Dec 1, 2010, 9:21 AM EST
We’re heading towards a judge’s ruling regarding who owns the Dodgers. That’s because yesterday Jamie McCourt rejected the settlement proposed by the mediator. Frank accepted it, but as we know, it takes two to tango.
The best part was Frank’s statement afterward, issued through his lawyers, in which he said that accepting it was “the responsible thing to do for his family, the Dodgers organization and the entire community,” and that “we can only conclude that Jamie . . . is allowing this matter to drag on further.”
This despite the fact that the parties are subject to a strict gag order regarding the settlement process and the case at large. The L.A. Times story quoted someone saying that this was calculated by Frank to make Jamie look greedy. Know what? After everything we’ve learned about the McCourts over the past year, I don’t think either side needs the other’s help in that regard. And I bet the judge rips Frank a new one over it.
That aside, we can assume one thing: Jamie’s rejection of the settlement — which I believe likely favored Jamie to begin with — suggests that she feels very strongly about her case. She must be convinced that the judge is going to invalidate the post-marital agreement and make the Dodgers community property.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)