Cubs to file Bankruptcy

The Cubs were not part of the original bankruptcy proceeding filed by the Tribune, but according to the story, this is a legal maneuver to get the sale done quickly.

4 months ago kaseyi 17 comments 2 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I was just about to post this.

I thought it was interesting. At this point whatever they have to do to speed up the sales process is fine by me.

---AC 00 00 00 - Believe

by mjk83 on Jul 13, 2009 8:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for posting this.

Key paragraphs:

A bankruptcy filing by the Cubs wouldn’t indicate that it’s having trouble paying bills, Cross said.

"You do not have to be insolvent to be in bankruptcy," he said. "All you need is a legitimate business reason."

Section 363 of the federal bankruptcy code allows a company to sell assets "free and clear" of a lender’s lien and without the creditors’ consent under certain circumstances, he said.

So, this should not affect the Cubs doing business or making deals before the deadline, if they want to.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Jul 13, 2009 8:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

My uncle specializes in this sort of thing and I talked to him this morning. That’s basically what he said.

I think when the bankruptcy happened I made a post about everything he said (when we were wondering what would happen if the Cubs ever became part of it).

We don’t have to worry much. The sale is close and this is part of it.

But we’re Cub fans, we always worry. The day we win the world series we’ll worry about players hurting their arms throwing confetti in the parade.

I had to delete my twitter account. But you can still find me at fanfiction.net under puckish prosecutor.

by cubstoseriesby100 on Jul 13, 2009 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were talking about this on the radio yesterday in NY

They said this basically leaves the decision of who owns the Cubs to a judge. They will go to court and he will decide who the best choice for new ownership is.

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before on here…I’ve pretty much avoided all Cubs sale posts its been going on forever.

by ak123 on Jul 13, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is not quite true. MLB is the final decsion maker.

Just because people on the radio talk about something doesn’t make it true.

by cubswin on Jul 13, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if MLB doesn't like it

Then it goes on and on and on. It’s just like the song “Heaven and Hell” says.

And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.

by Ace Venom on Jul 13, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not 100% true

there was a sale in the past which MLB was told their vote means nothing, and is illegal. To my knowledge nothing has changed….

here is a link and a nice quote from it

That came in Piazza v. Major League Baseball, 831 F. Supp. 420 (E.D. Pa. 1993), in which some gentlemen from Pennsylvania tried to buy the Giants and move them to Florida. Then-Giants’ owner Bob Lurie was going to sell, but MLB stepped in and indicated that it would not approve the sale. The buyers sued, arguing (among other things) that baseball illegally restrained free trade in the market in which baseball teams are bought and sold. Baseball argued that it was allowed to do this pursuant to the antitrust exemption. The trial court agreed with the would-be buyers during the preliminary stages of that case, ruling that the antitrust exemption didn’t apply to the purchase of teams. Granted, this wasn’t a final decision on the merits. Rather, the court basically ruled that if the plaintiffs could prove that MLB wrongfully thwarted the sale — say, that baseball had no legitimate business basis for excluding a potential ownership group —they could win.

Of course it never got that far. Having seen that its antitrust exemption was in peril, baseball settled with the plaintiffs, paying them $6 million for their trouble, and the case went away. Since that time, baseball has continued to approve or deny “ownership applications” as though they were country club memberships as opposed to the restraint of the sale of goods in a free market. It has been able to get away with this because, to my knowledge, no one since the Pennsylvania people in the Piazza case have raised a fuss over a team sale, and with no dispute, there can be no court case. Why no dispute? I’d guess it’s because all existing owners since the Piazza case have, out of some sense of loyalty perhaps, taken MLB’s temperature as to whether they approve of the buyer before actually accepting an offer to sell (if owner x doesn’t accept, there is no deal in the first place). At the same time, there has been no self-respecting businessman who would want to sue his way into a club that acts in such a provincial, petty-ante fashion.

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Jul 13, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still a big risk here

Expect the worst, but hope for the best

And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.

by Ace Venom on Jul 13, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs will do anything

to get out of the Soriano contract.

by jerry morales rules on Jul 13, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Now THAT'S an interesting thought

not that the Cubs would ever do it, but ….

by TC Cubby on Jul 13, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder

if that would actually do it. Could a franchise ACTUALLY going bankrupt allow them to waive all the player contracts? The Players’ Association would go NUTS.

Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.

by drewishdrewid on Jul 13, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chapter 11

I don’t think Chapter 11 would permit the Cubs to dump payroll, at least from what I understand about that particular bankruptcy chapter.

And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.

by Ace Venom on Jul 13, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

payroll vs contracts

that could be an interesting argument. in BK you can break a contract, so which is it legally considered?

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Jul 13, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to the Sun-Times, MLB guarantees players contracts.

LINK

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jul 14, 2009 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read that today in an email

and was about to post the email from a friend. It was just something I was curious about, and didnt have the wants to google is (sorry, was lazy, but we all get a pass now and then, right?)

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Jul 14, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs