PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf's Motives, so clear now...


joeynach
12-29-2003, 12:24 AM
I have figured it out via the article on about JR's motives. Reinsdorf only pays rent on the ballpark if its use reaches above a certain point, meaning its attendance. Apparently the ISFA, who owns the stadium, has this deal in place since the stadium was built in order to keep the team in chicago and on the south side. So here it is.

"And if attendance drops far enough, The Chairman gets to use his renovated ball park rent free. And perhaps thatís what it all boils down to. The Sox had to pay rent for the 2003 season for only the third time since 1997.

You can bet the Chairman is not going to make that mistake again! "

Exactly JR cant lose. If his team wins (getting higher attendance and revenue) he pays rent, if his team loses (and attendance and revenue is low) he doesn't pay. Im sure he is happy with either. Im starting to get really mad especially after the article also states they might get rid of the 7 game package. Pathetic, new managment is definatly needed!

ChiWhiteSox1337
12-29-2003, 12:25 AM
Isn't this the same reason why they have the half price days and often give out free tickets to charity because the attedence only counts if it's full price?

joeynach
12-29-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Isn't this the same reason why they have the half price days and often give out free tickets to charity because the attedence only counts if it's full price?

Ah yes you are starting to realize the garbage that surrounds this era of management. Exactly, the half price and charity give aways dont count towards the 1.3 mil attendence mark. So the sox get the revenue from the tickerts, the food, the parking and it doesn't count towards the 1.3 million mark that if they crest that have to pay rent.

SluggersAway
12-29-2003, 01:37 AM
Wow.

It all makes perfect sense now.

soxtalker
12-29-2003, 08:29 AM
Well, if JR was truly trying to ensure that he didn't have to pay rent, wouldn't he have increased the number of half-price nights? Instead, they went the other direction and decreased the number.

steff
12-29-2003, 08:47 AM
And this is new news to you...?

Hangar18
12-29-2003, 09:10 AM
this is why we need a new Owner. this is nonsense

34 Inch Stick
12-29-2003, 09:18 AM
I think you stopped a little short in your analysis. IIRC they do not get a certain number in the gate he actually gets paid by the state.

joeynach
12-29-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I think you stopped a little short in your analysis. IIRC they do not get a certain number in the gate he actually gets paid by the state.

Thats unbelievable. I mean if all this sort of un discussed info were say printed in the paper like the trib or someting the entire city would be at least questioning everything surrounding JR and maybe even calling for his head.

munchman33
12-29-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by joeynach
I have figured it out via the article on about JR's motives. Reinsdorf only pays rent on the ballpark if its use reaches above a certain point, meaning its attendance. Apparently the ISFA, who owns the stadium, has this deal in place since the stadium was built in order to keep the team in chicago and on the south side. So here it is.

"And if attendance drops far enough, The Chairman gets to use his renovated ball park rent free. And perhaps thatís what it all boils down to. The Sox had to pay rent for the 2003 season for only the third time since 1997.

You can bet the Chairman is not going to make that mistake again! "

Exactly JR cant lose. If his team wins (getting higher attendance and revenue) he pays rent, if his team loses (and attendance and revenue is low) he doesn't pay. Im sure he is happy with either. Im starting to get really mad especially after the article also states they might get rid of the 7 game package. Pathetic, new managment is definatly needed!

All of that is true, but you're forgetting one key point. While Reinsdorf has the option not to pay rent in those years, he still OWES that rent, and must pay it back, with interest, over a ten year span. I remember reading that when the ballpark was built.

joecrede
12-29-2003, 11:18 AM
I love these discussions about Reinsdorf purposely avoiding the rent clause of the park's lease. Despite being based on a flawed premise they are highly entertaining.

ewokpelts
12-29-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
All of that is true, but you're forgetting one key point. While Reinsdorf has the option not to pay rent in those years, he still OWES that rent, and must pay it back, with interest, over a ten year span. I remember reading that when the ballpark was built.

then why even have the free rent clause if you have to pay it later?....according to my info, the rent is on a sliding scale after you reach 1.5 million FULLPRICE admissions....the 2003 sox paid 435 thousand for an entire year of full acess to the cell.....i think they get free rent...not "dont have to pay now, but in installments"...
Gene

joeynach
12-29-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
then why even have the free rent clause if you have to pay it later?....according to my info, the rent is on a sliding scale after you reach 1.5 million FULLPRICE admissions....the 2003 sox paid 435 thousand for an entire year of full acess to the cell.....i think they get free rent...not "dont have to pay now, but in installments"...
Gene

Ok this is getting a little crazy. It makes a big difference on which way you look it. Is the clause there so if the sox have crap seasons with low attendance they dont have pay rent. Kind of an incentive to keep the team where it is. Or is it there so if they have good attendance seasons they dont have to pay rent, also an incentive but more like a job well done incentive.

Lip Man 1
12-29-2003, 01:55 PM
According to the book The Lords Of The Realm by John Helyar there is no mention of having to pay rent at anytime in the future when the lease agreement between the Sox and the state is broken down in detail.

And this is all somewhat ironic. I had a brief conversation with Grobber this morning and he also thinks Uncle Jerry is deliberately tanking it like Dollar Bill Wirtz. He can't figure out why yet but he's working on it.

Lip

joecrede
12-29-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
And this is all somewhat ironic. I had a brief conversation with Grobber this morning and he also thinks Uncle Jerry is deliberately tanking it like Dollar Bill Wirtz. He can't figure out why yet but he's working on it.

Lip

Lip, what makes you think he's deliberately tanking?

nasox
12-29-2003, 02:15 PM
he's an a-hole, a moron, and a greedy, fat SOB. We can all agree on that much, right? No matter what the details are, he is swindling us

Hangar18
12-29-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Lip, what makes you think he's deliberately tanking?

Because of the very 1st Post in this thread .........
Im all about conspiracy theories, and this one is Very Much
Believable. There is Cause and Motive

joecrede
12-29-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Because of the very 1st Post in this thread .........
Im all about conspiracy theories, and this one is Very Much
Believable. There is Cause and Motive

The first post in this thread is based on a flawed premise.

Under every circumstance Reinsdorf has to pay rent he also receives more revenue.

joeynach
12-29-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The first post in this thread is based on a flawed premise.

Under every circumstance Reinsdorf has to pay rent he also receives more revenue.

I got my info from that aritcle as well as a family friend who is a minority shareholder of the club. The figure is slighly over 1.3 million fans to activate the no rent clause. Obviosly the cluase was put in place 12 years ago to keep the team on the south side. An incentive to stay put. Unfortunatly for us the Owner is JR who most cetaintly uses it to his advantage and allows it be a financial decision maker. Crappy year, crappy attendence, low profit, less out of my pocket, no rent. Good year, high attendance, higher profit, pay rent. How upset and now much more can uncle jerry be commited to winning after a losing season. Well it might turn out that in some cases he can make more, or lose less, if the team and attendace stink. Im not saying this is a conspiracy theory, im just saying with a guy like JR at the helm it doesn't seem so straight foward and legit. Ask scottie pippen, he will tell ya.

SSN721
12-29-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The first post in this thread is based on a flawed premise.

Under every circumstance Reinsdorf has to pay rent he also receives more revenue.

As much as I hate JR, I have to agree with this assessment, I think that the problems with attendance and the apparent lack of effort on JRs part is more due to his own bad management and incompetence more than anything else. I don't know. Its so hard to read someone elses mind. Much harder when it is the mind of a man who has more wealth then I can possibly comprehend at the moment.

Lip Man 1
12-29-2003, 11:08 PM
Joe:

I don't think he's tanking...not yet anyway.

I was mearly stating that it was a coincidence that the person who started this thread feels the same way that Grobber does according to our conversation this morning.

But if I did, I'm sure you'd be quick to defend Uncle Jerry against us ungrateful ingrates who should be getting down on our hands and knees thanking him for not moving to club to Florida and for all that he's done for us Sox fans.

Lip

joecrede
12-30-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

I don't think he's tanking...not yet anyway.

I was mearly stating that it was a coincidence that the person who started this thread feels the same way that Grobber does according to our conversation this morning.

But if I did, I'm sure you'd be quick to defend Uncle Jerry against us ungrateful ingrates who should be getting down on our hands and knees thanking him for not moving to club to Florida and for all that he's done for us Sox fans.

Lip

If you did think he was tanking I would read your reasoning and if I disagreed with it I'd say so.

gosox41
12-30-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
According to the book The Lords Of The Realm by John Helyar there is no mention of having to pay rent at anytime in the future when the lease agreement between the Sox and the state is broken down in detail.

And this is all somewhat ironic. I had a brief conversation with Grobber this morning and he also thinks Uncle Jerry is deliberately tanking it like Dollar Bill Wirtz. He can't figure out why yet but he's working on it.

Lip

No offense to Grobber, but he doesn't know all that much about business.

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by joeynach
I got my info from that aritcle as well as a family friend who is a minority shareholder of the club. The figure is slighly over 1.3 million fans to activate the no rent clause. Obviosly the cluase was put in place 12 years ago to keep the team on the south side. An incentive to stay put. Unfortunatly for us the Owner is JR who most cetaintly uses it to his advantage and allows it be a financial decision maker. Crappy year, crappy attendence, low profit, less out of my pocket, no rent. Good year, high attendance, higher profit, pay rent. How upset and now much more can uncle jerry be commited to winning after a losing season. Well it might turn out that in some cases he can make more, or lose less, if the team and attendace stink. Im not saying this is a conspiracy theory, im just saying with a guy like JR at the helm it doesn't seem so straight foward and legit. Ask scottie pippen, he will tell ya.

This attendence conspiracy is complete nonsense. Another example of a chance to take a hit on JR without even having the numbers straight.

So let's do some more math. There was a post a week or go or so that said the Sox paid $2.50 in rent per fan when attendence rises about 1.3 million (not including half price nights.)

So let's analyse. Assume a $20 average ticket price for the sake of argument (which I already made in that artcle.) Now if the Sox draw 1.3 million they get $26 mill in revenue (again I'm only lookign at full price nights). Now let's say they draw 1.7 million:

$20 ticket * 400,000 fans= $8 million.
2.50 rent/ticket * 400,000=$1 mill.
$8 mill- $1 mill= $7 mill.


So now let's play that little alligator game. Remember the alligator always eats the bigger number. Which numer is bigger:

$26 mill $26 mill+$7 mill.

If you said:

$26 mill > $33 million

good job. That's why it doesn't make sense that JR is trying to tank attendence. He still gets more revenue this way even though it's not going to grow at the same fast rate it is still more revenue.

Bob

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 09:48 AM
Okay, time for the writer of the article to speak.

It was a punchline. It was meant to convey the outright stupidity of a $58-million budget.

Allow me to let you in on how that article was written. I was sitting here at the computer on Christmas Eve and thinking about the fact that every year it's the same old story. Jerry slaps the fans in the face with increased ticket prices, etc.

I was thinking about a friend of mine who is a season ticket holder who was complaining about the way in which that group was treated this year, a form letter and an unitemized invoice.

I remembered writing an article before the U.S. Cellular deal in which I proposed that the reason the Sox alienate their fans is because they want to move to greener pastures. So I started by itemizing the ways the Sox have alienated their most loyal fans and noted how the mistreatment of that fan base ends up hurting the bottom line rather than helping it.

Part of my argument for that was based on threads on this message board in which season ticket holders said they were dumping or downgrading their packages. The main point was basically a question, "Why do you raise prices and keep the salary budget low, and why do you keep alienating your fan base?"

It's a stupid way of doing business, and when I got to the end, I couldn't conceive of why a businessman would run his business into the ground like that. I needed a punchline to drive home that point that was utterly ridiculous.

And then I remembered the article in Crane's that said the Sox were paying rent on the ball park for the third time since 1997. Now there's a completely idiotic reason to drive attendance down, one befitting of a Jerry Reinsdorf.

Do I believe that's the reason? Hell no! Do I believe Reinsdorf is intentionally alienating his fan base? I have no idea. But I do know this: whether it's intentional or not, he's doing it. Perhaps he's just incompetent, but we come from Chicago, the city of Dollar Bill Wirtz and George "He throws nickels around like manhole covers" Halas. Reinsdorf now has a reputation of being as big a tightwad as either of them.

I wanted to convey the following with my closing:

1) Reinsdorf is a tightwad;

2) Reinsdorf and his lackies are driving fans away;

3) Driving away your paying customers is lunacy.

To drive home the point, and taking a cue from Dickens during the holiday season (if you recall, I did call him Ebenezer Reinsdorf the previous week), I came up with what I thought was a Scrooge-like reason for this bizarre behavior.

I guess I did too good a job in driving the point home.

And no, we don't use teal in columns to convey sarcasm. You have to detect that on your own there.

joeynach
12-30-2003, 10:25 AM
What i see when i read your atricle was just another dumb bull crap reason JR is driving this team into the gutter. The mere fact that he had to have this attendance / rent cluase shows how much of an ahole he really is. Not only did he get us all to pay for his folly on 35th, but he has it established so that if the sox have a dismal year he doesn't suffer financially. Unacceptable. If baseball is a business than winning, attendance, and success should drive profits and limit loses. Not you can lose and have crud attendaence but dont worry you wont get hit that hard with a loss. THat is not the right direction to motivate an owner to fully commit to winning, spending, and improving. That was my entire point for this thread and how i interpreted your article.

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by joeynach
What i see when i read your atricle was just another dumb bull crap reason JR is driving this team into the gutter. The mere fact that he had to have this attendance / rent cluase shows how much of an ahole he really is. Not only did he get us all to pay for his folly on 35th, but he has it established so that if the sox have a dismal year he doesn't suffer financially. Unacceptable. If baseball is a business than winning, attendance, and success should drive profits and limit loses. Not you can lose and have crud attendaence but dont worry you wont get hit that hard with a loss. THat is not the right direction to motivate an owner to fully commit to winning, spending, and improving. That was my entire point for this thread and how i interpreted your article.

Well, maybe I'm like one of those authors who gets interpreted to death in high school and college lit. classes, and when you aske the author what he meant, he says, "I just wanted to tell a good story."

Iterpret it whatever way you want. I know what I meant, but if I conveyed that to you, so much the better because what you said is true.

What I'm responding to is mainly those who were throwing out the numbers to prove the faulty premise of my article. They're the ones who really missed the boat.

joeynach
12-30-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Well, maybe I'm like one of those authors who gets interpreted to death in high school and college lit. classes, and when you aske the author what he meant, he says, "I just wanted to tell a good story."

Iterpret it whatever way you want. I know what I meant, but if I conveyed that to you, so much the better because what you said is true.

What I'm responding to is mainly those who were throwing out the numbers to prove the faulty premise of my article. They're the ones who really missed the boat.

I understand. And there is no faulty premise to your article, its all true. One of my friends dad is a minoirty shareholder and explains it to us all the time. I just feel that after readaing your artcile it seemed as though this is the point you were trying to steer the reader in the direction of.

gosox41
12-30-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, time for the writer of the article to speak.

It was a punchline. It was meant to convey the outright stupidity of a $58-million budget.

Allow me to let you in on how that article was written. I was sitting here at the computer on Christmas Eve and thinking about the fact that every year it's the same old story. Jerry slaps the fans in the face with increased ticket prices, etc.

I was thinking about a friend of mine who is a season ticket holder who was complaining about the way in which that group was treated this year, a form letter and an unitemized invoice.

I remembered writing an article before the U.S. Cellular deal in which I proposed that the reason the Sox alienate their fans is because they want to move to greener pastures. So I started by itemizing the ways the Sox have alienated their most loyal fans and noted how the mistreatment of that fan base ends up hurting the bottom line rather than helping it.

Part of my argument for that was based on threads on this message board in which season ticket holders said they were dumping or downgrading their packages. The main point was basically a question, "Why do you raise prices and keep the salary budget low, and why do you keep alienating your fan base?"

It's a stupid way of doing business, and when I got to the end, I couldn't conceive of why a businessman would run his business into the ground like that. I needed a punchline to drive home that point that was utterly ridiculous.

And then I remembered the article in Crane's that said the Sox were paying rent on the ball park for the third time since 1997. Now there's a completely idiotic reason to drive attendance down, one befitting of a Jerry Reinsdorf.

Do I believe that's the reason? Hell no! Do I believe Reinsdorf is intentionally alienating his fan base? I have no idea. But I do know this: whether it's intentional or not, he's doing it. Perhaps he's just incompetent, but we come from Chicago, the city of Dollar Bill Wirtz and George "He throws nickels around like manhole covers" Halas. Reinsdorf now has a reputation of being as big a tightwad as either of them.

I wanted to convey the following with my closing:

1) Reinsdorf is a tightwad;

2) Reinsdorf and his lackies are driving fans away;

3) Driving away your paying customers is lunacy.

To drive home the point, and taking a cue from Dickens during the holiday season (if you recall, I did call him Ebenezer Reinsdorf the previous week), I came up with what I thought was a Scrooge-like reason for this bizarre behavior.

I guess I did too good a job in driving the point home.

And no, we don't use teal in columns to convey sarcasm. You have to detect that on your own there.

Hal,
It's hard to read sarcasm when I've heard you talk about this attendance conspiracy before in threads, and I don't recall too many of those being posted in teal. Add that to the fact that you constantly rip on JR whenever you can (though most of it is deserved) and it was difficult for me to see the sarcasm.

Guess I'll know next time that when you make an anti-JR post or comment you are truly being sarcastic. In reality you really like the guy and are just trying to ruffle the feathers of people here. :D:

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Well, maybe I'm like one of those authors who gets interpreted to death in high school and college lit. classes, and when you aske the author what he meant, he says, "I just wanted to tell a good story."

Iterpret it whatever way you want. I know what I meant, but if I conveyed that to you, so much the better because what you said is true.

What I'm responding to is mainly those who were throwing out the numbers to prove the faulty premise of my article. They're the ones who really missed the boat.

So missing the boat is when someone doesn't agree with the outrageous claims you continuously make. The fact that you're points have been refuted (and points you've made before) by actual numbers and all of the sudden the tables are turned to us missing the boat. So are we to take nothing you say seriously?? How come the fans that got riled up being anti-Reinsdorf didn't miss the boat? Because they agree with you?

Bob

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Hal,
It's hard to read sarcasm when I've heard you talk about this attendance conspiracy before in threads, and I don't recall too many of those being posted in teal. Add that to the fact that you constantly rip on JR whenever you can (though most of it is deserved) and it was difficult for me to see the sarcasm.

Guess I'll know next time that when you make an anti-JR post or comment you are truly being sarcastic. In reality you really like the guy and are just trying to ruffle the feathers of people here. :D:

Bob

Now I wouldn't go that far!!!!

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
So missing the boat is when someone doesn't agree with the outrageous claims you continuously make. The fact that you're points have been refuted (and points you've made before) by actual numbers and all of the sudden the tables are turned to us missing the boat. So are we to take nothing you say seriously?? How come the fans that got riled up being anti-Reinsdorf didn't miss the boat? Because they agree with you?

Bob

Okay Bob, riddle me this: Do you think I actually wanted people to send straws to Uncle Jer? Or do you think I was making a point about what the team is going to do this year? Do you think I "riled up" people by telling them in my column and on this message board to send those straws?

Also, exactly what points that I've made have been refuted? I really want to hear this one. And don't make it anything regarding my last column because I have a friend with whom I discussed yesterday (Monday) how I went about writing the article and arrived at my last few sentences. This was before any refutations were published. (And no, it wasn't the email to you that I mailed this morning, PHG, where I expressed my disbelief that people were taking those comments seriously.)

I'll say it once again: there is no logical reason for the Sox to have to trade Magglo Ordonez (or anybody else) because of some ridiculously low budget figure that Jerry Reinsdorf has hogtied his GM with. There is no logical reason for slapping the faces of his season ticket holders. There is no logical reason to raise ticket prices after a season in which the Sox did nothing.

So why shouldn't I propose an illogical reason in order to show the stupidity of it all?

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Now I wouldn't go that far!!!!

I think I'd better elaborate on this one. I'm not proposing an attendance conspiracy so much as I'm questioning the entire modus operandi of this outfit. They've done very little for the past 22 years but slap their fans in the face and then try to make up for that by kneeing them in the groin.

That has been the overall theme of the "attendance conspiracy" posts.

doogiec
12-30-2003, 10:56 PM
I've got a great deal for all the conspiracy theorists who believe Reinsdorf is intentionally holding down attendance to increase his profits:

I will be opening up my house to the public this weekend. You can come to my house, pay me $15 to park in my driveway, and pay me another $20 to come into my house, and I'll sell you beer all day long for $4.50 a piece. At the end of the day, I'll send $2.50 to the State of Illinois and you can explain to me how I'd actually be better off financially if I didn't do this.

Unless the lease payment per ticket is higher than the price of the ticket (plus additional revenue), which it isn't, this theory is complete and total nonsense.

TornLabrum
12-30-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
I've got a great deal for all the conspiracy theorists who believe Reinsdorf is intentionally holding down attendance to increase his profits:

I will be opening up my house to the public this weekend. You can come to my house, pay me $15 to park in my driveway, and pay me another $20 to come into my house, and I'll sell you beer all day long for $4.50 a piece. At the end of the day, I'll send $2.50 to the State of Illinois and you can explain to me how I'd actually be better off financially if I didn't do this.

Unless the lease payment per ticket is higher than the price of the ticket (plus additional revenue), which it isn't, this theory is complete and total nonsense.

You need to keep up with the thread.

gosox41
12-31-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I think I'd better elaborate on this one. I'm not proposing an attendance conspiracy so much as I'm questioning the entire modus operandi of this outfit. They've done very little for the past 22 years but slap their fans in the face and then try to make up for that by kneeing them in the groin.

That has been the overall theme of the "attendance conspiracy" posts.

This argument makes sense. JR has pretty much alienated the fans. I don't think it's intentional though. I think it's because he's so out of touch with reality more so then him trying to avoid paying rent.

I do seem to recall some posts in the past where you made comments regarding JR's sweet rent deal and how he tries to avoid paying rent. Of course the hard part now is finding those posts to show you why I think you believe in the conspiracy theory. If things die down around here I'll try to look into it. That's the whole reason I think you believe that JR is actually trying to keep attendance low...you've commented on it before.

Bob

joeynach
12-31-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
This argument makes sense. JR has pretty much alienated the fans. I don't think it's intentional though. I think it's because he's so out of touch with reality more so then him trying to avoid paying rent.

I do seem to recall some posts in the past where you made comments regarding JR's sweet rent deal and how he tries to avoid paying rent. Of course the hard part now is finding those posts to show you why I think you believe in the conspiracy theory. If things die down around here I'll try to look into it. That's the whole reason I think you believe that JR is actually trying to keep attendance low...you've commented on it before.

Bob

Whether there is a conspiracy here with the attendance and rent issue is not the point. We will never know that. Just like we will never really know who killed JFK. All we can do is speculate given presented facts. I think the point here is that the mere fact JR has this clasue, the mere fact that he uses it, and the mere fact that a guy who paid 1 of the 50 greatest NBA players, pippen, a mere 800k until he left the team is control some questions will be rasied and some people will keep a skeptical eye. Especially to things they find is illogical. Such as a reduced 58 mil payroll in 04 after a great attendence yeat that included the all star game and letting all your FA's walk even thought the division is there for the taking. I beleive with things like this going on, we all think to oursleves "what is the reasoning behind this". And one method to JR's madness could be this clause.

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
This argument makes sense. JR has pretty much alienated the fans. I don't think it's intentional though. I think it's because he's so out of touch with reality more so then him trying to avoid paying rent.

I do seem to recall some posts in the past where you made comments regarding JR's sweet rent deal and how he tries to avoid paying rent. Of course the hard part now is finding those posts to show you why I think you believe in the conspiracy theory. If things die down around here I'll try to look into it. That's the whole reason I think you believe that JR is actually trying to keep attendance low...you've commented on it before.

Bob

Once again, the actions of this organization are inexplicable. No one knows why they do what they do, including me.

I like using the "conspiracy theory" on occasion to stimulate discussion, and the purpose of my first post in this tread was to out myself as far as that goes. You don't need to go through the posts I've put up the past few years to show that I have. I'll stipulate to that.

However, you may think you know what I think, but I think that only I know what I think because it's my brain that thinks what I think. And I know what I think. I think that trotting by using the conspiracy theory on occasion is one way of stimulating discussion so that maybe we can get a handle on what Uncle Jer is thinking (yeah, like that's possible).

I think what you are missing is my motives in all of this. When I write something in my column it is in hopes that someone will be entertained. Baseball is entertainment, and the reason we all live and die Sox baseball is that we find it entertaining to do so. It's a great diversion that helps take one's mind off things like the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda, or whatever the problems of the day are.

People email me telling me that they enjoy what I write, and occasionally they tell me that I'm a hack and should go back under the rock I crawled out from. I like getting both. And I'm flattered when I see a topic I wrote about become the subject of a thread.

However, when people pick up on the last three or four sentences of an article, the punchline of my little story and completely miss the point I'm making with the article, then it's time to come clean.

I don't think Uncle Jer really wants to avoid paying rent. But his actions are so stupid, it's almost a logical explanation. If you really want to know the truth, I'll tell you right now: I think he's saddled himself with a bunch of incompetents from Kenny Williams (who, if nothing much happens in the next few weeks will again be saddled with the nickname Prof. Chaos--and you heard it here first) to Rob Gallas, who has based his entire career on the idea he stole from a 12-year-old boy, according to more than one person I've talked to.

While I'm revealing future plans, I'll also tell you that I will continue to make outrageous statements (although I think statements that are a lot more outrageous have eminated from the keyboards of Jay Marriotti and some other Chicago writers) if they drive home a point and maybe give people a chuckle (as I hope the "send straws to The Chairman" campaign did).

That's it. Those are my motives. We now return you to your regularly scheduled messages.

joecrede
12-31-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
Whether there is a conspiracy here with the attendance and rent issue is not the point. We will never know that. Just like we will never really know who killed JFK. All we can do is speculate given presented facts. I think the point here is that the mere fact JR has this clasue, the mere fact that he uses it, and the mere fact that a guy who paid 1 of the 50 greatest NBA players, pippen, a mere 800k until he left the team is control some questions will be rasied and some people will keep a skeptical eye. Especially to things they find is illogical. Such as a reduced 58 mil payroll in 04 after a great attendence yeat that included the all star game and letting all your FA's walk even thought the division is there for the taking. I beleive with things like this going on, we all think to oursleves "what is the reasoning behind this". And one method to JR's madness could be this clause.

1. The rent clause is not an incentive to field a team with a $58M payroll.

2. Scottie Pippen signed a long-term contract because he was coming off of back surgery. He chose security over market value.

3. A $58M payroll (right now it stands at about $62M) is an increase over last year's $51M payroll.

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
1. The rent clause is not an incentive to field a team with a $58M payroll.

2. Scottie Pippen signed a long-term contract because he was coming off of back surgery. He chose security over market value.

3. A $58M payroll (right now it stands at about $62M) is an increase over last year's $51M payroll.

And I'm done with this thread. Argue among yourselves.

Lip Man 1
12-31-2003, 02:21 PM
Joe;

And even with a 58 million dollar payroll it's still 12 million less then the median MLB payroll isn't it?

Now factor in the fact that this is Chicago, not Pittsburgh, San Diego or Kansas City.

Just wondering....

Do you still think we should be thankful for this increase? Isn't that like giving a half a slice of bread to a starving man?

(I'm making an assumption here because from your post about the fact that Uncle Jerry increased the payroll from the previous year I got a feeling you think we should appreciate that.)

Lip

joecrede
12-31-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe;

And even with a 58 million dollar payroll it's still 12 million less then the median MLB payroll isn't it?

Now factor in the fact that this is Chicago, not Pittsburgh, San Diego or Kansas City.

Just wondering....

Do you still think we should be thankful for this increase? Isn't that like giving a half a slice of bread to a starving man?

(I'm making an assumption here because from your post about the fact that Uncle Jerry increased the payroll from the previous year I got a feeling you think we should appreciate that.)

Lip

Lip, like Hal's, my posts are open to interpretation.

TornLabrum
12-31-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Lip, like Hal's, my posts are open to interpretation.

Good one!

gosox41
01-01-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
Whether there is a conspiracy here with the attendance and rent issue is not the point. We will never know that. Just like we will never really know who killed JFK. All we can do is speculate given presented facts. I think the point here is that the mere fact JR has this clasue, the mere fact that he uses it, and the mere fact that a guy who paid 1 of the 50 greatest NBA players, pippen, a mere 800k until he left the team is control some questions will be rasied and some people will keep a skeptical eye. Especially to things they find is illogical. Such as a reduced 58 mil payroll in 04 after a great attendence yeat that included the all star game and letting all your FA's walk even thought the division is there for the taking. I beleive with things like this going on, we all think to oursleves "what is the reasoning behind this". And one method to JR's madness could be this clause.

To clear a few things up:

1. The state of Illinois gave him the sweet heart lease agreement. It still doesn't mean JR doesn't want a ton of fans to show. It's already been shown that based on the lease agreement, the more fans that show the more $$$ JR makes.

2. Pippen signed a long term contract. JR didn't owe him a thing above that no matte what Pippen did on the court. Pip shouldn't have signed the agreement if he was going to complain about it. Also the Bulls did right by Pippen by doing a sign and trade to Portland when they traded him. They could have let him go as an unrestricted FA and he it would have cost him about $20 mill.

3. The 2003 Sox payroll that they actually spent out of pocket was about $52 mill. They didn't pay Alomar or Everett's salary so while they technicaly had contracts on their roster worth more, they didn't pay. The 2004 payroll estimation of $58 mill. is higher then what the Sox actually paid out in '03.

Bob

gosox41
01-01-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Once again, the actions of this organization are inexplicable. No one knows why they do what they do, including me.

I like using the "conspiracy theory" on occasion to stimulate discussion, and the purpose of my first post in this tread was to out myself as far as that goes. You don't need to go through the posts I've put up the past few years to show that I have. I'll stipulate to that.

However, you may think you know what I think, but I think that only I know what I think because it's my brain that thinks what I think. And I know what I think. I think that trotting by using the conspiracy theory on occasion is one way of stimulating discussion so that maybe we can get a handle on what Uncle Jer is thinking (yeah, like that's possible).

I think what you are missing is my motives in all of this. When I write something in my column it is in hopes that someone will be entertained. Baseball is entertainment, and the reason we all live and die Sox baseball is that we find it entertaining to do so. It's a great diversion that helps take one's mind off things like the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda, or whatever the problems of the day are.

People email me telling me that they enjoy what I write, and occasionally they tell me that I'm a hack and should go back under the rock I crawled out from. I like getting both. And I'm flattered when I see a topic I wrote about become the subject of a thread.

However, when people pick up on the last three or four sentences of an article, the punchline of my little story and completely miss the point I'm making with the article, then it's time to come clean.

I don't think Uncle Jer really wants to avoid paying rent. But his actions are so stupid, it's almost a logical explanation. If you really want to know the truth, I'll tell you right now: I think he's saddled himself with a bunch of incompetents from Kenny Williams (who, if nothing much happens in the next few weeks will again be saddled with the nickname Prof. Chaos--and you heard it here first) to Rob Gallas, who has based his entire career on the idea he stole from a 12-year-old boy, according to more than one person I've talked to.

While I'm revealing future plans, I'll also tell you that I will continue to make outrageous statements (although I think statements that are a lot more outrageous have eminated from the keyboards of Jay Marriotti and some other Chicago writers) if they drive home a point and maybe give people a chuckle (as I hope the "send straws to The Chairman" campaign did).

That's it. Those are my motives. We now return you to your regularly scheduled messages.

I agree with JR hiring incomptent idiots around him which is the main reason I think the orgnaziation is in the sorry state it's today. What idea did Gallas steal from a 12 year old?

Also, I have no problem wiht outrageous statements, just as long as their is some reasoning or proof in them and also as long as you stand by what you say and not talk about open ended statements that allow you to retract when proven wrong. I won't go into to any more detail about that.

I do find your articles entertaining and like repsonding to them. Bottom line is JR is an idiot owner who is running the organization into the ground. We can both agree on that. But like you said about who know's what you're really thinking and how we shouldn't question your thought process because the only one who know's what's in your head is you, I'm sure the same goes for JR. So if we can question him and his motives, I can certainly question your articles (which are supposed to spark debate) about your motives and theories when it comes to talking about any part of the White Sox organization.

Bob

TornLabrum
01-01-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I agree with JR hiring incomptent idiots around him which is the main reason I think the orgnaziation is in the sorry state it's today. What idea did Gallas steal from a 12 year old?

Also, I have no problem wiht outrageous statements, just as long as their is some reasoning or proof in them and also as long as you stand by what you say and not talk about open ended statements that allow you to retract when proven wrong. I won't go into to any more detail about that.

I do find your articles entertaining and like repsonding to them. Bottom line is JR is an idiot owner who is running the organization into the ground. We can both agree on that. But like you said about who know's what you're really thinking and how we shouldn't question your thought process because the only one who know's what's in your head is you, I'm sure the same goes for JR. So if we can question him and his motives, I can certainly question your articles (which are supposed to spark debate) about your motives and theories when it comes to talking about any part of the White Sox organization.

Bob

The idea that Rob Galas got from the 12-year-old was "Turn Back the Clock Day." Lip can give you all the details, if you'd like. He's stated them in past threads. I've heard the same story from 2-3 other sources besides Lip, btw.

I have no trouble with your interpreting my thought in a particular way. I think where the problem comes in is where I said, "And then consider that all of this is part of The Chairmanís master plan." I should have said, "might be" instead of is to better express what I was going for, although I thought that by using the word "consider" I was stating that what followed was speculation.

Precision of language is important, and I think I may have been too imprecise. However, if you go back and look at the history of the "Fallen Arches" column you will find the following written by me:

Iím not big on conspiracy theories. Most of them are full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

You can find that entire column at:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=1449

So naturally after that, I presented my own conspiracy theory. I like to do that sort of thing.

ewokpelts
01-01-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
To clear a few things up:

1. The state of Illinois gave him the sweet heart lease agreement. It still doesn't mean JR doesn't want a ton of fans to show. It's already been shown that based on the lease agreement, the more fans that show the more $$$ JR makes.

2. Pippen signed a long term contract. JR didn't owe him a thing above that no matte what Pippen did on the court. Pip shouldn't have signed the agreement if he was going to complain about it. Also the Bulls did right by Pippen by doing a sign and trade to Portland when they traded him. They could have let him go as an unrestricted FA and he it would have cost him about $20 mill.

Bob

my response to :
1. Even though Jerry had to pay rent last year, it was ONLY 435 thousand dollars. I think he paid Burly-Mon less than that to win 13+ games.

2. Pippen was traded to Houston from teh Bulls. Houston later traded Pip to Portland. Sides, If Jordan honored his contract, then why shouldnt pippen?

Gene

MisterB
01-02-2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
1. Even though Jerry had to pay rent last year, it was ONLY 435 thousand dollars. I think he paid Burly-Mon less than that to win 13+ games.

Not quite. The deal is that the Sox pay $2.50 for every full price ticket once 1.2 mil are sold. (Not just every ticket over 1.2 mil) So if they pay at all, they pay at least $3M (and a max of $5M @ 2 mil FP tix sold).

gosox41
01-02-2004, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
my response to :
1. Even though Jerry had to pay rent last year, it was ONLY 435 thousand dollars. I think he paid Burly-Mon less than that to win 13+ games.



On the flip side, it was the state of Illinois that made this sweetheart lease deal with JR and then chose to extend it. I'm not going to blame JR for getting a good lease from a place he rents just like I'm not going to blame someone for getting a great deal on a car because they're able to negotiate. No one held a gun up to the State of Illinois to keep the Sox in town or give him a great lease. They voluntarily entered this. It's not like the White Sox are that vital to the city of Chicago's economy that if they left town unemployment rates would sky rocket and mass poverty would break out.



Bob