Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: For real. In terms of what it means, club-control-wise... not a whit, right? After all, the Steinbrenners' ownership proportion of the Yankees is a fraction of what the Wilpons own, Met-wise, no?

yeah, the initial bit is 'not a whit' but the idea is that anything can happen once you open the door. But yeah, the plan is for it not to affect the Mets, whould supposedly is the impidus (sp?) for the decision.

[MFS62]

Ashie62 wrote: Douchebags with hair.

Which reminds me.
Why would anybody want to invest in the Mets (as a financial investor, not a fan) as long as the two douchebags with hair would still have controlling interests, and be making the decisions?

Later

[seawolf17]

Because you can get sweet tickets AND first dibs on Julia Stiles. (Well, third dibs behind Fred and Jeff. But whatever.)

[Edgy MD]

Because the team is a tremendous asset whose value has increased multple times over in the thirty years since the Doubleday Group purchased it.

With the antitrust exemption they have, baseball teams are elusive things to get a hold of. Steinberenner went for the Yankees only after failing to buy the Indians.

The lawsuit may dissaude somebody, but Jeff Wilpon and his hair less so.

[metirish]

Forbes, some interesting stuff in here.....bold area are mine


Pressed By Madoff Suit, Mets Owners Seek a Lifeline

Is the well running dry for the owners of the New York Mets? Fred Wilpon, the man who bought his first stake in the Mets in 1980 and bought out partner Nelson Doubleday in 2002, said today that he�s retained Steve Greenberg of Allen & Company, a boutique investment bank in New York, to help him search for one or more minority investors in the team. Wilpon insists that he will retain majority ownership of the Mets, which he owns through his company, Sterling Equities. Wilpon told reporters he was looking to explore selling a 20% to 25% stake in the team. Despite the uncertain economy, Greenberg describes the marketplace for potential minority owners as �never stronger.� (Press release, below) That�s probably an exaggeration, given that other baseball properties on the block for awhile have yet to move � witness the Red Sox inability to move the 17% stake that the New York Times Company decided to shed. But most agree the market has generally strengthened since 2009. Any deal to sell off part of the Mets will c0me down to the details � what exactly is being sold. �If it�s a just a suite and capital calls, there won�t be much interest,� says industry consultant Marc Ganis of Sports Corp. Limited, who thinks any serious offer would likely have to include capital call protections and an interest in the Mets� SNY cable network. �The market is good, but the investors are very picky,� he says. It�s been a tough couple of years for Fred Wilpon and his son Jeff , the Mets� Chief Operating Officer. A client of scamster Bernie Madoff, Sterling Equities is being sued by the Trustee of the Madoff bankruptcy. The claim is that the Wilpons took more money out of Madoff account than they put in over the years, and as net winners they owe some of that money to other victims. Wilpon has been trying to quietly settle the suit. In his initial public statement, Fred Wilpon said that his desire to reassure fans during a period that�s brought an �air of uncertainty� created by the lawsuit is driving his quest to look for new investors. That strikes some observers as a bit odd. �On the one hand, they mention an air of uncertainty, but they�re also acknowledging that they need money� says Rob Tillis of Inner Circle Sports, a New York-based sports M&A firm. The Mets have also suffered through disappointing performances on the field and at the gate during the first two seasons of their $800 million ballpark, Citi Field. As Tillis points out, the Mets missed out on the attendance spike that usually accompanies the opening of a new park, thanks to the crummy economy and mediocrity on the field. Many believe the Wilpons have been offering up a minority share in the Mets for awhile now, quietly canvassing friends and high net worth individuals to gauge interest. By now going public with the plan �you�re making sure that investors will approach you,� says Ganis. A recent front office shakeup has the Wilpons pinning their hopes on new GM Sandy Alderson and new manager Terry Collins to turn things around. That could certainly happen, but not until the club is able to unload the burdensome contracts left over from the last regime and start fresh. It looks like a cash infusion may be needed too. Not that any of this makes the Mets situation all that unique. Teams look for minority partners all the time, notes Tillis, so there�s no reason to assume that the Wilpons are taking a first step toward getting out. �The real question is whether they will be able to find limited partner capital,� he says. �It will depend on the size of the checks and the valuation.� Forbes most recently valued the Mets at $858 million, third-highest in MLB behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

[MFS62]

Well then, let's go for it.
Reminds me of those movies in the 40s* where the teenagers had to raise money to "help our GIs'".

Go get Mickey, Judy, Jane and that O'Connor kid.
Let's put on a show!.


Later

*= no, I didn't see them until they came on tv many years later.

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Douchebags with hair. Which reminds me. Why would anybody want to invest in the Mets (as a financial investor, not a fan) as long as the two douchebags with hair would still have controlling interests, and be making the decisions? Later

There are already minority owners in the team as there are in most teams and in many non-sports businesses as well - and I bet few if any of them are the decision makers.

[Valadius]

The first thing to do here is ensure that James Dolan does not try to add the Mets to his greasy clutches.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nelson Doubleday must be enjoying this.

[Edgy MD]

Mebbe. I tend to think that Nelson isn't in good mental health these days.

[Edgy MD]

Oddly enough, Nelson's selling assets also.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: So a statement in mid-2009 has to also hold true in early 2011 (and presumably for all time and ever and ever) in order to not be cast as a lie?

No, of course not, as I clarified in a follow-up post. But it certainly is significant that their denial of the need to sell was so vehement just a short while ago.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: For real. In terms of what it means, club-control-wise... not a whit, right? After all, the Steinbrenners' ownership proportion of the Yankees is a fraction of what the Wilpons own, Met-wise, no?

That's probably how the Wilpons would want it. Assuming that no more than 25% of the voting rights are attached to the the 25% ownership stake for sale, then the new investors will, presumably, not have a say-so in any matter that can be resolved by vote. I'd expect the new investors to negotiate for more voting power, given the risk that they would be assuming. This is business as usual, but played out at the top of the pyramid, in Masters of the Universe territory. The Wilpons (and Katz) will try to get as much money as possible from the new investors, while relinquishing as little as they can in exchange. The potential buyers will want as much as they can get while paying as little as possible.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. I think it's more like a hedge should they get bitch-slapped by the results of the lawsuit and want someone to come aboard who is essentially going to help absorb that hit if it does come but at the same time is betting that it won't happen and gets a share of the team going forward for his risk.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the Mets absorbing a sizable hit from the Madoff scandal. The Mets didn't profit in the real sense from their Madoff investments because Madoff's fund wasn't profitable. There were no real profits. Any monies distributed by Madoff were arbitrary. That the Mets finally bit the bullet and went public with their need for more capital probably reflects their understanding that the team won't be able to settle the Madoff trustee's lawsuit on favorable terms. The Mets aren't judgment proof either. They have fixed assets worth multi-millions of dollars that can't be moved or hidden. The Mets are like an anesthetized deer caught in the Trustee's crosshairs. The trustee will get paid.

[Edgy MD]

The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principal to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly.

If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principle to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly. If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling.

I think that, fairly and rightfully so, it's the latter.

[Edgy MD]

I agree, but if I'm named Wilpon, I expect you'd have to pull some of my teeth before I'd acknowledge that. And I expect them to fight bloody hard and bloody long, and that principal to be untouchable in the meantime.

If so, that's likely left them hamstrung.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I agree, but if I'm named Wilpon, I expect you'd have to pull some of my teeth before I'd acknowledge that.

Well .... yeah. As it is, Wilpon's not acknowledging anything unless he absolutely has to. The Mets are fine. The Mets have no financial problems. There's no need to sell the team or a portion of the team. The market's great. Jeff Wilpon's a better baseball man than Branch Rickey ever was. The first statue erected in front of Citi Field will honor Branch Rickey. That's what the fans wanted. We took a poll.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principle to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly. If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling. I think that, fairly and rightfully so, it's the latter.

According to this report, the Madoff trustee is going after the $48M Mets "profit" . But I know of clawback cases where the trustee goes after both principal and interest. So who knows? It doesn't make sense that the Mets would've made today's announcement if their maximum exposure was $48M.

[batmagadanleadoff]

[batmagadanleadoff]

This New York Times article makes more sense to me.

Excerpt:

The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were �net winners� in Madoff�s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. �I think he has a very serious problem,� the person said of Wilpon. �If that�s true, he might have to sell the Mets.� The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets� situation.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote:

So opening a new stadium made them worth LESS???

[ashie62]

Because of the cash spent on it?

[Frayed Knot]

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were �net winners� in Madoff�s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. �I think he has a very serious problem,� the person said of Wilpon. �If that�s true, he might have to sell the Mets.� The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets� situation.

I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end.

[Ceetar]

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were �net winners� in Madoff�s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. �I think he has a very serious problem,� the person said of Wilpon. �If that�s true, he might have to sell the Mets.� The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets� situation. I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end.

Agreed. lawyers always ask for the most absurd things. REmember Jeter asked for like 150million and settled for like 48.

supposedly the wilpons are working on a settlement, which is probably the best outcome but probably still represents XXX millions. Probably significantly less than the 500 they put in, and nowhere near the stupid number of a billion. Actually, Them mentioning 20-25% probably means that that's the number they're expecting to be out. 200million or so.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here's the transcript of today's press conference and ensuing Q&A. The thing is useless. It's the biggest pile of endarounding double-talk and slippery vagueness imaginable.

Fred Wilpon: At the outset, I want to emphasize that what we are discussing today has not and will not affect or change the Mets day-to-day operations and control. We will continue to operate the franchise in a first-class manner. [i woulda raised one eyebrow right here, hopefully high enough to get Fred's attention.] This season, we have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, as we have for the past several years. Our general manager, Sandy Alderson, has articulated his plan, and his plan is being implemented. The reason for the statement we issued today is the lawsuit that was filed in December by the trustee in the Madoff lawsuit matter, and the uncertainty that it has created. Because of that uncertainty, it is prudent, in my view, and reasonable and appropriate, for us to explore our options at this time. It is the right thing to do from a business perspective. Among the options we are exploring is the possibility of bringing in a strategic partner or partners. However, I�d like to stress, at the end of the day, we may or may not do anything. But we are exploring options, and we wanted to be candid and upfront with you. In any event, we will remain the principal owners of the Mets. We will continue to control the franchise, and govern its operations. I guess we�re now able to answer any of the questions. Q: In October, when Omar Minaya was fired, and November, when Alderson was hired, you indicated that all was well financially. Besides the new lawsuit, has anything else changed? Fred: That call, [when] Jeff and I had that press briefing or press conference, was on Oct. 4. The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 7. And the lawsuit, as I said, is some uncertainties here [sic]. The lawsuit is under seal. And so I can�t talk about the lawsuit. But all the other issues that I talked about at that particular time, as to our other businesses and so forth, they are in the same position. Or better. Q: When you say uncertainties, are those the uncertainties in the public�s mind? Or uncertainties within the Mets? Fred: This is not the Mets issue, primarily. It�s the whole Sterling Equities issue. Q: But of the uncertainty you mentioned, is that the public�s perception of Sterling or is it Sterling�s problem? When you say uncertainty, what are you referring to? Fred: I�m referring to uncertainty. A lawsuit brings uncertainty. We don�t know what�s going to ... we�re in confidential settlement talks with the trustee. And we hope those talks come to fruition. But that�s uncertainty. Q: In regards to the search for additional partners, are we talking specifically the team, or also SNY and Citi Field? What assets are we talking about? Jeff Wilpon: It�s the team. And it�s a potential for a strategic partner that Steve Greenberg�s going to undertake for us. Q: But the television network and the facility � Jeff: Totally separate. Totally separate. The TV network, SNY, is owned totally separate [sic]. Q: And that�s not part of this consideration? Jeff: It is not part of the consideration. Q: With regard to the lawsuit, it�s under seal, but it sounds like this could be some kind of significant event in regard to the final value of the club. Is that sort of the nexus here? Fred: No. It�s under seal. We can�t talk about anything about the lawsuit. Q: Two questions. The first: What percentage of the team would you be looking to sell? And how much money are you trying to raise? Fred: We have talked about a minority interest in the 20-to-25 percent range. And I can�t really discuss how much money that would bring in. But the fact is, that�s up to Steve Greenberg. Q: For Mr. Greenberg, what would be the challenges of selling a minority interest in the team as opposed to a majority interest? And when you say �exploring options,� you made it sound like a sale of the minority percent of the team. Are there things you could do to raise money besides selling a minority interest? Greenberg: Well, let me address your first question. I think it is generally held that there�s a premium attached to selling control of an asset, depending on what the asset is. That premium can vary. So I wouldn�t expect, in this case, given my knowledge of this asset � and we�ve been involved with the Mets for the better part of a decade, we know the asset intimately ... I�m very confident that when qualified buyers explore and get access to the information that they�re going to get, that we�ll have a robust level of interest in even a minority stake in the club, given it�s prospects. What was the last part of your question? Q: Multiple options besides exploring selling a minority interest? Greenberg: I think that�s public relations speak. I�m too simple-minded to parse through that. I know what we�re going to do. We�re going accept incoming calls, and they�ll be a lot of them, and maybe explore a couple of outgoing, to see who might be interested in acquiring a minority stake that Fred described in the club. Q: What guarantee would a potential buyer have that he, she, the company would not be involved in any ongoing suits, settlements involving Madoff? Is there a piece of paper on that already that a potential buyer would be able to see? Fred: No. We can�t talk about that kind of confidential information, in any event. Q: But if somebody was going to be buying a percent of a club, who guarantee would they have that they are not a party to something legal down the line? Fred: I�m not a lawyer. I can�t answer that. Q: You've got lawyers. Fred: There�s no lawyers on this call. Well, Steve is. Greenberg: I�m defrocked. Or no longer practicing, whatever the word is. Every transaction has the issue of what you�re talking about, which is �contigent liability,� potential lawsuits that are lurking out there. And the buyer does due diligence, and his lawyers really determine whether they�re issues. I�m not anticipating that to be a significant factor in this process. Q: Is there a timetable to sell? Greenberg: It�s starting today, and we�ll see how it plays out. I have no timetable. We haven�t discussed a timetable with Fred. As I said, I expect there to be a significant amount of interest in this opportunity. And we�ll pursue it and make those judgment as we go. Q: Would any minority stakeholders be open to capital calls, if the club needed more money? Greenberg: Gee, you�re asking us to lay out the whole deal now. It�s a little premature to get into that. I�m sure, at the end of the day, that and many other issues will be discussed and determined. But I think it�s a little early. Q: Was there any pressure from MLB to seek a potential partner? And also, could you update us on where the settlement talks are right now? Fred: There�s been no pressure whatsoever from Major League Baseball. The second part was update you on the settlement. I can�t really do that. It�s under seal at this time. Q: Lawsuits have been filed basically since the Madoff story broke in 2008. Are you saying this caught you by surprise in December? Jeff: I don�t think that�s the case at all. But we didn�t know exactly what was going to be filed, and to what extent it might be or wasn�t. That�s just what ended up happening. Q: So shouldn�t you have been preparing for this since 2008 and were you preparing for this since things happened back in December 2008? Jeff: Fred, [team president] Saul [Katz] and myself talk all the time about preparing for anything and everything that�s out there. So we�ve had discussions. Nothing came to fruition until the last day or so, really this morning, to decide to announce this, that we�re going in this direction. Q: Fred, depending on the result of this search and the outcome of the lawsuit, is there any circumstance under which you would consider or be forced to consider selling a controlling interest of the team? Fred: No. I don�t see that at all. Q: Why are you not pursuing the other options? Can you give any clarification on how much money you�re looking to raise? And then the follow-up question, why didn�t you go to J.P. Morgan to borrow more money against the team or to borrow more money against SNY? Jeff: I think you sort of answered your own question at the end there, of what the other options could be. Our banks are some of the options, and there�s other institutions and insurance companies, et cetera, to do some financing. And Steve�s way of doing it, in terms of selling a minority piece, is only one of the ways that we�re looking at. We�re going to keep everything open and see what makes the most sense for the franchise. But I think you can do the math on what Fred already talked about, a minority stake of 20 or 25 percent. You figure out the valuation, so you have some idea of what we�re talking about. Q: The team owes roughly $750 million dollars. Or, you tell me. I guess I�m asking the question. Jeff: You�re wrong on your numbers, first of all. And second of all, I�m not going to get into our private finances. Q: Let�s say I�m an investor, I�ve got $150 million or so and I want to invest in the Mets. If I�m not going to be a controlling owner and I get to vote and I have a say and I�m really going to be �the guy,� what am I going to get from my minority interest, other than to say I�m a part owner? What am I going to get for the money? Fred: I�ll give it over to Steve, because he has a lot of experience in that. But there are a lot of minority owners in baseball that get an awful lot. Greenberg: And first of all, I heard you say you have $150 million dollars. Can you send me your phone number? I�ve got to talk to you afterwards. But seriously, I think how we got to this point, focusing just on the New York Mets, is that ... my thinking was this: If Fred and Saul and Jeff were buying the Mets today, typically what would happen is they would become the lead owner, the controlling owner, the majority owner, whatever you want to call it. And they would bring in partners to acquire the New York Mets today. The fact is, that�s how most of the clubs are being acquired in all sports today. Certainly the major-market clubs. If you look around the landscape of New York, the New York Giants have 50-50 partners. The Yankees, from the beginning of time, have had minority partners. That�s the way most clubs are acquired. What I concluded was the fact that Sterling has owned this club essentially for 20-odd years, initially with Nelson Doubleday but for the last eight or nine years 100-percent, that if we�re looking at the asset, that�s not the normal way to own an asset of this nature. You have debt. And you typically have minority partners. So the proposition we�re putting forward today is exactly the proposition that one might put forward if one were actually acquiring the team today. And you go to those minority investors, whether they have $25 million or $50 million or $100 million that they�re going to put in. And you offer them the same kind of limited-partnership interest that every other club owner is offering their limited partners when they make acquisitions today. There�s a wide range of precedents for this across sports. So it�s not really that unusual. What�s a little unusual is that we�re doing it after we�ve already owned the team. But even that isn�t so unusual, because as you know, the Maras brought in the Tisches after they had owned the team for many, many years. So you work out what those privileges, rights and benefits are for minority ownership. But, again, there�s a pretty good template out there across all sports for doing that. So I�m not really concerned about it. Q: Could you give a few examples of things included in a typical deal? Greenberg: First and foremost, it�s in the economic interest in what we believe is a fantastic Major League Baseball franchise in the largest city in the United States. So let�s not lose sight of that. It�s the economic interest alongside Fred and Saul and Jeff and Sterling in the New York Mets going forward into the future. We believe that future is bright. So I think that�s what�s going to catch people�s attention first and foremost. It�s not whether you get to go to spring training and shake hands with the manager, as much fun as that may be. It�s really about the economic ownership of the team. Q: Could you describe the marketplace for potential owners? Given the economy, how much difficult is it? Is it possible that finding a 20-25 percent owner might not be that easy? Greenberg: The short answer to your question is: Never stronger. There was certainly a dip immediately after the crash in 08. All assets, I think, suffered, although, interestingly, the franchise values of major-league teams really suffered far less than any other asset out there. But in terms of qualified buyers and interest in them owning major-league teams across all sports today, I would say �never strong,� frankly. The question of minority stake: The market will tell us what it is. I wouldn�t take the assignment on if I didn�t think it was very, very doable. But I think the overall market is strong. Q: For Jeff, there had been a pretty vehement denial that this would happen in the past couple years. What are your feelings now that it is happening? Does it trouble you to bring someone on? Jeff: First of all, things have changed, like Fred said before, from October to now and in the last few years, with the lawsuit, number one. And number two, I don�t say that we�re not going to take on a partner. But there are other options for us out there that we�re going to explore. So we�ll take on whatever we think we should do in the best economic interest of the ballclub. So it could be a partner. It could be some other kind of mechanism to recapitalize a little bit. Q: Are you familiar with the pending motion that WNBC and The New York Times has requesting that all documents and materials in the bankruptcy court be unsealed? What is your position on unsealing requests? Are you aware the judge has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 9 and whether that had an effect on this announcement? Jeff: We can�t comment on anything with the sealed documents or any pending legal matters. Q: Is the Mets position that those documents remain secret? Or do you support the unsealing and public release of those documents? Again, is the timing of the announcement linked to the motion that was filed? Jeff: It�s not for me to comment. And my lawyers and our lawyers have told us that we cannot comment. Q: For Fred and Jeff, what effect has the suit and Madoff situation had both the cash flow and the liquidity of the Mets and of Sterling Equities? Fred: I don�t think the suit has had any effect on the cash flow or the liquidity of the Mets in any major way at all. So that would be my answer to that. Q: So what exactly is the uncertainty the suit creates, then? Fred: We�re talking about an uncertainty about overall Sterling Equities. Because that�s what the lawsuit is talking about. So that�s what the uncertainty is. And that�s why we�re taking what we think are very prudent and reasonable steps to look at different things that might be out there. As Jeff said, we don�t know which one is going to come in. Jeff: The other thing is this is a great asset. And this is a place that we look like we can leverage that a little bit. And that�s what Steve has told us he�ll be able to do, and we�ll evaluate it as things come in. Q: So is it possible that any cash you raise here with the Mets could be used to help inject things which are frozen in Sterling? Jeff: I think, because we�re private, we�re not going to go into that. But we�re looking to do something with the team, and make sure the team is healthy so that we can put the proper ballplayers on the field and give Sandy what he needs in terms of flexibility to have a winning ball club. Q: Can you explained how with Madoff, you�re viewed as a net gainer yet also considered a victim? Jeff: Again, I think that unfortunately goes into the legal realm. We can�t comment on it. Q: Is a fair summary that even if one fund had more withdrawn from it than others, you certainly thought you had more than you actually had overall? Could you elaborate at all? Jeff: We�re not allowed to elaborate. I apologize. Q: Is it fair to say you would not be doing this as an organization if you didn�t feel you had to do this? Greenberg: I think from my perspective, and I�m just dealing with the New York Mets, not the overall Sterling-Madoff situation, we talk all the time about how we strengthen the capital structure of the Mets. So that�s a hypothetical. If the Madoff thing weren�t swirling around and that uncertainty that Fred alluded to wasn�t there, whether we would be having these conversations. We might very well be. But it�s kind of a hypothetical. So it�s hard for me to be more specific than that. I think this is a prudent approach to team ownership and the financial structure of team ownership, irrespective of what else is happening in the world. Q: Did something happen in the last week to 10 days to prompt this announcement? Fred: No. Nothing has happened in the last 10 days. Q: Or two weeks. Whatever. Something recent, since the beginning of the New Year. Jeff: I think what happened is we came to the conclusion � Fred, Saul and myself, with Steve�s help � that this was a good thing to go out and do now.

http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2011/01/mets_owner_fred_wilpon_we_will.html

[batmagadanleadoff]

More commentary on today's big Mets news:

Excerpt:

It is important to realize that the Mets are simply one part of Sterling Equities, a real-estate and private-equity group owned and operated by the Wilpons. For instance, Sterling also owns SNY, the sports network. Though Jeff Wilpon stressed in the conference call with reporters that SNY is �totally separate� and not for sale, it is unlikely that the Mets didn't explore borrowing against SNY before offering to sell a part of the team. It is Sterling Equities that has been named by the Picard lawsuit, with the New York Times reporting that Picard is seeking as much as $1 billion from the Wilpons and Saul Katz, a co-owner of Sterling Equities and Fred Wilpon's brother-in-law. When asked if the Mets would take a financial infusion from sale of the Mets and use it for other Sterling Equities businesses, Jeff Wilpon responded, �Because we're private, we're not going to go into that.� Based on the limited amount of information provided by the Wilpons and Greenberg�they refused to answer repeated questions about Madoff by noting that the matter is currently under court seal�it is still extraordinarily difficult to see how the numbers can possibly add up in the Wilpons' favor. As Jeff Wilpon said during the conference call, �I think you can do the math on what Fred already talked about. A minority stake of 20 or 25 percent, and you figure out the valuation, so you have some idea of what we're talking about.� With Forbes valuing the Mets at $858 billion [sic] as of April 2010, a 25 percent stake would come to $214.5 million. Naturally, though, such a stake would be worth far less than the whole team, particularly under the terms the Wilpons discussed today�no say in the operation. Moreover, as Erin Arvedlund, author of a book about Bernie Madoff, reported back in August 2009, the Wilpons may have lost up to $700 million in the Madoff scheme, calling into question how much equity is even available in the team itself. Jeff Wilpon, in the course of answering a question that cited the figure, said, �You're wrong in your numbers, first of all, and I'm not going to get into our private finances.� It was an odd stance during a conference call dedicated to explaining precisely what their private finances were. Wilpon also declined to say that the Mets were debt-free, and wouldn�t say what lower (or higher) number would be accurate. And that speaks to the public-relations problem the Wilpons have now�one that may be incurable, even if they should get out of what appears to be a huge financial mess. Since news first broke about the Madoff scandal, the Wilpons have repeatedly said that the scandal would have no effect on their finances or the operations of the New York Mets. Following Arvedlund's comments, Mets Vice President Dave Howard confronted her on Fox Business News, calling her claim that the Wilpons could be forced to sell part of the team �outrageous, unfounded and grossly irresponsible.� Howard added that the team was not for sale �in whole or in part.� As Jeff Wilpon said Friday, �Things have changed, like Fred said before, from October to now, and the last few years, with the lawsuit.� So with those claims now inoperative, it is hard to imagine that the fans will trust anything the Wilpons say about their finances again.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/01/1260679/who-would-buy-what-wilpons-are-selling

[batmagadanleadoff]

According to this Crain's Business article, the Mets exposure is the $48M surplus over and above their principal investment.

Trustee Irving Picard, in court papers, said that Mets LP had two accounts with Mr. Madoff, out of which $47.8 million more was taken out than the Wilpons invested. Mr. Picard has followed the line that net winners are subject to lawsuits to claim back any surplus over their original principal. Mr. Picard has sued hundreds of Madoff investors who withdrew more from their accounts than they originally put in.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110128/FREE/110129861#

[MFS62]

Check out the last post on page 1 of this thread.
Looks like I was the only person to guess the announcement correctly.
Nyah Nyah.

Later

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Jeff Wilpon, in the course of answering a question that cited the figure, said, �You're wrong in your numbers, first of all, and I'm not going to get into our private finances.� It was an odd stance during a conference call dedicated to explaining precisely what their private finances were. Wilpon also declined to say that the Mets were debt-free, and wouldn�t say what lower (or higher) number would be accurate.

Good thing Omar's gone, 'cause otherwise, this organization and the people running it would still look delusional and defensive.