PDA

View Full Version : Financial uncertainty continues to cloud Mets' future



savafan
01-30-2011, 11:15 PM
Interesting...may mean nothing, but it could also have a huge effect on trying to bring baseball back to the African American community.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/30/report-mlk-iii-interested-in-buying-part-of-mets/


The paper quotes Meli saying the group wants to purchase 50 percent of the team and that it would be “fitting with the legacy of Jackie Robinson essentially transferring to the Mets.”

kaldaniels
01-30-2011, 11:53 PM
To what extent of the group is MLK III I wonder. Is he just a figurehead, or is he much more?

savafan
01-31-2011, 12:03 AM
To what extent of the group is MLK III I wonder. Is he just a figurehead, or is he much more?

According to these two articles, he's seeking to become the majority owner:

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/1/30/1964615/martin-luther-king-iii-buy-new-york-mets-majority-ownership

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/01/30/martin-luther-kings-son-dream-buy-new-york-mets/?test=latestnews

There aren't any African American owners currently in baseball.

kaldaniels
01-31-2011, 12:05 AM
According to these two articles, he's seeking to become the majority owner:

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/1/30/1964615/martin-luther-king-iii-buy-new-york-mets-majority-ownership

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/01/30/martin-luther-kings-son-dream-buy-new-york-mets/?test=latestnews

There aren't any African American owners currently in baseball.

Upon closer reading though, he is part of a "group", with "heavy-pocketed" investors.

Unassisted
01-31-2011, 12:05 AM
Team ownership is the province of billionaires nowadays, especially in New York. Is there a billionaire silent partner in this group?

kaldaniels
01-31-2011, 12:06 AM
Team ownership is the province of billionaires nowadays, especially in New York. Is there a billionaire silent partner in this group?

Exactly. How much dough would MLK III personally cough up?

savafan
01-31-2011, 12:09 AM
Team ownership is the province of billionaires nowadays, especially in New York. Is there a billionaire silent partner in this group?

I don't know this TV executive Larry Meli, is he a billionaire? The articles do mention "a number of unnamed deep pocketed investors". The scary part about that, for Mets fans, is that they could see themselves faced with a situation like we did during the Lindner era with limited partners unwilling to support a strong payroll.

savafan
01-31-2011, 12:24 AM
From a Mets message board, I see that the reported net worth of this group is between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars, and another article stating that the King group has more than 1 billion dollars in assets, so it's apparently somewhere between 1 and 2 billion dollars.

Chip R
01-31-2011, 12:25 AM
He has a dream!

JaxRed
01-31-2011, 12:28 AM
Exactly. How much dough would MLK III personally cough up?

They like minority representation. I think that will be his major contribution. I suspect it will have zero impact on reviving interest in inner city.

WebScorpion
01-31-2011, 01:00 AM
Aren't they also being sued for the profits they made off Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme? Something like $50 million? That could put a hitch in the payroll... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen085.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

savafan
01-31-2011, 01:03 AM
Aren't they also being sued for the profits they made off Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme? Something like $50 million? That could put a hitch in the payroll... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen085.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

That's why they're looking to sell a minority stake in the team, but most investors appear unwilling to put up the cash for 25% and allow the Wilpons to remain in charge as majority owners in charge of baseball operations.

oneupper
01-31-2011, 06:12 PM
Aren't they also being sued for the profits they made off Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme? Something like $50 million? That could put a hitch in the payroll... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen085.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

I started a thread on this which was deleted for some reason.

The Wilpons initially were considered Madoff victims, but upon review, it seems that they pulled $50 million more out that they put in. ($48 million to be exact).

The money would have to come from the Wilpons (not the Mets), so they have several options. Apparently they don't have $50 million laying around.

One is selling off a minority stake in the team.
Another is getting a loan with the team or some other asset as collateral.

I seriously doubt they would sell just a majority stake. If they go that far, they might as well sell their entire holding.

TRF
01-31-2011, 06:22 PM
as a comparison only, George W. invested very little in the Rangers, but when he sold, he made millions. He was brought in for his name. It isn't all that uncommon.

kaldaniels
02-01-2011, 01:00 AM
This story never smelled right to me...

http://www.ajc.com/news/king-balks-at-mets-822786.html

bucksfan2
02-01-2011, 09:23 AM
I started a thread on this which was deleted for some reason.

The Wilpons initially were considered Madoff victims, but upon review, it seems that they pulled $50 million more out that they put in. ($48 million to be exact).

The money would have to come from the Wilpons (not the Mets), so they have several options. Apparently they don't have $50 million laying around.

One is selling off a minority stake in the team.
Another is getting a loan with the team or some other asset as collateral.

I seriously doubt they would sell just a majority stake. If they go that far, they might as well sell their entire holding.

That is exactly the way I understood it. They initially were thought of as victims but not it looks like they benefited from Madoff. I don't legally know how these ponzi schemes work when they are busted but it would appear to me that the Wilpons would be entitled to their stake in the investment.

camisadelgolf
02-01-2011, 09:27 AM
That is exactly the way I understood it. They initially were thought of as victims but not it looks like they benefited from Madoff. I don't legally know how these ponzi schemes work when they are busted but it would appear to me that the Wilpons would be entitled to their stake in the investment.
I believe any profits that were made from the scheme belongs to the victims, but the Wilpons are entitled to any money they invested so long as it isn't profit. I could be way off on that, but it just makes sense.

oneupper
02-03-2011, 01:54 PM
I believe any profits that were made from the scheme belongs to the victims, but the Wilpons are entitled to any money they invested so long as it isn't profit. I could be way off on that, but it just makes sense.

The money that the receiver "claws back" goes into a fund to compensate the victims. The ones who were net losers in the scam.

Of course, the receiver, the receiver's lawyers, etc. all get their fees from that pot first.

So the Wilpons will never see those $48 million again.

BTW, the Madoff scam was initially estimated at $65 billion. After netting out the "false profits", it came down to like $17 billion.

bucksfan2
02-04-2011, 01:38 PM
It looks as if the Mets were a little more involved with Madoff than originally though. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704709304576124104225741650.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories


The baseball team itself had 16 Madoff accounts, from which more than $90 million in fictitious profits were withdrawn and used to help fund the team's "day-to-day operations," according to the suit filed by Irving Picard, the bankruptcy trustee recovering money for Madoff victims.

The lawsuit, originally filed under seal in December, makes sweeping allegations that money from Mr. Madoff flowed through all aspects of businesses owned by Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, including the baseball team and entities associated with their real-estate investment business, Sterling Equities Associates.

*If this is not ok to post please remove.

redsfandan
02-04-2011, 05:33 PM
I think it might be a bigger problem for the Mets.

Madoff lawsuit: Mets owners owe victims $300M

By TOM HAYS and LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press – 1 hr 21 mins ago

NEW YORK – The owners of the Mets turned a blind eye to Bernard Madoff's massive fraud, reaping $300 million in false profits and using a large chunk to run the team, according to a lawsuit unsealed Friday.

The lawsuit claims the owners were so dependent on the disgraced financier's too-good-to-be-true returns that it "faced a severe and immediate liquidity crisis" when Madoff's crimes were revealed in 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110204/ap_on_sp_ot/us_mets_madoff

oneupper
02-04-2011, 08:20 PM
I'd imagine that this is litigation that could take years to resolve, but $300 million is a ton of money. It appears the Wilpons' fortune was made of Madoff.

In the article, the Wilpon's lawyers seem to want to offset the accounts which were net losers against the net winners. It doesn't work that way. The receiver is going to want the $300 mm back from the winning accounts. The net losers will have to wait for the recovery process to see what they can then get back.

What a mess!

savafan
02-04-2011, 08:28 PM
Do you see any way the Wilpons retain ownership of the Mets through all of this?

oneupper
02-04-2011, 09:36 PM
Do you see any way the Wilpons retain ownership of the Mets through all of this?

I don't see the receiver settling for less than he believes is due. This will probably go to trial. If an unfavorable verdict is passed, the Wilpons would have to come up with the money. Selling the Mets seems to be the only place they could get that kind of cash.

I can imagine the process is a long one though, although maybe some of the legal eagles from RZ might know more about this kind of thing.

redsmetz
03-02-2011, 12:18 PM
Here's an update from the Huffpost with sources saying that MLB will not be lending the Mets additional money, although that could change in the future to allow the club to meet some obligations (including payroll).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/mlb-wont-loan-mets-money_n_830136.html

redsmetz
03-02-2011, 12:26 PM
BTW, I wonder if the original poster would mind if a moderator changed the subject line that's more generic viz the Mets financial plight or something.

bucksfan2
03-02-2011, 01:19 PM
I heard a great comment on the radio the other day. I believe it was Mike Sulk (sp?) on ESPN radio. He said that why should the Mets get a bail out from MLB? Why shouldn't the Mets be forced to trade/sell some of their players? Why shouldn't they have to trade/sell Wright, Santana, Beltran, etc. They make the small markets do that when they get into financial trouble.

savafan
03-02-2011, 07:47 PM
BTW, I wonder if the original poster would mind if a moderator changed the subject line that's more generic viz the Mets financial plight or something.

I have no problem with that.

Yachtzee
03-02-2011, 08:16 PM
I heard a great comment on the radio the other day. I believe it was Mike Sulk (sp?) on ESPN radio. He said that why should the Mets get a bail out from MLB? Why shouldn't the Mets be forced to trade/sell some of their players? Why shouldn't they have to trade/sell Wright, Santana, Beltran, etc. They make the small markets do that when they get into financial trouble.

No kidding.

savafan
03-14-2011, 07:10 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/03/14/mlb-looks-to-protect-mets-from-vulture-investors/


Major League Baseball has instituted restrictions on the resale of some team debt that protect the New York Mets from pressure by so-called vulture investors as the team tries to sell a minority stake.