Talk:2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move[edit]

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)

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 anotherPurplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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)
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. (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The History of the LA Dodgers article already exists. Spanneraol (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, when I typed it into the searchbox, I obviously mispelled something. So... this should merge into the history article. (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

  • Support: That works. Since it's a redlink, you don't need an RM to do can BOLDly do it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
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.


The article should include proposed cities where the post-bankruptcy Dodgers might move to. (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because they aren't moving Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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? -- (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Purely speculative at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
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)


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)

Not likely to happen... team will be sold first. Spanneraol (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
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 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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