Thom Loverro - Angelos boys will not be allowed to own Orioles

[Rojo13]

1 hour ago, weams said:

 

Fake news. Britton only had 2 walks today.

[spiritof66]

7 minutes ago, Rojo13 said:

Fake news. Britton only had 2 walks today.

And a double and a single. The second walk forced in a run.

[TradeAngelos]

Peter Angelos can do whatever the heck he wants with HIS team, including letting his sons take over. What are they even talking about LOL? 

[gtown]

I heard it too this morning. He was claiming that the MASN dispute was ruining two franchises. He insisted that there is no way the Angelos sons would ever own the team but that just seems like a bizarre claim to me.

[Nevermore]

1 hour ago, Chavez Ravine said:

He needs to keep it together enough so that they use him in a Big Time leverage situation.

I don't get the idea that Zach will be a Yankee after the season is over. He's a FA at the end of the season. He was quoted in the Sun that he wasn't happy about having to leave the Orioles.  I'm not saying that he'll resign with the Orioles after he becomes a FA or that Orioles management should pursue him. He's going to find a contending team that needs a closer and whose home fans don't boo their own players after less than a week. It would be nice if Zach would rejoin the Orioles later on, after the rebuild.

[Satyr3206]

2 hours ago, gtown said:

I heard it too this morning. He was claiming that the MASN dispute was ruining two franchises. He insisted that there is no way the Angelos sons would ever own the team but that just seems like a bizarre claim to me.

Sounds like someone looking for a little attention. He ought to read a little. Research is a good thing.

[orioles119]

1 hour ago, Satyr3206 said:

Sounds like someone looking for a little attention. He ought to read a little. Research is a good thing.

Who does research in the age of Twitter?

[InsideCoroner]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

He can be the hatchet man like Jeter is for the Marlins!

Sorry Brooks, but you have to go.

We’re also replacing Boog’s with Beltre’s Barbeque.

[weams]

They are not boys. Not. Boys.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

Peter Angelos can do whatever the heck he wants with HIS team, including letting his sons take over. What are they even talking about LOL? 

Every team has a controlling person allowed to make decisions for that team.    That person has to be approved by MLB.   It’s in MLB’s bylaws.  

For the record, I think Loverro is speculating, not reporting.   

[weams]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Every team has a controlling person allowed to make decisions for that team.    That person has to be approved by MLB.   It’s in MLB’s bylaws.  

For the record, I think Loverro is speculating, not reporting.   

Absolutely Thanks. 

[O's84]

10 hours ago, weams said:

 

Zach is trying to help us get the #1 pick!

[Satyr3206]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Every team has a controlling person allowed to make decisions for that team.    That person has to be approved by MLB.   It’s in MLB’s bylaws.  

For the record, I think Loverro is speculating, not reporting.   

They also have to have a fair amount of money ready. I doubt the Commissioners Office will be very helpful.

[Satyr3206]

4 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

They also have to have a fair amount of money ready. I doubt the Commissioners Office will be very helpful.

The MASN Settlement might be the biggest hurdle.

[spiritof66]

I've posted at length on this subject. There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread, and I'll try to correct some of them.

Every MLB owner (or group of owners) owns a franchise subject to the MLB constitution (link below). Peter Angelos owns a controlling interest in the Orioles, something like 80 to 90 percent. I am virtually certain there's no joint ownership with his wife and no trust or other complex device involved.

Under Article V, Section 2(b) (on pages 7 and 8 of the constitution) an owner does not have the right to transfer his controlling interest in a franchise. If Angelos transfers his interest in the Orioles, whether by selling it or by having his will or testamentary trust bequeath it to his widow, his sons or anyone else, that transfer requires the approval of 3/4 of MLB teams (the Orioles and 22 others), or a majority (the Orioles and 15 others) for a transfer upon his death to his widow or son(s).

I have explained at length in other posts why I believe there's a very good chance the owners, with the encouragement of MLB, will not approve a transfer to another Angelos. MLB wants a few principal things in an owner: (1) a willingness to go along with the majority view, without challenging the status quo or rocking the boat (especially in public), (2) financial strength to fund the franchise, even if there's a financial turndown in MLB's fortunes. and (3) the avoidance of "distressed" franchises like those in Tampa and Oakland (or any other problems with the transferred franchise that might lead to a relocation or undercut the value of other teams). 

Proposed ownership by another Angelos would not do well by any of these criteria.

Peter Angelos has been a difficult and at times publicly obstreperous member of the owners' club. He has criticized MLB positions and practices, opposed the moving of the Expos to Washington and threatened to sue over it, and did sue MLB over the arbitration award in the rights fee dispute (and there's been plenty of name-calling in connection with that dispute). I believe there's plenty of genuine animosity between Angelos and the Commissioner (as there was with his revered predecessor). Why would the owners or MLB believe his sons would be very different? 

The inheriting Angeloses would be in a cash-poor situation, with a team whose cash generation from ticket sales and MASN is diminishing relative to other teams'. To be brief, Peter Angelos's estate will need to come up with what I estimated to be something like $500 million (the figure is from memory) to pay federal and Maryland estate taxes, leaving the Orioles with very limited working capital to build a successful team -- including increased investment in an international infrastructure, the front office and scouting -- in MLB's most challenging environment. If Angelos were to leave the team to his widow, those estate taxes would be deferred until after her death, but that would only put off the problem, not solve it, while putting ownership in the hands of someone with no business experience at all, so far I'm aware. (When I looked into this, I was unable to find anything about her age or health.)

The crappy on-field performance of Peter Angelos's team, and his transparent failure to invest adequately in the future of the franchise, have undermined the strength of the Baltimore franchise. MLB and the other owners don't want to see that franchise fail to thrive financially, have to move out of an established MLB city and desert one of the game's best facilities, or sell at a fire-sale price. (While I still tend to think of Baltimore as a "new" MLB city, at age 64 it's #6 in AL longevity. Cue up Paul McCartney and his pals.) I would guess that in the 25 years that Angelos has owned the team, the term "laughingstock" has been applied to the Orioles more than to any other franchise. If I were an owner, I would look at a proposed transfer to another Angelos as a further step in an erosion of the franchise's stability, an unhealthy development for the value of my own asset.

Each of these factors -- and there are probably more -- provides a logical reason for 15 or more owners to turn down a proposed transfer of the Orioles within the Angelos family. And under the MLB constitution they don't need to have any reason at all. There have been posts (including one in this thread) suggesting that the Angeloses would have a claim for damages against someone (MLB? The owners? The Commissioner?) if the owners turned down an inter-Angelos transfer, but so far as I'm aware nobody ever has explained what that claim might be. Having spent a chunk of my adult life thinking about contract provisions similar to the governing provision in the MLB constitution, I can't imagine what that would be -- unless the transfer could be said to have been turned down on the basis of unlawful discrimination (on grounds like race, gender or national origin) or there's some quirk of Maryland law I'm not aware of. And I don't think a vague threat that an Angelos might sue them for doing something they're entitled to do will deter the other owners from doing what they want to do.

Obviously, I don't know whether the owners would approve of a transfer of the Orioles to another Angelos. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that MLB has prepared a dossier documenting Peter Angelos's transgressions, or that, as reports of Angelos's declining health circulate, the Commissioner, his MLB minyans or one or more owners are preparing for a request to approve a transfer to a family member(s) and for their opposition to that request. They may be lining up their votes, or may already have their 15 votes and are just waiting for nature to run its course.

http://www.law.uh.edu/assignments/summer2009/25691-b.pdf