Loverro: The Orioles could be sold this winter

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes 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?

Haven't we come to the conclusion that he is much more likely to leave the team to his wife?

[spiritof66]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

@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.

The MLB Constitution says something different. 

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, spiritof66 said:

The MLB Constitution says something different. 

Doesnt make it legal for a court of law, either.

IMO, and my guy says, MLB isn't up in arms, like some of the writers want us to believe.

What do I base this on?

How forked up MLB is, there has been so many issues over the years worse than this, that MLB just sits by and does nothing.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

Doesnt make it legal for a court of law, either.

IMO, and my guy says, MLB isn't up in arms, like some of the writers want us to believe.

What do I base this on?

How forked up MLB is, there has been so many issues over the years worse than this, that MLB just sits by and does nothing.

It is a lot easier to deny someone the right to own a team than it is to remove someone after the fact.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

It is a lot easier to deny someone the right to own a team than it is to remove someone after the fact.

It is, but I still dont see it happening. IMO

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

@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.

spiritof66 is also a lawyer, and we agree on most things.    There’s no question that MLB has to approve any transfer of controlling ownership, even among family members.    Personally, I’m dubious that they’d withhold approval in that situation, but that’s not a legal question, just my gut instinct.    And I also believe that if the owners withheld approval, the Angelos family would take MLB to court.    They’d have an uphill battle, for the reasons spiritof66 has given, but it wouldn’t be the first time they took an uphill battle to court.    

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

spiritof66 is also a lawyer, and we agree on most things.    There’s no question that MLB has to approve any transfer of controlling ownership, even among family members.    Personally, I’m dubious that they’d withhold approval in that situation, but that’s not a legal question, just my gut instinct.    And I also believe that if the owners withheld approval, the Angelos family would take MLB to court.    They’d have an uphill battle, for the reasons spiritof66 has given, but it wouldn’t be the first time they took an uphill battle to court.    

My apologies to @spiritof66

MLB isn't really the NFL and enjoys court battles.

So legally they can, ok, I get that.

My opinion, its wont be attempted by MLB.

But, with smart people saying subtle signs that this team will be sold out of the family, this might be a moot point.

[spiritof66]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Doesnt make it legal for a court of law, either.

IMO, and my guy says, MLB isn't up in arms, like some of the writers want us to believe.

What do I base this on?

How forked up MLB is, there has been so many issues over the years worse than this, that MLB just sits by and does nothing.

It's certainly possible that the owners would approve a transfer of control of the Orioles, upon Peter Angelos's death, to his widow and/or sons. I don't know what they would do. I do know that a few years ago there appeared to be considerable resentment, even anger, within MLB (not the owners, who would have the vote) for challenging the MASN arbitration award, for attacking MLB's integrity, and for making public, in papers filed in the lawsuit, financial facts about teams' cable rights deals and the workings of the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee. 

At least half a dozen, probably more like a dozen, posts have said that if the owners don't approve a transfer within the familiar, that would be illegal. I've thought about that against a background of 35 years of practicing law, mostly commercial and contract litigation, and I don't see a basis for a lawsuit. But I recognize there might be a legal principle I'm not aware of (or have forgotten or just missed) that would serve as the basis for a lawsuit. I've just tried to point out that a lawsuit against MLB and/or the owners would have to be based on some violation of a legal obligation, and I've asked what that violation would be. Haven't got an answer yet.  

[spiritof66]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

My apologies to @spiritof66

MLB isn't really the NFL and enjoys court battles.

So legally they can, ok, I get that.

My opinion, its wont be attempted by MLB.

But, with smart people saying subtle signs that this team will be sold out of the family, this might be a moot point.

Nothing to apologize for.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

It's certainly possible that the owners would approve a transfer of control of the Orioles, upon Peter Angelos's death, to his widow and/or sons. I don't know what they would do. I do know that a few years ago there appeared to be considerable resentment, even anger, within MLB (not the owners, who would have the vote) for challenging the MASN arbitration award, for attacking MLB's integrity, and for making public, in papers filed in the lawsuit, financial facts about teams' cable rights deals and the workings of the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee. 

At least half a dozen, probably more like a dozen, posts have said that if the owners don't approve a transfer within the familiar, that would be illegal. I've thought about that against a background of 35 years of practicing law, mostly commercial and contract litigation, and I don't see a basis for a lawsuit. But I recognize there might be a legal principle I'm not aware of (or have forgotten or just missed) that would serve as the basis for a lawsuit. I've just tried to point out that a lawsuit against MLB and/or the owners would have to be based on some violation of a legal obligation, and I've asked what that violation would be. Haven't got an answer yet.  

Without studying the MLB constitution or researching anything, I’d say the theory would be that a negative vote violated the  implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.    They’d argue that no intra-family transfer had ever been rejected before, and the vote was a punishment for them exercising their rights to challenge an arbitration award that a court found resulted from a faulty process in which conflicts of interest existed.    Would that work?   I don’t know, but I think it would have a decent chance to get beyond the pleading stage and into discovery, at which point who knows what they find when they turn over the rocks, and it’s expensive and time consuming.    

[Redskins Rick]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Without studying the MLB constitution or researching anything, I’d say the theory would be that a negative vote violated the  implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.    They’d argue that no intra-family transfer had ever been rejected before, and the vote was a punishment for them exercising their rights to challenge an arbitration award that a court found resulted from a faulty process in which conflicts of interest existed.    Would that work?   I don’t know, but I think it would have a decent chance to get beyond the pleading stage and into discovery, at which point who knows what they find when they turn over the rocks, and it’s expensive and time consuming.    

If you pay yourself (Angelos Law Practice), then it becomes less expensive.

[Tony-OH]

54 minutes ago, Frobby said:

spiritof66 is also a lawyer, and we agree on most things.    There’s no question that MLB has to approve any transfer of controlling ownership, even among family members.    Personally, I’m dubious that they’d withhold approval in that situation, but that’s not a legal question, just my gut instinct.    And I also believe that if the owners withheld approval, the Angelos family would take MLB to court.    They’d have an uphill battle, for the reasons spiritof66 has given, but it wouldn’t be the first time they took an uphill battle to court.    

I knew he sounded like a lawyer sometimes! Haha. 

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Without studying the MLB constitution or researching anything, I’d say the theory would be that a negative vote violated the  implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.    They’d argue that no intra-family transfer had ever been rejected before, and the vote was a punishment for them exercising their rights to challenge an arbitration award that a court found resulted from a faulty process in which conflicts of interest existed.    Would that work?   I don’t know, but I think it would have a decent chance to get beyond the pleading stage and into discovery, at which point who knows what they find when they turn over the rocks, and it’s expensive and time consuming.    

First...I am not an attorney.  

But I too believe that if PA wants the team to stay in the family, they will go to court if MLB vetos.

Spiritof66 has clearly stated and has MLB rules on his side, but courts exist to settle differences of opinion regarding rules and sometimes objections to those rules.  The Angelos family if forced to sell because of PA's death and in opposition of his Last Will and Testament would in my opinion land in court.  Legally the reasons may be weak, but that would not stop them from occurring and would not necessarily prevent them from success.

1)  A forced sale as a result of blocking family transfer could be deemed illegal on the grounds of financial harm...ie an intentional devaluing of an asset.  Difficult to prove and alone not enough, but conceptually, anything that HAS to be sold can be deemed discounted due to limitations placed upon said sale.

2)  Another means of challenge could be that MLB was in breach of it's own fiduciary duties, and forcing a sale by blocking the type of transfer it has never before blocked.  This could well weaken the stance of other owners.  MLB may well wish to rid itself of the Angelos family, but doing so by expanding the powers of MLB, may force other owners to look into the mirror and change their view.  Again, flimsy but not impossible.

3)  Finally, anytime there is this much money on the table, it would be foolish to think that there are not legal arguments to be made in opposition to seemingly obvious rule of law.

 

Again, I am not an attorney, but I did spend 20+ years in Trusts and Estate work and one thing that never ceased to amaze me was how easy it was for challenges to to make it to court.  I agree completely with every word Spritof66 has written, that blocking the transfer of the Orioles to the family of PA would be perfectly legal.  But I do also believe that IF (and I have no idea if that is what is going to happen) PA wants his family to keep the Orioles and run them....and MLB does not approve...the Angelos family and MLB would likely go to court.

 

 

I would also add that IF the MLB wanted to force action....it is in a seem to be in a much stronger position right now....

1) Orioles not communicating about who is in charge...

2) Endlessly battling with MLB over MASN...

 

 

[wildcard]

2 hours 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.  

About half the teams in the MLB wish they had the record the O's have had over the last 7 years.  There is no proving that the Angelos can't  run  a MLB team.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

About half the teams in the MLB wish they had the record the O's have had over the last 7 years.  There is no proving that the Angelos can't  run  a MLB team.

93-69

85-77

96-66

81-81

89-73

75-87

47-115

566-568

Half the teams in MLB want to be two games under .500 over the last seven years while coming off an all-time poor season?