08-20-2009, 08:47 AM
<!--quoteo(post=58985:date=Aug 20 2009, 06:57 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 20 2009, 06:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58976:date=Aug 20 2009, 12:04 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 20 2009, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58893:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58885:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58884:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the story:
"A brief Cubs bankruptcy would be a legal maneuver to clear the team from any future liability in the Tribune bankruptcy, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. Sam Zell, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Tribune, pledged the company’s interest in the Cubs as collateral when he negotiated the deal to take the publisher private in 2007, according to one of those people."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement actually makes very little sense. All assets of the Trib would be considered collateral in the event of a default, not just the Cubs, unless of course the team was left out of the bankruptcy filing, which it was. Also, in the original purchase, how could an asset that Zell didn't already own be pledged as anything? Intent to sell the asset, yes. Pledge as collateral, nope. The writer is a boob.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that's as may be but the article you posted says the Cubs bankruptcy is to protect the Cubs from the Trib's creditors. Now that may be wrong but I didn't post the link.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I posted the link in response to someone else's comment, not to rebut yours. Read what I first said after your response. We're both partially correct because it's still up to the judge. And if the team were subject to liquidation as you said, it would help speed up the sale.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the story:
"A brief Cubs bankruptcy would be a legal maneuver to clear the team from any future liability in the Tribune bankruptcy, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. Sam Zell, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Tribune, pledged the company’s interest in the Cubs as collateral when he negotiated the deal to take the publisher private in 2007, according to one of those people."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement actually makes very little sense. All assets of the Trib would be considered collateral in the event of a default, not just the Cubs, unless of course the team was left out of the bankruptcy filing, which it was. Also, in the original purchase, how could an asset that Zell didn't already own be pledged as anything? Intent to sell the asset, yes. Pledge as collateral, nope. The writer is a boob.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that's as may be but the article you posted says the Cubs bankruptcy is to protect the Cubs from the Trib's creditors. Now that may be wrong but I didn't post the link.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I posted the link in response to someone else's comment, not to rebut yours. Read what I first said after your response. We're both partially correct because it's still up to the judge. And if the team were subject to liquidation as you said, it would help speed up the sale.
