Red Sox Willing To Go Over Luxury Tax Threshold Hurricanes Seeing Smaller Crowds So Far Orlando City's Rawlins Still A Fan First Franchise Notes Red Sox Spend Big With Ramirez, Sandoval Bills Say Stadium Will Be Ready For Sunday AHL Checkers Likely To Leave Hornets' Arena NFL Franchise Notes Bills Plan To Practice, Play In Buffalo This Week Rockies Brass Conducts Twitter Q&A With Fans
SBD/October 19, 2011/Franchises
Dodgers Oppose Recognition Of Season-Ticket Holders As Official Committee In Court Case
Published October 19, 2011
The Dodgers and the club's unsecured creditors yesterday filed widely anticipated objections with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware again stating their opposition to an ad hoc group of season-ticket holders being recognized as an official committee in the case. Such recognition would give the season-ticket holders a more prominent voice in the team's reorganization and require the Dodgers to pay their legal fees. But the Dodgers said in their brief that their obligations to the season-ticket holders were honored in full and that the higher recognition would "confer ... rights and benefits to which they otherwise have no entitlement under bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy law." The season-ticket group had argued the club's alleged mismanagement had devalued the seats. But the creditors said, "Any eventual reorganization plan ... will not include plans for how many hot dog stands will be in operation at Dodger Stadium. ... These consumer concerns, if they come to fruition, are best addressed by consumer action -- refusing to purchase tickets for Dodgers games." Meanwhile, Kekst & Co., the PR firm representing the Dodgers during their ongoing bankruptcy case, yesterday submitted bills to the Bankruptcy Court for $349,382.93 in fees and expenses for its work with the club from June 27-Sept. 30. The billings include more than 113 hours of work on the case by summer interns at a rate of $175 per hour (Eric Fisher, SportsBusiness Journal).
IN RETROSPECT: In L.A., Bill Plaschke writes after reaching a divorce settlement with Jamie, Frank McCourt's "bitter half is gone, and we should mark the occasion with a moment of sigh-lence." Plaschke: "Sigh. It could have been so much different. Sigh. She could have done so much more. While both parties will forever share equal blame in this Dodgers mess, Jamie's legacy is tainted even further because in some ways, her responsibility was even greater." Frank "was never anything more than an East Coast real estate charlatan, but Jamie was supposed to be different." Plaschke writes, "Turns out, she was nothing but window dressing, cute and decorative and completely devoid of reality." She "preached community but only practiced Jamie," and she "talked about teamwork but only huddled with Jamie." She "not only couldn't run the Dodgers, she had absolutely no concept of the Dodgers." In the end, Jamie's "legacy will not be what she did, but what she didn't do." She "didn't manage," and she "didn't mentor." Plaschke: "One down, one to go" (L.A. TIMES, 10/19).