Master Index of Archived Threads


No Longer Saul in the Family

G-Fafif May 12 2014 02:26 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 12 2014 02:35 PM

Big-balled Saul Katz has had it with the Mets, reports the Times. Wilpon’s Partner Has Expressed Interest in Selling His Share of Mets By Michael S. Schmidt Saul B. Katz, who owns a majority share of the Mets in a partnership with his brother-in-law and business partner, Fred Wilpon, has expressed a desire to sell his portion of the team because he has grown tired of spending millions to prop it up, according to several people in baseball briefed on the matter. But Katz has been hesitant to sell because it could result in Wilpon’s no longer maintaining majority control, according to the people familiar with Katz’s situation. This has created a situation in which Katz has been locked into subsidizing part of the team’s losses in an effort to protect Wilpon, who considers the team a family heirloom and wants his son Jeff to control it for years to come. Keeping Score: Subway Series Offers Hope for Hitless Mets PitchersMAY 11, 2014 The people in baseball who described the situation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by Katz to speak publicly about his finances and feared possible retribution from the baseball commissioner’s office, which discourages officials from discussing internal matters. The Mets declined to make Katz available for an interview. David Newman, a spokesman for the Mets, said Monday that there was “no truth” to the notion that Katz wants to sell his portion of the team. Katz, Newman said, is “definitely not selling.” Katz and Wilpon are business partners through Sterling Equities, their umbrella company, and they are believed to own roughly two-thirds of the Mets. If Katz were to sell his share of the team to someone other than Wilpon, it would create questions as to whether Wilpon, who currently serves as the team’s chairman of the board and chief executive, could maintain his role as the club’s ultimate decision maker. Katz has long overseen the Mets’ finances, dating to the days when he used Bernard L. Madoff’s hedge fund, which was later exposed as a Ponzi scheme, to fund the team’s operating expenses. People who know Katz, 75, and Wilpon, 77, have said that Katz has less interest in baseball than Wilpon, who grew up playing the sport — he was Sandy Koufax’s high school teammate — and serves on Commissioner Bud Selig’s executive council. Katz, meanwhile, has long been involved with philanthropic efforts in the field of medicine — a wing of North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., is named after him — and he also directs Sterling’s real estate operations. But he has remained in the background when it comes to the day-to-day fortunes of the club, which has not had a winning season since 2008. It is unclear whether Katz has attempted to search for potential buyers. Several bankers involved with deals involving sports organizations said they had not been asked to help appraise Katz’s stake in the team, the first step toward brokering a sale. Finding a buyer willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a share in the team but not have a major voice in running it is likely to be difficult. In 2011, the Mets tried to sell a $200 million stake in the team, but their deal with David Einhorn, the hedge fund titan, fell apart in part because he wanted a greater hand in the team’s decision-making than is normally given to minority stakeholders as well as a pathway to eventual majority control. As a result, the Mets were forced to sell many smaller stakes, including several to their cable television partners. Wilpon and Katz also sold three shares to themselves. There are no public profit-and-loss statements or other documents that definitively show the complete state of the club’s finances or how its ownership is structured. But reports linked to the bonds issued to finance Citi Field provide a partial snapshot of the team’s financial performance. Those documents show that revenue from the stadium’s 10,635 most expensive seats has fallen 58 percent, to $41.8 million from $99.3 million in 2009. In that period, concession sales have decreased 29 percent and parking revenue has dropped 20 percent. The team reportedly lost $70 million in 2011. Meanwhile, attendance at Citi Field has fallen by 32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009. Katz’s apparent desire to sell suggests that the Mets’ losses have tested his patience. Their financial woes, which started around the time that Madoff’s fraud was exposed, in 2008, have had an impact on the team and its owners and limited how much has been spent in recent years on the club’s payroll. That, in turn, has frustrated many Mets fans, who reason that if more money were being spent on free agents the club, in turn, would be more competitive than it has been. Wilpon and his son Jeff have maintained that the team’s finances have improved more recently, but several people in baseball briefed on that issue said the situation remained troublesome. And the payroll essentially remains where it was in 2013, somewhere from $85 million to $90 million, leaving it in the lower third in the major leagues despite the fact that the Mets are a big-market team. With attendance figures that have declined markedly in recent seasons (there has been a slight uptick in 2014) and with significant debt payments still due on Citi Field, the Mets are likely to lose money again this season, the people said. That makes it unlikely that the payroll will jump substantially any time soon. The team’s poor performance financially has also agitated other major league owners, who are dismayed that a club playing in as large a market as the Mets do is unable to generate more revenue. It was in 1980 when Wilpon first bought a stake in the Mets, a simple 1 percent share. He and Katz became half owners of the team in 1986, with Nelson Doubleday, then bought out Doubleday’s share in 2002. Details about Katz’s close relationship with Madoff were revealed as part of a lawsuit filed against them in 2011 by the court-appointed trustee recouping money from Madoff’s victims. The trustee, Irving H. Picard, said that Katz routinely used money from Madoff’s fund to finance businesses and deepen his and Wilpon’s personal wealth. The owners won their legal battle with Picard when he ultimately abandoned hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against them. But Katz and Wilpon had to agree to let Picard use the $178 million they lost in some of their Madoff accounts to pay back the trustee for the $162 million in fictitious profits that they received in other accounts.

Gwreck May 12 2014 02:27 PM Saul Katz interested in Selling? NY Times Report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/sport ... -mets.html Wilpon’s Partner Has Expressed Interest in Selling His Share of Mets By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT MAY 12, 2014 Saul B. Katz, who owns a majority share of the Mets in a partnership with his brother-in-law and business partner, Fred Wilpon, has expressed a desire to sell his portion of the team because he has grown tired of spending millions to prop it up, according to several people in baseball briefed on the matter. But Katz has been hesitant to sell because it could result in Wilpon’s no longer maintaining majority control, according to the people familiar with Katz’s situation. This has created a situation in which Katz has been locked into subsidizing part of the team’s losses in an effort to protect Wilpon, who considers the team a family heirloom and wants his son Jeff to control it for years to come. The people in baseball who described the situation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by Katz to speak publicly about his finances and feared possible retribution from the baseball commissioner’s office, which discourages officials from discussing internal matters. The Mets declined to make Katz available for an interview. David Newman, a spokesman for the Mets, said Monday that there was “no truth” to the notion that Katz wants to sell his portion of the team. Katz, Newman said, is “definitely not selling.” Katz and Wilpon are business partners through Sterling Equities, their umbrella company, and they are believed to own roughly two-thirds of the Mets. If Katz were to sell his share of the team to someone other than Wilpon, it would create questions as to whether Wilpon, who currently serves as the team’s chairman of the board and chief executive, could maintain his role as the club’s ultimate decision maker. Katz has long overseen the Mets’ finances, dating to the days when he used Bernard L. Madoff’s hedge fund, which was later exposed as a Ponzi scheme, to fund the team’s operating expenses. People who know Katz, 75, and Wilpon, 77, have said that Katz has less interest in baseball than Wilpon, who grew up playing the sport — he was Sandy Koufax’s high school teammate — and serves on Commissioner Bud Selig’s executive council. Katz, meanwhile, has long been involved with philanthropic efforts in the field of medicine — a wing of North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., is named after him — and he also directs Sterling’s real estate operations. But he has remained in the background when it comes to the day-to-day fortunes of the club, which has not had a winning season since 2008. It is unclear whether Katz has attempted to search for potential buyers. Several bankers involved with deals involving sports organizations said they had not been asked to help appraise Katz’s stake in the team, the first step toward brokering a sale. Finding a buyer willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a share in the team but not have a major voice in running it is likely to be difficult. In 2011, the Mets tried to sell a $200 million stake in the team, but their deal with David Einhorn, the hedge fund titan, fell apart in part because he wanted a greater hand in the team’s decision-making than is normally given to minority stakeholders as well as a pathway to eventual majority control. As a result, the Mets were forced to sell many smaller stakes, including several to their cable television partners. Wilpon and Katz also sold three shares to themselves. There are no public profit-and-loss statements or other documents that definitively show the complete state of the club’s finances or how its ownership is structured. But reports linked to the bonds issued to finance Citi Field provide a partial snapshot of the team’s financial performance. Those documents show that revenue from the stadium’s 10,635 most expensive seats has fallen 58 percent, to $41.8 million from $99.3 million in 2009. In that period, concession sales have decreased 29 percent and parking revenue has dropped 20 percent. The team reportedly lost $70 million in 2011. Meanwhile, attendance at Citi Field has fallen by 32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009. Katz’s apparent desire to sell suggests that the Mets’ losses have tested his patience. Their financial woes, which started around the time that Madoff’s fraud was exposed, in 2008, have had an impact on the team and its owners and limited how much has been spent in recent years on the club’s payroll. That, in turn, has frustrated many Mets fans, who reason that if more money were being spent on free agents the club, in turn, would be more competitive than it has been. Wilpon and his son Jeff have maintained that the team’s finances have improved more recently, but several people in baseball briefed on that issue said the situation remained troublesome. And the payroll essentially remains where it was in 2013, somewhere from $85 million to $90 million, leaving it in the lower third in the major leagues despite the fact that the Mets are a big-market team. With attendance figures that have declined markedly in recent seasons (there has been a slight uptick in 2014) and with significant debt payments still due on Citi Field, the Mets are likely to lose money again this season, the people said. That makes it unlikely that the payroll will jump substantially any time soon. The team’s poor performance financially has also agitated other major league owners, who are dismayed that a club playing in as large a market as the Mets do is unable to generate more revenue. It was in 1980 when Wilpon first bought a stake in the Mets, a simple 1 percent share. He and Katz became half owners of the team in 1986, with Nelson Doubleday, then bought out Doubleday’s share in 2002. Details about Katz’s close relationship with Madoff were revealed as part of a lawsuit filed against them in 2011 by the court-appointed trustee recouping money from Madoff’s victims. The trustee, Irving H. Picard, said that Katz routinely used money from Madoff’s fund to finance businesses and deepen his and Wilpon’s personal wealth. The owners won their legal battle with Picard when he ultimately abandoned hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against them. But Katz and Wilpon had to agree to let Picard use the $178 million they lost in some of their Madoff accounts to pay back the trustee for the $162 million in fictitious profits that they received in other accounts.

Zvon May 12 2014 02:30 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

G-wreck must be faster to beat G-Fafif to the punch.

Gwreck May 12 2014 02:30 PM Re: Saul Katz interested in Selling? NY Times Report.

(Duplicate, can be merged with the other thread)

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 12 2014 02:31 PM Re: Saul Katz interested in Selling? NY Times Report.

wowwowowow

Edgy MD May 12 2014 02:34 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I know, right? Mike Schmidt, working for the Times!

Gwreck May 12 2014 02:35 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Couple of takeaways: 1. No other reaction but to laugh when someone from the Mets goes on the record that they are "definitely not selling." Yes, it's David Newman this time (Dave Howard having since departed) but they don't have a long history of credibility on this issue. 2. As always, anything leading to a sale of the Mets to new ownership has to be seen as a positive sign.

batmagadanleadoff May 12 2014 02:37 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

G-Fafif wrote: Big-balled Saul Katz has had it the Mets, reports the Times. Wilpon’s Partner Has Expressed Interest in Selling His Share of Mets By Michael S. Schmidt Katz’s apparent desire to sell suggests that the Mets’ losses have tested his patience. Their financial woes, which started around the time that Madoff’s fraud was exposed, in 2008, have had an impact on the team and its owners and limited how much has been spent in recent years on the club’s payroll. *** Wilpon and his son Jeff have maintained that the team’s finances have improved more recently, but several people in baseball briefed on that issue said the situation remained troublesome. And the payroll essentially remains where it was in 2013, somewhere from $85 million to $90 million, leaving it in the lower third in the major leagues despite the fact that the Mets are a big-market team. Wow. A chink in the armor. An opening! If there's any truth to this piece, it tells me to expect more of the same Mets financial misery for years to come. Why would Katz want out if Mets prosperity truly was around the corner? Expect some word-lengthy Megdal pieces real soon.

seawolf17 May 12 2014 02:42 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Let's do this. I've got $38 in my wallet.

Edgy MD May 12 2014 02:43 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Expect some word-lengthy Megdal pieces real soon. Thank you, but... really, I'm full.

G-Fafif May 12 2014 02:43 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 12 2014 11:35 PM

If Jeff Wilpon doesn't get to go around being Jeff Wilpon, New York Mets COO, what is Jeff Wilpon to do? Other than being generally well off and allowed to build stuff?

metirish May 12 2014 03:03 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

who considers the team a family heirloom and wants his son Jeff to control it for years to come. this is what I dislike a bout them really, the idea that the Mets are a family heirloom

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 12 2014 04:38 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

G-Fafif wrote: If Jeff Wilpon doesn't get to go around being Jeff Wilpon, New York Mets COO, what is Jeff Wilpon to do? Other than being generally well of and allowed to build stuff? Operate and serve as featured attraction for gun shows? Freelance jar-opener? Forearm model for new Popeye animated series? Point is, he's got options.

d'Kong76 May 12 2014 05:42 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Love the thread title!

d'Kong76 May 12 2014 05:50 PM Re: Saul Katz interested in Selling? NY Times Report.

NYTimes wrote: The people in baseball who described the situation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by Katz to speak publicly about his finances and feared possible retribution from the baseball commissioner’s office, which discourages officials from discussing internal matters. But, ya know, they couldn't keep their flaps shut because it's Subway Series time and leaking it has more sizzle now.

Mets – Willets Point May 12 2014 06:30 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

seawolf17 wrote: Let's do this. I've got $38 in my wallet. I can chip in a fiver.

Mets – Willets Point May 12 2014 06:30 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

d'Kong76 wrote: Love the thread title! Indubitably!

Zvon May 12 2014 06:45 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

metirish wrote: who considers the team a family heirloom and wants his son Jeff to control it for years to come. this is what I dislike a bout them really, the idea that the Mets are a family heirloom This ticked me a bit too. And I'm not sure why. Because if I owned the team, I'd want to think that way. But more out of passion than as a property. And who's to say what their thinking is? Still, you can think that way regardless of the motivation, but it's a gaudy thing to say.

Frayed Knot May 12 2014 06:48 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Do keep in mind that the "considers the team to be a family heirloom" line from the above article is that of the writer and not a direct Wilpon-ian quote.

Mex17 May 12 2014 06:49 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Frayed Knot wrote: Do keep in mind that the "considers the team to be a family heirloom" line from the above article is that of the writer and not a direct Wilpon-ian quote. It's been common knowledge for some time.

batmagadanleadoff May 12 2014 06:56 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Fred Wilpon had a good run. 35 years ago, Fred was very wealthy, but not own-a-baseball-team Master of the Universe wealthy. He could barely afford a one digit percent share of the team. But through legal maneuvering, a lotta luck (you always need that, probably more than anything else in life) and probably a lot of chicanery involving Madoff inflated balance sheets, he parlayed his tiny stake in the team into a majority ownership share.

Zvon May 12 2014 07:02 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Mex17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Do keep in mind that the "considers the team to be a family heirloom" line from the above article is that of the writer and not a direct Wilpon-ian quote. It's been common knowledge for some time. To me though, if they didn't actually say it, then it changes my thinking. Entirely. If this was projected on to them, even if through common sense, it's different.

Frayed Knot May 12 2014 07:05 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Mex17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Do keep in mind that the "considers the team to be a family heirloom" line from the above article is that of the writer and not a direct Wilpon-ian quote. It's been common knowledge for some time. OF COURSE the Wilpons want to keep control! Do you know anyone who buys something and declares that he hopes to lose it in a hostile takeover or by being unable to make the bills? But declaring the family heirloom line to be distasteful because it's "a gaudy thing to say" isn't accurate because that line wasn't Fred's it was the writer's.

Edgy MD May 13 2014 06:24 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Of course.

MFS62 May 13 2014 06:54 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Mets – Willets Point wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Let's do this. I've got $38 in my wallet. I can chip in a fiver. My dream is to hit one of the really large lottery payoffs, knock on Jerry Seinfeld's door, and ask him if he wants to go halfies with me on the Mets. We'll figure out how we can offer you folks a minority share. Later

Benjamin Grimm May 13 2014 07:39 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Saul is categorically denying that he has any intention of selling his part of the team.

d'Kong76 May 13 2014 09:15 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Pavlov's dog doesn't miss a cue ... http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... y-wobbling

Gwreck May 13 2014 09:27 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Recognizing that around here there's little interest in reading Megdal, but I thought he had a every effective rebuttal piece to Rubin's blame-assignment-to-Alderson: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... e-very-top

Edgy MD May 13 2014 09:34 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I'm thinking that the team is 18-19, with help hopefully on the way, the concern shouldn't be about assigning blame at all, but about root-root-rooting for the home team.

Gwreck May 13 2014 09:47 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Edgy MD wrote: I'm thinking that the team is 18-19, with help hopefully on the way, the concern shouldn't be about assigning blame at all, but about root-root-rooting for the home team. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Mets Guy in Michigan May 13 2014 10:04 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Another team might have kept Dickey, kept Beltran, kept the since-departed Reyes from that team. Pairing those three with David Wright and adding at the margins would almost certainly have meant the Mets winning more games over the past several years. There's also a very good chance that those three players would have broken down considerably. Would we have won more games with those guys short term? Sure. Will the team be better long-term with the players Sandy got for Dickey and Beltran? Certainly. And, I've said it before, but I don't think there was a player available last winter who was worth breaking the bank for. Overpaying to appease scribes like Howard is how we get Vince Coleman-types. These same scribes will for years, hopefully, be writing about the exploits of Syndergaard, Wheeler....

G-Fafif May 13 2014 10:10 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Get your hopes up about returning to .500, perhaps, but not so much offing the Wilpons, the Post suggests. [N]o matter how badly long-suffering Mets fans would like to see the cash-strapped Wilpon ride off into the sunset, the team’s ownership structure almost guarantees Wilpon staying in control of the team, The Post has learned. Wilpon is the sole Mets managing general partner, and that means even if his family’s share of the team gets reduced to a minority stake, he will continue to run the club, sources close to the situation said. Katz, who serves as the president of the team, quickly denied the report. “There is no truth to the reports of any intention of selling,” he said. “I have no intention of selling my share of the Mets, nor have I ever had any intention of selling my share.” While a sale may not be in his current plans, Katz does not have to worry about Wilpon losing control of the losing team. “Someone who buys Saul’s stake would have no rights,” a source close to the situation said. And even if a majority of new owners wanted to remove Wilpon as general partner, they would find it very difficult to do so, sources added. Many Major League teams have general partners who own minority stakes in their teams. Those GPs cannot be forcibly removed. For example, the Steinbrenner family owns between 25 percent and 50 percent of the Yankees, a well-placed source said, and Hal Steinbrenner is the GP. The Steinbrenner family has the first right to buy any Yankees stake put up for sale. It is unclear if Wilpon — who sources believe does not have the liquidity to buy out Katz — also has the first option to buy out partners. Of course, if Katz sells, it could increase slightly the possibility that Wilpon could lose the team. For example, if a new co-owner was not willing or able to fund any future losses, the team’s overall financial problems could force Wilpon out.

Edgy MD May 13 2014 10:28 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I'm thinking that the team is 18-19, with help hopefully on the way, the concern shouldn't be about assigning blame at all, but about root-root-rooting for the home team. They aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19. [list]Can you pull it back in line? Can you salvage it in time? What can you do To save a party? Parcheesi?! Charades?! A spur-of-the-moment Scavenger hunt?! Or Queen of the Nile?![/list:u] Terry hasn't even broken out the Parcheesi board yet.

d'Kong76 May 13 2014 10:47 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Maybe a strobe light in the clubhouse would work!

Gwreck May 13 2014 04:12 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Edgy MD wrote: Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19 I would submit it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate that the team is competitive and enjoyable, etc. while simultaneously recognizing that the last five seasons were awful.

Ashie62 May 13 2014 06:34 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I thought this thread was about Saul from Breaking Bad...crap

Edgy MD May 13 2014 07:28 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Gwreck wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19 I would submit it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate that the team is competitive and enjoyable, etc. while simultaneously recognizing that the last five seasons were awful. Is this really about the last five seasons? That wasn't what was going on in that column at all. Want to know what happened the last five seasons? The team, that had been spending beyond it's means for a while, lost the illusion that they could afford to do this when the Madoff scandal broke. In a perfect storm, their markers were coming due on long-term, expensive, foolish, unmovable contracts. Who's to blame for this? Everyone of us knows the answer. Madoff in in his fraud and Wilpon in his foolishness. What's to argue about? Rubin is trying to attack somebody for the team's performance this year, crying a never-before situation --- a crisis! --- is afoot because of the mis-management of Alderson. It's utter nonsense and anybody who buys it is cutting his nose off... to spite his shirt. Meanwhile, the team is stomping a much more expensive Yankee roster with greater concerns, top to bottom.

Nymr83 May 13 2014 09:01 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

The article above may actually be Megdal's Finest

Mex17 May 18 2014 07:14 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

http://nypost.com/2014/05/18/katz-wante ... h-wilpons/ This one leads me to think that a change in ownership might very well be inevitable. Let's assume for the moment that the Wilpon side of the family cannot sustain control of the team without being supported by the Katz side. Even if Fred convinces Saul to stay in until they both pass away or get too old, who is to say that Jeff can do the same with his cousins? Even if they are close (and they may not be) we are talking about a huge financial commitment and according to this little article the Katz kidz have even less interest in sustaining this than Papa Saul does. Or it may be inevitable by the time it gets to that anyway. I think that it is still very possible that a new commissioner might not necessarily have the same attitude towards protecting this ownership that Selig does. Just look at the recent example in the NBA. . .Stern looked the other way for decades when it came to Sterling, Silver did not share that attitude nor did he continue that policy (granted, the circumstances between the Wilpons and Sterling could not be more different).

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 18 2014 08:00 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

As much as they get talked about, multigenerational family businesses are very rare and often blow up.

Edgy MD May 18 2014 12:04 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Maybe. Doubleday and Wilpon certainly came into the game after acquiring the team following a failed inheritance. But if the team gets into the black, it shouldn't be an issue.

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2014 03:43 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As much as they get talked about, multigenerational family businesses are very rare and often blow up. Just thinking things through here, but who knows how much $$ Katz is losing every year? If it's at least $10M or $20M and you multiply that by the five or six bad years since the Madoff Ponzi scheme broke, Katz's losses might be in the nine digits. That's enough to make a lot of grandkids, cousins and nephews all of a sudden antsy about their inheritances and trust funds. And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life?

Edgy MD May 18 2014 03:55 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I don't see any scenario where the Mets lose money for the rest of Jeff Wilpon's life, should he live to a natural age comparable to his father, do you?

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2014 04:07 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Edgy MD wrote: I don't see any scenario where the Mets lose money for the rest of Jeff Wilpon's life, should he live to a natural age comparable to his father, do you? That's not what I was suggesting, if you're responding to my last post. I was just speculating as to how much more money Saul Katz is willing to lose to prop up the Wilpons. Of course, I don't know how much $$ Katz is losing, I don't know how big Katz's "pie" is, I don't know how many other people have their hands in Katz's pie, and I don't know how much Katz is willing to endure so that Jeff could, one day, own the team. But the question I raised isn't how much $$ the Mets might lose during Jeff's life, but how much $$ the Mets'll continue to lose so long as Saul Katz is still in, and how much of that is Katz willing to lose. So, having now crossed every "t" in my previous post, (I hope) what are you getting at?

Edgy MD May 18 2014 07:06 PM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

I'm getting at this: And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life? It seemed to suggest the Mets will be losing money every year for the next generation or so. I don't think that's true, but I agree such a situation wouldn't continue for long.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2014 12:45 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

Edgy MD wrote: I'm getting at this: And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life? It seemed to suggest the Mets will be losing money every year for the next generation or so. I don't think that's true, but I agree such a situation wouldn't continue for long. What situation won't continue for long? I don't think we're understanding each other here. Maybe I made my original post sound more complicated than it should have been. All I was asking is how long is Katz supposed to keep losing money if his family has no interest in controlling the Mets long term? If his family doesn't want to run the Mets, then they'd probably prefer the cash. And I'm referring to Katz's family because Katz ain't no tree, if you know what I mean.

Edgy MD May 19 2014 04:53 AM Re: No Longer Saul in the Family

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What situation won't continue for long? The organization losing money every year.