Comments on: GAMO-RAYS http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/2008/11/04/gamo-rays/ A daily account of the trials and tribulations of the New York Mets. Contact me at sinymets@aol.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:38:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: glenn http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/2008/11/04/gamo-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-120096 glenn Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:57:28 +0000 http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/?p=895#comment-120096 Whoops. I meant to say $824 million. Guess I got confused with all the money congress has been throwing around<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('120096','glenn'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('120096','glenn','Whoops. I meant to say $824 million. Guess I got confused with all the money congress has been throwing around'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Whoops. I meant to say $824 million. Guess I got confused with all the money congress has been throwing around
Reply – Quote
]]> By: sidd finch http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/2008/11/04/gamo-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-120077 sidd finch Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:35:04 +0000 http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/?p=895#comment-120077 It's funny that people always seem to under estimate the Mets when it comes to spending money. They are not getting Pedro, they are not getting Beltran, Santana, etc. I don't think the Mets will be going cheap on us. Gammons does not take into account the fact that any money that the Mets pay due to the new stadium can be used to offset the luxury tax. As far as paying to read someone's column on the internet, ESPN can go pound sand.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('120077','sidd finch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('120077','sidd finch','It\'s funny that people always seem to under estimate the Mets when it comes to spending money. They are not getting Pedro, they are not getting Beltran, Santana, etc. I don\'t think the Mets will be going cheap on us.\r\n\r\nGammons does not take into account the fact that any money that the Mets pay due to the new stadium can be used to offset the luxury tax.\r\n\r\nAs far as paying to read someone\'s column on the internet, ESPN can go pound sand.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> It’s funny that people always seem to under estimate the Mets when it comes to spending money. They are not getting Pedro, they are not getting Beltran, Santana, etc. I don’t think the Mets will be going cheap on us.

Gammons does not take into account the fact that any money that the Mets pay due to the new stadium can be used to offset the luxury tax.

As far as paying to read someone’s column on the internet, ESPN can go pound sand.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: glenn http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/2008/11/04/gamo-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-120018 glenn Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:00:44 +0000 http://www.kranepoolsociety.com/?p=895#comment-120018 I'm not buying it. Forbes mag did a thing back in April about the values of franchises and their operating revenue. The Met$ were the # 2 valued franchise at $824 billion and they were 3rd in operating income with $32m (behind the Nats and Bucs if you can believe that) They also had the 3rd highest revenue with $235m.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('120018','glenn'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('120018','glenn','I\'m not buying it. Forbes mag did a thing back in April about the values of franchises and their operating revenue. The Met$ were the # 2 valued franchise at $824 billion and they were 3rd in operating income with $32m (behind the Nats and Bucs if you can believe that) They also had the 3rd highest revenue with $235m.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I’m not buying it. Forbes mag did a thing back in April about the values of franchises and their operating revenue. The Met$ were the # 2 valued franchise at $824 billion and they were 3rd in operating income with $32m (behind the Nats and Bucs if you can believe that) They also had the 3rd highest revenue with $235m.
Reply – Quote
]]>