Talk:Frank McCourt (executive)

Untitled
i feel like this owner's biography should not consist of 50% harsh criticism. How's that for encyclopedic neutrality? Come on.

The harsh criticism of McCourt and DePodesta consists of the authors unsupported opinion. The "many bad trades" made by DePodesta is simply not supported by fact.

It's also difficult to take seriously a comment like "Evans had done an amazing job of bringing the Dodgers' to the top, and after his firing the team started to tank." when the team made the playoffs (something they never did under Evans) the first year after he was fired. How is making the playoffs for the first time since 1996 and winning their first playoff game since 1988 "starting to tank"?

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS: It is now obvious with such things as the hiring of Grady Little, a return of focus on the farm system and the restoration project at Chavez Ravine are reasons enough to invalidate the harsh criticism of the McCourts as stated in this so-called Biography. I surely hope that Frank can be as successful a Dodger owner as had a certain fellow Irishman who made his fortune in real estate.

I redid the "Hiring and Firing Depodesta" section to make it more neutral.--Seventy-one 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan Popularity
I just nuked this section entirely as it lacked any good citations, was grammatically atrocious, was full of personal (and unsupported) opinions, and was almost completely incoherent. It had no place here.President David Palmer 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

coming into contact with the LA DOdgers
I deleted in 2004 the dodgers made the playoffs since its mention it right below it.Ramgar11 04:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) august, 06, 2007 9:26

pictures
why no pictures. i would do it if i knew how Ramgar11 (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)may, 06, 2008

Teabagging
Yeah, took out the section that referred to Mccourt's "teabagging" celebration. Was not verified by the cited source, and obviously just a ridiculous insert by a child. Perhaps, being at Boston Harbour, they meant that he was going to celebrate with a tea party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsummerhays (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Age
This article reads more like what should be in Los Angeles Dodgers. Surely there is more to this man's life than his ownership of the Dodgers. For example, when was he born? Such details seem pretty basic for a bio, but they are missing. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sole Owner
Frank McCourt is the only shareholder in the Dodgers. It's in a post-prenup sign and MLB records. He is not a co-owner he is the sole owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.111.186 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that is your opinion but it is not certain. All MLB teams have a "lead owner", including those that have lots of shareholders (like the Giants). So the fact that Frank is listed as the lead owner in MLB records does not "prove" that he is SOLE owner, two different concepts. The status of the "post-prenup" as you call it, maybe says that Frank is the sole owner. But will it stand up in court? These documents sometimes are set aside by courts, so the existence of the document is in Frank's favor, but it does not prove that he will prevail in his argument. So the bottom line is nobody knows how it will turn out. Just like nobody knows who will be in the World Series next year, even though people may have strong opinions. 11/12/09 Mdukas (talk)
 * The Dodgers consider Frank to be the sole owner and list him as such on their website. We follow reliable sources on here.. and since the Dodgers are a reliable source as to who their owners are... we should follow their lead unless a court says otherwise.Spanneraol (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Dodgers are not an IMPARTIAL source, in that they are currently under the managerial control of Frank, who has fired Jamie and ordered the Dodgers website to be adjusted to remove all sign of Jamie. (Whereas it used to have all kinds of flattering bios and so forth about her).  Frank is one of the parties with a huge economic interest in play, something like $400-$500mm difference to him whether he gets 50% or 100% of the team, so "taking his word for it" does not seem, to me, to be relying on an IMPARTIAL and RELIABLE source, it is just repeating one side's position as FACT, when it is their argument.  Frank may prevail, but it is still more true to say "the ownership is the subject of a legal dispute" than to say "Frank is sole owner."  --Mdukas (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I changed it to say he is "the owner" instead of "sole owner".. a bit less pov... and appropriate since he has always been listed in all sources as the owner.Spanneraol (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Court papers that both Jamie and Frank McCourt filed, has them signing the post-prenup. Let's not find half truths and compramise. At this very moment all of the Dodger's Shares are in Frank McCourts name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.111.186 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SPELLING: Sunkin or Suskin ???
In the section "Dodgers' Dream Foundation scandal" you have:


 * "Howard Sunkin"

& then:


 * "Suskin"

Which is it?

4.240.78.119 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The NYT article that is linked to this article, spells it with an N. Changed it here.  --Mdukas (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)