Master Index of Archived Threads


Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

metirish Feb 25 2011 03:56 PM

NY Times reports the Mets got a loan from MLB this past November for $20 million to offset cash flow problems.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 25 2011 04:03 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

yeow

metirish Feb 25 2011 04:09 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: yeow There might be some fighting in the parking lot tonight, I've booked a Thin Lizzy cover band for the benefit, Fat Elizabeth.

Gwreck Feb 25 2011 04:15 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Pretty poor proofreading job on the article put on their website. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/sport ... 6mets.html) First sentence reads that $25 million was loaned, without referencing a source for the information. 4 paragraphs later, we learn that the Mets "have exhausted baseball’s standard bank line of credit — $75 million Selig and the sport’s owners make available to teams for a variety of reasons in the course of any year." No source for that information. We also learn that the $25 million was a "secret" loan, but again, no source for the information. 9 paragraphs later, there's this line: "The baseball executive said he believed Selig had loaned the Mets in the neighborhood of $20 million." No mention of who this executive is.

Gwreck Feb 25 2011 04:21 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Article has now been edited by the Times to reflect that the Mets issued a statement acknowledging receipt of the loan. Reference to $20 M was deleted.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 04:24 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Gwreck wrote: Pretty poor proofreading job on the article put on their website. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/sport ... 6mets.html) First sentence reads that $25 million was loaned, without referencing a source for the information. 4 paragraphs later, we learn that the Mets "have exhausted baseball’s standard bank line of credit ... but again, no source for the information. 9 paragraphs later, there's this line: "The baseball executive said he believed Selig had loaned the Mets in the neighborhood of $20 million." No mention of who this executive is. I wonder if the Times' source might be one of the current potential Mets' buyers, who got to look at the team's books, but had to sign a confidentiality agreement before peeking. There are lots of reasons for keeping sources anonymous, other than sloppy editing. What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret?

Gwreck Feb 25 2011 04:27 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret? I think the Wilpons and Katzes are totally screwed and need to sell the entire team.

metirish Feb 25 2011 04:39 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Batmag, I can put you down for two tickets? , get you out of the house while helping the Wilpon's, win win really.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 04:41 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Gwreck wrote: What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret? I think the Wilpons and Katzes are totally screwed and need to sell the entire team. It's beginning to look that way, but who the hell knows how these things'll turn out. Lawsuits are like ballgames: anything could happen. That the Mets were scraping bottom and had to take out a $25M emergency loan from MLB just to sustain operations sounds dire.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 04:42 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

metirish wrote: Batmag, I can put you down for two tickets? , get you out of the house while helping the Wilpon's, win win really. I don't know what you're talking about, or what two tickets for what but I don't wanna help the Wilpons. I'm rooting against them. Because otherwise, the future is Jeffy. The Madoff situation is serendipity to me, because before, I was regrettably resigned to the Wilpons owning the Mets for the rest of my life.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 05:21 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 25 2011 05:49 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either. I don't think that's the right way to be thinking about it. Seems to me the Wilpons' issue isn't so much the lawsuit (though that matters) but their debt load. They owe money all over town, man.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 06:08 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either. I don't think that's the right way to be thinking about it. Seems to me the Wilpons' issue isn't so much the lawsuit (though that matters) but their debt load. They owe money all over town, man. They've owned the team for how long? and have been businessmen for longer. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else. The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players. A lot more will become known about their ability to _continue_ to pay their players, and acquire new ones, in the future, particularly as the lawsuit details get more clear, but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 06:39 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else. This is queensy ballsy. Ceetar wrote: The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players. They only borrowed more than the team's value. Ceetar wrote: but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in. The Mets haven't told us anything. The Mets announced a 25% stake sale only because they couldn't find any buyers on their terms, privately. Then they held a press conference mainly, it seemed, to remind everybody that the Mets are a private corporation and that their finances aren't any of our business. Then they put a positive spin on the details of the Picard lawsuit, coincidentally or not, a few days before the judge decided that he would unseal the complaint. If the Mets had their way, we wouldn't know one iota about the contents of the Picard complaint. The team publically browbeat that WSJ reporter who, last year, wrote that the team faces liabilities from the Madoff scam large enough to wipe out the Wilpons' ownership interest in the Mets. This too was denied by the Mets. What exactly did the Mets tell us that has even a hint of credibility?

metirish Feb 25 2011 07:02 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

SNY are live right now in Duffy's......seriously(at least i think they are live)

Ashie62 Feb 25 2011 08:29 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Moody's has a Ba1 bond rating for Queens ballpark Co. with a negative outlook. That is not investment grade. Not good.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 08:42 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently. Why do we expect them to be full open and honest? So far as I can tell, it hasn't really affected anything yet. I don't think of anyone I would have rather had this offseason that we don't have because of finances. They haven't yet done something stupid like let Reyes walk. It's all lawyer speak and guesses. But if I have to lean towards one side, i'm gonna lead towards the guys that have the most knowledge of their finances (the Wilpons, theoretically) rather than the opposing lawyer or biased "analysts" like Adam Rubin. either way, I don't think the knowledge that they borrowed 25million from MLB changes anything about what will happen with the Mets in the future.

Gwreck Feb 25 2011 08:52 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million.

Ashie62 Feb 25 2011 09:01 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Gwreck wrote: You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million. The money was needed for November operating expenses, in others words, Debt currently due.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 09:07 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Gwreck wrote: You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million. Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. I don't contradict myself, I'm just suggesting I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation.

Gwreck Feb 25 2011 09:10 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. To me this reads as pot, kettle, black.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 25 2011 09:13 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: I don't contradict myself, I'm just suggesting I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation. I suggest taking a deep breath and rereading what you've written. You don't want to have to change all your business cards to read "The Irrational, Willfully Ignorant Mets Fan," do you?

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 09:19 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. To me this reads as pot, kettle, black. The difference is my posts are viewed as the opinion they are, if Adam Rubin tells Michael Kay something, it's treated as practically fact. So if I say I expect Beltran to stay on the field based on the reports, I may be laughed at, but if he expresses himself in a way that suggests Beltran will be on the DL in May, it's just another example of the "poorly run Mets". I'm not ignorant of anything, anymore than anyone else. But I'm accepting of that ignorance. I know that we know virtually nothing about what's going to happen with the Mets are the lawsuit. In fact, the judge that will ultimately decide the case doesn't know how it's going to go until he's heard the evidence. So why should I take Adam Rubin seriously when he says things like "I don't see any way the Wilpons won't have to sell the team"?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 25 2011 09:26 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 09:28 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently. The guy's a gal. But on point -- is this be the dumbest thing you've ever written here? I lost track.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 09:29 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation. You broke your own record.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 09:31 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. It's not just about Madoff that Rubin is nastily negative and doom and gloom. He's willfully nasty and unprofessional in other things, whether it be trying to get David Wright to say he wishes he wasn't in New York, or hinting at "secret" stories about Backman. How is any of that different than the Mets situation two years ago? Don't most teams carry debt? How much are the Yankees in debt on their stadium? Don't all reports suggest the Mets are expected to repay that 25million shortly? Trying to assert anything with the hazy collection of information we have on the situation is just silly.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 09:32 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 09:37 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead. Beats me. Who knows? But why predict these loans are going to be called in now, of all times? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the Mets were stabilized, post lawsuit? Or you know, when they have money? Calling them in now could cut the Mets off from the best likelihood of them making money to be able to pay said loans. Whatever happens, the Mets are still going to be here this year, and next year. As will SNY. It brings in revenue. I haven't seen any reports that suggests this might be the case though, besides wild speculation of what could happen. Anything could happen. the Mets could settle and this could be over next week.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 25 2011 09:41 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Yeah, they might find a $100 million bill behind the Dairy Barn. Anything could happen. on edit: Jeff could hit Powerball.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 09:44 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, they might find a $100 million bill behind the Dairy Barn. Anything could happen. on edit: Jeff could hit Powerball. I hope he's not playing Powerball. It's not exactly the best of investment strategies. Not that they have the best record in that regard.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 25 2011 09:47 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Dude.

The Second Spitter Feb 25 2011 09:48 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes. I'm with you, esse. Ceetar wrote: How is any of that different than the Mets situation two years ago? Don't most teams carry debt? How much are the Yankees in debt on their stadium? Don't all reports suggest the Mets are expected to repay that 25million shortly? . How many teams take out loans of that magnitude to meet current liabilities not fixed to a specific asset?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2011 09:51 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead. Beats me. Who knows? But why predict these loans are going to be called in now, of all times? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the Mets were stabilized, post lawsuit? Or you know, when they have money? Calling them in now could cut the Mets off from the best likelihood of them making money to be able to pay said loans. Whatever happens, the Mets are still going to be here this year, and next year. As will SNY. It brings in revenue. I haven't seen any reports that suggests this might be the case though, besides wild speculation of what could happen. Anything could happen. the Mets could settle and this could be over next week. Well of course it's possible that the Wilpons will emerge from this mess somewhat victorious, with their majority ownership interest in the Mets preserved. But you seem to be taking the position that they will, instead of that they might. And you don't want to consider anybody's POV that they might not. A five year old who still believes in Santa Claus is endearing. An adult who still believes in Santa Claus is naive, at the very least. This reminds me of another thread.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 10:02 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well of course it's possible that the Wilpons will emerge from this mess somewhat victorious, with their majority ownership interest in the Mets preserved. But you seem to be taking the position that they will, instead of that they might. And you don't want to consider anybody's POV that they might not. A five year old who still believes in Santa Claus is endearing. An adult who still believes in Santa Claus is naive, at the very least. I'm not taking the position that they will, merely that I don't think anyone knows, including the Wilpons though they don't want to admit it yet, what will happen. I find Adam Rubin, among others, telling me that the Wilpons will have to sell pretty condescending actually. I'm singling out Adam because I heard an interview with him most recently. Very very little is clear right now. It seems pretty truthful on the Wilpons part that they _really_ want to retain the Mets and the focus of their financially...juggling...is aimed at that goal. That's the only real position I'm taking. Do you think this is unreasonable? Where It's murky to me is the speculation that them trying to sell 25% of the team is stupid, that there are no buyers and that it wouldn't be enough anyway. I personally find it hard to believe that it wasn't a carefully thought out strategy towards achieving the long term goal of retaining the team. Sure, they don't have a ton of credibility, so maybe this is all a cover towards selling the entire enterprise, but they've been pretty open about wanting the team to remain in the family for generations, even before Madoff was exposed. They could still get blown away by the lawsuit. But this extra loan coming to light, from three months ago, doesn't really change that landscape.

metirish Feb 25 2011 10:02 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Anything can happen is right , maybe the Qutari Royal Family will buy the whole shebang, apparently they bid $1.5 billion for Manchester United, they could by out Wilpon for half that. Can't see them hitting Duffy's though.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 25 2011 10:04 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

The Second Spitter wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes. I'm with you, esse. Gracias, comrade. SS wrote: Ceetar wrote: How is any of that different than the Mets situation two years ago? Don't most teams carry debt? How much are the Yankees in debt on their stadium? Don't all reports suggest the Mets are expected to repay that 25million shortly? . How many teams take out loans of that magnitude to meet current liabilities not fixed to a specific asset? How many teams do so at the lender of last resort... twice? MLB isn't the bank, or any other capital-supplying firm... they're the people you go to when those people won't lend you money.

The Second Spitter Feb 25 2011 10:08 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: I find Adam Rubin, among others, telling me that the Wilpons will have to sell pretty condescending actually. I'm singling out Adam because I heard an interview with him most recently. . You know, to an impartial observer it would appear that you're harbouring some sort of irrational, hate-filled vendetta against Adam Rubin.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 10:14 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

The Second Spitter wrote: Ceetar wrote: I find Adam Rubin, among others, telling me that the Wilpons will have to sell pretty condescending actually. I'm singling out Adam because I heard an interview with him most recently. . You know, to an impartial observer it would appear that you're harbouring some sort of irrational, hate-filled vendetta against Adam Rubin. fair enough. I'm not sure i'd classify it as a vendetta. I started out neutral, I started reading his stuff, followed him on Twitter...and then gradually lost more and more respect for him and saw more and more negative and pessimistic things show up in his opinion pieces and interviews. It's merely my opinion, but it's based on my observations. I don't harbor a grudge or think he did anything wrong, I just find his work distasteful and not worth reading. At least his opinion pieces. when he's reporting news or information he's probably more dedicated and hardworking than many of other guys, but thanks to the information age anything he puts out there gets expanded everywhere in minutes, so I don't have to subject myself to him to get that info.

Ashie62 Feb 25 2011 10:15 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

To clarify a Ba1 Bond rating on the Queens Ballpark Company infers default. It is now a junk bond. If it gets downgraded again the debt service increases.

metirish Feb 25 2011 10:16 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar and Rubin in Duffy's parking lot in ten minutes, fight on.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 10:18 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

metirish wrote: Ceetar and Rubin in Duffy's parking lot in ten minutes, fight on. I won't be down there for three weeks. I'll find him though. I'll pretend to be Saul Katz and offer him a job or something.

Edgy DC Feb 26 2011 08:39 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: SS wrote: How many teams take out loans of that magnitude to meet current liabilities not fixed to a specific asset? How many teams do so at the lender of last resort... twice? MLB isn't the bank, or any other capital-supplying firm... they're the people you go to when those people won't lend you money. Is this an established fact or your informed impression?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2011 09:03 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

How many teams take out loans of that magnitude to meet current liabilities not fixed to a specific asset? How many teams do so at the lender of last resort... twice? MLB isn't the bank, or any other capital-supplying firm... they're the people you go to when those people won't lend you money. Is this an established fact or your informed impression? From the New York Times: The direct intervention of Commissioner Bud Selig to help sustain the operations of the [Mets] is perhaps the most striking evidence yet of the financial distress that for many months has plagued the team’s owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz.... The Mets have exhausted baseball’s standard bank line of credit — at least $75 million Selig and the sport’s owners make available to teams for a variety of reasons in the course of any year.... Thus, the additional money provided by Selig — done in secret last November — may well have been crucial in keeping the club functioning.... Selig’s decision to give what amounts to extraordinary assistance to one of the sport’s most prominent and highly valued teams — one owned by Wilpon, a man Selig has long regarded as a close personal friend — could anger other team owners, who might well wonder why their money is being used to rescue a team with a $140 million payroll.... “The fact that the loan is coming from baseball would be a jarring event because, as with the Texas Rangers, the league is effectively a lender of last resort,” said Marc Ganis, a sports industry consultant. “It would indicate the team cannot get loans from normal commercial sources, which could be taken as a sign of very significant problems.”

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2011 09:34 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). I also believe that if it weren't for the Mets $$ problems, it would have been business as usual as far as forming the front office just below the owners -- Minaya would have stayed or would've been replaced by another clown/puppet, instead of by a strong figure.

Ceetar Feb 26 2011 09:45 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). If you truly believe that, then it's mostly time to put this story behind us. Alderson asserts that has had no affect, won't likely have an affect this year, and he doesn't see it becoming an issue in the future. At least as far as the actual team and signing players goes.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2011 09:51 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). If you truly believe that, then it's mostly time to put this story behind us. Alderson asserts that has had no affect, won't likely have an affect this year, and he doesn't see it becoming an issue in the future. At least as far as the actual team and signing players goes. Alderson's comment might be true. But I tend to ignore it and give it zero weight because Sandy would've made the same comment even if he knew it to be false. The most credible comments are those made against one's interests. Why should Alderson being reasonably informed about the Mets finances when he took the GM job serve as grounds to ignore the stories being reported about the Mets finances?

Ceetar Feb 26 2011 09:55 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Alderson's comment might be true. But I tend to ignore it and give it zero weight because Sandy would've made the same comment even if he knew it to be false. The most credible comments are those made against one's interests. Who's making comments against one's own interests? Couldn't it be that comments made against one's own interests are simply comments to which the observer doesn't recognize or know the speakers interests? Doesn't this basically mean no one would be believed if they were speaking honestly in their own favor? Maybe if Alderson spoke out and said they were cash strapped, he could falsely claim in a trade "Nope, I can't possibly give you any more than that. We're broke." and maybe negotiate down the price.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2011 10:05 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: Alderson's comment might be true. But I tend to ignore it and give it zero weight because Sandy would've made the same comment even if he knew it to be false. The most credible comments are those made against one's interests. Who's making comments against one's own interests? Nobody. That was my point. A murder suspect who confesses makes a statement against his interests. It's not ordinarily in the suspect's interests to confess because he likely faces harsh criminal penalties. A murder suspect who denies any involvement in the crime is not making a statement against his interests. All things being equal, a confession is more credible than a denial of the crime. But this doesn't mean that the denial can't be an honest one. Ceetar wrote: Maybe if Alderson spoke out and said they were cash strapped, he could falsely claim in a trade "Nope, I can't possibly give you any more than that. We're broke." and maybe negotiate down the price. Are you saying that teams might ask the Mets for less because the Mets are tapped out? I don't know. Why wouldn't that work for the Pirates, or the Royals?

Edgy DC Feb 26 2011 11:05 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

I don't think things look good, but (1) I think it's a good move to bet on rich well connected people to hang in there and maintain their wealth and connections (unless they are in fact somehow parities to the fraud); (2) If MLB is in fact a major creditor, and it's personnel from MLB who have been sent to (1) find a buyer for part of the team and (2) take over the team's general manager position, they are already operating under terms the creditor has instituted in the interest of getting its money back with appropriate interest; (3) If the 'Pons can hang in there for a few years, moneys will come --- with the major investments of the last few years behind them, the revenues from those investments to come, salaries coming off the books, a new front office with a history of prudent spending, the recesion in recession, and the neighborhood being Disneyfied. Back to (1), sometimes, thiings change, but generally betting on things staying the same seems the surest way to get rich.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2011 01:11 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Ceetar wrote: Who's making comments against one's own interests? Couldn't it be that comments made against one's own interests are simply comments to which the observer doesn't recognize or know the speakers interests? Doesn't this basically mean no one would be believed if they were speaking honestly in their own favor? A certain amount of skepticism is healthy. So is trust. No one should go through life distrusting everybody and everything. Balancing skepticism and confidence is as much art and intuition and hunch and feel as it is science and logic. But you seem to take the extreme position that everybody always tells the truth. Especially everybody in the Mets organization. I'm sure that those fans that purchased obstructed view season tickets, relying on the Mets representations that there are no obstructed view seats at Citi Field were thrilled to be learned that their view of the game was diminished rather than obstructed. Here's a hypothetical: Let's make believe that Sandy Alderson's wife is murdered and that you're the lead detective in the murder investigation. You have no evidence that Sandy did it, but Sandy has no alibi either. He says he slept through the entire incident. As the husband of the victim, Sandy is automatically considered a suspect. Do you eliminate Sandy as a suspect as soon as he denies his guilt?

Kong76 Feb 26 2011 06:11 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

batmagadanleadoff wrote: After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). I also believe that if it weren't for the Mets $$ problems, it would have been business as usual as far as forming the front office just below the owners -- Minaya would have stayed or would've been replaced by another clown/puppet, instead of by a strong figure. I agree. Someone stop the presses!!

batmagadanleadoff Feb 27 2011 02:07 AM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

More doom, gloom and commentary on "the loan". From the NYT: ...the tens of millions of dollars in loan and bond payments the Mets have on their books will not go away; and Commissioner Bud Selig, having already lent the Mets $25 million, may be unable to continue quietly backing the team. Moreover, the one potential bright spot — the start of games at Citi Field, the selling of tickets, the sale of hot dogs and beer — appears clouded as well. One person close to the team said that advance ticket sales for the 2011 season were going so poorly that a sense of panic had begun to take hold in the team’s front office. The team has recently initiated a broad shake-up of its ticket operations. Over the last several months, Bill Ianniciello, the longtime head of ticket sales, was replaced by Leigh Castergine, an executive brought in to overhaul the department in the wake of last year’s steep decline in attendance. As the Mets finished in fourth place in the National League East for the second straight season in 2010, the team sold about 600,000 fewer tickets, one of the largest annual declines in club history. Last week, the Mets let go a handful of full-time employees in the ticket office, according to a person with direct knowledge of the staff reductions. The team also did not rehire another dozen or so part-time workers who are typically brought in to answer the phones when tickets go on sale, the person said. Asked about the claim that ticket-office personnel had recently been let go, officials with the Mets would not comment. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/sport ... ?src=twrhp From the NY Post: The strategy, from the start, has been a simple one: If you act as if everything's OK, then everything will be OK. Close your eyes, plug your ears, and drink in the merry sunshine of a perfect Florida morning, the healing tonic of all time, and everything that ails the Mets will disappear in a wishful flash. "We are very confident," owner Fred Wilpon said a week ago, "that we will run the New York Mets for many years to come." Now comes another revelation, that without the kindness of strangers the Wilpon family might have had a hard time running the team through Christmas. Yesterday it was revealed that Major League Baseball lent the Mets $25 million last November. The last time baseball made such a loan, to the Texas Rangers, the team had to declare bankruptcy and was soon sold. "We did receive a loan from Major League Baseball in November," the Mets admitted in a statement yesterday, when it was clear they would have no choice but to acknowledge the assistance. "Beyond that, we will not discuss the matter any further." It's just as well, because the longer this goes on, the deeper the Mets careen into debt, the more sad and delusional the proclamations of the Wilpons and Saul Katz become. Forget for a second the billion-dollar anvil hanging over their heads in the form of the complaint Irving Picard has brought representing the victims of Bernie Madoff's fraud; this is about something even greater than that. This is about the viability and the credibility of men who own the Mets. And how can you possibly believe either right now? For two years, the Mets insisted that their financial issues wouldn't have a shred of influence on the baseball team, despite overwhelming pieces of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, always citing their bloated payroll as evidence that they were no cheapskates. And now it turns out they needed to essentially turn commissioner Bud Selig into a loan shark because they are -- in a word -- broke? The Mets continually have patted themselves on the back the past few months, acting like the only honest folk in New York, talking about how they have been upfront and honest about all of their financial issues. Oh, really? Did this loan just slip their minds as they were trying to sell their preposterous propaganda? Did they think that sort of thing would stay underground forever, that major league baseball works under the Sicilian code of omerta? Last week, Fred Wilpon himself shook an angry finger of accusation at a crowd of media, accusing all but the family's fiercest media apologists of trying to bury him and his family. He was speaking, as he does, with a humble, patrician tone but wanting the world to know how angry -- how hurt -- he is to have his honor questioned. If he's that angry, I have a useful suggestion. It's time he started actually acting the part. It's time to be completely forthright, completely forthcoming, to admit once and for all that he has been less than truthful these last two years, ever since Bernie Madoff's fraud was revealed to the world. It's time to admit that the Mets are a financial calamity, that they have been irresponsible to the millions of fans who support the team -- with their hearts and with their wallets. It's time to stop acting as if they are the victim of some complicated conspiracy that involves just about everyone except the other tabloid in town, which continues to serve as their personal town crier. Wilpon wants us to believe that he is an honorable man wronged by dishonest associates, and that would be a lot easier to buy if he only had been upfront about all of this from the beginning. The Wilpons continue to insist that they will be able to keep the team, that dozens of fat cats are dying for the chance to buy a non-controlling interest in the team. Maybe that really is so. We will see. But here's something I want to know: Why would anyone who has the brains and savvy to build a big enough bankroll to write a $250 million check possibly want to simply hand that over to the men who run the Mets? Their defense the whole time has been reduced to this: We're not crooked, just stupid. Yeah. Where do you sign up for that kind of bargain? http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/wil ... oq1nfuo2kL From Mike Silva's NY Baseball Digest: One consistent theme throughout the Madoff mess has been Fred and Jeff reacting to reported news, downplaying the reports, only to have more damaging news surface shortly thereafter. When they held their press conference in January not a word was said about an MLB loan for $25 million dollars. You would think the Wilpon’s have learned the value of transparency during the ownership, clearly they have not. They seem to enjoy playing semantics with words than just give everyone the truth. Perhaps that is a result of the litigation process. Considering transparency has never been ownerships strength I have reason to believe the worst. Today’s statement was brief and cryptic. It had a feel the “check is in the mail” when it said the loan “will be repaid in months.” Is that assuming the Wilpon’s, to quote Fred, are vindicated by defeating Picard? The history of these claw back lawsuits indicates it’s highly unlikely the Mets will go unscathed. In that case where is this money coming from? A fans worse fear would be it comes in the form of a midseason fire sale. Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran’s salary should just about cover it. I don’t know where this story is going to lead. Honestly, I rather talk about baseball, but that’s been difficult the last four years of Wilpon ownership. What I do know is that I don’t believe very much of what Fred, Jeff, and Saul Katz say publicly. I don’t believe David Howard, who has been doing PR spin for ownership the last two years. Do I have facts to back that up? No, but this whole thing just smells really bad. That’s a shame because there are some nice vibes coming from Port St. Lucie. The Wilpon’s could be enjoying the beginning of a new era. Instead, they are in a fight for their baseball lives. One that appears to have the deck stacked against them. http://nybaseballdigest.com/?p=34284&cpage=1

Willets Point Feb 27 2011 01:48 PM Re: Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

Looks like the Wilpons have few options but to Sell the Team NOW!!!