May 9, 200620 yr The problem is that two firesales have a tendency to turn off the younger fans... My experience is (generally) very young kids are oblivious to player changes, 10-12 year olds are confused by it and 13-17 year olds are only at the game to hookup with their friends and possibly meet some guy or girl to flirt with (as are the rituals of life, and yes there are serious fans of all age groups but let's get real here. For alot of the kids in the stands the baseball on the field takes a second place to having a few hours independent of their parent's supervision and overly watchful eye.) When I was 10, I knew baseball and its players as well as I do now, and I wasn't the exception among my friends. All of us knew the entire roster of our favorite team, so you think we wouldn't notice if our favorite players were traded?
May 9, 200620 yr The problem is that two firesales have a tendency to turn off the younger fans... My experience is (generally) very young kids are oblivious to player changes, 10-12 year olds are confused by it and 13-17 year olds are only at the game to hookup with their friends and possibly meet some guy or girl to flirt with (as are the rituals of life, and yes there are serious fans of all age groups but let's get real here. For alot of the kids in the stands the baseball on the field takes a second place to having a few hours independent of their parent's supervision and overly watchful eye.) When I was 10, I knew baseball and its players as well as I do now, and I wasn't the exception among my friends. All of us knew the entire roster of our favorite team, so you think we wouldn't notice if our favorite players were traded? I think that was exactly my point when I referenced that age group as being "confused" by it.
May 9, 200620 yr I'm not going to get into another pissing match with you. You have proven to be clueless on the issues. You have been given resources to explore. You have ignored them. You continue on with your senseless rhetoric. Learn to be humble. Realize you don't know everything. Realize you can't speak for everyone. There was a substantial increase following the World Series win. There was nothing of substance until this past offseason. 125000 additional tickets were sold to see Carlos Delgado and a team hyped to win the NL. Nevermind that attendance isn't a major influence under current circumstances. Like I said, this team's attendance problem goes far beyond the quality of the team or the price of a ticket. The 80-something win squad of Delgado, Pierre, LoDuca and Luiy or [insert your own names here] wouldn't have drawn any better than the 2005 team that seems to be regarded as a poor investment by the club. There are real problems (such as the location, the weather and the long and short-term viability of the club) that are keeping fans from the ballpark that can not be addressed by throwing money at the problem. I'm having a hard time reconciling Fat Hank's numbers with the information provided by MLB, Forbes, Doug Pappas and others. Unless somehow the team somehow got rid of all expenses but their major league payroll (60 in shared revenue streams and revenue sharing transfers minus $15M, right?). A fact to consider is that Fat Hank, you or anyone else but Loria himself knows and is in power to suggest what is a reasonable profit to expect for his [and others'] efforts past, present and future. I'm clueless when I don't agree / bow down / worship you ? :lol 2003 you are the epitome of a pompous a** :sleazy
May 9, 200620 yr I'm not going to get into another pissing match with you. You have proven to be clueless on the issues. You have been given resources to explore. You have ignored them. You continue on with your senseless rhetoric. Learn to be humble. Realize you don't know everything. Realize you can't speak for everyone. There was a substantial increase following the World Series win. There was nothing of substance until this past offseason. 125000 additional tickets were sold to see Carlos Delgado and a team hyped to win the NL. Nevermind that attendance isn't a major influence under current circumstances. Like I said, this team's attendance problem goes far beyond the quality of the team or the price of a ticket. The 80-something win squad of Delgado, Pierre, LoDuca and Luiy or [insert your own names here] wouldn't have drawn any better than the 2005 team that seems to be regarded as a poor investment by the club. There are real problems (such as the location, the weather and the long and short-term viability of the club) that are keeping fans from the ballpark that can not be addressed by throwing money at the problem. I'm having a hard time reconciling Fat Hank's numbers with the information provided by MLB, Forbes, Doug Pappas and others. Unless somehow the team somehow got rid of all expenses but their major league payroll (60 in shared revenue streams and revenue sharing transfers minus $15M, right?). A fact to consider is that Fat Hank, you or anyone else but Loria himself knows and is in power to suggest what is a reasonable profit to expect for his [and others'] efforts past, present and future. I'm clueless when I don't agree / bow down / worship you ? :lol 2003 you are the epitome of a pompous a** :sleazy Moi ????? :blink: I thought you were responding to Rferry's remark. I guess you just couldn't help yourself.
May 10, 200620 yr I'm not going to get into another pissing match with you. You have proven to be clueless on the issues. You have been given resources to explore. You have ignored them. You continue on with your senseless rhetoric. Learn to be humble. Realize you don't know everything. Realize you can't speak for everyone. There was a substantial increase following the World Series win. There was nothing of substance until this past offseason. 125000 additional tickets were sold to see Carlos Delgado and a team hyped to win the NL. Nevermind that attendance isn't a major influence under current circumstances. Like I said, this team's attendance problem goes far beyond the quality of the team or the price of a ticket. The 80-something win squad of Delgado, Pierre, LoDuca and Luiy or [insert your own names here] wouldn't have drawn any better than the 2005 team that seems to be regarded as a poor investment by the club. There are real problems (such as the location, the weather and the long and short-term viability of the club) that are keeping fans from the ballpark that can not be addressed by throwing money at the problem. I'm having a hard time reconciling Fat Hank's numbers with the information provided by MLB, Forbes, Doug Pappas and others. Unless somehow the team somehow got rid of all expenses but their major league payroll (60 in shared revenue streams and revenue sharing transfers minus $15M, right?). A fact to consider is that Fat Hank, you or anyone else but Loria himself knows and is in power to suggest what is a reasonable profit to expect for his [and others'] efforts past, present and future. I'm clueless when I don't agree / bow down / worship you ? :lol 2003 you are the epitome of a pompous a** :sleazy The information is out there. You're the one who chooses to be ignorant.
May 10, 200620 yr Just give up. There's no winning a discussion with these 2 FO apologists. They talk in riddles and they talk down to us like we're all imbeciles and just don't "understand". There's 2 possibilities. Either the 2 of them are correct and we are all imbeciles and we just don't understand "big business and politics"....or the 2 of them are wrong. Either is possible, but one thing I assure you is you'll never get them to admit that Loria & Co. are minor league players in a major league arena. At least 2003 is a season ticket holder(I think, still).
May 10, 200620 yr Yes I am and will continue to be a season ticketholder for as long as there are Florida Marlins. And btw, I don't think I talk in "riddles". I do my best to make my argument in a cogent and well thought out manner, and if someone wants to disagree let them do the same. If you want to call me an apologist, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. Perhaps I'm loyal to a fault but it wasn't that long ago people here proclaimed Loria the greatest owner ever and I believe in the end people will be saying it again.
May 10, 200620 yr Yes I am and will continue to be a season ticketholder for as long as there are Florida Marlins. And btw, I don't think I talk in "riddles". I do my best to make my argument in a cogent and well thought out manner, and if someone wants to disagree let them do the same. If you want to call me an apologist, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. Perhaps I'm loyal to a fault but it wasn't that long ago people here proclaimed Loria the greatest owner ever and I believe in the end people will be saying it again. I fully supported wayne when he first created the marlins, and I fully supported Loria when he uped payroll big time with delgado and promised us contending teams for years to come...... they both gutted teams that I love, so yea , my loyality is mostly shatterd, i wouldnt be suprised if alot of people didnt feel the same way about the ownership.
May 10, 200620 yr Yes I am and will continue to be a season ticketholder for as long as there are Florida Marlins. And btw, I don't think I talk in "riddles". I do my best to make my argument in a cogent and well thought out manner, and if someone wants to disagree let them do the same. If you want to call me an apologist, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. Perhaps I'm loyal to a fault but it wasn't that long ago people here proclaimed Loria the greatest owner ever and I believe in the end people will be saying it again. That was before Loria and Co. threw us a team of minor leaguers without putting any effort into putting a reasonable product on the field and basically telling us it is our fault as a fanbase. Oh sure, there's a chance that we may experience some long term success with some of these guys, but it would have been nice to at least make a shallow attempt at having a reasonable product this year.
May 10, 200620 yr That was before Loria and Co. threw us a team of minor leaguers without putting any effort into putting a reasonable product on the field and basically telling us it is our fault as a fanbase. Oh sure, there's a chance that we may experience some long term success with some of these guys, but it would have been nice to at least make a shallow attempt at having a reasonable product this year. :notworthy This is the long term problem Loria will have now. I used to think he was gonna be a good owner, even supported his efforts 100% in getting a new stadium. But as the facts came out about how he & Samson were just being a-holes with the City of Miami, and it was becoming more & more apparent he didn't have the $$$ to be a real MLB owner, I started changing my mind. The final straw was when offered a good handsome profit by Mr Arriola's friend to sell the team, he refused, forever dooming the Marlins, REGARDLESS of whether or not we get a new stadium, to payroll mediocrity AT BEST, and more or less make us a long shot at ever truly competing again. He says he wants what is best for the Marlins. The best would have been to take the money and run, but no he's now made enimies of the fans, by blaming us, those loyal ones that actually went to the games last year, and whose support he needs for the longterm success of his franchise. rferry and 2003 present their side of the story as "fact" saying the Marlins FO are angels and Mr Loria is an owner that does no wrong. But I say there is a story you get from the FO of the Marlins, then a story you get from the City of Miami and then the truth is somewhere down the middle. That's the way it is in all disputes. Do I believe all that the City of Miami has said ? No, but do I also just blindly believe all the BS put out by the Marlins FO either as rferry and 2003 seem to do ? Absolutely NOT, and the Loria "truth meter" has even less credibility (at least with me) because he destroyed a franchise once before, in much of the same way he has done with this franchise in order to get a new stadium. His efforts so disenfranchised the Montreal market that MLB decided it was in the franchises best interest to move the team. I believe that unless it was an intent by Bud Selig to destroy the So Fla Market, his sending Loria down here was his biggest mistake outside of not calling for drug testing earlier. There is no reason other than MLB didn't want Loria in Washington to destroy that market to have sent him here and not let him continue with the Montreal franchise in Washington. It was the lesser evil to send him here to a smaller market than allow him to screw up the bigger one in Washington, and its the loyal MLB fan in So Fla that gets screwed. Yes I am P.O'd and rferry and 2003 seem to not understand my anger is not at the team on the field but in an ownership that is very close to taking away something I longed for as a kid every Saturday afternoon when I used to watch "The Game of the Week" on NBC. I was jealous of kids in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee etc etc etc. They got to go to real baseball games. I might get the chance to see one every few years if we took a vacation and happened to be in a town that had baseball. Loria & Samson have retaliated against the fans to spite us by giving us the worst team that they could possibly have done. If referry and 2003 can't see that, maybe when Loria finally signs off on trades for D-Train and Cabrera by the end of July they'll finally get it. Mark my words those two will never see the inside of any new stadium here in So Fla unless they are in the visiting dugout. I will be shocked to see anything else. And yes the condecending tone of 2003 & rferry is annoying but what can you do. They have a right to post here as long as they stay withing the posting guidelines. But so do I.
May 10, 200620 yr Yes I am and will continue to be a season ticketholder for as long as there are Florida Marlins. And btw, I don't think I talk in "riddles". I do my best to make my argument in a cogent and well thought out manner, and if someone wants to disagree let them do the same. If you want to call me an apologist, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. Perhaps I'm loyal to a fault but it wasn't that long ago people here proclaimed Loria the greatest owner ever and I believe in the end people will be saying it again. That was before Loria and Co. threw us a team of minor leaguers without putting any effort into putting a reasonable product on the field and basically telling us it is our fault as a fanbase. Oh sure, there's a chance that we may experience some long term success with some of these guys, but it would have been nice to at least make a shallow attempt at having a reasonable product this year. So keep a few of the high priced players so we win 70 games instead of 60? I was as crushed as anyone else when we lost Castillo, Beckett, Easley and Conine but Loria brought a championship back to South Florida and it STILL wasnt enough to get a stadium deal done. The State gave $ to the Heat, Panthers and Dolphins but the Marlins?...the Marlins got the big donut. You cant blame Loria for trying to recoup his losses. Look...I know Loria and Sampson's social skills are below average at best but its time for the State of Florida to choke up some $$$ for the last National League team to win a World Series before we lose them.
May 10, 200620 yr I would like to read or speak with your sources on this fact that Arriola offered a reasonable profitable exit for Loria, because his actions suggest a hostile takeover. I don't think Loria can do no wrong. Honestly I couldn't care for I recognize that he, like all owners and most people, are driven by power, esteem and wealth. The disconnect that I have with many on this board is what is owned by or entitled to the fans. In my estimation, little to nothing is. This is Loria's franchise and he can do with it whatever he wants (approval from his like-minded peers in some cases). I imagine it is in his best interests to make decisions that make the club and himself profitable right here right now and in the future wherever.
May 10, 200620 yr That was before Loria and Co. threw us a team of minor leaguers without putting any effort into putting a reasonable product on the field and basically telling us it is our fault as a fanbase. Oh sure, there's a chance that we may experience some long term success with some of these guys, but it would have been nice to at least make a shallow attempt at having a reasonable product this year. :notworthy This is the long term problem Loria will have now. I used to think he was gonna be a good owner, even supported his efforts 100% in getting a new stadium. But as the facts came out about how he & Samson were just being a-holes with the City of Miami, and it was becoming more & more apparent he didn't have the $$$ to be a real MLB owner, I started changing my mind. The final straw was when offered a good handsome profit by Mr Arriola's friend to sell the team, he refused, forever dooming the Marlins, REGARDLESS of whether or not we get a new stadium, to payroll mediocrity AT BEST, and more or less make us a long shot at ever truly competing again. He says he wants what is best for the Marlins. The best would have been to take the money and run, but no he's now made enimies of the fans, by blaming us, those loyal ones that actually went to the games last year, and whose support he needs for the longterm success of his franchise. rferry and 2003 present their side of the story as "fact" saying the Marlins FO are angels and Mr Loria is an owner that does no wrong. But I say there is a story you get from the FO of the Marlins, then a story you get from the City of Miami and then the truth is somewhere down the middle. That's the way it is in all disputes. Do I believe all that the City of Miami has said ? No, but do I also just blindly believe all the BS put out by the Marlins FO either as rferry and 2003 seem to do ? Absolutely NOT, and the Loria "truth meter" has even less credibility (at least with me) because he destroyed a franchise once before, in much of the same way he has done with this franchise in order to get a new stadium. His efforts so disenfranchised the Montreal market that MLB decided it was in the franchises best interest to move the team. I believe that unless it was an intent by Bud Selig to destroy the So Fla Market, his sending Loria down here was his biggest mistake outside of not calling for drug testing earlier. There is no reason other than MLB didn't want Loria in Washington to destroy that market to have sent him here and not let him continue with the Montreal franchise in Washington. It was the lesser evil to send him here to a smaller market than allow him to screw up the bigger one in Washington, and its the loyal MLB fan in So Fla that gets screwed. Yes I am P.O'd and rferry and 2003 seem to not understand my anger is not at the team on the field but in an ownership that is very close to taking away something I longed for as a kid every Saturday afternoon when I used to watch "The Game of the Week" on NBC. I was jealous of kids in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee etc etc etc. They got to go to real baseball games. I might get the chance to see one every few years if we took a vacation and happened to be in a town that had baseball. Loria & Samson have retaliated against the fans to spite us by giving us the worst team that they could possibly have done. If referry and 2003 can't see that, maybe when Loria finally signs off on trades for D-Train and Cabrera by the end of July they'll finally get it. Mark my words those two will never see the inside of any new stadium here in So Fla unless they are in the visiting dugout. I will be shocked to see anything else. And yes the condecending tone of 2003 & rferry is annoying but what can you do. They have a right to post here as long as they stay withing the posting guidelines. But so do I. For a person who insults the word "fact" in almost everything you post, I really don't need a lecture from you as to what is a permissable post here and about posting guidelines. I can't remember the last time you posted anything here that remotely resembled a "fact". Yesterday you called Loria "a murderer". And me a pompous ass****. Somehow I don't think either is representative of the type of dialogue our guidelines would dictate. The problem is you mix your belief system with half-truths. I'm not going to speak for Rferry but only myself. (And ironically those who have been here for years unlike some newbies, would know that until this issue came up, Rferry and I were generally on opposite sides of literally hundreds of subjects and did battle almost daily.) There seems to be no spewing of poison which is beneath you. Both an arbitration panel and ultimately a court found Loria free of any guilt in what transpired in Montreal. The most prestigeous newspaper in Canada investigated the entire mess and in their words said the minority owners brought Loria in to be their "scapegoat" (in the words of the Toronto Globe and Mail), to carry the burden of their sins against baseball. Numerous articles have appeared pointing to Joe Arriola's attempted extortion and attempt to force a sale of the franchise to a foreign national and campaign contributor while holding up an agreement that would have brought the Marlins a new stadium in the Magic City, and at the same time used time as leverage, knowing construction costs were escalating with every impediment he put in the way. Putting aside the issue of whether it is ethical for Arriola to put himself in the position of salesman for a third party who should have had not part in negotiations, it's just not how things are done. And today you're back again, with more nonsense. Your comment that Crazy Joe (as he's known in city hall after his outbursts at Heat games that resulted in his ouster from the AA, his unethical business dealings (so says the city Ethics Board which challenged Arriola for not making a public disclosure of the investment) with the mayor and a commissioner and his vicious attack on Jim DeFede recently at a city hall press conference which only highlighted why even his best friend Manny Diaz has felt the need to jettison Arriola from his job as city manager) "offered a good handsome profit by Mr Arriola's friend to sell the team..." is laughable. For the record, it's widely understood that Arriola's "offer" (as proxy) was not one that would have generated for Loria any kind of profit, rather would have left him with nearly a hundred million in losses including the liability of paying off the ex-Montreal minority investors, and was less than half what Forbes magazine calculates the franchise's value at. As Hank Goldberg opined, "they (being the wouldbe buyer) wanted the franchise for cheap". I would like to see where your facts are that Arriola made a proposal that offered Loria "a good handsome profit..." ? And yet somehow, it's all Loria's fault. You haven't seen me ever calling Loria an "angel" (your distorted intrepretation of my previous comments) or that he is without sin. But of all the bad guys in this soap opera, he is in my mind the one with the cleanest hands. Yesterday I said you (being the people here who are unhappy with the current state of events) don't have to like Jeffrey Loria (and/or David Samson for that matter) have every right to think he's the worst guy on the face of the earth, but don't try to pass off opinion as fact. I do feel I have to address a couple of other comments you made. Regarding Bud Selig and drug-testing, Selig has for years wanted drug-testing implemented as he was able to do in the minor leagues but because of the collective bargaining agreement with the players and the absolute refusal on the true chief enabler of drug use, Donald Fehr, who's obsession with making sure his players make more and more money without a shred of integrity or a passing considersation for what's best for the game or the health of the players he represents, stood in the way. It wasn't until congres got involved that begridgingly Fehr relented. You can dislike Selig for a myriad of reasons, you can create all the fantasy conspirarcy theories imaginable, but in this case, the blame falls squarely on Donald Fehr and not the commissioner of baseball. Had he wanted to do what was truly in the best interest of the players he would have been leading the charge to clean up the game instead of dragging his feet and being a roadblock to meaningful reform. He would have said, "guys your health is more important to me than your wallets, we have stop injecting our bodies with these dangerous drugs..." but instead he hid behind the collective bargaining agreement and refused to negotiate a common sense solution. And almost as crazy is the conspirarcy theory that Loria was "sent" to Miami rather than Washington because Selig was willing to destroy baseball here when he wasn't in Washington. Most importantly it ignores the real mover and shaker in this, John Henry who was at the time trying to gain controlling interest in the Boston Red Sox franchise. It was Henry's interest in the Red Sox, and nothing else that led to the Loria winding up in Florida. Had the Red Sox/Henry thing not come about Loria would have probably moved the Expos team to Washington or some other city without having to become involved in what was essentially the trading of franchises. I think it should also be pointed out that Loria entered the scene not because some friend of Joe Arriola's or anyone else was interested in buying the Florida Marlins and Selig wanted his own guy. Let's remember how several suitors came and went, how Smiley's attempt to secure the franchise failed, and were it not for Jeffrey Loria there might not even be a franchise here now, or a World Series championship in 2003. Further, at the time Loria sold the Expos to MLB, Washington was only one of several cities bidding for baseball and Washington DC was known as politically a difficult place to do business, something that was borne out as the circus that runs city government showed over and over during the last year and half. There was no guarantee that several years later things would turn out as they did. I suppose everyday you'll find a new angle, a new conspirarcy, a new way to impeach the current ownership and name call me for not mindlessly falling into lock step with a vocal and hateful minority here. So question for today boils down to this - what proof do you have that Arriola offered a proposal that would have resulted in a "handsome" profit for the owner were he to sell? I await your answer and some unimpeachable proof.
May 10, 200620 yr And ironically those who have been here for years unlike some newbies, would know that until this issue came up, Rferry and I were generally on opposite sides of literally hundreds of subjects and did battle almost daily. And here we disagree about Selig's role in Loria's placement here. Henry's interest in the Red Sox and his relationship with Selig were the impetus of the deal, but so were Loria's demand to own a major league team and Selig wanting Washington for his own selfish interests. Selig had blocked attempts by the Expos from moving to the DC-area atleast three times, twice under Brochu's leadership and once while Loria was chairman. Gaining control of the Expos allowed him and his essentally hand-picked Executive Council to oversee the relocation (read: exploitation) of the Expos to DC. Loria was a pawn that refused to take then a handsome profit for release of the franchise and had to be accomodated. As far as I'm aware, there were no serious bidders for the Marlins at the time and common sense suggests that if there were, they weren't fit for MLB. So the decision to accomodate Loria was carried out not in his interests or Henry's, but Selig's intent to extract as much from DC as much as possible. Maybe I'm coming off as 'my town is so great', but this has been said to be the reason why Peter Angelos was granted a seat on the Executive Council. So he would be aware of the events to plan accordingly and help construct any possible relocation toward his favor. Heywood, you seem to act like if you don't get your way or someone disagrees with you, that they are rejecting you. That's not the case. That Selig is unable to bust the union to enforce greater payroll restrictions and drug policies or force owners into greater revenue sharing, doesn't mean he doesn't care or is somehow out to get you or the Marlins. That Loria refused to play ball with Arriola and bring about the mythical Codina-is-our-endless-supply-of-money-and-will-buy-every-fan-an-ice-cream-cone ownership, doesn't mean he wishes the Marlins to fail.
May 10, 200620 yr My point Rferry was that without Henry's interest in the Red Sox (or had someone, anyone else in South Florida stepped forward to purchase the Marlins) the dominos wouldn't have fallen as they did. It's the grand conspirarcy theory that I'm objecting to, that somehow Selig chose Loria to come here with the express plan of destroying MLB in South Florida, and the lunacy of such a proposition.
May 10, 200620 yr My point Rferry was that without Henry's interest in the Red Sox (or had someone, anyone else in South Florida stepped forward to purchase the Marlins) the dominos wouldn't have fallen as they did. It's the grand conspirarcy theory that I'm objecting to, that somehow Selig chose Loria to come here with the express plan of destroying MLB in South Florida, and the lunacy of such a proposition. Look I apologise to both you and rferry. I overstated myself and if my facts were untruths then I was wrong. I only go by what I have read in the Herald and see on the TV news. Both mediums made the assertion that Arriola's friend had offered to buy the team for a nice profit, because the man was desparate to buy a franchise, he would overpay to get one. His every action since he was one of the most vocal critics of bringing baseball to South Fla when Wayne H was awarded the franchise. He took away the All-Star Game, and then saddled us with poor ownership. What I can't understand is this, and please explain it because I just cannot understand it. John Henry you state had "others" that helped him invest in the Red Sox. Mr Loria has said he would allow "others" to help him invest in San Antonio. Then why has he refused to entertain that help to build a stadium here in So Fla ? From what I understand (maybe you know more or better) he has flatly refused. John Henry had these "investors" who helped him with Boston but why not down here ? What gives ? Look I am just frustrated that my home and the franchise I have a emotional interest in has been used as a ragdoll for others to toss around and use as a playtoy. Its had the least stable ownership in MLB and maybe in all sports for the last 20 years (there could be another -- but it escapes my mind right now). I wanted baseball here so bad as a kid and to see it treated this way, and for the present owner to threaten to take it away, and I am just powerless to do anything about it -- its very frustrating :banghead Again I apologise to you and rferry.
May 10, 200620 yr Marlins2003 has covered that issue many times on this board. I suggest you scan the archives for his posts. In short, Loria can not seek the cash influx from selling new shares or selling his own shares at a substantial amount without grievance from the existing minority partners. I understand your frustrations. All we can really do is show those in power to do something that there's fans who care. We can do that a number of ways, such as going to the ballpark and contacting the involved parties
May 10, 200620 yr The answer to your question is simple. The minority investors. If you allow someone to buy-in at a particular price, by law the minority investors have the right to offer their shares for sale at that price, and in some instances (I can't speak to the governing language of the LLC which is the Marlins and how shares are to be sold) minority investors have the right to sell their shares first. That said, if Loria were to offer to take on a new partner now, I suspect the minority shareholders would welcome the opportunity to sell, and in doing so syphon off monies that would otherwise go to funding construction of a new stadium. In San Antonio, where no dome or retractable roof is envisioned and the cost of the stadium much lower ($300 mil vs $450-500 mil), this dilution effect would not have the impact it does here where every penny they can scrounge up will be needed to build a new stadium. Essentially in San Antonio, they can afford to trade one minority partnership group for another and it doesn't have a financial impact on building a new stadium. Here it does.
May 10, 200620 yr Marlins2003 has covered that issue many times on this board. I suggest you scan the archives for his posts. In short, Loria can not seek the cash influx from selling new shares or selling his own shares at a substantial amount without grievance from the existing minority partners. I understand your frustrations. All we can really do is show those in power to do something that there's fans who care. We can do that a number of ways, such as going to the ballpark and contacting the involved parties Thanks I didn't know there was an archive. I'll look for it. The answer to your question is simple. The minority investors. If you allow someone to buy-in at a particular price, by law the minority investors have the right to offer their shares for sale at that price, and in some instances (I can't speak to the governing language of the LLC which is the Marlins and how shares are to be sold) minority investors have the right to sell their shares first. That said, if Loria were to offer to take on a new partner now, I suspect the minority shareholders would welcome the opportunity to sell, and in doing so syphon off monies that would otherwise go to funding construction of a new stadium. In San Antonio, where no dome or retractable roof is envisioned and the cost of the stadium much lower ($300 mil vs $450-500 mil), this dilution effect would not have the impact it does here where every penny they can scrounge up will be needed to build a new stadium. Essentially in San Antonio, they can afford to trade one minority partnership group for another and it doesn't have a financial impact on building a new stadium. Here it does. Then why wasn't this problem of minority ownership taken care of when Loria bought the Marlins ? Shouldn't MLB have stepped in and helped Loria out of this predicament ? Its in the best interest of MLB not just the Marlins to get rid of the minority owners.
May 10, 200620 yr MLB does not to involve itself in matters between owners of the same franchise. It's not their place. Even if they could help out, they wouldn't if they expected it to be for purposes contrary to their goals, such as investing more owner equity into a construction of a new stadium
May 10, 200620 yr Marlins2003 has covered that issue many times on this board. I suggest you scan the archives for his posts. In short, Loria can not seek the cash influx from selling new shares or selling his own shares at a substantial amount without grievance from the existing minority partners. I understand your frustrations. All we can really do is show those in power to do something that there's fans who care. We can do that a number of ways, such as going to the ballpark and contacting the involved parties This doesn't change Heywood's critique. He says that Loria has agreed in principle to bring in new minority shareholders should the team relocate to SA. If this is true (which I am not aware of either way), why is Loria doing this for San Antonio and and not Miami?
May 10, 200620 yr Marlins2003 has covered that issue many times on this board. I suggest you scan the archives for his posts. In short, Loria can not seek the cash influx from selling new shares or selling his own shares at a substantial amount without grievance from the existing minority partners. I understand your frustrations. All we can really do is show those in power to do something that there's fans who care. We can do that a number of ways, such as going to the ballpark and contacting the involved parties Thanks I didn't know there was an archive. I'll look for it. The answer to your question is simple. The minority investors. If you allow someone to buy-in at a particular price, by law the minority investors have the right to offer their shares for sale at that price, and in some instances (I can't speak to the governing language of the LLC which is the Marlins and how shares are to be sold) minority investors have the right to sell their shares first. That said, if Loria were to offer to take on a new partner now, I suspect the minority shareholders would welcome the opportunity to sell, and in doing so syphon off monies that would otherwise go to funding construction of a new stadium. In San Antonio, where no dome or retractable roof is envisioned and the cost of the stadium much lower ($300 mil vs $450-500 mil), this dilution effect would not have the impact it does here where every penny they can scrounge up will be needed to build a new stadium. Essentially in San Antonio, they can afford to trade one minority partnership group for another and it doesn't have a financial impact on building a new stadium. Here it does. Then why wasn't this problem of minority ownership taken care of when Loria bought the Marlins ? Shouldn't MLB have stepped in and helped Loria out of this predicament ? Its in the best interest of MLB not just the Marlins to get rid of the minority owners. The minority partners I'm talking about (aside from the two guys who were Henry's partners down here who I am unsure, but I believe, still own a small piece of the team preferring to remain silent partners) are the former owners of the Montreal Expos franchise who still own their collective piece of the Marlins franchise. These are the guys who sued Loria et al and lost. Need I say more? Right now they are what are called "captive investors" as there is no market for their stock. BTW, Loria presented each of them with World Series rings after 2003 championship.
May 10, 200620 yr There is a misunderstanding generally about who owns the Marlins and perhaps that is why you think like you do. Loria and his partners in Montreal bought the Marlins. Actually he/they bought John Henry's piece of the Marlins and at least two of the four minority partners Henry had (see above). Now I don't know the exact percentage but for example he may have owned after the cash calls they refused to fund, say 95% of the Expos team. Collectively the minority owners then owned 5%. So when the deal was done down here the ownership percentage remained the same of the portion of the Marlins they acquired. We think of Loria as THE owner, but what he actually is the MAJORITY owner and managing partner.
May 10, 200620 yr The answer to your question is simple. The minority investors. If you allow someone to buy-in at a particular price, by law the minority investors have the right to offer their shares for sale at that price, and in some instances (I can't speak to the governing language of the LLC which is the Marlins and how shares are to be sold) minority investors have the right to sell their shares first. That said, if Loria were to offer to take on a new partner now, I suspect the minority shareholders would welcome the opportunity to sell, and in doing so syphon off monies that would otherwise go to funding construction of a new stadium. In San Antonio, where no dome or retractable roof is envisioned and the cost of the stadium much lower ($300 mil vs $450-500 mil), this dilution effect would not have the impact it does here where every penny they can scrounge up will be needed to build a new stadium. Essentially in San Antonio, they can afford to trade one minority partnership group for another and it doesn't have a financial impact on building a new stadium. Here it does. This isn't a corporation, so most of what you said doesn't apply. The minority shareholder stuff you're talking about only applies to large corporations that have to register with the SEC. In addition, even if it was a large publicly traded corporation, anyone can sell and buy the shares. The rules you're talking about only apply when there are major corporate combinations (mergers, takeovers, etc). Otherwise the stock market couldn't function as it does. The law on corporations is meant to facilitate investment, not make it harder, but also protect minority shareholders. But, actually, it is even tougher to transfer interests in an LLC - most LLC statutes provide that members cannot transfer their LLC interests unless all the members approve. However, ownership interest in an LLC is directly proportional to your investment in the company. So, it is not about bidding for higher priced shares of stock in the LLC. Rather, it is about your actual investment. So if Loria wanted to sell 10 percent of the interest in the LLC by law he must sell it for a given price (whatever 10 percent ownership is worth at that time). So, essentially, the minority owners in an LLC can prevent someone from becoming a new member, but the fight would not be about who can sell what shares for what price. In other words, if Loria wanted to sell his shares to someone all he would need is approval from all the other shareholders - but there would be no dispute about the price of the shares and who gets to sell them.
May 10, 200620 yr The answer to your question is simple. The minority investors. If you allow someone to buy-in at a particular price, by law the minority investors have the right to offer their shares for sale at that price, and in some instances (I can't speak to the governing language of the LLC which is the Marlins and how shares are to be sold) minority investors have the right to sell their shares first. That said, if Loria were to offer to take on a new partner now, I suspect the minority shareholders would welcome the opportunity to sell, and in doing so syphon off monies that would otherwise go to funding construction of a new stadium. In San Antonio, where no dome or retractable roof is envisioned and the cost of the stadium much lower ($300 mil vs $450-500 mil), this dilution effect would not have the impact it does here where every penny they can scrounge up will be needed to build a new stadium. Essentially in San Antonio, they can afford to trade one minority partnership group for another and it doesn't have a financial impact on building a new stadium. Here it does. This isn't a corporation, so most of what you said doesn't apply. The minority shareholder stuff you're talking about only applies to large corporations that have to register with the SEC. In addition, even if it was a large publicly traded corporation, anyone can sell and buy the shares. The rules you're talking about only apply when there are major corporate combinations (mergers, takeovers, etc). Otherwise the stock market couldn't function as it does. The law on corporations is meant to facilitate investment, not make it harder, but also protect minority shareholders. But, actually, it is even tougher to transfer interests in an LLC - most LLC statutes provide that members cannot transfer their LLC interests unless all the members approve. However, ownership interest in an LLC is directly proportional to your investment in the company. So, it is not about bidding for higher priced shares of stock in the LLC. Rather, it is about your actual investment. So if Loria wanted to sell 10 percent of the interest in the LLC by law he must sell it for a given price (whatever 10 percent ownership is worth at that time). So, essentially, the minority owners in an LLC can prevent someone from becoming a new member, but the fight would not be about who can sell what shares for what price. In other words, if Loria wanted to sell his shares to someone all he would need is approval from all the other shareholders - but there would be no dispute about the price of the shares and who gets to sell them. The Marlins are an LLC. Of course its a corporation. I can only speak about the half dozen LLCs I've been a part of and in each one the minority shareholders (in each case me and several others) had protective clauses that would prevent the sale of the majority shares without an opportunity to sell our shares. I think you would agree partnership agreements, whether they be LLC or some other type of company, are unique to that company. As a privately owned business I never suggested the company is mandated to follow SEC investor guidelines. Prin, first of all I'm trying to explain this in lay language. Second, the only reason I know how the Marlins are set up is because it's in the court documents made public when the lawsuit(s) arose. It's all in the public record. Fact check me if you want. (edit) ...but the fight would not be about who can sell what shares for what price. On this one I think you're 100% wrong. Think Machiavelli. That's exactly what the fight would be about. The minority investors would extract every possible thing they could get as revenge, besides being an astute business move, let's assume you're correct, it's their best chance to cash out, and do a little damage on the way out the door. In short, what they say is, "...no one sells unless we sell first, sorry Jeffrey, you may have won in court but this victory is ours". Just remember the old saying "revenge is a dish best enjoyed cold".
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.