Best owner ever?

Semantics. I think we all know what he was talking about.

Illogical. That better?

 

I thought I was pretty clear when I said that turning a profit could be Number 2 on your list. I'm not dismissing it's importance, just saying that it shouldn't be the primary factor for ownership groups.

All I am trying to say is sports fans, at least rational ones, will be OK if you don't win every year. It is hard to win, let alone consistently. As long as you show a clear commitment to winning, that's all a sports fan can ask for out of an owner. And that is what this thread is all about. The best owners.

Generally, especially in the major sports leagues, if you win, profit comes with it. And my biggest problem is owners who look at that, realize they can take the salary dump route every year, take small to no risk, and still make more money in the end. And then they choose to take that route. Winning, generally, doesn't even enter the equation. And you are buying into a product that is judged on wins and losses.

 

Oh, you were clear. Wrong, but clear.

 

YES he did.

Look, there's a lot of bad things you can say about George Steinbrenner, but he did vastly improve the Yankees revenue flow, and the value of the brand.

Your criticisms are also off base. You can't fault Steinbrenner for the Yankees late integration.

Steinbrenner is also the guy that retired Elston Howard's number, and always included him in the Pantheon of Yankees.

One of Steinbrenner's top aids for many years, Sonny Hight, is African-American. He hired Bob Watson as GM. Debbie Tyman has run the Yankees marketing, and been a top lieutenant for years. Steinbrenner hired Kim Ng as an assistant GM.

I'm not sure you can fault them for being "slow to embrace stadium improvements and enhancement," either. They played in an old stadium.

And, the lack of "fan promotions" meant the focus was on the field.

The Yankees brand is so strong because of things like a lack of a third jersey, names on the back of the jersey, and other things that take away from the Yankees brand.

The Yankees don't have a naming rights deal for their stadium. They play in Yankee Stadium. That's important for their brand.

Yet, their 1997 deal with Adidas was groundbreaking, and brought in more money than most teams naming rights deals.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/03/sports/yankees-and-adidas-agree-on-a-big-sponsorship-deal.html

 

To me, the smart way to operate a sports franchise in the current economic climate is to reinvest at a break-even level year over year then sit back and watch the franchise value grow at obscene rates. Owners trying to squeeze out big annual profits and paying themselves and their families huge salaries is short-sighted and annoying.

 

I wouldn't use "give" when it comes to Eddie D. handing the 49ers over to the Dorks ... more of a shotgun wedding after his legal troubles in Louisiana.

As for owners in San Francisco, I think Peter Macgowan needs to be mentioned. Saved National League baseball for Northern California and built now-AT&T Park without raping and pillaging civic coffers. Picking up Barry Bonds at his first winter meetings was brilliant as well ... but in retrospect, it may have marked the start of the Steroid Era.

 

I would make the case that NOT allowing the Yankees to engage in the short-term gimmickry of alternate uniforms and hats and logos and naming rights of the last couple decades was genius in itself. Steinbrenner correctly focused on the Yankees' brand.

 

I would agree, and I despise the Patriots. Plus (like the Colts) you seldom hear of any NEP players getting in trouble.

And I would concur on Macgowan and the SF Giants. Taxpayers in the Bay Area should be up in arms asking themselves how he could build a stadium with private funds but the 49ers can't.

 

Oh, shit. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

There are many things to dislike about Steinbrenner, but when it comes to providing news for those of us in the business -- good news or bad news -- he ranks quite high, and that can't be denied.

 

100%.

 

Right, if Bonds had stayed in Pittsburgh or never played another game there would have been no steroid era in baseball. Probably no Balco as well.