Talk:Frank McCourt (executive)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Fan Popularity

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Teabagging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sole Owner 

message: In the section "Dodgers' Dream Foundation scandal" you have:
:"Howard Sukin"
& then:
:"Sukin" 
Which is it?
4.240.78.119 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  SPELLING: Sunkin or Suskin ???