Fred Wilpon, Bernie Madoff, And The Mets: A Timeline
by James Kannengieser on Feb 7, 2011 10:56 AM EST
Email
PrintDaily reports are flying around about the fallout from the Mets' involvement with Bernie Madoff. It's no easy task keeping track of everything, so here is a timeline of all the Wilpon/Madoff events since Madoff's arrest back in December 2008. It consists of relevant excerpts from various news reports, blog posts and press releases, with no editorializing. This will be updated as the saga drags on.
12/11/2008 -- SEC Charges Bernard L. Madoff For Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme (SEC.gov)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Bernard L. Madoff and his investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, with securities fraud for a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme that he perpetrated on advisory clients of his firm.
According to regulatory filings, the Madoff firm had more than $17 billion in assets under management as of the beginning of 2008. It appears that virtually all assets of the advisory business are missing.
12/12/2008 -- Mets Owner Fred Wilpon May Have Been Big Loser In Bernard Madoff's $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme -- (New York Daily News)
CNBC is reporting that Mets owner Fred Wilpon and partner Saul Katz, through their investment entity Sterling Stamos, could have lost as much as $300 million.
12/13/2008 -- MLB Believes Fraud Will Not Affect The Mets -- (New York Times)
"The Mets are completely self-sufficient, and we have confidence that none of the other investments will affect the team," [COO of Major League Baseball Bob] DuPuy said. "They have been one of our most successful franchises on and off the field, and they are going into a magnificent ballpark next spring, and we expect it to be business as usual."
12/15/2008 -- I'll Save The Mets, Says Long Island Liquor Mogul Martin Silver -- (New York Daily News)
Martin Silver, owner of Syosset-based Star Industries, told the Daily News he's putting together a team of partners to make Wilpon an offer for the major league franchise.
Silver, part owner of a minor league baseball team in Wilmington, Del., said he has spoken to potential investors and estimated he could put together an offer of $600 million to $700 million for the team. Forbes magazine has put the value of the Mets at $824 million.
12/18/2008 -- Mets Will Not Be Affected By Losses To Madoff, Wilpon Says -- (New York Times)
...he [Jeff Wilpon] said that neither his family nor the Mets would be deterred by the substantial financial losses the Wilpons absorbed through investments with Bernard Madoff...
"The team is not for sale, not a piece of it, not a part of it," Wilpon said. "We are not for sale. We have no reason to sell."
Wilpon said his family, which owns a huge portion of the Mets, would not need to recruit new minority investors to bolster the team's revenue.
Wilpon acknowledged that he has heard financial analysts say that investors like the Wilpons should have been suspicious of Madoff's operations, which turned out almost unvarying profits year after year, but he said it was easy to make such declarations after the fact.
Using a baseball metaphor, his only one of the day, he likened it to a pitcher throwing a fastball and wishing it had been a curve.
2/5/2009 -- Mets Are Prominent On Madoff List, But Say They're Fine -- (New York Times)
The Mets said Thursday that despite the prominence of the principal owner, Fred Wilpon, his family and his businesses on a 162-page list of the victims of Bernard L. Madoff's suspected $50 billion Ponzi scheme, the team remains financially sound.
"As we have said before on numerous occasions, this does not and will not affect the day-to-day operations and long-term plans of the Mets' organization and the Citi Field project," the team said in a statement.
Thirteen Mets accounts, some with Shea Stadium addresses, are among several hundred listed in the names of the Wilpons, the family of Fred Wilpon's brother-in-law and partner Saul Katz, and their company, Sterling Equities. The names of thousands of Madoff investors were released late Wednesday by the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.
8/28/2009 -- Mets Owners Will Sell Due To Madoff Losses, Says Author -- (Reuters)
The Wilpon family, led by Mets owner Fred Wilpon, lost about $700 million because of Madoff, according to Erin Arvedlund, author of "Too Good to Be True," published earlier this month.
Arvedlund said she does not know the terms of the Wilpons' bank loans, but said the losses are steep enough that a sale of the baseball team is certain.
"It's qualified by when," she said. "It's possible they would have to sell by next year."
8/29/2009 -- Wilpon Again Addresses Doubts Over Madoff Losses And Mets -- (New York Times)
"I'm fine, my family's fine, my business family's fine," Wilpon said by telephone from Aspen, Colo., where he was vacationing. His son, Jeff, the team's chief operating officer, made similar remarks shortly after Madoff's $65 billion fraud was revealed in December. But Fred Wilpon felt the need to emphasize again that the finances of the team had not been affected.
Wilpon, who would say only that his Madoff-related investment losses were "significantly" below $700 million, said the Mets were an "emotional asset" that he was not selling. He said he would not sell even to recoup the money stolen by Madoff.
"My long-term goal has always been to have my son and my grandchildren involved with the Mets, if they choose to be, and Jeff has chosen to be," Wilpon said. "Would I sell a building on whatever street, in whatever city? I have no problem with that. I have no emotional attachment to them."
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.
8/31/2009 -- Mets Exec Dave Howard Challenges Book Author On 'Wilpons Will Sell' Claims (video)
(the following is a transcript of some of Howard's comments)
"[The claims of author Erin Arvedlund are] outrageous, unfounded, irresponsible -- grossly irresponsible.
That information is flat-out wrong, it is false, it is highly irresponsible to be making statements like that.
Quite frankly it's very disturbing that she's continuing to articulate these false and irresponsible claims.
The team is not for sale, in whole or in part. It is family owned. It will be family owned for the long-term. It's a passionate long-term investment. There is no need to sell. There is no reason to sell. There will be no sale. And I can't state it any more definitively than that."
10/21/2009 -- Two Accounts That Mets Had With Madoff Made Gains -- (New York Times)
Mets LP, one of the team's financial arms, withdrew $570.5 million from two accounts it held with Madoff's company, $47.8 million more than it put in. The accounts were part of a list of more than 30 in which more money was withdrawn than was deposited with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.
As a result, Mets LP and the others were deemed "net winners" ineligible for compensation and potentially liable to being sued by Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed liquidator who is trying to recover money lost in Madoff's $65 billion Ponzi scheme.
The new figures released in Bankruptcy Court do not mean that the Mets made money with Madoff, either. The Mets, Sterling Equities and the Wilpons had dozens of accounts with Madoff's financial firm. It is unclear how much money was in those accounts, and how they were used to help run the team, if at all.
2/2/2010 -- Wilpon Says Mets Are Still A Family Business -- (New York Times)
Wilpon reiterated that he still intended to pass the Mets on to his grandchildren.
"I've always said, if it's up to me, my family will be involved for the next generations," he said. "That's all I can tell you. I can't say that about any other asset we own."
When asked if any outside factors would compel him to sell the team, Wilpon said, "No."
12/7/2010 -- Trustee In Madoff Case Sues Owners Of Mets -- (New York Times)
The trustee seeking assets for victims of Bernard L. Madoff's huge fraud on Tuesday sued the Wilpon family, the owners of the Mets, which had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the global Ponzi scheme.
In a news release, Irving H. Picard, the trustee for the Madoff victims, said that he was engaged in "good-faith negotiations" to settle the claims with Sterling and the other defendants.
1/28/2011 -- Mets Ownership Looking To Add Strategic Partners -- (Mets.com press release)
As Sterling Equities announced in December, we are engaged in discussions to settle a lawsuit brought against us and other Sterling partners and members of our families by the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy. We are not permitted to comment on these confidential negotiations while they are ongoing.
However, to address the air of uncertainty created by this lawsuit, and to provide additional assurance that the New York Mets will continue to have the necessary resources to fully compete and win, we are looking at a number of potential options including the addition of one or more strategic partners. To explore this, we have retained Steve Greenberg, a Managing Director at Allen & Company, as our advisor.
Regardless of the outcome of this exploration, Sterling will remain the principal ownership group of the Mets and continue to control and manage the team's operations. The Mets have been a major part of our families for more than 30 years and that is not going to change.
1/28/2011 -- Wilpons Looking To Sell 20-25% Of Mets -- (Amazin' Avenue)
On a conference call that's being broadcast on SNY as we speak, Fred Wilpon has indicated that the Mets will look to sell a 20-25% minority stake in the team. Last April, Forbes valued the Mets at $858 million, which means the Mets are probably looking at an influx of $200 million or so from potential "strategic partners." Earlier I guessed that they'd need on the order of $100 million.
When asked to explain the Mets' current financial situation in the face of the Wilpons' persistent dismissal of claims that a link might exist between their involvement with Bernie Madoff and possible financial insolvency with the Mets, Jeff Wilpon replied, "Things have changed from October to now, with the lawsuit."
1/28/2011 -- Trustee Faults Mets Owners Over Madoff Fraud -- (New York Times)
The trustee representing the victims of Bernard L. Madoff's multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from the owners of the Mets, alleging that they, as longtime and successful investors, knew or should have known Madoff was operating a fraud, according to two lawyers involved in the case.
The lawsuit seeks to recover not only $300 million in what the trustee, Irving H. Picard, calls "fictitious profits" - the difference between what the Wilpon and Katz entities put into Madoff's investment firm and what they took out over their many years of investing - but also additional millions...
1/30/2011 -- Potential Owners Step Forward -- (ESPN New York)
One person is Mike Repole, who owns Kentucky Derby entrant Uncle Mo and made a fortune with the sale of Vitaminwater to Coca-Cola, according to the Daily News.
The Post countered by identifying Martin Luther King III, son of the late civil rights leader, as a potential buyer. That group reportedly also would include Ed Kranepool and Donn Clendenon Jr., son of the ex-Met. However, that group wants at least a 50 percent stake, according to the newspaper, which is not what Fred Wilpon said is for sale.
Finally, multiple reports name Martin Silver, owner of Georgi Vodka, who has been outspoken for a while in wanting to purchase the club.
2/2/2011 -- Mets Hope To Sell Piece By June -- (Wall Street Journal)
The New York Mets hope to complete the sale of up to a 25% stake by the end of June, according to a person involved with the planned transaction, as the baseball team seeks funds to make up for a potential settlement related to investments with fraud figure Bernard Madoff.
Mr. Wilpon has long said that he was victimized by his longtime friend Mr. Madoff, but it is now clear his exposure is far greater than he has previously revealed publicly
2/4/2011 -- Trustee Seeks $1 Billion From Wilpons -- (New York Times)
The financial pressure on Wilpon will now continue to mount, and his preference to sell 20 to 25 percent of the Mets to alleviate the strain, a plan that he announced a week ago, may not turn out to be enough of a remedy.
Some sports executives and analysts said Friday that they believed Wilpon would most likely have to sell the team in the face of demands by the trustee, Irving H. Picard. David Sheehan, the lead lawyer for Picard, said "the entire Katz-Wilpon enterprise" was being looked at as assets that could be used to resolve the lawsuit.
"What the trustee is looking for here is a payment in cash," Sheehan said. "So whether they utilize the Mets, SNY, Sterling properties or any other resource is of no moment to us. What we're looking for is a billion dollars, and unless we settle for less than that, which we're not inclined to do, where they get the money is of no moment to us."
Now for some editorializing (click to embiggen):
51 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the wilpons
are either stupid or liars. They should have sold the mets in 2008 and returned any illegal profits. An investor’s widow in Fl recently returned 700M without going through litigation.
It doesn’t matter if they made 47M or 300M in profits what matters is that they should have come forward immediately and shown some compassion by returning the money to investors who lost everything.
Maybe they're just humans
Sure, the Wilpons let greed blind them to Madoff’s crimes. But they still lost hundreds of millions of dollars through the swindleing of a family friend, and you expect them to just up and sell the Mets, the pride and joy of their decades of hard work, because it’s “fair” or the “right thing to do”? Life’s not that simple.
"let greed blind them"
If you read the word “let” as signifying a conscious choice — they chose blindness — then I agree, and that’s why I don’t feel an ounce of compassion as far as money goes: take ‘em for all their worth. Life’s not simple, but you have to accept consequences for wretched choices.
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Amen!
Preach on bro!
"I mean: WHAT?! ...WHAT?! I'm talkin...I sayin - WHAT?!"
- RSQviper on his astonishment of the b.s. that takes place on EA Sports Madden NFL when the WR breaks nine, count 'em, nine tackles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTsCsLk0I_U&feature=related
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Feb 7, 2011 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
... or "stupid liars"?
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
I forgot about that lady in FL who returned that money because she thought it was the right thing to do
She does provide an elegant counter-example to the Wilpons. But who knows? Maybe the Wilpons offered to return their net profit (like most investors who netted a positive amount have) and feel that they are being unfairly targeted. They did negotiate under the sealed complaint for a month or more, and in the same manner that we really have no way to tell what they knew or did, we have no way of knowing what was said or offered in those negotiations.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
"should have known"
Is there a parallel to be made between the Madoff scheme and the PED “scandal”?
In both cases, sophisticated analysts with premium access ignored tons of warning signs because everybody was benefiting from the scam.
Image credit for Jerrysaurus goes to astromets
STOP SLANDERING THEM!!! THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!
From the NY Post
“Saul Katz told his ‘country club friends’ that ‘nobody knows how Madoff does it,’ " Madoff complained in a 2004 phone call to one of Katz’s business associates, Arthur Friedman, vice president of Sterling Equities. “Saul Katz, in particular, had the final say,” says the lawsuit — claiming that Katz “carefully” screened out “certain types of sophisticated investors” who might have blown the whistle.
So Uncle Saul was trolling around the country club looking for idiots that would’nt open their mouth … Why are these people not in jail?
Where is there Auditors
Any good buissinessman would look into something like this if they weren’t involved before investing hundreds of millions of dollars
Yep
It’s inconceivable that businessmen like the Wilpons apparently weren’t the least bit bothered or suspicious about a 3-person accounting firm auditing Madoff’s books. That would be my question for the Wilpons.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 7, 2011 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
It's absolutely conceivable
I’m not saying that it was good business or procedure, but Sterling (inclusive of all related entities and people) was only one organization out of thousands who failed to ask questions
Here is a list from the WSJ of all known victims as of some time in 2009. A brief look at all those who invested or otherwise had exposure to losses shows a ton of sophisticated parties, many of whom had far more invested than Sterling et al. I remember when this was coming out and Beth Whatsherface at Dealbreaker was reporting the newest victims every few hours, some colleagues and I were sitting in my office just stunned. Especially back then, when people had totally bought into the wizardry of certain people on the street, it was a shocking reminder and in a certain sense a vindication for me, because I thought a lot of folks had gone way too far.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Okay
Inconceivable in that any person with a cursory knowledge of accounting, auditing, and business in general would’ve been okay with throwing so much money at an enterprise which lacked even halfway reasonable oversight. That other entities in addition to the Wilpons were so stupid doesn’t make it any less inconceivable.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 9, 2011 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not disagreeing with your general point
But you’re a finance guy, and so I think you shared my shock and disbelief when this thing broke. Frankly, my firm at the time represented some involved parties and for obvious reasons I can’t disclose some conversations I had with colleagues. Here’s my question for you: if it was so obvious, why did so many sophisticated people fall for it? I’m not claiming to have an answer to this question. I’m sure you learned, as I did, in your early 20s about the inherent variability in the markets, and that gains live in a range depending on market conditions. I took this to be truth, and while I accepted that some were better in the markets than others, that these immutable rules stayed true. So why, then, would so many people and organizations invest with Madoff? These people were not stupid, at least in the traditional sense of the word. I’m not saying this to be snarky, but it’s a real question that I’ve had for a long time, and while I subscribe to the idea that social networks overpowered business sense, I’m interested in hearing any other theory. I just find it hard to believe that a large cohort of otherwise successful people all of a sudden forgot how to invest their money.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
That's troubled me as well ...
The Wilpons empire is fairly large and would require someone to bless the books if they were taking multi-million dollars loans out. Who is/was their auditor?
Not just negligence about instituting better procedures
But an active avoidance. When the Stamos guy registered his funds, he moved out of the Sterling offices and they went to a lot of trouble to put up firewalls between his firm and any of the Sterling funds, because Madoff wanted them to. He was not registered, and didn’t want the increased level of scrutiny (that apparently accompanies registration) coming anywhere near him.
I don't know but
if stupidity was a crime, there would be more people in jail than out.
Call me naive but I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that if you knew it was an illegal scheme, wouldn’t the last thing you’d be doing is shooting off your mouth about it to everyone and their brother?
These aren’t street smart kids with big egos. They’re suppose to be established business men with previous success under their belt.
I’m going back to just plain stupid.
I posted on Metsblog last week
That the more info that comes out, it leaves you with two radically different judgements of the Wilpons. Either they were active parts of the Ponzi scheme and should be viewed as criminal accomplices to Madoff who used the revenue of the scam to build their empire or they were the biggest idiots on the planet and may see years of their labor ripped away from them as a result of their stupidity.
Its still 50/50.
To be somewhat generous to the Wilpons
You might have an idea something is going on, but you don’t want to know because then you’d have to do something about it.
I know a guy whose wife cheated on him. Everyone knew it. And he kinda knew it too, but didn’t want to look into it too closely, because then he’d have to do something about it. And whatever that something was would be unpleasant and messy. So he ignored it for as long as he could because he hoped it would go away. It didn’t of course, but I don’t think his failure to deal with the situation meant he was either dumb or criminal. More than anything else, I think it was laziness and not wanting to rock the boat and upset the status quo.
It’s possible that more explains the Wilpons’ response than simple morality or stupidity.
Very different examples
Taking part in something you can be pretty sure is illegal is different from passively accepting a wrong done to you.
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
The explanation is that they were blinded by greed.
The Wilpons won’t be the first or the last to have fallen into that category. They chose to turn a blind eye to the situation.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
Well allegedly they shot off their mouths
to a select group of rich dopes and carefully excluded canny investors.
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Rich dopes like themselves, that is
It doesn’t seem coldly calculated; it seems like not letting sourpusses into this ridiculous game of “Bernie the Wizard” they were all giddy about playing while the money was good. Sure it was too good to be true, but so is riding bubbles that will obviously burst, yet people do it — whole governments do it — with of a mixture of greed, stupidity, arrogance, and weird unreasonable optimism. It’s the same characteristics that make it hard for us humans to worry too much about ecological disasters. Exactly the same.
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
I think there will be a last Wilpon appearance on that graph:
“Yep, completely screwed.” Because they’re going to settle, no way no how they open all their books in a court case. They just wouldn’t. So it’s all about reaching agreement with Picard, and I am pretty sure that man smells blood in the water.
I had a thought about the woman who reported that ultimately they would have to sell – I’ve read that they were taking loans out from banks to reinvest the money with Madoff, and also that they were maxed out on loans they could take from MLB. Maybe her assessment of the situation captured all that – not just that they’d lost tons of money to Madoff, but that the money they lost wasn’t even theirs.
I wish the timeline would have displayed:
The date that the Wilpons divested themselves of their investments w/Madoff.
"I mean: WHAT?! ...WHAT?! I'm talkin...I sayin - WHAT?!"
- RSQviper on his astonishment of the b.s. that takes place on EA Sports Madden NFL when the WR breaks nine, count 'em, nine tackles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTsCsLk0I_U&feature=related
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Feb 7, 2011 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
True
The complaint alleges that they were double-dipping. Namely, they would have an account with Madoff and use it as collateral to take a loan from a bank, invest the loan proceeds with Madoff, and keep the difference between the interest rate the bank charged on the loan and the amount Madoff “made.”
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
I think that the final caption will read
“Bending over and assuming the position.”
"The Mets are gonna be amazin'!" - Casey Stengel
"Bounding and astounding!" - Clyde Frazier
The law suit
People who are interested should read the suit. Not hard reading. The meat of it starts in section VI.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/metsmadoffsuit02042011.PDF
Picard has been very successful. He doesn’t have to prove knowledge, but merely that any financially sophisticated person this close to Madoff should have known what was going on. They were warned repeatedly, and lots of worrisome signs — the suit alleges, based on testimony — but didn’t want to know, probably because they were in too deep.
Very hard to see how this doesn’t affect finances of the team, or their ownership position, Probably won’t be settled quickly, and altho Selig and FW are friends, Selig in the interest of baseball may well push for a sale.,
Selig should to get his name and Madoffs not associated
As a friend of the Wilpons if this lasts for a while he will be stained too
THIS!!!
Good post.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
This
The complaint is long, but a lot of it is repetitive. With so much info flying around I decided to take a few hours and read it front to back. For the curious Mets fan it also includes descriptions of the team’s corporate and ownership structure. I actually think that the “warning signs” laid out in the complaint are kind of thin, with something like 4 or 5 at most over decades. That’s just my opinion, but reading the complaint I got the distinct impression that this was far from a slam dunk. Still, my guess is that they will settle for more money than I’ll ever see and it will affect the Wilpons.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL!
I think it would be good if the Wilpons sold.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!? Right here: http://myentireteam.wordpress.com/
As long as they don't sell to the Dolans
I’m all for new owners.
"The Mets are gonna be amazin'!" - Casey Stengel
"Bounding and astounding!" - Clyde Frazier
They never will ...
Not because they’re the Dolans, but because the only real asset the Wilponzi’s have is SNY. Dolan already has a network. If they sell the Mets to Dolan, SNY becomes worthless. I don’t know how interested Dolan is in the Mets if it involves shelling out another billion to buy SNY which he can’t use.
maybe right
but looking at it another way, MSG with the Mets becomes maybe twice as valuable. Merge a bunch of SNY’s staff, studios, shows, whatever into MSG and dump the network. It’s not like either station has enough content to justify itself, but together they’re a sorta legit sports network.
but i really don’t have any idea what i’m talking about….
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
I know its a perfect fit ...
… and going forward turns MSG into a monster money machine, but how willing is he to spend 1B dollars to simply transfer the distribution rights and then gut/strip the enterprise.
Some one at Penn Plaza must be crunching the numbers. If he does buy it, all we can do is hope that the Isiah Thomas fiasco taught him to steer clear from direct involvement.
It would also mean
That Cablevision would never fight with the Mets/SNY over broadcast fees.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Wilponzi
LMAO.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
Dolans = DOOM!
If the Fraudpons sell to the Dolans, I become a Detroit Tigers fan.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!? Right here: http://myentireteam.wordpress.com/
me too!
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Feb 7, 2011 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
Pirates and Orioles
And I’ve always liked the Tigers since I starting following baseball as a kid. I had a connection with Denny McLain because I wore glasses and was a pitcher. Hey, I was only 11. Give me a break. Plus, I was born in Detroit.
But both the Pirates and Orioles are within striking distance of Philly and appear to be ready to turn the corner. As opposed to my team which may be hitting the “R” button.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
I'm for the Twins
But it’ll never be the same.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Fraudpons
LMAO @ that too. Wilponzi v. Fraudpons. Hmmmm?
Fraudponzi?
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg can buy the team
Dunno if that’s been suggested. Guy is loaded.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 7, 2011 3:55 PM EST reply actions
I don't think it makes sense
for anyone who’s already on top of the world. He’s A-list without the headaches of the back pages. Make sense for a social climber or thrill seeker in a boring biz.
by Pack Bringley on Feb 7, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Theoretically if run right
… like an honest business, the Mets and SNY are money makers. SNY and Citibank basically pay the Mets 150M a year. Thats your payroll. Whatever the stadium brings, minus expenses, is profit – and I’m not even taking into account other revenue streams (merchandizing, branding, advertisements on SNY, etc.).
I heard on the radio (no link) that at some point early in the last decade the Wilpons were borrowing money from the bank in order to invest into Madoff’s scam. Their logic being, we pay the bank 5% and we make 20% – free money.
Put a NORMAL SANE business man in charge and the Mets would be a goldmine.
Yeah, you and Preach are right
Doesn’t really make sense for him.
by James Kannengieser on Feb 7, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
It does make perfect sense
For Sean Parker, though. He also would have a great time hanging with Keith Hernandez, if Social Network is to be believed.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
"Greed is good."
Randolph Duke: Money isn’t everything, Mortimer.
Mortimer Duke: Oh, grow up.
Randolph Duke: Mother always said you were greedy.
Mortimer Duke: She meant it as a compliment.
“Behind every great fortune, is a great crime.” – Balzac
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
"Who has more fun than people?"
- Ralph Kiner
by The Glider on Feb 7, 2011 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
He's got a pretty full plate already
I wonder if he’d want to devote the time (and the headaches) to buying a baseball team.
Plus, when is Facebook going public? Theoretically, Zuckerberg is worth billions, but if the team is ready to be sold before Facebook goes public, will he have the money?
Trying to believe is my full-time occupation.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
