Potential Mets Buyers Staring To Emerge

37 Comments + Add Comment

• theonlymaskman January 30, 2011 at 10:47 am

  That’s great news, especially since 2 out of 3 are looking for a controlling interest. Let’s get this done and move the control over to someone else more capable of supporting this franchise financially.
  • METS62FAN January 31, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Mask, regardless there will naturally be a GAP of inactivity created. I’ve yet to determine whether the suit by Picard goes before a judge or a jury. I’m thinking a judge favors Wilpons unless there’a undeniable proof they duped others into joining, proof or bnot a jury is always a coinflip either way in this battle of Millionaires. I can’t help but believe the suestimates of Picard’s claims are being complied by those same seers who swore the Wilpons took a $700M bath! Where are they?

    If, the money withdrawn went to predetermined specific purposes such as withdrafro player deferred salary escrow withdrawals being applied directly towards the final dispersements with interest to Bonilla,Glavine,Franco or withdrawals of construction accounts for Citi purposes, it’s hard to conceive that without direct proof of complicity, there’s any mewrit whatsoever other than the suit being a molification for the hue & cries of those that truly bathed in Maidoff losses(blood)
    However, if like all of the victims, the Wilpons invested in whatr they believed was a fortunate magic advantage due privlidged few and only due to fortunate timing/circumstance approached their account manager for withdrawals from their multipurpose investments(FAILURE OF MAIDOFF TO DO SO WOULD HAVE EXPOSED HIM PREMATURELY & DEFINITLY).
    Early accounts I remember reading intimated it was Jeff who spurred his father into attending one of Berni’s Sales pitches.
    During the 60 minute interview shortly after Maidoff’s exposure & Picard’s placement, Picard indicated his intent to clawback illgotten gains from “those who should certainly have known better” ie Hedge funds managers, & other financial market socalled professionals. On the surface it does not appewar that Sterling’s partners possess that level of market expertise despite both Sal & his eldest son’s CPA designations only qwualify them to “count” acuurately(lol) & certanly not at a market expertise analist lervel.
    Iguess, like so mny other things specualtion id futile & swings a wide arc that we’ll have to await a decision to truly decipher.
    It is certauinly much more in Wilpon manner to be planning for a worst case scenerio.
    • theonlymaskman January 31, 2011 at 9:56 am

      62, There is no way to know the actual reality of the situation except to realize that the Wilpons apparently perceive a problem for them regarding Picard’s claims and the eventual settlement. As for me, I think Picard’s claims must have reasonable substance to them and not just a bunch of idle poppycock. So this will continue to hang over the Wilpons, and thereby the Mets as well, until it reaches final adjudication. My preference would be to clear this up sooner rather than later. And the easiest way to do that is for the Wilpons to exit left as a new owner takes over the team. My preference is for 100% transfer of ownership so that the Mets can get back to the business of really competing to win as soon as possible. I wish no harm to the Wilpons, I just wish for the team to get past this and be unbridled in seeking competitiveness.
      • METS62FAN February 1, 2011 at 8:48 am

        Mask, as we’ve discussed au nauseum in the past, it’s my distinct opinion that an immediate full transfer of ownership is the most unlikely method of acquiring the type of ownership, “involved”,”deep-pocketed” & “passionate for winning”, that fans of the NYM yearn for. Since that description of ‘new owner’ runs counter to the best interests of sm-mid market teams wishing to stifle payrolls as best thay can and since another “BIG MARKET” pirate/buckaneer will raise the average player salaries substantially setting one free in the world’s most affluent/influential baseball market is as far from their desires as one can possibly consider. Only by avoiding the conveening of the ‘Commissioner’s Ownership Committee” can we dare to dream of raping & pillaging our way through the F/A marketplace anytime soon bacxkfilling openings with the best & brightest MLB has to offer.
        For this obvious rationale, do I favor a more gradual interim minority partner eventually being positioned for majority assumation if necessary as the most FAN-FRIENDLY transfer of power in Flushing, with nary a gavel being raised by that dreaded self-serving Committee.
• alwaysnextyear January 30, 2011 at 10:56 am

  I twas pretty much a given that you would see names tossed out that were looking for a bargain, and only interested in full (or majority) control.

  I don’t know who this repole guy is, but he sounds perfect, especially if he is willing to go in for 25% (if the Wilons are going to hold to that).

  my guess is that you either see a deal like that, they don’t end up selling a stake at all (depending on what the claw back settlement is, and if they can get the money elsewhere) or someone comes in and makes a stupid (jayson werth level stupid) offer for the whole thing.

  also, gotta figure that anyone smart enough to put together a deal for the whole team is going to want Citi filed and SNY as part of the package (and it is not clear to me how entwined those 3 are, but is seems that wilopn wants to carve out just a part of the franchise).
  • srt January 30, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Not enough detail about these three suggestions given but of the three Repole sounds like the better bet.

    I read the quotes from Silver last night in another article. He went on to say the Mets aren’t worth what’s been estimated, they’d have to come down. Then he said he wants a controlling interest. After that he said ‘we’ want a winning product, ‘we’ this, ‘we’, that. Scary…..

    King III wants a controlling interest as well. Doesn’t sound like, at this time, the Wilpons have any intention of giving up controlling interest.
  • Pete January 30, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Get this straight. The Wilpons are frigging LIARS, and they always have been. If they tell you they are financially solvent, they are lying. If they tell you they need a little dough so they are going to sell a small portion of the franchise, they are still FULL of SHlT. What this really means is that if they are admitting some trouble you can be sure it is a lot worse than they make it sound. This is the first sign of smoke. The fire will soon be raging and the Mets won’t be dealing with Steve Repole, they will be selling their controlling interest to pay off their mammoth debt. There is light at the end of the tunnel! Up the Wilpons asses! Those buffoons.
    • stick January 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      you do realize that no owner goes public with their personal financial situation, right? especially stuff that does not directly impact the day to day operations of the team?
      • Pete January 31, 2011 at 9:12 pm

        ok stick, you do realize that they were involved in a SECOND PONZI SCAM right? And that has come to light since I wrote my first blog here. what do you say now stick?
        • stick January 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm

          the exact same thing.
          • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 9:50 pm

            
• Bayonne Mets Fan January 30, 2011 at 11:02 am

  I don’t know who Repole is either but you can’t go wrong having a part owner who says he bleeds the blue & orange (or can you?)
  Also the fact that he has 2 pretty girls in Mets/Vodka getup at his side during this press conference is pretty cool, it show’s that he has some showmanship and interesting marketing ideas. I like it, lol.

  Maybe mixed drinks would be cheaper too if he was part owner.
  • alwaysnextyear January 30, 2011 at 11:09 am

    actually, you can go very wrong. You get a rich guy that wants to play GM, and has emotional (often irrational) attachments to the team and individual players. That can lead to bad things.

    I prefer a guy that is more of a dispationate assasain type, that is focused on wins, now and ongoing.
    • t agee January 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

      I agree, plus you could have a partial owner who really wants to do things the right way and passes away and his/her spouse wants a full accounting of every single expenditure right down to the number of baseballs like Lorinda de Roulet did.

      That could cause complete gridlock.

      There are so many eventualities and possibilities that would have to be pre addressed during the negotiation of any partnership agreement that one thing not pre thought out and put in writing could cause a return to the Grant tomb days.
  • theonlymaskman January 30, 2011 at 11:10 am

    The guy with the two gals and the vodka ads is Martin Silver, not Repole. Silver wants a controlling interest, and I say give it to him. I don’t want any 25% partner in this, because that is just a crutch for the Wilpons to stay in place and continue their self-serving approach. I prefer the alternatives that transfer a controlling interest so we can have a true change in how the team is operated.
  • Steve from Norfolk January 30, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    Repole bleeds blue & orange. Silver had the two girls in Mets/vodka colors.

    I almost said MLB wouldn’t let a liquor maker near the team. Then, I remembered Gussie Busch. Unless MLB has always bought into the line about beer being a soft drink.
• XtreemIcon January 30, 2011 at 11:06 am

  I wonder if Kranepool would HAVE to watch the Mets losing if he was a majority shareholder. Or would he still root for other teams?
  • Caryn January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Touche`, well said.
  • theonlymaskman January 30, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Guess what! He would make sure they were winning!
• Nester January 30, 2011 at 11:16 am

  I would prefer to stay away from groups and prefer one solitary owner. Groups always start out on good footing, but then egos take over and in-fighting begins sort of like we saw with doubleday/wilpon. I’d be ok with Silver because he has been trying to by the Mets for a long time.
  • alwaysnextyear January 30, 2011 at 11:31 am

    no one knows exactly what his financial situation is though. Plenty of “rich” owners (on paper) had to leveraage the hell out of the team to come up with the purchase price. So they are likely to be very focused on the bottom line, of not going broke!

    so don’t automatically assume that a new guy is going to come in and jump payroll right past the yankees, even if the team is running in the red to do it.

    at best you will hopefully get someone that is smart enough to hire a strong GM and let them do what needs to be done. Like say, Alderson.

    it is somewhat ironic that now that the Wilpons have seemingly realized how they should have been running the operation all along, they might actually have to sell!
• Lifelongmetsfan January 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

  When does the media and Met fans acknowledge and confront the Wilpon’s dishonest, deceitful comments made over the past few months.
  The Omar firing Press conference, the little Fred Wilpons interviews that everyone commented was so forthright and sincere.. t was all BS.
• Lifelongmetsfan January 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

  Why would we want an owner who doesn’t even watch the Mets?
  Ed Kranepool made a comment just recently that he has no interest watching the Mets play. Now he is interested in purchasing a stake in the team. WOW. so much BS. Does anyone say anyhting at all even remotely honest anymore?
  • happy little mets fans January 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    Obviously, Ed Kranepool is the smartest person ever to wear a metsie jersey. Don’t sell to Kranepool Freddy…. KEEP THE WILPONS! SAVE THE WILPONS!
  • mrmetfan January 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    maybe he doesnt watch them because he isnt happy with them. so if he buys some of the team he can help the team directly….just a thought
• francis January 30, 2011 at 12:41 pm

  If the minority owner has no controlling interest, who cares if they watch or not. That is what a non controlling interest is. No control. As in none. As in less than if you bought a share of Apple stock.
• bill January 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm

  Maybe they should sell shares like the Red sux and the packers
• MetsMan86 January 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm

  Mike Repole is the guy who made VitaminWater, what someone said before about him being in the liquor business is wrong (that’s Martin Silver). I’m really pulling for this guy being that he is from Queens, started his business in Queens and gave employment to the people of Queens, what would be better than to own at least a minority stake of the baseball team in Queens. And also the fact he’s a avant Yankee-hater is a MAJOR PLUS! The other people in the groups, I believe the just want to be 50% owners for the public appearance and to further their own public careers.
• Lou January 30, 2011 at 7:35 pm

  What a great idea for a “Liquor King” to buy the Mets.
  forget Citi Field. MARGARITAVILLE here we come!
  • Clayton Collier January 30, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Maybe instead of a Rising Apple well have the Margarita Volcano everytime they hit a home run!
  • Donal January 31, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    God knows this team has already driven me to drink. The least they can do is supply the booze.
    • XtreemIcon January 31, 2011 at 1:16 pm

      Comment win.
  • Donal January 31, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Silver makes terrible vodka, not tequilla.
• ReyesAdvocate January 31, 2011 at 1:10 pm

  I want Mark Cuban. I don’t think anyone could complain about that one.
  • Donal January 31, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    You’d be surprised.

    Besides, he’s still under SEC investigation. The Country Club has a built in excuse to exclude him.
• Greg From brooklyn January 31, 2011 at 4:08 pm

  Here’s hoping that Mike Repole will be able to buy 100% of the Mets.
  Anyone who bleeds the Orange and Blue…and hates the Yankees…is a friend of mine.

  This is what New York Baseball needs.
  I’m wishing the Wilpon’s luck…..but they are just too tight-assed to even say they are Yankee haters.

  We need people who love the Mets and the Mets history…take away a decade (the late 70′s) or 2…(the 90′s).
• METS62FAN February 1, 2011 at 9:53 am

  Look, fellow Met fans, any transfer of 100% of this team as an initial one time occurance must be approved by the Commissioner’s “OWNERSHIP COMMITTEE” SAID cOMMITTEE IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF OUR COMPETITORS SOME “ON THE FIELD” NL TEAMS as well as ALL IN THE PLAYER MARKETPLACE, both as F/A & Draft signings/picks. As player average salaries rise so does the expense line for ALL MLB teams even for example the KC Royals, who rarely participate in big name F/A hunts & just as rarely take the field of play against Flushing’s Finest. There is absolutely no relevant reason why the Royals, in this example, would allow a new ownership group in the NL/NYC to adversly effect their bottom line. With the present ownership’s commitments to Luxury tax avoidance & Draft slotting, the Mets’ overall effect on the avg player salaries has been watered down to nearly negligible proportions; but to consider taking a chance on letting LOOSE ANOTHER TITAN SPENDER would, to a modest team like the Royals be financial suicide & irresponsible.

  No my friends the safest path to the aggressive style of ownership we all crave is the gradual minority to majority eventual ownership progression which would not create an oportunity for our rivals to impact our future. Just as Fred began with a mere 1% in 1980, took advantage of Doubleday legal entanglements to reach equality @ 50% in ’86 so too must we hope that this “foot in the door oportunity” expands to a sqeezing out of Sterling interests while our competitors must sit idly by watching our muscles growing to flex proportions making the NL side of town as attractive as the AL side to available top level talent.
  If our luck is good perhaps Bernie Madoff may trade in his NYM goat horns for Laurels just shy of “name on the wall”/NYM HOF enshrinement.(lol)

  As an homage to the opining from ReyesAdvocate above, just consider that Mark Cuban’s well financed attempts at securing an MLB ownership position were scuttled “in Committee” on both the Chicago Cubs & Texas Rangers ownership transfers. despite entering the Committee hearing as part of the favorite conglomerate being considered, both times the Cuban favorite status was “upset” by the second runner.Ricketts’ family Group & Nolan Ryan Group! Buying 20-25% is an investor change to MLB not a control change requiring Committee convention. Securing a “right to first refusal on future shares is a no-brainer contingency once used to his advantage by Fred.