1 of 1- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline - Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Selig owns McCourt.
Says no to the TV contract, which nullifies the settlement he had with the ex-wife.
Not sure if this is a good thing or not. I understand McCourt used money he made from the Dodgers on his personal situation, but as an owner, isn't this is right? While I don't think he's a great owner, I don't think Selig should have this kind of ability.
The man is struggling to make payroll, MLB will make it for him, but then he risks losing the franchise by default. So there's a TV contract to get him going in the right direction, and Selig can axe this? Claiming it's not in the best interest of the Los Angeles Dodgers?
Whole thing just stinks, McCourt probably needs to go, but I really dislike Selig having the ability to push him out like this.
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Selig owns McCourt.
"Whole thing just stinks, McCourt probably needs to go, but I really dislike Selig having the ability to push him out like this."
If Selig was an honorable man in the first place, McCourt would be the owner of the Red Sox, who would be flourishing in a modern ballpark by the waterfront that could have had the same economic impact on Boston as Camden Yards had on Baltimore, instead of playing in that 100-year-old dump in the Fens.
McCourt has made a series of poor decisions, but he never would have been in a position to make them if Selig hadn't put him there. And we're not talking about some run-of-the-mill franchise like the Marlins or the Nationals that very few people outside of baseball care about or have even heard of. They've managed to screw up the most recognizable franchise in the National League.
Because it's the greatest game ever invented, baseball has always perservered in spite of buffoons like Bud Selig who consistently trying to wreck it.
Last edited by artie_fufkin (6/21/2011 8:49 am)