m using every ounce of patience I have left to keep this as PG as possible). ARGH. I’m so disgusted.
Thanks for getting the info together and bringing it straight to us.
I hope they all have strokes and get clogged arteries – and major tooth decay.

by Lizziebeth on Oct 11, 2008 8:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and...

GINGIVITIS!

"You never know what I'm going to do..."
- Michael Vick (Palm Beach Post 11/6/2005)

by jamesrael on Oct 13, 2008 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whaddya want anyway?

These comments about ownership always attack corporate bigshots, yet what everyone seems to want is a hobbyist gazzillionaire so rich that he can throw away money on a ball club without caring about profits or losses.

Grow up. No responsible business person should cough up long term megasalary deals for athletes in an economic climate like this one.

What this team needs is the kind of efficient, cost-conscious management which brought the Tampa Bay Rays from worst to first this year.

So sit down, shut up, and please wait patiently for our talented and inexpensive minor league prospects to develop.

by JimK on Oct 11, 2008 10:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What we want

is an ownership that views the the team as a team and not just a business venture. Sure, success equals more money, but often teams owned by groups wanting nothing more than a profit fail to put in the capital to make profits. That, and people want a face of the organization, like a Jerry Jones or a George Steinbrenner. For better or worse, at least you have a feeling this guys will do whatever they can to win championships.

I think this is a reasonable position to hold, and I really don’t understand why the animosity towards Lizziebeth.

Cost-consciousness is great. But the Rays have done little to improve their fanbase. The Marlins are cost-conscious as well. They couldn’t sell tickets when they were leading the division.

"Have you ever had your heart broken?"
"Yeah, when we lost the pennant in '87."

by jug on Oct 11, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1991

Look, I enjoyed the 1991 season as much as anyone. But in all honesty, I prefer the long run over the once in a decade success ala Florida and Tampa Bay.

Bring back Ted!!!

by Bobby Cocks on Oct 12, 2008 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tampa is going to be winning pennants for most of the next decade and Florida has two rings since we last won one.

by 17843 on Oct 12, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Tampa may be winning pennants for most of the next decade but even if they do how is it any different from the 1990’s Braves?

And I guess it’s just 2 different trains of thought, but I’d prefer to be in it every single year (Braves 1991-2005) rather than win a WS then dive back into futility for 5 years before reappearing and winning another WS, and so on.

by Bobby Cocks on Oct 12, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well yeah guy, of course we want a billionaire to spend a huge amount of money on the team and really care about whether they win or not. What fan wouldn’t? And spending doesn’t mean you won’t make a ton of money, you think George Steinbrenner is hurting for all the money he’s spent on the Yankees?

And a huge part of the Rays being effective this season was being terrible for the previous ten so they could pick first in the draft every year. Their cost-consciousness was due to their funs, which was mostly due to their lack of fans, which was mostly due to their lack of wins. Like jug said, winning hasn’t really improved their fanbase or their money, there was an article about it the other day.

And be cool man, there’s no reason to tell somebody to shut up cause you don’t agree with them.

by cbwilk on Oct 12, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And a huge part of the Rays being effective this season was being terrible for the previous ten so they could pick first in the draft every year.

This has been a myth that’s been completely debunked. Look it up, use google, a good place to go is Rays Index it’s a lot more than just a bunch of high draft picks…

Rain Delay - Two Teams, Two Coasts - One Obsession

You can also check out my stuff at Baseball Digest Daily

by RainDelay on Oct 12, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn’t exactly debunk it. You’ve got some of their top players being picked in the first and second round by the Rays, Rocco Baldelli, BJ Upton, Evan Longora, and Carl Crawford, not to mention David Price, but some of the guys they aquired in trades, were high draft picks, JP Howell was a first rounder by the Royals, Matt Garza was a first rounder by the Twins, Scott Kazmir was a first rounder by the Mets. Carlos Pena was signed as a free agent and he was a first round pick too. That’s 9 guys, a third of the team that are first round picks. I doubt you’d find that percentage on another team. and I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

by cbwilk on Oct 12, 2008 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs