I think I am old enough to recognize a stricken look.

That is what I have seen on the faces of Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz in the past two years. They are of my generation – although a tad more wealthy – and I think I can tell the look of two people who felt betrayed by a friend. They have seen ruin and even death up close, to people they know.

Now they have settled their case, and perhaps they and the Mets can move on. Or not. But I come to this stage still unconvinced that Wilpon and Katz “knew” Madoff was cheating.

My belief is not based on their including Sandy Koufax in the Madoff web. That’s just one small piece of it.

I have read documents filed by the trustee, listing all the accounts held by Wilpon and his brother-in-law, Katz. The accounts are in the names of Wilpons and Katzes and other people clearly related to these two partners. The next generations, living mostly in favored suburbs of New York.

Bernie Madoff would, and did, involve his flesh and blood in his evil. The sick creep gave up his wife and children and grand-children.

I have been around Wilpon and Katz over the years, not enough to say I really know them but just enough to believe that family is important enough that they would not involve children and spouses and grandchildren in something they knew to be illegal.

Were they arrogant, foolish, greedy, sloppy, hasty? Sure. Should you like or admire them? Up to you.

People who know much more about law and finances than I do say that Wilpon and Katz “had to know.” That was up to lawyers and the trustee to prove. They did not.

I’ll have more to say about the Mets in the next few days.

I just wanted to make the point about the stricken look I think I saw. 

Your comments are more than welcome; they are sought.

 


Comments

03/20/2012 10:58am

Might just"as well get out your Ouija Board. Besides, journalism and life are a chronicle of all kinds of people - businessmen, politicians, teachers, coaches -- whoever -- do odd, sometimes even evil things which don't "fit" with their overal presentation as, say, "family men", or religiosity, or other positive traits. Stick to the facts, not the "look" on the faces of complex men near the end of complex carreers focussed on building a fortune.

Reply
Alan Rubin
03/20/2012 3:08pm

George, an interesting take!

I'm also of your generation or slightly ahead. I ran a family retail appliance store on Manhattan's Upper West Side for forty years as well as ten years as an engineer prior to that.. Although facts are important and should always be considered, they often do not give the whole picture.

I've always paid attention to the little things, which more often than not, were very telling. I also found that people were quick to condemn those that they did not like. This could have been for many different reasons, but people of wealth and notoriety do not always get a fair shake.

There were many instances of where a person's alleged actions were not consistent with my knowledge and experience of them.

I do not know how I truly feel about this, but George's personal reflection on both of them have put things in a better perspective.

Reply
Brian Savin
03/20/2012 7:52pm

Dear GV
I think you must rely on your feelings in this case and you have earned the right to do so. All of us can be fooled no matter how "experienced" and "worldly" and "bright" we may think we are. But I have to say, in following you over many years, the odds of you being incisive are pretty damned good. The only check you need on your sanity is your wife, not your readers. She knows you better than we do. It is certainly possible that Wilpon and Katz simply were in denial of the possibility that Madoff was scum and didn't think to look because they wanted so much to believe. That's being human. And, as my wise French-born business partner was wont to say when someone failed him, "It is human to be human."

Reply
03/21/2012 11:48am

This is my second comment, because I've been thinking on this "family-man-would-lead-no-one-astray" theory, and have this reaction: it's not unreasonable to portray what Wilpon has done with the Mets in the recent past - and continues to do - is a wretched violation of his duty to the NY Mets "family." If he were as focussed on these kinds of intangible virtues as you suggest, he would not have put the Mets (and their payroll) through the slaughter which has taken place just since the end of last season. And he would recognize now that, for the forseeable future he likely will not be able to put the Mets back on the solid financial footing which the Mets' family deserves. Right now, in the face of that kind of assessment, Wilpon is just plain gambling with the Mets' fate, by hoping against hope that the franchise will, sua sponte, increase in overall value sufficient to let him pay back debts and borrow more. If he felt the pull of duty and responsibility to his Mets family, therefore, he'd sell the Mets right now. But he can't, because he's so far in debt.

Reply
Brian Savin
03/21/2012 1:59pm

Bill,
Maybe I'm just to much under the spell of having just seen Moneyballl, but Wilpon I think is in a different category than the slash and burn owners of some sports teams. He did hire as General Manager the man who hired Billy Bean and by all accounts supports him fully. Wilpon cares about the team to my way of thinking and he wants to own this team very clearly. We can question whether he deserves to own it, of course.

Reply
Michael Berman
03/21/2012 3:17pm

Interesting. Body language can be very revealing.

For me, the tipping point was Noreen Harrington. Rather than believe her warnings substantiated the claims of "willful blindness", I think the reaction of Saul Katz was consistent with that of an unsuspecting, trusting friend. In addition, I think if they were guilty of willful blindness, Wilpon and Katz would have opened their eyes and started to distance themselves from Madoff.

Reply
George Vecsey
03/21/2012 7:20pm

Hey, thanks for the insightful comments.
My ouija board is the experience of making subjective judgments over many years, and being around the two men. It's all I got. Some friends with business and law experience say I am naive. I understand Met fans wishing the House of Wilpon would go away, but as of this settlement, it aint going to happen any too soon. I'm honored that you all take my opinion seriously enough to share your opinions. GV

Reply
Michael Green
03/22/2012 4:37pm

Call me crazy, but here goes. One of those who was supposedly going to be called to testify, as I understand it, is Sandy Koufax, who has known Fred Wilpon since they were in high school and maybe before. He invested with Madoff at Wilpon's urging. Would Wilpon do that to a good friend like Koufax? I doubt it. And from everything I ever have read about Koufax, he is too honest to lie: I can't imagine him getting involved in something crooked.

Reply
03/24/2012 6:13pm

I'll go with GV's ouija board any day. Avery interesting discussion, by the way.

Reply
03/26/2012 9:18am

George FYI -- At the risk of appearing to be a crank (I'm not, I've read and respected all your stuff for years) see Peter King's excellent MMQB column this morning, in which he makes this summary statement: "If Fred Wilpon really loved the Mets, he'd sell them." Kind hits it on the head. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/26/meetings/index.html#ixzz1qESSHYjx) -- Best, Bill

Reply
01/29/2013 11:44am

This post is helpful with an analysis I am doing for a specific group of people. Do you have any other articles to suggest on this topic? Thanks

Reply



Leave a Reply