Monday, March 29, 2010
Ka-boom: The McCourts Blow Up
Is Frank wrong about having to rein in spending? I don't think anyone who's followed this saga would say so. [...]Update 3/30: There's a new AP story about the split:
But such a lifestyle cannot be funded by the club in such a way as to damage the health of the organization. It's bad enough that major league payroll is obscenely low for a team playing in such a huge market. And it's bad enough that this frugality at the major league level isn't balanced by spending on amateur free agents or premium draft picks. And it's bad enough that plans are in place to double ticket prices without increasing player spending.
Dennis Wasser, who represents Jamie McCourt, said Monday that the agreement didn't provide equitable allocation for his client. When the document was signed, Frank McCourt's value was about $380 million, while Jamie McCourt's was around $68 million, he said.Which points at the legal angle Team Jamie will likely use, pushing the court toward a sale of the Dodgers (if necessary), in whole or in part, to satisfy the "unequal division" problem.
"There was already unequal division," Wasser said.
"We're in fantasyland here," he said. "It's Alice in Wonderland. I don't have my 3-D glasses on."And Josh Fisher was on Fred Roggin's show yesterday.
Jamie McCourt is seeking nearly $1 million a month in temporary spousal support. Trope offered her $150,000 in monthly assistance and argued his client can't tap credit lines to maintain Jamie McCourt's lavish lifestyle, despite his $5 million annual salary.
"If we look at this case, realistically, you can't order Mr. McCourt to borrow money to pay support," Trope told Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon, who also will preside at Tuesday's hearing.