The Dodgers are cheating financially

[TURBO]

It will be ignored and brushed under the rug, no penalties, no consequences, nothing.

It's how the world does things, and how MLB does things.

Twist the facts until it becomes too complicated to figure out, then just ignore it and forget it...

Good times.

[JCREW]

Big money will always protect big money. 

People with massive assets and huge tracts of land will always have the inside track on moving money, getting loans, earning interest, hiding money etc. The average person doesn't even know the regulatory rules that govern what you can and can't do with massive piles of money.

They just operate under a different set of rules than 99% of people, and won't actually feel financial distress if their net worth has 9 zeroes instead of 10.

Spoiler

And still, we cut funding for maternal health care, social security, USAID, SNAP.

Clearly I have gone off the deep end. Not only is it not fair to my baseball fandom, but why do I even pay taxes or insurance premiums.

I need a nap.

 

[tmwiese55]

54 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

No it is nothing like the Clippers having handshake deals with players.

The Federal investigation is about loans made by Walter from his own Insurance Company A to his own Company B with friendly terms that wouldn’t exist in the marketplace. 

Where it may run afoul is that if Company B fails to pay the loans back or Company A sustains huge losses it could put the policy holders at risk, and Walter allegedly didn’t disclose the loans. The Insurance Company A is supposed to disclose those loans and didn’t, the investigation is about the action/inaction of Company A.

He sold the Lakers because the loans came to light and he needed to infuse the insurance companies with cash.  So far there is nothing connecting the Dodgers (and certainly not baseball operations) to the Walter financial empire’s Federal scrutiny. 
 

 

 

If what is alleged is true you're missing or ignoring the cap cheating and revenue sharing impact of it. Which is a baseball story, 100%, and similar to the Kawhi stuff

[TURBO]

MLB will do all they can to bury this story.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, tmwiese55 said:

If what is alleged is true you're missing or ignoring the cap cheating and revenue sharing impact of it. Which is a baseball story, 100%, and similar to the Kawhi stuff

There is no cap in baseball. There is also  an huge difference between the Dodgers baseball operations committing fraud (not mentioned by anyone as far as I know) and legal, but perhaps unscrupulous, manipulation of MLB’s revenue sharing rules. 
 

Do you think a billionaire owner Mark Walter, Andrew Friedman or really anyone in their Baseball Operations Dept. are going to risk going to prison by perpetuating a fraud just so the Dodgers can sign Kyle Tucker or Tyler Glasnow…. Sheesh

[tmwiese55]

13 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

There is no cap in baseball. There is also  an huge difference between the Dodgers baseball operations committing fraud (not mentioned by anyone as far as I know) and legal, but perhaps unscrupulous, manipulation of MLB’s revenue sharing rules. 
 

Do you think a billionaire owner Mark Walter, Andrew Friedman or really anyone in their Baseball Operations Dept. are going to risk going to prison by perpetuating a fraud just so the Dodgers can sign Kyle Tucker or Tyler Glasnow…. Sheesh

You know what I meant, the luxury tax cap and the subsequent revenue sharing that comes from that as well.  That's what is being alleged here, IDK how true, but is a baseball story if so.

Your choosing to say no way a rich person would cheat is an interesting take these days, but you waiving it away is a different discussion than to say it doesn't effect baseball.  Take that up with the writers if your take is no way it would happen. But what's being alleged definitely does constitute a baseball story since it effects normal revenue sharing, along with salary tax penalties/sharing.

[Thurston Fluff]

If they close those loopholes do we still need a salary cap? It would be nice but a hard cap is going to be very messy and very well could mean a cancelled 2017 season. If the owners can get those loopholes closed it might mean the soft cap with enhanced revenue sharing could level the field enough to be relatively fair. 

This might be a good thing to be coming out now. It gives owners a reason to believe getting their house in order is a better option than demanding players give in on the one thing they are least likely to give in on.

[Thurston Fluff]

If they close those loopholes do we still need a salary cap? It would be nice but a hard cap is going to be very messy and very well could mean a cancelled 2017 season. If the owners can get those loopholes closed it might mean the soft cap with enhanced revenue sharing could level the field enough to be relatively fair. 

This might be a good thing to be coming out now. It gives owners a reason to believe getting their house in order is a better option than demanding players give in on the one thing they are least likely to give in on.

[owbc]

It's not in the mainstream because the investigative reporting was done by a Twitter user. The mainstream stories will come, give it time, needs to be more of a story than line items in financial filings. 

From the MLB owners' perspective, I have no doubt that they let all of this happen to push the salary cap narrative. Surely people knew about the revenue sharing manipulation. Surely other teams are also trying to hide revenue or at least exploiting loopholes. 

There will be repercussions. 

[adambr2]

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, tmwiese55 said:

You know what I meant, the luxury tax cap and the subsequent revenue sharing that comes from that as well.  That's what is being alleged here, IDK how true, but is a baseball story if so.

Your choosing to say no way a rich person would cheat is an interesting take these days, but you waiving it away is a different discussion than to say it doesn't effect baseball.  Take that up with the writers if your take is no way it would happen. But what's being alleged definitely does constitute a baseball story since it effects normal revenue sharing, along with salary tax penalties/sharing.

A financier may very well commit fraud to further line their own pockets, but no billionaire is going to put their liberty at stake to increase the major league payroll of their baseball team. That notion is utter nonsense. 
 

The only link in this story to the Dodgers right now is the wealthy guy being investigated for violating Federal insurance regulations owns among a litany of other businesses the Dodgers. That’s why it’s not a baseball story. 

It’s been clear for multiple seasons that the Dodgers manipulate the luxury tax threshold, and again that’s way different than committing a crime or cheating, and additional evidence of other manipulations shouldn’t catch anyone by surprise. 

[tmwiese55]

15 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

A financier may very well commit fraud to further line their own pockets, but no billionaire is going to put their liberty at stake to increase the major league payroll of their baseball team. That notion is utter nonsense. 
 

The only link in this story to the Dodgers right now is the wealthy guy being investigated for violating Federal insurance regulations owns among a litany of other businesses the Dodgers. That’s why it’s not a baseball story. 

It’s been clear for multiple seasons that the Dodgers manipulate the luxury tax threshold, and again that’s way different than committing a crime or cheating, and additional evidence of other manipulations shouldn’t catch anyone by surprise. 

Then go argue with the writers if you think rich people would never break the rules in order to further enrich themselves and their friends, especially when they own the govt on both sides of the aisle so they know they'll get away with it.  There is countless examples of rich people committing blatant fraud and financial crimes which risks their freedom, most of which get away with it but not all. Heck, one example is president right now.  And those are just examples we know about, think how many do things that fly completely under the radar and don't get caught at all.  But again, go argue with them with them about that one, that's not my point at all.  And to be fair, this one doesn't seem blatant or obvious but rather very smart and complex thus further decreasing chances of getting in any trouble. Plus, they know if caught their worst case is to pay a bit of a fine and will never go to prison.

I'm saying that what they allege is clearly baseball related and its not even debatable. Hiding money or circumventing rules and money you're supposed to share with others, which also keeps your salary tax number lower, thus also reducing further revenue sharing is clearly baseball related. Please explain to me how it wouldn't be. Focus on that, not whether you think a rich person would cheat.  If what they allege is wrong, then of course its not but that's a different argument which is not what I said at all.   IDK if its true or not, I have no idea and would wait for more info/investigations. Yet you seem to know for sure already 

[Jopal78]

3 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

Then go argue with the writers if you think rich people would never break the rules in order to further enrich themselves and their friends, especially when they own the govt on both sides of the aisle so they know they'll get away with it.  There is countless examples of rich people committing blatant fraud and financial crimes which risks their freedom, most of which get away with it but not all. Heck, one example is president right now.  And those are just examples we know about, think how many do things that fly completely under the radar and don't get caught at all.  But again, go argue with them with them about that one, that's not my point at all.  And to be fair, this one doesn't seem blatant or obvious but rather very smart and complex thus further decreasing chances of getting in any trouble. Plus, they know if caught their worst case is to pay a bit of a fine and will never go to prison.

I'm saying that what they allege is clearly baseball related and it’s not even debatable. Hiding money or circumventing rules and money you're supposed to share with others, which also keeps your salary tax number lower, thus also reducing further revenue sharing is clearly baseball related. Please explain to me how it wouldn't be. Focus on that, not whether you think a rich person would cheat.  If what they allege is wrong, then of course it’s not but that's a different argument which is not what I said at all.   IDK if it’s true or not, I have no idea and would wait for more info/investigations. Yet you seem to know for sure already 

Go pay the $1 to read the front page story in today’s LA Times and then we’ll have an informed discussion. Right now you’re just accusatory and brandishing your obvious ignorance on the topic as a cudgel.

[dlk9s]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Do you think a billionaire owner Mark Walter, Andrew Friedman or really anyone in their Baseball Operations Dept. are going to risk going to prison by perpetuating a fraud just so the Dodgers can sign Kyle Tucker or Tyler Glasnow…. Sheesh

Billionaires never risk going to prison

[Brian]

On 8/19/2026 at 5:02 PM, owbc said:

(b) The illegal debt servicing being uncovered, forcing Walter to liquidate assets. The fact that he attempted to buy out his sweetheart TV deal suggests that the situation is very, very serious. 

I'm not sure how this is all going to play out but this could be the beginning of the end of the dynasty. 

I have said for 2 years how do the Dodgers get away with this and every one said. "They pay penalties for it". 

[Samurai Bucky]

22 hours ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

Valid points. But a discrepancy has existed for awhile, fraud or no fraud.

I WOULD like to know what the rev sharing #s would've been to some of the 'have nots' had this not occurred.

As to a new owner yeah, it's hard to imagine moving forward without that happening.

They almost went bankrupt, so MLB wanted (or maybe needed) to step in.  LA is the second largest city in the US and they needed to somehow keep that market interested.  The Dodger ownership was smart and took advantage of it.

I'll have to see if Brodie Brazil has anything new on it.

[tmwiese55]

14 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Go pay the $1 to read the front page story in today’s LA Times and then we’ll have an informed discussion. Right now you’re just accusatory and brandishing your obvious ignorance on the topic as a cudgel.

You are arguing/deciding on whether its true.  I'm not saying anything on that one way or another, I have no idea.  You seem to know somehow and as far as what you said here is that you essentially don't think rich people cheat and/or are greedy

I'm saying if what they allege is true, it for sure effects and is baseball related, that's it. And you haven't said anything as to how it wouldn't be.   Just that you don't think its true.  Please tell me how a team not paying their proper revenue sharing and salary taxes would not be baseball related 

[homer]

Guys, no politics. Thanks.

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, tmwiese55 said:

You are arguing/deciding on whether its true.  I'm not saying anything on that one way or another, I have no idea.  You seem to know somehow and as far as what you said here is that you essentially don't think rich people cheat and/or are greedy

I'm saying if what they allege is true, it for sure effects and is baseball related, that's it. And you haven't said anything as to how it wouldn't be.   Just that you don't think its true.  Please tell me how a team not paying their proper revenue sharing and salary taxes would not be baseball related 

There is a special place for BF fans to talk politics. That may be where this should go. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/brewerfanpoliticalscene/general-discussion-f64/

[JCREW]

Quote

In 2013, one year after buying the team, Guggenheim sold those local TV rights. Were they indeed worth more?

The rights that McCourt wanted to sell for $3 billion were bought by Time Warner Cable for a record $8.35 billion. Because of the settlement, the league would take its cut based on a deal worth $3 billion rather than based on a deal worth $8.35 billion.

The Quote is from the LA Times Article. 

Is the TLDR version of this whole thing that the Dodgers are paying revenue sharing based on $3B of TV money over 25 years instead of $8.35B of TV money over 25 years?

[JCREW]

Here's a link to a 2013 article that discusses the settlement. 

This seems like it should have been a bigger deal back then. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201125213826/https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-xpm-2013-jun-13-la-sp-0614-dodgers-tv-20130614-story.html