The heir apparent O's owner

[weams]

Just now, wildcard said:

No one on here is advising a Law office.   I am just trying to figure out what the options are and what precedents have been set.

Have fun. You won't.

[weams]

One of the possibilities that could be a fact is that the situation for succession is no longer revocable. 

[NCRaven]

Can John or Lou be put on revocable waivers?  Designated for assignment?  :-)

[foxfield]

12 minutes ago, weams said:

What I did say was that the continued merry go round of advising the Law Offices of Peter Angelos how to deal with their estate planning is ridiculous here. 

Yeah, we should stick to advising Peter Angelos how to run his franchise and leave his Law Office alone.  

7 minutes ago, weams said:

One of the possibilities that could be a fact is that the situation for succession is no longer revocable. 

The clarity of that statement made me chuckle....and I also checked the obituaries....  

[weams]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

Yeah, we should stick to advising Peter Angelos how to run his franchise and leave his Law Office alone.  

The clarity of that statement made me chuckle....and I also checked the obituaries....  

Well, it is a baseball board. Populated by many attorneys.

[spiritof66]

It's pretty clear that none of us knows what the Angeloses are going to do or what the MLB owners will do if Peter tries to pass control of the team to an heir. But . . .

Do you think the Commissioner -- given (a) his own experience with Peter Angelos's singularly obstreperous and uncooperative attitude toward MLB and (b) the fact that the Angeloses would be among the financially weakest owners in baseball, with a team that faces demographic challenges, has an eroding fan base, stinks right now (due in part to Angelos's decisions to invest insufficiently in infrastructure at home and abroad), and needs significant long-term investment to have a chance to improve, would recommend approval of a transfer that might keep the Orioles in the hands of the Angelos family for decades?

If the Commissioner recommends that the owners not approve a transfer to an Angelos family member, do you think 15 owners will vote for approval?

Just what is this legal claim that so many of you think the Angeloses will have if a transfer doesn't get the approval that's expressly required under the MLB Constitution? Does it have a name or a theory? Would it authorize a court to force MLB to suspend its Constitution and approve the transaction, as opposed to allowing the Angeloses to seek damages for not being allowed to take control of the franchise? (Though I think it's irrelevant, I don't buy the argument that the failure to obtain approval would diminish the value of the franchise. Like every other person holding control over an MLB franchise, Peter Angelos bought and has held that control subject to the limitations to transferring it that are spelled out in the Constitution. Now, if the owners were to turn down a testamentary transfer to an Angelos heir and the Commissioner were to require that Peter's estate transfer his controlling interest within a week, there might be something to sue over. But even the Commissioner isn't that arrogant or dumb -- I don't think.)

[Frobby]

24 minutes ago, wildcard said:

What do you know about Peters competency?

I wouldn’t worry about it.    I’m sure his estate plan wasn’t written yesterday and it’s not like using a trust to avoid or delay taxes is some newfangled idea.

[wildcard]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I wouldn’t worry about it.    I’m sure his estate plan wasn’t written yesterday and it’s not like using a trust to avoid or delay taxes is some newfangled idea.

Right.

But it impacts the talk of the Angelos selling the team because of the estate taxes.    There have been posts about the Angelos selling the team.  And while we don't know the plans of the Angelos family  it nice to get the input and research of the OH posters to comment on the subject.   Hopefully it leads to more knowledgable posts and understanding. 

[NCRaven]

26 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

It's pretty clear that none of us knows what the Angeloses are going to do or what the MLB owners will do if Peter tries to pass control of the team to an heir. But . . .

Do you think the Commissioner -- given (a) his own experience with Peter Angelos's singularly obstreperous and uncooperative attitude toward MLB and (b) the fact that the Angeloses would be among the financially weakest owners in baseball, with a team that faces demographic challenges, has an eroding fan base, stinks right now (due in part to Angelos's decisions to invest insufficiently in infrastructure at home and abroad), and needs significant long-term investment to have a chance to improve, would recommend approval of a transfer that might keep the Orioles in the hands of the Angelos family for decades?

This may be the most one-sided commentary on the Orioles - MASN dispute that I've read outside of the WPost.  I think that Angelos has legitimate issues and that MLB has conspired against Orioles ownership from beginning to end.  Did you get bonus points for using "obstreperous" in a sentence or win a spelling bee with it?  And, with a net worth of $2.1 billion, he's the 13th richest owner in MLB per Money Magazine.  Not exactly crying poor.  Finally, the Angelos sons have acknowledged that the team has to move in a new direction and has already begun to do so.  Not exactly a reason for MLB to deny them entry into the fraternity.

  https://moneyinc.com/the-20-richest-mlb-owners-in-the-world/  

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Right.

But it impacts the talk of the Angelos selling the team because of the estate taxes.    There have been posts about the Angelos selling the team.  And while we don't know the plans of the Angelos family  it nice to get the input and research of the OH posters to comment on the subject.   Hopefully it leads to more knowledgable posts and understanding. 

It’s been a good discussion, but at the end of the day we don’t know anything about Peter’s estate plan, his family’s plans for the Orioles after he passes, or what MLB might do to disrupt those plans.   

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

This may be the most one-sided commentary on the Orioles - MASN dispute that I've read outside of the WPost.  I think that Angelos has legitimate issues and that MLB has conspired against Orioles ownership from beginning to end.  Did you get bonus points for using "obstreperous" in a sentence or win a spelling bee with it? 

If you’ve followed spiritof66’s commentary on the MASN dispute over the years, he’s hardly got a one-sided view in favor of MLB and the Nats.    But the simple fact is, regardless of your view of the merits of that dispute, MLB has got to be furious that Angelos took the matter to court and aired it out in a public setting, when the MLB constitution and the MASN agreement both provide for arbitration that is non-public.    And yes, obstreperous fits the bill.    

[wildcard]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s been a good discussion, but at the end of the day we don’t know anything about Peter’s estate plan, his family’s plans for the Orioles after he passes, or what MLB might do to disrupt those plans.   

I started this thread with the idea the Georgia, Peter wife was the heir apparent.   Through this discussion I now understand how trusts play a role in the franchise succession.   I see a recent example with what has happened with the Tigers.   And different posters keep adding to the discussion with more information to consider.   I think it has helped  me understand the O's ownership situation and how it may affect the O's going forward.     I have found it useful.  I hope I learn more with additional posts.

[wildcard]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

If you’ve followed spiritof66’s commentary on the MASN dispute over the years, he’s hardly got a one-sided view in favor of MLB and the Nats.    But the simple fact is, regardless of your view of the merits of that dispute, MLB has got to be furious that Angelos took the matter to court and aired it out in a public setting, when the MLB constitution and the MASN agreement both provide for arbitration that is non-public.    And yes, obstreperous fits the bill.    

A friend recently told me a story  about a customer that choice the cheapest builder to build his house.  The builder run out of money half way through the build and asked the customer for more money.  The customer was furious and asked my friend what he should do.   My friend said  "Who are you mad at?    Maybe you should be mad at yourself for  trying to get an unreasonable deal."

This reminds me of Manfred.  He tries to stick the Angelos with 25m additional dollars to fund other MLB problems he has and then is furious whether Peter bulked at the idea.  There is a lot more involved in the matter but Manfred probably should be mad at himself instead of Peter. 

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

It's pretty clear that none of us knows what the Angeloses are going to do or what the MLB owners will do if Peter tries to pass control of the team to an heir. But . . .

Do you think the Commissioner -- given (a) his own experience with Peter Angelos's singularly obstreperous and uncooperative attitude toward MLB and (b) the fact that the Angeloses would be among the financially weakest owners in baseball, with a team that faces demographic challenges, has an eroding fan base, stinks right now (due in part to Angelos's decisions to invest insufficiently in infrastructure at home and abroad), and needs significant long-term investment to have a chance to improve, would recommend approval of a transfer that might keep the Orioles in the hands of the Angelos family for decades?

If the Commissioner recommends that the owners not approve a transfer to an Angelos family member, do you think 15 owners will vote for approval?

Just what is this legal claim that so many of you think the Angeloses will have if a transfer doesn't get the approval that's expressly required under the MLB Constitution? Does it have a name or a theory? Would it authorize a court to force MLB to suspend its Constitution and approve the transaction, as opposed to allowing the Angeloses to seek damages for not being allowed to take control of the franchise? (Though I think it's irrelevant, I don't buy the argument that the failure to obtain approval would diminish the value of the franchise. Like every other person holding control over an MLB franchise, Peter Angelos bought and has held that control subject to the limitations to transferring it that are spelled out in the Constitution. Now, if the owners were to turn down a testamentary transfer to an Angelos heir and the Commissioner were to require that Peter's estate transfer his controlling interest within a week, there might be something to sue over. But even the Commissioner isn't that arrogant or dumb -- I don't think.)

Regarding the first part, sure.  I think MLB would have no issue approving as long as the "new ownership" met financial and legal requirements.  In spite of PA uncooperative stances, he has at times been very useful to MLB.  I am not at all certain however that the family can meet the financial requirements.

As to the second, MLB is absolutely in a position to legally reject the transfer of ownership.  But again, doing so for the we want to kick you out of our club rule and not a financial one would likely be challenged on the grounds negative impact to valuation and time.  You say a week, but what would a perfectly acceptable timeframe be 2 years?  Many estate take longer than that to settle. 

Guessing and speculating are fun.  At the end of the day I think we both agree that the Orioles will not be owned indefinitely by the Angelos family.  I just think back of the envelope math says the family wealth while substantial cannot support the ultimate estate tax AND continued operation.  And if that were the goal, I believe a plan including new investors would be in the works. So, for me its a sale.  Soon, or in his passing.

I am still surprised no one has brought up the Redskins as a comp.  Billionaire, WANTED to keep the team in the family but ultimately decided that wasn't feasible and had his will directed that his estate sell it.  The son tried and ultimately lost out to Daniel Snyder.  Proving that in sports...it can always get worse.

Edit to add: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/john-kent-cooke-didnt-get-his-fathers-redskins-he-got-something-better/2017/02/01/b4f28f2a-d2c5-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.f227d8f69cc7

Not baseball...but does cover the Redskins sale.

[Tx Oriole]

5 hours ago, NCRaven said:

Can John or Lou be put on revocable waivers?  Designated for assignment? 

Why would you want to do that. Puts Peter back in charge then his wife.