PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf ESPN Radio interview


keloms
02-05-2011, 08:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6093214

He was on "Talking Baseball" this morning and reiterated the need for fan support, and more importantly, our dollars, this year. One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

samurai_sox
02-05-2011, 08:58 PM
I'm all for coming out for more Sox games this year, I'm pretty excited about this year's team.

But my reality is that my financial situation took a bad hit last month, hopefully I'll get that all straightened out by opening day.

DonnieDarko
02-05-2011, 09:01 PM
I'll definitely be going to more games than I did last year (1). Both me and my fiancee have money coming in this time around, so...

hi im skot
02-05-2011, 10:54 PM
Haven't listened to the interview yet, but it's a little ridiculous to hear Reinsdorf crying poor.

SephClone89
02-05-2011, 11:01 PM
I won't be able to go to as many as last year. I need to save money a bit for stuff. Will try to get to 6-7 though, definitely.

soltrain21
02-05-2011, 11:06 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6093214

He was on "Talking Baseball" this morning and reiterated the need for fan support, and more importantly, our dollars, this year. One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

Don't alienate me, Jerry.

Noneck
02-05-2011, 11:15 PM
One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

I guess he just doesnt get it or crying the poor mouth is just part of his nature.

russ99
02-05-2011, 11:27 PM
I guess he just doesnt get it or crying the poor mouth is just part of his nature.

Sorry, Jerry. The reason I go to more games is the product on the field. Not by management crying poor.

You have a heck of a product this year, go and sell that.

Nobody's going to buy tickets because the Sox may lose money, and that tired threat of dumping, "white flagging" and rebuilding is a pretty weak threat, considering the long-term contracts this club is carrying.

BTW: Nobody's mentioning the huge amounts of prime dates this year. Way to hide a pretty big ticket price increase...

That said, I am going to go to more games this year, since we look pretty darned good on paper.

gosox41
02-05-2011, 11:29 PM
Haven't listened to the interview yet, but it's a little ridiculous to hear Reinsdorf crying poor.


I don't think he's crying poor, I think he's stating a fact.

Bob

DumpJerry
02-05-2011, 11:36 PM
BTW: Nobody's mentioning the huge amounts of prime dates this year. Way to hide a pretty big ticket price increase..
.
My season ticket price went up a small amount after two years at the same price.

I don't have last year's schedule with me right now (I do have it, however), so I can't right now count how many prime games there were last year. It seems like the same number of Premier games are scheduled this year as last, however (12).

There are more half-priced Mondays, by the way.

Lip Man 1
02-06-2011, 12:08 AM
Gosox:

He can certainly afford it.

The "poor mouth" talk has never flown very well with Sox fans.

If things are that difficult sell the team. It's worth 20 times now what he paid for it in 1981.

Or I guess if they are in a difficult situation, open the books to an independent accountant and let's see what they make of it.

Lip

Domeshot17
02-06-2011, 12:17 AM
I think this is actually a great move. Spend on the team, and then ask for support second. We all know he can afford it, but for once he spent first and asked second. He is basically campaigning for ticket sales, and no matter how you slice it, its going to sell tickets. No one is going to go to LESS games because of this.

Thome25
02-06-2011, 12:19 AM
Hearing this from Reinsdorf and management so often is getting more than old and stale.

Crying poor in a bad economy after you spent 130mm on payroll is in bad taste especially with so many of your potential customers under the money crunch in their personal lives.

Fans will come out if this team wins. It is Reinsdorf's obligation to put out a good product first. Don't cry about attendance before the season has even started.

Big attendance jumps usually happen the year AFTER a team was in contention.

Thome25
02-06-2011, 12:22 AM
I think this is actually a great move. Spend on the team, and then ask for support second. We all know he can afford it, but for once he spent first and asked second. He is basically campaigning for ticket sales, and no matter how you slice it, its going to sell tickets. No one is going to go to LESS games because of this.

This is a good point.

It has been his MO in the past to say that payroll will go up only after attendance does.

I have to give him some credit for that.

DSpivack
02-06-2011, 02:10 AM
This is a good point.

It has been his MO in the past to say that payroll will go up only after attendance does.

I have to give him some credit for that.

Yeah, I take his point to mean that the team is taking a bit of gamble this year, for them, spending a little more than they want to, but by bringing in talent they hope that eventually turns out as more revenue by having a better team.

dickallen15
02-06-2011, 05:48 AM
What's interesting is JR is admitting to "making a little here, making a little there" and saying if they lose money they would be able to cover the loss. Haven't they always said every dime that comes in goes out? His comment would make it appear not to be true.

I would also expect losing "a lot" of money in JR's mind isn't quite the same as making a lot of money. For instance if the White Sox made a million dollar profit, JR would probably consider that a small profit. Losing a million would probably be considered a large loss.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-06-2011, 10:02 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6093214

He was on "Talking Baseball" this morning and reiterated the need for fan support, and more importantly, our dollars, this year. One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

When the team is off to a really slow start and it doesn't have a DH or 3b then it's not going to draw well - period. He can blame that on personnel decisions, not the fans.

SI1020
02-06-2011, 10:09 AM
I guess he just doesnt get it or crying the poor mouth is just part of his nature. Both are true. This leopoard doesn't change his spots.

jdm2662
02-06-2011, 10:23 AM
I only went to four games last year. (And, I acutally only paid for one of them...) I wasn't motivated to trek to the ballpark when the team was sucking in April and May. This was especially since I was trying to finish grad school, had two bacholer parties to attend that was out of town, and two weddings that were out of town. You can also add in buying a new house and my trip to Vegas/ARZ in March. You get the idea. The weather last year wasn't really an issue either. It was one of the warmest spring and summer I can remember.

This year, I have no plans on going out of town. So, if the team is winning, I will probably go to more games. I also have lots of vacation time to use, so maybe I will use it for going to some games.

The Immigrant
02-06-2011, 10:37 AM
Let's not lose sight of the fact that he has dozens of investors to answer to, some of whom are still bitching that the Sox removed several rows of the upper deck right before the WS season (I've heard this gripe several times). Many of them care a lot more about the bottom line than they do about the W-L record, and Jerry will have to answer to them if the recent investments don't correlate into fan support. If the fan support is not there, the investors could be facing capital calls later in the season and that would cause quite a ****storm.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 10:39 AM
Sorry, Jerry. The reason I go to more games is the product on the field. Not by management crying poor.

I think quite a few people in this thread are way off base.

The organization is feeling the same money crunch as the fans are. Ad revenue is way down, the radio contract will be a fraction of what it used to be, taxes have gone up...and Reinsdorf just went out and gambled by upping the payroll to the highest it has ever been.

All he is asking is that the fan's take a small gamble of their own and make an investment in the team before the season. Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.

Seems pretty fair to me.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 10:42 AM
I only went to four games last year. (And, I acutally only paid for one of them...) I wasn't motivated to trek to the ballpark when the team was sucking in April and May. This was especially since I was trying to finish grad school, had two bacholer parties to attend that was out of town, and two weddings that were out of town. You can also add in buying a new house and my trip to Vegas/ARZ in March. You get the idea. The weather last year wasn't really an issue either. It was one of the warmest spring and summer I can remember.

This year, I have no plans on going out of town. So, if the team is winning, I will probably go to more games. I also have lots of vacation time to use, so maybe I will use it for going to some games.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in the post above. There's nothing keeping anyone from buying tickets for three or four games right now. Make an investment in the team, Sox fans. You can't have it both ways.

Over By There
02-06-2011, 10:45 AM
I think quite a few people in this thread are way off base.

The organization is feeling the same money crunch as the fans are. Ad revenue is way down, the radio contract will be a fraction of what it used to be, taxes have gone up...and Reinsdorf just went out and gambled by upping the payroll to the highest it has ever been.

All he is asking is that the fan's take a small gamble of their own and make an investment in the team before the season. Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.

Seems pretty fair to me.

Great post, agree 100%.

dickallen15
02-06-2011, 11:04 AM
I think quite a few people in this thread are way off base.

The organization is feeling the same money crunch as the fans are. Ad revenue is way down, the radio contract will be a fraction of what it used to be, taxes have gone up...and Reinsdorf just went out and gambled by upping the payroll to the highest it has ever been.

All he is asking is that the fan's take a small gamble of their own and make an investment in the team before the season. Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.

Seems pretty fair to me.
The organization is in a money crunch so they raised payroll to the highest in team history? Keep drinking the JR tea. I like JR but face it, he's or his minions have cried poor for years. Then they extended themselves for Peavy. Then they went out on a limb for Rios. Remember then when they said every penny they took it went out? Then last year when they were beyond extended, and attendance dropped again, they blew $4 million for 1 month of Manny. Now they re-sign Konerko and AJ. Add Dunn, give Ramirez a rather large extension, (BTW if Escobar is any good, this extension makes Ramirez serious trade bait if he doesn't fall off a cliff). Where did all this money come from? This team makes money. Read Forbes. They claim the Sox make about $20 million a year. JR doesn't lose money. He just admitted he makes money perhaps for the first time ever. If the team performs, the fans will come. The people he should cry to aren't the family of 5 trying to live on $70k a year, they are the people he is paying the money.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 11:08 AM
The organization is in a money crunch so they raised payroll to the highest in team history? Keep drinking the JR tea.

Love it. People whine and complain that JR hasn't signed a big-name free agent since Jamie Navarro, and that's still not good enough.

dickallen15
02-06-2011, 11:24 AM
Love it. People whine and complain that JR hasn't signed a big-name free agent since Jamie Navarro, and that's still not good enough.

Its not. BTW, I have tickets to 81 games, how about you?

MOD EDIT: I'd suggest you keep the personal insults to youself.

If the Sox win, and do it consistenty, they will draw. If they don't, they won't.

TomBradley72
02-06-2011, 12:15 PM
I think quite a few people in this thread are way off base.

The organization is feeling the same money crunch as the fans are. Ad revenue is way down, the radio contract will be a fraction of what it used to be, taxes have gone up...and Reinsdorf just went out and gambled by upping the payroll to the highest it has ever been.

All he is asking is that the fan's take a small gamble of their own and make an investment in the team before the season. Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.

Seems pretty fair to me.

+1

He is by far the best owner in Chicago sports (Rocky Wirtz is now a close 2nd)- how can anyone rip on this guy? Ever since 2005- he's been aggressive at retaining fan favorites (Buehrle, Konerko, etc.) and in acquiring high priced talent from the outside (Peavy, Rios, Dunn).

His points are reasonable.

fox23
02-06-2011, 12:23 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6093214

He was on "Talking Baseball" this morning and reiterated the need for fan support, and more importantly, our dollars, this year. One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

I'm glad that finally for once the Sox are taking the approach of dumping the capital into their product in the hopes that fan support (money) will follow, rather than the other way around. When it comes down to it, the Sox are really just a product. What would you do if Apple or Microsoft or someone said, "We are going to put out this music player that's okay. Now if enough of you buy it and we make enough money, we will then improve the product so the next one you buy is even better". As opposed to, "We put the money into making a great music player, now come out and buy it". Which one is going to fly in the marketplace?

And also, what is the deal with saying they can't lose money two years in a row (which I highly doubt they are anyway)? Sometimes a company has to take a hit to keep their market share. Not every year can be a great year.

fox23
02-06-2011, 12:28 PM
Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.



Seriously? Why in the world would I pay more for a ticket than I would have to? It is the Sox' own fault if they price their tickets higher than what the market will bare.

TomBradley72
02-06-2011, 12:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6093214

He was on "Talking Baseball" this morning and reiterated the need for fan support, and more importantly, our dollars, this year. One telling bit was him saying that if this year draws like last year, it'll lose money and they can't lose money two years in a row so this year has to get something dunn (haha) otherwise, next year is back to dump mode.

When is the last time the White Sox went into "dump mode"?

Even in 2007, when most teams would have- they re-signed Dye, Buehrle, etc.. It has been many years (pre-Guillen) since they operated in "White Flag" mode.

FielderJones
02-06-2011, 12:37 PM
Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.


Seriously? Why in the world would I pay more for a ticket than I would have to?

Didn't the Sox get face value for the $4 ticket on Stubhub? It's the middle-man who takes the hit on a discounted Stubhub ticket, not the Sox, right? :scratch:

pearso66
02-06-2011, 12:41 PM
Seriously? Why in the world would I pay more for a ticket than I would have to? It is the Sox' own fault if they price their tickets higher than what the market will bare.

I get what he's saying. You buying a $4 ticket from someone else isn't "supporting" the team. While yes you bought a ticket to a game, the money isn't going to the Sox. Hopefully this isn't even possible this year because they will sell out most games, especially once the end of May/beginning of June roll around

pearso66
02-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Didn't the Sox get face value for the $4 ticket on Stubhub? It's the middle-man who takes the hit on a discounted Stubhub ticket, not the Sox, right? :scratch:

You're right the Sox got paid for the ticket once, but it's already been sold, so buying that one doesn't help the Sox.

FielderJones
02-06-2011, 12:44 PM
While yes you bought a ticket to a game, the money isn't going to the Sox.

Didn't the guy who you bought the ticket from on Stubhub give money to the Sox? I still don't get it. The Sox got paid. Why should they get paid twice for one ticket?

fox23
02-06-2011, 12:58 PM
Didn't the guy who you bought the ticket from on Stubhub give money to the Sox? I still don't get it. The Sox got paid. Why should they get paid twice for one ticket?

Yes, the Sox already did get paid once.

fox23
02-06-2011, 01:01 PM
I get what he's saying. You buying a $4 ticket from someone else isn't "supporting" the team. While yes you bought a ticket to a game, the money isn't going to the Sox. Hopefully this isn't even possible this year because they will sell out most games, especially once the end of May/beginning of June roll around

No it isn't, but the Sox already made money on that one ticket. So it would then come down to either having me there and buying a few beers and a churro, or nobody sitting in that seat since the seller on stubhub clearly isn't going to the game.

My whole point is why would I ever actively decide to pay more for something than I would have to? Are you also going to cry foul on anyone who brings in a sandwich or a bottle of water to the game as well? The Sox aren't getting anything for that either.

SephClone89
02-06-2011, 01:28 PM
My whole point is why would I ever actively decide to pay more for something than I would have to? Are you also going to cry foul on anyone who brings in a sandwich or a bottle of water to the game as well? The Sox aren't getting anything for that either.

I eat at 35th Street Red Hots before almost every game I go to. JR must hate me.

Fenway
02-06-2011, 01:34 PM
And also, what is the deal with saying they can't lose money two years in a row (which I highly doubt they are anyway)? Sometimes a company has to take a hit to keep their market share. Not every year can be a great year.


"Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss, and I can get every national accounting firm to agree with me."- Paul Beeston, MLB chief operating officer when he was Blue Jays president.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 01:44 PM
Its not. BTW, I have tickets to 81 games, how about you?

As many as my schedule will allow this year. I finalized my purchase on Thursday with my rep.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 01:46 PM
Didn't the Sox get face value for the $4 ticket on Stubhub? It's the middle-man who takes the hit on a discounted Stubhub ticket, not the Sox, right? :scratch:

It's not rocket science. I'm saying two fans investing in the team at full-price supports the team more than one full-price ticket being resold for pennies on the dollar at the last minute.

fox23
02-06-2011, 02:05 PM
It's not rocket science. I'm saying two fans investing in the team at full-price supports the team more than one full-price ticket being resold for pennies on the dollar at the last minute.

So while you're at it, why not buy a few extra seats whenever you go to the game, that way you could spread out? Or just cut out the middle man and mail in a check directly to Jerry himself? Both of those would support the team as well. Doesn't make it sensible though.

Brian26
02-06-2011, 02:17 PM
So while you're at it, why not buy a few extra seats whenever you go to the game, that way you could spread out? Or just cut out the middle man and mail in a check directly to Jerry himself? Both of those would support the team as well. Doesn't make it sensible though.

You're just throwing hyperbole back at me and avoiding the real issue. This doesn't have to be personal on any level. It's silly that it has become "not sensible" to buy some tickets for games before the season in some people's minds.

fox23
02-06-2011, 02:24 PM
You're just throwing hyperbole back at me and avoiding the real issue. This doesn't have to be personal on any level. It's silly that it has become "not sensible" to buy some tickets for games before the season in some people's minds.

Sorry if you think it is personal; I'm not sure why. I don't know you, I don't have anything bad to say about you personally. I simply think your point in this matter is wrong.

Back to the topic, I'm not really sure what to tell you then and I don't see how I'm avoiding the "real" issue. In my mind it is not sensible to pay full price for something that I could get at a discount with little to no extra effort. That is my entire point.

TDog
02-06-2011, 02:34 PM
It's not rocket science. I'm saying two fans investing in the team at full-price supports the team more than one full-price ticket being resold for pennies on the dollar at the last minute.

You're absolutely right. Obviously, if you have a choice between buying a ticket from eBay (aka its subsidiary Stub Hub) and buying a ticket from the team, the team benefits more from if you buy a ticket that hasn't yet been purchased.

Some Stub Hub ticket are offered by speculators who buy tickets in hopes of making a profit. Others are offered by people who bought season tickets and can't go to all the games. And there are shades of gray between those extremes. But if Stub Hub becomes the primary source for advance ticket sales, it may or may not put more people in the ballpark, but it doesn't support the team.

Whether people believe they should be supporting the team financially or whether the owners of professional sports franchises should be willing to operate at a loss to field winning teams are issues independent of your point.

Noneck
02-06-2011, 02:56 PM
Stubhub or even ebay can be a place where one can buy a ticket that can not be bought from the team. A ticket is not a ticket, the location of the seat is an important consideration. I do understand people buying Sox tics through these means (above or below cost) because lower level seats in a good location are very difficult to obtain.

SoxandtheCityTee
02-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Amazing to see how quickly Renisdorf can use up the slack I cut him after 2005, especially given how rarely he speaks publicly.

Maybe he and his partner-investors can do a little math, scaling their incomes down to an average person's level, then applying the same percentage of losses they themselves suffered across the board in the economic turndown (not one of them lives on their Sox holdings alone, y'know), and see how many game tickets they think that'd leave them room to buy at current face prices.

Re-buyers fill the seats and buy beer, food, parking, T-shirts. I don't even drink beer, but I'll even buy a glass of their crappy wine now and then. I'll buy seats directly from the White Sox or in the secondary market, depending. As I've been going to games longer than Jerry has owned the team, have seen 300 or so games at the new park, and have helped make sure the next generation in my family are Sox fans, I think I'm doing my part.

pearso66
02-06-2011, 03:21 PM
No it isn't, but the Sox already made money on that one ticket. So it would then come down to either having me there and buying a few beers and a churro, or nobody sitting in that seat since the seller on stubhub clearly isn't going to the game.

My whole point is why would I ever actively decide to pay more for something than I would have to? Are you also going to cry foul on anyone who brings in a sandwich or a bottle of water to the game as well? The Sox aren't getting anything for that either.

I have no problem with you buying the cheaper ticket from Stub Hub/Ebay, I'm just saying it doesn't help the team by you buying that ticket since it is already sold. I have bought tickets from Ebay and I have also brought food/water into the park, I was pointing out buying another ticket from them helps the team more than re-buying an already sold ticket. I also hope that there will be a lot more tickets sold through the team so they will continue to put a good team on the field.

comiskey2000
02-06-2011, 03:28 PM
Does it come down to if the fans like us should care or not if the team turns a profit?

SephClone89
02-06-2011, 03:28 PM
I have no problem with you buying the cheaper ticket from Stub Hub/Ebay, I'm just saying it doesn't help the team by you buying that ticket since it is already sold. I have bought tickets from Ebay and I have also brought food/water into the park, I was pointing out buying another ticket from them helps the team more than re-buying an already sold ticket. I also hope that there will be a lot more tickets sold through the team so they will continue to put a good team on the field.

Isn't your sig in need of updating?

Noneck
02-06-2011, 03:32 PM
I also hope that there will be a lot more tickets sold through the team so they will continue to put a good team on the field.

If the team wins, more tics will be sold. I remember before the team got hot last year, people couldnt sell their tics on stubhub for 50 cents on a dollar. So how in the heck would you expect people to buy from the team when you could get tics for less than half price (and tics you couldnt buy from the club)?

Now tics will be bought based on expectation, no need to threaten or poor mouth, just let the fans know what kind of club is being put on the field this year.

After that its all about winning.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-06-2011, 03:37 PM
It's really not that hard. Someone buys a ticket from the Sox then sells it on a site. Someone buys that ticket. The difference between that and the guy who bought online buying through the team is that the team itself is selling less tickets. BTW, you won't see those $4 tickets if the team is doing well.

Fenway
02-06-2011, 03:51 PM
I have no problem with you buying the cheaper ticket from Stub Hub/Ebay, I'm just saying it doesn't help the team by you buying that ticket since it is already sold. I have bought tickets from Ebay and I have also brought food/water into the park, I was pointing out buying another ticket from them helps the team more than re-buying an already sold ticket. I also hope that there will be a lot more tickets sold through the team so they will continue to put a good team on the field.

Actually it does - if the ticket goes unused there is no spending inside the park.

dickallen15
02-06-2011, 04:09 PM
I have no problem with you buying the cheaper ticket from Stub Hub/Ebay, I'm just saying it doesn't help the team by you buying that ticket since it is already sold. I have bought tickets from Ebay and I have also brought food/water into the park, I was pointing out buying another ticket from them helps the team more than re-buying an already sold ticket. I also hope that there will be a lot more tickets sold through the team so they will continue to put a good team on the field.
But it does. As has been pointed out, the seat probably would have gone unusued and therefore perhaps parking or concessions or souveniers are sold. Also, if people refused to use the secondary market, fewer season tickets and other advanced sales would be sold as people wouldn't have any hope of getting some or all or even more of their money back.

The White Sox have no premium lower deck or club level seats available. They are all sold out. Except for the old Jim Beam Club, Scouts seats and suites, all of the highest priced tickets are sold.

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-06-2011, 04:15 PM
But it does. As has been pointed out, the seat probably would have gone unusued and therefore perhaps parking or concessions or souveniers are sold. Also, if people refused to use the secondary market, fewer season tickets and other advanced sales would be sold as people wouldn't have any hope of getting some or all or even more of their money back.

The White Sox have no premium lower deck or club level seats available. They are all sold out. Except for the old Jim Beam Club, Scouts seats and suites, all of the highest priced tickets are sold.

I agree with all of this. The first part of your post is the argument I used when Upper Reserved seats should be cheap because people may spend $5/$10 a seats but then drop $40 on food/drinks and maybe even $23 on parking. That is better than not selling those seats at all and losing the parking and food and drink money.

dickallen15
02-06-2011, 04:20 PM
I agree with all of this. The first part of your post is the argument I used when Upper Reserved seats should be cheap because people may spend $5/$10 a seats but then drop $40 on food/drinks and maybe even $23 on parking. That is better than not selling those seats at all and losing the parking and food and drink money.
That's true. Where I sit, there's a lot of corporate seats. Employees get these tickets for nothing and wind up spending a lot more money than they normally would on food, drink and souveniers.

ewokpelts
02-07-2011, 12:59 AM
There are NINE 1/2 off monday games this year.

And I imagine there will be plenty of discount codes out this year.

Jerry's just asking to pony up now instead of June.

The Sox have been real aggressive with promotional items this year, and have offered TWO "choose-your-own-games" plans(ozzie plan and 7 game "promo" plan).

There really arent any excuses for fans to grab a game when the public onsale begins this weekend. Team looks good, upper deck prices were dropped DESPITE adding payroll, and there ARE low cost options available through the team directly.

Stubhub sales are nice, but they dont directly help the team sell more tickets at the box office.


Also, to the guy who mentioned that there ar emore prime dates: There are PLENTY of "regular" games this year, with almost the entire months of april and may being regular price. And there is at least one series per month that is regular price.

most prime dates are weekends. the sox are stupid to not capitalize on the fact that most people have weekends off.

Ranger
02-07-2011, 08:45 PM
I think quite a few people in this thread are way off base.

The organization is feeling the same money crunch as the fans are. Ad revenue is way down, the radio contract will be a fraction of what it used to be, taxes have gone up...and Reinsdorf just went out and gambled by upping the payroll to the highest it has ever been.

All he is asking is that the fan's take a small gamble of their own and make an investment in the team before the season. Buying tickets now helps the Sox bottom line. Buying tickets for $4 off Stubhub the day of the game "if the Sox are doing well" doesn't help the Sox financial situation one bit.

Seems pretty fair to me.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in the post above. There's nothing keeping anyone from buying tickets for three or four games right now. Make an investment in the team, Sox fans. You can't have it both ways.

That's about as well-said as it can be. Nobody is "crying poor" here. He's just stating a fact that the White Sox are a business and a business cannot afford to lose money in consecutive years. The owner of a baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than the team takes in and is also not obligated to gamble on hoping the fans support the club, which is essentially what's been done for 2011.

Certainly by August/September, people will likely not be showing up if the team isn't performing well. That's understood. But like Brian is saying, the hope is that fans will respond to the offseason by buying tickets for games early in the year when the team hasn't yet had a chance to show us anything on the field. He's hoping, like most teams hope, that fans will have a little bit of faith in the money that's been spent and they'll buy tickets now for April and May. He's hoping people don't do the let's-wait-and-see-how-things-play-out-before-I-start-showing-up thing.

I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's kind of how most teams operate. I've long heard fans say, "spend the money on the team and we'll show up." Well, the first part of that has happened. Nothing wrong with hoping the second part happens as well.

Ranger
02-07-2011, 08:50 PM
Didn't the Sox get face value for the $4 ticket on Stubhub? It's the middle-man who takes the hit on a discounted Stubhub ticket, not the Sox, right? :scratch:

I think the point Brian is trying to make (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's about a particular attitude. I believe he's saying that it doesn't help the team if too many people wait to see how things "play out" before they start showing up to games. That if too many people are only willing to buy discounted tickets that have already been sold, it doesn't bode well for the team's finances.

Noneck
02-07-2011, 08:58 PM
That's about as well-said as it can be. Nobody is "crying poor" here. He's just stating a fact that the White Sox are a business and a business cannot afford to lose money in consecutive years. The owner of a baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than the team takes in and is also not obligated to gamble on hoping the fans support the club, which is essentially what's been done for 2011.

Certainly by August/September, people will likely not be showing up if the team isn't performing well. That's understood. But like Brian is saying, the hope is that fans will respond to the offseason by buying tickets for games early in the year when the team hasn't yet had a chance to show us anything on the field. He's hoping, like most teams hope, that fans will have a little bit of faith in the money that's been spent and they'll buy tickets now for April and May. He's hoping people don't do the let's-wait-and-see-how-things-play-out-before-I-start-showing-up thing.

I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's kind of how most teams operate. I've long heard fans say, "spend the money on the team and we'll show up." Well, the first part of that has happened. Nothing wrong with hoping the second part happens as well.

No need to talk about losing or making money because unless the books are open, there is no way the fans know if it is true. Talk about the great club you assembled and not about things that may happen if this team doesnt click.

Anyone that follows the Sox knows what was done in the off season and anyone else just has to be told what was done, that doesnt have to include what was spent, just the team that was assembled.

Ranger
02-07-2011, 09:07 PM
No need to talk about losing or making money because unless the books are open, there is no way the fans know if it is true. Talk about the great club you assembled and not about things that may happen if this team doesnt click.

Anyone that follows the Sox knows what was done in the off season and anyone else just has to be told what was done, that doesnt have to include what was spent, just the team that was assembled.

Why not? I still see nothing wrong with stating the facts of the situation.

And I see even less wrong with what he said when you take into account that the specific question was asked of him "Where did you get all the money?" All he did was answer that question.

Noneck
02-07-2011, 09:14 PM
Why not? I still see nothing wrong with stating the facts of the situation.

And I see even less wrong with what he said when you take into account that the specific question was asked of him "Where did you get all the money?" All he did was answer that question.

The facts of the situation are they signed a true LH slugger, 2 of the 3 most popular players in current times, extended their future SS for years to come and got much needed bullpen help. Those are facts.

When asked where did he get the money, the response should be "Ownership wants a winner and we will do whatever it takes to do so"

asindc
02-07-2011, 09:29 PM
The facts of the situation are they signed a true LH slugger, 2 of the 3 most popular players in current times, extended their future SS for years to come and got much needed bullpen help. Those are facts.

When asked where did he get the money, the response should be "Ownership wants a winner and we will do whatever it takes to do so"

I'm guessing he did not respond that way because it would have been a lie. Saying they will do "whatever it takes" would paint them into a corner, PR-wise. Many fans will hold him to that.

Noneck
02-07-2011, 09:33 PM
I'm guessing he did not respond that way because it would have been a lie. Saying they will do "whatever it takes" would paint them into a corner, PR-wise. Many fans will hold him to that.

Yea maybe but he could have said something similar, He has PR guys that know all the lingo.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2011, 10:05 PM
Ranger:

Not necessary disagreeing with you but for what it's worth I have two sources who have told me repeatedly that the "White Sox haven't lost money in a long time." That's a direct quote.

Assuming their statement is correct and they are a lot closer to the situation than I am, that casts some doubt that the Sox lost money last year or in recent (last ten years) seasons.

As Noneck said until they open the books nobody knows for sure what the real situation is. They may be making money hand over fist, they may be losing money hand over fist or they may be making money but not enough to satisfy certain members of the board of directors. We just don't know.

I just never think it's a good idea, even if JR was just answering a question, put to him in good faith to box your fan base into a situation where you don't want them to go.

JR has lived in Chicago since the late 50's...he knows completely what his fan base is like. They don't react well to statements of this nature...that's a fact.

Lip

Fenway
02-07-2011, 10:40 PM
Maybe they 'lost' money in 2010 - weather factors, the Hawks run, lousy home schedule (4 dates with Boston became worthless being the last week)

TV money is excellent, local radio not so much.

Does JR know his fanbase? Well...how many times has he ever stepped foot in places like Beverly? He is a northsider.

AL Central is fascinating - The Twins now that Carl has died and the sons doing everything right are a factor - The Tigers have an owner that wants to win before he dies , and money is no object.

Kansas City 'may' become a factor -- Cleveland is in trouble.

But nobody can say the White Sox are skimping.

gosox41
02-07-2011, 11:00 PM
Gosox:

He can certainly afford it.

The "poor mouth" talk has never flown very well with Sox fans.

If things are that difficult sell the team. It's worth 20 times now what he paid for it in 1981.

Or I guess if they are in a difficult situation, open the books to an independent accountant and let's see what they make of it.

Lip

I think people are reading too much into it. He basically said the team has potential to lose lots of money. It is true. He never said he couldn't afford it. In fact, he knows exactly the risk of doing it and he's willing to take his lumps if the team doesn't perform well.

The issue isn't how much the team is worth or how much he has made.

That being said, he should go back to not commenting on attendence because it is always misinterpreted.


Bob

gosox41
02-07-2011, 11:08 PM
No need to talk about losing or making money because unless the books are open, there is no way the fans know if it is true. Talk about the great club you assembled and not about things that may happen if this team doesnt click.

Anyone that follows the Sox knows what was done in the off season and anyone else just has to be told what was done, that doesnt have to include what was spent, just the team that was assembled.

Every Sox fan knows that the team has done this offseason, now it's time to stop taking a wait and see approach.

Who cares what Jerry says? If people care that much about what the owner says and only go to Sox games when the team plays well, one has to question how "diehard" these people claim to be.

And I don't want this to turn into what people can and can't afford and all that. Whether one can afford to go to 3 games on 1/2 price nights or a full season in the Club level, it would be nice to see more people at games in April/May.


Bob

gosox41
02-07-2011, 11:18 PM
Ranger:

Not necessary disagreeing with you but for what it's worth I have two sources who have told me repeatedly that the "White Sox haven't lost money in a long time." That's a direct quote.

Assuming their statement is correct and they are a lot closer to the situation than I am, that casts some doubt that the Sox lost money last year or in recent (last ten years) seasons.

As Noneck said until they open the books nobody knows for sure what the real situation is. They may be making money hand over fist, they may be losing money hand over fist or they may be making money but not enough to satisfy certain members of the board of directors. We just don't know.

I just never think it's a good idea, even if JR was just answering a question, put to him in good faith to box your fan base into a situation where you don't want them to go.

JR has lived in Chicago since the late 50's...he knows completely what his fan base is like. They don't react well to statements of this nature...that's a fact.

Lip

Lip,

The Sox haven't lost lost money since 1997. You can choose to believe that or not, it doesn't matter.` Even if the books were open, most would doubt it, and they probably don't have more then an Accounting 101 class in their background.

Is it possible to cook the books? Yes.
Does that mean the Sox are doing it? I guess the burden falls on the conspiracy belivers to prove it as much as it does for JR to prove his losses to you when he does lose money.

In 1997 the Sox paid out more cash then they took in. Forgetting about depreciation methodes and all that, in 1997 they simple spent more then they took in.

In 2011, if they don't draw X amount of people, they will lose money. I don't know what X is yet for the team to breakeven but I'm speculating 2.4 to 2.5 million.


Bob

Lip Man 1
02-08-2011, 12:08 AM
Gosox:

This and that on your comments:

1. Agree he should not say a word at anytime about attendance. As stated history shows this is simply not a good area to venture into with Sox fans, especially those with long memories about some things that happened in 1989, 1994 and 1997.

2. Historically Sox fans will not support bad/ mediocre / garbage teams. "Diehard" has nothing to do with it, it's called being smart, very smart. For decades the Cubs for example, were a national joke in large part because the owners knew they were going to sell Wrigley Field out whether they were in first place or dead last. They had ZERO incentive to try to improve the club since they couldn't get one more person in "The Shrine." Amazing isn't it what happened when the Sox won a World Series and there were lots of empty seats by the end of the year in 2006 at Wrigley...the Cub owners sure changed their tune in a hurry didn't they?

3. Perhaps you should take your comment about April / May games to the "geniuses" who make out the schedule. Things like 12 games in April in freezing weather aren't going to do much to spin the turnstyles and if you read my interview with Bob Grim of the White Sox you'll see firsthand his comments on this and other issues Sox management has with the schedule the past few years.

4. Thanks for confirming my sources story. That is appreciated. I've always suggested an independent auditor to look at these things and give everyone the benefit of their expertise. Of course history records what happened in 1994 when an independent auditor / accountant from Stanford agreed upon by both the MLBPA and the MLB owners looked at the books. He promptly skewered "Proud To Be Your Bud's" claim that over twenty teams were losing money and showed in detail how certain teams were 'cooking the books.' It's not a conspiracy purported by out of control fans as you seem to imply, it's fact and has already been shown to be true on a general level in MLB. Whether the Sox are doing it, nobody knows at this time.

5. If the Sox do lose money in 2011, for whatever reason or reasons, JR isn't going to have to wonder where his next meal is coming from. Not to be cavalier but it's not the end of the world if they were to do so. It happens. The issue to me seems to be more some of his board members and not JR himself but regardless I'm sure he has lost money at various times in his other ventures and survived. The White Sox are a public trust, Eddie Einhorn himself said that... there's more to this endeavor than simply 'dollars.'

Lip

Brian26
02-08-2011, 12:25 AM
2. Historically Sox fans will not support bad/ mediocre / garbage teams. "Diehard" has nothing to do with it, it's called being smart, very smart.

This team looks pretty damn good on paper, and a lot of money was spent to assemble it. If you're telling me the Sox fanbase needs to see the team play for a couple of months before they invest in the team, either emotionally or financially, then the Sox fanbase sucks. The inferiority complex is getting old. Its not like Dave LaPoint and Jerry Reuss are our top two starters anymore.

Noneck
02-08-2011, 12:31 AM
Every Sox fan knows that the team has done this offseason, now it's time to stop taking a wait and see approach.

Who cares what Jerry says? If people care that much about what the owner says and only go to Sox games when the team plays well, one has to question how "diehard" these people claim to be.

And I don't want this to turn into what people can and can't afford and all that. Whether one can afford to go to 3 games on 1/2 price nights or a full season in the Club level, it would be nice to see more people at games in April/May.


Bob

Reminding the fans about the type of club built for this year is a good idea prior to the start of ticket sales. With other things going on in the winters of Chicago, people may put the Sox in the back of their minds and a gentle reminder can do nothing but good for the ownership. No need for people that have far more personal economic concerns to hear a rich owner say that his team "may" lose some money next year.

Get the fans excited about the upcoming year and give them the hope to get away from their real problems by buying some tics to a team that should be very good. Not because a group of multimillionaires may finally lose a few bucks.

And yes people do listen and care when an owner speaks.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2011, 12:35 AM
Brian:

I think they look pretty good on paper too and I think when general tickets go on sale next week everyone will be satisfied. The record shows though that many times Sox fans are skeptical (and with good reason) and will wait to see what happens before they spend their money.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, good or bad, just that history says it happens.

Also I think you are simplifying the issue a tad to much. It's not just about if the team looks good on paper or not. It's about generally terrible weather in April / early May, it's about school still being in session with weekday games at night and it doesn't help matters when the club gets off to poor starts like they did in both 2009 and 2010. Remember game day - walk up ticket sales go on throughout the year. A poor start kills you in this area.

There are a lot of factors in play here.

Lip

Fenway
02-08-2011, 12:50 AM
Lip,

The Sox haven't lost lost money since 1997. You can choose to believe that or not, it doesn't matter.` Even if the books were open, most would doubt it, and they probably don't have more then an Accounting 101 class in their background.

Is it possible to cook the books? Yes.
Does that mean the Sox are doing it? I guess the burden falls on the conspiracy belivers to prove it as much as it does for JR to prove his losses to you when he does lose money.

In 1997 the Sox paid out more cash then they took in. Forgetting about depreciation methodes and all that, in 1997 they simple spent more then they took in.

In 2011, if they don't draw X amount of people, they will lose money. I don't know what X is yet for the team to breakeven but I'm speculating 2.4 to 2.5 million.


Bob

Trying to figure out a MLB team bottom line is impossible today...

The Red Sox most likely lose money BUT they are owned by New England Sports Ventures which also owns 80 percent of NESN, 50 percent of a NASCAR operation and now Liverpool soccer.

JR owns a nice part of CSN-Chicago between the Bulls and Sox - and has very little debt service since the teams were bought long ago.

Honestly JR should stay away from a microphone - he never comes out looking good.

Ranger
02-08-2011, 02:41 AM
The facts of the situation are they signed a true LH slugger, 2 of the 3 most popular players in current times, extended their future SS for years to come and got much needed bullpen help. Those are facts.

When asked where did he get the money, the response should be "Ownership wants a winner and we will do whatever it takes to do so"

Why should he say that? I'm fine hearing the truth from the owner. I don't need to have him tell me something I want to hear just so I'll be satisfied. The question was: "Where did you get the money to do this?" The answer and truth is: "Well, we don't really have it. Therefore, we're hoping the attendance supports us." That's how the economics of the game work and I'm adult enough to be able to take the reality without being upset by it.

Gosox:

This and that on your comments:

1. Agree he should not say a word at anytime about attendance. As stated history shows this is simply not a good area to venture into with Sox fans, especially those with long memories about some things that happened in 1989, 1994 and 1997.

2. Historically Sox fans will not support bad/ mediocre / garbage teams. "Diehard" has nothing to do with it, it's called being smart, very smart. For decades the Cubs for example, were a national joke in large part because the owners knew they were going to sell Wrigley Field out whether they were in first place or dead last. They had ZERO incentive to try to improve the club since they couldn't get one more person in "The Shrine." Amazing isn't it what happened when the Sox won a World Series and there were lots of empty seats by the end of the year in 2006 at Wrigley...the Cub owners sure changed their tune in a hurry didn't they?

3. Perhaps you should take your comment about April / May games to the "geniuses" who make out the schedule. Things like 12 games in April in freezing weather aren't going to do much to spin the turnstyles and if you read my interview with Bob Grim of the White Sox you'll see firsthand his comments on this and other issues Sox management has with the schedule the past few years.

4. Thanks for confirming my sources story. That is appreciated. I've always suggested an independent auditor to look at these things and give everyone the benefit of their expertise. Of course history records what happened in 1994 when an independent auditor / accountant from Stanford agreed upon by both the MLBPA and the MLB owners looked at the books. He promptly skewered "Proud To Be Your Bud's" claim that over twenty teams were losing money and showed in detail how certain teams were 'cooking the books.' It's not a conspiracy purported by out of control fans as you seem to imply, it's fact and has already been shown to be true on a general level in MLB. Whether the Sox are doing it, nobody knows at this time.

5. If the Sox do lose money in 2011, for whatever reason or reasons, JR isn't going to have to wonder where his next meal is coming from. Not to be cavalier but it's not the end of the world if they were to do so. It happens. The issue to me seems to be more some of his board members and not JR himself but regardless I'm sure he has lost money at various times in his other ventures and survived. The White Sox are a public trust, Eddie Einhorn himself said that... there's more to this endeavor than simply 'dollars.'

Lip

I disagree with you completely that it makes a fanbase "dumb" just because they support a team regardless of how good they are or are not. I also don't expect fans to show up to watch a bad team. But if they do, it doesn't mean they aren't smart. It just means they enjoy the experience of going to watch their team play baseball, even if it isn't necessarily good baseball. Nothing in the world wrong with that.

Contrary to popular belief, the idea that the Cubs have been selling out for decades is totally false. The Cubs ranged from awful to around-average NL attendance all the way up until 1998. They didn't draw 2 million+ until that '84 season, didn't regularly draw 30,000+ per game until the late 90's, and didn't start drawing 3 million per season until 2003/2004. (As a side note: with the exception of a couple of years in the early 90's, the Cubs have outdrawn the Sox every year for most of the last few decades). The main point being that the Cubs really solid attendance numbers didn't start until '98.

Regarding the schedule, there isn't anything the Sox can do about the schedule since they don't make it. All they can do is request certain things, but those requests aren't always honored.

This isn't about Reinsdorf worrying about his next meal. That isn't the point. The point is that the business doesn't want to take a financial hit and they are not obligated to, either. Like it or not, the White Sox are a business. Just as every other team in baseball is a business and are operated as such. Teams don't spend more than they make and they don't have to.

Either way, I hope people show up early in the season. If they do, it only improves the chances of more good offseasons in the future.

Noneck
02-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Why should he say that? I'm fine hearing the truth from the owner. I don't need to have him tell me something I want to hear just so I'll be satisfied. The question was: "Where did you get the money to do this?" The answer and truth is: "Well, we don't really have it. Therefore, we're hoping the attendance supports us." That's how the economics of the game work and I'm adult enough to be able to take the reality without being upset by it.





Being a member of the sports industry I am sure you have read reports from reliable publications stating that baseball franchises have been doing very well and have not lost money in recent years. Stating that they dont have the money is about as truthful and as unfortunate as stating that they will do what it takes to win. If he wants to bring money in the picture and as I stated previously there is absolutely no need to do this, state that they are using profits from previous years with the hope that it generates profits for this year.

The fans here dont want to hear about this club so called money problems, all they want to hear about is about the very competitive club that was fielded for this year. The fans here are "adult" enough to realize what was done in the off season and will support this team, hopefully a nice spring and a nice start will help this situation.

TomBradley72
02-08-2011, 11:13 AM
JR has been a great owner now since the 2000 season- pursuing free agents and high salaried talent via trade, retaining fan favorites, renovating the ballpark and bringing 3 Division titles, an AL Pennant and a World Series championship to the south side. I can't think of a single season where they pulled any "White Flag" b.s- it's been 14 years- I'm willing to let that go.

No owner is perfect- but I would take him above most owners in MLB and definitely ahead of the owners of the other franchises in the region (Cubs or Brewers).

So he's not the best with the media- I don't care- I still prefer his directness over the generic PR "pablum" that other posters are advocating. The mix of JR, KW, Ozzie, Brooks Boyer- makes this a very interesting and unique franchise to follow- alot better than what existed for decades before this group came together.

dickallen15
02-08-2011, 11:24 AM
Why should he say that? I'm fine hearing the truth from the owner. I don't need to have him tell me something I want to hear just so I'll be satisfied. The question was: "Where did you get the money to do this?" The answer and truth is: "Well, we don't really have it. Therefore, we're hoping the attendance supports us." That's how the economics of the game work and I'm adult enough to be able to take the reality without being upset by it.



I disagree with you completely that it makes a fanbase "dumb" just because they support a team regardless of how good they are or are not. I also don't expect fans to show up to watch a bad team. But if they do, it doesn't mean they aren't smart. It just means they enjoy the experience of going to watch their team play baseball, even if it isn't necessarily good baseball. Nothing in the world wrong with that.

Contrary to popular belief, the idea that the Cubs have been selling out for decades is totally false. The Cubs ranged from awful to around-average NL attendance all the way up until 1998. They didn't draw 2 million+ until that '84 season, didn't regularly draw 30,000+ per game until the late 90's, and didn't start drawing 3 million per season until 2003/2004. (As a side note: with the exception of a couple of years in the early 90's, the Cubs have outdrawn the Sox every year for most of the last few decades). The main point being that the Cubs really solid attendance numbers didn't start until '98.

Regarding the schedule, there isn't anything the Sox can do about the schedule since they don't make it. All they can do is request certain things, but those requests aren't always honored.

This isn't about Reinsdorf worrying about his next meal. That isn't the point. The point is that the business doesn't want to take a financial hit and they are not obligated to, either. Like it or not, the White Sox are a business. Just as every other team in baseball is a business and are operated as such. Teams don't spend more than they make and they don't have to.

Either way, I hope people show up early in the season. If they do, it only improves the chances of more good offseasons in the future.


He doesn't say he doesn't have the money, quite the contrary. He says if they lose money over the years they made a little here, made a little there and will be able to cover it. So if they lose $20 million this year but they use previous years' profits to cover it, they basically are exactly where they have always claimed to be. The company line has always been whatever comes in, goes out. Apparently that wasn't true. People will show up early if the weather is halfway decent and the White Sox are playing well. Its funny Cubs fans get ripped for showing up no matter what. They have a high payroll. Now many White Sox fans are preaching Sox fans should be more like Cubs fans.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2011, 12:21 PM
Ranger:

If I'm home this summer and we get together I'll enjoy discussing this issue with you in detail.

My only point to your reply that I want to make at this time is regarding your comment, "The point is that the business doesn't want to take a financial hit and they are not obligated to, either. Like it or not, the White Sox are a business. Just as every other team in baseball is a business and are operated as such. Teams don't spend more than they make and they don't have to."

We'll have to disagree here. When you get a tax payer financed stadium built (after threatening to move a charter member of the American League i.e. extorsion), when you have one of the best lease agreements in MLB, I'm sorry you do have an obligation to lose money occasionally in pursuit of winning for your fan base. (As my sources have told me and as Gosox has apparently confirmed, the Sox haven't "lost money" since 1997)

My feelings would be completely different if JR used his own money totally to build the new stadium or even if he used his own money to repair the look of it after it was built. He did not, so in my mind he does have certain duties to the fan base, city and county.

And I think we both know that there are teams that do spend more money than they take in...although as we all know it's impossible to prove today, one way or the other what teams do or don't do because of the way numbers can (legally) be manipulated.

Good discussion though.

Oh one point about the Cubs, their fans and how long they have been drawing. To a certain extent my comment was misleading and I apologize for that. I probably used the wrong words. The point I was trying to make was that the Cubs for decades knew that their fans were going to come out (which actually started in the late 60's) and that was reflected in the organization's philosophy. They had been marketing "beautiful Wrigley Field" in the words of Jack Brickhouse since the 60's for a good reason, they knew that's what would appeal to their fan base.

True story. In 1976 I was taking a 400 level course in college that only required a paper. I chose the "role of the sports broadcaster" and that year during Christmas break I arranged to meet with some of the Chicago media guys to discuss this. I spoke with Harry Caray, Johnny Morris, Chet Coppock and Vince Lloyd among others.

I met Lloyd at the WGN studios and he kindly gave me an hour and a half of his time. We talked and he told a bunch of stories. Very, very nice man. One of them was about when he asked P.K. Wrigley in the early 60's about why the Cubs couldn't win. It was a friendly talk he said, before a game. I'll never forget what Lloyd told me Wrigley told him. "We're not interested in winning...we're interested in entertaining."

Lip

Dan H
02-08-2011, 01:59 PM
I don't respond to any threats or a team crying poor. That tactic has demonstrated to be an exercise in futility and probably does more to drive people away more than anything else. I hope the Sox stop with this stupid line. They had a great offseason; they should just market that and stop with the condescending stuff.

dickallen15
02-08-2011, 02:31 PM
I don't respond to any threats or a team crying poor. That tactic has demonstrated to be an exercise in futility and probably does more to drive people away more than anything else. I hope the Sox stop with this stupid line. They had a great offseason; they should just market that and stop with the condescending stuff.
There's certainly a lot of spin and manipulation with JR's comments. They could lose "a lot" of money if attendance stays the same. They will be able to cover this large loss with the little they have been able to save as profit over the years. Of course we were always told they never made any money. Every single dime of profit was put back into the team. I really don't know why the White Sox organization continues to talk finances.

TheVulture
02-08-2011, 03:03 PM
Hmm, let's see...Sox are getting $4 mil from Comcast per game, seven dollar beers, six dollar hot dogs, 2.2 million ticket sales... I don't think I'm buying it, Jerry.

Ranger
02-08-2011, 04:14 PM
Being a member of the sports industry I am sure you have read reports from reliable publications stating that baseball franchises have been doing very well and have not lost money in recent years. Stating that they dont have the money is about as truthful and as unfortunate as stating that they will do what it takes to win. If he wants to bring money in the picture and as I stated previously there is absolutely no need to do this, state that they are using profits from previous years with the hope that it generates profits for this year.

The fans here dont want to hear about this club so called money problems, all they want to hear about is about the very competitive club that was fielded for this year. The fans here are "adult" enough to realize what was done in the off season and will support this team, hopefully a nice spring and a nice start will help this situation.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any problem with what he said. He gave a direct answer to a direct question. The truth is that team budgets are always set on a year to year basis and they are all projections. It's not based on what the attendance and revenue was the previous year, it's based on what they think they will get in the current year.

Nobody is saying they have money problems. They're saying that they hope people show up, because if they don't, there will be money lost. And (most importantly) it will dramatically decrease the likelihood they do this sort of thing again. That's just truth.

I hope you're right that people start supporting RIGHT NOW, and don't wait until June to see how things go before they invest a little money in tickets.

Ranger:

If I'm home this summer and we get together I'll enjoy discussing this issue with you in detail.

My only point to your reply that I want to make at this time is regarding your comment, "The point is that the business doesn't want to take a financial hit and they are not obligated to, either. Like it or not, the White Sox are a business. Just as every other team in baseball is a business and are operated as such. Teams don't spend more than they make and they don't have to."

We'll have to disagree here. When you get a tax payer financed stadium built (after threatening to move a charter member of the American League i.e. extorsion), when you have one of the best lease agreements in MLB, I'm sorry you do have an obligation to lose money occasionally in pursuit of winning for your fan base. (As my sources have told me and as Gosox has apparently confirmed, the Sox haven't "lost money" since 1997)

My feelings would be completely different if JR used his own money totally to build the new stadium or even if he used his own money to repair the look of it after it was built. He did not, so in my mind he does have certain duties to the fan base, city and county.

And I think we both know that there are teams that do spend more money than they take in...although as we all know it's impossible to prove today, one way or the other what teams do or don't do because of the way numbers can (legally) be manipulated.

Good discussion though.

Oh one point about the Cubs, their fans and how long they have been drawing. To a certain extent my comment was misleading and I apologize for that. I probably used the wrong words. The point I was trying to make was that the Cubs for decades knew that their fans were going to come out (which actually started in the late 60's) and that was reflected in the organization's philosophy. They had been marketing "beautiful Wrigley Field" in the words of Jack Brickhouse since the 60's for a good reason, they knew that's what would appeal to their fan base.

True story. In 1976 I was taking a 400 level course in college that only required a paper. I chose the "role of the sports broadcaster" and that year during Christmas break I arranged to meet with some of the Chicago media guys to discuss this. I spoke with Harry Caray, Johnny Morris, Chet Coppock and Vince Lloyd among others.

I met Lloyd at the WGN studios and he kindly gave me an hour and a half of his time. We talked and he told a bunch of stories. Very, very nice man. One of them was about when he asked P.K. Wrigley in the early 60's about why the Cubs couldn't win. It was a friendly talk he said, before a game. I'll never forget what Lloyd told me Wrigley told him. "We're not interested in winning...we're interested in entertaining."

Lip

Well, I think you may be reading into that last last line a bit too much. Entertaining is the goal for every sports team because, when it comes down to it, sports is entertainment. Nothing more. Fans come out because they're entertained. If they weren't they wouldn't show. Now for many fans, winning is the only thing that is entertaining. Therefore, if the team wins, the fans should be entertained. The two things are pretty tough to separate.

Again, the Cubs attendance isn't accurate. From '69 through '71, they drew 20,000 per game. That really isn't all that good. Before that, they were lucky to get 10,000 and after those 3 years, they only cracked the 20,000 mark (yearly average) once until 1984. Their solid attendance numbers really didn't begin until the late '90's. So, there was plenty of incentive to put a winner out there for 30 years, but they didn't do it.

The reason I can't agree with you about overspending on a occasion is that overspending doesn't guarantee winning. Obviously it improves your chances, but it is a gamble. Teams aren't required to make that gamble, in my opinion. No team intends to operate at a loss, and they shouldn't have to. I don't think anybody knows the final numbers from last year, and I haven't spoken to anyone about it yet. But, I would not be surprised if they lost money.

Lip, as you know, the only year the stakeholders got a dividend was teh year of the World Series. "Not losing money" can mean that they're only breaking even. No team is going to overspend unless they are pretty confident they're going to see that money back or get some return on the investment. That's how they should operate.

I don't respond to any threats or a team crying poor. That tactic has demonstrated to be an exercise in futility and probably does more to drive people away more than anything else. I hope the Sox stop with this stupid line. They had a great offseason; they should just market that and stop with the condescending stuff.

IT wasn't a threat and it wasn't a tactic. It was an honest answer to a direct question. this really shouldn't bother anyone.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2011, 04:24 PM
Ranger:

Well then given that the Sox dropped a lot of money this off season, I assume by your statement that they feel they are going to get a return on the 'investment' or they wouldn't do it in the first place.

:D:

All of us hope that's true, I was just talking with Billy Pierce last week and mentioned how much I appreciated the organization acting like they did this off season.

Lip

ewokpelts
02-08-2011, 04:32 PM
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any problem with what he said. He gave a direct answer to a direct question. The truth is that team budgets are always set on a year to year basis and they are all projections. It's not based on what the attendance and revenue was the previous year, it's based on what they think they will get in the current year.

Nobody is saying they have money problems. They're saying that they hope people show up, because if they don't, there will be money lost. And (most importantly) it will dramatically decrease the likelihood they do this sort of thing again. That's just truth.

I hope you're right that people start supporting RIGHT NOW, and don't wait until June to see how things go before they invest a little money in tickets.



Well, I think you may be reading into that last last line a bit too much. Entertaining is the goal for every sports team because, when it comes down to it, sports is entertainment. Nothing more. Fans come out because they're entertained. If they weren't they wouldn't show. Now for many fans, winning is the only thing that is entertaining. Therefore, if the team wins, the fans should be entertained. The two things are pretty tough to separate.

Again, the Cubs attendance isn't accurate. From '69 through '71, they drew 20,000 per game. That really isn't all that good. Before that, they were lucky to get 10,000 and after those 3 years, they only cracked the 20,000 mark (yearly average) once until 1984. Their solid attendance numbers really didn't begin until the late '90's. So, there was plenty of incentive to put a winner out there for 30 years, but they didn't do it.

The reason I can't agree with you about overspending on a occasion is that overspending doesn't guarantee winning. Obviously it improves your chances, but it is a gamble. Teams aren't required to make that gamble, in my opinion. No team intends to operate at a loss, and they shouldn't have to. I don't think anybody knows the final numbers from last year, and I haven't spoken to anyone about it yet. But, I would not be surprised if they lost money.

Lip, as you know, the only year the stakeholders got a dividend was teh year of the World Series. "Not losing money" can mean that they're only breaking even. No team is going to overspend unless they are pretty confident they're going to see that money back or get some return on the investment. That's how they should operate.



IT wasn't a threat and it wasn't a tactic. It was an honest answer to a direct question. this really shouldn't bother anyone.ranger, a club averaging 20k a game in chicago pre-1983 was considered solid attendance. that's 1.6 million tickets sold per year. you were doing well if you hit 2 million a year, a feat the sox have only recently accomplished(since 2005)

I look at jerry's statements as "I did what you asked sox fans. Now it's your turn".


This fanbase has begged management year in and out to spend money in the offseason, and that the reward for that investment would be fan interest.

The Sox have done that(possibly at the anger of the majority investors. Remember, Jerry's slice of the pie is actually quite small), and now we're hearing talk about bad weather, kids in school, and "i'll see what they do in april/may".

bull****.

there WILL BE PLENTY of opprotunities for discount tickets in april and may that do not involve stubhub. and there are lready THREE 1/2 off mondays on the schedule. and let's not forget the kid's club, which is FREE, and gives each kid TWO FREE tickets.

no reason why mom and dad cant redeem those tickets for a saturday or sunday afternoon game in april or may. There are FIVE such dates that start no later than 3:10 pm that are good for kids club vouchers.

Jerry has been pretty good in the press lately. one misstep does not make him the evil uncle jerry.

:reinsy:

You tell em! Wait, arent you giving away my presale codes?! you bastard!

Fenway
02-08-2011, 04:39 PM
Hmm, let's see...Sox are getting $4 mil from Comcast per game, seven dollar beers, six dollar hot dogs, 2.2 million ticket sales... I don't think I'm buying it, Jerry.

It is 450K a game....but still a nice piece of change

There are so many variables - weather, Bulls and Hawks playoff runs and I think this effects the White Sox far more than the Cubs - school in session until late June.

April and May weeknight tickets are the hardest to sell. ( and September )

The Red Sox always had a problem with hose early dates especially if the Bruins or Celtics was making any kind of a run. The new ownership came up with the idea of selling those tickets in December as stocking stuffers..and it worked.

Also..money is tight right now and some team MLB people agree that HD television is keeping more fans at home.

hawkjt
02-09-2011, 10:39 AM
hey,4 million/game is close to 450k/game right?:D:

Seriously, it is apparent that some Sox fans will never embrace Jerry,no matter what he spends or what he says....it is what it is. Old grudges just never die.

Personally, I am pleased as punch with Sox ownership. They have been spending freely the last decade,even with average attendance.

I do not give a crap what Jerry says in some interview in Feb...all I care about is what checks he is willing to sign when the season rolls around.

Ranger and Brian have nailed down my perspective.
Sorry, if you do not like capitalism,then you are in the wrong country.
Sure,the Sox are a public trust....unless the public get a capital call...then it is all Jerry's,right?

I do not see Jerry as whining as much as just answering a question.
If the question is not asked,he would not say anything.

Reinsdorf is the best owner in town,and one of the best in sports.
Just keep writing those checks,Jerry,and I am with you.

SephClone89
02-09-2011, 11:05 AM
Ranger and Brian have nailed down my perspective.
Sorry, if you do not like capitalism,then you are in the wrong country.
Sure,the Sox are a public trust....unless the public get a capital call...then it is all Jerry's,right?



Uhhh...:duck:

dickallen15
02-09-2011, 11:09 AM
hey,4 million/game is close to 450k/game right?:D:

Seriously, it is apparent that some Sox fans will never embrace Jerry,no matter what he spends or what he says....it is what it is. Old grudges just never die.

Personally, I am pleased as punch with Sox ownership. They have been spending freely the last decade,even with average attendance.

I do not give a crap what Jerry says in some interview in Feb...all I care about is what checks he is willing to sign when the season rolls around.

Ranger and Brian have nailed down my perspective.
Sorry, if you do not like capitalism,then you are in the wrong country.
Sure,the Sox are a public trust....unless the public get a capital call...then it is all Jerry's,right?

I do not see Jerry as whining as much as just answering a question.
If the question is not asked,he would not say anything.

Reinsdorf is the best owner in town,and one of the best in sports.
Just keep writing those checks,Jerry,and I am with you.

I think you're missing the point. I don't really think there is any hostility towards him, but the premise that he spent money so fans automatically should buy tickets, especially in this economy is absurd. Why should Jerry be guaranteed a profit every year? We all laugh at the Cubs fans lining the billionaires that own their team with cash. The fact is, there is nothing wrong with Jerry making a profit, but he and his staff for years have been saying they put every dime they make right back into the team. Jerry has said baseball is a bad business. Now he says if the fans come out like last season, he will lose a lot of money, but he'll be able to cover it with money he has made from the team over the years. So basically he has admitted he was previously not very straight. The bottom line is if the people Jerry is paying millions to perform, perform, the working stiffs who have to budget their money to attend a White Sox game will show up. His plea should be directed toward his employees, not his customers.

hawkjt
02-09-2011, 03:08 PM
did we read the same interview?

Reinsdorf said that if they spent the money and the club contended then they hope the fans come out and support them.

I suppose in some circles that is inflammatory language that is deriding the fanbase...but not in mine.
As for his comment that they will lose money if attendance is the same...well,I suspect that is true....is that wrong to admit?

And finally,him conceding that they have not broken exactly even over the past few years...ie..not spent every single penny on payroll to get to exactly zero on the income statement....well, I do not find that offensive.
I see no way that they are locking in huge profits,but I also think they are entitled to not lose money.
They have been in the top 5 in payroll for most of the 2000's...with the other teams being NY or LA or Boston based,all who make a ton more revenue than the Sox. And since 2006 the pizza guy in detroit.

I do not get how fans think that they have the right to know exactly every detail of their financial statements. They are privately owned.
It is pretty easy to see how they compare to the rest of MLB in payroll,attendance,tv revenues,ect...and see that Reinsdorf has been among the most aggressive owner in MLB...

Lip Man 1
02-09-2011, 03:35 PM
Hawk:

You make some good points but also remember his stadium was publicly funded and he has one of the better lease agreements in MLB, those two items changes the dynamics of the situation in my opinion.

I would agree 100% with your statement if he paid for the new park out of his own pocket for example.

Lip

CLUBHOUSE KID
02-09-2011, 04:24 PM
I mean here is the deal, WSox fans, good or bad economy, show up when the team is doing well. I mean 2004 in June/July months attendance was eh. April/May is usually hard, deff April. September too unless the team is in the race and what not. The point is, if I were a fan, I would pay to see a good team. I mean I love baseball so I would go to a few games if the team blows, but why should people pay to see crap? All of these $ was spend this off-season. Fine, the players who are getting paid better play like they are getting that $. I mean if a car brand blows, why buy it? This is something I would follow regardless of the team. However, Jerry did put his $ where his mouth is and the fans should realize that and try a bit harder than last year IMO. BTW, I do not dislike Jerry.

dickallen15
02-09-2011, 04:41 PM
For years he has been saying they spend every dime that comes in. In 2009 KW said they were at their limit, then Peavy then Rios and they were "beyond extended. Attendance drops again, payroll goes up, they are beyond extended. They spend $4 million on Manny. Now JR says they are beyond extended again. Why should we be so sure now they are telling the truth about the money? JR is a smart man. He doesn't spend money he doesn't have.

TomBradley72
02-09-2011, 08:54 PM
Hawk:

You make some good points but also remember his stadium was publicly funded and he has one of the better lease agreements in MLB, those two items changes the dynamics of the situation in my opinion.

I would agree 100% with your statement if he paid for the new park out of his own pocket for example.

Lip

Lip- don't alot of teams play in publicly funded stadiums? How many are playing in ballparks "paid for out of their own pocket"?

Lip Man 1
02-09-2011, 09:38 PM
Tom:

With respect, to me that's not the point. How many of those who got money have made the statements regarding fan support / attendence etc that the Sox have over the years?

If you can find a comprehensive index of such, post it and I'll take a close look at it.

My point in the statement was if you get public money / tax dollars after threatening to move a charter member of the American League it probably isn't in your best interest to make the type of statements that the Sox have made towards their fan base over the years. They should just be happy they got the money and saw the value of their franchise skyrocket due to it.

Regarding stadiums paid for by the individual I can only think of two off the top of my head. The San Francisco Giants and the Miami Dolphins although there may be others.

Lip

Daver
02-09-2011, 09:53 PM
Regarding stadiums paid for by the individual I can only think of two off the top of my head. The San Francisco Giants and the Miami Dolphins although there may be others.

Lip

Bob Kraft paid for the stadium the Patriots play in.

TomBradley72
02-10-2011, 12:00 AM
Tom:

With respect, to me that's not the point. How many of those who got money have made the statements regarding fan support / attendence etc that the Sox have over the years?

If you can find a comprehensive index of such, post it and I'll take a close look at it.

My point in the statement was if you get public money / tax dollars after threatening to move a charter member of the American League it probably isn't in your best interest to make the type of statements that the Sox have made towards their fan base over the years. They should just be happy they got the money and saw the value of their franchise skyrocket due to it.

Regarding stadiums paid for by the individual I can only think of two off the top of my head. The San Francisco Giants and the Miami Dolphins although there may be others.

Lip

Lip- I agree they used to get it all wrong- especially from 1987-1999, but since then I have very few grudges against JR of the White Sox on how they treat and communicate with their fans...or the comments that are driving this discussion.

I think he's a very good owner (now)- among the best in MLB- it took him a long time to get there- but I think he's made it.

TomBradley72
02-10-2011, 12:01 AM
Bob Kraft paid for the stadium the Patriots play in.

So far 3 out of the 120+ franchises among the 4 major team sports- my guess is that this is a very small group.

Ranger
02-10-2011, 04:15 AM
Ranger:

Well then given that the Sox dropped a lot of money this off season, I assume by your statement that they feel they are going to get a return on the 'investment' or they wouldn't do it in the first place.

:D:

Lip

That's the hope. But it is also a giant gamble, which is exactly why they aren't typically inclined to do it. NO TEAM IS. And I don't blame a single one of them.

ranger, a club averaging 20k a game in chicago pre-1983 was considered solid attendance. that's 1.6 million tickets sold per year. you were doing well if you hit 2 million a year, a feat the sox have only recently accomplished(since 2005)

I look at jerry's statements as "I did what you asked sox fans. Now it's your turn".


This fanbase has begged management year in and out to spend money in the offseason, and that the reward for that investment would be fan interest.

The Sox have done that(possibly at the anger of the majority investors. Remember, Jerry's slice of the pie is actually quite small), and now we're hearing talk about bad weather, kids in school, and "i'll see what they do in april/may".

bull****.

there WILL BE PLENTY of opprotunities for discount tickets in april and may that do not involve stubhub. and there are lready THREE 1/2 off mondays on the schedule. and let's not forget the kid's club, which is FREE, and gives each kid TWO FREE tickets.

no reason why mom and dad cant redeem those tickets for a saturday or sunday afternoon game in april or may. There are FIVE such dates that start no later than 3:10 pm that are good for kids club vouchers.

Jerry has been pretty good in the press lately. one misstep does not make him the evil uncle jerry.



This is the very bottom line to this entire discussion. I hope (but not as much as they do) that people don't take a wait-and-see approach. That would be pretty disappointing.

doublem23
02-10-2011, 04:55 AM
Bob Kraft paid for the stadium the Patriots play in.

Didn't JR and Old Man Wirtz pay for the United Center, too?

dickallen15
02-10-2011, 08:29 AM
That's the hope. But it is also a giant gamble, which is exactly why they aren't typically inclined to do it. NO TEAM IS. And I don't blame a single one of them.



This is the very bottom line to this entire discussion. I hope (but not as much as they do) that people don't take a wait-and-see approach. That would be pretty disappointing.

Why is it dissappointing? If the Sox play well, the fans will come. Is being like a Cubs fan, who also have a very high payroll, the model? JR is risking previous profits, something he said in the past and had KW and Brooks Boyer say in the past he spends already. If the team plays well, he will be rewarded. If they suck, its going to cost him money. That's how it should be.

dickallen15
02-10-2011, 08:30 AM
Didn't JR and Old Man Wirtz pay for the United Center, too?

Yes. There was some public funds for peripheral things, but it was privately financed.

The Immigrant
02-10-2011, 08:33 AM
Why is it dissappointing? If the Sox play well, the fans will come. Is being like a Cubs fan, who also have a very high payroll, the model? JR is risking previous profits, something he said in the past and had KW and Brooks Boyer say in the past he spends already. If the team plays well, he will be rewarded. If they suck, its going to cost him money. That's how it should be.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/moleman65us/untitled.jpg

russ99
02-10-2011, 09:50 AM
That's the hope. But it is also a giant gamble, which is exactly why they aren't typically inclined to do it. NO TEAM IS. And I don't blame a single one of them.

This is the very bottom line to this entire discussion. I hope (but not as much as they do) that people don't take a wait-and-see approach. That would be pretty disappointing.

I think the problem here is expectations vs. reality for April and early May, especially if the weather stays on the cold side.

The Sox' inane "Knows April Games Count" print ads speak to this misconception.

Personally, I prefer not to go to April games, and got tickets for one April game this year, on a Sunday afternoon. For the rest of the season I have tickets to 8 games and will be getting tickets to many more games.

The Sox will do just fine the rest of the year, and should beat last year's total gate easily, but if their idea of the "fanbase supporting the payroll expansion" is to expect crowds of 30,000 in April, they're mislead.

asindc
02-10-2011, 11:39 AM
So far 3 out of the 120+ franchises among the 4 major team sports- my guess is that this is a very small group.

Out of respect to the legacy of Abe Pollin, he spent $200 million of his own money to have the Verizon Center built in downtown DC rather than accepting any of the 'free stadium' proposals from Suburban MD and Northern VA.

Please carry on with the discussion...

ewokpelts
02-10-2011, 11:41 AM
Out of respect to the legacy of Abe Pollin, he spent $200 million of his own money to have the Verizon Center built in downtown DC rather than accepting any of the 'free stadium' proposals from Suburban MD and Northern VA.

Please carry on with the discussion...abe pollin is a massive tool, and hurt his franchises more than he helped.

asindc
02-10-2011, 11:45 AM
abe pollin is a massive tool, and hurt his franchises more than he helped.

He died last year, so I think you mean "was." I was only speaking to TomBradley's question about privately-financed arenas and stadia.

ewokpelts
02-10-2011, 11:47 AM
Hawk:

You make some good points but also remember his stadium was publicly funded and he has one of the better lease agreements in MLB, those two items changes the dynamics of the situation in my opinion.

I would agree 100% with your statement if he paid for the new park out of his own pocket for example.

Lip

A publicly funded facility also means that the sox cant hide behind stadium issues when it comes to player payroll. Something Tommy Boy Ricketts is attempting to do.

And let's be honest, you're just using this as an excuse to trot out your "uncle jerry " and "proud to be your bud" routines. As someone who dosent even live in the state, why should you be concerned with the sox stadium issues and how it relates to player payroll?

jerry's just reminding fans of the "pledge". That if jerry spent money, fans would show up.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2011, 12:00 PM
Ewok:

Your comment has upset me a great deal and I'll try to be polite. I am not in any way in this discussion attempting to "rip" anyone. Period.

My comments are based on a close to 30 year study of JR and current Sox ownership, it is in NO WAY personal towards them. I've actually thought he's done a pretty good job the last half decade, I've only said (go back and read the thread) that it never, NEVER does you any good to get into these volitile areas with Sox fans, under ANY circumstances.

If he paid for the stadium out of his own pocket than he has the complete right to do anything he wishes in any way but when you take money from the public you have an
obligiation to them. To me, that means "extending" yourself at times to "win."

With respect, I think I'm a little closer to the situation than you are because of what I do for a living and the inidividuals that I know and talk with.

Regarding the comment of where I live, that has ZERO to do with things and really upset me.

I'm entitled to my opinion as a Sox fan. A fan who has seen 50 seasons of this franchise since I became a fan in 1960 at the age of five. I've seen more seasons than you have been alive.

"Let's be honest" you're assuming things about these comments...which as Daver often says can get you into trouble.

Lip

ewokpelts
02-10-2011, 12:18 PM
He died last year, so I think you mean "was." I was only speaking to TomBradley's question about privately-financed arenas and stadia.correct. he "was" a tool.

yeah, he didnt take public money for his facility, but he got one M. Jeffery Jordan to make his team go from 30 million in the red and put it 20 million in the black in less than 2 years.

So it was like he did get the stadium for free.

asindc
02-10-2011, 12:26 PM
correct. he "was" a tool.

yeah, he didnt take public money for his facility, but he got one M. Jeffery Jordan to make his team go from 30 million in the red and put it 20 million in the black in less than 2 years.

So it was like he did get the stadium for free.

:scratch:

ewokpelts
02-10-2011, 12:30 PM
Ewok:

Your comment has upset me a great deal and I'll try to be polite. I am not in any way in this discussion attempting to "rip" anyone. Period.

My comments are based on a close to 30 year study of JR and current Sox ownership, it is in NO WAY personal towards them. I've actually thought he's done a pretty good job the last half decade, I've only said (go back and read the thread) that it never, NEVER does you any good to get into these volitile areas with Sox fans, under ANY circumstances.

If he paid for the stadium out of his own pocket than he has the complete right to do anything he wishes in any way but when you take money from the public you have an
obligiation to them. To me, that means "extending" yourself at times to "win."

With respect, I think I'm a little closer to the situation than you are because of what I do for a living and the inidividuals that I know and talk with.

Regarding the comment of where I live, that has ZERO to do with things and really upset me.

I'm entitled to my opinion as a Sox fan. A fan who has seen 50 seasons of this franchise since I became a fan in 1960 at the age of five. I've seen more seasons than you have been alive.

"Let's be honest" you're assuming things about these comments...which as Daver often says can get you into trouble.

LipI'm the taxpayer on the hook for comiskey park/us cellular field. My ticket purchases contribute not only to jerry's rent payment, but to the amusement tax paying for game day costs the city bears. Hell, I've even paid into the hotel tax(when i booked a hotel for soxfest, despite living in the city limits).

This facility affects me more than it does you , at this point in time.

That said, it has NO BEARING on the sox finances. They actually have MORE to spend since they have such a good lease and not have to worry about most of the facility's repairs/upgrades. In fact jerry went out of his way to secure additional financing to rennovate the stadium so that there was more money to spend(in saved costs AND in increased sales). A move that he took a TON of flak for.

The public stance on the sox payroll has been to spend the annual PROFIT(revenue minus expenses, which includes thier lease) back into player payroll.

This year they did that and more, but committing to 2011's PROJECTED SALES(assuming the teams was a contender). It's usually the other way around, with then just looking at the last year's sales model.

Is it wrong for jerry to ask fans to pony up sooner than later? no. Is it not a good pr move? possibly.

the fact is, they do not have the scalper/ticket speculator interest that the cubs have. so they cant sell as many low demand games as the cubs can.

So maybe a gentle reminder by the chairman that "hey, we spent money. it's your turn, fans" is needed.



oh, and by the way, I dont see other sox site talking about this interview, or even the media commenting on it.

just a bunch of sox fans that want to create excuses or bring up the past.

ewokpelts
02-10-2011, 12:32 PM
:scratch:if you make your money back that quickly, and get profit, it's LIKE getting it for free. I know that he and his investors paid for the facility.

Ranger
02-10-2011, 04:49 PM
Why is it dissappointing? If the Sox play well, the fans will come. Is being like a Cubs fan, who also have a very high payroll, the model? JR is risking previous profits, something he said in the past and had KW and Brooks Boyer say in the past he spends already. If the team plays well, he will be rewarded. If they suck, its going to cost him money. That's how it should be.

It would be disappointing if fans wait for a month and a half to see how things go before they start buying tickets. You know, as well as I do, that a lot of Sox fans (actually ALL Chicago fans) are hyper-skeptical at all times and they want things proven to them before they invest. I can't blame people for not continuing to come buy tickets 3 or 4 months into a season when the team is playing poorly. But I do expect them to come out early in the year after a good offseason, and if the team continues to play well, I expect them to keep coming.

I think the problem here is expectations vs. reality for April and early May, especially if the weather stays on the cold side.

The Sox' inane "Knows April Games Count" print ads speak to this misconception.

Personally, I prefer not to go to April games, and got tickets for one April game this year, on a Sunday afternoon. For the rest of the season I have tickets to 8 games and will be getting tickets to many more games.

The Sox will do just fine the rest of the year, and should beat last year's total gate easily, but if their idea of the "fanbase supporting the payroll expansion" is to expect crowds of 30,000 in April, they're mislead.

Then fans would be misled to expect a $130 million payroll every year regardless of attendance. The economics will always dictate that expectation of attendance comes first, followed by payroll.

gosox41
02-11-2011, 07:48 PM
This team looks pretty damn good on paper, and a lot of money was spent to assemble it. If you're telling me the Sox fanbase needs to see the team play for a couple of months before they invest in the team, either emotionally or financially, then the Sox fanbase sucks. The inferiority complex is getting old. Its not like Dave LaPoint and Jerry Reuss are our top two starters anymore.

Well said.

And in regards to weather, it is what it is. I don't want to get into sterotypes about Chicago toughness but the weather angle gets old too. It's cold in April on the north side of down. It was dangerous cold for some Bears games this year.


Bob

gosox41
02-11-2011, 07:53 PM
He doesn't say he doesn't have the money, quite the contrary. He says if they lose money over the years they made a little here, made a little there and will be able to cover it. So if they lose $20 million this year but they use previous years' profits to cover it, they basically are exactly where they have always claimed to be. The company line has always been whatever comes in, goes out. Apparently that wasn't true. People will show up early if the weather is halfway decent and the White Sox are playing well. Its funny Cubs fans get ripped for showing up no matter what. They have a high payroll. Now many White Sox fans are preaching Sox fans should be more like Cubs fans.


I'm simply saying the Sox have a good team on paper. They brought back fan favorites in PK and AJ instead of rebuilding. They signed a big name FA. How can any Sox fan not me excited about that and want to go to a game during April/May when it's cold and wet.

Were these the same Sox fans complaining about some of the weather the Sox played in during the playoffs and WS of Oct 2005?


Bob

gosox41
02-11-2011, 07:57 PM
Hawk:

You make some good points but also remember his stadium was publicly funded and he has one of the better lease agreements in MLB, those two items changes the dynamics of the situation in my opinion.

I would agree 100% with your statement if he paid for the new park out of his own pocket for example.

Lip


Hasn't the lease agreement been amended around '03 and less favorable? Also, has anyone recently compared the Sox current lease agreement to to other teams in 2011 and not the early '90's?


Bob

dickallen15
02-11-2011, 08:58 PM
Well said.

And in regards to weather, it is what it is. I don't want to get into sterotypes about Chicago toughness but the weather angle gets old too. It's cold in April on the north side of down. It was dangerous cold for some Bears games this year.


Bob

Yes, but if your budget is limited, you would probably rather take the chance on a game in June or July as opposed to April especially if you have school aged kids. You can't tell me if you only had the money to take your family to one game, you would pick a Wednesday night in April against Oakland because JR signed Adam Dunn or because JR is "taking a chance at losing money" and you want to help him out. The Bears are almost all season tickets and have 8 home dates. You can't compare that to baseball at all.