Comments on: Report: the Dodgers got a sweetheart deal limiting their revenue sharing liability

By: phillysoulfan

phillysoulfan — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:36:37 +0000

Yeah, I don’t see how Selig could have done this without the consent of the owners. He would also need consent from the player’s union as well. So I don’t think this is true.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:04:24 +0000

Bud Selig is an embarrassment.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:03:31 +0000

The Dodgers get the sweetheart financial deal once the new owners agree to move to the American League. It’s called the Astros Special, without the financial consideration.

By: hep3

hep3 — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:29:57 +0000

John Helyar wrote the book about baseball labor wars, The Lords of the Realm, and co-authored the book about the RJR-Nabisco merger, Barbarians at the Gate.

I would think he may know what he is talking about. Business and Baseball are right in his wheelhouse. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. It could be another Bud Selig embarrassment.

By: bigjimatch

bigjimatch — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:26:41 +0000

bankruptcy filings filed online, if there were a compromise of mlb claims against the dodgers in the bankruptcy case, it may be in a pleading.

By: randygnyc

randygnyc — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:27:55 +0000

I don’t think it’s possible. I can’t wrap my head around the amount o civilf litigation that would surely follow, not to mention the criminal investigation.

By: Panda Claus

Panda Claus — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:25:26 +0000

Look, Peter Angelos got a sweetheart deal (the MASN TV network which shows both Oriole and National games) back when the Expos moved to DC. Angelos got a majority share of MASN money for going along with the move.

While a very favorable Dodger deal sounds fishy, parity and complete revenue sharing has never really been in MLB’s bag of tricks leading up to this point. The current luxury tax/revenue sharing approach is better than it used to be, but it’s still a long way from fair.

By: pharmerbrown

pharmerbrown — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:03:04 +0000

Anything to get rid of McCourt. He seems to have personally embarrassed Selig to the point where he (Selig) would, at least in his eyes, be obligated to enable the sale in order to preserve the sanctity of the game.

By: jfisher00

jfisher00 — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:00:22 +0000

So, 34% tax on $84MM rather than ~$225MM.

By: jfisher00

jfisher00 — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:59:47 +0000

Manfred seems technically right: the *Dodgers* will still have to share 34% of what the Dodgers bring in. Assume the TV entity will be an affiliate, and it’ll pay up to the Dodgers’ corporate parent, but not the Dodgers.

By: mlayer

mlayer — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:50:47 +0000

Not sure how much of a story there is here. The CBA calls for all teams to share 34% of locally-derived revenue regardless of source, minus deductions for stadium expenses. There may be a cap, but the difference between capped and uncapped may be nominal at best.

By: jayscarpa

jayscarpa — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:48:42 +0000

I don’t see how MLB could implement a revenue sharing cap for one team without the knowledge and consent of all the owners. Sounds fishy.