The McCourts rambled about the news again yesterday, this time as the squabbling over cash led Commissioner Gordon to fire a shot across their joint bow. The Times' Bill Shaikin who, contrary to rumor, does not sleep at the courthouse, reports:
With each of the McCourts claiming to be low on cash, and with bills piling up, Los Angeles Superior Court CommissionerScott Gordon threatened to resolve both issues at once by putting the Dodgers on the block.
"The parties are unintentionally pushing the court toward an interesting position — selling the asset which is being fought over," Gordon said in a court hearing.
This led commentators near and far to speculate on the effect of a sale, especially in light of the Texas Rangers' situation. Thankfully, everyone--from Shaikin to most of the bloggers--took Gordon's message for exactly what it was: a stern criticism of the litigation's timbre and admonition to both Frank and Jamie that they need to tone down the hyperbole.
The team's not going to be sold to cover interim divorce expenses. I know it, you know it, Frank and Jamie know it, and the court knows it. We've already seen exactly what the court might do if liquidity really is a dire problem. Remember when the couple's Cabo property was ordered sold? That's certainly the sort of action the court might take again should cash become necessary.
I take Gordon's remark as, more than anything else, a reflection on how acrimonious--and, really, tedious--this entire proceeding has become. While I get the strategic value of having six more weeks before this thing hits trial, I get the sense that most everyone connected to this saga is ready for the endgame to at least, you know, begin.
We'll see if it even happens to get that far. I think a settlement is increasingly likely, though I wouldn't expect one until the days approaching trial. There's so much at stake, both in dollars and pride, that my guess is whatever agreement might be reached will be negotiated down to the last practically available moment.
---
Posts
While a sale may be the last resort for the court, a sale would be in the best interests for the fans. The O'Malley Family was hamstrung by inheritance tax issues and was forced to sell the team. Unfortunately, the sale went to FOX who almost killed the franchise with poor managerial and player decisions (Mike Piazza!), and who continue to stranglehold the team by witholding the Television and Cable rights. Selig brokered the FOX sale to The McCourts who have been in it only for their own selfish gains, while proffering a false front to the fans. The Court could do The Dodgers a big favor and rule in favor of a sale to local interests with deep pockets who can return the franchise to its rightful place next two and equal to The Yankees as the premier two bellweathers of the sport.
ReplyDeleteSell it all to Dr. Laura! I know she will listen to me!
ReplyDeleteO'Malley sold yes for tax reasons, and there was no one to lead at the time if something happened to Peter or his sister. Also the players salaries were starting to get out of hand and he could read the writing on the wall
ReplyDeleteJosh, I wonder what has changed for you, between this post: http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/2010/06/well-what-do-you-know.html and now that makes you believe that settlement is the likeliest outcome. Frankly, I thought all along that some sort of settlement was in the cards but clearly you did not and that things have changed? I'm curious as to what you think that is.
ReplyDeleteGreg--
ReplyDeleteLast month, I didn't think a settlement was likely because the value of a settlement had already been higher to both parties. I still think that's the case, but I'm getting the sense that both parties are also growing more wary of the hazards of trial. Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like.
Josh
per the espn article, mccourt has borrowed $390 million the past 6 yrs for future ticket sales, so basically he is taking out equity on the team. When the divorce is over, how is either party going to be able to afford the Dodgers?
ReplyDelete