PDA

View Full Version : New Ownership



minus5
12-30-2005, 12:41 PM
Hi, I was wondering if anyone has heard anything lately about when the new ownership group will be approved and will take over? I haven't heard anythin gabout this lately. Thanks

Redsland
12-30-2005, 01:08 PM
Nothing has been reported lately. The last thing I recall was speculation that the new ownership group would be approved at the owners meetings in January.

minus5
12-30-2005, 02:29 PM
Thanks. By the way, really nice forum here...I couldn't hardly stand reading the Reds.com one anymore.

Redsland
12-30-2005, 02:35 PM
No sweat.

And welcome.

westofyou
12-30-2005, 02:36 PM
Nothing has been reported lately. The last thing I recall was speculation that the new ownership group would be approved at the owners meetings in January.
Plus, until the incoming group sheds their Cardinals shares (which will need to be improved too) the group is handcuffed. I think at best suggestions are accepted, however the budget being executed is the 2005 one laid out by Allen and company.

KronoRed
12-30-2005, 05:39 PM
Thanks. By the way, really nice forum here...I couldn't hardly stand reading the Reds.com one anymore.
Welcome to the good forum :)

jnwohio
12-30-2005, 06:13 PM
Plus, until the incoming group sheds their Cardinals shares (which will need to be improved too) the group is handcuffed. I think at best suggestions are accepted, however the budget being executed is the 2005 one laid out by Allen and company.

On the December 21 Redsline Hot Stove show, Marty Brenneman talked about a meeting he had with Castellini and one of the Williames. In conclusion to that, he made a direct statement implying that the new ownership is already already involved in the baseball part of the operation. Specifically what he said was that Mr. Lindner was to be commended for stepping aside and allowing the new ownership group to work with the baseball people during the period of transition.

This week (28 Dec), Marty threw out 19 January as a specific date when he looked for the transfer to be officially approved. Someone else has suggested a January owners' meeting. This is probably where that date comes from.

I think there are a couple of factors that have slowed down the formal approval. First, it is probably taking longer than anticipated to get the required reorganization of the Cardinals worked out than originally anticipated. Secondly Selig has been insistent all along on doing the Washington thing first. Even though it is clear now that will not impact the Cincinnati situation, Bud is Bud and they will move at his pace.

Redsland
12-31-2005, 03:26 PM
Thx for the info. :thumbup:

BEETTLEBUG
12-31-2005, 04:38 PM
Bud is just sooo sloow.

fourrunhomer
12-31-2005, 07:35 PM
Bud is one of the worst things to happen to baseball. The DH may top the list, but everything Bud puts his hands on tarnishes the game. IMHO

Ron Madden
12-31-2005, 07:40 PM
[QUOTE=fourrunhomer]Bud is one of the worst things to happen to baseball. The DH may top the list, but everything Bud puts his hands on tarnishes the game. IMHO[/QUO

I Like the Wildcard.;)

BrooklynRedz
12-31-2005, 07:45 PM
Bud may be slow, but IMHO, he'll be remembered for being the man who brought the organization and business of baseball into the 21st century. The Wild Card. Interleague Play. The establishment of the internet and productions arm of the organization have done some amazing things the past five years, 95% of which the public has not yet witnessed thus far but the impact of which over the next decade could be staggering.

fourrunhomer
12-31-2005, 07:56 PM
I can't stand the wildcard or interleague play. Also, increased expansion has severely diluted the tallent level in the majors (especially pitching). There are way too many people in the majors who should never get passed AA. Not that I could ever make it past the over the hill slow pitch softball league

Red Heeler
12-31-2005, 08:02 PM
Plus, until the incoming group sheds their Cardinals shares (which will need to be improved too) the group is handcuffed. I think at best suggestions are accepted, however the budget being executed is the 2005 one laid out by Allen and company.

I would think that the Cards shares could be put into an escrow account pending their sale to clear the new owners of any conflict of interest.

I agree with you, though that the new group likely has little to do with the operation of the club at this point.

Redmachine2003
12-31-2005, 08:09 PM
IMO I think that the New ownership shut down DanO after trades at the winter meetings. They were afraid to let him do any more damage.

westofyou
12-31-2005, 08:44 PM
There are way too many people in the majors who should never get passed AA.The talent in MLB is better across the board then ever before.

Guys that sat on the end of the bench in 1968 wouldn't get in the bigs these days.

MrCinatit
12-31-2005, 09:15 PM
I can't stand the wildcard or interleague play. Also, increased expansion has severely diluted the tallent level in the majors (especially pitching). There are way too many people in the majors who should never get passed AA. Not that I could ever make it past the over the hill slow pitch softball league

as much as i hate Bud, i have to agree. (finally) going after suspensions for steriods abuse was also a good thing...though, once again, it is something which should have done sooner...not AFTER it had become an obvious problem to the rest of the world.

George Foster
12-31-2005, 10:51 PM
I can't stand the wildcard or interleague play. Also, increased expansion has severely diluted the tallent level in the majors (especially pitching). There are way too many people in the majors who should never get passed AA. Not that I could ever make it past the over the hill slow pitch softball league


The Wildcard idea was a good idea. It gave cities a reason to stay interested in their team. Interleague play is inherently unfair. For instance St. Louis in our division, play the Royals 6 times, the worst team in baseball. The Reds have to play the Indians 6 times, always a pretty good team. In 03 the Reds had to play I believe The A's and Seattle in a west coast swing. Both of those teams made it to the playoffs. Interleague play has also lost it's appeal.

alexad
01-01-2006, 01:33 AM
The new guys are not going to be expected to have their shares of the Cards sold before they get the Reds. IF for some reason they do not get the Reds, they still have some of the Cards in their pockets. IF approved for the Reds, they will be given a date to have their Cardinals shares sold. It will not have an effect on being approved for the Reds.

I would think once approved, they will interview 3 candidates that for GM that they have already lined up. One will be a minority candidate to meet the MLB standards. They will then have the new GM in place by the end of January to evaluate everything going into Spring Training. The Reds will stay quiet until then. Then I think they will make some deals to improve this team.

fourrunhomer
01-01-2006, 10:48 AM
The talent in MLB is better across the board then ever before.

Guys that sat on the end of the bench in 1968 wouldn't get in the bigs these days.


This is true. Athletes today are much bigger and faster. It's like ESPN comparing this years USC team to great teams from the past. It would be no contest with teams from the 50's 60's and 70's. But that is not the comparison I was trying to make; although baseball may be the one sport that players from by-gone generations could make the jump. Wouldn't you love to see some of the old time pitchers throwing it hard and not afraid to come inside to hitters today.
My point was that the game is diluted by todays standards. Let's say the last four expansion teams were not added. That would be 20 less starting pitchers throwing gopher balls, 16 less catchers who really have no business in the majors, and 64 position players and relievers Who would never see the the light of day in the bigs. Now I realize that a lot of people today watch the games because of the football scores the are put up but I really do like to see lower scoring games with pitchers who know how to pitch.
someone else made the point that with expansion and subsequent wild card, people are able to follow their teams longer. My opinion is if you can't win your division, you shouldn't be in the playoffs. Don't get me wrong though, if the Reds were to win a wildcard I would be right there saying, "Go REDS."
Like you said, there were players playing in '68 who could not make it today. Could you imagine how bad it would have been to have minor leaguers on those teams.
I realize all these changes are to add "fans" and are all about the money, but I still think it as the expense of the game.

westofyou
01-01-2006, 01:27 PM
Wouldn't you love to see some of the old time pitchers throwing it hard and not afraid to come inside to hitters today.Pedro Martinz and Kevin Browne say hi.

Just as many pitchers throw inside then they did in the 60's, they all know how to pitch just like they did in the 60's and 70's. The hitting is in an upswing, natural occurance... no different than the 20's, 30's and the 50's.

jnwohio
01-01-2006, 02:40 PM
The new guys are not going to be expected to have their shares of the Cards sold before they get the Reds. IF for some reason they do not get the Reds, they still have some of the Cards in their pockets. IF approved for the Reds, they will be given a date to have their Cardinals shares sold. It will not have an effect on being approved for the Reds.

I would think once approved, they will interview 3 candidates that for GM that they have already lined up. One will be a minority candidate to meet the MLB standards. They will then have the new GM in place by the end of January to evaluate everything going into Spring Training. The Reds will stay quiet until then. Then I think they will make some deals to improve this team.


I agree they are likely out to make a splash when they take control. Given the events of this last week with the Bengals and Palmer; an LTC for Dunn would be a great way for them to open.

As to their Cards holdings etc. my view is a little different. As Cardinal minority owners, they should be previously vetted; and the vote for them to take over the Reds ownership should be a formality unless someone (such as a spurned bidder) has raised some serious question of impropiety in the sale and selection process. I think we would have heard of that by now.

I agree that the disposal of their Cardinal stake does not have to be completed prior to their Reds take over; but I wuld think that the plan for how it is to happen would have to be in place and agreed to in principle by baseball.

For example, one possibility is that there is a cash flow or liquidity issue in closing the Reds deal that goes back to them at least needing to know the amount of their anticipated proceeds from the Cardinal disposal. I.E. maybe they plan to give Lindner and Co. a short term note for part of the Reds deal with most/ all the money to pay off the note to come from the sale of their Cardinals stake. (This could be from need or maybe they chose this route to minimize the effect of the Reds transaction on their other businesses).

westofyou
01-01-2006, 03:16 PM
maybe they plan to give Lindner and Co. a short term note for part of the Reds deal with most/ all the money to pay off the note to come from the sale of their Cardinals stake.One thing to remember is that Lindner, Bill Reik and George Strike will be retaining their shares, the controling share goes to Castanelli and 51% of the total to the 3 incoming guys.

jnwohio
01-01-2006, 10:19 PM
One thing to remember is that Lindner, Bill Reik and George Strike will be retaining their shares, the controling share goes to Castanelli and 51% of the total to the 3 incoming guys.

Correct the lion's share of what the Castellini group is buying is the 51% of the Reds from the Nipperts, Gannet etc.

However, the speculation I have seen in print is that Lindner's share is likely to drop from the 37% range into the 10-15% range and that the Castellini group is likely to end up with at least 75% of the overall ownership of the Reds.

Castellini has also indicated his group will be ameanable to taking on other minority partners in that 75% share. In other words, apparently the 75% stake of the Reds his group is buying is actually going to be owned by a holding company of sorts. That holding company would own controlling interest in the Reds but may itself be comprised of multiple individuals or entities which own varying pieces of it. Theoretically under such a set up, Castellini could control the Reds by owning as little as 51% of the umbrella holding company. I find this at least a little curious and ironic since that 51% the holding company would represent very close to around 37% of the Reds (51% of 75%) which is what Lindner has held as managing partner these last several years.

minus5
01-03-2006, 10:41 AM
I can't stand the wildcard or interleague play. Also, increased expansion has severely diluted the tallent level in the majors (especially pitching). There are way too many people in the majors who should never get passed AA. Not that I could ever make it past the over the hill slow pitch softball league

I agree with everything except the wildcard...I think it brings a little more excitement. I hate the interleague play though...I always thought that is what the World Series was for.

timmario66
01-05-2006, 04:05 PM
According to the Cincinnati Business Journal, the ownership will be changed January 19th.

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/01/02/daily24.html

Let the housecleaning begin.:pray:

registerthis
01-05-2006, 04:15 PM
I was skeptical of the wild card issue when it was introduced a decade or so ago--no more. Having witnessed some of the fantastic playoff races in the last few years involving wild card teams convinced me. It just makes the season so much more interesting, I can't see being without it.

interleague play, however, I'm still not sold on. Why I shoul dget excited about a Reds - Devil rays matchup, or a mets - Royals game, for example, is beyond me. Every once in awhile, a Reds - Indians or reds - Yankees series will interest me, but really I'm not sold on the idea.

The wild card, however, rocks.

traderumor
01-05-2006, 04:22 PM
According to the Cincinnati Business Journal, the ownership will be changed January 19th.

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/01/02/daily24.html

Let the housecleaning begin.:pray:Whoa, maybe heads rolling in the FO could be a B-day present for me on the 22nd

ochre
01-05-2006, 05:02 PM
I was skeptical of the wild card issue when it was introduced a decade or so ago--no more. Having witnessed some of the fantastic playoff races in the last few years involving wild card teams convinced me. It just makes the season so much more interesting, I can't see being without it.

interleague play, however, I'm still not sold on. Why I shoul dget excited about a Reds - Devil rays matchup, or a mets - Royals game, for example, is beyond me. Every once in awhile, a Reds - Indians or reds - Yankees series will interest me, but really I'm not sold on the idea.

The wild card, however, rocks.
I agree. The World Series should have an air of the undiscovered, with the teams not having faced each other all year.

KittyDuran
01-05-2006, 05:45 PM
According to the Cincinnati Business Journal, the ownership will be changed January 19th.

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/01/02/daily24.html

Let the housecleaning begin.:pray:

Cincinnati Business Courier - 2:46 PM EST Thursday
Reds ownership change expected Jan. 19
Carl Lindner is expected to hand over control of the Reds to Robert Castellini on Jan. 19, according to a published report.

The process will be completed during Major League Baseball's owners' meetings in Scottsdale, Ariz., when owners of the other 29 teams vote on the bid from Castellini and investors Thomas Williams and William Williams Jr.

"I think that's probably going to happen," MLB spokesman Rich Levin confirmed Wednesday. "It'll take place at the full owners' meeting, there will be a vote, and depending on the vote it'll be approved or not."

Castellini's group is buying a little more than half of the team's shares. While the purchase price wasn't disclosed, it is based on a total team value of about $270 million.

Castellini, 64, is chairman and CEO of Wilder-based Castellini Co., one of the nation's largest wholesale produce distributors. Thomas Williams is president of North American Properties, a downtown-based real estate development firm. W. Joseph Williams Jr. is chairman. The Williamses' father, William Williams, and uncle, James Williams, were owners of the Reds from 1966 to 1984.

KronoRed
01-05-2006, 05:47 PM
I agree. The World Series should have an air of the undiscovered, with the teams not having faced each other all year.
Triple agreed.

Throw out interleague play, it was cute..but not it's just not anything exciting.

Ditch the DH as well.

Unassisted
01-05-2006, 07:03 PM
Throw out interleague play, it was cute..but not it's just not anything exciting.If I had a vote, I'd vote for interleague play to happen every 4 years, like the Olympics. Now that the novelty is over, the fact that it has an impact on the Wild Card and divisional races is as annoying as a mosquito swarm on a hot summer night.

TeamBoone
01-05-2006, 10:07 PM
I heard tonight on the local news that they expect this to happen within the next two weeks.

Nugget
01-05-2006, 11:45 PM
The Post also reports the 19th. That only makes it a month before ST.

TeamBoone
01-06-2006, 12:17 AM
Tonight on the early news, Jason LaRue was having a press conference. I only came in on the very end of it and have no idea what it was about. Does anyone know?

Chip R
01-06-2006, 10:11 AM
An article from the Enquirer today.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/BIZ01/601060430

New Reds owners to get 75%
Lindner, other current holders to retain small stake

By Cliff Peale
Enquirer staff writer

The new owners of the Cincinnati Reds will likely take control Jan. 20 after buying a stake of about 75 percent, worth about $120 million, in baseball's oldest professional team.

A group headed by Bob Castellini, Tom Williams and Joe Williams has received all the Major League Baseball approvals for the sale, except a final vote by team owners. They originally hoped to schedule that vote before Christmas, but it now appears that owners will approve the sale at their regularly scheduled meetings Jan. 19 in Phoenix.

Current owners Carl Lindner and Bill Reik will retain minority units worth about 8 percent each, and George Strike and Louise Nippert will retain about half that amount each, multiple sources close to the talks said.

Castellini will succeed Lindner as the chief executive officer.

Castellini and the Williams brothers will be the managing members, holding operating control of Cincinnati Reds LLC.

The ownership isn't completely set, and the ownership percentages still could change. Castellini's group could sell small units in his group to other investors even after the deal closes.

It's unclear exactly how much of the club Castellini will own personally.

But it is clear that Castellini will be the public face of the Reds ownership and will handle all dealings with the commissioner's office and other owners.

Long heritage

That will continue a Reds ownership heritage that extends back 136 years, including such Cincinnati icons as Powel Crosley, Bill DeWitt Sr., Marge Schott and Lindner.

Citing MLB rules, the new owners have refused to discuss the purchase since they announced the deal in early November. But sources on all parts of the deal have painted a picture of a smooth transition that will start immediately after the Castellini group takes control.

There already have been some changes, implemented by Reds chief operating officer John Allen and general manager Dan O'Brien. Baseball rules prohibit the new group from having any operating input until the sale is final.

O'Brien traded first baseman Sean Casey to the Pittsburgh Pirates and re-signed several Reds veterans.

Radio salesman hired

The Reds also have hired Bill Reinberger, the former general sales manager at WLW-AM, as the club's director of corporate sales. And the team has talked with former Reds manager Lou Piniella, although it does not appear he will take a formal role with the club.

When they announced their purchase of the Reds, the Castellini group said it valued the entire Cincinnati Reds LLC at about $270 million. Since the Reds have outstanding debt of about $110 million, that leaves the team with an equity value of about $160 million.

Chip R
01-06-2006, 10:12 AM
Tonight on the early news, Jason LaRue was having a press conference. I only came in on the very end of it and have no idea what it was about. Does anyone know?

There were articles in the Enquirer and Post this morning about how Jason expects to take more of a leadership role and how the club is on the right track. In other words, meaningless blather from someone in town for a physical.

westofyou
01-06-2006, 11:48 AM
That will continue a Reds ownership heritage that extends back 136 years, including such Cincinnati icons as Powel Crosley, Bill DeWitt Sr., Marge Schott and Lindner.What exactly is "That"?

Could "that" be local ownership?

If so then remove DeWitt, he was a St. Loius resident and a Detroit GM when he came to Cincinnati and remove the 136 years part... mainly because A. The Reds haven't been playing for that long and B. They were owned by a Indianapolois resident 102 years ago.

So take "That".

timmario66
01-06-2006, 12:16 PM
Nice avatar WOY. I actually have that magnet in my office along with a Shoeless Joe Jackson Selz Shoes one I picked up at the Smithsonian a few years back.

westofyou
01-06-2006, 12:21 PM
Nice avatar WOY. I actually have that magnet in my office along with a Shoeless Joe Jackson Selz Shoes one I picked up at the Smithsonian a few years back.
Yeah it's a hoot, got it from a book called "Baseball Archeology"

Along with this gem.
http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/tick.gif