Well, we now know what the biggest offseason Dodgers story will be:

The pending divorce between Frank and Jamie McCourt. Which officially moved into the “ugly” phase when it was revealed today that Frank McCourt has fired Jamie from her job as the club’s “chief executive.” (Frank is listed as the club’s “owner and chairman”.)

This sets up what could very be a fascinating — and potentially destructive — struggle for control of one of the country’s most valuable and venerable professional sports franchises, with far-reaching ramifications for the club.

If you followed the link, above, you saw in that story that Frank McCourt’s attorney suggests he, and he alone, owns the Dodgers.

You also saw that Jamie McCourt’s lawyer disputes that, and also suggests that he has no reason to believe that the Dodgers wouldn’t fall under the California law requiring that all assets in a marriage be split equally between the divorcing duo.

Which leads us immediately to the thought that … the McCourts will have to sell the team and split the money … unless one of them can buy out the other.

Apparently, Jamie McCourt already is trying to raise money to do just that. Though Frank McCourt doesn’t seem remotely interested in giving up control of the franchise.

The two of them have been running the Dodgers as a sort of tag team since they (or was it Frank, only?) bought the team from Fox in 2004. They have been vaguely annoying and cloying as the faces of the franchise, a sort of social-climbing pair who have raised prices for, well, just about everything surrounding the Dodgers since they got here.

But we must concede that the Dodgers have reached the postseason four times in the six seasons the McCourts have run the club. Twice, they have reached the League Championship Series. Fox never managed that.

From my dealings with the two of them, or observations, the impression made on me is that Jamie is the sharper knife in that family cutlery drawer, a woman with a law degree who also just looks slicker … more polished … more comfortable in front of crowds than Frank. Mr. McCourt doesn’t exactly strike a person as a man of the people, but he seems more like “just folks” than does Jamie. Not that it will help him raise money to buy her out; in fact, it probably will hurt him.

Anyway, this could be fairly disastrous for the ballclub. Short term, does the club go into something of suspended animation as regards player moves? Does Frank (or Jamie; whoever gets control of day-to-day operations) make a point of trying not to increase the perceived value of the club — to make sure they buyout isn’t too large?

Sports franchises, like any business entity, do not do well with indecision at the top.

The Dodgers now will deal with issues of loyalty (are you a Frank guy, or are you a Jamie guy?) … and then there are the children, including son Drew, who is director of marketing for the Dodgers. Does Drew side with the parent who ends up with control … or does he walk out of baseball?

This could be a major mess, and it easily could drag down the franchise for however long it takes to sort this out.

My sense is that it would be best for the club if the McCourts can’t settle, can’t buy out the other, and the two of them sell the club to someone based in Los Angeles (rather than Boston, from where the McCourts came) … and just disappear.

However, it also seems clear that will be the last resort for these two. Both clearly enjoyed the notoriety that comes to the people who own the Dodgers. The social cache, the invites to elite gatherings of civic leaders. (Jamie just this year was named to the board of the L.A. County Museum of Art.)

This is going to be ugly, and the ugliness could extend right down to the playing field.