This is what happens when your owner dies.

[spiritof66]

41 minutes ago, Beetlejuice said:

Probably not much.  I'm sure buying into a successful professional league is like buying a new house.  Builders contracts are one sided. 

The recent purchasers of MLB franchises have tons of money.  MLB is deathly afraid of having a franchise exposed to financial distress if its owner faces a downturn or, in the worst case, having a team get caught up in a bankruptcy proceeding (as happened with the Orioles in the 90s). Here's then-Commissioner Selig a few years ago: "The most important thing we do is bringing in new owners, so we have really become very fastidious about whether people can [financially] make it."

I have a lot of doubt as to whether, if Peter Angelos tried to pass the team on to his sons, they would pass muster with MLB's owners.  And I am real doubtful that they could do anything about it. 

 

[Lt Melmo]

I haven't posted in a while and I don't plan on starting up again, I just wanted to chime in to say this is one of the more ridiculous thread concepts I've ever seen.

[spiritof66]

On 7/28/2017 at 2:58 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Not sure they have the power to stop them.

Do inheritors have to go through the same approval process?

I found the answer.  This is from the MLB Constitution:

The vote of three-fourths of the Major League Clubs shall be required for the approval of any of the following:

. . . 

(2) The sale or transfer of a control interest in any Club; provided, however, that a majority vote of all Major League Clubs shall be sufficient to approve any such sale or transfer occurring upon the death of an owner to a spouse or one or more lineal descendants. For purposes hereof, the term "control" shall mean the possession by the transferee, directly or indirectly, of the power or authority to influence substantially the management policies of the Club. A sale or transfer of a non-control interest in any Club shall require only the approval of the Commissioner;

[Beetlejuice]

On 7/31/2017 at 7:37 PM, spiritof66 said:

I found the answer.  This is from the MLB Constitution:

The vote of three-fourths of the Major League Clubs shall be required for the approval of any of the following:

. . . 

(2) The sale or transfer of a control interest in any Club; provided, however, that a majority vote of all Major League Clubs shall be sufficient to approve any such sale or transfer occurring upon the death of an owner to a spouse or one or more lineal descendants. For purposes hereof, the term "control" shall mean the possession by the transferee, directly or indirectly, of the power or authority to influence substantially the management policies of the Club. A sale or transfer of a non-control interest in any Club shall require only the approval of the Commissioner;

And if anyone thinks the Angelos could successfully sue if such a vote fails to approve Angelos (Angelosi?), think again.  Even if they can prove the vote was payback, the text doesn't leave any wiggle room.  I doubt a lawsuit whose goal was to draw things out would be successful.

[MDtransplant757]

On 7/29/2017 at 11:22 AM, Deadwood Fan said:

Larry Young Morning Show speculated this week that Angelos may be selling the team and Plank is the highest bidder. 

Oh please Jesus, let this happen. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Beetlejuice said:

And if anyone thinks the Angelos could successfully sue if such a vote fails to approve Angelos (Angelosi?), think again.  Even if they can prove the vote was payback, the text doesn't leave any wiggle room.  I doubt a lawsuit whose goal was to draw things out would be successful.

I can't say what the Angelos sons would do.    The father would sue them, I have no doubt.    But he'll be dead, and I don't know if his sons have the same mentality as their old man.

[Ohfan67]

On 7/31/2017 at 6:06 PM, spiritof66 said:

The recent purchasers of MLB franchises have tons of money.  MLB is deathly afraid of having a franchise exposed to financial distress if its owner faces a downturn or, in the worst case, having a team get caught up in a bankruptcy proceeding (as happened with the Orioles in the 90s). Here's then-Commissioner Selig a few years ago: "The most important thing we do is bringing in new owners, so we have really become very fastidious about whether people can [financially] make it."

I have a lot of doubt as to whether, if Peter Angelos tried to pass the team on to his sons, they would pass muster with MLB's owners.  And I am real doubtful that they could do anything about it. 

 

 WHAT????? The family owns the team now and the team is not in financial stress. How does changing "Peter" from managing owner to "John" change anything? There is zero chance that the MLB is going to block John Angelos from being the managing partner of the ownership group. Major league baseball is run by the owners. Many if not all of them want the option of passing their teams to their families. They are not going to try to block an owner from doing that unless there are incredibly extraordinary circumstances. This is not going to happen with the Angelos'. 

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

 WHAT????? The family owns the team now and the team is not in financial stress. How does changing "Peter" from managing owner to "John" change anything? There is zero chance that the MLB is going to block John Angelos from being the managing partner of the ownership group. Major league baseball is run by the owners. Many if not all of them want the option of passing their teams to their families. They are not going to try to block an owner from doing that unless there are incredibly extraordinary circumstances. This is not going to happen with the Angelos'. 

The short answer is that under current law, changing from "Peter" to "John" will cost a minimum of $500 million in estate taxes ( in gift taxes if the transfer is made during Peter's lifetime) and probably much more. Slightly longer answer involves how MLB looks at team owners now, and the fact that while Peter had, and I guess still has, a substantial source of income outside of baseball, as far as I can tell, John does not.

I'll try to explain this more fully in a later post, but I am virtually certain that, after paying estate taxes, the Angeloses will not have anhywhere near the financial resources that MLB requires of its owners. That would probably be true even if estate taxes are lower at the time of Peter's death or transfer.

 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

The short answer is that under current law, changing from "Peter" to "John" will cost a minimum of $500 million in estate taxes ( in gift taxes if the transfer is made during Peter's lifetime) and probably much more. Slightly longer answer involves how MLB looks at team owners now, and the fact that while Peter had, and I guess still has, a substantial source of income outside of baseball, as far as I can tell, John does not.

I'll try to explain this more fully in a later post, but I am virtually certain that, after paying estate taxes, the Angeloses will not have anhywhere near the financial resources that MLB requires of its owners. That would probably be true even if estate taxes are lower at the time of Peter's death or transfer.

 

I'm pretty ignorant on this topic, but it partly depends on how much debt the team is encumbered with.     It's worth about 6-7 times what Peter paid for it.

[Ohfan67]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

The short answer is that under current law, changing from "Peter" to "John" will cost a minimum of $500 million in estate taxes ( in gift taxes if the transfer is made during Peter's lifetime) and probably much more. Slightly longer answer involves how MLB looks at team owners now, and the fact that while Peter had, and I guess still has, a substantial source of income outside of baseball, as far as I can tell, John does not.

I'll try to explain this more fully in a later post, but I am virtually certain that, after paying estate taxes, the Angeloses will not have anhywhere near the financial resources that MLB requires of its owners. That would probably be true even if estate taxes are lower at the time of Peter's death or transfer.

 

Oh I believe the family may sell the team for tax reasons, sure, but no way do the other owners block the transfer of the team to the kids. There's zero financial risk because the kids are not borrowing money to purchase the team. I do not believe that MLB can or will try to impose those rules in this situation. It is not a team sale. And many owners want the option of keeping their teams in the family. They circle the wagons when it's time to protect owner rights. 

 

There are are no requirements for owners. There are requirements for purchasers. 

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

Oh I believe the family may sell the team for tax reasons, sure, but no way do the other owners block the transfer of the team to the kids. There's zero financial risk because the kids are not borrowing money to purchase the team. I do not believe that MLB can or will try to impose those rules in this situation. It is not a team sale. And many owners want the option of keeping their teams in the family. They circle the wagons when it's time to protect owner rights. 

 

There are are no requirements for owners. There are requirements for purchasers. 

I think teams are required to keep a certain debt to equity ratio.    Therefore, if the Angelos family had to borrow against the value of the team to pay the estate taxes they could have difficulty making that ratio, and then the other owners would have something to think about.  

[spiritof66]

3 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

Oh I believe the family may sell the team for tax reasons, sure, but no way do the other owners block the transfer of the team to the kids. There's zero financial risk because the kids are not borrowing money to purchase the team. I do not believe that MLB can or will try to impose those rules in this situation. It is not a team sale. And many owners want the option of keeping their teams in the family. They circle the wagons when it's time to protect owner rights. 

 

There are are no requirements for owners. There are requirements for purchasers. 

You're right. By "owners," I meant new owners, which is what we're talking about here. FWIW, I think it's unlikely Peter Angelos would be approved if he tried to buy the team today -- not wealthy enough.

[Larry18]

I think Mr. Angelos would know how to set up a proper trust fund to deal with the requisite tax burdens.

[Nevermore]

My parents recently died. As for how they split up their money, my father made out an irrevocable trust for his 3 children when we were young. This trust split everything up equally 3 ways.  They had some means but not nearly as much as the Angeloses.  Whichever of the Angelos children get what depends on how Peter Angelos' s will is made up (I trust that he has a will).  Peter has made a ton of money off of  the asbestos lawsuits. He's still making significant money from his law practice. Depending on how he has written his will, his children will inherit the practice once he retires or he dies. My understanding is that his son John is already working on the practice. The children will inherit the Orioles as well. As long as the Angeloses and their asset, the Baltimore Orioles haven't gone through bankruptcy  MLB won't interfere.

[Beetlejuice]

On 8/5/2017 at 10:32 AM, Ohfan67 said:

 WHAT????? The family owns the team now and the team is not in financial stress. How does changing "Peter" from managing owner to "John" change anything? There is zero chance that the MLB is going to block John Angelos from being the managing partner of the ownership group. Major league baseball is run by the owners. Many if not all of them want the option of passing their teams to their families. They are not going to try to block an owner from doing that unless there are incredibly extraordinary circumstances. This is not going to happen with the Angelos'. 

What, the singular MLB?  The owners each have a vote.  If they are wary of young Angelos becoming the father, or merely as an act of revenge or to serve as a warning, they are going to vote how they want.  Yeah, I could see a lot of them wanting some payback for airing their dirty laundry in public.