Jump to content

John Angelos approved as Orioles primary contact

MurphDogg

By MurphDogg
in Orioles Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

MurphDogg Hangout Grand Counsel

MurphDogg

Posted
Posted

This had been simmering for a couple years. Peter was clearly not making any decisions, but had still been listed as the primary contact for league matters.

The article also mentions the recent talk about selling the team and how it would benefit the Angelos family to wait until Peter passes away to sell the team so that the sons get a stepped up basis and don't pay capital gains taxes on the increased value of the team (compared to when Peter bought it) when they sell it.

The bigger issue is whether the sons will be forced by estate tax considerations to sell the team when Peter dies. The family's full financial picture is not publicly known.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scOtt Hangout Grand Counsel

scOtt

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MurphDogg said:

This had been simmering for a couple years. Peter was clearly not making any decisions, but had still been listed as the primary contact for league matters.

The article also mentions the recent talk about selling the team and how it would benefit the Angelos family to wait until Peter passes away to sell the team so that the sons get a stepped up basis and don't pay capital gains taxes on the increased value of the team (compared to when Peter bought it) when they sell it.

The bigger issue is whether the sons will be forced by estate tax considerations to sell the team when Peter dies. The family's full financial picture is not publicly known.

It has been simmering, but this is mostly a technical/clerical thing For MLB. They like to have the voice, the contact (owner) of the team to be only one person. 30 persons, one vote.

 

The passing of ownership or control has been almost assumed to be passed to the Bros for several years. This just clarifies which one speaks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I am glad to have this issue resolved.    Next up: putting the MASN issue to bed.    

I think the MASN issue will be solved when the last cable company stops broadcasting TV and all the RSNs go out of business.  That this could have taken eight or nine or more years to resolve is hard evidence that the legal system is broken, perhaps beyond repair.

Nats: we think this is unfair.  Orioles: no it's not.  Court system: we'll tell you one way or the other by 2023.

We'd have been FAR better off with Newman telling Kramer and Elaine that he's going to cut the bike in half.  We'd have had an absurd conclusion, but it would have been over in 2012.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
accinfo All-Star

accinfo

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not trying to be morbid, but does this indicate anything about Peter's health? 

It is well known that Peter Angelos has been lacking capacity to make decisions by himself for a while now.  However many people live a long time with this condition.  So none of us know.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scOtt Hangout Grand Counsel

scOtt

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Philip said:

Why would they be required to sell the team for estate tax purposes? I can see why they might want to, although it’s hard to think of a better job, but why would they be forced to?

Because the taxes might be more than they could afford? Or borrow on their equity?

I really don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
accinfo All-Star

accinfo

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Philip said:

Why would they be required to sell the team for estate tax purposes? I can see why they might want to, although it’s hard to think of a better job, but why would they be forced to?

The Federal tax on the value of an estate is 40% of it's value.  That is cash money they would have to pay.  Just using a value of 1.6 billion of the Orioles that would be 640 billion in cash.  I guess they can sell a large percentage of the Orioles to a minority owner to raise that money but anyone that would buy in would probably want a path to majority ownership.  Kind of what Bishotti did with Modell and the Ravens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roll Tide Hangout Grand Counsel

Roll Tide

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, accinfo said:

The Federal tax on the value of an estate is 40% of it's value.  That is cash money they would have to pay.  Just using a value of 1.6 billion of the Orioles that would be 640 billion in cash.  I guess they can sell a large percentage of the Orioles to a minority owner to raise that money but anyone that would buy in would probably want a path to majority ownership.  Kind of what Bishotti did with Modell and the Ravens.

How would it work if Mrs Angelos were to remain the owner? That could buy them time maybe 10+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
accinfo All-Star

accinfo

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

How would it work if Mrs Angelos were to remain the owner? That could buy them time maybe 10+ years.

If she bought the club with Peter as joint Tenants she would keep the team as the survival owner but I suspect that isn't the case and she would owe the taxes just like anyone else.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BohKnowsBmore Hangout Grand Counsel

BohKnowsBmore

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, accinfo said:

If she bought the club with Peter as joint Tenants she would keep the team as the survival owner but I suspect that isn't the case and she would owe the taxes just like anyone else.

Am I missing something?

Quote

The IRS offers an unlimited marital deduction that allows married couples to make unlimited interspousal transfers of property without incurring a tax, either during their lifetimes or after their deaths. The deduction applies to both estate taxes and gift taxes.

https://www.thebalance.com/unlimited-marital-deduction-3505622

***Not the most authoritative source, but was a high Google result for "unlimited marital deduction" and a bit more digestible than actual tax code 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Am I missing something?

https://www.thebalance.com/unlimited-marital-deduction-3505622

***Not the most authoritative source, but was a high Google result for "unlimited marital deduction" and a bit more digestible than actual tax code 

No tax is payable on the transfer to Mrs. Angelos, but there will be a tax on the transfer from Mrs. Angelos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • EddeeEddee
      Elias taking accountability

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • EddeeEddee
      Hyde Hot Seat

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Baseball fandom
      Elias taking accountability

      By Baseball fandom · Posted

      Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • EddeeEddee
      The New Guys

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • Baseball fandom
      Hyde Hot Seat

      By Baseball fandom · Posted

      I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • e16bball
      Hyde Hot Seat

      By e16bball · Posted

      I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Baseball fandom
      Hyde Hot Seat

      By Baseball fandom · Posted

      Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...