The heir apparent O's owner

[wildbillhiccup]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Probably would make good sports team owners.

Yep. Wouldn't be much of a stretch. 

[joelala]

3 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I thought the same thing. I stuck with it though and it's amazing how every member of the family is completely morally reprehensible, each in their own way. They're all truly despicable human beings. 

 

Indeed they are.  The softball scene was painful to watch; a really great piece of scene writing.  Ok, I digress, back to the Orioles!

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Probably would make good sports team owners.

Maybe they can put a bid in for the Orioles.  I have no doubt they would completely clean house

[99ct]

33 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, you are right about that.    It would be surprising to me if the partnership documents would preclude or require consent to a transfer of that kind, but I certainly am just speculating.    

I'm also speculating wildly, but I would be surprised if they allowed it. Most people in (relatively) valuable partnerships don't like being "forced" to be partners with someone new. I would think there are tight controls over who can own the shares, and who they can be transferred to. But again, this level of speculation almost doesn't merit  thread on this board, lol. 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, 99ct said:

I'm also speculating wildly, but I would be surprised if they allowed it. Most people in (relatively) valuable partnerships don't like being "forced" to be partners with someone new. I would think there are tight controls over who can own the shares, and who they can be transferred to. But again, this level of speculation almost doesn't merit  thread on this board, lol. 

I’m talking specifically about a transfer within a marital estate.   I’d be surprised if the documents precluded/restricted that.   We know that Tom Clancy’s first wife got half his shares when he got divorced.    Now a transfer to an unrelated third party, yes I’d be very surprised if the documents didn’t require some form of consent, right of first refusal etc.   

[99ct]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I’m talking specifically about a transfer within a marital estate.   I’d be surprised if the documents precluded/restricted that.   We know that Tom Clancy’s first wife got half his shares when he got divorced.    Now a transfer to an unrelated third party, yes I’d be very surprised if the documents didn’t require some form of consent, right of first refusal etc.   

Ahh, you beat me with the precedent! Now I'm inclined to believe it would be, at the least, possible for Peter to leave the shares to his wife. 

[TonySoprano]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I believe any competent estate planner could set things up so that the partnership shares of Baltimore Orioles, LP now controlled by Peter Angelos could be controlled by Mrs. Angelos after his death, without incurring estate taxes.    I’d be surprised if this hasn’t been done.   

See, this was my working assumption, common sense, really,  when I said.

On 7/28/2018 at 5:42 PM, TonySoprano said:

Georgia Angelos inherits the club first if Peter predeceases her.

You responded with

On 7/28/2018 at 10:27 PM, Frobby said:

How do you know?   Have you seen the will?    Do you know if Angelos has a trust?    Do you know if the shares are jointly owned by Peter and his wife, or just by Peter?

Since you're now coming around to what I was saying before, is there an estate tax if the sons inherit instead of the wife?  

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

See, this was my working assumption, common sense, really,  when I said.

You responded with

Since you're now coming around to what I was saying before, is there an estate tax if the sons inherit instead of the wife?  

I haven’t really changed my position.   It’s pretty easy to pass assets to your spouse without tax consequences if you’ve set things up right.    Whether Angelos set things up that way, we don’t really know, though I’d expect so.   You can’t really set things up to pass them to your kids tax free, once you’re past $22 mm in assets.  

[esmd]

I thought in MD when a spouse dies, all assets of the deceased automatically go to the spouse with no taxes to be paid, unless there is legal documentation specifying other arrangements?  It's how Georgia Frontiere got the Colts when Carroll Rosenbloom died and traded them to Irsay for the Rams.

Pretty sure If PGA passes before Mrs. Angelos, the team goes to her, and then when she passes, their respective or joint wills come into play, along with the estate tax.  Most likely she'll be the owner on paper, with the sons running day to day operations.

[esmd]

Also, there is somewhat of a similar recent MLB precedent with the McCourts.  This was a divorce rather than a passing, but legally as his spouse she was entitled to half his assets while he was alive and when they divorced.  Same principle, if PGA precedes his wife in death, all assets would automatically go to her, with the caveat that there certainly could be legal documentation in place the she has agreed to that would transfer the team to someone else besides her, such as John and Lou, etc.

[Emory Eagle]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Well, you are right about that.    It would be surprising to me if the partnership documents would preclude or require consent to a transfer of that kind, but I certainly am just speculating.    

I've only done a little bit of fund formation work, but permitted transfers almost always include transfers to family in the event of incapacitating illness or death. 

[NCRaven]

I would not be surprised if the rights of the minority partners are fairly limited.  

[Frobby]

19 minutes ago, esmd said:

I thought in MD when a spouse dies, all assets of the deceased automatically go to the spouse with no taxes to be paid, unless there is legal documentation specifying other arrangements?

I’m not licensed in Maryland and don’t know the specifics there.   But the key point is, it’s highly likely that Peter Angelos has a will and other estate documents, and nobody here knows what they say.  

[esmd]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not licensed in Maryland and don’t know the specifics there.   But the key point is, it’s highly likely that Peter Angelos has a will and other estate documents, and nobody here knows what they say.  

Correct.  I'm just saying that unless he has a will or other legally binding estate documents that specify otherwise, all assets would go to his wife upon his death.

[TonySoprano]

36 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not licensed in Maryland and don’t know the specifics there.   But the key point is, it’s highly likely that Peter Angelos has a will and other estate documents, and nobody here knows what they say.  

Billionaire owner, runs a prestigious law firm, it would be galactically stupid of him not to have his affairs in order.  Speculate all one will, but I’d say it’s more than “highly likely.”

 

[spiritof66]

4 hours ago, wildcard said:

Georgia K Angelos.   (76)  Peter's wife. Please tell me why she does not inherit  the O's?   Of course Peter's will would have to state that she inherits but there would be no inheirtance tax.   Her boys can run the team.

https://www.mylife.com/georgia-angelos/georgiakangelos

Why do I not read anything about her being the owner if Peter  passes?

 

You're right that by leaving his interest in the team (including his indirect interest in MASN) to Mrs. Angelos, Peter Angelos would defer the estate taxes on that asset until her death. You're also right that virtually all the discussion about the future of the Orioles has looked to Peter either leaving the team to his sons or selling it -- the only mentions I've seen about a possible transfer to Mrs. Angelos have been in Hangout threads. In thinking about this issue over the past few years, I've made internet searches on Mrs. Angelos and have come up just about empty.

An inheritance plan in which the surviving spouse inherits most of the deceased spouse's assets, after specified amounts to relatives, charities, etc., is very common, and it's pretty straightforward when the assets are stocks, bonds and other passive investments. The situation gets more complicated with bequeathing an asset like majority ownership of the Orioles -- a complex business that is intimately identified with one spouse and not the other, especially where the asset is extremely valuable but faces time-sensitive challenges and decisions at the time of the first spouse's death. Here there's the added factor that the transfer can't be effective without the approval of a majority of MLB's owners.

Not knowing anything about Mrs. Angelos or her relationship with her husband and sons (I'm assuming that this is Peter's only marriage), I can speculate about a bunch of reasons why Peter Angelos's will might not leave his interest in the Orioles to her: she may not want to own the Orioles, or he may not trust her judgment in  running the team or hiring people to run it, or he may not be willing to rely on her leaving John and Lou in place as the decision-makers, or he may believe she would sell the team right away, or her relationship with John or Lou or both may not be good, or she may have her own health issues, or he may want to see John and Lou installed as owners right away, without potentially waiting another 15 or 20 years, when they'll be in their 60s. (It appears Mrs. Angelos is about 28 years older than John.) Who knows? Not me.

One thing I am pretty clear on is that a transfer of a controlling interest to Mrs. Angelos is far from certain to obtain the required approval of 15 other MLB owners. Aside from the deep enmity that MLB has for Peter Angelos, which his widow might have a problem distancing herself from, it appears that Mrs. Angelos has had no role in running the Orioles and, so far as I can tell, has no business or financial experience of any kind. It also appears she would have no significant source of future revenue outside of the Orioles (and MASN) to devote to the team should there be a need to do so. Apart from asking to become the only woman in the owners' club, Mrs. Angelos would differ from, I believe, every other owner in that all have had substantial business and/or finance backgrounds, and all have other business interests and income.

A vaguely related point. Much of the discussion about post-Peter Angelos ownership of the Orioles has been in terms of his leaving the team to his two sons. If Peter leaves half his interest in the team to each, neither will own a controlling interest in the team. MLB will not -- and I'm pretty certain of this -- approve a transfer that leaves the sons sharing control of the Orioles, raising the prospect of disputes, uncertainty and even deadlock over the team's future. One of the sons, presumably John, would have to be given control of the team, either through majority ownership or a contract between them.

One approach that I think would make sense in terms of how it would fly with the other owners, in light of my very limited knowledge about the situation, would be for Peter to leave to John (a) enough of his interest in the Orioles to give John 51 percent ownership and control of the team and (b) some portion of his other assets for future investment of the team, and to leave the rest to Mrs. Angelos, deferring a big hunk of his estate taxes. That would allow John to make his pitch to MLB and the owners about how he would try to get along with them and with the Commissioner in a way that would differ from the pattern of the past 25 years.