Media MonsterMLB

“Quiet! Quiet! Quiet!” Mike Francesa Blows Up On Caller While Discussing Mets Lawsuit

by Dan Fogarty | 10:12 am, March 22nd, 2011

New York Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz are currently being sued for $1 billion by victims of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. According to the suit, the owners profited off the scheme, and may have turned a blind eye to the possibility that Madoff was doing something illegal.

It’s was on this subject that “Austin in Fairfield” wished to speak with New York sports radio godfather Mike Francesa. During the conversation, Austin seems to have a problem with Francesa’s definition of what “profit” is. This, of course, doesn’t matter; what does matter is that this causes Francesa to blow his top. And any time Mike Francesa blows his top on the radio, it’s worth listening to.

Here’s the audio, courtesy of @MikeFrancesaNY. The top-blowing occurs around the 2:30 mark.

416inversed

#Correction
“…are currently being sued for $1 billion…” not $1 million.

If it were only a million, they would’ve already settled.
Anonymous

Not that it really matters, but the caller is right about the law. One of the allegations is that the Wilpons withdrew money from the scheme earlier than other investors. Regardless of what the Wilpons knew about what Madoff was up to, later defrauded investors can in fact claw back some of the money that was given to earlier investors. The details are complicated, but Mike has no idea what he’s talking about.
Anonymous

You are correct sir. Fixed.
http://twitter.com/TexTex TexTex

Here’s someone worse than Madoff: http://texsquixtarblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-worse-bernie-madoff-or-rich.html
dude

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, yes, but this is not a question of law. This is not a question of whether the Wilpons knew of the law. It is a question of whether they knew what Madoff was up to. They would need to have the adequate mens rea to be a crime – you need intent on committing a criminal act for it to be criminal. If the caller was arguing wilful blindness he would have more of a case.
Anonymous

The Wilpons are not accused of a crime. They have been sued (civil case) by the trustee overseeing the various claims by allegedly injured parties. At most, the Wilpons will have to fork over a big pot of cash. Criminal mens rea has nothing to do with the issues, unless a new investigation is opened by NY or the Feds which is unlikely right now.
http://twitter.com/jwellingtonpeev Robert Yates

Caller is the ignorant one here, and Francesa’s partial understanding of SEC reporting requirements and classification isnt too far off the money. The big guy has plenty of unwarranted arrogannce eruptions, but this isnt a good example.
ShoutItOut

Mike Francesa, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!! You are 100% correct, investors have EVERY right to depend on monthly stateme3nts and trade confirmations from an SEC REGULATED broker/dealer, THAT IS THE LAW!

In 1970, American’s gave up their right to “certificated securities”, in exchange, Congress passed SIPA. From that point on, monthly statements was all anyone had of proving what they owned. The IRS relied on them, banks relied on them to approve mortgages etc. and investors relied on them to plan their retirement.

Mr. Ponzi’s scheme was years prior. If congress wanted an excklusion for Ponzi schemes, it would say so in SIPA!

The key here is “SEC REGULATED”. Why should ANYONE be held to a higher standard than the SEC?

Watch this for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7VmV__SR0c