I suppose if anyone could be called an opportunist when it comes to the McCourt divorce, it's me. And we've seen a lot of weird stuff over the last several months. Faith healers, pool demands, a complex financial relationship with a Chinese bank--it's been strange, ok? But it looks like we're not done yet. I know that many of you are angrier than I am about everything surrounding McCourt ownership. But this, via TMZ, is a bit much:
The principal owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCour [sic], are going through a much publicized divorce and, as a result, the Dodgers have cut spending on essential services, such as security at baseball games at Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers knew that having inadequate security at such games placed their patrons in danger and, despite this knowledge, deliberately chose not to spend the money necessary to safeguard their patrons, in order not only to save money but for Frank McCourt and the Dodgers to bolster the position of Mr. McCourt in the divorce proceedings that he and the Dodgers had fewer available assets than what was claimed by Jamie McCourt.Several problems. First, the alleged incident happened on February 28, 2010. So this didn't happen at a Dodgers game, but rather (I suspect) at a USC/UCLA baseball game held at the Stadium. Which, of course, doesn't excuse the Dodgers from allegedly skimping on security. Still, I think the allegations are a tad misleading or, at least, incomplete.
Second, and more troublesome: how would it help Frank McCourt to skimp on security, if the goal was to show fewer assets? Wouldn't the goal be to spend as much as possible, to keep cash out of Frank's hands? Now if the Dodgers just didn't have the money to spend on security: fine, yeah, that's a problem. But I don't believe that was (or is) the case.
Somehow, I'm guessing that Perez v. Dodgers won't be quite as momentous as McCourt v. McCourt. And, while I wouldn't pretend to deny Albert Perez, Gerardo Rodriguez, and Alfredo Rodriguez their opportunity to sue the Dodgers for some sort of wrong which caused them harm, to couch it in terms of the divorce seems a bit...well...cheap. I'm quite certain the divorce has revealed more organizational problems that it has caused, and this allegation of lax security would, if true, just be another entry in that first column.