Two years and three days after Dodgers Owners Frank and Jamie McCourt “issued a statement to announce their separation, the McCourts issued a statement to announce a divorce settlement,” according to Bill Shaikin of the L.A. TIMES. Jamie yesterday agreed to “surrender the bankrupt team to Frank,” and walked away “with a promise -- but not a payment -- of about $130 million.” Frank knocked down “one obstacle on a rugged course that still stands between him and continued ownership of the Dodgers.” If he still controls the team in the spring, and if he “has not paid Jamie in full by then, he must put the team up for sale” (L.A. TIMES, 10/18). The L.A. TIMES' Shaikin noted if MLB Commissioner Bud Selig “gets his way, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court will order the Dodgers sold by year’s end.” If the court orders the Dodgers sold, Jamie “would get the first $130 million of net proceeds.” The debt load and tax liability in such a sale “could be so high that the net proceeds do not exceed $130 million,” and that could leave Frank “with nothing from the sale” (LATIMES.com, 10/17). In N.Y., Paul Tharp notes the settlement cleared the way for Jamie to “switch sides and support” Frank “as an ally in his upcoming bankruptcy court showdown which starts on Halloween” (N.Y. POST, 10/18). L.A.-based family law attorney Lisa Helfend Meyer said, “I think they want to show the world they are a united front. They are overtly showing MLB and other detractors that they are reasonable” (CBSSPORTS.com, 10/17). In L.A., Tom Hoffarth writes, “It’s all on Frank now. … Next up, an Oct. 31 lawyer-up battle with Selig to see if McCourt can prevent MLB from seizing one of the sport’s most storied franchises back and find a new owner.” Meyer said, “The only impediment this eliminates is now they can say they’re on the same page, which means one less gladiator that Frank has left to fight. It’s still pretty daunting what he has in front of him” (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 10/18).
WHOSE BEST INTEREST? A statement released by Jamie McCourt’s publicist reads in part, “Jamie is pleased that this matter has been fairly resolved in the best interests of her family and the Dodgers’ fans, players and organization” (LATIMES.com, 10/17). In L.A., Steve Dilbeck wrote, “Now it’s in the team’s best interest? After all those personal revelations about her and Frank have been dragged through the courts and media? After Major League Baseball came to seize the team? ... Now she’s going to reach an agreement for the good of the team and its fans? That Jamie, such a kidder. This has always been about two things -- money and ego. … So, in the best interest of the team, we’re down one McCourt” (LATIMES.com, 10/17). An L.A. TIMES editorial states, “Even if McCourt is allowed to sell [TV] rights, the judge might forbid him from using the proceeds to pay the divorce settlement. In that case, he could attempt to sell a minority share in the team, but he might end up with no choice but to sell the entire team. Meanwhile, the ballclub would be forced to continue along its rocky financial path. That’s why it would be best for McCourt to move on.” This is about “two things: the dire reality of McCourt’s financial situation and the future well-being of the Dodgers.” The fight “is not in the best interest of the Dodgers or the team’s fans or the many ancillary businesses that make their money off the games” (L.A. TIMES, 10/18). SI's Jon Heyman wrote on Twitter, "I can't blame jamie mccourt for taking the 130M now. She knows its better to be 1st on line with hand out."
