The Big Blue Wrecking Crew

bigblaster said:

Roger Lodge, on KTLA Morning News today, said he believes Magic is the owner to beat.  He adds that he thinks the image of Magic Johnson, standing at an entrance to Dodger Stadium on April 10, greeting fans back as the new owner of the Dodgers would be great for the Dodgers, great for Los Angeles and great for baseball.  Can't argue with that one!

If I weren't an atheist, I'd say "from your mouth to God's ear."

shmolnick said:

bigblaster said:

Roger Lodge, on KTLA Morning News today, said he believes Magic is the owner to beat.  He adds that he thinks the image of Magic Johnson, standing at an entrance to Dodger Stadium on April 10, greeting fans back as the new owner of the Dodgers would be great for the Dodgers, great for Los Angeles and great for baseball.  Can't argue with that one!

If I weren't an atheist, I'd say "from your mouth to God's ear."

I'm not an atheist, so from your mouth to God's ear!

Another great article from Shaikin:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-bidders-20120218,0,3057174.story

I think this is the round of bidding, now that the TRUE financials are out, where these ownership groups start to squeeze McCourt and drive down their bids.  There's too many damn questions surrounding his continued involvement and having to keep him as a business partner.  I don't like that three of the top bidders are considering involving him in developing the parking lots for either the Rams or a commercial center.  I just want to be RID of this damn guy.

One good note from MLB is that they rejected the Padres' ownership financing, specifically because the new owner sought to take an up-front payment from a media company to help finance the purchase.  They have to be setting the stage for the same type of hard-line stance against any potential new Dodger owner.  What good is a new owner if that owner signs a deal with the devil (TWC/FSN) and trades future TV revenue for an up-front payment to finance the purchase ... then we're back to our old, disadvantaged selves.

Time will tell ... hopefully, some of these bidders get a bad taste in their mouth and walk away from McCourt, driving the price down and forcing him to include the lots.  We'll see.

DoppelgangBang said:

Another great article from Shaikin:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-bidders-20120218,0,3057174.story

I think this is the round of bidding, now that the TRUE financials are out, where these ownership groups start to squeeze McCourt and drive down their bids.  There's too many damn questions surrounding his continued involvement and having to keep him as a business partner.  I don't like that three of the top bidders are considering involving him in developing the parking lots for either the Rams or a commercial center.  I just want to be RID of this damn guy.

One good note from MLB is that they rejected the Padres' ownership financing, specifically because the new owner sought to take an up-front payment from a media company to help finance the purchase.  They have to be setting the stage for the same type of hard-line stance against any potential new Dodger owner.  What good is a new owner if that owner signs a deal with the devil (TWC/FSN) and trades future TV revenue for an up-front payment to finance the purchase ... then we're back to our old, disadvantaged selves.

Time will tell ... hopefully, some of these bidders get a bad taste in their mouth and walk away from McCourt, driving the price down and forcing him to include the lots.  We'll see.

Im with you on this. I'm very worried McCourt will hang on to the land and still have a presence there. Too many stories a out him not selling the lots are mounting. Things could get messy up there.

Chin Music said:

DoppelgangBang said:

Another great article from Shaikin:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-bidders-20120218,0,3057174.story

I think this is the round of bidding, now that the TRUE financials are out, where these ownership groups start to squeeze McCourt and drive down their bids.  There's too many damn questions surrounding his continued involvement and having to keep him as a business partner.  I don't like that three of the top bidders are considering involving him in developing the parking lots for either the Rams or a commercial center.  I just want to be RID of this damn guy.

One good note from MLB is that they rejected the Padres' ownership financing, specifically because the new owner sought to take an up-front payment from a media company to help finance the purchase.  They have to be setting the stage for the same type of hard-line stance against any potential new Dodger owner.  What good is a new owner if that owner signs a deal with the devil (TWC/FSN) and trades future TV revenue for an up-front payment to finance the purchase ... then we're back to our old, disadvantaged selves.

Time will tell ... hopefully, some of these bidders get a bad taste in their mouth and walk away from McCourt, driving the price down and forcing him to include the lots.  We'll see.

I think it's a very real possibility that McCourt sticks around in some capacity after the sale. He's said multiple times that he considers LA to be his home and I have a sneaky suspicion that he would favor a bid from a group that would be willing to involve him in a non-Dodger capacity. Even to the point where he would accept a lower offer. This process has brought him into contact with some heavy hitters that are well capitalized and willing to invest in further development. If he could turn a tidy profit from the sale and also get involved in a project where outside financing is used to develop a football stadium or commercial center that he kept a piece of, he could really profit long-term. Scary, but true...
Im with you on this. I'm very worried McCourt will hang on to the land and still have a presence there. Too many stories a out him not selling the lots are mounting. Things could get messy up there.

Given McCourt's long history (going way back before he bought the Dodgers) of screwing and suing his partners (and wife), any new owner who agrees to buy the club with McCourt continuing to own the land, or even worse agreeing to partner with McCourt in developing that land, is a complete fool.

There is also the aspect that McCourt wants to get the most money possible with numbers around $2 billion being bandied about, I would think that he would rather have the money than the parking lots if all things are equal.  There is a very real possibility that the bids will be lower rather than increase if he demands to keep the parking lots.  I tend to think that each bidder will submit split bids, one for the Dodgers sans parking lots and one for everything.   At least, I would hope that would be the case.   I doubt anyone with the same drive to earn billions would also lack the common sense to know that going into business with McCourt is a losing proposition.  

I'll also chime in and agree that any prospective new owner(s) that would want to purchase the Dodgers and NOT have everything included in the purchase has either:

O'Malley reportedly drops out of bidding. Thoughts are that he may assist in new ownership group, if asked. I figured his chances were slim anyway, with the way he dissed Slimy McCockroach.

I've got a question or two ... why would the new owner be saddled with upwards of $500 million in loan payments and be "stuck" at Dodger Stadium until at least 2030.  Wouldn't the loans be paid off as part of the bankruptcy sale/process.  That's a lot of dough to be on the hook for after shelling out over $1 billion.

Secondly, how can the team be in such dire straits if a loan of that magnitude was taken out against the team?  Where did the money go?  Stadium improvements ... McCourts pocket ....

I love that quote from O'Malley that the new ownership should be a small, diverse but local group. Funny considering he helmed a group representing a Korean corporation where his involvement would last a year or less. Good riddance.

BLUEFAN said:

I've got a question or two ... why would the new owner be saddled with upwards of $500 million in loan payments and be "stuck" at Dodger Stadium until at least 2030.  Wouldn't the loans be paid off as part of the bankruptcy sale/process.  That's a lot of dough to be on the hook for after shelling out over $1 billion.

Secondly, how can the team be in such dire straits if a loan of that magnitude was taken out against the team?  Where did the money go?  Stadium improvements ... McCourts pocket ....

Odds are that is one of the conditions of the sale that McCourt dropped on Selig.   As for the money, I still think Frank has some "hidden assets" in the Caymans or Nauru where I am expecting several hundred million in ill-gotten gains are away from the IRS's prying eyes.   The Cockroach is likely much better off than he had Bud Lite or others believing.  The scary part is that he managed to keep Hot Lips from blabbing about it or he may have hidden it from her, also.   I get a feeling that Frank could teach a course on embezzlement and how to get away with it. 

grabarkewitz said:

BLUEFAN said:

I've got a question or two ... why would the new owner be saddled with upwards of $500 million in loan payments and be "stuck" at Dodger Stadium until at least 2030.  Wouldn't the loans be paid off as part of the bankruptcy sale/process.  That's a lot of dough to be on the hook for after shelling out over $1 billion.

Secondly, how can the team be in such dire straits if a loan of that magnitude was taken out against the team?  Where did the money go?  Stadium improvements ... McCourts pocket ....

Odds are that is one of the conditions of the sale that McCourt dropped on Selig.   As for the money, I still think Frank has some "hidden assets" in the Caymans or Nauru where I am expecting several hundred million in ill-gotten gains are away from the IRS's prying eyes.   The Cockroach is likely much better off than he had Bud Lite or others believing.  The scary part is that he managed to keep Hot Lips from blabbing about it or he may have hidden it from her, also.   I get a feeling that Frank could teach a course on embezzlement and how to get away with it. 

We may yet discover Hot Lips floating in her own bathtub during the last week of April... must've been "distraught" over the demise of her marriage, we'd be told (with McCourt's alibi a bit suspicious!).  

Former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley has pulled out of the bidding for his old club, according to the LA Times.

ItTakesFaith said:

grabarkewitz said:

BLUEFAN said:

I've got a question or two ... why would the new owner be saddled with upwards of $500 million in loan payments and be "stuck" at Dodger Stadium until at least 2030.  Wouldn't the loans be paid off as part of the bankruptcy sale/process.  That's a lot of dough to be on the hook for after shelling out over $1 billion.

Secondly, how can the team be in such dire straits if a loan of that magnitude was taken out against the team?  Where did the money go?  Stadium improvements ... McCourts pocket ....

Odds are that is one of the conditions of the sale that McCourt dropped on Selig.   As for the money, I still think Frank has some "hidden assets" in the Caymans or Nauru where I am expecting several hundred million in ill-gotten gains are away from the IRS's prying eyes.   The Cockroach is likely much better off than he had Bud Lite or others believing.  The scary part is that he managed to keep Hot Lips from blabbing about it or he may have hidden it from her, also.   I get a feeling that Frank could teach a course on embezzlement and how to get away with it. 

We may yet discover Hot Lips floating in her own bathtub during the last week of April... must've been "distraught" over the demise of her marriage, we'd be told (with McCourt's alibi a bit suspicious!).  

I would not shed a tear over that loss with my only hope that Hot Lips had the foresight to put a video camera in the loo - for all we know she could be kinky that way - and it catches Frank committing the crime.  That would be fun for the whole family.  

minndodger said:

Former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley has pulled out of the bidding for his old club, according to the LA Times.

I am cheered by this.  He knew that even if he put up the highest bid, he would never get Frank's approval.  I think that same fate awaits Joe Torre, also.   Joe may have not said anything, but he was working for Bud when the manure hit the fan and in Frank's twisted little mind, that is likely an indictment of Joe.  I have said it once and I will say it again, Magic took the right tack by giving Frank a pat on the back and fluffing his ego.   The only way that Magic loses this bid is if he actually says something derogatory about the Cockroach.  

Judge Gross approves #Dodgers disclosure statement, another step toward exit from bankruptcy.

Here's why I am SUPER excited about the 2012 season (considering this team looks worse than the 2011 version):

DoppelgangBang said:

Here's why I am SUPER excited about the 2012 season (considering this team looks worse than the 2011 version):

1.) I CAN ROOT FOR THE TEAM.  Last season was absolutely horrible, because I found myself rooting for the team to do poorly to drive down revenue and squeeze McCourt out of town.  That sucked.  The #1 difference between 2011 and 2012 - I can actually be a Dodger fan again!

2.) I can GO to the games.  It's about DAMN TIME.  I'm actually scheduled (potentially) to be in AZ for the start of ST and I am really hoping for some ownership changes, so that I can attend a ST game at Camelback worry-free.

3.) New ownership means NO STRINGS attached to players acquired under the previous regime.  Sometimes, this can be BAD, but considering that there's only 2-5 players on the guaranteed 25-MAN that I actually give a piss about, I'm looking forward to some dead wood being cut.  If Rivera ain't cutting it, why not just DUMP HIM and throw Sands in ... or SVS ... or whoever!  Same with the large amount of dead wood in the rotation, bullpen and on the bench (I'm looking at YOU, Adam Kennedy!).

4.) We can actually SPEND money soon.  This will (hopefully) change the game in terms of international signings and outreach, the draft (as much as possible under the new rules), and for acquiring talent at the deadline.  We won't feel the true effect of this change likely until the off-season, but we should be able to be on the right side of a salary-dump this year!

5.) I can finally buy a Dodger cap ... and lift my 2+ year ban ... and man, I am excited for a NEW OWNER.

I'm still perplexed as far as going to any games until the sale is completed. While we should know who is going to be the new owner by the end of April, exactly when they take over will be something different, and what I'm still concerned with. This is also why I think Ned will still be the GM through the trading deadlines and this year will be another wasted effort, since owner won't have the power to get rid of him until they take over, which I can see not being approved by the other owners come August or September at earliest. This also means McCourt is probably getting the profits for the tickets and parking almost all year.

Throwdeuce said:

DoppelgangBang said:

Here's why I am SUPER excited about the 2012 season (considering this team looks worse than the 2011 version):

1.) I CAN ROOT FOR THE TEAM.  Last season was absolutely horrible, because I found myself rooting for the team to do poorly to drive down revenue and squeeze McCourt out of town.  That sucked.  The #1 difference between 2011 and 2012 - I can actually be a Dodger fan again!

2.) I can GO to the games.  It's about DAMN TIME.  I'm actually scheduled (potentially) to be in AZ for the start of ST and I am really hoping for some ownership changes, so that I can attend a ST game at Camelback worry-free.

3.) New ownership means NO STRINGS attached to players acquired under the previous regime.  Sometimes, this can be BAD, but considering that there's only 2-5 players on the guaranteed 25-MAN that I actually give a piss about, I'm looking forward to some dead wood being cut.  If Rivera ain't cutting it, why not just DUMP HIM and throw Sands in ... or SVS ... or whoever!  Same with the large amount of dead wood in the rotation, bullpen and on the bench (I'm looking at YOU, Adam Kennedy!).

4.) We can actually SPEND money soon.  This will (hopefully) change the game in terms of international signings and outreach, the draft (as much as possible under the new rules), and for acquiring talent at the deadline.  We won't feel the true effect of this change likely until the off-season, but we should be able to be on the right side of a salary-dump this year!

5.) I can finally buy a Dodger cap ... and lift my 2+ year ban ... and man, I am excited for a NEW OWNER.

I'm still perplexed as far as going to any games until the sale is completed. While we should know who is going to be the new owner by the end of April, exactly when they take over will be something different, and what I'm still concerned with. This is also why I think Ned will still be the GM through the trading deadlines and this year will be another wasted effort, since owner won't have the power to get rid of him until they take over, which I can see not being approved by the other owners come August or September at earliest. This also means McCourt is probably getting the profits for the tickets and parking almost all year.

I don't think so ... McCourt's settlement with MLB includes that a new owner will be identified by at latest 4/1 and the sale will be finalized by 4/30.  Each bidder in the final round will be pre-vetted by the MLB ownership committee and I think they will do everything in their power to move this process along.  I'm not comfortable (quite yet) going to a ST game, but I think by the end of April all revenue will be directed away from McCourt's pockets.  Hopefully, much sooner.

DoppelgangBang said:

Throwdeuce said:

DoppelgangBang said:

Here's why I am SUPER excited about the 2012 season (considering this team looks worse than the 2011 version):

1.) I CAN ROOT FOR THE TEAM.  Last season was absolutely horrible, because I found myself rooting for the team to do poorly to drive down revenue and squeeze McCourt out of town.  That sucked.  The #1 difference between 2011 and 2012 - I can actually be a Dodger fan again!

2.) I can GO to the games.  It's about DAMN TIME.  I'm actually scheduled (potentially) to be in AZ for the start of ST and I am really hoping for some ownership changes, so that I can attend a ST game at Camelback worry-free.

3.) New ownership means NO STRINGS attached to players acquired under the previous regime.  Sometimes, this can be BAD, but considering that there's only 2-5 players on the guaranteed 25-MAN that I actually give a piss about, I'm looking forward to some dead wood being cut.  If Rivera ain't cutting it, why not just DUMP HIM and throw Sands in ... or SVS ... or whoever!  Same with the large amount of dead wood in the rotation, bullpen and on the bench (I'm looking at YOU, Adam Kennedy!).

4.) We can actually SPEND money soon.  This will (hopefully) change the game in terms of international signings and outreach, the draft (as much as possible under the new rules), and for acquiring talent at the deadline.  We won't feel the true effect of this change likely until the off-season, but we should be able to be on the right side of a salary-dump this year!

5.) I can finally buy a Dodger cap ... and lift my 2+ year ban ... and man, I am excited for a NEW OWNER.

I'm still perplexed as far as going to any games until the sale is completed. While we should know who is going to be the new owner by the end of April, exactly when they take over will be something different, and what I'm still concerned with. This is also why I think Ned will still be the GM through the trading deadlines and this year will be another wasted effort, since owner won't have the power to get rid of him until they take over, which I can see not being approved by the other owners come August or September at earliest. This also means McCourt is probably getting the profits for the tickets and parking almost all year.

I don't think so ... McCourt's settlement with MLB includes that a new owner will be identified by at latest 4/1 and the sale will be finalized by 4/30.  Each bidder in the final round will be pre-vetted by the MLB ownership committee and I think they will do everything in their power to move this process along.  I'm not comfortable (quite yet) going to a ST game, but I think by the end of April all revenue will be directed away from McCourt's pockets.  Hopefully, much sooner.

I believe the completed date when I see it, just look at the Padres situation, and how long the Astros took. Hopefully if there's red tape to be still be cut, MLB will be running the team come May 1st before the new owner is officially approved, still Ned would be in the GM if that happened and forgot about a mid -season trade to make the team better.

Throwdeuce said:

DoppelgangBang said:

Throwdeuce said:

DoppelgangBang said:

Here's why I am SUPER excited about the 2012 season (considering this team looks worse than the 2011 version):

1.) I CAN ROOT FOR THE TEAM.  Last season was absolutely horrible, because I found myself rooting for the team to do poorly to drive down revenue and squeeze McCourt out of town.  That sucked.  The #1 difference between 2011 and 2012 - I can actually be a Dodger fan again!

2.) I can GO to the games.  It's about DAMN TIME.  I'm actually scheduled (potentially) to be in AZ for the start of ST and I am really hoping for some ownership changes, so that I can attend a ST game at Camelback worry-free.

3.) New ownership means NO STRINGS attached to players acquired under the previous regime.  Sometimes, this can be BAD, but considering that there's only 2-5 players on the guaranteed 25-MAN that I actually give a piss about, I'm looking forward to some dead wood being cut.  If Rivera ain't cutting it, why not just DUMP HIM and throw Sands in ... or SVS ... or whoever!  Same with the large amount of dead wood in the rotation, bullpen and on the bench (I'm looking at YOU, Adam Kennedy!).

4.) We can actually SPEND money soon.  This will (hopefully) change the game in terms of international signings and outreach, the draft (as much as possible under the new rules), and for acquiring talent at the deadline.  We won't feel the true effect of this change likely until the off-season, but we should be able to be on the right side of a salary-dump this year!

5.) I can finally buy a Dodger cap ... and lift my 2+ year ban ... and man, I am excited for a NEW OWNER.

I'm still perplexed as far as going to any games until the sale is completed. While we should know who is going to be the new owner by the end of April, exactly when they take over will be something different, and what I'm still concerned with. This is also why I think Ned will still be the GM through the trading deadlines and this year will be another wasted effort, since owner won't have the power to get rid of him until they take over, which I can see not being approved by the other owners come August or September at earliest. This also means McCourt is probably getting the profits for the tickets and parking almost all year.

I don't think so ... McCourt's settlement with MLB includes that a new owner will be identified by at latest 4/1 and the sale will be finalized by 4/30.  Each bidder in the final round will be pre-vetted by the MLB ownership committee and I think they will do everything in their power to move this process along.  I'm not comfortable (quite yet) going to a ST game, but I think by the end of April all revenue will be directed away from McCourt's pockets.  Hopefully, much sooner.

I believe the completed date when I see it, just look at the Padres situation, and how long the Astros took. Hopefully if there's red tape to be still be cut, MLB will be running the team come May 1st before the new owner is officially approved, still Ned would be in the GM if that happened and forgot about a mid -season trade to make the team better.

The problem with the Padres and Astros' sales was the same as McCourt - too much of the purchase is being financed. Bud may be slow but he does learn from his mistakes. At least Crane kicked in more of his own money, Moorad is trying to use his new TV deal to pay off Moores. I got a feeling Moorad may have to take on a partner before it is all said and done

grabarkewitz said:

minndodger said:

Former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley has pulled out of the bidding for his old club, according to the LA Times.

I am cheered by this.  He knew that even if he put up the highest bid, he would never get Frank's approval.  I think that same fate awaits Joe Torre, also.   Joe may have not said anything, but he was working for Bud when the manure hit the fan and in Frank's twisted little mind, that is likely an indictment of Joe.  I have said it once and I will say it again, Magic took the right tack by giving Frank a pat on the back and fluffing his ego.   The only way that Magic loses this bid is if he actually says something derogatory about the Cockroach.  

...or he is outbid by five dollars.

Team Torre/Caruso drop out because McCourt won't sell the parking lots!!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2012/02/rick-caruso-joe-torre-withdraw-from-dodgers-bidding.html

petro said:

Team Torre/Caruso drop out because McCourt won't sell the parking lots!!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2012/02/rick-caruso-joe-torre-withdraw-from-dodgers-bidding.html

While I'm glad that Caruso and Torre are out (not Torre--I don't trust Caruso), the reason scares the poo out of me.

Boras ploy to up ante?

Here's the letter Torre/Carsuo sent to Rob Manfred:  

I'm not encouraged by this news.

This is what I was afraid of. This man is a cancer and will never go away. I thought it was a negotiation ploy but he is banking on a bidder wanting it so bad they'd be willing to buy without the lots. Even if the team moves downtown McCourt can develop the land. What idiot would want to deal with him on a development? It will turn bad eventually. I hope something gives because this scenario is not good for fans or owners. I want to park my car on McCourt's head.

Throwdeuce said:

Boras ploy to up ante?

McCourt has told people he has at least one bid in which the buyer would let him retain ownership of the parking lots.

Source on this?

So...is a move downtown in the works? 

This is a complete nightmare.

I put this in a post a few days ago that didn't show up due to formatting issues:
I think it's a very real possibility that McCourt sticks around in some capacity after the sale. He's said multiple times that he considers LA to be his home and I have a sneaky suspicion that he would favor a bid from a group that would be willing to involve him in a non-Dodger capacity. Even to the point where he would accept a lower offer. This process has brought him into contact with some heavy hitters that are well capitalized and willing to invest in further development. If he could turn a tidy profit from the sale and also get involved in a project where outside financing is used to develop a football stadium or commercial center that he kept a piece of, he could really profit long-term. Scary, but true...
---------
I think Kroenke must be the front-runner and I am just totally confused about his intentions.

It's always darkest before the dawn?

Chin Music said:

This is what I was afraid of. This man is a cancer and will never go away. I thought it was a negotiation ploy but he is banking on a bidder wanting it so bad they'd be willing to buy without the lots. Even if the team moves downtown McCourt can develop the land. What idiot would want to deal with him on a development? It will turn bad eventually. I hope something gives because this scenario is not good for fans or owners. I want to park my car on McCourt's head.

It's definitely easy to assume the worst where Frank McCourt is involved, but I agree that this reeks of a negotiating ploy. Everything, including the letter expressing a desire to reenter negotiations, was leaked to the press? McCourt wouldn't be the source. This sounds like a means of calling bullshit and broadcasting it to the other bidders. Time will tell, though...what role would Casden or Kroenke be comfortable allowing McCourt to hold in a future endeavor? That may be the pain threshold that wins the bidding. Ugh.

DoppelgangBang said:

Chin Music said:

This is what I was afraid of. This man is a cancer and will never go away. I thought it was a negotiation ploy but he is banking on a bidder wanting it so bad they'd be willing to buy without the lots. Even if the team moves downtown McCourt can develop the land. What idiot would want to deal with him on a development? It will turn bad eventually. I hope something gives because this scenario is not good for fans or owners. I want to park my car on McCourt's head.

It's definitely easy to assume the worst where Frank McCourt is involved, but I agree that this reeks of a negotiating ploy. Everything, including the letter expressing a desire to reenter negotiations, was leaked to the press? McCourt wouldn't be the source. This sounds like a means of calling bullshit and broadcasting it to the other bidders. Time will tell, though...what role would Casden or Kroenke be comfortable allowing McCourt to hold in a future endeavor? That may be the pain threshold that wins the bidding. Ugh.

Perbaps his golden parachute all along was to stick the new owner with this loan (which I still don't understand) that forces the team to play at the ravine untill 2030 which in turn guarantees Mcdick income from parking which he will keep. It's like Scooby Doo. Bud screwed us bad on all this. I really hope you are right regarding The leaked letter calling bullshit. I distinctly remember Blackstone saying that the parking would be negotiable even though initially not included in the main bid.

From what I understand, McCourt was mandated to sell the team by Bud Light... this means he would have zero future interest in the organization, period.  Also, even though a story is circulating that would have McCourt retaining much of the adjacent land makes for interesting fodder for our ongoing discussions, NO businessman in his right mind would pay upwards of $2,000,000,000.00 for only PART of the Dodgers and it's assets!  Which of these prospective bidders would be STUPID enough to give the glorified "Parking Lot Attendant" power to extort control over the second largest source of Dodger cash flow???  Billionaires don't become such by being complete nincompoops... really!  

Let's hope that the insistence on keeping the parking lots, impacts the sale tremendously.  According to the LA Times, McCockroach has only one bidder who is willing to let him keep the parking lots.  Hey, if Kroenke found out he was the only bidder willing to buy sans the lots, and this is a floating bid that can be changed, he'd drop his bid dramatically.  

SamAdams said:

Let's hope that the insistence on keeping the parking lots, impacts the sale tremendously.  According to the LA Times, McCockroach has only one bidder who is willing to let him keep the parking lots.  Hey, if Kroenke found out he was the only bidder willing to buy sans the lots, and this is a floating bid that can be changed, he'd drop his bid dramatically.  

Parking Lot Attendant must accept a winning bid in a little over a month.  I think this latest news was a shrewd move by Caruso/Torre to force McC's hand.

I agree, but also with the caveat that Caruso/Torre may have actually dropped out not because of the parking lots, but because the price is going through the roof.   All it takes is Cohen or Guggenheim alluding that they are going to bid $2 billion and even though Caruso is rich, he ain't that rich to drop that kind of coin.   The wildcard is still Kroenke.   He has the money and ulterior motive to allow McCourt to keep the parking lots, but even a smart businessman like Kroenke isn't going to get into bed with a snake like McCourt or one would hope.  

grabarkewitz said:

but even a smart businessman like Kroenke isn't going to get into bed with a snake like McCourt or one would hope.  

That is the one thing that is keeping me from losing my poop, that these owners groups are smart enough not to get into bed w/ a dog (McPrick) that has nothing but fleas. Please god, let this not be real. Because if it is Torgy needs to have Vinny & Guido on speed dial!

Well, I would like to think that the prospective bidders on this team know for a fact that as long as McCockroach is associated with anything to do with the Blue will only cause deflated attendance. No way am I going to support driving down to LA and purchasing a ticket, only knowing that when I fork over the $ for parking, it is going to Slimy. I am sure that the % is very high that most people feel the same way.

Kroenke is th wild card. Anyone know the status on Farmers Field? Still why would he want to bring his football team to a stadium on land owned by McVoldemor

It needs to be made clear to all of the potential owners that keeping McCourt in the picture, IN ANY WAY, will hurt attendance and make it impossible to rehab the image of the team.  I absolutely refuse to spend one red cent that might end up in McCourt's pocket.

Generally, Steve Dillbeck is a stiff.  BUT, here he is correct.  It would be awesome and ballsy and it won't happen because somebody will cave.

bigblaster said:

Generally, Steve Dillbeck is a stiff.  BUT, here he is correct.  It would be awesome and ballsy and it won't happen because somebody will cave.

The Dilbeck article got me thinking... (a rare occurrence, indeed!)... that NO prospective owner wants to get their ownership started on the wrong foot.  It it common knowledge that the complete and utter boycott of the Dodgers by their otherwise rabidly loyal fan base is what ultimately pushed McCourt over the financial edge.  If they were to fear that the boycott would continue under their regime if McCourt is allowed to maintain ANY involvement; each bidder just might be "persuaded" to ensure that Frankie is on the next train out of town...  With that goal in mind, perhaps we should take the lead in circulating an "open letter" to each and every Dodger interest group; and eventually, participating bidder (Grabs, get on that!).  Face it, even Kroenke doesn't want to be vilified by making a "deal with the devil"... he just needs to be made aware!  

bigblaster said:

Generally, Steve Dillbeck is a stiff.  BUT, here he is correct.  It would be awesome and ballsy and it won't happen because somebody will cave.

I think that the aspect that Frank isn't selling the parking lots could be overstated. Even a full-blown cretin like McCourt has to have figured out that he drove the fans away. I still think the issue is purchase price and I doubt that someone like Caruso is going to admit he can't compete with the stupid rich like Cohen, Kroenke or Guggenheim. The parking lots make for a nice out.

If I had to guess the five who make the cut are Magic/Kasten, Cohen, Kroenke, the folks from YES and Casden. Does anyone if it is Bud or Frank who is limiting it to five finalists?

Torre and Caruso were a junk ownership group.  Caruso is no better than McCourt in that his interests like in land and development.  He would probably build a mini-mall in the parking lot.  Torre just loves the attention. 

I think the only statement to make is for season ticket holders like myself to call and cancel the parking. The parking is separate. It's $800. I spoke to my rep and didn't pay until 2 weeks ago citing the boycott. That's 6 weeks past the due date. If fans made that move en masse and tried to instigate another way to get to the stadium it would make a statement.

Chin Music said:

Throwdeuce said:

Boras ploy to up ante?

McCourt has told people he has at least one bid in which the buyer would let him retain ownership of the parking lots.

Source on this?

Was in the Lat Times Article that was linked before my reply

The one thing I keep remembering is that if McCourt does keep lots, parking in them really won't add to his pockets if indeed he leases them out to the new owner, since new owner will give him that leased money and our dollars go to the new owner.
That said I would never go to anything built on the lots if McCourt has anything to do with them and be getting a percentage.

Let me rephrase then...

I will never send one red cent to ANY ORGANIZATION that might, in turn, give it to McCourt.

This is even worse, since I might have previously bought some Dodger gear, or spent money on concessions (if someone else was willing to pay for parking), etc.  But, knowing that part of every dollar spent on the Dodgers in any way would end up in a lease payment to McCourt changes my mind about that.

If McCourt is involved, I'm out.

Think I"m crazy if you want, but I'm certainly not the only person who feels that way