Mets To Sell 10 Shares Of Team

28 Comments + Add Comment

• any January 31, 2012 at 10:12 am

  anything to stabilize the finances can only help the future of the team. especially when it comes to retaining the talent you want to keep (like Ike).
  • Joey D. January 31, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Actually, anything to stabilize the finances can also hurt the future of the team if it results in just delaying the selling of the Mets by the Wilpons. Way more than just $200 million is required to pay the combined debt owed to MLB, the bank bridge loan, Citi Field and SNY. Add to that the additional investment back into free agency and building back the essential operating aspects of the club that had been cut. Not to mention a loss of more revenue at the gate which is sure to come this season.

    This means it still might not come to retaining the talent one want’s to keep. Though it can go either way, I somehow doubt it will affect the roster since (as I’ve contested all along) the salaries paid to players were just a small part of the overall expenditures needed to operate the club and/or caused this problem for Fred, Jeff and Saul.

    Hope I’m wrong, even if that means continuinng with the Wilpons.
    • srt January 31, 2012 at 10:58 am

      This certainly drags out the Wilpon saga.

      I just hope the Wilpons hanging onto the team by the skin of their nails doesn’t mean in trading away good, young, under control players – which we all hope Ike proves himself to be this year.

      If they do retain ownership, and they do start farming out cost controlled players who are good as a ‘two or three for one sale’, then yeah….the Wilpons have got to go.
      • trs86 January 31, 2012 at 11:01 am

        The difference is they know they are not Oakland. They realize that if they build a contender people will show up. I don’t see Ike or Niese being traded unless the return is huge, especially Ike.
        • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 11:25 am

          The Wilpons needed to stop the $60-70 million a year bleeding. That has been accomplished. The Mets will make money and a lot of it in 2012. I’ve been saying that for months now.

          They have two big hurdles coming.

          1. The lawsuit which will ultimately cost them $83M max.

          2. The debt payments in 2013 and 2015.

          The $200 million from the shares will cover all monies owed to MLB, BOA plus the lawsuit with over $50 million left to spare, invest, what have you.

          That money plus future revenues will be enough to make the first of the big debt payments. Things only get better after that because the 2015 debt payment is renewable for 5 years.

          By 2014 the Wilpons will be in the clear with a profitable team, increased SNY revenues from a younger and exciting to watch team, and new marketing opportunities from their new faces of the franchises.

          When things are good the Wilpons always spent. That won’t change.
          • srt January 31, 2012 at 11:32 am

            Yeah, I’m not disputing the Wilpons have spent on this team in the past. I never understood that ‘Coupons’ moniker….
            • srt January 31, 2012 at 11:35 am

              To add:
              ‘When things are good the Wilpons always spent. That won’t change.’

              I hope you’re right. Even if they do get back to some semblance of cost controlled type debt, you have to wonder if they won’t be ‘once bitten, twice shy’ in the department of spending money on this team.

              I think if they’re confident they’ve got the right baseball people in place making sound baseball decisions that make sense, they will. But coming a hare’s breath away from losing the team they want to hang their family legacy on, you have to wonder…..
              • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 11:54 am

                I’m pretty certain that by the start of 2014, Jeff Wilpon will be named CEO and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mets. This was Fred’s dream all along. Jeff has been standing in the shadows all this time and when he takes control he will want a taste of what his father got in 1986. He may not give Alderson or whoever the GM is carte blanche like his father did, but Jef is a big image and status symbol type guy. He was born with a silver spoon and he is none to pleased with the tarnished image of the Mets. He also gets things done by getting the right people to get those things done. He is not too smart, but he’s smart enough to know he has to let his front office make the big decisions and not himself. Things could get better.
                • srt January 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm

                  Practically the only thing I can remember about Doubleday selling to the Wilpons was:

                  - he wanted to sell his half to someone not named Wilpon and MLB forced him to offer it to the Wilpons first.
                  - The last straw seemed to be he wanted to revamp Shea, he never wanted a new stadium.
                  - Parting words were something along the lines of ‘Jeff is going to take this franchise down’.

                  Oh boy….I have no idea if there was a multitude of decisions that both sides couldn’t agree on that made Doubleday decide to get out or if the bad blood was strictly between Jeff and Doubleday and if so….was it justified.
                  • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 12:17 pm

                    I wish Doubleday never sold his half. He couldn’t take the fact that after they became 50/50 partners in 86, that this no-nothing kid Jeff Wilpon got a fantastical title and rose from the ranks of coffee boy to vice president. Jeff was also on a huge ego trip during those formative years of the 50/50 partnership and Doubleday wanted to wring his neck.

                    The irony is that Doubleday eventually got the last laugh. He made sure there was a clause in that sale that would pay him an additional $50MM if they ever built a new park. Doubleday is the only person to make a dime on Citi Field. Smart man.
                • jessep January 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm

                  hey Joe, your point about Jeff not giving the GM the power is really the only thing a Met fan has to worry about with the Wilpon’s in my view.

                  As I said in the fan post: If the Wilpon’s keeping this team is inevitable, then it is in MY best interest for their financial situation to improve.

                  As a fan, you cannot complain about their lack of spending. They spent to win, they just didn’t win.

                  The problem is involvement. Fred & Jeff’s biggest flaw is that they think they are baseball men and not baseball owners.

                  So if they get their $ in order, let them sign the checks and let the baseball men make the baseball decisions
                  • any January 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm

                    The most dangerous thing in business is a dumb man in charge with money, that does not know they are dumb.

                    Just have to hope that after all this time (and some seriously hard learned lessons) that he knows enough to turn the reins over someone that actually knows what they are doing.

                    Sure, keep the corner office, sit in on all the meetings, give your opinion. But let the operations guy handle the real work and important decisions.
                  • srt January 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm

                    Works for me!
          • Joey D. January 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm

            Joe,

            I don’t think the Wilpons can count on increased revenue this year causing them to either break-even or even make a profit.

            Attendance will be less and so will be the box office receipts. But even if they are able to break-even or make a profit, it will be the result of cuts made on the roster and everything else internally to enanble them to operate with much less overhead than years past and with less revenue coming in.

            That might allow them to sustain the Mets like Oakland or Pittsburgh. Is that what we want for our team?

            And even with $200 million in limited partnership and the Mets actually breaking even this season, we don’t know how much the Wilpons are in debt outside of the Mets, although we do know that amount is considerable. If their other diversifications were on stabler ground financiall, my guess is we would not have seen the Mets grounded into the dirt the way they have.

            The Mets might be a luxury the Wilpons could no longer afford to keep. Certainly, I don’t think any of us are happy with the way things have become with the team just so Jeff can become CEO as a gift from his father.
• Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 11:28 am

  It’s hard though not to be somewhat concerned with the end date being pushed another month.
  • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 11:44 am

    I dont think it’s been pushed at all. I always said it would get done before the season opener. Every time Martino opens his mouth he creates this mysticism that the Wilpons missed some sort of self imposed deadline. All they’ve missed were the timelines speculated on by Rubin and Martino.

    The bridge loan was through opening day, that’s when BOA expects to get paid back. All these early January, mid January, late January deadlines never came from Katz or Wilpon only Rubin and Martino’s sources who have been wrong throughout most of this process. You would do better to pay more attention to Sandomir whose had his pulse on this going back to the days the feds arrested Bernie.
    • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 11:45 am

      Didnt Alderson say he expected them to be done by the end of January though?
      • srt January 31, 2012 at 11:49 am

        I sort of remember that too. Although I don’t know if it was a direct quote from Sandy or not.
      • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 11:55 am

        This was the quote I was refering to.

        “I think a bridge loan makes perfect sense given the investments that are expected to close in January.”

        http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/37184/alderson-minority-owners-close-next-month
        • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 12:00 pm

          Alderson has never spoken in absolutes on any of this and most of his references were always based on things that were already in the mainstream like that January quote. As a GM it is not even in his realm to discuss these matters at all. Still he gets pressed by everyone and sometimes says something like that just to say something with the comfort of knowing it’s never anything new to add to the table and only what’s already been circulating.
      • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 11:57 am

        He only knows what he reads in the papers. His quote, not mine. During the last get together at Citi Field, Alderson completely rebuffed any questions on shares and financial stuff, and he did the same on our conference call.
        • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm

          LoL, He did say after when approached that that in so many words he stood by his comments but that he would refrain from further discussing the topic. Maybe the Wilpons scolded him for talking out of turn?

          Still I am pretty sure he knows a tad more than just what he reads despite him say to the contrary.
    • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm

      By the way your preaching to the choir on Sandomir’s coverage since this whole madoff mess broke. I have many of his articles bookmarked that I reference back to from time to time.
      • Joe D January 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm

        I’m interested in knowing what you think of his coverage. I’ve also been hooked on him since that fateful day. Do you consider him to be objective? Accurate? Meticulous?
        • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2012 at 12:25 pm

          I find I like him most cause he sticks to the facts and he reports a decision from both sides Picard’s and the Wilpons.

          There is another person whose name I can’;t recall who writes in the WSJ where his reports I don’t like cause when I have read them they tend to take the facts and he then seems to hypothesize so much as to try and create the worst case scenario for the shock of it.
• Mike Lloyd January 31, 2012 at 11:42 am

  I d prefer the Wilpons sell the team. This pretty much insures they will retain control. Wilpon did spend money in the past, and probably will in the future; if retaining control and paying down the debt they’ve incurred means that we can expect the Mets to strategically begin signing players after this season while retaining the young talent the team develops which will, hopefully, start arriving in waves beginning this summer, then by all means sell the shares…CRITICIZING AND THE TIME FOR SECOND GUESSING WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED NEEDS TO END FOR NOW…REALITY IS WHAT IT IS…IT DOESNT MEAN I, FOR ONE, WONT BE CRITICAL IN THE FUTURE BUT, FOR NOW, LETS GO METS!!!
• Joey D. January 31, 2012 at 11:41 pm

  We were told last Winter that 2011 would be a transition year and to expect the Mets to re-enter the free agent market in 2012 because we would no longer have the financial obligations for those on the final year of their contracts.

  Then last March we were told that the financial state of the Wilpons had no impact on the operations of the general manager’s office.

  This summer we were told that the money saved from Krod and Beltran could be used to re-sign Jose Reyes.

  This fall we were told that the question was whether or not we should re-sign Jose or use a major portion of the money saved by the above mentioned to spread out among other players instead.

  Then we were told that the Mets lost $70 million this past season and had little money to spend on anybody, period.

  We were also told to expect further reductions in payroll over the next few years.

  Now one does not need to be a CPA to figure out some basic rules of finance and ask if the Mets lost $70 million this past season, how could they expect not to repeat that again this coming year? Yes, about half that amount has been covered by the reduced roster payroll. Now, assuming the remaining approximately $35 million is covered by cutbacks in all facets of overhead having already taken place and to be implemented based on the recommendations of CRG. Then, what about repaying the $25 million and $40 million loans? Would not that just about offset the Mets chances of breaking even, assuming there will be no drop-off of revenue from last season ? And nobody is counting on the Mets having less empty seats than they did last year.

  And how much of the $200 million infusion from new minority owners will go to offset other debts instead of adding to the teams liquidity? The Mets owe more than just that combined $75 million mentioned above. There’s Citi Field, SNY, etc.

  So taking all the above into account, where does this present the opportunity to aggressively re-invest in the free agent market and trades in the immediate future? Even without the salaries for Santana, Wright and Bay the Mets are committed to those upcoming payroll reductions and this includes the CBA guaranteeing salaries for rookie and second year players going up plus many of our young players becoming eligible for arbitration There will still be those other debts to payoff and we must also project continued losses in box office receipts.

  Unfortunately, I don’t see how the Mets will be able to go after free agents of any worth with the situation to remain as it is. I don’t even see how they will be able to retain the status quo even if that doesn’t include Wright, Bay and Santana.

  Again, even a layman can see there are many dark days ahead with the Wilpons.
  • Joey D. February 1, 2012 at 12:14 am

    Meant combined $65 million (the MLB and bridge loans), not combined $75 million (typo).

    Even so, $10 million less is chicken feed compared to the overall scope of the financial situation facing the Wilpons and Katz. And no matter how one calculates the infusion of new capital, the cuts in salaries, revenue generated from attendance and elimination of that $65 million (no typo this time), combined it will not be enough to offset the club’s financial losses from 2009 through 2011, the continued loss of attendance and what has to be paid back for Citi Field and the loan used for dividends pertaining to SNY.

    And that is without considering the Madoff decision and other losses suffered by Sterling Equities along with Mr. Met demanding a raise.