PDA

View Full Version : Good News and Good News?


Fenway
04-19-2006, 06:20 PM
Peter Gammons was just on WEEI and the possible sale of the Flubs came up.

Gammons claims that the Wirtz Family is interested in buying the Cubs and Wrigley and wants to sell the Blackhawks and their 50% of the United Center to JR and the Bulls.

Ol' No. 2
04-19-2006, 06:22 PM
Peter Gammons was just on WEEI and the possible sale of the Flubs came up.

Gammons claims that the Wirtz Family is interested in buying the Cubs and Wrigley and wants to sell the Blackhawks and their 50% of the United Center to JR and the Bulls.Would that mean Cubs home games would no longer be televised?:tongue:

palehozenychicty
04-19-2006, 06:24 PM
:o: Whoa, that'd be some serious stuff. Wirtz will have to raise the beer prices at Wrigley. The Blackhawk dynasty can take hold if this happens.:bandance:

guyinleftfield
04-19-2006, 06:27 PM
:o: Great!:D: Sell the Blackhawks please. "The Chairman" would know what to do with them "Blackhawk Pride, Returns!" Wirtz & the Cubs ? I hate them both, let them rot together. Wirtz ruined a once proud, great team.:angry:

miker
04-19-2006, 06:28 PM
Because I love the Blackhawks and hate the Cubbies, I endorse this idea 1000% :supernana: :supernana:

Fenway
04-19-2006, 06:29 PM
Gammons claims that Wirtz's son is behind it.

I'm sure Selig would have no problem with Wirtz being local and he certainly has the money

Dan Mega
04-19-2006, 06:30 PM
Cheapskate Wirtz buying the Flubs and selling the Hawks?!

YEEEESSSSS!

DaveIsHere
04-19-2006, 06:30 PM
HAHA, they drained one franchise, how about another and then move them to Vegas Baby!!!!

DumpJerry
04-19-2006, 06:32 PM
Do it! Do it! Do it!

SoxEd
04-19-2006, 06:33 PM
Would that mean Cubs home games would no longer be televised?:tongue:


Not only that, but without any Media Conglomerate self-interest existing any longer, it might also mean genuinely unbiased coverage of Baseball by the media outlets in the Windy City.
:o:

Which, of course, marks this snippet out as having been a tape that was prepared by ESPN to air on April 1st, but which the Technicians have only just found now and have broadcast by mistake.
:wink:

miker
04-19-2006, 06:34 PM
Would that mean Cubs home games would no longer be televised?:tongue:
Wrigley would finally be torn down! :rolleyes:

Dan Mega
04-19-2006, 06:34 PM
Wait a second-

If the 'Cubune' goes back to being the 'Tribune', does that mean Hangar18 wins?:D:

drewcifer
04-19-2006, 06:37 PM
Wait a second-

If the 'Cubune' goes back to being the 'Tribune', does that mean Hangar18 wins?:D:

Well done.

<Damn fat fingers - too slow>

MUsoxfan
04-19-2006, 06:38 PM
This has to be a cruel belated April Fool's joke. Can my dream possibly come true????:drool:

Fenway
04-19-2006, 06:43 PM
Wrigley would finally be torn down! :rolleyes:

It is one big chunk of real estate

and I would guess Wirtz has ownership of a parcel somewhere that a new Wrigley could be built.

http://wirtzrealty.com/

miker
04-19-2006, 06:43 PM
:dollarbill:
"Based on our family's success destroying major league hockey in this city, we are just the organ-I-zation to continue the Cubs record of futility."

guyinleftfield
04-19-2006, 06:45 PM
I hope to God it happens, then all my favorite teams can be playoff teams.

drewcifer
04-19-2006, 06:49 PM
Oh wait - I just remembered Peter Gammons is an idiot ESPN reporter....

<Ah well - would've been sweet, though.:(:>

MUsoxfan
04-19-2006, 06:52 PM
:dollarbill:

"Despite all the harsh public denunciations you people direct at me, I'll have you know that I am not engaged in the never-ending accumulation of massive wealth for my own selfish benefit. I'm engaged in the never-ending accumulation of massive wealth to benefit vitally important charities - my horse farm, my hedgefund, and my offshore bank!"

Vernam
04-19-2006, 06:56 PM
Let's not get carried away, folks. Did Gammons say whether Pully would replace Hendry? :redneck

Vernam

miker
04-19-2006, 06:58 PM
:dollarbill:

"Despite all the harsh public denunciations you people direct at me, I'll have you know that I am not engaged in the never-ending accumulation of massive wealth for my own selfish benefit. I'm engaged in the never-ending accumulation of massive wealth to benefit vitally important charities - my horse farm, my hedgefund, and my offshore bank!"
Yeah Dollar Bill, no problem! Have another drink...

Madvora
04-19-2006, 08:15 PM
Talk about a win-win situation. Wirtz moves over to ruin the Cubs and leaves the Blackhawks open to finally getting back to where they belong.

CLR01
04-19-2006, 09:44 PM
Peter Gammons was just on WEEI and the possible sale of the Flubs came up.

Gammons claims that the Wirtz Family is interested in buying the Cubs and Wrigley and wants to sell the Blackhawks and their 50% of the United Center to JR and the Bulls.


So JR would be buying both the Hawks and the other half of the UC or just half the UC with someone else buying the Blackhawks? Does JR know this or is this just what Wirtz would like?

Viva Medias B's
04-19-2006, 10:29 PM
Peter Gammons was just on WEEI and the possible sale of the Flubs came up.

Gammons claims that the Wirtz Family is interested in buying the Cubs and Wrigley and wants to sell the Blackhawks and their 50% of the United Center to JR and the Bulls.

Doesn't JR already own 50% of the UC? They were partners in getting the UC built.

Is there any link to validate what Gammons said?

Lip Man 1
04-19-2006, 10:32 PM
Voodoo:

Sounds to me like JR would only be buying Wirtz's stake in the United Center.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
04-19-2006, 10:35 PM
I'm willing to contribute a sizable chunk of my own money to help make this happen.

:supernana:

CLR01
04-19-2006, 10:49 PM
Doesn't JR already own 50% of the UC? They were partners in getting the UC built.

Is there any link to validate what Gammons said?


Yes, JR and the Bulls own 50% and Wirtz and the Hawks own 50%. JR would own it 100%.

CLR01
04-19-2006, 10:50 PM
Voodoo:

Sounds to me like JR would only be buying Wirtz's stake in the United Center.

Lip


Are you replying to me?


That is how I am reading it as well. The wording is a bit confusing though.

VA_GoGoSox
04-19-2006, 11:56 PM
If this were to happen...it would be the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. Please, God, let this happen. I will laugh until I cry.

TDog
04-20-2006, 12:55 AM
Not only that, but without any Media Conglomerate self-interest existing any longer, it might also mean genuinely unbiased coverage of Baseball by the media outlets in the Windy City.
:o: ...

Do people believe the Sun-Times and non-WGN electronic media provide unbiased baseball coverage? The media favored the Cubs before the Tribune Company bought the team, and competing media seems just as guilty of Cubs-bias as the Tribune, although I believe some of the complaints of bias are unjustified.

From a financial standpoint, the Tribune Company would be better selling off newspapers than selling the Cubs. Ideally, from a profit perspective, which is the way the Tribune Company approaches its newspapers, baseball salaries would be reduced because the lack of success of the team will not drive fans away. If they see any erosion in the fan base, that is when they should sell the team for an inflated price.

It also is possible that if the Tribune Company does sell, it is because they don't see a future in Cubs profitability.

peeonwrigley
04-20-2006, 12:55 AM
I'm giddy at the possibilities.

:b&b

"Uh, Worst, or something. Huh huh, buy the Cubs."

"Yeah, buy them, heh heh... do it! do it! do it!"

"And, uh, sell the Hawks, too, huh huh."

:dollarbill:

"Well boys, they do have a lot of season reservation holders."

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 12:59 AM
What a night to be a Cub fan. Currently losing, DLee & Eyre get hurt. Sox win & move into first (albiet early), and this comes out.

must....resist.....urge.....to......lurk......on.. ...Flub.......boards............:tongue:

LuvSox
04-20-2006, 01:07 AM
:dollarbill:

"I Like Budweiser"

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2006, 01:23 AM
This cannot possibly be true, because it would be too good. Destroy the Cubs and save the Hawks in one move. I would be a happy man.

Vince
04-20-2006, 01:25 AM
As a Blackhawks fan in exile (Wirtz has pushed me too far), just thinking about this possibility puts a smile on my face.

Hokiesox
04-20-2006, 01:28 AM
Are we absolutely sure Gammons wasn't talking in deep pink?

JorgeFabregas
04-20-2006, 01:35 AM
It also is possible that if the Tribune Company does sell, it is because they don't see a future in Cubs profitability.
Publicly traded corporations looking at long-term prospects? Not likely.

chisoxfanatic
04-20-2006, 01:50 AM
Yes, JR and the Bulls own 50% and Wirtz and the Hawks own 50%. JR would own it 100%.

Where would my beloved Hawks play then?

peeonwrigley
04-20-2006, 01:55 AM
Where would my beloved Hawks play then?

:reinsy

"Pay to play, of course."

soltrain21
04-20-2006, 01:57 AM
Where would my beloved Hawks play then?


The United Center. Jerry would own the blackhawks.


edit = maybe not. I am confused.

peeonwrigley
04-20-2006, 02:00 AM
The United Center. Jerry would own the blackhawks.


edit = maybe not. I am confused.
From the original report it looked like Wirtz would be looking to sell the Hawks to whomever is buying. Reinsdorf would be the logical buyer for the 50% share of the UC (they may even have some kind of buyout clause in the original partnership), but Reisndorf's ownership group probably doesn't want to take on another franchise.

Edit: Or maybe Gammons was hinting at Reinsdorf buying the Hawks... who knows. Its all deep pink material anyhow.

MUsoxfan
04-20-2006, 02:28 AM
I don't think because someone owns the Blackhawks they have to take up 50% of the UC. Theoretically, $Bill can still have his 50% of the UC and charge the new owner rent, or JR can own 100% of the UC and charge rent

SoxFan76
04-20-2006, 04:19 AM
nah, this is too good to be true. It won't happen.

Viva Medias B's
04-20-2006, 08:32 AM
Again, is there any link to substantiate what Gammons said on WEEI?

havelj
04-20-2006, 09:18 AM
Again, is there any link to substantiate what Gammons said on WEEI?

I'm waiting for it to be posted on-line on WEEI's archive vault. Gammon's interview is there from last week.

http://www.weei.com/sectional.asp?id=5386

daveeym
04-20-2006, 09:54 AM
Do people believe the Sun-Times and non-WGN electronic media provide unbiased baseball coverage? The media favored the Cubs before the Tribune Company bought the team, and competing media seems just as guilty of Cubs-bias as the Tribune, although I believe some of the complaints of bias are unjustified.

From a financial standpoint, the Tribune Company would be better selling off newspapers than selling the Cubs. Ideally, from a profit perspective, which is the way the Tribune Company approaches its newspapers, baseball salaries would be reduced because the lack of success of the team will not drive fans away. If they see any erosion in the fan base, that is when they should sell the team for an inflated price.

It also is possible that if the Tribune Company does sell, it is because they don't see a future in Cubs profitability. Cubs profitability and worth is a drop in the bucket of Trib corp. It might be one of their more profitable "divisions" in percentages, but in raw numbers, revenue and profit made it's miniscule.

CLR01
04-20-2006, 11:10 AM
From the original report it looked like Wirtz would be looking to sell the Hawks to whomever is buying. Reinsdorf would be the logical buyer for the 50% share of the UC (they may even have some kind of buyout clause in the original partnership), but Reisndorf's ownership group probably doesn't want to take on another franchise.

Edit: Or maybe Gammons was hinting at Reinsdorf buying the Hawks... who knows. Its all deep pink material anyhow.



Does anyone know how the UC deal is set up? Is it owned by the Hawks and Bulls or is it a seperate deal between JR and Wirtz? It just seems that if this did happen it would be easier to sell the Blackhawks w/UC than wihout.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 11:20 AM
It also is possible that if the Tribune Company does sell, it is because they don't see a future in Cubs profitability.

Or that they think they can cash out the investment at it's high point under the assumptions that:

a) The Cubs are a relatively stable asset in terms of revenues/profits
b) There isn't much room for growth in revenues/profits since they can't expand much more, and the plans for the restaurant, etc are already in place (i.e. they'd get paid for those).

So they basically can get full value for the enterprise based on a projected cash flow stream at it's high point.

Trav
04-20-2006, 11:52 AM
Voodoo:

Sounds to me like JR would only be buying Wirtz's stake in the United Center.

Lip


I really hope that is the case. I don't want JR owning any other team in Chicago. If only this wasn't reported by Gammons, I would almost think that it could be possible.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 12:12 PM
I really hope that is the case. I don't want JR owning any other team in Chicago. If only this wasn't reported by Gammons, I would almost think that it could be possible.

Bulls = 6 titles.
Sox = 1 title and a serious contender for another, along with a pretty good string of being a +.500 team and a division contender.

Yeah, I wouldn't want that to happen to the Hawks.....:rolleyes:

Baby Fisk
04-20-2006, 12:23 PM
must....resist.....urge.....to......lurk......on.. ...Flub.......boards............:tongue:

This item has not yet appeared on any of their boards (unless I missed it).

McCuddy
04-20-2006, 12:28 PM
We won't see anything until the subscription package for "Cubvision" is complete.

jdm2662
04-20-2006, 12:36 PM
We won't see anything until the subscription package for "Cubvision" is complete.

ROCK YOUR HOUSE!!!!!!!!

Trav
04-20-2006, 12:54 PM
Bulls = 6 titles.
Sox = 1 title and a serious contender for another, along with a pretty good string of being a +.500 team and a division contender.

Yeah, I wouldn't want that to happen to the Hawks.....:rolleyes:

Yeah, that was all JR huh? What about stealing from the players association? What about blackmailing the state of Illinois? I could go on but I have let some of the hate die with that World Series win. That doesn't mean he gets a free pass for anything he wants and that doesn't mean that I would want him owning another team in the city.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Yeah, that was all JR huh? What about stealing from the players association? What about blackmailing the state of Illinois? I could go on but I have let some of the hate die with that World Series win. That doesn't mean he gets a free pass for anything he wants and that doesn't mean that I would want him owning another team in the city.

It's a nice double standard to have to hold the owner accountable in the end for the success/failure of the team, but then to deflect credit from him if they win. Like it or not, he put the organizations, GMs, etc in place to build those title teams.

As for the other stuff, again - like it or not, it's par for the course for sports teams. He's built a stadium with private money (UC), and he got one built with public money (USCF). When you say "stealing from the players association", I actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Bottom line, under his ownership, his teams have generally a)contended, and b)won titles. If that's what you want from the Blackhawks, history tells you he's as good an owner as you could want to get it. If you ahve other desires from your hockey team, then maybe not.

TDog
04-20-2006, 01:19 PM
Cubs profitability and worth is a drop in the bucket of Trib corp. It might be one of their more profitable "divisions" in percentages, but in raw numbers, revenue and profit made it's miniscule.

Ownership of the Cubs has evolved into a license to steal. Newspapers revenues are declining. The Tribune Company bought the Cubs just as Atlanta Journal-Constitution years ago got into the automobile auction business to make up the downturn in its core industry. At the time the Tribune bought the Cubs, the company was looking at how the purchase would impact WGN. I don't believe it envisioned that its marketing would turn the Cubs into what they are today.

If the Cubs are sold, I would expect new ownership to keep in place what the Tribune Company built. It might cut payroll, but that wouldn't seem to affect the team's marketability. Not winning has served the Cubs well.

Iwritecode
04-20-2006, 01:28 PM
This item has not yet appeared on any of their boards (unless I missed it).

It has now. Somebody from their message board was lurking here.

:lurkers

tebman
04-20-2006, 01:43 PM
Ownership of the Cubs has evolved into a license to steal. Newspapers revenues are declining. The Tribune Company bought the Cubs just as Atlanta Journal-Constitution years ago got into the automobile auction business to make up the downturn in its core industry. At the time the Tribune bought the Cubs, the company was looking at how the purchase would impact WGN. I don't believe it envisioned that its marketing would turn the Cubs into what they are today.

If the Cubs are sold, I would expect new ownership to keep in place what the Tribune Company built. It might cut payroll, but that wouldn't seem to affect the team's marketability. Not winning has served the Cubs well.
That nails it. The reason the Tribune bought the Cubs in 1981 was to keep hundreds of hours of profitable program material on WGN and WGN-TV. As I recall, the Tribune paid $20 million for the team and the property, which was a good price even then for a proven ratings-winner on its broadcast stations.

I agree that the Tribune bosses didn't (couldn't?) foresee the marketing value of co-ownership in 1981. They learned quickly, though, and we've all been given a clinic on corporate synergy over the last 20 years. I agree too that the Cubs are a relative blip on the company's balance sheet, but the Cubs work real well for the Tribune as a branding icon (think WGN --> Cubs, Cubs --> WGN, WGN --> Tribune, etc.). The only reason they might sell the Cubs now is because of investor grumbling about "non-core assets" while the company's profits are falling.

This story about Wirtz, though, is weird. Why would he want to do that? I don't get it.

voodoochile
04-20-2006, 01:53 PM
This story about Wirtz, though, is weird. Why would he want to do that? I don't get it.

:dollarbill:
"Are you kidding? I made so much money running the Blackhawks into the ground it wasn't even funny. I will still make out like a bandit on the sale price too. Those Blackhawk fans are tough too. I gave them a great stadium and a good time and all they cared about was winning. The flubbie fans and me are a natural fit. I don't care about anything but money and they don't care if their team wins or loses so long as the beer is cold. I'm going to make a freaking fortune of those shlubs... er... fans... You think I can get $250/seat/game for the entire front row all the way around the ballpark? Maybe we will have to make the front row of the bleachers reserved. I could probably get $300/seat for them..."

Trav
04-20-2006, 01:57 PM
It's a nice double standard to have to hold the owner accountable in the end for the success/failure of the team, but then to deflect credit from him if they win. Like it or not, he put the organizations, GMs, etc in place to build those title teams.

As for the other stuff, again - like it or not, it's par for the course for sports teams. He's built a stadium with private money (UC), and he got one built with public money (USCF). When you say "stealing from the players association", I actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Bottom line, under his ownership, his teams have generally a)contended, and b)won titles. If that's what you want from the Blackhawks, history tells you he's as good an owner as you could want to get it. If you ahve other desires from your hockey team, then maybe not.

I don't hold him accountable for not winning. I hold him accountable for refusing to put a decent product on the field and him okaying it by saying "If you come I will spend it." After he finally got his act together, I gave him credit. He has increased payroll this year and I am happy for it.

Selig, JR and someone else, I don't remember exactly, were found guilty of stealing from the PA in the mid-80's. I am sure someone else knows more details.

And just because Selig made blackmailing cities and states popular, doesn't mean that it is right.

I am sure that JR won't be the only guy who can do better than the Wirtz family.

ewokpelts
04-20-2006, 02:11 PM
Bulls Inc. Owns %50 of the United Center.
Blackhawks Inc owns 50% of the United Center.

Fenway
04-20-2006, 02:28 PM
This story about Wirtz, though, is weird. Why would he want to do that? I don't get it.

The report said that it was Peter Wirtz that is behind it. The old man is 76.

Be willing to bet that if they do sell their 50% of the UC, Bismark Concessions will stay

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 02:35 PM
I don't hold him accountable for not winning. I hold him accountable for refusing to put a decent product on the field and him okaying it by saying "If you come I will spend it." After he finally got his act together, I gave him credit. He has increased payroll this year and I am happy for it.

Selig, JR and someone else, I don't remember exactly, were found guilty of stealing from the PA in the mid-80's. I am sure someone else knows more details.

And just because Selig made blackmailing cities and states popular, doesn't mean that it is right.

I am sure that JR won't be the only guy who can do better than the Wirtz family.

"refusing to put a decent product on the field"? As defined how? It's certainly not defined by being competitive since the Sox are the only team in baseball not to draft in the top 10 in IIRC over a decade. They were also IIRC the 3d or 4th winningest team in baseball in the 90s. The Bulls won 6 of 8 titles, and are now again built as a young, talented team that's close to being a real title contender.

And FWIW, the "blackmailing cities" is across all sports. The "New Orleans/OKC Hornets", "St Louis Rams", and heck - "Indianapolis Colts" are all testament to that.

What I want from my owners is a team that a)consistently competes for the playoffs, and b)wins titles occasionally. JR is one of the best owners in sports by the metrics structured around results. By all indications, if he bought the Hawks, he'd bring in solid management and leave them alone to do their jobs.

gbergman
04-20-2006, 02:44 PM
Please God make this happen

HotelWhiteSox
04-20-2006, 02:47 PM
Wow, this would be unbelievable. I would be able to follow hockey, and that other team (didn't think it was possible) would actually get worse! And no more media bias! Gitrdone!

Fenway
04-20-2006, 02:54 PM
And FWIW, the "blackmailing cities" is across all sports. The "New Orleans/OKC Hornets", "St Louis Rams", and heck - "Indianapolis Colts" are all testament to that.



Don't forget the 2 worst cases, the Brooklyn Dodgers and Cleveland Browns.

Amazing thing about Brooklyn, where O'Malley wanted the new Ebbets Field is only now being developed into the new home of the Nets ( and possibly Islanders )

lostletters
04-20-2006, 03:03 PM
I don't hold him accountable for not winning. I hold him accountable for refusing to put a decent product on the field and him okaying it by saying "If you come I will spend it." After he finally got his act together, I gave him credit. He has increased payroll this year and I am happy for it.

Selig, JR and someone else, I don't remember exactly, were found guilty of stealing from the PA in the mid-80's. I am sure someone else knows more details.

And just because Selig made blackmailing cities and states popular, doesn't mean that it is right.

I am sure that JR won't be the only guy who can do better than the Wirtz family.

I have NO CLUE where you are getting this information from, but I am telling you right now if this ever happened, he would be in prison right now. This is the first time I have ever seen this mentioned. He would have also been disbarred. Unless you can find hard facts on this, you are alone with your speculation.

I know some people are extremely bitter about Reinsdorf largely because of his stupid business moves. But things like convictions you need to be awful careful with.

Trav
04-20-2006, 03:28 PM
I have NO CLUE where you are getting this information from, but I am telling you right now if this ever happened, he would be in prison right now. This is the first time I have ever seen this mentioned. He would have also been disbarred. Unless you can find hard facts on this, you are alone with your speculation.

I know some people are extremely bitter about Reinsdorf largely because of his stupid business moves. But things like convictions you need to be awful careful with.

In the 1980s, owners were found by arbitrators to have conspired against free agents during three offseasons, and management settled those cases in 1990 for $280 million

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0103/1486718.html

In fact, arbitrator George Nicolau identified Selig as one of the active conspirators to reduce salaries in 1986-87, the second year of collusion. Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf and AL president Bobby Brown were found to have called Bill Giles of the Phillies to pressure him not to sign free agent Lance Parrish.
http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/2004/04/20-million-misdeed-still-fuels-feud.htm


I wish I could find more, I really do but I don't have the time right now. Like I said before, I am sure there are many people here that know much more about it than I do. I didn't say it because he kicked my dog.

Trav
04-20-2006, 03:34 PM
"refusing to put a decent product on the field"? As defined how? It's certainly not defined by being competitive since the Sox are the only team in baseball not to draft in the top 10 in IIRC over a decade. They were also IIRC the 3d or 4th winningest team in baseball in the 90s. The Bulls won 6 of 8 titles, and are now again built as a young, talented team that's close to being a real title contender.

And FWIW, the "blackmailing cities" is across all sports. The "New Orleans/OKC Hornets", "St Louis Rams", and heck - "Indianapolis Colts" are all testament to that.

What I want from my owners is a team that a)consistently competes for the playoffs, and b)wins titles occasionally. JR is one of the best owners in sports by the metrics structured around results. By all indications, if he bought the Hawks, he'd bring in solid management and leave them alone to do their jobs.


I'm not going to argue about how good the Sox have been over the years. "Putting a decent product on the field" was a bad term to use.
Spending enough to compete may have been better.

As far as moving teams and blackmailing people are conserned, I don't like it when anyone does it no matter the sport. For some reason it seems that you think I love every owner except for Reinsdorf. I can't stand most of them for the same reasons I don't like JR.

When was the last time someone owned, or controlled, three pro teams in the same city? That can't be good for anyone. The White Sox have to compete with the rest of the teams in Chicago as well the rest of the teams in baseball so if he owned three teams in the same city what would happen?

Has there been any negative effects from controlling two?

shawndgoldman
04-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Can you let us know some more details of the Gammons interview? Specifically, it would be nice to know what day and show Gammons appeared on. I'm asusming it was on last night's offering of "The Big Show" but i'd like confirmation.

Thanks!

Full disclosure: I'm a Cubs fan *ducks* looking to confirm this info...

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2006, 03:44 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0103/1486718.html


http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/2004/04/20-million-misdeed-still-fuels-feud.htm


I wish I could find more, I really do but I don't have the time right now. Like I said before, I am sure there are many people here that know much more about it than I do. I didn't say it because he kicked my dog.This is hardly the same as "being found guilty of stealing from the Players' Association."

Fenway
04-20-2006, 03:48 PM
Can you let us know some more details of the Gammons interview? Specifically, it would be nice to know what day and show Gammons appeared on. I'm asusming it was on last night's offering of "The Big Show" but i'd like confirmation.

Thanks!

Full disclosure: I'm a Cubs fan *ducks* looking to confirm this info...

He was babbling to Ordway. They haven't updated the audio files for a week on the website since they broadcast from Fenway and claim they can't update the website from there. It should show up by Friday as the Red Sox go on the road.

Flight #24
04-20-2006, 03:51 PM
I'm not going to argue about how good the Sox have been over the years. "Putting a decent product on the field" was a bad term to use.
Spending enough to compete may have been better.

As far as moving teams and blackmailing people are conserned, I don't like it when anyone does it no matter the sport. For some reason it seems that you think I love every owner except for Reinsdorf. I can't stand most of them for the same reasons I don't like JR.

When was the last time someone owned, or controlled, three pro teams in the same city? That can't be good for anyone. The White Sox have to compete with the rest of the teams in Chicago as well the rest of the teams in baseball so if he owned three teams in the same city what would happen?

Has there been any negative effects from controlling two?

Here's the issue: SOMEONE has to own the Hawks, no? So it's all relative: Compared to the other owners out there, where does JR stand? He's got to be near the top. The popular answer would be Cuban, except that for all his free-spending ways, he's also proven to be something of a meddler, which IMO has been a factor in his teams never being able to take the step to a title.

shawndgoldman
04-20-2006, 03:53 PM
He was babbling to Ordway. They haven't updated the audio files for a week on the website since they broadcast from Fenway and claim they can't update the website from there. It should show up by Friday as the Red Sox go on the road.

Thanks for the info! Now, please excuse me while i close my eyes and pretend the last 24 hours was a bad dream...

Fenway
04-20-2006, 03:58 PM
Here's the issue: SOMEONE has to own the Hawks, no? So it's all relative: Compared to the other owners out there, where does JR stand? He's got to be near the top. The popular answer would be Cuban, except that for all his free-spending ways, he's also proven to be something of a meddler, which IMO has been a factor in his teams never being able to take the step to a title.

In Philly and New York both the NBA team and NHL team share the same owners. There maybe others as well. (Toronto?)


The NHL can't be happy about the mess in Chicago.

peeonwrigley
04-20-2006, 04:27 PM
In Philly and New York both the NBA team and NHL team share the same owners. There maybe others as well. (Toronto?)


The NHL can't be happy about the mess in Chicago.

Does any ownership group have 3 franchises?

Baby Fisk
04-20-2006, 04:38 PM
Maple Leaf Sports Entertainment (MLSE) is the collective board that runs both the Maple Leafs and Raptors franchises. A controlling share (58%) of MLSE is owned by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. That's right, the Leafs and Raptors are controlled by a faceless entity whose sole purpose is to make money, not win sports championships. Go Leafs Go!

ewokpelts
04-20-2006, 04:39 PM
Does any ownership group have 3 franchises?
time warner(and turner before that) did own the hawks/thrasher/braves until they sold the hawks/thrashers two years ago.

The Yankees ownership group for a while merged with the Nets ownership group, and they purchased the NJ Devils. That arrangement fell apart though.

Gene

Realist
04-20-2006, 10:07 PM
Thanks for the info! Now, please excuse me while i close my eyes and pretend the last 24 hours was a bad dream...
We may be giddy as all hell about this possibility, but we feel bad (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=69920) about Lee going down. See, we ain't all bad. :smile:

Trav
04-21-2006, 07:20 AM
Here's the issue: SOMEONE has to own the Hawks, no? So it's all relative: Compared to the other owners out there, where does JR stand? He's got to be near the top. The popular answer would be Cuban, except that for all his free-spending ways, he's also proven to be something of a meddler, which IMO has been a factor in his teams never being able to take the step to a title.

You are right, someone has to own the team. With the way the Wirtz family ran down the team anyone could come in and do a better job. I'm just hoping it is someone besides JR. JR would be much better than Wirtz but that isn't saying much.

As far as the best owners go, Cuban would be up there on my list. Is he trying to buy the Pirates?

Trav
04-21-2006, 07:23 AM
This is hardly the same as "being found guilty of stealing from the Players' Association."

How is an arbitrator finding JR guilty of driving down the salary of players not stealing from the PA? They had to give them the money they stole in 1990.

zmz723
04-21-2006, 08:41 AM
interview is up:

http://eod.liquidviewer.com/weei-od/gammons_bs_0420.wma

scroll down a little and you'll find it

edit: skimmed through it and didnt here it. All red sox stuff :?:

SouthSide_HitMen
04-21-2006, 08:53 AM
This is hardly the same as "being found guilty of stealing from the Players' Association."

JR has done a lot in MLB - some great, some good and yes some bad. I was a pretty harsh critic especially before October 26, 2005 but in all my years I've never made a charge of him stealing anything (and I agree with your assessment in response to the previous poster).

The owners were guilty of collusion and paid (twice) for which he was a part of but these were disputes over how much an employer would pay on the open market.

If you want examples of stealing from the Player's Association (and their pension fund), all you have to do is go across from Jerry's United Center offices to Bill Wirtz and his pal Alan Eagleson. As head of the players union, he colluded against the players with Bill Wirtz. As the head of the union he was paid by the players to represent while simultaneously looting the players pension fund and selling out their interests to Wirtz and the NHL owners, who he also represented at the time. For these crimes Bill Wirtz and Eagleson were sued and lost, having to pay $41 million into the NHL Pension Fund for money misallocated (i.e. stolen) and interest. Eagleson was sent to prison for his crimes. All of these crimes were documented in "Game Misconduct, Alan Eagleson and the Corruption of Hockey."


http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/11-16cba.htm

At issue were Eagleson's relationship with NHL President John Ziegler and Bill Wirtz, owner of the Chicago Blackhawks and Chairman of the NHL Board of Governors. Those relationships led Garvey to call the NHL's collective bargaining process a "charade." In essence, Eagleson worked with the league and owners to keep player salaries down. It was pretty easy to do since in those days the union was reluctant to reveal what players were making. Eagleson was basically selling out the very players he was paid to represent.


"It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to believe that when Eagleson, Ziegler and Wirtz led their respective troops into collective bargaining negotiations, the results might have been pre-ordained. Owners, players and players' wives then celebrated at a posh dinner party hosted by the owners. Everyone would attest to how difficult the negotiations had been, and how fruitful the hard-fought gains for both sides. To us, it appeared the players never suspected the scenario might have been scripted in advance." Gil Stein, the former NHL executive and briefly president, is quoted as saying in the recently released book by Bruce Dowbiggin called 'Money Players: How Hockey's Greatest Stars Beat the NHL At It's Own Game.'

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19980105/FP_002.htm

Oct. 22, 1992 - Ontario Justice George Adams Jr. notes "moral shortcoming" of the players union under Mr. Eagleson's stewardship in awarding retired players $20 million in pension money misallocated by NHL team owners. Interest is to be added to calculate updated amounts. NHL appeals the verdict.

Feb. 21-23, 1993 - Three-part report is second in Eagle-Tribune "Cracking The Ice" investigative series. Details of Mr. Eagleson's secret agreement as a broker for a would-be NHL owner is revealed. So are hundreds of thousands of dollars in sometimes questionable expenses billed to the players' union by Mr. Eagleson, plus union funds put into high-risk real estate investments involving Mr. Eagleson, his friends and associates. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sportscaster Bruce Dowbiggin is important contributor in co-operative journalistic investigation now located on both sides of the border.

Feb. 17, 1994 - Ontario Appeals Court upholds lower court decision awarding retired NHL players misallocated pensions which has now grown to approximately $40 million. NHL appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Nov. 8, 1995 - Mr. Eagleson, former NHL president John A. Ziegler Jr. and ex-longtime NHL chairman William W. Wirtz are hit with a federal civil racketeering lawsuit in Philadelphia. Five former players including ex-Bruins Brad Park, Rick Middleton and Dave Forbes, allege U.S. labor and racketeering laws were broken while Mr. Eagleson, Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Wirtz operated pro hockey business for nearly 15 years. If successful, the lawsuit could cost the NHL and others an estimated $380 million.

(This case was dismissed only because the 4 year statute of limitations in civil racketeering had expired).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2000/10/18/Sports/eagleson001018.html

June 20, 1996 - Retired NHL players are officially notified of their shares out of what is now nearing a $41 million pension award from their court judgement. Individual amounts range from $205,000 to Gordie Howe, the famed 26-season NHL veteran, to a few thousand dollars for some players. A total 1,343 players, most of them retired, are to receive added pension money.

In 1998 Eagleson would plead guilty in both the U.S. and Canada, and was sentenced to an 18-month prison term in Canada. He was paroled after six months.

Flight #24
04-21-2006, 10:12 AM
As far as the best owners go, Cuban would be up there on my list. Is he trying to buy the Pirates?

Somewhere, might even be earlier in this thread, I read that Cuban said he's far more interested in the Pirates than the Cubs. Also, while he's got great PR as an owner, he hasn't had the success to go with it, kind of like Dan Snyder in Washington. For all JR's faults, he's not a meddler in team matters like those guys are - he picks his guys, sets some ground rules and lets them do their jobs. Sometimes that's a fault because he's extremely loyal, but in general it's served him well.

FWIW, if JR wants the Hawks, I can't believe he wouldn't have the league's support. Bettman's NBA days & JR's relationship with Stern and the success of the Bulls, along with the sharing of the UC make ie hard to believe there'd be much resistance. Especially when you factor in that he'd be replacing Wirtz.

voodoochile
04-21-2006, 10:18 AM
Somewhere, might even be earlier in this thread, I read that Cuban said he's far more interested in the Pirates than the Cubs. Also, while he's got great PR as an owner, he hasn't had the success to go with it, kind of like Dan Snyder in Washington. For all JR's faults, he's not a meddler in team matters like those guys are - he picks his guys, sets some ground rules and lets them do their jobs. Sometimes that's a fault because he's extremely loyal, but in general it's served him well.

Constantly among the league elite in terms of record, regularly playing into the conference semi's and even conference finals isn't having success?

No, he hasn't won a championship, but the way he meddles is different than Snyder. Cuban doesn't turn over management personel constantly and doesn't interfere with player decisions. He did build a world class arena, upgraded the player amenities and marketed the crap out of his team. He has also been a staunch defender of the team and players politically.

I think he'll win his championship eventually, but he's already a guy who does what it takes to win at all costs, he just plays in one heck of a tough conference and shares a division with a guy named Duncan...

Corlose 15
04-21-2006, 11:10 AM
Constantly among the league elite in terms of record, regularly playing into the conference semi's and even conference finals isn't having success?

No, he hasn't won a championship, but the way he meddles is different than Snyder. Cuban doesn't turn over management personel constantly and doesn't interfere with player decisions. He did build a world class arena, upgraded the player amenities and marketed the crap out of his team. He has also been a staunch defender of the team and players politically.

I think he'll win his championship eventually, but he's already a guy who does what it takes to win at all costs, he just plays in one heck of a tough conference and shares a division with a guy named Duncan...

Not to mention the Mavericks were absolutely god awful for years before he got there. They were a joke and he's made them a championship contender. Just because he hasn't won it all yet deosn't mean he hasn't been successful.

Flight #24
04-21-2006, 12:11 PM
Constantly among the league elite in terms of record, regularly playing into the conference semi's and even conference finals isn't having success?

No, he hasn't won a championship, but the way he meddles is different than Snyder. Cuban doesn't turn over management personel constantly and doesn't interfere with player decisions. He did build a world class arena, upgraded the player amenities and marketed the crap out of his team. He has also been a staunch defender of the team and players politically.

I think he'll win his championship eventually, but he's already a guy who does what it takes to win at all costs, he just plays in one heck of a tough conference and shares a division with a guy named Duncan...

Maybe I overreached. He's definitely had a consistently competitive team, and been great at marketing them. But he's also meddled enough where the team wasn't able to carry over success from year to year to improve, and IMO he hitched his wagon to a coach with a flawed system for playoff hoops (Nelson) and then stuck with him way too long.

On the other hand, you have JR, who invests less (apparently), and isn't as vibrant/PR-minded, who sticks by his handpicked guys like Cuban, but who isn't as hands-on as a pseudo-GM. Each has their own pluses & minuses, each is a good owner. I'm just saying that the "Cuban is the answer to a franchises ills" mantra isn't really true - he brings his own issues to the table.

0o0o0
04-21-2006, 12:48 PM
I like how everyone hates Gammons and ESPN until they do a story that you actually like or agree with. :rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
04-21-2006, 12:56 PM
It's interesting to me that apparently no one is the mainsteam Chicago media has even mentioned this 'rumor.'

I'd think someone would at least be checking up on it to see if it's just Gammons going off half cocked again or if there may be some truth to it.

Lip

peeonwrigley
04-21-2006, 12:59 PM
I like how everyone hates Gammons and ESPN until they do a story that you actually like or agree with. :rolleyes:

I don't see anyone sucking up to Gammons on this thread; just people giddy at the thought of Wirtz liberating the Hawks and purchasing the Cubs.

No one is taking this report as gospel.

palehozenychicty
04-21-2006, 01:30 PM
Maybe I overreached. He's definitely had a consistently competitive team, and been great at marketing them. But he's also meddled enough where the team wasn't able to carry over success from year to year to improve, and IMO he hitched his wagon to a coach with a flawed system for playoff hoops (Nelson) and then stuck with him way too long.

On the other hand, you have JR, who invests less (apparently), and isn't as vibrant/PR-minded, who sticks by his handpicked guys like Cuban, but who isn't as hands-on as a pseudo-GM. Each has their own pluses & minuses, each is a good owner. I'm just saying that the "Cuban is the answer to a franchises ills" mantra isn't really true - he brings his own issues to the table.

He isn't perfect, but then again, at least the Pirates would be watchable again.

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2006, 03:38 PM
How is an arbitrator finding JR guilty of driving down the salary of players not stealing from the PA? They had to give them the money they stole in 1990.Being "found guilty" is a criminal concept. Arbitrators don't find people guilty of crimes. Theft also has a legal definition; this doesn't fit it. Being "found guilty of stealing from the Players' Association" would mean they were found criminally culpable of physically taking money from the coffers of the PA.

They were found to be in violation of the collective bargaining agreement for collusion. That is not a criminal offense. Your statement was hyperbole.

Dadawg_77
04-21-2006, 05:59 PM
Somewhere, might even be earlier in this thread, I read that Cuban said he's far more interested in the Pirates than the Cubs. Also, while he's got great PR as an owner, he hasn't had the success to go with it, kind of like Dan Snyder in Washington. For all JR's faults, he's not a meddler in team matters like those guys are - he picks his guys, sets some ground rules and lets them do their jobs. Sometimes that's a fault because he's extremely loyal, but in general it's served him well.

FWIW, if JR wants the Hawks, I can't believe he wouldn't have the league's support. Bettman's NBA days & JR's relationship with Stern and the success of the Bulls, along with the sharing of the UC make ie hard to believe there'd be much resistance. Especially when you factor in that he'd be replacing Wirtz.

Well he was born in Pittsburgh. Also Mark has said his wife would divorce him if he bought a another team.

bigfoot
04-22-2006, 08:25 AM
Wrigley would finally be torn down! :rolleyes:

Of course not! The Urinal would be converted into a condo project, complete with indoor parking and a handy place for Chad and Trixie's pets to take a crap! :gulp: