Wilpons not in financial trouble

I like this part:

Bob DuPuy, the president of Major League Baseball, said that the Mets’ financial reports, which are filed quarterly, like those of other teams, have shown no financial distress or need to worry about the team’s long-term future under the Wilpons.

Yeah, and the dudes in Wall St. never cooked their books, either.

over 2 years ago fxcarden 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How about this part

You feel great when they play well, you feel wounded when they’re not

wounded like a machine gun wound?

"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"

by firejerrynow on Aug 29, 2009 3:14 PM EDT reply actions

I don't doubt

that the team’s finances are fine. That’s different than the Wilpons’ personal financial position, not that I know the details of that either.

by wobatus on Aug 29, 2009 3:31 PM EDT reply actions

agreed

I don’t think anyone has ever thought the mets were in trouble. Just that the Wilpons were trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of them.

by Gina on Aug 29, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

The Wilpons

have a billion dollar asset (or close) that is probably about as secure as a government bond, if not more. They’re not in any risk of going broke.

by yellomellojello on Aug 29, 2009 5:03 PM EDT reply actions

well

They likely financed some of their ownership. Likely above water there, but they may be underwater elsewhere. They may have had loans against their Madoff holdings, their real estate may be mortgaged and has lost value. All just speculating on my part, although they clearly lost 100s of millions with Madoff and had a certain lifestyle to maintain. Therefore, while perhaps or perhaps not in risk of “going broke” (you are likely right that they won’t go broke, but Fred’s view of broke and yours are likely pretty different), the ownership stake in the Mets is clearly more important to their overall wealth than it was before.

Lots of ceo’s had margin calls during the credit crisis. Aubrey McClendon, ceo of Chesapeake Energy, was forced to sell what had been a multi-billion stake for $500 million or so, almost all his stock in the company. He had some other wealth, but he is nowhere near as rich as he was.

This is not to say that Fred Wilpon has had any margin calls, but any loans where he gave a guarantee or pledged assets, the banks will closely at that. Real esatte is not a particularly liquid investment, and neither is the Mets. The Mets have a large operating budget. They may be worth 900 million or more, likely less than last year this time, and Fred can’t just bankroll his life by sucking 100 million out of the Mets regularly.

by wobatus on Aug 30, 2009 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

wilpon could have made money with madoff

if he had been with him for many years he could essentially be accomplice to the whole fraud, and pocketed as much if not more than modoff. i have no idea if that i likely the case or not but that $50 billion had to go somewhere, bernie didnt spend all of it.

Lets hope that when gut check time comes again the Mets will pass it with flying colors.

by kendynamo on Aug 31, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions

True, they probably got some $$ back

but probably not more than they put it. And it’s still a possibility that some of the other victims will sue those who were paid to recoup some of their losses.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Aug 31, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Wilpons aren't liable

unless you can prove they were willfully taking payments they new were crooked. It sucks, but if they were ignorant (willfully or not) of the criminality Madoff’s actions, its a stretch to make them liable since technically they haven’t done anything wrong.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage

by blueandorange4life on Sep 1, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions