1 of 1- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline - Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Frank McCourt to pay
$225,000.00 a month in spousal support to Jamie while they await a judges ruling....
....
I don't really know what else to say.... This is why there are contract killers....
Last edited by alz (9/15/2011 8:38 am)
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
"$225,000.00 a month in spousal support to Jamie"
Holy schneickies. Does he even have that much left in his checking account?
- don.rob11
- Édgar Rentería
Offline
- Registered: 9/11/2010
- Posts: 4,299
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
........but is she going to be able to make ends meet, on that pittance ?
- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline
- Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
don.rob11 wrote:
........but is she going to be able to make ends meet, on that pittance ?
For most municipal governments.....
- •
Thread Starter- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline
- Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
Interesting read.
I'm actually on board with the spirit of this article. I'm okay with a sport governing body, but I think it's pretty shady to force anyone to sell the company they own, and hold a TV deal hostage against it. On the flip side, I can easily agree that not governing that team can result in something that's not in the interest of the team.
But really? Threatening to kick the DODGERS out of MLB if they negotiate TV rights without Selig's approval, when there's no way the Dodgers can get that approval, and no way to make payroll without that deal? Hell I have no idea how I feel here. I think MLB has a point with McCourt taking money from the club to support himself, but he's the owner, why wouldn't he? Then when the club hits bankruptcy I can see MLB being pissed.... But when MLB is forcing them to bankruptcy by blocking their revenue?? Again, I have no idea what side of the fence I'm on here. McCourt's probably a douche, but Selig's an asshole here too.
I'm interested in how a court decides who's got the legal right to do what here. Fors, what do you think man? On the one side, I can see this really tempering the rights of the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL offices as the "dean's" of their leagues. On the other? I can see it playing out that McCourt did in fact agree to that type of governance and should live with the casualties of signing that contract. Buyer beware really can't be typed out any plainer. You run afoul of the commissioner, and he can run you out of the league.
- •
Thread Starter- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
Sorry Alz, but this is way outside of my area of expertise. Once you dump an asset into bankruptcy, the Court appoints a trustee charged with managing the asset. I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that if McCourt truly could negotiate a TV deal that would be sufficient to pay off the creditors, the trustees would have an obligation to take the proposal to the bankruptcy judge for approval. But, as Selig says, the TV deal wouldn't have any value if the Dodgers weren't a part of MLB, and the judge has no control over MLB operations.
Then again, this is me totally shooting from the hip, so I could be dead wrong on everything I just typed.
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Frank McCourt to pay
Here's a related read from the L.A. Times that addresses Selig's hypocrisy.
,0,3903262.column