Comments on: Why did Selig reject the Dodgers-Fox deal? Because it was more looting of the team by Frank McCourt

By: FC

FC — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:24:26 +0000

He’s got to be a media Darling by now, his Dallas Mavericks toppled “King” LeBron and the hated Heat.

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:14:25 +0000

The anti-trust exemption is not going to be overturned by the courts. Ain’t going to happen. There are two reasons:

1) The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. They ruled quite specifically and with good legal argument that overturning the anti-trust exemption would be a wrong ruling; applying anti-trust law to MLB must happen legislatively. A legislative change would only apply to future actions, while a court ruling would apply retroactively to things MLB did in the good faith belief that they were legal. The courts hate doing that kind of thing, so the chances are basically nil.

2) The Curt Flood act removed the anti-trust exemption specifically for labor matters. A specific legislative application of anti-trust principles to one part of MLB’s business implies that the rest of the business is exempt*. If Congress chooses to exempt most of MLB’s business from anti-trust law, the Supreme Court can’t reasonably decide to overrule that decision. It’s certainly unlikely to decide to extend the reach of anti-trust law by fiat given the current composition of the court.

*This is the original meaning of “the exception proves the rule”. If Congress passes a law saying “anti-trust law applies to MLB labor matters”, that proves the opposite- anti-trust law does not apply- to the rest of MLB’s business.

By: bobwsc

bobwsc — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:44:55 +0000

he’d have gone missing by now

By: wrg885

wrg885 — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:22:32 +0000

“….so let us not weep too much for Major League Baseball here.”
No. This shouldn’t be about Selig, McCourt, McCourt, or MLB as a whole. This is about the LA Dodgers and it’s fans. THAT is what the weeping should be/is for.

By: adenzeno

adenzeno — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:46:28 +0000

The skeleton is divorcing him…

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:36:48 +0000

Which would be fantastic for the fans. It is easy for people to call players greedy, we know exactly what they make….many would be shocked at the machinations owners use to hide profits and avoid paying taxes….there is a lot in there that the owners never want to see the light of day.

By: lanflfan

lanflfan — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:05:36 +0000

Slimebucket McCourt can use whatever tricks he wants, but MLB will take control sooner rather than later. And I would have to imagine MLB’s has far more financial leverage then McCourt does. And I don’t buy that the individual sham companies could stand on their own. Without each other working together, they make no sense. Thus, he can make all the pretty little sham companies he wants, his little ploy won’t work.

MLB needs to find a skeleton in his closet and shake it loose.

By: scatterbrian

scatterbrian — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:04:23 +0000

“Letting in clearly unqualified owners with questionable motives is something that never should have occurred, but which in any event needs to end now.”

A’s fans agree!

By: visnovsky

visnovsky — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:44:14 +0000

So move the Dodgers to NY to play in Citi Field and New Yankee on Yankee and Met off days. See how long McCourt can last without revenue stream from Dodger games. I bet 1 season and he would be completely penniless and bankrupt.

By: jimbo1949

jimbo1949 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:41:54 +0000

They’re afraid of Cuban’s adverse publicity……..BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:25:38 +0000

Added motivation to finish building the WayBack Machine(TM) and get City Council to pull their heads out of their asses in order to allow Peter O’Malley the rights to build his Stadium.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:17:46 +0000

I agree with you, 88. It’s an awful end to Dodger Stadium. Frank McCourt is an ass and a pain, and you know he will drag everybody through court exploiting his manipulations all the while charging $15 a car. LA is going to have to get a new stadium– look for it downtown, by the Staples Center, as another jewel in the renovation of dt– and Frank will build some friggingly obnoxious housing development + shopping mall.

This all goes back to the City’s refusal to grant Peter O’Malley the ability to build a football stadium in the D.S. parking lot, and I’m bitter. But I’m ready for it. Chavez Ravine had been a native Mexican-California neighborhood and enclave. Papa O’Malley bought the land and LA used eminent domain to build the Stadium.

In L.A., memories are buried.

By: jsally430

jsally430 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:13:03 +0000

And they won’t let mark cuban a mlb team owner???anyone else see that being a screwed up situation

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:09:58 +0000

He actually does have a horrendous lease in place. I’m not sure what the Dodgers pay the stadium shell company, but I know they pay the parking lot shell company $6-9 million per year. Unfortunately, the only legal recourse I’m aware of for MLB to bring the splinter assets back under the Dodger umbrella would be if California has a law against intentional asset devaluation.

By: aaronmoreno

aaronmoreno — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:40:00 +0000

Nope. I’m sure Frank has a horrendous lease in place, where the Dodgers pay a ton in rent, with huge penalties for breaking the contract.

Wayne Huizenga, remember.

By: cosanostra71

cosanostra71 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:16:53 +0000

gotta feel bad for the Dodgers right now… McCourt is just a slimeball.

By: scareduck

scareduck — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:15:34 +0000

I doubt it does. The real threat is that it might end up with Frank threatening to go through discovery with the 29 other clubs’ books in a countersuit.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:11:41 +0000

Craig, do you see this devolving into litigation over Baseball’s Anti-Trust Exemption?

By: chomsky66

chomsky66 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:03:30 +0000

+1. I’m dying here

By: thekcubrats

thekcubrats — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:01:50 +0000

Best. Comment. Ever.

By: redsghost

redsghost — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:57:32 +0000

Thank god he got the Dodgers rather than the Red Sox who he tried to purchase.

By: bobulated

bobulated — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:54:23 +0000

Maybe they can use the All-Star Game to settle this.

By: halladaysbicepts

halladaysbicepts — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:47:11 +0000

Well, chomsky66, owners and commisioners have been doing that since the beginning of sports time. Only difference is that Selig is extremely blatant about it.

By: thekcubrats

thekcubrats — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:38 +0000

Actually, let me add, him and all his cronies, who mistakenly thought McCourt was one of their own; McCourt is just trying to out-Selig the Seligs, he just happens to be woefully bad at it. Jeffrey Loria, anyone?

By: halladaysbicepts

halladaysbicepts — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 +0000

Panda Clause,

Lol!. Yeah, I forgot about Mayor McCheese. Also, Manny can be guilty of super-sizing his arms as well.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:38 +0000

I also find myself in agreement with Bud Light on this one. It is a reeling world, indeed, my lord.

By: dodger88

dodger88 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:41:57 +0000

Who would own Dodger Stadium if the team were seized from McCourt? Would the new owners be in a position to move the team to a new stadium? I would hate to see the Dodgers play anywhere but Dodger Stadium but a possible move to a new stadium would weaken the value of the parking lot and other ancillary income.

By: chomsky66

chomsky66 — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:40:05 +0000

actually no – by being the ringleader of an exclusive group of organized crimelords, extorting billions from taxpayers for their own gain.

By: Panda Claus

Panda Claus — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:38:28 +0000

Even Mayor McCheese would probably agree McCourt’s in McTrouble when it comes to meeting the Dodgers’ next payroll. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case if they hadn’t super-sized Manny’s contract.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:36:15 +0000

Maybe this is a question for Maury Brown, but you, and others, keep mentioning that if he doesn’t make his 6/30 payroll, MLB will take over the team. Are there any other recourse(s) that could facilitate a faster removal of the McCourts? Could the owners vote him out*?

*I’d assume you’d need a buyer already in place, or MLB