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

[Edgy MD]

Case being reviewed today.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/19/news/companies/madoff_mets/

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: Betting on the rich and powerful to stay so is always a safe bet.

Usually quite so. I have seen generational losses among the wealthy the last 2-3..Work blows.

[metirish]

One report I read expects Wilpon to be on the hook for at least $300 million , that seemed to be the consensus among experts.

[metirish]

I'm guessing this is true and the judge was taking the piss

AdamRubinESPN Adam Rubin
Report quotes judge in Wilpon-Picard case: �Fortunately, you gave me so much paper. Otherwise I would have had to watch a Mets game, ..
... which would have been a very painful process.�

[Edgy MD]

Our entire nation is addicted to cheap snark.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: Our entire nation is addicted to cheap snark.

LOL, I know right , I mean fucks sake like, it's only a billion dollar case and the judge is having a laugh and a dig?

[G-Fafif]

metirish wrote: I'm guessing this is true and the judge was taking the piss AdamRubinESPN Adam Rubin Report quotes judge in Wilpon-Picard case: �Fortunately, you gave me so much paper. Otherwise I would have had to watch a Mets game, .. ... which would have been a very painful process.�

Mistrial!

[ashie62]

Einhorn deal dead per Darren Rovell CNBC...

[ashie62]

Einhorn insisted on owning some part of SNY...

[seawolf17]

We'll miss you, Jose.

[ashie62]

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/6916366/david-einhorn-deal-buy-minority-stake-new-york-mets-dead

No seeming urgency from Fred to continue the process...Goodbye Jose...Please keep David even though he's not a superstar.

[metirish]

Fucking Wilpon's.......


Einhorn

David Einhorn's crew issued their own statement from the prospective owner on the deal breaking down: �I am disappointed to announce that I will not be purchasing an ownership interest in the New York Mets baseball team at this time. It is clear that it will not be possible for me to consummate the transaction on the terms that the Sterling-Mets organization and I originally agreed to several months ago. The extensive nature of changes that were proposed to me at the last minute has made a successful transaction impossible. �I want to thank the entire Mets organization and Major League Baseball for their efforts. This experience will always be a happy memory for me because of the Mets� fans. A good number of you have reached out to offer me encouragement. I will always be touched by the warmth that you showed me.�

[Benjamin Grimm]

I suspect that the Mets are less desperate for help than they were a few months ago.

I don't know why that would be, but it seems like it may be the case.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I suspect that the Mets are less desperate for help than they were a few months ago. I don't know why that would be, but it seems like it may be the case.

Works for me. Whatever makes the owners not desperate.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Don't rule out the possibility that they may be delusional. They may actually need the money more than they think they do.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Don't rule out the possibility that they may be delusional. They may actually need the money more than they think they do.

True. But there will always be other investors.

I wonder if they paid back the loan to MLB? must have right? The press release claims they invested more money themselves into the team to cover the 2011 losses.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I suspect that the Mets are less desperate for help than they were a few months ago. I don't know why that would be, but it seems like it may be the case.

The Why would be that the billion dollar number floated by the Madoff trustee guy seems to be no longer on the table and that the projected (maybe even maximum) penalty/give-back is less than 1/3 of that, something more like what the Wilpon/Katz crew originally expected and expect to be able to handle. Remember that this whole partial sale thing only came up when the trustee signaled that he was going to be extremely aggressive and I think ownership then took measures to prevent them from losing the team entirely.

Also a story in today's NYPost (now somewhat out-of-date considering this latest scoop) about Einhorn turning rather aggressive himself, trying, for instance, to get MLB to pre-approve him for total ownership even though there was no possibility of that happening for another five years or more.

[ashie62]

Seems like both parties got cold feet...The expenses are covered for 2011. I guess we will hear about 2012 in time.

Skybridge Capital, a hedge fun run by Joe Scarmucci has been previously vetted. maybe they will revisit the issue at some point.

[Edgy MD]

I'm working from the idea that Picard having less leverage over the Wilpons gives them more leverage in protecting their assets.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy DC wrote: I'm working from the idea that Picard having less leverage over the Wilpons gives them more leverage in protecting their assets.

Yup. Announced during the game (by Gary) that Wilpon/Katz have "re-capitalized" the team in order to cover debts by themselves (and presumably with current partners) and that they may now be seeking a more limited minority partner(s). IOW, selling smaller portions to one or more investors without the specter of a built-in takeover a few years down the road.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't know that Picard has less leverage in his suit against Sterling. Though it's possible that before trial, the Court might dismiss Picard's claims for damages over and above the fictitious profits Sterling received, that hasn't happened yet and the presiding District Court hasn't telegraphed it's pending decision one way or the other.

It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. We now know otherwise. For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors.

My attitude with respect to this matter is not to believe any comments coming from The House of Wilpon that are supposed to be favorable to the Mets, until proven.

[MFS62]

IIRC, when the Wrigley family sold the Cubs, one of the reasons given was that because of the Corporate Tax law in effect at the time, you could not claim a team as a tax writeoff if it had lost money for seven years. After that, it had to be delared a hobby.
I wonder:
If that law is still in effect, and
How many years they have claimed Mets losses. (Especially to offset profits in SNY and their Madoff holdings)

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Picard has less leverage in his suit against Sterling. Though it's possible that before trial, the Court might dismiss Picard's claims for damages over and above the fictitious profits Sterling received, that hasn't happened yet and the presiding District Court hasn't telegraphed it's pending decision one way or the other. It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. We now know otherwise. For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors. My attitude with respect to this matter is not to believe any comments coming from The House of Wilpon that are supposed to be favorable to the Mets, until proven.

Two more points to make here:

It's in the Mets interests to claim that things are going well and that it's "business as usual" (Jeff Wilpon to Terry Collins, yesterday). The team is still in the hunt for investors and $200M and doesn't want to appear desperate.

Also, it's possible that the team cut ties with Einhorn because their position has worsened rather than improved. Under this theory, Einhorn's chances of one day acquiring majority control of the team have improved, and so the Mets decided that if they couldn't alter the terms of the Einhorn deal in their favor, they should end negotiations and move on. All this for the Plane Boy.

[HahnSolo]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Picard has less leverage in his suit against Sterling. Though it's possible that before trial, the Court might dismiss Picard's claims for damages over and above the fictitious profits Sterling received, that hasn't happened yet and the presiding District Court hasn't telegraphed it's pending decision one way or the other. It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. We now know otherwise. For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors. My attitude with respect to this matter is not to believe any comments coming from The House of Wilpon that are supposed to be favorable to the Mets, until proven.

I go along with all this.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

HahnSolo wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know that Picard has less leverage in his suit against Sterling. Though it's possible that before trial, the Court might dismiss Picard's claims for damages over and above the fictitious profits Sterling received, that hasn't happened yet and the presiding District Court hasn't telegraphed it's pending decision one way or the other. It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. We now know otherwise. For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors. My attitude with respect to this matter is not to believe any comments coming from The House of Wilpon that are supposed to be favorable to the Mets, until proven. Thirded. I cussed a blurange streak when I heard this on the radio. I go along with all this.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so.

I don't think they said so or implied so.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual.

I don't remember.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors.

Which is consistent with the notion that Picard having less leverage over the Wilpons gives them more leverage in protecting their assets.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: It's also possible that the Mets cut ties with Einhorn from a newly found position of strength, as some believe, but I don't believe that just because the Mets say so, or imply so. I don't think they said so or implied so.

Great. You also have an opinion.

Edgy DC wrote: If you'll remember, over the past four, five six weeks, both the Mets and Bud Selig were reporting that the closing of the Einhorn deal was a simple formality and that the delays in completing that now ill-fated deal were neither material nor unusual. I don't remember.

So whaddya want me to do about your bad memory?

Edgy DC wrote: For all I know, the Mets might have moved on because Einhorn was insisting on terms that would increase his likelihood of one day, acquiring majority control of the franchise. Perhaps the Mets want less demanding investors. Which is consistent with the notion that Picard having less leverage over the Wilpons gives them more leverage in protecting their assets.

Great. Now you have another opinion. So if Picard has less leverage, what are the Mets so worried about giving Einhorn an option to control that is (right here is where I'd like to say according to you but if I did, you'd deny it and torture me for eleven more posts with the usual bullshit about how I stuffed some more arguments into your mouth when you weren't looking so instead I'll simply say according to who the hell knows even though it sure as hell sounds as if at the very least you're standing by whoever the hell) much less likely to vest than before? It seems that (according to you? apologies otherwise.) all that stood in the Mets way of getting $200M was a stupid option in favor of Einhorn that wasn't ever gonna vest anyway because everyone knows that Picard's lawsuit is gonna get whittled down to manageable damages for Sterling and the Mets recapitalized anyway and it's business as usual as of a day and a half ago. The Wilpons said it so you know that it has to be true.

And another thing: I'm not convinced that it was the Wilpons who walked away from and killed the deal, although I recognize the possibility. Einhorn surely signed a confidentiality agreement, so we might not get to hear his side of the story in anything other than superficial and vague soundbites followed by lotsa no comments.

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And another thing: I'm not convinced that it was the Wilpons who walked away from and killed the deal, although I recognize the possibility.

I think that's a fair analysis, so long as one concedes that from the available evidence -- including Einhorn's comments, limited as they are -- the most likely scenario is that the Wilpons killed the deal.

---

I personally am disheartened by this development but I suppose it is fair to wait and see what happens this offseason to find out how broke (or not broke) the Wilpons really are.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Einhorn always struck me as a little creepy.

Deals like this usually come with enormous kill fees, I assume if DE isn't suing then the Wilpons made it worth his while.

They now think they will get 10 guys to pony up $20 mills each, the whole thing sounds like a big failure to me, and if it results in Chapter 11 then great.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Great. You also have an opinion. So whaddya want me to do about your bad memory? Great. Now you have another opinion.

Are we going to discuss this like adults or are you going to revert to your snotty sarcasm? I didn't give that to you and I don't deserve it from you.

You know, I know you don't think much of me, but I've tried to engage you from a half dozen angles and you still attack. And I guess you think it's weak of me to keep asking you to cut it out. But I'm the moderator here and I don't think it's too much to ask you to disagree with people with a little more moderation in your tone.