The heir apparent O's owner

[spiritof66]

5 hours 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?  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/  

I was trying to present Angelos and his conduct the way MLB and the Commissioner might view it, and I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.

I think "singularly obstreperous" describes MLB's view of Angelos pretty well. I could have said "the only current who has challenged the MLB, broken its rules, said unflattering things about the other owners, and breached MLB's sacred wall of financial secrecy," or "the biggest, really the only, pain in the ass among MLB owners." Having read the publicly available documents from the Orioles and MLB that were submitted in the MASN litigation, as well as the litigation papers themselves, I think those are reasonable statements of MLB's views.

My view of the MASN dispute? I think, and have said here, that when MLB moved the Expos to Washington baseball screwed Baltimore (for the fourth, maybe the fifth time, dating back to the 1890s). I believe, and have posted extensively on the subject, that the original arbitration award on MASN rights fees was clearly wrong and unfair to the Orioles. (I also believe the Orioles invited the arbitration screwing by entering into a deeply flawed agreement. I'll leave that for another time.) 

I'm surprised by the Money Magazine list and will look into that. If I'm wrong about Peter Angelos's wealth compared to that of other owners, I'll say so. But that's Peter Angelos's wealth; we don't know how much money an Angelos heir who ends up controlling the Orioles will have after the estate is carved up and distributed (and any taxes are paid), but it's likely to be well south of $2 billion. I think I'm correct about the other part of the resource picture that would be before MLB, which I'm pretty sure MLB (or an owner) stressed in the past year or so: it wants owners with sources of income other than baseball, and an Angelos heir would be among the few owners, if not the only one, without such income.

I still don't understand what the basis would be for a lawsuit against the owners or MLB. A claim that non-approval hurt the value of the franchise wouldn't be enough, at least under New York law.

 

[NCRaven]

13 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I was trying to present Angelos and his conduct the way MLB and the Commissioner might view it, and I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.

I think "singularly obstreperous" describes MLB's view of Angelos pretty well. I could have said "the only current who has challenged the MLB, broken its rules, said unflattering things about the other owners, and breached MLB's sacred wall of financial secrecy," or "the biggest, really the only, pain in the ass among MLB owners." Having read the publicly available documents from the Orioles and MLB that were submitted in the MASN litigation, as well as the litigation papers themselves, I think those are reasonable statements of MLB's views.

My view of the MASN dispute? I think, and have said here, that when MLB moved the Expos to Washington baseball screwed Baltimore (for the fourth, maybe the fifth time, dating back to the 1890s). I believe, and have posted extensively on the subject, that the original arbitration award on MASN rights fees was clearly wrong and unfair to the Orioles. (I also believe the Orioles invited the arbitration screwing by entering into a deeply flawed agreement. I'll leave that for another time.) 

I'm surprised by the Money Magazine list and will look into that. If I'm wrong about Peter Angelos's wealth compared to that of other owners, I'll say so. But that's Peter Angelos's wealth; we don't know how much money an Angelos heir who ends up controlling the Orioles will have after the estate is carved up and distributed (and any taxes are paid), but it's likely to be well south of $2 billion. I think I'm correct about the other part of the resource picture that would be before MLB, which I'm pretty sure MLB (or an owner) stressed in the past year or so: it wants owners with sources of income other than baseball, and an Angelos heir would be among the few owners, if not the only one, without such income.

I still don't understand what the basis would be for a lawsuit against the owners or MLB. A claim that non-approval hurt the value of the franchise wouldn't be enough, at least under New York law.

 

I really only looked at the one text and didn't put it into the larger context that you have here.  You make good points.  Given that you were stressing MLB's point of view, I think you're right.  Just think that MLB has been thoroughly biased against Baltimore and favored DC and their ownership.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, NCRaven said:

I really only looked at the one text and didn't put it into the larger context that you have here.  You make good points.  Given that you were stressing MLB's point of view, I think you're right.  Just think that MLB has been thoroughly biased against Baltimore and favored DC and their ownership.

I think most posters are giving MLB way too much credit for having the brass balls to step in and do something like thing.

MLB is extremely weak and I dont this bunch doing anything close to this. IMO

Its taken a lot of wrong actions, before MLB steps in and does anything ever.

 

[Emory Eagle]

Pretty depressing state of affairs when estate planning is more interesting than Orioles baseball. 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Emory Eagle said:

Pretty depressing state of affairs when estate planning is more interesting than Orioles baseball. 

Well, since, the forking football arses cant stand for our flag, I have no use for them.

Makes the sport world real dull right now.

[Emory Eagle]

20 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Well, since, the forking football arses cant stand for our flag, I have no use for them.

Makes the sport world real dull right now.

I don't really follow the NFL all that closely. I would ask if the Ravens are projected to be decent this year... but something about your username makes me think you're not a Ravens fan haha.

[ThomasTomasz]

21 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I was trying to present Angelos and his conduct the way MLB and the Commissioner might view it, and I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.

I think "singularly obstreperous" describes MLB's view of Angelos pretty well. I could have said "the only current who has challenged the MLB, broken its rules, said unflattering things about the other owners, and breached MLB's sacred wall of financial secrecy," or "the biggest, really the only, pain in the ass among MLB owners." Having read the publicly available documents from the Orioles and MLB that were submitted in the MASN litigation, as well as the litigation papers themselves, I think those are reasonable statements of MLB's views.

My view of the MASN dispute? I think, and have said here, that when MLB moved the Expos to Washington baseball screwed Baltimore (for the fourth, maybe the fifth time, dating back to the 1890s). I believe, and have posted extensively on the subject, that the original arbitration award on MASN rights fees was clearly wrong and unfair to the Orioles. (I also believe the Orioles invited the arbitration screwing by entering into a deeply flawed agreement. I'll leave that for another time.) 

I'm surprised by the Money Magazine list and will look into that. If I'm wrong about Peter Angelos's wealth compared to that of other owners, I'll say so. But that's Peter Angelos's wealth; we don't know how much money an Angelos heir who ends up controlling the Orioles will have after the estate is carved up and distributed (and any taxes are paid), but it's likely to be well south of $2 billion. I think I'm correct about the other part of the resource picture that would be before MLB, which I'm pretty sure MLB (or an owner) stressed in the past year or so: it wants owners with sources of income other than baseball, and an Angelos heir would be among the few owners, if not the only one, without such income.

I still don't understand what the basis would be for a lawsuit against the owners or MLB. A claim that non-approval hurt the value of the franchise wouldn't be enough, at least under New York law.

 

At least on the topic of the wealth of Angelos, his work on asbestos related cases, as well as the tobacco case, have funded his wealth, as well as ownership of the Orioles.  From Wikipedia, and yes, these are sourced at the bottom of their page: 

Quote

Angelos passed the bar in 1961 and opened an office specializing in handling product-liability cases for employees, almost always on a contingency basis. In one of his most celebrated cases, he represented some 8,700 steelworkers, shipyard workers, and manufacturers' employees in a consolidated-action asbestos poisoning suit that was partially settled in 1992. Angelos' take from that litigation alone has been estimated at $330 million.

Angelos also achieved considerable success representing the state of Maryland in a suit against Philip Morris and suing Wyeth, the makers of part of the diet pill combination fen-phen.

In March of 1996 Maryland hired Angelos to represent the state in its suit against tobacco companies with a 25-percent contingency fee. After Angelos filed suit on behalf of the state the trial court ruled that the state's recovery would be limited to subrogation of losses through programs such as Medicaid; this would have effectively ended the state's case. Angelos successfully lobbied the state legislature to change the law to allow the state's suit to proceed. The state legislature also cut Angelos' fee to 12.5 percent. Angelos then agreed to accept the lower fee in exchange for the legislature lifting caps on non-economic damages in asbestos suits. Given that Angelos was the leading asbestos lawyer in Maryland at the time, this was very lucrative for him. After the legislation was passed, Angelos reneged on his deal and demanded his full 25 percent fee. Eventually he settled for $150 million paid over five years.

 

Alright, so just in two highly recognizable cases, Angeles took in $480 million.  $330 million in 1992, which spurred his investment in the Orioles (contributing $40 million of the original $173 million) and then $150 million from the Philip Morris case.  That was in early-mid 90's money, so with inflation, other law firm cases and profits from the Orioles, I easily buy him being on that list. 

[spiritof66]

14 hours ago, ThomasTomasz said:

At least on the topic of the wealth of Angelos, his work on asbestos related cases, as well as the tobacco case, have funded his wealth, as well as ownership of the Orioles.  From Wikipedia, and yes, these are sourced at the bottom of their page: 

 

Alright, so just in two highly recognizable cases, Angeles took in $480 million.  $330 million in 1992, which spurred his investment in the Orioles (contributing $40 million of the original $173 million) and then $150 million from the Philip Morris case.  That was in earlyBut-mid 90's money, so with inflation, other law firm cases and profits from the Orioles, I easily buy him being on that list. 

But I don't see how his heirs would have a continuing source of income from the law firm.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

But I don't see how his heirs would have a continuing source of income from the law firm.

What if Lou runs the law firm and John runs the O's and MASN?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

What if Lou runs the law firm and John runs the O's and MASN?

Things could get tricky with the law firm.    As I understood it, Peter is the only partner, and all the other attorneys, no matter how senior, are employees.    That’s a pretty unusual model, one that perhaps works okay if one partner is generating almost all the business.     But it doesn’t necessarily work if that guy is gone and his son, who is not a dominant revenue-driver, now takes over and tries to run things the same way.     Without knowing more about the way the firm operates, I’d be speculating, but it wouldn’t be surprising if (1) the firm reorganized its operations such that revenue was divided more evenly among the key attorneys, or (2) the firm broke up into pieces.   Law firms are fragile things because their only real resource, their people, are quite portable.   

[Redskins Rick]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

What if Lou runs the law firm and John runs the O's and MASN?

Let Lou run MASN, and John the Orioles, and dissolve the law firm.

[spiritof66]

I don’t

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

Things could get tricky with the law firm.    As I understood it, Peter is the only partner, and all the other attorneys, no matter how senior, are employees.    That’s a pretty unusual model, one that perhaps works okay if one partner is generating almost all the business.     But it doesn’t necessarily work if that guy is gone and his son, who is not a dominant revenue-driver, now takes over and tries to run things the same way.     Without knowing more about the way the firm operates, I’d be speculating, but it wouldn’t be surprising if (1) the firm reorganized its operations such that revenue was divided more evenly among the key attorneys, or (2) the firm broke up into pieces.   Law firms are fragile things because their only real resource, their people, are quite portable.   

Agree with this. I don’t see how the firm could keep lawyers working there and letting Lou keep most or all of the profits, as they presumably have done with Peter. The Angeloses may get some benefit as existing cases are completed, but that won’t last long once Peter is gone.

[wildcard]

I thought the Angelos firm did mostly person injury and asbestos claim.  The kind of case where the law firm pays all court costs and lawyer fees for a sharing of the award when they win a case.  Not just every lawyers wants to take those risks on their own.  They would rather work for a firm that takes the risk and pays the up front costs.  I could be wrong about that but that is what I thought the benefit for a lawyer was on working for the Angelos.

I

[Frobby]

21 hours ago, wildcard said:

I thought the Angelos firm did mostly person injury and asbestos claim.  The kind of case where the law firm pays all court costs and lawyer fees for a sharing of the award when they win a case.  Not just every lawyers wants to take those risks on their own.  They would rather work for a firm that takes the risk and pays the up front costs.  I could be wrong about that but that is what I thought the benefit for a lawyer was on working for the Angelos.

I

You are right about the types of cases handled by the firm and the typical payment arrangement with the clients.   Honestly, I don’t know enough about the economics of the firm or the quality of the lawyers in it to know exactly how they are incentivized or what the motivations of the lawyers might be.    But most good plaintiff’s lawyers who lead trials themselves would not want an arrangement where they don’t get a good stake in the upside.    If they were risk averse like that, they’d be defense lawyers, who get paid win or lose but typically don’t get the bonanza payday.    

[weams]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/under-armour-blog/bs-bz-under-armour-plank-mansion-20181017-story.html

Quote

After Under Armour faltered in the past two years, Plank has taken steps to demonstrate his focus on the Baltimore athletic apparel brand, including stepping back from his outside investments and distractions. He sold a stake in the massive Port Covington project, where The Baltimore Sun is a tenant, to Goldman Sachs. He also shifted the project’s leadership to Weller Development.

Quote

Under Armour ran into significant headwinds. The athletic apparel maker has been working for the two years to reverse losses, stagnant sales and a steep slide in its stock price sparked by intense competition, closures of key retailers and changing consumer tastes. In the most recent phase of a restructuring, the company announced plans last month to slash its global workforce by 400 workers by early next year as it tries to rejuvenate sales.

I guess no local ownership options...