Ceetar

Interesting article, but I'm not sure what it means, if anything. Seems like the company that invested in that other scheme learned it's lesson and didn't invest with Madoff. Does that mean they knew before hand? Probably not. I think they'res a difference between checking after the company your investing in terms of what they're doing with your money versus actually investigating them for wrongdoing. Just because they noticed something they didn't like (whether or not it was an effect caused by illegal doings) and pulled out doesn't mean they were snooping around and investigating the specific practices of Madoff? Could it simply be that they wisened up to the garbage Madoff was spewing and just grew to not trust him with their money? It looks like they had to pay back 13 million of 30 invested. They invested 500 or so million in Madoff, if the same proportion holds true, it's roughly the 20-25% stake they're talking about selling.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: as lazy as Meche That's a strange definition of "lazy" that you've got there. Nah, he said himself his heart wasn't in it to rehab

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yup. Really, I'm not sure what the point of the conference was, other than to get in front of the story among the general public. Nothing they said/didn't say about their solicitations made it sound at all enticing to actual investors. Haven't they been criticized for not being in front of the story before? at least from a baseball aspect? I wonder if keeping the numbers sealed helps them work out a settlement out of court?

I don't think Frankie's as lazy as Meche. I'm sticking with 65.

Land Before Time is a Classic. I dunno, maybe you had to be there.

ok. Recap. Tell me how it went. I didn't make it, opted instead for a more local me etup with other bloggers. anyway. did we solve world peacE?

metirish wrote: Heyman saying its for "something less than $8million ". Heyman saying too that it was confirmed yesterday that the Mets would host 2013 ASG, although it's not official. as Ted Berg wrote about a week ago. so not really yesterday unless you're Heyman. And it was 'confirmed but not official' last year too. blah blah blah. Wonder who holds the option for the third Dickey year. Would hope it's team/games based.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well, yeah. Obviously the Mets know what their exposure is, their worst case scenario, and probably, the odds of actually sustaining those risks. No one is implying that the Mets don't know. BTW, I edited my last post to add some other articles in addition to ESPN's Insider piece. What seems to be getting glossed over is that A. the Wilpons aren't the only party being sued (So they'd never actually be responsiblefor the full 1billion, even if that ridiculous number was the number awarded) and 2. They're working on settlements to avoid the actual court stuff. They've said they might not even taket on a minority guy. Maybe that depends on the settlement amount. if it's favorable,t hey're okay.

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were �net winners� in Madoff�s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. �I think he has a very serious problem,� the person said of Wilpon. �If that�s true, he might have to sell the Mets.� The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets� situation. I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end. Agreed. lawyers always ask for the most absurd things. REmember Jeter asked for like 150million and settled for like 48. supposedly the wilpons are working on a settlement, which is probably the best outcome but probably still represents XXX millions. Probably significantly less than the 500 they put in, and nowhere near the stupid number of a billion. Actually, Them mentioning 20-25% probably means that that's the number they're expecting to be out. 200million or so.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: 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? yeah, the initial bit is 'not a whit' but the idea is that anything can happen once you open the door. But yeah, the plan is for it not to affect the Mets, whould supposedly is the impidus (sp?) for the decision.

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 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.

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.

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.

metirish wrote: Didn't they make money from Madoff? I think that's actually the problem. That money is basically illegal and may have to be given back.

TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. Well, they weren't lying. the lawsuit is fairly new right? It's not the Madoff thing, its' the lawsuit in reaction to the Madoff thing.

Benjamin Grimm 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. That multiplies out to about $6 million. I would assume that the Wilpons are looking for a lot more than that. What are the Mets worth these days? Anyone have an idea? Approaching a billion I would think.

Boring. Any new partner they took on would have less relevance on our lives than Saul Katz. Is the idea here to make a couple extra bucks to cover what they might have to pay in the lawsuit without affecting the business as a whole?

Gwreck wrote: No offense to Seawolf who (I presume) didn't invent it, but "Twitterverse" is possibly the dumbest internet-related made-up word ever, except of course for the utterly moronic "Blogosphere." Some people embed personal twitterverses into their blogospheres.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Could it be something about an All-Star Game at Citi Field? Or is that already a done deal? not a done deal, but Ted Berg has tweeted recently that it's practically done, so I doubt he'd hype that as big news. They're waiting for a press release, so it's at least as big as Hu signing.

maybe a trade? Reyes extension?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: SNY not reporting anything. I think we're waiting on Matt Cerrone to type up the post, but who knows. Ted Berg worries he may have overhyped it.

metirish wrote: What's it about anyway?....my twitter is not going crazy....Rubin is posting rambling quotes of the Mets decade all morning.... one of the reasons I don't follow him. Ted Berg and Cerrone and I think Eric Simon tweeted big news happening in..well, a couple of minutes ago?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's probably this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15470 (Or am I being immodest?) Actually, I was just about to post that.

seawolf17 wrote: I have no idea what it is, but the Twitterverse is going crazy. It's kinda weird. Unless they figured out how to make Tom Seaver 25 again, there's really only one (two) things that I imagine would be treated in this regard with teasing and what not.