PDA

View Full Version : Owners Upping the Ante?


duke of dorwood
08-08-2002, 03:03 PM
Baseball's updated operating net loss projections for its 30 teams are even more drastic than the $220 million figure estimated to owners at the Jan. 16 owners' meeting.

A baseball executive, with knowledge of the financials, told ESPN.com on Thursday that the new projected operating net losses are more than double the January estimate and that only one MLB team is estimated to produce a net operating profit in 2002 even if there is no work stoppage.


"As of June, given where payrolls ended up and attendance being down more than five percent, net operating losses will be over $450 million," the official said.

The operating loss of Major League Baseball teams in 2001 was $232 million, according to the numbers presented to the House Judiciary Committee in December.

The January projection, made by accountant and MLB consultant Robert Starkey, was revealed in an exhibit as part of the court papers filed Wednesday by Fred Wilpon, who is being sued by his Mets co-owner Nelson Doubleday. Doubleday, who wants to sell his 50 percent share in the team, alleges that Wilpon, as well as commissioner Bud Selig, knew that Starkey was not an impartial appraiser.

Iwritecode
08-08-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
"As of June, given where payrolls ended up and attendance being down more than five percent, net operating losses will be over $450 million," the official said.

:reinsy
See! This proves it's all the fans' fault. If these ungrateful people who never spend their money to come watch these teams that us owners have to pay so much for we wouldn't be losing money! See, it's all your fault!

Iguana775
08-08-2002, 06:48 PM
it is the owners fault for paying the players these outrageous salaries. if they want to look to where they can save money, they should consider how much they give to contracts. that is what a cap can do. it would limit the amount of money a team can spend but also, the teams could become more profitable since they arent spending as much on payroll. i like the NBA's rule of having a cap but also having a minimun amount you need to spend. plus the larry bird clause is really cool.

Daver
08-08-2002, 06:54 PM
I will refuse to beleive a single thing that MLB says about it's finances,and what The Spineless Wonder has to say about the state of the economics of the game,until they do one thing,let an accountant appointed by the NLRB thouroughly go over the books of every MLB franchise.This includes salary payments to the CEO and payments made to minority partners,and income from "fringe" items like parking and concessions.

Till they do that I ain't buying a word of it.

Paulwny
08-08-2002, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by daver
I will refuse to beleive a single thing that MLB says about it's finances,and what The Spineless Wonder has to say about the state of the economics of the game,until they do one thing,let an accountant appointed by the NLRB thouroughly go over the books of every MLB franchise.This includes salary payments to the CEO and payments made to minority partners,and income from "fringe" items like parking and concessions.

Till they do that I ain't buying a word of it.

Exactly, but the owners will never let you see the money trail.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-08-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Baseball's updated operating net loss projections for its 30 teams are even more drastic than the $220 million figure estimated to owners at the Jan. 16 owners' meeting.

A baseball executive, with knowledge of the financials, told ESPN.com on Thursday that the new projected operating net losses are more than double the January estimate and that only one MLB team is estimated to produce a net operating profit in 2002 even if there is no work stoppage.


"As of June, given where payrolls ended up and attendance being down more than five percent, net operating losses will be over $450 million," the official said.

The operating loss of Major League Baseball teams in 2001 was $232 million, according to the numbers presented to the House Judiciary Committee in December.

The January projection, made by accountant and MLB consultant Robert Starkey, was revealed in an exhibit as part of the court papers filed Wednesday by Fred Wilpon, who is being sued by his Mets co-owner Nelson Doubleday. Doubleday, who wants to sell his 50 percent share in the team, alleges that Wilpon, as well as commissioner Bud Selig, knew that Starkey was not an impartial appraiser.

:payrod

SCREW THE FANS & SCREW BASEBALL! I WANT MY DAMN MONEY!

MarkEdward
08-08-2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Iguana775
it is the owners fault for paying the players these outrageous salaries. if they want to look to where they can save money, they should consider how much they give to contracts. that is what a cap can do. it would limit the amount of money a team can spend but also, the teams could become more profitable since they arent spending as much on payroll. i like the NBA's rule of having a cap but also having a minimun amount you need to spend. plus the larry bird clause is really cool.

Why do the players have to suffer because of the owners' mistakes? MLB doesn''t need a salary cap; the owners have to learn to be frugal, and not sign over-the-hill players like Chuck Knoblauch at 2 million a year.

Iguana775
08-08-2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Why do the players have to suffer because of the owners' mistakes? MLB doesn''t need a salary cap; the owners have to learn to be frugal, and not sign over-the-hill players like Chuck Knoblauch at 2 million a year.

it is like giving a kid a credit card in a candy store. they will spend, spend, spend. the owners are like that kid. they spend untill they are broker than crap. with a cap, they are force to spend wisely. and the players will not 'suffer' like you say. i think i could 'suffer' for league minimun.

Daver
08-08-2002, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Iguana775


it is like giving a kid a credit card in a candy store. they will spend, spend, spend. the owners are like that kid. they spend untill they are broker than crap. with a cap, they are force to spend wisely. and the players will not 'suffer' like you say. i think i could 'suffer' for league minimun.

Umm no,let the owners deal with the beast they have built.

Iguana775
08-08-2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by daver


Umm no,let the owners deal with the beast they have built.

then that beast soon will be slain.

MarkEdward
08-08-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Iguana775


then that beast soon will be slain.

So you really think the players will "lose" this collective bargaining session?

Iguana775
08-08-2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


So you really think the players will "lose" this collective bargaining session?

no. i never said that. i was just saying what i thought should happen, IMO.

LongDistanceFan
08-08-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by daver


Umm no,let the owners deal with the beast they have built.

you keep saying let the owners deal with what they started. i understand this, but don't you think that it needs to get fixed? we as fans are the ones who is going to suffer.

MarkEdward
08-09-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Iguana775


no. i never said that. i was just saying what i thought should happen, IMO.

You stated "Then the beast will soon be slain." This implies that th players will lose in the upcoming CBA.

voodoochile
08-09-2002, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Why do the players have to suffer because of the owners' mistakes? MLB doesn''t need a salary cap; the owners have to learn to be frugal, and not sign over-the-hill players like Chuck Knoblauch at 2 million a year.

It's a double edged sword. If they decide to not pay high salaries, they either get one nut who breaks ranks, or they get sued for colusion...

A set system that raises over all money spent on players yet limits individual teams to a set level (ceiling AND floor) would be good for both sides of the equation...

LongDistanceFan
08-09-2002, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


It's a double edged sword. If they decide to not pay high salaries, they either get one nut who breaks ranks, or they get sued for colusion...

A set system that raises over all money spent on players yet limits individual teams to a set level (ceiling AND floor) would be good for both sides of the equation...

the game is hurting and needs to be fixed. how is the question without them being sued for colusion.

if they try to play hardball to force a salary cap, as in they are doing with the draft, can they do it at a major level?

setting a cap for the draft, helps but will it really helped

DrWatson27
08-09-2002, 10:50 AM
If all these teams are losing money and it's getting impossiable according to Bud & Company to make a profit then how come there are people lining up to buy franchises as soon as someone wants to sell. It just seems to me if I were looking to invest in or buy a company it wouldn't be one that has lost money in the past and supposedly dosn't have a chance to make money in the future. I just feel like we still arn't (and probablly never will) get straight forward and honest answers.

Cheryl
08-09-2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by DrWatson27
If all these teams are losing money and it's getting impossiable according to Bud & Company to make a profit then how come there are people lining up to buy franchises as soon as someone wants to sell. It just seems to me if I were looking to invest in or buy a company it wouldn't be one that has lost money in the past and supposedly dosn't have a chance to make money in the future. I just feel like we still arn't (and probablly never will) get straight forward and honest answers.

Especially since the people who are buying are guys who have owned other teams.

I agree with Daver. Until the financial dealings are made public, I'm not going to believe the owners are losing money.

MarkEdward
08-09-2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan

setting a cap for the draft, helps but will it really helped


I liked this quote by a guy on Baseball Primer, opposing a draft cap: "In his last start, Mark Prior pitched a 136 pitch complete game. The Cubs have 10 million dollars invested in Prior. How would they treat a pitcher that they only invested 800,000$ on?"

soxrme
08-09-2002, 10:55 AM
Do you suppose Arthur Anderson Co is the accounting firm for MLB????

LongDistanceFan
08-09-2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



I liked this quote by a guy on Baseball Primer, opposing a draft cap: "In his last start, Mark Prior pitched a 136 pitch complete game. The Cubs have 10 million dollars invested in Prior. How would they treat a pitcher that they only invested 800,000$ on?"

that is why there is a lot of players being rushed into the majors, b/c of major like contracts.

oops

Dadawg_77
08-09-2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by soxrme
Do you suppose Arthur Anderson Co is the accounting firm for MLB????

They used to.

Dadawg_77
08-09-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by DrWatson27
If all these teams are losing money and it's getting impossiable according to Bud & Company to make a profit then how come there are people lining up to buy franchises as soon as someone wants to sell. It just seems to me if I were looking to invest in or buy a company it wouldn't be one that has lost money in the past and supposedly dosn't have a chance to make money in the future. I just feel like we still arn't (and probablly never will) get straight forward and honest answers.

MLB says your statement is wrong. They claim they can't find a taker for teams like the Angels. It does appear Disney wants to sell, but I have no idea what their asking price is. It maybe to high to sell.

LongDistanceFan
08-09-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


MLB says your statement is wrong. They claim they can't find a taker for teams like the Angels. It does appear Disney wants to sell, but I have no idea what their asking price is. It maybe to high to sell.

if disney is asking, then it must be huge.

MarkEdward
08-09-2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


that is why there is a lot of players being rushed into the majors, b/c of major like contracts.

oops


Prior was called up because of necessity (and maybe a little stupidity).

Cheryl
08-09-2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


MLB says your statement is wrong. They claim they can't find a taker for teams like the Angels. It does appear Disney wants to sell, but I have no idea what their asking price is. It maybe to high to sell.

Why won't they sell a franchise to Don Watkins?

ma-gaga
08-09-2002, 02:47 PM
Why won't they sell a franchise to Don Watkins?

He's not MLB approved. He has 'crazy' ideas, like private financing of stadiums, and wanting to promote the game.

He's nuts!

LongDistanceFan
08-09-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Prior was called up because of necessity (and maybe a little stupidity).

there are other player who in my opinion that are being rush.

Dadawg_77
08-09-2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl


Why won't they sell a franchise to Don Watkins?

Also, there are reports he doesn't have the backing to pull off the sale.

Zednem700
08-09-2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


there are other player who in my opinion that are being rush.

Yeah well its happening less frequently now than at any other point in baseball history. The average major league rookie today is OLDER than at any point in baseball's history. That means that players are spending more time in college or the minors than ever befre. Sure there are guys who come up almost right out of high school, but the vast majority of rookies are older than ever before. And in case you're wondering, the presence of Japanese players does not account for this. I can't find it now, but this fact was discussed in detail last summer in an article for espn.com (I think, it may have been another site)

Secondly the players have a right to make whatever they can get. ITs the American way damn it, and I'm tired of this corporate socialism crap that MLB pushes. All they want are guaranteed profits and low labor costs. Well tough, you have no right to a profit, you have a right to try and make a profit. If you can't do it, get out and let someone else try. Not a single sale of a team over the last twety years (at least) has been for a loss. In fact only the recent very questionable sales of Montreal and Florida have been as low as break even. The owers are rolling in dough, I'll believe that until they can publicly show otherwise. If A-Rod can get a ten year $250 million dollar contract, good for him, I don't begrudge UAW members fighting to make as much as they can, and I don't think petty jealousy should be a reason to stop ballplayers from exercising the same right.