The inside trading details were just too much and a bad precedent to turn a blind eye to criminal activity just because one of his minions took the rap.
This is what I heard from a very good source in a position to know. Why not just come out and say it ? Fear of litigation but would have expected The Wilpons would have leaked it given how they are getting trashed.
The Wilpons are like cockroaches...they will never go away.
I don't buy it
I don't buy it
almost 50 years apart, different commish, different social climate.
it's an interesting thing to note, but it's hardly relevant to the decision at hand in terms of precedent. If anything, replaying the Steinbrenner situation in the current climate would make it seem completely unpalatable.
Quote:
was a convicted felon, and he was an excellent owner. Obstruction of justice, as well as illegal campaign contributions to Nixon. Cohen is not a convicted felon.
I don't buy it
almost 50 years apart, different commish, different social climate.
it's an interesting thing to note, but it's hardly relevant to the decision at hand in terms of precedent. If anything, replaying the Steinbrenner situation in the current climate would make it seem completely unpalatable.
Sure it is relevant. Every owner has not been a boy scout in the past, and that should not be a requirement for owning a team. It would be a gross abuse of power by Manfred to deny him on this basis. Fine, if he was convicted for something, but damn. The league is littered with cheaters, abusers, steroid users, etc., and we are going to draw the moral line at insider trading with no convictions?
Quote:
In comment 14811038 KDavies said:
Quote:
was a convicted felon, and he was an excellent owner. Obstruction of justice, as well as illegal campaign contributions to Nixon. Cohen is not a convicted felon.
I don't buy it
almost 50 years apart, different commish, different social climate.
it's an interesting thing to note, but it's hardly relevant to the decision at hand in terms of precedent. If anything, replaying the Steinbrenner situation in the current climate would make it seem completely unpalatable.
Sure it is relevant. Every owner has not been a boy scout in the past, and that should not be a requirement for owning a team. It would be a gross abuse of power by Manfred to deny him on this basis. Fine, if he was convicted for something, but damn. The league is littered with cheaters, abusers, steroid users, etc., and we are going to draw the moral line at insider trading with no convictions?
Sure, one could easily spin a yarn about why it's fine to let Cohen into the club, and your non-conviction point is probably the headliner of that argument. I'm just saying that "what about George Steinbrenner 50 years ago?" isn't one to hang your hat on if you're in Manfred's shoes.
It doesn't matter much to me. I'm hardly a Puritan about this stuff. If I were Mets fan, knowing how well documented it is that Cohen is a bad actor in spite of the noted absence of a conviction, my preferences would probably be:
1) sale to someone other than Cohen
2) sale to Cohen
3) no sale
Quote:
In comment 14811061 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
In comment 14811038 KDavies said:
Quote:
was a convicted felon, and he was an excellent owner. Obstruction of justice, as well as illegal campaign contributions to Nixon. Cohen is not a convicted felon.
I don't buy it
almost 50 years apart, different commish, different social climate.
it's an interesting thing to note, but it's hardly relevant to the decision at hand in terms of precedent. If anything, replaying the Steinbrenner situation in the current climate would make it seem completely unpalatable.
Sure it is relevant. Every owner has not been a boy scout in the past, and that should not be a requirement for owning a team. It would be a gross abuse of power by Manfred to deny him on this basis. Fine, if he was convicted for something, but damn. The league is littered with cheaters, abusers, steroid users, etc., and we are going to draw the moral line at insider trading with no convictions?
Sure, one could easily spin a yarn about why it's fine to let Cohen into the club, and your non-conviction point is probably the headliner of that argument. I'm just saying that "what about George Steinbrenner 50 years ago?" isn't one to hang your hat on if you're in Manfred's shoes.
It doesn't matter much to me. I'm hardly a Puritan about this stuff. If I were Mets fan, knowing how well documented it is that Cohen is a bad actor in spite of the noted absence of a conviction, my preferences would probably be:
1) sale to someone other than Cohen
2) sale to Cohen
3) no sale
As a Mets fan, I completely agree with the order of preference with little gap between 1 and 2, and a gigantic gap between 2 and 3.
Reality is that with sale prices in the billions, there is a very limited market and I don't get the morality police in preventing owners from owning a team, unless it is something like a serious criminal conviction, or something similar to a Donald Sterling. I don't think unconvicted insider trading rises nearly to that level.
Agreed that I am not a Puritan on this stuff. Bezos wants to buy a team? Let him. I don't need to get into his personal life, or the pain his business practices have caused to many. Etc. Could do this with any number of billionaires. Cohen was not a particularly controversial figure outside very narrow circles, and again, if true, this is a gross abuse of power by Manfred, who I have generally otherwise been pretty pleased with.
It would suggest that they either have an extremely long vetting process or that they became aware of something new that isn't/wasn't public knowledge.
Group of owners I would assume..
It would suggest that they either have an extremely long vetting process or that they became aware of something new that isn't/wasn't public knowledge.
because the Mets did not ask for pre-approval? They had to now it would be addressed ...Maybe they thought there was more leverage to get the deal done by announcing it first?
Link - ( New Window )