OT: MLB takes over (running) LA Dodgers owners divorcing; Court sup'd sale agreed to

Dado

Guest
"Selig is wary of approving the 17-year Fox contract because a $385 million upfront payment to McCourt would diminish the agreement’s long-term value, said a person briefed on the contract."

I can totally understand why Fox would do this contract, but I can't believe the league would allow the team to do this. Talk about mortgaging your future, and what a horrible precedent for other teams!

I imagine the MLBPA would have something to say about this, too, as it could potentially cripple the Dodgers payroll in the years ahead.
 

Acesolid

The Illusive Bettman
Sep 21, 2010
2,538
323
Québec
We'll see if MLB is consistent in this situation with what it did before.

They gave no money for payroll to the Expos when they owed them and destroyed the team.

I cant believe they'll give away money to the Dodgers to make them artificially competitive!
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,688
2,131
We'll see if MLB is consistent in this situation with what it did before.

They gave no money for payroll to the Expos when they owed them and destroyed the team.

I cant believe they'll give away money to the Dodgers to make them artificially competitive!
Because none of you showed up for the Expos. And the end of the day Montreal is a poor sports market. And no the Habs are not enough.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,655
19,608
Sin City
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=366267

Ex-Wife (Jamie McCourt) asks judge to order sale of Dodgers "saying her ex-husband (Frank McCourt) has badly mismanaged the franchise since he fired her nearly two years ago and brought one of baseball's most storied franchises to the "brink of financial ruin.""

June 22 hearing [scheduled] in front of Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon [who oversaw McCourt divorce trial] where he will hear arguments about why he should order the sale of the Dodgers.
 

kingpest19

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
12,305
698
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=366267

Ex-Wife (Jamie McCourt) asks judge to order sale of Dodgers "saying her ex-husband (Frank McCourt) has badly mismanaged the franchise since he fired her nearly two years ago and brought one of baseball's most storied franchises to the "brink of financial ruin.""
As a Dodger fan they do need to sell the team. Get owners in who care about the team and its history. Neither Murdoch nor the McCourts cared.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110617/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_dodgers_mccourts
McCourts agree to 1-day trial over Dodgers title
By GREG RISLING, Associated Press Greg Risling, Associated Press – 1 hr 11 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – Jamie and Frank McCourt agreed Friday to have a one-day trial to determine if title to the Los Angeles Dodgers is in Frank McCourt's name or if the team should be considered community property in their divorce and then sold, the former couple and their attorneys announced.

The agreement anticipates Major League Baseball's approval of a 17-year TV contract between the Dodgers and Fox, Frank McCourt said outside court. That deal has been reported to be worth $3 billion and Frank McCourt would receive $385 million upfront.

MLB spokesman Pat Courtney declined comment. Dennis Wasser, an attorney for Jamie McCourt, hopes the TV deal will be finalized early next week.

...

He said all other issues in the divorce were settled.

The McCourts' lawyers had spent several sessions in front of Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon to reach an agreement and they worked throughout the night before striking a deal shortly before Friday's hearing began.

In December, Gordon deemed invalid a postnuptial marital agreement which gave Frank McCourt sole ownership of the Dodgers. That cleared the way for Jamie McCourt to seek half the team under California's community property law.

Jamie McCourt had asked Gordon to order the sale of the team.

In April, Major League Baseball took the extraordinary step of assuming control of the troubled franchise. Former Texas Rangers President Tom Schieffer was appointed to monitor the team on behalf of baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. Selig said he took the action because he was concerned about the team's finances and how the Dodgers are being run.

...

If Jamie McCourt prevails at the one-day trial, the team, the stadium and the surrounding property — worth hundreds of millions of dollars — would be split between the former couple and "be sold by the parties in an orderly manner under the court's supervision." If the Dodger assets are deemed to be Frank McCourt's, he would give his ex-wife $100 million.
 

saskganesh

Registered User
Jun 19, 2006
2,368
12
the Annex
Because none of you showed up for the Expos. And the end of the day Montreal is a poor sports market. And no the Habs are not enough.

If we have learned anything, it's usually more the product than the market. Have you seen Blue Jays' attendance? The unjustly maligned Argos will again outdraw them this year, on a game to game basis. And Toronto FC will likely as well.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6

Which also nixes the recent McCourt settlement agreement and trial.

Bud throws a drowning man an anchor.

LA Times piece:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mccourt-fox-selig-20110621,0,6709990.story

In a statement released by Major League Baseball, Selig said he had provided McCourt "an expansive analysis of my reasons for rejecting this proposed transaction." Specifically, the statement mentioned that the Dodgers-Fox deal was "structured to facilitate the further diversion of Dodgers assets for the personal needs of Mr. McCourt."

One provision of a divorce settlement reached last week between McCourt and ex-wife Jamie would have diverted almost half the immediate payment on the television contract to them and their attorneys. The upfront payment was to be $385 million, with up to $173.5 million reserved for the McCourts and their attorneys.

Baseball officials had asked McCourt to ensure any upfront payments from the Fox contract be used exclusively for the team.

...

The McCourts agreed that the settlement would be "null and void" if Selig rejected the Fox contract. So, in the 20 months since the couple filed for divorce, they have yet to permanently resolve any issue, including whether the Dodgers belong exclusively to Frank or whether the team should be considered community property.

Under terms of the now-void divorce settlement, the Dodgers ownership issue would have been resolved in a one-day trial on Aug. 4. If the Dodgers are sold, a decision about who owns the team still would be necessary to determine whether the McCourts would split the proceeds or Frank McCourt would get them all.

...

If McCourt cannot make the Dodgers' June 30 payroll, Selig could seize the team and put it up for sale. McCourt said Friday he could meet that payroll, but a person familiar with his finances said he had "no chance" without the television money.

If MLB were to seize the Dodgers, Selig believes Frank McCourt would respond by filing a lawsuit, according to three people familiar with the commissioner's thinking. McCourt also could file suit to challenge Selig's rejection of the Fox contract.

Statement from Bud:

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig issued the following statement Monday regarding the Dodgers’ proposed media rights deal with Fox.

“Pursuant to my authority as commissioner, I have informed Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt today in a detailed letter that I cannot approve the club’s proposed transaction with Fox. This decision was reached after a full and careful consideration of the terms of the proposed transaction and the club’s current circumstances. It is my conclusion that this proposed transaction with Fox would not be in the best interests of the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise, the game of baseball and the millions of loyal fans of this historic club.

“Mr. McCourt has been provided with an expansive analysis of my reasons for rejecting this proposed transaction. Critically, the transaction is structured to facilitate the further diversion of Dodgers assets for the personal needs of Mr. McCourt. Given the magnitude of the transaction, such a diversion of assets would have the effect of mortgaging the future of the franchise to the long-term detriment of the club and its fans.

“As I have said before, we owe it to the legion of loyal Dodger fans to ensure that this club is being operated properly now and will be guided appropriately in the future. This transaction would not accomplish these goals.â€
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,688
2,131
If we have learned anything, it's usually more the product than the market. Have you seen Blue Jays' attendance? The unjustly maligned Argos will again outdraw them this year, on a game to game basis. And Toronto FC will likely as well.
The Argos are maligned for the same reason the AHL is in other cities. Fair or not that is the perception. And even then the Argos draw 24k to games in a 55k -60k stadium, the Bills got more and they are one of the worst teams in sports. So neither the Argos or Jays have nothing to brag about.

As for Toronto FC, very years Soccer will be the second most popular sport in Canada. There is no reason for Rogers not to spend as much as the Steinbrunners given they have 10x the money they do.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,236
3,465
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The Dodgers situation is actually a lot like the Buffalo Sabres situation under John Rigas. Rigas and his son were using their business' finances as their own.

The McCourts are taking that and blowing it out of the water.

McCourt and his wife have pretty much sucked $150 million out of the Dodgers funding their lifestyle. Everything from giving themselves and their kids millions in salaries; to billing the Dodgers for cars, homes, hotels, personal expenses (Jamie McCourt billed the Dodgers for $100,000… for flowers).

But that's not even the REAL MESS. The real mess is they used the Dodgers as collateral for a ridiculous amount of loans; and when they couldn't borrow any more money against the Dodgers, he broke the Dodgers up into a dozen little companies.

The flow chart is ridiculous:
- There's two companies that each own half the Dodger Stadium parking lots. They generate the parking revenue.
- There's a separate company which owns Dodger Stadium, the Dodgers are now paying rent on a Stadium they used to own.
- There's a separate company which owns the rights to Dodger tickets. They sell the tickets, keep the revenue, and the Dodgers pay them for this service.

All of these companies are owned by four companies, which are owned by the McCourts. It sounds stupid but McCourt did it for TWO reasons:
#1 - Because when he could no longer borrow against the Dodgers, he simply GAVE the Dodgers assets to other companies he created, and borrowed against THEM. They basically borrowed against the Dodgers 2 or 3 times what they should be able to.

#2 - MLB has the right to seize the Dodgers, but they don't have the legal right to seize all the small companies.

The situation the Islanders are in: where they weren't getting parking, concessions and had to give up 15% of ticket revenues... that made them the lowest revenue team in hockey.... well, Frank McCourt purposely put the Dodgers in that situation (only worse, because the MLB Dodgers don't get their ticket revenue, Dodgers Tickets LLC gets the ticket revenue), AND then took out millions in loans against all those companies, after taking out millions against the Dodgers as whole first.

The ONLY revenue the Dodgers make by themselves right now is their TV contract. Which is why Selig is vetoing the new TV deal. Because it's the only leverage he's got. Seizing the team only is 2/5 of a franchise. He's going to have to pull of some insane legal maneuvers to put the Dodgers back together; and he has to wait out McCourt until those loans come due, McCourt can't pay, and they can consolidate the team back into one entity through bankruptcy.


Oh, and MLB isn't completely devoid of blame. They wanted McCourt to own the Dodgers over other potential owners because they didn't want the Dodgers to have an owner who'd make them the Yankees of the West (like Mark Cuban would have). They wanted someone who'd keep them like the Cubs or White Sox, but not the Yankees or Red Sox.

The Dodgers situation is far, far worse than virtually ANY financial situation we've seen in hockey or any other pro sport.

The joke was that McCourt bought the Dodgers with a credit card. Well, he bought the Dodgers with the DODGERS CREDIT CARD; and then he maxed out that credit card three times over.

If you thought the Coyotes were a disaster with Moyes setting up a lease between the Coyotes and Moyes' office building for a $10 million... take that, and do it 300 times, then take out loans against against each of the 300 office buildings AND the Coyotes.
 

bravescd14

Registered User
Oct 1, 2010
12
0
The Dodgers situation is actually a lot like the Buffalo Sabres situation under John Rigas. Rigas and his son were using their business' finances as their own.

The McCourts are taking that and blowing it out of the water.

McCourt and his wife have pretty much sucked $150 million out of the Dodgers funding their lifestyle. Everything from giving themselves and their kids millions in salaries; to billing the Dodgers for cars, homes, hotels, personal expenses (Jamie McCourt billed the Dodgers for $100,000… for flowers).

But that's not even the REAL MESS. The real mess is they used the Dodgers as collateral for a ridiculous amount of loans; and when they couldn't borrow any more money against the Dodgers, he broke the Dodgers up into a dozen little companies.

The flow chart is ridiculous:
- There's two companies that each own half the Dodger Stadium parking lots. They generate the parking revenue.
- There's a separate company which owns Dodger Stadium, the Dodgers are now paying rent on a Stadium they used to own.
- There's a separate company which owns the rights to Dodger tickets. They sell the tickets, keep the revenue, and the Dodgers pay them for this service.

All of these companies are owned by four companies, which are owned by the McCourts. It sounds stupid but McCourt did it for TWO reasons:
#1 - Because when he could no longer borrow against the Dodgers, he simply GAVE the Dodgers assets to other companies he created, and borrowed against THEM. They basically borrowed against the Dodgers 2 or 3 times what they should be able to.

#2 - MLB has the right to seize the Dodgers, but they don't have the legal right to seize all the small companies.

The situation the Islanders are in: where they weren't getting parking, concessions and had to give up 15% of ticket revenues... that made them the lowest revenue team in hockey.... well, Frank McCourt purposely put the Dodgers in that situation (only worse, because the MLB Dodgers don't get their ticket revenue, Dodgers Tickets LLC gets the ticket revenue), AND then took out millions in loans against all those companies, after taking out millions against the Dodgers as whole first.

The ONLY revenue the Dodgers make by themselves right now is their TV contract. Which is why Selig is vetoing the new TV deal. Because it's the only leverage he's got. Seizing the team only is 2/5 of a franchise. He's going to have to pull of some insane legal maneuvers to put the Dodgers back together; and he has to wait out McCourt until those loans come due, McCourt can't pay, and they can consolidate the team back into one entity through bankruptcy.


Oh, and MLB isn't completely devoid of blame. They wanted McCourt to own the Dodgers over other potential owners because they didn't want the Dodgers to have an owner who'd make them the Yankees of the West (like Mark Cuban would have). They wanted someone who'd keep them like the Cubs or White Sox, but not the Yankees or Red Sox.

The Dodgers situation is far, far worse than virtually ANY financial situation we've seen in hockey or any other pro sport.

The joke was that McCourt bought the Dodgers with a credit card. Well, he bought the Dodgers with the DODGERS CREDIT CARD; and then he maxed out that credit card three times over.

If you thought the Coyotes were a disaster with Moyes setting up a lease between the Coyotes and Moyes' office building for a $10 million... take that, and do it 300 times, then take out loans against against each of the 300 office buildings AND the Coyotes.

Could you please explain to me the bold portion? Not sure why they wouldn't want that for that market. A market that could support that spending with the right owner.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,236
3,465
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Could you please explain to me the bold portion? Not sure why they wouldn't want that for that market. A market that could support that spending with the right owner.

MLB has a massive inequity between rich and poor. The owners in MLB don't WANT another owner jacking up salaries and spending unlimited amounts of cash like the Yankees.

Because if the Dodgers are going to the playoffs eight of every 10 years like the Yankees, it hurts the revenues of San Diego, Colorado and Arizona. It lowers the parity of the league. Philly/NY/Atlanta have won ALL the NL East titles since 1995. Atlanta had the highest NL payroll each year from 1995-2002. The Mets and Phillies have been top three in NL payroll basically since then (a few exceptions), but basically, spending = winning until your guys are all old (but money helps you cover up mistakes).

The dominance of the Red Sox and the Yankees make Baltimore, Toronto and Tampa ghost towns. They have to try and "catch lightning in a bottle" with awesome scouting producing 12 very good MLB players at the same time, come together all at once, and make a run before those players are priced out of their payroll range. (See: Tampa suddenly being good, then Carl Crawford signing with Boston).

A dominant Dodger team makes it harder for everyone else to make the playoffs, makes five teams essentially eliminated by Canada Day, and would make fans start talking "salary cap."

In hockey, that's a GOOD thing. It brings up the midpoint, let's everyone spend more and while it does widen the gap between rich and poor, the cap makes intelligence matter more than money. And of course, there's twice as many playoff spots. A small market team can succeed when they're fighting for eighth of 15 and not fourth of 16.


Evidence of this MLB stance: Mark Cuban bid $300 million more than winning bid for the Cubs when they were for sale.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
22,292
7,254
Toronto
Bankruptcy?!!

Will Jim Balsillie try to buy them now in order to move them to Canada? :sarcasm:

I'm looking forward to another 4 year long post-bankruptcy 40 threads long adventure! :handclap:

Hopefully there's a business of baseball section for ya....
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,655
19,608
Sin City


Delaware bankruptcy court hearing today. McCourt wants court to approve TV deal over MLB disapproval. City, businesses losing money.

Possible value (with TV deal): $800m-$1.2B
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,655
19,608
Sin City
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ve-authority-to-file-bankruptcy-mlb-says.html

League claims team did not have authority to file for bankruptcy.


Deja vu. :naughty:
The Dodgers were required to first obtain the consent of a monitor appointed by Major League Baseball to oversee the team before filing for bankruptcy, MLB said in a court filing today.

Without MLB’s consent, “the case will engender significant litigation” over the legitimacy of the bankruptcy, according to a court filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“These cases were commenced in an attempt by Mr. McCourt to circumvent the club’s obligations under its constituent, governing documents, and to have this court approve additional debt financing and sale of key assets in violation of those documents,” the filing said.

Major League Baseball has asked the bankruptcy court to determine who should run the team during bankruptcy, McCourt or the MLB monitor now in charge.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,385
14,343
Les Plaines D'Abraham
Because none of you showed up for the Expos. And the end of the day Montreal is a poor sports market. And no the Habs are not enough.

Yea sure body, whatever make you sleep at night.

People stopped showing up because the Big O was badly placed, because they killed the team in one year by trading all its best player after missing the World Series and after the owners pretty much proclaimed "this stadium sucks, we want another one, we will leave if there's not a new one", it pretty much said to the fans don't bother show up until there's a new one. It put a stench on the Big O and I had people saying "I'll wait till the new one is built and ready-to-go before going to the Expos".
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad