City Vote on Sale of Dodgers Is Delayed

With a prominent political consultant representing Boston developer and would-be Dodger owner Frank McCourt in attendance at Friday’s Los Angeles City Council meeting, Councilman Jack Weiss delayed until next week a vote on his resolution urging Fox to sell the team to local investors.

The consultant, Joe Cerrell, said he had been asked to attend the meeting by Corey Busch, who is expected to serve as a high-ranking team executive if McCourt’s bid succeeds. Cerrell, who has shepherded numerous local and state campaigns over the last four decades, said he has advised Busch and McCourt since October -- without pay “for now,” he said.

Cerrell said he attended strictly as an observer for McCourt.

“I came to be his eyes and ears,” Cerrell said.

Weiss said Cerrell did not ask that the resolution be withdrawn. He said he spoke with Cerrell to emphasize it was not an attack on McCourt or his bid.

Fox put the Dodgers up for sale more than a year ago and subsequently negotiated for months with Tampa Bay Buccaneer owner Malcolm Glazer, who lives in Florida. Weiss said he spoke up for local ownership now because of the bid proposed last week by Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad.

“There is a sense that there is a serious effort being made by a prospective local owner,” Weiss said. “With that occurring, I thought it was important for us to indicate local ownership was better.”

The resolution, if adopted Wednesday, probably won’t sway major league owners, who are expected to vote Thursday on whether to approve McCourt’s bid. The bid has drawn widespread local skepticism because McCourt is using loans to finance almost all of the $430-million purchase price and because he has yet to explain his plans for the Dodgers and his interest in them, citing the recommendation of the commissioner’s office that he say nothing during the approval process.

Weiss said he postponed a vote on his resolution to conform with council rules that one week pass between a motion and a vote.

Council members might otherwise have debated whether a motion introduced on Tuesday would qualify as a matter requiring “immediate action” on Friday.