Report is Gearon Junior keeps a percentage

[Duff_Man]

This is a good thing for the Hawks.  People on here are talking smack about MGJ but don't know the first thing about him.   He's a good man and he cares more about Atlanta and the Hawks than many of us will ever know. 

 

You mean the man-baby who actively sabotaged the entire ownership/franchise because he didn't get his way?

[Plainview1981]

He and Belkin loved the team so much they did everything they could to make sure the team was publicly dragged through the mud rather than hashing things out behind closed doors.  Secretly taping conversations with your partners then selectively leaking out only the portions of the conversations that are the most negative and inflammatory while not leaking the context that makes them look bad but not as bad, for example.  Why leak the portion where Ferry has his epic fail while not leaking the part where he says all the good things about Deng recommends making an 8 figure offer to him?  To create a #$*#storm that he can point at Ferry and Levenson, the guy who replaced him as the top shot caller among owners.  

 

Thank you for the love Belkin and Gearon but can you just kick me in the balls next time?  That will be faster.

 

Great post.

[AHF]

So Reesler and others are just going to give Nique ~$7.3m? I doubt that.

You're certainly right that we shouldn't assume, but with the new ownership rules it is severely unlikely Nique has a stake because of how valuable at least 1% of the team is worth.

 

No.  You and I are missing eachother on this.

 

Let's say Nique owns .2% of the team currently.  99.8% of the team is owned by the other owners.  New ownership rules say that going forward all new owners need a minimum of 1%.  Nique isn't a new owner so he only needs 1% if he sells.  The new owners buy 99.8% of the team from the other owners or 99.8% minus the Gearon stake.  

 

Nique doesn't spend anything and maintains his minority ownership stake at .2%.  The new owners keep Nique in the fold.  There is no need for Nique to sell his .2% and then either be gifted the 1% (I agree that isn't happening) or buy 1%.  Now the new owners might want as close to 100% as they could negotiate and are happy to remove Nique from the structure, but there is no need to force him to sell if they prefer having him as part of the process.

 

With Gearon it probably works the same way.  He could sell his stake and then buy back in at a certain % but why bother with that and the potential tax consequences of two sales?  At best, that is neutral to retaining his stake.  At worst, both parties lose $$ on taxes and other expenses relating to the sell/buy.  He probably is just selling the portion of the team his isn't retaining.  None of us know for sure but it doesn't make a lot of sense for anybody to do something where he sells his entire stake and then buys back in a a certain %.  More likely, he enters into a sales agreement on new terms with his new partners and he receives a sum of money for what he is selling and retains the % that he is keeping.

[JTB]

Why are we so fed up with Gearon when we now have a clear cut owner according to mayor Reed?

In the latest ajc article reed said that the Hawks now have a clear cut majority owner. So if he wants gearon to shut the hell up he has the authority to keep him in the box! What's the big deal?

As far as I know ressler owns more than what levenson owned. There isn't any percentages out yet but I willing to bet that he owns probably 75-80 percent of the team along with the other new owners.

Gearon can be shut down so I don't think this is a big deal

[JTB]

Uhhh...do you realize that Levenson was the clear-cut majority owner no more than 9 months ago? And what happened? A minority owner blackmailed him and f***ed this whole team up. Guess who that was. And guess who still hangs on as a minority owner. THAT is why people are pissed off about Gearon Junior hanging around.

Do you realize people handle business differently....who's to say Ressler is going to handle his business like Levenson?

Levenson didn't care about the Hawks! He was trying to get a big pay day like sterling which he did. This new owner may come in and lay down the law by letting all minority owners know that only one owner needs to speak publicly about this team (Grant Hill) or he may say only our CEO Steve Koonin should make comments publicly

We don't know how he handles his buisness! Maybe he don't do conference calls that are major to the team and prefer face to face meetings only.

It's his team maybe he forces gearon to sell his percentage if it's possible. I get why we are mad but I don't see it affecting the Hawks franchise and it has nothing to do with ferry coming back or not.

Ferry has had plenty of outside support all throughout the NBA from legends to current players and coaches including our whole Hawks team and coaching staff! If we have a new owner dumb enough to take gearons opnion over all of those individuals then we are doomed whether gearon was here or not cause that just shows how easily influenced our new owner is....but I don't believe that is the case. I believe Tony Ressler our new owner is more prone to listen to CEO Steve Koonin and Coach of the year Mike Budenholzer over a minority owner who's on record for not wanting ferry here in the first place!

Gearon has been bashed publicly and people know he is the cause of all of this mess to begin with...I even heard the guys on ESPN first take saying how much of a slim ball gearon is if I recall it right.

I think we are overreacting about gearon and the smarts of our new owner as if he's a dumbass and we aren't realizing this franchise is heading for a change for the good and things just aren't the same like under the old ownership ASG.

[AHF]

Why are we so fed up with Gearon when we now have a clear cut owner according to mayor Reed?

In the latest ajc article reed said that the Hawks now have a clear cut majority owner. So if he wants gearon to shut the hell up he has the authority to keep him in the box! What's the big deal?

As far as I know ressler owns more than what levenson owned. There isn't any percentages out yet but I willing to bet that he owns probably 75-80 percent of the team along with the other new owners.

Gearon can be shut down so I don't think this is a big deal

 

Gearon went after Danny Ferry on a personal level and tried to ruin his career.  That creates a huge question in my mind if Ferry will be willing to return with Gearon remaining part of ownership and leaves open the question if Gearon will continue to look for opportunities to embarrass Ferry and force his departure.

 

That is my big concern.

[AHF]

I guess @AHF, the whole issue we're bickering over is the handling of the "Team" titled the "Atlanta Hawks" and how it can be owned through the NBA. 

 

I'm not an M&A expert but have done enough of that to give you my best guess that Nique can retain his stake in the team if new ownership wants that to happen.  

[JETSET]

Gearon went after Danny Ferry on a personal level and tried to ruin his career.  That creates a huge question in my mind if Ferry will be willing to return with Gearon remaining part of ownership and leaves open the question if Gearon will continue to look for opportunities to embarrass Ferry and force his departure.

 

That is my big concern.

How can any one not understand this?

 

Gearon has proven to be a snake and once a snake, always a snake.

[AHF]

It's almost like you're not catching the issue. It's not an acquisition problem of Company A being acquired by Company B. It is that the NBA process requires (per my understanding) that an entire new "Entity" takes control of the "Atlanta Hawks." And since the updated NBA constitution dictates that each "Owner" (which refers to stake in the "Entity" which holds onto "Membership" into the "Association") must have more than 1% in stake, well that's the rub.

The only way Nique gets in is if the Atlanta Spirit LLC (they actually changed Spirit to Hawks) maintains to be the "Entity" in control (ie Ressler buys in) or if Ressler's new "Entity" allows Nique to have at least 1% stake.

So what I am pointing out is it must be either of those two scenarios. Which is for me to say, this is highly unlikely. It's also highly unlikely in my mind because you can look at the Steve Koonin parallel. Steve Koonin is CEO, but he also held a stake in ownership when he was announced into position. Koonin may be rich, but he's not the kind of person who would have had a large chunk of assets set aside to quit a job, buy into the A$G, and continue to work. It's waaay more likely that the stake in ownership was a way to get Koonin to come over, so probably not controlling. And since we also have reports that the Ressler group "plan to keep Koonin"...well, connect the dots.

 

I get what you are saying, I just don't get all the way to that point by reading the bylaws.  The bylaws specifically envision transferring less than 100% of the interest in a Member so as to transfer controlling interest without transferring all of the prior owners.  They also talk about exceptions where the Board of Governors could approve ownership stakes of less than 1% (actually it never mentions a 1% requirement, it just mentions that you can make exceptions to the normal minimum ownership criteria).  I think a lot of this would be driven by what the new owners want.  The bylaws don't make it at all clear to me that the new owners couldn't allow Koonin or Nique to stay on board, if desired.

[frosgrim]

I've been waiting all year to see what would happn with the sale. I was perfectly ready to spend my income on season tickets and go to every game i could as soon as Gearon and co were gone. Now it looks like i'm buying some PSLs to support Sir Arthur and his wonderland stadium.

 

I can't believe ANYONE would willing go into business with Gearon Jr. That is just amazingly bad judgement. I have to wonder if Bud even stays with the team. He can write his ticket to almost any team in the NBA now (caugh OKC, caugh).

[JTB]

Do you even follow this team? Because all of this post is basically a proclamation to the board that you do not.

Do you follow this team?

I understand why the board is upset....but I don't get why you all have your minds made up that this is set in stone that Gearon can't be shutdown by new owners if he does stay and we do bring back ferry. As if ferry has to report to him or as if ferry does report to him if he came back he won't be more careful and smarter about his choice of words.

And never insult me I've been apart of these boards for years and will always voice my opinion. One of the biggest problems on this board is that we still have individuals that can't see the light due to all the horrible management for so many years. I'm super optimistic about where this team is heading....I personally think we are heading into numerous years of success with gearon shutting the hell up and ferry being back and we will have to just deal with that.

People have good reason to not like gearon but he is a true to the heart Hawks fan even if he does hate ferry I believe he will crawl under a rock or will be told to do so by higher ownership and ferry will be back to do his job.....

Damn people come on now....these are grown men and I'm sure ferry wants to finish what he started, he just need a piece of mind if gearon is staying around which he is as of now. So I see one choice...ferry comes back and do his job and ownership takes care of gearon jr. shutting him down....unless the owners don't want ferry back.

[JTB]

Gearon went after Danny Ferry on a personal level and tried to ruin his career. That creates a huge question in my mind if Ferry will be willing to return with Gearon remaining part of ownership and leaves open the question if Gearon will continue to look for opportunities to embarrass Ferry and force his departure.

That is my big concern.

Understand where you're coming from but I don't understand why higher ownership can't shut this little spec down?!

Why can't higher ownership tell ferry to only report to them and they will pass info along to other minority owners?

If gearon needs to express any ideas or concerns to the team why can't Ressler tell him that he can only do that in an owners only meeting?

Who has power over this franchise? Ressler that's who....from reports gearon never wanted ferry in the ATL to begin with and he wanted to continue to be outspoken to the media about the franchise but the asg hired ferry anyways and gearons public comments went way down other than the ferry issue.

Why can't gearon be a minority owner whos forced to shut the hell up and isn't involved in any major way? I'm having a hard time understanding that part especially since it's not like the Hawks need gearons Money to stay on board.

There are a lot of minority owners in sport franchises! The William sisters ain't going down to Miami causing havoc! Lol and even if they did I'm sure the dolphin owners would shut them down immediately because they are minority owners they don't get the final say.

I may be too use to Arthur Blank....if the falcons suck you can really hold his feet to the fire! In the past he gave Thomas dimitroff all the power but recently he has given a lot of power to new head coach Dan Quinn as well as reduced the roles of dimitrioff and scott p. because that's what he wanted to do but if those guys fail it all comes back on blank because blank set his franchise up like that no other owner had the final say on how business will be conducted.

I know I'm rambling but my point is that unless the NBA is different which it isn't minority owners can be sent to their corners as the majority owner will always have the final say and complete control over the franchise. Blank didn't tell newly hired coach Quinn to report to one of the minority owners no sir he said Quinn is to report back to me! Not Thomas not Scott but me! And when necessary we will involve who we want to involve in the meetings....Seattle Seahawks do this with Pete Carroll, carroll works directly with the majority owner. I bet coach Pop works directly with the Spurs majority owner.

Are there NBA laws that says majority owners have to involve minority owners in every thing?

[JTB]

Everything you said could have applied a year ago and look what happened. And I'm not insulting you, I'm insulted by what you said because it has no basis and is flawed thinking.

I'm an extremely thorough poster. And I back everything I say with facts. Not to insult you, but you're talking out of your posterior.

I'm not insulted I just don't get why this minority owner has so much power ya know?

It's odd to me! If I'm the majority owner I should be able to shut down this minority owner and be done with it.

But I will admit I don't know all the NBA laws of ownership nor have I've ever been that interested but it sounds like they may need to redo the laws of gearon is thus big of a headache as a minority owner

Edited April 25, 2015 by JTB

[AHF]

Understand where you're coming from but I don't understand why higher ownership can't shut this little spec down?!

Why can't higher ownership tell ferry to only report to them and they will pass info along to other minority owners?

That is exactly what the ASG essentially tried to do when Ferry was brought in. He only answered to Levenson and just gave informational reports to the other owners.

If gearon needs to express any ideas or concerns to the team why can't Ressler tell him that he can only do that in an owners only meeting?

That is exactly what Gearon was supposed to do but he felt insulted after Levenson took over and resented Ferry. So he knew he couldn't force his views on Ferry. He then decided to tape their meeting and release in it in a way to cause maximum possible damage to Ferry personally and to the franchise so their hands would be forced.

Who has power over this franchise? Ressler that's who....from reports gearon never wanted ferry in the ATL to begin with and he wanted to continue to be outspoken to the media about the franchise but the asg hired ferry anyways and gearons public comments went way down other than the ferry issue.

Levenson ran the team. That is why Gearon used the media to launch his attack.

Why can't gearon be a minority owner whos forced to shut the hell up and isn't involved in any major way? I'm having a hard time understanding that part especially since it's not like the Hawks need gearons Money to stay on board.

That is exactly what Levebson did. Gearon resented being told to shut up so much he burned the team to get his way.

There are a lot of minority owners in sport franchises! The William sisters ain't going down to Miami causing havoc! Lol and even if they did I'm sure the dolphin owners would shut them down immediately because they are minority owners they don't get the final say.

Exactly. Belkin and Gearon's power plays are unique in American sports. That is why people so dislike his continued presence.

I know I'm rambling but my point is that unless the NBA is different which it isn't minority owners can be sent to their corners as the majority owner will always have the final say and complete control over the franchise. Blank didn't tell newly hired coach Quinn to report to one of the minority owners no sir he said Quinn is to report back to me! Not Thomas not Scott but me! And when necessary we will involve who we want to involve in the meetings....Seattle Seahawks do this with Pete Carroll, carroll works directly with the majority owner. I bet coach Pop works directly with the Spurs majority owner.

Are there NBA laws that says majority owners have to involve minority owners in every thing?

No significant difference between the NBA and NFL on this. Belkin had no right to assert his opinion over the majority so he dragged the team through years of litigation to try to get his way. Gearon had no right to get rid of Ferry so he taped Ferry and used the media to force his way as much as possible.

Minority owners don't have many rights but anyone can cause problems, blackmail, etc. if they are willing to do things like Belkin and Gearon.