Jump to content
Grand Central Mets
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted


Tim Healey

@timbhealey

·

1m

The Mets are not commenting on the possibility that pending sale of the team to Steve Cohen is dead.



Sterling Partners statement: “The parties are subject to confidentiality obligations, including a mutual non-disclosure agreement, and therefore cannot comment.”


  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Grand Central Contributor
Posted


Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Well, if it is in fact dead, I wouldn't be surprised if it was over the notion that the Wilpons would retain control for another five years.


which was just as much rumor as this! We have no details! We're just being used!



It was also pretty obvious things weren't going well when like, there were zero updates.


Posted


This is not, in any way, good. But unless everyone was dead wrong, it seems the Wilpons have no choice but to sell, either to Cohen or someone else.



I wonder if this is Steve Cohen flexing his muscle to get more control over the team. It's not likely someone would outbid him.


Posted


Or that Greenlight Capital guy.



Mets probably are bound by NDLs and cannot comment. That's how multimillion deals get done, so I wouldn't interpret a lack of updates as a signal one way or another.


Grand Central Contributor
Posted


Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

Or that Greenlight Capital guy.



Mets probably are bound by NDLs and cannot comment. That's how multimillion deals get done, so I wouldn't interpret a lack of updates as a signal one way or another.


Are they NDL to deny that they ever talked though? I have to imagine that "We're not selling to that guy" isn't something protected by non-disclosure. Especially given that I think they officially said they were discussing it, so it's already been disclosed?


Posted


I don't understand the question. What they acknowledged so far is that negotiations were taking place and that they've agreed not to say more while they continue. They wouldn't update until or unless those negotiations were complete.


Grand Central Contributor
Posted


Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

I don't understand the question. What they acknowledged so far is that negotiations were taking place and that they've agreed not to say more while they continue. They wouldn't update until or unless those negotiations were complete.


the rumor is that those negotiations are complete. i would think they'd be able to comment about that.


Posted


=Centerfield post_id=31050 time=1580851255 user_id=65] ... But unless everyone was dead wrong, it seems the Wilpons have no choice but to sell, either to Cohen or someone else.

I wonder if this is Steve Cohen flexing his muscle to get more control over the team. It's not likely someone would outbid him.

Posted


Frayed Knot wrote:

=Centerfield post_id=31050 time=1580851255 user_id=65] ... But unless everyone was dead wrong, it seems the Wilpons have no choice but to sell, either to Cohen or someone else.

I wonder if this is Steve Cohen flexing his muscle to get more control over the team. It's not likely someone would outbid him.


Yeah this is the thing....
Posted



Frayed Knot wrote:

=Centerfield post_id=31050 time=1580851255 user_id=65] ... But unless everyone was dead wrong, it seems the Wilpons have no choice but to sell, either to Cohen or someone else.

I wonder if this is Steve Cohen flexing his muscle to get more control over the team. It's not likely someone would outbid him.


Yeah this is the thing....


Yeah. What youse guys are saying. If the Wilpons don't have the money to run the team anymore, as was being reported... if they don't have the money or the credit to buy out the Katzes, then they're gonna have to sell eventually..... to somebody. If not Cohen, then somebody else. What a scumbag family they are with the Mets. We saw the same crap with Einhorn. They're looking to sell the team and keep all the money that would come with such a sale while writing in all kinds of sneaky traps into the deal that would let them keep on running and even owning the team -- after selling it. That's a neat trick.
Posted


The proposed idea of waiting five years to relinquish control never made much sense, so I always figured we didn't really know what was going on. And we still don't.


Posted


I also thought again about the initial announcement which came from the Mets side (did Cohen ever have a statement?)



It was an oddly specific about the 5-year thing for a deal "in negotiation"


Posted


Johnny Lunchbucket wrote:

I also thought again about the initial announcement which came from the Mets side (did Cohen ever have a statement?)



It was an oddly specific about the 5-year thing for a deal "in negotiation"


He was reportedly (Post, IIRC?) planning an Opening Day party/announcement.



Assuming the Post report is at all accurate, I'd be pissed, too, if I had agreed in principle to an expensive, baroque deal in which I make a BIG good-faith concession, and the other party asks for a little more adjusting at the 11th hour.


Posted


At any rate I'd hope they can mend fences on this one as from what I gathered the Wilpons need to sell as Fred's losing what's left of his faculties.



I thought the same thing when the Einhorn deal fell part too


Posted (edited)


NYP reports that the snag WAS over the supposed five-year window (shocking, I know) and that the deal to sell to Cohen is, at least for now, off the table.





https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/battle-over-mets-control-at-heart-of-steve-cohen-wilpons-struggle/https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/battle-over-mets-control-at-heart-of-steve-cohen-wilpons-struggle/



Steve Cohen thought his $2.6 billion deal to buy the Mets in installments over five years would give him some control that would grow over that time to help make team

decisions during the transition. The Mets owners disagreed and a deal, for now, is off, sources said. ...

From discussions with those familiar with the talks, it is unclear if the confusion over whether Cohen would be making team decisions during the five-year window was

merely a miscommunication or a last-minute surprise from the Wilpons, as some sources allege.


Edited by Guest
Posted


=Ceetar post_id=31142 time=1580949938 user_id=102]it's been two months, it's absurd to think this was a surprise to Cohen.

Posted


It depends, I suppose, on what each side said and/or what each was assuming about the other.

Vaccaro chimes in saying that the 5-year period was always going to be trouble so maybe each thought the other would blink.



From Day 1, it [the waiting period] was going to be trouble. It was going to be a cudgel for both sides: Cohen was wildly overpaying for 80 percent of the team,

and the sale price didn't even include SNY. That was his idea of a concession. And for $2.6 billion, in his mind, that wasn't just a fair deal, but a generous one.

Wilpon could get a cash infusion and still run the team. If it allowed Mets fans an opportunity to stop slandering the family name for a little while, all the better.

... In retrospect, and with hindsight, the Nic Cage-Lisa Marie Presley marriage had a better shot at a happily ever after.




But $2.6 billion is $2.6 billion, and it is hard to believe the other members of the Mets' ownership group — specifically Wilpon's other children, and Saul Katz and his

family — will be delighted to see that simply evaporate, unless there's someone else on deck. ... From the cheap seats, at least, it's hard to imagine Fred Wilpon didn't

overplay his hand here, sitting across the table from a master poker player who doesn't take prisoners.


Posted


A master poker player?



I'm more than over the idea that rich New York capital management dudes have special magic negotiating skills. It stinks of the notion of wealth being a moral virtue.


Grand Central Contributor
Posted


And while we're at it, It's also pretty funny to cite the Einhorn nonsense as the same as this in some hugely disfunctional way. For one, there's no way the Wilpons are MORE up against the wall here than they were then.



They own the asset, they can sell it however they deem fit. That's the rules. I don't get to walk into Samsung and be all "well the way you worded that advertisement really means you have to sell me that Galaxy S20 for $XX now"



What happened with Einhorn? They didn't like the deal, they said 'seeya' and turned around and made a different deal. Who was that with again? Some Cohen guy. any relation you think?


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Mets community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...