Just a day after Forbes released a story about Major League Baseball teams in debt trouble, the New York Post reports that baseball is changing its debt rules:
Major League Baseball is working to cut how much debt its teams can carry, The Post has learned.
The move, aimed at avoiding a Mets-like cash squeeze or a Texas Rangers bankruptcy-type scenario, will be centered on widening the definition of team debt, sources close to the situation said.
For example, MLB wants teams to include holding company loans and not just what is directly on team’s books when determining total debt, a source with direct knowledge of the talks said.
This is apparently part of collective bargaining. Makes some sense given that a team’s ability to take on debt has a direct relationship to how much it can spend on stuff, salaries included. I’m sure it’s a tough balance for the union given that they want teams to be both free-spending and solvent.
Whatever happens, there isn’t much murkier in the world than the finances of professional sports teams, so it’s hard to see all of the different directions in which this kind of thing can break. But this seems like a good idea. One Tom Hicks situation is enough. And by the time this is all said and done, we may have had three of them.
Last year Pete Rose field a defamation lawsuit against attorney John Dowd after Dowd gave a radio interview in which he said that Rose had sexual relations with underage girls that amounted to “statutory rape, every time.” Today Rose dismissed the suit.
In a statement issued by Rose’s lawyer and Dowd’s lawyer, the parties say they agreed “based on mutual consideration, to the dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Rose’s lawsuit against Mr. Dowd.” They say they can’t comment further.
Dowd, of course, is the man who conducted the investigation into Rose’s gambling which resulted in the Hit King being placed on baseball’s permanently ineligible list back in 1989. The two have sparred through the media sporadically over the years, with Rose disputing Dowd’s findings despite agreeing to his ban back in 1989. Rose has changed his story about his gambling many times, usually when he had an opportunity to either make money off of it, like when he wrote his autobiography, or when he sought, unsuccessfully, to be reinstated to baseball. Dowd has stood by his report ever since it was released.
In the wake of Dowd’s radio comments in 2015, a woman came forward to say that she and Rose had a sexual relationship when she was under the age of 16, seemingly confirming Dowd’s assertion and forming the basis for a strong defense of Rose’s claims (truth is a total defense to a defamation claim). They seem now, however, to have buried the hatchet. Or at least buried the litigation.
That leaves Dowd more free time to defend his latest client, President Trump. And Rose more time to do whatever it is Pete Rose does with his time.