PDA

View Full Version : Ticket Revenue Revisited


TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 02:50 PM
A couple of points were missed in this article:

1) The Chicago Tribune sponsors the half-price Mondays, and this is an additional source of revenue.

2) It isn't just ticket sales that draw income. There is the TV money they get from WGN and Fox Sports Chicago, the sixth best TV deal in MLB.

That puts them well above the $58 million payroll they'll be shelling out this year. Then there is merchandising, revenue sharing from the MLB nationally televised games, radio money, etc.

At least if we're going to tell the revenue story, let's tell the whole story!

MRKARNO
12-21-2003, 02:55 PM
What about the concessions and the memorabilia too? Or the luxury boxes? This article is flawed in that it completely neglects mentioning a ton of other sources of revenue

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
What about the concessions and the memorabilia too? Or the luxury boxes? This article is flawed in that it completely neglects mentioning a ton of other sources of revenue

I didn't think of the skyboxes or the parking. (I just wrote what I could think of off the top of my head that was obviously missing.) I did mention the merchandising, though.

hsnterprize
12-21-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
A couple of points were missed in this article:

1) The Chicago Tribune sponsors the half-price Mondays, and this is an additional source of revenue.

2) It isn't just ticket sales that draw income. There is the TV money they get from WGN and Fox Sports Chicago, the sixth best TV deal in MLB.

That puts them well above the $58 million payroll they'll be shelling out this year. Then there is merchandising, revenue sharing from the MLB nationally televised games, radio money, etc.

At least if we're going to tell the revenue story, let's tell the whole story! Yo Hal,

Can you either post part of the article, or link us to the thing so we can get up to speed with your points? Thanks.

CLR01
12-21-2003, 03:10 PM
On the home page.


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2421

hsnterprize
12-21-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by CLR01
On the home page.


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2421 Thanks.

ewokpelts
12-21-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
A couple of points were missed in this article:

1) The Chicago Tribune sponsors the half-price Mondays, and this is an additional source of revenue.

2) It isn't just ticket sales that draw income. There is the TV money they get from WGN and Fox Sports Chicago, the sixth best TV deal in MLB.

That puts them well above the $58 million payroll they'll be shelling out this year. Then there is merchandising, revenue sharing from the MLB nationally televised games, radio money, etc.

At least if we're going to tell the revenue story, let's tell the whole story!

i dont think teh cubune sponsors half off mondays anymore...havent seen their name mentioned as sponsor in anyprogram past 99

cornball
12-21-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
A couple of points were missed in this article:

1) The Chicago Tribune sponsors the half-price Mondays, and this is an additional source of revenue.

2) It isn't just ticket sales that draw income. There is the TV money they get from WGN and Fox Sports Chicago, the sixth best TV deal in MLB.

That puts them well above the $58 million payroll they'll be shelling out this year. Then there is merchandising, revenue sharing from the MLB nationally televised games, radio money, etc.

At least if we're going to tell the revenue story, let's tell the whole story!

Don't even mention the great lease agreement from the tax payer owned stadium or the improvements to the stadium by U.S. Cellular.

wassagstdu
12-21-2003, 04:56 PM
Player payroll is not the only expense. What do the Sox pay to lease the park, maintain the park, for utilities, ushers, grounds crew, insurance, marketing, advertising, bookkeeping, ... ?

munchman33
12-21-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
Player payroll is not the only expense. What do the Sox pay to lease the park, maintain the park, for utilities, ushers, grounds crew, insurance, marketing, advertising, bookkeeping, ... ?

Not to mention the millions they spend in the minor league system. A baseball team has many more expenses than most fans can fathom. I guarantee they're closer to breaking even than you think.

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Not to mention the millions they spend in the minor league system. A baseball team has many more expenses than most fans can fathom. I guarantee they're closer to breaking even than you think.

On the other hand, they're not any $18,000,000 in the hole when as the article implied.

As for minor league expenses, I once heard Jeff Sedivy, who runs the KC Cougars say that the parent club picks up salaries plus whatever they pay the minor league club in their working agreement. Uniforms, transportation, etc. are paid for by the minor league club.

doogiec
12-21-2003, 08:04 PM
Pepsi sponsors half price Tuesdays, Monday night's deal has been unsponsored for many years now.

And Pepsi's deal is really just a form of advertising, from what I understand. They are not paying the difference in ticket price.

Daver
12-21-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Not to mention the millions they spend in the minor league system. A baseball team has many more expenses than most fans can fathom. I guarantee they're closer to breaking even than you think.

I don't see that they spend that many millions in minor league payroll,and they get a cut of the revenue of those teams to help offset that.

But please keep beating Bud Selig's drum that all MLB teams are losing money,the U.S.Congress doesn't buy it and neither do I.

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
Pepsi sponsors half price Tuesdays, Monday night's deal has been unsponsored for many years now.

And Pepsi's deal is really just a form of advertising, from what I understand. They are not paying the difference in ticket price.

However, the half-price tickets don't count as total attendance for purposes of the Sox' lease on the ball park. Therefore, the Sox up until this year, hadn't paid any rent for several years. Sweet deal. I think they might have paid rent this year. Pretty good reason to gut the club before the season starts, no?

poorme
12-21-2003, 08:11 PM
Minor league payroll? What could that be 3-4 million?

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Minor league payroll? What could that be 3-4 million?

Most of those guys are making so much they live with members of the community to keep their expenses down.

munchman33
12-21-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I don't see that they spend that many millions in minor league payroll,and they get a cut of the revenue of those teams to help offset that.

But please keep beating Bud Selig's drum that all MLB teams are losing money,the U.S.Congress doesn't buy it and neither do I.

Signing bonuses from draft picks alone are millions of dollars. They don't pay the salaries of players on minor league rosters, but do pay the minor league teams for their affiliations, and that also costs millions per year.

They also pay salaries for HUNDREDS of scouts, many of which make six figures. Most teams have dozen of scouts not even on this continent.

joecrede
12-21-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
However, the half-price tickets don't count as total attendance for purposes of the Sox' lease on the ball park. Therefore, the Sox up until this year, hadn't paid any rent for several years. Sweet deal. I think they might have paid rent this year. Pretty good reason to gut the club before the season starts, no?

No.

The rent they pay is a percentage of every ticket sold over a certain amount. It's not a flat rate. They'd happily give the say 10% per-ticket for rent to get the other 90%.

cornball
12-21-2003, 09:00 PM
[URL=http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml[/URL]

If you look at the chart based on record, since the histoy of the club, you win notice the direct effect winning has with our fans.

Since the strike, a .500 team will draw 20,000 give or take. My guess is if you have a winner, your average would be 30,000 give or take. The year it happens and a huge kick the following year.

JR says he would spend if people show up. How many people need to show up to trigger this, has anyone ever asked?

They will not show up in masses until he fields a winning team. That is true for all of Chicago teams (except Cubs) remember the Bears during Wanny's final days, DePaul basketball, Northwestern Football, Blackhawks, Bulls, Wolves...so on

Win and they will come.

Lip Man 1
12-21-2003, 09:15 PM
I have asked that question many times on this site...why won't the Sox organization gave the fans a figure for attendence needed before that make major improvments.

My own opinion is that they never will because Sox fans are onery enough to meet that number, then the organization is on the hook to fulfill their promise.

It's much better for the organization to make a broad general statement like 'the fans just don't support us...'

Lip

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
No.

The rent they pay is a percentage of every ticket sold over a certain amount. It's not a flat rate. They'd happily give the say 10% per-ticket for rent to get the other 90%.

Oh? Then explain this:

CRAIN'S BUSINESS ALSO REPORTS:

Chicago White Sox will pay rent on U.S. Cellular Field--3rd time since 1997. Rent exempted when total attendance falls below 1.5 million full-price ticket sales.

Please note the words, "FULL PRICE." This was reported on September 21, 2003. Link: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2003_Sept_21/107984003/p1/article.jhtml

joecrede
12-21-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Oh? Then explain this:



Please note the words, "FULL PRICE." This was reported on September 21, 2003. Link: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2003_Sept_21/107984003/p1/article.jhtml

I disagreed with your point that not paying rent is an incentive to gut the team.

Daver
12-21-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I disagreed with your point that not paying rent is an incentive to gut the team.

No you didn't.

You made a statement about what percantage of the rent is paid in contrast to ticket sales.

If you are going to argue a point be prepared to back it up.

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Daver
No you didn't.

You made a statement about what percantage of the rent is paid in contrast to ticket sales.

If you are going to argue a point be prepared to back it up.

Or at least be clear about what you are saying "no" to.

joecrede
12-21-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Daver
No you didn't.

You made a statement about what percantage of the rent is paid in contrast to ticket sales.

If you are going to argue a point be prepared to back it up.

TL posed a rhetorical question at the end of his post that I answered "No" to. I went on to explain why I disagreed with that point.

joecrede
12-21-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Or at least be clear about what you are saying "no" to.

Had you posed more than one question I *would* have clarified what I was answering.

TornLabrum
12-21-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Had you posed more than one question I *would* have clarified what I was answering.

The problem in comprehending your answer was that the rest of the post following "No" concerned the percentage the Sox pay on their ticket sales, not on whether or not Reinsdorf would use that as an excuse to dump payroll.

anewman35
12-22-2003, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I have asked that question many times on this site...why won't the Sox organization gave the fans a figure for attendence needed before that make major improvments.

My own opinion is that they never will because Sox fans are onery enough to meet that number, then the organization is on the hook to fulfill their promise.

It's much better for the organization to make a broad general statement like 'the fans just don't support us...'

Lip

In general, it's stupid to ever say what you would do, if only you could, or to lock yourself into doing something if something else happens. Let's say the Sox said "we'll upgrade if we get 2 million people", then they get 2 million people, but the free agent market goes crazy and the Sox can't afford anybody good - it makes the Sox liars, and people like the people here hate them even more. Not worth the risk.

gosox41
12-22-2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
A couple of points were missed in this article:

1) The Chicago Tribune sponsors the half-price Mondays, and this is an additional source of revenue.

2) It isn't just ticket sales that draw income. There is the TV money they get from WGN and Fox Sports Chicago, the sixth best TV deal in MLB.

That puts them well above the $58 million payroll they'll be shelling out this year. Then there is merchandising, revenue sharing from the MLB nationally televised games, radio money, etc.

At least if we're going to tell the revenue story, let's tell the whole story!

Like I said in the article, I was only referring to ticket revenue. I didn't talk about the other stuff because I don't know the numbers.

The areas of revenues for the Sox include:

1. Ticket Revenue
2. Media revenue
3. In ball park advertising
4. Parking
5. Cut of food/beverages.

As my fist couple of paragraphs stated, I was going by the one number I could accruately measure with real data. When Daver ticket issue, not talk about the total revenue of the Sox.

Bob

gosox41
12-22-2003, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
What about the concessions and the memorabilia too? Or the luxury boxes? This article is flawed in that it completely neglects mentioning a ton of other sources of revenue

"There has been a lot of talk lately about how much money the Sox are making and how much their payroll should be. There’s been a lot of rumors that Reinsdorf and Co. is raking it in because they own everything from the parking lots to SportsService (both have yet to be proven true.) I consider myself a numbers guy. So I took the one area that fans can access the most numerical information on and tried to calculate what the White Sox 2003 ticket revenues were."

Maybe the title was misleading. But look at the last sentence of the Intro paragraph. In fact look at the last 6 words. No where did I say I was going to analyze all revenue in this article.

Bob

gosox41
12-22-2003, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I didn't think of the skyboxes or the parking. (I just wrote what I could think of off the top of my head that was obviously missing.) I did mention the merchandising, though.

Hal,
In case you don't read the above post, I will repeat my first paragraph here word for word:

"There has been a lot of talk lately about how much money the Sox are making and how much their payroll should be. There’s been a lot of rumors that Reinsdorf and Co. is raking it in because they own everything from the parking lots to SportsService (both have yet to be proven true.) I consider myself a numbers guy. So I took the one area that fans can access the most numerical information on and tried to calculate what the White Sox 2003 ticket revenues were."

Please re-read the last sentence.

Now I am ready to debate the TICKET REVENUE issue.. My whole intent of the article was to try to show that ticket revenues may not be as high as most expected.

Bob

gosox41
12-22-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by doogiec
Pepsi sponsors half price Tuesdays, Monday night's deal has been unsponsored for many years now.

And Pepsi's deal is really just a form of advertising, from what I understand. They are not paying the difference in ticket price.

Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't think there was a sponsor for Monday's half price night.

Bob

gosox41
12-22-2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by poorme
Minor league payroll? What could that be 3-4 million?

I don't know much about the minor league expenses but does anyone remember an article written in the Sporting News in the late '80's or early '90's? They broke down the costs of developing the "Average" minor league player who makes it to the bigs.

They looked specifically at Donn Pall, who I don't think was a top draft pick. It cost somewhere around $1.6 million for the White Sox to sign and deevelop him for 6 years until he reached the majors.

Granted I was a lot younger at the time and didn't study the numbers, but does anyone else remember this or have access to this article? I want to read it just to see if it gives some insight into what it really costs to develop a minor leaguer.

Bob

TornLabrum
12-22-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Hal,
In case you don't read the above post, I will repeat my first paragraph here word for word:

"There has been a lot of talk lately about how much money the Sox are making and how much their payroll should be. There’s been a lot of rumors that Reinsdorf and Co. is raking it in because they own everything from the parking lots to SportsService (both have yet to be proven true.) I consider myself a numbers guy. So I took the one area that fans can access the most numerical information on and tried to calculate what the White Sox 2003 ticket revenues were."

Please re-read the last sentence.

Now I am ready to debate the TICKET REVENUE issue.. My whole intent of the article was to try to show that ticket revenues may not be as high as most expected.

Bob

The problem is that the Sox don't rely on just ticket sales, so that the entire premise of the article is shot to hell by ignoring (even if just from lack of any published information) other sources. That's where the stuff from Fortune would come in handy.

MisterB
12-22-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Oh? Then explain this:



Please note the words, "FULL PRICE." This was reported on September 21, 2003. Link: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2003_Sept_21/107984003/p1/article.jhtml

hmmm...the deal has always been reported that the magic number for the Sox' pay-in was 1.2 million full-price tix. But then again starting in '02 it also calls for the state to purchase 300K tix if the Sox are under 1.2 million, too (total attendance, I'd assume not just full price tix). I wonder if Crain's got confused on that point.

Lip Man 1
12-22-2003, 01:51 PM
Perhaps this will help the discussion...

From "The Lords Of The Realm" by John Helyar Pg. 483

"The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendence each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the 20 year lease (which started in 1991), the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendence fell below 1.5 million."

Lip

Fenway
12-22-2003, 02:28 PM
There’s been a lot of rumors that Reinsdorf and Co. is raking it in because they own everything from the parking lots to SportsService

As a Bruins fan I can sadly report that Sportservice is owned lock, stock and beer cup by one Jeremy Jacobs of Buffalo. He makes Reinsdorf look good.

http://www.delawarenorth.com/AboutDNC/Sportservice.asp

ondafarm
12-22-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
Player payroll is not the only expense. What do the Sox pay to lease the park, maintain the park, for utilities, ushers, grounds crew, insurance, marketing, advertising, bookkeeping, ... ?

The Sox have a sweetheart deal on leasing the park. Effectively zero unless attendance goes above a certain threshold (something like 1.8 million) After that its on a sliding scale. Mainain the park? The taxpayers of Illinois pay for that.

hose
12-22-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I don't know much about the minor league expenses but does anyone remember an article written in the Sporting News in the late '80's or early '90's? They broke down the costs of developing the "Average" minor league player who makes it to the bigs.

They looked specifically at Donn Pall, who I don't think was a top draft pick. It cost somewhere around $1.6 million for the White Sox to sign and deevelop him for 6 years until he reached the majors.

Granted I was a lot younger at the time and didn't study the numbers, but does anyone else remember this or have access to this article? I want to read it just to see if it gives some insight into what it really costs to develop a minor leaguer.

Bob


I remember reading the article but not the exact particulars.

The million plus per signing was indeed mentioned.

Fenway
12-22-2003, 05:07 PM
it HAD to be a sweetheart lease as that was the only way the team was not going to St Pete ( and what a disaster that would have been for Jerry and Company)

You got to remember, if Governor Thompson didn't actually move the state back to standard time to keep the house in session, the WS are in Florida.

gosox41
12-22-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The problem is that the Sox don't rely on just ticket sales, so that the entire premise of the article is shot to hell by ignoring (even if just from lack of any published information) other sources. That's where the stuff from Fortune would come in handy.

Actually it's not 'shot to hell.' When Daver wrote his article stating the Sox ticket revenue was $50 million he didn't put numbers to other sources but you were right there to praise it as accurate.

I did a little more research to show that maybe this number is not as accurate as you think (and maybe some of the other numbers aren't either for that matter) and now all of the sudden you want to look at the big picture.

The fact is until someone comes up wtih a solid critique of why my ticket revenue numbers are way off, I am going to assume they're accurate. From that assumption I'm then going to assume that anyone who doesn't want to make an intellectual attack at my argument (I don't care which side) but instead tries to change the debate into something that I wasn't even addressing is either admitting that maybe they're thinking is flawed or likes to believe in a lot of rumors and conspiracies.

So I believe my ticket numbers, while not 100% right, are the most accurate source I've seen for the 2003 Sox. They may not be what you want them to be because it may prove that all that profit JR is making may not be as large.

But in the bigger picture of things, maybe some of the other numbers and rumors that are assumed correct are wrong. Who's to say. If I wrote an article about another source of Sox revenues and didn't have some sort of numbers to back it up, I'm guessing Hal that you would be the first to talk about how I was underestimating and how there is a second set of books and how I must be wropng because 13 years ago the Padres accounted for revenue differently so that means JR does.

So based on any lack of argument about my ticket revenues, I just shaved roughly $12 mill of JR's so called large profit without you putting up a fight. How much do you think he makes in a year? Do you think he is entitled to make any money being that his is a business?

So far at this board a lot of rumors a lot of people who have dismissed and a lot of inaccuracies just by doing a little research. This is one of those pieces. I'm far from the only one (even if I am in the minority) who maybe sees how difficvult of a business basbeall is. I don't think you'll ever see it that way.

Bob

joecrede
12-22-2003, 09:12 PM
Actually Bob, If anything I think your ticket revenue estimation was on the high side. Last year the Sox had closer to 9,000 full-season ticketholders rather than the 12,000 you used as the attendance of 9,882 for the first Wednesday home game shows (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?date=20030416&gameId=230416104).

Anyway, nice job on the article.

red faber
12-23-2003, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Daver
I don't see that they spend that many millions in minor league payroll,and they get a cut of the revenue of those teams to help offset that.

But please keep beating Bud Selig's drum that all MLB teams are losing money,the U.S.Congress doesn't buy it and neither do I.


same here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

red faber
12-23-2003, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
Signing bonuses from draft picks alone are millions of dollars. They don't pay the salaries of players on minor league rosters, but do pay the minor league teams for their affiliations, and that also costs millions per year.

They also pay salaries for HUNDREDS of scouts, many of which make six figures. Most teams have dozen of scouts not even on this continent.


it's not like all players get signing bonuses!!!!!

gosox41
12-23-2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by red faber
it's not like all players get signing bonuses!!!!!

I wish there was more information available as to what expenses there actually are in running a big league team. It's more then just payroll.

So all those who think JR is making a killing running the Sox, 2 questions:

1. How much do you think JR and his partners are making in profit every year?
2. Being that this is a business, do you think JR is entitled to make a profit at all?

I'll give you my answers right now.

1. I'm guessing they're breaking even or staying within $2 million either way (profit or loss).

2. Yes, I think anyone running a legit business is entitle to try to make some money.

Bob

CLR01
12-23-2003, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I wish there was more information available as to what expenses there actually are in running a big league team. It's more then just payroll.

So all those who think JR is making a killing running the Sox, 2 questions:

1. How much do you think JR and his partners are making in profit every year?
2. Being that this is a business, do you think JR is entitled to make a profit at all?

I'll give you my answers right now.

1. I'm guessing they're breaking even or staying within $2 million either way (profit or loss).

2. Yes, I think anyone running a legit business is entitle to try to make some money.

Bob


1. $0 - $10 Million.

2. Agreed.

gosox41
12-23-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
Actually Bob, If anything I think your ticket revenue estimation was on the high side. Last year the Sox had closer to 9,000 full-season ticketholders rather than the 12,000 you used as the attendance of 9,882 for the first Wednesday home game shows (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?date=20030416&gameId=230416104).

Anyway, nice job on the article.

Thanks Joe. I'm just trying to be realistic about things. There's a lot of speculation and assumption. When ever some one does get proven wrong in an argument, then there's talk about cooking the books. Maybe it's naive of people, maybe it's being too judgemental. People think if a couple other owners keep a second set of books then JR himself must to. On the flip side, ifa personal attack were made on these guys just by using generalizations, I'd be flamed out of here. But it's OK to do it against JR.

I'm just trying to be fair. Not everything is as it appears. If I felt for a second that JR was making a ton of money and not trying to win or trying to manipulate attendence so no one shows and he doesn't have to pay rent (what a ludicrous argument...JR pays $2.5 for every fan about 1.2 imillion. He gets to keep more then that in ticket revenue though) then I would simply stop renewing my Sox tickets every year and root for the team from a distance.

Bob

gosox41
12-23-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Daver
I don't see that they spend that many millions in minor league payroll,and they get a cut of the revenue of those teams to help offset that.

But please keep beating Bud Selig's drum that all MLB teams are losing money,the U.S.Congress doesn't buy it and neither do I.

US Congress...there's a reputable group of people .

I've neve seen one of them lie or cheat or cover up to succeed or make money.


Congress not believing Selig does nothing to enhance the argument.

And I don't think all MLB teams are losing money. Do you think any are?

Bob

TornLabrum
12-23-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
US Congress...there's a reputable group of people .

I've neve seen one of them lie or cheat or cover up to succeed or make money.


Congress not believing Selig does nothing to enhance the argument.

And I don't think all MLB teams are losing money. Do you think any are?

Bob

I don't know. There's an old saying, "It takes one to know one." Maybe it takes a group of people who are pretty good at cooking campaign fund books to recognize a group who are cooking their their books, too." Who better than members of the U.S. Congress, except maybe any politician in the great State of Illinois?

voodoochile
12-23-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I wish there was more information available as to what expenses there actually are in running a big league team. It's more then just payroll.

So all those who think JR is making a killing running the Sox, 2 questions:

1. How much do you think JR and his partners are making in profit every year?
2. Being that this is a business, do you think JR is entitled to make a profit at all?

I'll give you my answers right now.

1. I'm guessing they're breaking even or staying within $2 million either way (profit or loss).

2. Yes, I think anyone running a legit business is entitle to try to make some money.

Bob

I think the Sox ownership group has averaged appromamately $10M/year in profit.

I base this on one factor alone:

The team was purchased for $20M 23 years ago.

It now is worth approxamately $250M.

Yes, that profit is unrealized, but whose fault is that?

steff
12-23-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
The Sox have a sweetheart deal on leasing the park. Effectively zero unless attendance goes above a certain threshold (something like 1.8 million) After that its on a sliding scale. Mainain the park? The taxpayers of Illinois pay for that.


You mean city of Chicago tax payers..?

thepaulbowski
12-23-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think the Sox ownership group has averaged appromamately $10M/year in profit.

I base this on one factor alone:

The team was purchased for $20M 23 years ago.

It now is worth approxamately $250M.

Yes, that profit is unrealized, but whose fault is that?

From what accounting I know, I believe they can't realize that profit until it is sold. It's kind of like owning a stock, the value changes often and the profit/loss is realized at the time of sale, not until that point.

JC456
12-23-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by cornball
[URL=http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml[/URL]

If you look at the chart based on record, since the histoy of the club, you win notice the direct effect winning has with our fans.

Since the strike, a .500 team will draw 20,000 give or take. My guess is if you have a winner, your average would be 30,000 give or take. The year it happens and a huge kick the following year.

JR says he would spend if people show up. How many people need to show up to trigger this, has anyone ever asked?

They will not show up in masses until he fields a winning team. That is true for all of Chicago teams (except Cubs) remember the Bears during Wanny's final days, DePaul basketball, Northwestern Football, Blackhawks, Bulls, Wolves...so on

Win and they will come.

They did win in 2000 and the fans didn't. The Cubs in last place drew more.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-23-2003, 06:13 PM
Nobody knows how much money MLB owners make on their teams. Anybody claiming they know based on the released figures these privately-held corporations disclose is only revealing their ignorance about generally accepted accounting principles.

The White Sox franchise has appreciated 10-fold in value since Reinsdorf bought it. That's a financial measure you can't even get an accounting firm to finesse on your behalf. That's because the prospective new owner has his own accountants running the numbers, too. You can't bull**** a bull****ter.

There is your smoking gun.

CallMeNuts
12-24-2003, 12:17 PM
For the last 20+ years, MLB owners didn't worry so much about whether their revenues were much higher than their expenses. Franchise value was going up so much that it didn't matter what single year financial performance was. Unfortunately for the owners, the days of skyrocketing MLB franchise values appear to have come to an end. Contraction now seems like a better idea than selling the franchise. MLB doesn't have an acceptable offer for the Expos. With little hope of franchise appreciation, owners are now far more concerned with making money the old fashioned way: By having their income exceed their expenses. This is the norm in MLB these days, not an exception. The Sox are operating with a pretty average revenue stream and a pretty average budget. The trick for most teams is to make the right decisions on how to spend the cash.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by CallMeNuts
For the last 20+ years, MLB owners didn't worry so much about whether their revenues were much higher than their expenses. Franchise value was going up so much that it didn't matter what single year financial performance was. Unfortunately for the owners, the days of skyrocketing MLB franchise values appear to have come to an end. Contraction now seems like a better idea than selling the franchise. MLB doesn't have an acceptable offer for the Expos. With little hope of franchise appreciation, owners are now far more concerned with making money the old fashioned way: By having their income exceed their expenses. This is the norm in MLB these days, not an exception. The Sox are operating with a pretty average revenue stream and a pretty average budget. The trick for most teams is to make the right decisions on how to spend the cash.

Where did you get the notion that franchise values aren't going up anymore? That's nuts. There were buyers willing to pick up both the sad sack Expos and the Twins (not to mention the record-breaking price tag for the Red Sox, too). Given a likely bidding war, both franchises would have gone for a large premium over the purchase price Loria and Pohlad paid for them. Get a clue!

Instead of selling those teams, the other MLB owners bought out the Expos! Loria lost so much money on the Expos, he turned around and bought the Florida Marlins, LMAO! You may recall they're the small market team that beat the big bad Giants, Flubbies, and Yankees (big markets all them) en route to their second world championship in seven years. They've already equaled the White Sox' total championships, and the Sox had a 92 year head start!

:angry:

You know, I wouldn't get so angry at people who defend Reinsdorf's cheapness if there was a single one of you who had any of your facts straight. Truly ignorance is bliss.

Iwritecode
12-24-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by JC456
They did win in 2000 and the fans didn't. The Cubs in last place drew more.

The Cubs are the exception, not the rule.

I'll say it again... In 2000, the Sox had the second-largest increase in attendance from the previous year in all of MLB. The only team that did better was Seatlle with their new stadium. Attendance depends largely on season-ticket sales. They were down in 2000 because nobody expected that team to contend that year.

It's extremely difficult to draw 2 - 2.5 million when relying mostly on walkup sales throughout the year. If the success would have continued in 2001 and 2002 the attendance would be up around there if not more by now.

anewman35
12-24-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

:angry:

You know, I wouldn't get so angry at people who defend Reinsdorf's cheapness if there was a single one of you who had any of your facts straight. Truly ignorance is bliss.

You do realize that almost all of the "facts" on both sides are opinion or speculation, right? It's totally a matter of opinion how much profit it's considered "ok" for JR to make, and how far he should go in debt for the team. Even if we had the same opinion, most details about the revenue team are just speculation. Unless we had access to their books, we don't really know what is spent and what comes in. And, hell, even if he did there would be arguements about how correct what the books said was.

Basically, your problem is assuming that your "facts" are indeed facts. Since many of them are not, you really shouldn't belittle the "facts" of others.

ode to veeck
12-24-2003, 02:06 PM
It's extremely difficult to draw 2 - 2.5 million when relying mostly on walkup sales throughout the year.

... or relying on nearly the worst PR organization on the planet (not a good thing to do for an entertainment biz)

Bob's analysis wasn't bad, but to not include other sources of revenue at all leaves the net sum of the article somewhat misleading. JR's media deals are just as sweet as his tenant contract for The Cell, and he's in the third largest metropolitan area in the country.

One reality is true: baseball refuses to open its books to answer these types of questions. They could make it real simple here and they don't.

Its kinda like taking the 5th, we can't nail them down in a court of law ... or even in an objectively audited set of numbers under the generally accepted accounting principles (leave the question of whatever that means alone) ... but are we as individuals, the customer paying public, gonna believe them?

I for one will not.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
You do realize that almost all of the "facts" on both sides are opinion or speculation, right? It's totally a matter of opinion how much profit it's considered "ok" for JR to make, and how far he should go in debt for the team. Even if we had the same opinion, most details about the revenue team are just speculation. Unless we had access to their books, we don't really know what is spent and what comes in. And, hell, even if he did there would be arguements about how correct what the books said was.

Basically, your problem is assuming that your "facts" are indeed facts. Since many of them are not, you really shouldn't belittle the "facts" of others.

Please don't start a war over semantics. If you wish to contest whether franchise values haven't been on an unbroken march upwards for over 30 years, put your "facts" out there for the rest of us to examine. Meanwhile don't waste my time.

voodoochile
12-24-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Please don't start a war over semantics. If you wish to contest whether franchise values haven't been on an unbroken march upwards for over 30 years, put your "facts" out there for the rest of us to examine. Meanwhile don't waste my time.

Beyond all of that, let's get back to the premise of this thread. Is anyone claiming that the Sox themselves aren't worth way way more than when JR bought them? IMO, they might go for $400M+ based on location. If the buyer takes a look at the absolutely horrible job JR and crew do of marketing the team and realize how easy it would be to increase revenue it could go up even more. This is the third largest market in the USA for cripes sake...

:selljerry

(sigh...)

gosox41
12-24-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Where did you get the notion that franchise values aren't going up anymore? That's nuts. There were buyers willing to pick up both the sad sack Expos and the Twins (not to mention the record-breaking price tag for the Red Sox, too). Given a likely bidding war, both franchises would have gone for a large premium over the purchase price Loria and Pohlad paid for them. Get a clue!

Instead of selling those teams, the other MLB owners bought out the Expos! Loria lost so much money on the Expos, he turned around and bought the Florida Marlins, LMAO! You may recall they're the small market team that beat the big bad Giants, Flubbies, and Yankees (big markets all them) en route to their second world championship in seven years. They've already equaled the White Sox' total championships, and the Sox had a 92 year head start!

:angry:

You know, I wouldn't get so angry at people who defend Reinsdorf's cheapness if there was a single one of you who had any of your facts straight. Truly ignorance is bliss.

So how come no one has stepped up and thrown a bid in for the Twins or Expos? Something doesn't have to be listed as "on sale" for a person to make an offer.

Franchise values aren't going up as fast as they did. Funny now NewsCorp and Disney, both entertainment conglmerates want out of the business. Two companies that have stock holders to listen to and having to meet shareholder expectations decided to sell out. If these franchises were making such huge money for the 2 companies, then why aren't they staying in and getting 20-25% ROI's every year. It looks greta in an annual report when you state that certain businesses aremaking monet at a high rate. Most companies don't look to sell out of a business if profit margins were so high, especially if they have shareholders to answer to.

Bob

gosox41
12-24-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
... or relying on nearly the worst PR organization on the planet (not a good thing to do for an entertainment biz)

Bob's analysis wasn't bad, but to not include other sources of revenue at all leaves the net sum of the article somewhat misleading. JR's media deals are just as sweet as his tenant contract for The Cell, and he's in the third largest metropolitan area in the country.

One reality is true: baseball refuses to open its books to answer these types of questions. They could make it real simple here and they don't.

Its kinda like taking the 5th, we can't nail them down in a court of law ... or even in an objectively audited set of numbers under the generally accepted accounting principles (leave the question of whatever that means alone) ... but are we as individuals, the customer paying public, gonna believe them?

I for one will not.

One way to show non-belief in JR is for fans to stop showing up.

I'm speaking in a general sense not to anyone individually, Ode.

If JR is ripping you off and you feel that he is taking advantage of you then you're a sucker for letting him keep doing it to you.

Bob

gosox41
12-24-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Beyond all of that, let's get back to the premise of this thread. Is anyone claiming that the Sox themselves aren't worth way way more than when JR bought them? IMO, they might go for $400M+ based on location. If the buyer takes a look at the absolutely horrible job JR and crew do of marketing the team and realize how easy it would be to increase revenue it could go up even more. This is the third largest market in the USA for cripes sake...

:selljerry

(sigh...)

I'm guessing they'd be lucky to get half that (which of course is still a ton of money.)

Bob

Daver
12-24-2003, 05:43 PM
For the record,Forbes and ESPN both value the White Sox franchise at 223 million dollars (Which is 100 million UNDER the value of the Bulls).


So how come no one has stepped up and thrown a bid in for the Twins or Expos? Something doesn't have to be listed as "on sale" for a person to make an offer.

There have been offers for both franchises,Carl Pohlad killed the offer for the Twins by refusing to disclose access to all financial records,and MLB is stalling with several groups wanting to buy the Expos because all the groups in question want to move the franchise out of Montreal.

Funny now NewsCorp and Disney, both entertainment conglmerates want out of the business. Two companies that have stock holders to listen to and having to meet shareholder expectations decided to sell out. If these franchises were making such huge money for the 2 companies, then why aren't they staying in and getting 20-25% ROI's every year. It looks greta in an annual report when you state that certain businesses aremaking monet at a high rate. Most companies don't look to sell out of a business if profit margins were so high, especially if they have shareholders to answer to.

A financial report says anything your accounting firm is told to make it say,it has no bearing on what the actual numbers are.Disney and Newscorp got out because they had already gained the max that they could get in tax advantages,took their capitol gains from the value of the franchise and moved on,they after all,are American based companies.Nintendo does not have the same advantages with the Mariners,and appear to be in for the long term,and it shows with the way they handle the budget for thier team,which is in a much smaller market than the Sox.TimeWarner/AOL is restructuring the entire budget of the Braves based on the fact that they can no longer take the tax advantages that they used to win consistently for ten years,they will probably be the next ones to start looking for a buyer.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Daver
For the record,Forbes and ESPN both value the White Sox franchise at 223 million dollars (Which is 100 million UNDER the value of the Bulls).




There have been offers for both franchises,Carl Pohlad killed the offer for the Twins by refusing to disclose access to all financial records,and MLB is stalling with several groups wanting to buy the Expos because all the groups in question want to move the franchise out of Montreal.



A financial report says anything your accounting firm is told to make it say,it has no bearing on what the actual numbers are.Disney and Newscorp got out because they had already gained the max that they could get in tax advantages,took their capitol gains from the value of the franchise and moved on,they after all,are American based companies.Nintendo does not have the same advantages with the Mariners,and appear to be in for the long term,and it shows with the way they handle the budget for thier team,which is in a much smaller market than the Sox.TimeWarner/AOL is restructuring the entire budget of the Braves based on the fact that they can no longer take the tax advantages that they used to win consistently for ten years,they will probably be the next ones to start looking for a buyer.

Thank you. It's like talking to the walls sometimes. We've gone from claims that the Sox are going broke, to the Sox aren't making money, to the Sox aren't making enough money. Now we've reached a new plateau of stupidity: the Sox aren't appreciating in value as much as they used to.

This is getting beyond stupid.

voodoochile
12-24-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm guessing they'd be lucky to get half that (which of course is still a ton of money.)


Originally posted by Daver
For the record,Forbes and ESPN both value the White Sox franchise at 223 million dollars (Which is 100 million UNDER the value of the Bulls).


I figured the actual franchise value was in that area, but did anyone peg the BoSox at 600M or whatever they sold for?

The fact is the Sox are in a very desireable location and have been horribly managed. There are lots of business people out there who can see that and in any case for many people owning a franchise is about the prestige, not whether you are paying "fair market value".

IIRC, Pohlad was going to receive $300M from MLB for folding the franchise. Now if the Twins are worth that much, the Sox have got to be worth more.

Daver is correct on one thing. The largest offer for the Twins that I have heard is under $200M, so Pohlad would rather fold the team than sell because he would make an extra $100M. So it isn't that there are no offers, but the GOBN of MLB decided to take care of one of their own and the fans can go suck raw eggs...

Daver
12-24-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now we've reached a new plateau of stupidity: the Sox aren't appreciating in value as much as they used to.



The Expos have gone up in value the slowest since 2001,while being owned by the league itself in a clear conflict of interest,but I'm sure that it has nothing to do with league keeping the franchise value low in order to help their own bottom line.

Of course no mention is ever made of the where the revenue sharing checks for the Expos franchise end up,as they are owned by the league itself.I'm sure all that money goes back into the Expos system.

voodoochile
12-24-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The Expos have gone up in value the slowest since 2001,while being owned by the league itself in a clear conflict of interest,but I'm sure that it has nothing to do with league keeping the franchise value low in order to help their own bottom line.

Of course no mention is ever made of the where the revenue sharing checks for the Expos franchise end up,as they are owned by the league itself.I'm sure all that money goes back into the Expos system.

I thought those numbers were discretionary on Bud's whim.

They are probably not getting very much, if anything at all if that is the case,

Daver
12-24-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I thought those numbers were discretionary on Bud's whim.

They are probably not getting very much, if anything at all if that is the case,

The revenue sharing from merchandise is decided by the league office.

The revenue sharing from the luxury tax is based on market size,as determined by the league office,with consideration given to attendance.

Who gets the check?

Daver
12-24-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I figured the actual franchise value was in that area, but did anyone peg the BoSox at 600M or whatever they sold for?



The Red Sox were sold for a little over 500 mil,but it included paying off non franchise debt in the sale price,as well as buying out some limited partners,the franchise itself is valued at 426 mil.

gosox41
12-24-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Daver
For the record,Forbes and ESPN both value the White Sox franchise at 223 million dollars (Which is 100 million UNDER the value of the Bulls).




There have been offers for both franchises,Carl Pohlad killed the offer for the Twins by refusing to disclose access to all financial records,and MLB is stalling with several groups wanting to buy the Expos because all the groups in question want to move the franchise out of Montreal.



A financial report says anything your accounting firm is told to make it say,it has no bearing on what the actual numbers are.Disney and Newscorp got out because they had already gained the max that they could get in tax advantages,took their capitol gains from the value of the franchise and moved on,they after all,are American based companies.Nintendo does not have the same advantages with the Mariners,and appear to be in for the long term,and it shows with the way they handle the budget for thier team,which is in a much smaller market than the Sox.TimeWarner/AOL is restructuring the entire budget of the Braves based on the fact that they can no longer take the tax advantages that they used to win consistently for ten years,they will probably be the next ones to start looking for a buyer.

Please explain these tax advantages.

Bob

Daver
12-24-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Please explain these tax advantages.

Bob

What,you expect me to do all your homework for you? :smile:


Under the current IRS system a business is allowed to claim a loss for a seven year period,and receive a tax defferal because of it,after seven years you are not allowed to claim it,either show a profit or pay the tax on the income you brought in.It is easier to sell than than appear before an IRS auditor.

voodoochile
12-24-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The Red Sox were sold for a little over 500 mil,but it included paying off non franchise debt in the sale price,as well as buying out some limited partners,the franchise itself is valued at 426 mil.

Okay, but still, they sold for $70M+ over market value. In the end it comes out the same. The old owners should have received roughly 350M cash and instead they got the face value. Yeah, these things are losing propositions...

Anybody who wants to own a MLB franchise and can't see the inherent advantage of owning the Sox is too stupid to have as an owner anyway. This is Chicago, not some podunk little wannabe town...

gosox41
12-25-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What,you expect me to do all your homework for you? :smile:


Under the current IRS system a business is allowed to claim a loss for a seven year period,and receive a tax defferal because of it,after seven years you are not allowed to claim it,either show a profit or pay the tax on the income you brought in.It is easier to sell than than appear before an IRS auditor.

I'm not to familiar with the tax system. But if other teams are doing thi same thing, right?

Why aren't more owners selling then? Surely they don't like all going through the hassle of being audited. And if they were being audited, wouldn't that help justify the vailidity of some of the owners are losing money?

Bob

Daver
12-25-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by gosox41


Why aren't more owners selling then? Surely they don't like all going through the hassle of being audited. And if they were being audited, wouldn't that help justify the vailidity of some of the owners are losing money?

Bob

Big conglomerates sell because it is in their best interest to sell,not many teams are in that situation though,perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making about Disney and Newscorp.

When you can show me proof that any MLB franchise loses money I will beleive it,take into consideration the fact that every owner also owns a percentage of the Montreal Expos,and will gain at least 1/29 th of whatever the Spineless Wonder manages to sell that franchise for.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-26-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Big conglomerates sell because it is in their best interest to sell,not many teams are in that situation though,perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making about Disney and Newscorp....

Besides the large media companies, most ownership groups play a shell game to perpetuate their tax advantages. They "sell" the team from one group of themselves to another group of themselves every 4-5 years, the minority partners simply selling out and buying back in. The Mets under Doubleday and Walpole are a good example of this. Thus they're all "new" owners again and can reap the tax benefits all over again, too.

Owning a baseball team is not like running a fruitstand. That is what pisses off a guy like Jerry Reinsdorf when he complains about the "economics of baseball" being screwed up. He might as well waste his time passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. He completely misunderstands the situation. That's why he blames everyone but himself.

:ohno
"And we're stuck with him."

gosox41
12-27-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Big conglomerates sell because it is in their best interest to sell,not many teams are in that situation though,perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making about Disney and Newscorp.

When you can show me proof that any MLB franchise loses money I will beleive it,take into consideration the fact that every owner also owns a percentage of the Montreal Expos,and will gain at least 1/29 th of whatever the Spineless Wonder manages to sell that franchise for.

And when you can show me proof that every franchise is raking in the money, I'll believe it.

I believe there are more franchises then you think losing money. For example, take the Diamondbacks. Why did they have a cash call for their current investors and then take on a whole bunch of new investors? Do you think they wanted to share the wealth?

As for the Sox, I'd love to see a breakdown of their numbers, but will never actually get to see the books first hand. But there are a lot of assumptions made here that can easily be refuted. No one has argued my point about the ticket revenue being a lot closer to $40 mill. then $50 mill., but there are a lot of people who think the Sox are making $10 mill-$15mill in profit that were quick to accept your arguemnt. Subtract $10-13 mill out of that equation alone and that $15 mill profit is only a few million, something I believe an owner is entitled to make while still attempting to win. On an individual year basis, a few million dollar profit isn't that much when you look at all the costs and risks of running the team.

And is there any real need to discuss how the team doesn't want fans to show up so they don't have to pay rent? The people who believe that don't know mucch about business if you read how the breakdown of rent was posted here. Does JR own SportService? No. Does he own 100% of the parking lots and keep that full value of each car that comes in? Doubtful.


The point is there is a lot more then any of us know about that really happens.

Bob

gosox41
12-27-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Besides the large media companies, most ownership groups play a shell game to perpetuate their tax advantages. They "sell" the team from one group of themselves to another group of themselves every 4-5 years, the minority partners simply selling out and buying back in. The Mets under Doubleday and Walpole are a good example of this. Thus they're all "new" owners again and can reap the tax benefits all over again, too.

Owning a baseball team is not like running a fruitstand. That is what pisses off a guy like Jerry Reinsdorf when he complains about the "economics of baseball" being screwed up. He might as well waste his time passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. He completely misunderstands the situation. That's why he blames everyone but himself.

:ohno
"And we're stuck with him."

What other teams play this shell game. I mean in the last 20 years, not 50 ears ago. If it's so common then there must be more doing it.

Bob

Daver
12-27-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
And when you can show me proof that every franchise is raking in the money, I'll believe it.

I believe there are more franchises then you think losing money. For example, take the Diamondbacks. Why did they have a cash call for their current investors and then take on a whole bunch of new investors? Do you think they wanted to share the wealth?



The Diamandbacks did not collect any shared revenue from MLB for the first five years of their existance,as part of the agreement they signed when they were granted a franchise.That was the main reason behind financial moves directly following their World Series win.

I won't even go into the reasons behind MLB needing the revenue they collected from the D'Backs and the Devil Dogs for their franchise rights,other than to say it was another move to save the bottom line.

ode to veeck
12-27-2003, 04:19 PM
The point is there is a lot more then any of us know about that really happens.

Exactly, because that's all that the owners really want us to know about it, so why should we buy into their pessimistic summaries of their cooked books that they won't even show us anyway? JR's less credible than the boy who cried "Wolf!"

joecrede
12-27-2003, 04:39 PM
What is the maximum payroll figure the White Sox can sustain given their revenues?

Daver
12-27-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
What is the maximum payroll figure the White Sox can sustain given their revenues?

What are their revenues?

CubKilla
12-27-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
What is the maximum payroll figure the White Sox can sustain given their revenues?

:reinsy

"$58 million and not a PENNY more!!!!!"

joecrede
12-27-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What are their revenues?

In a report given to congress by Bud Selig White Sox revenue was listed as $112M

Daver
12-27-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
In a report given to congress by Bud Selig White Sox revenue was listed as $112M

And immedietly after that Bud was threatened with purgery charges and laughed off the stand.

What are their revenues?

joecrede
12-27-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Daver
And immedietly after that Bud was threatened with purgery charges and laughed off the stand.

What are their revenues?

You dispute the Sox revenue numbers for 2001? (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020124pappas.html)

Daver
12-27-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
You dispute the Sox revenue numbers for 2001? (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020124pappas.html)

I wouldn't beleive any numbers released by MLB,and neither does Doug Pappas.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-27-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
What other teams play this shell game. I mean in the last 20 years, not 50 ears ago. If it's so common then there must be more doing it.

Bob

Many of the minority investors in the Allyns' White Sox became minority owners of the Sox again when they bought and sold the team 1962 and 1970. Still more minority investors remained connected to the team when Veeck bought the Sox in 1975. Other owners like Loria and Henry take their investment groups with them when they buy entire new franchises like the Expos/Marlins/Red Sox shell game of just a few years ago.

For somebody who has such strong opinions about this subject, you sure don't seem to know very much about it. Tell me about the books you've read that gave you your limited insight. I bet you could double your base of knowledge by reading just one chapter of Baseball and Billions.

joecrede
12-27-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I wouldn't beleive any numbers released by MLB,and neither does Doug Pappas.

You don't believe the White Sox were in the middle of the pack of MLB in terms of revenue?

Daver
12-27-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
You don't believe the White Sox were in the middle of the pack of MLB in terms of revenue?

What does that have to do with what their revenues are?

joecrede
12-27-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Daver
What does that have to do with what their revenues are?

If the Sox were in the middle of MLB in terms of revenue for 2001 it stands to reason that they'd be in the middle in terms of payroll as well.

CLR01
12-27-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
If the Sox were in the middle of MLB in terms of revenue for 2001 it stands to reason that they'd be in the middle in terms of payroll as well.


It still doesn't answer the question of whether or not they can spend more than they are. The only people who know are JR, his investors, and the people he pays to count his pennies.

gosox41
12-28-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The Diamandbacks did not collect any shared revenue from MLB for the first five years of their existance,as part of the agreement they signed when they were granted a franchise.That was the main reason behind financial moves directly following their World Series win.

I won't even go into the reasons behind MLB needing the revenue they collected from the D'Backs and the Devil Dogs for their franchise rights,other than to say it was another move to save the bottom line.

The amount of money the D-Backs had a cash call for was greater then what they would have taken in MLB revenues durign their first 5 yaers.

Also, keep in mind that the D-Backs knew they weren't getting any reveneus and could have adjust their business plan accordingly to compensate for that. I'm sure a lot of the original owners that didn't put up more cash are excited to see their equity position in the D-Backs cut almost in half, especially if it was this great profit machine.

And if it were a profit machine, then there wouldn't be a need for a cash call.

Bob

gosox41
12-28-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Many of the minority investors in the Allyns' White Sox became minority owners of the Sox again when they bought and sold the team 1962 and 1970. Still more minority investors remained connected to the team when Veeck bought the Sox in 1975. Other owners like Loria and Henry take their investment groups with them when they buy entire new franchises like the Expos/Marlins/Red Sox shell game of just a few years ago.

For somebody who has such strong opinions about this subject, you sure don't seem to know very much about it. Tell me about the books you've read that gave you your limited insight. I bet you could double your base of knowledge by reading just one chapter of Baseball and Billions.

First I said the last 20 years or so. Post free agency and all that. Not 40 years ago.

I read the book. Some issues they talked about were outdated. Also, I don't recall the Sox being mentioned too many times for much of this.

Don't tell me you believe in guilt by association. That's a flimsy argument.

Bob

gosox41
12-28-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Daver
What does that have to do with what their revenues are?

Revenues tend to effect what a team does with their variable expenses.

Bob

Daver
12-28-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The amount of money the D-Backs had a cash call for was greater then what they would have taken in MLB revenues durign their first 5 yaers.



You know this for a fact?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-28-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
First I said the last 20 years or so. Post free agency and all that. Not 40 years ago.

I read the book. Some issues they talked about were outdated. Also, I don't recall the Sox being mentioned too many times for much of this.

Don't tell me you believe in guilt by association. That's a flimsy argument.

Bob

Flimsy argument? That's rich coming from you.

What precisely in Zimbalist's book was "outdated"? This ought to be good.

As franchise values have risen from $20 million to $200 million (like our sad sack Sox), the era of small-time players being able to afford a baseball franchise have largely given way to the media comglomerates like Turner, Tribune, Disney, and Fox. Apparently you agree with Jerry Reinsdorf that he is entitled to play $5 poker with nickels and dimes? I don't.

Guys like Henry and Loria know how to make it work. Reinsdorf claims he can't. So let him sell and leave the rest of us in peace. He'll make a fat profit for his lame effort these past 23 years, too.

Money talks. Bull**** walks. I must say it is getting pretty deep in this thread.

gosox41
12-29-2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Flimsy argument? That's rich coming from you.

What precisely in Zimbalist's book was "outdated"? This ought to be good.
\


Depreciation of player's salaries. And if you don't think that option not being around doesn't cost the teams some $$$, you're seriously mistaken.

Bob

gosox41
12-29-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Daver
You know this for a fact?

I'm working on finding some articles for this for some proof, but some (and not you Daver) will probably come out and tell me these numbers were gotten from the second set of books and not the original set.



Bob

gosox41
12-29-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Flimsy argument? That's rich coming from you.

What precisely in Zimbalist's book was "outdated"? This ought to be good.

As franchise values have risen from $20 million to $200 million (like our sad sack Sox), the era of small-time players being able to afford a baseball franchise have largely given way to the media comglomerates like Turner, Tribune, Disney, and Fox. Apparently you agree with Jerry Reinsdorf that he is entitled to play $5 poker with nickels and dimes? I don't.

Guys like Henry and Loria know how to make it work. Reinsdorf claims he can't. So let him sell and leave the rest of us in peace. He'll make a fat profit for his lame effort these past 23 years, too.

Money talks. Bull**** walks. I must say it is getting pretty deep in this thread.

I don't agree without a lot of what JR does. If you've read my posts I've said all along I have my doubts about the Sox making money but that JR is enitlted to make some profit once in awhile.

I believe I then blame JR for running a lousy organizaiton with a lousy management team. I also said it would be nice if JR would take out some debt to raise the team's payroll so they can try to win. Overall, I want JR to sell because his idiocy is what's keeping the team from winning, not his payroll.

Bob

ma_deuce
12-29-2003, 08:26 AM
:tomatoaward

ewokpelts
12-29-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I don't agree without a lot of what JR does. If you've read my posts I've said all along I have my doubts about the Sox making money but that JR is enitlted to make some profit once in awhile.

I believe I then blame JR for running a lousy organizaiton with a lousy management team. I also said it would be nice if JR would take out some debt to raise the team's payroll so they can try to win. Overall, I want JR to sell because his idiocy is what's keeping the team from winning, not his payroll.

Bob

It should be "spend money to make money"...if George Steinbrenner can pay over 185 million for his AL Champion Yankees(after revenue sharing and taxes) and nyc aint calling for his head, then Jerry can squeeze a few more quarters out of his rear for this team. When the Sox play good, people show up. You cant have peopel show up , and then add payroll. When they traded for colon, the sox sold 10k tickets the very next day(full and split season plans)....we're not cub "fans" ...we demand results.
Gene

joecrede
12-29-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
the era of small-time players being able to afford a baseball franchise have largely given way to the media comglomerates like Turner, Tribune, Disney, and Fox.

This is the best argument for Reinsdorf selling the team.

I think the reason he still owns the Sox is because he enjoys being a MLB owner not because he is making untold millions off of the team every year.

ode to veeck
12-29-2003, 11:54 AM
Overall, I want JR to sell because his idiocy is what's keeping the team from winning, not his payroll.

His payroll and his continuous insults of his customer base are only two symptoms of his idiocy ...

joecrede
12-29-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
His payroll and his continuous insults of his customer base are only two symptoms of his idiocy ...

In some cases Sox fans see insults where there are none. See Shower thread.

ode to veeck
12-29-2003, 12:11 PM
In some cases Sox fans see insults where there are none. See Shower thread.

Let's see now, opinions posted from fans on the shower thread this morning are holding about 10:1 that the removal of the long standing outfield shower is a major PR slap in the face ... should be easy pickins for the likes of even a mental pond scum like Moronotti to take off with.

joecrede
12-29-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Let's see now, opinions posted from fans on the shower thread this morning are holding about 10:1 that the removal of the long standing outfield shower is a major PR slap in the face ... should be easy pickins for the likes of even a mental pond scum like Moronotti to take off with.

I think those that hold that opinion are looking for anything that could possibly be construed as a "slap in the face". Hell, some were angered by it even though they admitted never using it(!) I love it. Good, good stuff ...

Lip Man 1
12-29-2003, 12:50 PM
Joe:

Regardless of whether or not you think the shower is important there is obviously a part of what's left of Sox fandom that does. They perceive it to be a bad move, removing one more small segment of tradition.

Perception becomes reality and this franchise teetering on absolute irrelevance can't afford it regardless of how small an issue.

I think it would behoove the organization to at least give passing thought to this idea in ANY move they make. Like it or not the perception of this organization is not good and until they start acting like a major market team instead of Milwaukee South the small things aren't going to be so small in the minds of whatever fans they have left.

That's my perception of this reality.

Lip

ode to veeck
12-29-2003, 12:52 PM
Looking for another slap in the face would mean we like it, and the JR strategy of giving fans slaps "'til thay like it" has finally succeeded. Obviously, most of us still don't like it.

joecrede
12-29-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

Regardless of whether or not you think the shower is important there is obviously a part of what's left of Sox fandom that does. They perceive it to be a bad move, removing one more small segment of tradition.

Perception becomes reality and this franchise teetering on absolute irrelevance can't afford it regardless of how small an issue.

I think it would behoove the organization to at least give passing thought to this idea in ANY move they make. Like it or not the perception of this organization is not good and until they start acting like a major market team instead of Milwaukee South the small things aren't going to be so small in the minds of whatever fans they have left.

That's my perception of this reality.

Lip

Lip, I can find at least 10 Sox fans who love the idea of removing the shower.

joecrede
12-29-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Looking for another slap in the face would mean we like it, and the JR strategy of giving fans slaps "'til thay like it" has finally succeeded. Obviously, most of us still don't like it.

Some people are happiest when they are unhappy.

ode to veeck
12-29-2003, 01:12 PM
why would anyone "love the idea of removing the shower" !?!?

joecrede
12-29-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
why would anyone "love the idea of removing the shower" !?!?

There are people who love the humor of it all.

nasox
12-29-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
There are people who love the humor of it all.

What humor?!?!?!?!

joecrede
12-29-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by nasox
What humor?!?!?!?!

Read the angst over its rumored demise for one.

anewman35
12-29-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Read the angst over its rumored demise for one.

It would make a great Onion headline.

"Baseball team rumored to be removing shower, Fans revolt"

joecrede
12-29-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
It would make a great Onion headline.

"Baseball team rumored to be removing shower, Fans revolt"

Or how about Reinsdorf haggling with the Plumbers union over the sponsorship fee? Anyone who has had to use a plumber is probably rooting for Reinsdorf to squeeze every penny he possibly can out of 'em. :smile:

Only on 35th. I love it ...

Daver
12-29-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by gosox41


Depreciation of player's salaries. And if you don't think that option not being around doesn't cost the teams some $$$, you're seriously mistaken.

Bob


The owners are still depreciatinag salaries,they have just found a new way to do it,by using salary arbitration to their benefit as opposed to the players benefit as it has been in the past.IE,Carl Everett would have made 9 mil next season had the Sox offered him arbitration,he instead signed with Montreal for a third of that.


Originally posted by gosox41


I'm working on finding some articles for this for some proof, but some (and not you Daver) will probably come out and tell me these numbers were gotten from the second set of books and not the original set.



Bob

I would be willing to bet you will not find anything that does not have Jerry Coangelo vehemently denying his team was in any financial trouble at the time,he is on record many times stating the D'backs were at no time in any financial trouble.

red faber
12-30-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I wish there was more information available as to what expenses there actually are in running a big league team. It's more then just payroll.

So all those who think JR is making a killing running the Sox, 2 questions:

1. How much do you think JR and his partners are making in profit every year?
2. Being that this is a business, do you think JR is entitled to make a profit at all?

I'll give you my answers right now.

1. I'm guessing they're breaking even or staying within $2 million either way (profit or loss).

2. Yes, I think anyone running a legit business is entitle to try to




make some money.




Bob


maybe he's not making a killing,but i'll bet you he ain't going broke either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gosox41
12-30-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
It should be "spend money to make money"...if George Steinbrenner can pay over 185 million for his AL Champion Yankees(after revenue sharing and taxes) and nyc aint calling for his head, then Jerry can squeeze a few more quarters out of his rear for this team. When the Sox play good, people show up. You cant have peopel show up , and then add payroll. When they traded for colon, the sox sold 10k tickets the very next day(full and split season plans)....we're not cub "fans" ...we demand results.
Gene

I totall agree. I wish JR would take on some debt so we can see this team win.

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
His payroll and his continuous insults of his customer base are only two symptoms of his idiocy ...

Yet what is it called when people who can't stand the two factors you mention above still come out and give them their money? A lot of fans here hate JR and think he is a lie and cheat and think he is preventing the Sox from winning, yet when push comes to shove, most of them are there buying tickets.

As they say, money talks. Funy how some people here spend hours going on and on about their hatred of JR yet still support him. He may not be an athelte on the field, but he is still considered a memeber of the White Sox organization (obviously the most powerful) and people will use any rationalization to go out to the game to justify the fact that even though they think JR is screwing them over it's OK.

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2003, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The owners are still depreciatinag salaries,they have just found a new way to do it,by using salary arbitration to their benefit as opposed to the players benefit as it has been in the past.IE,Carl Everett would have made 9 mil next season had the Sox offered him arbitration,he instead signed with Montreal for a third of that.




I would be willing to bet you will not find anything that does not have Jerry Coangelo vehemently denying his team was in any financial trouble at the time,he is on record many times stating the D'backs were at no time in any financial trouble.

I was more speakign of depreciating salaries in the accounting sense, something the book referred to. It is no longer a legal practice, and if these teams are getting audited they will get nailed on it.

As for the arbitration, it's about time teams' figured out how to use arbitration to their advantage. Now that the salaries are a lot bigger it makes more sense to let a guy like Everett go instead of offering him arbitration. If Everett accepted arbitration the mose he can take was a 20% cut. Everett got that same $7 million over a two year period. Same reason the Sox didn't offer Roberto arbitration. Why tie down salary on that guy?

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by red faber
maybe he's not making a killing,but i'll bet you he ain't going broke either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said he was going broke. But I am trying to look objective as to why JR doesn't raise his payroll to $70 mill. as has been previously discussed here. From a pure cash flow basis, it doesn't pay.

Now that's not to say that going into debt now to field a winning team would not payoff more in the long run.

But going into debt means you don't have the cash to pay for things, which is entirely my point. The Sox don't have the money.

Why don't they? I blame this on JR and his management of the team. His idiocy decreased revenues to this point, but JR is maximizing out the payroll based on what he has.

Bob

ode to veeck
12-30-2003, 09:12 AM
originally posted by gosox41 Yet what is it called when people who can't stand the two factors you mention above still come out and give them their money? A lot of fans here hate JR and think he is a lie and cheat and think he is preventing the Sox from winning, yet when push comes to shove, most of them are there buying tickets.

As they say, money talks. Funy how some people here spend hours going on and on about their hatred of JR yet still support him. <...> and people will use any rationalization to go out to the game to justify the fact that even though they think JR is screwing them over it's OK.

I for one don't put much money into JR's revenue stream, but I live on the west coast these days and get to Chicago maybe once a season. When I go to a couple of games in Chicago, I'll often buy tix through a broker, who I'd much rather pay than JR for a good seat. However, I'm somewhat a special case due to location and access, though I do buy non-brokered seats to see them in Oakland each summer directly from the A's (different story).

However, I still have a large number of friends and family in the Chicago area. Many such local folks that used to spend many games per summer with me at Comiskey Park no longer attend Sox games at all precisely because they have been alienated by the current organization's "non-customer orientation". The numbers of my acquantances who have switched over to the "rarely or no longer attends Sox games camp" has slowly been increasing over the past 15-20 years such that I sometimes have a hard time tracking down bodies to go to games when I am in town.

Overall, I think these scenarios are adding up to why Chicago's become a big Flubs / little Sox town for the first time in my life. Tne attendance #s aren't dreadfully bad for the Sox, but compared to the better organizations and when recognizing the "blown" opportunity in one of the largest and most fanatical sports markets in the world, it really stands out as substantive data to show JR's regime has failed to capitalize, and even alienate and drive away his customer base.

Yes, tons of Sox fans show loyalty beyond belief here by sticking with the Sox even though they've come to despair, hate, and demonize the current administration. These diehard totally biased fans should be commended, not singled out as hypocrites.

The scary thing to me is the long term prognosis for this situation ... the fan base ebbing away, even alienated in one of the most potent opportune markets. I wonder and hope that it doesn't get as bad as where it became with the A's, who still have a very hard time drawing folks consistently (even with numerouos recent playoff appearances & many WS titles in last 30 years) long after the locally hated Charlie Finley has gone. He screwed fans over the California Seals hockey team, and the fans here never forgave or forgot. To what low will the Sox fans base ebb to by the time the JR regime is done? Where is the Sox brand recognition and integrity going?

Why should we believe one who misleads, insults, ignores, and otherwise alienates his customers when he cries poor, especially when he and the rest of baseball ownership won't open their books?

Rex Hudler
12-30-2003, 12:31 PM
Bob, I found your piece quite interesting. I also think that your revenue figures may even be a bit high because there is no accounting for (nor is there any way of knowing numbers) comp tickets. Comp tickets are included in the announced "paid" attendance, so every guest of Sox personnel, players, MLB, etc. are "accounted" for, yet no revenue is brought in.

I am not sure how accurate your figures are, but I found your analysis to be worth the read. I won't dispute your numbers because I don't believe there is a better way to calculate them. I think they are more on, than off, however. Thanks for taking the time to put them together.

Here are a few other comments based on the replies I have read in this thread....

I don't see that they spend that many millions in minor league payroll, and they get a cut of the revenue of those teams to help offset that. That is false. The Major League teams do not get any revenue from Minor League teams to help offset costs.

They don't pay the salaries of players on minor league rosters, but do pay the minor league teams for their affiliations, and that also costs millions per year. Again, false. The Major League Club DOES pay the salary of each of their Minor League players. They DO NOT pay Minor League teams for their affiliation.

Here is a quick synopsis of the MLB/MiLB affiliation:

Minor League Clubs have affiliation agreements with their corresponding Major League Club. The parent club pays for all player and coach salaries, meal money, a portion of the cost for bats, baseballs etc (depending on the level). The profitability of the Minor League club is completely independent of the Major League club (with the exception of the Braves, which own many of their affiliates).

The Major League club also pays for travel allowances for the players to and from the Minor League city and anytime a player is transferred from one club to another.

The Major League club also pays for all scouting and development, bonuses to draftees, Minor League staff salaries and expenses (trainers, stregnth coaches, training supplies, etc).

ode to veeck
12-30-2003, 12:36 PM
Rex,

Welcome to WSI!!

maurice
12-30-2003, 12:44 PM
Welcome aboard, Rex. Your minor league reports on SoxTalk are great.

Rex Hudler
12-30-2003, 01:02 PM
Thanks.... I don't expect to post on this board much since I am a member of two other Sox message boards. If I could somehow get paid to post, I would devote all my time to all the boards, but I haven't quite figured out that trick yet. So until that happens, I would only expect to see me when I have extra time on my hands, like during the holidays.

gosox41
12-30-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Bob, I found your piece quite interesting. I also think that your revenue figures may even be a bit high because there is no accounting for (nor is there any way of knowing numbers) comp tickets. Comp tickets are included in the announced "paid" attendance, so every guest of Sox personnel, players, MLB, etc. are "accounted" for, yet no revenue is brought in.

I am not sure how accurate your figures are, but I found your analysis to be worth the read. I won't dispute your numbers because I don't believe there is a better way to calculate them. I think they are more on, than off, however. Thanks for taking the time to put them together.

Here are a few other comments based on the replies I have read in this thread....

That is false. The Major League teams do not get any revenue from Minor League teams to help offset costs.

Again, false. The Major League Club DOES pay the salary of each of their Minor League players. They DO NOT pay Minor League teams for their affiliation.

Here is a quick synopsis of the MLB/MiLB affiliation:

Minor League Clubs have affiliation agreements with their corresponding Major League Club. The parent club pays for all player and coach salaries, meal money, a portion of the cost for bats, baseballs etc (depending on the level). The profitability of the Minor League club is completely independent of the Major League club (with the exception of the Braves, which own many of their affiliates).

The Major League club also pays for travel allowances for the players to and from the Minor League city and anytime a player is transferred from one club to another.

The Major League club also pays for all scouting and development, bonuses to draftees, Minor League staff salaries and expenses (trainers, stregnth coaches, training supplies, etc).

I'm glad you find the numbers interesting. I started follwing the economics of baseball during the strike in 1994 to try to make sense of it all. I am a diehard fan and if I felt for a second that JR was running this team to max. out profits and not at all trying to win I would give up my season tickets in a heart beat. As loyal a fan as me, my father, and even my grandfather are to the team the White Sox organization would have to be loyal to me by at least trying to put a winning product on the field and maximizing their resources. The whole side to this equation is what JR has done to make those resources so small. But based on what I see, JR is not running this team to make countless millions at the expense of winnning, at least based on a lot of the analysis I've seen or read about.

I do find your points about the minor leagues very interesting. I've heard it cost aroung $15-17 mil. a year to run a minor league system. I don't know how accurate those numbers are but if all the expenses you mention above are included I can see it adding up quickly. Especially in the are of bonuses for draft picks. That can easily run $5 mill. A lot of people don't realize the expenses of running a baseball team. It's more then just payroll and paying for lights.

Bob

Daver
12-30-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by gosox41


I do find your points about the minor leagues very interesting. I've heard it cost aroung $15-17 mil. a year to run a minor league system. I don't know how accurate those numbers are but if all the expenses you mention above are included I can see it adding up quickly. Especially in the are of bonuses for draft picks. That can easily run $5 mill. A lot of people don't realize the expenses of running a baseball team. It's more then just payroll and paying for lights.

Bob

The Sox paid a total of 3.85 mil in signing bonuses on the 2003 draft,that includes all the players they paid a bonus to.

I think 15 mil a year to run the minor leagues is a little high,I would opine that it is closer to ten,but I know nothing about minor league baseball,as well as baseball in general.

Paulwny
12-31-2003, 09:10 AM
If the 10 yr PBA agreement is still in effect then the cost of operating a minor league team has changed.

The 1997 Professional Baseball Agreement

The signing of a new 10-year PBA in June 1997 signaled more change in the minors. The growing strength of the minor leagues and the continued trouble in the big leagues again prompted the majors to shift costs to the minor leagues. The NA is now responsible for the umpire development program and its $5 million in expenses. The minor leagues also now pay for uniforms, bats and balls. And the ticket revenue tax paid to the majors has doubled.


http://www.whitecaps-baseball.com/PRESSBOX/FEATURE98/minors.html

Rex Hudler
12-31-2003, 01:18 PM
I am pretty familiar with the inner workings of the Minor Leagues and I do know for a fact that the Major League teams share the cost of the bats, balls and even the clubhouse manager and batboys. The percentage paid by the Major League teams depends on the Classification of the Minor League team. IN fact, the Major League club pays for all of the bats and balls and then is reimbursed by the Minor League Club for the applicable percentage minus the costs paid (again based on the same %) for the clubhouse attendant and batboys.

I am not familiar with any ticket revenue tax paid to the Major Leagues, but I suppose it could exist. I would think that I would have heard of it, if it did exist, however.

Paulwny
12-31-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler


I am not familiar with any ticket revenue tax paid to the Major Leagues, but I suppose it could exist. I would think that I would have heard of it, if it did exist, however.

I can't locate the article, read early in the year, a minor league owner complaining about this tax. I believe it was 25 cents per ticket.

Paulwny
12-31-2003, 02:22 PM
The TICKET TAX, this may not be a reliable source, but he's seems to know what he's discussing. In the link look for LIEBO posts:4

http://pub79.ezboard.com/fballparkwatchdiscussionsfrm2.showMessage?topicID= 53.topic

He claims he's spent 9 yrs in minor league baseball.

Paulwny
12-31-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler


I am not familiar with any ticket revenue tax paid to the Major Leagues, but I suppose it could exist. I would think that I would have heard of it, if it did exist, however.

The article was written by Lori Clark, media relations manager for the White Caps.