Susie Adams Smith to sell her 33% stake in Titans

You're unreal. You've forgot who was the face of ownership when his story surfaced years ago. Yep Tommy Smith. Story had legs then, story has legs now. You were wrong about it then, you're wrong about it now. Just let it go. You're better than that.

 

Yes. Packers have a different set up where the shareholder vote is rep'ed by a designate. Titans board structure is subject to "two out of three" without an existing singular entity who represents the majority opinions' desire on issues. In other words, AAS can only speak for 33% of Titans ownership. And although I admittedly speculate, I'm certain the reason the league is uncomfortable with our current ownership structure is because they knew the "sale rumor" had legs.

 

Right, they could, after a sell. However, if the current owners have agreed to appoint her as the controlling owner, then they wouldn't be able to go back on that willy nilly. They would have to go through the proper avenues and have a replacement in place to revoke that from her.

After this 33% sells, I'm assuming they'd have to revote that or something, unless it's part of the sell that she retains that title.

With it being inherited from a trust, her owning over 5%, and the family owning over 30% ... if at least 51% of the controlling shares agree she's the controlling owner (she is 33%, so would only need another 18% to agree), then that should satisfy the NFL ownership requirements.

 

@Riverman , what I'm saying is in accordance to the rule the Rooney family helped get passed a couple years ago. It passed by a vote of 31-1, by the way ... so, it's not like it's a disliked rule that barely snuck in. It had a great deal of support by other owners.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...5/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-trust.aspx

 

Uh no. We don't know what KSA By-laws say about asset or share sales. What we do know is that 33% shareholder wants to sell any or all to the highest bidder. That in itself is not an AAS problem if KSA bylaws are standard. Who knows?

So until more is made clear (unlikely), we'll all have to speculate that a 33% shareholder sale is NOT a threat to AAS's intended direction of franchise activities. This really IS significant news- and it is being buried a bit by local media.

 

Unbelievable you still run with the same stupid **** La Canfora made up, that no one ever corroborated and despite REPEATEDLY contrary comments from ownership.

A share of the team is being sold. The TEAM is not.

Here, do your ****ing research and quite being a *****

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...irefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=orOLWe36I-XDXte6vdgL

 

That is a good read. But we're talking about KSA sale, of which Titans are only a part. I assume a 33% of a KSA sale is the entirety of Titans share-holdings (33% Titans). The distinctions described within that article does not apply.

I'm not concerned about this because the "Family" still maintains a majority holding. But if there is any further dissent among remaining family shareholders, OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE 33% is well above est. value- "there's a problem in river city".

I DO like AAS. She has won me over. I've put a LOT of dough in the Titans. She's guiding MANY things with my money with greater skill than I would have. I respect that. I'd like like for her and KSA IV to pony up and buy 17% ( or whatever undisclosed % required) to get a "synchronous" 51%. Until that- I won't be comfortable with our ownership structure.

 

Pathetic. Semantics regarding "team" versus share of team.

Dude own your prior position instead of these crazy-azz gesticulations. I respect you. Others respect you. But you (and others) gave me unmitigated chit for saying that even "a very possibility" existed a sale (of shares or the "team") was real. It was. Tommy Smith, husband of the currently reported 33% shareholder interested in selling, was the "controlling owner rep" at the time the story broke and I made my comments. Let it go. Don't clog this board with BS. YOU WERE WRONG on this. Own it and move on. I'm ok with it.

 

So now you're just revising history. Got it.

 

I would like Amy to buy the shares also. I'm sure the remaining family members could come up with the money to do so. But I did find this article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...owner-is-said-to-be-selling-one-third-of-team

By that article who ever buys the 33% will not have a path to control of franchise.