It means that Manny isn't taking the divorce well, and Jamie wants to protect him.

I await Shysterball's interpretation. This doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

Frank's last filing was technically in the Dodgers name. Really: the Dodgers, as an entity attempted to enter the lawsuit, and the Dodgers, as an entity, are the ones that accused Jamie of the affair in their legal brief. Jamie wants the Dodgers out of the lawsuit as an active party. The team is property being battled over, not a proper litigant here as the McCourt divorce is none of the team's business.

My view: the Dodgers probably have a place in the lawsuit as currently structured inasmuch as Jamie has asked to be reinstated and the Dodgers, as an entity, probably have a right to be heard regarding the terms of her dismissal. The problem, of course, is that the Dodgers are represented in this instance by Frank's lawyer, and are pretty clearly being used by him to further his own ends in the divorce, not merely to protect the company's position with respect to a termination. For example, a company could and maybe should enter a lawsuit to say "we do not want to be forced to re-hire a terminated employee, please court, protect our rights." It is not proper, however -- at least in my view -- for a company to come in, represented by the husband's divorce lawyer, and say "that former employee is a cheating ho-bag, and she shouldn't have her job back."

In addition to being wholly improper -- when was the last time you saw an employer openly and freely talking about the reasons for an employees' dismissal like this -- it's stupid legal strategy on Frank's part. By causing the Dodgers to enter the fray in the way that he did, Frank is disregarding the Dodgers' corporate form in many ways, which is not a good thing for a whole host of boring reasons.

So he calked her a bombshell? That's sweet, if a little archaic.

Oh, I thought this just meant that they were trying to insure that the Dodgers don't have to all attend all the proceedings--glad to see I was wrong and they will have to attend: I was really enjoying picturing Ronnie Belliard and Manny sitting in the back of the courtroom playing Wario Ware, while Casey Blake whittles and Joe Torre tries to teach Clayton Kershaw how to shave.

In addition to being wholly improper -- when was the last time you saw an employer openly and freely talking about the reasons for an employees' dismissal like this -- it's stupid legal strategy on Frank's part. By causing the Dodgers to enter the fray in the way that he did, Frank is disregarding the Dodgers' corporate form in many ways, which is not a good thing for a whole host of boring reasons.

Craig, I know this will sound silly, but is it possible McCourt is involving the Dodgers as an entity so he can bill all the lawyers fees to the team? The legal fees on this divorce are going to be astronomical and neither of the McCourts seem to like to pay for anything out of their own pocket.

Based on how much of the McCourt's personal life the Dodgers' dollars appear to bankroll, it wouldn't shock me, Shooty.

Based on how much of the McCourt's personal life the Dodgers' dollars appear to bankroll, it wouldn't shock me, Shooty.

Rich people do not like to pay for things, I've noticed.

Um, how would that much matter? If he ends up with sole control of the team, his money is its money. If she gets it, you can be damned sure she'll find a way to stick him with the bill in the end.

Rich people do not like to pay for things, I've noticed.

It helps them stay rich.

Thank you, Craig Calcaterra. I didn't realize that last week's filings were in the Dodgers' name. No, you don't see many "We're firing our CEO because s/he is banging the hired help" press releases.

Um, how would that much matter? If he ends up with sole control of the team, his money is its money.

The Dodgers are supposed to be a separate corporate entity (maybe an LLC?). If they are basically treated as the alter ego of Frank McCourt -- doing his personal bidding, paying for his personal crap -- someone at some point is going to say that the Dodgers and Frank McCourt are one and the same legally speaking. When that happenes, McCourt could be held personally liable for the debts and obligations of the Dodgers. It's a state of affairs that most smart businessmen try to avoid.

Sure, Craig. And they avoid it, in general, by being not blatant about it. They still do it. So why be so blatant about it here, just for the purpose of billing the fees to the team, when it has all the normal downside, plus it's not really going to make any difference in the end either way? That was my question; to me, having the team pay the bill doesn't wash as a reason for this.

So he calked her a bombshell? That's sweet, if a little archaic.

The verb is, of course, spelled with a "u". And yes, it's sweet -- one wouldn't want one's bombshell leaking, would one?

Our D-I-V-O-R-C-E becomes final today
Me and little J-O-E will be going away

That was my question; to me, having the team pay the bill doesn't wash as a reason for this.

If McCourt is having cash flow troubles, it may be better for him for the Dodgers to owe a bunch of lawyers than for McCourt personally. If he's forced to sell the team, those legal fees will be the new owners' problem and not his.

is it possible McCourt is involving the Dodgers as an entity so he can bill all the lawyers fees to the team? The legal fees on this divorce are going to be astronomical and neither of the McCourts seem to like to pay for anything out of their own pocket.

clearly, there needs to be a Family Law Legal Representation Compensation cap in the next CBA

McCourt could be held personally liable for the debts and obligations of the Dodgers.

... but enough about Juan Pierre

/rimshot

So why be so blatant about it here, just for the purpose of billing the fees to the team, when it has all the normal downside, plus it's not really going to make any difference in the end either way? That was my question

Ah. I think there may be two strategic reasons for this, one little, one bigger. Little strategy: Frank wanted to win the news cycle, which had just been snatched by Jamie's big filing the day before. He wasn't yet prepared to drop a true responsive pleading to Jamie's in short order (i.e. one that addressed all of the spousal stuff, asset allocations, etc.), but he still wanted to move quickly, so he had "The Dodgers" file a brief that only addressed the relatively quick and easy to assemble allegations re: her cheating and employment issues.

Bigger issue: he (misguidedly in my mind) thinks that by controlling the Dodgers' legal filings in such an obvious way that it truly shows him as THE OWNER of the team. Like you said, it probably doesn't matter -- the fight is over equity, not actual control -- but maybe that's what he's doing.

A third possibility is that he and his lawyers are morons. It strikes me that the smart move here would be to get the Dodgers separate counsel and have them file relatively bloodless pleadings that speak to the employment situation, defends team officials later when depositions start happening, etc. Sure, that'll all be controlled by Frank on some level too, but it's way more professional than to have his divorce lawyer representing the team.

Well, just shows that money will never ever buy class.

Rich people do not like to pay for things, I've noticed.

Either do poor people.

but it's way more professional than to have his divorce lawyer representing the team.

Hey, it's not like the used car salesman running the sport can say much.

If McCourt is having cash flow troubles, it may be better for him for the Dodgers to owe a bunch of lawyers than for McCourt personally. If he's forced to sell the team, those legal fees will be the new owners' problem and not his.

In addition, should he lose the team in the divorce, the debt obligations would be out of his hands.

If McCourt is having cash flow troubles, it may be better for him for the Dodgers to owe a bunch of lawyers than for McCourt personally. If he's forced to sell the team, those legal fees will be the new owners' problem and not his.

What I'm saying is that regardless of the Dodgers being the filer, he would be doing this. For this and other reasons. So wanting to do this (slough off the costs) is not the reason for the Dodgers being the filer, in my opinion, it's got to be something else. Craig's got a good one for his #1, I would hope that #2 and #3 aren't the case.

Wouldn't the court take account of the costs associated with McCourt's divorce attorney when splitting up the proceeds from the Dodgers? That is - if the Dodgers get billed $200k (for instance) for McCourt's legal fees, wouldn't that affect how much of the proceeds from the sale of the team goes to each McCourt.

Sure, if it were that easy to detach the two.