Current Timberwolves majority owner Glen Taylor and the Marc Lore/Alex Rodriguez-led group that expected to take over control of the team have a difference of opinion over whether the prospective owners should have been granted an extension on Wednesday’s deadline to finalize the sale, according to Chris Hine of The Star Tribune.
[RELATED: Glen Taylor Announces He’ll Retain Majority Stake In Timberwolves]
[RELATED: Lore, A-Rod Dispute Taylor’s Claim To Wolves Ownership]
As Hine explains, language in the sale agreement indicated that the March 27 deadline could have been extended by 90 days if the two sides were awaiting NBA approval to complete the deal. A source tells The Star Tribune that Lore and Rodriguez submitted paperwork to the league last week to complete the agreement and believed a 90-day extension should have been granted in order to give the NBA time to make its decision.
However, Taylor stated that an agreement between him and the Lore/Rodriguez group needed to be completed before the league could approve it, and he believes no such deal was in place.
“They didn’t meet our obligations, so we’re just saying the deal is off,” Taylor said. “But even if we said, ‘OK, we think we have a deal with you,’ they have to start all over and go to the league and the league has to approve of them. … That’s no guarantee.”
According to Patrick Reusse of The Star Tribune, Taylor also pushed back on reports claiming that his relationship with Lore and Rodriguez has “deteriorated” over the past couple years.
“I don’t know if that’s accurate,” he told Reusse. “Lore told me he has been busy 24/7 with other projects. And A-Rod — he has a lot of people to meet when he’s at a game. The deadline had been pushed back, and they missed it. That’s what led to this.”
Taylor also acknowledged that litigation is a possibility if Lore and Rodriguez want to pursue their claim to ownership: “Everyone has the right to bring in the lawyers.”
Here’s more on the Timberwolves’ ownership drama:
- According to Reusse, Taylor dismissed the idea that an increase in NBA franchise valuations over the past two to three years led to his decision to strictly enforce Wednesday’s deadline and nix the sale. “Not for me,” said Taylor, who initially agreed to sell the Wolves for a $1.5 billion valuation. “My money’s going to the Taylor Foundation, not in my pocket. But my limited (partners), they might be happy if the Timberwolves are sold later for a higher price.”
- On the other hand, a statement Taylor gave to Jon Krawczynski of The Athletic (Twitter link) didn’t exactly put to bed the idea that the longtime Wolves owner is experiencing seller’s remorse. “I just think (we) built this team,” Taylor said in explaining why he’s not putting the team back on the market. “We’ve got the players now. And it appears to me that we should have a very positive run for a number of years, and I want to be a part of that.”
- Reusse’s Star Tribune column on the situation includes several more tidbits of note, including Taylor specifying that the Lore/Rodriguez group currently owns 36% of the team. “I will work with them, as I do with my other limited (partners),” Taylor said. The 82-year-old also repeated a point he’s made before, telling Reusse that if he was concerned about maximizing his payout, he could’ve agreed to sell the Wolves to an owner that wasn’t committed to keeping the franchise in Minnesota. “We could’ve gotten $2.5 billion paid upfront, but that person was going to try to move the team to Las Vegas,” Taylor said.
- Josh Kosman and Ryan Glasspiegel of The New York Post take an in-depth look at why the deal didn’t go through, suggesting that Lore was “laser-focused” in recent months on his gourmet food delivery-company Wonder and left the final stage of the process largely to Rodriguez. According to The Post’s sources, Lore put more money in during the group’s first two rounds of payments and wanted Rodriguez to invest more this time around to “catch up,” so it was left to A-Rod to raise capital.
- Sources tell Kosman and Glasspiegel that Rodriguez was trying to sell interests at a valuation of over $2 billion, rather than his $1.5 billion valuation, which diminished enthusiasm among potential investors to some extent, especially since those investors would be playing “second fiddle” within the ownership hierarchy. While A-Rod eventually raised the money necessary – the equity fund Blue Owl HomeCourt made an investment, per Hine, after the NBA rejected The Carlyle Group, per The Post – “the whole process was delayed” and went down to the wire, according to Kosman and Glasspiegel.
- Mike Conley said today that the ownership situation doesn’t have much of an impact at this time on the Timberwolves’ players, who are focused on their Friday matchup with the rival Nuggets, tweets Hine. “Maybe it affects the image of the team, the aura of the team around a little bit,” Conley said. “But as far as the players are concerned, I think we just are like, ‘Damn, that’s crazy.’ Then we got back to watching film and worrying about (Nikola) Jokic, Jamal Murray, and (Michael) Porter and those guys.”
Taylor might not be the most competent owner, but I rather have him than a fraud like A-rod or Lore. Now if Garnett could somehow lead an ownership group and take control of the wolves, that would be ideal.
Thing is… A-Rod is a ray of sunshine compared to Glen…
If A-Rod and Lore had been able to buy the whole thing KG might have joined them… Or been able to buy it off them in the future…
KG won’t do business with Glen Taylor… That snake burnt that bridge… Hence his number hasn’t been retired…
A-Rod is con artist, a liar and cheater. I’ll take taylor any day over him. At least with taylor the team stays in Minny.
Definitely sounds like Glen got greedy and wants to pad his ego…
He’s never cared about what the fans want, the fans want him gone… This just compounds the issue…
First round exit would be deserved…
Why greedy? Do you know how to read ? the money does not go to him but to his foundation.
I work business contracts regularly and from my experience the law definitely favors A-Rod and Lore here. Missed deadlines in contracts cannot be used as a “gotcha” to escape a contract entirely. When a missed obligation happens, the contract still applies.
The response to the breach must be reasonable and proportionate to the “damage” caused by the breach. Ie: missing a deadline by a few days is legally not the same as missing the deadline by a few years. There is no “deadlines are deadlines bro” standard in court.
Even in cases where missed deadlines have led to lawsuits, the contract is still upheld, and the lawsuit is only for monetary damages awarded on top of the contract. This is very common in supplier contracts. Walmart being a week late to pay Apple does not give Apple the right to stop shipping their products entirely. Another example is a mortgage on a home. Even if your payment is late you retain legal right to live there. Because missed deadlines are not the same as a termination of contract.
In English, Taylor is definitely entitled to a small amount of additional money if he feels the lateness cost him money. But that dispute is seen as “separate” from the contract. The buyers eventually did what they are required to do and the sale contract is still valid. Taylor does not have a real reason for why money today is bad but money a week ago was fine, and so he will lose any effort to escape or delay the sale.