Totally Unlistenable

[thehawk]

2(b).  If any of you follow Hockee, you know that "Mr. Blackberry" Jim Basille (who is Mr. Bettman's Cuban) tried to buy the Phoenix Cayotes out of bankruptcy, in order to move them to Hamiliton, Ontairo.  The NHL recently convinced the (US) Bankruptcy Court that, as the NHL would not approve of Basille as an owner or the move of the team, the court should take a lower offer from the league.  Due to a very old and odd Supreme Court Case, MLB is in a even better legal position than the other sports league (including then NHL), as the Court ruled that baseball was a 'pasttime' and thus not subject to anti-trust law at all.  Now Congress could had made a show of attempting to repeal the anti-trust exemption if Cuban went public long and loud enough (see steroids hearings, actions when the strike occurred etc.), but I think the courts at this point would take the position that the MLB can reject who it wants to on pretty much whatever basis it would like.

Hawk, isn't the Coyotes case a bit more complicated though?  There was more than a dispute over the highest bid/transfer of ownership.  The NHL's primary argument is that once they took possession of the team, Jerry Moyes did not have the right to place the team in bankruptcy in the first place.  Also, Balsillie's stated intent was to purchase the team and then move them to Hamilton, ON, which would have major impact on the Phoenix situation as well as the Toronto and Buffalo franchises.  I guess what I'm saying is the Cubs sale is more of a straightforward ownership transfer disagreement, while Balsillie's plan involved moving of the club out of the country and potentially having a major economic impact on two other franchises in the league.  I doubt that's a situation that any bankruptcy judge in his right mind would want to touch.

The NHL did try to get the bankruptcy thrown out on the basis that Moyes didn't have the right to put the team into bankruptcy, but, as the court decided which offer that was taken, that argument must have gone away in some manner.  While I haven't read the case, I am not sure that the intent to move the team mattered that much, as I believe the decision was based on the fact that the NHL has a near absolute right to approve a new owner for any or no good reason.  Thus, if Basille would not be approved (as the NHL made clear), the Court decided that Basille's bid was not likely to be able to be achieved.  For the court to have accepted Basilles deal, they would have had to, in effect, rewrite the NHL league rules, which I'm pretty sure the court didn't want to touch either (while the Bankruptcy courts have the power to terminate contracts like leases and such, they do not have the power to rewrite them).

[Waco Kid]

I was only able to listen to a little bit this morning, but will get to it after work tonight. So far though, great job guys.

[thehawk]

And let me add that I enjoyed listening to the radiocast last night (had to go to the Bulls game).  Kudos to you three for making Kaplan listenable.  Loved the Theriot comment regarding where he should play [Second... or Japan]

[CBStew]

Just got done listening. Fantastic work. I hate hate hate Dave Kaplan stating in absolutes that Bradley is gone and Kenney is here until everyone else in the world is dead, but I suppose that's all part of being a show mover alonger.

Either way, great job to everyone involved and Kaplan's still an orange retard.

When I heard him say that Bradley was gone I had a momentary flutter of excitement that our long national nightmarewas over.  Then I realized that it was just wish fulfillment on his part and Hendry hadn't really pulled the trigger on his next embarrassing deal.

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

[Pre]

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

There's got to be some limits to this, right?

I mean, let's say that MLB said they would only accept Selig's cousin as the owner and he offered $100 million.  There's got to be some limit to the amount of collusion the other owners are able to arrange.

[Kermit, B.]

Just got done listening. Fantastic work. I hate hate hate Dave Kaplan stating in absolutes that Bradley is gone and Kenney is here until everyone else in the world is dead, but I suppose that's all part of being a show mover alonger.

Either way, great job to everyone involved and Kaplan's still an orange retard.

When I heard him say that Bradley was gone I had a momentary flutter of excitement that our long national nightmarewas over.  Then I realized that it was just wish fulfillment on his part and Hendry hadn't really pulled the trigger on his next embarrassing deal.

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

Not to Desipio this thread with an aside, but wouldn't the shareholders' say-so also depend on whether the team constituted substantially all the assets of the corporation?  Obviously, that wouldn't be the case in this instance, but it's not like the Trib Co. could suddenly sell off all of its assets without shareholder approval.

[Andy]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

[Kermit, B.]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

Tell them the "Sullivan Approves" story, then.  Your face was priceless when he asked about it.

[CBStew]

Just got done listening. Fantastic work. I hate hate hate Dave Kaplan stating in absolutes that Bradley is gone and Kenney is here until everyone else in the world is dead, but I suppose that's all part of being a show mover alonger.

Either way, great job to everyone involved and Kaplan's still an orange retard.

When I heard him say that Bradley was gone I had a momentary flutter of excitement that our long national nightmarewas over.  Then I realized that it was just wish fulfillment on his part and Hendry hadn't really pulled the trigger on his next embarrassing deal.

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

Not to Desipio this thread with an aside, but wouldn't the shareholders' say-so also depend on whether the team constituted substantially all the assets of the corporation?  Obviously, that wouldn't be the case in this instance, but it's not like the Trib Co. could suddenly sell off all of its assets without shareholder approval.

I am sure that the action of the owners has to be "reasonable" (whatever that subjective word means), especially in light of the fact that a bankruptcy judge must approve any sale.  The judge is charged with protecting the creditors' interests as well as the bankrupt's interests.  So the judge could nullify a deal that undersold an asset.  I think that is why they started a separate baknruptcy proceeding for the Cubs so that the sale could be analyzed in the context of the team as opposed to the Tribune.

On a separate note, while I was listening to the show last night Mrs. Cubbieblue walked into my office and when she asked what I was doing I explained to whom I was listening.  She said nothing, but gave me a look that said, "And I stayed married to this putz for 50 years?"

[Kermit, B.]

Just got done listening. Fantastic work. I hate hate hate Dave Kaplan stating in absolutes that Bradley is gone and Kenney is here until everyone else in the world is dead, but I suppose that's all part of being a show mover alonger.

Either way, great job to everyone involved and Kaplan's still an orange retard.

When I heard him say that Bradley was gone I had a momentary flutter of excitement that our long national nightmarewas over.  Then I realized that it was just wish fulfillment on his part and Hendry hadn't really pulled the trigger on his next embarrassing deal.

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

Not to Desipio this thread with an aside, but wouldn't the shareholders' say-so also depend on whether the team constituted substantially all the assets of the corporation?  Obviously, that wouldn't be the case in this instance, but it's not like the Trib Co. could suddenly sell off all of its assets without shareholder approval.

I am sure that the action of the owners has to be "reasonable" (whatever that subjective word means), especially in light of the fact that a bankruptcy judge must approve any sale.  The judge is charged with protecting the creditors' interests as well as the bankrupt's interests.  So the judge could nullify a deal that undersold an asset.  I think that is why they started a separate baknruptcy proceeding for the Cubs so that the sale could be analyzed in the context of the team as opposed to the Tribune.

On a separate note, while I was listening to the show last night Mrs. Cubbieblue walked into my office and when she asked what I was doing I explained to whom I was listening.  She said nothing, but gave me a look that said, "And I stayed married to this putz for 50 years?"

Ah, right.  They're already in bankruptcy, so what I said makes absolutely no sense.

[Internet Apex]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

Tell them the "Sullivan Approves" story, then.  Your face was priceless when he asked about it.

YEAH!

[Chuck to Chuck]

Just got done listening. Fantastic work. I hate hate hate Dave Kaplan stating in absolutes that Bradley is gone and Kenney is here until everyone else in the world is dead, but I suppose that's all part of being a show mover alonger.

Either way, great job to everyone involved and Kaplan's still an orange retard.

When I heard him say that Bradley was gone I had a momentary flutter of excitement that our long national nightmarewas over.  Then I realized that it was just wish fulfillment on his part and Hendry hadn't really pulled the trigger on his next embarrassing deal.

As for shareholders suing the other owners if they owners turned down a higher bidding potential buyer because they didn't like him, the shareholders own a piece of a company that is in a contractual relationship with the other owners, and that contract gives the owners whatever authority they have to reject a bidder.  So the answer depends on the terms of the cohtract.

Not to Desipio this thread with an aside, but wouldn't the shareholders' say-so also depend on whether the team constituted substantially all the assets of the corporation?  Obviously, that wouldn't be the case in this instance, but it's not like the Trib Co. could suddenly sell off all of its assets without shareholder approval.

I am sure that the action of the owners has to be "reasonable" (whatever that subjective word means), especially in light of the fact that a bankruptcy judge must approve any sale.  The judge is charged with protecting the creditors' interests as well as the bankrupt's interests.  So the judge could nullify a deal that undersold an asset.  I think that is why they started a separate baknruptcy proceeding for the Cubs so that the sale could be analyzed in the context of the team as opposed to the Tribune.

On a separate note, while I was listening to the show last night Mrs. Cubbieblue walked into my office and when she asked what I was doing I explained to whom I was listening.  She said nothing, but gave me a look that said, "And I stayed married to this putz for 50 years?"

My understanding was that the Cubs BK was exclusively to formally break the Cubs guarantees of Tribune debt and prevent creditors from going after the Cubs in teh event that said creditors receive less than 100 cents on the dollar for their outstanding monies owed.  It had nothing to do with shareholders.

Second, I'll bet Stew has seen that look many times before.

[Andy]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

Tell them the "Sullivan Approves" story, then.  Your face was priceless when he asked about it.

YEAH!

During the last commercial break when we were still in studio, Kap was trying to figure out how to get to the messageboard to see this thread.  He went to the Desipio homepage and saw the Sullivan Approves button and asked what it was.  As Kermit was explaining it to him, I remembered what you get when you click on it.  So I shot Kermit that "Oh, boy is this grreeeeaaaat" look, because when Kap clicked on it, he was greeted by his own great pumpkin graphic.

I don't know if he clicked on it, but I think he did because it stopped him in mid sentence, and as you can tell, that's rare for him.

[BH]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

Tell them the "Sullivan Approves" story, then.  Your face was priceless when he asked about it.

YEAH!

During the last commercial break when we were still in studio, Kap was trying to figure out how to get to the messageboard to see this thread.  He went to the Desipio homepage and saw the Sullivan Approves button and asked what it was.  As Kermit was explaining it to him, I remembered what you get when you click on it.  So I shot Kermit that "Oh, boy is this grreeeeaaaat" look, because when Kap clicked on it, he was greeted by his own great pumpkin graphic.

I don't know if he clicked on it, but I think he did because it stopped him in mid sentence, and as you can tell, that's rare for him.

That story was a real letdown. Maybe it was all the build up.

[MAD]

Damnit Kermit, knock it off.  They want to talk about how great we were.

Tell them the "Sullivan Approves" story, then.  Your face was priceless when he asked about it.

YEAH!

During the last commercial break when we were still in studio, Kap was trying to figure out how to get to the messageboard to see this thread.  He went to the Desipio homepage and saw the Sullivan Approves button and asked what it was.  As Kermit was explaining it to him, I remembered what you get when you click on it.  So I shot Kermit that "Oh, boy is this grreeeeaaaat" look, because when Kap clicked on it, he was greeted by his own great pumpkin graphic.

I don't know if he clicked on it, but I think he did because it stopped him in mid sentence, and as you can tell, that's rare for him.

That's hilarious.  I hadn't checked on that Sullivan Approves link an ages; hadn't realized what you had done there.

So did you guys butt heads with John Kass on the way out, or what?  He was on Uncle Milty's show after youse guys.