Confirmed: Frank McCourt meets Dodgers' May 31 payroll
Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has met the team's May 31 payroll, two people familiar with the situation said Friday.
McCourt remains in search of funding to meet the June 15 payroll, said one of the people, neither of whom was authorized to speak publicly.
McCourt is trying to stay afloat until a June 22 hearing, when he hopes for a ruling that his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt, has no standing to challenge a proposed television contract between the Dodgers and Fox.
Frank McCourt says that contract would provide $285 million in immediate funding, which would end the biweekly questions about whether he can meet the Dodgers' payroll. He needed a $30-million personal loan to cover the first three payrolls of the season -- on April 15, April 30 and May 15.
Friday marked the last business day before the May 31 payroll. The funds needed to be secured by Friday in order to ensure automatic processing and timely payments.
-- Bill Shaikin
and also judge could grant Jamie's request for forced sale of team as marital asset
June 22
Posted by: alanw19 | 05/27/2011 at 07:21 PM
To Judge Scott Gordon:
.
You know what to do on June 22.
.
I'm watching.
Posted by: Judge Scott Gordon's Mom | 05/27/2011 at 07:22 PM
NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to have to change my "End of the McCourt Era" countdown clock to June 15.
Posted by: John Patterson | 05/27/2011 at 08:00 PM
Will it ever end? Will we ever get rid of this, words can`t describe, PIECE OF S--T? When other cities get trash like this, they some how get rid of him,her and or they. But when a City this big can`t get rid of it`s garbage, there is something wrong and that something wrong is buddy($)the buck. You know bud the money mad parity driven(only for the money)owner`s commissioner, not the players and certainly not the fans.This joke who gave us interleague play, that cheapened the World Series,tied All-Star games, because every team must be represented and all must get in the game until there are no more players left to use the DH over expansion and finally he gave us frankie,jamey and they gave us neddie. So when he puts down his cigar and his martini glass, he will then try and pull the wool over our eyes and inflict on Los Angeles some clown from the white sox or brewers organization. He has alreafdy been hinting at doing just that. IN OTHER WORDS: DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING THIS CAT SAYS he is untrustworthy and just thinks about the bottom line.
Posted by: Jim McVeigh | 05/27/2011 at 08:01 PM
As a thrice survivor of California divorces I can tell you with considerable authority that "alanw19" speaketh that which he knoweth.
Posted by: poorBUThappy | 05/27/2011 at 08:14 PM
Bill, no judge can force MLB to approve a bad tv deal, or any deal, any more than any judge could force KFC to approve a franchise owner's deal to sell Big Macs. Could you please confirm what you suggest is legally possible before repeating it one more time? Why does the Times persist in printing dubious legalistic babbling by Frank McCourt, and nothing by Jamie McCourt, like her request for a court-ordered auction in protection of her 50%, which actually has a chance of being approved?????
I'm with Howard Cole of the OC Register, who looked askance at McCourt's "expectation" he would make payroll this time around. No later than one month from now one of Manny's balloon payments is due at app $6 1/2 mill plus the payroll of almost $10 million, which Frank may not have IF he can make June 15th's app $10 million payroll.
Nevertheless: DON'T GIVE McCOURT A PENNY TOWARD PAYING ONE BILL. Don't go to the games.
Posted by: Native Angeleno | 05/27/2011 at 10:00 PM
I hope he sends out a check to the fans as well considering the product is a notch better then the Jethawks or is it?
Thank God for Vin Scully
Posted by: Dem Bums | 05/27/2011 at 10:01 PM
Native Angeleno:
Fox has told Frank there is no deal if Jamie does not agree. Fox wants a TV deal, not a court fight with Jamie. So Frank has asked the court to rule that Jamie has no say in the TV deal. If the court agrees, Selig still would have to approve the deal.
Posted by: Bill Shaikin | 05/27/2011 at 10:10 PM
Don't give mc court any money. Stop attending all game until the team is sold.
Continue the boycott until the dodgers have been sold to another owner.
Posted by: VekikS | 05/27/2011 at 10:16 PM
About a month ago there was a report that the IRS was investigating whether McCourt failed to report taxable revenue. It seems to me that this, if true, would the impetus for the Dodgers to be taken away from McCourt (how could anyone run a team from prison?) Yet, I haven't anything new since then. What happened to the IRS investigation?
Posted by: Nick | 05/27/2011 at 10:44 PM
There's now a pending $500MM lawsuit from the Stow family. That puts McCourts profit on any sale in jeopardy...though of course, he's not one to think things through anyway, as he's still on this emotional roller coaster ride of denial.....why oh why does this fool think he still has the upper hand in divorce court. It's clear Jamie's got him by the balls....the fact he can barely make payroll....is now being sued for $500MM....has a losing team......has lost revenue by a reduced attendance this year.....seriously...this guy is on the path of destruction.....I don't know what to think if Judge Gordon doesn't see this first-hand....he needs to order the sale ASAP. June 22nd also gives Selig a chance to hand Jamie some evidence from his findings.
Posted by: BillyBobBLUE | 05/27/2011 at 11:03 PM
hmmmm, could a judge allow Ms. McCourtCo to sell her 50% interest in the team and if so could MLB do anything to stop it? I ask because I don't see how MLB could have a leg to stand on, I mean from a common sense standpoint, if they tried to stop it. By selling she would be basically getting her part of the family assets leaving only Mr. McCourtCo to deal with, and of course the new partner.
Hey, it's SoCal and very odd things happen here, especially to the Dodgers. I mean what fun to see that level of confusion over the team if the judge would let her sell now...that could give us years and years of fun.
Heck, I even have to ask if anyone can stop her from selling her interest in the team? If not then what valid reason would she have to not do so in order to get paid? She could still claim against whatever his half sells for is she sells the half interest for just $1, right? I know nuttin' about divorce stuff so I ask those who do not those who read a John Grisham book once upon a time.
Posted by: grumpy3b | 05/27/2011 at 11:24 PM
So far Frank can do no right. Its like everyone is against him. I'm guessing the players that will get paid this week, should be appreciating that huge pay check they will receive. Only if they could play huge like the check they are being paid, that would be great. We the fans are upset because we did not make the playoffs last year. Plus it appears we will not make it this year. How many times were we in the playoff's before Frank got here. Well the last time was 97(O'Malley own). Since we all know Frank has really been hammered recently, especially by the divorce, the fans and media, the one thing we must admit. He is a fighter, we have to give him that. Maybe if our team showed as much fight as he has, we might be winners. Because as of right now he has not missed a payment. We all remember the "88" team that was not suppose to win, but had the right stuff(attitude). This team needs to fight hard too, just like their owner is doing all alone.
Posted by: blue | 05/27/2011 at 11:42 PM
blue - Mc Court is fighting like Don Quixote, he is delusional in his own reality.
In the real world he is fighting a mess that he created and that has RUINED the Dodger name, brand, team, attendance and fan faith.
BOYCOTT
Posted by: aaron d. | 05/28/2011 at 07:28 AM
That's too bad. McCourt - sell the team. Leave Los Angeles.
Posted by: fbmvp | 05/28/2011 at 07:37 AM
Yeah, right Blue. Frankie-The-Fighter is All By Himself. Well, this song's for him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b54gIJ5lHAc
Boycott!
Posted by: Striker | 05/28/2011 at 07:40 AM
blue: You do realize that Frank McCourt has been running this team on borrowed funds since he purchased the team with borrowed funds in 2004? That's the reason he's still paying Manny, Juan Pierre and Andrew Jones. Now he's trying to further mortgage the future of the franchise by borrowing against future television revenues to pay today's expenses. The current TV contract is good for 2 more years, why aren't those revenues being used to pay today's debt? Could it be because those funds were used to pay previous debt's and for the purchase of luxury cars and homes? When does it end? I say let it end on June 22....ENOUGH!
Posted by: dan koehler | 05/28/2011 at 07:45 AM
STEVE SOBOROFF BLOG INFILTRATION WARNING!!!
Apparently, Steve Soboroff is currently writing under the name "Blue" and is attempting to direct attention away from his new employer by calling into question the performance of this year's roster of Dodger Players.
Friends and Fellow Dodger Bloggers: We must do all we can to keep this man in check. As soon as you see his covert, undercover postings in response to any Dodger article on this website, please be sure to alert the rest of us.
Posted by: J_Is_Dismayed | 05/28/2011 at 08:31 AM
Blue, Everyone is against rank because he used Dodger revenue on extravagant personal expenses at the expense of the team and the fans. It wasn't personal but now we are just sick of the Mc Courts and want them to sell the team to someone like Arte Moreno. He can fight all he wants to but he is already completely done with all the fans in LA. We will continue to boycott until the team is sold.
Posted by: VekikS | 05/28/2011 at 09:55 AM
The McCourts are scum and Soberoff is just as bad. Big news is the owner made this weeks payroll. This doesn't happen to other teams, because they have owners that can afford to run their clubs. He should have never been allowed to purchase it in the first place and now the fans won't be back until he's gone!
Posted by: McCourt blows | 05/28/2011 at 11:39 AM
Grumpy:
The court has not made a final determination as to whether the Dodgers are community property. Jamie could not just put up 50% of the team for sale.
Even if the judge were to rule the team is community property, it would be more likely that he would say Frank should try to buy out Jamie, or Jamie should try to buy out Frank. In your example, a 50% owner would have to work with Frank, and in any case MLB has the right to approve any partial owner.
Posted by: Bill Shaikin | 05/28/2011 at 02:25 PM
McCourt sucked the financial blood out of the Dodgers like a vampire, breaking-up the pieces of team assets (parking, the stadium, etc.) and putting them in separate companies. Team operations receive little or nothing from parking (at $15.00 a car or motorcycle) and the team pays rent to play at home, like it was playing in a public facility. That is the reason making payroll is touch-and-go every 2 weeks. To do it, and avoid the immediate auctioning of the team, he is doing what he has to - transferring money from his other holdings. As long as he does that, he can stall for time, but he doesn't want to and waits until the 11th hour to do so.
If Mrs. Doppelganger can't force the sale, MLB will. The Dodgers are private property, but in a partnership with all of the other owners, because whatever affects the Dodgers affects the other teams and to sign away the TV rights for 17 years, even for what seems to be a prodigious sum now, but may seem a pittance in a few years (see the Pac10 television and bowl deals just redone), is completely unacceptable.
That one of the flagship franchises in professional sports has sunk this level is a tragedy.
Posted by: LA Sports Fan | 05/30/2011 at 08:11 AM