By: bigleagues

bigleagues — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:35:26 +0000

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone leaked the financials against confidentiality agreements and professional standards of conduct and such . . . but with the privilege of having an anti-trust exception but moreover the amount of public dollars that franchises receive for everything from stadium construction and infrastructure improvements to tax free loans and tax breaks . . . I think all financials should be made available for public review from time to time.

By: The Rabbit

The Rabbit — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:02:47 +0000

Because I’ve been retired for some time, I had to look up Beazley. Didn’t know the company had changed its name.
I don’t know what MLB asked Beazley to provide, but now that I know who it is I can give you the most likely business reason why they may not cooperate:
The company’s stated own retention on specialty risks would in no way be large enough for it to insure MLB. This would require it to reinsure, either through Lloyd’s portfolios or other insurers. (Lloyd’s isn’t an insurance company in the traditional sense.)
Files may have been sent out to a number of places. I suspect the company wouldn’t want to identify those companies or disclose its “treaties” particularly if its automatic reinsurance amounts are significantly lower than the other companies in this market. It would place the company at a very competitive disadvantage going forward.
IF Beazley is not directly or indirectly responsible for the leaks, it’s going to have to make a business decision as to which position will do the least harm to the company in the long run.

Comments on: MLB goes to court over last year’s leaked team financial documents thing

By: bigleagues

By: The Rabbit