Polian kinda blasted Dundon yesterday, and then was nothing but kind this morning. Kind of made me think Polian got something promised to him in the span of a day.
Dundon: AAF Could Fold without NFLPA Support
- Thread starter GindyDraws
- Start date
Brock Anton
flames #badnwagon
Somehow, everyone involved in the AAF have made Vince McMahon look like the sane one here.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
He's a sports reporter. This is a tech story that literally every sports reporter is getting wrong, because they know literally nothing about the tech angle and don't give a shit about it.
- Dec 6, 2011
- 12,873
- 41,762
Again, the source doesn't have to be correct, and it doesn't mean that Dundon won't be in a position to fight it no matter what the source thinks it knows. Sources may have agendas as well.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
And hey, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm also comfortable saying that I know more about this particular world than 99% of sports reporters do.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
There is literally no way that Dundon spent $70m dollars without knowing his downside going in. It's absurd to think otherwise.
He got value for this deal. He got assets of some kind, guaranteed. Now, will those assets be worth $70m in the end? No way to know now... but to assume that the shitty football was the actual asset is just lazy reporting from guys who don't know any better.
I've seen who the actual investors are, and it took me 2 seconds to find, once I knew where to look.
He got value for this deal. He got assets of some kind, guaranteed. Now, will those assets be worth $70m in the end? No way to know now... but to assume that the shitty football was the actual asset is just lazy reporting from guys who don't know any better.
I've seen who the actual investors are, and it took me 2 seconds to find, once I knew where to look.
BrindAmours Army
JFW
- Dec 30, 2013
- 1,932
- 2,955
I mean, the software is owned by the business. Assuming Dundon's investment got him a controlling interest in the business, there isn't much that they could do to keep the software from him. Granted, he would still have a duty to the other shareholders, but business assets are business assets.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
Yes. Exactly this. He's the Chairman of the Board and the primary shareholder, and he's pivoting the company. Period.
Ahoy there
Always in control of my stick
We don't know the structure of it. As this appears to be the impetus for the league itself apparently, no way they tie the real jewel to the packaging. Stick the tech in its own company and the aaf pays for licensing rights to use. Now it's not a business asset.
BrindAmours Army
JFW
- Dec 30, 2013
- 1,932
- 2,955
Eh. The AAF has all the devs, while what you're suggesting is possible, the facts don't suggest it.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
I mean, believe what you want, but the way you get rich is by knowing how to value assets. If you want to think that Dundon was stupid enough to spend $70m on nothing, feel free to believe that.
Well aaaakchawly.....license rights ARE business assets....given that none of us know the various structures of the businesses nor the terms of a potential license, one has to assume the billionaire investor knew a bit more about what he was getting for his investment. There's no way he sunk money into this deal without guarantees and/or rights to assets as some sort of collateral.
TheBigKahuna
Registered User
The scoop I have: Dundon now owns truckloads of football equipment, and is about to make a killing at Play It Again Sports.
CandyCanes
Caniac turned Jerkiac
- Jan 8, 2015
- 7,667
- 26,725
Finnish Jerk Train
lol stupid mickey mouse organization
There's very little substance to that article. All it says is that he can't kick everyone else out and run off with the tech. That doesn't mean he only bought in for the football or that he can't make money from developing and licensing the product.
If Berkshire Hathaway buys a 51% stake in an airline, Warren Buffett gets to steer as many of the business decisions as he wants. In practice, he usually has the good sense to let the people who know the business run the business, even when he owns the entire company. But he can overrule them if he wants. He could wake up one day and decide the airline would be better off leasing all of the planes to other airlines instead of flying them themselves. The minority shareholders might scream bloody murder, but they wouldn't be able to stop him.
Similarly, Dundon probably decided, over Polian and Ebersol's wishes, that there was a better way to make money off of the technology than by continuing to run the football league.
In the airline example, I suppose Buffett could also make the airline sell all of the planes to an entity he owns 100% for whatever price he feels is appropriate (lawsuits notwithstanding). But it sounds like there are mechanisms of some kind to prevent Dundon from doing something similar with the AAF's technology. Probably something like a transfer of ownership of the technology requires a supermajority of the voting shares or unanimous approval.
Maybe these guys legitimately wanted to build a feeder league for the NFL. They certainly got a good number of football guys on board. But what they're really betting on is the potential for the technology: Ebersol is on record as saying "we're a tech company that owns a football league." That tells me what their priorities really are, and as far as we know, the original owners still own 49% of the profits, losses, and capital transactions. They just needed a money guy to keep it afloat, and they put one in charge who has a different vision than they have.
If Berkshire Hathaway buys a 51% stake in an airline, Warren Buffett gets to steer as many of the business decisions as he wants. In practice, he usually has the good sense to let the people who know the business run the business, even when he owns the entire company. But he can overrule them if he wants. He could wake up one day and decide the airline would be better off leasing all of the planes to other airlines instead of flying them themselves. The minority shareholders might scream bloody murder, but they wouldn't be able to stop him.
Similarly, Dundon probably decided, over Polian and Ebersol's wishes, that there was a better way to make money off of the technology than by continuing to run the football league.
In the airline example, I suppose Buffett could also make the airline sell all of the planes to an entity he owns 100% for whatever price he feels is appropriate (lawsuits notwithstanding). But it sounds like there are mechanisms of some kind to prevent Dundon from doing something similar with the AAF's technology. Probably something like a transfer of ownership of the technology requires a supermajority of the voting shares or unanimous approval.
Maybe these guys legitimately wanted to build a feeder league for the NFL. They certainly got a good number of football guys on board. But what they're really betting on is the potential for the technology: Ebersol is on record as saying "we're a tech company that owns a football league." That tells me what their priorities really are, and as far as we know, the original owners still own 49% of the profits, losses, and capital transactions. They just needed a money guy to keep it afloat, and they put one in charge who has a different vision than they have.
Last edited:
- Jan 17, 2018
- 3,905
- 8,696
For my graduate degree I studied the historic and systematic ways people become successful/powerful. With hindsight it is obvious that wealth and high elected office were seldom gained by those who understood value, rather they were likely to be people who ignored the other type of values.
If you watch "The Inventor" on HBO, then you know this is not really the case. "Brilliant" investors and "great" leaders put significant money and credibility behind Elizabeth Holmes. The smart people in that story were Dan Ariely, Phyllis Gardner, and John Carreyrou. Academics and journalists are the most under appreciated people in our society.
The investors (including venture funds, Betsy Devos, and Carlos Slim) and leaders (Schultz, Kissinger) did not know more about what they were getting.
Some have mentioned the "Billions" character Axe. Characters on screen are much more intelligent than their counterparts in real life. If you need proof watch one episode of "The West Wing" and then listen to "Bag Man" about the actual vice president. Agnew sounds like you and me--because powerful people are like you and me just greedier or more ambitious.
I will admit that some nerdy folks become extremely wealthy--Gates, Wozniak, and their kind. But history is replete with stories of folks becoming wealthy/powerful despite not being the smartest person in the room.
For every Elizabeth Holmes, there are dozens of Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs. Also, in the venture world they are winners if something like 1 or 2 out of ten of their portfolio companies are hits. Sure, there's smart money and dumb money....but investors like Kleiner Perskins, Benchmark, Sequoia, Bessemer, etc. do their due diligence, still make a few spectacular mistakes, but win significantly, because they know what they're getting themselves into.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
Okay.
Counterpoint: I've been on executive teams in multiple tech startups, and I've been in board meetings with VCs where these exact kinds of discussions are going on. Those dudes were some of the smartest people I've ever met -- intimidatingly so. And I like to think I'm pretty smart.
You want to say they're "ignoring those types of values?" I won't give you a strong argument there one way or the other. But if you think that most rich people are stupid, it just tells me that you haven't met many rich people.
- Jan 17, 2018
- 3,905
- 8,696
Never said rich people were stupid--but they get much too much credit for being smart.
I know one billionaire personally. He is nowhere as smart as the professors who I worked with in graduate school. The merely millionaires I know are very well versed in what they do, but again not exceptional when thinking about things outside their business interest.
What bothers me is that when you do in fact study history, people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Hughes, et. al. come across as quite shrewd but not exceptionally intelligent (though Hughes was brilliant in some ways). But society has, and sadly still does, credit them with being as intelligent as true leaders like MLK, Jeannette Rankin, or Jonas Salk.
Again, I never said anyone was stupid. But if you watch "The Inventor" it is evident that people who valued insight above profit were not fooled--that can't be said for any of the people who wanted a cut of the profits.
Navin R Slavin
Fifth line center
None of that is at issue.
What's at issue: does a successful investor typically know what he's investing in?
And typically, the answer is yes. It's their business to know. Any smarts they have, they assuredly have in this particular way.
Now, if you want to argue that Dundon isn't one of the smart investors, okay, but he's got two billion dollar companies on his resume that suggest otherwise.
I won't argue morality either way.
What's at issue: does a successful investor typically know what he's investing in?
And typically, the answer is yes. It's their business to know. Any smarts they have, they assuredly have in this particular way.
Now, if you want to argue that Dundon isn't one of the smart investors, okay, but he's got two billion dollar companies on his resume that suggest otherwise.
I won't argue morality either way.
Of course I'm not sure how credible that is. I don't think you can honestly believe anything coming out at this point. It'll be a while before the whole true story comes out, it should make for a great episode of 30 for 30 someday.
- Dec 6, 2011
- 12,873
- 41,762
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Boxing: All boxing discussion- Latest: The Marquis
-
Player Discussion VIDEO: Swayman/Sweeney Following Contract Extension- Latest: Dennis Bonvie
