PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Ownership Article


roylestillman
07-28-2013, 09:05 AM
The Tribune has a great series of articles in the paper today regarding Chicago Sports team ownership, including the issues surrounding the White Sox ownership.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-0728-page-one-gecko-20130728,0,4733479.story

Unfortunately I think you need the digital subscription to see the full story online, but its well worth buying the print edition for a great read.

It sounds like we're in for a bumpy ride when Jerry leaves the scene. The "executors of his estate" will run the Sox after he's gone, although who those people are not disclosed. It sounds like a sale is pretty much a foregone conclusion, given the age of most of the owners. The article hints that one member of the Board of Directors, Andrew Berlin, may be a front runner for some future ownership position. He currently owns the South Bend Silver Hawks. I'll be Googling him most of the day....

RealFan
07-28-2013, 09:11 AM
I know Andy Berlin personally. Great guy, modest and IMHO could be an interesting owner for the Sox. He is a Chicago guy for sure.

Brian26
07-28-2013, 09:53 AM
Just read the print version. Chuch Walsh, 81, does not want to sell. The most disconcerting part of the article is that every board member or investor interviewed did not know the contingency plans on what would happen when JR is no longer with us.

Quotes ranged from "I have never really thought about it" to "I have no idea what would happen". Yet, every board member listed in his late 70s or 80s.

Mr. Jinx
07-28-2013, 10:32 AM
Just read the print version. Chuch Walsh, 81, does not want to sell. The most disconcerting part of the article is that every board member or investor interviewed did not know the contingency plans on what would happen when JR is no longer with us.

Quotes ranged from "I have never really thought about it" to "I have no idea what would happen". Yet, every board member listed in his late 70s or 80s.

I found it most interesting that the ownership is set up such that whenever a board member bites it, there is no replacement member for the board.

BainesHOF
07-28-2013, 02:12 PM
Yet every board member listed in his late 70s or 80s.

No wonder ownership is so sleepy and oblivious to the need for major change.

DSpivack
07-28-2013, 02:18 PM
Just read the print version. Chuch Walsh, 81, does not want to sell. The most disconcerting part of the article is that every board member or investor interviewed did not know the contingency plans on what would happen when JR is no longer with us.

Quotes ranged from "I have never really thought about it" to "I have no idea what would happen". Yet, every board member listed in his late 70s or 80s.

Some board members said they had no wishes to sell when Reinsdorf passes on, the sons appear to have no interest but Michael (who runs the business side of the Bulls) wouldn't rule out keeping the team, the Chairman says that the investors have no right to keep ownership after a sale and that is up to the new owner, while some investors seem to dispute that notion.

This sounds like it could be a huge mess, depending on how the shares are owned going into the future. I also found it interesting that Jerry said that only he knows how many share he now owns, that no other investor does. I found that interesting.

insp
07-28-2013, 05:01 PM
No wonder ownership is so sleepy and oblivious to the need for major change.


Why does one bad season mean that the team needs "major change"? The Sox did poorly in 2007 then rebounded the next year without any big changes.

soltrain21
07-28-2013, 05:51 PM
Why does one bad season mean that the team needs "major change"? The Sox did poorly in 2007 then rebounded the next year without any big changes.

I don't think he is just talking about the record from year to year.

SI1020
07-28-2013, 06:02 PM
Why does one bad season mean that the team needs "major change"? The Sox did poorly in 2007 then rebounded the next year without any big changes. Not this poorly. This is epic bad, and I've been a fan for a long time.

dickallen15
07-28-2013, 06:02 PM
Some board members said they had no wishes to sell when Reinsdorf passes on, the sons appear to have no interest but Michael (who runs the business side of the Bulls) wouldn't rule out keeping the team, the Chairman says that the investors have no right to keep ownership after a sale and that is up to the new owner, while some investors seem to dispute that notion.

This sounds like it could be a huge mess, depending on how the shares are owned going into the future. I also found it interesting that Jerry said that only he knows how many share he now owns, that no other investor does. I found that interesting.

As I have been saying for years, Michael would love to take over for JR, and from what I got from this article, seems to be in line to do so.

Noneck
07-28-2013, 06:08 PM
For all here that love to jump on Williams and now Hahn, remember what reinsdorfs kid said about his father, he is incredibly involved in the operations.

Golden Sox
07-28-2013, 06:08 PM
A number of the members indicated they don't want to sell. That alone should tell most people that the White Sox are a very profitable team to own. If the team was losing money they wouldn't stay in it. The White Sox might not be making as much money as some other teams but they are still making some serious money. I have no doubt in my mind that if the White Sox were put up for sale, numerous people from Chicago would line up to buy the team.

LITTLE NELL
07-28-2013, 06:09 PM
For all here that love to jump on Williams and now Hahn, remember what reinsdorfs kid said about his father, he is incredibly involved in the operations.

That explains everything.

Brian26
07-28-2013, 07:28 PM
Why does one bad season mean that the team needs "major change"? The Sox did poorly in 2007 then rebounded the next year without any big changes.

Compare that very talented but injury-riddled 2007 squad, two years off the World Series title, to the joke of a team now. 2007 was more bad luck than anything. Apples and oranges. You think there's a chance in hell this team could win 90 games next year?

Brian26
07-28-2013, 07:29 PM
As I have been saying for years, Michael would love to take over for JR, and from what I got from this article, seems to be in line to do so.

Article also says he owns a minor league team in Pennsylvania, so there has to be some interest on his part in the sport. I've also read he grew up as a Sox fan.

Steelrod
07-28-2013, 09:24 PM
quotes ranged from "I have never really thought about it" to "I have no idea what would happen". Yet, every board member listed in his late 70s or 80s.
That's not what I read.

Noneck
07-28-2013, 09:51 PM
As I have been saying for years, Michael would love to take over for JR, and from what I got from this article, seems to be in line to do so.

Of course he would but he knows that wont happen till his old man is dirt and not able to control every aspect of the club. According to the way I read the article, the executors of the old mans will have the say in what will be done regarding the club after he dies. And no one knows who the executors are, the ultimate way to keep total control of everyone under you.

Brian26
07-28-2013, 10:13 PM
That's not what I read.

Did we read different articles? I admit I paraphrased those two quotes because I had already thrown the sports section in the recycling, but here are the exact quotes from the article that I was referring to (quoting only for context here, not copying the entire article):

Board members interviewed by the Tribune said they had not discussed who might succeed as controlling partner or whether Reinsdorf would sell the team. In fact, some had no idea how a sale would even work.

"It's sort of never crossed my mind what would happen or how we'd go about it," said board member and original investor Jay Pinsky, 64. "Would we keep it internally or would we sell it? I assume we'd sell it

Burt Ury, 86, a longtime board member with a 3 percent stake in the Sox, said, "I'm sure there's a plan in place but I'm unaware of it specifically."

Am I missing something?

Tragg
07-28-2013, 10:42 PM
Why does one bad season mean that the team needs "major change"? The Sox did poorly in 2007 then rebounded the next year without any big changes.

??
Carlos Quentin. He carried the team on his back in 2008. 2007 was also affected by a lot of injuries...not so this year.
We also got Swisher and Cabrera for 2008.

dickallen15
07-29-2013, 06:22 AM
Of course he would but he knows that wont happen till his old man is dirt and not able to control every aspect of the club. According to the way I read the article, the executors of the old mans will have the say in what will be done regarding the club after he dies. And no one knows who the executors are, the ultimate way to keep total control of everyone under you.

Michael probably is an executor.

LITTLE NELL
07-29-2013, 12:17 PM
Since we have an ownership thread going, this would go to someone that knows White Sox history. I think I know quite a bit of Sox history but I've always wondered why Grace Comiskey left 54% of her stock to her daughter Dorothy and only 46% to son Chuck. Chuck was running the club at the time and along with Frank Lane they brought us the Go Go Sox and the groundwork for 17 straight winning seasons. Did Grace think that Chuck was not capable of having complete charge of the club? If she had split the shares 50-50 or 51-49 in favor of Chuck we would have never had Veeck come in as an owner in 1959 which to me would have been a good thing. My guess is Chuck would have been able to run the club until free agency came along and would sell just like most of the baseball business only owners like the Griffiths, Stonehams and Omalleys did. If anyone knows Rich Lindberg (White Sox Historian) please ask him he knows the answer to my original question.

Golden Sox
07-29-2013, 01:27 PM
I don't think Chuck Comiskey knows why his mother stiffed him like she did. I know enough about White Sox history to know if Chuck Comiskey would of got the majority of the White Sox stock, he would of never sold the team to Bill Veeck. He would of never traded Callison, Battey, Romano and Cash like Veeck did after the 1959 season. He also talked openly a number of times how he would of moved the White Sox to the suburbs years ago. He correctly realized that the White Sox fan base was no longer on the South Side of Chicago. It bothered him the rest of his life that he never got to own the the White Sox. Sadly, he died broke.

SI1020
07-29-2013, 01:54 PM
Since we have an ownership thread going, this would go to someone that knows White Sox history. I think I know quite a bit of Sox history but I've always wondered why Grace Comiskey left 54% of her stock to her daughter Dorothy and only 46% to son Chuck. Chuck was running the club at the time and along with Frank Lane they brought us the Go Go Sox and the groundwork for 17 straight winning seasons. Did Grace think that Chuck was not capable of having complete charge of the club? If she had split the shares 50-50 or 51-49 in favor of Chuck we would have never had Veeck come in as an owner in 1959 which to me would have been a good thing. My guess is Chuck would have been able to run the club until free agency came along and would sell just like most of the baseball business only owners like the Griffiths, Stonehams and Omalleys did. If anyone knows Rich Lindberg (White Sox Historian) please ask him he knows the answer to my original question.

I don't think Chuck Comiskey knows why his mother stiffed him like she did. I know enough about White Sox history to know if Chuck Comiskey would of got the majority of the White Sox stock, he would of never sold the team to Bill Veeck. He would of never traded Callison, Battey, Romano and Cash like Veeck did after the 1959 season. He also talked openly a number of times how he would of moved the White Sox to the suburbs years ago. He correctly realized that the White Sox fan base was no longer on the South Side of Chicago. It bothered him the rest of his life that he never got to own the the White Sox. Sadly, he died broke. Perhaps this will interest the two of you. The situation appeared to be more complicated than we might have thought.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1001867/1/index.htm

LITTLE NELL
07-29-2013, 02:27 PM
Perhaps this will interest the two of you. The situation appeared to be more complicated than we might have thought.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1001867/1/index.htm

Fantastic! Thanks for finding that article. I was 12 when all that happened and was more concerned with Nellie's batting average and how many wins Billy the Kid would have. I remember the squabble when Dorothy sold her shares to Veeck, I think there was a court battle. The guy I forgot about was Rigney. It was a shame that the sibs did not get along but that's not a first or a last time in a lot of families.

Golden Sox....You are so right about those horrible trades that Veeck made. After Veeck sold to Arthur Allyn, Allyn had the foresight to make a Comiskey guy, Ed Short, the GM who made some great trades that got us 3 years in a row with mid 90 win seasons in 63,64 and 65.