David Sampson, former President of Marlins and Exec VP of Expos pointed out in this debate and my research verifies the following:
Inheriting or being granted control of an MLB team via a will or trust does not automatically make one the recognized owner. Here's why:
MLB Approval: MLB operates under a set of rules and bylaws that require new owners to be approved by existing owners. This is often referred to as the "best interests of baseball" clause. The new owner must be vetted by the Commissioner's office and approved by a majority of the other team owners. This process includes background checks, financial assessments, and sometimes public hearings or meetings. [Jack Note: I doubt P.Diddy would be approved today. This becomes the catch all.]
Financial Requirements: The potential owner must DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY to run a franchise, which is a significant investment. This includes not only the purchase price but also the ongoing operational costs, player salaries, and stadium maintenance or upgrades. [Jack Note: Caps for Emphasis- Another place where subjective MLB opinion as experts may result in the lawsuit failing.]
League Rules: There are specific league rules regarding ownership, including limits on ownership stakes in multiple teams or conflicts of interest. For example, an owner cannot own a controlling interest in more than one MLB team. [Jack Note: This rule is likely the result of when the Philly Athletics was practically the Yankees Minor League Team due to the relationship between the A's Owner and Yankees Owner at the time.]
Trust or Will Conditions: Even if control is granted through a will or trust, the terms might stipulate conditions that need to be met before control is fully transferred. These conditions could involve age, FINANCIAL COMPETENCY, or other qualifications. [Jack Note: Capitalization again Added for Emphasis as to one of the likely complaints]
Legal and Contractual Agreements: There might be existing legal agreements or contracts that could affect the transfer of ownership. For instance, there could be clauses in the original sale or ownership documents that require certain conditions to be met. [Jack Note: I believe this is saying what was filed with the league. Last minute death bed changes or close to are not recognized. That is, notes on a hand written yellow pad.]
Public and Player Relations: The new owner's relationship with the fans, local community, and players can influence the league's decision. The league might consider how the new ownership will affect the team's image and performance. [Jack Note: Likely why Sheel did a lot of Social Media PR before filing the lawsuit. I can't mind read, but just noting it is an observation by many.]
If someone inherits or is granted control of an MLB team, they would typically need to go through this approval process.
IF THE LEAGUE DOES NOT APPROVE THE NEW OWNER, THEY [THE NEW OWNER] MIGHT HAVE TO SELL THEIR STAKE OR COME TO SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENT, like managing the team with limited control under supervision or through a designated representative until a suitable buyer is found. [Jack Note: Since the league did not like the image of the Padres having to take out loans to make payroll, serious questions are reasonable. This may be why the brothers are reducing costs this year, including why King may go to Arbitration. Sheel may have shot herself in the foot with some of her statements that may be spun in the like of "financial recklessness" under the current salary conditions. Most certainly a court would request a neutral Audit and compare it to public statements.]
Therefore, while you might legally own the shares or control of the team, you wouldn't be the "recognized owner" in terms of league governance without going through this process.
Back to just me. As you can see there are significant concerns based upon MLB's long term standing procedures of operations. That is what Sampson is Touching Bases [Pun intended] on in his review. I have no stake in the situation, but do note the risk is that the lawsuit may result in a court ordered sale. No one wants to see that.
First, a great job of analysis and telling the story. I want to add from another angle. Along with David Sampson's and my verifying research considerations I posted, I want to give an example of "Legal Precedent" of what you can expect from the currently silent on the issue MLB. Silent until they see the outcome and decide if they 'HAVE TO" get involved. They stay off record per legal advice until the result is known. They are very smart and familiar with these situations.
First the Dodgers. MLB filed a motion in the bankruptcy court in September 2011 to force the sale of the team, arguing that McCourt's financial management was detrimental to the franchise. After months of legal battles, an agreement was reached in November 2011, where McCourt consented to a court-supervised sale of the team.
Next from my younger days involving a widow.
A former Buick Dealer in Cincy left his widow as Owner of the Reds. At his passing the MLB accepted and recognized Marge Shott as the uncontested and accepted owner-UNTIL
Marge Schott was removed as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds by Major League Baseball (MLB) due to a series of controversies and actions that were deemed detrimental to the league's image and operations. Here's a detailed look at how and why this happened:
Why: Racial and Ethnic Slurs: Schott was repeatedly accused of making racist remarks. In 1992, she was suspended for a year after making derogatory comments about certain groups and made insensitive comments about historical events. Misconduct and Management Issues: Beyond her offensive statements, Schott was criticized for her management style. She was known for her frugal approach to team spending which some argued led to a decline in team performance. She also banned artificial turf from Riverfront Stadium, necessitating costly grass maintenance.
Negative Public Image: Her actions and statements received significant negative media coverage, damaging the Reds' and the league's reputation.
How: Suspension: Initially, in 1992, MLB suspended her for one year and fined her $25,000 due to her offensive comments. Second Suspension: In 1996, after more allegations of slurs came to light, she was suspended again, this time for two years. This suspension meant she was not allowed to be involved in the daily operations of the team. Forced Sale: By 1998, the pressure from other MLB owners, coupled with ongoing public and internal criticism, led to a vote where 26 of the 29 other owners voted to force Schott to sell enough of her shares to relinquish control of the team. The Process: MLB's constitution allows for such actions under the "best interests of baseball" clause. The league can intervene when an owner's actions are believed to compromise the game's integrity or image. Outcome: Schott was compelled to sell a controlling interest in the Reds to a group led by Carl Lindner, although she retained some shares and a minority stake until her death in 2004.
The removal of Marge Schott from controlling the Reds was a clear demonstration of MLB's effort to maintain control over its image, manage public relations, and ensure that team ownership aligns with the league's standards and values. It was one of the most significant instances where MLB directly intervened in team ownership due to the conduct of an owner.
Why the way the MLB operates as David Sampson noted in my first comment and the McCourt & Schott cases are good examples from my research is
1- As in McCourt–The Brothers have the 'Demonstrated Financial Capabilty & Competency" issue in their favor and no public historical management in Sheels' Favor 2- As in Schott- However, Sheel has bloodied the Brothers with claims of Racism, sexism, and mismanagement of the Trust.
Right now it appears the two sides are more interested in their own objectives over the Fans and the good of the team. Which I would expect the MLB to determine detrimental to the League.
None of us want the fans to suffer because of all this. Even I and David Sampson have a great deal of respect for Peter and his efforts. You have to respect such good desires for a community and baseball as a whole.
If this now public infighting is not stopped immediately, I fear it is the Padres Fans who will suffer far more than the family.
The Fans deserve better. The community deserves better. Baseball deserves better.
My apologies for breaking this up into 3 comments, but knowing the history of the MLB in these scenarios, which many today fans may not be familiar with, I think you can see the Red Flags [pun not intended] waving in a strong wind that are disturbing to the the betterment of the fans, Players, community, and unfortunately, to the MLB the public image of both sides to the subjective requirements.
I also think that if I know these things, Wolfe knows these things or at least the others teams will make sure Saski knows this MLB history. If the Padres had a chance before, though her intentions were for good in her eyes, I personally feel the timing of Sheel's unknowing the history and MLB concerns has killed any chance of Sasaki happening. But only time [A little less than 2 weeks now] will tell. Perhaps why a 'Mystery Team" appeared on the horizon after this Padres Ownership story broke.
There is no greater fear in negotiations than "Fear of the Unknown." Right now that fear regarding Padres ownership's has to be a concern. Looking at the history and current pattern of observation by the MLB this situation will not be calmed by January 23, 2025. Therefore, in my opinion, this entire self-inflicted destructive situation is the result of poor timing by Sheels and lawyers who may know the law, but know nothing of MLB History and how the MLB operates.
Neither side deserves control of the Padres. The team needs to be sold. The fans are the ones who don’t deserve this drama over their greed and avarice. Putting Roki’s name in this nasty messy public lawsuit is an unfortunate and unnecessary unforced error. He is a very private person and doesn’t like media attention. Shameful and disgusting.
San Diego has the Gulls for hockey but they’re AHL not NHL and an affiliate team for the Ducks . Honestly it was hard enough to lose the Chargers so I will support whichever keeps them in San Diego. Me speaking as an Angels fan
6 Comments
Great job on the coverage.
David Sampson, former President of Marlins and Exec VP of Expos pointed out in this debate and my research verifies the following:
Inheriting or being granted control of an MLB team via a will or trust does not automatically make one the recognized owner. Here's why:
MLB Approval: MLB operates under a set of rules and bylaws that require new owners to be approved by existing owners. This is often referred to as the "best interests of baseball" clause. The new owner must be vetted by the Commissioner's office and approved by a majority of the other team owners. This process includes background checks, financial assessments, and sometimes public hearings or meetings. [Jack Note: I doubt P.Diddy would be approved today. This becomes the catch all.]
Financial Requirements: The potential owner must DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY to run a franchise, which is a significant investment. This includes not only the purchase price but also the ongoing operational costs, player salaries, and stadium maintenance or upgrades. [Jack Note: Caps for Emphasis- Another place where subjective MLB opinion as experts may result in the lawsuit failing.]
League Rules: There are specific league rules regarding ownership, including limits on ownership stakes in multiple teams or conflicts of interest. For example, an owner cannot own a controlling interest in more than one MLB team. [Jack Note: This rule is likely the result of when the Philly Athletics was practically the Yankees Minor League Team due to the relationship between the A's Owner and Yankees Owner at the time.]
Trust or Will Conditions: Even if control is granted through a will or trust, the terms might stipulate conditions that need to be met before control is fully transferred. These conditions could involve age, FINANCIAL COMPETENCY, or other qualifications. [Jack Note: Capitalization again Added for Emphasis as to one of the likely complaints]
Legal and Contractual Agreements: There might be existing legal agreements or contracts that could affect the transfer of ownership. For instance, there could be clauses in the original sale or ownership documents that require certain conditions to be met. [Jack Note: I believe this is saying what was filed with the league. Last minute death bed changes or close to are not recognized. That is, notes on a hand written yellow pad.]
Public and Player Relations: The new owner's relationship with the fans, local community, and players can influence the league's decision. The league might consider how the new ownership will affect the team's image and performance. [Jack Note: Likely why Sheel did a lot of Social Media PR before filing the lawsuit. I can't mind read, but just noting it is an observation by many.]
If someone inherits or is granted control of an MLB team, they would typically need to go through this approval process.
IF THE LEAGUE DOES NOT APPROVE THE NEW OWNER, THEY [THE NEW OWNER] MIGHT HAVE TO SELL THEIR STAKE OR COME TO SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENT, like managing the team with limited control under supervision or through a designated representative until a suitable buyer is found. [Jack Note: Since the league did not like the image of the Padres having to take out loans to make payroll, serious questions are reasonable. This may be why the brothers are reducing costs this year, including why King may go to Arbitration. Sheel may have shot herself in the foot with some of her statements that may be spun in the like of "financial recklessness" under the current salary conditions. Most certainly a court would request a neutral Audit and compare it to public statements.]
Therefore, while you might legally own the shares or control of the team, you wouldn't be the "recognized owner" in terms of league governance without going through this process.
Back to just me. As you can see there are significant concerns based upon MLB's long term standing procedures of operations. That is what Sampson is Touching Bases [Pun intended] on in his review. I have no stake in the situation, but do note the risk is that the lawsuit may result in a court ordered sale. No one wants to see that.
First, a great job of analysis and telling the story. I want to add from another angle.
Along with David Sampson's and my verifying research considerations I posted, I want to give an example of "Legal Precedent" of what you can expect from the currently silent on the issue MLB. Silent until they see the outcome and decide if they 'HAVE TO" get involved. They stay off record per legal advice until the result is known. They are very smart and familiar with these situations.
First the Dodgers.
MLB filed a motion in the bankruptcy court in September 2011 to force the sale of the team, arguing that McCourt's financial management was detrimental to the franchise. After months of legal battles, an agreement was reached in November 2011, where McCourt consented to a court-supervised sale of the team.
Next from my younger days involving a widow.
A former Buick Dealer in Cincy left his widow as Owner of the Reds. At his passing the MLB accepted and recognized Marge Shott as the uncontested and accepted owner-UNTIL
Marge Schott was removed as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds by Major League Baseball (MLB) due to a series of controversies and actions that were deemed detrimental to the league's image and operations. Here's a detailed look at how and why this happened:
Why:
Racial and Ethnic Slurs: Schott was repeatedly accused of making racist remarks. In 1992, she was suspended for a year after making derogatory comments about certain groups and made insensitive comments about historical events.
Misconduct and Management Issues: Beyond her offensive statements, Schott was criticized for her management style. She was known for her frugal approach to team spending which some argued led to a decline in team performance. She also banned artificial turf from Riverfront Stadium, necessitating costly grass maintenance.
Negative Public Image: Her actions and statements received significant negative media coverage, damaging the Reds' and the league's reputation.
How:
Suspension: Initially, in 1992, MLB suspended her for one year and fined her $25,000 due to her offensive comments.
Second Suspension: In 1996, after more allegations of slurs came to light, she was suspended again, this time for two years. This suspension meant she was not allowed to be involved in the daily operations of the team.
Forced Sale: By 1998, the pressure from other MLB owners, coupled with ongoing public and internal criticism, led to a vote where 26 of the 29 other owners voted to force Schott to sell enough of her shares to relinquish control of the team.
The Process: MLB's constitution allows for such actions under the "best interests of baseball" clause. The league can intervene when an owner's actions are believed to compromise the game's integrity or image.
Outcome: Schott was compelled to sell a controlling interest in the Reds to a group led by Carl Lindner, although she retained some shares and a minority stake until her death in 2004.
The removal of Marge Schott from controlling the Reds was a clear demonstration of MLB's effort to maintain control over its image, manage public relations, and ensure that team ownership aligns with the league's standards and values. It was one of the most significant instances where MLB directly intervened in team ownership due to the conduct of an owner.
Why the way the MLB operates as David Sampson noted in my first comment and the McCourt & Schott cases are good examples from my research is
1- As in McCourt–The Brothers have the 'Demonstrated Financial Capabilty & Competency" issue in their favor and no public historical management in Sheels' Favor
2- As in Schott- However, Sheel has bloodied the Brothers with claims of Racism, sexism, and mismanagement of the Trust.
Right now it appears the two sides are more interested in their own objectives over the Fans and the good of the team. Which I would expect the MLB to determine detrimental to the League.
None of us want the fans to suffer because of all this. Even I and David Sampson have a great deal of respect for Peter and his efforts. You have to respect such good desires for a community and baseball as a whole.
If this now public infighting is not stopped immediately, I fear it is the Padres Fans who will suffer far more than the family.
The Fans deserve better. The community deserves better. Baseball deserves better.
My apologies for breaking this up into 3 comments, but knowing the history of the MLB in these scenarios, which many today fans may not be familiar with, I think you can see the Red Flags [pun not intended] waving in a strong wind that are disturbing to the the betterment of the fans, Players, community, and unfortunately, to the MLB the public image of both sides to the subjective requirements.
I also think that if I know these things, Wolfe knows these things or at least the others teams will make sure Saski knows this MLB history. If the Padres had a chance before, though her intentions were for good in her eyes, I personally feel the timing of Sheel's unknowing the history and MLB concerns has killed any chance of Sasaki happening. But only time [A little less than 2 weeks now] will tell. Perhaps why a 'Mystery Team" appeared on the horizon after this Padres Ownership story broke.
There is no greater fear in negotiations than "Fear of the Unknown." Right now that fear regarding Padres ownership's has to be a concern. Looking at the history and current pattern of observation by the MLB this situation will not be calmed by January 23, 2025. Therefore, in my opinion, this entire self-inflicted destructive situation is the result of poor timing by Sheels and lawyers who may know the law, but know nothing of MLB History and how the MLB operates.
Neither side deserves control of the Padres. The team needs to be sold. The fans are the ones who don’t deserve this drama over their greed and avarice. Putting Roki’s name in this nasty messy public lawsuit is an unfortunate and unnecessary unforced error. He is a very private person and doesn’t like media attention. Shameful and disgusting.
San Diego has the Gulls for hockey but they’re AHL not NHL and an affiliate team for the Ducks . Honestly it was hard enough to lose the Chargers so I will support whichever keeps them in San Diego. Me speaking as an Angels fan