Frank and Jamie McCourt were no angels when it came to buying the Dodgers. The story that's coming out in the pretty entertaining divorce is showing how they used the Dodgers like a cash cow to bring in money with very little of a plan to return value to the fans. Dodger fans being exploited is what it looks like, all to make the owners lots and lots of money with that the main goal. Winning championships maybe did not cross their minds as often and probably not part of the plan.
"McCourt: Plan was to cut Dodgers players’ salaries," Sep 1, AP,
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-dodgers-mccourts-salaries is interesting in showing comments that reflect some views of some bitter fans.
A much longer article on the same topic is loaded with datails, "McCourt Divorce Trial Reveals Dodgers' Massive Debts, Payroll Deductions," 9/02/2010 1:20 PM ET By Jon Weinbach, Sports Business Writer, http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/09/02/mccourt-divorce-trial-reveals-dodgers-massive-debts-payroll-de/
The player development was not a concern and one part of what got into some full speed ahead action was the increase in ticket prices. There was a time Tommy Lasorda used to say about Dodger Stadium, "Where you can bring a family of 4 for ten dollars.' That WAS a long time ago and the seat were in the upper deck or pavillion but it was true. Parking alone jumped to $15- was it any wonder that the Dodgers (the McCourts) did not want to contribute to any shuttle busses? There's shuttle service now from Union Station, but guess where that money comes from? Like when city council waived extra expenses for added officers to control traffic during the playoffs- the public paid for helping the business operate.
The McCourts had an arrangement where the Dodger Stadium property and the team were treated separately according to the reports. They were charging the team rent where you did not have that in earlier ownerships. The idea was to be able to have the property as an asset in case the team's future turned into some financial downturn.
Remember Walter O'Malley who brought the team to L.A.? Probably not, but back in those days and then with his son, Peter, there still was a "Dodger Family" sense about their operations. As people grew older and some died or moved to other organizations, the team aura changed and that's what it looks like to me, a forme avid fan, maybe beginning to lose that interest back when Steve Garvey left to the Padres and broke up the long-time infield.
The idea that baseball is a business is what you have to recognize and this is what the McCourts did, and that's all they did. I don't think you should feel any sympathy for either of them as more and more of the story is coming out that all they appear to have as a common goal is the cointinued accumulation of wealth and they did keep the team going but not with any passion for the game or the team.
If this team gets sold, I hope it gets some owners who don't "use" the operation like the McCourts did, but work to have some restoral of tradition. Anybody remember such long gaps between World Series appearances as these more recent years haven't changed?
The loss of Manny as the story linked here says, saved them over $3 million on payroll, and the fact that he really did not produce after that first year didn't help to keep him. But that was an exciting short time that you have to give Manny a lot of credit for generating.
I have to admit, I don't follow major league baseball anymore, but the time I did see Dodger Stadium after many years since the last visit was when they dedicated Mannywood, and then the small matter of taking steroids was revealed and a few days later, no more Manny on the field. I used to know all the Dodger roster years ago- not too hard since they had a pretty stable situation, but now when I hear the names of the players there's only a few I recognize as Dodgers from the current crop that seems to change as there's more and more millionaires in the game- on the field, that is.
So this is the short post here just to criticize the owners of the Dodgers now that their business plans were revealed, using the fans who would pay higher ticket prices anyway, even if the team was not a contender. That's got to tell you a lot of how the McCourts handled their ownership responsibilities. Now they've turned on each other and the exposure of all the behind the scenes plans they were using is more than interesting.
I usually write about the city hall politicians, but these folks appear to have about the same need for power and have it coming at the expense of others. It's coming out that the purchase of the Dodgers was done without really an actual presence of cash on hand. Just a lot of leveraging to pull off the deal.
They got the Dodgers and were working on their plan and now it's divorce time, with all the dirty linen aired out on both sides. Bell's city manager Rizzo is being discovered in more ways to be ripping off the city of 40,000 residents (the entire city population would fit in Dodger Stadium- just an observation) and so were others in their city structure. Were the McCourts ripping off fans? It's all a matter of opinion, and this was mine as the revelations tend to support a very different picture than what they presented to the fans.
Posts
