Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WBWSF

New Owner

Recommended Posts

I don't fault JR for not spending, and that sort of thing - he has spent.  He can go either way on spending.

I do fault him for over-loyalty and I feel that he will be comfortable should the White Sox fall into a decade long Royals/Pirates funk, for which I think there is a decent chance, and he won't do what is needed to shake the organization out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Hm. Even if Reinsdorff and his board can sell the team via the representative corporation, I think the ownershop group still has sway just like shareholders in a publicly traded company. So, Reinsdorff could sell his stake and sell the corporation that manages the team as a company, but he would also need to sell the owners on the plan because they'd be able to override him if they organized a majority of "shares" to do so.

In other words, Jerry selling his stake and the corporation will mean a change, but only a limited one and one that the ownership group approves. That's my read anyway.

 

It's a limited partnership. I haven't seen the organizing documents, but that suggests that all of the investors have a limited partner stake, with the general partner being the corporation over which Reinsdorf has majority control. In a limited partnership, the general partner(s) has/have 100% control regardless of the ownership shares. That means if Reinsdorf has majority control of the corporate general partner of the limited partnership that owns the White Sox, he has 100% control of all decisions for all intents and purposes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Reminder: Jerry Reinsdorff is not the sole owner of the White Sox. Heck he's not even the largest shareholder. He is ONE OF the biggest holders, but the reason you see him is he's the Chairman and speaks for the ownership group. In other words, Reinsdorff selling his stake does not mean the team is being sold.

 

I don’t think Reinsdorf is the problem with this team

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

In the article JR says his only goal is to break  even every year. Anybody who believes that statement believes in the Easter Bunny. This franchise is making nothing but money. If it wasn't JR would sell the team in a heartbeat.  Always remember the 2018 White Sox are 29th in MLB payroll and according to Forbes Magazine they are 14th in revenue. If anything I'm expecting the White Sox payroll to be very low for the foreseable future.

 

44 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Please don't use value as a substitute for revenue.  If you own a million dollar house, it doesn't mean you have a million dollars to spend.

There is the answer. The Sox don't make a ton of profit. The owners have seen their share values rise - that is not money to put into the team though, it's not cash. It's unrealized gain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

It's a limited partnership. I haven't seen the organizing documents, but that suggests that all of the investors have a limited partner stake, with the general partner being the corporation over which Reinsdorf has majority control. In a limited partnership, the general partner(s) has/have 100% control regardless of the ownership shares. That means if Reinsdorf has majority control of the corporate general partner of the limited partnership that owns the White Sox, he has 100% control of all decisions for all intents and purposes.

But as extension to this, it is like owning stock. By buying stock you are also engaging in a contract that specifies you do not get operational control. However, if a majority of shareholders gang up, they can force action by proxy. That's the trump card the owners hold.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

But as extension to this, it is like owning stock. By buying stock you are also engaging in a contract that specifies you do not get operational control. However, if a majority of shareholders gang up, they can force action by proxy. That's the trump card the owners hold.

 

That's not how limited partnerships work. Limited partners have little to no recourse to oppose the decisions of the general partner, typically it's none. That is likely the reason the White Sox are owned by a limited partnership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without seeing the documents its impossible to know anything. There may be things like rights of first refusal etc, but without the partnership agreement its purely a guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GreenSox said:

I don't fault JR for not spending, and that sort of thing - he has spent.  He can go either way on spending.

I do fault him for over-loyalty and I feel that he will be comfortable should the White Sox fall into a decade long Royals/Pirates funk, for which I think there is a decent chance, and he won't do what is needed to shake the organization out of it. 

At 82 years of age, I don't think he will be around another 10 years, at least not as the "owner" of the White Sox.

Back to the original idea, I like the thought of Epstein putting together a group to buy the Sox and putting himself in the Reinsdorf role, so far as decision-making goes.  He certainly has a proven track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

That's not how limited partnerships work. Limited partners have little to no recourse to oppose the decisions of the general partner, typically it's none. That is likely the reason the White Sox are owned by a limited partnership.

 

11 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Without seeing the documents its impossible to know anything. There may be things like rights of first refusal etc, but without the partnership agreement its purely a guess. 

It's all a guessing game, I agree. Even in LLP's though, partners can opt out too, from what I understand. That's analogous to the threat of selling shares as the shareholder proxy action's consequences. Though again, I doubt any of that happens anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bubba phillips said:

At 82 years of age, I don't think he will be around another 10 years, at least not as the "owner" of the White Sox.

Back to the original idea, I like the thought of Epstein putting together a group to buy the Sox and putting himself in the Reinsdorf role, so far as decision-making goes.  He certainly has a proven track record.

Here's a question.  The Sox lease on 35th and Shields ends in 2033.  What qualifies Theo Epstein to negotiate a new stadium with the state, when his regime pretty much failed to get anyone to help with their improvements at Wrigley Field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreenSox said:

I don't fault JR for not spending, and that sort of thing - he has spent.  He can go either way on spending.

I do fault him for over-loyalty and I feel that he will be comfortable should the White Sox fall into a decade long Royals/Pirates funk, for which I think there is a decent chance, and he won't do what is needed to shake the organization out of it. 

Um, you realize that as of this year it's been a decade since our last playoff appearance right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Justinsettle said:

I’m more worried the new owner will move them out of Chicago to a potentially more profitable city.  Eventually every franchise gets sold.

I have read many people with this worry, I just don’t see it. If there really was a slam dunk city that could produce higher revenues long term than what the Sox could get in Chicago, someone would save half a billion or so and buy Oakland or Tampa and move them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Justinsettle said:

I’m more worried the new owner will move them out of Chicago to a potentially more profitable city.  Eventually every franchise gets sold.

Where?  I can't see it.  Even a fractured Chicago market is worth more than a full market of any of the cities left.  Even if you give the Sox a 1/3 share of the 10 millionish population of the metro area as "fans", there isn't a single metro area in the US which doesn't have a team already.  The only one in Canada is Montreal, and we know what happened there.

You don't come to an American city until you get down to Charlotte at 2.5 million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WBWSF said:

It should be pointed out that each MLB franchise is going up 10% in value every year.  I find it ironic that the two previous White Sox owners (Veeck and John Allyn) were  not making any money with the team and couldn't put a winning product on the field because they were going broke. You have a situation now where the team is making money but yet the ownership can't put out a winning product on the field. I honestly wish that the team wasn't making money because if it wasn't JR would sell the team.

 

The difference is the previous two owners didn’t threaten to move the team to Florida if, among other material concessions, the state of Illinois did not agree to a “sweetheart”, subsidized lease agreement, which guarantees the current owner massive profits every year, no matter what the product on the field.  

This lease deal has hurt the fanbase more than anything else, because it has removed the natural incentive to improve the product on the field due to the decreased revenues resulting from the failed results of the ball club.  

If these yearly state-subsidized profits were not in place as they are today, we would not be hearing one word about the owner’s so-called “loyalty” program.  He’d be operating just like he did in his profitable real estate business prior to becoming owner of the Sox, which operated on accountability for performance far before this silliness of loyalty.  

Edited by Fan O'Faust
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

The difference is the previous two owners didn’t threaten to move the team to Florida if, among other material concessions, the state of Illinois did not agree to a “sweetheart”, subsidized lease agreement, which guarantees the current owner massive profits every year, no matter what the product on the field.  

This lease deal has hurt the fanbase more than anything else, because it has removed the natural incentive to improve the product on the field due to the decreased revenues resulting from the failed results of the ball club.  

If these yearly state-subsidized profits were not in place as they are today, we would not be hearing one word about the owner’s so-called “loyalty” program.  He’d be operating just like he did in his profitable real estate business prior to becoming owner of the Sox, which operated on accountability for performance far before this silliness of loyalty.  

No, they threatened to move to Milwaukee and Seattle respectively. 

Edit: Also it was MLB that made is more profitable to have a low payroll than a high one. Though until now, the Sox haven't taken advantage of this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

No, they threatened to move to Milwaukee and Seattle respectively. 

Edit: Also it was MLB that made is more profitable to have a low payroll than a high one. Though until now, the Sox haven't taken advantage of this fact.

You can be so tedious at times.  Always trying to deflect any and all criticism from the current owner.  I guess we’ve come to know and expect this from you at this point, so weak comebacks like this are no surprise.  Nonetheless, let’s get back on track and back to the original discussion point  

The poster to whom I was replying observed that the two owners prior to the current one didn’t enjoy the profits that the current one has for the past 28 years.  The simple reason is due to the sweetheart lease deal the current owner strong-armed his way into receiving from the state in the late ‘80s, due solely to the owner’s threats to move the team to Florida if those demands weren’t met.  Those threats and demands were widely criticized in the press at the time as “blackmail”.  That’s open to interpretation, but you can see why many members of the press concluded as such.

Compare that to the purported moves to either Milwaukee or Seattle posed by Allyn, neither of which resulted in Allyn similarly demanding of either the city or state “Give me $$$, or we are out of here.”  In other words, there weren’t state-subsidized bailout that prevented those moves.  HUGE difference.  

Edited by Fan O'Faust
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

You can be so tedious at times.  Always trying to deflect any and all criticism from the current owner.  I guess we’ve come to know and expect this from you at this point, so weak comebacks like this are no surprise.  Nonetheless, let’s get back on track and back to the original discussion point  

The poster to whom I was replying observed that the two owners prior to the current one didn’t enjoy the profits that the current one has for the past 28 years.  The simple reason is due to the sweetheart lease deal the current owner strong-armed his way into receiving from the state in the late ‘80s, due solely to the owner’s threats to move the team to Florida if those demands weren’t met.  Those threats and demands were widely criticized in the press at the time as “blackmail”.  That’s open to interpretation, but you can see why many members of the press concluded as such.

Compare that to the purported moves to either Milwaukee or Seattle posed by Allyn, neither of which resulted in Allyn similarly demanding of either the city or state “Give me $$$, or we are out of here.”  In other words, there weren’t state-subsidized bailout that prevented those moves.  HUGE difference.  

The only tedious thing is your irrational hatred of people that drives you to attack anyone who corrects your lies. Both of the previous owners threatened moves. Moving the goalposts to fit your hate doesn't change that.

It's Trumpesque after a while. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of clarification. John Allyn was basically told by MLB (who badly wanted to settle the lawsuits imposed by King County and the city of Seattle) that his only options were either sell to Bill Veeck or take Seattle's offer.

It should also be noted that had the Sox moved to Seattle, Charlie Finley, who had most of his business interest in Chicago, was immediately going to move the A's in. So the city was not going to be without a major league team for 1976.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Um, you realize that as of this year it's been a decade since our last playoff appearance right?

Yes, but they were trying to win until 2 years ago, albeit ineptly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, WBWSF said:

It should be pointed out that each MLB franchise is going up 10% in value every year.  I find it ironic that the two previous White Sox owners (Veeck and John Allyn) were  not making any money with the team and couldn't put a winning product on the field because they were going broke. You have a situation now where the team is making money but yet the ownership can't put out a winning product on the field. I honestly wish that the team wasn't making money because if it wasn't JR would sell the team.

 

JR makes a lot more money from his real estate investments than he does from the Sox organization, at least until it's sold.

 

this isn't the McCaskey's and the Bears where its their only business. JR's primary business is real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AustinIllini said:

Unless a new owner comes in with an insane amount of money, I don't see how anything would be any different right now.

One thing WOULD be different:  the new owner would dump the incompetents that Reinsdorf is so damn loyal to (Williams, Steverson, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 8:42 AM, WBWSF said:

Sometime, somewhere, someday the White Sox will have a new owner. I wish it was sooner rather than later.  I read recently where Theo Epstein wants to own a baseball team. He has been very successful running both Boston and the Bad Guys on the Northside. Owning a baseball team is on his bucket list.  Wouldn't it be something if he bought the White Sox? I don't think any White Sox fan would object to his owning the team.

Gosh, I can only dream of the day when the Sox have an owner willing to pony up for contracts like Carl Crawford, Daisuke, Edwin Jackson, Jason Heyward and Yu Darvish.  Those will be the days.

  • Haha 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×