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 reven…
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.
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.