Skip to content

Uh-oh: Frank McCourt is in trouble with the missus!

Mar 2, 2011, 9:17 AM EDT

McCourt Divorce Trial Continues With Ownership Of Dodgers In Contention Getty Images

Remember how Frank McCourt tried to sell off the Dodgers’ broadcasting rights to FOX in an effort to raise cash to save his ownership of the team? Yeah, it seems that, given that the Dodgers are community property, Jamie McCourt has an interest in all of that and a right to obtain any information she can about the would-be deal.  And she’s exercising that right:

Frank McCourt has failed to protect the financial interests of his ex-wife, Jamie, in part by negotiating a “secret deal” with Fox that “would have endangered” the value of the Dodgers’ broadcast contracts, attorneys for Jamie McCourt alleged in a court filing Tuesday.

Her attorneys asked that Frank be ordered to provide to Jamie extensive financial information regarding the Dodgers’ business operations, including documents related to negotiations with television outlets and efforts to obtain additional financing for the cash-strapped franchise.

The court set a hearing for April 11.

The problem: what if the Dodgers could get way, way more money for their broadcasting rights by, say, starting their own cable network?  Or selling to Comcast or some broadcast network at a higher rate? Wouldn’t that benefit the team and its beneficial owners — like Jamie McCourt — way more than some fire sale of TV rights to FOX?  Of course it would. And Frank thus has an obligation to take such moves to Jamie and her lawyers to get their say-so. Doing it like he tried to do it could give a lady the impression that Frank was looking for quick cash without anyone knowing about it. Perish the thought!

In other news — as Dodger Divorce explains in great detail — all of this is going to cause Frank to have a magnifying glass shoved where the sun don’t shine.  Financially speaking.

  1. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    Why in the world did he put his money in there? Safer than an IRA I guess.

  2. uyf1950 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    This is purely speculation on my part but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if there is a complete majority ownership change in both the Dodgers and the Mets (in 2 of the largest markets in MLB) within the next 18 months.

  3. 8man - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    Two rules here. First, don’t get married. Especially if you are rich. Second, don’t do it in a community property state. There are 6.9 billion people on this planet. Over half are women. So the odds are good that most men will always have at least one. Why commit your life and your wealth? That is the true lesson here.

    • lanflfan - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:54 PM

      Or make sure you execute a valid Pre-Nup and/or Post-Nup. If either were done properly, the gold-digger would be on the street and the moron would be in control.

      Hey Bud, put the beer down and do ONE decent thing in your worthless and ruinous tenure as Commissioner, and make McCourt sell the team. And, this time, to someone who has actual money, not theoretical or Monopoly money. You know, an owner you can be “proud of” rather than, well, this.

  4. SmackSaw - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM

    Even boneheads are able to buy baseball teams. What a country! I hope he’s fleeced for all the money he doesn’t have. The Dodgers would be in more stable hands if he sold the team to Charlie Sheen.

  5. uyf1950 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:10 PM

    This fiasco with the McCourt’s reminds me a of song the first 4 lines of the song say it all.

    If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
    Never make a pretty woman your wife
    So from my personal point of view
    Get an ugly girl to marry you

    Granted she’s no raving beauty but as they used to say when I was younger “go ugly early”. Unfortunately for Frank it’s a lesson he never learned.

    • Dan in Katonah - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:16 PM

      In theory, but that harkens back to the Eddie Murphy bit (in “Raw”?) where he wanted to marry an African woman straight out of the bush so she would not give him a hard time. As I recall, the bit ended up with Umfoofoo demanding “Half! I want half, Eddie!!” So, the best laid plans and all that…

  6. monsieurbear - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    “Yeah, it seems that, given that the Dodgers are community property, Jamie McCourt has an interest in all of that and a right to obtain any information she can about the would-be deal.”

    Jamie continues to allege that the Dodgers are community property. Frank continues to allege that the Dodgers are his separate property. No court has yet ruled in either party’s favor. The finding that the marital property agreement is invalid helped Jamie’s case but did not resolve the matter. There remain viable theories for Frank’s position. Until a court says that the Dodgers are community property (or the parties settle), please do not mischaracterize the Dodgers as community property.

  7. bigharold - Mar 2, 2011 at 6:47 PM

    I just read every bit of that link and all i have to save is; WOW, .. and Met fans thought they were screwed!

    The Dodger’s are going to take a generation to recover from these imbeciles. Man I wish he brought the RS. Now it’s more clear why Selig “bag jobbed” the RS to John Henry.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Colby-on-Colby crime in Toronto
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3541)
  2. C. Lee (2770)
  3. H. Ramirez (2435)
  4. M. Trout (2365)
  5. Y. Puig (2156)
  1. D. Price (2100)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (2077)
  3. B. Belt (2057)
  4. J. Segura (2042)
  5. J. Papelbon (2007)