The Mets may be drowning in a sea of debt, but if they’re seeking to borrow more money, it’s not from JPMorgan Chase , the bank said Tuesday.

“The story is inaccurate,” said JPMorgan Chase spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli. “We are not in discussions to syndicate any new loans to the team.”

Even if it’s true the Mets are seeking a new substantial loan, I think it seems clear that the Post is wrong on a critical aspect of the story which underscores what I was saying about their poor record for accuracy.

My advice is to be really careful using anything from the NY Post unless the story is also reported elsewhere.

Link:

http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=A702439E8445D3062877.3076?site=newsday&view=business_item&feed:a=newsday_1min&feed:c=business&feed:i=1.2722213

(a) yes

(b) no, not just my opinion but some experts as well

(c) no, not because they couldn’t sell their share of the Red Sox, but because they appear to be wide off the mark with their lame intentional characterization of interest as “modest levels.” It was disingenuous and laughable, especially if Belson and Sandomir were aware their own paper has had a helluva time attracting one serious qualified investor.

And, no, I don’t believe there are two major media outlets in NY that are “not to be trusted” in general. Just one.

These masters of the baseball world do STICK together and most of us are aware WRT greedy greedheads, non ?

Also what I truly enjoy about these types of articles [the intersection of baseball and, wait for it, other aspects of living life] is just how much so many posters just want everything but baseball to disappear. Maybe this is one of the major reasons why logic, sanity, rationale and sound judgment have all but disappeared from daily life. Apathy ain’t pretty no matter the clothes, the make-up or even in its nakedness. An apathy in one aspects of life leads to apathy across the board which is why bread & circuses is becoming our one big vacuum.

The more society seeks to live each part of life in a vacuum the more likely society is apt to fail, in part and on the whole.

From all accounts it sure looks like we are doin’ our best to ensure our failure.

The systems [yes all of them including MLB] ain’t working PERIOD and yes olde Winnie Churchill once stated “Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democKracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democKracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”.

So I ask “WTF happened to the concept of IMPROVEMENT ?”.

Oh waitasec that is what “bread & circuses” is all about, non ?

a. You believe they spin more.

b. In your opinion their spin is off the mark

c. NYT hasn’t been able to sell their share of the Sox.

Thanks for clearing that all up.

Where should one get their Mets news? From Mets employees directly who have absolutely no bias or motive to fabricate/embellish/engage in puffery designed to implicate higher interest in an asset than otherwise exists (because this never happens in baseball. Ever. Just ask Heyman).

We now know, thanks to you, that two of the four major publications in New York (widely considered the media capital of the world) are not to be trusted. We also know, again thanks to your due diligence, that court filings by an impartial bankruptcy trustee are not to be trusted as he has some ulterior motive to “get headlines” (or is it the victim’s funds back, I can’t remember).

I haven’t seen homerism this bad since Hawk Harrelson.

Feel free to mock/deride/attempt to further obfuscate the issues. I’ll be busy engaging in objective observations of things like “reality” “facts” and “reasoned decision making”.

yours, etc.

(a) From the start, it seemed the NYT’s pieces were particularly heavy on spin. I believe the DN is spinning less in its coverage than the NYT’s

(b) From my own personal opinion and the opinion of some experts interviewed on the topic, I believe the NYT’s spin is more off the mark

(c) I believe the DN’s “spin” on the number of interested qualified investors as being very high has already proven to be more accurate than the NYT’s lame attempt to characterize it as “modest levels” — especially in light of the fact that the NYT’s has been unable to sell their own minority share of the Red Sox for over two years, which surely Belson and Sandomir must be aware of. In light of that little fact, if Greenberg is accurate, then use of the term “modest levels” is laughable as the NYT’s can’t even find a single qualified investor for a team that has no financial pressures. So, where the two sides have already taken opposing positions, the DN has come out on top, it appears. Their track record is better on this coverage; IMO.

“The things you agree with are indisputable facts and everything else is “just spin.””

Any story is pretty much a mixture of fact and spin. No matter the source. NYT’s or DN. Every paper and every reporter spins to some extent. In relation to the NYT’s coverage of the Wilpons-Madoff, I’ll repeat, for the millionth time, I don’t dispute or even question their facts. I question their spin.

In regards to the Post, their reputation is so poor, that I question not only their spin but their facts as well. Their integrity and attention to detail is so poor that I strongly suspect one of their sports reporters actually fabricates his stories. It seems in all his stories, 80% of the quotes are totally anonymous, and the other 20% are picked up from other sources. So I get the feeling he sits behind his computer, never getting out to actually research a story, and actually makes things up. (Hint: his initials are JS.)

It’s nice that the NYT’s has more Pulitzers than the DN. Good for them. But it’s more for their coverage (scope) of the issues, and is no reflection one way or the other on their integrity for facts relative to other media outlets. After all, one of the biggest plagiarists of all time worked for the NYT’s.

Per Wikipedia:

The Daily News of New York City is the fifth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States with a daily circulation of 632,595, as of June 13, 2009.[2] The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form, it was founded in 1919, and as of 2007 is owned and run by Mortimer Zuckerman. It has won ten Pulitzer Prizes.

The recipient of 101 Pulitzer Prizes, The New York Times won three awards in the 2010 version of the proceedings.

So just last year the Times won 3 Pulitzers. In its 92 year history the Daily News has won 10. Feel free to keep going with the Daily News only though.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/25/major-league-baseball-to-provide-financial-assistance-to-the-mets/

Read, read, read. And then, please, read it again.

No, I don’t presume the story to be false, just pointing out the Post’s reputation as the most unreliable media outlet in all of NY. The king of the sensationalist tabloids. I really don’t know what to make of the story at this particular point, given their shoddy reputation and sketchy details.

Also, if it’s not false, it doesn’t mean my prediction of the Wilpons eventually riding out the crunch once seasonal revenues flow is not correct. The season hasn’t even begun, and even sales of single seats haven’t started. So how can one conclude “regular season” cash flow has even started?

And if it’s not false, you will agree, won’t you, that your prediction of the Mets being just fine once the regular season cash flow starts — that the MLB loan was merely to tide them over the hard winter months — was wrong?

Obviously another loan is never good, but since it’s the NY Post, there’s no telling what’s fact and what’s fiction in their story. And the fact that there is so much interest in buying a minority, non-controlling interest in the club leads me to believe they can ride out the current liquidity crunch.

Still waiting for that quote.