Replies

What have the McCourts done to the Dodgers? Hey, they're down right now, but they've been in the playoffs four of the seven years he's owned them, so that's a better record than under the previous FOXie management.

Show me the reason why the Emperor with No Clothes should be objecting to a contract that can only add value to the franchise. Seizing a team that's not in bankruptcy, and where the ownership is not into criminal activity, would be unprecedented in sports history.

Show me the reason why the Emperor with No Clothes should be objecting to a contract that can only add value to the franchise.

If the bulk of the TV contract is paid out to Jamie McCourt in the divorce settlement (which is inevitable), then the next owner (after Frank McCourt sells out, which is also inevitable) will be stuck with a franchise which cannot be competitive.

I don't often find myself on the same side as Bud Selig...but this is one of those times.

If you don’t closely follow events west of the Rockies (or west of the Hudson), here are the basic facts about McCourt’s ownership of the Dodgers. McCourt bought the Dodgers from News Corp (Fox Sports) with $150 million he borrowed from Bank of America, $75 million he borrowed from Major League Baseball (MLB) and a $196 million debt package from Fox. That’s $421 million of debt.

After the purchase, McCourt rearranged this debt to his liking. McCourt traded his Boston parking lots to Fox in exchange for forgiveness of some of the Fox debt. Then he caused a Dodger affiliate, Dodger Tickets, LLC, to borrow $250 million to refinance most of the remaining acquisition debt. Plus McCourt cashed in on $50 million of “rebates” from Fox. With this rearrangement, McCourt effectively purchased the Dodgers – for a final purchase price of between $355 million and $371 million – in exchange for parking lots and $300 million (more or less) of debt. By all reports, McCourt put not one dime of his own into this purchase. Moreover, McCourt did not himself have to borrow the money used for the purchase – he got the Dodgers to do it for him.

It’s been frequently reported that McCourt “bought the Dodgers on a credit card”. That’s only half the story. The other half of the story, the more important half, is that McCourt bought the Dodgers on the Dodgers’ credit card.

Extracted from here: http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/06/20/commissioner-selig-frank-mccourt-must-go-a-petition/

According to the information that’s gone public the problem with the contract is that the payee is McCourt NOT the Dodgers. So whatever future owner the Dodgers have would be stuck with a team that has a long term TV contract from which they are making no money. That wouldn’t add value to the franchise.