Selig on Dodgers: 'The outcome is not predetermined'
Commissioner Bud Selig met with reporters Thursday in New York at the conclusion of baseball's quarterly owners' meeting. Selig met on Wednesday with Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, who said he had impressed upon Selig the urgency in approving the team's proposed long-term television contract with Fox, which would provide the funding McCourt now lacks to meet the May 31 payroll.
"I just emphasized the importance of timing," McCourt said.
McCourt would not say whether he still believed the outcome of baseball's investigation into the Dodgers' finances was "predetermined," as he alleged two weeks ago.
Questions and answers about the Dodgers from Selig's news conference:
Q: Could you describe your meeting with Dodgers owner Frank McCourt?
A: No. We did meet. That's all I have to say at this point.
Q: What is your level of confidence McCourt can meet payroll this month?
A: I don't have any comment on that.
Q: Are you concerned about the amount of complaining the Dodgers have had with regard to the role of [trustee Tom] Schieffer?
A: No. I'm not in the least concerned. We're doing this very thoughtfully, very sensitively, with a lot of planning. I'm very comfortable with where we are. I gave up worrying about owners complaining about 18 years ago. We have done this with a lot of thought, very carefully, painstaking even in the selection of Tom Schieffer, who I have great faith in. Let's just say we're very comfortable with where we are.
Q: How do you respond to McCourt saying the outcome is "predetermined?"
A: Number one, the outcome is not predetermined. When I talked to Tom Schieffer and offered him the position, I just told him to go out there. He's got a lot of baseball experience. He and I were in the business a long time together. I have great faith in his ability. Nothing has been predetermined. That's why he is there, to monitor things [on a day-to-day basis]. And that is why Proskauer, our law firm, is doing a lot of other work [on the MLB investigation into the Dodgers' finances]. We wouldn't have to go through all this if it was predetermined. I'm doing it because I think it is the right thing to do. There are a lot of facts that develop. You can't develop facts ... without doing this. So it has not been predetermined. People can say whatever they want. I will anxiously await the reports from both parties, Proskauer and the monitor. Certainly, the reports will be very important.
Q: When do you anticipate the reports coming in?
A: I do not know. It's hard to set. There's no way I can say you have to be done in seven days or six days or three days. I don't know.
Q: But the Dodgers' point is that you could take as long as you need to get the reports, but they could run out of money in the meantime.
A: Look, everybody has moved in as expeditious a manner as possible. They'll continue to do that, but I can't set a timeline.
Q: Is there a chance that, when all is said and done, that you would approve the Fox contract and McCourt would remain as the Dodgers' owner?
A: I'm not going to get into that until I have the reports. We have both a monitoring and an investigative approach to this. When I have all the information, I will make decisions.
Q: Would you consider approving -- or would you have to approve -- another loan should McCourt be able to get one?
A: That's just speculation. The only thing I will say is that this sport has very definitive rules. It is my job to make sure those rules are being enforced. End of discussion.
Q: Are the Dodgers in compliance with baseball's debt service rules?
A: There will be a time, but I'm not going to get into that today.
Q: Can you share what other owners said about the Dodgers situation?
A: No.
Q: Steve Garvey has said he has a group that wants to buy the Dodgers. Could you comment on that?
A: I know he has. I talked to Steve Garvey a long time ago. We're not there yet. We're not ready. The club isn't for sale. I know he has announced that, and there are a lot of other people in L.A. who apparently have expressed interest, but we're not ready to discuss that. That is premature, to say the least.
Q: Even if you don't have a date when you expect the reports, when would you like to see them?
A: As expeditiously as possible. I'm all for that too. Tom Schieffer has been very aggressive. The Proskauer firm that is doing the investigation has been extremely conscientious. We're moving as fast as we can. To use one of my favorite teams, nobody is using the Dean Smith four-corner offense.
Q: Are you prepared to say the contracts of the Dodgers players will not be defaulted upon?
A: I really don't want to engage in all those things today. I talk to Tom Schieffer about four times a day. ... There will be a time for all that. I'm not going to engage in that kind of speculation.
Q: Will you hire another monitor to assist Schieffer?
A: Possibly, yes.
Q: Are you disappointed Dick Freeman did not disclose his work for Jamie McCourt? [Freeman was the assistant monitor hired Monday morning and let go Monday afternoon after MLB learned he had consulted for Frank McCourt's ex-wife in their divorce case.]
A: Yeah. I've had a long relationship with Dick Freeman, as Tom has. He is a really competent executive. He's done great work wherever he's been. He's very good in this area. I don't know. Sometimes, things happen. He was perfect for the job. We'll find somebody else.
Just to close this part of it out, we are not dragging our feet at all. It's in no one's best interest, certainly ours.
[Selig also made an indirect reference to McCourt, who has declined to sell any share of the Dodgers, in answering a question about the New York Mets. "The Mets are doing what, when you have a problem, you have to do," Selig said. "They're selling part of their team and putting equity into the team."]
-- Bill Shaikin in New York
Photo: Bud Selig. Credit: Chris Morrison / U.S. Presswire.
"The outcome is not predetermined." Bud, you comedian!
Posted by: Rob McMillin | 05/12/2011 at 11:12 AM
The Master of Double Talk.
Posted by: Hollywood Dodger Mark | 05/12/2011 at 11:39 AM
Actually the outcome has been predetermined, by McCourt. By continuing to rob the Dodgers of all their equity ever since he bought the Dodgers, he sealed his own fate.
Posted by: Lou | 05/12/2011 at 11:43 AM
By all means Commissioner Seliig, take all the time you need!!! Dont leave any rock unturned! McBroke is a drowning(financially) man right now, for the sake of all us Dodger fans, let him go under!!!
Posted by: santuri1 | 05/12/2011 at 11:45 AM
Force McCourt to sell... PLEASE!
Posted by: crow | 05/12/2011 at 11:46 AM
" Selig on Dodgers: 'The outcome is not predetermined' "
- Haig on Presidency: "I am in control (charge) here."
________
Really Alexander/Bud?
No 'victor' has been predetermined here either despite all of the overt hopes dudger fandom. While I do not wish it, would not surprise me 'if' this fight is far from over...
Posted by: 16blows | 05/12/2011 at 12:06 PM
I'll write it again and again until I'm "blue" in the face -- McCourt is only going to relinquish control of the Dodgers over his dead body. Dislike him all you want and there's a ton of reasons to dislike but MLB is on very shaky legal turf here. Fox, for all the obvious reasons, is ready to pour millions of dollars into the Dodgers, so much so it would make the Dodgers TV contract one of the largest in sport. Yes, the whole Jamie thing is a player in all this, but baseball better be legal picture-perfect here. Too me, as bad as things are with McCourt, his case in the courts over this issue is stronger than most think.
Posted by: pete | 05/12/2011 at 12:10 PM
Bud,
Do whatever you have to do, and take as long as you need. And by the way, the city of Los Angeles thanks you for jumping in to try and fix this freakin' mess.
Go away Frank, just shut the F up and go away. Take whatever equity you have, split it with the ex, and GO AWAY.
Posted by: GoAway Frank | 05/12/2011 at 12:16 PM
It's all over but the ringing of the cash register. Both McCourts have clearly demonstrated their inability to manage an enterprise the size and scope of the Dodgers. They've also demonstrated their greed and lack of concern for the wellbeing of said enterprise.
Sell the team to someone with a brain and a heart for the game.
Posted by: Brooklyn West | 05/12/2011 at 12:17 PM
"Clowns to the left of us, jokers on the right /Here we are, Dodgers fans / Stuck in the middle..."
Posted by: LALfansince1961 | 05/12/2011 at 12:23 PM
Pete (Soboroff)
Can you please post a link to a case where an owner gas successfully sued the Commisioner and won? Oh yeah, I thought so.
Posted by: Dan | 05/12/2011 at 12:41 PM
What will really put this case to the ultimate test is when McCourt sues MLB and Selig, which he apparently had to sign an agreement that he wouldn't (and couldn't) when he 'bought' the club. Could this go all the way to the Supreme Court? Will McCourt file BK and end up keeping Dodger Stadium and charging a new owner rent? Does Jamie wear a thong? Could this soap opera get any worse?
Posted by: Rick | 05/12/2011 at 01:32 PM
If there is still anyone left who has not realized the value of completely boycotting all Dodger games and products until McCourt is forced to sell, this "interview" should convince him or her. It has to be made absolutely clear to Selig that the people of Los Angeles will not support any team owned by Frank McCourt. The TV contract with Fox becomes irrelevant; the fans will not buy tickets, nor will they watch any games.
Fox wants to manipulate the Dodgers and baseball, and turning McCourt into a wholly owned subsidiary is their way to do it. And Selig probably doesn't care if the Dodger teams are any good, or win anything. All he cares about is making money for the rest of the owners. But if Los Angeles fans will not go to any of the games, that costs everyone, and embarasses baseball and Selig, which is what he can't stand. If Selig thinks that McCourt can limp along with the Fox money, and that enough people will continue to go to the games, he may not force a sale. Attendance which continues to get worse will force a sale. And not to Steve Garvey, please; to someone(s) who actually care about something other than their own ego, and self-gratification.
Posted by: William L | 05/12/2011 at 01:40 PM
hey dodger fans, better wait till next year. no point in putting .05 in McCourts pockets since he wont be around next year . it took a while to get rid of Murbarick and hopefully it wont take that long to get rid of McCourts- all of them
Posted by: bruce | 05/12/2011 at 02:12 PM
pete, MLB is on very solid legal ground. Every time anyone has sued to change their antitrust loophole, they have lost and MLB has won. That's a solid track record. Even the other sports leagues that do not have that extra layer of protection also have the ability to go into a franchise and oust an owner for specific egregious reasons. That's WHY they're called franchises and not individual fiefdoms, or privately-held corporations.
Imagine a bunch of accountants invaded your offices and took over the checkbook and control of the revenues!!! of your business, wouldn't you have sued immediately, or had them arrested, or have sued by now? Why hasn't McCourt?? Think it has something to do with the fact every team is run by owners as stewards of their franchises, and cannot do with them as they want, like strip the team of all assets, and negatively impact the popularity and revenue of their franchise, to the detriment of the overall business of baseball? Surely you can see that.
Posted by: Native Angeleno | 05/12/2011 at 02:19 PM
we fans are pre-determined......beat it mcSlime....or we sit out all home games
Posted by: Tony Almonte | 05/12/2011 at 03:01 PM
Wow! Personal attacks on me for stating an opinion! Well, we'll see what happens. MAYBE McCourt is forced out. Whatever happens I'll be here to take whatever attacks that come my way. McCourt is a jerk, pure and simple. When MLB takes the team over, totally, then we'll see what is what. I believe he has a case over MLB. Again, we'll see.
Posted by: pete | 05/12/2011 at 03:08 PM
How many more times am I expected to turn over in my grave?
Posted by: Walter O'Malley | 05/12/2011 at 03:37 PM
He would never admit it publicly, but Vin Scully must be really upset about all of this. (Not to mention Lasorda - he's been kind of quite with all of this)
All he wants to do is announce games, and the only place he can do it for a decent size crowd is in SF or CO. Watching the attendence dwindle can't be a fun thing to see day in and day out. The AZ series this weekend might be an all time low.
This may force his hand on a decision about next year, regardless of the outcome on June 1.
If you're reading this Vin: hang in there, the fans will be back when it makes sense to do so. You ARE the Dodgers in our eyes, you've always been there for us.
Posted by: GoAway Frank | 05/12/2011 at 04:13 PM
In the end, the (legal and financial) investigations will be devestating to the McCourts. We've all seen bits and pieces of it. Some has come out via the divorce, but that was skewed to reflect the needs of the divorcing parties. This investigation is centered around the baseball organization and will reveal stuff that will make our jaws drop.
It will provide MLB the legal ammo to seize the team. We'll probably never see the report as MLB will not want to muddy an already ugly situation. Of course I suspect Frank will sue MLB at which time the details of his mismanagement will come out, but that will be years from now.
Posted by: jackal | 05/12/2011 at 04:50 PM
Hey pete, are you a lawyer???!!! I have news for you, MLB never would have done what they did(seize operations) if they didnt have a winning hand already!!!! Im quite sure the Commissioner has most(if not all) the other owners on his side!! Im also quite sure, this action was examined by MLB's legal team before it was executed!! Meanwhile, your boy(McBroke) is literally drowning(financially) in debt!!! He's finished whether you choose to believe it or not!!! It's only a matter of time now............
Posted by: santuri1 | 05/12/2011 at 06:04 PM
Hey pete, your boy(McBroke) still has the L.A Marathon if you want to go cheer him onn....... Oh wait, I hear that'll be for sale soon as well!! Just ask the Mayor and the L.A City Council.......
Posted by: santuri1 | 05/12/2011 at 06:11 PM
Just so everyone knows Soberoff and McCourt are monitoring these blogs and even commenting at times.
Posted by: campc4 | 05/12/2011 at 07:14 PM
Bill.......Why didn't you ask Bud if Jamie had called him or Schieffer to ascertain whether MLB/Schieffer planned on approving the Dodgers continuing to pay her and her kids their respective LA Dodger stipends? Better still....why don't you ask him for her?
Posted by: bluz1st | 05/12/2011 at 08:03 PM
Unless Frank figures out a way to get rid of Jamie (never going to happen) so he can sell some shares to his cronies OR he declares bankruptcy protection, the outcome is indeed predetermined! Mortgaging the Dodger television rights for the next 20 years in todays dollar values would be a huge mistake.
Posted by: bluz1st | 05/12/2011 at 08:10 PM
I hope they are monitoring..........
Posted by: santuri1 | 05/12/2011 at 09:18 PM
The only outcome that will work with the fans is the ouster of Mccourt.
Posted by: California Sun | 05/13/2011 at 03:46 AM
Mr. Selig - PLEASE DON'T WAIT ANY LONGER - The more time you give McCourt the worse things are going to get. Dodger Nation has spoken...FORCE THE SELL OF OUR BELOVED DODGERS.....PLEASE. wE HAVE SUFFERED LONG ENOUGH.
Posted by: Another Distressed Fan | 05/17/2011 at 10:09 AM