Clock runs out for ex-Broncos owner
By James Paton, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 2, 2008 at 3:26 p.m.
A decade-long legal dispute between former Denver Broncos owner Edgar Kaiser and the organization's current boss Pat Bowlen may be over at last.
Kaiser's claims that Bowlen violated their contract have failed. The Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed a Denver district judge's decision rejecting Kaiser's attempt to force Bowlen to sell back part of the team.
Bowlen's lawyer called it a Hail Mary pass.
Kaiser "had his day in court - and he lost," attorney Dan Reilly said by phone. "I'm happy for Pat and the Broncos that this thing is finally drawing to a close. It has gone on long enough."
Still, there is a chance Kaiser could seek to send the case to the state Supreme Court, so "we will not celebrate until the final whistle blows," Reilly said.
Kaiser's lawyer, Stephen Long, did not return a phone call Thursday seeking comment.
The story began in 1981, when Kaiser bought the Broncos from Denver's Phipps family in a roughly $30 million deal. Kaiser three years later sold his remaining 61 percent share to Bowlen for about $51 million.
It was not until 15 years later - and after two Super Bowl victories - that Kaiser filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Bowlen had violated the part of their deal that gave him the "right of first refusal" on any future sale of a portion of the team.
Bowlen at one point offered former Broncos quarterback John Elway a stake in the club.
A jury in 2004 sided with Kaiser, who was credited with bringing Elway to Denver. A federal judge ruled that the businessman should be able to buy back 10 percent of the Broncos for the same terms offered to Elway.
But a court of appeals overruled the decision.
Kaiser persisted in state court, and the case dragged on for years as the value of the Broncos swelled. The latest Forbes report estimates that the team is worth almost $1.1 billion.
"This is anti-climactic in the sense that the real fight was in federal court, and we won," Reilly said. "It was a last-ditch effort to try to resurrect a claim that had been snuffed out."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
-
Rocky Mountain Music
Mark Brown blogs on the new Guns N' Roses album



Broncos cheerleaders

October 2, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
Go Away Kaiser. Of course you want back in they are worth 907 million, more than the 78 million you sold it for. Maybe you shouldnt have been in such a hurry to sell.
October 2, 2008
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
Sorry I meant 1.1 billion.
October 2, 2008
6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveC writes:
I agree Squatch, he's just after a quick buck. He sold the team to Bowlen, get over it.
October 3, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
Yawn. Stop enriching your lawyers.
October 3, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
chartguy writes:
Seems to me the question is whether Bowlen really did give him a right of first refusal. If he did, then he needs to honor his commitment.