Comments on: Mets Seek $200 Million For Portion Of The Team

By: Metsie

Metsie — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:11:46 +0000

NI!

By: Metsie

Metsie — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:10:55 +0000

being accepted by the owners before you buy a team has ALWAYS been Standard Operating Procedure at the MLB.

By: francis

francis — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:32:41 +0000

itsitsitsitsitsitstitstitstitstitstitsitsitsits

By: francis

francis — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:30:00 +0000

the set up that they have in green bay is basically this:

the team got the fans to “buy” shares in the team. the shares are not allowed to be sold, so basically the fans just gave their money to the team, and that money never comes back. if you bought a share, you didn’t get tickets, or a dividend, or even a t-shirt. nothing of material value.

in return, they kept the team green bay for a few more years and got at least one title out of it.

By: francis

francis — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:22:38 +0000

LOFL

By: METS62FAN

METS62FAN — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:10:15 +0000

METSIE, THERE U GO ASSUMING & PRESUMMING AGAIN. MY GUESS IS FRED WAS GRANDFATHERED AS AN “ESTABLISHED OWNER OF RECORD” PRIOR TO SELIG FORMING THE COMMITTEE.
PLS NOTE, THAT’S LABELED MY “GUESS” GRANTED AN EDUCATED,LOGICAL ONE; BUT MERELY A GUESS AS I DON’T PRESUME TO KNOW THE INTIMATE RITES OF PASSAGE INTO THE INNER MLB SANCTUM.

SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK; I WAS ALL DONE WHEN I LOOKED UP & OBSERVED IT’S ACTIVATION. DEAL WITH IT, I’M TOO LAZY TO RETYPE IT NOW.

By: Metsie

Metsie — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:12:39 +0000

Basically 62 just look at how the Wilpons got the team.
Doubleday used to be the Majority owner. Wilpons the Minority. Doubleday wanted to sell. The wilpons secured loans and put up the money to buy it without even a sniff of trouble from the MLB.

Pretty much once your in your in!

By: Metsie

Metsie — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:10:30 +0000

Right! you are correct about the vetting. This is why before you buy even a minority stake you must pass the old boy network VETTING proccess.
This is what has been happening lately. There are a few buyers and they must pass the MLB Old boy network acceptance before they can be considered buyers.

Once you pass that test you HAVE BEEN vetted. Which means the MLB already has decided your a good ol boy that can play ball in their court, and if the Majority owner tries to sell you will have right of first refusal without any need to be re-vetted!

Owners and limited partners can not just willy nilly sell their shares to whomever they want without consultation with their partners. They can entertain offers but that offer must be brought before the board and the offer made must be made available to all shareholders of that company. This is so that current partners can retain their precentage of the company as long as they are able to meet the offerred price.

While the board can set the price (and by the control of the board Majority actually sets this), That price applies to every shareholder in both the Buy or Sell mode.

If they can’t afford to buy it they can then sell their shares and get out. But if they can buy control at that price they have the first right to do so.

Provided the partner who is buying pays whatever the outside buyer is offerring they will get first crack at the sale.

The only time this does not happen is when the price to buy up control costs more money than the limited partner has!

The bottomline on these deals is if company A offers 1 Billion dollars for 1 million shares then the limited partners can buy those shares first at the same price. The only time when limited partners get bypassed is when the price is beyond their means and they can not meet the offer.
In those cases their right of first refusal has been met but since they can’t afford to act the sale to someone else goes through.

By: METS62FAN

METS62FAN — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 13:10:20 +0000

Metsie, color me chargrined & impressed; however are u considering the CLOSED market u r dealing with? unlike any other contemporary business venture,MLB is like your private Country club, any perspective new owner MUST first be vetted & passed by the Ownership Committee, even in a minority to majority sale is my understanding. Unfortunately THEY & THEY alone have that ultimate right of refusal!

By: Metsie

Metsie — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:27:14 +0000

Well 62 I am 49 and have served as a CTO, COO and President of 5 different companies!

So I think my business resume pretty much speaks for itself!

If you are a Minority Partner in a company you will always have first right to buy and match any offer made to a controlling partner.

And the COURTS will stop anyone who tries to do or say otherwise!

You can not stop someone with controlling interest from selling but you do have the right to match any offer made by someone else to buy control of the company you already own!

By: METS62FAN

METS62FAN — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:27:39 +0000

Metsie, you are awfully impressed with yourself. How does it feel to be so alone?
I perceive that u are either a young, arrogant, spoiled individual or an older yet immature relatively inexperienced one. Since, if anything, my 61 years of life & business experiences throughout this country has taught me a simple fact; THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES a minority portion of a highly restrictive privately owned family business is umlikely to have any guarantees especially in an enterprise conducting it’;s business in one of the most restrictive industries. First, a little recounting of history;
Nelson Doubleday, an individual, arrainged to purchase the NY Mertropolitan Baseball Franchise from the sole heir to the estate of the originally constituted owner, Mrs. Joan Payson in 1980. At the time of such sale, Doubleday controlled a 99% controlling interest in the transacted enterprise with Mr. Fred Wilpon, an individual investor controlling the remaining 1%. Thus the ownership remained divided until 1986 when the Board of Directors of Doubleday Publishing House concluded that Nelson Doubleday improperly used company funds in procuring his team ownership. the matter was settled out of court with no exact details being published, though one publicized outcome was the coincedental dropping of their claim by the Doubleday Board and the substantial increase in ownership percentage attributed to Mr. Fred Wilpon from his original 1% to a publicized equal 50% share though Fred requested and was given a right of first refusal on any further ownership transfer while Doubleday retained his position of managing partner. In 2002, after many internal disputes had widened the chasm between these two individuals Doubleday & Wilpon, they reached an agreement whereby they would have the franchise evaluated by an independent appraiser agreeable to both of them and that whatever the value was determined to be Fred Wilpon, as an individual would complete the buyout of Doubleday. Pursuant to that completion Fred Wilpon proceeded to effect an internal “sale” by which official ownership transferred from Fred Wi;lpon as an individual to Sterling Equities, a partrnership chaired by Fred.
Metsie, to date the current partnership of Sterling Equities is conmprised of these publicized partners:
FRED WILPON,CO-FOUNDER & CHAIRMAN
SAUL KATZ, CO-FOUNDER & PRESIDENT also Fred’s brother-in-law by marrying Fred’s sister
MICHAEL KATZ Sr. EXECUTIVE V.P. son of Saul, nephew of Fred
RICHARD WILPON Sr. EXECUTIVE V.P. brother of Fred, brother in law to Saul & Uncle to all their prodigy
DAVID M KATZ, EXECUTIVE V.P. son of Saul, nephew of Fred & Richard
THOMAS OSTERMAN, EXECUTIVE V.P.
JEFFREY WILPON EXECUTIVE V.P. son of Fred, nephew of Saul & Richard
ARTHUR FRIEDMAN SR. V.P.
GREGORY KATZ, V.P. son of Saul, nephew to Richard & Fred, cousin or sibling to many
MARVIN TEPPER- PARTNER
Metsie, it would take an ironclad legal agtreement to lock a position of any consequence regarding future ownership to sustain any position of control in that private owneship environement.
Privately, family owned parnerships are regulated quite diffeently than widely held public institutions.

By: Metsie

Metsie — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:47:53 +0000

Since when has the NY Times been known as a respectable organization?
They have been mired in plaugerism, Political Bias and outright FALSE FACT accusations in the last 20 years than any other newspaper in NY!

The NY Times in not the same paper we all grew up with!
WSJ is owned by Murdoch who also owns Fox TV.
What do many people feel about that network?

Lets face facts here. Picard has connections with those two papers.
It is obvious. Not one mention of the suit by the victims against Picard (the guy who supposedly represents them)

A guy who put in 200 Billion (200 Times what the Wilpons invested) settled and paid 200 Million back to the Victims which just happens to be the amount the plaintiff’s daughter borrowed as an alleged “LOAN” from the fund. No mention of it in the settlement by Picard (Hmmm) and he was willing to make a 200 Mil settlement for a 200 Bill investment but wants the whole one Billion back from the Wilpons?

as Fishy as a week old mackrel that has been sitting in the sun!

By: Metsie

Metsie — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:33:30 +0000

Well Annie I know the business part very well and I will tell you may not because you missed the one thing a Minority owner gets when Buying into a team.

FIRST SHOT AT BUYOUT!

Rarely does a team ever get sold outright unless someone makes an offer that is so overwhelming it is too good to refuse.

No one is making that offer not even Cuban!

Anyone who is interested in owning the mets at some point should have no issues buying a Minority stake. The WIlpons owned a Minority stake when they came in and when Doubleday wanted to sell out who got the first option to buy it?

Those Minority owning Wilpons!

Anyone who understands business knows that you don’t just BUY Majority interests unless the person who owns the Majority really wants out of the game!

Most takeovers (Hostile and otherwise) start off with someone who already owns a minority stake and makes an offer to the shareholders above current share value to try and consolidate control and achieve majority.

And those who have control may not sell before first getting approval from the other shareholders. Whatever offer opportunity that Majority might get MUST first be offered to the Minority holders to buy before any sale goes through.

And the buyer must be willing to pay EVERY shareholder that price if they want to buy in. SO when the Majority decides to cash out so too can the Minority holders.

SO by buying a minority stake in ANY company you are basically getting the right of first refusal on any sale and the right of first chance to BUYOUT the Majority should they decide to sell anymore shares later on!

For 200 Mil your getting the chance to own the mets in the future if the Madoff thing does bankrupt the Wilpons and they are forced to sell more shares!

And you are under NO OBLIGATION to float the business expenses with your own personal wealth either!

I know you are very predjudiced against the Wilpons but I have to say you really need to brush up on your business acumen regarding takeovers and Minority stakes.

You may not get control being the Minority but you do get to say your piece and you get a leg up on anyone who wants to buy the team in the future!

Buying a Minority stake is always the first step in taking over any large corporation!

Want proof just look at what Carl Icahn has done for the past 20 years!

By: METS62FAN

METS62FAN — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:09:40 +0000

Dave, you are absolutely correct; but should have also supplied the correct possessive is spelled, ITS’ meaning ostensibly it owns… the answer would be(its’ Network)

By: METS62FAN

METS62FAN — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:07:06 +0000

OLD NEWS; but a very tough sell requiring the ‘new’ partner to accept wearing the rose colored glasses that acquieces to the overall team’s total valuue @ a Sterling set $800M, especially as Forbes just published it’s estimationof worth to be a significantly less $750M. That’s one hell of a rounding eroor requiring one gigantic leap of blind faith. As in most financial trabnsactions, there is a buyer’s price & a seller’s price upon which success relies on a merger of values. as well as an altering of conditions.
Not getting a lot of play in these press clippings is the deja vue factor in evidence as in 1980 Ms. Lorinda de Roullette, heiress tio NYM fortunes from her deceased mother Mrs. Joan Payson, had instigated an expolratory attempt to increase her cashflow by engaging an investor to become a minority partner, not getting much interest other than from those ONLY interested in an entire buyout, deRoulette succombed, ultimately to the full buyout by Nelson Doubleday and his token 1% minority partner, Fred Wilpon. We can only hope that the deLaurian is still functional

By: t agee

t agee — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:55:27 +0000

Starting the season on the DL too Martin?

By: martin

martin — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:56:17 +0000

i have a broken finger and a weird new keyboard tat are not doing me any favors.

By: Des

Des — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:40:03 +0000

Iz, it might surprise you to know that some folks, of whom I’m an example, care what you, what MNJ, and what everyone on MMO thinks. Why not, it’s mind expanding?

By: Mr North Jersey

Mr North Jersey — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:25:05 +0000

Hi Iz. Nothing about the Mets to add I see as usual.

Opening Day is tomorrow and all you have to say are not even your own thoughts?

Instead trying to “speculate” what a person like Annie that not only is no doubt an intelligent person but has the class not to succumb to silly name calling like you when she disagrees with someone?

SMH

By: t agee

t agee — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:25:52 +0000

If you could read wiz you would have realized that Squidoo was sharing a relevant insight about the article’s topic.

It’s quite a bit over your head but perhaps you could shed some expertise on the marketed to morons WWE. That’s more along your level.