PDA

View Full Version : Ownership Profit


fledgedrallycap
12-03-2003, 10:43 AM
Does anyone here have any knowledge in terms of the profit sharing/revenue to the Chicago White Sox Ownership Group? It is obvious to any Sox fan that the duty JR has been given as Chairman of the Board is purely business motivated: Receive high returns on investment. With a huge media contract, cheap ballpark lease, moderate (at best) payroll, and attendance that draws upwards of two million fans a year; this team makes money, a lot of money. I am just curious as to what the investors and stakeholders bring home because it is my belief that no owner of a professional sports franchise should look to make money first with a goal of winning and tradition as second-tier objectives.

anewman35
12-03-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
I am just curious as to what the investors and stakeholders bring home because it is my belief that no owner of a professional sports franchise should look to make money first with a goal of winning and tradition as second-tier objectives.

That's an easy opinion to have, when you're not the one who's not making money.

If teams were forced to make winning the first goal and making money the second goal, I really think that a lot of teams would have to fold because of lack of owners. Let's put it this way - if you had hundreds of millions of dollars locked up in something, would you be content with not earning anything with that investment (except, maybe, the thrill of winning)? Winning is great, but I'm quite positive that millions of dollars is greater.

fledgedrallycap
12-03-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Winning is great, but I'm quite positive that millions of dollars is greater.

That is exactly the attitude I am referring to. These owners are worth millions. I am not stating that making money is wrong or shouldn't be an objective, but the White Sox are more keen on watching their balance sheets than the standings sheet.

anewman35
12-03-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
That is exactly the attitude I am referring to. These owners are worth millions. I am not stating that making money is wrong or shouldn't be an objective, but the White Sox are more keen on watching their balance sheets than the standings sheet.

Maybe it's just the economics major in me, I dunno. Even if a person has millions of dollars, it's not fair to expect them to keep their money in something that is losing money. I know millions seems like a lot, but if you start losing millions a year, that has to come from somewhere, and soon the owner wouldn't have much of anything. Ideally, yes, people would care more about winning than money, but unless you have a team owned by Bill Gates, I think money will always be a concern.

Iwritecode
12-03-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Winning is great, but I'm quite positive that millions of dollars is greater.

Most of the time, winning = millions of dollars.

Unless your the Cubs. Then losing = millions of dollars.

Anyway, my point is that owners should make winning a priority because that's typically a sure way to get people to spend their money to watch the team.

Winning consistently (I know this is a foreign concept in Chicago) is even better.

joecrede
12-03-2003, 11:13 AM
Does anyone on this board operate on a budget of any sort?

Since the majority of you don't seem to I hope you donate something to WSI to keep the sock flying! :)

anewman35
12-03-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Most of the time, winning = millions of dollars.

Unless your the Cubs. Then losing = millions of dollars.

Anyway, my point is that owners should make winning a priority because that's typically a sure way to get people to spend their money to watch the team.

Winning consistently (I know this is a foreign concept in Chicago) is even better.

That's true, to an extent. However, it's also possible to pay so much that you win and still don't make money, and also very possible to pay a ton to try to win, but then not win anyway and lose lots of money. It sucks for the fans, I'll admit, but the safest way is to spend enough to not be horrible, but not so much that you'll lose money, and just hope for the best.

Lip Man 1
12-03-2003, 11:50 AM
I find this example to be useful in trying to put into perspective how much money some of these people have.

According to Forbes Magazine, Carl Pohland of the Twins is one of the ten richest people in America with assests around 200 billion dollars.

If Pohland wanted to give the Twins a yearly payroll of 100 million dollars, it would take him 200 years to go through his fortune.

Of course that's not counting the interest earned on his billions over the years. He could easily live off that alone.

In other words Pohland has enough money so that the next ten generations (at least) of Pohland's don't have to work a day in their life.

Yet this man was willing to fold his team and take a payout of a measly 180 million dollars. He's the same man who has demanded the city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota build him a new ballpark. He's the same man who says he won't raise payroll.

The gall of the man is unmitigated don't you think? I mean how much money does a person need?

In my opinion it's not about the money, Pohland like many owners is extremely wealthy and is used to getting anything they want from everyone. When a group like the state of Minnesota or for a period of time the state of Illinois says "no," they get all huffy, pissed off and threaten to take their ball and go home.

Just once I wish someone would say "fine...go right on home." Perhaps that would stop the cycle of extortion that owners have been perputrating for years. Former ESPN anchor Keith Olbermann (a baseball historian) has an entire chapter devoted to this subject in his book (with Dan Patrick) called "The Big Show," if you are interested.

Lip

anewman35
12-03-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I find this example to be useful in trying to put into perspective how much money some of these people have.

According to Forbes Magazine, Carl Pohland of the Twins is one of the ten richest people in America with assests around 200 billion dollars.

If Pohland wanted to give the Twins a yearly payroll of 100 million dollars, it would take him 200 years to go through his fortune.

Of course that's not counting the interest earned on his billions over the years. He could easily live off that alone.

Well, when you start talking about somebody with that much money (say, anybody with over a billion), then what I said before is pretty much out, because there's no excuse for them to spend all they can on their team.

My question is, do we have any idea as to the wealth of JR and other main White Sox owners? I'm quite sure it's not 200 billion dollars...

Iwritecode
12-03-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Does anyone on this board operate on a budget of any sort?

Since the majority of you don't seem to I hope you donate something to WSI to keep the sock flying! :)

This was an odd little off-topic post in this thread... :?:

As a matter of fact, my family operates on a budget and a very tight one at that. I'm not working two jobs because it's fun...

I do agree that we should all support this site in whatever way we can though.

I've done a small part in buying a WSI t-shirt at least. :smile:

joecrede
12-03-2003, 12:34 PM
Anyone who operates on a budget can understand why the White Sox don't have a $70M payroll.

Iwritecode
12-03-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Anyone who operates on a budget can understand why the White Sox don't have a $70M payroll.

I have a budget because I can only make a certain amount of money every two weeks. No matter what I do (except maybe change jobs) I'll get the exact same amount every time. For the most part, what I spend my money on doesn't affect how much I make.

On the other hand, how much money JR spends can directly effect how much money he brings in. If he spends 70M (which IIRC is right around the league average) he should have no problem building a contending team. Especially in the AL central. This goes back the the theory I've been saying for years:

spending more = better talent = more wins = higher attendance = more money to spend

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Most of the time, winning = millions of dollars.

This has been proven over and over and over again. Especially in large markets.

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I find this example to be useful in trying to put into perspective how much money some of these people have.

According to Forbes Magazine, Carl Pohland of the Twins is one of the ten richest people in America with assests around 200 billion dollars.

If Pohland wanted to give the Twins a yearly payroll of 100 million dollars, it would take him 200 years to go through his fortune.

Of course that's not counting the interest earned on his billions over the years. He could easily live off that alone.

Just to be picky, it would take 2000 years to go through that much money at that rate, and even then you probably wouldn't really scratch the surface, because even at a measly 5% return/year he would be taking in over $10B a year in ROI of which the payroll wouldn't even make a significant dent...

Dadawg_77
12-03-2003, 01:13 PM
Lip first off I think you are missing a decimal point, 20.0 billion would be about rights, 200 billion is obscene amount of personal worth right now with it being about 15% of US GDP.

I understand the Sox have budget and fiscal responsibility to it shareholders. But the Sox have destroyed their customer base in this city. There is only one way to build it back up with the current ownership, winning and winning on a year to year biases. Flukes do not increase your season ticket base and thus a teams attendance is subject to the swings of walk ups.

Now can you win without spending tons of money? Yes, but a team needs a solid baseball plan. The team will need to rely on economic structure of baseball in creating a farm system which can produce great players. The key to success with a small payroll is the ability of players with less then 5 years of service time.

Also owners are very smart and cunning businessmen or how else could they afford to buy a team. Are you telling me that these men who have used their skills and knowledge to build up great deal of wealth, forget it all when running a sport team? Owners have been crying wolf since the 1800's and nothing will change that.

anewman35
12-03-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
This has been proven over and over and over again. Especially in large markets.

Well, what's the secret to winning, then? It's clearly not just throwing money at the teamm and hoping it works (there have been way too many horrible, expensive teams for that to be true). There's probably some correlation between money and winning, but the question becomes, how much of a correlation is there, and is it worth it? If I was an owner and I knew that, say, $10 million extra dollars would give me a 5% better chance to win, I'm not sure I'd bother, because that's not a very good return on investment.

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Well, what's the secret to winning, then? It's clearly not just throwing money at the teamm and hoping it works (there have been way too many horrible, expensive teams for that to be true). There's probably some correlation between money and winning, but the question becomes, how much of a correlation is there, and is it worth it? If I was an owner and I knew that, say, $10 million extra dollars would give me a 5% better chance to win, I'm not sure I'd bother, because that's not a very good return on investment.

That depends entirely on your goals.

Look in any industry, if you have a quality product, you will make more money.

How do you have a quality product? By worrying about the product not the money you are making.

What is the product in baseball? The team. If you build a winning tradition, more people will come out to see your team. It's that simple. See the Mariners for a great example of this situation, or the Jnjans or the Yankees or the BoSox or the list just goes on and on.

Fans will pay to see a winner, but if you have one year wonders every 5 years or so and fail to ever get to the series, your fans wonder about your commitment to winning and then they vote with their wallets and do something else.

I would need a LOT more information to judge your 10M 5% return example.

If the team was 2 runs from winning the pennant last year, than 5% might be enought to put them over the top and into the series.

If they were within 5 games of making the playoffs last year than it probably will make a difference.

If they won 65 games last season than it alone won't be enough and they will need to make other moves or hope they catch lightning in a bottle with the other guys.

Finally, no, you cannot simply throw money at the problem in most cases. You hire good management to make good decisions to bring in quality employees and improve the overall team so that when you do "throw money at the problem" it is done effectively and you don't end up with a lot of dead-weight on your roster/team/company payroll.

Pay for quality at all levels of your business.

Accept no substitute for winning.

Do it for a long period of time (1/2 decade at least in the case of the Sox).

Don't give up when the battle gets tough.

Find a way to make the playoffs the next 5 years, win a pennant or two in that time and maybe a Series. In 10 years, the Sox would be laughing all the way to the bank and $70M will seem like a low payroll...

anewman35
12-03-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Find a way to make the playoffs the next 5 years, win a pennant or two in that time and maybe a Series. In 10 years, the Sox would be laughing all the way to the bank and $70M will seem like a low payroll...

Just making the playoffs doesn't seem to do much. Look at Oakland.

Generally, though, I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the Sox to have an $80 or $90 million payroll. It's just that I can see the other side of it, too. It's the curse of my economics training.

Iwritecode
12-03-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Just making the playoffs doesn't seem to do much. Look at Oakland.

Oakland isn't in as large a market as the Sox are and the also have to share it with San Fran.

Chicago is unique. The city has been dying for a (consistenly)winning team for decades.

Making the playoffs 4 or 5 years in a row would be huge. Maybe then they could actually manage to advance past the first round or even win a game! GASP!

Look at 2000 when they won the division. The attendance was the 2nd largest increase from the previous year in all of MLB. Look at last year when it looked like they might make the post-season. JR had to pay rent for the first time in how long?

Chicago will support a winning team. We have proven this. Now they just need to find a way (any way) to give it to us.

cornball
12-03-2003, 02:30 PM
I think Lip's point is valid. The owners of MLB made there riches elsewhere and usually buy a team because they love baseball or as a toy. Oh, I know there is an investment side of it too and they will gain so much money when they are done playing with their "toy".

Based on JR's comments when he bought the team, one would think that was the case. You would think he would want to win.

Dadawg_77
12-03-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by cornball
I think Lip's point is valid. The owners of MLB made there riches elsewhere and usually buy a team because they love baseball or as a toy. Oh, I know there is an investment side of it too and they will gain so much money when they are done playing with their "toy".

Based on JR's comments when he bought the team, one would think that was the case. You would think he would want to win.

JR has held on to the team for too long if it was just an investment opportunity. For that the optimal time period to hold a team is about 5 to seven years, when considering tax rules.

joecrede
12-03-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I have a budget because I can only make a certain amount of money every two weeks. No matter what I do (except maybe change jobs) I'll get the exact same amount every time. For the most part, what I spend my money on doesn't affect how much I make.

There are ways everyone of us can budget our money in order to potenially make more money. We can further our education in order to compete for a better job for example. It's a risk/reward thing though and since no one truly knows someone else's financial situation and obligations who are we to say the reward is worth the risk.

On the other hand, how much money JR spends can directly effect how much money he brings in. If he spends 70M (which IIRC is right around the league average) he should have no problem building a contending team. Especially in the AL central.

JR fielded a contending team in '03 for what $51M?

This goes back the the theory I've been saying for years:

spending more = better talent = more wins = higher attendance = more money to spend

Texas Rangers?

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Texas Rangers?

Okay, did you miss the part about paying for good front office talent as part of that plan? The Rangers don't suck because they spend big money. They suck because they spend big money poorly.

It can pretty well be shown that spending more money increases your odds of fielding a winning team, or do you disagree with that statement?

joecrede
12-03-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, did you miss the part about paying for good front office talent as part of that plan?

Agreed. John Hart has shown to be a pretty bad GM.

The Rangers don't suck because they spend big money. They suck because they spend big money poorly.

... Exactly the same reason the White Sox are in the predicament they are in. $28M tied up in Ordonez, Konerko, and Koch = spending big money poorly.

It can pretty well be shown that spending more money increases your odds of fielding a winning team, or do you disagree with that statement?

It certainly improves the odds, but the degree to which is wildly exaggerated by fans.

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
It certainly improves the odds, but the degree to which is wildly exaggerated by fans.

You are going to have to prove that to me. I think the actual data will support the idea of spending increasing the odds of fielding a winning team and success in the playoffs.

joecrede
12-03-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You are going to have to prove that to me. I think the actual data will support the idea of spending increasing the odds of fielding a winning team and success in the playoffs.

(I don't have payroll figures so if I'm incorrect feel free to point it out.)

In the AL last year, the Twins made the playoffs.

Teams that spent more than the Twins and did not make the playoffs:

Rangers
Mariners
Angels
Orioles
Blue Jays (?)

Teams that spent less than the Twins that did not make the playoffs:

White Sox
Indians
Royals
Tigers
Devil Rays
Blue Jays (?)

voodoochile
12-03-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
(I don't have payroll figures so if I'm incorrect feel free to point it out.)

In the AL last year, the Twins made the playoffs.

Teams that spent more than the Twins and did not make the playoffs:

Rangers
Mariners
Angels
Orioles
Blue Jays (?)

Teams that spent less than the Twins that did not make the playoffs:

White Sox
Indians
Royals
Tigers
Devil Rays
Blue Jays (?)

Strictly annecdotal. I am talking historic data (since the advent of FA and again for the past decade). I doubt you have that kind of information in front of you. Maybe someone else does.

Stats I would be interested in seeing.

Rank in regards to Average Payroll of teams that won their division.
RIRAPR of teams that made the playoffs.
RIRAPR of World Series winners.

Maybe some day I'll research it. Anyone got a good link to team payrolls and records going back the past 20 years?

joecrede
12-03-2003, 08:11 PM
In leiu of a financial reform, MLB's way of evening the playing field for all teams was to create a third division and add a wild-card. I'm not sure it is the best way to accomplish it, but benefits teams residing in the AL central, that's for sure.

Lip Man 1
12-03-2003, 09:53 PM
Voodoo & Joe:

Perhaps this will help...

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."

Bud Selig, 2001

MarkEdward
12-03-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Maybe some day I'll research it. Anyone got a good link to team payrolls and records going back the past 20 years?

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

It only goes back to 1988, though.


Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Voodoo & Joe:

Perhaps this will help...

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."

Bud Selig, 2001

Multiple endpoints, multiple endpoints, multiple endpoints...

Here, I got one for you: between April first, 2003, and November first, 2003, no team has won a World Series with a payroll over $50 million.

joecrede
12-03-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Voodoo & Joe:

Perhaps this will help...

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."

Bud Selig, 2001

Lip,

Do you know of those 224 postseason games between '95-'01, how many games teams in the lower half of payrolls played? The AL Central winner in '04 will most certainly be in the lower half of payrolls . . .

nasox
12-04-2003, 01:42 AM
what has been said on this board has been said countless number of times. Everything said here is true-spending lost of money in baseball=lots of return (the only exception is the New York Rangers who spent millions of dollars realy foolishly). But owners are really REALLY stupid and don't get this. Until they do, the economic landscape and economic structure of baseball won't imrpove. owners just wont wise up.

cornball
12-04-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by nasox
what has been said on this board has been said countless number of times. Everything said here is true-spending lost of money in baseball=lots of return (the only exception is the New York Rangers who spent millions of dollars realy foolishly). But owners are really REALLY stupid and don't get this. Until they do, the economic landscape and economic structure of baseball won't imrpove. owners just wont wise up.


I guess the question becomes...... why did these guys buy the teams?

For investment? love of the sport? to bring a champion to the city?

I know the answer in our case. LOL

fledgedrallycap
12-04-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by cornball
I guess the question becomes...... why did these guys buy the teams?

For investment? love of the sport? to bring a champion to the city?

I know the answer in our case. LOL

I was driving in this morning and heard Mike and Mike on ESPN1000 talking about this very issue. I'm not sure what got them going on this track since I tuned in during the middle of the conversation; but thier point was basically this:

A individual who buys a team has the right to do whatever they want to with it. With that said, they should feel the obligation of providing a winning product to the fanbase. In terms of spending, these owners/groups are rich beyond our wildest dreams and this should be an activity which they enjoy for the love of the game or love of competition - not to take up as an additional cash flow as your sole intent.

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Here, I got one for you: between April first, 2003, and November first, 2003, no team has won a World Series with a payroll over $50 million.

That's one exception to the rule. We aren't saying it's impossible to win a WS with a low payroll. Just very difficult and very unlikely...

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 10:41 AM
It's quotes like this that prove my point:

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
My seats were in right field about $20 a ticket last year. Those seats are now $25 a ticket. While I could afford it, I cann't see why I should. The team is cutting quality of its product from a team which didn't make the playoffs last year. I probally won't get season tickets again til the Sox either sell, fire Kenny or win a playoff series.

The season hasn't even started yet and the team is already losing money. The affect season ticket holders have on income and attendance is huge. If the team doesn't at least make it LOOK like they are trying to do something, then there's going to be a lot of people like Dawg.

On the other hand, if they had come out and said, "Hey, we came thisclose to making the playoffs last year so obviously we're only missing a few key parts. We're going to up the payroll so we can fill in the holes on the team as well as keep the players we already have (read Colon) and go for it again this year." maybe people like Dawg would feel the money they spend on season ticktets would be worth it. Plus 100's, possibly 1000's of others would feel the same way...

anewman35
12-04-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode

The season hasn't even started yet and the team is already losing money. The affect season ticket holders have on income and attendance is huge.

What about the potential people who can now afford the new (much cheaper) upper deck reserve season tickets? A full season in Upper Reserve (which, remember, can now include some very good seats) is $819. Hell, I can almost afford that much, and I have almost no money. Won't that potentially balance it out a bit?

Dadawg_77
12-04-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
It's quotes like this that prove my point:



The season hasn't even started yet and the team is already losing money. The affect season ticket holders have on income and attendance is huge. If the team doesn't at least make it LOOK like they are trying to do something, then there's going to be a lot of people like Dawg.

On the other hand, if they had come out and said, "Hey, we came thisclose to making the playoffs last year so obviously we're only missing a few key parts. We're going to up the payroll so we can fill in the holes on the team as well as keep the players we already have (read Colon) and go for it again this year." maybe people like Dawg would feel the money they spend on season ticktets would be worth it. Plus 100's, possibly 1000's of others would feel the same way...


The thing is for me it is about payroll, if the Sox cut payroll and still put a better team out there I would go. If the Sox fired Kenny today and hired Paul Desposta I would reverse course. The thing is with the Sox management as is, I don't believe, lacks the skills to win. If the traded Mags for Soraino and Johnson as was rumored here, I would believe they improved the quality of the team while they were reducing payroll. And getting Uribe isn't helping.

dooda
12-04-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Lip first off I think you are missing a decimal point, 20.0 billion would be about rights,

---I'd sooner believe 2 B--still an obscene amount of money



Now can you win without spending tons of money? Yes, but a team needs a solid baseball plan. The team will need to rely on economic structure of baseball in creating a farm system which can produce great players. The key to success with a small payroll is the ability of players with less then 5 years of service time.

Also owners are very smart and cunning businessmen or how else could they afford to buy a team. Are you telling me that these men who have used their skills and knowledge to build up great deal of wealth, forget it all when running a sport team? Owners have been crying wolf since the 1800's and nothing will change that.

A solid baseball plan is the crux of the matter. You need plan that makes all the baseball decisions for you. That includes how are we going to play the game. What type of players do we want to draft and sign. What are we going to emphasize at each level of the farm system. How long are we going to hold on to aging stars (do we wait until there is no market for them or do we trade them just past their prime to get younger players to take their place?)l. How are we going to shore up weaknesses (high priced FA's or more reasonable rent a players). The plan shouldn't change every other year or with changes in GM's. If the plan is followed, over time, the results will follow. We will be in contention most years, not all but most.
The most successful teams like the Yankees and Braves of the last decade have contended every year. They have had the most steady management teams and core players of all of the baseball franchises. We could be like them if leadership is present. Leadership is more important than money.

As far as the owners loosing their cunning and intelligence as soon as they buy a professional sports franchise, yes they do. It's like being blind in love. Emotion (or lust) over rides good judgment at times. Most of them who stay with it for as long as JR do eventually get it. When they do, they get baseball men to make the baseball decisions. A case in point is Ted Turner. After he finally found out he didn't know as much baseball as he thought, he got good baseball people and got out of the way. The team got better, and he made money. JR has spent money. Just not wisely. And it doesn't appear he has a plan or the guys to design or run it.

The overriding issue is LEADERSHIP.
JR: Either LEAD or find capable leaders and let them do their thing.

cornball
12-04-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
It's quotes like this that prove my point:



The season hasn't even started yet and the team is already losing money. The affect season ticket holders have on income and attendance is huge. If the team doesn't at least make it LOOK like they are trying to do something, then there's going to be a lot of people like Dawg.

On the other hand, if they had come out and said, "Hey, we came thisclose to making the playoffs last year so obviously we're only missing a few key parts. We're going to up the payroll so we can fill in the holes on the team as well as keep the players we already have (read Colon) and go for it again this year." maybe people like Dawg would feel the money they spend on season ticktets would be worth it. Plus 100's, possibly 1000's of others would feel the same way...

I wonder how much money teams make for being in the playoffs? Like the Cubs, Marlins, Yanks, Boston ect...

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
What about the potential people who can now afford the new (much cheaper) upper deck reserve season tickets? A full season in Upper Reserve (which, remember, can now include some very good seats) is $819. Hell, I can almost afford that much, and I have almost no money. Won't that potentially balance it out a bit?

I think you're missing the point. It's not about whether people can afford the season tickets or not. It's whether they feel that the effort being put forth by the organization to win is worth spending their hard-earned money for. No matter how much the amount.

In the quote I used, he said he can afford the price, it's just he doesn't feel like it's worth it.

Iwritecode
12-04-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The thing is for me it is about payroll, if the Sox cut payroll and still put a better team out there I would go. If the Sox fired Kenny today and hired Paul Desposta I would reverse course. The thing is with the Sox management as is, I don't believe, lacks the skills to win. If the traded Mags for Soraino and Johnson as was rumored here, I would believe they improved the quality of the team while they were reducing payroll. And getting Uribe isn't helping.

Hey, if they can improve the team while cutting payroll, I'm all for it. Just as long as they give us some reason to be optimistic about the upcoming season.

Give us a reason to want to spend our money to support the team...