Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Los Angeles Dodgers (assessed as Mid-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Dodgers MLB takeover → ??? – While it seems like a MLB takeover is where this is heading, the current article title is too CRYSTAL. I believe that the information in this article still belongs in a separate article rather than as part of anotherPurpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced this should have a separate article as most of the content is already in Frank & Jamie's articles and the 2011 season article... but in any event I'm not sure the name should be changed and if it is.. maybe 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute or something like that? Spanneraol (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for a separate article, why not just have this at the LA Dodgers article, or split the Dodgers article into LA Dodgers and History of the Los Angeles Dodgers? We have a History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. There's enough history to make a separate article viable, with a summary at the main article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the LA Dodgers article already exists. Spanneraol (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I typed it into the searchbox, I obviously mispelled something. So... this should merge into the history article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has led to a bankruptcy filing, I really think the title should be changed to 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute. Any objections or other suggestions? Spanneraol (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: That works. Since it's a redlink, you don't need an RM to do it...you can BOLDly do it Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relocation

The article should include proposed cities where the post-bankruptcy Dodgers might move to.

72.82.176.105 (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't, because they aren't moving Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original suggestion could possibly be construed as pertaining to the article. Maybe. The reply can't. Let's stick to the topic at hand, eh? Tapered (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested that the Dodgers might move... so adding anything on that would be pure speculation, which doesn't belong here. Spanneraol (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tap: My reply clearly is in response to the proposal of the IP...I contend, as Span does, that that is an empty list, as the Dodgers will not move. If my reply isn't pertinent to the article, the original comment isn't pertinent. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP put anything in the article based on POV without reliable source, that would be pure speculation & grounds for removal. The IP only suggested such an idea. That's a suggestion about the subject of the article, which would seem to be kosher, even if it irritates Dodger fans. Yelling, "The Dodgers ain't gonna move," is POV. Spanneraol's comment is to the point, but the IP still seems within bounds suggesting the idea, as long as no attempt is made to include speculation or POV in the article itself.

If the IP's intention was to irritate Dodger fans, I'd say he succeeded, while obeying the letter of the "law." (And that address is not my sock puppet!) (-; Tapered (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably will not move out of the Greater Los Angeles Area, but one wrinkle in the dispute is that McCourt might still own Dodger Stadium even after MLB formally takes ownership of the team. That may prompt MLB to move the Dodgers to an alternate venue, such as Anaheim Stadium, rather than pay rent to McCourt. Other possibilities include a new stadium somewhere closer to the center of LA. AEG has officially denied being interested in building a baseball park near Staples Center, but who knows - the new football arena could become a multi-purpose park? http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/6786940/aeg-denies-talk-downtown-los-angeles-dodgers-stadium --76.173.81.179 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purely speculative at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search. Many articles come up, that're recent, about the Dodgers moving back to Brooklyn. However, I don't personally buy it, so I'm not posting anything. 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban/Suspension/Folding

In this opinion blog and on this same article used for the updating of this Wikipedia entry, if MLB's request to the judge passes through without the hitch, the league will suspend the Dodgers, possibly revoke their license, and be forced to fold. In other words, MLB will be left with 29 teams instead of 30. ElMeroEse (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely to happen... team will be sold first. Spanneraol (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...there's so many reasons why that won't happen. For starters, the league HAS to have an even number of teams. For second, if the Dodgers are suspended, they may just come back in 2013. For third, if MLB seizes the Dodgers, they will own them (as they owned the Expos) and run them until a new owner is found Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210120020/http://studiocity.patch.com:80/articles/he-wants-to-buy-the-dodgers-why-isn-t-he-being-taken-more-seriously to http://studiocity.patch.com/articles/he-wants-to-buy-the-dodgers-why-isn-t-he-being-taken-more-seriously

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817172848/http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_18210079 to http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_18210079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]