The quick answer is a NO, they're not. Just like Global Port before when Ramon Ang used to own shares with Manila North Harbor Port, Inc. (see: http://thestandard.com.ph/business/199676/smc-wrests-control-of-port-from-romero.html). There's a catch though...Batang Global Port, the basketball team, is listed as a team owned by Sultan 900 Capital, Inc. While we know Sultan 900 and MNHPI are sister companies - the former partly owned and the latter fully owned by the Romero family - it doesn't equate to SMC being a sister company of Sultan 900.
That's all water under the bridge now. With the recent acquisition of former DLSU bankroller Enrique Razon of ICTSI of the 35% stake of RSA at MNHPI (see: http://www.philstar.com/business/2017/09/23/1741647/ang-divests-manila-north-harbor), Global Port cannot be suspected of being a sister team of the SMC squads. One wonders how much Razon will involve himself with the direct operations of the company - especially when it comes to their basketball team. If he does get involved, then the likelihood of GBP staying in the PBA looms likely.
The same dilemma is now experienced with KIA, the basketball team. The Picantos, according to the PBA, is owned by Columbian Autocar Corporation (CAC). Recently, RSA purchased 65% stake in the local importer and distributor of BMW from Asian Carmakers Corporation (ACC) previously owned by Pepito Alvarez, the owner of CAC. Like Romero at MNHPI, while ACC is a sister company of CAC, it is not a sister company (at least on paper) of any of the SMC teams.
There's a source of concern if SMC is proven to have links with CAC. League rules prohibit any conglomerate to own a fourth PBA team. And this may be one of the topics that may be discussed in the next PBA Board meeting this Thursday, October 26. Critics of the trade deal made by KIA with SMC where the Picantos will give up their top overall pick for 2017 for SMB's Matt Rosser, Ronald Tubid, Yancy De Ocampo and RaShawn McCarthy will obviously find ways to stop this transaction from getting consummated.
The Board has no power to stop trade deals - that job falls on the Commissioner. But of course, the Board has increasingly become more involved with the direct operations of the league so I won't be surprised if they actually do. Or at least, influence Narvasa to veto the deal. But that cannot be done if the issue is if there's imbalance in the trade. Narvasa can simply ask the Beermen to tweak the deal by offering different players - perhaps one starter at least. This has been done before.
But if the other members of the Board decide to raise the ownership issue of SMC at ACC, then the discussion can become complicated. And heated. For obvious reasons, The burden of proof in proving SMC owning CAC in part is with the complainants. We don't know when the purchase will be officially made or if it has taken place already. In the absence of any formal acquisition, that still doesn't make SMC part owner of ACC.
But when it's there, SMC Car Asia will own 65% of ACC. ACC is a sister company of CAC. Wouldn't that make SMC Car Asia a sister company of CAC?
Assuming the link is established (although I doubt it), that would make KIA as SMC's 4th team in the PBA. That perhaps would be the only argument that can be presented to veto / rescind the trade deal. It's not going to be easy though. The Board is made up of underlings of the team owners so issues pertaining to ownership may be beyond the pay grade of the SMC officials involved.
The corporate rival, MPIC Group would also likely take a cautious stand on this as this would impact heavily on the composition of the national team. With the FIBA qualifiers about to start next month, the last thing the Gilas national team (bankrolled by the MPIC Group) would want to happen is to lose key players from their roster - guys like 4x MVP Junemar Fajardo and Japeth Aguilar, two of our most important big men. They'll most likely support any decision to veto the trade, but it won't come from them.
It was Alaska team manager Dickie Bachmann who raised the trade issue. Note though that the flak went to the KIA management, a deliberate approach to avoid running into conflict with the powerful SMC Group. Bachmann questioned KIA's intent on becoming competitive, evidenced by their willingness to go through this lopsided trade.
Will Bachmann raise the ownership issue in the Board meeting, or just bring up the KIA issue? From where we stand, a compromise may be reached in the end. KIA's franchise will be sold to another company (say, Chooks-To-Go) at the end of the season but since the trade deal was made with KIA still an active member, this will be be consummated, with a few revisions in the personalities involved.
KIA goes and SMB and Ginebra will end up establishing a dynastic rivalry that will try to equate with Crispa and Toyota. All's well that ends well, right?
Or is it?
The usual suspects are all accounted at the scene. Can we expect other than we thought?
ReplyDelete