Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 |
They're Hoping We'll Forget
Tony Jackson at the Pasadena Star-News waves a red flag at me today on his article about the McCourts:
"After we went through the Boston process and didn't get the team, the new owners of the Red Sox went through a rough patch,' Frank McCourt said. "It was very similar to what we would go through here.Well, the similarity ends at the level of hostility. In Boston's case, the bid by John Henry's group was a fix, and it wasn't even the highest bid. In McCourt's case, Fox needed a buyer, any buyer, to pick up the team -- and just the team, not the lucrative cable TV channel, Fox Sports West. If the buyer were at the end of his rope financially, it would be a positive for Fox, as they would hardly be in a position to renegotiate the ridiculous lowball TV contract. We know this because Eli Broad's bid was ultimately rejected. One thing that wasn't a problem per se, though, was the foreign nature of the bid, else where's the hubbub about Arte's ownership of the Angels?"They were an out-of-town group, and they had purchased another beloved franchise. All the same accusations were made and everything else. We saw what happened there. John Henry and his guys came in and worked twice as hard because they had something to prove.
The primary source of the negative press the McCourts initially received was the front office attrition, and the way they handled it. When Frank McCourt announced that then-general manager Dan Evans would be given a chance to interview for his own job, it was clear to everyone, including Evans, that Evans was out. But what was lost amid a slew of resignations that included team president Bob Graziano, executive vice president Kris Rone and senior VP Derrick Hall was that only Evans was forced out.Certainly, that was a big concern, one that I wrote about repeatedly, but it wasn't the overweening concern; no, that was financial wherewithal. Despite Frank's comments to the press, I still remain skeptical; this thing may not play out over the course of a single season. It could take two or three years before things go sufficiently badly that Frank's forced out. Regardless, revisionist stories like this one only serve to make the McCourts happy. Those of us still paying attention grit our teeth reading articles like this. It also makes me wish Doug Pappas were still around.
Comments:
What is this "give them a chance" stuff? Haven't we been over this before? I refuse to silence my criticism of their ownership simply because they "haven't been given a chance". Hooey. They were given cargo containers worth of chances last year to buy the team, and only at the sale deadline, a month before the season began, were they finally able to pull the deal through, and that with a last-minute fig leaf -- and, oh, yes, a loan from News Corp. Chances my patoot.
Rob;
I'm going to take a slightly different approach here. It may be contrary or it may even defy logic, but it at least should be considered.
What makes you so sure the Dodgers are losing money other than on paper? If the cash flow wasn't there, McCourt couldn't have made the first months' payroll.
No lending institution, nor any good business entity acting like a lending institution, is going to loan hundreds of millions to a less than viable business. Even if they ultimately take the franchise back through court action or foreclosure it will cost them millions.
Keep in mind these owners are incredibly successful businessmen who know how to "cook the books". I find it hard to swallow that McCourt is willing to risk his entire life's fortune just so he can attend the ultimate fantasy camp.
I'm going to take a slightly different approach here. It may be contrary or it may even defy logic, but it at least should be considered.
What makes you so sure the Dodgers are losing money other than on paper? If the cash flow wasn't there, McCourt couldn't have made the first months' payroll.
No lending institution, nor any good business entity acting like a lending institution, is going to loan hundreds of millions to a less than viable business. Even if they ultimately take the franchise back through court action or foreclosure it will cost them millions.
Keep in mind these owners are incredibly successful businessmen who know how to "cook the books". I find it hard to swallow that McCourt is willing to risk his entire life's fortune just so he can attend the ultimate fantasy camp.
# posted by 
: 6/15/2004 11:33:00 AM
: 6/15/2004 11:33:00 AM
Anon -- show me where I said word one about McCourt's house purchase. You won't find it because it never happened.
As for everyone else -- I've already been over this before. McCourt tried to evade the debt service rule and he couldn't do it, so at the last second he conjures up a fractional ownership for Fox. The evidence against his ability to sustain this franchise is circumstantial, but such as there is is pretty damning. If you choose to ignore it, be my guest, but don't expect a respectful hearing from me.
As for everyone else -- I've already been over this before. McCourt tried to evade the debt service rule and he couldn't do it, so at the last second he conjures up a fractional ownership for Fox. The evidence against his ability to sustain this franchise is circumstantial, but such as there is is pretty damning. If you choose to ignore it, be my guest, but don't expect a respectful hearing from me.
I didn't say anything about his home purchase. I could care less if McCourt lives in a tent or the Getty Museum.
I am simply saying that I don't believe this franchise is losing money hand over fist as you so often suggest.
And don't worry about being more objectionable. That may be a great Freudian slip. More objective might work.
I am simply saying that I don't believe this franchise is losing money hand over fist as you so often suggest.
And don't worry about being more objectionable. That may be a great Freudian slip. More objective might work.
# posted by : 6/15/2004 02:21:00 PM
: 6/15/2004 02:21:00 PM
Look: bottom line, it comes down to at least acknowledging that there have been serious financial concerns raised both in the press and because of the nature of the sale. Ignoring them in stories like this one isn't making them go away -- it's making me think he's hiding something.
I'm not the same annonymous as above, I'm just hate registering for this type of stuff.
People criticize Rob for not bringing up the positives McCourt has done. I would love to hear some. Okay, he's chummy with Sandy and Vin. I'll give you that.
As far as putting resources into the club, he hasn't done it. The payroll is lower than last year, the team is about the same (hitting better, pitching worse) and has been playing worse than .500 ball the last month.
He is now talking of raising prices further, again with no resources being put into the team. For god's sake, he's too cheap to even hire a president for the team, and instead takes the title himself.
If he wants positive press, he better do some positive actions. Thus far he looks like a cheap carpetbagger, trying to take extract the maximum profit out of the team while putting in as little as possible.
People criticize Rob for not bringing up the positives McCourt has done. I would love to hear some. Okay, he's chummy with Sandy and Vin. I'll give you that.
As far as putting resources into the club, he hasn't done it. The payroll is lower than last year, the team is about the same (hitting better, pitching worse) and has been playing worse than .500 ball the last month.
He is now talking of raising prices further, again with no resources being put into the team. For god's sake, he's too cheap to even hire a president for the team, and instead takes the title himself.
If he wants positive press, he better do some positive actions. Thus far he looks like a cheap carpetbagger, trying to take extract the maximum profit out of the team while putting in as little as possible.
# posted by : 6/15/2004 06:00:00 PM
: 6/15/2004 06:00:00 PM
I'm going now to do exactly what some others have said I won't do, and that is to defend McCourt from some of these charges.
The problem with accusing McCourt of being cheap about running the team is that he formally took possession of the team one month before the regular season. At that time, there were no longer any top-shelf players available. His decision to remain president is debatable, but perhaps he enjoys the position; who knows. It's his decision as owner. The biggest thing we can say about him is the damning charge of interfering with Evans' pursuit of Vlad. Was it motivated by inadequate financing? Or out of concern he wouldn't be able to buy the team? Published reports say the latter, so we're still in the air about that.
Yes, the jury's still out on whether he's a good owner. But there's still plenty to be concerned about.
The problem with accusing McCourt of being cheap about running the team is that he formally took possession of the team one month before the regular season. At that time, there were no longer any top-shelf players available. His decision to remain president is debatable, but perhaps he enjoys the position; who knows. It's his decision as owner. The biggest thing we can say about him is the damning charge of interfering with Evans' pursuit of Vlad. Was it motivated by inadequate financing? Or out of concern he wouldn't be able to buy the team? Published reports say the latter, so we're still in the air about that.
Yes, the jury's still out on whether he's a good owner. But there's still plenty to be concerned about.
McCourt wouldn't look half as bad if Artie Moreno didn't move into the market at the same time. He's done things pretty much the opposite as Artie's done. McCourt: cuts payrolls, costs the team a chance at Vlad. Guerrero, raises parking (and doesn't cut beer prices either), confirms ticket price increases in the near future, fires or "forces out" (i.e. make the environment too uncomfortable to work in) employees left and right, talks endlessly about some other team (boston) instead of the one he owns right now... etc.
Not to mention the antics of his wife.
Of course many dodgers fans would be pissed/skeptical.
Not to mention the antics of his wife.
Of course many dodgers fans would be pissed/skeptical.
# posted by : 6/16/2004 12:31:00 AM
: 6/16/2004 12:31:00 AM
sorry, that last post was me (mattkew). (I really should register hm..)
# posted by : 6/16/2004 12:32:00 AM
: 6/16/2004 12:32:00 AMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.