Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frank McCourt agrees to sell Dodgers
L.A. Times ^ | 11/1/11 | Steve Dilbeck

Posted on 11/01/2011 10:21:07 PM PDT by Nachum

Frank McCourt agreed Tuesday to sell the Dodgers, abruptly surrendering the team after fighting to retain it over two years and in two courts.

McCourt and Major League Baseball have agreed to seek approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for an auction of the Dodgers. The sale is expected to include the team, Dodger Stadium and the surrounding parking lots, a package bought by McCourt for $421 million in 2004 and likely to sell for two to three times as much now.

The league hopes a new Dodgers owner can be in place by opening day.

The new owner would be the third since Peter O'Malley sold the team to News Corp. in 1998. The Dodgers had remained in the O'Malley family since its patriarch, Walter, moved the team from Brooklyn to Los Angeles in 1958.

Photos: The Dodgers and the McCourts

The sale agreement caps what might be the most tumultuous season in club history, which started with a fan nearly beaten to death in the Dodger Stadium parking lot and ended with the league charging McCourt with "looting" $189 million in team revenue for personal use. The Dodgers called that allegation "inflammatory" and unsupportable.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agrees; dodgers; frank; mccourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Nachum

Hopefully the new owner(s) have plans to move them back to where they belong ... BROOKLYN!


21 posted on 11/02/2011 2:27:12 AM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antceecee

Yeah,
So did I.
To help his flagging construction bidness McCort took the Dodgers away from Vero Beach where they’d held spring training for decades and moved them to Arizona thus screwing Vero.
Sooo McCort has folk al across the country miffied at his sorry ass.


22 posted on 11/02/2011 3:18:14 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (FUBO ( Real conservative or go fish))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
I hear that sentiment a lot, but it's amazing how poorly the Dodgers fared in Brooklyn in the years leading up to their departure in 1958. I'm sure there were a number of reasons for this, but even the 1956 team that won the National League pennant had a hard time selling out games. By then it was surely just a matter of time since they left for greener pastures.

The Giants were in an even more difficult situation, since the Polo Grounds was an old, faded ballpark and the team really couldn't make any costly improvements because they were tied to a ground lease that made it impossible to justify major capital improvements to the building itself.

23 posted on 11/02/2011 4:01:28 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Not kidding, I thought he died earlier this year.


24 posted on 11/02/2011 4:06:00 AM PDT by mware (By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack
Maybe Commandante Zer0 will use some ‘stimulus’ cash to buy the team so he can have a gubmint car company (GM) and a MLB baseball team.
25 posted on 11/02/2011 4:17:00 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

404 - KEEP IT AWAY!

IF you have already donated, this isn't to you, because you already know that Free Republic needs all regular users and members to donate to help keep our lights on.

If you are a regular user but haven't yet donated, today would be a most opportune time. Our 4th Quarter FReepathon is into November and we'd like to wrap it up ASAP.

Please help keep Free Republic's lights on by making your donation today. Simply Click here!


Thanks very much, everyone!

26 posted on 11/02/2011 5:06:04 AM PDT by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; BluesDuke; okie1; La Enchiladita; antceecee; chrisinoc; TBP; GeronL
This is a good compromise for both sides.

My theory all along in this dispute was that the sports MSM's obsessive and excessive trashing of Frank McCourt was driven by ex-wife Jamie and her Democrat pals in Washington, both in Congress and the Obama Administration. As long as Jamie's goal was to obtain part of the team in divorce court, she applied the screws to Frank through her DC political pals, who in turn gave Commissar Selig and his Park Avenue lawyers (unknown to many, "MLB" has a lobbying operation in Washington) the motivation to come down with an iron fist on Frank. Selig and company, in an unprecedented move, vetoed the Dodgers' lucrative TV contract extension with Fox, which forced the bankruptcy filing. All along, the leftist MSM, at Selig's request, couldn't contain itself in framing Frank McCourt into the devil and Selig (whose history is far from spotless) as the White Knight coming to the rescue of Dodger fans.

It was hardly a coincidence that once Jamie had agreed that $130 million and a slew of luxury properties was sufficient for a comfortable life and that the team belonged to her ex-husband, Selig and crew agreed to moderate their hard-line approach and negotiated this compromise.

27 posted on 11/02/2011 9:43:24 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP; chrisinoc; All
You will not see "Chavez Ravine" on any English language maps of Los Angeles printed after Dodger Stadium opened, unless, perhaps, separatist groups like La Raza wish to use Senor Chavez's name to evoke the Mexican-American history of the area.

But Selig's legal crew did refer to "Chavez Ravine" in its legal briefs against the Dodgers, undoubtedly to offend McCourt and court favor with Mexican nationalists.

28 posted on 11/02/2011 9:57:13 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Chavez Ravine is where Dodger Stadium is located. I read at least one article saying that after a sale, they might leave the ravine and build a new ballpark downtown.


29 posted on 11/02/2011 10:22:51 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Maybe the O’Malleys could buy it back.


30 posted on 11/02/2011 10:27:00 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The Dodgers did NOT do poorly before leaving Brooklyn. They were drawing over a million a year. (In those days, that was a big number.) By contrast, the Giants drew a bit over 200,000 their last year at the Polo Grounds.

The real issue was that O’Malley wanted to build a ballpark near Atlantic and Flatbush in the heart of Brooklyn, but the city’s chief planner, Robert Moses, wouldn’t allow it. (He offered land in the Flushing Meadow in Queens (about where Citi Field is now.)

Ironically, the site in Brooklyn that O’Malley wanted is now the site of the Barclays Center, the soon-to-be home of the Nets.


31 posted on 11/02/2011 10:33:48 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TBP; okie1; BluesDuke; All
Chavez Ravine is where Dodger Stadium is located.

Geographic names change over the years, as properties are developed and change character. Map makers keep up with those changes. "Chavez Ravine" was the former name of the property, not its widely accepted (except for some Mexican nationalists and some anti-Dodgers baseball fans) current name.

32 posted on 11/02/2011 10:52:38 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TBP
The Dodgers did NOT do poorly before leaving Brooklyn. They were drawing over a million a year.

That's not exactly an inspiring figure, since they were in about the middle of the pack among major leage teams, despite the fact that they fielded superb teams with multiple future Hall of Famers and near-HOFers, winning NL pennants or coming close just about every year over the previous decade.

Clearly, there were lots of legitimate problems with small and aging Ebetts Field, not the least of which was lack of parking and deterioration of the surrounding neighborhood.

33 posted on 11/02/2011 11:03:51 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Which is why O’Malley wanted a new park. But there was no problem with Brooklyn. As I said, they drew over a million to a dilapidated old ballpark that didn’t have the easiest access.


34 posted on 11/02/2011 11:27:02 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; All
...it's amazing how poorly the Dodgers fared in Brooklyn in the years leading up to their departure in 1958.

By any standard, they certainly didn't fare poorly on the field. Their teams were consistent contenders in the NL pennant race from 1946 to 1957. Plus, they kept the same nucleus of popular stars (including a bunch of future Hall of Famers and near Hall of Famers) on the roster over much of that time frame.

The key to the decision to leave Ebetts Field was that the general attendance trend was down over that decade or so. A lot of that was that due to demographic change, with many loyal Dodger fans moving out of Brooklyn to Queens, Long Island, and beyond. These old fans would prefer to watch their team on TV rather than take a lengthy trip and fight the traffic and parking problems or use public transit to see them in person.

The Giants were in an even more difficult situation, since the Polo Grounds was an old, faded ballpark and the team really couldn't make any costly improvements because they were tied to a ground lease that made it impossible to justify major improvements to the building itself.

The Giants, like just about all teams operating out of the older stadiums at that time, owned the Polo Grounds. They were not renters. So I don't know what "ground lease" you are referring to. The Giants hit their peak on the field with their 1954 World Championship. They were able to draw sellouts to the two World Series games at the Polo Grounds. In the three remaining years there, despite the fact they had Willie Mays, they were never in pennant contention, and had losing records in the last two of them. So, unlike the Dodgers, a large part of the Giants' problem was their playing personnel. Fans tend to be attracted to winning teams and tend to not bother going to the park to see losers.

The Giants too had legitimate problems with parking and a deteriorating neighborhood. But they did have one advantage that the Dodgers didn't have: the largest seating capacity in the NL. And the Polo Grounds wasn't so old and faded that the new New York Mets couldn't use it for a couple of years in 1962 and 1963.

35 posted on 11/02/2011 1:03:20 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Ironically, the site in Brooklyn that O'Malley wanted is now the site of the Barclays Center, the soon-to-be-home of the Nets.

Comparing the building of a baseball stadium to that of an indoor basketball (and/or hockey) arena in a particular location is like comparing oranges to pineapples. The baseball stadium would have to accommodate more than twice the capacity of the indoor arena, causing more traffic congestion. It also would require a much larger area, including more parking facilities. Plus, the baseball stadium would host more games per year. Overall, getting a baseball stadium built is by far the more complicated task.

36 posted on 11/02/2011 1:18:50 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TBP
A million a year in New York City doesn't seem high at all. That averages out to about 13,000 fans per game, doesn't it?

Interestingly, the troubles the Dodgers had in getting a new ballpark built wasn't because Robert Moses "wouldn't allow it" . . . it was because Moses wouldn't use the City's eminent domain powers to condemn the land and give it to O'Malley for substantially less than it would have cost him to buy it outright.

37 posted on 11/02/2011 6:29:43 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

“Chavez Ravine is where Dodger Stadium is located.
Geographic names change over the years, as properties are developed and change character. Map makers keep up with those changes. “Chavez Ravine” was the former name of the property, not its widely accepted (except for some Mexican nationalists and some anti-Dodgers baseball fans) current name.”

I am a white guy from Orange County, who watched games at the Coliseum, remember going to new Dodger Stadium at Chavez Ravine.

I’m no Mexican nationalist, and certainly not anti-Dodgers.

My wife’s Italian immigrant grandparents lived east of that area, around 1920 once they met in San Francisco and then moved to LA.

Now of course it isn’t a great area. There’s nothing political about calling it Chavez Ravine.

Chavez is named after a 19th century LA councilman, not Caesar Chavez.


38 posted on 11/02/2011 6:36:55 PM PDT by truth_seeker (is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
The Giants owned the Polo Grounds -- the stadium itself -- but they did not own the land on which it stood. The land was leased from the Coogan family, which had been prominent landowners in Manhattan for years . . . hence the name "Coogan's Bluff" for the hill next to the stadium that also became a popular nickname for the Polo Grounds over the years.

A couple of interesting articles about the legal proceedings surrounding the demise of the Polo Grounds:

Part I

Part II

39 posted on 11/02/2011 6:50:29 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Boop His Nose

Diving Tiger Says
Time to Support Free Republic

Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

40 posted on 11/02/2011 7:40:49 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson