---
The hazard of posting by Blackberry is it's tough to see necessary edits sometimes. I should be clear, regarding something below: if Judge Gordon throws out the MPA, Jamie absolutely has an ownership interest of sorts in the Dodgers. The question that has largely been resolved is that, as it concerns Major League Baseball's rules and related documents and concerns, Frank McCourt, through a couple different entities, is the 100% owner of the Dodgers.
---
Sent via BlackBerry
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wait, I'm confused, in the 4th graf of the previous post, you commented that Gordon has made up his mind regarding Jamie's ownership of the Dodgers, no?
ReplyDeleteClear as mud--
ReplyDelete"Judge Gordon has already informed the parties that his mind is mostly made up on the issue of whether Jamie McCourt has any existing ownership interest in the Dodgers. The answer is no, and Frank's remaining witnesses supporting that conclusion have been provisionally excused."
and
"If Judge Gordon throws out the MPA, Jamie absolutely has an ownership interest of sorts in the Dodgers. The question that has largely been resolved is that, as it concerns Major League Baseball's rules and related documents and concerns, Frank McCourt, through a couple different entities, is the 100% owner of the Dodgers."
Don't understand what is being "reported" and even if the MPA is upheld, the question still looms as to Jamie's claim for support.
The support issue seems to have been totally ignored in most of the discussion. From what I have read, the MPA does not include a waiver of support, and it's rather clear that they have been relying on the income from the Dodgers to support their lifestyle including payment of the mortgages on all of the residences.
As I had commented some time ago, if Frank wins on the MPA, his victory is largely phyric in that he must still bear the large burden of supporting Jamie and the income stream necessary to keep the real property.
The AP Reports Silverstein testified --
ReplyDelete"She never once said the Dodgers or any of his other businesses shouldn't be in Frank's column," Silverstein said. "She never indicated that she ever wanted to have ownership in Frank's businesses."
If that isn't spinning, you're never been spun. The question is whether she ever indicated that she wanted to give up her interest in the Dodgers, not whether she ever affirmatively said that she wanted to give up her interest in the Dodgers.
I can't believe that the judge can uphold the MPA in favor of Frank based upon this kind of testimony.
LA Times reports --
ReplyDelete"Jamie's attorney, David Boies, said outside the courtroom that Jamie could not recall that particular phone conversation she had with Silverstein. But Boies said that whatever she told Silverstein prompted the attorney to change the draft "as soon as he got off the phone with her" — inserting language that excluded the Dodgers from Frank's sole property — the very language that Silverstein insists was an error."
If that isn't a bullet to Frank's head ...
It appears to me that the writer of the blog has a bias aginst Jamie. Is that because he thinks the business of baseball should belong only to the "boys"? Or is it because Jamie is Jewish? Just wondering ...
ReplyDeleteSorry guys but McCourt will settle and will sign a front load TV deal with FOX to pay off Jamie. McCourt wants to keep the team. he has no money and the only way he can keep the team is selling his TV rights to FOX.
ReplyDeleteAdrian,
ReplyDeleteAs a Jew, I take particular umbrage to your anti-semitic accusation of Josh. It is baseless and offensive. Unless you have credence for such a remark, better to not embarrass yourself on this forum. There are better things to write.
Adrian, if it makes you better, I hate Jamie not because she's Jewish, but rather because she's a greedy c*nt.
ReplyDelete*feel better*
ReplyDeleteA readers comments on the LA Times blog earlier-
ReplyDelete"I can see no way that this testimony is not a game changer for both parties. Frank just lost half the Dodgers and Jamie just gained half the debt Frank bought the Dodgers with. In addition, and no one mentions this, Frank just got himself one half of the couples only true assets...the houses.
The good news: the Dodgers will be sold and I predict before the 2011 season. Frank is out of money, not that he ever had any, and no one is going to back Jamie to buy Frank out and add to that mountain of debt.
So long Parking Lot Attendant and Screaming Meanie. Back to Boston where Frank can collect parking fees and Jamie can swim in Boston Harbor."
In case this clarification, in itself, wasn't clear: Frank McCourt, through a variety of entities, has in his name 100% ownership of the Dodgers. Any claim Jamie has to the team would have to come through a determination of the Dodgers as community property.
ReplyDeletePhrased differently, if the Massachusetts MPA holds, Jamie will be very hard pressed to assert any ownership claim by virtue of press releases or her lifelong affinity for the game.
If the California MPA holds or the MPA is thrown out altogether, the Dodgers are likely community property and each party would be entitled to half the value of the asset.