Sockers Find Arena Is Benefactor : Team Got $100,000 to Cover Cash-Flow Problem This Year

The San Diego Sports Arena advanced the Sockers approximately $100,000 this year in order to help the club better handle its cash-flow problem, according to Bob Bell, the club’s managing general partner.

“Because of the screwiness of our schedule,” Bell said, “I went to the people at the Sports Arena in late December and asked if they could not take rent out at some times and allow us to catch up on it at other times. We were in a hole for cash flow. The arena was nice enough to cooperate. As of now, I think our account is about even.”

The Sockers played five home games from Jan. 11 through Jan. 25 and only one home game between Feb. 15 and March 12, creating periods of time when payrolls had to be met without corresponding income.

Primary tenants of the Sports Arena, the Sockers pay about $15,000 to $17,000 per game in rent and arena costs, according to Bell. The money loaned from the Sports Arena to the Sockers was advanced against concession revenue.

“We have helped the Sockers in a lot of ways,” said Vincent Ciruzzi, president of the Sports Arena and chief executive officer of San Diego Entertainment Inc., which operates the facility. “The Sports Arena has done whatever we can to be of assistance to him (Bell). We’ve tried to help him get through the season. It’s a sensitive, embarrassing area. I prefer the information and details to come from Bob Bell rather than us.”

In another matter which accentuates the Sockers’ negative financial position, Bell was told he had to come up with $300,000 by mid-April or face the possibility of being voted out as the general managing partner by limited partners who are upset that they are continually asked for more money without receiving a cent of profit.

“A number of the limited partners are very irritated with the slow, bad financial news,” said Ron Fowler, a limited partner of the Sockers and president of Liquid Investments. “We thought we had full disclosure, but we didn’t. What we were originally shown was not very realistic. Bob is overly optimistic and not a realist. He is a cock-eyed optimist. The more financial information we get, the more negative it is.”

After the original 12 limited partners--lured by a substantial tax write-off and the involvement with a sports team--invested a total of $1.8 million, Bell asked them for more money to keep the club afloat. Some of the limited partners fronted Bell money to meet his payroll last summer, and 80% of the limited partners put up a total of $800,000 last November. Bell said he needed another $300,000 to keep the team going. This time, the limited partners told him to find it elsewhere. Bell was given permission by his limited partners to find new partners who would put up the $300,000.

Late Monday afternoon, Bell said the two limited partners who joined the Sockers in January have invested $300,000.

“I think one contributed $120,000 and the other $180,000,” Bell said. Bell would not disclose the names of the two new partners.

Bell said he does not believe he is in danger of being ousted as the Sockers’ managing general partner. But if his partners don’t want him to run the team, he will get out.

“I’m a sensitive guy,” Bell said, “and if I knew my limited partners didn’t want me to run the club, I’d probably resign.”

Bell owned 95% of the club when he bought out three investors in 1980, but he now owns only 17.5%. His three other general partners own a total of 7.5%, his 14 limited partners own 72% (unequal shares) and Carl Berg--former owner of the Golden Bay Earthquakes--has a share as a limited partner and an additional 3%. Berg received that 3% from Bell in lieu of cash when the Sockers bought Steve Zungul, Branko Segota and Fernando Clavijo from the Earthquakes before the 1984-85 indoor season.

Since Bell became a minority owner of the Las Vegas Quicksilvers in 1977 (who became the San Diego Sockers in 1978), he said he has lost $9 million. Bell, a highly successful commodities and financial adviser, devoted himself entirely to the running of the Sockers following the 1980 season.

Thus, his five-year plan began. Artistically, the Sockers have been a great success. Financially, they have been a constant struggle for Bell.

The Sockers were $2 million in debt when they finally got out of the unprofitable outdoor game following the 1984 season. The Sockers actually made money during the 1984-85 season. And depending on how far the Sockers advance in the playoffs, they have a chance to turn a profit this season.

However, the club is still in debt.

“Bell is operating from hand-to-mouth,” one of the partners said. “He’s a man who got himself in trouble because of poor financial judgment.”

Fowler said the limited and general partners will probably put off their mid-April meeting until after the Sockers win their fifth straight indoor title or are eliminated from the playoffs.