MLB Assuming Control of LA Dodgers
- Thread starter HD MM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 2K
It is probably contractual. Since the business operates under the authority of MLB, MLB has certain authorities under ownership contract
I just wish McCourt would give up and sell the team already. This divorce is hurting more than just him
I don't know. I do know that owners can only do what MLB allows as they have a contracted ownership though MLB. Perhaps there is something within the contract or collective bargaining agreement, or some stipulation when finances become an issue.
I do know if they were not allowed to do so, McCourt would definitely be a guy to immediately file a law suit (which he just may do anyway). I would bet the farm that he has lawyers looking at it as we speak
Nope, teams are solely owned by the owners, MLB has no ownership rights to the teams. That was actually part of MLB's arguments when they got the anti-trust exemption by declaring the teams were owned by the owners and not the league so each one was an intrastate organization as opposed to be an interstate organization and therefore exempt from the Sherman Act.
An act like this by MLB could actually destroy the exemption.
True but what is causing the troubles with the team? Is it just the divorce? How is the attendance at Dodger games? California has never had the love of baseball like the east coast. The Oakland A's are struggling as well.
I never knew there was such a thing as a postnuptial agreement. Apparently, they're not effective....
Los Angeles Dodgers taken over by MLB - ESPN Los Angeles
The commissioner of baseball has extraordinary power. He would take over the franchise on the grounds it is for the good of the game. If three quarters of the other owners agreed then the take over would be ratified.
From a strategic stand point he could wait until the Dodgers were on the financial rocks as were the Rangers when MLB got involved.
Jim
From a strategic stand point he could wait until the Dodgers were on the financial rocks as were the Rangers when MLB got involved.
Jim
Both the Mets and Dodgers apparently have financial troubles, but Wilpon is supposedly a friend of Selig and might get a little more time...They say the mets are next.
The Mets are not in the same situation as the Dodgers at the moment. The Dodgers were cutting back on everything from security to amenities, and one of the most prestigious franchises in the sport cannot be run that way.
The Wilponzis, have a liquidity issue right now and potential losses from the lawsuit down the road, but it has not affected them the way it's affected the Dodgers.
Sandra
Dodgers have the highest attendance in the NL and are pretty much always #2 behind the Yankees.
The issue with the finances is a combination of the divorce (and the stupid no fault divorce law) and his stupid property investments where he used the team as collateral and borrowed from the organization. Now that property value has dropped, so as his net worth (although in CA property is still pretty high. A house a couple blocks from mine in a middle class neighborhood in a lower class city is on the market for $780,000 (used to be worth $1.5 million)
Not the same, but similar. The Mets did take a $25M loan last November from MLB and last month the NY Post reported that the Mets were seeking a second loan to address their "short-term liquidity issue".
Couldn't believe that at 1st, so I looked it up and yes indeed you were right.
2010 Major League Baseball Attendance & Miscellaneous - Baseball-Reference.com
Sidenote, either the Dodgers and Cardinals have terrible TV contracts or they are just cheap.
Similar threads
