Warriors uni change and owner change

[gueman]

Am I the only one that thinks it was odd for the GS Warriors to have an logo and uni overhaul prior to a ownership change? Seems to me it was done ass backwards. Were all the groups involved consulted about what was going on with the redesign? Sorry if this was covered some place else.

[oddball]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

[gueman]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

Very good point, but I would think selling of a sports team is not an impulse decision. I would guess it was on there minds 2 years ago when the process got started. Also I would think that they could have pulled the plug at some point.

[dfwabel]

When your are never in the Top 10 for merchandise sales as a team, a chance can only get you higher up the rankings. The new owner should not mind the change at all. Winning will sell more stuff too. Cohan was never worried about that.

[Gothamite]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

Very good point, but I would think selling of a sports team is not an impulse decision. I would guess it was on there minds 2 years ago when the process got started. Also I would think that they could have pulled the plug at some point.

Two years is hardly an "impulse decision."

[gueman]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

Very good point, but I would think selling of a sports team is not an impulse decision. I would guess it was on there minds 2 years ago when the process got started. Also I would think that they could have pulled the plug at some point.

Two years is hardly an "impulse decision."

Well for clarification since I do not follow the NBA, have the Warriors been on the block for more than 2 years? If so then it would seem odd the former owners would start a logo and uniform change knowing they would be selling the team. Also sure they may have been at the bottom of merchandise sales but changing the logo and uni package, while it would increase merchandise sales, would not create a revenue stream for the prior owners.

[dfwabel]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

Very good point, but I would think selling of a sports team is not an impulse decision. I would guess it was on there minds 2 years ago when the process got started. Also I would think that they could have pulled the plug at some point.

Two years is hardly an "impulse decision."

Well for clarification since I do not follow the NBA, have the Warriors been on the block for more than 2 years? If so then it would seem odd the former owners would start a logo and uniform change knowing they would be selling the team. Also sure they may have been at the bottom of merchandise sales but changing the logo and uni package, while it would increase merchandise sales, would not create a revenue stream for the prior owners.

It's difficult to say. In July of 2009, it was reported that Chris Cohan met with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison but they were not able to agree to terms. The team did not formally retain Galatioto Sports Partners, an investment bank who has conducted other team sales, until March of this year. Chris Cohan has had issues with the IRS for tax evasion since a 2005 notice and is said to owe over $100MM in back taxes from the sale of his cable company, Sonic Communications.

[gueman]

Here's the problem that you are missing, the uniform overhaul process was begun two or more years ago before the current owners decided to sell. If they were thinking about selling back then, I don't think they would've invested any money into a brand redesign.

Very good point, but I would think selling of a sports team is not an impulse decision. I would guess it was on there minds 2 years ago when the process got started. Also I would think that they could have pulled the plug at some point.

Two years is hardly an "impulse decision."

Well for clarification since I do not follow the NBA, have the Warriors been on the block for more than 2 years? If so then it would seem odd the former owners would start a logo and uniform change knowing they would be selling the team. Also sure they may have been at the bottom of merchandise sales but changing the logo and uni package, while it would increase merchandise sales, would not create a revenue stream for the prior owners.

It's difficult to say. In July of 2009, it was reported that Chris Cohan met with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison but they were not able to agree to terms. The team did not formally retain Galatioto Sports Partners, an investment bank who has conducted other team sales, until March of this year. Chris Cohan has had issues with the IRS for tax evasion since a 2005 notice and is said to owe over $100MM in back taxes from the sale of his cable company, Sonic Communications.

So do you agree with me it is odd for them to "re-image" the team just before selling it? It isn't like painting your house to help you sell it, I doubt the "look" of a team ever affects a sale. If anything a new owner would want to put his own look to a team. If anything it is a poor business decision to spend the money, and not see a return. And that was kinda my point, why go through the process if you knew your were selling the team soon.

[dfwabel]

Not really. One can take the bump in sales which a new logo will have on sales for 12-24 months, then wait have your ideas under lock until the lease at Oracle is closer to running out and make another change. 2017 is the earliest they can bolt, but with a hefty penalty in paying off the debt service ($90M+).

[Gothamite]

Plus new uniforms frequently result in a wave of new fan interest, albeit short-lived. The team gets lots of press, they sell tons of merchandise, get talked about on ESPN, and even a bad team gets to ride the wave of attention for a little while. That attention can increase the selling price.

That makes it exactly like painting a house you're thinking about selling. Which is a win-win; either it's more attractive to potential buyers, or you don't sell it and live in a newly-painted house.