The McCourt Divorce Brings A Hefty Price Tag - Who Pays?
by Eric Stephen on Mar 5, 2010 8:55 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintThis divorce story just won't go away. Bill Shaikin of the L.A. TImes, on the McCourt divorce beat, brings us news of the exorbitant legal fees of their break:
Frank and Jamie McCourt's divorce could become one of the costliest splits in California history, with attorneys and accountants commanding as much as $19 million in fees — more than the Dodgers will spend on their starting infield this season.
Frank McCourt has estimated his "divorce-related expenses" at $5 million to $10 million, according to court filings. Jamie McCourt has estimated her expenses at $9 million — and asked that her estranged husband be ordered to pay them.
Emphasis mine. It seems sensationalistic to suggest the Dodgers are choosing between infielders and divorce attorneys, even at a cost previously unheard of in California divorce law:
Although records of salaries and statistics are omnipresent in baseball, specific information about divorce costs is largely unavailable. The Times consulted with several family law experts, none of whom could recall a divorce costing $19 million.
The Dodgers aren't directly going to foot the bill for this divorce; the McCourts will. Of course, per court documents filed by Jamie McCourt, the McCourts have enjoyed numerous perks as owners. But, is this any different than any other owner? The only thing that makes this different is that no other team has their expenses laid out in court documents.
I don't begrudge anyone for wanting the Dodgers to spend more on payroll. It's hard to look at the Phillies and their payroll $40-45 million higher than the Dodgers and think otherwise. But it seems no matter what happens with the Dodgers, the decision is seen through the lens of the divorce. To me, any payroll problems the Dodgers have are related to debt service. The divorce itself isn't necessarily causing any problems, but rather bringing to light problems that have been there for some time.
So, no, I don't think it's particularly relevant to compare the legal costs of the McCourts' divorce to the salaries of the Dodger infield. I don't think a choice was made to retain one of infielder Orlando Hudson or attorney Marshall Grossman. But comparisons like these will be made for some time, until we see a resolution or a change in ownership.
On the bright side, baseball started again today.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We had 26 entries and a lot of interesting debate in the Clayton Kershaw Community Projection project. Most of the projections were very optimistic; some overly so in my view, especially in the H/IP department where there were some entries that looked weird to me. Nevertheless, I decided to tally the results as-is just to see what happens.
cough cough cough
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/3/4/1356566/clayton-kershaw-community
what did you predict
4 H/9? haha
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 5, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
honestly, the more I hear about this the more pissed off I get
To listen to these people’s divorce is really annoying
Im still hoping this causes them to sell the team… I’ll call Eli Broad, someone call Mark Cuban :)
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 5, 2010 9:45 PM PST reply actions
When people suggest Broad as a Dodger owner, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I can’t for the life of me determine what makes people think he would care about the team in the field.
by JonWeisman on Mar 5, 2010 10:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The money that he put into downtown LA
And the amount he has spent doing programs that help the poorer LA citizens. He was rumored to be interested when they were for sale in 04 and I believe his name came up last Oct, shortly after the divorce stuff came out.
Think of it from his perspective. He buys a young talented team that is already in contention, has a fairly solid staff and a good MiLB system. He can sign the young stars to long term deals and work out a deal with the Angels(his name evades me right now) for the TV rights. They could have a baseball dynasty with not one, but two competitve teams, in seperate leagues to control most if So Cal.
Given that he has always been a sports fan, specifically the Dodgers, I don’t see why he wouldn’t want to own the team and field a competitive one…
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 5, 2010 11:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Sorry for the double post
But I should mention that I feel he will be different than FOX, Disney(for the Angels) or the McCourts. The reason is simple… He had cold hard cash that he has showed he is willing to put into the city of LA because of La Live… The 3 owners I mentioned were either big corporations that owned a team to say they own the team and/or to make money(remember, fox got the TV deals, while Disney was able to pair the Ducks and Angels) or had everything borrowed on credit… Neither is a way to run a proffessional team and I do not believe Broad would have either of these problems
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 5, 2010 11:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
L.A. Live is not some altruistic endeavor, and the Dodgers are not the same as disadvantaged schoolchildren. Broad has done some great things for the city, but there is nothing to indicate that a winning sports team would be something he’d prioritize. Add in the fact that he is prone to rethink major commitments … I think his white knighthood would wear off fast.
If all it took to be a good baseball owner was cash, past business success and some big donations, a lot of teams would be happier than they are now. But it’s not like that formula correlates with baseball success.
by JonWeisman on Mar 6, 2010 7:08 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
The Criteria seems simple enough to me
1. Already be a part of the Los Angeles Community
2. Have enough money that the team is not the sole source of income
3. Have enough money to play with the big boys
4. Have an ego big enough that winning means something.
5. Hire a credible management team and then let them run the organization with two goals not mutually exclusive. Win and profit.
Very few individuals can meet those criteria. However it would seem that Eli Broad does?
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I think with Broad, #4 and #5 are more complicated than you suggest. Broad wouldn’t like to lose per se, but again, there’s just zero to indicate that a World Series title would mean anything to him at this point in his life. So he’d buy the Dodgers to save them from disaster, to keep them as a local institution, but after that, it’s all up in the air.
And most importantly, Broad does not disappear from the things he’s funding – quite the opposite. He’s deeply involved. He is not a silent partner.
I’m not arguing he would be worse than the McCourts, but he’s a very dubious choice as savior for those who are worried about the Dodgers’ baseball operations.
Eli Broad has apparently been a Dodger fan for a long time
To me, that says he should have interest in the team and showed it when he trying to buy them a few years ago. It also shows that he wouldn’t buy the team and let them rot. He has put money into LA as an investor and to own your hometown team and be able to brag you brought them to the promise land, it would be a dream come true for a sports fan.
Broad does not need money, and that is what separates him from most. He went into LA Live not to make millions, but more to help the downtown community. I wouldn’t be suprised if he will make money from La Live, but that wasn’t his goal. That was the goal of the McCourts and Fox. Similar to LA Live, I think he would buy the team knowing that he’ll make some money, but it would also be that he owns his favorite team.
One final thing. I believe that Broad understands that just because you own a team doesn’t mean you are doing the everyday actions. I think he’d be willing to hire a smart management team to run the team. I also don’t think his LA Live commitments would have any affect on owning the Dodgers. As is well known, he started with a lot of money, will eventually make money from LA Live and when you own a productive MLB team, you will make money from that.
I feel that if Broad does buy the team, he’d try to work with the Angels and get a TV network going, similar to the YES network in NY. Who knows, he could try to get the Lakers or Clippers involved, and/or the possibly football team that could come to LA. I think Broad would realize that after the Fox contracts expire, he could have a TV dynasty of La sports that would fuel his love for sports, LA and make a lot of money…
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 6, 2010 2:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Broad’s bid for the Dodgers in 2003 was late and exceedingly half-assed. It was done almost as soon as it was floated. It reeked of a publicity gambit. I don’t mean that as a personal put-down – but it was not a serious bid.
I can also tell you from experience that Broad simply does not have a history of putting money into something and then standing back. Your notion that he would just buy the team and then get out of the way – is that based on something concrete, on anything other than wishful thinking?
And the idea that he’s going to work with the Angels or any other team to build a TV network – an area in which he couldn’t have less experience – that just seems completely pie in the sky.
I can’t say he’s not a Dodger fan, but I’ve never heard that he’s a longtime fan, nor have I ever heard anyone report ever seeing him at a game. But on that point I’m not sure. Where are you hearing otherwise?
In any case, if you think Broad is the moon and the stars, obviously I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
Eli Broad's bid came in at $430 million, the same as McCourt, and nearly all in cash
While everyone was waiting to see if McCourt’s bid would be accepted. According to the article I linked below, the mayor asked him to make a bid and he matched McCourt, except he was willing to use cash instead of loans. Now, we don’t know if the offer was made because he knew it was too late, but to offer $430 million dollars, mainly in cash, for anything should so some willingness to commit. One interesting tid bit from the Times article linked below was that Broad was angry with FOX for what he felt was disrespect by not taking his interest seriously…
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/17/sports/sp-dodgers17
When Broad submitted his offer, baseball litterally ignored him, making his offer seem half-assed, even if it was 100% serious. He submitted an offer when it was suggested by others to do so and it was a better one than the McCourt’s. MLB seemed to not want Broad to be an owner and was willing to ignore usual procedures to allow McCourt to buy the team.
Late in the game, of course, billionaire developer—and actual Southern Californian—Eli Broad offered to pay, mostly in cash, the same purchase price as McCourt had agreed to finance through a variety of debt instruments. However, much as Frank now scoffs at Jamie’s claim that she will buy Frank out of the Dodgers, Major League Baseball essentially told Broad that the Dodgers were no longer for sale. With nothing but formalities separating Frank McCourt from a leveraged purchase of the Dodgers, Broad’s offer was largely ignored.
http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/2009/12/hop-in-wayback-machine.html
from the LA Times story linked above, this quote is very interesting:
The source said Broad would work strictly in the background and hire a respected baseball person to run the Dodgers.
Apparently Broad was willing to be in the background in 04 and I doubt much would have changed.
I would think that whoever the Dodger owner will most likely look to build a TV market like the Yankees. Steinbrenner took the Yankees and created the YES network and now the Yankees, Jets and Nets have contracts to be broadcasted on the YES network. The YES network is now a nationwide network that can be seen in LA on Direct TV(the only reason I know is I tried to convince my family to switch to Direct TV to get Yankee games… didn’t work).
Similar to New York, LA has a number of professional teams that could be looking for a new cable home in the semi-near future. A TV network run by Broad and Moreno could dominate So Cal and make them millions. For business men like those two, it would seem like a logical step.
Looking back, I wish I hadnt used the term lifelong fan because I cannot find an article to back up the claim. That was bad wording on my part.
I am willing to admit that he is not a good candidate to own the team if someone gives me a reason to believe it. However, Broad has shown an interest in the team in the past and given his work in LA Live, Id think he would be interested in owning the team and following in George Steinbrenner’s footsteps..
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Mar 6, 2010 11:01 PM PST up reply actions
Jamie McCourt
Dear Jamie,
You are a Back-Stabbing, Morally Bankrupt,Selfish,Pick-Pocket !
Hopefully you’ll buy the S.F. Giants with your settlement.
Next time don’t leave your dentures in the front seat of the limousine.
Great news
Clubhouse guy Mitch Poole has quashed the idea of Ethier changing jersey numbers according to Dylan H. Too much work would have to be done regarding merchandise, etc.
Scheduled to pitch for White Sox
Freddy Garcia
Matt Thornton
Tony Peña
Jhonny Nuñez (old friend; thanks for Magic Merlin)
Brian Omogrosso
Bobby Jenks
From Jon Morosi of Fox Sports
Russell Martin is getting a sore groin checked this morning. Won’t play today
Gurnick says Martin was taken for an MRI this morning on his hip or groin.
by Eric Stephen on Mar 6, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
