Categorized | Mark Timmons

My Final Word On Frank McCourt

My Final Word On Frank McCourt

Some people think that I am a Frank McCourt fan.  Feel free to think it, but it is simply NOT TRUE!

Neutral is more accurate. Ambivalent is accurate.   I am not a fan, but I am also not a hater.  Maybe you have to be on one side or another – not me!

Frank has accomplished a  lot in some areas, but the Divorce has been 15 gigantic steps backward.

Many fans are calling for a new owner and even the Los Angeles sportswriters are writing that he’s in trouble, will he be able to keep the Dodgers, will he have to sell, will Jamie own the Dodgers, yada, yada, yada.

They don’t have a clue.

They are people with a small point of view who have little imagination, no matter how eloquently they may write!

They also know that the negative stuff they write sells papers.  Most people love that and love to complain.  It’s human nature.

But much of it is pure Drivel.  Dilbeck, Simers, Plaschke.  All are silly, small, bitter men.

So you might say “You are saying that you think you know more than than Dilbeck, Simers and Plaschke?”

Individually?  Most certainly!

Combined?  Unquestionably!

They are  uninspired, “in-the-box thinking” narrow men who have never built anything themselves and have to criticize those who have built something.  Did I also mention that negativity sells?

They are “critics.”  You know what I think of critics.

They see a cash-strapped Dodger team and think “new owner.”

Frank sees the cash-strapped team and sees a huge opportunity.

Silly men!

Let me explain:

Frank McCourt may be somewhat strapped for cash right now, but make no mistake, he wasn’t at MLB offices seeking loans.  He doesn’t need loans from MLB.  He was prepping Bud and company as to what is coming down the pike, and letting him know to get out of the way.

Frank is sitting on a goldmine and the gold under the surface will bring him millions, ‘er billions.

Frank McCourt has a degree in Economics from Georgetown, where he is currently on the board of directors.  He’s no dummy when it comes to money and he knows how to make it using other peoples.  Is that a good or bad quality?  It depends upon your point of view.

McCourt has invested heavily in improvements, having increased the Dodgers  in value to $722 million according to Forbes.  In 2010 the value of the team was estimated at $727 million.  Some say the Dodgers will fetch $1 billion on the open market.  He evidently hasn’t smeared the brand too badly, has he?

Unlike other owners, McCourt bought and still operates the Dodgers without any financial partners.  He’s a dinosaur – nooooobooody does that anymore!  He could snap his fingers and have 100 partners tomorrow.  That’s not his plan.

In 2008, he announced a $500 million project to add a museum, shops, and restaurants around Dodger Stadium.  That has not happened due largely to the economy and the messy divorce.

The Dodgers have a .523 winning percentage under Frank McCourt and have been in the playoffs 4 out of 6 years – a much better record than under one former owner who is also quick to criticize Frank.

Now, let me make it clear that this is not my mission in life, and I have not researched this extensively, but I believe that Frank McCourt has access to more money than god.  Think about this:

  • What is Dodger Stadium worth?
  • What is the area around Chavez Ravine worth?
  • What could all the development of a museum, shops, amusement park and restaurants around Dodger Stadium generate in revenue?
  • What are the naming rights of Dodger Stadium worth?
  • What is the new TV contract going to be worth?
  • What is the Dodger brand worth?
  • What does Frank have planned that we haven’t even contemplated?

So while Plaschke, Dilbeck and Simers blast McCourt, he just laughs at his critics.

What’s a critic?

A critic is someone who never actually goes to the battle, yet who afterwords comes out shooting the wounded.   A critic is a man who knows the way but can’t drive the car.   A critic is a legless man who teaches running.  A critic is someone who has never done anything on his own and complains about those who do.

Use your imagination.  Frank McCourt has lots of options.

Do you think Bud controls him and runs the Dodgers?  You are misguided.  Frank would own him before that happens.

Hate Frank McCourt if you want.  That’s your choice.

Boycott the Dodgers.  Maybe you were never really a fan anyway.

Frank ain’t going away, and the 2011 Dodgers will be a pretty good team.

Are you a fan or a critic?

I know who I am!

I am ambivalent about Frank and I refuse to let the scummy divorce rob me of my joy of following the Dodgers.

That’s why I refuse to focus on Frank McCourt.  He owns the Dodgers.  He’s not broke.  This divorce has a while to go.  “Broke” is when you have no options – Frank has options.

Que, Sera, Sera!

Think they can’t win in 2011?

You are simply deceiving yourself if you think that.  They most certainly CAN win.  Will they?  That’s the question.

Quit trying to change what you can’t change.  Change what you can, and have the wisdom to know which is which.

Don Mattingly thinks that 2010 was an aberration.  So do I.

I can’t wait until Spring Training….

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

41 Responses to “My Final Word On Frank McCourt”

  1. Bill Russell says:

    I haven’t a clue on the ownership situation because I’m not in the know. It sounds like trouble ahead but who know’s how this will end.
    I absolutely agree with your statement about not letting anyone rob us from our love of the team. Hope to see you at Camelback Ranch this year.

  2. Jaydavis says:

    Frank’s going to turn chavez ravine into coney island, sweet.

  3. ODRC says:

    It’s 4 out of 7 years they have made the playoffs, just to be correct. :)

    Seems like this entry is full of opinions and assumptions about Frank and why he went to New York and his financial situation. I think Bill Shaikin does a good job in his articles with facts, and I’m sure he has a lot more sources than most bloggers. When a couple is going through a divorce and the uncertainty is brings, the massive debt load (reported at over 600 million) would make it very difficult for Frank to find new financing like it has been reported by Shaikin many times.

  4. Roger Dodger says:

    Mark, many of us do not hate nor love McCourt.

    We would just rather have ANOTHER OWNER. I think the McCourt saga along with his wife — have taken much energy out of the CLUB, players, admin, field folks — and it is time to turn the page.

    As others have said, the attendance, the total sales and where the team is located — this team by now should have some better players. But for several years now, the team lives on projected players than might become something.

  5. RogerCraig says:

    I agree 100% with you Mark

  6. GoNzO says:

    wow Mark, I honestly hope all you wrote comes true. I hope that McCourt makes all of us that have criticized him eat our words. In a perfect world, maybe. I honestly think that if a monkey bought the Dodgers instead of McCourt back when he did the Dodgers would still be valued at close to one billion. Remember they are the DODGERS.

    One thing that I will ask you is, that if everything that you mentioned does happen how much will be invested in the Brand and not line McCourt’s pockets as was his custom? Will he have ghost positions for his sons to funnel half a million in sallary to both of them when they don’t set one foot or have a say in anything that involves the contunued growth of the Dodger Brand? people from MLB have said that the TV deal will not be allowed if its main purpose is to pay off Jamie.

    I am glad you keep the optimism, but it is not only the Shakins, Plaschke’s and Simers writing about the downfall of McCourt. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and people are calling him on it. I still think that he will be Marge Schotted.

  7. dtwdodger says:

    Very well written article Mark, for a McCourt supporter. I know you state that you are neutral on McCourt but the presentation on the points you make indicate that at the very least you are a closet supporter of McCourt’s Dodger ownership, if not an outright champion. To be clear, I have no problem with that for whatever your reasons, including unstated reasons.

    And to some degree, I believe that the rest of us need to agree, or at least acknowledge, many of your points for your support of McCourt as being valid. I for one do not think that the Dodger TEAMS have been worse under the ownership tenure of McCourt than it was under Fox or O’Malley during the last 10 years of the Claire reign. I say let the record speak for itself on that matter.

    As far as the Dodger FRANCHISE, it has been terribly tarnished under McCourt’s ownership, and that is where my issue with McCourt comes in. I don’t know that we are really the one’s who should have any say in who owns the Dodgers, but as fans, we appreciate your forum that allows us the opportunity to sound off anyway. That being said, McCourt hasn’t been a good owner as I see it because I tend to separate the TEAM from the FRANCHISE in my thinking.

    No matter how much money is spent, no team can be the best team every year. So that is not really the issue in my opinion with McCourt. In LA, even before the divorce, the McCourt’s left one feeling like they are trying their best to play the crowd for suckers. They try to put on the good face, which is really hard for them to accomplish, while sucking the vitality out of the FRANCHISE and raiding it’s coffers secretly. While many of us suspected as much, it took the revelations of the divorce to validate our suspicions as to what was happening to our beloved Dodgers.

    So while we still love the Dodgers, and we know that we could be stuck with a worse owner than the McCourts, we long for the day when a white knight rides into town and restores the lustre to this historic franchise. On that basis it is hard to be a McCourt supporter.

  8. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    I have no doubt that McCourt would spend lavishly on players if the dollars were rolling in. His ego would probably require it. And I expect that with the establishment of a regional network that those dollars will be rolling in. But just not now. Nor do I believe the planned development of Dodger Stadium and the surrounding property will begin until the dollars start rolling in. Any new financing for that development on top of the current debt, is also likely contingent on those dollars rolling in as part of a consistent revenue stream that promises to continue well into the future.

    My problem with McCourt is that he is not likely (or able) to do very much until he sees the revenues from a regional network. A deep-pocketed new owner, however, would be able to invest in the current team, and in the development of Dodger Stadium and its surrounding property, knowing full well that future revenues would more than repay that investment. What better way to build the brand, and in so doing attract millions in future sponsorship dollars, not to mention increased attendance and the ability to raise prices. I’m sure that’s something McCourt would like to do, but as things stand now he can’t. And furthermore, he’s not likely to get much outside help as things currently stand.

    I’m sure you’re right when you write that “Frank…sees a huge opportunity.” Problem is, the current team suffers because he hasn’t yet reaped the benefits of that “opportunity”.

    You state that “He was prepping Bud and company as to what is coming down the pike, and letting him know to get out of the way.” Maybe I missed something, but how do you know that, given that you’re not part of Frank’s inner circle?

    You state that McCourt has increased the value of the team to over $700 million, and maybe a billion $. But, if memory serves, I believe that McCourt was able to purchase the Dodgers for a substantial discount of their perceived worth in 2004 precisely because he agreed not to establish a regional network for 10 years. It’s only because he needed to leverage the deal that he was able to obtain the team at the price he did. With a more substantial owner, I imagine that the Dodges would be worth substantially more now than the Forbes estimate, and perhaps more than the billion $.

    Say what you want, but at this moment it’s safe to say that he has “smeared the brand”. But, no doubt, whatever tarnish the Dodgers have on them now, can be easily wiped clean given their history, and the fresh air that would be provided by a new and committed ownership. And anyone purchasing the team is well aware of that.

    And of course, McCourt “just laughs at his critics.” Are you sure of that?

  9. Mark Timmons says:


    I agree with you, except for the fact that I really am not a supporter in the sense that if there was a better option, I’d be for it.

    In the near future, I just don’t see it happening, and we could do worse.

    In my real business, I deal with the super wealthy and most of them are just as decadent as McCourt, so I am not as appalled as some people – it’s SOP for the rich!

    I don’t agree with it, but it’s fact.

  10. Steve says:


    You make some great points – ones that have caused me to reevaluate my thinking in regards to Frank McCourt. While I must admit that I have formed a negative opinion of Frank – most of which has been derived from the print media that I read – when viewed objectively, it is undeserved. As fans and customers we will buy the product if we perceive value for the money spent. If I attend a Dodger game (or watch the game on TV), it clearly is because I find value. If the Dodgers field a winning product, I will continue to attend games. If they do not then I will lose interest and spend my money elsewhere. Where I spend my dollars is the ultimate judge of the way Frank handles the team. The rest (i.e. his divorce to Jamie, multiple mansions, V power, not signing the top free agents) is just smoke. Going forward I will judge Frank’s job as the CEO and owner purely on the Dodgers success on the field and nothing more.

  11. lawdog says:

    You’re nuetral but ambivelent about McGoo, Timmons? Give me a break! You’ve been shamelessly kissing his backside between his back pants pockets since the news of the divorce broke and you feel so strongly about it that you have to devote an entire thread to flaming me for not being willing to kiss his ass the same way you do. Try looking at your real motivations here for a change. If you didn’t love Mcgoo, why would my posts suggesting the the SOB is going down and taking the Dodgers with him send you into such a rage? Think about it.

  12. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    * What is Dodger Stadium worth?
    * What is the area around Chavez Ravine worth?
    * What could all the development of a museum, shops, amusement park and restaurants around Dodger Stadium generate in revenue?
    * What are the naming rights of Dodger Stadium worth?
    * What is the new TV contract going to be worth?
    * What is the Dodger brand worth?
    * What does Frank have planned that we haven’t even contemplated?

    The first two of these bullet points are included in the supposed value of the Dodgers at something over $700 million. When McCourt bought the Dodgers, the $430 million he paid included Dodger Stadium and the land it was on, Vero Beach, the Dominican Academies, and any other assets owned by the Dodgers. So they’re not extra.

    The development part could definitely bring in big revenues. But getting it done will require further financing, which as things are now, may be somewhat hard to come by.

    Naming rights is an option, and could probably generate anywhere from $10 – $20 million per year.

    The new TV contract will definitely generate big bucks. But that’s not until 2014. He’s got to get there to make it work. In the meantime, he has to find more immediate money to keep the Dodgers competitive. Maybe he can, maybe he can’t.

    If the Dodgers win and attendance remains high, the Dodger brand has definite worth. And although the name has been besmirched by Frank and Jamie, it has intrinsic value that more enlightened and well-heeled ownership could easily resurrect.

    And I haven’t a clue as to what Frank has planned, and neither do you. And it could also be asked, what does the commissioner have planned that we haven’t contemplated?

  13. DRomo says:

    I wonder how objective Mark would be if his lips weren’t firmly attached to Frank McCourt’s butt?

    You chose a side and now you are speculating. He may have a plan and he may not. But I would think that if he did have a grand plan (as you say), why didn’t his wife have any idea of it? I am sure that would have come up in all the messy details we have heard thus far in the divorce. Instead he did not deny he has had plans to cut payroll, cut the scouting budget and hide rent the stadium from himself to line his pockets and buy more houses in the Hollywood Hills.

    I don’t hate McCourt either. I think he has gotten a raw deal here in LA, but he should be held accountable for making a joke of a Southern California treasure. It’s time to win now or get out of town!

    But of course Mark knows better. Just like he knew Beltre wanted to come to LA. How’d that work out for ya? In fact his “inside info” usually doesn’t pan out. It is all opinions and that’s cool because this is still a great site for that. But the belittling of those of us with our own opinions are shouted down by the guy who is usually wrong more than the rest of us.

  14. RogerCraig says:

    Hell, if you weren’t so damn lazy you could read the internet and know where Mark got his information. It’s there for everyone to see, except the really stupid ones.

  15. Bill Russell says:

    Mark, just remember I’ve been one of your supporters in here for awhile and haven’t said the things that the others have been accusing of. So if you have any of the special passes that McGoo hands out at Camelback, remember the guys that have stayed faithful to you in here. :smile: j/k

  16. Brooklyn Dodger says:


    Who are those “really stupid ones”? And exactly what part of what was written above was factual information that people could read on the internet? Looked liked mostly opinion to me, with some facts (that no one disputes) sprinkled in.

  17. ken says:

    More spin.

    The Dodgers have a team record of 19,473 and 10,135 or .524. That record includes all of the years that the Dodgers sucked from 1925 to 1938. So you are praising an owmer who is below average? LOL

    How about an article that accurately summarizes the MLB CBA and states what Bud must do, what Bud can do before expressing your Opinions about what Bud will not do and what Bud can’t do?

    This article sounds Obamaistic – when he talks louder people are supposed to think that he must be correct.

    Any one think that the Dodgers can afford Vladdy to play LF?

  18. Mark Timmons says:

    Long day – just got in. Some interesting comments today. It’s interesting to see how polarizing Frank McCourt is and I guess I am the lone voice in the wilderness. My opinion is certainly not the popular opinion, but maybe I have a better understanding of some things. Maybe not. Time will tell and I’m OK with that.

    Let me address a few things in order of most recent:


    Vlad? He hasn’t been able to play the outfield for at least two years. Why do you think he can play it now? He’s as bad or worse than Manny. No thanks.

    Bud has never been in this kind of situation before when so much money is at stake: Development around the Ravine, TV Contract, Naming rights and other revenues of income. There are those who say the Dodgers are worth a Billion – Frank will say more – and I believe that Frank’s visit to MLB HQ was a preemptive strike to let Bud know that he better not mess with his assets. Frank would sue MLB is a heartbeat if they impaired his plan.

    Frank may be portrayed as a thief and robber by some, but he’s a shrewd operator and a guy you don’t want to stare down. I think Frank was just saying “Look, stay out of my business and don’t even think about stopping me when I set my plan into motion.” Like him or not, he has done some pretty good things.


    I do have some inside info from multiple sources, and I have had to connect the dots, but I think you will see that I am right. RC is right in that if you Google “McCourt” and “Dodgers” you will see some of it.

    Billy Russell,

    Special passes? In the scheme of things, tickets to a game are a fraction of what I have to spend at spring training. Travel, hotel, food and even tips are vastly more than a few lousy tickets. If Romo and Lawdog truly think that affects my thinking, all I can say is that they have no clue who I am.


    His wife knows about the plan, which is why she will try and stretch this out. I put it at 50-50 that Gordon’s ruling will be overturned upon appeal (I know the other attorney’s will disagree with me, but that’s my opinion).

    On Beltre: I still say Beltre would have loved to go home to LA, but neither the Angels or the Dodgers would pay him more than 12 mil per over 5 years. Someday, you will read about it and say “Dad-gum, Mark was right.”

    And if I’m “wrong more than most” I also give more opinions than most. Bill Polian says that if you are right over 50% of the time about players, you are a genius.


    I don’t expect people to kiss his ass, but he has accomplished a lot and not everything is negative. Not even close.

    I’m going to let you guys have your say and then later this year, I will remind you about it.

    Those of you who only see the bad side of McCourt are the ones with clouded judgment. Those crooked little fingers are pointing right back at you.

  19. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Since you have multiple sources who provide you with information, then it’s clear that googling “McCourt” or the “Dodgers” would not provide me with the inside information that you claim to have. Without that information, I have completely different dots to connect. If you know things that the rest of us are not privy to, then it should be pretty clear as to why our opinions differ.

    However, we do agree on Vlad. I’d rather have Gibbons in left. Definitely Manny or worse.

  20. Roger Dodger says:

    On most of the better players available over the past several seasons — have not come to the Dodgers. One reasons is the Dodgers do not want to pay the money and contract years. Manny came because the price was cheap.

    If we fans are stuck with McCourt for another 10 or 20 years — then we have to make the best of it. But if he continues to place a so-so team on the field from what the Dodgers should be fielding — i believe there are still some rails left from bring the railroad west in the 1870′s. And some folks know just how to tie the body on the rail and start running.

    • ken says:

      The MLB Players and their agents have a RIGHT to know and do know the reality of the Dodger finances.

      6.4 Players Association’s Right To Information. The
      Office of the Commissioner shall provide the Players
      Association with the following information:
      (a) EBITDA, Total Club Debt and total allowable debt
      (two- or three-year average EBITDA multiplied by the
      applicable Cash Flow Multiplier) calculations for each
      Club, at the time the Office of the Commissioner provides
      FIQs to the Players Association pursuant to Article
      XXIV(D)(2) of the Basic Agreement and at any time as
      such calculations may be provided to the Commissioner
      on an interim or forecast basis prior to the Clubs’ FIQ submissions;
      (b) Compliance Plans submitted to the Commissioner
      pursuant to this Rule, within seven days of receipt by the
      Office of the Commissioner;
      (c) Correspondence from the Office of the Commissioner
      or a Club in connection with the operation of Section
      4 above, within seven days of the Office of the
      Commissioner’s transmittal or receipt of such correspondence;
      (d) Drafts of proposed correspondence to Clubs imposing
      Remedial Measures pursuant to Section 4 above.
      Within ten (10) days of providing such drafts, the Office
      of the Commissioner shall meet with the Players Association
      to discuss the Remedial Measures contemplated by
      the Commissioner;
      (e) Any documents and/or other information provided
      to the Players Association pursuant to this Section 6.4
      shall be covered by the parties’ Confidentiality Agreement
      (see Attachment 14); and
      (f) The Office of the Commissioner must notify the
      Players Association of any changes in the central debt

  21. ken says:

    First reaason Bud has a RIGHT to be pissed.

    6.5 Sale Transactions. In all transactions involving the sale
    or transfer of a control interest in a Club, the Commissioner
    MUST certify to the Clubs and to the Players Association
    that the LEVEL OF DEBT undertaken in connection with
    the acquisition or transfer WILL NOT create a PERSISTENT
    INABILITY of the Club to comply with the requirements of
    the Debt Service Rule. As part of that certification, the
    Commissioner, within 30 days of approval of the transaction,
    will provide to the Players Association the new Club
    ownership’s Long Term Plan for Debt Service compliance.

  22. ken says:


    Your listening skills and logic skills are shot.

    No implied messages from me.

    Just because I ask whether the Dodgers can afford someone does not mean I think that the person should be signed. Just asking an economic question.

    That is your erroneous leap of logic, not an implied message from me.

    No wonder there are so many arguments on this blog. People do not listen to the grammer but rather to what they alone are thinking.

  23. DRomo says:,0,7861995.story

    Frankie gets an advance from FOX! Hmmmm? All part of the master plan, right Mark?

    Mark, I respectfully disagree with the outlook. Frank must go. To compare him to the O’Malley family is beyond ridiculous. One had a model franchise and the envy of the league. The O’Malley’s ran a first class operation and built the legacy McCourt s trying to live off.
    McCourt has had to bear the cross for the pathetic FOX ownership but he seems to only make his situation worse by the suspect way he runs his business. (i.e. renting the stadium from himself, leasing the parking lot from himself, all the while buying properties in the Hills to keep as pool houses!) Sure it is smart business and great for McCourt but as a fan it sucks for us! It is not Franks fault his wife is a cheating , phony, who carpet bagged into town for the glamourous lifestyle and nothing else.

    We want a winner. We have waited too long. And the only thing worse is an ownwer who is dragging the franchise through the mud in order to make a buck. We have an owner in town like that already his name is Donald Sterling (Hollywood Slum Lord and Clippers owner).

    I am sure Frank has a vision as to how to turn this all around and it will take several years. But I am tired of waiting! I can’t wait for him and I want him gone. And gone before I have to watch Andre Ethier, Matt Kemp, and Clayton Kershaw in other uniforms because Frank can’t borrow money anymore! We need LA blood in the owners box. Someone who understands what the Dodgers meant to this area. What they still could mean to this area!

  24. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Maybe this is an indication that Frank’s master plan is unraveling. Since he probably can’t get any additional financing, this would appear to be just another move to get quick cash. It could also mean that there will be less money available for any mid-season acquisitions.

    Whatever the case, I’m sure the Commissioner’s office is monitoring every move he makes. Bud and company may too have a master plan.

  25. Mark Timmons says:

    Ken said:

    Just because I ask whether the Dodgers can afford someone does not mean I think that the person should be signed. Just asking an economic question.

    That is your erroneous leap of logic, not an implied message from me.

    No wonder there are so many arguments on this blog. People do not listen to the grammer but rather to what they alone are thinking.

    No Ken, that is not an economic question because it would have to assume facts not in evidence:

    #1 Can Vlad play LF?
    #2 What does it cost to sign him?

    I believe any logical person would believe that you were suggesting Vlad Guerrero as a possibility for LF by asking if we thought the Dodgers could sign him. Maybe lawyers don’t use the same logic, but when you asked the question I simply answered that Vlad is not a good LF.

    That was not an enormous leap in logic – it was a logical deduction based upon the facts presented. If it was an economics question, you could have simply asked “Does anyone think the Dodgers can afford to pay Vlad $8 mil a year.”

    That would have been a clear question – an economics question (based upon available facts) – a question that could have been answered the way (you say) you intended.

    I am used to dealing with lawyers and the way they like to twist words. It doesn’t work with me. I’m no attorney, but I’ve won every case I’ve tried and I am now 5-0. It’s one thing to argue on a blog, quite another to argue before a tribunal.

    I have to go, but I’ll address Romo soon enough.

  26. DodgerDude says:


    The two dumbest $&;$)(/ on this board claim to be lawyers.

    Beating a lawyer ain’t $hit!

  27. Mark Timmons says:


    Thanks…. I think. Maybe not…


    Originally I posted this:

    “He could snap his fingers and have 100 partners tomorrow. But that’s not his plan.”

    I could be wrong about that. Of course, FOX want to be his broadcast partner, so this seems logical, but they could become a full partner… or someone else could.

    When I read that today, it just solidified what I thought.

    I post my thoughts and say what I think. The people (like you) come back and try to tear what I say apart. That’s fine. It stimulates thinking and maybe helps some get “out of the box.”


    Analyze other teams EBITDA and tell me where the Dodgers rank in all of baseball. Do you know?

  28. Mark Timmons says:


    Bud and company do have a master plan. No doubt! Contraction may still be in the cards.

  29. lawdog says:

    I can’t believe what this board has degenerated into. It used to be a place where you could inteligently exchange ideas. But I guess what Harrison said was true when he said “all things must pass.

    Ta’ ta’ folks. I’ll see you in the funny papers.

  30. Roger Dodger says:

    Lawdog, I was looking over my Myers-Briggs stuff and realized that what we have here is not a failure to communicate — but just different personality types.

    Their inventory of questions will allow one to be placed on scales and grids to see what makes you tick.

    Like, some folks are clock watchers and on time, and it bothers them when other are late (“They should know better”) —- others are on the other end of the scale, and time floats for them. Just showing up is good enough.

    Knowing this and so much more, can help parents to understand their kids; help workers to understand other workers; bosses to understand employees, etc.

    The book: Please Understand Me — has sold well over 2 million copies.

    So Lawdog, we just have some folks here that differ on several different levels.

    And they Do Not Understand the other’s point of view: thus, they are stupid or dumb.

  31. Glass Is Half Full says:

    Lawdawg….Have you ever gone back and read any of your own posts?…You are as negetive and as attacking as anyone on this board..Yes you have a right to express your opinions but everything you accuse Mark of or being is exactly what you are..You accuse Mark with attacking those who disagree with his ideas but you are exactly the same…

    Yeah I know I don’t contribute much on this blog..I don’t express myself well with the written word but I can talk your butt off about the Dodgers face to face.I love to read everyone’s opinions but this McCourt Divorce has seemed to bring out a lot of negativity on this board…none of which I have ever witnessed in the last 2 years of being a daily reader of this blog.

    In my opinion it is the best Dodger blog around…or at least it used to be before it became a forum for personal attacks. I for one will stick around! Let’s hope Spring Training can get this blog back on track.


    Being a Rancho Cucamonga resident I can hardly wait for the Quakes to crank it up. Hope that we can meet sometime at Quake Stadium….

    Peace Out

  32. Corey says:

    I have to agree. I’ve been reading this blog for just over a year now trying to find any Dodger info I can find. When I first started reading the comments they were full of opinions, news and trade/signing rumors. Now it seems to have degenerated into people posting for the sole purpose of making others look stupid.

  33. Corey says:

    Although having said that, I still enjoy most of the columns. Particularly Jared’s prospect updates. I even enjoy Marks personal opinion columns even when I don’t agree with him. Let’s get back people respectfully disagreeing with their opinions.

  34. dtwdodger says:

    Hang in there Lawdog. You know that nobody is right, or wrong for that matter, all the time. Everyone has a bad idea, opinion, day, post, whatever, on occasion so whether you agree or disagree with Mark’s presentation, don’t take it personally.

    It’s best to always remember that there is no such thing as reality…there are only perceptions. Mark’s reality is nothing more than his perception, just the same as you, me and everyone else.

    Mark writes interesting posts, whether accurate or not depending on your perception, and provides us a forum to engage in discussion. Although on occasion, the rhetoric goes a little over the top, for the most part the comments are genuine and people are thinking and expressing their feelings. Other blogs have inane comments that aren’t worth the time reading or responding to.

    Let me give you a point about perceptions. Mark states without pause that he is neutral on McCourt and he must sincerely believe that he is. However, he will turn right around and champion the McCourt regime and call himself something like a lone voice in the wilderness and that we should wait and see. The perception of anyone else reading Mark’s posts, whether they agree or disagree with him, would be that he is a champion of McCourt.

    I have no problem that Mark favors the McCourt ownership, whether it is because at this time there is no other choice, or if it’s because to not do so would eliminate him getting press credentials to Dodger functions, or simply because he thinks that all said and done, he feels that McCourt is doing a really good job. It makes no difference. Everyone has their own perception of events or what Mark likes to call reality. And, you see things the way you do. It makes for good reading and that is why this blog is worth visiting.

    I always hope that when someone makes a good point, whether we agree or not, that we can acknowledge it is a good point and move on with our position and accept that not everyone will always agree…even if we are 100% right. Even if we are completely wrong, some will still agree with us. It seems that it is easier to get a verifiable fact wrong and apologize for it but once we have cast an opinion we can never be wrong, in our minds, so it becomes personal. That’s not the way it should be for any of us. So I hope that no one will take anyone else’s rant personally and for that matter, maybe we can refrain from rants and just keep on commenting our ideas here.

    Anyway, I hope to see you posting again in the near future. I even enjoy reading Badger’s posts and have missed him not posting recently.

  35. fu mccourt says:

    It’s obvious that he can’t run a organization. He has no money that is a fact. The man is in debt he bought the Dodgers on credit. When you buy anything on credit you must pay it off or interest will build up. He will eventually have a 1 billion dollar loan taken out that he will owe to Fox. Do you honestly think that any money that makes will go into the Dodgers or paying off his astronomical loan that he owes to the biggest network in television. So please don’t say that he is setting on a gold mine. The gold mine is dried up. Until we get a new owner who can have a clean slate and start putting money back into the organization and the minor leagues instead of buying homes, raising ticket prices, and parking lot prices we will be in some dire times as Dodger fans. I always thought it was funny that Selig never allowed him to buy the Red Sox.

  36. Ely's Coming, Better Hide Your Haeger says:

    I read a tweet that within the next 48 hours Judge Gordon will rule that Frank McCourt must sell the Dodgers. Is this tweet true? We’ll find out soon.

  37. Brooklyn Dodger says:


    Who did the tweeting? I can find nothing about this anywhere. I suspect that I would if it had any substance.

    • Ely's Coming, Better Hide Your Haeger says:

      not sure it was credible… it was a handle called DodgerUSA . this tweeter has been relatively accurate on stuff in the past. I’d say about 75% accurate on stuff. I couldn’t find anything on the McCourt sale. We’ll see

  38. ken says:


    6.5 Sale Transactions. In all transactions involving the sale or transfer of a control interest in a Club, the Commissioner MUST certify to the Clubs and to the Players Association that the LEVEL OF DEBT undertaken in connection with
    the acquisition or transfer WILL NOT create a PERSISTENT INABILITY of the Club to comply with the requirements of the Debt Service Rule. As part of that certification, the Commissioner, within 30 days of approval of the transaction,
    will provide to the Players Association the new Club ownership’s Long Term Plan for Debt Service compliance.

    1. Are you saying that Bud refused to do his job and allowed Frank to buy the Dodgers without submitting a financial and/or long term debt plan and therefore Frank has always done whatever he wants?

    2. Are you saying that Frank submitted a plan to MLB where he would take $100 million of distributions out of LA Dodgers, LLC in 7 years and Bud said “OK no Worries Be Happy” and now MLB is estopped from doing anything about Frank’s debt strategy?

    3. Are you saying that Frank submitted a plan to MLB where he would take $10 million of distributions out of LA Dodgers, LLC in 7 years and Bud said “Cool” and after Frank took $100 million of distributions out of LA Dodgers, LLC in 7 years now MLB, that Bud responded by saying “OK no Worries Be Happy” about Frank’s debt strategy?

    What allegedly logical view do you have regarding Bud’s actions in relation to Frank’s financial activities with the Dodgers, MLB and the MLB CBA?

    In my opinion sane people believe that Frank submitted a plan to MLB where he would take between $5 and $20 million of distributions out of LA Dodgers, LLC in 7 years and Bud said “Cool” and after Frank took $100 million of distributions out of LA Dodgers, LLC in 7 years now MLB and Bud now said “What the F… is going on here” about Frank’s debt strategy and now has now laid the law done to Frank. (Law being the MLB CBA) No loans from MLB, no exceptions to the Debt Service Rule, and no help from other owner.

    If Frank is following the original Long Term Plan for Debt Service, then MLB should be investigated by Congress and MLB should lose their anti-trust exemptions.

  39. Roger Dodger says:

    The title of this thread is:

    “My Final Word on Frank McCourt”

    I take it for it’s word — Mark’s FINAL word. No more.

    Lawdog, you are in charge of McCourt now. So what’s up?


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading