In what is looking like less and less of a Happy Holidays for the Wilpons the New York Times released an article stating the Mets took out another loan. This time for $40M from the Bank of America. “The Bridge-loan” is meant to aid them as they try to raise money through the sale of minority stakes in the club. I was wondering back when the Wilpons made their revenue-sharing payment of $20 million that it was a good sign but with this latest news you have to wonder if they took the loan to make the payment.
10 comments
SaltyGary
12/13/2011-1:58am at 1:58 am (UTC -4)
WOW E WOW WOW. That is not good at all. I am actually surprised that BOA in the state that they are in would put that kind of risk on their books. WT,F too big to fail right. To need a loan just to get through a couple months when the next loan arrives is really bad. I’ve always thought the Wilpon’s would hang on, but no more.
Darknova306
12/13/2011-2:28am at 2:28 am (UTC -4)
Hopefully this signals the deathknell of the Wilpon reign of terror.
Anonymous
12/13/2011-4:38am at 4:38 am (UTC -4)
I wonder if this will get Wright shipped off sooner. Hopefully not.
Anonymous
12/13/2011-4:40am at 4:40 am (UTC -4)
Sorry if this is rain on anyone parade but there is probably still much we do not know. If Sterling were really in as bad a shape as most make them out to be there is no way this loan is approved. Conditions must be much better than anyone outside the inner circle anticipate. Something about this does not make sense, and I’m.sure that someone with an interest in this field could explain it better.
Mr North Jersey
12/13/2011-4:59am at 4:59 am (UTC -4)
While your right in that there is a lot we don’t know but would you agree that in it’s simplest form 1. the Mets borrowed $40M cause they needed it and 2. they borrowed cause they themselves did not have the money?
Guest
12/13/2011-5:10am at 5:10 am (UTC -4)
Yes, I do agree. Its not the most pleasing news and certainly it doesn’t leave anyone in the mets front office with a Sunny disposition , it’s definitely nit a great sign of things to come but I just feel that we could stand to learn a bit more before coming to the conclusion that they will sell, there is alot outside of the baseball operations that plays directky into the financial situation as well. But no I don’t disagree with the post at all, fans do need to know things like this and it was informative.
MetsFan4Decades
12/13/2011-5:21am at 5:21 am (UTC -4)
O.K., so if they needed a 40 MIL bridge loan until the
so-far-committed-7-investors-for 20 MIL each fork over the
money….which I’m reading will be by spring – what happens if they back
out?
I’m thinking the Wilpons would have done run out of favors, even from Uncle Bud.
7 investers x 20 MIL each = 140 MIL
minus 40 MIL for this loan leaves 100 MIL
minus 25 MIL from MLB loan leaves 75 MIL
minus 52 MIL (26 each) for city/state loans for the stadium leaves a whopping 23 MIL.
Did I leave anyone out who Sterling Mets currently owe?
MetsFan4Decades
12/13/2011-5:23am at 5:23 am (UTC -4)
On another note, looks like Mets non tendered Paulino (no surprise) and Mike from Whitestone.
Thought they had 41 so that leaves 39. Not done dealing yet?
MetsFan4Decades
12/13/2011-5:23am at 5:23 am (UTC -4)
I stand corrected – 38 according to Rubin.
Anonymous
12/13/2011-2:10pm at 2:10 pm (UTC -4)
When you add Francisco and Rauch, they are right at 40.