Who owns the Dodgers?

[Chip R]

Jamie (Mrs. Frank) McCourt thought she was a co-owner and CEO but her husband fired her and says he's the sole owner of the team. This is believed to all be part of divorce proceedings between the McCourts. Things could get ugly but my question is, who gets custody of Manny? ;)

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-mccourts102209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&expire=1

Dodgers fire CEO, a lawsuit likely
By Tim Brown, Yahoo! Sports





Eliminated from the National League Championship Series a night earlier the Los Angeles Dodgers began their offseason Thursday by firing the owner’s wife.

As a result, Jamie McCourt, who is married to owner Frank McCourt and was the team’s CEO, has promised a lawsuit, according to a statement by her Los Angeles-based attorney, Dennis Wasser. The couple is separated and apparently headed toward divorce, potentially casting the iconic franchise into economic and structural disarray.



“Jamie was disappointed and saddened by her termination,” said Wasser, reading from a statement. “As a co-owner of the Dodgers, she will address this and all other issues in the courtroom.”

Asked if a lawsuit had been filed, Wasser said, “Not yet, but there will be litigation pending.”


As to whether this would be part of a divorce filing, he said, “Let’s say this, you’ll know next week.”


Jamie, married to Frank since 1979, ascended rapidly through the team’s hierarchy, becoming vice chairman in 2004 (two weeks after Frank – or Frank and Jamie, a detail that apparently will be determined by the courts – purchased the club from Fox), president in 2005 and CEO seven months ago.

Since confirming their marital separation a week ago, the couple’s lawyers have argued publicly about whether Frank is the sole owner of the team or Jamie is a co-owner. Frank’s lawyer, Marshall Grossman, has said his client has documentation signed by both parties that support Frank’s contention.

Grossman called the news of Jamie’s firing, first reported by SI.com, “a Dodgers personnel issue,” adding, “The Dodgers do not comment on personnel matters.”

Just Wednesday the club announced general manager Ned Colletti had received a contract extension and last month it announced communications chief Charles Steinberg had been granted permission to seek employment elsewhere.

Frank and Jamie (and their lawyers) shared the owner’s box at Dodger Stadium during NLCS games late last week, Frank in the third row and Jamie in the first. At one point engaging before a near-full ballpark, Frank playfully grabbed Jamie’s head, causing her to recoil in apparent anger.

Still, Grossman contended the couple was not yet going through a divorce, though it has been widely reported – and assumed – otherwise.

“There has been no litigation filed by either Mr. or Mrs. McCourt,” he said.

Forbes magazine estimated in April that the Dodgers were worth more than $700 million.

[Tom Servo]

The Phillies.

[UKFlounder]

The Phillies.

:D

[nate]

The Phillies.

Thunder thief!

:(

[RBA]

California: A community property state.

[Always Red]

California: A community property state.

Yep. Frank's name may be on the "title," but he's only going to own half of the Dodger's after the divorce is final.

Which probably means the Dodger's will have new owners.

Other than the Phillies. ;)

[HeatherC1212]

I think the Rockies may also have at least part ownership after seeing how they did against the Dodgers this year, LOL :laugh:

[Vada Pinson Fan]

Things could get ugly but my question is, who gets custody of Manny? ;)


The Nanny? ;)

[BCubb2003]

there will be litigation pending

litigation pending pending?

he's only going to own half of the Dodger's after the divorce is final

the hitting or the pitching?

[cincinnati chili]

Yep. Frank's name may be on the "title," but he's only going to own half of the Dodger's after the divorce is final.



Sort of. It means that she has a constructive trust in half of what Frank earns from the team. It doesn't mean she gets any control over the team unless the owners have approved her as a co-owner of the Dodgers.

[redsfandan]

I wonder if this could get in the way of the teams offseason business.

[Chip R]

Sort of. It means that she has a constructive trust in half of what Frank earns from the team. It doesn't mean she gets any control over the team unless the owners have approved her as a co-owner of the Dodgers.


She says she's a co-owner. I would imagine Frank did it that way on purpose. Tax reasons, maybe, who knows?


I wonder if this could get in the way of the teams offseason business.

It's very possible. If they go after some big name player, Frank may say yes and Jamie may say no. Colletti may not know what to do.

[Yachtzee]

Sort of. It means that she has a constructive trust in half of what Frank earns from the team. It doesn't mean she gets any control over the team unless the owners have approved her as a co-owner of the Dodgers.

It could also depend on whether they had a pre-nup in place. Considering they married in 1979, that may not be the case. What she might be able to do is either force Frank to sell the team or buy out her interest.

[savafan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5A450X20091105

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Jamie McCourt struck out on Thursday in her court bid for reinstatement as chief executive of the Los Angeles Dodgers, two weeks after she was fired by estranged husband and team owner Frank McCourt in their highly public divorce battle.

Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon ruled that Jamie McCourt's request to regain her post as CEO, made as part of her divorce filing last week, was premature, and he denied her motion.

The couple, who married in 1979 and have four grown sons, announced their separation last month as the Dodgers faced the Philadelphia Phillies in baseball's National League championship playoff. The team owner fired his spouse the day after the Phillies cut short the Dodgers' World Series bid.

The split, lifting the curtain on what is likely to become one of the most closely scrutinized and costly divorces in recent memory, raised immediate questions about future ownership of the Dodgers.

The team is considered one of the premium clubs in Major League Baseball, along with the World Series champion New York Yankees, the New York Mets and the Boston Red Sox.

Forbes magazine in April valued the Dodgers as the fourth most valuable team at $722 million. A 95 percent stake in the Chicago Cubs, ranked No. 5, just sold for a record $845 million. But the recession and tight credit markets have diminished sports franchise values over the past year. Some analysts had expected bidding for the Cubs to top $1 billion before the recession hit.

The McCourts bought the Dodgers in 2004. The wife's court papers described the couple as "among the wealthiest residents of Southern California, with an estimated worth in excess of $1.2 billion."

In addition to demanding her CEO job back, Jamie McCourt has insisted in her petition that she maintains partial ownership of the Dodgers. She is seeking $321,000 a month in spousal support if reinstated to her former post, or $488,000 a month if not.

Frank McCourt has countered that he is sole owner of the team. His lawyers contend that his estranged wife often failed to show up for work and then had an affair with her driver and billed the Dodgers for a trip she took with him to Europe.

Jamie McCourt's attorney, Bert Fields, told the Los Angeles Times that she had dated her driver but that their relationship began after the McCourts separated in July. He also denied that his client billed the team for a trip to Europe.

Fields also told the Times Jamie McCourt had lined up financing for a possible bid to buy out her husband, saying: "Whatever it takes to buy Frank McCourt out, she's got."

His lawyer, Marshall Grossman, replied by insisting that Frank McCourt had no intention of selling the team.

"Congratulations to her for being a prospective buyer," Grossman was quoted as saying. "There is no seller. Perhaps she could explore some other sport."

[Strikes Out Looking]

It's good to be the driver.

[savafan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSTRE5A922620091110

(Reuters) - Dallas Mavericks basketball team owner Mark Cuban indicated that he may be interested in buying the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, the Los Angeles Times said citing an email from Cuban.

"If a unique situation came up where I could contribute capital to buy out a majority shareholder and gain control, with existing shareholders or note holders staying in place, I would consider it," the paper quoted Cuban as writing in the email.

Cuban did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters

The Dodgers are not officially up for sale however the recent separation between franchise owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie has raised questions about the future ownership of the team.

The team is considered one of the premium clubs in Major League Baseball, along with the World Series champion New York Yankees, the New York Mets and the Boston Red Sox.

Forbes magazine in April valued the Dodgers at $722 million.

The Dodgers could not be immediately reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours.

[savafan]

To follow up:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJsedSuE7buGzdlidcdUgOspexQAD9BTDJ9O1

DALLAS — Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who lost in a bid to purchase to the Chicago Cubs, apparently still has some interest in owning a Major League Baseball team.

Amid several reports that he'd be interested in buying the Los Angeles Dodgers, who are not for sale, Cuban says "if it's a perfect deal" he's interested.

The messy divorce of Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his wife, Jamie, raises questions about the team's future.

But Cuban insisted Tuesday night before the Mavericks' game against Houston that he's "not on the prowl" to get a team.

"It's just one more business opportunity," Cuban said. "If it's the right deal, I'm going to do it. And if not, I'm not."

[Chip R]

Jamie McCourt is asking for $1M a month for spousal support.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/major-league-divorce-trial-18871181

[Chip R]

A judge has ruled Jamie McCourt co-owns the Dodgers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5895267

[Joseph]

A judge has ruled Jamie McCourt co-owns the Dodgers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5895267

Well I'm sure thats just going to be great for business.

[Benihana]

Does anyone know what the average debt to equity ratio is of most MLB teams, or what (if any) is the maximum amount of leverage that MLB would allow?

[Chip R]

Well I'm sure thats just going to be great for business.

Bad for them, good for us?

[Chip R]

In the latest saga of the Dodgers and the McCourts, Uncle Bud has stepped in and nixed a deal where Frank McCourt could borrow $200M from Fox. My question is why would Fox lend Frank $200M when they previously lent him $145M and they foreclosed on him?

http://www.truebluela.com/2011/2/24/2014158/bud-selig-frank-mccourt-dodgers-fox-loan-200-million

[MartyFan]

In the latest saga of the Dodgers and the McCourts, Uncle Bud has stepped in and nixed a deal where Frank McCourt could borrow $200M from Fox. My question is why would Fox lend Frank $200M when they previously lent him $145M and they foreclosed on him?

http://www.truebluela.com/2011/2/24/2014158/bud-selig-frank-mccourt-dodgers-fox-loan-200-million

Because LA is that important to TV revenues for Fox. If LA is down as a franchise, less people are interested and that means fewer in the largest metro watch which cost them ad revenue.

Markets like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, KC and others outside the top 10 media markets do not matter. If those teams do good, big deal...if they do bad...oh well, lets spin a story...if a top 10 media market team is down...LOOK OUT!

[Brutus the Pimp]

Does anyone know what the average debt to equity ratio is of most MLB teams, or what (if any) is the maximum amount of leverage that MLB would allow?

This is a couple months late, I realize, but to answer your question...

The league calls for an equity-to-debt ratio of 60-40, or thusly known as the 60/40 rule. However, in recent years, that rule has been extremely loosely enforced and has kind of fallen by the wayside in favor of baseball's newer debt service rule, which was implemented in 2003.

The debt service rule simply allows for debt no more than 10 times your EBITDA over a rolling term (I believe 3 or 5 years if I remember correctly).

[GAC]

My question is why would Fox lend Frank $200M when they previously lent him $145M and they foreclosed on him?

They want to use it for Glenn Beck rallies?

[my bad]

[Chip R]

The McCourts have agreed to a one day trial to settle their divorce. The trial will determine if Frank gets the Dodgers or it's community property in their divorce.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=6672665

[RichRed]

Who owns the Dodgers?

The Reds

[Brutus the Pimp]

The Reds

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6232/rimshot.jpg

[IslandRed]

Catching up with a few links after MLB rejected the Fox deal:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/06/mlb-rejects-mccourts-fox-deal.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/06/reaction-to-mlb-rejecting-mccourts-fox-deal.html

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/06/stark-on-bj-upton-boras-dodgers.html

The last link is repeating info from a Jayson Stark column, and is of the most interest to the Reds or other potential trade-deadline partners:

The Dodgers are telling teams they're weeks away from deciding whether to be deadline sellers. If they do sell, it won't be because of money issues. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports agrees, saying MLB-appointed monitor Tom Schieffer would intercede if the team tries to make a move that's not in its best long-term interests.

In short, no fire sale. Which makes sense -- it's still L.A. and MLB won't let the Dodgers go to seed. A fire sale might have occurred if McCourt stayed in control minus the Fox money, but obviously that's not happening.

[KronoRed]

Pretty good read about the mess the next owner of the Dodgers will inherit.
http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/06/21/commissioner-selig-frank-mccourt-must-go-a-petition/

[redsmetz]

CNN is reporting the Dodgers have filed for bankruptcy today.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/27/news/companies/dodgers_bankruptcy/index.htm

[RBA]

Who owns the Dodgers?

The creditors?

[redsmetz]

Who owns the Dodgers?

The creditors?

I suspect that bankruptcy move will stop some of McCourt's shenanigans. Now the creditors get some say in how things are worked out. I noticed in the CNN report that MLB ultimately has to make good on the salaries per the CBA. Not the first franchise to go this route, but hopefully McCourt gets thrown out.

[bucksfan2]

I have a feeling this case will get very ugly before it is all over. The McCourts have been an embarrassment to baseball but Selig is going out of his way to force McCourt into bankruptcy. Apparently Selig vetoed the TV deal that would have allowed McCourt to meet his payroll obligations. Selig said it was because he would have use 150M to settle the divorce with his wife. To me Selig is doing whatever he can to force McCourt into failing to meet his payroll obligations at the end of the month. IMO its quite different than the treatment he has given the Mets during their debacle. IIRC Selig went to CitiBank and requested that they give the Wilpons a loan while he is doing everything in his power to reject any money the McCourt's get.

[Slyder]

I have a feeling this case will get very ugly before it is all over. The McCourts have been an embarrassment to baseball but Selig is going out of his way to force McCourt into bankruptcy. Apparently Selig vetoed the TV deal that would have allowed McCourt to meet his payroll obligations. Selig said it was because he would have use 150M to settle the divorce with his wife. To me Selig is doing whatever he can to force McCourt into failing to meet his payroll obligations at the end of the month. IMO its quite different than the treatment he has given the Mets during their debacle. IIRC Selig went to CitiBank and requested that they give the Wilpons a loan while he is doing everything in his power to reject any money the McCourt's get.

Difference I am sure is that the Wilpon's didn't spend like drunken sailors and create an unholy mess, they got blindsided like most of the people involved with Madoff.

[RedsManRick]

What an absolute mess. What he has done to that organization is absolutely shameful. That a Mark Cuban gets denied entry because he's too progressive and won't toe the party line, but scum like McCourt are approved just shows how little corrupt that little fiefdom Selig has going is. Can't wait til he's gone and somebody who actually will put baseball's best interests at the forefront.

[top6]

I have a feeling this case will get very ugly before it is all over. The McCourts have been an embarrassment to baseball but Selig is going out of his way to force McCourt into bankruptcy. Apparently Selig vetoed the TV deal that would have allowed McCourt to meet his payroll obligations. Selig said it was because he would have use 150M to settle the divorce with his wife. To me Selig is doing whatever he can to force McCourt into failing to meet his payroll obligations at the end of the month. IMO its quite different than the treatment he has given the Mets during their debacle. IIRC Selig went to CitiBank and requested that they give the Wilpons a loan while he is doing everything in his power to reject any money the McCourt's get.

As us Reds fans should know better than anyone, when the commissioner decides he doesn't like an owner, he will pretty much do whatever it takes to make sure someone else buys the team. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it is how it is.

[bucksfan2]

As us Reds fans should know better than anyone, when the commissioner decides he doesn't like an owner, he will pretty much do whatever it takes to make sure someone else buys the team. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it is how it is.

You are correct. Selig in this case has his own biases and is operating behind them. I think the issue becomes whether or not this will stand up in court.

[Chip R]

Difference I am sure is that the Wilpon's didn't spend like drunken sailors and create an unholy mess, they got blindsided like most of the people involved with Madoff.

Also, the Wilpons aren't using the money for their own personal stuff. They haven't created any N.Y. Mets Charities and took out loans against that business like the McCourts did.

[bucksfan2]

Also, the Wilpons aren't using the money for their own personal stuff. They haven't created any N.Y. Mets Charities and took out loans against that business like the McCourts did.

The Wilpons used Bernie Madoff as their own personal checking account. It was a ponzi scheme that brought the Wilpons down while a divorce that is bringing the McCourts down.

I find this remark troubling and am curious to see how it plays in court. It appears as if Selig regretted letting McCourt buy the Dodgers and was doing everything in his power to blackball them.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig announced last week that he wouldn't approve a Dodgers television deal with Fox Sports that reportedly was worth up to $3 billion. That left McCourt cash-starved and facing the prospect of missing the team payroll this Thursday, leading to an MLB takeover.

McCourt defended his running of the team, saying he had made it profitable and successful. He also said the Dodgers have tried for almost a year to get Selig to approve the Fox transaction.

"He's turned his back on the Dodgers, treated us differently, and forced us to the point we find ourselves in today," McCourt's statement said.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/06/27/dodgers.bankruptcy.ap/index.html#ixzz1QVClK800

[Brutus the Pimp]

Also, the Wilpons aren't using the money for their own personal stuff. They haven't created any N.Y. Mets Charities and took out loans against that business like the McCourts did.

I truly doubt there's an ownership group in baseball that's not using money out of the baseball end of the business in some way, shape or form.

It's just a matter of to what degree.

[remdog]

The McCourts leveraged everything they could to buy the Dodgers. Most of the money they used to buy the franchise was 'borrowed'. They then proceeded to rape and piliage a franchise that has a proud and storied history in order to live a large and grandiose lifestyle. (Really how many multi-million dollar homes can you live in at one time?)

Part of the problem here is going to be that the McCourts spun off a lot of the franchise. They own the stadium seperatly from the Dodgers franchise. Even if MLB strips the parking lot valet of the franchise they may have to pay stadium rent to him, parking lot rent (another seperate enterprise) and the McCourts seperately own develpment rights for the property so, in theory, they could possibly take out half the parking lot in order to develop a Walmart. (shrug)

I know that Dodger fans get a lot of grief for arriving late and leaving early but, in this case, they've been victumized by a greedy, self-centered couple that has no sense of anything other than lining their own pockets with riches. If this had happened to the Reds, this board would be rageing. If you are a baseball fan, you have to be outraged with what has happened to the baseball fans in LA, even if you don't like the Dodgers.

Rem

[KronoRed]

I wonder what the lease with the stadium is, whomever ends up the team could threaten to move them unless they get the stadium and lots back.

Angels must be loving this.

[Sea Ray]

The McCourts leveraged everything they could to buy the Dodgers. Most of the money they used to buy the franchise was 'borrowed'. They then proceeded to rape and piliage a franchise that has a proud and storied history in order to live a large and grandiose lifestyle. (Really how many multi-million dollar homes can you live in at one time?)

Part of the problem here is going to be that the McCourts spun off a lot of the franchise. They own the stadium seperatly from the Dodgers franchise. Even if MLB strips the parking lot valet of the franchise they may have to pay stadium rent to him, parking lot rent (another seperate enterprise) and the McCourts seperately own develpment rights for the property so, in theory, they could possibly take out half the parking lot in order to develop a Walmart. (shrug)

I know that Dodger fans get a lot of grief for arriving late and leaving early but, in this case, they've been victumized by a greedy, self-centered couple that has no sense of anything other than lining their own pockets with riches. If this had happened to the Reds, this board would be rageing. If you are a baseball fan, you have to be outraged with what has happened to the baseball fans in LA, even if you don't like the Dodgers.

Rem

I wonder why Selig and the other owners ever allowed McCourt to buy the Dodgers in the first place with so little cash? That should have been a red flag and blocking such a sale is the reason MLB has to approve these things.

Surely a franchise like the Dodgers would have attracted better suitors than McCourt

[remdog]

I wonder what the lease with the stadium is, whomever ends up the team could threaten to move them unless they get the stadium and lots back.

Angels must be loving this.

Even though Dodger Stadium is more than 50 years old, it is still one of the most beautiful, comfortable stadiums within which to watch a ballgame. Additionally, it still has relatively easy access (via freeways) for it's Southern California fan base. It would be a shame to have the Dodgers have to abandon it.

Where would they move? I don't know, maybe to Irwindale where they could build their stadium at the bottom of a rock quarry and share it with the Raiders when they decide to move back to LA. :-)

[remdog]

Regarding the Angels: I have to give Artie Moreno a lot of credit. He's reached out to the fans and constantly put a good product on the field. Additionally, The Big A, while not being quite as idealic as Dodger Stadium is a very comfortable, fan friendly place to attend a ballgame.

Artie is tha anti-McCourt(s)

Rem

[remdog]

I wonder why Selig and the other owners ever allowed McCourt to buy the Dodgers in the first place with so little cash? That should have been a red flag and blocking such a sale is the reason MLB has to approve these things.

Surely a franchise like the Dodgers would have attracted better suitors than McCourt

I agree completely with those thoughts. Buddy boy and the other owners are not blameless in this mess. They made their bed....etc.

Rem

[remdog]

BTW, one of the creditors listed in the bankruptcy filing is one Mr. Vincent Scully, at $152,778. WOW! When you think of the value that this man has brought to this franchise over the years, that strikes me as a paltry sum.

Vin must really love baseball and the Dodgers.

Tip of the cap Mr. Scully.

Rem

[IslandRed]

I agree completely with those thoughts. Buddy boy and the other owners are not blameless in this mess. They made their bed....etc.

Rem

Yep. They let him in the club.

Having said that, even if the purchase was leveraged to the hilt, there's no excuse for the mess. They're still the Dodgers, it's still L.A. It's just absurd for a "profitable, successful" (borrowing from McCourt's filing) Dodger franchise to need to swing a midseason TV deal to make payroll. It's not like he went Yankees-stupid on ballplayers.

I truly doubt there's an ownership group in baseball that's not using money out of the baseball end of the business in some way, shape or form.

It's just a matter of to what degree.

I imagine so, but taking profits is one thing, smart leveraging is another thing, and bleeding the business white is something else entirely. The latter is what I believe McCourt has been doing, even if he initially didn't set out to do so.

[Brutus the Pimp]

I imagine so, but taking profits is one thing, smart leveraging is another thing, and bleeding the business white is something else entirely. The latter is what I believe McCourt has been doing, even if he initially didn't set out to do so.

Agreed. But one only needs to look at our major corporations to see this is the mentality of America these days...taking from Peter to pay Paul. That's the way Americans are acting in almost every facet. I'm not saying it's justified or that McCourt didn't WAY overspend his means. Clearly he did. I'm just saying that every owner, to some degree, is probably doing this.

[KronoRed]

Where would they move? I don't know, maybe to Irwindale where they could build their stadium at the bottom of a rock quarry and share it with the Raiders when they decide to move back to LA. :-)

Brooklyn? :D

Honestly though they could try and shack up with the Angels, temporarily, if McCourt tries to hold onto the stadium and the lots, which he is likely to do because without those and Dodgers as collateral this guy has absolutely no other income.

[Sea Ray]

BTW, one of the creditors listed in the bankruptcy filing is one Mr. Vincent Scully, at $152,778. WOW! When you think of the value that this man has brought to this franchise over the years, that strikes me as a paltry sum.

Vin must really love baseball and the Dodgers.

Tip of the cap Mr. Scully.

Rem

That's too bad. Did I hear right that ManRam is owed about $20mill? Is that in jeopardy or will the players get their money regardless? I'd love to see ManRam get screwed

[Chip R]

I wonder why Selig and the other owners ever allowed McCourt to buy the Dodgers in the first place with so little cash? That should have been a red flag and blocking such a sale is the reason MLB has to approve these things.

Surely a franchise like the Dodgers would have attracted better suitors than McCourt

I believe Fox had a lot of influence on Selig and the other owners in supporting McCourt's bid for the Dodgers. I also heard it was sort of a makeup for McCourt losing the Red Sox bid.

Joe Sheehan felt that McCourt would be a disaster of an owner in this article in 2005 but that seemed mostly because he fired Paul DePodesta.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14324

[remdog]

According to CBS Sports the Dodgers bounced pay checks dated 6/24 that were as small as $500.00.

Sounds like McCourt is gasping for air.

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/30362207

Rem

[Brutus the Pimp]

According to CBS Sports the Dodgers bounced pay checks dated 6/24 that were as small as $500.00.

Sounds like McCourt is gasping for air.

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/30362207

Rem

It should also be noted that the reason for this was not a lack of funding but because of frozen assets from the bankruptcy hearing. That was contained in an AP report yesterday but not included in either the TMZ report nor the syndicated CBS report.

In fact, it was shown that all direct deposits transferred as scheduled, but only the hand-written checks bounced on account of the glitch. This makes sense given the "return to maker" status. Typically an insufficient funds notice would be the culprit if funding were the issue.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=6725971

[remdog]

n/m

[remdog]

It should also be noted that the reason for this was not a lack of funding but because of frozen assets from the bankruptcy hearing.

While that may be true, the fact is that if Frank and Jamie McCourt hadn't raped and pillaged the Dodgers for their own personal gain, and then fought over the spoils, it would have never come to this.

While techinically the BK filing may have created the problem for hand written checks, it's clear that this will get worse before it gets better. The full intent of these two people was clearly to do what they felt would line their pockets. It was not to nourish one of the iconic sports teams, it was not to build a better baseball team, it was not to put a good, viable product on the field---it was about total, all out, simple greed.

Rem

[Brutus the Pimp]

While that may be true, the fact is that if Frank and Jamie McCourt hadn't raped and pillaged the Dodgers for their own personal gain, and then fought over the spoils, it would have never come to this.

While techinically the BK filing may have created the problem for hand written checks, it's clear that this will get worse before it gets better. The full intent of these two people was clearly to do what they felt would line their pockets. It was not to nourish one of the iconic sports teams, it was not to build a better baseball team, it was not to put a good, viable product on the field---it was about total, all out, simple greed.

Rem

I don't at all disagree with you about the overall situation. It's a mess... a convoluted, debt-ridden mess. I certainly don't dispute that premise. I just mean to say that I don't think the actual revenue availability isn't yet as dire as it's being purported. I think, ultimately, they will not be able to self-sustain given how things are being operated, but that they're not yet to the point where they can'f fund payroll.

But considering the Rangers and Cubs recently also filed for bankruptcy, the Mets are "bleeding money" and several other clubs are operating under huge debt burdens, I really think the scope of this problem goes beyond Frank McCourt. It's really a baseball problem and a society problem.

[remdog]

The Rangers and the Cubs had their own particular problems: Hicks and the Rangers were in over their heads due to his overextentions and the club was fairly quickly auctioned off to the highest bidder and order restored. I'm not sure that Tom Hicks was greedy; personally I just think that he built to much on a mound of real estate that turned out to have a big hole at the bottom end of it.

As for the Cubs, well just the fact that you and I are conversing on the internet is a good view into what ailed them. The Tribune Company owned them and, when newspapers started going south, they were in deep doo doo due (pun there :p) to the fact that their parent organization could no longer support them even if they were profitable. The owner in bankrupty, Sam Zell (also known as the 'grave dancer') made no secret that he was going to sell off the assests of the company, Cubs included.

In the Mets case, I think that the Wilpons invested with a man that they trusted who turned out to be, possibly the biggest scam artist of all time, Bernie Madioff. That's not to say that they were a well run baseball team under the Wilpons' stewardship but, now that the money has drired up, they are in even more dire straights. It looks to me that the new minority partner is positioning himself to take over the team in the fairly new future. I hope MLB vets him better than they did the McCourts.

The difference with the Dodgers, and here I do stipularte that MLB and Bud Selig himself bear part of the responsibility, is that the McCourts were highly leveraged from the get go and never showed any inclination to try to build the franchise in a way that, say, nearby rival Artie Moreno did with the Angels. They have split up and dismanteled various pieces of property (the team, the parking lots, the real estate rights) for their own benefit and, even should MLB prevail on ownership of the team, it's a decent guess that these other rights may remain outside of the scope of that outcome and MLB may find themselves paying rent to a man that they despise, paying him for parking services and having a Target selling groceries and diapers next to the main gate.

The McCourts have spent over $100M on homes since they moved from Boston to LA. Personally, I know that LA is an expensive town for houseing but, really, $100M?!?

These people are scam artists and they've stolen a local/national treasure. All baseball fans will be poorer for it. JMO

Rem

[KronoRed]

They have split up and dismanteled various pieces of property (the team, the parking lots, the real estate rights) for their own benefit and, even should MLB prevail on ownership of the team, it's a decent guess that these other rights may remain outside of the scope of that outcome and MLB may find themselves paying rent to a man that they despise, paying him for parking services and having a Target selling groceries and diapers next to the main gate.

Looks like MLB may be planning to avoid just such a problem.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/13/report-mlb-explores-possibility-of-new-ballpark-for-dodgers/

SPORTSbyBROOKS has been told by multiple sources that MLB has reached out to AEG to inquire about the feasibility of building a new ballpark in downtown Los Angeles for the Dodgers.

[Slyder]

Looks like MLB may be planning to avoid just such a problem.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/13/report-mlb-explores-possibility-of-new-ballpark-for-dodgers/

SPORTSbyBROOKS has been told by multiple sources that MLB has reached out to AEG to inquire about the feasibility of building a new ballpark in downtown Los Angeles for the Dodgers.

Its a shame that the Dodgers would have to move from Chavez Ravine. From what I have heard its still a great place to see a game at. Bud really needs to do a better job of doing his homework with people who want to own teams.

[FlightRick]

I'm as engrossed with the saga of the Dodger ownership as anyone else.

But I'm also smart enough to get my information about this Current Event exclusively via HBO on Sunday nights at 10pm. Ahem.

I know the story I'm seeing is absurd, but it makes a bit more sense than the lunacy being reported elsewhere. I'd go so far as to say it's pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good....


Rick

[Chip R]

It appears the McCourts have agreed on a divorce settlement where Jamie gets $130M and Frank gets the Dodgers.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7113947/los-angeles-dodgers-owners-frank-mccourt-jamie-mccourt-reach-divorce-deal-report-says

[tixe]

How hard will MLB pressure McCourt to sell?

[Always Red]

It appears the McCourts have agreed on a divorce settlement where Jamie gets $130M and Frank gets the Dodgers.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7113947/los-angeles-dodgers-owners-frank-mccourt-jamie-mccourt-reach-divorce-deal-report-says

I'd say Jamie owns Frank. :laugh:

[Slyder]

How hard will MLB pressure McCourt to sell?

I hope Bud takes him to a nice scenic view of the Rockies and then "pushes" McCourt to sale the team. Insert your definition of "PUSH" here.

[savafan]

How hard will MLB pressure McCourt to sell?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/24/bloomberg_articlesLTFGA807SXKX.DTL

In a hearing opening Oct. 31 in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Gross will hear arguments about whether Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt can auction the TV rights to the team's games or must sell the club, as Selig has requested.

In court filings and public statements, Selig, who is scheduled to testify, has called McCourt unfit to keep the franchise he bought for $421 million from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which later propped him up with loans. McCourt, who will also take the stand, accuses Selig of selectively enforcing rules on owners.

[Slyder]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/24/bloomberg_articlesLTFGA807SXKX.DTL

This dude is desperate. I wish thered be some way that ALL he could get is what he invested after you take all the bs loans out. I'm sure moron will try to spin the Mets into the conversation someway even though they were the "victim" of a ponzi scheme.

[savafan]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/dodgers/story/2011-10-25/frank-mccourt-bankruptcy/50907206/1

LOS ANGELES (AP) – Dodgers owner Frank McCourt looted nearly $190 million from the Los Angeles team, using the money for non-baseball use in violation of Major League Baseball rules, according to Delaware bankruptcy court documents filed on Monday.

I don't think this is going to end well for Frank. Then again, couldn't similar accusations be made against David Glass?

[Chip R]

There may be a deal in the works where Frank sells the Dodgers.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5483%3Areport-settlement-where-frank-mccourt-sells-dodgers-could-be-in-the-offing&catid=70%3Amlb-club-sales&Itemid=157