They must be involved in another Ponzi scheme somewhere, that's how they used to pay their other deferments<
You may be right.
Are you saying that MLB treats teams differently i.e. the Pittsburgh comment? The agreement with MLB and the teams is that at a certain % of debt they will make the team owner take some action to remedy the situation. The Mets have not yet crossed that threshold. If and when they do we will see what action they choose. It may be to sell but we will not know until that time comes. There is not much sense in making speculations at this point because there are too many alternatives.
In the near future with the Major Networks new contract and the reduction in revenue sharing the team if even somewhat close to profitability will have the finances to improve their circumstance visa vie team payroll. Which should make so fans happy.
not saying instead speculating and here is why.* borrowing 20million from MLB* selling shares at 20m per share
not sure but I haven't read anywhere the Mets paying back that loan.If so, it was for a short time period and they missed that date.
Next, why was the owner in L.A. forced to sell and not the Mets.Bud S, made it very clear why he was forcing the hand of the Dodgers owner and has made no real comment, only in obscurity, about the Mets and the Wilpons.
I am saying, it doesn't add up and it makes me believe favoritism or whatever is taking place. And I stand by that.
The Mets owner have not used team revenues for their personal gain. That is one thing. The other was that the owners of the Dodgers were getting a divorce and the league didn't want to be caught in the middle of a squabble over ownership of the team for another. Plus there was so funny business going on with the new TV contract for the rights to televise their games. It was a very messy situation.
Here however the owners have not broken any rules yet. Just because they have allowed the payroll to be reduced and have incurred some losses in operation is no reason for MLB to become involved. The loan from MLB was repaid I believe from the minority sales in the club. And when a loan comes due there can be negotiations to extend terms which may have happened.
Because people dislike the Wilpons because of the way they have ineptly run the team over the years. They try to blame them with every thing they can think up. Some of the allegations contain some elements of truth but not always. Fans who hate the owners will except any charges against them, true or false. Not rational but some fans don't care it gives them some type of pleasure accusing them of nefarious deed they can think up or hear.
Interesting insight, really. Finally, someone on this board who actually makes some sense. So, let's presuppose, the Wilpons, who by the way, I have nothing against and I have also heard from great sources, Fred Wilson is an amazing stand-up guy…
That said, we all have our place, right? And to have the privilege of owning a New York Baseball team is one of the most prestigious traditions that can bestowed upon any of us in this great country.
That said, owning a baseball team, for the most part, is a losing proposition. Trust me, I know, as an ex Tribune employee, I know the Cubs never made a dime and lost money every year.
So, my point is, if one has the capital to run the Mets as cash flow loss but building an asset, okay, good, then you maintain the privilege, but once that dynamic changes? And you can get out, then get out, because you have lost that privilege. This is nothing more than belonging to Wing Foot and no longer can afford to belong to a great country club. Sorry but that is the way it is.