The Big Blue Wrecking Crew

Yep.  FOX is hoping MLB's approved ownership group would take the money and run, which is McBroke II.  I don't fault FOX for trying to get it cheaper, but they're basically trying to have a monopoly on the TV rights by being part of the ownership group.  Certainly not good for the Dodgers, or their fans.

DoppelgangBang said:

beefchopper said:

jamesmir11 said:

Thoughts on this? Discuss. 

Fox is willing to help prospective owners with their bids in exchange for a minority stake in the team, which in essence is the TV rights they are coveting. Alan Casden is used in this article as an example. 

According to Fox, they do not want to take part in running the team, they want the TV rights. Can't see any harm in that, but then again, what do I know. 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-shaikin-mlb-meetings-20120112,0,3634457.story

At first I thought this was a non event but I've changed my view of it the more I think about it.  It seems to me that Fox is trying to recreate what they did with McCourt in that they are offering the bidders up front cash to help them make their bids and undoubtedly the quid pro quo is that they will be able to lock in the rights for less than the market price.  Even if that isn't the case, if their up front cash is used to make the bid less will be available in the future to support salaries etc.  This is a BAD outcome for us as fans.

I agree with Beef here.  I think that outcome would be bad for the fans ... we don't need Fox Sports to get a below-market deal, damnit!  We want a new, well-heeled owner to come in and establish an RSN / extort TWC for $5-6B, which will maximize our revenue over the coming years enabling us to spend big in operations.

I have to say that after reading that, this is the outcome that would seem to be the most plausible for us, the fans. In the beginning I thought of Fox's proposal of offering cash in return for the TV rights as harmless, as just a way of them protecting themselves but, it would be nice to have a RSN featuring the Dodgers. 

DoppelgangBang said:

beefchopper said:

jamesmir11 said:

Thoughts on this? Discuss. 

Fox is willing to help prospective owners with their bids in exchange for a minority stake in the team, which in essence is the TV rights they are coveting. Alan Casden is used in this article as an example. 

According to Fox, they do not want to take part in running the team, they want the TV rights. Can't see any harm in that, but then again, what do I know. 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-shaikin-mlb-meetings-20120112,0,3634457.story

At first I thought this was a non event but I've changed my view of it the more I think about it.  It seems to me that Fox is trying to recreate what they did with McCourt in that they are offering the bidders up front cash to help them make their bids and undoubtedly the quid pro quo is that they will be able to lock in the rights for less than the market price.  Even if that isn't the case, if their up front cash is used to make the bid less will be available in the future to support salaries etc.  This is a BAD outcome for us as fans.

I agree with Beef here.  I think that outcome would be bad for the fans ... we don't need Fox Sports to get a below-market deal, damnit!  We want a new, well-heeled owner to come in and establish an RSN / extort TWC for $5-6B, which will maximize our revenue over the coming years enabling us to spend big in operations.

I'm just hoping against hope here in that whomever are the new Dodger owners will NOT have to be bed partners with Fox at all and be able to purchase the entire entity (EVERYTHING!) without the need for Fox/Time Warner/any other media giant to even be in the picture.

It's a negotiating tactic but I really hate McCorrupt.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-mccourt-sale-20120119,0,2370888.story

You should see MSTI's spin on that very topic. Here's the link. 

The thing I've always wondered... is there empty land around the stadium that isn't already a parking lot?  If not, I've never understood where they would find the room to build anything else, let alone another stadium next to it.

GenericFan said:

The thing I've always wondered... is there empty land around the stadium that isn't already a parking lot?  If not, I've never understood where they would find the room to build anything else, let alone another stadium next to it.

There's not much, but what could be done is taking the parking lot land, and developing that, then build parking structures to compensate for the lost parking. What a nightmare it'll be to leave a game if/when that is done.

Reminds me of the Disneyland structure they built. An absolute nightmare at times.

Dodgers file bankruptcy reorganization plan:

True2DaBlue said:

Dodgers file bankruptcy reorganization plan:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7484348/los-angeles-dodgers-file-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan

Just part of the process. McCockroach owes:

$573M- team debt

$131M- Jamie's settlement

$200M- tax liability (approx)

$904M total

And, that is without factoring in IF he owes anything to the Brian Stow beating lawsuit. Looks like after all is said and done, he will probably get back what he bought the team for (that's factoring in the parking lots in the sale).

Ya, that doesn't include debt taken from outside entities though.  The parking lots have $60 Mil if I remember right(the basis for the rent payments from the stadium), the 30 Mil he personally borrowed from Fox to make April's payroll collatoralized agianst the Bingham lawsuit, all his personal legal bills from the divorce, plus its anyone's guess what he's had to borrow to keep himself going as he was going through the divorce.  Because I'm lazy I'm not going to look up the plan, but I don't believe the 573 includes the post-petition credit line of 180.  But lets take your 904 number,  and tack on the personal debts I had hear, he's got to get 1.5+ just to get back all of what he put into it (parking lots) 

saeldway said:

True2DaBlue said:

Dodgers file bankruptcy reorganization plan:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7484348/los-angeles-dodgers-file-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan

Just part of the process. McCockroach owes:

$573M- team debt

$131M- Jamie's settlement

$200M- tax liability (approx)

$904M total

And, that is without factoring in IF he owes anything to the Brian Stow beating lawsuit. Looks like after all is said and done, he will probably get back what he bought the team for (that's factoring in the parking lots in the sale).

Ya, that doesn't include debt taken from outside entities though.  The parking lots have $60 Mil if I remember right(the basis for the rent payments from the stadium), the 30 Mil he personally borrowed from Fox to make April's payroll collatoralized agianst the Bingham lawsuit, all his personal legal bills from the divorce, plus its anyone's guess what he's had to borrow to keep himself going as he was going through the divorce.  Because I'm lazy I'm not going to look up the plan, but I don't believe the 573 includes the post-petition credit line of 180.  But lets take your 904 number,  and tack on the personal debts I had hear, he's got to get 1.5+ just to get back all of what he put into it (parking lots) 

Yeah, I hear what you're saying there. Hard to tell if those figures are included in that total Dodger number or not.

No telling what the back taxes situation is, and the sale alone is reported to generate $200M in taxes.  That little state income tax adds to the amount owed, too, when you're talking about a sale of ten figures.   #-O

SamAdams said:

No telling what the back taxes situation is, and the sale alone is reported to generate $200M in taxes.  That little state income tax adds to the amount owed, too, when you're talking about a sale of ten figures.   #-O

Whatever his profit is on the Dodgers will be taxed at 15% Federal plus 10.3% to California as it will be long term capital gains.  The California taxes paid would generate a Federal deduction,  however, somewhat reducing his Federal taxes.  McCourt probably doesn't have much net investment in the club so the vast majority of the sales price would be profit.  My guess is that $200 million tax figure is based on a sales price of $1 billion.  Whatever he gets over that would increase the taxes he would owe over the $200 million figure but that would be a happy problem for him.  At that point his wife and debts would be paid off so I think this lowlife will be able to put 
$100 million on the first $1 billion of the sales price  plus at least 75% of however much the sales price exceeds $1 billion into his pocket. That makes me sick.

At this point, I can't imagine that Frank has remotely enough cash to emerge from the franchise sale as owner of a Dodger team jersey, much less the parking lots he flaunts...  Keep in mind, not only does he seek to "own" the land, but he must actually "do" something with the lots to generate cash flow.  With his record of suing partners, no developer in his right mind would EVER partner with Senor McBroke... so where does that leave him? 

ItTakesFaith said:

Unless,  of course, Frank plans to stand out in the LA sun and charge parking fees himself (that might be interesting...?!?!)  

$15.00 of parking fees given one . . . penny . . . at . . . a . . . time...

Has an ironic ring to it!

Observing this whole situation with McCockroach and the sale of the team has been like peering into a dense fog at night under cloudy skies, but things seem to be clearing up a lot of late - which gives me hope that we are actually near the end game.

One aspect I had been missing in Franko's shenanigans in selling the team has been the assignment of debt. We have been focusing on how much the team can sell for and what assets are included in what is being bought, but another key part of his game seems to be to transfer as much debt obligation as possible as part of the sale. So, the sale "price" will likely be a combination of cash "payment" and debt assumption. A complexity is that Franko probably needs to end up with a fair amount of debt to counter his capital gains obligations once all those questionable loans turn into income.

I do think Franko has been having a hard time giving up on hanging on for a year until the Fox TV deal ran out, which would lead to a huge score, and that over the past few weeks he has tried to game the process to hang on. However, none of these plays got very far and the recent deal with Fox indicates he has given up on the "hang onto the team option" - which for me is a late Christmas present.
The remaining battles figures to be a mess - what assets the new buyer is getting, what debt obligations the new buyer is assuming, what assets Franko gets to retain, what debts Franko gets stuck with, etc, but the next battle figures to be the last one - though there figures to be a few skirmishes between now and the end of April.

I tend to see the maneuver over the media rights deal being cancelled and re-established to help set the sale price as a gambit to allow Franko to hold onto the parking lots while still making out well enough on the sale of the other assets. Throwing in the towel in the battle with Fox in that regard increases the probability that he will have to include the parking lots & land in the sale package.

Now it comes down to the sale price - and all the wild numbers being thrown about - and the Fox and TW getting their fingers in the pie.

Big day today! Let's get some action going! Someone white horse this franchise!!!

I just want to know amounts already!!!  I know they're soft and not final but I want to know our base point.

It's almost 7pm back east.  Shouldn't the "leaks" be calling their media contacts by now?

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7495050/deadline-potential-los-angeles-dodgers-bidders-passes

Deleted

Bob Daly nails it:  

Matthew said:

Bob Daly nails it:  

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-0125-simers-20120125,0,6918015.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Fmlb%2Fdodgers+%28Dodgers+Now%29  

Totally agree with everything Daly and Simers said.  Hard to believe that Daly invested more money to get 10% of the Dodgers than McCockroach did to buy 100%.  Bud Selig should be run out of baseball.

Matthew said:

Bob Daly nails it:  

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-0125-simers-20120125,0,6918015.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Fmlb%2Fdodgers+%28Dodgers+Now%29  

I always had some respect for Bob Daly if only because he stared down the SOD and said no when the whining, malingering, self-centered SOB demanded a lifetime contract so he could continue to whine, malinger and destroy the spirit of the team for the next six to ten years.   Kudos to Daly for calling out McCourt.  I just wish some like Bud Lite would've listened five or six years ago.  

Dennis Gilbert did not make the cut for the potential buyers, per Kissyface.  Unfortunate.

Think it's time to close this thread or merge it with The New Ownership.  Same information and topics, two spots.

Vinsandlosses said:

Think it's time to close this thread or merge it with The New Ownership.  Same information and topics, two spots.

I'm inclined to agree.  McJackass is becoming more and more trivial and the bidding war is the news.  If most of the board feels the same way, we'll shut this one down.

bigblaster said:

Vinsandlosses said:

Think it's time to close this thread or merge it with The New Ownership.  Same information and topics, two spots.

I'm inclined to agree.  McJackass is becoming more and more trivial and the bidding war is the news.  If most of the board feels the same way, we'll shut this one down.

I was actually getting ready to suggest that yesterday.  I'm up for shutting this one down.  

Cool with me.  I'll sink it and make the new owner one sticky.

The closing of the McCourt thread should not come without ceremony, however I fear trivializing him at this point is premature. There will sadly be more McAsshat moments before this is all said and done so I think perhaps we let this thread continue solely to celebrate the specific and inevitable future heinous acts of Frank McCourt while keeping the be ownership battle to the other thread. Or not.

Yeah, I think the consensus is not so much to kill it, as to let it sink rather than keep it sticky (McCrap is more slimy than sticky, anyway.)

I'm sure there will be more about in in print, but it looks like the Dodgers have asked the bankruptcy court to throw out all claims asserted on behalf of Brian Stow.

True2DaBlue said:

I'm sure there will be more about in in print, but it looks like the Dodgers have asked the bankruptcy court to throw out all claims asserted on behalf of Brian Stow.

I don't think this thread will die anytime soon between this and (hopefully!) an IRS investigation sometime in the future (after he is GONE!).

I read that, also.  Lotsa luck, Frank!   Girardi is too smart to get stopped that easily.   No way Frank gets out of that one.  The only scary thing is that this is Frank's way of trying to pass the buck to the new owners.  I am thinking that before the sale is completed, the new owners will make sure that Frank gets this bill.  After all, that sounds like the way Girardi wants to play it and I say more power to him.