Daily News: MLB Puts Ponzi Linked Owner, who nearly lost his club

[Ohfan67]

I think you are a good guy. I love that you love the O's and post on here as much as you do. You make this place enjoyable for me. You make tons of posts I agree with. I wouldn't say I don't trust you. I just think you tend to take a biased view on some things. You could be 100% right on Wilpon and MLB. Let me put it this way. Frobby is probably the most balanced and objective (unless it deals with Nick Markakis) poster that I can think of. He may have started a thread like this. Do you think he would have worded the OP and titled it anything like you did?

Agreed. Folks are just challenging your opinions, not challenging your morals or ethics. It's just baseball talk.

[weams]

Weams: Would you describe Peter Angelos as "linked to the tobacco industry"? "Linked to asbestos poisoning"? "Rich from blood money earned from (insert tobacco or asbestos here)"?

I'm not a big fan of mega-wealthy people in general, but you seem to be posting anything you can to slander.

Remember, I think the Wilpons were aware of the scheme and a part of it. And bought their way out of prosecution for it. It's what I believe.

[weams]

Agreed. Folks are just challenging your opinions, not challenging your morals or ethics. It's just baseball talk.

Yep. I welcome that. I do wish to slander the character of the Wilpons. I freely admit that. I think it is awful that they are in charge of MLB finance. I would not support Peter Angelos for that position myself either.

[25 Nuggets]

Um... this thread seems to have gone on a tangent. I would think of this this way.... if I were in charge of placing someone at the head of the finance committee, it wouldn't be Wilpon because of one of two reasons:

a) he was complicit in a Ponzi scheme

b) he was duped by a Ponzi scheme

now, I could easily be duped by a Ponzi scheme, and so could most people. But it would raise a big red flag if any of us were a candidate to lead the finance committee of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

So either way I see it, MLB is awarding a bad candidate in favor of cronyism.

[Ohfan67]

I think he has been described in many publications as each of those. Yes.

But would you think it was a fair way to describe him? Especially if it was only used as part of a discussion about his disagreeable actions? Angelos is much beloved for his charity and good works. He is much reviled for not-so-nice things he has done. Just like the Wilsons and the rest.

[Ohfan67]

Remember, I think the Wilpons were aware of the scheme and a part of it. And bought their way out of prosecution for it. It's what I believe.

Right. It's opinion. And they are usually full of baloney. Especially mine. Now back to baseball...

[weams]

I am just waiting for the thread on Manfred. I do not know much about this guy but, from what I have read, this is just another decision that reeks of something. Next thing you know, the owners that didn't vote for him will be audited. Maybe something will leak about him regarding the O's - res ipsa loquitur ... then PA can sue and see what he finds in discovery.

Selig told the owners that under no circumstances were they to challenge the MLB in court and if they did, the strongest punishment he could deal would be dealt and that the office of commissioner had great power. Yes he did.

[OsEatAlEast]

Yep. I welcome that. I do wish to slander the character of the Wilpons. I freely admit that. I think it is awful that they are in charge of MLB finance. I would not support Peter Angelos for that position myself either.

The analogy that keeps popping into my head is "Fox in the henhouse".

[weams]

Um... this thread seems to have gone on a tangent. I would think of this this way.... if I were in charge of placing someone at the head of the finance committee, it wouldn't be Wilpon because of one of two reasons:

a) he was complicit in a Ponzi scheme

b) he was duped by a Ponzi scheme

now, I could easily be duped by a Ponzi scheme, and so could most people. But it would raise a big red flag if any of us were a candidate to lead the finance committee of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

So either way I see it, MLB is awarding a bad candidate in favor of cronyism.

An excellent post. That I agree with. Ponzi Linked reasoning.

[McNulty]

The purpose of me wording it that way is precisely for the reason of calling attention to an MLB debacle. A Manfred debacle. The discovery of his emails, the involvement with Ed Rogers and Randy Levine, and this assignment count as three strikes for me. And he is not even out of the box.

[Frobby]

He ran the Mets for 15 years on the return off the scamming of others. When Madoff went down he did loss 700 million. Not before. He was one of the biggest profiteers.

I know a lot about the Madoff case, because I had a client who lost its investment and I had to follow all the court proceedings carefully for several years. A lot of intelligent investors placed money with Madoff and earned good returns for a long time, without any reason to know that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. He fooled the SEC for many years. I don't know too much about the Wilpons' investments with Madoff, but I certainly wouldn't assume that they were either (1) in on the scheme, or (2) naive investors who shouldn't be trusted to make financial decisions. Madoff's scheme was very sophisticated, and a lot of sophisticated investors did not detect it.

[25 Nuggets]

I know a lot about the Madoff case, because I had a client who lost its investment and I had to follow all the court proceedings carefully for several years. A lot of intelligent investors placed money with Madoff and earned good returns for a long time, without any reason to know that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. He fooled the SEC for many years. I don't know too much about the Wilpons' investments with Madoff, but I certainly wouldn't assume that they were either (1) in on the scheme, or (2) naive investors who shouldn't be trusted to make financial decisions. Madoff's scheme was very sophisticated, and a lot of sophisticated investors did not detect it.

Ok, so let me ask this then: would you be in favor of naming Wilpon head of the finance committee because he was a victim of the Madoff scheme? Experience and all?

[weams]

I know a lot about the Madoff case, because I had a client who lost its investment and I had to follow all the court proceedings carefully for several years. A lot of intelligent investors placed money with Madoff and earned good returns for a long time, without any reason to know that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. He fooled the SEC for many years. I don't know too much about the Wilpons' investments with Madoff, but I certainly wouldn't assume that they were either (1) in on the scheme, or (2) naive investors who shouldn't be trusted to make financial decisions. Madoff's scheme was very sophisticated, and a lot of sophisticated investors did not detect it.

Thank you for your insight. I won't pry, but I would assume that your client did not have a claw back of three time their profits. In fact, I would assume your client had a net loss. Before clawback.

[weams]

The cavalry just arrived. Blow the bugle!

I knew he would.

[Frobby]

Ok, so let me ask this then: would you be in favor of naming Wilpon head of the finance committee because he was a victim of the Madoff scheme? Experience and all?

No, of course not. Nor do I really know much about what the finance committee does, or what else Wilpon has done in his life besides investing in Madoff and owning the Mets. So I don't have an opinion on whether Wilpon should be on the finance committee, except that I don't think investing in Madoff is an automatic disqualifier. I'd need to know much more, but I'm not interested enough to spend the time researching it.