BEHIND THE SEAMS : Murdoch’s Proposed Purchase of Dodgers Will Be Closely Scrutinized by Baseball Owners

Major league owners are cautiously optimistic that Rupert Murdoch’s aggressive business tactics and global communication resources can benefit baseball as well as the Dodgers, providing his $350-million purchase of the club is approved.

However, some owners contacted by The Times said they were concerned that Murdoch will spend any amount of money--”no one has deeper pockets,” said one--to produce a winner, blowing out the salary structure. And all insisted that their ownership committee has to make a deliberate study of his often-controversial business practices and the potential impact on the game.

“Baseball needs a strategy statement from Murdoch on how he intends to run the club, and that statement needs to be scrutinized very carefully,” a National League owner said. “Is he going to be an absentee owner? Is he going to spend and spend and spend, running the payroll up to $75 million or more, to make the Dodgers an attractive TV entity for his network? We have to reach an understanding with Murdoch and then decide if we can believe it or not.”

Owners, many reluctant to speak for attribution or at all while the sale of the Dodgers is still in a formative stage, also said that Murdoch’s ownership of the Fox cable network, which has a piece of baseball’s national television contract, does not preclude his owning a team. But they noted that his individual contracts with many of the 30 teams through local and regional cable systems was a more complex and potentially more serious problem, possibly affecting competitive balance through his control of local revenue streams.

That’s one more issue for the committee to consider before making a recommendation on the sale to baseball’s ruling executive council.

The committee is expected to take about three months once it receives a formal application from the Dodgers for permission to share its financial records with Murdoch. Club sources said the Dodgers are still filling out the required paperwork, but that procedural step is considered a mere formality. Murdoch, 66, knows enough about the club’s financial status, the sources said, that an agreement is expected to be announced soon.

Ultimately, his purchase will require majority approval of the 15 American League owners, which is not expected to be a problem, and three-fourths approval of the 15 National League owners, which could be. Four NL owners could kill the deal.

It is too early to know where the votes sit, and most owners said they would wait for the committee’s recommendation, but a key player is Atlanta Brave owner Ted Turner, a similarly aggressive cable and media adversary of Murdoch and already on record as opposing the sale. “I don’t like it. I don’t want Rupert to own the Dodgers,” Turner said before a meeting of the Time Warner board last week. Turner is vice chairman of Time Warner, which became co-owner of the Braves through a merger with the Turner Broadcasting System.

Asked last week if his comments meant that he would vote against the sale, Turner said, “Well, I don’t know how I’ll vote on Rupert. It’s up to Kasten.”

He referred to club President Stan Kasten, who refused comment when contacted by The Times other than to say that Dodger owner Peter O’Malley has been a “giant of the game” who will be sorely missed if, in fact, he does leave. Gerald Levin, the Time Warner chairman, said the Braves’ vote would reflect the best interest of baseball, and Bill Bartholomay, the Braves’ board chairman and chairman of baseball’s ownership committee, said he wouldn’t take a position until his committee makes a decision.

Neither Turner nor Murdoch could be reached. Turner’s antipathy for Murdoch is reflected in deposition statements made for a Time Warner lawsuit aimed at stopping New York City from forcing the company to carry Fox News Channel on its cable system there, a response to a $2-billion antitrust suit filed by Fox in an attempt to gain access on the Turner-controlled system in New York City and thwart the TBS-Time Warner merger.

Turner, in the depositions, said he was appalled that Murdoch “bought the government of New York City” and that Murdoch is a “slimy character” and “very dangerous person” who “shamelessly” uses the power of the media to advance his wealth and power.

How far Turner will go in an attempt to block Murdoch’s ownership of the Dodgers is uncertain. National League owners reached by The Times said they had no knowledge of a rumored attempt by Turner to organize opposition and had not been contacted by the Braves’ owner.

However, Turner was recently attending business meetings in the same Chicago hotel at which many baseball owners were participating in executive council and other committee meetings, and he is known to have spoken privately with a few, possibly expressing his feelings about Murdoch, who almost always gets what he wants and tends to generate mixed feelings.

Ruthless. Controversial. Aggressive. Successful. Those are some of the characterizations owners contacted by The Times used.

“He’s so aggressive that some people may be scared of him and see him as another [George] Steinbrenner,” said an American League chief executive, referring to the New York Yankee owner who may be facing his third suspension, this one for suing baseball after making his own licensing and marketing deal with Adidas.

“What Murdoch says,” the AL executive continued, “is, ‘I have no qualms about spending any amount of money to control the market and I’ll face the ramifications later.’

“That may disturb a lot of people in this business, although most of them also operate with their own agenda.”

Said Peter Angelos, who has developed a maverick reputation as owner of the Baltimore Orioles: “All I know about Rupert Murdoch is what I’ve read, and he seems to be very controversial, indeed. He’s also a strong, dynamic businessman, and baseball can certainly benefit from that. I hate to see Peter O’Malley leave, that’s really a loss, but hopefully Murdoch will be as committed to the advancement and preservation of baseball as Peter has been.

“Fox is certainly a vibrant and vigorous company, and Murdoch is making the kind of financial investment that would seem to obligate him to maintaining a first-class operation. He’s in a position [through his media connections] to spur marketing and help keep baseball at the forefront of the entertainment industry.”

Acting Commissioner Bud Selig, citing Murdoch’s baseball affiliation through the national TV contract, said he has been a “marvelous partner” and that his prospective ownership represents “positive synergy.”

Ownership guidelines do not automatically exclude a multimedia or communication corporation, but they do call for the ownership committee to take a hard look at such companies. The Braves’ purchase by Turner and the Chicago Cubs’ purchase by the Chicago Tribune, which also owns WGN, were approved before those guidelines were enacted. Disney, which owns ESPN, another partner in the national TV contract, was given control of the Angels after enactment.

“Conceptually, another big media giant owning a team doesn’t bother me,” said the Philadelphia Phillies’ owner, Bill Giles, a member of baseball’s TV committee. “If they start paying players more than they should be, that’s a negative, but I think that Turner and WGN have been good partners, and Disney looks to be.

“I don’t know enough about Murdoch to comment, but I’ll be interested to hear what his plans are. He seems to buy most anything he wants. I don’t know if that’s a problem.”

Who knows?

Will Murdoch splash ads across the outfield fences at Dodger Stadium, install luxury boxes, run commercials on the message board, replace the front office?

Will he honor Dodger tradition with the dignity of his establishment Times of London or the tackiness of the tabloid Sun and its nude women on Page 3? Will he promote the Dodgers and the game through his global outlets, which an NL owner said could be a major plus, “because we’re far behind football and basketball in that area.”

A major plus, perhaps, but baseball rules restrict Murdoch in that regard.

The Dodgers do not own international rights. They belong to a central authority, Major League Baseball International, just as the licensing and marketing rights that baseball contends Steinbrenner violated with his Adidas contract belong to Major League Baseball Properties.

Will Murdoch march to the beat of a central authority? Seemingly, he will be forced to. Disney, for example, agreed to abstain from any TV vote on which its ownership of ESPN created conflict. Baseball is expected to ask Murdoch for similar understandings.

“I don’t see the national [TV] situation as a problem,” an American League owner said. “The national contract is competitively bid, Fox has been a good partner, and there’s precedent with Disney.

“It’s more of a problem at the local and regional level, where Fox controls so many outlets and affiliates and can affect the revenue flow of teams the Dodgers might be in competition with on the field.

“Does Fox retaliate [financially and contractually]? Does it offer special inducements? Those are problems that have to be addressed.”

No team is more sensitive to the regional complexities than the San Diego Padres, who have long been plagued by Dodger TV incursions.

“I wouldn’t be real crazy about having even more Dodger games beamed into San Diego,” owner John Moores said. “We’re trying to build a fan base, and the last thing we need is for the giant from the North to intrude on that. Peter has been very responsible about our feelings. I have to hope the Fox people are as responsible, but we need to have an understanding on that before we reach an opinion [on the sale].”

Moores also said it would be “fair to say” that “anyone would be worried about a TV network owning a team” and he wants to make sure “there are no apparent conflicts, no opportunities for mischief.” He didn’t refer to Murdoch specifically but said there have to be proper controls or “someone could go absolutely nuts running the payroll up knowing they would make it up in ad revenue.”

He added: “I’m sure there’s a good story to tell or someone as prudent as Peter O’Malley wouldn’t be this close to an agreement.”

Said Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf: “This goes beyond the TV question. Rupert Murdoch is involved in myriad activities around the world and we have to understand what those activities are and how they would impact baseball.

“As a member of the [ownership] committee, I’ll approach this transfer as I have every other. We have to determine if this individual fits the ownership guidelines and should be involved in baseball. I haven’t formed any preconceived ideas. It would be wrong to do so.”

One thing is certain. Amid escalating costs and higher financial risks, the clock is ticking on family or entrepreneurial ownership. O’Malley is the last of a breed.

Corporations and partnerships are in, and some owners think that’s not all bad.

They cited the increased liquidity of a corporation and the credibility, respectability and higher franchise values that follow the arrival of a Disney or Time Warner. Said a National League executive: “In many cases, a corporation that has to answer to a bottom line, a board of directors and public stockholders” is more responsible than an individual.

Rupert Murdoch is both individual and corporation. There’s a lot there for baseball to consider.