Mar 19, 2012, 6:13 PM EST
A bid made by Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney for the Dodgers was rejected by MLB last week as the suitors were trimmed from eight to four, but a mediator today reinstated the bid, leaving five parties in contention for the team.
Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times has the report.
The Disney bid was initially rejected because it “included private equity financing to back the launch of a regional sports network.”
According to Shaikin’s report:
MLB rejected four bidders presented by Frank McCourt, the Dodgers’ outgoing owner. The court-appointed mediator, Joseph Farnan, a retired federal judge, upheld the MLB dismissal of Beverly Hills developer Alan Casden and overturned the rejection of Gold.
The two other bidders declined by MLB chose not to appeal to the mediator.
The restoration of the Disney bid might not make much of a difference, since the same group of MLB owners that just rejected the bid will be voting again this week. Once that vote takes place, the approved bidders will be able to negotiate directly with McCourt the terms of a sale.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 21
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 20
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 373
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)