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

[G-Fafif]

$37 is plenty symbolic -- we each kick it for a new beginning, just as was the case when No. 37 came in 50 years ago.

That worked out well.

[Edgy MD]

Well, it's nice to see some degree of vindication for Erin Arvedlund, becaue, well, she's cuter than David Howard.

[metsmarathon]

smg58 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so. We need a more symbolic number. 41? 69? (for the World Series year, so whatever else you may be thinking, stop now.) 86?

62.

[Ceetar]

Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part."

Does this really count as selling?

Not to mention, all this is a result of the lawsuit which was very recent right? This offseason? So statements made way back when aren't exactly false.

What's your guys opinion of Klapisch. He one of the Chass type?


BobKlap Bob Klapisch :
Was told Mets' revenues are down 30-35 percent since move to Citi Field. Bud Selig was concerned enough to send Alderson to Flushing



that tweet annoys me, thel ast part makes me question the accuracy of the first part.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Klapisch is having a field day:

He tweets: "Only question is, did Wilpons lie to Sandy Alderson, too, about the finances?"

"Was told Mets' revenues are down 30-35 percent since move to Citi Field. Bud Selig was concerned enough to send Alderson to Flushing"

"Remember, Mets are already gettting $20 million a year from Citibank. To now be asking for more suggests a real crisis."

"Yankees aren't looking for a bailout RT @arrabin56: @BobKlap Does the Steinbrenners only owning 70% of the Yankees show a crisis too?"

"Although that should've been obvious by how tightly the spigot was shut this winter (total of $7 million spent on free agents).'

"Now we see Wilpons have been less than truthful about their financial distress post-Madoff"

Klapisch isn't just your basic Yankee Hack, like Verducci. He's an open Mets hater, who has made a career writing bad things about the team.

I make a lot of jokes about Jeter-loving Yankee hacks, but in all seriousness, Klaspisch has a bias problem. If there's something bad to be said about the Mets, he's the one saying it. I'm surprised the Record keeps him on the beat. In fact, a lot of papers would have removed him after the Bonilla incident.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Edgy DC wrote: Well, it's nice to see some degree of vindication for Erin Arvedlund, becaue, well, she's cuter than David Howard.

I think we've already seen more speculation on this than we oughta, but wasn't Arvelund arguing there that the 'Pons issue was having lost money on the Madoff collapse? The facts at this point suggest the financial issue re Madoff is that they made $$ and are now being sued for it.

Anyway.

Lots of stuff can happen when you take on partners, you see it in biz allatime. Usually also when a company hires an investment banker to "explore alternatives" it finds one, cuz that's an expensive decision right there.

[Edgy MD]

It's like Guy Fawkes Day for Klapisch.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: It's like Guy Fawkes Day for Klapisch.

I was going to mention how full of the Klap twitter is today ....got to agree with MGIM on the bias.

[metirish]

Mets conference call at 2:15

[Benjamin Grimm]

I bet Ed Kranepool is looking in his sofa cushions for as much loose change as he can find.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion!

Fred says they are looking to sell 20% or 25% of team

[Ceetar]

I always try to stop before accusingthe writers/reporters of bias because I think I suspect most of them of that. Or at least of capitializing on the Mets downfall to twist a good story. But good to know Klap is full of..Krap..

Sounds like they're talking 20-25% stake. Someone tweeted that they're being sued for a billion (which is obviously the way laywers work. ask for the moon in hopes you can settle on a star) 20% would probably be what, 200million?

but they also said there is no guarentee they do anything.

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! Fred says they are looking to sell 20% or 25% of team

I would have guessed 5-10%. That is news.

I propose a partnership of MLBS's.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I predict that this is going to cause a cry to go out, both far and near, for Mark Cuban.

[metirish]

Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella?

[ashie62]

Partial sale of team to cover Madoff Lawsuits

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/14613865/mets-consider-partial-sale-as-they-face-madoff-lawsuit

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella?

sure, they're different entities. They're merely selling part of the Mets part of it. This is probably also why it's different than taking on a new 'partner' with any controlling interest. Seems like the new guy would be buying into the Mets, not into Sterling?


The cry for Cuban has been all over the place already. It's silly, as silent minority owner probably isn't what he's going for, and I imagine owning part of the Mets would be seen as a conflict of interest if he then went to try to buy the T. Rangers or something.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: [Does this really count as selling?

Yes.

Had Dave Howard made those same statements under oath, you wouldn't be now able to convict him of perjury -- but it's clearly a big shift from what their position was 16 months ago.

[ashie62]

Edgy DC wrote: The problem is that they made money. The nature of Ponzi schemes is that money from the later investors is used to pay off the earlier and larger investors wanting a piece of those big dividends the schemers have been reporting. Naturally, those later investors are saying, "Wait a minute... Let's share the pain here."

100 percent correct.

[metsmarathon]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion!

how exactly would that make a lick of sense?

[ashie62]

You'd have to have to be a bit odd to buy into a situation with litigation and so much uncertainty. The buyer could assume unlimited financial risk.

[ashie62]

metsmarathon wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! how exactly would that make a lick of sense?

Damages for money that could have been earned during said time period.

[Frayed Knot]

Gwreck wrote: Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part."

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?

[Guest attgig]

metirish wrote: Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella?

I think the sterling umbrella is simply the holding company.

underneath the sterling umbrella, you have completely independently run subsidiaries such as their real estate group, property management group, venture capital group, and two others just happened to be sny and the ny mets. because they're completely independent subsidiaries, they are independently operated underneath the umbrella and each can have only a certain percentage being owned by sterling, with in this case, 75-80% of profits or losses being rolled up/reported up.

[Ceetar]

Ashie62 wrote: You'd have to have to be a bit odd to buy into a situation with litigation and so much uncertainty. The buyer could assume unlimited financial risk.

Is the buyer assuming _any_ risk? Isn't he buying into the Mets, and not Sterling, the entity being sued? Most of this is above my head, so who knows really, but I think the idea is that the buyer would basically be paying off the suit to get a share of the team. I don't think the Wilpons are going to get sued for 100 million and then turn to the new guy and be like "you owe 20million of this."

[metirish]

Jeff says minority partner would be with team and not SNY/Citi Field.....

Greenberg says as of today 20-25% is up for sale....."interest should be robust"....




That hair!

[ashie62]

Douchebags with hair.

[Edgy MD]

Joel Sherman needs to inhale.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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?

[Edgy MD]

It's hard to say, but the breathless speculation is impressive.