The afternoon's testimony largely concerned Frank's long-term plans for the Dodgers, and fans won't like this either. Reducing player payroll was a significant part of his strategy to turn a profit from the Dodgers. Squaring that concept with all the money they took out of the team is a tough one.—Josh fisher

Other lowlights from the McCourt divorce trial (all from the same source):

This morning was a solid win for Frank, as his attorney, Steve Susman, elicited a great deal of testimony from Leah Bishop showing Jamie's understanding of the Massachusetts agreement. Even after the McCourts' move to Los Angeles, Jamie was concerned about her assets' safety if Frank borrowed on them to pay business expenses. It was also revealed that Frank had taken at least $100 million out of the Dodgers assets for Jamie's use.

Frank McCourt bought the club largely, if not entirely, on credit.

... the Dodgers have been paying tens of millions of dollars of rent on their own land. ... The key factor here is that much of the financing the team has arranged caps direct payments to ownership at $5 million per year. This figure became important in the early stages of the divorce, as Frank pointed to restrictions on his income when arguing for a lower support obligation to Jamie. Payments from Blue Land to ownership, however, are outside the scope of the financing-related cap on ownership's take from the team. ... Several times throughout this saga, we've had a glimpse into the way ownership used the complexities of the Enterprise to its advantage. Whether it's payments outside the finance caps, keeping McCourt sons on the payroll, or classifying soft distributions as rent, it is clear that McCourt and Dodger lawyers and accountants are taking every advantage of the complex structure of the Enterprise. Such arrangements, while not at all uncommon, have certainly left a bad taste in fans' mouths.