Posted on 05/10/2007 6:09:27 AM PDT by presidio9
No, but the New York Yankees (and almost every single sports team) usually allows for certain "select" individuals not employed by the team to purchase rings (they grant permission to the company that makes the rings, rarely do they actually buy them for the said individual).
Generally, its up to the owners discretion.
Famous story, after the Dallas Cowboys won their first superbowl under Jimmy Johnson, they did actually purchase a ring for Al Davis of the Raiders and presented it to him. 2 versions of why, came from Jones and Johnson. One is a positive (Jones), one is a negative (Johnson).
They didn't give it to him, they let him buy it (which alone is preferrential treamtment).
That said, that ring wasn't worth 200K when he got it, and its harder to asses future value on gifts like that.
That said, there is a massive conflict of interest regarding his use of taxpayer funds for the team and his recieving special treatment.
If he did not pay for it when he got it minor offense. If it was a surprise gift he decided to pay for no offense.. The man is for tax payer funded abortion and were talking about the NY rings..
good info, thanks.
When you go to the postseason every year, you’re bound to set all kinds of postseason records.
Yet another reason to hate Rudy. He is a fan of the Yank-offs, like his friend Rupert Murdoch.
From this article http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0719,barrett,76566,2.html : What's more troubling is that Giuliani's receipt of the rings may be a serious breach of the law, and one that could still be prosecuted. New York officials are barred from taking a gift of greater than $50 value from anyone doing business with the city, and under Giuliani, that statute was enforced aggressively against others. His administration forced a fire department chief, for example, to retire, forfeit $93,105 in salary, and pay a $6,000 fine for taking Broadway tickets to two shows and a free week in a ski condo from a city vendor. The city's Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) has applied the gift rule to discounts as well, unless the cheaper rate "is available generally to all government employees." When a buildings department deputy commissioner was indicted in 2000 for taking Mets and Rangers tickets, as well as a family trip to Florida, from a vendor, an outraged Giuliani denounced his conduct as "reprehensible," particularly "at high levels in city agencies," and said that such officials had to be "singled out" and "used as examples."
City officials are also required to disclose gifts from anyone but relatives on forms filed with the COIB, something Giuliani did not do with any of the rings. Giuliani certainly used to sound serious about the need for full public disclosure. In 1989, he denounced his mayoral opponent, David Dinkins, for failing to disclose frequent-flier tickets to France given to him by a friend, even though the friend did no business with the city; Giuliani called it an example of "arrogance and disrespect for legal and ethical obligations."
And there's another, more recent, and closer-to-home example of arrogant nondisclosure noted publicly by Giuliani. When former police commissioner Bernard Kerik pled guilty last year to charges involving a city contractor's gift to him of a $165,000 apartment renovation, Giuliani said that Kerik had "acknowledged his violations." As part of a $221,000 plea deal, Kerik agreed to pay a $10,000 fine to the COIB for accepting and then failing to accurately disclose the renovations. Not only are Kerik and Giuliani's concealed gifts of similar value, but Kerik, like Giuliani, made a partial payment for the renovations—$17,800, far less than full value.
More ominous for Giuliani, Kerik's prosecution came eight years after the renovation of his apartment began, an indication that the ordinary statute of limitations doesn't apply to the continuing reporting requirements of the COIB. In addition, Giuliani reportedly paid the Yankees as recently as 2004 for one of the rings, another reason why an investigation might still be timely. It is also a violation of state unlawful-gratuity statutes for a public official to "solicit, accept, or agree to accept any benefit" from a business like the Yankees, which leases the stadium from the city.
At the very least, this appears to be yet more proof that Giuliani only believes in enforcing "law and order" for the little people. It seems that in his mind, he's not subject to authority, he IS the authority -- free of the legal fetters that bind the serfs.
Maybe what you wrote is true - btw I’m not doubing ‘you’ on this, just noting.
If it happened, we are to believe Elliot Spitzer didn’t investigate, didn’t want to prosecute?
Thats very difficult for me to believe, knowing what I know of Spitzer, and how some would like to tear Guliani down, not over Presidential politics, but ‘just because’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.