NEW YORK (WFAN) — When the Mets and David Einhorn reached a $200 million minority ownership agreement in May, it was reported that the hedge funder would own one-third of the cash-strapped franchise.

But there’s still no official deal. It was reported by the New York Post in July that lender JPMorgan Chase had been holding up the process, unhappy with the financial fine print.

Now, according to The Post, Einhorn and the Mets are on track to close the book on their negotiations by the end of August with a restructured half-loan, half-cash agreement.

Einhorn, under the new terms, would own 17 percent of the Mets and become a limited partner.

“All interests are now aligned,” a source told the paper.

The catch? The Mets will reportedly have five years to pay back Einhorn in full. If they do, he’ll still hold a 17 percent stake.

If the Mets’ owners — Fred Wilpon, his son Jeff and Saul Katz — fail to repay Einhorn, he’ll still have a chance to buy a majority of the franchise “for a token amount.”

Forbes reported in June that if the Mets don’t reimburse Einhorn, the hedge funder could up his ownership stake to 60 percent for the “strike price” of $1.

A source told The Post that with half of Einhorn’s $200 million, the team will settle their $30 million credit with MLB and use $70 million to reduce their debt with lenders.

The remainder of the infusion will “fund operating losses, expected to be $60 million this year.”

What do you think of the reported new Einhorn-Mets agreement? Sound off in the comments below…

Comments (10)
  1. Glenn the Fan says:

    I agree with both of you. I didn’t care for the Wilpon’s before all the Madoff stuff. I think it’s time for new ownership. I know they’ve done some good things, but I really think they don’t know what they’re doing regarding a baseball organization.

    1. John the baseball fan says:

      Isn’t Wilpon the same owner when the Mets won in ’86, the same owner when the Mets went to the WS in 2000, the same owner when the Mets were one hit from the WS in ’06.

      Let’s be clear, the Mets have never been to the post season 2 straight years in their entire history.

      Isn’t Wilpon the same owner who as pumped $140 millions in payroll a year over the last 10 yr & making the Mets payroll the highest in the NL the last few & has paid for free agent players like Santana, Glavine, K-Rod, Beltran, Vaughn, Bay, Martinez, Delgado, Bonilla, Coleman, Henderson, Cedeno, Floyd, Matsui, Cameron, Looper just to name a few of many free agents signed by the Mets the last 15 yrs.

      Also, the Marlins had a fire sell & the Mets were one of only a few teams that could afford Piazza

      Wilpon has done more for the Mets then 90% of what other owners in baseball have done for their teams when it comes to building a ball club in order to win.

      How soon Mets fans forget.

      The Mets live in the shadow of the Yankees, always have & always will & that’s what the Mets fans want the Mets to be, the New York Yankees & their 27 titles.

      There’s only one NY Yankees, just enjoy the team you have because after all, that’s all you have.

      1. Benny Armato says:

        1999 and 2000 the mets went to the playoffs back to back. let’s be clear.

      2. willie says:

        But what have the Wilpons done lately? NOTHING! Time for them to go! Enough said!

      3. John the baseball fan says:

        Benny Armato , now we’re all really impressed by the Mets 50 yrs history.
        They’ve been to the post season 2 years in roll & this has happened just once.

        That’s really nothing to brag about, you should have kept that a secret. Wait, you’re a Mets fan so you needed to tell the whole world “Look what my little team has done” LOL

        LOL, man that’s was funny, you made my day, as I’m sure you did to many other readers of your post. Wherever you are I’m sure you heard the loud laughs

        Plus you made Wilpon look even better as an owner.

      4. KPMc says:


        Benny was just correcting one of the things you wrote as if it were gospel. Your childish reaction to him reflects poorly on you, not him.

        To continue correcting your post… Wilpon did not become principal sole owner until 2002. In 1986 he and Nelson Doubleday bought the team from Doubleday’s publishing company. I think the argument can be made that Doubleday was good for the Mets while Wilpon’s (sole) tenure has been less than spectacular.

        And just to help with your insulting response I am NOT a Mets fan but a baseball fan that has the internet to check my facts in all of 30 seconds. Also… I don’t like bullies!

      5. John the baseball fan says:

        KPMc so you’re saying Wilpon had nothing to do with the Mets ’86 team & you’re giving full credit to Doubleday.

        You’re an idiot to think that, just say you dislike Wilpon & leave it at that, but to discredit Wilpon is childish on your part.

        Let’s stay with the subject of Wilpon, since you brought this up in him being principle owner since 2002, he builded a new stadium for you idiots fans & the team that was bought for just $21. 1 millions back in 1980 is now worth close to $900 mil & this was Wilpon’s doing not Doubleday.

        You morons, yes I used that word because it fits you correctly. You have a problem with that?

        You morons forget what this man has done to satisfy you idiots thrust for a championship the last 20 plus yrs & now because these overachievers, overpaid, overrated Mets players like Reyes, Wright, Beltran, Glavine, K-Rod, Santana cannot perform their job you blame the owner.

        Again, just say you dislike the man and you’ll some respect, maybe as a man, not some guy who post thinking he’s so smart, yet looked foolish

      6. Tomb of the Unknown Mets Fan says:

        Well, if you’re gonna put it that way……….

  2. Neil says:

    @William Kammel: I don’t think it’s bad. Honestly, I feel the same way. As fans and New Yorkers we deserve better. They should sell the team and walk away with some dignity.

  3. William Kammel says:

    I can honestly say i want the wilpons to fail. is that bad?

Leave a Reply