The issue that has come up now, is when will the auction be held to determine the purchaser of the Texas Rangers. There was originally a hearing scheduled for August 4, where the bankruptcy court would hear bids from potential buyers. However, creditors and a court-appointed restructuring officer want the hearing delayed in order for other potential bidders to have time to obtain financing. On Wednesday, Nolan Ryan, current team president and the head of one of the groups looking to purchase the Rangers, asked the judge to go ahead with the auction as planned on August 4th. Ryan claimed he was asking this as team president, because postponing the auction could prevent the Rangers from keeping Josh Hamilton, as he is eligible for salary arbitration this offseason, and he must be too expensive for a team in bankruptcy to afford. However, there is a little conflict of interest here, as more time would mean more buyers for Ryan to compete with.
In a related note, Mark Cuban was given the go ahead to submit a bid to purchase the Rangers. However, don’t read into this too much. As you remember, Cuban also submitted a bid to purchase the Chicago Cubs a few years ago, and then was essentially blackballed by MLB. As sources state, Cuban had submitted the highest bid for the Cubs franchise, however, a potential MLB owner must be approved by the other owners, and few were willing to approve Cuban due to his brash style and previous happenings as owner of the Dallas Mavericks. So it will be interesting to see how this progresses…
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
More Conflict Between The Dodgers Owners
The long struggle between Frank McCourt and his estranged wife Jamie McCourt over control of the Dodgers took another twist yesterday. This twist revolved around a postnuptial marital property agreement that put the couple’s homes in Jamie’s name. Frank maintains that the agreement, which was signed by both parties, gave him control of the Dodgers, while Jamie denies ever signing away control of the Dodgers.
The disagreement exists because there are actually six copies of the documents, where three of them were signed at a different time than the other three. Jamie’s lawyers have argued that the three copies she has do not include the “Schedule A,” which lists the assets of Frank McCourt, including the Los Angeles Dodgers. However, forensic scientists have recently examined the three copies that do contain “Schedule A,’ and concluded that the document had not been tampered with, which could be a huge blow to Jamie and her lawyers.
Frank’s attorneys argue that since the forensic scientists concluded that the original staple was still in the three copies that contained “Schedule A,” along with Jamie’s original signature, there is no doubt that Jamie had been lying all along. Meanwhile, Jamie’s lawyers are arguing that the attorney that drew up the contract may be gone over a different copy with Jamie, than the one signed by Frank McCourt.
Even if this is a victory for Frank, the judge still could rule to throw out the marital property agreement if he deems it to be unfair, with the next trial date schedule for August 30.
The disagreement exists because there are actually six copies of the documents, where three of them were signed at a different time than the other three. Jamie’s lawyers have argued that the three copies she has do not include the “Schedule A,” which lists the assets of Frank McCourt, including the Los Angeles Dodgers. However, forensic scientists have recently examined the three copies that do contain “Schedule A,’ and concluded that the document had not been tampered with, which could be a huge blow to Jamie and her lawyers.
Frank’s attorneys argue that since the forensic scientists concluded that the original staple was still in the three copies that contained “Schedule A,” along with Jamie’s original signature, there is no doubt that Jamie had been lying all along. Meanwhile, Jamie’s lawyers are arguing that the attorney that drew up the contract may be gone over a different copy with Jamie, than the one signed by Frank McCourt.
Even if this is a victory for Frank, the judge still could rule to throw out the marital property agreement if he deems it to be unfair, with the next trial date schedule for August 30.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Texas Rangers Are In Court Again
I wrote an earlier post that discussed the pending sale and bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers franchise. Well, it has just gotten a little more complicated. According to ESPN.com, the court-appointed restructuring officer reopened the sale of the team to potential purchasers, and even began accepting bids again, even though current team president and prospective purchaser Nolan Ryan states that his group already had their bid accepted by the team, and now have the exclusive rights to purchase the team. This recent development caused Ryan and his group to file suit against the Texas Rangers in bankruptcy court, requesting that the judge put a stop to the current bidding process.
It seems unlikely that any other groups would eventually take the place of Ryan’s group and purchase the team, as MLB is heavily in favor of bringing back one of the all time Texas greats to own a franchise in his home state. And after watching the Chicago Cubs sale over the last 2 years, we know how important it is to have MLB supporting your bid to purchase a team. In addition, it looks like Ryan’s group has position themselves well by having massive funding for the purchase as well as savvy businessmen and attorneys included in their group.
Stay tuned as I am sure there will be future developments in this case in the upcoming weeks…
It seems unlikely that any other groups would eventually take the place of Ryan’s group and purchase the team, as MLB is heavily in favor of bringing back one of the all time Texas greats to own a franchise in his home state. And after watching the Chicago Cubs sale over the last 2 years, we know how important it is to have MLB supporting your bid to purchase a team. In addition, it looks like Ryan’s group has position themselves well by having massive funding for the purchase as well as savvy businessmen and attorneys included in their group.
Stay tuned as I am sure there will be future developments in this case in the upcoming weeks…
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Salary Arbitration Process
Thank you to Mike F. for submitting the following question: I am a huge baseball fan and understand the basics of salary arbitration, but how exactly does the actual arbitration process work?
You hear it every year after the season winds down. It is a list of players that are arbitration eligible during that off-season. However, very few people know what that means, or what process will be followed to determine the player’s salary for the following season. In order to be eligible for arbitration, a player generally must have between three and six years of Major League Baseball experience, with a few other exceptions which would otherwise qualify them. Once the player has qualified for arbitration, he must notify the MLB Player’s Association that he is electing to proceed with arbitration. The Association will then notify the league, who will then notify the individual club of the impending proceedings. Once all parties are notified, each side, the player and the team, will have three days to submit their arbitration figure for what they believe the player should earn the following season. This is where it gets tricky. While the figures are “locked in” once they are submitted and cannot be changed, the team and the player can continue to attempt to negotiate a contract in order to avoid arbitration altogether, which occurs the majority of the time for several reasons discussed below. If the sides do not reach an agreement before the hearing, an arbitration panel of three people will be selected by the MLB Labor Relations Department.
Once the hearing begins, each side will have one hour to present their case on why they believe the player should earn the amount that that particular side submitted. The MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement actually lists the information that can be submitted to the panel in support of each side, such as “the player’s contribution to their team during the past season, the length and consistency of the player’s career contribution, the existence of an physical or mental defects on the part of the player, and the recent performance of the club as an indication for the public’s acceptance.” The Collective Bargaining Agreement also list what data in inadmissible, such as “the financial position of the player or the team, previous offers made by the team or the player, or salaries in other sports or occupations.” After both sides have given their initial presentations, each side will then have one half-hour for rebuttal and summation, and the panel will then select which of the two submitted figures they believe the player most deserves based on the information presented.
Because the panel is only allowed to pick one of the two salaries submitted, it is very important that each side strategically selects an appropriate figure. This is also the major reason that the player and the club usually end up agreeing on a contract before the hearing, as it is a way to hedge yourself against having to leave yourself in the hands of the panel. Teams and players also would rather come to a compromise that is satisfactory to both sides, instead of the team having to point out the defects in a player’s game or person in order to prove why the player is not worth what he believe he is, which could cause tension down the road.
Hope this helps Mike!
You hear it every year after the season winds down. It is a list of players that are arbitration eligible during that off-season. However, very few people know what that means, or what process will be followed to determine the player’s salary for the following season. In order to be eligible for arbitration, a player generally must have between three and six years of Major League Baseball experience, with a few other exceptions which would otherwise qualify them. Once the player has qualified for arbitration, he must notify the MLB Player’s Association that he is electing to proceed with arbitration. The Association will then notify the league, who will then notify the individual club of the impending proceedings. Once all parties are notified, each side, the player and the team, will have three days to submit their arbitration figure for what they believe the player should earn the following season. This is where it gets tricky. While the figures are “locked in” once they are submitted and cannot be changed, the team and the player can continue to attempt to negotiate a contract in order to avoid arbitration altogether, which occurs the majority of the time for several reasons discussed below. If the sides do not reach an agreement before the hearing, an arbitration panel of three people will be selected by the MLB Labor Relations Department.
Once the hearing begins, each side will have one hour to present their case on why they believe the player should earn the amount that that particular side submitted. The MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement actually lists the information that can be submitted to the panel in support of each side, such as “the player’s contribution to their team during the past season, the length and consistency of the player’s career contribution, the existence of an physical or mental defects on the part of the player, and the recent performance of the club as an indication for the public’s acceptance.” The Collective Bargaining Agreement also list what data in inadmissible, such as “the financial position of the player or the team, previous offers made by the team or the player, or salaries in other sports or occupations.” After both sides have given their initial presentations, each side will then have one half-hour for rebuttal and summation, and the panel will then select which of the two submitted figures they believe the player most deserves based on the information presented.
Because the panel is only allowed to pick one of the two salaries submitted, it is very important that each side strategically selects an appropriate figure. This is also the major reason that the player and the club usually end up agreeing on a contract before the hearing, as it is a way to hedge yourself against having to leave yourself in the hands of the panel. Teams and players also would rather come to a compromise that is satisfactory to both sides, instead of the team having to point out the defects in a player’s game or person in order to prove why the player is not worth what he believe he is, which could cause tension down the road.
Hope this helps Mike!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
BREAKING NEWS...Lawrence Taylor Indicted
Lawrence Taylor has been indicted on charges of rape, endangering the welfare of a child, and patronizing a prostitute resulting from an incident that occurred at a Holiday Inn in suburban New York last month.
Rangers Must Change Plan to Complete Sale
As reported before, the Texas Rangers filed for bankruptcy about 6 weeks ago after owner Tom Hicks defaulted on over $525 million in loans. Hicks has been opposing the sale of the team to a group led by Reangers' president Nolan Ryan, although everyone else, including MLB, seems to support it. Well now it seems the Texas Rangers will have to change its bankruptcy plan. A bankruptcy judge has ruled that both creditors and the team would be adversely affected by the Rangers' previous plan to pay creditors $75 million. It was not necessarily the amount that the judge rejected, but rather, that he felt some of the creditor's rights were being taken away under that plan. The judge also ruled that unsecured creditors were not adversely affected by the plan because they were scheduled to get the amount in default plus interest. Interestingly, the Rangers largest unsecured creditor is Alex Rodriguez, whom the Rangers still owe almost $25 million in deferred compensation for the contract he signed in Texas ten years ago. The judge has scheduled another hearing on July 9 when a final decision is expected to be announced so stay tuned for that...
Monday, May 24, 2010
American Needle Clobbers the NFL
As updated earlier, the US Supreme Court today ruled 9-0 in favor of American Needle in its case against the National Football League. The case originated some ten years ago, when American Needle negotiated the merchandising rights with an NFL team. The National Football League then negotiated and signed a merchandising apparel agreement with Reebok, that gave Reebok the exclusive right to manufacture and sell the merchandising apparel for all 32 teams. American Needle then filed suit in Chicago, arguing that the NFL violated the Antitrust Laws as it applied to the teams within the league. Antitrust laws were enacted to prevent entities from working together in an effort to limit competition or place restraints on trade. American Needle argued that the teams within the NFL were actually individual entities, acting together within the structure of the NFL, and therefore, and efforts by the league to place restrictions or act on behalf of all the teams violated the antitrust laws because the teams were then colluding to limit competition. The NFL argued that the National Football League was one single entity, with 32 members, and as a result, the league could negotiate on behalf on all of the teams without violating these antitrust laws. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of American Needle, and decided that the NFL is actually comprised on 32 different entities. What was strange about this case was not only the 9-0 vote by the US Supreme Court, which rarely happens due to the different views and opinions by the Justices, but also that the NFL had previously scored two victories in this case in the courts before the Supreme Court.
A lot has been made about how this ruling not only applies to the National Football League, but to other sports as well. Had this ruling been in favor of the NFL, fans could have seen the effects of it in their wallets. Not only could the NFL have fixed merchandising costs, which would be much higher without there being competition to drive costs down, it could have gone much further, such as the NFL fixing ticket prices to help increase revenue. Other major sports were keeping their eye on this case as well, for the reasons just laid out. It would have given the other leagues much more authority and opportunity to act on behalf of all the teams within the league, and ultimately do what was best for the league, and not necessarily what was best for the players or fans.
Click here and here for an ESPN.com and SI.com column on what this ruling means to the NFL, as well as players, unions, and fans.
A lot has been made about how this ruling not only applies to the National Football League, but to other sports as well. Had this ruling been in favor of the NFL, fans could have seen the effects of it in their wallets. Not only could the NFL have fixed merchandising costs, which would be much higher without there being competition to drive costs down, it could have gone much further, such as the NFL fixing ticket prices to help increase revenue. Other major sports were keeping their eye on this case as well, for the reasons just laid out. It would have given the other leagues much more authority and opportunity to act on behalf of all the teams within the league, and ultimately do what was best for the league, and not necessarily what was best for the players or fans.
Click here and here for an ESPN.com and SI.com column on what this ruling means to the NFL, as well as players, unions, and fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)