Comments

  1. APBA Guy said...

    Craig, we’ll need you to separate the wheat from the chaff on this one. Was Jamie the big winner today for having the Dodgers excluded as a party to the divorce? Seems like an obvious call by Commissioner Gordon.

  2. Craig Calcaterra said...

    I wouldn’t say “big” winner, but I do think it’s something of a win for her to not have the Dodgers as an active party.  If they were allowed to continue, eventually Frank would have gotten wise and hired separate counsel to go on the offensive, and it would have been two on one. That is not a HUGE problem, but it’s certainly an annoyance.

    I don’ think she lost much by not getting reinstated as CEO. It was never going to happen, and she had to know that (courts don’t give specific-performance remedies in employment situations very often).  I think that she had to ask for that to plausibly claim that she owns the team, but really, she doesn’t want to work in that office anymore.

    Finally, she got to keep access to credit cards and all of that, which she obviously wants. I mean, she can’t be expected to live for the rest of the year on the meager $500K Frank gave get last month, can she?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *