Sheel, an attorney with two decades of experience practicing law in California, and her brothers-in-law dispute on how the trust should benefit her above other causes. She claims Bob and Matt have prevented her from being deemed the Padres’ control person.
The MLB constitution defines the control person as the “single individual with ultimate authority and responsibility for making all club decisions.” Sheel alleges she closely advised Peter while he owned the team, attending MLB owners’ meetings and collaborating with Padres executives on roster trades and business decisions.
As a result, Sheel believes she is qualified to act as the Padres’ control person. She also claims that John, the next in line to control the trust, is unqualified, describing him as a “engineer without professional involvement with the Padres.”
In a recent petition, Matt Seidler, the current trustee, refutes his sister-in-law’s claims, claiming that her descriptions are inaccurate or exaggerated. He observes that Peter changed his estate at least seven times, but never named his wife as the successor control person. Instead, Matt claims, Peter preferred to have the team run by the successor trustees, which is consistent with his late brother’s desire for Bob, Matt, and John to lead.
According to the MLB constitution, a change in control person must be approved by the owners of the other clubs. As a private membership organization, MLB and its owners have broad discretion in choosing who is admitted as an owner.
It is unusual for sports leagues to intervene in team ownership issues that are being resolved through the legal system; for example, the NBA has been careful to let the Minnesota Timberwolves sale war to play out in arbitration. However, it would be difficult for a party to legally challenge a decision by MLB and its owners over a team’s control person, albeit the Padres’ situation is unique and may attract more attention.
Leave a Reply