FiddySicks Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Looks like the bankruptcy isn't affecting their play on the field...15 runs on 24 hits. Wow.They're still 9 games back in the NL West. I'd have to disagree. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameroncrazie07 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Looks like the bankruptcy isn't affecting their play on the field...15 runs on 24 hits. Wow.They're still 9 games back in the NL West. I'd have to disagree.I didn't mean that for the entire season, I meant it for that 1 game. I was stating how I was surprised that they put up those type of numbers with all of this surrounding them. It really is fascinating. The Core 4 Sports Podcast Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Its one of those things where what he can do and what he'll try to do are two different things. He's going to take Bud Selig to court that's happening. Whether or not he'll win remains to be seen. My guess is that he has no chance. He's going to have to have a trial just for the right of actually having a trial. But that won't stop him from trying.A bankruptcy proceeding isn't a "trial" in the true sense of the term. Having been on the creditor side of a few of these I know the process to an extent. Basically well before they go before a judge, the declaring party's lawyer meets with the creditors and tries to negotiate a settlement. From that, whether they come to an agreement or not, they formulate a repayment plan for the outstanding debts (in Chapter 11 situations; Chapter 7's are different).The plan is then put before the judge, who is advised of which of the creditors agree to the terms and which do not. If they all do, usually the hearing is a formality - he declares the entity bankrupt and approves the plan. If any of the creditors balk at the settlement plan however, the judge then decides how the process goes: he can approve the plan and force the hand of the creditors, he can modify the plan, or he can throw it out entirely.Also, if other parties step forward and say they have the cash to buy the assets in a fashion which satisfies the creditors, the judge has the option (again, if a plan isn't approved by all the creditors) to force the sale of sufficient assets to pay off the debts, either immediately or in accordance with the original terms of any contracts which may be in place.So, at least in theory, any one of the following - or a combination of them (or something entirely different) - could happen:Some of the creditors could get together and screw up any plan McCourt puts forward. I'm personally hoping Vin Scully, as one of the creditors, helps screw the whole deal, in effect helping to save the franchise by getting it away from McCourt.The judge could force McCourt to sell off the Dodgers, but let him keep the ancillary assets (Dodger Stadium, the parking lots, etc.)The judge could force McCourt to sell off the ancillary assets, but let him keep the Dodgers (really odd possibility)The creditors could take an equity stake in the reorganized, post-bankruptcy Dodgers (imagine ManRam owning roughly 20% of the team).The creditors could ask the judge to change the proceeding to a Chapter 7 liquidation, in which case all hell breaks loose.The judge forces McCourt to sell the Dodger franchise and its ancillary assets to pay off creditors immediately, in which case we get to find out what the team's really worth in an open bidding process (a la the Texas Rangers last year).No matter what transpires, this is going to be quite interesting to watch. The most likely scenario is that McCourt is forced to sell the Dodger assets in a package, just like the Rangers were sold a year ago. In that case, you're likely to see MLB's first ever $1 billion club sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr79 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Looks like the bankruptcy isn't affecting their play on the field...15 runs on 24 hits. Wow.Maybe the entire roster just realised they might be in a contract year if the team is truly bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Let the "Dodgers-to-Winnipeg" rumors begin!Winnipeg got their team already. Move them to Montreal who already has an MLB ready stadium. Avenge Blue Monday I say.I'm not gonna derail too much, but Winnipeg might be ready for AAA ball. PCL average attendance is around 6300, and the Goldeyes are averaging 5500 in a 7300 seat park in indy A-AA ball; if they can align themselves with the Jays, as the Vancouver Canadians have done, they might be a nice surprise.Would they have to be a Blue Jays affiliate to be viable? What if the Twins moved their affiliation from Rochester? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanB06 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 MLB to bankruptcy court: We object! I think MLB just declared what its intentions are: the removal of McCourt as Dodgers owner. Sodboy13 said: As you watch more basketball, you will learn to appreciate the difference between "defense" and "couldn't find the rim with a pair of bloodhounds and a Garmin." meet the new page, not the same as the old page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 This quote... I think Selig just whipped it out and slapped McCourt across the face. "Having siphoned off well over $100 million of club revenues and obviously unable to distinguish between his personal interests and those of the club, Frank McCourt has driven the Dodgers into a liquidity crisis so severe that, absent extraordinary measures, the club would be unable to make its payroll," the filing read. "Mr. McCourt attempted to use that looming disaster to leverage (MLB) into approving the sale of the club's broadcast rights to pay current expenses and to permit millions more to be misappropriated for personal use." Off The Top Rope: A Pro Wrestling Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 This quote... I think Selig just whipped it out and slapped McCourt across the face. "Having siphoned off well over $100 million of club revenues and obviously unable to distinguish between his personal interests and those of the club, Frank McCourt has driven the Dodgers into a liquidity crisis so severe that, absent extraordinary measures, the club would be unable to make its payroll," the filing read. "Mr. McCourt attempted to use that looming disaster to leverage (MLB) into approving the sale of the club's broadcast rights to pay current expenses and to permit millions more to be misappropriated for personal use."They want him out there is no doubt about that at all and McCourt is going to do everything he can to keep the team or make sure that he's taken out kicking and screaming.People think this is going to go on for months, I could see it going on for years. He will file as many lawsuits and counter claims as he can until he either goes to jail for tax fraud or runs out of money. I could even see situation coming up down the road where the MLB gives him a sizeable settlement just to get him to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not up on this, but my understanding this all stems from a divorce. So I ask are the Dodgers really losing money or is this a case of McCourt trying to hide money from his wife in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not up on this, but my understanding this all stems from a divorce. So I ask are the Dodgers really losing money or is this a case of McCourt trying to hide money from his wife in some way?The McCourts bought the team on fake money and loans to begin with, including a substantial loan from the seller Fox. They put 0% down, only the deed to a parking lot they owned in Boston (which Fox later repossessd and sold for way more). This has come to a head quickly because of the divorce, but they basically took all the money they could off the top for personal use. Now they owe well over $500 million in loans and have no cash with which to pay them. This isn't about him keeping money from the wife. The fact that MLB approved the McCourts as owners is staggering, almost NHL-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not up on this, but my understanding this all stems from a divorce. So I ask are the Dodgers really losing money or is this a case of McCourt trying to hide money from his wife in some way?The McCourts bought the team on fake money and loans to begin with, including a substantial loan from the seller Fox. They put 0% down, only the deed to a parking lot they owned in Boston (which Fox later repossessd and sold for way more). This has come to a head quickly because of the divorce, but they basically took all the money they could off the top for personal use. Now they owe well over $500 million in loans and have no cash with which to pay them. This isn't about him keeping money from the wife. The fact that MLB approved the McCourts as owners is staggering, almost NHL-like.And to think that this clown was thisclose to owning the Red Sox... On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not up on this, but my understanding this all stems from a divorce. So I ask are the Dodgers really losing money or is this a case of McCourt trying to hide money from his wife in some way?The McCourts bought the team on fake money and loans to begin with, including a substantial loan from the seller Fox. They put 0% down, only the deed to a parking lot they owned in Boston (which Fox later repossessd and sold for way more). This has come to a head quickly because of the divorce, but they basically took all the money they could off the top for personal use. Now they owe well over $500 million in loans and have no cash with which to pay them. This isn't about him keeping money from the wife. The fact that MLB approved the McCourts as owners is staggering, almost NHL-like.Thank you. This is what I didn't knowI'm not up on this, but my understanding this all stems from a divorce. So I ask are the Dodgers really losing money or is this a case of McCourt trying to hide money from his wife in some way?The McCourts bought the team on fake money and loans to begin with, including a substantial loan from the seller Fox. They put 0% down, only the deed to a parking lot they owned in Boston (which Fox later repossessd and sold for way more). This has come to a head quickly because of the divorce, but they basically took all the money they could off the top for personal use. Now they owe well over $500 million in loans and have no cash with which to pay them. This isn't about him keeping money from the wife. The fact that MLB approved the McCourts as owners is staggering, almost NHL-like.And to think that this clown was thisclose to owning the Red Sox...Damn, what could have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The fact that MLB approved the McCourts as owners is staggering...Rupert Murdoch wanted out of the baseball ownership business as quickly as possible. Selig and the other MLB owners were afraid that if they allowed the process of diligently vetting prospective buyers to drag on, thereby requiring Murdoch to hang-on to the Dodgers for longer than he liked, that Murdoch would exact his revenge when MLB's broadcast deal with FOX ran out. They worried that Murdoch/FOX would low-ball them on rights fees or, worse yet, opt out of broadcasting MLB altogether. So, Selig-and-Company rubber-stamped the McCourts in order to placate Murdoch and maintain a business relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Again, that's what happens when you listen to Fox. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 And to think that this clown was thisclose to owning the Red Sox...*Thinks of that very scenario* On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Bring the Dogs back to Brooklyn. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winghaz Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 TheOldRoman put it best when he questioned the sanity of MLB owners for allowing McCourt to buy the Dodgers. What the #@&! were they thinking??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Same thing they thought when they let Tom Ricketts buy the Cubs: this guy can't afford to drive up our expenses. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRadniz29 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 My grandmother has been a fan of the dodgers since she was a teen and the team was in Brooklyn. My grandmother is now 87 years old, with Dementia and Alzheimer's. But I remember when the Dodgers where bout by McCourt and my Grandmother at the time told me "You watch Matt, he's going to ruin the organization, and I could run the team better than he can" Well I was always told never to argue with Grandma. She doesn't really ask about the Dodgers anymore, let alone really know what you are referring to when you say baseball. I'm not a Dodgers fan, growing up in the Bay Area it was A's and then Giants and we'll you know how that goes. I just came across this a few minutes ago:http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/06/mccourt-keeps-dodgers-for-now-may-get-loan-from-mlb/1From the looks the article of it MLB is going to allow McCourt to keep the Dodgers... for now and they may give him a loan on top of that... I guess Bud Selig wants McCourt more than he wants Cuban- That says a lot about Selig right there. I know Mark is not your typical by-the-book owner, but he's entertaining and the majority of what he says is true even if it's a bit brash. I used to despise Cuban, but I kinda like the guy now, he has seemed to mellow out a little.Anyway... I don't think the Dodgers are moving and if they do it's a last resort type thing. Even though there are a few places I'm kind of surprised that doesn't have an MLB team. Besides the fact that the MLB's divisions are all screwed up and need tweaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 No, what that article means is that Selig doesn't want the Dodgers to default on their obligations. It doesn't mean anything other than that. He will still take the team away, but until he does he has to make sure there will be something left. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.