PDA

View Full Version : Gammons talks Colon Contract this Morning


Hondo
11-07-2003, 08:39 AM
Today on Mike and Mike on ESPNRADIO, Gammons was talking about potential FA moves and he said that he heard Colon's contracted which was what 3 yrs/'36 Mil. was so backloaded and incentive laiden there was very little chance he would have re-signed.

Is Gammons talking out his backside? (quite possible)

Did anyone else hear likewise?

jortafan
11-07-2003, 08:54 AM
I've read the same in several other sources.

So much of the $36 million was deferred, and Colon wanted more of the money up-front. He actually was satisfied with the number of years, and might have been pleased if it were truly a $36 million-over-three-years deal.

Also, I get the sense he wants to pitch for the Dominican National Team (a.k.a., Boston Red Sox) more than he wanted to return here. I'll wish him the best, especially since the Red Sox faithful will roast him alive the first time he blows a ballgame to the Yankees.

dickallen15
11-07-2003, 09:04 AM
I thought Gammons reported a couple weeks ago that Colon would re-sign with the White Sox? He is clueless.

poorme
11-07-2003, 09:15 AM
Sounds plausible to me.

voodoochile
11-07-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Sounds plausible to me.

Completely. They did the same thing to Burly-Mon last year. JR has always been a fan of paying people in "tomorrow's dollars".

No shock here. In fact, it would be shocking if it wasn't that way, IMO. Reinsy is one cheap bastard. Is it any shock that the Sox can't retain the big name FA's they acquire?

rmusacch
11-07-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Completely. They did the same thing to Burly-Mon last year. JR has always been a fan of paying people in "tomorrow's dollars".

No shock here. In fact, it would be shocking if it wasn't that way, IMO. Reinsy is one cheap bastard. Is it any shock that the Sox can't retain the big name FA's they acquire?

The only way that I would accept deferred dollars if I was a big time athlete would be if they wree paid to be in inflation adjusted dollars.

thepaulbowski
11-07-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by rmusacch
The only way that I would accept deferred dollars if I was a big time athlete would be if they wree paid to be in inflation adjusted dollars.

Aren't the salaries inflated enough? :D:

thepaulbowski
11-07-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
Also, I get the sense he wants to pitch for the Dominican National Team (a.k.a., Boston Red Sox) more than he wanted to return here. I'll wish him the best, especially since the Red Sox faithful will roast him alive the first time he blows a ballgame to the Yankees.

Boston isn't in the position to add that kind of payroll. They would have to move one of their currenty contracts to do this.

poorme
11-07-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by rmusacch
The only way that I would accept deferred dollars if I was a big time athlete would be if they wree paid to be in inflation adjusted dollars.

Inflation and interest.

rmusacch
11-07-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Inflation and interest.

Yeah I forgot about interest.

rmusacch
11-07-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Aren't the salaries inflated enough? :D:

Maybe but if I am a big time athlete, I am trying to get as much as possible. Gotta support the bling bling. I do not think that players should be able to renegotiate their contracts.

kraut83
11-07-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Boston isn't in the position to add that kind of payroll. They would have to move one of their currenty contracts to do this.

I heard they are only going to add 10mil. It wouldn't surprise me to see Colon take a lower dollar offer from them if it was all up front money.

Lip Man 1
11-07-2003, 12:21 PM
It's funny when that comment first came out about deferred money some people came on with a financial background and said how deferred money is the same as real money.

Obviously Colon and his agent didn't feel that way, obviously what is considered a "creative" approach by the Sox organization isn't considered so by the recipients of that "creativity".

I guess there's a new definition for "creativity"-----cheap.

Lip

gosox41
11-07-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
It's funny when that comment first came out about deferred money some people came on with a financial background and said how deferred money is the same as real money.

Obviously Colon and his agent didn't feel that way, obviously what is considered a "creative" approach by the Sox organization isn't considered so by the recipients of that "creativity".

I guess there's a new definition for "creativity"-----cheap.

Lip

In this low interest rate environment it is roughly the same. If rates go up, then that changes things. Maybe Colon and his agent felt this and were measuring the deferred money by a different rate.

As for a new definition for "creativity," the Diamonbacks have been successful at digging them selves financial holes and convincing players to defer money. Supposedly the Diamond backs could be paying around $40 mill in 2004 or 2005 to players that are no longer on the team all because of these deferred payments.

Bob

guillen4life13
11-07-2003, 06:37 PM
Look on the possible bright side of the proposed deferred payments. Maybe JR wants to put these in contracts because he has no intentions of paying the players . In other words:

:sellreinsy may not be too far off

jabrch
11-07-2003, 08:23 PM
$1 Deferred 1 year costs about $1.05.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.11.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.17


1Million dollars costs 17,000 to "undefer"
10mm dollars costs 170,000 to undefer.

Bottom line - The deferred factor means almost nothing. Anyone who says it does is either ignorant of the finances behind it, or is a lier...

Lip Man 1
11-07-2003, 08:28 PM
Bob:

I think you are the guy who has sources telling you that Uncle Jerry is in some financial difficulty and doesn't have the money to run a team in the nation's 3rd largest market the way they should be run.

That's fine...unfortunately I don't believe one word of it, and don't trust Uncle Jerry as far as I can throw him.

If Uncle Jerry can't compete let him open his books (all of his books including the ones for the Bulls that shows where he raked in millions) and prove it to the millions of fans who don't trust him.

If he can't compete we'll all get off his back for a minute before then demanding that he sell the franchise to someone who can.

Personally I don't care if he's losing millions, he still has far more money then he, his children, their children and their children will ever need. It's greed and power pure and simple same as other owners like Pohland and Glass.

He'll be damned if he's going to spend money if he doesn't want to. He'd rather devalue the franchise, piss off the fans and thumb his nose at the players and agents rather then do that.

It's the old Boss Daley mentality... 'who are you'se guys (i.e. the fans, the media, the players, the agents) to tell me, how to run MY team?" (even though the White Sox are a civic institution not a local business and even though they may be right.)

As PHG has said on more then one occasion Sox fans are still waiting for the "first class operation" that was promised when he and Einhorn took over.

Why don't you ask your "sources" where that is?

Lip

Chisoxfn
11-07-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by rmusacch
The only way that I would accept deferred dollars if I was a big time athlete would be if they wree paid to be in inflation adjusted dollars.

I think whenever money is deferred you earn some type of interest on it. The question is how is it written into the contract and I'm assuming they try to estimate inflation and all that and come up with an appropriate interest rate.

But this isn't much of a shock. To most Sox fans, it looks like they tried, to diehards they hear the real story (Not saying this is the real story, who knows) and just know the Sox really screwed him.

If this deal was really backloaded, they just figured they'd keep him a year and deal him to someone else.

The Sox have an idiot doing all their contract negotations. KW and Hahn are definately to blame for this. Well I understand Hahn is the big contract guy with the Sox, but not thats just what I've heard.

They backload Maggs deal and now look, the Sox are in a position where they have to trade him. Instead they could of just paid him fair all the way through and got the damn deal done, instead they put themselves in a horrible position.

Daver
11-07-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
I think whenever money is deferred you earn some type of interest on it. The question is how is it written into the contract and I'm assuming they try to estimate inflation and all that and come up with an appropriate interest rate.

But this isn't much of a shock. To most Sox fans, it looks like they tried, to diehards they hear the real story (Not saying this is the real story, who knows) and just know the Sox really screwed him.

If this deal was really backloaded, they just figured they'd keep him a year and deal him to someone else.

The Sox have an idiot doing all their contract negotations. KW and Hahn are definately to blame for this. Well I understand Hahn is the big contract guy with the Sox, but not thats just what I've heard.

They backload Maggs deal and now look, the Sox are in a position where they have to trade him. Instead they could of just paid him fair all the way through and got the damn deal done, instead they put themselves in a horrible position.


No,they kept the payroll down for two additional seasons by backloading his contract.


:reinsy


I win!

JDP
11-07-2003, 10:50 PM
I know it's hard to actually discuss the topic of deferred money w/o actually being in the athlete's shoes, but financially sound athletes should think/know that deferred money is real money, money gathering interest at that no less. Unless Colon wants his cash now to invest for himself, I wouldn't see any other reason as to greed on Colon's behalf for this contract not to have worked for both sides.

StillMissOzzie
11-08-2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Boston isn't in the position to add that kind of payroll. They would have to move one of their currenty contracts to do this.

Yeah, but Boston might offer a true $10 million/year for 3 years, which on a present value (that is, apples-to-apples) basis, looks better than the White Sox $12 million/year for 3 years w/ lots of deferred money.

SMO
:gulp:

StillMissOzzie
11-08-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
$1 Deferred 1 year costs about $1.05.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.11.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.17


1Million dollars costs 17,000 to "undefer"
10mm dollars costs 170,000 to undefer.

Bottom line - The deferred factor means almost nothing. Anyone who says it does is either ignorant of the finances behind it, or is a lier...

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. $1 deferred 1 year costs you $0.95 TODAY. $1 deferred another year costs you appx. $0.89 TODAY. And furthermore, I also disagree with the assumption that money deferred earns interest. I've read elsewhere that MANY contracts have deferred money, and that they are NOT earning interest. This allows the agent to publically claim that he got, say, a 5 year, $50 million deal for his client, when in reality, the current salary may be $6 million/ year with the remaining $20 million not even starting until 5-10 years after their playing days end, and paid out like the lotto at a rate of $2 million per year for 10 years.

On a present value basis, management pays maybe $0.50 on the dollar.

SMO
:gulp:

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 09:41 AM
Excuse me...for those of you unable to do the math....


You can take a deferred contract to any bank and they will give you the balance of the contract in cash, less the going term interest rate. Any of you folks check interest rates lately? Your checking account is paying under 1 percent annually. A really quality money market is paying 2 percent. You can borrow three year money for three percent. That means that the MOST a deferred million dollars could cost Colon is $30K. That's it. And that's if the team doesn't pay him ANY interest on the deferred portion, which is not usually the case.

We're not talking tons of money, folks. Do the math. The deferral meant nothing, if the contract was $36 million over 3 years.

Get a pencil and do the simple math before you make comments that make no sense.

Forkit!

gosox41
11-08-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

I think you are the guy who has sources telling you that Uncle Jerry is in some financial difficulty and doesn't have the money to run a team in the nation's 3rd largest market the way they should be run.

That's fine...unfortunately I don't believe one word of it, and don't trust Uncle Jerry as far as I can throw him.

If Uncle Jerry can't compete let him open his books (all of his books including the ones for the Bulls that shows where he raked in millions) and prove it to the millions of fans who don't trust him.

If he can't compete we'll all get off his back for a minute before then demanding that he sell the franchise to someone who can.

Personally I don't care if he's losing millions, he still has far more money then he, his children, their children and their children will ever need. It's greed and power pure and simple same as other owners like Pohland and Glass.

He'll be damned if he's going to spend money if he doesn't want to. He'd rather devalue the franchise, piss off the fans and thumb his nose at the players and agents rather then do that.

It's the old Boss Daley mentality... 'who are you'se guys (i.e. the fans, the media, the players, the agents) to tell me, how to run MY team?" (even though the White Sox are a civic institution not a local business and even though they may be right.)

As PHG has said on more then one occasion Sox fans are still waiting for the "first class operation" that was promised when he and Einhorn took over.

Why don't you ask your "sources" where that is?

Lip

Lip,
I think we're kind of discussing two different points here. In the issue of a first class operation, I tend to agree. JR has done a lousy job marketing this team. From Rob Gallas to Kenny Williams to Jerry Manuel he's hired the wrong managment team to make this team a success. However, it is still possible to run a first class operation. Spending a lot of money doesn't equal first class operations. Amenities and treating the fans right (ie not lying t o them) make a first class operation more so then paying a lot of money in salary. From this POV, JR has not run a first class operation, though it's not as bad as most fans make it out to be. Some fans will complain aobut anything (see this weeks thread about the lower deck.)

On the side of finances, yes I do have my sources who I know pretty well and have zero reason to lie to me. This team is not profitable very often. I have never seen the books, as I am obviously not allowed but I have asked for explanations on certain numbers. Not everything is as simple as moving money from here to there and cooking the books and hiding it from the IRS.

I read stuff in some of these threads that makes me laugh because it defies common sense and financial sense:

1. I've read that JR makes anywhere from $1 mill-$15 mill running the Sox. I don't know his salary, but JR has partners he has to answer to. I've heard anywhere from 60-90 of them. Not all of them are his buddies who want to see him make a ton of money while there investment loses money and the team on the field disappoints. The partners in an LLC can vote him out if they see that he is clearly not doing the job. Paying himself $15 mill. a year would constitute that.

2. The Sox and Bulls are seperate partnerships. There may be some overlap in owners of the two, but not all of them own both. Because of this it's ridiculous to think JR can just take the money he makes from the Bulls and transfer it over to the Sox. He doesn't own 100% of both teams and I'm sure Bulls ownership would be plenty pissed if he did that.

Say for exasmple I own Mircrosoft. And Bill Gates takes his personal money and lines up 300 investors to buy a seperate Widget Company. Let's say the widget industry collapses and his company goes out of business. Does that mean Bill Gates can just take from Microsoft's $50 Bill. cash supply to bail out this completely seperate company? Do you think Microsoft shareholders might be a little pissed about this?

3. We live in a capitalistic society. More power to those who have more then enough money that there grand children don't need to work. Doesn't mean these people need to go out of their way to mismangage their companies and open themselves up to lawsuits and take unnecessary risk. It's a poor excuse.

4. There's no doubt that some baseball owners probably cook the books. But do you have proof JR does this? Not everything is a conspiracy. It says a lot about a person when they read a book like "Baseball and Billions" (or whatever it's called) and see how the Pirates may have adjusted their accounting in the late '80's and then assume clearly that all owners are guilty of this. The best is when people complaing that the owners were able to depreciate player's salaries legally, and they were ripped for doing this. Keep in mind that you can't even do that anymore, I still read people talking about it.

Lip, I think you're part of the media. Mariotti wrote a column last season about the steroid testing and how the Sox didn't want to take it. He pinned it all on Frank and even fabricated some facts. A bunch of us here calle him on it. Can I assume that all of the media makes up facts to suit their stories. That they don't bother to check out the facts and just form an opiniopn and report on it without knowing their information? Do you do that? Are you doing that with JR?

5. Lastly, there's talk about how JR needs to open his books. He doesn't need to do anything. Would you (or any other fan) really go to more games if JR did prove he was losing money?? Or would people be more likely to say he's still covering it up somehow even if they are ignorant of how the financial world works. There's gotta be a conspiracy somewhere, right?

There's nothing to gain by opening his books. They're private. I would never show my finances to anyone. Can I see yours? I want to know why you don't go to more games and have issue with the pricing. Maybe it's just a lame excuse to avod going out there. I'm sure I could find ways to save an individual money, assuming you're showing me the real books.

I heard those myths of how if you report a tax cheat to the IRS you get part of the money that's recovered. I doubt it's true, but if it is , why not go and report the White Sox and every other major league team to the IRS. Have them audit them and see where it leads. I'm sure the IRS would like to know how a $4 bill. industry is ripping them off of tax money.

I'm not trying to make any individual attacks, but what was said by Lip is stuff I've heard before here.

Not everything is a conspiracy. I know lack of knowledge about the finance world can make people think everyone is hiding something but I can make some assumptions based on what I read here that will probably be incorrect.

Bob

poorme
11-08-2003, 10:32 AM
TJ-

Multimillionaires don't usually put their money in a savings account. There are plenty of investment opportunites that make 8% plus. Depending on how much is deferred and how long it's deferred, it could amount to a lot of money.

Of course if it were so cheap to borrow money, JR could borrow some to pay Colon now and pay it back later.

jabrch
11-08-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by poorme
TJ-

Multimillionaires don't usually put their money in a savings account. There are plenty of investment opportunites that make 8% plus. Depending on how much is deferred and how long it's deferred, it could amount to a lot of money.

Of course if it were so cheap to borrow money, JR could borrow some to pay Colon now and pay it back later.


Of course - but you can convert a deffered paymet schedule to a lump sum payment at the going rate of just over prime. With rates where they are, that's only about 30,000 per million per year.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 11:00 AM
Poorme:

Since I am a money manager by trade, I actually know what I am talking about. Colon could simply walk into a bank, take the guaranteed portion of the contract that is deferred, get a loan for the deferred portion, and still make the same investment.

Do yourself a favor: Know what you are talking about before spouting nonsense in public.

It's easy to keep believing in the nonsense spouted by the media that these deferred contracts are so unfair...but the truth is, it's meaningless to a player when interest rates are this low. As I said before, instead of making a meaningless reply that is just plain wrong, sharpen a pencil and do the math. And if you don't know, learn about how the world of banking and finance works.

The simple truth is that the deferred part is not costly at all to the player but helps the team tremendously, because the team can then use the cash flow for further "current" contracts and costs.

Forkit!

doogiec
11-08-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Lip,
I think we're kind of discussing two different points here. In the issue of a first class operation, I tend to agree. JR has done a lousy job marketing this team. From Rob Gallas to Kenny Williams to Jerry Manuel he's hired the wrong managment team to make this team a success. However, it is still possible to run a first class operation. Spending a lot of money doesn't equal first class operations. Amenities and treating the fans right (ie not lying t o them) make a first class operation more so then paying a lot of money in salary. From this POV, JR has not run a first class operation, though it's not as bad as most fans make it out to be. Some fans will complain aobut anything (see this weeks thread about the lower deck.)

On the side of finances, yes I do have my sources who I know pretty well and have zero reason to lie to me. This team is not profitable very often. I have never seen the books, as I am obviously not allowed but I have asked for explanations on certain numbers. Not everything is as simple as moving money from here to there and cooking the books and hiding it from the IRS.

I read stuff in some of these threads that makes me laugh because it defies common sense and financial sense:

1. I've read that JR makes anywhere from $1 mill-$15 mill running the Sox. I don't know his salary, but JR has partners he has to answer to. I've heard anywhere from 60-90 of them. Not all of them are his buddies who want to see him make a ton of money while there investment loses money and the team on the field disappoints. The partners in an LLC can vote him out if they see that he is clearly not doing the job. Paying himself $15 mill. a year would constitute that.

2. The Sox and Bulls are seperate partnerships. There may be some overlap in owners of the two, but not all of them own both. Because of this it's ridiculous to think JR can just take the money he makes from the Bulls and transfer it over to the Sox. He doesn't own 100% of both teams and I'm sure Bulls ownership would be plenty pissed if he did that.

Say for exasmple I own Mircrosoft. And Bill Gates takes his personal money and lines up 300 investors to buy a seperate Widget Company. Let's say the widget industry collapses and his company goes out of business. Does that mean Bill Gates can just take from Microsoft's $50 Bill. cash supply to bail out this completely seperate company? Do you think Microsoft shareholders might be a little pissed about this?

3. We live in a capitalistic society. More power to those who have more then enough money that there grand children don't need to work. Doesn't mean these people need to go out of their way to mismangage their companies and open themselves up to lawsuits and take unnecessary risk. It's a poor excuse.

4. There's no doubt that some baseball owners probably cook the books. But do you have proof JR does this? Not everything is a conspiracy. It says a lot about a person when they read a book like "Baseball and Billions" (or whatever it's called) and see how the Pirates may have adjusted their accounting in the late '80's and then assume clearly that all owners are guilty of this. The best is when people complaing that the owners were able to depreciate player's salaries legally, and they were ripped for doing this. Keep in mind that you can't even do that anymore, I still read people talking about it.

Lip, I think you're part of the media. Mariotti wrote a column last season about the steroid testing and how the Sox didn't want to take it. He pinned it all on Frank and even fabricated some facts. A bunch of us here calle him on it. Can I assume that all of the media makes up facts to suit their stories. That they don't bother to check out the facts and just form an opiniopn and report on it without knowing their information? Do you do that? Are you doing that with JR?

5. Lastly, there's talk about how JR needs to open his books. He doesn't need to do anything. Would you (or any other fan) really go to more games if JR did prove he was losing money?? Or would people be more likely to say he's still covering it up somehow even if they are ignorant of how the financial world works. There's gotta be a conspiracy somewhere, right?

There's nothing to gain by opening his books. They're private. I would never show my finances to anyone. Can I see yours? I want to know why you don't go to more games and have issue with the pricing. Maybe it's just a lame excuse to avod going out there. I'm sure I could find ways to save an individual money, assuming you're showing me the real books.

I heard those myths of how if you report a tax cheat to the IRS you get part of the money that's recovered. I doubt it's true, but if it is , why not go and report the White Sox and every other major league team to the IRS. Have them audit them and see where it leads. I'm sure the IRS would like to know how a $4 bill. industry is ripping them off of tax money.

I'm not trying to make any individual attacks, but what was said by Lip is stuff I've heard before here.

Not everything is a conspiracy. I know lack of knowledge about the finance world can make people think everyone is hiding something but I can make some assumptions based on what I read here that will probably be incorrect.

Bob

Great post Bob. Every time I check out WSI, it amazes me to see how quick everyone is to make assumptions about Reinsdorf's personal wealth and the financial condition of the Sox, which are two completely different things. NOBODY knows, so everyone makes wild guesses and then the next poster jumps on that wild guess and uses it as fact to base another wild guess.

We'll never know the truth, so lets assume everyone is lying.

doogiec
11-08-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by poorme

Of course if it were so cheap to borrow money, JR could borrow some to pay Colon now and pay it back later.

MLB has strict rules which it is finally enforcing related to debt vs. equity of its teams. Those rules do not take into consideration the current cost of borrowing money.

poorme
11-08-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by doogiec
MLB has strict rules which it is finally enforcing related to debt vs. equity of its teams. Those rules do not take into consideration the current cost of borrowing money.

Ah. Forgot about this.

TJ - I'm a financial manager, but I'm smart enough not to judge an investment without knowing all the details. You have no idea what the contract said.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 11:42 AM
And if you're a financial manager and not capable of knowing how to figure the value of a deferred contract, I'm a talented lead-off hitter.

Forkit!

poorme
11-08-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
$1 Deferred 1 year costs about $1.05.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.11.

$1 Deferred 1 more year costs about 1.17


1Million dollars costs 17,000 to "undefer"
10mm dollars costs 170,000 to undefer.



I think you're off a decimal point, no?

$10 million at 5 percent should give you about $1.57 million in 3 years

poorme
11-08-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by TraderTim
And if you're a financial manager and not capable of knowing how to figure the value of a deferred contract, I'm a talented lead-off hitter.

Forkit!

Too bad, we could really use one!

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by poorme


$10 million at 5 percent should give you about $1.57 million in 3 years

I think you're a little high, but let's use your figure for the sake of argument.

It still makes the contract worth roughly $10.5 mill per year [instead of $12 mill per] if the entire contract is deferred for the life of the contract!

The cost of money over three years is not where near 5 percent and the entire contract is not deferred, so you can see that the argument that the deferred compensation made this offer a poor offer doesn't hold water.

And yes, it's too bad I am not a lead-off hitting center fielder...I hope we find one.

Forkit!

poorme
11-08-2003, 01:16 PM
It seems that if Colon had a strong desire to stay, a few million wouldn't matter that much. Though he might build a new orphanage in the Dominican for that. Who knows what goes through players minds? The agent is probably hoping for a bidding war between the Yankees and the Red Sox or something. I don't really blame him.

joecrede
11-08-2003, 01:21 PM
I wonder if this deferred compensation isn't just an issue an agent can take back to a player, who might not be as educated in money management, as a reason not to accept a deal.

As been written here, the deferred portion really doesn't devalue the contract all that much, but when a player hears "deferred compensation" it sounds bad.

poorme
11-08-2003, 01:27 PM
It would be unethical, but certainly possible.

joecrede
11-08-2003, 01:54 PM
It's certainly possible Colon will get a better offer than the one put forth by the Sox, but I think it will only come from the Yankees.

I think this was a good offer on the Sox part, but I don't blame Colon or his agent for testing the market.

voodoochile
11-08-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Of course - but you can convert a deffered paymet schedule to a lump sum payment at the going rate of just over prime. With rates where they are, that's only about 30,000 per million per year.

So if the Sox asked him to defer $5M/year until the end of the contract and another couple of years, he would lose over $1M to convert it into today's dollars.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 05:41 PM
Give or take a few hundred thousand.

So if the contract offer was $36 mill and he got NO interest on the deferred portion from the Sox [which I doubt], the offer would be in the area of the same cash offer of $34.5 mill to $35 mill.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, on $34-$35 mill, the difference isn't much, especially when you have an offer in hand, as they say.

It's very probable the agent told him to wait to see other players and/or the Yankees play their cards, figuring that although the Sox SAY they are done with Colon, if the agent later goes to the papers and says that they are perfectly willing to finish talks with the Sox because they are "so close to a deal," the Sox will most likely sit down again and iron out a deal based on the original offer.

Could it play out like that? Sure. Or not.

But before some continue to kick sand on the Sox offer, so far, it is the only one he has and it seems to be pretty fair.

And as someone else indicated here, MLB makes it much more important for the club to have specific levels of cash flow for the immediate year, thus hindering clubs from front-loading contracts and borrowing the money to pay them. A player making $13 mill a year that doesn't need the "actual" cash flow as badly as a club is in a much better position to accept that type of deal and then convert because of the rules.

Forkit!

Daver
11-08-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim


And as someone else indicated here, MLB makes it much more important for the club to have specific levels of cash flow for the immediate year, thus hindering clubs from front-loading contracts and borrowing the money to pay them. A player making $13 mill a year that doesn't need the "actual" cash flow as badly as a club is in a much better position to accept that type of deal and then convert because of the rules.



Somebody might want to inform MLB that they are supposed to be enforcing this,because the Diamondbacks are still paying players from their World Series team.

Bud's statements about enforcing the 60/40 rule last season were pure bluff,plain and simple.Bud is the gutless wonder.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 06:19 PM
I know the Diamondbacks almost went belly up, even though they won a WS...and this from a team that had pre-sold their entire stadium for the first five years!

I don't think there IS a commish in baseball, unfortunately, so I have comment on little Bud.

I wish both sides [players and owners] would wake up and see just how badly they are running baseball into the ground. It is in everyone's interest [especially the fans] for each team to have a hard salary cap--if the players want some protection, let them demand a salary floor as well. But do something!

Forkit!

Paulwny
11-08-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
I know the Diamondbacks almost went belly up, even though they won a WS...and this from a team that had pre-sold their entire stadium for the first five years!



They weren't collecting any mlb tv revenue for 4-5 yrs. I believe they started this year or it'll be next year.

Daver
11-08-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
I know the Diamondbacks almost went belly up, even though they won a WS...and this from a team that had pre-sold their entire stadium for the first five years!

I don't think there IS a commish in baseball, unfortunately, so I have comment on little Bud.

I wish both sides [players and owners] would wake up and see just how badly they are running baseball into the ground. It is in everyone's interest [especially the fans] for each team to have a hard salary cap--if the players want some protection, let them demand a salary floor as well. But do something!



The Diamandbacks received no shared revenue from national TV contracts or merchandise for their first five years of existence,under the agreement the signed when they purchased their franchise ( the money from which was used to pay the MLBPA off on the settlement granted to them for MLB being guilty of collusion).Yet they still managed to beat the system and win a title.

Baseball desperately needs an autonomous commisioner,but I would disagree that they need a salary cap,or a floor for that matter,all that either would do is hurt the Tony Graffinino type players in the game,while doing little to solve any other problems. The game would be better served to come up with a fairer way to share revenue throughout the league,something the luxury tax will fail to do because it was a flawed system to begin with.Their have been many outside the box thoughts on this,you can find some of them in the archives of Baseball Prospectus.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 06:35 PM
I don't see anything working other than a salary cap/floor system. The rest just get circumvented, by schemes like the Cubs and their ticket scalping, the Yankees and their "outside" cable revenues, etc.

Nothing is going to work perfectly, but what we have now is...a mess.

Forkit!

Daver
11-08-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim


Nothing is going to work perfectly, but what we have now is...a mess.



How about this.

Teams agree to share all broadcast and merchandise revenue,and you base how it is distributed on market size.

Keep in mind the teams are not sharing revenue brought in by attendance.

This forces the owners to put a better product on the field to get the most out of the unshared revenue dollars,requires no salary cap,and is somewhat fair to all involved.

This was expanded on much better here. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020418woolner.shtml)

I'll try to find something similar that Doug Pappas put together.

TraderTim
11-08-2003, 07:11 PM
Do you see George agreeing to this. since he would be throwing into the kitty something like...I don't know...more than a third, maybe half of the entire pot? Or are you going to allow him to keep his cable revenues here and abroad?

What about scalping revenues, like the neat little loop hole the Cubs found?

I just think owners, especially those in lucrative markets, find ways around these types of agreements.

I'm not against what you are suggesting. Anything would be better than this useless luxury tax facade.

But, please let tham all agree to do something!

Forkit!

Daver
11-08-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Do you see George agreeing to this. since he would be throwing into the kitty something like...I don't know...more than a third, maybe half of the entire pot? Or are you going to allow him to keep his cable revenues here and abroad?

What about scalping revenues, like the neat little loop hole the Cubs found?

I just think owners, especially those in lucrative markets, find ways around these types of agreements.

I'm not against what you are suggesting. Anything would be better than this useless luxury tax facade.

But, please let tham all agree to do something!

Forkit!

That is why the need for an autonomous commisioner comes first and foremost,someone that is willing to fight for the good of the game,and not for just one side of the fight.

I nominate Jesse Ventura.

Clean the house from the top and the bottom will be forced to come along.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Daver
That is why the need for an autonomous commisioner comes first and foremost,someone that is willing to fight for the good of the game,and not for just one side of the fight.

I nominate Jesse Ventura.

Clean the house from the top and the bottom will be forced to come along.

Please. Jesse is all talk. Anyone who watched him tag with Adrian Adonis or Mr. Saito back in Verne Gagne's AWA knows that he gets blown up after a 10-minute match. Jesse made a living off cutting promos, and he did a hell of a job stealing a gubenatorial spot because of it. Give the position to Costas before you give it to "ain't got time to bleed."

Daver
11-08-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Please. Jesse is all talk. Anyone who watched him tag with Adrian Adonis or Mr. Saito back in Verne Gagne's AWA knows that he gets blown up after a 10-minute match. Jesse made a living off cutting promos, and he did a hell of a job stealing a gubenatorial spot because of it. Give the position to Costas before you give it to "ain't got time to bleed."

Take a good hard squint at what he did to the benefit of the state of Minnesota.

He would have won by a landslide had he chose to run for re-election.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Take a good hard squint at what he did to the benefit of the state of Minnesota.

He would have won by a landslide had he chose to run for re-election.

Whoaaaa! Slow down. Public opinion polls really turned on him. I don't think he had a chance at re-election.

Daver
11-08-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Whoaaaa! Slow down. Public opinion polls really turned on him. I don't think he had a chance at re-election.

I have a lot of friends,as well as family in Minnesota,public opinion polls up there mean little.A lot of people answer polls,those that answer the polls usually don't vote.

Ask Carl Pohlad how good Jesse was at his job as governor,he killed Carl's plan to cash in rather well,to the consternation of Bud Selig and the rest of the good ole boy network.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Ask Carl Pohlad how good Jesse was at his job as governor,he killed Carl's plan to cash in rather well,to the consternation of Bud Selig and the rest of the good ole boy network.

Too bad for us, right? We might be celebrating a 2003 ALCS victory and maybe a World Champion White Sox right now.

Daver
11-08-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Too bad for us, right? We might be celebrating a 2003 ALCS victory and maybe a World Champion White Sox right now.

Don't blame Jesse for the Sox failure to field a winner.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Don't blame Jesse for the Sox failure to field a winner.

I agree. The Sox were loaded for the stretch run, and they couldn't get the job done. When you don't do the job, you don't get the money - Ted DiBiase 7/31/87.

Daver
11-08-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I agree. The Sox were loaded for the stretch run, and they couldn't get the job done. When you don't do the job, you don't get the money - Ted DiBiase 7/31/87.

I have no clue who Ted Dibiase is.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I have no clue who Ted Dibiase is.

LOL. Most people probably don't. Old WWF pro-wrestler from the late 80's. "The Million Dollar Man".

Win1ForMe
11-08-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Please. Jesse is all talk. Anyone who watched him tag with Adrian Adonis or Mr. Saito back in Verne Gagne's AWA knows that he gets blown up after a 10-minute match. Jesse made a living off cutting promos, and he did a hell of a job stealing a gubenatorial spot because of it. Give the position to Costas before you give it to "ain't got time to bleed."

Bob Costas is a little weasel. I don't want him running anything.

As far as Jesse, he made the East-West Connection so let us not tarnish his legacy. "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat." - the Gov.

Brian26
11-08-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Bob Costas is a little weasel. I don't want him running anything.

As far as Jesse, he made the East-West Connection so let us not tarnish his legacy. "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat." - the Gov.


Hahah, Win1 with the Jesse history. Nice. I dug his small progam with Macho Man Savage as his tag partner around '85. Too bad he had the blood clot and never really had a run with Hogan.

Win1ForMe
11-08-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Hahah, Win1 with the Jesse history. Nice. I dug his small progam with Macho Man Savage as his tag partner around '85. Too bad he had the blood clot and never really had a run with Hogan.

I think we're dangerously close to getting sent into the parking lot or wherever it is these types of threads go. But before I'm censored, I will say this: Hogan's schtick is pretty much total a rip off of Jesse Ventura (and Billy Graham as well). Hogan was worthless, the Sammy Sosa of wrestling.

Lip Man 1
11-08-2003, 11:33 PM
White Sox fans have a number of legit reasons NOT to trust Uncle Jerry. They haven't trusted him from day one because (rightly or wrongly) he is considered an outsider and a New Yorker to boot (i.e. see Richard Lindberg's books)

My original statement is still valid, if Uncle Jerry is that concerned about his image let him open his books, get an independent auditor to asses them and let the facts speak for themselves.

If he is in financial difficulty fans will get off his back. If he is in financial difficulty why doesn't he sell?

You bring up an interesting point about 'would I want someone to see my finances?' The difference is I don't blame society or whomever for any difficulties that I have. I don't "own" a civic institution partially financed by the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois.

As John Helyar wrote about Uncle Jerry (and broke it down completely and specifically) he has the best stadium deal in the history of pro sports. He actually pays less money to the state if he draws fewer fans.

Now you want to speak with me about Uncle Jerry's "incentives" to win and spend money? He's better off losing and NOT drawing fans. He gets a break on his rental and he has a convienent excuse to blame Sox fans for not supporting him.

Jerry Reinsdorf is a shark, a sharp, shrewd. multi-multi millionair who is laughing all the way to the bank. He extorted a new ballpark from the city and state, He screwed over Tampa St. Pete when they thought he had a deal. And you are telling me to 'trust" him and his rich partners who could care less about this team or the fans?

I'm sorry nothing short of having an independent auditor telling me otherwise will ever change my mind. And my belief is not all based on pure emotion, I've seen and read statements to the contrary including Helyar's book Lords Of The Realm. I read Keith Obermann's book on owners and the book Ballpark The Building of Camden Yards. These folks aren't stupid by any means

and obviously there are a LOT of fans who feel the same way I do or this team wouldn't have the attendence issues that they have.

Lip

crector
11-09-2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
White Sox fans have a number of legit reasons NOT to trust Uncle Jerry. They haven't trusted him from day one because (rightly or wrongly) he is considered an outsider and a New Yorker to boot (i.e. see Richard Lindberg's books)

My original statement is still valid, if Uncle Jerry is that concerned about his image let him open his books, get an independent auditor to asses them and let the facts speak for themselves.

If he is in financial difficulty fans will get off his back. If he is in financial difficulty why doesn't he sell?

You bring up an interesting point about 'would I want someone to see my finances?' The difference is I don't blame society or whomever for any difficulties that I have. I don't "own" a civic institution partially financed by the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois.

As John Helyar wrote about Uncle Jerry (and broke it down completely and specifically) he has the best stadium deal in the history of pro sports. He actually pays less money to the state if he draws fewer fans.

Now you want to speak with me about Uncle Jerry's "incentives" to win and spend money? He's better off losing and NOT drawing fans. He gets a break on his rental and he has a convienent excuse to blame Sox fans for not supporting him.

Jerry Reinsdorf is a shark, a sharp, shrewd. multi-multi millionair who is laughing all the way to the bank. He extorted a new ballpark from the city and state, He screwed over Tampa St. Pete when they thought he had a deal. And you are telling me to 'trust" him and his rich partners who could care less about this team or the fans?

I'm sorry nothing short of having an independent auditor telling me otherwise will ever change my mind. And my belief is not all based on pure emotion, I've seen and read statements to the contrary including Helyar's book Lords Of The Realm. I read Keith Obermann's book on owners and the book Ballpark The Building of Camden Yards. These folks aren't stupid by any means

and obviously there are a LOT of fans who feel the same way I do or this team wouldn't have the attendence issues that they have.

Lip

As it happens, I'm no fan of how Reinsdorf has run the Sox. However, my opinion is based on the stuff that I know about and have evidence to back up my conclusions. Not wild accusations backed up only by demands that Reinsdorf prove his innocence. I have never seen anything that made me think that there was huge cash profits from running the Sox that were being drained away from the team. The problem with Reinsdorf is his lack of judgment in hiring folks like Guillen and KW who in turn lack judgment in how to run a ball club, not his handling of team finances.

From what I've seen, the best way that an otherwise obscure businessman has to obtain Instant Intense Infamy and Vexatiously Vicious Villification is to buy a major league sports franchise. What folks such as Mr. Liptak don't seem to realize is that when you go around trashing the owners, you basically ensure that only trash will be owners.

Mr. Liptak, if you want to see one person who bears major responsibility for the sad state of affairs that the Sox are in, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

gosox41
11-09-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
White Sox fans have a number of legit reasons NOT to trust Uncle Jerry. They haven't trusted him from day one because (rightly or wrongly) he is considered an outsider and a New Yorker to boot (i.e. see Richard Lindberg's books)

My original statement is still valid, if Uncle Jerry is that concerned about his image let him open his books, get an independent auditor to asses them and let the facts speak for themselves.

If he is in financial difficulty fans will get off his back. If he is in financial difficulty why doesn't he sell?

You bring up an interesting point about 'would I want someone to see my finances?' The difference is I don't blame society or whomever for any difficulties that I have. I don't "own" a civic institution partially financed by the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois.

As John Helyar wrote about Uncle Jerry (and broke it down completely and specifically) he has the best stadium deal in the history of pro sports. He actually pays less money to the state if he draws fewer fans.

Now you want to speak with me about Uncle Jerry's "incentives" to win and spend money? He's better off losing and NOT drawing fans. He gets a break on his rental and he has a convienent excuse to blame Sox fans for not supporting him.

Jerry Reinsdorf is a shark, a sharp, shrewd. multi-multi millionair who is laughing all the way to the bank. He extorted a new ballpark from the city and state, He screwed over Tampa St. Pete when they thought he had a deal. And you are telling me to 'trust" him and his rich partners who could care less about this team or the fans?

I'm sorry nothing short of having an independent auditor telling me otherwise will ever change my mind. And my belief is not all based on pure emotion, I've seen and read statements to the contrary including Helyar's book Lords Of The Realm. I read Keith Obermann's book on owners and the book Ballpark The Building of Camden Yards. These folks aren't stupid by any means

and obviously there are a LOT of fans who feel the same way I do or this team wouldn't have the attendence issues that they have.

Lip

If JR opened his books for you, do you have the financial background to read and understand them? Or would you just say that he is hiding something? Why not go to the IRA and have all major league baseball teams audited. accordig to you they're all cheating. It's a $4 bill industry, trust me the govt. would be missing out on major $$$$.

I never disliked JR because he is an outsider. Never entered my mind. What is an outsider? Someone not from Chicago? Would the Sox sell out if a local Chicago guy bought the team and hired only Chicago born people to run it and drafted only Chicago players? Maybe a few fans care about this. I dislike JR because he has the wrong people running the team.

Fans will not get off JR's back because, frankly, most fans don't understand business. They actually think they're owed something by these owners who should take all their money and buy a winner at whatever the cost, but on the flipside of the team fails they won't help fiannce the project they were do longing for. And remember, I never said JR was in financial difficulty, I said the Sox are. It's two different world's.

As for JR having incentive not to win, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Why not just have rookies play for the team every year at the minimum. It saves payroll and pretty much guarantees the fans don't show because the team won't be so good? Sure he pays more rent if attendence is up, but he also makes more money. His rent doesn't jump up so much in such a way that it wipes out all those ticket revenues.. Sure it may eat into more of his ticket prices so istead of making $15 a ticket it may be $14 (these numbers are made upf or the sake of argument). It's not like past a certain attendence point JR is paying out $20 a fan in rent, but only taking in $15.

See what I mean about not understanding business? A team of rookies makes JR a guarantee profit. The way it is now, the team struggles financially.


As for JR getting the statium financed publicly, more power to him. It's called smart business. You may not like it and it may not be fair, but who helped elect all those people into office who voted for this deal. I assume with all your opinions you do vote.

The team has attendence issues for 2 reasons: 1. They don't win 2. They don't have a cool ballpark in a good location. Fans will come if the team wins or is makreted right. Look at the Cubs, a PR machine. How come the Bulls can stink for the last 5 years and still sell out some home games? Same owner, lousy team, and have you seen the cost of Bulls tickets? There is no kids day or half price night or whatever. Yet they continue to draw, and they'll have their fair share of sell outs this season. Even the beloved Bears can go on being an under .500 team for the 8th time in 10 years in a league that makrets itself on parity. They even placed part of the cost of the stadium on their fans who complained a lot but still paid (at least by looking at their crowds) Some of the stadium was also financed by the state yet Bear fans don't keep bringing this up.

A lot of arguments presented about JR defy business logic, such as not wnting to draw fans yet spending $50+ mill in payroll. Why not have a $9 mill. pay roll and save the $40 mill in payroll and lose fans so he doesn't have to pay rent?

You can question JR's integrity all you want, but I ask, why do you go to games then? Why do you spend so much time writing about a supposed lost cause? JR doesn't care if a website is spouting off nonsense about him. Because he knows that as much as people ehre can't stand him, we are te teams biggest supporters, spiritually and financially. It's not going to get him to sell. When he does decide to sell do you think it's going to be because of all the poeple who want him to sell or the fact that it's in his best interests financially?

How do you know JR and his partners care less if this team wins? You stated this above. What's the proof. Caring and being stupid on how to run the team are 2 different things. JR makes a lot of stupid baseball decisions but still tries to win. I think he does care, he's just not reaching his objective at all.

Bob

Lip Man 1
11-09-2003, 12:38 PM
Bob:

I support the White Sox because I was born and raised on the South Side and have a storng sense of loyalty. I don't claim to be able to understand Uncle Jerry's shell games. That's why an independent auditor would have to be brought in.

Crector:

I'd appreciate it you would get off your high smart ass horse and call me Mark or Lip not Mr. Liptak. You pulled that s*** with Hal Vickery. I don't think it's funny, I think you're trying to demean Hal and myself and that's BS.

Treat everyone with some respect...it's not that hard even for a psudo intellectual.

Also if you think Mr. Vickery and Mr. Liptak are so friggin stupid, here's the e-mail address to Pale Hose George the site's editor and founder gerogebova@whitesoxinteractive.com

Get off your rear end and start writing some columns for him to show how smart you are and how stupid we are.

Lip

Paulwny
11-09-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
If JR opened his books for you, do you have the financial background to read and understand them? Or would you just say that he is hiding something? Why not go to the IRA and have all major league baseball teams audited. accordig to you they're all cheating. It's a $4 bill industry, trust me the govt. would be missing out on major $$$$.Bob

Here are 2 legal ways of hiding profits and allowed by the IRS. They reduce a teams profits on paper but, the money still goes into the owners pockets.
1) Depreciation of players, similar to a company deprciating machinery
2) the partnership loans money to the club at a high interest rate.
The money and interest is paid back to the partnership but, is deducted from the teams profits.

TraderTim
11-09-2003, 01:54 PM
I have no problem with Lip. I believe he's a dyed in the wool Sox fan. We don't agree on many things, but I share his passion.

[By the way, it's the IRS that looks at tax matters, gosox, not the IRA]

I could understand the books. But as a business owner, I would never allow my books to be shown to anyone. Period. It's my business and only I get to see the books.

As for public financing...as I stated earlier in this thread, Lip and I have a different view of this matter: The stadium is owned by the public. The Stadium Authority Board agreed to specific terms to build the stadium and then sold bonds to build it. No one forced these folks to build a stadium. And before someone says JR held a threat to the Governor at the time, the guv could have said no. The people could have said no. But they said yes. That is NOT JR's fault. In return, the Sox make payments and those public bonds get paid off, with interest. Plus tax is generated via business at the stadium and people get jobs at the stadium, helping the local economy. So, as far as I am concerned, the Sox do not take public money and are not financed in any special way, certainly no different than the Bears, for example.

But really, that's here nor there. My only problem in all of this is when many people in the press and here on the board use financial falacies to throw stones. I understand why agents try to get all of you to bite on this nonsense. I just don't understand why a little common sense isn't applied to see through these bad arguments, since they don't hold water.

Lip doesn't like JR? I have no problem with that. My dad hated Bill Veeck after he broke up the 1959 team, so I understand how Lip feels.

Forkit!

Paulwny
11-09-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim

But really, that's here nor there. My only problem in all of this is when many people in the press and here on the board use financial falacies to throw stones. I understand why agents try to get all of you to bite on this nonsense. I just don't understand why a little common sense isn't applied to see through these bad arguments, since they don't hold water.



So you want some of us to only believe the owners.

Marge Schott was sued by the minority owners of the reds for hiding and not distributing profits.

Steinbrenner-- Illegal campaign contributions

MLB owners guilty of collusion

Marge Schott was sued by her bookkeeper , he was told to work the books and hide profits.

Mickey Monus principal shareholder in the Phar-Mor Corp and 2nd largest shareholder in the Colorado Rockies. He was found guilty of embezzling $350 mil from the Phar- Mor Corp.

Steinbrenner paid an extortioninst to get dirt on Dave Winfield.

If you claim you're losing money or have low profits open the books then people will believe.

TraderTim
11-09-2003, 06:55 PM
Well, how nice of you to take what I said out of context...

I want people to think before they post and especially when it comes to the arguments thrown out by agents that are paid to get their clients more money. Just because someone says something, it isn't true. I pointed out the "actual" value of a deferred contract, versus the hugely negative way it has mostly been portrayed here and elsewhere.

I have no problem with a player trying to get every dollar he or she can get. I DO have a problem when they tell glib lies about it though but that is a different post...Just say you want the most money and you are going to the highest bidder.

But instead of that we get inundated by people that believe whatever is spilled by agents to the press.

I'll say it again: In low interest rate periods, for contracts of the size and duration Colon was offered, the difference between partial deferral and a non-deferred contract is pretty meaningless, unless you, as a player, are only looking for the highest bid to the penny.

That has NOTHING to do with me being pro or anti owner. I am neither, thank you. There are crooked owners, bad owners, good owners. There are crooked ball players, bad ball players, good ball players. There are good-hearted owners and players. I didn't generalize.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

As for opening the books...I have stated my opinion. The Sox are a private organization, not a public corporation or trust. Why should they open their books to public scrutiny? Why should they be any different than any other private company?

Your exact quote:

"So you want some of us to only believe the owners."

No. I just want people to think about what is said here and elsewhere, instead of just taking it at face value, no matter who said it [fan, player, owner, writer].

Forkit!

gosox41
11-09-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Here are 2 legal ways of hiding profits and allowed by the IRS. They reduce a teams profits on paper but, the money still goes into the owners pockets.
1) Depreciation of players, similar to a company deprciating machinery
2) the partnership loans money to the club at a high interest rate.
The money and interest is paid back to the partnership but, is deducted from the teams profits.

To the best of my knowledge, teams can no longer depreciate players salary. I think it was changed in the early '90's.

As for #2, I will see what I can find out. I would think at some point the IRS would get suspicious of the activity if the #'s got too large or it happened to often.

Bob

gosox41
11-09-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
I have no problem with Lip. I believe he's a dyed in the wool Sox fan. We don't agree on many things, but I share his passion.

[By the way, it's the IRS that looks at tax matters, gosox, not the IRA]


Forkit!

My bad. It was a typo. If the IRA did look into cooking the books, then no one would do it or fear the consequences.

Bob

Paulwny
11-10-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
To the best of my knowledge, teams can no longer depreciate players salary. I think it was changed in the early '90's.

As for #2, I will see what I can find out. I would think at some point the IRS would get suspicious of the activity if the #'s got too large or it happened to often.

Bob


It's an old speech/ article from 92
http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/barzimb.htm

Dadawg_77
11-10-2003, 12:32 PM
Tim, one thing that could throw a monkey wrench into your statement on Colon deal's deferred comp, is the terms. If Colon isn't going to see all of that money for 10+ years, the rate the bank will charge Colon for a loan on it will go up. Playing with the numbers: if Colon got three million a year for 12 years, discounted at 3% the NPV would be a little over 29 million. A Bank would still need to take a cut of out of that. Say the Bank discounts at 5% to take into account interest and inflation risk over 12 years after a low in interest rates, it comes down to 26 million.

thepaulbowski
11-10-2003, 12:41 PM
For what's it worth, the Bulls, Sox, every major sport franchise, is required by its leagues to have independent auditors brought it. I know people on these audits, and they treat them as they would any other client. The only difference is, because they aren't corporations, the books aren't open for people to see.

Paulwny
11-10-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
For what's it worth, the Bulls, Sox, every major sport franchise, is required by its leagues to have independent auditors brought it. I know people on these audits, and they treat them as they would any other client. The only difference is, because they aren't corporations, the books aren't open for people to see.

The word hiding money doesn't mean illegal hiding.
I'm sure the books are audited and are quite legal.

Here are some items which have been brought up in posts over the last few years.
1) Some people have claimed that another comp. owned by JR collects the parking money and they report the income so it's not revenue in the sox ledger.
2) concession money at the park, same as #1

Where does the money go ?
1) what's JR's salary
2) what cut do he and his partners take
3)does JR as Steinbrenner does, charge the sox a consulting fee when he sits in on contract negotiations

These are some that I can remember, I have no idea about the parking and concessions but, if they are true this is a great deal of money that is reported as income by another company and lessens the amount of money the sox report as revenue.

gosox41
11-10-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The word hiding money doesn't mean illegal hiding.
I'm sure the books are audited and are quite legal.

Here are some items which have been brought up in posts over the last few years.
1) Some people have claimed that another comp. owned by JR collects the parking money and they report the income so it's not revenue in the sox ledger.
2) concession money at the park, same as #1

Where does the money go ?
1) what's JR's salary
2) what cut do he and his partners take
3)does JR as Steinbrenner does, charge the sox a consulting fee when he sits in on contract negotiations

These are some that I can remember, I have no idea about the parking and concessions but, if they are true this is a great deal of money that is reported as income by another company and lessens the amount of money the sox report as revenue.

I will say this for sure. First, JR doesn't own the parking company and use it to park the revenues elsewhere.

Second, JR doesn't own Sportservice. If people want to believe this, fine, but it is 100% wrong. I've asked my source about this before and she just rolled her eyes. I think she's heard it all before.

Bob

Dadawg_77
11-10-2003, 08:03 PM
http://www.delawarenorth.com/AboutDNC/Sportservice.asp

The Sports Service offical site if you want.

StillMissOzzie
11-11-2003, 01:24 AM
I'm sure JR isn't doing anything illegal when it comes to cooking the books. He doesn't have to. As a real estate mogul, I'm sure he knows enough of the loopholes and intricacies of the tax code to take every advantage of them. And yes, I'm sure it's audited every year by fine CPA firms like Arthur Anderson It's just that, again IMO, the audited financial statements don't give a true picture of MLB's financial condition.

As for JR's feeding from the public trough, through no fault of his own, JR is the beneficiary of a sweetheart lease deal with the agency that owns and operates USCF, so at least indirectly, IMO, JR is getting public money. In other circles, it's called corporate welfare.

Back to the thread at hand, the mathematics of contract money deferral have been beaten into the ground. The AMOUNT of money being deferred matters. A SHORT deferral has neglible financial impact. And I know for a fact that NOT ALL DEFERRALS CARRY AN INTEREST RATE > 0%. Suffice it to say the the AMOUNT, TIME, and/or INTEREST RATE (or lack of) attached to the deferrred portion of Colon's offer were substantial enough to turn it down.
What remains to be seen is if any of those terms are negotiable.

SMO
:gulp:

JDP
11-11-2003, 03:12 AM
I thought I read somewhere that any and all deferred money in the Colon offer was actually free of any interest.

gosox41
11-11-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
http://www.delawarenorth.com/AboutDNC/Sportservice.asp

The Sports Service offical site if you want.

I didn't spend much time lookign at the site but I didn't see JR's name or any hint that he's an owner of the company.

For those who beleive he is, feel free to show me proof or else this is just another false accusation from fans who think they know too much.

Bob

joecrede
11-11-2003, 09:37 AM
For the people who think JR is hiding money all over the place, my question to them is why?

If his motivation is to make money aren't there better ways to do that than by owning the Chicago White Sox?

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I will say this for sure. First, JR doesn't own the parking company and use it to park the revenues elsewhere.

Second, JR doesn't own Sportservice. If people want to believe this, fine, but it is 100% wrong. I've asked my source about this before and she just rolled her eyes. I think she's heard it all before.

Bob

Then who gets the parking revenue? JR must get some.

I NEVER said he owned Sports Service. I said he gets concession money. Spots Service pays out for the right to sell concessions.

Why would I say he owned Sports Service when the owner lives in the Buffalo area.

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
For the people who think JR is hiding money all over the place, my question to them is why?

If his motivation is to make money aren't there better ways to do that than by owning the Chicago White Sox?

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.


By lowering team revenue you have an excuse of why you don't have money for players.

This was discussed over the previous years on this site.

Lip Man 1
11-11-2003, 12:09 PM
Joe Crede says:

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.

When said owner is being supported by state and city tax money, when said owner is being given a sweetheart lease that actually gives him more incentive to lose then to win, when said owner is responsible for the day to day operation of a civic institution (not a corner hardware store) you're damn right he should be condemned.

But here's the bottom line....if he's actually losing money why doesn't he sell the team? Answer: because he's NOT losing money.

If he is losing money and continues to hang on to the property that said owner is a fool and a moron.

And I think everyone from his deluded supporters to his toughest critics can agree that Uncle Jerry is NOT a fool or a moron. Uncle Jerry is a cunning, go for the jugular, greedy shark.

Lip

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I didn't spend much time lookign at the site but I didn't see JR's name or any hint that he's an owner of the company.

For those who beleive he is, feel free to show me proof or else this is just another false accusation from fans who think they know too much.

Bob

Once again I NEVER, NEVER said he owned sports service, This fan may not know too much but, I try to read the posts correctly.

I said he gets concession money !!!!!!!!!!!!

joecrede
11-11-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
By lowering team revenue you have an excuse of why you don't have money for players.

This was discussed over the previous years on this site.

So this hidden revenue is going to JR and his partners? How much money do you suppose we are talking here? Also, what proof is there that JR is playing these shell games (other than a low payroll)?

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
So this hidden revenue is going to JR and his partners? How much money do you suppose we are talking here? Also, what proof is there that JR is playing these shell games (other than a low payroll)?


Only JR and his bean counters know.

I'm not searching this site for previous threads and posts over the last 2-3 yrs.

I'm not from Chi, I'm from Buffalo, I'm bringing up what I can remember the things people have expressed in previous posts.

joecrede
11-11-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe Crede says:

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.

When said owner is being supported by state and city tax money, when said owner is being given a sweetheart lease that actually gives him more incentive to lose then to win, when said owner is responsible for the day to day operation of a civic institution (not a corner hardware store) you're damn right he should be condemned.

But here's the bottom line....if he's actually losing money why doesn't he sell the team? Answer: because he's NOT losing money.

If he is losing money and continues to hang on to the property that said owner is a fool and a moron.

And I think everyone from his deluded supporters to his toughest critics can agree that Uncle Jerry is NOT a fool or a moron. Uncle Jerry is a cunning, go for the jugular, greedy shark.

Lip

Lip,

What makes you think the Sox are spending under their means? Where do you surmise the Sox are in revenues in MLB?

If making money was JR's primary thing, he'd have sold the team long ago. He enjoys owning a baseball team. He probably is willing to put up with a certain amount of financial losses for that privledge.

washington
11-11-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
If making money was JR's primary thing, he'd have sold the team long ago.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Reinsdorf makes substantial amounts of money off the Sox each year, and that if he didn't he would have long ago sold.

joecrede
11-11-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by washington
I have no doubt whatsoever that Reinsdorf makes substantial amounts of money off the Sox each year

What makes you think that? How much are we talking about here?

hold2dibber
11-11-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Lip,

What makes you think the Sox are spending under their means? Where do you surmise the Sox are in revenues in MLB?

If making money was JR's primary thing, he'd have sold the team long ago. He enjoys owning a baseball team. He probably is willing to put up with a certain amount of financial losses for that privledge.

It seems to me that one owns a pro sports team for one of two reasons: (A) to make money; or (B) to win (and feed your ego). JR is not winning, and he over the course of his ownership, it is clear that he has not made winning priority no. 1. So that leaves us with (A). I don't know how much he's making, but you can be sure he (and the other owners) are making money. And does anyone know how much they paid for the franchise back in the early 80s? I'm guessing that the current estimated value of the franchise is double what he paid for it twenty years ago.

joecrede
11-11-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
It seems to me that one owns a pro sports team for one of two reasons: (A) to make money; or (B) to win (and feed your ego). JR is not winning, and he over the course of his ownership, it is clear that he has not made winning priority no. 1. So that leaves us with (A). I don't know how much he's making, but you can be sure he (and the other owners) are making money. And does anyone know how much they paid for the franchise back in the early 80s? I'm guessing that the current estimated value of the franchise is double what he paid for it twenty years ago.

JR bought the Sox for $20M or so. They are probably worth in excess of $200M.

I believe JR wants to win, but he is not willing to lose millions upon millions and not win.

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
JR bought the Sox for $20M or so. They are probably worth in excess of $200M.

I believe JR wants to win, but he is not willing to lose millions upon millions and not win.

The link below is an interview with JR. The last line of this paragraph tells it all.

"Illinois taxpayers also got the short end of the deal. While Reinsdorf innocently insists, "I didn't get into baseball to make money. Baseball is my religion. I'm happy to break even," the Comiskey deal gave him free rent for up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. The Sox pay the state $2.50 for every ticket from 1.2 to 2 million, yet the team also gets back $5 million a year for stadium repairs and maintenance. In addition, the state buys 300,000 tickets if attendance drops below 1.5 after the year 2001, so in actuality, Reinsdorf got public funds to build his stadium and subsidies to guarantee its profitability. "

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,87,00.html

FanOf14
11-11-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
In addition, the state buys 300,000 tickets if attendance drops below 1.5 after the year 2001, so in actuality, Reinsdorf got public funds to build his stadium and subsidies to guarantee its profitability. "


Why on earth is the state of IL purchasing tickets if attendance falls? :angry:

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
Why on earth is the state of IL purchasing tickets if attendance falls? :angry:

This is what Lip was referring to, in a post in this thread, when he said "Uncle Jerry has no incentive to win and spend money".

Paulwny
11-11-2003, 01:56 PM
One way to learn about tax loop holes etc. is to work for the IRS. When JR graduated in 1960 guess what gov't agency he worked for.

washington
11-11-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
One way to learn about tax loop holes etc. is to work for the IRS. When JR graduated in 1960 guess what gov't agency he worked for.

Yup, he and a lot of his clique (I think including Einhorn but am not sure) worked for the IRS after law school. Reinsdorf will not open his books (at least not in a legitimate way) so there's no way of knowing how much money he makes off the team. But he is a ruthless businessman (see, e.g., how much money he made at Balcor, the threatened move to St. Pete, gutting the Bulls for years after the last title, the staduim deal with the State, etc.) and it is impossible for me to believe that he is not making a substantial profit off the team.

And I absolutely refuse to believe that he cares about winning at baseball until he starts acting like it instead of crying poor every year.

CLR01
11-12-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by washington
But he is a ruthless businessman (see, e.g., how much money he made at Balcor, the threatened move to St. Pete, gutting the Bulls for years after the last title, the staduim deal with the State, etc.) and it is impossible for me to believe that he is not making a substantial profit off the team.


Can we please get a definition for substantial? Substantial to you or me, or substantial to a multi-millionaire several hundred times over? On second thought, can we just get a few numeric values for substantial? What is it, 100, 500 thousand, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20+ million? Maybe someone would like to put some numbers down that show how they come up with that number.

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
For the people who think JR is hiding money all over the place, my question to them is why?

If his motivation is to make money aren't there better ways to do that than by owning the Chicago White Sox?

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.

But they owe it to the fans to field a winner at whatever costs it takes.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Then who gets the parking revenue? JR must get some.

I NEVER said he owned Sports Service. I said he gets concession money. Spots Service pays out for the right to sell concessions.

Why would I say he owned Sports Service when the owner lives in the Buffalo area.

About Sportsservice, I was responding to another post about how JR owns the food company. Of course the Sox get revenue for every beer sold, etc.

As for parking, the issue that was being discussed was whether or not JR was hiding the parking money. I never said he didni't get something, I just said he wasn't hiding it.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
By lowering team revenue you have an excuse of why you don't have money for players.

This was discussed over the previous years on this site.

Huh??? It doesn't add up. He is purposely lowering revenue so he doesn't have to pay for players??? What a crappy long term business model. What basis do you have for JR doing this. Why don't companies in the real world do this to lower wages for their employees.

The Sox have benefits to winning (ie fielding as compeitive payroll as possible) because it means more upside on attendence and if they happen to make the playoffs it means a lot more money.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe Crede says:

I don't think an owner should be condemned for not being willing to lose millions (i.e. Rangers owner, Tom Hicks) to field a team.

When said owner is being supported by state and city tax money, when said owner is being given a sweetheart lease that actually gives him more incentive to lose then to win, when said owner is responsible for the day to day operation of a civic institution (not a corner hardware store) you're damn right he should be condemned.

But here's the bottom line....if he's actually losing money why doesn't he sell the team? Answer: because he's NOT losing money.

If he is losing money and continues to hang on to the property that said owner is a fool and a moron.

And I think everyone from his deluded supporters to his toughest critics can agree that Uncle Jerry is NOT a fool or a moron. Uncle Jerry is a cunning, go for the jugular, greedy shark.

Lip

I love how you draw conclusions. JR owes the city nothing. Owning a sports team is based on feeding off fans emotions. But knwo where does he "owe" anything to anyone but hsi shareholders.

I still don't get the logic of having a sweetheart lease gives him little incentive to win. If anything it does the oppsite. If he wins the potential to make more money is that much greater.


Also, Lip, if he wanted to lose why doesn't he just field a team of all rookies? It's safe to say the biggest expense in owning a sports franchise is the payroll. Who not cut it from the supposeed $53-58 mill to under $10 mill. It would certianly make it easier for him to reach his alleged goal of losing. It's and extra $40 mill. for JR by your logic, and rent on the stadium would be zero because only fans with deep emotional ties would come to support the team. If he wants to lose, why not do it that way?

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The link below is an interview with JR. The last line of this paragraph tells it all.

"Illinois taxpayers also got the short end of the deal. While Reinsdorf innocently insists, "I didn't get into baseball to make money. Baseball is my religion. I'm happy to break even," the Comiskey deal gave him free rent for up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. The Sox pay the state $2.50 for every ticket from 1.2 to 2 million, yet the team also gets back $5 million a year for stadium repairs and maintenance. In addition, the state buys 300,000 tickets if attendance drops below 1.5 after the year 2001, so in actuality, Reinsdorf got public funds to build his stadium and subsidies to guarantee its profitability. "

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,87,00.html

Maybe that lease deal is helping him break even, You don't know what they payroll would be if he had a worse lease deal, you just jump to conclusions.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
One way to learn about tax loop holes etc. is to work for the IRS. When JR graduated in 1960 guess what gov't agency he worked for.

I didn't know this. Where did you get this information? Also, don't you think some tax codes have changed in the last 43 years?

Bob

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I didn't know this. Where did you get this information? Also, don't you think some tax codes have changed in the last 43 years?

Bob

Read the link in your previous post, that I provided.

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Maybe that lease deal is helping him break even, You don't know what they payroll would be if he had a worse lease deal, you just jump to conclusions.

Bob

I totally agree, no one knows for sure.
If an owner continually cries that he's losing money or making minimal amounts of money the one way to shut up the critics and the players assoc. is to open the books, this will never happen.

Why does the Trib. pay more money to the sox for broadcast rights then they give to their cubs?

washington
11-12-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Why does the Trib. pay more money to the sox for broadcast rights then they give to their cubs?

I've read that it's because the Tribune parent company owns both the Cubs and WGN. WGN can get away with paying an amount that's far below market value to carry the Cubs

dickallen15
11-12-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by washington
I've read that it's because the Tribune parent company owns both the Cubs and WGN. WGN can get away with paying an amount that's far below market value to carry the Cubs

They are all under the same umbrella, so its an accounting deal.

poorme
11-12-2003, 10:30 AM
It's a way the Cubs can hide what a cash cow they are. I would guess JR spends more on payroll as a % of baseball associated revenues than the Tribune Company does. But I doubt anyone knows the truth.

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
They are all under the same umbrella, so its an accounting deal.

Exactly, but, you also lower the team revenue and make the team look less profitable.

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by washington


I've read that it's because the Tribune parent company owns both the Cubs and WGN. WGN can get away with paying an amount that's far below market value to carry the Cubs


Originally posted by dickallen15


They are all under the same umbrella, so its an accounting deal.


Originally posted by Paulwny


Exactly, but, you also lower the team revenue and make the team look less profitable.


Actually, it has to do with the fact that the flubbies are nationally televised on WGN so a bunch of the money that gets paid goes into the national revenue pool and gets split evenly among all the teams. The Sox get a cut everytime the flubbies are on WGN.

Iwritecode
11-12-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I love how you draw conclusions. JR owes the city nothing. Owning a sports team is based on feeding off fans emotions. But knwo where does he "owe" anything to anyone but hsi shareholders.

I still don't get the logic of having a sweetheart lease gives him little incentive to win. If anything it does the oppsite. If he wins the potential to make more money is that much greater.


Also, Lip, if he wanted to lose why doesn't he just field a team of all rookies? It's safe to say the biggest expense in owning a sports franchise is the payroll. Who not cut it from the supposeed $53-58 mill to under $10 mill. It would certianly make it easier for him to reach his alleged goal of losing. It's and extra $40 mill. for JR by your logic, and rent on the stadium would be zero because only fans with deep emotional ties would come to support the team. If he wants to lose, why not do it that way?

Bob

JR has been working this system perfectly for the last few season. He puts a team out there with a payroll of right around 60 million and just enough talent to make everyone believe they might have a shot at the post season. So enough people show up for him to make some money, but not quite enough for the attendance clause in the lease to take effect. So he not only gets the money from the 1 million+ fans that show up every year, he doesn't have to pay rent for the stadium! Add the fact that the payroll is so low it's laughable and he's got the perfect setup.

It's not that he wants to lose. It's just that he doesn't want to do what it takes to win. So he'll keep going this route until the day he dies and if the team should happen to stumble upon a division championship or a pennant, then it's even better...

washington
11-12-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I love how you draw conclusions. JR owes the city nothing. Owning a sports team is based on feeding off fans emotions. But knwo where does he "owe" anything to anyone but hsi shareholders.

It's true that Reinsdorf and other team owners in general do not have a legal obligation to the cities in which their teams play. However in this era of publicly-funded stadiums where taxpayers subsidize the owners for the cost of doing business, they owe more than nothing. If Reinsdorf wants to accept corporate welfare that's his choice, but he shouldn't just pocket taxpayer money and then turn around and say he doesn't owe the city an honest attempt to field a winner. But he does anyway.

crector
11-12-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


It's not that he wants to lose. It's just that he doesn't want to do what it takes to win. So he'll keep going this route until the day he dies and if the team should happen to stumble upon a division championship or a pennant, then it's even better...


You make no sense whatsoever.

Iwritecode
11-12-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by crector
You make no sense whatsoever.

Nice rebuttal...

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Actually, it has to do with the fact that the flubbies are nationally televised on WGN so a bunch of the money that gets paid goes into the national revenue pool and gets split evenly among all the teams. The Sox get a cut everytime the flubbies are on WGN.


I may be wrong but, I don't believe this money is shared. WGN is not broadcast nationally. No cable system in Western NY , that I know of, carries WGN. The money that is shared comes from FOX and ESPN
The YES network is carried throughout many states but not the entire country and I don't believe that money is shared.

This is from an OLD ARTICLE, some of the players have changed and the MONEY AMONTS HAVE DEFINATELY CHANGED. The link is below.

"So what are the games that get played to hide the profits? One of the most important is that virtually all owners of baseball teams have other businesses that they're involved in. Usually the other businesses were first and that's where they made their money. For instance, the Cardinals are owned by Anheuser-Busch. They play in Busch Stadium. The Atlanta Braves are owned by Turner Broadcasting Systems. The Chicago Cubs are owned by the Chicago Tribune. The Blue Jays are owned by Labatt's. What these joint ownerships allow the owners to do, through corporate tie-ins, is to transfer profits from one company to another, taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other pocket. The way they can do that is very simple. If Mr. Busch, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Anheuser-Busch and also the President of the St. Louis Cardinals, if he chooses, he can charge the Cardinals very high rent for playing in Busch Stadium, which he owns. The profits that the Cardinals might make all go into the rent that they pay that now appears as profits for Budweiser, for some other branch within Anheuser-Busch. Then when they make a report to the public or go to the bargaining table with the players, they say, Look, there's no profit here. Or when the Chicago Cubs make similar deals with the Tribune. The Chicago Tribune is not only a newspaper. It owns WGN, the main television station that broadcasts the Cubs games, not only in Chicago, but it's a superstation, uplinked to satellite and broadcast around the United States. All the Tribune has to do to make profits disappear from the Chicago Cubs is to give it a poor television contract. And indeed they have done that, in spite of the fact that it's a superstation. A typical team in a city the size of Chicago that had satellite uplinking might get a broadcasting contract on the order of fifteen or twenty million dollars. The Cubs have a broadcasting contract that's below five million dollars. So there's ten, fifteen, twenty million dollars that get transferred from one business to another."

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/barzimb.htm

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I may be wrong but, I don't believe this money is shared. WGN is not broadcast nationally. No cable system in Western NY , that I know of, carries WGN. The money that is shared comes from FOX and ESPN
The YES network is carried throughout many states but not the entire country and I don't believe that money is shared.


I'm almost positive it is. I know WGN is a huge cable superstion which reaches everywhere in the country. You don't get it, but my buddies in Philly and NJ do.

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'm almost positive it is. I know WGN is a huge cable superstion which reaches everywhere in the country. You don't get it, but my buddies in Philly and NJ do.

The link to this paragraph is below:


"But the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs all make more than NFL franchises because they keep all of their TV revenue. As I noted above with the Reds, I would guess that all non-salary costs are roughly equivalent for any major league franchise. So if you have a handful of teams, with the same costs as everyone, but a ton more revenue, they have the power to drive salaries sky high on their own. A player just needs one owner to give him his cash. "

http://www.sportspages.com/content/blog.php?p=1316&more=1

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The link to this paragraph is below:


"But the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs all make more than NFL franchises because they keep all of their TV revenue. As I noted above with the Reds, I would guess that all non-salary costs are roughly equivalent for any major league franchise. So if you have a handful of teams, with the same costs as everyone, but a ton more revenue, they have the power to drive salaries sky high on their own. A player just needs one owner to give him his cash. "

http://www.sportspages.com/content/blog.php?p=1316&more=1

Okay, can you post some info from a credible link? Who is that guy. The first link is from 1992 and the rules have changed since then.

Paulwny
11-12-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, can you post some info from a credible link? Who is that guy. The first link is from 1992 and the rules have changed since then.

You are correct, there's some formula for limited sharing, even King George kicks in.

gosox41
11-12-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Exactly, but, you also lower the team revenue and make the team look less profitable.

It doesn't mean JR is doing anything like that.

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
JR has been working this system perfectly for the last few season. He puts a team out there with a payroll of right around 60 million and just enough talent to make everyone believe they might have a shot at the post season. So enough people show up for him to make some money, but not quite enough for the attendance clause in the lease to take effect. So he not only gets the money from the 1 million+ fans that show up every year, he doesn't have to pay rent for the stadium! Add the fact that the payroll is so low it's laughable and he's got the perfect setup.

It's not that he wants to lose. It's just that he doesn't want to do what it takes to win. So he'll keep going this route until the day he dies and if the team should happen to stumble upon a division championship or a pennant, then it's even better...

I hope you realize how silly this sounds if you put numbers to it. JR had to pay a lease this year and shell out $51 mill. in payroll.

By my math, if he dropped his paryoll $41 mill, saw attendence dwindle so he doesn't have to pay rent then he is going to make a ton more money.

There is no 'scam' going on. It's all in your head. If JR were as money hungry as you think he is, then why wouldn't he just maximize profit my way?

Bob

gosox41
11-12-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by washington
It's true that Reinsdorf and other team owners in general do not have a legal obligation to the cities in which their teams play. However in this era of publicly-funded stadiums where taxpayers subsidize the owners for the cost of doing business, they owe more than nothing. If Reinsdorf wants to accept corporate welfare that's his choice, but he shouldn't just pocket taxpayer money and then turn around and say he doesn't owe the city an honest attempt to field a winner. But he does anyway.

The governement officials you voted into office gave him that money. JR didn't hold a gun to their head. They could have called his bluff when he said he'd move the team. They flicnhed. Says a lot about the elected officials.

Also, unless you're staying in hotels in CHicago, you didn't contribute one cent to the stadium.

BTW, are you a Bears fan???

Bob

washington
11-13-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Also, unless you're staying in hotels in CHicago, you didn't contribute one cent to the stadium.

BTW, are you a Bears fan???

Bob

Actually, we all do because if the hotel tax $$$ did not go to the stadium it would go to other things that are currently funded from other tax sources. I am a Bears fan, and thrilled that hundreds of millions of tax dollars were contributed to help the McCaskey's continue the tradition of football excellence in Chicago.

jimrio1970
11-15-2003, 12:18 PM
:tomatoaward


I had to do it myself. I'm like a proud papa.

ode to veeck
11-19-2003, 09:52 PM
I guess there's a new definition for "creativity"-----cheap.

LOL

And JR's the Picasso of this new art form ...