Ultiworld globe logo

Here’s The Settlement Offer That The Rhode Island Rampage Owner Turned Down

by in News with 3 Comments

Just days before today’s threatened termination of the Rhode Island Rampage contract with the American Ultimate Disc League, Steve Gordon, the majority owner of the new Chicago AUDL franchise and a minority owner of the Boston franchise, offered Emerson Kilgore, the owner of the Rampage, a settlement deal.

The settlement would allow the league to place a team in Boston, which falls within the 100-mile non-compete radius of the Rampage’s territory. Kilgore has been adamant that the league may not put a team in Boston and is battling the AUDL in court to block them from doing so.

Gordon, who spoke on behalf of himself and Boston co-owner Brent Steepe (who also serves as the AUDL VP of Marketing), was in negotiations with Kilgore over the weekend.

On Monday, Gordon sent the following proposal to Kilgore for consideration.

Emerson,

Thanks for taking the time to talk tonight. I really enjoyed the opportunity to get to know you a little bit and get a better feel for another owner.

As I mentioned, my intention is to find the best direction to satisfy us both in this issue. I’m really encouraged to hear the experience you bring to the table, especially with contracts, as I have. That said, we both know the conventional method of negotiation is to ask for more than you would ever expect as a starting point so that upon compromising on certain issues, you still end up where you hoped to be.

As you can see, I did NOT take that approach. First of all, we don’t have the time for that. Second, my feeling is that if we come to an agreement, we’re going to be co-franchise owners in this league and therefore partners that need each other to do well. As such, I decided to lay out an offer that is fair right off the bat in an effort to show good faith. We both need the other to feel good about the deal so I went 50/50 immediately.

As discussed, here’s what I propose.

1. We begin by agreeing to a 50/50 split of the franchise.

2. Upon selling an interest to [redacted] or any other investor, we would split the proceeds evenly.

3. If the ownership purchase is less than 100% (which is the goal), the remaining ownership would be split 50/50.

4. FOR EXAMPLE, Let’s say that [redacted] purchased 70% of the franchise. We would split the proceeds from the sale 50/50, and split the remaining 30% evenly, or 15% each.

a. However, because Brent and I would not be interested in retaining our 15%, we would be open to selling it to you or [redacted] at the same value (per 1%) as was paid for the majority by [redacted].

5. We would co-negotiate the deal with [redacted] to maximize the value.

Obviously, this would require league approval.

Emerson, that’s the suggestion. I think it’s fair, and we circumvent the loss of valuable time by getting right to where the agreement needs to be, rather than starting at a point that requires tons of time to negotiate when we’re going to end up right back here anyway.

Please let me know your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

Steve Gordon

Kilgore declined the offer. He told Ultiworld that it was “an insult.”

Since there has been no settlement and no further discussions, it is likely that the Rampage will be officially notified of their contract’s termination later today by Josh Moore, the President of the AUDL, for a failure to pay fines and meet league standards as laid out in the Operating Agreement.

Tagged , , , ,

About Charlie Eisenhood

Charlie Eisenhood is the editor-in-chief of Ultiworld. He started playing Ultimate in Albuquerque, New Mexico as a high school student. He captained NYU's college team and has played Open Club with Sweet Roll (Albuquerque) and Medicine Men (Baltimore). He lives in Brooklyn. You can reach him by email (charlie@ultiworld.com) or on Twitter (@ceisenhood).

View all posts by Charlie Eisenhood →

Related Posts

  • http://tfda.org Josh Murphy

    I may not be understanding all of the nuances and details involved, but my very basic understanding is:

    - Mr. Kilgore bought rights to a certain territory from Mr. Moore.
    - Then Mr. Moore later sold a chunk of that territory to someone else at a point when he no longer owned it.
    - I.e., it was either a fraudulent sale &/or theft of property, depending on how you want to view territory rights.
    - Now the purchaser(s) of that stolen territory are calling it “fair” to offer Mr. Kilgore half of the stolen territory.

    It seems obvious that no sane individual would agree to call that a “fair” solution. From the point of view of Mr. Kilgore, the fair thing would be for the thief to refund whatever moneys were paid for the stolen territory to the purchasers, pay all ridiculous legal fees incurred by everyone, and possibly pay reasonable fines to those who lost sleep over the deception.

    Everything seems to have resulted from Mr. Moore’s actions of selling something that he had already sold & no longer owned. From what I can tell, even he does not defend that action as having been legal. What key details am I missing?

    • Charlie Eisenhood

      Josh:

      Certainly you’ve outlined the case in the way that Kilgore would. The league argues that he knew about a Boston franchise when he signed up for the league, but the signed contract does not back that up. There are a lot of legal arguments on both sides as to why a Boston franchise should/should not be allowed. That is largely due to a very poorly written contract.

  • Anonymous

    I think this letter clearly identifies that Brent Steepe and Steve Gordon are not really interested in Ultimate or in Boston. They are interested in the Boston area of the RI and CT territory because they think they can sell it to someone else and make a profit. Kilgore on the other hand wants to move his team within his owned territory.

    So Josh sells a territory to Kilgore, then he gives the same territory, which he no longer owns to his VP of Marketing, Brent Steepe and Steve Gordon. …and he does this because someone else was interested in buying the territory. So Josh Moore tries to screw Kilgore so Steepe can profit from making a sale? Conflict of interest, collusion, insider trading, you name it, it seems to be happening here. I can’t wait for the court case!!

    Is this a fair assimilation? I bought an acre of land, then another buyer comes along after I’ve closed on the property and takes an interest in purchasing a corner of the property. So the seller decides he is going to sell that piece of that land to someone else and convince me it was never my land?

Find us on Twitter
Find us on Facebook