Al Davis trying to sell?

[hawaiianboy]

The usual take it for what it's worth hedge applies....


From www.profootballtalk.com:

AL DAVIS HAS BEEN TRYING TO SELL

A league source with knowledge of the situation, but who has requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the discussions, tells us that Raiders owner Al Davis has been trying to sell a 30-percent stake in the team, with a path to control of the organization upon his demise.

Talks have occurred with "a bunch" of parties, but no deal has been consummated.

The problem, per the source, is that the clarity of the path to control is subject to debate.

Though identified as the "owner" on the team's official web site, Davis technically is the managing general partner of the Raiders. (Actually, the legal title, as we understand it, goes like this: "managing general partner of the general partner.")

Per the source, Davis doesn't own 51 percent of the team, but under the legal structure that has been in place for decades Davis is the guy who runs it.

So if Davis isn't in a position to provide a clear path to control upon his demise the question, as we see it, is whether he likewise has the ability to bequeath control upon his passing. It could be that he doesn't, and the homework assignment for the members of the "real" media with the time, resources, and inclination to take the baton is to round up information as to the full gamut of persons who hold an interest in the team -- and to get access to documents that detail how it is that Davis has been in charge for so long and how the power vacuum will be filled once he is no longer in position to run the team.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[hawaiianboy]

I posted this in a thread yesterday, but it probably fits here better... If Al really can't pass down managemant of the team as suggested in the PFT article, this could get real interesting.... Seems to be quite a few names being tossed around the past two years...

Could the Raiders’ future include Eddie DeBartolo?

By Tim Kawakami

Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm in 49ers, Raiders, NFL.

I heard this over the weekend, when I was in L.A., from a Smart Plugged-In Sports Person Who Has Been Talking to Other Smart Plugged-In People.


And it so-oooo connects to this morning’s interesting item on Profootballtalk.com’s rumor page about the NFL’s concern over the near and distant Raider future. So I had to type this. (The NFL is right. There should be massive concern. There’s gargantuan concern inside Raider offices, let me tell you.)

This is the nugget I heard: If Al Davis ever seriously considers selling a controlling stake in the Raiders (for now or for the future), his preferred purchasing candidate would be none other than Eddie DeBartolo.

Now, I don’t know how the league would view that. Actually I do know: With major trepidation, given Eddie’s past connection to gambling interests in Louisiana and the gambling fraud investigation that forced his resignation as 49er owner.

But of course, the NFL trepidation would be one of the huge selling points for Al. If he’s going to sell–ever, ever–he would want the Raiders to go to a renegade, wouldn’t he? Why not Eddie D, the man who got such a huge roar yesterday at Jerry Rice’s celebration in Candlestick?

A caveat, of course: Al’s not selling as of now. He’s not thinking of selling as of now. He wants the team to go to his son Mark, period.
But… Art Shell is seen as a Mark guy. Art Shell isn’t working out too well.

I hear that Mike Lombardi, the one credible personnel guy left in that office, could be headed to the Jets’ front office at some point.

So you have the big guys from the Brent Jones/Steve Young (Larry Ellison?) group who could build a new stadium in a blink. Al should sell to those guys. They’d come pre-approved by the NFL.

They’d be a major poke in the gut to the York-owned 49ers.

But knowing Al… if he had to do it… he’d want to poke some more. He’d want… EDDIE D.

It’s being gossiped. It’s a long way from happening. But stay tuned.



http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/kawak...ie-d/#more-204

 

[Crossbones]

I'll believe it when I see it...plus the always applicable ..."be careful what you wish for" applies. Well I mean we wanted to get rid of Norv Turner.

 

[Banter]

Well, if he's really trying to sell I imagine he'll find a buyer. This team is one of the lowest valued franchises out there. I bet a bunch of people view it has something that is seriously undervalued. Especially if they're willing to move the team back to Los Angeles and into an $800 million stadium the league itself will be building. Its going to sting me when Al is gone. Him and Clint Eastwood are about all thats left from those I idolized as a child.

 

[Crow]

I'll believe it when I see it...plus the always applicable ..."be careful what you wish for" applies. Well I mean we wanted to get rid of Norv Turner.

I said this very thing to TG about 10 minutes ago. Just when you think it can't get any worse...

 

[NIPS]

Didnt Al buy the McGah's interest in the team?, the whole lawsuit thing 4 years ago?

I thought that was like 60-70%?

 

[Angel]

No takers for 31% share of Raiders
- Nancy Gay, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, November 25, 2006


Raiders general partner Al Davis' protracted attempt to sell a minority interest of the team -- which he obtained from the heirs of deceased former limited partner Edward W. McGah -- continues to go nowhere, several sources inside and outside the NFL confirmed Friday.

For months, Davis has been offering for sale the 31 percent stake in the franchise he reportedly purchased as part of a 2005 financial settlement with the heirs of one of the Raiders' co-founders, E.W. McGah, including daughter-in-law Barbara McGah and great grandson Sherratt Reicher, both of whom sued the Raiders' chief in October 2003.

Davis reportedly owns about 67 percent of the team's shares, and the 77-year-old maverick owner -- who is in poor health -- has shown no inclination that he will surrender his controlling power over the franchise.

And the 31 percent former McGah family interest that Davis is peddling has not generated much interest from buyers, sources said, because Davis is not including any form of franchise control in the transaction, either now or upon the event of his death.

The blog site profootballtalk.com reported Friday that Davis has been trying to sell a stake in the Raiders.

"Davis is selling a piece of the team, without any say at all in how it is run. So it's merely a stake in the franchise," said one person who had briefly entertained an acquisition of those rights.

Further muddying any sale is the Raiders' refusal to publicly outline a clear management plan upon Davis' death. A 1999 partnership agreement reportedly makes his wife, Carol, the Raiders' chief executive of the franchise upon his death.

When rumors surfaced in May that former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo and team president Carmen Policy were positioning themselves for a takeover of the Raiders because of Davis' declining health, Raiders CEO Amy Trask told The Chronicle that Davis would remain in power.

"Al Davis currently has, and will continue to have, total control of the Raiders," she said, emphasizing the words "total control."

"And that will continue into perpetuity."

Trask would not comment Friday.

The sources agreed to comment only on the condition of anonymity.

Why Davis has been trying to sell a sizable chunk of his Raiders' fortune is unclear.

Forbes magazine this year estimated the Raiders' worth at $736 million, 22 percent below the average NFL franchise value of almost $900 million. According to Forbes, in the nine years that the magazine has calculated team valuations, the Raiders' cumulative operating income (estimated at $116 million) is 42 percent below the NFL average of $200 million.

The Raiders' ownership is said to be split among the heirs of the eight original general partners of the Raiders, with Davis slowly building his majority share from the original 10 percent he purchased for $18,000 in 1966, when he became the team's third general partner, along with E.W. McGah and Wayne Valley.

The original McGah family lawsuit wanted the partnership dissolved or Davis removed from his role as the team's managing general partner, alleging mismanagement, wrongful misappropriation of funds, fraud and breach of contract.

E.W. McGah died in 1983, and his son Edward J. McGah received his father's interest in the Raiders as part of a family trust, becoming a limited partner. He died in 2002.

The Raiders claimed that the McGah heirs became "assignees" upon E.J. McGah's death, giving them no voting rights.

An Alameda County Superior Court judge later ruled that the McGah heirs could not have Davis removed from power as the team's managing general partner unless they had the backing of the remaining ownership interests in the team's partnership. The court also ruled the McGah heirs could have access to the Raiders' closely guarded financial records.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Raiders and the McGah family reached a settlement, which reportedly included sale of the families' shares to Davis. All parties were bound by a confidentiality agreement.

Reicher stuck by that agreement Friday and would not comment when asked about Davis' sale of his family's former interest in the Raiders.

"I really can't discuss it and I don't want to discuss it," he said very politely, referring further questions to the family's attorneys.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/25/SPG19MJJS01.DTL

 

[SoCalRaider]

Forbes magazine this year estimated the Raiders' worth at $736 million, 22 percent below the average NFL franchise value of almost $900 million.

I'd bet that part of the reason Davis can't get a buyer for that 31% stake in the team might have to do with a little discrepency between Davis' estimation of the franchise value and the figure Forbes has put together.

 

[hawaiianboy]

"Davis is selling a piece of the team, without any say at all in how it is run. So it's merely a stake in the franchise," said one person who had briefly entertained an acquisition of those rights.

Al's going to have problems selling under those terms... but liquidating 31% could go a long way into bring Petrino and a bunch of free agents into town to help right the ship....


I'm a big Al fan, but I gotta admit, the prospect of selling off to a guy like Ellison and bringing a new stadium into the picture and perhaps a different approach to the way we draft and the value and subsequent salaries we put forth to the GM and coaching staff is enticing at this point...

 

[Crossbones]

Selling 31% with no kind of say or input whatsoever on how the team is run? Why would anybody do that?

Was watching the Louisville/Pittsburgh game and looks to me like Al had his man in Bobby, er Bernard Petrino. Dude calls all the offensive plays and that Louisville team looked sharp. Damn shame "Bernie" turned Al down.

 

[Madturk]

Selling 31% with no kind of say or input whatsoever on how the team is run? Why would anybody do that?

Exactly and with Al leaving the majority stake to his immediate family will most likely ensure that the team will be in Mark Davis's capable hands for years to come. Man unless this team has some major shake-up internally with the incumbent brain-trust, and an infusion of much needed working capital, things are looking bleak for this one proud franchise.

 

[Banter]

If the settlement with the McGah family went down last year I'm wondering where Al got the money to buy them out. I don't think he had 200+ million sitting around. If he borrowed it I wonder what our cash flow looks like. This could be the reason we sat out free agency this year.

 

[Rupert]

Yeah, Bernie isn't a dummy. He had a shot at a national championship, the beginings of media hype, and an interview for a pro job under his belt. He'll only be more popular this off-season, even with a brand new contract.

He knows what he's got in the pipeline at Louisville, but I don't see how he could be more in demand in the near future than he will be this off-season. He's either got to take something this year, or he'll fade back into obscurity. Is he next in line at Miami?

 

[Madturk]

He knows what he's got in the pipeline at Louisville, but I don't see how he could be more in demand in the near future than he will be this off-season. He's either got to take something this year, or he'll fade back into obscurity. Is he next in line at Miami?

I've heard Steve Spurrier's name being thrown out with the HC vacancy, also Rutgers HC Schiano who was an assistant at Miami.

On an unrelated note. Count me in on the Dwayne Jarrett jihad and I'd take any of the USC assistants for our OC position.

 

[Rupert]

... and I'd take any of the USC assistants for our OC position.

You know, I was talking with an old friend of mine yesterday. He is an old-time Raiders fan who stopped following the NFL when the Raiders left L.A. I told him how uniform Raider fans were in their complaints about... and he finished my sentence with "Art?" I said, no, Tom Walsh.

He went on to describe exactly what the Raiders were under Art the first time around: predictable offense that relied heavily on their defense.

The biggest problem with the hire of Tom Walsh is that he does what Art asks. He's Art's yes-man. And every second half collapse prompted by vanilla offense after going in with a lead is on Art 100%. It's the same old story from when Terry Robiskie ran Art's offense.

Some day the villification of Walsh will cease and the focus will return to Art. I'd hate to see Walsh fired just to prove my point, but it might have to happen before people put the blame where it belongs.

 

[RNorris]

Rupert,

I agree with your buddy.

IN the first few weeks of the season I figured hey it was all on Walsh, but given some of the other odd moves (Porter) and the lack of uniform discipline (Moss being critical and not getting in trouble vs Walter being benched) I am now looking Art's way.

As some others have stated here, Art was back stabbed in his first stint and that might be why he is pledging his loyalty so fiercly and blindly to Walsh. He knows Walsh will do as told.

It is frustrating to see other teams fire their OC and do ok (Balt looks better) while we stand pat. I am not usually in favor of in season firings and wasn't until the last 2 weeks.

But your friend is correct. I had season tickets while the team was in LA and I know so many games that we would have won had the offense made adjustments in the second half, or at the very least continued doing what was working in the first half. I remember a playoff game with KC where Nick Bell was running well and in the second half they abandoned the run and Marinovich imploded. KC hadn't shown any real ability to stop the run but they went away from it anyways.

I see alot of the same stuff now. Predictable offense and a total lack of adjustments. Also I see an arrogance of we will do what we want and not what is smart at the moment. It is maddening and very frustrating. It is like they want to rely on the defense keeping the score down and then the offense just hitting on a few big plays. Sadly, this ends up keeping our D on the field way to long and they tire out near the end of games. Not a real sucessful formula.

So yeah while I want to beat the tar out of Walsh, I have really soured on Art over the last few weeks. He has let Walsh continue to fail and has made a total mess of handling player issues. Quite frankly, he has really been a disappointment IMO.

 

[Madturk]

I thought Shell handled the Porter situation well initially, but I think the point was made and now it's time to move on and put the guys out there that give us the best chance to win. Shell to the detriment of the team, refuses to acquiesce.

I have to believe as stated in a recent article posted here that players are laughing at Shell and Walsh's incompetence.

 

[Crossbones]

I thought Shell handled the Porter situation well initially, but I think the point was made and now it's time to move on and put the guys out there that give us the best chance to win. Shell to the detriment of the team, refuses to acquiesce.

Too late now.

I have to believe as stated in a recent article posted here that players are laughing at Shell and Walsh's incompetence.

Yep. Read between the lines. Art has lost most of these players. Like Jordan's comment a couple of weeks ago ``I just work here. I do what I'm told"...Sapp too has had similar statements.

 

[hawaiianboy]

If the settlement with the McGah family went down last year I'm wondering where Al got the money to buy them out. I don't think he had 200+ million sitting around. If he borrowed it I wonder what our cash flow looks like. This could be the reason we sat out free agency this year.

Good point... I never even thought of this... If Al leveraged his majority interest in order to buy out the McGah interest, he could be feeling a major pinch...


A friend of mine who is a season ticket holder was telling me 2-3 weeks back that our home game sellouts were completely bogus.... Cooking the old books to make for a more attractive sale perhaps?.... Er, not like I've ever done anything like that....

I had season tickets while the team was in LA

So YOU were thye pinhead yelling at me to shut up when I started my Vince Evans chant...

 

[RNorris]

So YOU were thye pinhead yelling at me to shut up when I started my Vince Evans chant...

Wasn't me man ..... at that time I was calling for him too. Then again, I was calling for anyone who might help.