Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Met Debt Reset

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 30 2014 08:35 PM

http://nypost.com/2014/01/30/new-loan-c ... -problems/

New loan could end Mets money problems
By Josh Kosman
The Mets’ owners appear to be on the verge of finally putting the team’s financial problems behind them, The Post has learned.

Cash-strapped Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, who faced perhaps an insurmountable spring principal payment on their $250 million loan, are close to refinancing the note, sources said.

“This will be oversubscribed,” a source considering investing in the Bank of America refinancing said.

The re-fi — the biggest off-field hurdle the team faced this off-season — will likely close in February or March, the source said.

Until recently, it wasn’t certain investors weren’t going to insist the team owners pay down some of the loan to get the refinancing done.
Wilpon and Katz will not be asked for any cash paydown, sources said.

Plus, interest payments are expected to stay about the same, a source with direct knowledge of the situation said.

The rate will likely end up at Libor, plus 300 basis points, or a shade under 4 percent, a source said.

The seven-year re-fi will give Wilpon and Katz much- desired financial breathing room, sources said.

For the longtime friends and team owners, it is perhaps the best outcome they could have hoped for.

For Mets fans hoping for new ownership to breathe new life — along with some power and pitching — into the line-up, perhaps the news is less thrilling.

There is a bit of a silver-lining for critics of Wilpon and Katz: There are no payroll limits written into the re-worked loan, a source added.
The existing loan restricts the team from greatly expanding payroll.

For 2014, the Mets are expected to slightly increase payroll to more than $90 million from $85 million.

The Mets spent $87 million in the off-season signing Curtis Granderson, Bartolo Colon and Chris Young.

Mets sources believe payroll will increase slowly in coming years, but probably won’t get back to 2010’s $140 million level anytime soon.
The Mets — which still have to make their interest payments — lost more than $10 million in 2013.

Depending on attendance and payroll, the team could turn a profit this year since the value of a new national TV deal jumps by $25 million per team.
Mets attendance has fallen for five straight years. Last year they drew 26,695 fans per game.

Still, this is quite an Amazin’ comeback for the Mets, who didn’t have the cash to make revenue-sharing payments in 2010 and 2011 — forcing them to borrow $65 million from Major League Baseball and Bank of America, sources said.

“The fact they are still here after Madoff is a miracle,” a sports industry source said, referring to the financial hit Wilpon and Katz took in the Madoff Ponzi scheme.
In 2012, the Mets were able to raise $240 million by selling 40 percent of the team to a group of minority investors that included hedge-fund honcho Steve Cohen and comedian Bill Maher.

The minority stake sales allowed Wilpon and Katz to pay off MLB and BofA. In addition, the partners paid more than $100 million toward $430 million of team debt that they are now in the process of refinancing.

A Mets spokesman declined to comment.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 30 2014 08:48 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Wow, if this is true, it's terrible news for Howard Megdal.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 30 2014 08:51 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

I will gamble on the bolded text as fuel for a year or two's worth of "see, they weren't forthcoming" articles. But yes, the possibility of a refinance is barely even approached in his reports.

d'Kong76
Jan 30 2014 08:58 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

The thing that bothers me about these types of
stories is that historically baseball team's finances
really aren't all that transparent. There's one set of
books, and that other set of books, and don't forget
the cooked-set-of books.

I just don't buy the Wilpies are all that broke. We'll see.

Ashie62
Jan 30 2014 09:49 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Its' always hard to tell the financial status of privately held companies.

Beyond that, can't they just sell a big building or something, no not Citifield lol..

Zvon
Jan 30 2014 09:55 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

They don't have to spend 140 mill to pacify me. But they have to be able to afford to be on the north side of a 100million. If they can't, they can't afford the team. It's as simple as that.

A few years ago I thought, well, give them a few years to get back to normal after the hit they took. This is the third. Three strikes & they're out. If they can't afford the team they should sell it.

TransMonk
Jan 31 2014 04:53 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
Wow, if this is true, it's terrible news for Howard Megdal.

I thought the same while reading.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 31 2014 06:35 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Is this the first time that this lender-imposed payroll ceiling has become public knowledge? Or did I just miss it somehow? (I confess, I haven't been doing anything more than briefly skimming those thousands of Megdal articles that have been posted here.)

Ceetar
Jan 31 2014 07:24 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
Is this the first time that this lender-imposed payroll ceiling has become public knowledge? Or did I just miss it somehow? (I confess, I haven't been doing anything more than briefly skimming those thousands of Megdal articles that have been posted here.)


I hadn't heard that before either. But I'm having trouble discerning if that's something new the Post is discovered or an assumption based on allusions and comments from ownership/Sandy/etc.

But it doesn't really matter, because Kong's right, there is 7 sets of books. They've been using one to make it look like they lost 10 million last year, but they likely could've reworked it, factored in SNY money, or assigned something to this account rather than that account and make it look like they had 10 more million they could've spent on the team without hitting a supposed loan-imposed cap.

MFS62
Jan 31 2014 07:35 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
Is this the first time that this lender-imposed payroll ceiling has become public knowledge? Or did I just miss it somehow? (I confess, I haven't been doing anything more than briefly skimming those thousands of Megdal articles that have been posted here.)


Whan you go to the banks to (re)finance $250 million in debt, you have to provide them with a VERY specific business plan, down to the penny.
I can't believe the line item for payroll expense hasn't been specified on all prior loan applications.
How much can the Mets spend?
We don't need to find a leak in the Front Office.
We need to find a leak at the banks.

LAter

Edgy MD
Jan 31 2014 07:48 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Zvon wrote:
They don't have to spend 140 mill to pacify me. But they have to be able to afford to be on the north side of a 100million. If they can't, they can't afford the team. It's as simple as that.

But it's not really about what they're willing to pay. They have to set salary at a level that will allow the organization to eventually break even, or else they will continue to have trouble paying down their debt, leveraging their other entities.

Spending money that they weren't getting back (which they were doing for years but few fans appreciated) with the hope that a championship or two will make up for it was a workable model when they had the fake revenue stream of the Madoff fund, but now they simply have to find a way to break even. Right now, they're betting $90 million is the place to do that. If they have a profitable (or even zero balance) year, I imagine it'll go up then.

They just don't own enough of the team right now to play fast and loose. The banks do.

Ashie62 wrote:
Its' always hard to tell the financial status of privately held companies.

Beyond that, can't they just sell a big building or something, no not Citifield lol..

As far as compromising or liquidating their other assets to funnel more money into the Mets, they have done that, and were ridiculed for it. LoL.

Ceetar wrote:
But it doesn't really matter, because Kong's right, there is 7 sets of books. They've been using one to make it look like they lost 10 million last year, but they likely could've reworked it, factored in SNY money, or assigned something to this account rather than that account and make it look like they had 10 more million they could've spent on the team without hitting a supposed loan-imposed cap.

Hiding profits is hard (and dangerous) when you owe money all over town. When one of your creditors is MLB, and your GM was released from his MLB duties to run your shop, it would seem even harder and dangerouser.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 31 2014 11:43 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Refinancing for Wilpons, probably more of same for Mets
By Howard Megdal 5:15 a.m.

The New York Post reported late Thursday night that the owners of the New York Mets are nearing a deal to re-finance their $250 million loan against the team, which had been set to come due in June.

The news has enormous ramifications for ownership's ability to hold onto the team, and perhaps the ability to spend, though the Post's assertion that "the Mets’ owners appear to be on the verge of finally putting the team’s financial problems behind them" is, unfortunately, awfully premature.

Let's start with what we know. Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz and his partners faced a $250 million loan due in June, with no real way to pay it. A seven-year re-finance would push back the date of the loan until 2021, and the Post reports the partners will not have to pay down any portion of the debt as part of the deal, which would shift the loan to Bank of America.

That's precisely the thing that keeps them from having to sell the club in 2014, for instance, to pay the debt.

Also worth noting from the Post piece is the idea that "There are no payroll limits written into the re-worked loan." As I've reported, their current team loan allowed for no such new spending.

There are some gaps still to work out here, though. Yes, re-financing this loan means the owners don't need to come up with $250 million by June. However, there's the not small matter of the loan the ownership group has taken out against its majority stake in S.N.Y. That was originally $450 million, and swelled beyond $600 million last winter, when the owners borrowed against the increased value of the sports network, to pay things like debt financing, and even day-to-day expenses.

That loan remains due in 2015.

Moreover, it hasn't been the loans coming due that have cost the Mets' owners tens of millions of dollars each year, but the financing of those loans. A re-fi, at the same interest rate, will keep those obligations in place moving forward. And unlike the loan taking last winter, which provided $160 million in capital, or the sale of minority shares in the team back in March 2012, which provided $240 million in capital, all this manuever does is keep Wilpon and his partners from having to pay any money out.

So really, the only way this redounds to the benefit of Mets fans, as opposed to just Fred Wilpon and his partners, is if they have a ton of money sitting around, money they've been dying to spend on the team, but couldn't because of those darn loan covenants.

If they had that money, though, there's a pretty good chance the trustee would have known about it back in 2012, when he determined the Mets owners were out of money.

And while things like the new national television deal in Major League Baseball means the Mets have a bit more money coming in, that may not do much more than offset any further losses from further drops in attendance. According to a December 2013 Standard and Poor's report on the team's bond issue (and subsequent debt obligation), revenue is expected to drop another two percent this year. And Standard and Poor's has been unduly optimistic before, having expected attendance to stay flat in 2013, instead of seeing it decline another 4.7 percent in 2013.

For the record, Standard and Poor's rates the team's financial situation a BB, or translated: "Less vulnerable in the near-term but faces major ongoing uncertainties to adverse business, financial and economic conditions.

Still, this gives ownership another year to get things turned around on the field, with the hope that a winning team on a shoestring budget can start to produce revenue. There's also that Willets Point project, which should provide revenue, or at least something else to borrow against, at some point.

And fortunately for them, nothing has increased in value quite like sports networks, so as long as that bubble doesn't bust before they go to their lender asking for more time on the 2015 loan, they might just hold onto the Mets after 2015, too. All they have to do is keep on making their loan payments. If it was that pesky stiuplation in their last loan, the money can start flowing toward making the Mets better on the field, at last.

But if it was the absence of money, from all that debt financing, it's hard to see how this news will change much of anything.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -same-mets

Ashie62
Jan 31 2014 12:33 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Well..that didn't take long...

He says the debt is rated BB...if true..one more B and you an investment grade Mets BBB

Edgy MD
Jan 31 2014 12:36 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Howard Megdal wrote:
So really, the only way this redounds to the benefit of Mets fans, as opposed to just Fred Wilpon and his partners, is if they have a ton of money sitting around, money they've been dying to spend on the team, but couldn't because of those darn loan covenants.

I was really hoping things would redound for me.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 31 2014 01:33 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

[fimg=173]http://cdn0.sbnation.com/uploads/blog/sbnu_logo/35/large_amazinavenue.com.full.56752.png[/fimg]

Fred Wilpon: "An end to payroll caps we never had"
By Matthew Callan @scratchbomb on Jan 31 2014, 10:40am



With the refinancing of the Mets' $250 million loan, owner Fred Wilpon could announce "an end to the payroll restrictions we totally never had."

FLUSHING-New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon called a press conference on Friday to announce that the refinancing of the team's $250 million loan "will finally bring an end to payroll restrictions that we've never had."

The original terms of the loan, which was due to be paid back in full within the next few months, would have placed the team under considerable financial burden. The provisions of the loan refinancing allow Wilpon to pay back the $250 million over the next seven years. According to Wilpon, "This means that the Mets can operate free of the money issues and payroll ceilings that never existed."

"For years, I've insisted that the New York Mets would not be burdened by spending limits," Wilpon told reporters. "I said this way back in 2008, when the Bernie Madoff fraud that did not adversely affect us in any way first came to light. I said it again in 2009, and again in 2010, and again in 2011, and again in 2012, and again in 2013. Thanks to this refinancing, I will have been telling the truth all along."

Wilpon compared the loan refinancing to the sale of minority stakes in the club back in 2011. "The selling of those shares helped to get us off of the shaky ground we were in no way standing on," Wilpon said. "Just like that sale, this refinancing ensures we've moved on from the dismal outlook we were not in any way facing."

"Rest assured," Wilpon concluded, "we can now look forward to putting a great ballclub on the field without the payroll caps we've never had that will finally be put in the rearview mirror in 2021 or so."


http://www.amazinavenue.com/2014/1/31/5 ... -never-had

Ashie62
Jan 31 2014 05:00 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

huh??

Lefty Specialist
Jan 31 2014 05:18 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

MFS62
Jan 31 2014 08:39 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Regarding increases in spending on the horizon, I think we've just been given a definite maybe.

Later

Ashie62
Feb 01 2014 03:40 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

I'm not holding my breath.... Fred & Jeff watch Moneyball on demand.....

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 03 2014 08:10 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Is there a cap on the Mets payroll? Rubin sez "no". Fred sez "no comment". And the author below sides with Rubin.

[fimg=162]http://cdn0.sbnation.com/uploads/blog/sbnu_logo/35/large_amazinavenue.com.full.56752.png[/fimg]

Mets 'no comment' on bank-imposed regulations on payroll
By Kris Vigneron @ChuckScrabbles on Feb 3 2014, 6:48p



Last week, the Mets were able to work out a deal to refinance a $250 million loan against the team. The loan would have come due in the next few months, threatening the Wilpons' ownership of the team, but the refinancing frees the cash-strapped organization from that unpleasantness. Another interesting side-effect of the refinancing is that, according to Adam Rubin, the team is no longer restricted by cumbersome bank-imposed caps on player spending. When Rubin asked the team about that payroll cap, they had no comment.

The Mets' payroll for the 2014 season is around $87 million. That is down significantly from a high of $149 million in 2009, according to Cot's Contracts.

According to Rubin, it's not exactly clear if the Mets' reduced payroll over the past few years was due to bank-imposed payroll caps or simply cash flow issues. Either (or both) could have been a reason for decreased spending. It's also possible that the team's fiscal restraint had nothing to do with the team's alleged financial woes.

The Mets' ownership has had a rough go of it in recent years due to their involvement in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Reports indicate that Fred Wilpon lost anywhere from $300 to $700 million because of Madoff.

For now, the team will not have to worry about a bank-imposed payroll cap, and the repayment obligations of the loan have been deferred to seven years in the future. While that would be an issue around 2020, for the time being the team can focus on the team's current spending, rather than paying down their debts.


http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/2/3/53 ... oll-wilpon

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 17 2014 10:58 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Mets' Spending Spree May Not Be a Spree at All
Team Vowed a Winter of Investing, but Payroll Remains More or Less the Same

By Jared Diamond Updated Feb. 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.


Curtis Granderson signed a four-year, $60 million deal with the Mets.

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla.—In the wake of their fifth consecutive losing season, years of financial insecurity and a payroll that has plummeted at a historic rate, the Mets vowed to invest in the team this winter. They'd spent more than $140 million on players as recently as 2011, but since then their budget had fallen into the bottom half of the major leagues, tens of millions below those of their big-market competitors.

So the Mets went shopping this winter, and on the surface it appeared that they kept their promise: General manager Sandy Alderson committed $87.25 million to new contracts for pitcher Bartolo Colon and outfielders Curtis Granderson and Chris Young, the largest expenditure this off-season by a National League franchise on the free-agent market.

But is the Mets' effort to spend their way back to relevance a mere illusion?
Enlarge Image

A closer look at the organization's transactions suggests that the Mets haven't added much money at all to acquire new talent. Instead, they reallocated the funds made available by departing players. In fact, their overall payroll will remain mostly unchanged from a year ago—"somewhere in excess of $85 million," Alderson said.

This revelation doesn't necessarily mean the Mets won't improve on their 74-88 record from 2013. They should benefit from a greater return on their dollars, see meaningful development from their prospects and potentially receive better production from at least some of their returning regulars.

But for a fan base desperate for the Mets to start operating more like the opulent crosstown Yankees, anything other than major financial growth will likely be a disappointment.

"Had we not signed the free agents we did, we would have been a lot lower," Alderson said.

If not for their free-agent signings, the Mets' payroll would likely rank among the lowest in baseball this season. Granderson, Colon and Young ensured they would stay afloat.

The Mets saw as much as $55 million come off the books this off-season, headlined by $31 million from pitcher Johan Santana, including his $5.5 million buyout.

Of course, like everything with the Mets' finances, the math becomes complicated and the accounting murky. The Mets still must pay outfielder Jason Bay, even after parting ways in November 2012. As part of their severance, the Mets deferred $15 million of the $21 million they owed Bay to as late as 2015. From a bookkeeping standpoint, Bay's money has already been written off and isn't included in the Mets' 2014 payroll calculations, according to a Mets official familiar with the situation.

But even though the Mets freed up about $55 million, not all of the available funds could go to new players. Third baseman David Wright's contract calls for a $9 million boost this season, jumping to $20 million from $11 million. The Mets owe pitcher Jon Niese an additional $2 million, lifting his compensation to $5 million.

The Mets also needed to factor in salary raises for all seven of their arbitration eligible players, which added up to another $11.3 million of extra money over 2013. Adding those considerations, the Mets needed to spend upward of $32 million in 2014 salary alone just to match last year.

They did, but just barely.

Their three major-league free agents will make $29.25 million this season: $13 million for Granderson, $9 million for Colon and $7.25 million for Young. Their four notable minor-league free-agent additions—pitchers John Lannan, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Kyle Farnsworth and Jose Valverde—will make approximately $5 million in salary if they all make the Mets' roster.

That brings the total in 2014 to about $34.25 million. The number could climb if any of their smaller minor-league acquisitions—like catcher Taylor Teagarden, for instance—spend time in the majors. Other players, including Farnsworth, have incentive-based bonuses in their contracts.

No matter how the Mets account for Bay's deferred payments internally, it seems clear that, rather than spend major-market money to build a winner, they did little else but replace the money that came off last season's books.

"We'd always like to have more players," Alderson said. "But that doesn't always make you a better team."

Alderson makes a fair point. Teams with smaller payrolls than the Mets win consistently, namely the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland Athletics. How a franchise spends usually matters more than how much.

In the Mets' case, they should get more out of their money. Last season, Santana and Bay never took the field in Queens. Barring injury, the players replacing them will contribute rather than simply cash checks.

With that in mind, are the Mets truly in position to improve? Wright believes so. "Opening day this year will be 100% better than we were opening day last year," he said.

Ironically, the improvement will likely need to come from within, rather than from the newcomers. Colon, who posted a 2.65 ERA for Oakland last season, essentially replaces ace Matt Harvey, who will miss all of 2014 as he recovers from Tommy John surgery. Granderson, who slugged 84 home runs for the Yankees in 2011 and 2012, essentially replaces departed outfielder Marlon Byrd, who hit 21 homers for the Mets in 425 at bats last season.

In other words, the money the Mets spent primarily replaces the production they lost. So how do they get better? The Mets' heralded pitching prospects, highlighted by Noah Syndergaard and Rafael Montero, must come to the majors and take steps forward. Travis d'Arnaud, arguably the sport's best catching prospect, must begin to produce.

But most important, the Mets' other players, their underachievers, must rebound from disappointing showings in 2013—young players Alderson said "have the capacity to improve."

First baseman Ike Davis cannot hit .205. Shortstop Ruben Tejada cannot hit .202. If they do, the Mets likely will end up where they did last year.

"There's only so much you can do in one off-season free-agent wise, trade-wise, to plug those holes," Wright said. "Some of that has to be done with the guys that we have here."


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 20812.html

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 17 2014 11:07 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

More bullshit, double-talk and MetSpeak from the Leader:


Morning Briefing: J Wilpon on payroll, Drew
By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com

FIRST PITCH: Chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon did a Q&A with MLB.com as pitchers and catchers are set for their first official workout Monday. Here’s a sampling of the responses …

[fimg=333]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/1029/ny_e_wilpon_b2_200x300.jpg[/fimg]
Jeff Wilpon addressed some hot-button Mets topics.


On Sandy Alderson, Wilpon said: “I think he’s put the plan in place, and we're ready to see the fruits of that labor now.”

On not signing Stephen Drew or another additional higher-caliber free agent: “If those one or two things were there, we would have expanded the budget for them. Just to get a guy because the fans think that’s the right thing to do, that’s not part of the plan. Sandy’s not going to overspend for something he doesn’t see value in. The value that we see in those guys versus what their agents were asking for does not meet.”

On the un-New York-like payroll: “I would point to the fact that you don’t have to have that kind of payroll to win.”

On the organization’s biggest weakness: “I don't think we have enough position-player prospects that are ready to compete for jobs at the major-league level right now. We’d like to have more, like we have with the pitchers. We’d like to have that same stable of young guys competing for position-player jobs. The guys we have are a couple years away.”


http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... api_public

Edgy MD
Feb 17 2014 12:19 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

I agree with all those comments.


The Diamond story is just filler revealing nothing.

Lefty Specialist
Feb 17 2014 12:23 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

I wish Jeff Wilpon was a couple of years away. Light-years, that is.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Feb 17 2014 04:54 PM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Which super-expensive free agent did they want us to break the bank for? Choo? Ellsbury? This just wasn't a year to throw 7-year contracts at guys who don't deserve them. That's the kind of thinking that got us stuck with guys like Vince Coleman.

Vic Sage
Feb 18 2014 08:32 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Which super-expensive free agent did they want us to break the bank for?


"They" who? The article goes out of its way to say that payroll doesn't necessarily equal success, and was not advocating any particular signing or lamenting any missed opportunity. It simply points out that the Mets' "spending spree" is an illusion since all they did was replace the production and salary they lost going into this season, which leaves the team pretty much where it was and still reliant on young players to take a leap forward for the team to improve. Which is an entirely accurate assessment.

what the article leaves mostly UNSAID, of course, is that successful teams like TB and Oakland operating on small budgets do so because they HAVE to, since they are "small market" teams. But by operating that same way, the Mets are losing their major competitive advantage over such teams (an advantage exercised by teams like LA, Boston and the MFYs), and the Mets are operating that way either because the Wilpons' finances are so screwed up they can no longer operate like a big market franchise and spend accordingly, or they are simply choosing not to spend.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 22 2014 09:25 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Feb 22 2014 09:32 AM

Vic Sage wrote:
Which super-expensive free agent did they want us to break the bank for?



what the article leaves mostly UNSAID, of course, is that successful teams like TB and Oakland operating on small budgets do so because they HAVE to, since they are "small market" teams ... and the Mets are operating that way either because the Wilpons' finances are so screwed up they can no longer operate like a big market franchise and spend accordingly, or they are simply choosing not to spend.


That's right. And though the Mets, in that article, make some apparently reasonable comments related to value shopping-- that's just heavy horseshit. Jeff Wilpon wants you to believe that the Mets relatively low payroll is mostly the result of sound fiscal behavior -- and not because the Mets are broke and can't afford to buy anything. If you want my opinion, it's a fucking embarrassment for the National League baseball franchise from New York City to have a payroll under $100M, no matter how they spin it and no matter what the hell Tampa Bay is doing.

batmagadanleadoff
Feb 22 2014 09:27 AM
Re: Met Debt Reset

Report: Mets lost $10M; loan avoids default
February, 22, 2014
Feb 22 6:25 AM ET
By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com

The Wilpon family, weeks away from owing a $250 million payment on an expiring loan, now has the refinancing fully in place, the Post reported.

The report says the Mets lost $10 million in 2013, but may now turn a profit this season with the payroll equivalent and an extra $25 million in national TV revenue being distributed by MLB. That is, if there is not a further attendance drag now that there is not the carrot of an All-Star Game at Citi Field to entice ticket purchases.

Writes Josh Kosman:

Until recently, [Fred] Wilpon and [Saul] Katz didn’t know if the banks, as part of the re-fi, were going to insist the owners pay down some of the loan to get the deal done. That didn’t happen. But had the talks taken a bad turn and a cash payment been demanded, it was not clear the owners had the money.

Wilpon and Katz lost much of their fortune in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The new five-year loan is priced at Libor plus 3.25 percent, the source said. Bank of America is the lead arranger.

Major League Baseball still needs to approve the loan. The final closing is likely two-to-three weeks away, the source said.


http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... ds-default