Skip to content

“No other owner has sacrificed so much of his team’s future for an immediate payoff”

Jul 22, 2011, 8:25 AM EST

Combination of file photos of Frank and Jamie McCourt during their divorce trial in Los Angeles

We got no ruling in the Dodgers bankruptcy case yesterday, but there were two things of interest that popped up on the McCourt radar.

First, the L.A. Times has obtained the letter Bud Selig sent Frank McCourt back in June when he rejected McCourt’s proposed TV deal with Fox. In the letter he cited McCourt’s m.o. of looting team revenue sources, saying that “no other owner has sacrificed so much of his team’s future for an immediate payoff.”  He also cited the IRS investigation into the McCourts’ finances, which is something we’ve heard very little about recently, but which could be another tremendously large shoe to drop in the future.

The second interesting thing, for those of you who like the McCourt stuff anyway, is a huge article in the August issue of Vanity Fair which tells the entire McCourt tale, primarily from a society pages perspective.  You know the general contours of this already, but it’s interesting if you’ve, say, forgotten just how icky Jamie McCourt is, what with all of the focus on Frank recently. Or if you have forgotten just how crazy irresponsible the McCourts got with respect to real estate:

For beach homes, they purchased a John Lautner-designed house in Malibu, called the Segel residence, from Courteney Cox and David Arquette for $27.3 million. They took the beachfront bungalow next door, too—after all, it was only $19 million. In court papers, Jamie said that they used the bungalow to house an overflow of guests from time to time and do extra laundry.

Well, you gotta do laundry, right?

Here’s hoping a ruling in the bankruptcy case comes today.

  1. 4d3fect - Jul 22, 2011 at 8:47 AM

    ” But now we have the press to do our laundry for us, guess we don’t need that extra house.”

    Well, someone had to say it.

  2. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jul 22, 2011 at 8:51 AM

    For the record, Jamie will be the first female douchenozzle on my list. You see? I’m not biased! Congrats Jamie, your main indiscretion was marrying Frank, but you certainly must have plenty of your own issues if you did, in fact, marry that ‘nozzle.

    • Old Gator - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM

      On my list, she doesn’t hold a candle to Jan Brewer (though I have to question whether that is really a female – uh – face, or whether she isn’t just one of those parthenogenic Arizona lizards [Cnemidamorphus sexlineatus] in a latex fright mask a la V). Then comes Michelle Bachmann, who has managed to obscure yesterday’s trash, Sarah Palin, and climb over her into second place. Then there’s Old Vinegar Douche Michelle Malkin, and the rapidly-fading-into-vulgar-irrelevance Ty-rAnn-o-rex-ia Coulter. Long list. Jamie’s got quite a way to go. It’s highly possible that if Frank gets hit by a bus – not that they move fast enough in LA traffic to do much damage – she would mount up the list pretty quickly, unencumbered by the baggage of a substantially bigger asshole. Time will tell.

  3. sasquash20 - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:08 AM

    Frank’s biggest mistake was marrying that butt ugly older women. If you have money you marry younger hot chicks with a prenup. He gets whats coming to him.

    • paperlions - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:12 AM

      They are the same age, met in college, and married soon thereafter. Frank had not yet swindled his way into a large amount of borrowing power, there really wasn’t any need for a prenup because they didn’t have anything.

      • Old Gator - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:53 AM

        Looks can be deceiving. Jan Brewer is really 22 years old.

      • bleedgreen - Jul 22, 2011 at 10:56 AM

        Not having anything is the PERFECT reason to get a pre-nup. If you make $60K a year, and your ex gets half… you have $30K to live on. If you make $3 million a year, and your ex gets half, you still have a million and a half dollars a year. Pretty sure you can get by on $1.5Mil a year.

  4. yankeesgameday - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:14 AM

    “fluff and fold, my friend. When i get really big I’m going fluff and fold.”

  5. paperlions - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:14 AM

    So…..based on that statement, MLB is admitting that owners have and do sacrifice the future of their team for immediate payoff and it is an acceptable, and perhaps a common, practice among owners as long as they are not so egregious about it….thanks, but we already knew that.

    • Kevin S. - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:45 AM

      Sure. You’ll see tons of teams do it when they ship prospects out for help in the stretch run in the next week or so. McCourt’s discount rate, however, was astronomical.

      • Old Gator - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM

        Shall I conjure up the spectre of Scrooge McLoria – or do I really want to risk setting all my goddamned brooms in motion again? Hmmmmm….

      • paperlions - Jul 22, 2011 at 9:57 AM

        I’d heed the old adage about leaving sleeping scrooges lie.

  6. bloodysock - Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM

    They needed that extra house. The McCourts have a lot of dirty laundry.

  7. ta192 - Jul 22, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    Well, no other owner has been so OBVIOUS in sacrificing his teams future…

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (5709)
  2. Y. Tomas (3925)
  3. H. Ramirez (3714)
  4. J. Lester (3247)
  5. A. LaRoche (2234)
  1. J. Upton (2223)
  2. J. Bruce (2201)
  3. T. Hunter (2028)
  4. I. Davis (2025)
  5. M. Scherzer (1808)