Is this why Guggenheim purchased the Dodgers?

Wondering if this isn't part of their end game.

Was just watching the Manchester United Public Offering and noticed all of the folks with AON shirts on. These were folks on the floor of the stock exchange. When the showed footage of Manchester games their were the shots of folks with AON shirts on in the stands. AON is the largest or close to the largest insurance company in the world and recently moved their headquarters from Chicago to London. Yes Guggenheim is in Illinois. AON is the biggest sponsor of Manchester United and the the linkage is obvious. Hmmmmm Guggenheim is another insurance company that now owns a major American Sports brand just as Manchester is a International sports brand. Star Manchester players are linked with AON and they get millions on millions of brand advertising and loyalty from players and advertisement. Fans can now buy stock in Manchester United and that just drives up the relationship between fans and AON. Wow Guggenheim insurance companies linked with the Dodgers and players like Kemp and Kershaw hawking insurance for a fee of course. Now all we need is a Latino star to hawk to that community, hmmmmmm Hanley? Naming rights of the stadium? Come on would it really be open to bidding when they own the stadium? Who knows whats in the deal between McCourt where he agreed to sell the team. We know that Guggenheim has unique rights that other owners don't have. Manchester United is valued at 2.3 billion and the Dodgers were purchased for 2.3 billion. Manchester is the move highly valued sports franchise in the world and the Dodgers are right on their heals. The owners could share share a partial interest in the team to fans and retain full control as Manchester is doing. The possible parallels are interesting and might explain where this is going. Even going after Cliff Lee might make sense. The Yankees were owned by a ship builder so the ability to capture market share by owning a team was not as possible as it is when the owners sell insurance which we all need and most use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aon_Corporation

Manchester United
On June 3, 2009, it was reported that Aon had signed a four year shirt sponsorship deal with English football giant Manchester United. On June 1, 2010, Aon replaced troubled American insurance company AIG as the principal sponsor of the club. The Aon logo is prominently displayed on the front of the club's new shirts.[22]
The deal is said to be worth £80 million over four years, replacing United's deal with AIG as the most lucrative shirt deal in history at the time, but it was later equalled when Standard Chartered Bank agreed a deal with Liverpool FC to pay £20 million a year over the same period.[22​

I wonder if Guggenheim can have their own vendor business with advertisements on them? Wonder what MLB rules are for them and not just everyone.

 

Interesting that giving stupid money away to Man U was what just cost GM Marketing head Joel Ewanick his job. He agreed to pay them $18M per year for two years and then $70M per year thereafter to put the Chevy bowtie on the Man U shirts!?!

 

All of this sounds like Rollerball to me.

 

Yeah and hasn't Guggenheim prepaid for their advertising? I mean they can do it now for free, right? They don't need to sell it to themselves, now if they get a regional network can't they advertise there for free? I was thinking their own vendor business advertising their own products and it is all now prepaid.

 

You may be right, this time it is billion dollar rollerball.

 

I don't know man sounds more like Pinky and the Brain.

 

I can't say I object too much if the collateral-damage in all of this is the Dodgers, presented by Guggenheim High-Yield Corporate Funds, winning the World Series.

 

I hope you realize how close to the possible truth your statement is.

 

http://guggenheimpartners.com/services/investments/fixed-income

 

Did you know about this? I just read it and if you do please provide insight. I know you knew about the sponsorship deal but did you know they dropped the Super Bowl for it?

http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/guns/whats-it-worth/gm-drops-nfl-supports-manchester-united-0

http://www.businessinsider.com/repo...ited-sponsorship-without-knowing-price-2012-7

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-gm-signed-300-million-manchester-united-sponsorship-without-knowing-price-2012-7#ixzz23BGUTdR7

It says July 31, 2012.

 

I'd read another autoweek type review of this a bit ago that described a marketing flunkie under Ewanick ran to CEO Akerson and explained ManU deal details that Ewanick hadn't revealed under direct questions. But Ewanick had the rep of being a loose cannon long before that and Akerson is a by-the-book type... so culture clash abrasion has been building at GM.

Was it lack of productivity? GM's success in American buyers eyes was shaped many years before Joel Ewanick game to GM so that rings hollow. Crap cars are not turned into polished turds by some slick marketeer in 26 months.

More likely it was Akerson busting him over the ManU deal as cover for GM ridding itself of a loose cannon?

 

And the reasoning used is that the Super bowl draws 100M-120M viewers whereas ManU draws 1.2B viewers globally. Chevy is trying hard to build it's global brand and this made sense on certain levels but not at those prices.

And those are OUR tax dollars paying Limeys instead of Americans!

 

BINGO! Soccer is THE most followed game on the planet, played almost year round vs the SB which is a once a year event. With the Jersey ad technique (not that Im in favor of, and btw, here comes the NBA with the same crap) you get even more ads, with kids and fans proudly wearing your logo everywhere.

Sorry T, but this thread is the biggest "conspiracy theory" thread I've seen... why would they buy the team if they just want to push ads and have players as corporate speakers? they could align with Frank and give him a "cash injection" to get that done... how about doing it with the Mets, who have been said to be looking for minority owners... there's no reason for them to take over the complete team operation and all the hassle that comes with it...

I dont think they bought the team to play with it as their little league toys, they surely are here for the money, but for the money the team generates as the team, not to do cross branding take advantage to sell more insurance... there's easier ways to get that done...

 

Their philosophy is that all money is good money so long as you're getting more than the next guy. Guggenheim knows that and intends to be creative is tapping all sorts of Dodger related revenue streams that we might not recognize at first.

 

Not sure you are a shareholder of any company but any CEO that is not trying to maximize profits is in danger of being very ineffective. Do you really think any insurance company isnt trying to increase their income stream? That is the nature of business. Buy the team because the love the game sure. Pay 2.2 billion without going through the auction for the love of the game? Nah. I wouldn't invest in them if thats the case.

 

Guggenheim partners is a private company but let share some otheir post economic meltdown activities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Partners

Can you imagine three years of us rocking and them going public like Glazer who owns two sports teams did with Man U? That could raise some cash and personal profit for them.

 

Guggenheim wants to become an investment bank and the acquisiton of the Dodgers would become part of their holdings. Guggenheim is more that insurance they are a major investment company with etfs and mutual funds etc.
http://www.guggenheimfunds.com/

Not a conspiracy theory but just normal financial analysis. Tis a very good thing for their business model and those profiting from.

 

I shared some things to help folks realize the extent of what Guggenheim does and has done and the expansion of operations they are undertaking.

 

I dont know... I thonk there's many other ways to maximize revenue that buying a baseball team and dealing with all the drama and regulations the MLB has for the teams and how they are managed. Im not saying its for the love of the game, it is about money, but not like you are presenting it.