Comments on: You Paint The House http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/ LA Dodgers Blog Dodger News Dodgers Rumors Dodgers Message Board Los Angeles Dodgers Dodgers Dodger Dodgers The Dodgers Dodger Blog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:11:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ken http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-19080 Ken Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:40:50 +0000 http://www.ladodgertalk.com/?p=6724#comment-19080 LD Maybe you read my post too fast. Van Camp has to do with capital intensive businesses. Beans will argue everything in order to win. LD

Maybe you read my post too fast.

Van Camp has to do with capital intensive businesses.

Beans will argue everything in order to win.

]]> By: Mark Timmons http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-19079 Mark Timmons Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:11:13 +0000 http://www.ladodgertalk.com/?p=6724#comment-19079 If Frank can hold on until 2012, he'll be OK, but I wouldn't speculate what will happen as to who gets the Dodgers. Frank was trying to make Jamie "The Face of the Franchise" but she added nothing to the operation of the team. Can you say "Figurehead?" Like Frank or not (and he has made lots of mistakes), he has improved the product immensely. We could do a lot worse (and we have). If Frank can hold on until 2012, he’ll be OK, but I wouldn’t speculate what will happen as to who gets the Dodgers.

Frank was trying to make Jamie “The Face of the Franchise” but she added nothing to the operation of the team. Can you say “Figurehead?”

Like Frank or not (and he has made lots of mistakes), he has improved the product immensely.

We could do a lot worse (and we have).

]]> By: Badger http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-19078 Badger Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:10:28 +0000 http://www.ladodgertalk.com/?p=6724#comment-19078 Was the ballclub really that speculative ldog? The major franchises all over baseball were appreciating at a very good rate over the years. Owning a baseball team looks pretty good to me. What franchises haven't improved in value over the last 12 years or so? Oh sure, the claim was made that the Dodgers were losing money while under Fox, but if that were really the case, would these two be fighting for this ownership so vigorously? That franchise has increased in value by a few hundred million since they bought it, and it has also allowed them to live like royalty in the interim. Everybody thought Jamie was co-owner, she was certainly presented to the community that way. Yeah, she signed a post nup, but it would not surprise me if it was declared invalid. I have read that most lawyers seem to like Frank's chances on this one. Even if he wins the Dodgers, and loses his real estate holdings, and the rest of their booty is evenly divided, will he have enough funds to run the Dodgers without a money partner? Was the ballclub really that speculative ldog? The major franchises all over baseball were appreciating at a very good rate over the years. Owning a baseball team looks pretty good to me. What franchises haven’t improved in value over the last 12 years or so? Oh sure, the claim was made that the Dodgers were losing money while under Fox, but if that were really the case, would these two be fighting for this ownership so vigorously? That franchise has increased in value by a few hundred million since they bought it, and it has also allowed them to live like royalty in the interim.

Everybody thought Jamie was co-owner, she was certainly presented to the community that way. Yeah, she signed a post nup, but it would not surprise me if it was declared invalid. I have read that most lawyers seem to like Frank’s chances on this one. Even if he wins the Dodgers, and loses his real estate holdings, and the rest of their booty is evenly divided, will he have enough funds to run the Dodgers without a money partner?

]]> By: lawdog http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-19077 lawdog Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:54:14 +0000 http://www.ladodgertalk.com/?p=6724#comment-19077 The problem with that Ken is that Frank really doesn't do anything for the team except sign checks and contracts arranged by the GM. As far as an "owners' contribution to the increase in value of the team, I don't see much of that here. The Dodgers are more like a piece of real estate. Only if a community member renovates a piece of real property does the community have any real interest in the increase in it's value if it was held as separate property before the renovation without some other form of "implied gift". That would probably limit Jamie's right to recover half the community investment in the Dogs to the amount the Camel Broken Back Mountain training facility increased the value of the team, minus the amount of cash the Dodgers' rather than the community actually invested in the facility. Jamie just screwed the pooch, among other things, on this one. She wanted to split the property so she got all the real estate which had been appreciating like mad at the time the agreement was reached and left Frank holding the bag on the more speculative investment--the Dodgers baseball club. Real Estate tanked and the Dodgers unexpectedly doubled in value. If the post-nup isn't thrown out because she was an incompetent lawyer (hard to prove especially when you represent yourself), she's stuck. She can't make it a game of "head's I win, tails you lose". No one expected real estate to tank or the baseball team to just double in value--but them's the breaks. When you make a deal that's fair at the time, you can't back out later because you didn't anticipate the changes the markets were going to make after the agreement was made. The problem with that Ken is that Frank really doesn’t do anything for the team except sign checks and contracts arranged by the GM. As far as an “owners’ contribution to the increase in value of the team, I don’t see much of that here. The Dodgers are more like a piece of real estate. Only if a community member renovates a piece of real property does the community have any real interest in the increase in it’s value if it was held as separate property before the renovation without some other form of “implied gift”. That would probably limit Jamie’s right to recover half the community investment in the Dogs to the amount the Camel Broken Back Mountain training facility increased the value of the team, minus the amount of cash the Dodgers’ rather than the community actually invested in the facility.

Jamie just screwed the pooch, among other things, on this one. She wanted to split the property so she got all the real estate which had been appreciating like mad at the time the agreement was reached and left Frank holding the bag on the more speculative investment–the Dodgers baseball club.

Real Estate tanked and the Dodgers unexpectedly doubled in value. If the post-nup isn’t thrown out because she was an incompetent lawyer (hard to prove especially when you represent yourself), she’s stuck. She can’t make it a game of “head’s I win, tails you lose”.

No one expected real estate to tank or the baseball team to just double in value–but them’s the breaks.

When you make a deal that’s fair at the time, you can’t back out later because you didn’t anticipate the changes the markets were going to make after the agreement was made.

]]>