But know nothing beyond names and their c.v.s from other roles such as finance or management. And much of what we “know” is now over half a year old. Has anyone dropped out from that group? Anyone added? What are the internal roles of the members?
So I’d still say we have no real knowledge of the supposed prospective owners.
But know nothing beyond names and their c.v.s from other roles such as finance or management. And much of what we “know” is now over half a year old. Has anyone dropped out from that group? Anyone added? What are the internal roles of the members?
So I’d still say we have no real knowledge of the supposed prospective owners.
I've heard a rumor about an addition to one of the potential ownership groups but think I'd be betraying a confidence to say anything about it. It gives me some reason for optimism though.
But I concede that we don't "know" enough and the club and league are really lacking in transparency about all of this.
It could make sense that we might not hear news around the World Cup. Hopefully, we'll get some news in the offseason.
It is very hard to not see Paulson as dragging his feet on or even reneging on the whole thing though.
I prefer that a Thorns sale go to a group that might be able to acquire the Timbers as well at some future point. I'm a believer in two teams, one club, with the caveat that the Thorns should have their own staff, freaking website, etc. and actually be treated like their own team. I know one possible ownership group is pressing for that potential outcome, which might draw things out.
I suspect that the biggest issue is the lease. If I was a prospective buyer I’d haaaaate to have my new inamorata’s ex holding the lease on our apartment. But I don’t see an easy way out of the current lease…plus there’s staffing, concessions, maintenance…
What I don’t get is why the big secret? All it’d take would be a presser every couple of weeks; “We’re discussing contracts and facilities, and talks are moving along, thanks.”
My guess is that these things work better in silence, because you don't have to deal with the headaches that come from a million questions being lobbed at you. Neither side wants to deal with the problem of hammering out the details to find that little cup-holder on the seats fouls it all up. It also allows either side to walk away without serious repercussions. I'm hopeful that once the silence is broken the deal is finalized in weeks or even days.
The lease doesn’t apply to the sale of the Thorns though. Great point with respect to the Timbers. I know they have to negotiate access to the stadium for the Thorns though. Paulson has pinky-sweared that he won’t be a jerk but, especially when grass is put in, he can start hosting fifa matches to make up some lost Thorns and other revenue, which could interfere with NWSL matches.
Office and practice space are considerations too.
But yeah, I don’t know what the secrecy is about, if it’s the potential buyers, Peregrine, the league.
I also have to remind myself that Peregrine Sports isn’t just the Paulson family. I don’t know who are how many but I’ve reliably heard that there are other investors.
The lease is massive to the Thorns sale. It doesn't apply to the TIMBERS, if they were up for sale.
But the problem for the Thorns is exactly as you lay it out; scheduling, concessions, staffing, practice-and-playing-time. Right now Peregrine has a massive interest in ensuring that the two teams can share the venue with minimal head-butting. After a sale? Not so much!
The ideal situation for new Thorns owners would be a three-way deal between Peregrine, whatever-their-outfit-is-called, and MAC/Portland that would spell out in detail who gets what when, how much, how conflicts are resolved, etc. I can see how that would be crazy difficult to hammer out, and the many stop points in there.
I just meant that the new Thorns owners wouldn’t be bound to the current lease agreement. I may have misunderstood the comment I was responding to. The remaining context of my comment, which you reference, shows I’m aware the lease is relevant in terms of access. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
The ideal scenario would be Peregrine selling both teams to the same people. ;-)
The problem is that Peregrine holds the lease. If there’s no new lease agreement and Peregrine is still the Timbers management a new Thorns owner will either have to 1) sublet from Peregrine, or 2) play somewhere else. It won’t matter that the terms won’t apply to the new owners; unless they make a deal with Paulson they can’t play here.
From what I’ve read the Strong group has not bid anything near enough to buy both clubs. So ideal as it is, that scenario is unlikely.
We're kind of talking past each other because I haven't been clear enough about what I already know, so we're rehashing what I assumed was established as obvious. I'm too tired to try to explain it again and there's no point. We're not really disagreeing. I appreciate your trying to get some clarity.
The Strong group hasn't bid on both teams but is open to the possibility of (eventually) acquiring both. I'm not an insider as far as their negotiations are concerned but I'm adjacent enough to have some clue, as in I'm in contact with people in contact with them from when I was involved with Onward Rose City. I don't get updates as often as I'd like, but I also don't ask. My winky face was intended to indicate that my "ideal" was not a serious near-term proposition.
But know nothing beyond names and their c.v.s from other roles such as finance or management. And much of what we “know” is now over half a year old. Has anyone dropped out from that group? Anyone added? What are the internal roles of the members?
So I’d still say we have no real knowledge of the supposed prospective owners.
I've heard a rumor about an addition to one of the potential ownership groups but think I'd be betraying a confidence to say anything about it. It gives me some reason for optimism though.
This is a bit more recent:
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland-thorns/2023/03/nwsl-commissioner-jessica-berman-upcoming-sale-of-portland-thorns-in-advanced-stages.html
But I concede that we don't "know" enough and the club and league are really lacking in transparency about all of this.
It could make sense that we might not hear news around the World Cup. Hopefully, we'll get some news in the offseason.
It is very hard to not see Paulson as dragging his feet on or even reneging on the whole thing though.
I prefer that a Thorns sale go to a group that might be able to acquire the Timbers as well at some future point. I'm a believer in two teams, one club, with the caveat that the Thorns should have their own staff, freaking website, etc. and actually be treated like their own team. I know one possible ownership group is pressing for that potential outcome, which might draw things out.
I suspect that the biggest issue is the lease. If I was a prospective buyer I’d haaaaate to have my new inamorata’s ex holding the lease on our apartment. But I don’t see an easy way out of the current lease…plus there’s staffing, concessions, maintenance…
What I don’t get is why the big secret? All it’d take would be a presser every couple of weeks; “We’re discussing contracts and facilities, and talks are moving along, thanks.”
My guess is that these things work better in silence, because you don't have to deal with the headaches that come from a million questions being lobbed at you. Neither side wants to deal with the problem of hammering out the details to find that little cup-holder on the seats fouls it all up. It also allows either side to walk away without serious repercussions. I'm hopeful that once the silence is broken the deal is finalized in weeks or even days.
Or months. Or, maybe not? It's impossible to tell at this point.
The lease doesn’t apply to the sale of the Thorns though. Great point with respect to the Timbers. I know they have to negotiate access to the stadium for the Thorns though. Paulson has pinky-sweared that he won’t be a jerk but, especially when grass is put in, he can start hosting fifa matches to make up some lost Thorns and other revenue, which could interfere with NWSL matches.
Office and practice space are considerations too.
But yeah, I don’t know what the secrecy is about, if it’s the potential buyers, Peregrine, the league.
I also have to remind myself that Peregrine Sports isn’t just the Paulson family. I don’t know who are how many but I’ve reliably heard that there are other investors.
Whuuuu..?
The lease is massive to the Thorns sale. It doesn't apply to the TIMBERS, if they were up for sale.
But the problem for the Thorns is exactly as you lay it out; scheduling, concessions, staffing, practice-and-playing-time. Right now Peregrine has a massive interest in ensuring that the two teams can share the venue with minimal head-butting. After a sale? Not so much!
The ideal situation for new Thorns owners would be a three-way deal between Peregrine, whatever-their-outfit-is-called, and MAC/Portland that would spell out in detail who gets what when, how much, how conflicts are resolved, etc. I can see how that would be crazy difficult to hammer out, and the many stop points in there.
I just meant that the new Thorns owners wouldn’t be bound to the current lease agreement. I may have misunderstood the comment I was responding to. The remaining context of my comment, which you reference, shows I’m aware the lease is relevant in terms of access. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
The ideal scenario would be Peregrine selling both teams to the same people. ;-)
The problem is that Peregrine holds the lease. If there’s no new lease agreement and Peregrine is still the Timbers management a new Thorns owner will either have to 1) sublet from Peregrine, or 2) play somewhere else. It won’t matter that the terms won’t apply to the new owners; unless they make a deal with Paulson they can’t play here.
From what I’ve read the Strong group has not bid anything near enough to buy both clubs. So ideal as it is, that scenario is unlikely.
We're kind of talking past each other because I haven't been clear enough about what I already know, so we're rehashing what I assumed was established as obvious. I'm too tired to try to explain it again and there's no point. We're not really disagreeing. I appreciate your trying to get some clarity.
The Strong group hasn't bid on both teams but is open to the possibility of (eventually) acquiring both. I'm not an insider as far as their negotiations are concerned but I'm adjacent enough to have some clue, as in I'm in contact with people in contact with them from when I was involved with Onward Rose City. I don't get updates as often as I'd like, but I also don't ask. My winky face was intended to indicate that my "ideal" was not a serious near-term proposition.