(04-30-2014 08:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 07:58 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 04:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Just read where Judge Nap also said: Under California law, his wife owns 50% of the team. So they can't strip him of it, she would just be the one in charge.

We'll see. It would be fan-*******-tastic if his wife decided to pay him back after god knows how many years of philandering.

Also, didn't the MLB take the dodgers from a separated, but still married couple?

The Dodgers were taken away because they almost couldn't make payroll. The owner blew the money the team made.

But they had no problem with her owning half of the team did they?

(04-30-2014 08:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 08:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 07:58 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 04:14 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Just read where Judge Nap also said: Under California law, his wife owns 50% of the team. So they can't strip him of it, she would just be the one in charge.

We'll see. It would be fan-*******-tastic if his wife decided to pay him back after god knows how many years of philandering.

Also, didn't the MLB take the dodgers from a separated, but still married couple?

The Dodgers were taken away because they almost couldn't make payroll. The owner blew the money the team made.

But they had no problem with her owning half of the team did they?

I don't think she ever owned half or any part of the team but I believe she worked for them. But I guess when you're married to the person that does own the team then just like any other assest half the team is yours when the divorce is done and finalized. But no, I don't think she ever owned any part of the team.