As promised, a closer look at Shaikin's piece, which is just loaded.
- Jamie says she's got the financing to take Frank out.
- We know that she'd met with several luminaries inside and outside of the Dodger family. Her claims must be dependent, though, on a judicial determination that she does co-own the team with Frank. That hasn't happened, to this point, so it's tough to take her all that seriously.
- Frank's not taking offers.
- His position here will be that, as the sole owner of the team, he has no intention of selling. Like Jamie's "ready to buy" statement, Frank is relying on a favorable ruling regarding ownership of the team.
- Jamie's lawyer, the semi-legendary Bert Fields, believes his client's position is not affected by the question of ownership. He says that even if the court finds Frank to be the sole owner of the Dodgers, the club would be treated as community property and the value would be split.
- I'm not a divorce lawyer, but I do know this: courts like agreements. If there's a valid document out there, executed during the marriage, which purports to divvy up assets, I'm inclined to believe it would be followed. Yes, California's a community property state, but the 50/50 split is not absolute. An asset-transfer agreement might be treated like a post-nup, in which case it would control. Clever posturing here by Fields, but it's not conclusive.
- Frank and the Dodgers are trying to paint Jamie's position with the team as strictly ornamental, claiming she rarely showed up to work and didn't perform many standard duties at all.
- Ironically, this line of argument is going to make people like Frank even less. Remember that, in her filing, Jamie wanted to be restored to her position mainly to get the money and perks back. If it turns out that she didn't actually, you know, do anything for the Dodgers, all that cash sent down Benefits and Perquisites Alley is gonna seem even worse.
- Jamie's still seeing Jeff Fuller, her lover/bodyguard/driver, but her lawyer says that relationship didn't begin until well after Frank tried to cut her out.
- Even if true, it has to be wondered at this point if Fuller's the only one. It's entirely possible he is, I suppose, as the McCourts seemed to have their stuff together for a long, long time. But if Jamie, given her education and professional background, would make such a grievous error on the eve of major litigation...well, I'd lose a little bit of respect for her intelligence.
- The Dodgers' President, Dennis Mannion, slams Jamie further, saying that when she did show up for work, it was to pursue projects designed to garner positive press for her at the expense of the club.
- All you Dodger fans out there must be thinking the same thing that I am: Mannion is at least a little full of crap here. Whatever Jamie did to promote her own public image to the team's detriment, Frank was right there on board. Pumping up Jamie's role with the Dodgers was a team effort.
- Jamie's lawyer, Fields, counters Mannion, saying: "When people find out what she did as opposed to what he did, they're all going to want her to run the team."
- I think I speak for all of us: I'm not sure I want any of these clowns running the team. Frank, Jamie, Mannion, Fields. This sucks.
Dates of note coming up...on November 5, the family law court will hear Jamie's petition for reinstatement as CEO of the Dodgers. On December 1, the court will entertain Jamie's request for spousal maintenance.