Vin's Reaction to Receiving the Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

Which One of These Doesn't Belong?

From @Dodgers:

Clearly, MLB Does Not Know Frank McCourt's Track Record Very Well

The bankruptcy trial that would help determine the fate of the Dodgers and finally bring clarity to this ownership circus nightmare...has been postponed for another month. And this is supposed to be so the McCourt can explore a possible settlement.

Settle? Does Frank McCourt ever settle? I mean, there's that $130M settlement to ex-wife Jamie, but it seems to me Frank is pretty comfortable in the courtroom environment. That said, hope never dies:

The Dodgers' bankruptcy trial has been postponed for one month so Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and Major League Baseball can explore a possible settlement under which McCourt would agree to sell the team, multiple people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

McCourt discussed a potential settlement with league officials Monday and Tuesday, said the people, none of whom were authorized to comment on the confidential talks. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross announced the postponement in a one-sentence order on Wednesday, without citing a reason for the delay.

The four-day trial had been set to start Monday. Gross postponed the trial to Nov. 29.

Neither the Dodgers nor the league would comment Wednesday, according to their respective spokesmen.

However, the settlement talks hit a snag when the league declined to guarantee McCourt a specific return for selling the team, one of the people said. The league, which already has loaned McCourt $150 million in bankruptcy financing, is not willing to subsidize his exit should the team sell for less than whatever figure he might ask MLB to guarantee, the person said.

In court papers this week, attorneys for McCourt estimated the value of the Dodgers, their stadium and the surrounding land at "in excess of $1 billion." Forbes valued the assets at $800 million last March.

Considering that $200M delta could mean the difference between ownership of five versus ten houses, you know that Frank is going to fight tooth and nail to scrap those pennies together. Well, what's another month between...very angry people?

Colletti Has No Idea How Much He Can Spend, If Any At All

Well, this isn't a good sign as we enter a critical off-season: GM Ned Colletti has no idea what his budget is. How can you shop for goods if you don't know how much money is in your wallet?

Three weeks after saying he had been given a player-payroll budget for next year and hinting that budget might be more than it was in 2011, Los Angeles Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti conceded on Wednesday that figure could change in the wake of a divorce settlement reached earlier this week by Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his estranged wife, former Dodger chief executive officer Jamie McCourt.

Under terms of the settlement, Jamie McCourt disavows any claim to ownership of the club and Frank McCourt must pay her $130 million.

"I don't think (the budget) is ever really set in stone,'' said Colletti, who was watching several of the Dodgers' top prospects compete in the Arizona Fall League. "You start out with a basic idea to get you started and adjust as need be. I have a basic idea, always knowing that it could be adjusted either way.''

Colletti didn't specifically address potential ways, if any, in which the budget could be directly impacted by either the settlement or a bankruptcy court hearing scheduled to begin on Oct. 31 that could determine Frank McCourt's ability to maintain ownership of the franchise.

Colletti also said he has had a couple of conversations with Dave Stewart, the agent for Dodgers center fielder and National League Most Valuable Player candidate Matt Kemp, but that no serious talks are under way as of yet on a possible contract extension for Kemp, who could become a free agent after next season if the Dodgers don't lock him up with a long-term deal.

Criminy, Bud, pull the plug on this circus and get this right. If the Dodgers end up pissing away an opportunity to lock Matt Kemp (let alone get some bats back in the lineup), Dodger fans will do more than just stay away in droves, as they did this year. They'll come back...with torches and pitchforks.

A's Owner Supports Selig/MLB: McCourt Should Go

I've always liked the A's. Especially in 1988.

And now, the A's owner Lew Wolff has made public comments stating he'd also like to see McCourt out as Dodgers owner, so the Dodgers (and baseball) can move on:

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Oakland Athletics owner Lew Wolff is hopeful that Frank McCourt will soon sell the financially troubled Los Angeles Dodgers so baseball can move forward from the sticky situation.

Wolff, a successful retail developer based in L.A., told The Associated Press on Monday he spoke out publicly on the topic in support of commissioner Bud Selig, a longtime friend and former fraternity brother at Wisconsin. Wolff first discussed his thoughts in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

"For the good of baseball, I sense that all of us would like to get the Dodger situation behind us for everybody's benefit," Wolff said in a phone interview with the AP. "I was prompted to do this because of the attorney accusing Bud Selig of taking more money. Bud has been a friend of mine for 50 years. It's just not fair. I was just upset."

I doubt this will compel Frank to take action to step down as Dodgers owner and sell the team. However it is another indication that Selig has the rest of the owners behind him. And 29-vs-1 odds don't sound very promising for the 1.

Judge Rejects Highbridge Plan, (Likely) Forcing McCourt To Come Groveling Back To MLB

The Dodgers' deal with Highbridge Capital has been rejected by the Delaware bankruptcy court judge. Does Frank McCourt have any more bullets left to fire, at this stage?

DOVER, Del. -- A Delaware judge has rejected the Los Angeles Dodgers' proposed $150 million bankruptcy financing plan, a decision that likely will force the team to accept a financing offer from Major League Baseball.

The judge issued his eight-page decision Friday, two days after presiding over a hearing on the competing financing plans.

The team had sought approval of its proposed arrangement with hedge fund Highbridge Capital.

But the league, which has been locked in a bitter dispute with Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, countered with a competing plan that carried better financial terms.

The Dodgers rejected MLB's offer, saying it likely would result in legal battles and was an attempt by baseball commissioner Bud Selig to take control of the team and force a sale.

The decision comes after the Los Angeles Times obtained an 11-page letter in which Selig outlines the reasons that he shot down the Dodgers' proposed television deal with Fox and expresses concerns about an IRS investigation.

One big reason Selig cites for shooting down the TV dea is a lack of competition. The team's current deal with Fox expires in 2013 and the Dodgers can't negotiate with other suitors until Nov. 30, 2012. Selig said that McCourt was willing to give away bargaining leverage because of a "desperate need for immediate cash."

"No other owner has sacrificed so much of his team's future for an immediate payoff," Selig wrote, according to the paper.

So McCourt has just gone from Highbridge to low blow. I am guessing McCourt has other tricks up his sleeve, but I'm at a loss to figure out where he could find another alternative financing scheme at reasonably favorable terms, at this stage.

(Hat tip to Dusty Baker for the headsup on the breaking news.)

Selig Shows Some Backbone, On Paper At Least

The 11-page letter that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig scribed to Frank McCourt had some pointed barbs which are about as forceful as I've ever seen Selig communicate. Reports Bill Shaikin of the LA Times:

Major League Baseball said the television contract that Dodgers owner Frank McCourt presented as the team's financial salvation would instead have crippled the club's ability to compete and saddled McCourt and his affiliated companies with close to $1 billion in debt.

That was the view expressed by Commissioner Bud Selig in an 11-page letter he wrote to McCourt in rejecting a proposed deal between the Dodgers and Fox.

The previously unpublished letter was obtained by The Times from court papers in the Dodgers' bankruptcy case, which McCourt has said was forced by Selig's rejection of the proposed Fox deal. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross did not rule Thursday on whether the Dodgers would be financed through the bankruptcy proceedings by a loan arranged by McCourt or one offered by MLB.

"Despite your pledge to make the Dodgers the 'best franchise in baseball,' you are not selling the club's media rights … to improve the club's on-field performance, renovate Dodger Stadium or enhance the fan experience," Selig wrote.

"Rather, you would be continuing an eight-year pattern of exploiting the Dodgers franchise to finance your own personal needs, which would undoubtedly risk further erosion of public confidence in the Dodgers."

Selig also said he had learned that the Internal Revenue Service is investigating McCourt's tax returns from 2006, 2007 and 2008. In a divorce court filing, McCourt's ex-wife, Jamie, said the couple paid no federal or state income tax from 2004 to 2009.

"What is more worrisome to me, however," Selig wrote, "is the thought of one of our owners engaging in a prolonged public dispute with the IRS."

Entertaining reading. I'm hopeful this reflects the kind of backbone that Selig will need to have in order to thwart McCourt and his phalanx of lawyers. Sack up, Bud.

Tomorrow's Court Ruling: The Start Of The Breakdown?

Bankruptcy hearings proceeded today, and here's what we know: tomorrow, judge Kevin Gross will rule which bankruptcy loan the Dodgers should utilize: McCourt's higher-interest, higher-fees deal, or the one proposed by MLB and Bud Selig. As a Dodger fan, you have only one choice for which to root:

Dodgers owner Frank McCourt arranged for a loan from a hedge fund; MLB Commissioner Bud Selig prefers that Major League Baseball fund the loan.

Whichever way the ruling comes down, it will not mean McCourt will lose ownership of the Dodgers. Instead, the ruling sets the stage for the parties to argue the core issue in this case: Can McCourt auction the Dodgers' cable television rights to pay off the team's creditors and remain the owner, or can Selig get the court to enforce the league rules to which McCourt agreed, including rules that grant Selig the right to approve all television contracts and the right to strip an owner of a team upon filing for bankruptcy?

This decision may not evict Frank McCourt as owner, but it might be yet another solid step towards the inevitable. I suppose McCourt's deal could be selected, and Selig could counter with the "best interests of baseball" clause and trump McCourt; either way, one has to think that that clause is going to get tested in court before Frank finally disappears.

Frank McCourt's Lawyers Warn The MLB Financing Is "A Deal With The Devil"--And They Would All Know

Really, there isn't much to say before the Wednesday judge's decision regarding which loan the Dodgers should take: MLB's package, or the one that Frank McCourt secured privately. With a higher interest rate and additional millions of dollars in fees, the McCourt offer seems absurd to consider--which is exactly what a creditors' committee concluded. But of course that won't stop the ever-litigious Frank McCourt from firing away with his hired guns, financial logic be damned:

Frank McCourt would be signing "a deal with the devil" by accepting a loan offered by a commissioner intent on stripping McCourt of his team, attorneys for the Dodgers owner argued in a bankruptcy court filing Monday.

The bare-knuckle filing foretold a legal "collision course" between McCourt and Commissioner Bud Selig over who has the final say in selling a team's television rights and, ultimately, whether the court would honor or override baseball rules that authorize Selig to kick out McCourt.

The immediate issue — whether the Dodgers should be financed during the bankruptcy case by a loan arranged by McCourt or one proposed by Major League Baseball — is set to be decided at a court hearing Wednesday. The MLB loan could save the Dodgers close to $15 million in interest and fees, a committee of creditors said in a filing Monday.

"There can be no question the [proposed MLB financing] is economically superior," according to the committee filing.

However, the fine print of the proposed MLB financing includes terms tilted toward triggering defaults that would enable the league to take over the Dodgers, attorneys for McCourt wrote in calling that loan "nothing but a pretext … for the commissioner's ulterior motive of seizing control of the [Dodgers] and ousting Mr. McCourt."

I thought ulterior motives were supposed to be concealed or hidden? There's nothing hidden here, Frank; the MLB terms will put the Dodgers' in a less difficult financial situation, AND we get new ownership that hopefully won't lever this franchise any further. Sounds like a win-win.

Selig Spending A Lot Of Time Straddling Fence on Realignment

At first, I thought Selig was not in favor of "fast-tracking" realignment. But then I read his quotes again and frankly, I'm not sure where he stands (as usual, I might add):

PHOENIX -- "Massive realignment" isn't "on the horizon," baseball commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday, in his annual midseason meeting with the Baseball Writers Association of America.

But later Tuesday, in a separate session with the baseball writers, union chief Michael Weiner said that realignment to two 15-team leagues, and a potentially extensive overhaul of the regular-season and postseason schedules, are ideas that have "a lot of appeal to players."

Selig spoke first Tuesday and said stories suggesting realignment is "imminent" have "amazed me."

"Is there anything imminent? I don't know where those stories are coming from," the commissioner said.

Selig went on to question aloud where the hell he was, whether he was still MLB commissioner, and whether he was wearing pants.

But Selig also admitted there are "things I'd like to accomplish" that only realignment can provide -- such as evening out the number of teams in all six divisions and making the schedule for competing teams more fair.

The commissioner reiterated his longstanding reservations over having interleague play throughout the season, an inevitable consequence of going to 15 teams in each league, saying, "I like it the way it is." But he conceded that he might be willing to soften that opposition if he could achieve larger objectives.

"Would I go to 15 and 15? I don't know," Selig said. "It would depend on how everything else broke out and what we were trying to do."

Could Selig stop asking rhetorical questions and start spending his time extruding Frank McCourt from Dodgers ownership? I don't know.

NYT on Dodgers: TV Tied At Hip; McCourt Still Slinging Mud

Couple of good articles on the Dodgers from the NYT this holiday weekend. First, a piece on Fox is caught between a McCourt and a hard place:

The fight for control of the Los Angeles Dodgers that reached United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Tuesday pits Frank McCourt, an owner desperate to keep his team, against Commissioner Bud Selig, who believes that McCourt has turned the iconic team into a financial wreck.

But away from the legal battle is the story of a long relationship between the Dodgers and Fox Sports, which underscores the rising value of sports television rights and what a media giant will do to keep them.

In the case of the Dodgers and Fox, it is a tale of mutual self-interest in which each side has taken turns at being the alpha male: the team knows it is valuable but needs money; Fox needs the team and has the cash.

“It’s beyond codependency,” said Lee H. Berke, the president and chief executive of a sports media consulting company.

Fox’s place in the Dodgers’ troubled present is because of its ownership of Prime Ticket, the regional sports network that shows the team’s games on cable television. Last year, Fox advanced McCourt $25 million from the team’s 2011 rights fee. Earlier this year, it agreed to lend McCourt $200 million, but Selig rejected the deal as adding more debt to a team that has too much of it. More recently, Fox angered Selig by skirting his right to approve team loans with a $30 million personal loan to McCourt to help him pay player salaries. [...]

Save for McCourt’s need to secure a new deal with Fox to alleviate his cash crisis, there was no urgency for either side. The current agreement ends in 2013, and the Dodgers could not solicit offers from rival bidders until the end of November 2012, when a 45-day exclusive negotiating period with Fox would end.

But McCourt’s financial crunch came around the same time as the surprise appearance of a new competitor in the Los Angeles market: Time Warner Cable. In February, the cable operator snared Lakers rights from Fox Sports West, Prime’s sister channel, to make the team the centerpiece of two new regional sports networks for 20 years starting in 2012. The deal is worth a reported $3 billion, though the cable company has denied that estimate is accurate.

“Suddenly, Fox is finding itself in a highly competitive marketplace,” said Berke, who added, “Time Warner Cable is a major presence in the L.A. market.”

Fox, a division of News Corporation, is a huge presence in baseball — locally and nationally. Baseball is important, if not critical, to the success of regional sports networks because of the length of its season and the ratings that teams generate. Fox carries 14 major league teams on 15 regional sports networks. But there will be one team fewer on Fox’s roster next season; the Houston Astros will leave Fox’s Houston sports channel in 2013 to join the Houston Rockets and Comcast to form a sports network.

Fox is also M.L.B.’s exclusive national broadcaster. By the time Fox’s current deal ends in two years, it will have paid $4.6 billion since 1996 to show Saturday afternoon games, All-Star Games and the postseason.

I understand that the issue is complex, but I have to think that the influence MLB can exert over Fox for the national deal has to trump whatever Prime Ticket / Fox West has to lose. And if MLB wins out, in theory they could strike a better deal with MLB's auspices, or a new owner, rather than having to scrounge up $385M today (with an amount that doesn't embed the $100M+ that Frank and Jamie want to divert to their personal issues / debts / lifestyles).

The second article is how Frank McCourt, desperate and grasping at straws, is still trying to claw at MLB:

The Los Angeles Dodgers demanded on Tuesday that Major League Baseball turn over documents the team believes will show that baseball’s “abusive” treatment of the team led to its filing for bankruptcy.

M.L.B.’s actions reflected its “scheme to force a liquidity crisis” for the Dodgers, the filing said.

Team lawyers said in a motion filed in federal bankruptcy court in Delaware that M.L.B. had refused to turn over many of the documents they asked for last weekend. The team said the evidence it was seeking would demonstrate M.L.B.’s “bad faith” deaings in denying it the cash it needed to avoid bankruptcy.

Really? Really? I would love to be a fly on the wall in the meetings with Frank McCourt and his lawyers, watching him agree to increasingly desperate hail mary measures, and then watching the lawyers rub their hands together and utter evil laughs behind his back.

McCourt's Sacks Hanging Some Hairy, Albeit Shrunken, Meatballs

The McCourt vs. Selig brouhaha escalated further today, when McCourt, seemingly getting more testes with each passing hour, had one of his hired guns try to portray Frank McCourt as a victim to the press. Get a load of these bombastic, substance-free claims (bold emphasis mine):

LOS ANGELES -- Baseball commissioner Bud Selig hasn't acted in good faith by rejecting a proposed television deal involving the Los Angeles Dodgers and appeared determined to run Frank McCourt out of the sport, an attorney representing the embattled owner said Tuesday.

A day after Selig announced he wouldn't approve a Dodgers TV deal with Fox Sports -- reportedly worth up to $3 billion -- lawyer Robert Sacks questioned the commissioner's intentions and warned that any potential takeover of the team by Major League Baseball would be met with resistance.

"There seems to be a predetermined result to drive Frank out of baseball without a good faith basis," Sacks said. "This isn't going to go away quietly." [...]

"If the commissioner wasn't prepared to approve the transaction, he should have told Frank so he could pursue other avenues," Sacks said. "I think I would say the commissioner has put the team in a cash-flow bind and Frank is reviewing his options to address that situation as best he can given MLB's unwarranted action."

Yes, it's the commissioner who has gotten the Dodgers into this cash-poor situation, suuuuuure. Unless Sacks is referring to Selig's decision to approve McCourt's ownership in the first place, I don't recall the commissioner siphoning $100M out of the franchise to fund his own lavish living habits, or getting in a public messy divorce squabble, or robbing the Dodgers to pay two of his sons exorbitant salaries in absentia, or leveraging future revenue streams just to get cash flow in the immediate term. Nope, that was all YOUR CLIENT, Sacks. Nice try.

photo swiped from here

Selig Cites Detrimental "Diversion Of Assets" In Rejection Of Fox Deal

From the ESPN.com article this afternoon (bold emphasis mine, all mine! bwah ha ha):

Just days after Frank and Jamie McCourt agreed on a divorce settlement, Major League Baseball rejected a proposed television contract for the Los Angeles Dodgers that was a lynchpin of the deal.

The TV deal has been reported to be worth $3 billion and Frank McCourt would receive $385 million upfront. That money was critical to the financial health of the Dodgers. MLB's action nullifies the divorce settlement, sending the McCourts back to the drawing table and thrusts the Dodgers into limbo.

MLB issued a statement explaining the decision.

"This decision was reached after a full and careful consideration of the terms of the proposed transaction and the club's current circumstances," commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement. "It is my conclusion that this proposed transaction with FOX would not be in the best interests of the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise, the game of Baseball and the millions of loyal fans of this historic club."

MLB had taken control of the troubled franchise and was investigating the team's finances. Selig said he would not make a decision on the TV deal until that process was complete. But Selig indicated in Monday's statement that the terms of the divorce settlement in which a large chunk of the Fox up-front money would not go to the Dodgers led to his decision.

"Critically, the transaction is structured to facilitate the further diversion of Dodgers assets for the personal needs of Mr. McCourt," Selig said. "Given the magnitude of the transaction, such a diversion of assets would have the effect of mortgaging the future of the franchise to the long-term detriment of the club and its fans." [...]

"As I have said before, we owe it to the legion of loyal Dodger fans to ensure that this club is being operated properly now and will be guided appropriately in the future," Selig said. "This transaction would not accomplish these goals."

Couldn't have said it better myself, Bud. This makes that June 30 payroll due date loom even larger. Your move, Frank.

Latest McCourt Settlement Continues Greedy Record

Reading all the articles about the latest McCourt settlement is not the way one would want to start his or her Saturday morning. The only thing that isn't confusing or up for question is how the McCourts have "settled" to take care of their extensive needs first and foremost.

First I read Bill Shaikin's piece, "Divorce settlement heightens prospect of a Frank McCourt-Bud Selig showdown over Dodgers", which recaps the divorce settlement news:

Frank and Jamie McCourt have reached a settlement that does not settle the question that has troubled Dodgers fans during a divorce battle that has lasted nearly two years: Who owns the team?

The agreement reached Friday requires Frank McCourt to clear two significant hurdles in order to maintain ownership of Los Angeles' cherished ballclub. The commissioner of baseball has to approve a long-term television contract between the Dodgers and Fox, and a judge has to rule that the team is the sole property of McCourt.

The settlement becomes "null and void" if Commissioner Bud Selig vetoes the television contract — and he is likely to do so, according to two people familiar with the matter but not authorized to discuss it.

Dennis Wasser, the attorney for Jamie McCourt, said he believed Selig would decide promptly whether to approve the Fox deal.

"It is either yes or no," Wasser said. "We should know by Monday or Tuesday."

With a yes, the McCourts would proceed to a one-day trial on Aug. 4, to determine whether the team belongs solely to Frank McCourt.

If the judge instead rules the Dodgers are community property, the settlement says the team "shall be sold." The sale would include the team, the stadium and the surrounding parking lots, with an estimated value of close to $1 billion, and the McCourts would split the proceeds 50-50.

If Frank McCourt is declared sole owner, Jamie McCourt would receive $100 million, the couple's seven luxury homes and indemnity from any tax liability.

So it continues to all hinge upon the Fox lifeline, which is now forced inot the hand of Bud Selig. It is the only way out for Frank McCourt, so he's basically arranged a contingency deal with ex-wife Jamie that allows an outcome no matter how the judge rules on the ownership issue.

But what really got me was the detail on how the two McCourts have agreed to split the $385M cash infusion from Fox, should the judge rule that the Dodgers are community property in this one-day bake-off. As ESPN reported:

Terms of the settlement spell out how the $385 million from Fox would be spent. Each party would receive $5 million for lawyers' fees. Each party would receive $5 million to use as they see fit. Approximately $235 million would be used for the Dodgers (including repayment to Frank McCourt money that was advanced to the team in 2011 but not exceeding $23.5 million). Another $80 million would be used to pay off indebtedness. And the remaining $50 million would be put in an account subject to the court's orders.

So right off the top, $10M that should have gone to the Dodgers will go to pay for the lawyers in the McCourts' spat. And another $10M goes to the owners to do whatever they hell they want to do. And $80M goes to other debts, and $50M goes to a slush fund.

Which leaves only $235M of the $385M--just over 61% of the total payment--to go toward the team. Almost 40% goes to management, including a portion which is just at their whims. And this only comes because the Dodgers are ceding television rights for the future, rights which extend so far out we have no way of knowing whether this was a good deal for the team.

If MLB was actually bothered by the McCourts' avarice--most notably mentioning the ~$100M that the couple had siphoned from the team to pay for their extravagant lifestyle--then Selig needs to consider the merits of this additional siphoning on those grounds as well.

The LA Times' Shaikin posted a companion piece later on in the day yesterday which made this very point, going on to say that it was highly unlikely Selig would approve the Fox deal on these grounds. Steve Dilbeck reached the same conclusion, contrasting McCourt's flag-waving statements of virtue against his duplicitous actions.

I understand McCourt's strategy to try and force Selig's hand. I'm surprised that he isn't bringing his best cards to the table, as well.

Selig: Why Dodgers Aren't Mets

For one thing, the Dodgers are 16-20, not a lowly 15-20. Half-game difference, baybee!

As for other points, here's MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on ESPN New York radio this morning:

Selig was asked why he approved the deal that sold the Dodgers to McCourt in 2004 in the first place. Ironically, Fox had held controlling interest of the club beforehand.

"I'll tell you what happened. There's a lot of history here, which a lot of people don't seem to understand," Selig said. "There were two other bidders. Fox was anxious to get rid of the team. They were all really anxious. I'll tell you what happened. There were a couple of groups: A group led by Dave Checketts and another group. And for whatever reason, they weren't around at the end, so Fox sold the club to the McCourts and presented them to us. So this idea that we ought to examine ourselves, there was nobody else. We have a long relationship with Fox. There were no other bidders."

It's a little unclear from this whether McCourt was the second group, or whether he was a third group at the end. Either way, according to Selig, McCourt was his only option at that point. Uh huh.

Selig refused to compare the Dodgers' situation with that of the Mets, who are currently looking for a partner to assume minority interest in the franchise. Mets owner Fred Wilpon and president Saul Katz are facing a lawsuit stemming from their involvement with Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff that could cost the team $1 billion.

"There are enormous complexities in both deals," Selig said. "I've read all these stories that say 'Well, they're really the same.' They're far from the same. Without going into details that haven't been announced, Fred Wilpon and I have been friends for a long time, and I have enormous respect and affection for him. But Fred Wilpon is doing what he should do. He's looking for an economic mechanism that will bring equity into the club: Sheer raw cash to put it in the most candid way. That alone is a huge difference.

"To compare one situation to the other is factually incorrect. I've talked to Fred a lot about it, and I feel very comfortable that we're gonna have a very reasoned economic solution to that problem as opposed to another.

I love that Selig quote. So basically, Selig is treating McCourt differently because (a) Wilpon is seeking equity, while McCourt continues to dive into further debt instruments; and (b) Wilpon is a friend of Selig's, and McCourt is not.

Kinda makes me feel like McCourt (and the Dodgers) aren't sitting at the big boy table at dinnertime. That must explain the tantrums.

Russ Newhan: I Told You So

Former LA Times national baseball columnist Russ Newhan has a nice piece over at ESPN.com, reminding us that he, among many others, thought from the start that the McCourt ownership decision was disastrous. An excerpt:

In the fall of [2003], the McCourts began serious discussions with Selig and other baseball officials regarding the Dodgers. Jason Reid, then covering the team for the Los Angeles Times, partnered with the then-national baseball columnist at The Times (yes, myself), to repeatedly produce stories regarding the McCourts' suspect resources based on material from sources familiar with the talks but not authorized to discuss them.

In addition, both of the McCourts' hometown newspapers raised questions about their finances. [Sax's note: Newhan's editor must have cut the Boston Herald reference for space reasons, I assume.]

In the Boston Globe, for instance, business columnist Steve Bailey began what he cynically billed as the "Frank McCourt Appeal, as worthy a cause as you will find in Boston. Our motto: Please give so he can go."

Bailey also wrote: "Few in this town have talked the talk more and walked the walk less. ... He was going to buy the Red Sox. He was going to build a new Fenway on the waterfront. Instead, 25 years after McCourt bought his South Boston land from a bankrupt Penn Central, what we have down there is acres of parking lots."

Ultimately, Selig's support of the McCourts' highly leveraged purchase of the Dodgers for $430 million from Rupert Murdoch's media giant News Corp. came as a shock.

Murdoch, with his regional networks up and running, was anxious to have his company end six years of tumultuous Dodger ownership, an appropriate prelude to what has followed. [...]

Ultimately, claiming annual Dodger losses of $40 million, Murdoch was willing to loan the McCourt's $145 million of their $430 million purchase price, accepting as collateral the Boston parking lot that McCourt and his wife owned and which News Corp. ultimately foreclosed on and sold, according to court documents.

In addition, multiple sources told me, Murdoch pressured Selig because Murdoch had at that time also talked Team McCourt into accepting an undervalued, multiyear TV contract that may have saved Murdoch as much as $500,000.

So McCourt has a history of undervaluing TV contracts? Isn't that exactly what he's hoping to mortgage today, in order to get the $300M liquidity from Fox? Hmm.

The point of Newhan's article is that Selig deserves some of the blame for this McCourt mess, that the signs of McCourt's overleveraged financial status and personal smarminess were there from the start. On the flipside--and not that I'm sticking up for Frank by any means--he did preside over an era where the Dodgers made more playoff opportunities than we'd seen in a while. In any event, Newhan is right in saying that Selig is tied at the hip to this debacle. He got the Dodgers in with this guy, and it's going to be him that's going to have to get him out of here.

I suppose the real lesson, then, is to make sure that the next owner of the Dodgers, which hopefully comes soon, will be one who doesn't show the fatal flaws that Frank McCourt had. The Dodgers need an owner who is financially stable and will "walk the talk." In fact, perhaps Kobe and Phil will see someone like that on Monday night...

Today in Damning Quotes

From "The Dodgers, the Mets and the Commissioner" at the NY Times:

On Friday, Rob Manfred, a Selig deputy who is an executive vice president of Major League Baseball, gave voice to the deep skepticism about McCourt.

"There is no owner," he said, "who, during the period 2004 to 2011, that we’ve spent more time with on his business problems, his business issues and his desire to be treated differently under applicable rules, than Frank McCourt."

Dayum! And on the record too!

Dodgers Return Fire Against Bud Selig

The fun continues. From ESPN:

New Los Angeles Dodgers executive Steve Soboroff came to the defense of embattled owner Frank McCourt on Thursday, blasting commissioner Bud Selig's decision to have Major League Baseball assume control of the team. Soboroff, the Los Angeles civic leader and former mayoral candidate whom the Dodgers hired Tuesday as vice chairman, said Thursday the Dodgers are in good shape financially and Selig's move was "irresponsible" and came as "a shock."

Soboroff cited the Dodgers' potential 20 year, $3 billion television deal with Fox as evidence McCourt has sufficient funds to operate the team.

"All this momentum is building and then all of sudden this letter comes in and says, 'You don't have any money. You don't have this or that.' I think it was irresponsible," Soboroff said.

He added: "That letter was not expected. [It] was a shock. ... Let us show the exciting things that we can do, that Los Angeles can do for Major League Baseball." The television deal, which McCourt reportedly presented to MLB representatives on April 5 as a long-term solution to the team's financial problems, has yet to be approved by Selig.

"Frank has money in the bank," Soboroff said. "He has a $3 billion deal with Fox. Not on [the credit card]. He's got it on [the ATM card]. The only thing [preventing] him from sticking [the ATM card] in the machine, is this letter. "Can't we talk to the commissioner? Can't we talk to the people that are going to vote on this?" Soboroff said he was unsure of McCourt's plans to challenge Selig's decision. Soboroff spoke with the owner Wednesday after the letter had been delivered and said McCourt had a "mature" response.

Any thoughts on what a "mature response" would entail? Is "nanny nanny boo boo" still considered mature?

Soboroff added: "How do you single him out when you don't single the Mets out? Come on."

The Mets have reportedly borrowed $25 million from MLB to keep baseball operations afloat as the Wilpon family looks for someone to buy a share of the team. Ownership needs to raise funds as it battles a lawsuit by the Bernard Madoff trustee that could potentially cost the team $1 billion.

Selig bristled Thursday when asked if he sees any similarities between the Dodgers and the Mets.

"The only thing I'm going to say is that there are a lot of differences," Selig said, according to multiple media outlets. "The situations are clearly not similar, and that's in a myriad of ways. ... So if you ask me is the analogy is a proper one, I say no. "Anyone who portrays that as the case ... is incorrect. Very incorrect. That's based on the facts, as I know them."

Saying we're not the Mets is like when the owner of my son's (former) daycare defended her treatment of staff by saying "I'M NOT HITLER". (100% true story)

And I thought the only link between the Mets and the Dodgers was me, SoSG Delino DeSheilds. Apparently financial incompetence and general schmuckness is also in that ven diagram. (Not unlike me too).

PS - I'm gonna just keep posting my concept art for the War of the Roses reboot until it goes viral!!!

McCourtia

• Frank McCourt has made a statement. And what do you know, Jamie McCourt has made a statement too:

  As the 50% owner of the Dodgers, I welcome and support the commissioner's actions."

• Frank is robbing Bingham to pay Fox. From the above article, by Bill Shaikin at the LA Times:

  McCourt needed a $30-million loan from Fox in order to meet payroll last week, secured with funds he does not have and might never have.

  In the event McCourt cannot repay Fox, he has promised the company $30 million from any settlement with or judgment against Bingham McCutchen, the law firm that drafted the since-invalidated agreement that McCourt had relied upon to establish his ownership of the Dodgers.

• Tim Brown dismantles Frank. Nice work, Mr. Brown. Will McCourt surrender the Dodgers quietly? (Yahoo! Sports)

Straw Poll

From the excellent "The irredeemable Frank McCourt" by Jon Weisman at Dodger Thoughts:

Speculation is that the last straw for Selig was a reported $30 million personal loan that McCourt received from Fox that was believed to be necessary to meet the Dodgers' payroll obligations -- the latest indication of how fragile McCourt's financial underpinnings are.

From "Dodgers' status could remain in limbo for foreseeable future" by Bill Shaikin at the LA Times:

There was no last straw for Selig, according to the parties briefed on his decision. "It was an accumulation of everything," one of those parties said.

Which is it, guys?

Straw or no last straw?
	Straw!
	No last straw!
pollcode.com free polls