Dea Spanos vs. Dean Spanos

[Trumpet Man]

Sure if I'm able to sell. There are as you know lots of restrictions in the NFL when it comes to team ownership. In addition if it was
me I'd want some say in how the team is run. Not sure one would get that with Spanos in charge.

But lets say you don't sell. In terms of cash what am I getting for my $1B investment? At 5% (a reasonable attainable number) my
$1B would net me $50M/year. Are you going to get that from the Chargers? I don't think so.

There is no conflict for ownership if 36% (Spanos Trust) is sold so long as the family owns 30% (at least 2 siblings @ 15% each) of the team with the controlling owner having at least a 1% stake.

If 51% (Trust + Dea's share) is sold then then majority owner is now the controlling owner.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...to-keep-teams/

For teams that have been under the same ownership for at least 10 years, the controlling owner must personally own one percent of the team. The previous minimum was five percent. The family still must collectively own at least 30 percent of the team.

New owners still must personally acquire 30 percent of the team when the team is purchased.

[charger1_sj]

There is no conflict for ownership if 36% (Spanos Trust) is sold so long as the family owns 30% (at least 2 siblings @ 15% each) of the team with the controlling owner having at least a 1% stake.

If 51% (Trust + Dea's share) is sold then then majority owner is now the controlling owner.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...to-keep-teams/

For teams that have been under the same ownership for at least 10 years, the controlling owner must personally own one percent of the team. The previous minimum was five percent. The family still must collectively own at least 30 percent of the team.

New owners still must personally acquire 30 percent of the team when the team is purchased.

Based on value $1B would by around 30% maybe 25%. That's a minority stake. If I were a billionaire I am not sure I would
spend $1B for a minority stake. It means no control. Billionaires like control. Maybe some investment firm or bank would do
that. But will the NFL allow it?

If the Spanos sold more than 50% they would lose control. That's fine if they are after money. So I'm inclined for this to happen
rather than somebody stepping in with $1B to take minority interest.

[Trumpet Man]

Based on value $1B would by around 30% maybe 25%. That's a minority stake. If I were a billionaire I am not sure I would
spend $1B for a minority stake. It means no control. Billionaires like control. Maybe some investment firm or bank would do
that. But will the NFL allow it?

If the Spanos sold more than 50% they would lose control. That's fine if they are after money. So I'm inclined for this to happen
rather than somebody stepping in with $1B to take minority interest.

Not allowed. This is against the NFL By-Laws. Banks, public corporations (Green Bay is the exception and grandfathered) are not allowed to own an NFL franchise. Trusts until recently were also illegal NFL entities for a team's ownership.

Bankruptcy: It would be embarrassing to the NFL to have a team owned by a company now in bankruptcy court and an NFL team in receivership controlled by a judge. That is a non-starter for the NFL even today.

Until recently trusts were not allowed for generational estate tax purposes so families would not be taxed out of ownership when the parents died. Dynasty trusts basically delay estate taxes forever (99 years at a time) allowing families to avoid estate taxes upon death (the Spanos kids owe a shitload in estate taxes - go figure).

I don't think there will be a minority sale at 36% since Dea wants the F out. The sale will be for 51%.

If sister Dea does not sell her 15%, Dea would still be controlled by Dean as a managing partner for the Chargers and by my reads (between the lines) that is not going to continue even if the trust is sold to a minority partner.

The Chargers year over year increase was 33% for ALL owners. That is a pretty damn good rate of return even for a minority interest with no control. We shall see how this plays out.

[Xenos]

Good read but Popper is blowing it in a few areas IMHO. Namely how a trust operates and the trust debt coming due and a likely IRS audit putting further strain on estate taxes and the trust.

This is why I read the lawsuit for myself and the Spanos trust.The lawsuit lays out debt obligations due in 2021, 2022, 2024. This link is 156 pages long.

https://www.scribd.com/document/5012...rian-Petition#

There is no prospect that the Trust will have improved cash flow in the future or anywhere near what would be needed to juggle its debts. It is likely the IRS will audit the estate tax returns. If the audit results in a greater estate tax, the Trust’s unsustainable debt becomes only worse.

In addition, long term debt held by third party banks matures shortly in the amounts of $5,773,000 in fiscal year 2021, and $24,400,000 in fiscal year 2022. Similarly, while they currently pay interest on estate taxes owed, the Co-Trustees This amount consists primarily of interest receipts from promissory notes due from the Siblings with payment due in full on June 30, 2027. will need to make principal payments of about $7.8 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2024. Maintaining the status quo is not an option.

The legal stuff is being written Daniel Kaplan.

[Trumpet Man]

The legal stuff is being written Daniel Kaplan.

Thanks. Not sure who that was until I Googled. Basically he is another sports writer like Popper.

Dea's attorney Adam Streisand at Sheppard Mullin cited California Supreme Court cases in the lawsuit which is in "timeout" mode pending NFL arbitration. That caught my eye amongst other legal citations.

There is also another parallel sister Dea Spanos lawsuit on non-Chargers related matters not being discussed so there is "fire" and not just "smoke" here.

The sports writer jumped to conclusions based on rights-of-first-refusal for the remaining siblings so "no story here".

I disagree 100% with the sports writers conclusion.

It stands to reason the siblings would have exercised those rights BEFORE any lawsuit was filed saving the family public embarrassment. This is was not done and furthermore, the trust is now insolvent which are grounds for breach of trust and removal of Dean Spanos as a trustee. The law is pretty clear on this. I see very little wiggle room when millions are being lost with no plan to mitigate in place.

Dean should have said NOW to "explore" a sale instead of LATER and Dean's ass would have been covered legally.

Think of it this way - every month Dean delays the team appreciates $100 million in value.

Over a year the team appreciates $1.2 Billion.

I would drag my feet as well and roll the dice and say FU to everyone or basically what Dean, Alexis and Michael Spanos are doing.

It's all about the greed. Sister Dea is covering her Trust ass in the process.

The longer this drags out the more money the family banks in the end.

Pretty savvy IMHO.

[Xenos]

Thanks. Not sure who that was until I Googled. Basically he is another sports writer like Popper.

Dea's attorney Adam Streisand at Sheppard Mullin cited California Supreme Court cases in the lawsuit which is in "timeout" mode pending NFL arbitration. That caught my eye amongst other legal citations.

There is also another parallel sister Dea Spanos lawsuit on non-Chargers related matters not being discussed so there is "fire" and not just "smoke" here.

The sports writer jumped to conclusions based on rights-of-first-refusal for the remaining siblings so "no story here".

I disagree 100% with the sports writers conclusion.

It stands to reason the siblings would have exercised those rights BEFORE any lawsuit was filed saving the family public embarrassment. This is was not done and furthermore, the trust is now insolvent which are grounds for breach of trust and removal of Dean Spanos as a trustee. The law is pretty clear on this. I see very little wiggle room when millions are being lost with no plan to mitigate in place.

Dean should have said NOW to "explore" a sale instead of LATER and Dean's ass would have been covered legally.

Think of it this way - every month Dean delays the team appreciates $100 million in value.

Over a year the team appreciates $1.2 Billion.

I would drag my feet as well and roll the dice and say FU to everyone or basically what Dean, Alexis and Michael Spanos are doing.

It's all about the greed. Sister Dea is covering her Trust ass in the process.

The longer this drags out the more money the family banks in the end.

Pretty savvy IMHO.

Has there been new updates since the lawsuit in 2021. Last I heard was Dea appeared to drop the original lawsuit to push for a sale of the team.

https://theathletic.com/3497834/2022...rs-sale/?amp=1

The sister of Chargers controlling owner Dean Spanos appears to have backed off her push to force her brother to sell the team, though she is still suing him, and other family members, in a long-running dispute over the family trust that owns 36 percent of the team.

Dea Berberian filed the initial lawsuit on April 1, 2021, charging the trust is deeply in debt, and the only solution is a team sale to fund the estate-planning vehicle’s charitable obligations. Much of that lawsuit, and a second one filed by her sons in June, has been sent to an NFLarbitrator, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Berberian in previous California state court filings pointed to a Nov. 8, 2019, letter from her brother in which he agreed to hire an investment bank to sell the team in 2024, a timeline she argued is too long (a source close to Spanos has long countered that the letter only says he would consider a sale). In court papers this week, Berberian suggests that a sale might not be necessary because of rapidly rising NFL team valuations and the league’s plush new media deals.

“Dean knows well that Dea has agreed that a great deal has changed since she filed her (lawsuit) and that the Co-Trustees may well be able to maximize the value of the Trust’s interest in the Chargers even with the sale of its minority interest, and that, in fact, selling something less than the Trust’s full 36 percent of the Chargers in an orderly, professional and cooperative fashion could resolve the Trust’s financial problems,” her motion said. In that motion, she agreed that elements of her initial lawsuit not under NFL oversight would go to a separate arbitration required by the trust.

“Since the filing of the (lawsuit), the NFL secured an historic media deal that juiced the value of teams across the board, and their attractiveness to purchasers,” the motion continued. “Perhaps even more importantly, the Denver Broncos were recently purchased for record-breaking $4.6 billion, and the fact that there are multiple bidders who were unsuccessful in that process has bolstered enormously interest in other teams, especially in a major market like Los Angeles.”

So what she is saying is that because the value of the Chargers has risen so much since April 2021, a sale of just the trust’s interest in the team might alone solve the red ink issue. Also, it is possible to sell only part of the 36 percent share to obtain the hundreds of millions of dollars she alleges the trust needs.
Chargers controlling owner and president Dean Spanos. (Denny Medley / USA Today)
And Berberian’s motion adds of her view of the team sale, that she had “merely requested instructions as to whether the Co-Trustees, in accordance with their fiduciary duties … explore (emphasis added) the sale of the Trust’s interest in the Chargers.”

The April 1, 2021, lawsuit asked, “This court should instruct Petitioner and her brother Dean A. Spanos … to market and sell the Trust’s 100 percent interest in Charger Enterprises … Petitioner further requests that the Court … compel the marketing and ultimate sale of 97 percent of the Team.”

Sixty percent of the team is owned by the four Spanos siblings — Dean, Dea, Alexis Spanos Ruhl and Michael Spanos (15 percent each) — with outsiders owning four percent.

Berberian’s lawyer declined to comment. A Chargers representative declined to comment, citing a gag order from arbitrator Holder.

Berberian appears to stress in the motion to note her apparent new stance on the team sale. Her motion was filed ostensibly to agree that the elements of her lawsuit not covered by the NFL go to trust arbitration, which she had originally opposed. It would seem unnecessary to opine on changed NFL team valuation conditions or media deal that she had referred to in her 2021 lawsuit. But she and her lawyers apparently wanted to convey the seeming change of strategy.

Berberian and Dean Spanos are co-trustees of the trust set up by their parents, who passed in 2018. Their father Alex Spanos, bought the Chargers in 1984, and Dean is now the controlling owner. Berberian claims Spanos has mismanaged the trust and used it to aid the football team. The language in their dueling motions is often acerbic, and mediation has failed three different times.

“Predictably, and quite sadly, Dean’s fiduciary duties are no match for his need to pretend he’s one of the ‘billionaire’ NFL team owners despite the obvious fact: he’s not,” her latest motion says.

Berberian filed a second lawsuit in Junealleging mismanagement of the trust, but that one did not call for a team sale, an apparent effort to thwart NFL arbitration. The NFL requires arbitration for any dispute over a team stake. Spanos has asked for NFL arbitration of the second lawsuit, with a hearing scheduled on the matter on Aug. 22.

Berberian’s two sons, Dimitrios and Alexandros Economou, have also filed a lawsuit against Dean Spanos and his brother Michael, alleging they diverted trust assets into holding companies for the team and stadium.

On July 26, NFL general counsel Jeffrey Pash wrote in a letter to those parties that the NFL would arbitrate the brothers’ claim that involved the football holding company. In a motion this week, they assented and agreed to stay the remaining claims. Pash’s letter is attached to the motion.

“It makes no difference that the Economous themselves did not sign any agreement recognizing the Commissioner’s arbitrary authority under the NFL Constitution and Bylaws,” Pash wrote. “On the single issue certified for Commissioner arbitration, the Economous are proxies for, and asserting claims on behalf of, the Trust, which is an owner of a member club of the NFL, bound by the NFL Constitution & Bylaws.”

So that means of the three lawsuits involving the Chargers owner’s oversight of the trust, the initial one is now before arbitrator Holder, as is the one filed by the Economou brothers. Berberian’s second lawsuit remains in court for the time being.

[charger1_sj]

Dea doesn't want out of the Trust. She wants the Chargers out in order to make the Trust solvent. This is the heart of the matter.
The Chargers by far being the biggest Asset in the Trust.

[Trumpet Man]

So what she is saying is that because the value of the Chargers has risen so much since April 2021, a sale of just the trust’s interest in the team might alone solve the red ink issue. Also, it is possible to sell only part of the 36 percent share to obtain the hundreds of millions of dollars she alleges the trust needs.

This is true that something less than 36% could satisfy the Trusts debts - however - a plan in the "future" to explore a sale is what was presented by Dean. That is a breach of trust as cited by the attorneys for Dea. The beneficiaries still need to made whole so that is another area that may require more cash to support another trust after a sale. The math still pushes for a 51% sale to make everyone happy imho.

Last I heard was Dea appeared to drop the original lawsuit to push for a sale of the team.

The Dea Spanos lawsuit has been "stayed" or a "time out" in California pending NFL arbitration. A "stay" of legal proceeding is normally temporary and not to be interpreted as "backing off" anything. Quite the contrary the judge is patiently waiting. Dea has "backed off" a 100% sale of the team. Dea does not have the leverage to sell 100% of the team. If Dea prevails she will have authority to sell 51% of the team.

What Dea Spanos did was cleverly crafted by her attorneys publically citing California Supreme Court precedents for their position on the trust. It was all the leverage.......the NFL has read the same lawsuit posted here going into arbitration and knows full well the California court case filed by Dea Spanos is awaiting an outcome to proceed forward or dismiss the case.

[Wrbanwal]

Am I correct that we haven’t had any actual new news or events on this legal action in ~ 2 yrs or so? More? I’m happy to learn there is some actual new events or even activity, and then what specifically it is. but everything being posted the last couple weeks is all very dated.

it reminds me of your fucking endless bleating about term sheets that never appeared, to be honest.

And don't forget about the back door!!!

:waiting:

[Trumpet Man]

And don't forget about the back door!!!

:waiting:

The back door & term sheets lives ON.....a classic T-Man production.

:larry:

[Xenos]

Can we try to be civil to each other? I don’t care who started what. There’s no need to get this upset over a legal issue where there hasn’t been any real updates in a while.

[Trumpet Man]

Here is a new Dea Spanos lawsuit link in its entirety. (324 Pages)

It has not been posted anywhere yet on any forum that I am aware of until now. If you are inclined as a fan to do the nasty deep dive well here it is....

This family shit is explosive. This link gives fans a way deeper peek.

If you are "wondering" what sister Dea Spanos intentions truly are in this lawsuit, here it is and why I disagree with a sports writers on some of his conclusions.

It is written in plain English and skip over the legal citations or fluff. Each section is BOLDED to get your attention.

You do not have to be a lawyer to read this caca so do not let it intimidate you or get bogged down in the lawyer speak. I speed read this stuff and done.

Part of this Dea Spanos case is in "binding" arbitration with the NFL and the non-Chargers related matters are being pursuing in another Dea Spanos lawsuit at full speed ahead by all my reads.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/d...n%20Spanos.pdf


PS....Small sample of the Greek Kardashians

Stooping to a level so vile and outrageous that it is impossible, in Dea’s view, that he acted without Dean and Michael’s direction and approval, Cohen deliberately damaged Dea’s relationship with her Pastor and spiritual advisor, Father Alex Karloutsos (“Father Alex”). Until his recent retirement, Father Alex was the Vicar General of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and often referred to as one of the most powerful religious leaders in the country. Dean, Michael and Cohen and their entourages recently flew to Greece, supposedly to explore a business deal, without informing Dea. She learned of the trip and that the busines deal might also involve Father Alex’s son. When she learned of the trip, Dea, logically, asked questions about the purpose of the trip. She also asked for confirmation that whatever business they were pursuing in Greece would not involve Father Alex’s son, noting that he has a “checkered past” (which a simple Google search would demonstrate). This was obviously a sensitive issue to Dea to raise given her religious and pastoral relationship with Father Alex. For that very reason, Cohen seized on it as an ideal opportunity, another in a long line of his pernicious schemes, to punish Dea, this time sinking into the virtual sewer. Cohen forwarded this private, internal business communication to Father Alex and asked him to take note in particular of Dea’s comment about Father Alex’s son’s “checkered past.” There was one and only reason: to punish, shame, and humiliate this woman for daring to exercise her right to ask questions and do so in the most personal and personally destructive way possible to this woman of faith. As they all knew, nothing, not even a lawsuit, could salve this wound.