Questions About Selling The Team

[pmedic920]

If there's anything like that in his will that the new owner can't move the team, I can't imagine it actually being legally enforceable. You can't dictate what somebody does with something if you don't own it anymore. It'd essentially be a pinky promise.

Moving would be incredibly difficult and unlikely to be approved by the league though.

This is not a true statement AND we’ve had the discussion before.

Anything can be sold with stipulations attached, all that’s required is an agreement via contract.

 

[Rat]

This is not a true statement AND we’ve had the discussion before.

Anything can be sold with stipulations attached, all that’s required is an agreement via contract.

It very well may not be true, but I'd like to see some evidence. Nobody has said anything particularly convincing. Maybe a legal expert can chime in. I'm reading that something like that could be argued in court as "an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property.". Anyone who buys the team is going to be able to afford the best legal representation.

Regardless, there seems to be conflicting reports on whether this clause even exists.

 

[Hawkstorian]

There are two actual legal constraints on the team leaving, no matter who the owners are. The first is the lease on the stadium, and the second is the league approval process. Nobody with the means to spend billions to buy the team is going agree to anything beyond those two things.

 

[pmedic920]

It very well may not be true, but I'd like to see some evidence. Nobody has said anything particularly convincing. Maybe a legal expert can chime in. I'm reading that something like that could be argued in court as "an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property.". Anyone who buys the team is going to be able to afford the best legal representation.

Regardless, there seems to be conflicting reports on whether this clause even exists.

GOOGLE is your friend (or search engine of your choice)

Anything can be sold with stipulations.
It’s not even debatable.

Get out your checkbook and go try to buy a Ferrari, if you still don’t understand.

 

[Rat]

GOOGLE is your friend (or search engine of your choice)

Anything can be sold with stipulations.
It’s not even debatable.

Get out your checkbook and go try to buy a Ferrari, if you still don’t understand.

I did use Google, that's where I found the thing I said about alienation of property. Contracts go to court for legality all the time, was just curious if there's something there a legal team could argue.

 

[Appyhawk]

With regard to potential buyers there is still nothing more than a whirlwind of rumors decorating the internet. Multiple buyers and/or single buyers. One of the most interesting to me was very recent and composed of a small group of local 'billionaire' ladies who are totally dedicated to the Seahawks. Could that group include Jodi? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The thing that surprised me most was the inference to there being multiple local lady billionaires. I really only need to hook up with one of those! LOL

 

[pmedic920]

I did use Google, that's where I found the thing I said about alienation of property. Contracts go to court for legality all the time, was just curious if there's something there a legal team could argue.

Yes there is something a legal team could argue.
It’s called a contract.

If PA stipulated that the team must be kept in Seattle and any potential buyer must agree to that.

The stipulation would be written in the contract.

Simple as that.

 

[chris98251]

Just remember, Paul had to be convinced to buy the Seahawks, his first love was the Blazers, the more the fans protested Behring the more he decided to help out. Also remember he did not go to owner meetings for a long time as well, always sent a representative.

He did not want anything about ownership to be focused on him.

The one thing he did think was that it was wrong for Behring to tank the team and spit in the face of the fans that had supported the team for so long.

He was a reluctant owner who loved the city and people here, thats why he bought the team, for the fans. Why I remember after it was done he had stated we won't ever have to worry about that again.

 

[Rat]

Yes there is something a legal team could argue.
It’s called a contract.

If PA stipulated that the team must be kept in Seattle and any potential buyer must agree to that.

The stipulation would be written in the contract.

Simple as that.

ok

 

[Superbowl 48]

The owner of a major MLB team is the front-runner to buy the Seattle Seahawks

Fresh off a dominant 29-13 victory in Super Bowl 60, the Seattle Seahawks are officially on the market

www.marca.com

The owner of a major MLB team is the front-runner to buy the Seattle Seahawks​

John Stanton is rumored to buy.

 

[Seahawker]

The owner of a major MLB team is the front-runner to buy the Seattle Seahawks

Fresh off a dominant 29-13 victory in Super Bowl 60, the Seattle Seahawks are officially on the market

www.marca.com

The owner of a major MLB team is the front-runner to buy the Seattle Seahawks​

John Stanton is rumored to buy.

Stanton would seem to be a perfect fit and the most seamless option if he has the financial backing

 

[pmedic920]

Isn’t there something about one person not owning multiple teams in one city?

Maybe just NBA and NFL?

Maybe Stanton doesn’t own enough of the Mariners for it to be an issue?

Anyone know the details?

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Saw this today. No thanks to Zuckerberg, feels like everything he's touched recently has turned to crap

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Honey bunches of NOPE. Zuckerberg? Gross

 

[HawkFreak]

Honey bunches of NOPE. Zuckerberg? Gross

Speaking of clauses....maybe there exists a "No Zuckerberg" Clause.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Zuck no

 

[Mike MacDarnold]

If it's Zuck, I will upchuck.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

that just happened ^

 

[Mike MacDarnold]

Don't get cucked, say no to Zuck.

 

[glenwo2]

If we get Zuck, life will suck.