IBJNews

Six bidders in line for Indianapolis Indians stock

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state of Indiana on Wednesday awarded eight unclaimed Indianapolis Indians shares to six bidders who offered as much as $27,505 for a piece of the minor league team.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Unclaimed Property Division received a total of 12 bids. Two of the six highest bidders are in line to get two shares each. Bidders will be officially notified no later than Friday and will have until June 9 to pay for the shares.

Winning bidders:

— Bryan C. Elliott, Indianapolis, two shares for $27,505 each

— Roger E. Werner, Greenwood, $27,100 for one share

— E. Chris Iverson III, Indianapolis, $27,000 for one share

— John M. Farrar, Indianapolis, $26,260 for one share

— Douglas D. Chokey, Bloomington, two shares for $25,500 each

— James M. and Janett B. Lowes, Indianapolis, $25,500 for one share

Indians management turned the unclaimed shares over to the state to sell after spending years trying to locate the rightful owners. According to state law, property is considered unclaimed when the owner of an asset cannot be found.

Shares of the minor-league baseball team are difficult to come by—only 755 are outstanding, with nearly 40 percent owned by team Chairman Max Schumacher.

Only one share has changed hands in the past six months, and that sale occurred in December, for $25,000. The state sought a minimum bid price of $25,000 for each share.

Proceeds from the auction will be placed in a state account. Share owners or their heirs now have 25 years to claim their money from the state.

The team began selling shares to the public in 1956, when 6,672 people paid $10 per share and bought 24,488 shares of stock in the city's struggling minor-league baseball team. The move was designed to take the money-losing team off the hands of its owner, the Cleveland Indians, and keep it in Indianapolis.

The Indians, now the Class AAA affiliate for the Pittsburgh Pirates, are valued at about $20 million by Baseball America magazine.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT