Jump to content

Just a Rumor


Tryptamine

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

JA is not the owner but the major partner so there are others in the ownership group that presumably would have a say in any sale.  Also, if I not mistaken, both the commissioner's office and a significant number of the other owners would have to approve the new owner.  Yes?  I'm guessing that both these things would have an impact over the rapacious impulses of your random private equity barbarian horde.

I believe that Angelos has bought back most of the outside ownership.  Not sure how many minority partners are left and what share they own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

He can’t simply move the Nats to Monumental.  MASN has the rights to broadcast the Nats in perpetuity.   The litigation only relates to what the fair market value of the rights fees were in 2012-16.   It’s got nothing to do with MASN’s exclusive rights to broadcast the games.  Now if MASN wanted to sell the rights, that would be a different story.  But it’s not something Leonsis could do unilaterally if he owned the Nats.  

Yeah. I figured there was some red tape, but it's definitely what he is angling to do (with the Nats, in theory).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

So take it with a grain of salt, but a guy who has repeatedly proven to be accurate with his insider information regarding the Mets is apparently claiming that a deal has been made but wont be announced for a while where the Orioles have been sold to the Carlyle Group for 1.4B. Why he would have this particularly info as a Met fan(though he is from Balitmore), I do not know, but he's been tremendously accurate with this stuff in the past so I'm just throwing it out there. 

 

 

Your "repeatedly proven to be accurate" friend didn't spell Carlisle group right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BRobinsonfan said:

Your "repeatedly proven to be accurate" friend didn't spell Carlisle group right.  

Maybe it was Tryptamine who misspelled it.  I think most of us are skeptical until more info comes in anyway.

And it wouldn't be an offseason if there wasn't a rumor or two to kick around, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

I believe that Angelos has bought back most of the outside ownership.  Not sure how many minority partners are left and what share they own.

JA doesn't have the money to buy back squat. I am almost positive the 24% owned by Tom Clancy is still with the Clancy estate divided amongst his heirs. There was an additional 10% or 11% with Peter Angelos' friends, I know he bought out one of them in financial difficulty and Pam Shriver had 2 %.I guess that at most JA controls 66%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 24fps said:

Maybe it was Tryptamine who misspelled it.  I think most of us are skeptical until more info comes in anyway.

And it wouldn't be an offseason if there wasn't a rumor or two to kick around, right?

Nah they spelled it wrong, I typed it right for when I was typing  and left his misspelling in the quote so it was an actual quote.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

JA doesn't have the money to buy back squat. I am almost positive the 24% owned by Tom Clancy is still with the Clancy estate divided amongst his heirs. There was an additional 10% or 11% with Peter Angelos' friends, I know he bought out one of them in financial difficulty and Pam Shriver had 2 %.I guess that at most JA controls 66%.

How much of the team Peter Angelos owns is one of those things John Angelos told the media he would tell them about "next week." 

I've seen reports that Peter owns about 75 percent. John said, I'm pretty sure, that it's 70 percent. In either case, Peter can make the decision to sell the team. The minority owners can sue if they think the price is inadequate.

Edited by spiritof66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

He can’t simply move the Nats to Monumental.  MASN has the rights to broadcast the Nats in perpetuity.   The litigation only relates to what the fair market value of the rights fees were in 2012-16.   It’s got nothing to do with MASN’s exclusive rights to broadcast the games.  Now if MASN wanted to sell the rights, that would be a different story.  But it’s not something Leonsis could do unilaterally if he owned the Nats.  

Correct.  But this could be part of the negotiations.  MLB would love to have an owner's group that could dissolve the MASN agreement.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...