Five families numbers cap.

[Antiliar]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

[B.]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Yep, that's the same conversation. Thanks for finding that. I had actually seen a different summary, but the gist of it was pretty much the same as above.

Hopefully a full transcript of the actual conversation is on MF somewhere. I'd like to read what was actually said.

[HairyKnuckles]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.

[willychichi]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.

Why did they want to cap the numbers, it would seem that the more members they have the more people they would have on the street earning for the family?

[Lupara]

The numbers cap was there to ensure that one family wouldn't become too powerful in comparison with the others. It seems my hypothesis about the numbers of the 80s being similar to the 50s could in fact be true.

[willychichi]

The numbers cap was there to ensure that one family wouldn't become too powerful in comparison with the others. It seems my hypothesis about the numbers of the 80s being similar to the 50s could in fact be true.

Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?

[Lupara]

Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?

300 isn't low in my book.

[willychichi]

Thanks Lupara that makes sense that they would not want one family becoming too powerful. But why the low number of 300 especially during their heyday, why not 500 members?

300 isn't low in my book.

Your right 300 is not a low number I was just wondering if there was more to it considering they had higher numbers at one time. Thanks for the insights.

[B.]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Thanks for finding this. It appears that Russo is talking about the Genovese Family´s desire to keep its numbers to 300 members. But he doesn´t mention a fixed cap.

He doesn't specifically say there is a "cap", but it strongly implies their limit is 300 members. Along with D'Arco's info about caps (which claims 300 for the Gen), Vinnie Palermo claimed the DeCavalcante family had a cap of 75. So I'm confident that caps do exist at least in the NY-NJ area, it's just a question of what the caps are... and here you have a Genovese member and a Lucchese acting boss both dropping the number 300.

[B.]

Thanks B

This appears to be the conversation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html ... 3&tab=page

Here's the one I was talking about:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 2&tab=page

Same info, though.