Zvon wrote: They don't have to spend 140 mill to pacify me. But they have to be able to afford to be on the north side of a 100million. If they can't, they can't afford the team. It's as simple as that. But it's not really about what they're willing to pay. They have to set salary at a level that will allow the organization to eventually break even, or else they will continue to have trouble paying down their debt, leveraging their other entities. Spending money that they weren't getting back (which they were doing for years but few fans appreciated) with the hope that a championship or two will make up for it was a workable model when they had the fake revenue stream of the Madoff fund, but now they simply have to find a way to break even. Right now, they're betting $90 million is the place to do that. If they have a profitable (or even zero balance) year, I imagine it'll go up then. They just don't own enough of the team right now to play fast and loose. The banks do. Ashie62 wrote: Its' always hard to tell the financial status of privately held companies. Beyond that, can't they just sell a big building or something, no not Citifield lol.. As far as compromising or liquidating their other assets to funnel more money into the Mets, they have done that, and were ridiculed for it. LoL. Ceetar wrote: But it doesn't really matter, because Kong's right, there is 7 sets of books. They've been using one to make it look like they lost 10 million last year, but they likely could've reworked it, factored in SNY money, or assigned something to this account rather than that account and make it look like they had 10 more million they could've spent on the team without hitting a supposed loan-imposed cap. Hiding profits is hard (and dangerous) when you owe money all over town. When one of your creditors is MLB, and your GM was released from his MLB duties to run your shop, it would seem even harder and dangerouser.