Benefit Tonight in Duffy's

[metirish]

NY Times reports the Mets got a loan from MLB this past November for $20 million to offset cash flow problems.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

yeow

[metirish]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: yeow

There might be some fighting in the parking lot tonight, I've booked a Thin Lizzy cover band for the benefit, Fat Elizabeth.

[Gwreck]

Pretty poor proofreading job on the article put on their website. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/sports/baseball/26mets.html)

First sentence reads that $25 million was loaned, without referencing a source for the information.

4 paragraphs later, we learn that the Mets "have exhausted baseball�s standard bank line of credit � $75 million Selig and the sport�s owners make available to teams for a variety of reasons in the course of any year." No source for that information. We also learn that the $25 million was a "secret" loan, but again, no source for the information.

9 paragraphs later, there's this line: "The baseball executive said he believed Selig had loaned the Mets in the neighborhood of $20 million." No mention of who this executive is.

[Gwreck]

Article has now been edited by the Times to reflect that the Mets issued a statement acknowledging receipt of the loan. Reference to $20 M was deleted.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gwreck wrote: Pretty poor proofreading job on the article put on their website. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/sports/baseball/26mets.html) First sentence reads that $25 million was loaned, without referencing a source for the information. 4 paragraphs later, we learn that the Mets "have exhausted baseball�s standard bank line of credit ... but again, no source for the information. 9 paragraphs later, there's this line: "The baseball executive said he believed Selig had loaned the Mets in the neighborhood of $20 million." No mention of who this executive is.

I wonder if the Times' source might be one of the current potential Mets' buyers, who got to look at the team's books, but had to sign a confidentiality agreement before peeking. There are lots of reasons for keeping sources anonymous, other than sloppy editing. What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret?

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret?

I think the Wilpons and Katzes are totally screwed and need to sell the entire team.

[metirish]

Batmag, I can put you down for two tickets? , get you out of the house while helping the Wilpon's, win win really.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gwreck wrote: What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret? I think the Wilpons and Katzes are totally screwed and need to sell the entire team.

It's beginning to look that way, but who the hell knows how these things'll turn out. Lawsuits are like ballgames: anything could happen.

That the Mets were scraping bottom and had to take out a $25M emergency loan from MLB just to sustain operations sounds dire.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metirish wrote: Batmag, I can put you down for two tickets? , get you out of the house while helping the Wilpon's, win win really.

I don't know what you're talking about, or what two tickets for what but I don't wanna help the Wilpons. I'm rooting against them. Because otherwise, the future is Jeffy. The Madoff situation is serendipity to me, because before, I was regrettably resigned to the Wilpons owning the Mets for the rest of my life.

[Ceetar]

being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either.

I don't think that's the right way to be thinking about it. Seems to me the Wilpons' issue isn't so much the lawsuit (though that matters) but their debt load. They owe money all over town, man.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: being that it was months ago, this is a non-factor. Either the Mets have a handle on what they need to do to get solvent, or they lose the lawsuit and sell. They didn't lose another $20 million, it's merely another representation that they've taken steps to try to get to where they need to be. MLB didn't say no, you're a lost cause, sell. (in fact, this loan was probably the source of those rumors) and sure the Mets have liquidity issues, but if $20 covers it, it's not exactly the end of the world either. I don't think that's the right way to be thinking about it. Seems to me the Wilpons' issue isn't so much the lawsuit (though that matters) but their debt load. They owe money all over town, man.

They've owned the team for how long? and have been businessmen for longer. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else. The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players. A lot more will become known about their ability to _continue_ to pay their players, and acquire new ones, in the future, particularly as the lawsuit details get more clear, but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else.

This is queensy ballsy.

Ceetar wrote: The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players.

They only borrowed more than the team's value.

Ceetar wrote: but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in.

The Mets haven't told us anything. The Mets announced a 25% stake sale only because they couldn't find any buyers on their terms, privately. Then they held a press conference mainly, it seemed, to remind everybody that the Mets are a private corporation and that their finances aren't any of our business. Then they put a positive spin on the details of the Picard lawsuit, coincidentally or not, a few days before the judge decided that he would unseal the complaint. If the Mets had their way, we wouldn't know one iota about the contents of the Picard complaint. The team publically browbeat that WSJ reporter who, last year, wrote that the team faces liabilities from the Madoff scam large enough to wipe out the Wilpons' ownership interest in the Mets. This too was denied by the Mets.

What exactly did the Mets tell us that has even a hint of credibility?

[metirish]

SNY are live right now in Duffy's......seriously(at least i think they are live)

[ashie62]

Moody's has a Ba1 bond rating for Queens ballpark Co. with a negative outlook.

That is not investment grade. Not good.

[Ceetar]

yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently.

Why do we expect them to be full open and honest? So far as I can tell, it hasn't really affected anything yet. I don't think of anyone I would have rather had this offseason that we don't have because of finances. They haven't yet done something stupid like let Reyes walk.

It's all lawyer speak and guesses. But if I have to lean towards one side, i'm gonna lead towards the guys that have the most knowledge of their finances (the Wilpons, theoretically) rather than the opposing lawyer or biased "analysts" like Adam Rubin.

either way, I don't think the knowledge that they borrowed 25million from MLB changes anything about what will happen with the Mets in the future.

[Gwreck]

You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to").

Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is?

Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million.

[ashie62]

Gwreck wrote: You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million.

The money was needed for November operating expenses, in others words, Debt currently due.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: You're contradicting yourself. First, you suggest the Wilpons have no reason to be fully open and honest, yet in the next paragraph, you suggest that they're the people you're going to "lean towards" (I presume this means "give the most credence to"). Plus, what's with the claims of Rubin being biased? Seriously? Didn't Omar get exposed for how ridiculous that is? Finally, the Mets didn't just borrow $25 million. As the Times article says, they already exhausted their ordinary line of credit from MLB -- and then borrowed ANOTHER $25 million.

Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle.

I don't contradict myself, I'm just suggesting I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle.

To me this reads as pot, kettle, black.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: I don't contradict myself, I'm just suggesting I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation.

I suggest taking a deep breath and rereading what you've written. You don't want to have to change all your business cards to read "The Irrational, Willfully Ignorant Mets Fan," do you?

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Rubin is a clown and has a grudge of some sort. It has nothing to do with Omar and Adam was just as exposed in that debacle. To me this reads as pot, kettle, black.

The difference is my posts are viewed as the opinion they are, if Adam Rubin tells Michael Kay something, it's treated as practically fact. So if I say I expect Beltran to stay on the field based on the reports, I may be laughed at, but if he expresses himself in a way that suggests Beltran will be on the DL in May, it's just another example of the "poorly run Mets".


I'm not ignorant of anything, anymore than anyone else. But I'm accepting of that ignorance. I know that we know virtually nothing about what's going to happen with the Mets are the lawsuit. In fact, the judge that will ultimately decide the case doesn't know how it's going to go until he's heard the evidence. So why should I take Adam Rubin seriously when he says things like "I don't see any way the Wilpons won't have to sell the team"?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account.

Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently.

The guy's a gal. But on point -- is this be the dumbest thing you've ever written here? I lost track.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation.

You broke your own record.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator.

It's not just about Madoff that Rubin is nastily negative and doom and gloom. He's willfully nasty and unprofessional in other things, whether it be trying to get David Wright to say he wishes he wasn't in New York, or hinting at "secret" stories about Backman.

How is any of that different than the Mets situation two years ago? Don't most teams carry debt? How much are the Yankees in debt on their stadium? Don't all reports suggest the Mets are expected to repay that 25million shortly?

Trying to assert anything with the hazy collection of information we have on the situation is just silly.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator.

And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

Beats me. Who knows? But why predict these loans are going to be called in now, of all times? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the Mets were stabilized, post lawsuit? Or you know, when they have money? Calling them in now could cut the Mets off from the best likelihood of them making money to be able to pay said loans. Whatever happens, the Mets are still going to be here this year, and next year. As will SNY. It brings in revenue. I haven't seen any reports that suggests this might be the case though, besides wild speculation of what could happen. Anything could happen. the Mets could settle and this could be over next week.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, they might find a $100 million bill behind the Dairy Barn. Anything could happen.

on edit: Jeff could hit Powerball.