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

[Frayed Knot]

�We�re not selling controlling interest of the team,� [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets� spring training complex. �It�s not on the table. ... There�s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven�t read about,� Wilpon said. �Most of what you�ve read about is not real.�

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: �We�re not selling controlling interest of the team,� [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets� spring training complex. �It�s not on the table. ... There�s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven�t read about,� Wilpon said. �Most of what you�ve read about is not real.�

How many of the people in the interview scrum transcribed this and then went out and started writing a story on Trump or someone other big name 'linked' to the Mets?

Sometimes I think these guys don't read their own writing.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I think they likely read their own writing, consider the sources of the quotes, and then proceed apace with the Trumping. It stands to reason, sorta.

[Valadius]

Frayed Knot wrote: �We�re not selling controlling interest of the team,� [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets� spring training complex. �It�s not on the table. ... There�s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven�t read about,� Wilpon said. �Most of what you�ve read about is not real.�

Jeff Wilpon=Gamal Mubarak

Desperate, undeserving sons who want their fathers to hold on to a crumbling empire so they can inherit it themselves, and are willing to do whatever it takes behind the scenes to keep the father from learning the true scale of the opposition to their continued rule.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, that's real appropriate.

[Valadius]

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons."

Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times.

[ashie62]

That ^^^

[Gwreck]

When I think credibility and meaningful opinions that I value, I think Jim Cramer.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons." Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times.

This is what i was alluding to when I said the article was filled with doublespeak.

Madoff has the audacity to claim his banks and financial advisors, most of whom were located in other country, should have been alerted to the scheme. He is trying to place on them, the same level of culpability that Picard is trying to place on Wilpon. The subtle irony here is that Madoff chose foreign, obscure financial institutions for the purpose of insulating his scheme from close scrutiny.

[metirish]

You can buy the Mets ...


February, 16, 2011

By Adam Rubin
Buyer beware on the legitimacy, but this does appear in The New York Times:

Richard Sandomir interviews the leaders of BuyTheMets.com, which is trying to solicit pledges via the internet to raise money to purchase the team and the Wilpons' share of SNY. Web site founder Bill Heyn acknowledges it's a "long shot ... but we think it will work." Shares would cost $999. Of course, as Sandomir notes: "One obstacle in trying to turn the Mets into a New York version of the community-owned Green Bay Packers is a Major League Baseball rule that the lead investor own at least 10 percent of the team and control 90 percent of the voting shares."


http://buythemets.com/

[Edgy MD]

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons." Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times.

I think it's suspicious that you pay attention to Jim F. Cramer.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Investors are betting against the Mets.

excerpts:

Banks that provided roughly $400 million in loans to the New York Mets are starting to unload some of that debt at a discount, a sign that creditors are getting nervous about the team's finances, the New York Post reported Thursday. Potential buyers are bidding around 90 cents on the dollar for the debt, sources said. At least one creditor has bought a debt slice at a discount with the approval of Major League Baseball, which must sign off on any buyer of the team's loans, said one source. "This tells me the original lenders are scared," a source close to the situation said.

One source said MLB is holding up trading in the loans because of concerns that vulture investors will snap up the debt and force the team into bankruptcy � just like they did last year to the Texas Rangers.

Meanwhile, the Citi Field bonds, whose debt is already rated "junk," are starting to trade at prices that also indicate trouble � in the mid-60-cent range, said one source. The Wilpon-family-owned Queens Ballpark Corp. pays the interest on the bonds to the New York City Industrial Development Agency, which owns Citi Field. If the Wilpon family fails to make payments, the city is not on the hook to pay bondholders, sources said. The Mets, including the stadium debt, owe lenders more than the $850 million that sources believe the team is worth.

[metirish]

Brian Lenihan is looking for a job , maybe he can get the Wilpon's a bailout.

[Ceetar]

i'd buy some Citi Field bonds..60cents? gimme 100.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets, including the stadium debt, owe lenders more than the $850 million that sources believe the team is worth.

Which means there's a next to zero chance of a minority investor coming on-board. The only way Fred can entice a prospective investor is granting an offer of first refusal. Irony?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Shirts for sale. Distressed.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team.

The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated.

One more percentage point, and we'll have to change the name of this thread from minority stake to half share. Two more points and I'm havin' a party.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/mets_mil_bailout_Fu4xf6MgfDtVbJVfDqG30O?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

[Benjamin Grimm]

I do think it will get there. It might get up to 100 per cent... or more!

[Fman99]

Gwreck wrote: When I think credibility and meaningful opinions that I value, I think Jim Cramer.

The same guy who endorsed Lenny Dykstra's credibility about 10 years ago. So there you go.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/mets_mil_bailout_Fu4xf6MgfDtVbJVfDqG30O?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/mets_mil_bailout_Fu4xf6MgfDtVbJVfDqG30O?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME= It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this.

In discussing the Bobby V-ownership-flight-of-fancy:

The Guy What Murdered Ceetar's Puppy wrote: Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon announced his intention to explore the sale of 20 to 25 percent of the team because of financial issues. Steve Greenberg, the man picked by Wilpon to identify prospective buyers, since has stated a higher percentage could be sold as long as the Wilpons retained a controlling interest.

I think it's more that the difference between 25 and 49 percent doesn't seem like much news anymore, in light of the other stuff surrounding it.

[Ceetar]

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/mets_mil_bailout_Fu4xf6MgfDtVbJVfDqG30O?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME= It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this. In discussing the Bobby V-ownership-flight-of-fancy: The Guy What Murdered Ceetar's Puppy wrote: Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon announced his intention to explore the sale of 20 to 25 percent of the team because of financial issues. Steve Greenberg, the man picked by Wilpon to identify prospective buyers, since has stated a higher percentage could be sold as long as the Wilpons retained a controlling interest. I think it's more that the difference between 25 and 49 percent doesn't seem like much news anymore, in light of the other stuff surrounding it.

This isn't really groundbreaking. (And a guy doesn't have to have killed my puppy to be an unprofessional clown) It was always assumed that it was going to be a negotiation around the sale. 20-25% becomes slightly more if say the buyer suggests he'd really like a third. As I imagine the absolute silence and the parts of SNY could possibly be negotiated should it be what needs to happen to get the deal done. Obviously the Wilpons want to sell as little as possible but still get the influx of cash they need, where as an investor is probably going to want as big a piece of the pie as he can get. The Wilpons repeatedly state they don't want to give up the majority, therefore 49% becomes to unstated cap.

[ashie62]

Thw Wilpons need all the dough they can get.

Who is going to buy a minority stake which equates into an investment in Wilpon. Geez, the stadium bonds are junk status.

Freddy is going to have to sell a majority whether he likes it or not.

[Valadius]

The Post:

They should change their name to the New York Debts. The cash-starved Mets are desperately seeking a new loan -- totaling tens of millions of dollars -- to cover their basic operating expenses, The Post has learned JPMorgan Chase -- which led the banks that loaned the team about $430 million last year -- is trying to recruit other institutions to join a syndicate to put together a new loan that would tide the Mets over until they sell a minority stake in the ballclub. The Mets' financial health has been imperiled by investments by its owner, Fred Wilpon, in Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme.

How the hell could Freddie and Jeffy have gotten a $430 MILLION LOAN??? And now they want more? Enough. They've gotta go.

[Edgy MD]

That's what happens when you're building a ballpark and a cable TV network at the same time, and you can demonstrate expected revenues convincingly.

It's not like the judgment of banks has shown itself to be clear in recent years.

The full story for archive porpoises.

De$perate Mets in new relief pitch Team's hand out for another huge loan By JOSH KOSMAN, MARK DeCAMBRE and DAN MANGAN Last Updated: 4:51 AM, March 1, 2011 They should change their name to the New York Debts. The cash-starved Mets are desperately seeking a new loan -- totaling tens of millions of dollars -- to cover their basic operating expenses, The Post has learned JPMorgan Chase -- which led the banks that loaned the team about $430 million last year -- is trying to recruit other institutions to join a syndicate to put together a new loan that would tide the Mets over until they sell a minority stake in the ballclub. The Mets' financial health has been imperiled by investments by its owner, Fred Wilpon, in Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme. A well-placed source said both the Mets and Major League Baseball are exerting strong pressure on JPMorgan to make that loan happen. The bank already has a tight relationship with MLB because it finances MLB operations. "They [JPMorgan] believe the Mets still have the capacity to borrow," a source said. But another source said, "Are you kidding me?" when told about the loan. "You don't lend into a distressed situation," that source said. "This is a very risky loan," with the team losing about $50 million a year. Revelations about the proposed new loan comes days after it was revealed that, in late 2010, the Wilpon family borrowed $25 million from Major League Baseball -- which had previously loaned the Mets $50 million. The $25 million was requested after the Wilpons learned that the bankruptcy trustee in the Madoff case was seeking up to $1 billion for alleged phony profits the family made in the scheme as well as punitive damages under the theory that they were sophisticated enough to know Madoff was a fraud. The Wilpons deny that allegation and say they were net losers in the scheme. Although the MLB's second loan pushed the Mets' total outstanding debt to $505 million, the team may still be worth about $800 million -- theoretically enough to provide collateral for more debt. The new JPMorgan-led loan would be made with the understanding that it would help the Queens team cover its operating costs -- including paying players who recently began spring training -- pending the planned sale. The Mets already have passed on to MLB the qualifications of more than a dozen groups of would-be buyers who are interested in purchasing less than 50 percent of the ballclub, leaving the Wilpons in place as team owners. After MLB vets those prospective purchasers, the team would then entertain offers. Last year, JPMorgan, with a syndicate that included Bank of America and Citigroup, refinanced $430 million of Mets debt despite concerns that the Wilpons lost a bundle with Madoff. Earlier this month, The Post revealed that the banks had been selling off some of that debt at a discount -- about 90 cents on the dollar -- to lower their exposure to the Mets. However, JPMorgan may be willing to offer a new loan to help the team avoid defaulting on the existing debt, which would force the bank to compete with other creditors to recoup money. The bank itself is being sued for $6.4 billion by Madoff bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard, who claims JPMorgan did business with Madoff for years despite numerous red flags that he was a crook. The bank denies those claims. Additional reporting by Joel Sherman and Dan Martin dan.mangan@nypost.com Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/de_perate_mets_in_new_relief_pitch_3Sp88YVWEvp3QZH8q8HwtO#ixzz1FLshIpzJ

I like the "additional reporting by Joel Sherman" bit. He probably got the "Are you kidding me?" anonymous quote.

[Ceetar]

If there is anything we've learned about banks, it's not hard to believe they'd still be willing to lend the Mets money. In fact, I don't know if I'd be surprised if they were willing to lend Madoff money.

So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to?

[metirish]

It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to?

I'm guessing no, this wouldn't negate that.

metirish wrote: It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go.

But I wouldn't go that far, either.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to? I'm guessing no, this wouldn't negate that. metirish wrote: It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go. But I wouldn't go that far, either.

I have no idea. I give up. The players are doing stuff down there, so I'm done with this storyline until we have something conclusive about the owners, whoever they are, ability to bring in an expensive piece at the deadline, and retain/sign players in the offseason.

[metirish]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to? I'm guessing no, this wouldn't negate that. metirish wrote: It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go. But I wouldn't go that far, either. I have no idea. I give up. The players are doing stuff down there, so I'm done with this storyline until we have something conclusive about the owners, whoever they are, ability to bring in an expensive piece at the deadline, and retain/sign players in the offseason.

how many times are you going to say you are done with this before you stop commenting on it?