Comments on: Frank McCourt may sue Major League Baseball

By: Chipmaker

Chipmaker — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:20:01 +0000

It’s LA, Craig.

Movie rights!

By: pauleee

pauleee — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:10:23 +0000

How’s he going to cover the court costs?

By: cur68

cur68 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0000

So Frank has a 3-way brewing up, eh? He must have infinitely deep pockets to carry that off.

By: cur68

cur68 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:46:33 +0000

Where to next wowbagger? Jamie’s house, probably. Lots to work with there. Don’t forget their kids; gotta be worth a seconds of eternity to think up something suitably scathing for Jamie and the kids. Cheers.

By: mgflolox

mgflolox — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:37:52 +0000

He’s a jerk, a complete kneebiter.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:57:55 +0000

Somebody get that man a box of Swiss Criss.

By: BC

BC — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:52:21 +0000

+1 on the picture of Selig.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:41:30 +0000

That’s entirely too logical on McCourt’s part. Anyway, all these law firms look alike to me.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:40:27 +0000

Different firm. The one he’s suing (or is suing him) is Bingham McCutcheon. Why a firm like Sullivan & Cromwell would take this case given McCourt’s debts and his penchant for fighting with his lawyers is an open question.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:29:24 +0000

So let me get this right: this idiot has hired the same firm he is suing for making a pig’s porridge of his prenuptual agreement to sue Major League Baseball?

And I say to myself, what a wonderful world.

By: wrg885

wrg885 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:44:58 +0000

Hopefully the result of the first game without McCourt is ultimately how the franchise winds up when all of this is settled. Go Dodgers.

By: wowbaggertheinfinitelyprolonged

wowbaggertheinfinitelyprolonged — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:35:38 +0000

And, as you will be well aware Craig, just because there does not appear to be any sensible chance of a court action being successful, this does not prevent a client insisting on pursuing it, especially if the time it takes to resolve might be lenghty, and give him some leeway.

Alternatively, Mr McCourt at some point decided magnanimously that he would single-handedly save the California Bar from penury…

By: wowbaggertheinfinitelyprolonged

wowbaggertheinfinitelyprolonged — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:33:06 +0000

Having already had one agreement, through the “assistance” of his attorney end up not saying what Mr McCourt thought it said (his pre-nup, if I recall), then if he used the same firm when he bought the Dodgers, who knows what the “final” executed contract actually said!