Connect with us

Sports

Shaikin: In San Diego, an ownership dispute tests the belief of a great Padres fan base

Published

on

Shaikin: In San Diego, an ownership dispute tests the belief of a great Padres fan base

In 2009, as the couple that owned the Dodgers announced their separation, the attorney for Frank McCourt said he did not anticipate a legal battle over the team. The attorney said documents would prove the Dodgers were owned solely by McCourt, not jointly by the couple, and said there was “not a chance” the team would be put up for sale.

“Speculation about a potential sale of the team is rubbish,” attorney Marshall Grossman said then. “Frank McCourt is the sole owner. He has absolutely no intention of selling this team now or ever.”

The documents did not hold up in court. McCourt did sell the team — but not for another three years, a span in which the Dodgers did not make the playoffs, were outdrawn by the Angels for the first and only time, and were outspent one season by the Minnesota Twins.

On Saturday, as the Dodgers showed off their superstar-studded roster at Dodger Stadium, the Padres staged a fan festival of their own. The new year here started ominously: Sheel Seidler, the widow of beloved owner Peter Seidler, ignited a legal battle over whether she or one of Peter Seidler’s brothers should properly be running the Padres.

The Padres set a franchise record for attendance last year and already have sold out of season tickets this year. They boasted what we thought was the second-best team in the major leagues last season, and on Saturday fans proudly wore the jerseys of the core of what remains a very good team: Fernando Tatis Jr. and Manny Machado; Jackson Merrill and Luis Arraez and Jake Cronenworth; Yu Darvish and Michael King and Dylan Cease.

Advertisement

And then there was the guy walking around the outfield in a Mookie Betts jersey. Gavyn Wolf lives here, so he came with his friends, dodging the jeering.

“I refuse to wear anything Padres,” he said.

So who’s going to win the National League West this season?

“Who else is taking it?” he said.

His friend, Jack Endicott, shrugged. He couldn’t disagree.

Advertisement

“The Padres haven’t made any moves,” he said.

The Dodgers brought back Teoscar Hernández and Blake Treinen and brought in Roki Sasaki and Blake Snell and Tanner Scott and Kirby Yates and Hyeseong Kim and Michael Conforto.

The Padres brought back their backup catcher.

“Are we disappointed we haven’t made any moves?” Machado said Saturday. “Yeah.”

San Diego Padres general manager A.J. Preller gestures and smiles before a wild-card playoff game against the Atlanta Braves on Oct. 1.

Advertisement

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

Padres general manager A.J. Preller last winter traded Juan Soto for King, who brilliantly replaced Snell in the starting rotation after working as a swingman for the New York Yankees. Merrill jumped from double-A into the Padres’ outfield and should have won NL rookie of the year honors.

Preller said Saturday he wants to add a bat “or two” and a starting pitcher “or two.” And, by this time last year, the Padres had not added Arraez, Cease or Jurickson Profar, who was an All-Star outfielder.

Profar, who led the Padres with an .839 OPS last season, signed as a free agent with the Atlanta Braves. He said he was interested in returning to San Diego.

Advertisement

“Obviously the Padres have some issue with the ownership and all that,” Profar told reporters.

That explained the trepidation in the air at Petco Park on Saturday. Good team, great fans, best ballpark in Southern California – but is an ownership dispute going to paralyze the franchise?

Two springs ago, I sat in the passenger seat of a golf cart at the Padres’ training complex in Peoria, Ariz. Peter Seidler sat in the driver’s seat.

He wanted to emphasize he was spending lavishly to build a foundation to challenge the Dodgers year in and year out, not to pump up the payroll and attendance and then sell the team.

“Myself and my family, we will own this franchise for the next 50, 75 years,” he told me, “hopefully more.”

Advertisement

When Frank and Jamie McCourt split up, they both insisted the Dodgers would stay in the family, no matter what else happened. Then the two torched one another in court rather than privately negotiate a settlement, and now the family no longer owns any part of the team.

In San Diego, the torching has begun.

San Diego Padres owner Peter Seidler speaks during a Padres Hall of Fame ceremony at Petco Park in July 2023.

San Diego Padres owner Peter Seidler speaks during a Padres Hall of Fame ceremony at Petco Park in July 2023. Seidler died in November 2023.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

In her initial court filing, Sheel Seidler accused the Seidler brothers of “greed and betrayal” by enriching themselves with money that should have been hers, of allegedly painting Peter as “a cowboy who was irresponsible with the Padres payroll,” and tolerating her only so long as Peter was alive.

Advertisement

“After Peter died, they took off their masks and showed their true faces,” her filing read.

In his initial filing, Matt Seidler — one of the brothers — blamed Sheel for “recklessly” torpedoing the Padres’ pursuit of Sasaki by baselessly suggesting the brothers might move the team from San Diego and ridiculed her desire to run the Padres because her business experience allegedly is limited to “a brief legal career and her operation of a single yoga studio.”

According to Matt Seidler’s filing, “The crux of this case is Sheel’s pursuit of two things that Peter intentionally chose not to give her: control and unlimited money.”

The longer this goes and uglier this gets, the less the chance of the Padres staying in the Seidler family, no matter who might control the team.

As a strong team with a terrific ballpark in a market with no other major league teams, the Padres would attract bidders. That would come later, perhaps years later. Until there is some resolution to the court case, potential bidders would not know who the legal seller might be.

Advertisement

The Seidler brothers say this is not an issue. They have “no plans to sell the Padres to anyone,” according to a person familiar with their thinking who declined to be identified. They believe their documents will hold up in court.

In the Dodgers’ case, Jamie McCourt hired an investment banker to assemble a potential ownership group, in an effort to get Frank to sell her the team. In the end, Frank McCourt agreed to settle the divorce by paying Jamie $131 million, and she relinquished any claim to the Dodgers.

Frank McCourt then sold the team for $2 billion.

In her court filing, Sheel Seidler said she had assembled “an impressive roster of individuals with significant baseball and business experience to serve as advisors and executives” with the Padres and said she was concerned the brothers would sell the team.

So has she assembled a roster of financial backers to try to buy out the Seidler brothers? Dane Butswinkas, her counsel, declined to say.

Advertisement

“Ideally, we would like to resolve this with the brothers,” Butswinksas said. “However, for that to occur, it would take some level of cooperation from them. So far, we have seen no signs of that happening.

“The current path towards resolution, unfortunately, is through litigation, which we know can drag on for years and would be in no one’s interest.”

When the McCourts divorced, the lawyer for Frank McCourt wanted to make one point perfectly clear. The contemporaneous divorce of Padres owner John Moores had left the team a mess — he had to sell the team to resolve the divorce — and the Dodgers would not be a mess.

“This is not going to be another San Diego-like debacle,” Grossman said.

Here’s hoping there is not going to be another San Diego-like debacle in San Diego. The best rivalry in baseball deserves better. The people who run the Padres every day, and the people who root for them every day, deserve better.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sports

Super Bowl LIX media preview: Tom Brady, record audience, Terry Bradshaw’s future and more

Published

on

Super Bowl LIX media preview: Tom Brady, record audience, Terry Bradshaw’s future and more

Richard Deitsch and Andrew Marchand are sports media writers for The Athletic. They converse every couple of weeks on sports media topics. This week, they discuss the Super Bowl from a media perspective, including:

  • Tom Brady’s Super Bowl broadcaster debut
  • Viewership potential for the game
  • The future of Super Bowl pregame shows
  • Netflix becoming an NFL player

Richard Deitsch: I’m seeing Tom Brady in my sleep given how much this site has written about him over the past five months. But here’s the reality: We both agreed prior to the start of the NFL season that Brady’s debut as a Fox NFL analyst was the biggest sports media story of the NFL season.

My thesis has always been that Brady’s broadcasting year would ultimately be judged by the viewing public on how he performs in the Super Bowl. That’s the final test, but it’s more than a test: It is the football public’s ultimate engagement with Brady in his first year on TV.

We both know that his Fox Sports bosses and sports television executives look at it differently. They will judge him on progress from Week 1 to Week 21. Fox believes he has improved significantly throughout the season.

However, there will be 115 million-plus people watching Brady on Sunday. That is an enormous jury. How do you see this?

Andrew Marchand: I agree, but there are several different audiences for the Super Bowl:

Advertisement

There are the hardcore fans there every week that produce the 15 (million) to 35 million or so viewers for games each week. The more casual fans that begin watching in the playoffs push the numbers into the 40 (million) and 50 million range. Then comes Super Bowl viewers.

The deciders are that first group, as they care much more about the broadcast. The other two groups may have some opinions, but ultimately will likely just be impressed that Brady is on the call.

If he does amazing or has an awful performance, then all three sets will chime in. He is way better than Week 1, but he’s not John Madden just yet.

If he has a “16-for-24, two touchdowns and one interception” performance, I think Fox would take it. They would love “400 yards and five touchdowns,” but I don’t think they will be greedy.


AM: How many eyes do you think will be watching this game?

Advertisement

RD: The current viewership record came last year when an audience of 123.4 million viewers watched the Kansas City Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in overtime. That topped the previous record of 115.1 million viewers for the Kansas City-Philadelphia Eagles matchup two years ago.

Look, there is no Chiefs fatigue; the data does not lie. The AFC Championship Game averaged 57.7 million viewers, the most-watched AFC title game in history. If this game is tight late — and I think it will be — I think we see a new record. Put me down for 124 million. You?

AM: This is a bad omen for Fox — we agree! I’m going 124.5 million viewers and a record.

You are on point on the fact that Chiefs fatigue is overrated. Viewers like the big-name teams, and Kansas City is going for history (three Super Bowl championships in a row) with maybe the greatest quarterback ever.

There may be some hate watching, but the people who have such strong feelings are watching no matter what. The records come at the edges, and I think Fox and the NFL pick that up.

Advertisement

AM: How about the pregame show? You into it? Or a big waste of time?

It could be the last Super Bowl pregame show for Jimmy Johnson and Terry Bradshaw. After two of the last three Super Bowls because of the new TV contracts with the NFL, Fox won’t have the big game for four years as it is NBC (2026), ABC/ESPN (2027), CBS (2028) and then Fox in 2029.

RD: So here is the interesting thing with NFL pregame shows: They continue to draw more viewers than you might think.

For instance, “Fox NFL Sunday” averaged 4.42 million viewers this season. You can make a lot of advertising money off those numbers. I mean, if “First Take” averaged 600,000 viewers over a year they would hold a Rose Bowl parade in Bristol, Conn.

I find the pregame shows increasingly less relevant these days with younger viewers. We also don’t often see them pop on social media, the coin of the realm for young people.

Advertisement

Fox Sports clearly will be bringing in younger staffers soon, but the NFL pregame show often feels like a relic of a different time. I’ll watch because we get paid to watch, but I find it less interesting every year.


RD: One of the things I get asked about from a lot of readers is whether a Super Bowl will ever go behind a paywall where a Netflix buys it.

I don’t think this happens in our lifetime. Now, if you asked me whether I can see a Netflix or Amazon have the divisional playoffs in the next 20 years, I absolutely see it. What about you?

AM: I’m more bullish on this lifetime, but I’d like to know how long that means. Amazon and Netflix are thinking big, global.

The NFL can have Roger Goodell do songs and dances about the fans this and the fans that, but if the digital players offer way more money, I could see Amazon or Netflix having a Super Bowl maybe when the NFL opts out of its current TV deals. I don’t think that is a wild thought in four or five years when those opt-outs happen.

Advertisement

If broadcast TV gets significantly weakened over time, I think the idea of a subscription-based Super Bowl becomes more likely. It really depends on where The Great Rebundling takes place and how strong the networks can continue to be. But in a TV-by-subscription world, it’s hard not to bet on Netflix’s and Amazon’s long-term models for big events if they want more.

(Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; Sam Hodde/Getty Images, Mikayla Schlosser/Kansas City Chiefs via AP, Kara Durrette via AP)

Continue Reading

Sports

Puka Nacua 'hoping for the best' after Cooper Kupp said Rams will try to trade him

Published

on

Puka Nacua 'hoping for the best' after Cooper Kupp said Rams will try to trade him

Cooper Kupp earlier this week broke the news that he had been informed he is now on the trade block.

Apparently, it is a matter of when, not if, the Los Angeles Rams will trade the 2021 receiving Triple Crown winner, as Kupp said the team will look to trade him “immediately.”

After his OPOY-winning season, Kupp has been riddled with injuries, having yet to play more than 12 games in his last three seasons and not crossing the 1,000-yard threshold.

SIGN UP FOR TUBI AND STREAM SUPER BOWL LIX FOR FREE

Puka Nacua #17 of the Los Angeles Rams and Cooper Kupp #10 before a game against the Minnesota Vikings at SoFi Stadium on October 24, 2024 in Inglewood, California.  (Harry How/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Kupp was a third-round pick by the Rams in 2017, so it’s surely odd to think of him elsewhere, but that appears to be the likelihood.

The Rams may be just fine with the emergence of Puka Nacua, but the 2023 Offensive Rookie of the Year would still be losing his counterpart.

“I love that guy Coop. I’m blessed to be around him the past two years for the start of my career,” Nacus told Fox News Digital down in New Orleans. “I’ll be super excited to watch Cooper Kupp back out there on the field and play the game of football. He does that at such a high level and does it the right way. I love that guy and hoping for the best.”

Cooper Kupp celebrates touchdown with Tyler Johnson

Los Angeles Rams wide receiver Cooper Kupp (10) celebrates a touchdown against with wide receiver Tyler Johnson (18) during the second half at Ford Field in Detroit on Sunday, September 8, 2024. (IMAGN)

HOW TO WATCH SUPER BOWL LIX BETWEEN CHIEFS, EAGLES STREAMED ON TUBI

Kupp made the announcement on social media earlier this week.

Advertisement

“I was informed that the team will be seeking a trade immediately and will be working with me and my family to find the right place to continue competing for championships. I don’t agree with the decision and always believed it was going to begin and end in LA.,” he wrote.

“Still, if there’s one thing that I have learned over the years: there are so many things that are out of your control, but it is how you respond to these things that you will look back on and remember.

Tubi promo

Super Bowl LIX will be streamed on Tubi. (Tubi)

I have taken so much pride in playing alongside my teammates for the LA community, so thank you for embracing my family and making this such a special place for us. 2024 began with one of the best training camps of my career. Preparations start now for 2025. Highly motivated, as healthy as ever, and looking forward to playing elite football for years to come. Love you guys… But coming for it all.”

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Sports

Dana Stubblefield released from prison after recent reversal of rape conviction

Published

on

Dana Stubblefield released from prison after recent reversal of rape conviction

Dana Stubblefield was granted his release from custody more than four years after the former NFL star was convicted of rape and more than six weeks after that conviction was reversed by a California appellate court because of “racially discriminatory language” used by the prosecution during the trial.

California Superior Court Judge Hector Ramon made the ruling Friday in Santa Clara, allowing Stubblefield his freedom, without having to post cash bail, while authorities weigh whether to refile charges. Stubblefield is required to wear an ankle monitor, cannot possess firearms and is not allowed to contact his accuser.

“We expect him to be home tonight,” Allen Sawyer, one of the attorneys who represented Stubblefield, told The Times by phone. “As my partner said, he’ll be having a late dinner with his kids.”

Santa Clara County assistant district attorney Terry Harman released a statement to The Times :

“A jury unanimously found Mr. Stubblefield guilty of raping a woman at gunpoint, he was given an appropriate sentence, and we felt that justice had been served. That justice has been interrupted and although we are disappointed that the judge released Mr. Stubblefield from custody while we await a decision from the California Supreme Court, we remain focused on the sexual assault that occurred, the victim, and the need for accountability and community safety.”

Advertisement

Stubblefield, a former defensive player of the year who spent 11 seasons with the San Francisco 49ers, Washington Redskins and Oakland Raiders, was charged in May 2016 with raping a woman at gunpoint the previous year. During his trial, Stubblefield’s defense argued the sex was consensual.

In October 2020, Stubblefield was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after a jury found him guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and false imprisonment, and that he used a firearm in committing the first two offenses.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed Stubblefield’s conviction in December based on the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, which prohibits judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers, among others, from exhibiting “bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.”

The appellate court’s decision was based on language used in the prosecution’s closing argument, citing concerns over Stubblefield’s status as a famous Black man as a reason police didn’t search his home for a gun.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending