Alimony Dodger!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Claiming that he's been manipulating the balance sheet to minimize his financial exposure for divorce proceedings, Jamie McCourt just doubled her request for monthly support from soon-to-be-ex-husband/Dodger owner Frank McCourt... to just a shade under one million. Dollars. Monthly.

And, if her claim is to be believed, it wouldn't make THAT significant a dent in his wallet.

Here's why owners struggle to keep their balance sheets hidden:

In addition, according to the filing, Frank McCourt currently resides in a "luxury hotel in Beverly Hills," has spent $52,000 on clothes since November and keeps two of his sons on the Dodgers' payroll -- at a combined annual salary of $600,000 -- "despite the fact that one is a graduate student at Stanford and the other works full-time for Goldman Sachs." (One of those sons accompanied Frank McCourt to last month's meeting of baseball owners in Phoenix.)... The trial to determine ownership of the Dodgers remains set for May 24. Frank McCourt claims he is the sole owner, citing an agreement in which he gets the Dodgers and the couple's other business interests and she gets the couple's residential properties. Jamie McCourt claims she is a co-owner. Her lawyers hinted at one possible challenge to the agreement by suggesting in Thursday's filing that the McCourts might have used revenue from the Dodgers "as if it was their personal ATM or credit card" to support their lavish lifestyle. Also, as a result of carefully structured business entities, the McCourts have "paid no federal or California state income taxes since at least 2004," according to the filing. The Dodgers appear to be a sound stand-alone business, based on records cited in the filing. The Dodgers' revenue has nearly doubled under McCourt management, from $156 million in 2003 to $295 million in 2008. The team generated $285 million last year and projects $290 million this year.

Nice. Also curious...

In addition, Frank McCourt last year solicited a Chinese investment bank for a venture that would unite the Dodgers and a Beijing soccer club under the McCourt umbrella, with the intention of adding an English Premier League club to the mix. That venture appears to be on hold, according to the filing, because of the divorce proceedings.

Portsmouth Dodgers, anyone?

[metirish]

Portsmouth would love him as they are this close to being wound up. They are looking/begging for a new owner, who if they get would be their fifth in the last 16 months.

Anyway , back to McCourt.....wasn't the missus involved in the day to day running of the Dodgers? , article says in 2003 the Dodgers lost $56 million....guy turned that around and they have their own TV Stations coming in a few years. Obviously somethign worth fighting over.

[A Boy Named Seo]

metirish wrote: Portsmouth would love him as they are this close to being wound up. They are looking/begging for a new owner, who if they get would be their fifth in the last 16 months. Anyway , back to McCourt.....wasn't the missus involved in the day to day running of the Dodgers? , article says in 2003 the Dodgers lost $56 million....guy turned that around and they have their own TV Stations coming in a few years. Obviously somethign worth fighting over.

Yeah, Frank fired her after the season ended and she filed some sort of appeal to block it. Not sure what, if anything, came of that.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Shit, as the kids once liked to say,just got real. And, real friggin' crazy.

In a stunning turn in Frank and Jamie McCourt's battle for control of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Jamie's lawyers filed a motion Thursday asserting that attorneys for her estranged husband falsified the couple's marital property agreements and inserted a clause giving Frank sole ownership of the Dodgers in the event of a divorce. The marital property agreement is at the center of the couple's high-profile divorce case, which is scheduled to go to trial later this month. Frank has long claimed that the agreement placed the couple's multiple residences in Jamie's name and gave him control of the franchise if the couple divorced. The McCourts actually signed two versions of the MPA -- one to comply with Massachusetts law, and another for California, and both were signed in late March and early April of 2004. Both sides agree that the MPA was executed to shield the family's properties from litigation or creditors -- but Jamie has insisted that she never agreed to give up any ownership stake in the Dodgers. Thursday's motion seems to validate her story. According to the filing, there's a key discrepancy between the original copies of the two MPAs, which were both signed by Jamie on March 31, 2004. The Massachusetts version included a section giving Frank sole ownership of the team in the event of the divorce, while the original California version did not. According to Jamie's lawyers, however, the clause giving Frank rights to the team was never in any earlier draft of the MPA, and was only added a day before the documents were signed. Moreover, Jamie's attorneys cite forensic analysis of the MPAs and word processing records to show that the California version was later doctored to include the section giving Frank ownership of the Dodgers in the event of a divorce. The changes were made without Jamie's knowledge and were only discovered in the last month, when both Frank and Lawrence Silverstein, the couple's longtime attorney, admitted that there were, in fact, two versions of the document. Jamie's lawyers contend that she never actually saw the "final" California version until the divorce proceedings began last year, and was told previously by Silverstein that the California version was kept in his law firm's vault in Boston. Frank's lawyers fired back later Thursday by calling Jamie's case "a loser." In recent depositions, Frank and Silverstein attributed the discrepancy to "typographical" and "clerical" errors. Jamie's lawyers are now asking Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Scott Gordon to admit the original California MPA into evidence for the case, which has already attracted some of the highest profile -- and most expensive -- litigators in the country. Jamie's legal team now includes Dennis Wasser, a noted Hollywood divorce specialist, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore in his Supreme Court case against George Bush over the 2000 presidential election. Frank has retained Stephen Susman, a Houston trial specialist who successfully defended Little Caesars and Clear Channel Communications in landmark anti-trust cases, as well as family law veteran Sorrell Trope, who has represented Cary Grant, Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman, among others, in their divorces.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm sorry. I've never signed an MPA, but don't contracts of this nature get signed paragraph by paragraph, with third party notarization and a copy filed in a public office somewhere.

I don't believe the team ever "lost" money. If two sons were drawing salaries totalling $600 G's, I imagine Frank and Jamie were on the payroll also and paying themselves more than Andre Ethier.

[Valadius]

Judge rules for Jamie McCourt. Franchise follies to continue.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Also, as a result of carefully structured business entities, the McCourts have "paid no federal or California state income taxes since at least 2004," according to the filing.

That's a WTF sentence I missed the last time around.

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: Also, as a result of carefully structured business entities, the McCourts have "paid no federal or California state income taxes since at least 2004," according to the filing. That's a WTF sentence I missed the last time around.

It is possible that the McCourts showed losses on different entities or personal tax ID's leading one to say "they paid no taxes to CA." It might be more accurate to say they had no year end tax liabilty.

Maybe...

[Frayed Knot]

Valadius wrote: Judge rules for Jamie McCourt. Franchise follies to continue.

Frank probably thinks this is a date which will live in infamy.