Bucs Value Checks In At $1.09 Billion

July 22nd, 2010

How bout Team Glazer checking in as owners of two sports teams valued over $1 billion, with both placed in the top 12 on Forbes‘ latest list of the most valuable franchises in sports.

Manchester United sits ranked No. 1 at $1.84 billion, and the Bucs are No. 12, valued at a cool $1.09 billion.

And Team Glazer manages the Bucs so efficiently, per Forbes the team is the eighth most valuable club in the NFL!

Unbelievable businessmen these Glazers are, having bought the Buccaneers for less than $200 million about 15 years ago!

Bucs fans can rest easily remembering Joel Glazer saying “money will never be an issue” when re-building the Buccaneers into a lasting contender.

29 Responses to “Bucs Value Checks In At $1.09 Billion”

  1. Gary Says:

    wow, 200 mil to over a bill… now thats appreciation! Its saying something about their business skills to be valued at #12 while we suck this bad. All other teams ahead of us are good, except the skins.

    That does seem to point to them being cheap, because how can you be this good financially when the on-field product is this bad?

    But at least we can put to bed the idea they are broke. Yea, they are real broke guys, on the verge of being bankrupt, LOL.

  2. MichiganBucsFan Says:

    Well… just because they have businesses worth that much money does not mean they have tons of money to spend. I know I’m being Mr. Obvious here but the value of those teams means nothing to their pocketbook unless they sell them. And if the rumor is true about Man U being a billion in debt, that takes away the possibility of borrowing money with that franchise as collateral. So savvy business men? Yes. Do they still have all that money they made? I don’t think so. Don’t forget they used that money they made off of the Bucs to buy Man U, must’ve been pretty expensive.

  3. d-money Says:

    Please please please training camp hurry up and start already.

    If I read another post about the Glazers finances it think I’m going to shoot myself.

  4. eric Says:

    These guys are financial wizards, no doubt. And, I have to give them credit, nobody else stepped up to the plate to buy the bucs for 192 million. Lots of folks thought they were crazy at the time. If they had not, might very well have been the Baltimore Bucs.

    Took a lot of courage, as did the Manu deal.

    Now, use some $ and hire Cowher!

  5. JimBuc Says:

    D-money said:

    “Please please please training camp hurry up and start already.

    If I read another post about the Glazers finances it think I’m going to shoot myself.”

    Amen.

  6. JimBuc Says:

    Gary said:

    “That does seem to point to them being cheap, because how can you be this good financially when the on-field product is this bad?”

    Gary, the Bucs are so valuable NOW because for 10 to 12 years AFTER the Glazers bought the Bucs the Bucs were one the most successful teams on the field. They are down now, but that has little to do with the value of the brand. Remember that the Glazers changed the colors and uniforms, got a new stadium, made a pathetic team in to a SB champ and, more importantly, a decade long top competitor. The Glazers completely created a new brand.

    All of that will wash away eventually if the team does not improve. Do you think the Glazers — you know, the guys that grew the team from $200 mill to over $1 Billlon and created the existing brand — know that?? I am guessing YES. Most of the Glazer talk is ridiculous, short-sighted hyper-ventilating drivel.

  7. JimBuc Says:

    MichiganBucfan — eehh . . . never mind . . . to many errors to address. Carry on.

  8. thomas Says:

    The book value of almost all NFL teams elevated from the 200 million to somewhere around the billion dollar mark over that same period.

    Historically, all NFL teams appreciate. Period. (that may change real soon though)

    The Bucs value increased more than some b/c of the sweetheart stadium deal – they didn’t pay for it, in effect own it (b/c they get revenues for even non-buc eventss), and HAVE A GUARANTEED REVENUE STREAM (REVENUE SHARING) AND THE SMALLEST PAYROLL OBLIGATION IN THE LEAGUE!!!

    The stadium deal was masterfully negotiated by Malcolm – he gets credit for that. Making the team competitive, Malcolm, Dungy, Gruden, Monte, Hardy, the 5 draftees, Brad Johnson, Simeon, Keyshawn, Keenan etc get credit for that.

    BTW – How many of thise guys are still around? Some people keep referring to 1996 – Is anyone in a pivotal decision-maing position still around from 1996?

  9. eric Says:

    JImbuc,

    Your post makes perfect sense.

    However, if they really want to reproduce the 96 forward run, where is the Tony Dungy type to lead the way?

  10. BamBamBuc Says:

    thomas, Mark Dominik came on board in 1995.

    This from the Media Guide “Dominik joined the Buccaneers’ staff in June 1995 as a pro personnel assistant. He served in that capacity through the 1997 season, before assuming the title of pro scout in 1998 and coordinator of pro personnel in 2000. Prior to the start of the 2001 season, Dominik began the first of his eight years as Tampa Bay’s Director of Pro Personnel. In 2002, Dominik helped guide the Buccaneers to their first world championship in Super Bowl XXXVII against Oakland.”

    Was he in a pivotal decision-making position in 1996? No, but he was evaluating talent for the team when the team drafted some pretty good (possibly future hall of fame) players. He also helped to bring in some key free agents prior to the SB.

  11. eric Says:

    So that would mean Dom was here through all the rotten drafts that destroyed the team?

    Perfect guy to put in charge to correct bad drafting!

  12. BamBamBuc Says:

    Doesn’t mean Dom made the decisions…. just that he was there. Ultimate decision is between the coach and GM and ownership…

    I was just stating that Dom was around in 1996 when the turnaround began, so if anyone saw firsthand how it was done, he did.

  13. eric Says:

    So when you quoted the part of the article where it said he helped guide them to the Super Bowl win, you meant he was only “there”.

    So he helped guide them to the SB, but contributed nothing to the decline.

    Now I understand.

  14. oar Says:

    Pro-personnel is players already in the league or veteran players. I doubt he evaluated any of our draft picks back then. He did however evalute several very good/great free agents we brought in.

  15. JDouble Says:

    No No Joe. Haven’t you been listening? The Glazers are boke! Lol…idiots.

  16. Louie the HATER! Says:

    @JimBuc: “MichiganBucfan — eehh . . . never mind . . . to many errors to address. Carry on.”

    Do you realize how much a fool you sound like when you write something like that? MichiganBucfan makes a very valid point. Have you ever heard of the phrase “house rich, cash poor”? Why don’t you Google it and learn something.

  17. BigMacAttack Says:

    Thomas makes a good point, all teams appreciated about the same during that period. The Glazers probably mad another billion in revenue off the team during that same period of time. They can not possibly be broke. Miserly maybe, but not broke.

    I still think we will have a good team this year. Nope, can’t back it up, just a hunch. But I look for great things if they can keep it together and stay healthy….with Penn at LT.

  18. BigMacAttack Says:

    Oh wait, I forgot Greg Olson is our OC.
    Can I take that back?
    Oh wait , I voted for it before I voted against it.
    That’s it. Sorry, my bad.

  19. eric Says:

    Wonder what it would be like to own something worth a billion dollars? Or, two things worth over a billion each.

    Wow!

    Joe, can you shed any light on that?

  20. raheem Says:

    An asset is really only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    I’m sorry, but nobody would be bidding over a billion dollars for this organization.

  21. JimBuc Says:

    Louie, the only thing funnier than Michigan’s comment was you defending him

  22. BamBamBuc Says:

    JimBuc…

    Michigan’s comment was not wrong. For example, I bought a house and made payments. I have 20,000 in equity (not 20,000 in cash). So, I take out a 2nd mortgage that ties up that equity, and use it to pay off credit card debt. Now, I have no “debt” and no equity. So, I still have no cash, even though I have a house worth quite a bit. Even if I paid off the house, I still have no cash (other than I won’t have a mortgage payment). So, if I needed cash, I’d have to take out a loan against the house. In the Glazers case, they have a boat load of money invested in two teams. The value of those teams has risen incredibly. But one team is mortgaged to the hilt. So, unless they sell or take out a loan against the other team, they don’t exactly have a billion in cash.

    You only get cash from an investment when it’s sold for more than you owe. Until then, it’s simply an investment or “cash you can’t touch”.

  23. JimBuc Says:

    BamBam — I did not mean that Michigan was wrong conceptually, I meant he was wrong FACTUALLY. few examples. First, both ManU and the Bucs are profitable. In fact very profitable. ManU has been generating big positive cash flow (meaning profits after paying the debt) since 2009. That is why they were able to float the big bond deal recently. The Bucs have been very profitable for years, obviously.

    Second, the Glazers did not use their Buc money to buy ManU. Michigan implied the Glazers used up their Buc money up buying ManU. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Glazers used a substantial amount of cash to buy the public shares on ManU BUT THEN used a leveraged deal to cash out and pass the debt on to the team. That is what many are upset about. The Glazer assets serve as collateral for the PIK loans, but the debt is paid by the Club.

    Third, when ManU floated the bond deal they had to “open the books” so to speak, as part of the underwriting. One thing revealed was that the Glazers companies made between $20-$30 million per year in “fees” even when ManU was in the red. So between the Bucs and ManU, the Glazers are about as close to “broke” as I am to being a billionaire.

    There’s more but I will stop here. I was not disagreeing with Michigans statement that a business can be cash poor. I have owned three businesses so I know what it means to be cash poor. :-) It’s just that his facts are off.

  24. Louie the HATER! Says:

    JimBuc won’t get it, he rents. ;)

  25. JimBuc Says:

    BamBam — I presume you realize that the Bucs are not “mortgaged to the hilt” so i will not go there. ManU has a lot of debt, but not relative to its size and not that it cannot handle. Just think about i. In the middle of an economic crisis, at a time when the news is nothing but lending failures (foreclosures, banks going under, mortgage crisis), ManU was able to sell a HUGE bond offering. Why? Would ManU be able to do that — in this environment — if it was not turning huge cash?

    This is the REAL news from ManU from March of this year (more recent numbers not yet out) By March, I mean March report on 2009 results:

    “Man United are one of the world’s biggest clubs The figures for the six months up to December show turnover up 19%to £144.7million from £121.7million for the equivalent period in 2008. The club’s debt dropped from £538.1million to £507.5million and there were increases recorded in matchday revenues, TV money – particularly from the Champions League – and commercial revenue. Media revenues have increased 33% from £40.3million to £53.4million and commercial revenues up 16% from £33.5million to £38.7million”

    This is part of why I made my comment about Michigan’s comments. Michigan’s mythology does not actually match the facts (that many seem to ignore — easier to just say the Glazers are broke)

  26. JimBuc Says:

    Louie — consistent with your name. Never any facts, just shots. You must be very proud.

  27. tampa2 Says:

    Someone on here says the Glazers did this and the Glazers did that! What I would like that person to show us is what “team Glazer” has done since Malcom went into his coma in 1996. Malcom did spend money and make positive changes. What positive things has his 3 offspring done since, but turn our Bucs into the league laughing stock?

  28. Joe Says:

    tampa2:

    Joel Glazer was the one who brokered the Chucky deal. Joe believes that worked out well.

  29. JimBuc Says:

    Tampa2 — you are the king of conspiracy theories (i.e. Madoff) so I am not going to waste too much of my time, but if you actually stop listenting to Sileo for a minute and just do a little research, the sons have always had a SIGNIFICANT involvement in the team. So, you “Dad was good, sons are evil” theory makes about as much sense as the Madoff theory.

    “During the 2002 offseason, Bryan worked with brothers, Edward and Joel, in hiring Jon Gruden. Glazer, and his family, showed their commitment to building a championship team for the Tampa Bay community in hiring Gruden, who became the youngest head coach in NFL history to win a Super Bowl. Gruden was also the first non-rookie head coach in the history of the NFL to lead his team to the Super Bowl in his first season with a new team.”

    “After successfully negotiating an agreement to acquire the Buccaneers in 1995, Glazer, along with his brothers Bryan and Edward, began the day-to-day duties of overseeing all aspects of the organization. Since Glazer assumed his current role with the club, the Buccaneers can boast a 118-106 (.527) regular-season record and five playoff wins, easily the most successful stretch in club annals.”

 
 

Leave a Reply

Current day month ye@r *