Kansas City businessman buys Indians minority interest, perhaps putting Cleveland franchise at risk (Baltimore: lease)

[WRnative]

John Sherman will become the new Indians vice chairman.

John Sherman joins Cleveland Indians as vice chairman and minority ownership partner | cleveland.com

If Sherman holds a right of first refusal if the Dolans ever decide to sell, Sherman may relocate the franchise to another city, perhaps pocketing a sizable windfall, either because the market is better, or because of incentives (think Art Modell).

[TBideon]

I suppose that's possible, but so is a moon-sized asteroid hitting the planet next week. Why worry about hypotheticals unless there's reason for concern.

[Natural510]

There's nowhere for the Indians to move that is better than Cleveland. Take it from an A's fan who's dealt with relocation rumors for 20+ years.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Natural510

There's nowhere for the Indians to move that is better than Cleveland. Take it from an A's fan who's dealt with relocation rumors for 20+ years.

My initial thought too. If there were a great deal out there, Oakland would have taken it years ago. Baseball is not an easy sport to transport somewhere else.

[PerryMason614]

Attendance is pathetic, though. Especially with them winning. Maybe the Indians need to go to the National Leage so they can be playing Pittsburgh all the time.

[TheProf]

The Dolans have repeatedly said they don't want to sell. They need fresh, outside money. Until today, the Indians were one of the few teams controlled by 1 family, and the Dolans have owned the team since 2000. The team is under a lease at Progressive Field. Also, although attendance has been paltry, Indians TV ratings are higher than most teams. The idea of the Dolans selling outright to Sherman and, then, him moving the team is far fetched.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Especially in smaller markets, higher attendance comes with consistent winning because consistent winners sell season tickets. This is something the Indians haven't done in 15 years. If you need proof, go to baseball-almanac.com you'll see that attendance has trended in lock-step with winning percentage. Last year, the Indians drew ~1.4 million -- a figure that will be eclipsed by Labor Day this year. The reason why is no mystery. Either way, in the modern era, TV revenue is just as important as attendance revenue. The Indians typically rank in the top 5 in terms of viewership (households per game). At 90,000+ per game, they nearly triple the viewership of bottom tier teams like San Diego and Oakland. Make them the Charlotte Indians and see what happens to that.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by TheProf

The Dolans have repeatedly said they don't want to sell. They need fresh, outside money. Until today, the Indians were one of the few teams controlled by 1 family, and the Dolans have owned the team since 2000. The team is under a lease at Progressive Field. Also, although attendance has been paltry, Indians TV ratings are higher than most teams. The idea of the Dolans selling outright to Sherman and, then, him moving the team is far fetched.

The issue is whether or not Sherman has the right of first refusal.

Things happen. For whatever reason, the Dolans at some point may want to sell their interest in the Indians. If Sherman has the right of first refusal, they might find it difficult to shop the controlling interest to a Clevelander committed to keeping the team in Cleveland.

Who would have guessed that the Browns would move to Baltimore?

Progressive Field now is one of the older MLB stadiums.

There are several large markets with no MLB team. North Carolina and San Antonio quickly come to mind.

[bjimmy24]

But it's not even the size of the market. By this point, people already have a team they support, even if it's not a hometown team. Baseball is declining anyway. Very unfortunate, but it's true.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by WRnative

The issue is whether or not Sherman has the right of first refusal.

Things happen. For whatever reason, the Dolans at some point may want to sell their interest in the Indians. If Sherman has the right of first refusal, they might find it difficult to shop the controlling interest to a Clevelander committed to keeping the team in Cleveland.

Who would have guessed that the Browns would move to Baltimore?

Many people. It wasn't exactly a secret that Modell was in financial trouble and was looking to cash in. Combine that with a minority investor (Al Lerner) who could rid himself of his major nemesis and foster an NFL expansion effort which would make him majority partner, it was a done deal. The only thing nobody "guessed" was how severe the backlash would be not only in Cleveland but all throughout the country. The fan base of any sport does not want to see the older, storied franchises move. Try moving the Packers (i.e., the smallest market by far) and see how that goes.

Progressive Field now is one of the older MLB stadiums.

Yet, it is still one of the nicest. It's both modern and a classic at the same time just like Camden Yards. Everybody says it. It's simply a great place to watch a game.

There are several large markets with no MLB team. North Carolina and San Antonio quickly come to mind.

Charlotte (#24) and San Antonio (#37) are both smaller media markets than Cleveland (#17). And, as BJimmy said, people already know who they support. Moving a team to a huge market is not an instant recipe for success. Miami: big market (#16) + shiny new stadium + relative longevity = nobody cares. Why? Relatively few who live in Miami really identify with or care about Miami. The same goes for Charlotte and, to a lesser extent, San Antonio. People can now view any game they want. Geography is no longer a barrier due to technology. If I move to Dallas, I'm not rooting for the Rangers. I'm streaming Tribe games or getting the MLB package on DirecTV. The only time I'm heading to Arlington is when the Indians are in town.