batmagadanleadoff

What guarantee will the minority owners be given for their respective $20M investments against a bankruptcy?

Did The Met Fairy buy into the Mets? She has access. http://www.businessinsider.com/hang-out-with-mr-met-and-other-details-of-the-mets-term-sheet-2011-12

ESPN Sportscenter vid at bottom pf page -- talking jock and analysts riff on the $20M term sheet. http://www.sportsgrid.com/mlb/sportscenter-clowns-mets/ The real treat comes at end of video -- a link to color film footage of '62 Mets, including highlights from game against Mil. Braves, (I determined that game was played on 6/20/62). Highlights include a Marv Throneberry HR and an opposite field single by Richie Ashburn that provides a good visual sense for just how shallow (279 feet away straight down the line) the Polo Grounds left field corner was. Rod Barajas would've broken Maris's HR record in that stadium. By the All-Star break.

You should be.

G-Fafif wrote: Sandomir of ye old Times on what Mets are offering prospective minority share owners. $20 Million Can Buy Quality Time With Mr. Met By RICHARD SANDOMIR Curiously, Sterling Equities, the Mets� parent company, has told potential partners that it will buy �at least� two of the units. That would mean buying stakes in a team that Wilpon and Katz already own � using money, at least $40 million of which they need for other pressing reasons. Rob Tilliss, the president of Inner Circle Sports, a financial consultant to sports teams, said, �It�s basically an affirmation to other investors that they�re stepping up and are effectively shoulder to shoulder with their new investors.� He said that the practice was designed to create momentum. But, he added, �If I were investing, I�d discount that.� Still, Wilpon and Katz�s investment in their own minority stakes may indicate that they have more money than previously believed. Or it could mean that Wilpon/Katz will rob Peter to pay Paul. Perhaps they're "buying" the remaining two shares, not as a showing of good faith, but because they're having trouble selling them, and MLB won't approve the $200M deal until all 10 shares are sold.

metirish wrote: Next thing you know Fred will want to cut the dental plan for the employees. No, not the dental plan. But close. According to Mike Silva's Baseball Digest, a number of sources are indicating that "the Mets are stepping up their attempts to move their only remaining moveable [large] contract, that of David Wright." Can you say $70M payroll? I knew that you could.

Grote over Carter was my toughest pick. Like Vic wrote, I think I was going for overall Metliness when I chose Grote. I leaned towards Grote's time here. There's no doubt that Carter's peak or best Metness was better than Grote's. That and perhaps, I was overcompensating for what I consider to be Carter's overratedness. Not that Carter wasn't an historically important Met, or a Mets Hall of Fame Met. Because he deservedly was. But as good a Met as Carter was, or as great a Met as he was, I always though that the perception was far greater than the reality.

metirish wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mets whacking Kingsport Rookie League team in cost-cutting move. Somehow this hurts more than losing Reyes. this thread is depressing, hoping one day to open it with news that they are selling it all. They'll sell alright. But not before letting David Wright go away for nothing in return. And then they'll sell the team to Jim Dolan. Because Fred Wilpon is a ********** who deep down, holds Mets fans in contempt.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Here's my team. Most of these selections are no-brainers, I'd say. I assume that the team will be comprised of one LF'er, one CF'er and one RF'er. As a fan, I'd wish that Orosco, or if not him, than Tug, would make the team as lefty reliever. LRlf John Franco (but grudgingly) But the case for Orosco: Orosco 595.2 IP/12.2 Mets WAR = 1 win above replacement every 48.8 IP Franco 702.2 IP/12.8 Mets WAR = 1 win above replacement every 54.9 IP Though Franco was a Met for almost twice as many seasons as Orosco (14-8), Franco's Mets IP exceeded Orosco's by only 18%. Orosco's '83 campaign (3d place, CY voting) was the best single season pitching performance by a Mets reliever. Franco "saved" more games per season than Orosco because Orosco's pen mate, Roger McDowell was about as reliable as Jesse, not because Franco was significantly better than Orosco. In fact, I'd say that Orosco was the better lefty reliever. And one more opinion: Jesse's brilliance in the 1986 WS MVP award was good enough to cop the MVP trophy. Knight had the dramatic hits, but Orosco was untouchable. He was the series' unsung hero.

Second 50th Ann team. Here's where it gets interesting. Quibble away. C Jerry Grote 1B John Olerud 2B Wally Backman 3B Howard Johnson SS Bud Harrelson LF Kevin McReynolds CF Mookie Wilson RF Rusty Staub RHP Dwight Gooden LHP Jon Matlack (I would've went with Al Leiter, but JCL's song parody suddenly dissuaded me. Fuck You Al, and your sending away Kazmir ways and your buddying up with the Wilpons. And Fuck George Bush II, too) RrlfP Roger McDowell LRlfP Jesse Orosco

Here's my team. Most of these selections are no-brainers, I'd say. I assume that the team will be comprised of one LF'er, one CF'er and one RF'er. As a fan, I'd wish that Orosco, or if not him, than Tug, would make the team as lefty reliever. C Mike Piazza 1B Keith Hernandez 2B Edgardo Alfonzo 3B David Wright SS Jose Reyes LF Cleon Jones CF Carlos Beltran RF Darryl Strawberry RHP Tom Seaver LHP Jerry Koosman LRlf John Franco (but grudgingly) RRlf Armando Benitez

Name them.

Nobody except Medgal, but then you add the Times and the Post, so he's really not a lone wolf at all. Daily News: Doing their own work, banging on doors at MLB to break their own findings about how concerned MLB is http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/mlb-banking-mets-woes-jump-control-wilpons-feel-financial-squeeze-article-1.991269 You don't know about Newsday, but they've done their tabloid-quality own work and called their own sources and found MLB's concern to be less dire than the News did. http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mlb-ok-with-way-mets-handling-finances-1.3390173 So all the major area dailies have somebody making calls. National media? Adam Rubin is breathless at ESPN, tweeting every minor detail as he gets them. Barron's, of course, had Erin Avelund forecasting the demise of Wilpon's ownership years ago. Don't trust the big boys? Want to hear from the 99%? Amazin' Avenue has an comprehensive look at where the Mets money is and where it has gone, culled from many sources: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/12/11/2627933/an-in-depth-look-at-the-mets-finances Fangraphs build on that and Megdal and walked through the big question: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/are-the-wilpons-about-to-lose-the-mets/ This is one of the biggest stories in franchise history, and probably the biggest one outside of the white lines, but some people here would rather dismisss every negative thing written about the Mets owners, while instead writing 45 posts about Mike Nickeas' options or the Bisons' 3rd string third baseman. Yeah, I know. Some people, right? Fangraphs and Amazin' Avenue are working off data unearthed and developed mainly by the NYT, The Post, Forbes and Megdal. They aren't breaking any news. They're opining. Editorializing. NTTAWTT. Not at all. Me, I welcome as many cogent editorials as I can read. But that's why I didn't mention those blogs. I didn't overlook them. Nobody except Medgal, but then you add the Times and the Post, so he's really not a lone wolf at all. I never wrote "nobody but Megdal". And I didn't "just add" the Post and the Times. You make it sound as if I'm playing three card monte with my posts ... sneaking in words when nobody's looking. The three were included together, up front, to suggest that those three are responsible for the lion's share of all of the breaking news stories concerning the Mets finances. I'd add Forbes to those three. I wasn't claiming that they're the only ones writing on the topic. Hundreds and hundreds are reporting this story. But very few are providing new details. I left out Rubin at ESPN. I don't know if he's got his own inside sources, or if he's broken any developing news on this story. If you say he did, I'll defer. But I can't recall one way or the other. Where did I write "nobody but Megdal?" Barron's, of course, had Erin Avelund forecasting the demise of Wilpon's ownership years ago. I know. Didn't I link to her FOXTV appearance, (Yesterday) where Dave Howard challenged her findings and denied that the Mets would ever sell any part of the team?

Like who? After the NYT, Kosman and Megdal, 95% of the rest of the coverage out there is a rehash of whatever the Times wrote the day before. Who are all these other investigative reporters? Not that this is an easy story for a reporter to investigate. The reporter would need an insider willing to breach his or her confidentiality agreement. And even then, the reporter's credibility would be vulnerable to attacks more so than usual because the corroborative sources must remain anonymous. I don't doubt that others are covering this story. But for the most part, they're not reporting their findings. Maybe they're saving it for a future book, or a made for TV movie, depending on how this story finishes.

I don't understand why Megdal's drawing so much heat, or any heat at all, on this forum and on this thread. He seems to be one of the very few out there who are conducting comprehensive investigative reporting into the Mets financial crisis. We've got Megdal, the New York Times, and Josh Kosman over at the Post. I don't follow Newsday, so I don't know what they're doing with this story. And then we've got the Daily Snooze, snoozing away on this one, content to simply report what other sources have already reported, and the softballs tossed around at press conferences. Maybe the Snooze really is the Mets mouthpiece, as some insist. It's Megdal's fault that the Mets finances became untenable? This is one of the biggest stories in franchise history, and probably the biggest one outside of the white lines, but some people here would rather dismisss every negative thing written about the Mets owners, while instead writing 45 posts about Mike Nickeas' options or the Bisons' 3rd string third baseman. I guess that that diversity of interests is what makes a forum.

Here's what I wrote last September 2nd: 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. 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. batmagadanleadoff wrote: 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. 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. 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.

Fman99 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: So are you. I knew you were going to say that. Me too.

metirish wrote: It seems plausible , I guess until Einhorn can talk we will never know the truth(if then even), either way I loath the Wilpon's. Megdal's probably right. Einhorn himself practically said all this in so much code right after his purported deal with the Mets fell through. And right or wrong, I'd bet anything that at minimum, Megdal has a confidential source -- a credible insider -- who corroborated this.

So are you.

Megdal claims in new book, that Wilpon went behind Einhorn's back and asked Selig to scuttle Einhorn's path to ownership, so that it would appear that Wilpon was dealing with Einhorn in good faith. Mets asked MLB to stop ownership deal: book By JOSH KOSMAN Mets owner Fred Wilpon asked baseball commissioner Bud Selig to �play the bad cop� and help him scuttle a deal that could have resulted in him losing majority control of the team, a new bombshell book reports. Earlier this year, hedge-fund titan David Einhorn was set to invest $200 million for a 17 percent minority stake in the Mets. In exchange, Wilpon agreed that if the team didn�t repay Einhorn in five years, he would be able to acquire a majority stake for a nominal amount. But months after Wilpon agreed to the deal, he got cold feet, fearing he could lose control of the team. �Wilpon asked Selig to strike the provision requiring him to enable and assist David Einhorn in his pursuit of majority ownership, if Wilpon couldn�t repay him,� author Howard Megdal writes in �Wilpon�s Folly.� �The idea would be that Selig would play the bad cop. When Major League Baseball put the kibosh on Einhorn, Wilpon would have plausible deniability, and could throw up his hands and say, �What can I do? This is how MLB works.�� Einhorn heard about the dealings and, on Sept. 1, had a heated discussion with Wilpon that resulted in Einhorn walking away from the deal, according to the book. MLB lawyer Rob Manfred said, �I don�t believe the account in the book is accurate. I think the reason the deal did not come to fruition is the two parties did not have a meeting of the minds on a key provision in the deal.� A Mets spokesman said, �The author�s desperate self-promotional campaign for relevance has led to perpetuating baseless speculation and complete inaccuracies.� Megdal told The Post he stands by his reporting. An Einhorn spokesman declined comment. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/mets_asked_mlb_to_nix_deal_book_GBc5KGJDIhqQVSAs0yuQgM#ixzz1giYf0Iuc Predictably, the Mets deny Megdal's version of events. The Mets also denied that they would be forced to sell as little as a minority share in the team. Video from 2009, where Dave Howard browbeats Erin Arvedlund; Arvedlund was first to report on the record that Sterling's involvement with Madoff would force a sale of the Mets:

Funky stuff in the new MLB labor deal. MbtN News! No swapping numbers willy-nilly. Any big leaguer who wants to change uniform numbers without switching teams has to give notice by July 31 of the previous season. If he decides to make a sudden switch without so giving notice, he's fined for something resembling the cost of the useless merchandise with his number on it. So much for a newly acquired superstar getting his former # from his new teammate.

... and we expect to finalize our $200M deal with new minority investors by next month. Really. Stay in your seat, son. I sent Sandy up there for your own protection. If you said what Sandy's saying, they'd pelt you with rotten tomatoes.

Excerpt: On the day after word was leaked of the Mets taking out yet another loan, here is what you heard Tuesday from Major League Baseball officials: The walls are closing in on the Wilpons. Nobody was saying that Bud Selig is ready to give the Mets owners the Frank McCourt treatment, and start chasing them toward the door. But neither was there any mistaking the growing concern from inside the MLB offices about the state of the franchise. �They have a lot of things coming due,� was the way one MLB official put it. �They need some things to happen fairly soon.� The official went on to explain that the banks, more so than MLB, are likely to start squeezing the Wilpons. �They�re sort of at the end here with the banks and everything else,� the official said. Suffice to say there is now a level of pessimism among MLB people about whether the Wilpons are going to survive their financial problems, which have become more of a topic of conversation than ever since Sandy Alderson told the world last week the Mets recently lost $70 million unrelated to the ongoing Bernie Madoff matter. Now word has been leaked of a $40 million loan the Mets received from Bank of America six weeks ago, on top of last year�s $25 million loan from MLB on which they were recently granted a deadline extension for repayment until March. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/mlb-banking-mets-woes-jump-control-wilpons-feel-financial-squeeze-article-1.991269#ixzz1gUDZa7gt Also, GM Alderson sez Mets might complete sale of minority stakes by next month.

AA did get the source of the loan wrong. Unless AA meant to write that the Mets received MLB's approval to take on that second loan. Still, the main point of the AA piece, methinks, is that the extra $200M that the Mets are negotiating to obtain is nothing more than a band-aid in the Mets financial catastrophe. At least that's what Megdal's new piece implies. Sterling borrowed over $400M against the Mets and another $400M+ against SNY -- and those loans come due soon. They owe NYC about $50M/year on their Citi Field loan. All this before factoring in any Madoff damages. Work out the numbers for yourself: Banks and Major League Baseball prop up the Wilpon group, but for how long? By Howard Megdal 11:48 am Dec. 13, 2011 Has the New York Mets ownership group become too big too fail? That is the question at the moment, since the New York Times reported Monday evening that Bank of America provided Wilpon and his partners with a $40 million bridge loan, even though between debt against the team, against their television network, and against Citi Field, the ownership group has around $1.5 billion in debt at the moment. That doesn't include a penny of what they might need to pay in the lawsuit brought against them by a trustee for the victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, in which the Wilpon group was adjudged to have been a net "winner." In reality, even if everything in the current plan goes right, the Wilpon group doesn't have any obvious pathway to solvency. And the latest news simply reinforces the notion that the Mets owners have run out of money, and are also running out of time. This latest bridge loan is supposed to get the team's owners through to March, by which point, they claim, they'll be able to raise $200 million by selling off ten separate minority ownership stakes in the Mets. According to the bank's financing statement, the loan is due back five years from the date of the agreement�November 28, 2016. But that is likely a date created to reassure the other lenders that Bank of America won't jump the line in the event of a bankruptcy. And the Mets confirmed late Monday night that they will pay the approximately $25 million to the city of New York, which is the latest of the twice-annual debt installments due on Citi Field. It represents just the latest in the obstacle course of debt the Wilpon group is picking its way through in an attempt to keep the team and avoid bankruptcy. This latest loan of $40 million, to be paid back in March, is largely needed to pay that Citi Field debt. So let's look at the team's finances, acting under the assumptions that the Mets pay off that debt, and that the $40 million in Bank of America money gets them through the winter. Come March, if the team has completed deals with ten minority investors for approximately $200 million�an extraordinarily tall order�$40 million gets paid back for the bridge loan. Another $25 million, owed to Major League Baseball and currently past due, also gets repaid. That leaves $135 million to get them through the season with a team that lost $70 million last year. While salaries have been slashed�approximately $50 million has come off of the payroll, and most of the Mets' top players have been jettisoned�it is reasonable to expect that they won't draw more fans than they did last year, even at a discount. And with ticket prices cut as well, what tickets do sell won't bring in as much revenue as they did in 2011. But let's be extremely optimistic, and estimate the team loses just $35 million next year. That leaves $100 million. That's just about enough to cover the two more debt payments against Citi Field, the $30 million in interest on the debt against the team, and the $20 million in interest on the debt against SNY. And it doesn't address some other massive issues for this ownership group: the $430 million in debt against the team (due in 2014), the $450 million in debt against SNY (due in 2015), or even a penny of the massive legal fees they'll be paying to fight the Madoff lawsuit, with a trial date set for March 19 of next year. Oh, and they'll owe $200 million, plus 3 percent per year, to their ten minority investors in 2017. So the best-case scenario places them right back in this position a year from now�on the brink. So then why did Bank of America lend these people the money at all? And why did the other lenders go along with it? For Bank of America, which holds a substantial portion of the team's SNY debt, keeping the Wilpon group around in the hope of getting back back some money makes more sense than bailing on them and entering a bankruptcy proceeding with the other lenders. What would follow�and what is an eventuality if the lenders can't nurse the Wilpon ownership back to health�is a free-for-all with massive claims to be paid to a multitude of creditors. And what will exist to pay them? The sale of a team whose value isn't greater than the debt owed against it and its stadium and a TV network, SNY, that isn't worth much without a deal to show Mets games. And rest assured, a new team owner, who may or may not own SNY as well, is going to pay attention to the $150 million per year the Angels recently received for their television rights, and contrast it to the $63 million per year SNY pays the Mets. One way or another, that model will change, and not to SNY's benefit. Once again, none of this includes any potential judgment against Wilpon and his partners in the Madoff suit. That potential burden currently stands at $386 million, with the potential to rise on appeal, and not including substantial legal fees to fight the battle along the way. Two endings are likely here. One is that the Wilpon ownership group misses a payment. This week's debt payment to the City of New York could have done it, for example, but the loan allowed them to keep going. It's hard to see how they'll manage to avoid missing a payment if they fail to find minority investors by March. If they do, it will likely be the point at which the lenders give up on them and race to the front of the line for bankruptcy. Another possible ending is that Major League Baseball enforces its own rules regarding debt�the Wilpon ownership group has been in violation of them for at least three years now�and forces a sale of the team. As a statement from the team made clear last night, M.L.B. signed off on the new loan, just as M.L.B. has allowed the Mets to owe them $25 million long beyond the agreed deadline for repayment. It is hard to believe that the banks and M.L.B., which is watching one of its marquee clubs shrivel and turn to dust before its very eyes, will keep pretending everything is OK for much longer. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/null/2011/12/4589453/banks-and-major-league-baseball-prop-wilpon-group-how-long

A Bridge Loan Too Far I don't believe the news that the Mets have sought--and received--another loan from MLB should be all that shocking. But this, combined with the recent loss of Jose Reyes to the free spending Marlins (another team with dubious finances), set off many fans' You Gotta Be Effin' Kidding Me Alarms. This morning, I even heard a WFAN caller say he would root for the Nationals over the Mets this coming season. While I suspect this caller is either hyperbolizing or not much of a fan (while also sounding like the kind of guy who proposes a Mike Nickeas for Justin Verlander trade), his words were indicative of the kind of anger and fear inspired by this news. It's one thing for the Mets to take a pass on a high priced free agent, home grown or not. It's another entirely to need a $40 million get-me-over from Bud Selig's Money Store. The line thus far has been that this piddling eight-figure loan is just to tide the Mets over until their wonderful minority shares scheme takes off. That plan is going swimmingly thus far, because the Wilpons have told us it is, and anything else is none of our business, apparently. That's why it's never been explained exactly why anyone would buy shares in an institution with steadily mounting debt, whose owners will probably be forced to sell majority stake before long. Or why the Mets' best hope for a viable, well financed minority owner, David Einhorn, mysteriously dropped out this summer, never to be heard from again. I've defended the Wilpons on this site before. Around this time last year, I still believed they weren't so much dishonest as gobsmacked, so stunned by the Madoff mess they were slow to realize the true depths of their financial situation. But at this point, I feel there is more evidence that they're simply not telling the truth about the status of their coffers. Or even worse, are possessed of a god-like level of self delusion or crippling amount of stupidity to not realize they don't have enough money to own a baseball team anymore. So the Wilpons are either liars or morons with blinders. In either case, I'd rather they not have anything to do with my favorite team. And yet, I can't blame them entirely for this mess. In the face of financial ruin, they're simply trying to hang on to their biggest, most valued asset. Wouldn't you? It takes two to tango in this situation: One to hold out his hand, and the other to fork over the cash. For the latter, we have to blame Bud Selig, MLB commissioner and Wilpon BFF. Fred Wilpon, after all, was instrumental in ousting Faye Vincent and installing Selig as Commissioner For Life, and for that Selig is eternally grateful. It's the main reason why Wilpon, and not his former co-owner Nelson Doubleday, is now the sole owner of the Mets. If Wilpon was anybody else, would he be toast by now? It's impossible to say, but if the Frank McCourt affair proved anything, it's that if Selig wants someone gone, he can make them disappear with Mafia speed. Granted, McCourt did Selig a huge favor by doing colossally idiotic and unethical things like putting his family on the payroll with no-show jobs and spending lavish amounts of money on ridiculous expenses. But it was clear from day one that the main reason Selig tossed McCourt to the curb when times got tight is that he was not part of Selig's "inner circle." More than anything else, Selig simply did not want that man to own a baseball team anymore. If the Wilpons' situation isn't exactly analogous to McCourt's--they haven't, as far as I know, attempted to hire a faith healer on the Mets' dime--it is disturbingly familiar to that of another embattled former owner, Tom Hicks. As owner of the Texas Rangers, Hicks was a comparatively good citizen, but he stretched himself too thin and took out far too many loans to cover expenses. He too sought to sell minority shares in his team, until the enormity of his cash problems became painfully obvious. A planned sale of the team was squashed when Hicks' creditors realized the proceeds wouldn't cover his enormous debts. Selig threatened an MLB takeover of the Rangers, much in the way he'd done with the Expos. Hicks was forced to declare bankruptcy and the team was finally sold at auction to the current Peter Greenberg-Nolan Ryan ownership. In other words, when Selig even threatens severe action, things get done. The differences between Hicks' situation and that of the Wilpons' is becoming increasingly academic. And yet, Selig has not so much as had a harsh word for the Wilpons. He continues to play along with their Potemkin village version of reality, and it does no one a bit of good, least of all the Wilpons themselves. If Bud Selig and Fred Wilpon really are good friends, the best thing Selig can do is to gently guide his friend out MLB's backdoor. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/12/13/2632724/a-bridge-loan-too-far _____________ Or even worse, are possessed of a god-like level of self delusion or crippling amount of stupidity to not realize they don't have enough money to own a baseball team anymore. Anymore? It's possible that for all of their past wealth, whatever it was, the Wilpons never amassed the scratch needed to own and operate New York's NL MLB franchise. It's no secret that in 1980, Wilpon/Katz couldn't afford much more than a 5% stake in the Mets. And according to one of Picard's current legal theories, the Wilpons/Katz could not have purchased Doubleday's share of the team some 10 years ago, were it not for the unrealistically high and fabricated profits they were receiving from Madoff. We might learn, one day, that without Madoff's steady stream of cash, Sterling's stake in the Mets, as highly leveraged as it is, was never anything more than a tenuous house of cards.