No, he couldn't have. Have you paid any attention to the NBA purchasing the team? The team had huge debts attached to it that needed to be resolved before any intelligent businessman would drop $300 million. Selling an NBA franchise isn't like selling a used car.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jester

Baton Rouge

Member since Feb 2006

34375 posts

Posted on 3/2/11 at 8:50 am to Chad504boy

56.25%, and you wouldn't have billions if you don't recognize that it is a huge difference. James Dolan may agree with you. He's a sucker.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Louie T

htx

Member since Dec 2006

36321 posts

Posted on 3/2/11 at 9:13 am to glassman

quote:
That doesn't mean that Gary Chouest is worth $5 billion. When Edison Chouest died in 2008 at the age of 91, he probably left the business to his three sons, Gary, Laney, and Edison Jr. All three boys worked in the business when they were growing up, but Gary was chosen to run the company when Edison stepped down. So Gary probably owns at least a third of Edison Chouest ($1.6 billion), and probably has investments that total several hundred million. He's worth, at a bare minimum, $2 billion. He very well could be worth a lot more - the company is likely worth far more than $5 billion, the CEO probably has a higher share of the company than his other two brothers, and Gary probably has enormous sums of money in investments and capital. To put his wealth into perspective, he's worth anywhere between Mavs owner Mark Cuban ($2 billion) and Blazers owner Paul Allen ($13.5 billion).

Wouldn't take this as gospel, but he's definitely a billionaire.

Whoops already posted

This post was edited on 3/2/11 at 9:14 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

423378 posts

Posted on 3/2/11 at 9:23 am to Jester

quote:
The team had huge debts attached to it that needed to be resolved before any intelligent businessman would drop $300 million

assuming the debt payoff was included in the $300M, i don't really think it makes a difference

hell, buying the team with the debtload would mean he'd be directly involved in negotiating the debt down, so it may have been better to buy with the debt

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jester

Baton Rouge

Member since Feb 2006

34375 posts

Posted on 3/2/11 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro

quote:
assuming the debt payoff was included in the $300M, i don't really think it makes a difference

hell, buying the team with the debtload would mean he'd be directly involved in negotiating the debt down, so it may have been better to buy with the debt

It certainly could have been done, but most intelligent people don't buy a ship (since we're talking Chouest) that has a gaping hole in the hull and is sinking. Shinn was losing a lot of money and wanted out from under it. If it was that easy to sell, he would have.

Like, I said, it isn't a used car. You can't just decide you're done with it and expect to have a deal in place by the end of the week.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by hellsu

Northshore via Westbank

Member since Jan 2009

3951 posts

Posted on 3/2/11 at 5:00 pm to Jester

You say most intelligent people wouldn't take on the debt load but we are talking about 5 years previous to the NBA buyout. An intelligent far-sighted potential buyer say ,from Oklahoma City may well have jumped at the chance to take on whatevever the current debt was ,squeeze a desperate city for what they could and hauled arse back to Okie in 4or5 seasons. Say someone in a little better financial position then Shinn was. I think I have a rough idea of the difference in an NBA franchise and a used car and why can't you say your just done with it and start the wheels in motion to unload the franchise? Because you say so?

Page 1 2 3