McCourt vs McCourt (Frank fires Jamie)

[realmofotalk]

Dodger Divorce: Jamie's Hail Mary.

So there's a chance that Jamie can basically argue that she sucks at life and have her creditors go after Frank instead?

Or have it hilariously blow up in her face?

Question -- and I'm not a lawyer, so bear with me for any key legal phrases I misuse.... What does Jamie stand to lose if she executes this plan but it doesn't work?

Say for example the judge doesn't play his part -- he refuses to void the post-nup and Frank retains ownership of the Dodgers.

Now Jamie is bankrupt, doesn't have the Dodgers, and all her property is foreclosed upon... does she even have a pot to piss in?

[Saber]

It was a good read. The tactic is very interesting, but for those that aren't legal-minded, just because the theory works, doesn't mean it will fly in court. That's also what the author said about this. This would require Jamie to act in blatant bad faith, and the court wouldn't like that.

[realmofotalk]

By the way, if there's no settlement how do you see this case ending? Does the post nup get honored or does the community property law override it anyway? Or will a shit storm of creditors rain down on the couple and force a sale?

[Saber]

In my non-lawyer opinion, I think Frank will have enough weaknesses in the asset-transfer agreement that they'll eventually settle, with her being bought out. Given how leveraged they are, that probably means selling the team.

[realmofotalk]

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Frank won't get his earliest date. While the consequences to the franchise of a drawn-out process are significant, a hasty trial would be very prejudicial to Jamie's side. Furthermore, if the proceedings start on the very early side and Jamie loses, the entire issue might require an appeal--which would take even longer.

At the end of the day, it just seems that the risks of starting too soon outweigh the benefits of getting things underway. I suppose we'll find out together tomorrow.

Ugh, I thought the courts are all about tough love. Now the process is likely to be drawn-out just to prevent an appeal.

[realmofotalk]

Speaking of judgment, the McCourt divorce has a trial date of May 24. According to court papers, Jamie McCourt is contesting ownership of the club and the validity of a marital property agreement she signed providing full ownership of the franchise to Frank McCourt and ownership of most of the other assets of their marriage to her.

Because of that document, Frank McCourt said the Dodgers ownership situation shouldn't be compared to that of the San Diego Padres -- who were sold last year as the result of owner John Moores' divorce.

"When you talk about California, a community property state, and a divorce and sports teams, people might come to the conclusion that the team gets split and so forth, and perhaps that's the situation in San Diego," he said. "My situation is different. There were agreements signed and those agreements alter what is normally the case in a community property state. That's my case. I have agreements, they are public record and they show very clearly I own the team, 100 percent of the team, and I have since I arrived. It's a totally different situation.

"I own the team, it's not for sale and my hope someday is that my four boys will own the team. When people process this situation, they go down a path that the team is owned 50/50 and one party has to buy out the other. That's when you need a partner and that's not this situation. I own 100 percent. There's nothing to buy."

When the team was purchased in 2004, Frank McCourt alone was approved by MLB as the 100 percent owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

/thread, God willing the judge does the right thing

[realmofotalk]

Memories Of Kevin Malone: Jamie McCourt Files Papers

For starters, Shaikin mentions that Jamie wants double the monthly support that she originally requested.

In filing for divorce in October, Jamie McCourt asked for $488,000 per month in temporary support. The revised request -- for $988,845 per month -- reflects property-tax bills as well as additional records that her lawyers claim can show the couple averaged $2.3 million per month in salaries, distributions and perks starting in 2004, when the McCourts bought the Dodgers.

Frank McCourt still would have $1.3 million per month to maintain his lifestyle, her lawyers wrote.

"Jamie fully recognizes that the . . . award which she will be seeking will be viewed by many people as being astronomical," according to the filing. "That may very well be the case. But Jamie's request also has been thoroughly documented . . . as being wholly consistent with the parties' marital lifestyle."

Now if we run that through the B.S. translator, we essentially get:

"Yeah, I realize the public is gonna hate me for this, and that's regrettable, but when it comes down it, money absolutely comes first for me. I'm rich, *****. Peace out."

[realmofotalk]

Continued:

Okay, before I say what I need to say, don't get me wrong about businesses. I absolutely believe they have the right to make money, as that's their main goal.

That said, I do not believe they have the right to use the money of the fans to go make it rain in their personal lives. If we were talking about profits, that would be one thing, but we are talking about the revenue that the team generates.

They used all of our money to live their lavish lifestyle, all while using their public relations machine to satiate the masses. Can't compete in the free agent market, can't invest in Latin America, can't keep prospects over cash, can't lower ticket/parking/concession prices, and can't spend money in the draft, but they can spend millions per month on our dime, all while not paying taxes. Absurd.

Now I don't feel so bad for Frank (and Jamie) that NedCo threw away tens of millions of dollars on Pierre, Schmidt, and Fatdruw, since all they had to do to recover their profit margin to go make it rain in their lifestyle was to rip us off further. If Ned ****ed up, the better he looks as the scapegoat.

[missionhockey21]

$988,845 per month

Well, at least she doesn't need seven figures a month to live comfortably. Nice to see us all cutting back in times like today.

[realmofotalk]

I understand the judge is supposed to be fair and impartial, but I hope even he feels insulted by the demands of Jamie's camp, considering she made her bed with the asset transfer agreement.

[realmofotalk]

The Dodgers expect you to pay twice the price for half the product - HardballTalk - Baseball - NBC Sports

The L.A. Times' Bill Shaikin reports that a document setting forth the Dodgers' financial plans was leaked in connection with the McCourt divorce. The document, which was created by the Dodgers in order to solicit Chinese investors in the team and/or a soccer club Frank McCourt wants to buy, sets out the following:

* The Dodgers anticipate their revenue to rise from from $295 million in 2008 to $529 million in 2018;

* Anticipate their average ticket price to rise from $29.40 in 2007 to $53.50 in 2018; and

* Anticipate their payroll to rise from $123 million in 2008 to . . . $125 million in 2018.

Projecting anything out 8-10 years is something of a fool's game, but even if those exact numbers don't come to pass, a Frank McCourt-owned Dodgers team at least intends to nearly double ticket prices, nearly double revenue and keep payroll flat as a pancake over the next decade. For comparison, the Dodgers' 1998 payroll was a shade over $61 million. If they had stuck to a similar plan starting then, today the Dodgers would have roughly the same payroll as the Oakland Athletics.

Go to hell. If Frank ain't spending money, I'm not spending money. A real baseball commissioner would not allow the storied franchise in the second largest market to be one of the have-nots in the league, otherwise you can kiss those fat revenue sharing checks goodbye.

[realmofotalk]

Dodgers' divorce drama could linger through season | Dodgers Blog | Los Angeles Times

The question of who owns the Dodgers might not be resolved by the All-Star break, perhaps not by the end of the season.

The scheduled May 24 trial date was set aside by Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon on Tuesday morning. Gordon said he would meet with lawyers representing Frank and Jamie McCourt on March 30 to determine a new trial date.

A hearing on spousal support is scheduled for March 29-30, but Gordon suggested that proceeding might last longer than two days, given in part that Jamie McCourt's initial filing for that hearing included more than 1,400 pages. If the hearing did extend beyond two days, Gordon said it would resume May 24.

Lawyers for Jamie McCourt asked Gordon to delay the trial until October, citing the complexity of the case and the delays in obtaining documents. Lawyers for Frank McCourt opposed any delay, saying there was no reason both sides could not be prepared by May.

What kind of ****ing judge is this guy?? Does being legal-minded equate to being an unassertive, unprepared imbecile? Can't you read past the BS behind the 1,400 pages?

[missionhockey21]

Whoever had to prepare those 1400 pages is likely contemplating suicide. To know that you and others dedicated that much time to an effort like this has to be ultra depressing.

[realmofotalk]

Wanted: 2005 Dodgers media guide to run through the possibilities of which female front office staffer Frank McCourt is alleged to have hit on back then.




The first woman whose name came to my mind is Camille Johnston, former VP of communications, who now works for the Obama administration. (white girl below)





Problem is, her name doesn't appear to fit in the blackened out spaces. (Credit to Joe Dodger)



However, that could leave the possibility of...

...No, he wouldn't...would he?



*shudder*

[missionhockey21]

Most fascinating story of the offseason?