NY Times article questions Ilitch Holdings, the Tigers, and Gambling

[markmeista]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/sports/baseball/26chass.html?_r=2&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A Marriage Is A Partnership, Except In Baseball

By MURRAY CHASS
Published: December 26, 2006

On the Ilitch Holdings Web site, Marian Ilitch is listed as the company’s vice chairwoman. Among the 15 “companies and venues” listed and described are the Detroit Tigers. A visitor to the site could easily conclude that Marian Ilitch is an officer, if not an owner, of the Tigers and the other 14 "companies and venues” listed under her name and that of her husband, Michael.

MotorCity Casino is not among those companies and venues. Marian Ilitch owns and operates MotorCity Casino. Under Major League Baseball rules, an owner or officer of a club cannot own or operate a casino. So why does M.L.B. allow Marian Ilitch to own and operate the Detroit casino? Because the Ilitches have assured M.L.B. that Marian Ilitch is not an owner or an officer of the Tigers, the Ilitch Web site notwithstanding.

Michael owns the Tigers; Marian owns the casino. That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.

The Ilitches don’t talk to reporters. They have not returned telephone calls seeking comment on their baseball and gambling ownership status, nor has the vice president for communications at Ilitch Holdings Inc., Karen Cullen.

Baseball officials, on the other hand, have recently addressed the issue.

“Mike has no ownership interest in the casino, and Marian has no ownership interest in the club,” Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer, said Friday. “We don’t have a rule that covers spouses. Since these entities are separate, we don’t deem it a violation.”

DuPuy said that when Marian Ilitch was listed as a director and an officer of the Tigers, “we asked that it be modified and it was.”

What about the Web site listing? “I don’t think she has any direct involvement with the Tigers,” DuPuy said. “My recollection is she divorced herself of any involvement with the Tigers, and we were satisfied with that.”

Tom Ostertag, baseball’s general counsel, echoed DuPuy’s view.

“The annual ownership reports filed by the Tigers clearly indicate that Michael Ilitch owns 100 percent of the club and that Marian Ilitch is not among the club’s officers, directors or employees,” Ostertag said.

The subject of baseball and casinos has arisen because Steve Swindal, a managing general partner of the Yankees, is a partner in a group that may operate three racetracks in New York State and have slot machines at one of them. Bob Nutting, chairman and plurality owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates, had also wanted to install slot machines at a Pennsylvania ski resort he owns.

Nutting abandoned his plan because he did not think he would be able to find a way around baseball’s rules.

Swindal’s and Nutting’s efforts prompted another look at the Ilitch operation. Technically and legally it may be free of any casino smell, but signs remain that a link exists, including the listing of Marian Ilitch as second in command of Ilitch Holdings.

If she is vice chairwoman of the company, and the Tigers are part of the company, how is she not part of the Tigers ownership or at least their executive group?

Michael Ilitch is chairman of Ilitch Holdings, and he is the owner of the Tigers. Christopher Ilitch is president and chief executive of Ilitch Holdings, and his page in the Tigers’ media guide is second only after his father’s. His biography mentions some of the entities included in the company.

Christopher was involved in a casino matter last year when he and Mike Malik, a partner with Marian Ilitch in a casino venture, were the hosts for a $5,000-a-head fund-raiser in the owner’s box at Comerica Park. The event was for Representative Richard Pombo, Republican of California, whose House Resources Committee was scheduled to take up a bill affecting her casino project.

Marian Ilitch is not considered an owner or officer of the Tigers, yet she is an owner or officer of other Ilitch entities like Little Caesars Pizza, the Detroit Red Wings, Olympia Entertainment, Uptown Entertainment and the Fox Theater.

In the first five years of Michael Ilitch’s ownership of the Tigers, the team’s media guides listed his wife as an owner as well. In 1997, Dun & Bradstreet listed her as a team executive, secretary and treasurer. But when she became involved in the casino project that year, she denied having been an owner. Commissioner Bud Selig supported her position.

In April 2005, Westlake Securities of Austin, Tex., announced the $106.4 million sale of Atwater Entertainment Associates’ minority interest in MotorCity Casino to Ilitch Holdings. Westlake said Ilitch Holdings “also bought the remaining equity in the holding company including the controlling interest owned by Mandalay Bay Group prior to its merger with MGM Mirage Resorts.”

•

Westlake’s release later referred to Ilitch Holdings as “another minority interest shareholder of MotorCity Casino.” The release didn’t say that Marian Ilitch bought the casino or was a minority shareholder in the casino. It said Ilitch Holdings was a shareholder and bought the casino. Where was baseball then?

Yet her biography on the Ilitch Holdings Web site says “Marian purchased the MotorCity Casino in Detroit in April 2005.” Westlake evidently wasn’t in on that deal.

Baseball seems to have ignored the casino transaction the way it has ignored other Tigers transgressions. The Tigers seem to get a pass from Selig. In 1990, he issued guidelines dealing with interviews of minority candidates for decision-making positions. But when the Tigers hired Phil Garner as manager in 1999, they interviewed no minority prospects and Selig did not discipline them.

The Tigers bought their way out of a penalty by establishing a community program involving minorities. The fact that the Tigers repeated the act last year when they hired Jim Leyland, this time conducting sham interviews with two minority candidates knowing they were going to hire Leyland, showed their disregard for Selig’s rules.

Just as the Tigers won the American League pennant under Leyland, Michael Ilitch has also done well — financially — this year. After a year’s absence, he returned to the Forbes list of America’s 400 richest people, his estimated net worth doubling to $1.5 billion from $750 million in 2004.

Matthew Miller, who compiles the Forbes list, declined to provide details of the $1.5 billion estimate but said: “I can tell you the casino holdings are not tremendously significant to the 1.5 number. We have heeded what he has said to a degree that he doesn’t own it.”

Forbes, however, does not have to oversee the enforcement of baseball’s rules. It can accept “to a degree” Ilitch’s story without concern for its absolute veracity. Baseball cannot afford that latitude.

[markmeista]

The Tigers bought their way out of a penalty by establishing a community program involving minorities. The fact that the Tigers repeated the act last year when they hired Jim Leyland, this time conducting sham interviews with two minority candidates knowing they were going to hire Leyland, showed their disregard for Selig’s rules.

Sports teams do this all the time.

I'd also like to ask the question: Where was the uproar about this when Marian Ilitch bought MotorCity casino back in 2005? She sold all of her interests in the Tigers. The commissioner's office didn't do anything then.

Would someone who knows more about holding companies care to elaborate more?

[One Man's Fool]

Anyone who is the target of a New York Times hit job can't be all bad.

[zachcadillac]

Seems like a nonstory to me.

Baseball should probably ask Marian Illitch to sell the casino the avoid the appearance of impropriety. Better yet, they could just eliminate the rule against owning teams and casinos (assuming those casinos don't offer sports books).

But if Chass is trying to imply that baseball looks the other way because of some fondness for the Illitches, I'm not buying. I'm sure many ownership groups flout non-essential rules and get away with it. I'll bet even George Steinbrenner does it.

[Oblong]

wait a minute... this whole thing boils down to this?

"It's on the website...."

Great reporting by Chass.

[rhino]

I dislike Mike Illitch. But regardless of why I dislike him, I agree that this has been going on for so long that it really is a non-issue. The only relevance I can see is that some other owners would like to get on the gambling gravy train and are wondering how the Illitch's get away with it. So, now they know, put the gambling interests under a relatives name and keep their name off the baseball ownership paperwork.

Listing assets under another partys name is nothing that drug dealers and other criminals haven't been doing for years.

[ian_a]

wait a minute... this whole thing boils down to this?

"It's on the website...."

Great reporting by Chass.

That's what I thought too. So they didn't put the Casino stuff in a completely separate html file, that's news?

[Shinzaki]

Sore losers....

[DTroppens]

yawn
Tell me when this becomes something.

[Oblong]

I dislike Mike Illitch. But regardless of why I dislike him, I agree that this has been going on for so long that it really is a non-issue. The only relevance I can see is that some other owners would like to get on the gambling gravy train and are wondering how the Illitch's get away with it. So, now they know, put the gambling interests under a relatives name and keep their name off the baseball ownership paperwork.

Listing assets under another partys name is nothing that drug dealers and other criminals haven't been doing for years.


Right. It's baseball's rules and baseball says they don't have a problem with it. There's nothing illegal here. If the other owners don't like it they can push the issue with baseball.

[Tyrus]

It's very obvious the Ilitches are doing an end-run around the rules that say baseball owners should have nothing to do with gambling.

I remember the old columnist Pete Waldmeir joking, "so now, Marian Ilitch is claiming she has nothing to do with the Tigers, after years of her referring to herself as part-owner of the team. I suppose now she's going to petition the Vatican to have her virginity restored."

But I agree, it's a very old story, with no news value whatsoever. There is no "news peg" as they say in the newspaper biz.

Slow news week.

[Commish]

The Tigers bought their way out of a penalty by establishing a community program involving minorities. The fact that the Tigers repeated the act last year when they hired Jim Leyland, this time conducting sham interviews with two minority candidates knowing they were going to hire Leyland, showed their disregard for Selig’s rules.

I know this isn't the point of the article, but I still don't get this rule. I don't understand how people can rail against the "sham interviews", when that is almost precisely what teams are forced to do as a result of the rule. They're not ALL shams, but sometimes a team just knows who it wants, like, for example, a manager with a World Series ring.

In that scenario, if both the interviewing team and the desired interviewee are both highly interested, all subsequent interviews with other candidates will in fact be shams, whether the interviewees are white, black, hispanic or anything else.

[Tyrus]

I know this isn't the point of the article, but I still don't get this rule. I don't understand how people can rail against the "sham interviews", when that is almost precisely what teams are forced to do as a result of the rule. They're not ALL shams, but sometimes a team just knows who it wants, like, for example, a manager with a World Series ring.

In that scenario, if both the interviewing team and the desired interviewee are both highly interested, all subsequent interviews with other candidates will in fact be shams, whether the interviewees are white, black, hispanic or anything else.


Some folks people believe the rule is good, because, even if the interview is a sham, it will at least give a minority the chance to go to an interview. This, so the proponents of this rule claim, will help the minority candidate twofold:

1. the candidate will get a better idea of the interview process, which will help him in subsequent interviews; and 2. there's a chance the candidate will bowl over the team he's interviewing with, and maybe get a job further down the line.

I'm not saying I agree with this rule, but that is what folks who do agree with it say.

[Motor City Sonics]

Hey, this is a legitimate question and a reasonable story. Mrs. Illitch should have nothing to do with the team - including attending games and sitting in the owners' box. If that's the way they want the play the system, the system should play them back. A good man, Dan Ewald, pretty much lost his job for the Illitches to save face here.

[Oblong]

So the owner can't bring family members to the games who own a casino?

Baseball said everything's ok. What's wrong with that explanation? WHat concern is it to anybody else? It's not a public issue.

[markmeista]

Hey, this is a legitimate question and a reasonable story. Mrs. Illitch should have nothing to do with the team - including attending games and sitting in the owners' box. If that's the way they want the play the system, the system should play them back. A good man, Dan Ewald, pretty much lost his job for the Illitches to save face here.

What does she have to do with the team, though? Other than attending games with her husband, what is her role? Sure, she is probably an influence on Mike, but she is not an owner. I suspect that she doesn't attend meetings with Mike, Dave, Al Avila, Kaline, and Horton. She followed the thin rule by divesting herself of any ownership in the Tigers. And that is the rule.

There are plenty of other issues in baseball that can be covered. If there were more credible and substantial evidence to back up the reporter's suspicions, then we might have something here. But we don't. As Oblong mentioned, we have a website as the "smoking gun."

[Tigercub33]

New Yorkers whining about Detroit.

Maybe one of the writers at the FreeP or News should figure out all the ways that baseball has helped the Yankees or Mets.

This is such a joke.

[markmeista]

Maybe one of the writers at the FreeP or News should figure out all the ways that baseball has helped the Yankees or Mets.


I really like the new Yankee Stadium. It's going to be funded not only by the Yankees, but both the city and state of New York as well. According to Wikipedia:

New York state taxpayers will pay $70 million to help the Yankees build parking garages (as authorized by the State Legislature). The parking-garage project would cost $320 million. No one has specified who will be responsible for the remaining $250 million and where the parking proceeds will go. State taxpayers, through money that has accumulated from the MTA's budget since the 1980s, will also pay all of the costs of a train station on the Metro-North commuter railroad.

It's also going to destroy mature parkland that has been there since 1899 and could potentially make terrible asthma rates worse. Community organizations in the Bronx have been shut out of the process.

But, please, let's rip on Mike & Marian Ilitch for a potential (unsubstantiated) conflict of interest involving baseball and gambling.

[Motor City Sonics]

So the owner can't bring family members to the games who own a casino?

Baseball said everything's ok. What's wrong with that explanation? WHat concern is it to anybody else? It's not a public issue.


The price she pays - I am sure it would be worth it with the money coming in from the casino. You want baseball and gambling to have nothing to do with each other.

[rhino]

A good man, Dan Ewald, pretty much lost his job for the Illitches to save face here.

I'm not familiar with this story, or I've forgotten, can you briefly, or anyone for that matter, explain?

[markmeista]

I searched Google for "Dan Ewald," and "Ilitches" and came up with a thread from MCS back in 2005: http://www.motownsports.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26816

Here's the first paragraph:
The problem with Sparky was mostly John McHale - who made no secret around the organization that he wanted Sparky replaced. Randy Smith and Sparky weren't exactly friends, but they got along alright. It was McHale. But then the Tiges backed McHale instead of Sparky and that left some scars. The Tigers have occasionally reached out to Sparky, but it's still a little chilly. I think there was an issue with a PR man, Dan Ewald. That started with a Tigers media guide that listed Mike and Marion Illitch as onwers when Marion Illitch was bidding for the Motor City Casino. MLB called the Tigers out on that and they denied she has anything to do with the Tigers (we all know she did) and blamed Ewald for the whole thing (I think they either demoted or fired him for it). That was an issue with Sparky too, I think Sparky and Ewald were pretty good friends. I think they even wrote a book together. The Ewald thing might have a lot to do with it.

[Motor City Sonics]

I'm not familiar with this story, or I've forgotten, can you briefly, or anyone for that matter, explain?


It's all rumor. But the Tigers press guide had Mike and Marion Ilitch as owners of the team. Baseball was furious because Marion was involved in the Casino. They (the Illitches) blamed Dan Ewald for making an assumption. A few things were wrong with this however.

1- Everyone and I mean everyone knows she is (was) part owner in all of the ventures with her husband.

2- The Illitch legal department would not let that get into the press guide if it was not true. No way - the Illitch legal department lets nothing slide.


This was an embarrasment to Ewald- who took the bullett for the team, but it pretty much led to him leaving (he was getting close to retirement anyway). This was also cited as the main reason for the long-standing rift between the Illitches and Sparky Anderson - as Dan Ewald and Sparky were quite close and even wrote a book together. Sparky was not bitter over his own firing as he was close to calling it quits anyway. Ewald was very liked by just about everyone.

Again - it's all speculation, but it doesn't sound all that far-fetched. Not at all.

[rhino]

Thanks, Mark and MCS. I had not heard that story before.

[The Ronz]

Tiger stationery for many years listed Marian as an owner/executive of the Tigers. She also signed documents in a similar fashion. A friend of mine went to a Tigers game in approximately 1996. He had a crappy time and wrote the Tigers about his experiences. He got a letter back from the Tigers fairly quickly. It wasn't a form letter or a letter signed by some flunky. It was on Detroit Tigers Baseball Club stationery and signed by no less than Marian Illitch! I forget exactly what her title was but it was something like co-owner or chief executive. It would be interesting to see that letter today.

While this may be an old story/nonstory, it further shows me that the Detroit media is pretty much worthless. Want to see Matt Millen ripped - better pick up a Boston paper. Want to see a negative story on Illitch - better subscribe to the NY Times.

:alien:

[Motor City Sonics]

Hey, the Illitch family has done a number of tremendous things for Michigan and Detroit and that should be acknowledged, but they didn't get their money and power by not being ruthless when they needed to be ruthless.

[markmeista]

While this may be an old story/nonstory, it further shows me that the Detroit media is pretty much worthless. Want to see Matt Millen ripped - better pick up a Boston paper. Want to see a negative story on Illitch - better subscribe to the NY Times.

It's no secret that Detroit is a city simply struggling to survive, and, arguably, evade a state takeover of the city government. It fails with basic services, is crime-ridden, etc. With its tremendous problems, I think that the local press being critical of anyone with large investments within the city, such as Mike Ilitch, is looked down upon and discouraged by the powers-be.

I'm not accusing Ilitch of this, but Detroit is, arguably, in a desperate enough situation to be blackmailed because any type of investment is seen as progress and helping "rebuild a city," regardless of what the investment will cost in the long-run. Helping "rebuild a city" gains great PR for both politicians and investors, and I don't think that they would take too kindly to real, investigative journalism. So the editors of the papers and news stations just sit on their thumbs. Maybe someone more familiar with the local media and its ways can elaborate further?

I think the papers are afraid of challenging the status quo in Detroit.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in short, is that I agree with you; the Detroit media is worthless.

[Oblong]

Oh the horror of doing something that baseball and the law has no problem with.

"But the computer says..."

She owns a casino. He owns a baseball team. Big freakin' deal. Nobody seems to care except some old has been writer in NY and some others who have an ax to grind with the Ilitchs.

[mtdman]

I think you can say Marian Illitch did an end around on the rules. However, you have to ask how much of an owner is she? It's obvious that Mike lists her as a partner on all of his holdings, how much of a partner is she? Is it in name only, or is she there to make decisions on how things run on a day to day basis? Is it a matter of listing her that way for inheiritance reasons, to make things easier for her if Mike dies? Is she the real managing Illitch partner in the casinos, or is she there in name only and mike is really pulling the strings? There are a lot of questions that aren't addressed.

One can argue the baseball rule is to obviously prevent a gambling man, an owner of gambling establishments, from owning a baseball team. Baseball's number one sin is gambling, they want to be kept as far away as possible from that. They obviously don't want a casino owner to own a baseball team. They don't want any question of inpropriety. Does that also affect a part owner who is a part owner in name only that is also a part owner in all of the other businesses the team owner owns? In other words, is the spirit of the rule really apply to someone who is a part owner because her husband put her on there in name only? There is a major difference between being a managing owner involved in the team and just having your name on the charter because your husband put you there.

On the other hand, the Illitches really should sell that casino interest.

[Oblong]

I'm sure baseball addressed all of those in their investigations and that's why you don't see her name on anything with the Tigers.

This is like asking whether the Knights of Columbus followed their procedures for allowing a new member.

[chasfh]

I don't think this is a nothing story, as much as Tiger fans would like to think so. If this were an issue for the Steinbrenner empire, we'd all be hooting and hollering for his head.

Baseball has specific history with gambling and they were right to implement strict regulations to separate all baseball from even a whiff of impropriety associated with gambling. I'd like to see that in all sports, actually (too bad this isn't an issue for hockey team as well). Gambling is the reason Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame, and also why Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned from the game in 1983, even though they had no direct involvement with casinos or gambling itself.

On the other hand, just because Baseball is saying "go on home, folks, nothing to see here" doesn't mean anything, either. I don't think it's any surprise that Baseball has a double standard for owners and players when it comes to this kind of thing. Since Ilitch has been in the club for a while, and did his duty by shaking down local governments for quarter of a billion dollars to build the stadium, the Head Owner In Charge is going to do whatever he can to deflect the issue and keep it from stinking up the game, possibly costing them billions of dollars and inviting congressional involvement.

It's possible that technically, under the letter of the law, Ilitch Holdings has divested Marian's interest in the team and keep her wholly separate from their baseball operations. If so, they should have no problem immediately stepping up to demonstrate that. In practical terms, however, the connection between the casino and the baseball team is much too close, and with billions at stake for the company, it's not reasonable to accept without question that Ilitch would not leverage his baseball property to help his casino operation, as he appeared to do with the California congressman.

While that does not rise to the level of throwing ballgames, it's too darned close, and you can't expect billion dollar commercial operations, whether it's Ilitch Holdings or Baseball itself, to effectively police themselves on the issue. Baseball is not a wholly private enterprise, either -- along with the benefits they gain from the Antitrust exemption, as a bonus they get federal government oversight, too.

I'm with mtdman -- Ilitch should dump the casino. Either that or dump the team.

[smr-nj]

New Yorkers whining about Detroit.

Maybe one of the writers at the FreeP or News should figure out all the ways that baseball has helped the Yankees or Mets.

This is such a joke.I hate to ruin your obviously passionate rant, but the NYT is owned by people in Boston, who, if they have any "slant" it's with a Red Sox interest.

But it is always fun to play the "New Yorkers" card.

Don't let me ruin the fun. :tired:

[Canon Fodder]

Even if Mike and Marion have done nothing wrong and there has been no conflicts of interest, the close ties of the two organizations (Tigers and MotorCity) raises questions about the potential for problems in the future.

I'm sure the Ilitch lawyers have gone over this front-to-back and everything is above board. It may look bad, but if MLB isn't concerned, why should anyone else? If MLB were worried, then the Ilitches would need to do something about it.

MLB says there's no smoke so we can probably assume there's no fire.

[Oblong]

I don't think this is a nothing story, as much as Tiger fans would like to think so. If this were an issue for the Steinbrenner empire, we'd all be hooting and hollering for his head.

Baseball has specific history with gambling and they were right to implement strict regulations to separate all baseball from even a whiff of impropriety associated with gambling. I'd like to see that in all sports, actually (too bad this isn't an issue for hockey team as well). Gambling is the reason Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame, and also why Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned from the game in 1983, even though they had no direct involvement with casinos or gambling itself.

On the other hand, just because Baseball is saying "go on home, folks, nothing to see here" doesn't mean anything, either. I don't think it's any surprise that Baseball has a double standard for owners and players when it comes to this kind of thing. Since Ilitch has been in the club for a while, and did his duty by shaking down local governments for quarter of a billion dollars to build the stadium, the Head Owner In Charge is going to do whatever he can to deflect the issue and keep it from stinking up the game, possibly costing them billions of dollars and inviting congressional involvement.

It's possible that technically, under the letter of the law, Ilitch Holdings has divested Marian's interest in the team and keep her wholly separate from their baseball operations. If so, they should have no problem immediately stepping up to demonstrate that. In practical terms, however, the connection between the casino and the baseball team is much too close, and with billions at stake for the company, it's not reasonable to accept without question that Ilitch would not leverage his baseball property to help his casino operation, as he appeared to do with the California congressman.

While that does not rise to the level of throwing ballgames, it's too darned close, and you can't expect billion dollar commercial operations, whether it's Ilitch Holdings or Baseball itself, to effectively police themselves on the issue. Baseball is not a wholly private enterprise, either -- along with the benefits they gain from the Antitrust exemption, as a bonus they get federal government oversight, too.

I'm with mtdman -- Ilitch should dump the casino. Either that or dump the team.


Why should anyone else police baseball on a baseball decision? It's not against the law. Baseball has it's own rule and they decided it wasn't broken. If I say that I don't let my son have a cookie before bed and someone thinks I did let him have one, but I say I didn't, should we have congressional hearings? It's in their own interest to do this properly because a gambling scandal would be a disaster. Does her Casino have a sports book? That should also be a key factor in anyone's opinion on this. Otherwise there's no link. They advertise the Michigan Lottery at Comerica Park, they even have a promotion based around it. Why is that different? Are there ads for Casinos in ballparks? Casino Windsor owns a suite at Comerica. SHould they accept that?

Baseball is not totally hands off regarding gambling and casinos.

This is a conspriacy built around what's on a web site. Funny that it's old media relying on a new media for it's foundation.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Casinos are so prevelant in this country anymore. It is getting to be very difficult to maintain these artificial separations between gambling and other "big businesses". And let's face it, baseball is exactly that, a "big business".

Illitch should not have to sell a thing. But I don't see why his baseball operation deserves any "anti-trust" exemptions, or why his ballpark deserved one thin dime of public funding. But that's another rant, I suppose .....

[chasfh]

Why should anyone else police baseball on a baseball decision? It's not against the law. Baseball has it's own rule and they decided it wasn't broken. If I say that I don't let my son have a cookie before bed and someone thinks I did let him have one, but I say I didn't, should we have congressional hearings? It's in their own interest to do this properly because a gambling scandal would be a disaster. Does her Casino have a sports book? That should also be a key factor in anyone's opinion on this. Otherwise there's no link. They advertise the Michigan Lottery at Comerica Park, they even have a promotion based around it. Why is that different? Are there ads for Casinos in ballparks? Casino Windsor owns a suite at Comerica. SHould they accept that?

Baseball is not totally hands off regarding gambling and casinos.

This is a conspriacy built around what's on a web site. Funny that it's old media relying on a new media for it's foundation.

Good points, all.

All I'm saying is this: Baseball implemented the rules on gambling. If it's revealed that those rules might be flouted, that's a problem that's need to be dealt with, with Ilitch coming clean or Baseball taking action. I do find it interesting that some people are saying, "Baseball says everything is OK, so why are we questioning it?" If only people would apply the same level of cynicism to business and right-wing politicians as they do to media and left-wing politicians. Just because the people running Baseball say everything's OK doesn't make it so. They are not a disinterested party in all this.

Your point that "it's baseball's rules and their problem and they're not breaking the law so who gives a crap?" makes sense for any business not granted a federal antitrust exemption, which gives Congress the right to intervene if they think laws might be broken, or even if they want to make a political point. Not saying that would happen here, but that is a complicating factor in every decision Baseball makes. And in this case, a connection to a casino could raise question of impropriety that could lead to questions about fixing game to make profits on sports book at the casino. That the question might even be raised is enough to be concerned about the issue.

It's in Ilitch's best interests to address this quickly, by either clearly demonstrating a legal separation between the Casino and the team, or selling off one or the other. He shouldn't just sit tight and hope it goes away, because I think there's a good chance it might not.

[Tigercub33]

I hate to ruin your obviously passionate rant, but the NYT is owned by people in Boston, who, if they have any "slant" it's with a Red Sox interest.

But it is always fun to play the "New Yorkers" card.

Don't let me ruin the fun. :tired:

Is the writer from Boston too?

Thanks.

[zachcadillac]

I hate to ruin your obviously passionate rant, but the NYT is owned by people in Boston, who, if they have any "slant" it's with a Red Sox interest.

But it is always fun to play the "New Yorkers" card.

Don't let me ruin the fun. :tired:

I don't think the ownership issue is especially relevant in this case. Chass is 138 years old and probably has free reign to write whatever pleases him, which is usally something about how the Yankees rule and everyone else drools. He hates the Red Sox.

[Tigercub33]

I don't think the ownership issue is especially relevant in this case. Chass is 138 years old and probably has free reign to write whatever pleases him, which is usally something about how the Yankees rule and everyone else drools. He hates the Red Sox.

zach, stop hating on New York please. It is the greatest city in the world and can do no wrong.

Also, how many of the nation's top newspapers are actually owned by people FROM that actual city? I am guessing very few. I doubt that has any impact of significance upon the writers and editors...who ARE from that city/area.

Honestly, if this situation was going on in Kansas City, Tampa Bay, or Colorado nobody would care (not that anyone really cares right now) and the writer would not have even written it.

[Oblong]

Tigercub33, stop it. You are being silly. This isn't a NY vs. Det thing. That's sophmoric.

[Tigercub33]

Tigercub33, stop it. You are being silly. This isn't a NY vs. Det thing. That's sophmoric.

Its about as silly as this article Oblong.

Do you HONESTLY think this would be ANY sort of issue if it was occuring in KC?

A quick google search shows that this was only just now written about by the NYT. If it was REALLY an issue, wouldn't they have written about it years ago when it first happened? No, of course not, because the Detroit Tigers were the equivalent of a retarded dog...only noticed for their ineptness of play...if noticed at all.

[Domino]

Too bad the Mets didn't beat the Cardinals so we could have beat both NY teams in the playoffs in one year.

[Verifiable]

I don't think this is a nothing story, as much as Tiger fans would like to think so. If this were an issue for the Steinbrenner empire, we'd all be hooting and hollering for his head.

You are correct chasfh, there is substance to Murray Chass' story.

By chance I've stumbled on your thread regarding the NY Times articles of last month. I know, I know ... a little behind the wave.

Applause to all of you for being open minded and having dialogue on this subject. I had participated in another Fans chat thread on the subject and felt like I'd stumble into a meeting of brownshirts unable to think on their own or at least question circumstances.

Murray's stories resurecting this issue are warranted. What he says in his article can be backed up wiht documentation. It's been more than a decade since M&M Ilitch were forced to confront this issue and take steps to restructure things so that they met with the Commissioners requirements. A decade is a long time and the Ilitch's circumstances have changed dramatically since then.

For one, the parent of all Ilitch brands wasn't formed until 1999 and this started in 1996. Mike and Marian Ilitch are Chair and vice-chair of Ilitch Holdings, Inc. The Tigers ball club IS part of that family of companies as is MotorCity Casino (which is just a d/b/a for Detroit Entertainment, LLC) DELLC was the entity Marian previously had a 25% stake in; she bought out via merger Circus Circus Michigan's interest in DELLC. (Those are certainly circumstances the commissioner didn't grapple with 10 years ago).

See, the temporary surviving entity coming out of the merger was CCM Merger, Inc. (That's the entity that went out immediately and borrowed $950 million to finance the $525 million acquisition of a casino valued at $1 billion) However, CCM Merger, Inc is not the intended survivor. That, according to paperwork on file with the state, is a company duly named IH Gaming, Inc. (I-H as in Ilitch Holdings?). The company once known as Circus Circus Michigan is now IH Gaming, Inc. The same executive at Ilitch Holdings who is an agent of record for all other entities under the IH umbrella is now affiliated with the various gaming related companies, IH Gaming, Inc; IH Manager, etc.

So temporarily they've had several layers between the d/b/a Motor City Casino and Ilitch Holdings, Inc. but at the end of the day, those entities which reportedly are all under Marian's control are shallow. Ilitch Holdings, Inc. is parent to IH Gaming, Inc. the entity that controls Detroit Entertainment LLC of which MotorCity Casino is a d/b/a. And Marian controls all the other companies that ultimately fall under the granddaddy of all the parent companies, Ilitch Holdings, Inc. over which Mike is Chairman. Thus the argument, Mike does in fact have an interest in MotorCity Casino. How could he not?

It might be different if there were various non-Ilitch Family owner groups who had some control over those layers of companies but there apparently are not.

In the meantime, there are documents to prove what Murray Chass alledges. Perhaps the Ilitches have explanations. You'll find most of them at The Verifiable Truth (http://verifiable-truth.blogspot.com).


The brokers who represented the minority shareholders in MotorCity issued a press release at the close of the deal and in it referenced multiple times that they had sold the minority shares to "Ilitch Holdings."



When Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch went out with the offering to secure $625 million in bank loans and junk bonds, the "offering announcement" distributed internationally stated Marian ilitch was vice president of the Tigers ball club.



Forbes magazine clearly identifies Mike Ilitch not Mike & Marian on their Richest Americans list. And in the added feature story even the headline says Mike Ilitch is in the casino business. Why didn't the Ilitch PR machine either ensure that Forbes kept it all separate, or if they weren't aware of the direction the story was taking until after it was printed, why didn't they demand a correction or move to set the record straight with their own press release?


The Dunn & Bradstreet Company Hoover's states on its profile of the Tigers that MotorCity Casino and the Tigers are part of the same company. And nothing's been done to correct that.

Perhaps all these companies and consultants are just sloppy and perhaps the what's assumed to be a well oiled Ilitch machine has no attention to detail or oversight. That's hard to believe.

And on this single important issue, there's nothing being done to clean up the "sloppy mess" these circumstances present.

I suspect as does Murray that the Commissioner's office hasn't done any real investigation or check up of the situation for a decade.

And to those that said the Commissioner and the Ilitiches should move swiftly to conduct the proper investigation and go public with disclosures to set the record straight. If you're not hiding anything, don't hide.

Otherwise this will haunt the Ilitch Family, be a cloud over the club house and continue to be a monkey on the Commissioner's back for years to come.

Nutting had it right when he said his family had decided that if putting slots in the lodge meant lingering questions and even the slightest bit of tarnish over baseball they had agreed to back away from the slots.

The Ilitch Family means well and sure they've made positive change in Detroit, but don't fool yourselves, they leveraged the taxpayers money and the city's real estate to do it. No one wants a partner you can't trust. And as Mike and Christopher Ilitch drive toward a new arena for the Wings and certainly will require taxpayer financing again, they should recognize the taxpayers wont support partners they can't trust. Especially people who've doubled their net worth from $750 million to $1.5 billion in the course of two years -- at a time when most of struggle to keep a fmily of four above water with an average of $60,000 per year.

You can see much of the detail i laid out here on The Verifiable Truth (http://verifiable-truth.blogspot.com/)blog page. If you're interested, I hope you'll come take a look.

At the end of the day, M&M Ilitch should be eager to address concerns like these both to the commissioner and the public, if they're not, the public can only assume something's not right. People who have nothing to hide would be forthcoming and eager to set the record straight. By their silence they are suspect. It reminds me of Michael Jackson insisting he was innoncent with the first boy, but nevertheless paid the boys parents millions to settle out of court.

When Wayne and Janet Gretzky faced questions a year ago, they immediately made themselves available to set the record straight -- even if that meant taking responsibility for actions that weren't completely appropriate.

It's always better to disclose than to be discovered. If you're discovered, come clean up front and move on. Playing games and witholding information or a response undermines any trust and confidence you may have had in the bank of goodwill.

The taxpayers won't fund a new hockey arena if they lose trust and confidence in a guy who's networth is equal to 40% of the annual budget for the entire City of Detroit.

[Oblong]

and.... so what?

Baseball doesn't seem to care. It's their rule. Nothing illegal is going on. What's the problem?

Wayne and Janet were facing criminal issues. This is not a criminal issue.
It's pretty low to also bring in Michael Jackson. Charges of molesting boys and owning a legal casino and owning a legal basball team are completely different from each other. Why not just throw in Hitler and the holocaust while you are at it?

[LJK004]

Journalists see there job as bringing these "injustices" into the light. The problem is, if MLB doesn't have a problem with it why should we?

[Oblong]

They don't like rich people and Ilitch is rich so they want to try to turn a procedural thing within baseball into some mass criminal conspiracy.

[Lou Ferigno]

and.... so what?

Baseball doesn't seem to care. It's their rule. Nothing illegal is going on. What's the problem?

Wayne and Janet were facing criminal issues. This is not a criminal issue.
It's pretty low to also bring in Michael Jackson. Charges of molesting boys and owning a legal casino and owning a legal basball team are completely different from each other. Why not just throw in Hitler and the holocaust while you are at it?

Agree 100%.

If there were wagering on Tiger/Red Wing games I could see a conflict. Otherwise I see none. On top of that the bottom line is that it's MLB's rule (not the gov't's) so if they don't care, I don't care.

[baseball3]

AMEN, let's get on to discussions which would provide fruitful exchange. Baseball has drawn their line in the sand on this issue and if MLB has moved on, so should everyone else.

[Verifiable]

:laugh: LOL so typical ... what's not even covered here are the investments/financial stake in various Indian casinos ... and they are real. Have you visited any of those to see if they've got sports books?

The attitude, is "hell, if he's not rapin' my wife and and the husband of the women that is gettin' raped isn't doin' anyting about it," what the hell, let him rape the *****!

The fact is they ought to just come out and say what they're up to ... but if they're up to no good, that's not going to happen. And it hasn't happened yet.

Absent the journalists or the gadflys who raise issues or dig stuff up, we'd all be living under the rule of some facist dictator or the People's Republic of China.

It's easier to ignore stuff or look the other way 'cause then you think you've got no responsibility until of course all hell breaks loose or you are thrown in a work camp.

And dude, how do you know baseball's drawn their line in the sand? Maybe ten years ago, but if Marian ain't tellin' what she's been up to since, how would baseball know?

Guess this is why I prefer hockey and basketball. This stuff is too damn slow.

No one is on a witch hunt, but circumstances deserve disclosure. And you can bet your sweet _ s s there's something corrupt going on as long as they refuse to share the circumstances. and at some point either the club house or the sport wil.l pay the price. Gee officer, I didn't realize my kid was using meth and taking steriods I just thought he stayed up all night gettin his homework done and workin out. Or when your ol' lady's sleepin with the guy two doors down, don't count on your best friends who live in between your house and his to tip you off after all, it must be ok by you because you're letting her get away with it.

Thank God for guys like Murray Chass and Pittsburgh owner Robert Nutting. Baseball motherhood and apple pie.

Not gambling backed baseballl unwed motherhood and pizza pie

[estrepe1]

So the owner can't bring family members to the games who own a casino?

Baseball said everything's ok. What's wrong with that explanation? WHat concern is it to anybody else? It's not a public issue.


and.... so what?

Baseball doesn't seem to care. It's their rule. Nothing illegal is going on. What's the problem?

Wayne and Janet were facing criminal issues. This is not a criminal issue.
It's pretty low to also bring in Michael Jackson. Charges of molesting boys and owning a legal casino and owning a legal basball team are completely different from each other. Why not just throw in Hitler and the holocaust while you are at it?

These two points are precisely correct. If baseball had an issue with this then the Ilitch's would be forced to either sell the team or the casino. Yet nothing has come close to that.

No one is on a witch hunt, but circumstances deserve disclosure. And you can bet your sweet _ s s there's something corrupt going on as long as they refuse to share the circumstances. and at some point either the club house or the sport wil.l pay the price.

That isn't necessarily true. If they actually cared what the NY Times thought about them perhaps it would be. However the only people they have to answer to is MLB and the MLB doesn't seem to care. It isn't against any sort of federal law for her to own a casino and be married to the owner of the team.

The only reason this has been made an issue by the NY Times is because the Tigers beat the Yankees. That casino has been around for a while. Yet the NY Times decides to wait until now to even make it an issue? Give me a break.

[Verifiable]

These two points are precisely correct. If baseball had an issue with this then the Ilitch's would be forced to either sell the team or the casino. Yet nothing has come close to that..

And how do you know baseball isn't taking a look at the Ilitch situation? Or isn't concerned at this point? I'd submit that Murray Chass would be in a better positio than most of us here to know that ... And I admit I don't know you from Adam, nor do you know who I might be.

The only reason this has been made an issue by the NY Times is because the Tigers beat the Yankees. That casino has been around for a while. Yet the NY Times decides to wait until now to even make it an issue? Give me a break. Non-sense! but the quote does tell me how informed you really are. Murray Chass first wrote on this very matter in 1998. And he's authored stories on other owners with similar circumstances. The subject arose again because Nutting said he was trying to work a deal out in PA using the Iltich model and as it ended up he wasn't comfortable or able to configure the Ilitch model for his situation.


If the team's blessed with another winning season, let's hope Ilitch doesn't blow the high with some money laundering, or gambling or bankruptcy scandal.
I can appreciate none of us know all there is to know on this matter, but let's not fool ourselves and think that we do just cause it's easier.

[Oblong]

The extent of the great investigation by Murray Chass is "It's on the website"

let's hope Ilitch doesn't blow the high with some money laundering, or gambling or bankruptcy scandal

Yeah because we all know what he's done with his money in the past.

Dude... do you know who Mike Ilitch is? Do you know anything about his history? He was very well off before buying the Tigers.

You are still comparing criminal activities with a self imposed rule by a club of owners. That's ludricious.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Perhaps the NY Times should investigate some of their own reporters, might get some juicier stuff than this ....
:dead: :dead: :dead:

On the subject of "conflicts of interest", how about the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers being the Commissioner of Baseball? No problems there.

[keglerv]

Say what you want about gambling and the MLB rule, but how about some good old common sense. Blackjack, Craps, and Slot machines have nothing to do with the game of baseball. There is not any sports betting. Mrs. Illitch owns 100 percent of the casino. If you want to reach for something improper, perhaps when she was a minority investor when it was owned by Mandalay Bay, you could stretch it into being a silent partner with a major legitimate corporation who has an interest in sports betting at other properties, with which she would have had no involvement with anyways. This is truly a non story.

[Oblong]

I think there's some hatred of Ilitch on other issues that's fueling this.

[Domino]

I think there's some hatred of Ilitch on other issues that's fueling this.

Or the fact that we embarrassed the Yankees this year.

[Tigercub33]

I think there's some hatred of Ilitch on other issues that's fueling this.

What is REfueling this debate - that isn't even a real debate - is the need for some guy to pimp his blog.

[Ron Burgandy]

The attitude, is "hell, if he's not rapin' my wife and and the husband of the women that is gettin' raped isn't doin' anyting about it," what the hell, let him rape the *****!

Please explain how Illitch Holdings having a stake in both a casino and the Tigers, even if true, amounts to an injury or injustice anywhere close to a rape.

Absent the journalists or the gadflys who raise issues or dig stuff up, we'd all be living under the rule of some facist dictator or the People's Republic of China.

God bless you and your blog. Because of independent minded "journalists" such as yourself, we are safe from communist plots involving co-ownership of a casino and baseball team.

[markmeista]

What is REfueling this debate - that isn't even a real debate - is the need for some guy to pimp his blog.

This is correct.

[Oblong]

You guys won't believe this:

I was down at the K of C Hall on Sunday playing bingo. They've got a member who's not really catholic.

The terrorists have won.

[PuNk42AE]

Bingo you say...

[markmeista]

You guys won't believe this:

I was down at the K of C Hall on Sunday playing bingo. They've got a member who's not really catholic.

The terrorists have won.

Say it ain't so! :bandit: