Loverro: The Orioles could be sold this winter

[Can_of_corn]

25 minutes ago, waroriole said:

At least 70% of my sports fandom is about grudge holding. 

Are you annoyed at the 1969 Mets despite not being born when they beat the O's?

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are you annoyed at the 1969 Mets despite not being born when they beat the O's?

Annoyed is not the right word.  I am still pissed at the Mets, Jets and Knicks from 1969.

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, drjohnnyfeva said:

I would like to know how, exactly, MLB could compel the Angeloses to sell.  I know this has been asked before on this site.  The last time it was brought up, it was basically shot down as highly unlikely.  I tend to agree with that.  And knowing the Angeloses it would wind up in yet another court battle... effectively shutting the team down for years while everything was decided.  I think that might be worse for baseball and us... despite being able to say goodbye to them for ever.  Good Heavens!  It's the worst of Catch 22's.  We rid ourselves in the long run of the Angeloses, but in the process see our beloved Birds become still more broken.

We're like an old barn blown down in a storm that might have fallen half on a neighboring property and the neighbor and owner both claim some ownership.  Meanwhile the POS sits there and rots while nitwits argue over it.

------ signed,

Chicken Little smfh

Here is Article V, Section 2(b) of the MLB Constitution, which governs all MLB clubs:

"(b) 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."

So, whether Peter Angelos' wife and/or sons will be permitted to inherit the team is up to a vote of the owners. There  are no standards or limits in the MLB Constitution as to how they must make that decision or what they need to consider. (There are several common formulations that limit the denial of approvals, and none of them is included in this provision.) 

There are reasons why the MLB owners might approve this transfer, and there are reasons why they might not to approve it. (One of the issues will be the owners' financial resources, after the estate of Peter Angelos pays hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and Maryland taxes; we don't know what those resources will look like.) It's hard to know what will happen unless you've spoken to the other owners about their views, or perhaps the Commissioner.  

[drjohnnyfeva]

53 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Here is Article V, Section 2(b) of the MLB Constitution, which governs all MLB clubs:

"(b) 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."

So, whether Peter Angelos' wife and/or sons will be permitted to inherit the team is up to a vote of the owners. There  are no standards or limits in the MLB Constitution as to how they must make that decision or what they need to consider. (There are several common formulations that limit the denial of approvals, and none of them is included in this provision.) 

There are reasons why the MLB owners might approve this transfer, and there are reasons why they might not to approve it. (One of the issues will be the owners' financial resources, after the estate of Peter Angelos pays hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and Maryland taxes; we don't know what those resources will look like.) It's hard to know what will happen unless you've spoken to the other owners about their views, or perhaps the Commissioner.  

So do I understand this correctly that if 3/4 of owners vote to not allow a transfer of ownership - for any reason, they can force a sale?  So if they just dislike how he has treated the League - so to speak- with MASN, etc., whatever the motive they choose, they could simply veto or disallow a sale by a 3/4 vote.  I love it and hate it all at once.  I love they dislike them and their litigious nature and I hate what that path might do to our Birds.  Good Heavens!

[waroriole]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are you annoyed at the 1969 Mets despite not being born when they beat the O's?

Nah most of it is KC, and Alabama 

[ScGO's]

9 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Just some feel, that its a move by MLB as playback to the Orioles for not resolving the dispute.

I didnt say it made sense.

So would this technically be conspiracy against the O's?  Would this be legal for MLB to do?  I could see this going to court.

[ScGO's]

7 hours ago, atomic said:

I am no fan of Angelos son's but I don't think you should be calling them "Boys" in a professional written article.  

This is the worst thing from the article:
"But the order came down for no official goodbye or recognition for Jones from the team, as management is still sore about his refusal to waive his 10-and-5 rights to be traded at the deadline this season."

Seems the sons might just be worse than their father. 

Is this going to be Mussina part 2? Leaving sour?

[Ruzious]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Annoyed is not the right word.  I am still pissed at the Mets, Jets and Knicks from 1969.

1969 was one small step for man and one giant leap for New York sports fans.  

[Redskins Rick]

13 hours ago, SteveA said:

He started crawling out on that limb earlier in the season and no other major journalists that I know of have joined him.   Either he's one to something no one else is or the branch is about to break and he has too much pride to backtrack on it at this point.

Rosenthial posted similiar thought a few weeks ago.

[Redskins Rick]

9 hours ago, ScGO's said:

So would this technically be conspiracy against the O's?  Would this be legal for MLB to do?  I could see this going to court.

Depends on which side of this you sit on.

If you are for the MLB doing this, yes this is legal, the FO is in shambles and nobody has a clue on whats going on. It will be for the good of Baseball that we intervene.

If you are against MLB, hell yes this is a conspiracy and illegal as all get out. Do I know any good lawyers????????

 

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Depends on which side of this you sit on.

If you are for the MLB doing this, yes this is legal, the FO is in shambles and nobody has a clue on whats going on. It will be for the good of Baseball that we intervene.

If you are against MLB, hell yes this is a conspiracy and illegal as all get out. Do I know any good lawyers????????

 

I agree with DD and Buck not even knowing their status it is time for the commissioner to step in and take over running of franchise.   Obviously the Angelo's family is not capable of running a team.  

[Redskins Rick]

4 minutes ago, atomic said:

I agree with DD and Buck not even knowing their status it is time for the commissioner to step in and take over running of franchise.   Obviously the Angelo's family is not capable of running a team.  

Of course, you have insider information that knows exactly what Buck and DD have been told privately behind closed doors, and ask to stay quiet until the official team announcement.

Even if this is true, that still isnt enough to take the team away.

Seriously, Buck and DD are at the end of their contract, its not a secret to anybody.

The team is under no obligation to tell them anything.

Will MLB take the Marlins away from Jeter, since he traded the good players away to NY?

[maybenxtyr]

10 hours ago, ScGO's said:

Is this going to be Mussina part 2? Leaving sour?

I don't think this is on Jones. He had a right and exercised it. If ownership is that petty then I feel like they are giving the fans a glimpse into the new leadership.

[spiritof66]

55 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Depends on which side of this you sit on.

If you are for the MLB doing this, yes this is legal, the FO is in shambles and nobody has a clue on whats going on. It will be for the good of Baseball that we intervene.

If you are against MLB, hell yes this is a conspiracy and illegal as all get out. Do I know any good lawyers????????

 

Let's say that a week after Peter Aneglos dies, the owners have a meeting, to which the Orioles are not invited. Knowing that Peter Angelos has left the team to his two sons, the owners, or most of them, agree that they couldn't stand Peter, think he did a terrible job running the Orioles, don't much like his sons either, and don't want to sign up for another 20 or 30 years of lousy ownership. When John and Louis ask for approval of the transfer of control of the Orioles to them, the owners vote 29-1 against approval. (By the way, it's unlikely things would unfold in that way. MLB probably would examine closely the Angeloses's finances and backgrounds, and report its findings to the owners, before the vote on approval.)

What would be illegal, let alone "illegal as all get out," about the owners voting not to approve a transfer of the team to Angeloses's sons?

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, spiritof66 said:

Let's say that a week after Peter Aneglos dies, the owners have a meeting, to which the Orioles are not invited. Knowing that Peter Angelos has left the team to his two sons, the owners, or most of them, agree that they couldn't stand Peter, think he did a terrible job running the Orioles, don't much like his sons either, and don't want to sign up for another 20 or 30 years of lousy ownership. When John and Louis ask for approval of the transfer of control of the Orioles to them, the owners vote 29-1 against approval. (By the way, it's unlikely things would unfold in that way. MLB probably would examine closely the Angeloses's finances and backgrounds, and report its findings to the owners, before the vote on approval.)

What would be illegal, let alone "illegal as all get out," about the owners voting not to approve a transfer of the team to Angeloses's sons?

@Frobby is our resident OH unofficial lawyer.

Personally, I am in agreement that MLB doesn't have to approve the transfer of power, since its still in the Angelos Family.

But, again, thats IMO.