NY Times: Wilpons Could Owe One Billion Dollars

98 Comments + Add Comment

• D.C. January 28, 2011 at 12:31 pm

  Holy Shit!
  • t agee January 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    No one was willing to provide a loan. Now they have to attempt to sell a portion of their business, the part of their business they love the most. That’s got to hurt. The Wilpon’s have spent a fortune trying to get us a World Championship and have gotten nothing out of it but grief and heartache.

    A new investor would either be looking for a return on an investment that commercial institutions have already decided is not a good risk, or he’s looking for the right of first refusal in the event the Wilpon’s decide to sell completely at a latter date. This is how Fred wound up owning the Mets in the first place.

    The second scenario is the only logical one going forward and no one is going to be a hands off minority owner of a business they hope to someday (soon) own in full. This more often than not, results in partners falling out (like Doubleday and Fred did) because of their differing goals.

    This is in no way good for the future competativeness of our team if two partners are squabbling and not on the same page. Even when (if) they are, decisions take too long and opportunities pass.

    The best scenario of all would be no partner/strong GM building through the farm system. Second to that it would be a full complete sale.
    • stick January 28, 2011 at 5:39 pm

      does not have to be 1 partner. they could sell 200 shares for $1mill apiece and raise the 200mill that way (or slice/dice the numbers any way you want).
    • paul nassau January 29, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Did anyone say “Donald Trump”?
      • Clayton Collier January 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm

        I did before… toward the bottom. Id love to see him run the team
• Donal January 28, 2011 at 12:32 pm

  Sheesh, the wise cracks on Berg and Cerrone’s twitter feeds were more compelling than this.

  I guess it was just supposed to be preemptive damage control for when the news did break that they were seeking more buyers.
• francis January 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm

  i hates to say i tolds you so …
  • theonlymaskman January 29, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Francis, Count me in on that club.
• Annie Savoy January 28, 2011 at 12:44 pm

  Not news to me -
  • theonlymaskman January 29, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Annie, Not any news to me either. I see this report as a vindication of what I said over a month ago, even though there were legions of deniers. It is my belief that the handwriting is now on the wall. The Wilpons are dealing from a position of weakness not strength. That is never a good situation when you are trying to make a deal of any sort. This is a case of weak hands selling. Strong hands will take advantage of that situation. They may like to get a good price for a minority position in the Mets. The end result is rather obvious now. It is inevitable that the Mets will be sold in entirety. Who in his right mind would bail out the Wilpons in the precarious position they now find themselves? Selling a minority position is just too easy a solution and is just wishful thinking. It will not happen and a 100% new owner is just around the corner. Only time will tell and I, for one, can’t wait.
• The Coop January 28, 2011 at 12:47 pm

  Guys guys – relax. This is par for the course. 1) they shoulda done this a long time ago 2) they are being sued by the families of madoff victims since they MADE MONEY off the ponzi scheme (pulling their interests out as the market was good – dumb luck or maybe they knew more) 3) strategic partners means nothing. Wilpons will still have a majority stake in Mets like the Steinbrenners do (having tons of ltd partners – they own something like 69% I think) – they are looking to raise capital as a boon to hedge their bets.

  This is a much ado about nothing story. IMO, they shoulda done this a LONG time ago because they were terrible with their investments regarding the team. Since Sterling is a real estate investment trust – well, you’d have to be living under a rock to see that RE took a hit last few years. The mets are the “sexiest” investment under Sterling and could garner more interest than say a floundering RE piece.
  • francis January 28, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    coop, sorry but you are 100% wrong to believe this is a non-story.

    the wilpons obviously know the dollar amount of the settlement that the madoff trustee is asking for. this number is obviously more than the wilpons can afford, otherwise they would just settle and be done with it.

    this means that for one, you have been lied to. the wilpons always said they could absorb the madoff settlement without it affecting the finances of the club. now you know that not to be true.

    this statement now leads you to believe that the settlement at worst allows them to retaim majority control. do you believe it ?

    this madoff case will go on for years. the sad part is that the league didn’t force the wilpons to sell the club earlier.

    my guess is that this is the first step in that process, and that the next step will be a full sale.

    the bad news is that this could take years, during which time your team will have no financial flexibility at all. the worse news, is that the strategic partnership with the islanders that was floated about last year, is probably a prelude to an mets / isles “axis of suckage” that will cement your team in the cellar for 25 years.

    let’s hope that cuban or seinfeld can save us from that ignominity
    • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

      Francis, with all due respect, I don’t think you are entirely wrong but not looking at the bigger picture. Sterling Mets is the sexiest portion of Sterling Enterprises. The Wilpons didn’t just invest the Mets with Madoff…they invested everything with them. The Wilpons, like many other private equity guys, invest in many other places but that’s neither here nor there, we’re just talking about Madoff’s affect and the Mets. So they take their investment out at a profit. They are being sued by the families, which is no surprise – it’s all over the news. However, bear in mind at the same time the Ponzi scheme hit, the biggest financial collapse hit this country dealing with mostly real estate investments. Sterling Equities is a majority real estate investor. Besides this lawsuit, it’s not the only thing that’s prohibitive here – their hits to real estate was a turn. That said, it’s more than just the Mets, Madoff and ponzi schemes. If anything, they need to raise capital from a strategic partner to stave off the lawsuits…something they wouldn’t be able to do with their real estate investments. Since they are NOT attractive.

      Warts and all – Wilpons have an attractive business for potential investment opportunities.

      I totally do respect your opinion Francis as you seem like one of the more informed ones about this process, and I ask that you extend the same courtesy to me
      • francis January 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm

        coop, sorry if i came off harsh. not what i meant.

        anyhow, to me the fact that they need to sell their best asset reveals the true depth of how desperate they are and how disingenuous they were.

        my hope is that the league is forcing them out and that this is the first step in that process. it shames the league to have owners having to lie about their financial stability for over 2 years.
        • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 1:47 pm

          No man, I hear ya (and FTR don’t think you were “harsh” – you’re just a passionate fan like the rest of us who wants to know the whole story – things can get heated with this topic so I was hoping *I* didn’t come off as harsh). But now that we can break bread on this – their RE investments took a hit, the Mets have a high payroll but no dividends and let’s be fair, sports teams are a sexy investment opportunity.

          I don’t think the league is “forcing” them out (I would dance down Roosevelt Ave naked if that happened though) but they need their best investment to be run properly and need more financial flexibility. (BTW I never thought I’d ever defend the Wilpons. I should be happy about this. But I’m not excited because it means nothing right now)
  • Mr North Jersey January 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    It was already known that Sterling Equities was in good faith negotiations last month trying to reach a settlement with the Madoff Trustees.

    Apparently if you listen to Francesa he says it may be the Mets may have been thrown a curveball as far as what they may have initially thought the trustees would be seeking.

    So much so that it is possible that they are looking for an infusion of money to safeguard things going forward as they continue this lawsuit.

    What this means going forward for the Mets we will have to wait and see but the Mets payroll continues to be among the top 5 in MLB for those that say the Mets are broke I will tell you to remember that.

    Check back after the 2011 season to see if the Mets begin to gut payroll or reinvest in free agency. Till then try not jumping off the ledge.
    • happy little mets fans January 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm

      How many lies to people like jersey need to get fed before they wake up and stopping accepting every piece of crap at face value. Man do wish I knew yuou because I’d tell you I was fred wilon and how’d you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Oh you little metsies aren’t even amusing. you are just so blindly faithful to these criminals. Well, when you get a real owner and to this Coop person, how can buy this line blindly? They previosuly said they ain’t at all for sale. they lie. nobody will be a minority partner with these guys excpet for you 13 silly loyalists on this site. They will end up selling. And then you might be a real team. ubilt then enjoy the suffering. you all deserve it. You all are hopeliess. good bye. metsies!!!!
      • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm

        I’m not buying the line blindly. I’m looking at the big picture. Quite honestly, if they weren’t dealing with this lawsuit, had this high of a payroll with no dividends and depreciating fan interest at the park, and they were looking for a strategic investor, we’d be dancing in the street. Minority partners mean nothing, just a guy (or “guys”) who want to make a return. As Mr North Jersey said, no sense jumping off a bridge until this deal goes down. Actually wait – why are we still alive? Haven’t we ALL jumped from the 59th St Bridge since 2007?
        • Mr North Jersey January 28, 2011 at 1:51 pm

          Agreed Coop. Some would rather react to what they think will happen rather than reacting to what actually happened.
          • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm

            …SO when they DO actually sell the baseball team in entirety…will you join me for a plate of steaming crowburgers at Strawberry’s? LOL (that’s the line I’ve been saying on my podcast)
      • Mr North Jersey January 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm

        Wait the voice of reason is trying to speak. LMAO
        • stick January 28, 2011 at 1:53 pm

          jersey, just pray he doesn’t stumble upon the happy place.
• SFloridaMetsFan January 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm

  Whoopie? Ill be more interested how much this minority partner has to say in matters, what percentage will he own, and if he knows baseball.
  • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Exactly – the Steinbrenners have minority owners. No clue who they are – but they are not vocal that’s for sure
  • francis January 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    my answers:

    none

    49.999% or the max the rules allow

    as much as you and I do
• K Maxx January 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm

  BIG FAT LIARS!!!! BIG LIES!!!!! I KNEW IT!!!!
• K Maxx January 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm

  THIS IS EXPLAINS ALL THE LIES THEY SAID EVERY TIME THEY CAME AFTER THE SEASON SAYING THAT MONEY WAS NO PROBLEM AND THAT THEY WOULD SPEND!

  I’m so pissed off, Moneyball my ass! These guys were bought in to shave spending, make cuts, etc. What did they spend to fix this 4th place team??? 7 million, 8 million tops??? What a crock!!!
  • Bayonne Mets Fan January 28, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    yes it does confirm that man, big time lying.
  • Donal January 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    What did they lie about?
    • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 2:14 pm

      I actually think for once they are being honest with us and themselves. It’s almost…refreshing. Sort of.
    • t agee January 28, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      They didn’t lie about anything. I’m sure they assessed all their options, attempted to secure financing and were unsuccessful. Now their forced to perhaps raise capital another way, by selling part of their favorite business. Not the way they probably wanted to go but the best option given the circumstances.
• SFloridaMetsFan January 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm

  I wouldnt call it lying exactly. I think they realized the team needed changes from top to bottom. They said they would spend what it took and they didnt. Maybe, just maybe, they actually used a few extra brain cells and figured out Omar was NOT the guy to be handing out big contracts, or making team changing trades?
  • francis January 28, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    it was lying, although they had to wait until the economy turned around to make this move.

    i really want to know what the league knew about this, and how much they forced this to happen.

    my guess is alot, and alot.
• Pedro January 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

  I think the Wilpons are under the impression that thy will be settling the case with the Madoff trustee and it’s gonna be VERY costly, thus the desire for an infusion of money. If they were that concerned about money last season there’s no way Jason Bay would have gotten the deal he did in 2009.
• Caryn January 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm

  Not really a Francesa fan at all, but I have to tip my hat to him for telling all these callers off who are calling in and saying that Fred Wilpon is a crook. Francesa said his reputation is beyond reproach and he’s the victim of Madoff and people are forgetting that.
• stick January 28, 2011 at 1:52 pm

  it still does not mean they were not truthful about the team having enough money to operate (and madoff not impacting that).

  It really means that they have to come up with a hug wad of cash for a non-BB related payment, and as a few have noted (coop especially), the mets are probably their most attractive, and easiest to liquidate, asset.

  sell a minor %, get the money to payoff the madoff suit, and that’s it. Back to normal operations of the team.

  and it was not lying when the wilpons said they would be keeping the team in the family and not selling out. Taking on a limited partner is not the same thing (a little wordsmithing I guess, but not lie).

  essentially they are just replacing Doubleday after all these years, but making a big profit out of the deal!
  • The Coop January 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    I just sat on the conference call and they made it a point to say that SNY is separate from the Mets business. While the Mets may be a sexier opportunity, SNY can still be sold off (But I think b/c of cable rights would obviously have to be sold to Time Warner or Cablevision) – so fewer opportunities there.
  • happy little mets fans January 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    KEEP THE WILPONS. Someone else might learn that spending makes money and turn you guys inot the little yankees of the NL. We all like you just the way you are. Arrogant losers!!!!!
• Matt January 28, 2011 at 2:35 pm

  Mark Cuban!
  • t agee January 28, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    There is no way I want an attention starved jerk owning my favorite team.
    • Matt January 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm

      Worked out pretty well in the Bronx.
      • Bayonne Mets Fan January 28, 2011 at 5:27 pm

        Don’t compare George Steinbrenner to a piece of filth like Mark Cuban. 2 entirely different animals.
      • Donal January 28, 2011 at 5:32 pm

        Keep in mind, the most recent Yankee success was because King George was taken out of the decision making process in the early 90s by his suspension.
  • Bayonne Mets Fan January 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    No way this guy Cuban will get involved. IT would be a PR DISASTER. He financed that movie Redacted which threatened the safety of our own soldiers overseas just because of his own political philosophy?

    This guy Cuban go to hell
    • t agee January 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm

      Agreed, Cuban can go FH.
    • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm

      yeah, that PR is killing the mavericks …

      actually, they outdraw the lakers, celtics, knicks, and heat.

      http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
      • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm

        despite that, i’d rather not have him own the mets. i’d rather have someone is primarily focused on one team.

        kind of like the wilpons without the lies and the broke-ness.
    • Hitman January 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      Wait a minute. Isn’t that the movie based off the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl by US troops?
• mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm

  “A person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz.” NYTimes

  Don’t tell me Wilpons were honest on the Ponzi scheme.
  Everybody lost but they made 1 billion and pulled out just before the bust.
  They have to sell the Mets.
  Before that I hope they’d trade Wright for me.
  • srt January 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Everyone else did not lose. Picard has already recouped millions from other investors who showed a profit.
    • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:34 pm

      yeah, and most of them settled already, including $7.2 Billion from Picower. these clowns have to draw it out though.

      they ought to be penalized by picard for wasting everyone’s time.
  • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    2012, they withdrew a billion, but since they put in 950 million, they didn’t make a billion. they made like 5 percent over 20 or so years.

    obviously, they would have done much better in treasury bills, so it’s not like they really made anything.

    on the other hand, when they moan about being victims i want to puke. earning less than t-bills is not like losing everything.
    • mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 8:42 pm

      Francis,
      I don’t know that much about this,but they usually paid up more than a half of what Picard asked for.
      • francis January 28, 2011 at 8:56 pm

        2012, who do you mean by they ? i didn’t understand.
        • stick January 28, 2011 at 8:59 pm

          people are settling for something less than the amount floated out. think of it like an arbitration hearing.
        • mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 9:06 pm

          Francis,
          The people Picard was suing. I thought he was reaching for the sky, but they usually paid up more than a half. They usually paid in full to my surprise.
          I have a feeling if they didn’t pay, prosecution would follow.
          I like this guy Picard.
• Donal January 28, 2011 at 3:19 pm

  What about that Burns fellow from Springfield? I heard he has some history with running a baseball team.
  • Berbalerbs January 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    I, for one, would love to see a “Release the Hounds” night for one of the special promotions…
• francis January 28, 2011 at 6:54 pm

  a couple of things don’t add up about this story.

  1) if they owe a billion, what good will the 200MM they might get from the sale of 25% of the mets do ?

  2) if they owe a billion in part due to ‘conduct’, etc, don’t you think that a criminal charge would follow ?

  i think the trustee at some point may have used a highball number to put a scare into these guys. my guess is that they’ll settle for about a quarter billion, which is about what they are trying to raise here.

  the best case scenario is that they announce a settlement by the end of the month and that it clears them of wrong doing. if the dorr is left open for lawsuits, forget about it.

  either way, they look like idiots and frauds a) for putting all of their money with one person, and b) for insisting that all was well when it wasn’t.

  i really hope that whoever replaces selig runs these guys out of the baseball business so i won’t have to feel like i’m contributing to this BS everytime i buy a ticket.
  • mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    It will cost them at least half mil .
  • srt January 28, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    1) I don’t think they ‘owe’ a billion. I think that’s what Picard might be asking for. Records show they withdrew 47.8 million more then they invested. In my mind, that should be the limit of what Picard can recoup. But hey, ask for the sun and the moon and the stars and you’re assured you’ll probably at least get the sun.

    2) What, exactly, is meant by ‘conduct’? From your interpretation, I would have to assume you think it means something criminal. All speculation at this point. And see my #1. Ask for the world, receive a portion of it.

    Maybe I missed it but where was it documented that Sterling invested ALL of their money with Madoff and just Madoff?

    If the Wilpons didn’t realize the swindle Madoff was operating, then they’re in good company. Neither did anyone else who lost – or made money – off that Ponzi scheme.

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for Selig to take any action. This is the same Selig that turned a blind eye to the use of steroids solely b/c it was good for the game at the time. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
    • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm

      srt,

      my point was that i thought the story about the billion was fishy for the same reasons you do.

      i don’t think they owe a billion, and i don’t think there is misconduct. otherwise they would be in handcuffs.

      i did recall hearing that most of their liquid wealth was tied up with madoff, which was consistent with how he operated.

      as for selig, he’s tight with the wilpons, so i agree that nothing happens when he’s in charge. that’s why i said ‘whoever replaces selig’, because he is retiring soon.
      • stick January 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm

        sounds like punitive damages in a lawsuit. Like in those cigarette cases, they figure out an actual damage of 1 mill, then take on 100 billion just to teach them a lesson for being “bad people”
        • francis January 28, 2011 at 9:13 pm

          stick, i see what you’re saying, but I think the difference here is that in those cigarette cases, you can’t throw a company in jail, and it’s hard to nail down one guy as the culprit.

          in this case, there would be one culprit, and as such, much easier to go the jail route as well as the fine route.

          plus, it’s high profile. do you think wesley snipes would be in jail if he was wesley j snipford from greenwich ?

          i really don’t think they were part of the fraud.

          either they got lucky, or madoff did them a favor and “advised” them to withdraw a little. in that case, they would be on the hook for not ratting, but i would guess that’s a tough case to prosecute.

          still, i despise them more than any met, because they can’t be waived.
          • stick January 28, 2011 at 9:17 pm

            if there was any proof that they were part of the scam, they would have been arrested for it a long time ago.
      • srt January 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm

        Ah….I see. My apologies for misunderstanding.
    • francis January 28, 2011 at 7:25 pm

      srt, the tricky part here is that most of the madoff victims did not withdraw more than they put in.

      that is naturally a reason for prosecutors to suspect that they may have been complicit; although i think that would have come out by now.
      • srt January 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm

        I think I remember reading the Wilpons had invested something like upwards 750 million. So withdrawing 48.7 of profits is relatively small. I know, I know…not to you and I but in context of what was invested vs. what was withdrawn.

        I think it’s a small enough % to make it questionable that they knew.
        • mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 9:12 pm

          srt

          If they reinvest the money they made with Madoff, it will be a different story.
          Most of the people Picard sued for had the same stories but ended up coughing up what Picard asked for.
          • srt January 28, 2011 at 9:31 pm

            I’m sure they’ll be coughing up monies. But there’s a big difference between the approx. 50 million profit and a billion dollars…..
    • Mr North Jersey January 28, 2011 at 7:40 pm

      As usual Well Said.
    • Lou January 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm

      The folks who invested with Madoff were greedy and deserve what happened. He was giving them 12% a year while I was getting 3% for my CDs. Suck it up and more on you greedy SOBs! I still have my money -Ha!
• Lou January 28, 2011 at 9:10 pm

  Wow- I see a 20 dollar beer and hot dog here! Parking will cost more than the blue book value!
• Lou January 28, 2011 at 9:15 pm

  Why can’t these guys get TARP money? Are they worse than AIG, GM and the union thugs and Citi Bank and all the rest. Why make the best baseball fans in the world suffer?
• Clayton Collier January 28, 2011 at 9:35 pm

  Ok I dont get this, If Wilpons invested $523 Million and cashed out at $571 Million, why is this guy going after them for $1 Billion? If anything give back the $48 Million and call it.

  I dont Get it
  • srt January 28, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Think Capt Picard is going to try and prove the Wilpons had knowledge of the Ponzi scheme and profited knowingly because of that. Or maybe he’s thinking all he has to do is ‘hint’ that and the Wilpons will try and settle out of court for more than the 48 million.
    • Clayton Collier January 28, 2011 at 10:15 pm

      Well if one billion dollars is at stake i dont think the Wilpons will go down without a fight. Their personality i think theyd test it in court
      • stick January 28, 2011 at 11:10 pm

        for that kind of money you have to fight it as long as you can.
    • mets2012 January 28, 2011 at 11:03 pm

      srt,

      Forget about 48 mils.
      That’s what Wilpons floated out for the press.
      It will be close what Picard asked for.
      I am just stating what has happened so far.
      • stick January 28, 2011 at 11:08 pm

        that was never verified (the big number). just some vague, unsubstantiated rumor that floated out today. Included a big “might” in it too.
        • mets2012 January 29, 2011 at 12:55 am

          whatever.
  • theonlymaskman January 29, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Just perhaps, and this is only a perhaps, Picard contends that the Wilpons purchased the Mets from Nelson Doubleday with proceeds obtained from Madoff. Then it could be argued that they were not entitled to actually own the Mets and must restore the appreciated value of the entire franchise to the restitution fund. That’s just a wild guess, but perhaps that is how you arrive at a bill for $1 Billion in restitution.
• The Stache January 28, 2011 at 10:18 pm

  This is going to linger all season I’m afraid which is bad for us and bad for the players. The media loves stuff like this and they are going to play this like a harp from hell to quote the Penguin in Batman Returns.
  • stick January 28, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    I still don’t see why it is a big deal. And how it can have any legs. It has pretty much already been beaten to death, and won’t have anything particularly interesting going forward.

    ST really needs to get hear, and soon.
    • mets2012 January 29, 2011 at 12:58 am

      What ae you?
      Wilpons are in deep sh1111ts.
• Markcomic1 January 29, 2011 at 3:47 am

  I saw this coming, I think may folks did, and when it came out that the Wilpons were one of the few to actually gain during the Madoff ponzi Scheme , i knew it would come back to haunt the. The best thing they could do, is sell the team.. It is the one thing they have of value that can possibly cover what they are about to be sued for and it would also be best for baseball and the mets franchise..

  Also if it ever is found out they knew what was going on, the Wilpons are finished..

  Long Live New NY METS OWNER MARK CUBAN!
  • mets2012 January 29, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Seinfeld is Mets fan , very rich and has many weathy friends
    • t agee January 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm

      Some of who are undoubtably, formerly wealthy.
  • Clayton Collier January 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Id like to see donald trump (longshot) or a group headed by Seinfeld make it in… If Jerry Seinfeld became a partial owner he would probably ban Lady Gaga from Citi Field after that whole suite incident lol
    • francis January 29, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      you really want trump ?

      he would rename citi field trump field, have a big giant T mowed into the centerfield grass, and have ivanka as the GM and donald junior as the manager. in short, run it like everything else he does: put his kids in positions they don’t belong, slap his name on everything, and charge double for the value of the trump brand.

      also, he’s the only guy who can actually run casinos into the ground. is it strange to you that his casino lost millions and he somehow has millions ? some people would call that embezzling. he’s already went bankrupt once, and will no doubt be there again.
      • Clayton Collier January 29, 2011 at 2:21 pm

        Hes one of the best businessmen in the country. Hes a multi-billionare and it is a new face. weve seen the Wilpons for over 30 years. If hes wants to make the most money he can, he would buy the Mets and make them a championship team. Steinbrenner made billions off of the Yankees success, maybe Trump would like to do the same with the Mets.
        • francis January 30, 2011 at 11:39 am

          he siphons money from his companies into his own bank account.

          those companies are so saddled with debt, they are constantly on the brink of bankruptcy.

          that’s his m.o., and that’s what he would do to the mets.

          and he would change the name to the trumps, and change the uniforms to black red and gold.
      • stick January 29, 2011 at 2:28 pm

        he didn’t go bankrupt. one of his companies did. Big difference.
        • francis January 30, 2011 at 11:31 am

          that’s exactly my point. he stays solvent, while his companies turn to dust.

          and more than one of his companies have declared bankruptcy.

          and that’s exactly what he would do to the mets. suck every dollar out of them for another wife and gold plated toilet seat.

          trump owning the mets, worst idea of all time.
    • theonlymaskman January 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      I think Jerry Seinfeld is a great idea for the new owner. If Jerry was the 100% owner, then we could have George for GM, Kramer could be the field mgr, Newman could be the equipment mgr and moonlight as Mr Met, Elaine could redesign the uniforms and manage the souvenir stands, and Mr Peterman could run the concessions. Of course, the best thing of all, Elaine could reawaken her relationship with Keith, if she could get him to apologize to Jerry for the magic loogie.

      (Note to North Jersey: I’m just kidding and you don’t have to bother to shoot down my thesis.) However, Jerry would be a better owner than the Wilpons.
• JPMorgan Looks Like The Link Between Wilpon, Mets And Madoff | Free Movie Factory February 4, 2011 at 5:15 am

  [...] a dividend. and Wilpon had also allegedly invested his team’s money with Madoff. I am [...]
• BOBinNH February 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm

  1- The Wilpons took more money out than they put in.
  2- The Wilpons used his unrealistic (not too high, but WAY too steady) returns as collateral to borrow money to make other investments (and more profits).
  3- The laws about profits from fraud are clear. The Wilpons had enough experience themselves, and indications from other people (inside and out of their organization) that they can be seen as having turned a blind eye. (YES- if you’re going to inverst money you do have a duty not to turn a blind eye when a reasonable person in your position [experience, etc] would have started to doubt and ask questions re madoff returns).
  4- The Trustee can ask for all profits- which includes profits on profits, profits on loans using future returns as collateral.
  • Mr North Jersey February 5, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Thanks but I will just wait to see what the courts say what anyone should or should not have knowm.