[discostu]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

Exactly. If you really want to get a good lesson in the finances of professional sports teams, do some research on the chain of events that led up to the Wayue Gretzky trade from Edmonton to Los Angeles in the late 1980s. The story traces back to the unique contractual arrangement under which Gretzky had played for the Oilers for most of his career. He had been signed to a personal services contract by Oilers owner Peter Pocklington back in 1978 rather than a standard players' contract (the Oilers were a WHA team at the time, and would later get folded into the NHL when the two leagues merged).

He was eventually traded after Pocklington was trying to sell part of the team as a publicly traded company and had to renegotiate the contract in order to get Gretzky listed as an asset of the Oilers.

[justiceseeker93]

According to the information that's gone public the problem is the payee is McCourt and not the Dodgers.

That seems to contradict the posted LA Times story. If I read correctly, FOX has stated that they would be willing to do the same TV contract with any future owner.