PDA

View Full Version : Forbes 2010 MLB rankings


Fenway
04-08-2010, 11:57 AM
White Sox ranked 10th but team made a nice profit last year

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html

Forbes claims 29 teams made money or broke even - Murder City Kitties took a huge loss.

BRDSR
04-08-2010, 12:06 PM
White Sox ranked 10th but team made a nice profit last year

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html

Forbes claims 29 teams made money or broke even - Murder City Kitties took a huge loss.

An excellent debt/value ratio, as well. Don't really know how professional sports organizations run their business, but that may be good news if they find an expensive but good fit available for "trade" around mid-season.

Fenway
04-08-2010, 12:12 PM
Each team page shows the local cable rating - The Nationals are 0.6 ouch

munchman33
04-08-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm always skeptical of things like this. If our revenue for the year totaled $194 million and player salaries were $113 million...and we made $26.4 million in profit, that means employees of the organization at all levels, all minor league contracts, all scouts in all parts of the world, all the benefits (insurance, healthcare, etc.) for all those people, all the events the White Sox throw, all the donations the White Sox make, all the other operations costs (equipment, vehicles, buses, planes, and myriad other things we probably don't think about that go into the cost of operating a major league team) totaled only $54.6 million. That seems a little light to me. In fact, that seems extremely light to me.

roylestillman
04-08-2010, 01:08 PM
I'm always skeptical of things like this. If our revenue for the year totaled $194 million and player salaries were $113 million...and we made $26.4 million in profit, that means employees of the organization at all levels, all minor league contracts, all scouts in all parts of the world, all the benefits (insurance, healthcare, etc.) for all those people, all the events the White Sox throw, all the donations the White Sox make, all the other operations costs (equipment, vehicles, buses, planes, and myriad other things we probably don't think about that go into the cost of operating a major league team) totaled only $54.6 million. That seems a little light to me. In fact, that seems extremely light to me.

I don't know, the $54 million in overhead seems high to me. I'm not sure how they book the minor league expenses, but I'm pretty sure both the receipts and expenses of the minor league clubs are not in these numbers.

What's more amazing is that gate recepts are only about 35% of total revenues. I wonder how much of the rest of the revenue stream is linked to the number of people coming throught the turnstyles (concessions and parking.) It would also be interesting the dollars that the Sox and other clubs received from shared MLB revenues (TV, licence fees, internet and luxury tax)

munchman33
04-08-2010, 02:07 PM
I don't know, the $54 million in overhead seems high to me. I'm not sure how they book the minor league expenses, but I'm pretty sure both the receipts and expenses of the minor league clubs are not in these numbers.

What's more amazing is that gate recepts are only about 35% of total revenues. I wonder how much of the rest of the revenue stream is linked to the number of people coming throught the turnstyles (concessions and parking.) It would also be interesting the dollars that the Sox and other clubs received from shared MLB revenues (TV, licence fees, internet and luxury tax)

All the more reason to be skeptical of ranking systems like this.

PKalltheway
04-08-2010, 03:10 PM
Each team page shows the local cable rating - The Nationals are 0.6 ouch
The Oakland A's aren't far behind them at 0.8. Oakland also had the lowest average attendance last year, too.

Fenway
04-08-2010, 03:10 PM
All the more reason to be skeptical of ranking systems like this.

Forbes has been doing it for years and MLB never really disputes the figures.

Teams can move money around. Nobody really knows how much NESN and YES bring in but Boston Bruins claim they make close to 20M from NESN and they only own 20 percent of the channel. Red Sox own the other 80.

JR does nicely with his share of CSN-Chicago and whatever he gets from WGN-WCIU. Radio rights are very weak however for the #3 market.

Fenway
04-08-2010, 03:17 PM
The Oakland A's aren't far behind them at 0.8. Oakland also had the lowest average attendance last year, too.

The A's made a curious move in moving from CSN-Bay Area to CSN-California which is Sacremento based. Many cable companies in the south bay don't offer it.
NESN's ratings are the envy of everyone in baseball with an average of over 9.

munchman33
04-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Forbes has been doing it for years and MLB never really disputes the figures.


Neither would I, if one of the biggest business publications routinely overvalued my franchise.

canOcorn
04-08-2010, 03:35 PM
Neither would I, if one of the biggest business publications routinely overvalued my franchise.

There's a big difference in trying to predict future revenue streams and expenses, especially 10+ years out, and calculating what has already happened. Their net income figures are considered to be in the ballpark by almost everyone except the owners and MLB. I doubt that Forbes gets to a $5.9B aggregate revenue figure for all teams, which is admitted (and brought to you) by Bud and then completely ****s the **** out of their expense figures.

Fenway
04-08-2010, 03:55 PM
NYY's revenue stream is just staggering. Their ticket revenue alone was over 300M. Boston's ticket revenue was around 170M (30M more than payroll)

YES and NESN are cash cows and signage plasters both parks.

The Cubs ticket revenue will most likely excede payroll in 2010 as they have raised prices and Rickett's no doubt will follow the Red Sox model.

On the other hand you see nice profits in Pittsburgh and Miami as they just pocket the central fund cash.