Part 5: Synthesis, Conclusions & Implementation The Complete Analysis and Path Forward

Part 5: Synthesis, Conclusions & Implementation

The Complete Analysis and Path Forward © Randy T Gipe

Executive Summary: What We've Discovered

This five-part analysis examined the 2012 Dodgers acquisition as a case study in sports franchise real estate economics.

```

Core Findings:

• Hidden Value: $2.15B purchase included $5.7B in undervalued assets (114% upside)
• Business Model Shift: Sports franchises evolved to real estate companies over 15 years
• Execution Risk: LA challenges mean realistic returns 10-14% vs. pro forma 15-20%
• Value Distribution: 85-90% private capture vs. 10-15% public despite $1.3-2B subsidy
• Alternative Models: 50/50 split feasible while maintaining viability

```

I. Complete Synthesis

The Three-Asset Structure

Asset	2012 Value	2025 Value	Risk	Horizon
Team Operations	$1.85B	$5.0B	Moderate	Annual
Media Rights (NPV)	Implicit	$3.0B	Low	25 years
Real Estate	$300M	$2.7B	High	15-20 years
TOTAL VALUE		$10.7B	$5.7B hidden value

Key Insight: Traditional valuation focuses on team operations, treating media as revenue and real estate as fixed assets. This created a $5.7B (114%) valuation gap.

II. For Investors: Pattern Recognition

Investment Screening Criteria

Finding Similar Opportunities

```

✓ Large Urban Land Holdings:

• 50+ acres privately owned
• Central urban location (within 5 miles downtown)
• Currently underutilized (parking lots)
• Clear title (fee simple, no restrictions)

✓ Favorable Regulatory Environment:

• Mixed-use zoning in place
• Pro-development municipal government
• Manageable environmental law (not California)

✓ Guaranteed Revenue Stream:

• Long-term media deal (10+ years)
• Covers operations independently
• Enables patient capital approach

✓ Market Fundamentals:

• Growing metro with job growth
• Favorable demographics (urban-preferring millennials)
• Limited competing supply

```

Current Opportunities

Market	Land	Advantages	Challenges
Oakland Coliseum	120 acres	A's departure; transit access	Community opposition; contamination
Tampa/St. Pete	85 acres	Downtown location	Smaller market; weaker fundamentals
Texas Rangers	270 acres	Massive land bank; pro-development	Suburban; car-dependent

Critical Success Factors

1. Patient Capital (Non-Negotiable): 15-25 year horizon required. Family offices and sovereign wealth structurally advantaged.

2. Political Capacity: Financial engineering necessary but not sufficient. Need government relations and community engagement expertise.

3. Realistic Returns: Expect 10-14% IRR, not pro forma 18-22%. Still beats bonds with inflation hedge.

4. Downside Protection: Structure so team + media cover purchase price. Real estate is call option.

III. For Policymakers: Implementation Roadmap

Municipal Government Strategy

Phase 1: Preparation (Before Formal Proposal)

```

Build Capacity:

• Hire real estate expertise (not just sports consultants)
• Commission independent valuation and feasibility study
• Establish cross-departmental team
• Study San Francisco Mission Rock model

Engage Community Early:

• Begin discussions 1-2 years before proposal
• Community visioning: What would equity look like?
• Build political coalition supporting strong position

Set Parameters:

• Define minimum community benefits before negotiation
• Decide: land sale, ground lease, or equity participation?
• Establish walk-away points

```

Phase 2: Negotiation

```

Demand Transparency:

• Full financial pro formas with return assumptions
• Independent analysis of economic impact claims
• Public release of all term sheets
• 60-90 day public comment period

Value Capture Mechanisms:

• Land sale: Price at development potential value
• Ground lease: Percentage rent on revenues
• Equity: 25-35% stake in development entity
• Tax increment capture

Enhanced CBA Components:

• 25-30% affordable housing (vs. typical 15-20%)
• 40-50% local hiring construction, 30-40% permanent
• $20-25/hour living wage minimum
• $50-100M anti-displacement fund
• 10-15% public open space

Enforcement:

• Community oversight with quarterly reporting
• Financial penalties ($10K-50K/day violations)
• City right to revoke entitlements for breaches
• Annual independent audits

```

State-Level Reforms

1. Financial Transparency Act: Require franchises to disclose operating income, related-party transactions, real estate holdings, public subsidies.

2. Property Tax Reform: Close loopholes allowing transactions to avoid reassessment.

3. Community Benefit Standards: Establish minimums for developments receiving public subsidy (15-20% affordable housing floor).

4. Anti-Displacement Protections: Require impact assessments and proportional mitigation funds.

IV. For Communities: Organizing Strategy

Phase 1: Early Intelligence (Years 1-2)

```

Monitor Warning Signs:

• Ownership changes or capital raises
• Land assembly activities
• Planning studies or consultant hirings
• Pre-application meetings with city

Build Coalition:

• Tenant orgs and housing advocates
• Environmental justice groups
• Labor unions (can be allies)
• Historic preservation groups

Develop Capacity:

• Secure pro bono environmental lawyers now
• Identify friendly planners for alternative vision
• Train members in CEQA/EIR processes

```

Phase 2: Strategic Engagement (Years 2-4)

```

Dual Track:

• Track 1 - Negotiate CBA terms with developer
• Track 2 - Organize opposition, prepare litigation
• Goal: Credible threat plus path to approval

Alternative Vision:

• Don't just oppose - show what you support
• Commission community-designed alternative
• Professional renderings and plans

Core Demands:

• 30% affordable housing minimum
• 20-25% in community land trust
• Cultural center honoring history
• Priority for displaced family descendants
• $100M anti-displacement fund
• Community oversight with enforcement power

```

V. Future Outlook

Near-Term: Dodgers Timeline (2025-2033)

Likely Scenario:

• 2025-2027: Gondola resolution signals approach
• 2026-2028: Ballpark Village NOP filed
• 2028-2031: Draft EIR, negotiations, approvals
• 2031-2033: Litigation phase
• 2033+: Phase 1 construction if approved

Alternative (Partnership Approach):

• 2025-2026: Early community engagement
• 2027-2028: Pre-negotiated framework
• 2028-2030: Streamlined approval
• 2030-2032: Minimal litigation
• 2032+: Construction 1-2 years earlier

Medium-Term: Industry Impact (2030-2040)

If Current Frameworks Persist:

• 15-20 franchises pursue major developments
• $20-40B value transfer public to private
• Growing backlash triggers reform

If Alternative Frameworks Emerge:

• 50/50 split becomes baseline
• Equity participation becomes standard
• State-level benefit standards adopted
• Model for equitable development generally

VI. The Central Question

Ultimately: How should value from urban development be distributed?

Four Perspectives:

1. Private Property Rights: "Owners acquired legally, deserve full value"

Counter: Value created by public investment and location, not owner effort

2. Economic Development: "Focus on growing pie, not splitting it"

Counter: False choice - development viable at 10-12% returns with public share

3. Community Justice: "Contributors should benefit proportionally"

Counter: May discourage investment if public share too high

4. Balanced Partnership: "Align interests where all benefit"

This analysis advocates this view - 50/50 or 60/40 achieves alignment

VII. Final Assessment

The Complete Picture

```

1. Opportunity Real But Overstated: $5.7B value exists, but realistic returns 10-14% (not 15-20%) due to execution challenges.

2. Industry-Wide Transformation: Not unique to Dodgers. Pattern replicating across multiple markets and leagues.

3. Current Frameworks Inequitable: 85-90% private capture difficult to justify given $1.3-2B public contribution.

4. Alternatives Feasible: 50/50 splits achievable while maintaining viability (10-12% IRR). San Francisco proves concept.

5. Window Is Now: Next 3-5 years critical. Frameworks established now shape outcomes for decades.

```

VIII. Final Recommendations

For Dodgers Ownership

```

Partnership Approach (Recommended):

• Offer enhanced CBA proactively (25-30% affordable)
• Accept 55-65% capture vs. 85-90%
• Benefit: Faster approval (5-7 vs. 10+ years)
• Net: More absolute dollars despite lower percentage

```

For City of Los Angeles

```

Immediate Actions:

1. Commission independent feasibility study
2. Establish development review team
3. Begin community engagement now
4. Study San Francisco Mission Rock
5. Build Council consensus on minimums

Negotiating Position:

• 25-35% equity participation OR
• Ground lease with percentage rent OR
• Enhanced CBA with 30% affordable, $75-100M fund
• Developer pays 70-80% off-site infrastructure

```

For Community Organizations

```

Immediate Actions:

1. Form broad coalition across neighborhoods
2. Secure environmental legal rep now
3. Commission alternative vision
4. Build City Council relationships
5. Develop media strategy

Core Demands:

• 30% affordable housing minimum
• 20-25% community land trust
• Cultural center honoring history
• $100M anti-displacement fund
• Community oversight with authority

```

IX. Conclusion

Sports franchises have transformed from entertainment to real estate companies over 15 years, largely beneath analytical radar. The Dodgers case makes this transformation visible.

What happens in LA will shape sports development nationally. If current frameworks prevail (85-90% private capture), the pattern replicates, transferring tens of billions from public to private.

But alternative frameworks exist achieving 50/50 splits while maintaining viability. This is not about blocking development - it's about who benefits from value created.

The opportunity is designing frameworks where benefits are shared equitably among all contributors: private investors (capital/expertise), public entities (land/infrastructure), and communities (culture/cost-bearing).

This is achievable. Developers earn respectable returns (10-12%) while communities capture substantially more. The question is not economic viability but political will.

The fundamental question: Will we design 21st century frameworks reflecting equity values, or continue accepting 20th century frameworks from a different era?

The answer depends on conscious choices by specific people in specific roles over the next few years. This analysis provides the roadmap. What happens next depends on whether stakeholders demand something better than the status quo.

End of Five-Part Analysis

```

Multi-Asset Valuation in Professional Sports:
The Los Angeles Dodgers Case Study

Part 1: Multi-Asset Valuation Framework
Part 2: Business Model Evolution
Part 3A & 3B: Risk Analysis & Execution
Part 4: Value Distribution & Policy
Part 5: Synthesis & Implementation

Analysis provided for educational and policy discussion purposes.
Based on extensive research using publicly available information.
implementation requires detailed local legal, financial, and political analysis.

```