Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Enter-Sandy-Man

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    1955
    Posts
    26,438
    vCash
    1500
    I'm not an economist, and I don't know what rate the Wilpons got on refinancing the SNY debt, but with historically low interest rates, doesn't it make sense to refinance now as opposed to any time in the future?

    Some of the finance guys here, please help clarify.

    We'll Leave a Light On For You


    Believers: METMANYAK, FoC, Gotta, WrigheyesMVP, Mr. Koobs

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,157
    vCash
    1500
    I believe they refinanced based on the current value of the team. Certainly with Bernie behind them, banks viewed them as stable and probably offered a better deal which is allowing them more flexibility with the team. Lets face it, more stability means the Wilpons hang around longer (man thats sad). No different then your house and refinancing when the rates go down. No better time to buy a house then now. It also allows them more money to put towards running the team. Like add in the GCL team again or buy a few low priced players to fill out he roster.
    " You seek Yoda!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,790
    vCash
    1500
    Refinancing doesn't help the team on the field at all, all it does id help the Coupons keep hold of it.

    Why are they refinancing?

    Because they don't have enough money for operating costs, even when today we stand @ $71M, down from a high water mark of $142M.

    They STILL don't have enough money to operate.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,655
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The-rock-man View Post
    I believe they refinanced based on the current value of the team. Certainly with Bernie behind them, banks viewed them as stable and probably offered a better deal which is allowing them more flexibility with the team. Lets face it, more stability means the Wilpons hang around longer (man thats sad). No different then your house and refinancing when the rates go down. No better time to buy a house then now. It also allows them more money to put towards running the team. Like add in the GCL team again or buy a few low priced players to fill out he roster.
    They refinanced loans against SNY, not the team, so it required no judgement that the team was on more solid financial footing.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    14,677
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GottaBelieve View Post
    I'm not an economist, and I don't know what rate the Wilpons got on refinancing the SNY debt, but with historically low interest rates, doesn't it make sense to refinance now as opposed to any time in the future?

    Some of the finance guys here, please help clarify.
    I'm sure it made loads of sense to refinance. If you accept the fact that the Wilpons are going to own the Mets for the next few decades, it's a good thing that they refinanced. If you were hoping for them to get forced out due to crushing debt, you'll probably wish they hadn't refinanced. This should cut their debt payments, and possibly by a substantial amount.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    East Flatbush to Canarsie to Roselle park
    Posts
    1,538
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Why should the Mets be held to a different standard than other teams? What about the Marlins? The Pirates? Etc? I don't think you can have one set of rules for one team and another set for other teams. What exactly are "the rules" upon which a commissioner could force the Mets to sell? I think ownership has to maintain specific debt/income ratios. I don't know what other "rules" apply.
    I don't expect MLB to step in, it's either things get better for the Wilpons, and they start spending one day soon, they grow a heart and sell, so the Mets can act like the New york team that they are, or we just become the Pirates, and the Royals.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,746
    vCash
    1500
    1. Assuming they aren't cutting costs in 2013, and payroll, etc., is as high as 2012, and assuming the team performs poorly and attendance falls another 10%, then I could see the team loss increasing from $23M to $30M. I doubt they could lose as much as $40M in 2013; there are just too many protected revenue sources (central fund, naming rights, broadcast rights) and they even managed to increase parking and concessions revenues last season despite the attendance drop.

    2. The stadium payments aren't a crushing burden. Stadium advertising revenues (including naming rights) alone cover them. And the Mets legally don't owe any debt on the stadium, it's recorded as an operating lease, which means the payment is already included in that $23M loss. Unless Citibank goes bankrupt, they should continue to be able to make those payments.

    3. The "lump sum" $320M due in 2014 is the entire team debt, everything they owe, and 2014 is basically a scheduled refinancing, so no one expects them to actually pay the entire thing off then. They've already reduced that debt from $430M a year ago (when they took on new investors), and it looks like they may plan to put some of the SNY money into the team to reduce it further. If they were to reduce that to $250M, their annual interest costs would come down to about $13M.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •