Limited partners lose............

there's just no justice in the world...
"cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:vqWdnedoQMcn_ATcRVn-3A@giganews.com...
> Ruling clears way for Expos to D.C.
> Associated Press
>
> NEW YORK -- Arbitrators ruled Monday against the former limited partners
> of
> the Montreal Expos in their case against former controlling owner Jeffrey
> Loria, clearing Major League Baseball to move the franchise to Washington.
> Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer for the limited partners, said they will drop
> their attempt to gain an injunction to block the move. Baseball owners are
> scheduled to vote on the relocation Thursday when they meet in Chicago.
>
> The deal, subject to the District of Columbia approving financing for a
> new
> ballpark by Dec. 31, would be the first move of a Major League Baseball
> franchise since the expansion Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers
> after the 1971 season.
>
> In a suit filed in July 2002, the 14 limited partners accused Loria,
> baseball commissioner Bud Selig and several others of violating federal
> racketeering laws, mail fraud and wire fraud in an attempt to eliminate
> the
> Expos, saying their 76 percent share of the Expos became a 6-to-7 percent
> stake in the Marlins.
>
> Four months later, the suit was put on hold by a federal judge, who told
> the
> limited partners to take their case to arbitration first. Still, the judge
> reserved the right to block a move, and a hearing was scheduled for Dec. 6
> in Miami.
>
> "We are obviously very disappointed with the decision," Kessler said.
> "Frankly, we're more disappointed for the fans of the Montreal Expos than
> we
> are for ourselves. We thought we were right but the arbitrators disagreed,
> and this appears to be the end of the road. I don't think we are going to
> have a basis for continuing to proceed."
>
> Loria sold the Expos to the other 29 teams before the 2002 season and
> purchased the Marlins from John Henry, who headed the group that bought
> the
> Boston Red Sox.
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

"cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote in message news:<vqWdnedoQMcn_ATcRVn-3A.DeleteThis@giganews.com>...
> Ruling clears way for Expos to D.C.
> Associated Press
>
> NEW YORK -- Arbitrators ruled Monday against the former limited partners of...
<SNIP>
> In a suit filed in July 2002, the 14 limited partners accused Loria,
> baseball commissioner Bud Selig and several others of violating federal
> racketeering laws, mail fraud and wire fraud in an attempt to eliminate the
> Expos, saying their 76 percent share of the Expos became a 6-to-7 percent
> stake in the Marlins.
>

Here's the part that I don't understand - if they truly had 76% of the
Expos - how did they allow the sale to happen? As a block of majority
shareholders, shouldn't they have been able to prevent the sale to
MLB? They were the majority, they could have acted together and sold
the team to a deep pockets local buyer, or taken the contraction
money.
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

First off, well said John.

I think hte whole mess had something to do with loria having special mpowers
as the principle owner where he could demoand cash of the other shareholders
to make inprovements (Get players, build a stadium etc. haha.) When the
shareholders couldn't cough up, he took control. I'm sure Rich knows the
full story...Lord Calvert? You're on.




"Mark Wolven" <comish4lif.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:79a5f994.0411160611.27a64790@posting.google.com...
> "cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:<vqWdnedoQMcn_ATcRVn-3A.DeleteThis@giganews.com>...
> > Ruling clears way for Expos to D.C.
> > Associated Press
> >
> > NEW YORK -- Arbitrators ruled Monday against the former limited partners
of...
> <SNIP>
> > In a suit filed in July 2002, the 14 limited partners accused Loria,
> > baseball commissioner Bud Selig and several others of violating federal
> > racketeering laws, mail fraud and wire fraud in an attempt to eliminate
the
> > Expos, saying their 76 percent share of the Expos became a 6-to-7
percent
> > stake in the Marlins.
> >
>
> Here's the part that I don't understand - if they truly had 76% of the
> Expos - how did they allow the sale to happen? As a block of majority
> shareholders, shouldn't they have been able to prevent the sale to
> MLB? They were the majority, they could have acted together and sold
> the team to a deep pockets local buyer, or taken the contraction
> money.
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

In article <mTwmd.24798$Ho4.932082@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Joe Guy" <joeguy.TakeThisOut@joeguy.com> wrote:

> First off, well said John.

Thanks. This was like watching a relative dying of some terminal
disease. You have time to come to grips with it. Though, in this case,
the disease was only terminal because of the doctors' (Brochu, Loria,
Selig) negligence. Too bad the malpractice suit failed.

> > > Here's the part that I don't understand - if they truly had 76% of the
> > Expos ... As a block of majority shareholders, shouldn't they have
> > been able to prevent the sale to MLB?

> I think the whole mess had something to do with Loria having special powers
> as the principle owner where he could demand cash of the other shareholders
> to make improvements ... the shareholders couldn't cough up, he took control.

Essentially right. Loria was able to demand proportional cash flows from
the team to cover revenue losses. When he paid his share, but the other
owners didn't, they kind of defaulted on their "responsibilities" and
Loria -- in covering their shortfall -- was able to dilute their
ownership shares.
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

Our only hope now is the complete ineptitude of the DC City Council will
prevent the stadium bill from passing...2/3rd's of DC residents don't even
want a stadium built with public funds! By trying to push the bill through
the Council is not acting based on the desires or best interests of their
constituents. Baseball belongs back in Montreal, not in DC where it has
already failed miserably twice! Can someone tell me why this time around
anyone honestly believes DC will be able to support an MLB franchise? I've
posted the Senator's annual attendance figures below between 1961 and 1971,
year-in and year-out they were at or near the bottom of the pile. In their
best year, they couldn't even pull in a million!! Are the 2005 and onward
Expos going to be any better than the underachieving Senators of the 60's
and early 70's?? If not, why will any significant number of people in DC
have any desire to attend ballgames there, whether at Really Frigging Krusty
Stadium or anywhere else?

Year League Record Finish Stadium Attendance Attend/G Attend Rank
Team Age
Bat/Pit Park Factor
Bat/Pit


1971 AL East 63-96 5 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 655,156 8,088
11th out of 12 27.6/26.4 94/96
1970 AL East 70-92 6 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 824,789 10,183
8th out of 12 28.1/27.6 95/96
1969 AL East 86-76 4 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 918,106 11,335
6th out of 12 27.8/27.0 95/96
1968 American Lg 65-96 10 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 546,661
6,749 10th out of 10 26.9/26.9 97/98
1967 American Lg 76-85 6 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 770,868
9,636 8th out of 10 26.7/26.4 96/98
1966 American Lg 71-88 8 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 576,260
7,388 10th out of 10 27.5/26.9 99/101
1965 American Lg 70-92 8 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 560,083
6,915 9th out of 10 28.4/28.0 99/101
1964 American Lg 62-100 9 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 600,106
7,409 10th out of 10 28.6/27.5 100/102
1963 American Lg 56-106 10 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 535,604
6,695 10th out of 10 28.7/28.2 100/102
1962 American Lg 60-101 10 R.F.K. Stadium (ballparks.com) 729,775
9,122 8th out of 10 28.5/27.4 99/102
1961 American Lg 61-100 9 Griffith Stadium II (ballparks.com)
597,287 7,561 9th out of 10 29.4/29.2 99/100


"John C. Baker" <jcb10.DeleteThis@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote in message
news:jcb10-63328E.18512516112004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <mTwmd.24798$Ho4.932082@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Joe Guy" <joeguy.DeleteThis@joeguy.com> wrote:
>
>> First off, well said John.
>
> Thanks. This was like watching a relative dying of some terminal
> disease. You have time to come to grips with it. Though, in this case,
> the disease was only terminal because of the doctors' (Brochu, Loria,
> Selig) negligence. Too bad the malpractice suit failed.
>
>> > > Here's the part that I don't understand - if they truly had 76% of
>> > > the
>> > Expos ... As a block of majority shareholders, shouldn't they have
>> > been able to prevent the sale to MLB?
>
>> I think the whole mess had something to do with Loria having special
>> powers
>> as the principle owner where he could demand cash of the other
>> shareholders
>> to make improvements ... the shareholders couldn't cough up, he took
>> control.
>
> Essentially right. Loria was able to demand proportional cash flows from
> the team to cover revenue losses. When he paid his share, but the other
> owners didn't, they kind of defaulted on their "responsibilities" and
> Loria -- in covering their shortfall -- was able to dilute their
> ownership shares.
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

David Szabo wrote:

> Our only hope now is the complete ineptitude of the DC City Council will
> prevent the stadium bill from passing

Won't happen. The business community wants the team.

....2/3rd's of DC residents don't even
> want a stadium built with public funds!

Did you make that up?

By trying to push the bill through
> the Council is not acting based on the desires or best interests of their
> constituents. Baseball belongs back in Montreal,

True, if an owner came along.

not in DC

Yes, DC deserves a team also.

where it has
> already failed miserably twice! Can someone tell me why this time around
> anyone honestly believes DC will be able to support an MLB franchise? I've
> posted the Senator's annual attendance figures below between 1961 and 1971,
> year-in and year-out they were at or near the bottom of the pile. In their
> best year, they couldn't even pull in a million!!

You obiously know nothing of the area. DC is surrounded by some of the
richest counties in the US. Fairfax County alone could support a team.
There is no relation between the DC of the 60s and the DC area of today.

Are the 2005 and onward
> Expos going to be any better than the underachieving Senators of the 60's
> and early 70's?? If not, why will any significant number of people in DC
> have any desire to attend ballgames there, whether at Really Frigging Krusty
> Stadium or anywhere else?
>
Sure, they will be better in 2005.

--
FSogol
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

>>
>> True - about 60% of the District's residents oppose the plan.
>
>
> 60%!!! What the hell are they doing trying to push through a bill
> that 60% of the taxpayers are opposed to, that's just wrong!!
>
Gotta love the internet. Only here would people argue passionately
about some numbers that some guy made up.

--
FSogol
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

> GO NATS!

They will have a million tickets sold before opening day.
--
FSogol
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:38:27 -0500, FSogol <FSogol.TakeThisOut@nospamplease.org>
wrote:

>
>> GO NATS!
>
>They will have a million tickets sold before opening day.

I heard they've sold 13,000 season tickets, so you're right, they'll
have sold a million tickets before a single tush has sat in RFK
stadium.

Sure beats the Big Owe stats.........however, let's see how they're
drawing in 2010, 2011 & 2012

Not that I care or will even look.....

Roberta
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............ 

"David Szabo" <dave.szabo.RemoveThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5ZLmd.26344$Ho4.1144878@news20.bellglobal.com...

> constituents. Baseball belongs back in Montreal, not in DC where it has
> already failed miserably twice! Can someone tell me why this time around
> anyone honestly believes DC will be able to support an MLB franchise? I've
> posted the Senator's annual attendance figures below between 1961 and
1971,
> year-in and year-out they were at or near the bottom of the pile. In their
> best year, they couldn't even pull in a million!!

That's deceptive because the overall attendence of baseball was far lower.
The DC story is far more complicated. But more to the point, the DC area
has radically changed in the THIRTY THREE years since baseball left
Washington DC. The population is much larger, the economics has changed,
the nature of the income in the region has changed. In the 1920's baseball
would have been a miserable failure in LA. In the 1950's it was a hit.
Had O'Malley judged LA based on 1920's economics he would have stayed in
Brooklyn.

> Are the 2005 and onward
> Expos going to be any better than the underachieving Senators of the 60's
> and early 70's?? If not, why will any significant number of people in DC
> have any desire to attend ballgames there, whether at Really Frigging
Krusty
> Stadium or anywhere else?

Well, even in the worst years of the Senators, they drew a much higher
percentage of the MLB average than the Expos did. Like it or not, the Expos
are dead, gone, finished. If they don't end up in DC, they still don't end
up in Montreal... and you are delusional if you believe to the contrary.
Quit tilting at windmills...
 >> Stay informed about: Limited partners lose............