jeez what a cluster fudge.

magic johnson seems to be tone deaf about this whole thing. he is coming in for a bit of grief in L.A. for being so friendly with mccourt. tj simers took a big swipe at magic today in his column. not that i think simers is all that, but i agree with simers that it is a bad visual for magic to be sitting with mccourt at the dodger game in san diego.

Maybe. Magic is bigger than Simers, though. If a columnist is fool enough to pick a fight with Magic right now he's liable to come out on the losing end.

Simers isn't a tool. He isn't a tool bag. He's tool shed.

As for Magic appearing with McCourt, I agree with Craig Calcaterra's take:

I looked high and low in the article for telltale signs of Simers’ trademark tongue-in-cheek thing, but could find no evidence that he was anything but serious here. He seems to legitimately believe that it’s insane that the buyer and seller of a big asset are seen together in between the time the bid was accepted and the deal closed.

You’re right. T.J. Magic and McCourt should be like a bride and groom on their wedding day and not set eyes on one another lest all The Bad Things happen.

Also, the LA Times putting everything behind a paywall did me the great favor of ensuring I never accidentally lay eyes upon a column of Simers' or Plaschke's.

Also, the LA Times putting everything behind a paywall did me the great favor of ensuring I never accidentally lay eyes upon a column of Simers' or Plaschke's.

We subscribe to the LA Times home delivery (we also get the NY Times electronically, but that's neither here nor there). My wife always asks me if I want the Sports page. I never do.

Hasn't Magic Johnson been through enough? Now he has to deal with TJ Simers? Guy can't catch a break.

McCourt is counting on MLB not having the guts to reject this deal and effectively insult a Los Angeles icon. If Johnson wasn't involved, it wouldn't be such a public relations nightmare for MLB.

For this kind of money they don't give a fig about some minor PR hit they might take on this deal. This is all about the money. There are 29 other franchises that are about to see the value of their franchises go up by a great deal with this sale.

The other owners can just go pound sand, and Bud Selig is rich asking for the Guggenhiem's financial records when he okayed Frank McCourt in the first place.

OK, well, 1 billion of it is the money we're owed out of the Madoff recovery fund.
Another $200 million are minority shares in the NY Mets.
We've got $500 million in Iranian oil futures.
We own 90% of Segway.
And we've got 10 garages filled with pop bottles.

Having Magic Johnson in this group was an absolute stroke of genius (apparently pulled off by Kasten). According to the news reports about 10 days ago, there was substantial concern among MLB's other owners about the Guggenheim group's financing before the votes were taken, but there was no way MLB was going to shoot down a Magic/Kasten-fronted group as a finalist. I wonder if MLB approved Guggenheim, despite the concerns, because MLB saw them as underdogs and simply didn't want any p.r. problems or legal battles, only to be surprised a few hours later when the $2.15 billion Guggenheim deal was announced without the scheduled auction.

I hope Bill Shaikin writes a book about the Dodgers sale. The last two weeks in March must have been fascinating behind the scenes.

I think I read somewhere today MLB was concerned about the Guggenheim group's ties to the NFL. Does MLB have a no-cross-ownership policy?

I think I read somewhere today MLB was concerned about the Guggenheim group's ties to the NFL. Does MLB have a no-cross-ownership policy?

Were that the case, the Stan Kroenke group would not have been a finalist, since he owns the St. Louis Rams.

I think I read somewhere today MLB was concerned about the Guggenheim group's ties to the NFL. Does MLB have a no-cross-ownership policy?

Mike Illitch owns both the Tigers and Detroit Red Wings, so if there is such a policy, I have no knowledge of it.

The other owners can just go pound sand, and Bud Selig is rich asking for the Guggenhiem's financial records when he okayed Frank McCourt in the first place.

Well at some point, like, the owners have to actually, uh, come up with the money, right?

Well at some point, like, the owners have to actually, uh, come up with the money, right?

They have, the deal will be approved on April 13th by the bankruptcy judge, and the Guggenheim's people will pay. MLB's basically is whining that they don't know why Guggenheim won't tell him where exactly the $2 billion came from their assets. But nobody is questioning that they have the assets in the first place.

I think it is the NFL that has the cross-ownership rule.

I think it is the NFL that has the cross-ownership rule.

Thank you. Wasn't Kroenke planning to sell the Rams if he won the Dodgers bidding war?

They have, the deal will be approved on April 13th by the bankruptcy judge, and the Guggenheim's people will pay. MLB's basically is whining that they don't know why Guggenheim won't tell him where exactly the $2 billion came from their assets. But nobody is questioning that they have the assets in the first place.

Seems like it should be fairly simple since it is an "all cash" deal. I don't think anyone doubts that they can come up with $2 billion, but I think there are plenty of people that are skeptical that Guggenheim is actually paying cash and doesn't have some sort of financing.

Also, will Guggenheim have to disclose their investors? Are any of the investors controversial or unsavory? Theoretically they could have something like a Qaddafi or Hussein relative as an investor.

Wasn't Kroenke planning to sell the Rams if he won the Dodgers bidding war?

No, the scuttlebutt was he was going to build an NFL stadium on the Chavez Ravine site. That's probably fallen by the wayside with the Guggenheim group winning (you're hearing more about the downtown site for an NFL stadium again), but they might not have ruled it out as a way to get additional Dodger revenue.

Does MLB have a no-cross-ownership policy?

Jerry Reinsdorf owns the White Sox and Bulls

I think it is the NFL that has the cross-ownership rule.

It must be recent, because Wayne Huizenga used to own both the Dolphins and Marlins.

It must be recent, because Wayne Huizenga used to own both the Dolphins and Marlins.

That is allowed since they're in the same market. The NFL does not allow cross-ownership in different markets (or there is no NFL team in that market).

You can however just hand over control to your son, daughter, wife, brother or sister and that's okay, so it's a stupid rule.

That is allowed since they're in the same market. The NFL does not allow cross-ownership in different markets.

You can however just hand over control to your son, daughter, wife, brother or sister and that's okay, so it's a stupid rule.

Back when Bill Veeck was selling the White Sox, Ed DeBartolo, who owned the 49's at the time tired to buy them, but was rejected by MLB. But maybe he would have had someone else control the team as you imply.

edit: and DeBartolo also owned the Pittsburgh Penguins at that time, but I seem to recall that one of the two teams was run by his son.

Bud Selig is rich asking for the Guggenhiem's financial records when he okayed Frank McCourt in the first place.

So learning from a mistake is a bad thing now?

You can however just hand over control to your son, daughter, wife, brother or sister and that's okay, so it's a stupid rule.

That's what Kroenke has done w/the Nuggets and Avalanche.

So learning from a mistake is a bad thing now?

No, but this isn't 'learning from a mistake'. The MLB is whining because they're not controlling the process, the bankruptcy court is. If the bankruptcy court is okay with the financial records of the Guggenheim's, then MLB has to agree to it.

From the news reports, it sounds like the Guggenheim group took a somewhat opposite approach compared to many of the other bidders (at least the ones not named Cohen or Kroenke). Instead of seeking out investors in advance, it looks like Mark Walter took the brute force approach — i.e., used Guggenheim's financial strength to get the deal done, with the investor details to be sorted out later.

A day or two ago, Shaikin reported that Guggenheim is seeking out wealthy L.A.-area investors to buy into the deal/team, and he said the papers filed yesterday don't even name Magic, Kasten, Guber, or anyone other than Mark Walter as an actual owner/investor, let alone detail their investment or ownership interest.

If the bankruptcy court is okay with the financial records of the Guggenheim's, then MLB has to agree to it.

The bankruptcy court apparently doesn't have any more info. than MLB. MLB's likely concern is that the bankruptcy court only cares that the Dodgers' creditors are paid, and not where that money comes from.

From what I have read this is not an all cash deal. The deal we be about 1.5 billion in cash and 412 million through debt.

From what I have read this is not an all cash deal. The deal we be about 1.5 billion in cash and 412 million through debt.

Few of the sports franchises have been purchased with all cash in the past decade. If indeed 1.5 billion of this deal is cash, that impressive and surprising.

Few of the sports franchises have been purchased with all cash in the past decade. If indeed 1.5 billion of this deal is cash, that impressive and surprising.

The curious thing about the "all cash" part is that it seems like now would be the time to use debt, since the court, and not MLB, apparently has final say over approving the deal. But if Guggenheim uses all cash (or cash plus debt assumption) at the approval stage and then tries to issue debt and/or bring in new investors later, MLB will have approval rights over every dollar of that effort, just as it did with McCourt. (And per Forbes' estimate of the Dodgers' EBITDA, the Dodgers are already in violation of MLB's debt rule even with "only" the $400 million in assumed debt.)

That's what Kroenke has done w/the Nuggets and Avalanche.

Yup. That's why I mentioned it.

1.5 billion in cash is still a ridiculous amount.

Could somebody who understands this better than I do explain why you would want to do a deal with $1.5 billion in cash?

I barely know anything about finance, but I thought it was practically axiomatic that you wanted to do deals like this primarily through debt. That way you get

1) More bang for the buck in terms of return per dollar invested.
2) Less dilution of "sweat equity" for the guy putting the deal together
3) Tax break on paying interest rather than distributing profits or paying dividends
3) More return in the form of capital gains, with accompanying tax break

Unless you're a drug lord with suitcases of cash sitting around, why would you want to put up $1.5 billion of your own money?

Zach — I don't understand the "all cash" thing, either, but baseball's debt rule probably is a main factor. Even with "only" $400-plus million in debt being assumed from McCourt, the Dodgers will already be in violation of MLB's revised debt rule, and that's before Dodger Stadium renovations begin, which will cost an estimated $300 to $500 million.

Unless you're a drug lord with suitcases of cash sitting around, why would you want to put up $1.5 billion of your own money?

Unless the reporting has been way off, it doesn't like look Magic/Kasten/Walter/Guber are putting up $1.5 billion of their own money. It appears that the majority of the cash is coming from Guggenheim, with Walter acting as the "control" person on behalf of Guggenheim (with some of his own money invested as well).