The Wilpons may save some money

1 Comment

No, not by cutting Jeff Francoeur into pieces and selling him for scrap, but by virtue of a law winding its way through Congress that could allow them to hold on to $48 million that, under current law, they might have had to forfeit as a result of their connection to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The law — the details of which are are much better spelled-out in Dan Freed’s column at TheStreet.com — would prevent trustees cleaning up after Madoff-like scams from from collecting earlier investors’ “gains” and redistributing them to later, less lucky investors.  Such a move is called a clawback, and this proposed law would limit the maneuver. The Wilpons actually came out of the Madoff scam with a bit more money in their account than they
started with — $48 million, actually. Under present law, they’d be subject to clawbacks. If the law passes, the Wilpons will likely be in the clear.

Which isn’t necessarily an injustice or anything. On a very basic level, the Wilpons were victims just like the other investors. That they happened to be in earlier than others and thus got the benefit of Madoff’s phony investment gains as opposed to getting the shaft is not their fault. And besides, just because they got more money back than they put in doesn’t mean that they weren’t losers too. Indeed, they thought they were doing way better than their $48 million gain they got and likely structured their lives and businesses accordingly.  Because of this sort of thing clawbacks are controversial and problematic.  I can’t really speak to the merits of this particular law (I’m a bit out of my depth here), but the beliefs that clawbacks often work to unwittingly unjust ends is pretty widely held.

But I do know this much: as things currently stand, the Wilpons, if they have a bit of business sense, have $48 million mentally socked away to be given up in clawbacks later. If the law passes, however, it will be theirs to spend once again.

Maybe — just maybe — they’ll spend it on the Mets. 

Ichiro was happy to see Pete Rose get defensive about his hits record

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 14:  Ichiro Suzuki #51 of the Miami Marlins warms-up during batting practice before a baseball game against the San Diego Padres at PETCO Park on June 14, 2016 in San Diego, California.   (Photo by Denis Poroy/Getty Images)
27 Comments

You’ll recall the little controversy last month when Ichiro Suzuki passed Pete Rose’s hit total. Specifically, when Ichiro’s Japanese and American hit total reached Rose’s American total of 4,256 and a lot of people talked about Ichiro being the new “Hit King.” You’ll also recall that Rose himself got snippy about it, wondering if people would now think of him as “the Hit Queen,” which he took to be disrespect.

There’s a profile of Ichiro over at ESPN the Magazine and reporter Marly Rivera asked Ichiro about that. Ichiro’s comments were interesting and quite insightful about how ego and public perception work in the United States:

I was actually happy to see the Hit King get defensive. I kind of felt I was accepted. I heard that about five years ago Pete Rose did an interview, and he said that he wished that I could break that record. Obviously, this time around it was a different vibe. In the 16 years that I have been here, what I’ve noticed is that in America, when people feel like a person is below them, not just in numbers but in general, they will kind of talk you up. But then when you get up to the same level or maybe even higher, they get in attack mode; they are maybe not as supportive. I kind of felt that this time.

There’s a hell of a lot of truth to that. Whatever professional environment you’re in, you’ll see this play out. If you want to know how you’re doing, look at who your enemies and critics are. If they’re senior to you or better-established in your field, you’re probably doing something right. And they’re probably pretty insecure and maybe even a little afraid of you.

The rest of the article is well worth your time. Ichiro seems like a fascinating, insightful and intelligent dude.

There will be no criminal charges arising out of Curt Schilling’s video game debacle

Curt Schilling
20 Comments

In 2012 Curt Schilling’s video game company, 38 Studios, delivered the fantasy role-playing game it had spent millions of dollars and countless man hours trying to deliver. And then the company folded, leaving both its employees and Rhode Island taxpayers, who underwrote much of the company’s operations via $75 million in loans, holding the bag.

The fallout to 38 Studios’ demise was more than what you see in your average business debacle. Rhode Island accused Schilling and his company of acts tantamount to fraud, claiming that it accepted tax dollars while withholding information about the true state of the company’s finances. Former employees, meanwhile, claimed — quite credibly, according to reports of the matter — that they too were lured to Rhode Island believing that their jobs were far more secure than they were. Many found themselves in extreme states of crisis when Schilling abruptly closed the company’s doors. For his part, Schilling has assailed Rhode Island politicians for using him as a scapegoat and a political punching bag in order to distract the public from their own misdeeds. There seems to be truth to everyone’s claims to some degree.

As a result of all of this, there have been several investigations and lawsuits into 38 Studios’ collapse. In 2012 the feds investigated the company and declined to bring charges. There is currently a civil lawsuit afoot and, alongside it, the State of Rhode Island has investigated for four years to see if anyone could be charged with a crime. Today there was an unexpected press conference in which it was revealed that, no, no one associated with 38 Studios will be charged with anything:

An eight-page explanation of the decision concluded by saying that “the quantity and qualify of the evidence of any criminal activity fell short of what would be necessary to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the Rules of Professional Conduct precluded even offering a criminal charge for grand jury consideration.”

Schilling will likely crow about this on his various social media platforms, claiming it totally vindicates him. But, as he is a close watcher of any and all events related to Hillary Clinton, he no doubt knows that a long investigation resulting in a declination to file charges due to lack of evidence is not the same thing as a vindication. Bad judgment and poor management are still bad things, even if they’re not criminal matters.

Someone let me know if Schilling’s head explodes if and when someone points that out to him.