The Red Sox were bought by Tom Yawkey in 1933, and he owned the team until his death in the '70s. The team then passed on to his wife, Jean, who died in 1992.
The Yawkeys had no heirs, and one of the stipulations of Jean Yawkey's will was that the team would be placed into a trust and would eventually have to be sold within 10 years, with the proceeds going to the very worthwhile Yawkey Foundation (which has essentially financed the most prominent cancer research and treatment facility in the world, but I digress ...).
The Red Sox were put up for sale in 2002. John Henry was the owner of the Florida Marlins at the time, and was thus prevented from owning another team.
This is the point where Selig enters the picture. Selig made arrangements for Jeffrey Loria to turn the Expos over to the league, in exchange for the Marlins, which he would acquire from Henry, freeing up Henry to buy the Red Sox.
The problem was Henry's bid was less than the bid submitted by McCourt and a guy named Joe O'Donnell, who made a fortune in the sports concessions industry. So Selig partnered Henry with Tom Werner and Les Otten, three guys who really didn't know each other, to keep McCourt and O'Donnell from buying the team.
As to your question about it being a good thing McCourt didn't end up with the Red Sox, lest he do to them what he did to the Dodgers, remember McCourt made his money in real estate, primarily with the conversion of parking lots. One of the lots he owned in Boston was one of the last developable parcels on the waterfront (which he eventually put up for collateral in the Dodgers' deal). His intention was to build a brand new ballpark - with parking and access to the highways - that basically would have allowed him to print his own money.
This part is speculation, but I'm guessing Selig allowed McCourt to have the Dodgers as a consolation prize because McCourt could have filed suit about the way the sale of the Red Sox went down.
The Red Sox ended up in good shape (unless of course you're a fan who wants to actually attend a game in that archaic dump of a ballpark), but at the expense of three franchises - the Expos, who were moved to Washington, the Marlins, who are run by baseball's version of the Burgermeister Meisterburger, and the Dodgers.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (6/30/2011 2:59 pm)

The "scam" was so big, as this article points, out that the Massachusetts' AG's office was involved as one point.

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/bb02-1.htm

Last edited by artie_fufkin (6/30/2011 3:22 pm)

I dont understand how the MLB can keep someone from being an owner if they have the highest bid.  How can the force the old owner to take a offer the yields him less profit.

APRTW wrote:

I dont understand how the MLB can keep someone from being an owner if they have the highest bid.  How can the force the old owner to take a offer the yields him less profit.

It outside of my area of specialty, but I suspect the authority is included in the franchise agreement.  MLB has the power to grant a franchise to whom it chooses and those franchises sign an agreement with the franchisor (in this case MLB).  The franchise agreement leaves considerable powers with the franchisor.

I know you're not a Rams fan, but you may remember recently that the NFL had to approve of Stan Kronke taking ownership of the Rams.  Per their franchise agreement, the other owners vote, but you can bet that they mostly defer to what they are told by the commissioner.  Also, you may remember that in order to be compliant with NFL rules, Kronke had to transfer ownership of the Nuggets (NBA) and Avelanche (NHL) to either his wife or kid because the NFL franchise rules wouldn't let him be the principle owner of those teams.

Another example is the fast food industry.  Most fast food places are owned by independent operators, but they are very much regulated by the parent franchise.

"Another example is the fast food industry.  Most fast food places are owned by independent operators, but they are very much regulated by the parent franchise."

Good point. Do you remember the Burger King franchisees sued BK corporate over the $1 double cheeseburger deal? The idea was to lure people into the restaurant to buy french fries and sodas and apple pies to go with the burger, but it didn't work out that way and the franchisees were getting killed.
Can you imagine Selig mandating Nickel Beer Night on the owners and then proclaiming "Hey, we sold out every seat in every ballpark!!"

I think every one of us ought to wake up every morning and give thanks we're not in food service. No one makes money, except for visionaries like Cowboy.

APRTW wrote:

I dont understand how the MLB can keep someone from being an owner if they have the highest bid.  How can the force the old owner to take a offer the yields him less profit.

My dim recollection is that MLB has a sweetheart deal like few others.  I seem to remember something about it requiring an act of congress to get MLB to do, or not do, something or other. Maybe someone can jar my memory.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Right now my buddy Greg (from fantasy football) has a case against Hardees.  Pursuant to the franchise agreement, our client was prohibited from selling or leasing his property to another restaurant for a period of two years in the event he closed his Hardee's.  Our guy wasn't making money and told Hardee's that he wasn't going to be able to pay royalties.  Hardee's terminated the franchise agreement.  Our guy tried to sell his property to someone else, but Hardee's came in and filed for an injunction to prevent him from selling his land, even though they terminated the franchise agreement.

So basically our guy is stuck with land he can't sell or lease because the building on the property is set up to suit a restaurant and not much else.  Our side filed a counterclaim for damages related to the sale that fell through.

Leave the building and fixtures in place and open "Hardy's Crack House and Welfare Hangout" and see how that goes for the two year period.

Rec, except crack is illegal. Depending upon local zoning regulations, a large neon sign proclaiming "Hardee's 24-Hour Titty Emporium" may have First Amendment protection, however.

I think you might have a hard time claiming that the rednecks of rural Illinois are offended by big breasted women and red meat.  The reason Hardee's sucks is because their food suck and it cost to much.  They tried his idea that they are not fast food.  In our town we have a Hardee's and DQ.  The two worst burger joints ever.  At least DQ has ice cream.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Right now my buddy Greg (from fantasy football) has a case against Hardees.  Pursuant to the franchise agreement, our client was prohibited from selling or leasing his property to another restaurant for a period of two years in the event he closed his Hardee's.  Our guy wasn't making money and told Hardee's that he wasn't going to be able to pay royalties.  Hardee's terminated the franchise agreement.  Our guy tried to sell his property to someone else, but Hardee's came in and filed for an injunction to prevent him from selling his land, even though they terminated the franchise agreement.

So basically our guy is stuck with land he can't sell or lease because the building on the property is set up to suit a restaurant and not much else.  Our side filed a counterclaim for damages related to the sale that fell through.

Leave the building and fixtures in place and open "Hardy's Crack House and Welfare Hangout" and see how that goes for the two year period.

Rec, except crack is illegal. Depending upon local zoning regulations, a large neon sign proclaiming "Hardee's 24-Hour Titty Emporium" may have First Amendment protection, however.

But you have to change the spelling a bit.

"Hardee's overtly over-the-top sexual commercials had a negative effect on the franchise's sales because it's in a rural part of Illinois and the commercials offended the conservative-minded population that comprised their customer-base."

Were they the ones with the commercial of the guy grabbing the cow's rear end and shaking it? I suppose in a rural area, that could be considered sexual.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"But you have to change the spelling a bit."

"Tittie Emporium?"

Hardie Boys Hang Out

Gay Men Welcome!