Dec 1, 2010, 9:21 AM EDT
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.
- Bud Selig’s view on replay has “evolved” 10
- Umpires use replay on controversial Matt Joyce home run 7
- Rangers put Ian Kinsler on the 15-day disabled list and call up top prospect Jurickson Profar 5
- Carlos Ruiz leaves game with strained right hamstring 2
- Andrew McCutchen scratched from Pirates’ starting lineup 5
- Live Extra: Watch live coverage of Penguins-Senators
- PBT: Parker carves up Grizzlies as Spurs roll in Gm. 1
- PHT: Bruins crack Lundqvist, hammer Rangers
- MST: No bumping on Bump Day at Indy 500
- PST: Arsenal grabs Champions League spot
- Ferguson's managerial career ends with 5-5 draw
- Moore stays unbeaten as Rays top Orioles