PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf has the money


WSox8404
01-16-2004, 05:39 PM
Whats up everyone. I heard something interesting the other day. I kind of knew it all along but wasn't exactly sure. At this point however I am pretty sure though. I was speaking to another die hard Sox fan and he was telling me all about the organization and its problems. He said he did some research into this and that he was damn sure of what he was talking about. What he said was that the only reason why the Sox payroll is only 60 or so million was because ownership is just plain cheap.

He said that just from TV deals alone, Reinsdork and his co-owners could pay the salary. Then all of the other money they bring in, i.e. ticket sales, food sales, merchandise, is just extra for them to stick into their pockets. Plain and simple. Reinsdork may care about baseball, but the other investors do not really give a damn. They are screwed businessmen who only want more and more money. Another way that they reap in even more money is by the low attendance. Believe it or not, if the Sox do not get a certain amount of fans a year, they do not have to pay rent for U.S. Cellular field. Rent is a huge amount to pay and if they don't have to pay it, the more money they get. So the only assumption is that they are teetering along the brink of that attendance figure. If they actually put a winner on the field, the increase of attendance would put that figure over the top. Sad but true.

If the people that own a team only care about the money aspect of ownership, then the fans and team suffers. This is the case with the Sox. But there is something that may make you people happy. I mentioned to this fan that it would be a miracle for someone like Donald Trump to buy the team. What he said in return made me smile. Donald Trump has expressed interest to own a sports team from Chicago, preferably a baseball team. So that would either be the Scrubs or the Sox. He also hates Georgie boy over in New York. That would make him lean toward the Sox because they are natural American League rivals. So who knows? Maybe one day Trump will own the Sox and we could have a payroll of close to 200 million bucks. Wouldn't that be nice. But in the meantime keep on being White Sox fans. I know that I will because no matter what, the players want to win. And as long as that desire is there, they could possibly go far.

P.S. My source is a highly respected retired Chicago Police Officer who really does know what he is talking about.

Hondo
01-16-2004, 05:41 PM
JR is cheap!??!? Call Reuters!!!!

soxnut
01-16-2004, 05:45 PM
Well, if that's even close to true then that's cool. What the Sox could do with an owner like Trump......................

Maybe a campaign should be started to try and get him here before one of his young girlfriends gives hime a heart attack........... :D:

joeynach
01-16-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by WSox8404
Whats up everyone. I heard something interesting the other day. I kind of knew it all along but wasn't exactly sure. At this point however I am pretty sure though. I was speaking to another die hard Sox fan and he was telling me all about the organization and its problems. He said he did some research into this and that he was damn sure of what he was talking about. What he said was that the only reason why the Sox payroll is only 60 or so million was because ownership is just plain cheap.

He said that just from TV deals alone, Reinsdork and his co-owners could pay the salary. Then all of the other money they bring in, i.e. ticket sales, food sales, merchandise, is just extra for them to stick into their pockets. Plain and simple. Reinsdork may care about baseball, but the other investors do not really give a damn. They are screwed businessmen who only want more and more money. Another way that they reap in even more money is by the low attendance. Believe it or not, if the Sox do not get a certain amount of fans a year, they do not have to pay rent for U.S. Cellular field. Rent is a huge amount to pay and if they don't have to pay it, the more money they get. So the only assumption is that they are teetering along the brink of that attendance figure. If they actually put a winner on the field, the increase of attendance would put that figure over the top. Sad but true.

If the people that own a team only care about the money aspect of ownership, then the fans and team suffers. This is the case with the Sox. But there is something that may make you people happy. I mentioned to this fan that it would be a miracle for someone like Donald Trump to buy the team. What he said in return made me smile. Donald Trump has expressed interest to own a sports team from Chicago, preferably a baseball team. So that would either be the Scrubs or the Sox. He also hates Georgie boy over in New York. That would make him lean toward the Sox because they are natural American League rivals. So who knows? Maybe one day Trump will own the Sox and we could have a payroll of close to 200 million bucks. Wouldn't that be nice. But in the meantime keep on being White Sox fans. I know that I will because no matter what, the players want to win. And as long as that desire is there, they could possibly go far.

P.S. My source is a highly respected retired Chicago Police Officer who really does know what he is talking about.

My family is close friends with one of the minority shareholders. He is a great man. We talk about things like this all the time. The whole cheapness thing gets blown way out of porportion. Sure the sox are not spend happy. They all want to win, but it they spend in an economically responsible way. Its not wise to spend spend spend and then just "hope" with a lot of peoples money at stake that attendance and revenue pick up. In 2000 when we won the division we went from 1/3 full to 1/2 full. OOOOOOOOoooooooooo. The point is the budget is agreed upon by economical projections based on histroy and stats. He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend. But risking a digging a hole for ourselves like the 2000 rockies is not smart. THey spent like 100 million then saw revenue not match up and are in debt until 2015. No thank you.

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
My family is close friends with one of the minority shareholders. He is a great man. We talk about things like this all the time. The whole cheapness thing gets blown way out of porportion. Sure the sox are not spend happy. They all want to win, but it they spend in an economically responsible way. Its not wise to spend spend spend and then just "hope" with a lot of peoples money at stake that attendance and revenue pick up. In 2000 when we won the division we went from 1/3 full to 1/2 full. OOOOOOOOoooooooooo. The point is the budget is agreed upon by economical projections based on histroy and stats. He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend. But risking a digging a hole for ourselves like the 2000 rockies is not smart. THey spent like 100 million then saw revenue not match up and are in debt until 2015. No thank you.

How much yearly income does your friend see from the Sox? Just curious.

You make light of that jump in attendance, but that isn't peanuts. the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is 1/6 which is 500K fans over a season, or about $15M extra revenue. The next season the number of season ticket holders jumped, but the Sox fell on their faces when Frank and Boomer both got injured. So walk up ticket sales faltered and the Sox didn't do well at the gate. 2002 was a big step backward for this team, but 2003 showed promise and stayed in the race until September which paid off in good second half walk up sales. Now the Sox have let all the recent acquisitions go and are back to home grown talent, are over their own self-induced salary cap, are stuck with big contracts for underprefoming players, took the money destined for Bartolo and sunk it into Buehrle and Lee (who were here for the next 2-3 years regardless) and continue to cry poor.

I'm not asking for a second mortgage to sign some players, but I seriously doubt the Sox have any debt at all. This division is winnable. If your friend truly wants to win, he will actually make a statement about not surrendering to the flubbies who are making a very aggressive move at the remaining neutral fanbase and tell JR to sign some f'n players.

hold2dibber
01-16-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
My family is close friends with one of the minority shareholders. He is a great man. We talk about things like this all the time. The whole cheapness thing gets blown way out of porportion. Sure the sox are not spend happy. They all want to win, but it they spend in an economically responsible way. Its not wise to spend spend spend and then just "hope" with a lot of peoples money at stake that attendance and revenue pick up. In 2000 when we won the division we went from 1/3 full to 1/2 full. OOOOOOOOoooooooooo. The point is the budget is agreed upon by economical projections based on histroy and stats. He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend. But risking a digging a hole for ourselves like the 2000 rockies is not smart. THey spent like 100 million then saw revenue not match up and are in debt until 2015. No thank you.

The problem I have with this is that I view the current predicament (sp?) as ownership's fault. They had a great head of steam in the early '90s when the park was always full, they were beating the Cubs in attendance, they had a great young team, and they blew it. They blew it because JR was a hawk in the '94 strike. They blew it by the White Flag Trade. They blew it by letting Bevington and JM hang around and around and around when everyone under the sun knew they were done. They blew it by signing Navarro instead of Clemens. And the list goes on and on.

So now they've found themselves in a mess of their own making. But they're not willing to pony up to fix the mess. The result is a lose-lose for everyone. They won't pony up the money to make the team a consistent winner because of attendance. But attendance isn't going to go up until the team is a consistent winner. Somethings got to give. The most obvious answer is for the current ownership to cash in their chips, take their profits and laugh all the way to the bank. If not, why the hell do they want to own the team - they obviously aren't going to win this way and they apparently aren't making money. So why own?

soxnut
01-16-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
My family is close friends with one of the minority shareholders. He is a great man. We talk about things like this all the time. The whole cheapness thing gets blown way out of porportion. Sure the sox are not spend happy. They all want to win, but it they spend in an economically responsible way. Its not wise to spend spend spend and then just "hope" with a lot of peoples money at stake that attendance and revenue pick up. In 2000 when we won the division we went from 1/3 full to 1/2 full. OOOOOOOOoooooooooo. The point is the budget is agreed upon by economical projections based on histroy and stats. He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend. But risking a digging a hole for ourselves like the 2000 rockies is not smart. THey spent like 100 million then saw revenue not match up and are in debt until 2015. No thank you.

I understand that they don't want to just blow money, and it is a risk....but 58 million??? Honestly, they really should spend a little more than that.

I'm not asking them to spend 100 mill or even 90 mill as Hangar has suggested. But what's wrong with 70-75 million? I think our team is decent now(laugh everybody) but, to get more people believing in this team and getting people to come out, they really should have kept at least one of Colon, Alomar, or Everett.

If they didn't keep Colon, at least go after some other established starter,m and a left-handed bat is still needed. I think that's where the cheapness of the whole thing comes about :(:

soxnut
01-16-2004, 06:13 PM
Anyway, if Trump is interested, we should start a campaign to get him more interested. I'm sure he'd be up for the challege that "this is a Cubs town" and try to change that..Trump buying the Sox, what a pr coup that would be......... :D:

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Anyway, if Trump is interested, we should start a campaign to get him more interested. I'm sure he'd be up for the challege that "this is a Cubs town" and try to change that..Trump buying the Sox, what a pr coup that would be......... :D:

You know, that isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Trump is building his new tower here. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors about him buying a team are tied to the Brewers being for sale though.

pudge
01-16-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Anyway, if Trump is interested, we should start a campaign to get him more interested. I'm sure he'd be up for the challege that "this is a Cubs town" and try to change that..Trump buying the Sox, what a pr coup that would be......... :D:

We need to GET ON THIS - where is Hangar when we need him? He should be emailing Trump right now... Trump could turn the southside into a happening place, I'm sure he'd have some "creative" ideas for the area.

CubKilla
01-16-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend.

Just like in '97?

ericiii
01-16-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by WSox8404


He said that just from TV deals alone, Reinsdork and his co-owners could pay the salary. Then all of the other money they bring in, i.e. ticket sales, food sales, merchandise, is just extra for them to stick into their pockets. Plain and simple.


I've posted this before, but to prove a point - In 2001, we brought in 60 Million between ticket sales and broadcast revenue. Sorry,I can't find anything more current on these statistics, but last year's broadcast revenue was suppose to be 40 million. Food sales, merchandise, and other advertising (The billboards around US Cell) bring in who knows how much. Anyway, here is the link:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290777.html

doctor30th
01-16-2004, 07:00 PM
No wonder we never make any money anyone ever see the list of the people who just work in the front office.


list (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/team/cws_frontoffice_dir.jsp?club_context=cws)

dickallen15
01-16-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Just like in '97?

At the beginning of the 1997 season the Sox had the 4th highest payroll in all of baseball. The team was 3.5 games out at the time of the "White Flag" trade, but fans still weren't coming to the ballpark. You could hardly say ownership was being cheap then.

joeynach
01-16-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much yearly income does your friend see from the Sox? Just curious.

You make light of that jump in attendance, but that isn't peanuts. the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is 1/6 which is 500K fans over a season, or about $15M extra revenue. The next season the number of season ticket holders jumped, but the Sox fell on their faces when Frank and Boomer both got injured. So walk up ticket sales faltered and the Sox didn't do well at the gate. 2002 was a big step backward for this team, but 2003 showed promise and stayed in the race until September which paid off in good second half walk up sales. Now the Sox have let all the recent acquisitions go and are back to home grown talent, are over their own self-induced salary cap, are stuck with big contracts for underprefoming players, took the money destined for Bartolo and sunk it into Buehrle and Lee (who were here for the next 2-3 years regardless) and continue to cry poor.

I'm not asking for a second mortgage to sign some players, but I seriously doubt the Sox have any debt at all. This division is winnable. If your friend truly wants to win, he will actually make a statement about not surrendering to the flubbies who are making a very aggressive move at the remaining neutral fanbase and tell JR to sign some f'n players.

My friend is a very rich man. He owns a large window and glass making company in chicago, a family business. So even without the value of his shares in the sox he is a millionare. But he is a diehard sox fan who always does what he can to help the team and the front office.

Lip Man 1
01-16-2004, 07:29 PM
Dick:

Of course you realize Ventura destroyed his leg, the GM publicly stated in the papers (which I have on file) that he was going to go out and acquire a left handed bat and another guy to play 3rd base then did nothing, the club got off to an 8-18 start and this was two years removed from the labor impasse.

Also remember the club made a windfall in off season ticket sales due to the belle signing.

I'm not shedding any crocodile tears for this ownership group.

The bottom line Dick is one of trust and the simple fact is that right or wrong, a very large number of fans do not trust Uncle Jerry. This organization under his stewardship doesn't have any sustained track record of excellence. When it looked like they were going to achieve this (1999-1994) Uncle Jerry used his considerable influence (re: The Lords Of The Realm - John Helyar) to take a hard line stance and help shut down the game.

I don't have an answer. It's like was posted earlier, the fans aren't going to come back until Uncle Jerry starts spending and proves he wants to win. Uncle Jerry refuses to do this.

Who is right? Well if baseball is a business as many at WSI have stated, then it's up to the business to attract customers. The easiest way to do this is with a good product. A good product in baseball does not have an average record of 83-79 for the past six seasons with one playoff appearance.

Lip

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
My friend is a very rich man. He owns a large window and glass making company in chicago, a family business. So even without the value of his shares in the sox he is a millionare. But he is a diehard sox fan who always does what he can to help the team and the front office.

Yeah, I kind of assumed that because of that whole "part ownership in the Sox" thing you mentioned. :D: I have no doubt he is a big Sox fan. I never questioned that.

I didn't expect an answer, but I would love to find out if the owners all make yearly income from the team and if so how much.

Rex Hudler
01-16-2004, 08:45 PM
The original post in this thread is crap. NO ONE knows for sure how much the Sox make. No one knows what expenses are. Even Forbes, who does estimates, listed the Sox as having $1.2 million in operating income in 2002 before taxes, interest and depreciation. They can't know for sure, but if they are close then the premise of this thread is totally wrong.

You make light of that jump in attendance, but that isn't peanuts. the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is 1/6 which is 500K fans over a season, or about $15M extra revenue. No need to make light of the jump because the Sox didn't. The Sox more than doubled their payroll the next season, going from $31 million to $65 million and it got them squat!


Am I the only one here that gets sick of everybody thinking they know how much money the Sox make? Until they become a publicly traded company, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. It is all guesswork and most of the time, those guessing don't have a damned clue about reality.

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The original post in this thread is crap. NO ONE knows for sure how much the Sox make. No one knows what expenses are. Even Forbes, who does estimates, listed the Sox as having $1.2 million in operating income in 2002 before taxes, interest and depreciation. They can't know for sure, but if they are close then the premise of this thread is totally wrong.

No need to make light of the jump because the Sox didn't. The Sox more than doubled their payroll the next season, going from $31 million to $65 million and it got them squat!


Am I the only one here that gets sick of everybody thinking they know how much money the Sox make? Until they become a publicly traded company, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. It is all guesswork and most of the time, those guessing don't have a damned clue about reality.

It got them squat because of Frank and Boomer's injuries. Also, the reason the payroll was so low the previous year was because they had a bunch of "kids who can play" and were coming off of a terrible two year run of attendance and payroll that the Sox themselves had caused. Immediately thereafter they had to start paying guys like Magglio and Konerko, so some of the raises were just basic baseball. They got lucky to have such a low payroll and do so well. The minute they can't do it on the cheap, they just give up...

I disagree with your final statement. It isn't hard to make educated guesses on how much revenue the Sox have access to. No, the exact figures for media money aren't available, but attendance stuff is pretty basic.

Rex Hudler
01-16-2004, 10:41 PM
It isn't hard to make educated guesses on how much revenue the Sox have access to. No, the exact figures for media money aren't available, but attendance stuff is pretty basic.

I agree revenues are easier to estimate. However, ticket revenues are not as easy as you think. First, I will make one assumption, which I am not convinced is true, but we won't argue that point. The assumption is that attendance is equal to the number of tickets "sold" and is not artificially inflated. Believe it or not, sporting events DO inflate attendance, but I won't argue that point because there is no way of knowing.

Even using that assumption, there is no way of knowing how may tickets are paid for at full price, how many are comoplimentary, how many are traded, how many are used for promotional purposes and how many are discounted. So any estimate on ticket revenue will be absent that information and therefore flawed at least somewhat.

Eexpenses are the key, however. There is no way to estimate
expenses at team incurs. Payroll is the easy part. Lease figures can be estimated closely because that is often public information. But until someone reads every word of the full lease document, I'm not believing figures reported in the newspaper as the whole story.

Expenses like the farm system administration, minor league payroll, scouting and development, front office payroll, game day employee payroll, payroll taxes, benefits for all of the above and the players, taxes, social security contributions, matching pension contributions, bonuese, shareholder payments, travel, marketing expenses etc. etc. (I could go on and on) are not quantifiable by someone outside the organization.

People seem to forget there is an expense side of the ledger when figuring a business' profit.

So for someone like me, you or anyone else on one of these boards to presume they know how much money the Sox make is ludicrous.

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I agree revenues are easier to estimate. However, ticket revenues are not as easy as you think. First, I will make one assumption, which I am not convinced is true, but we won't argue that point. The assumption is that attendance is equal to the number of tickets "sold" and is not artificially inflated. Believe it or not, sporting events DO inflate attendance, but I won't argue that point because there is no way of knowing.

Even using that assumption, there is no way of knowing how may tickets are paid for at full price, how many are comoplimentary, how many are traded, how many are used for promotional purposes and how many are discounted. So any estimate on ticket revenue will be absent that information and therefore flawed at least somewhat.

Eexpenses are the key, however. There is no way to estimate
expenses at team incurs. Payroll is the easy part. Lease figures can be estimated closely because that is often public information. But until someone reads every word of the full lease document, I'm not believing figures reported in the newspaper as the whole story.

Expenses like the farm system administration, minor league payroll, scouting and development, front office payroll, game day employee payroll, payroll taxes, benefits for all of the above and the players, taxes, social security contributions, matching pension contributions, bonuese, shareholder payments, travel, marketing expenses etc. etc. (I could go on and on) are not quantifiable by someone outside the organization.

People seem to forget there is an expense side of the ledger when figuring a business' profit.

So for someone like me, you or anyone else on one of these boards to presume they know how much money the Sox make is ludicrous.

I don't need to figure out exactly how many tickets were sold at full and half price. I can assign an average number of money collected per person who attends that makes sense based on what I know about the park and expenses of attending a game.

Hotdogs: $4.50
Beer: $4.75
Soda: $3.50
Nachoes: $3.00

Ticket prices: range from $14-$40 for most full price seats.

Parking: $13.00/car

The cheapest tickets sell last at USCF. So, let's just assign an average ticket price of $20. I think that if fair since most of the high price box seats are sold as season tickets. Even including 1/2 price discount nights, I think this is a fair number. Feel free to propose a different one. I think it is probably low.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that people spend an average of $10 once inside the park. I think that number again is low.

Still, $30 a head is a pretty easy number to get to as an average revenue base for the fans who walk through the door. That's $60M right there. As I understand it the Sox don't own actually run the food concessions, they just get a cut off the top, so that might be a little high, but I didn't factor in anything at all for merchandise or parking.

Still, that is before any merchandise revenue, media revenue, advertising revenue (those billboards at the park don't come free you know), etc.

It isn't hard to hide profit either. You can give all the BOD official titles and pay them salaries. You can make sure the parking lots are owned by a "sister company" and that all that CASH that gets collected never shows up on the books at all. The list goes on and on of ways to make a profitable business look like it is losing money or barely making a profit.

I don't have access to the books, so you are correct that I cannot prove the Sox are doing any of this, but it doesn't smell right to me, does it to you?

Rex Hudler
01-16-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't need to figure out exactly how many tickets were sold at full and half price. I can assign an average number of money collected per person who attends that makes sense based on what I know about the park and expenses of attending a game.

Hotdogs: $4.50
Beer: $4.75
Soda: $3.50
Nachoes: $3.00

Ticket prices: range from $14-$40 for most full price seats.

Parking: $13.00/car

The cheapest tickets sell last at USCF. So, let's just assign an average ticket price of $20. I think that if fair since most of the high price box seats are sold as season tickets. Even including 1/2 price discount nights, I think this is a fair number. Feel free to propose a different one. I think it is probably low.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that people spend an average of $10 once inside the park. I think that number again is low.

Still, $30 a head is a pretty easy number to get to as an average revenue base for the fans who walk through the door. That's $60M right there. As I understand it the Sox don't own actually run the food concessions, they just get a cut off the top, so that might be a little high, but I didn't factor in anything at all for merchandise or parking.

Still, that is before any merchandise revenue, media revenue, advertising revenue (those billboards at the park don't come free you know), etc.

It isn't hard to hide profit either. You can give all the BOD official titles and pay them salaries. You can make sure the parking lots are owned by a "sister company" and that all that CASH that gets collected never shows up on the books at all. The list goes on and on of ways to make a profitable business look like it is losing money or barely making a profit.

I don't have access to the books, so you are correct that I cannot prove the Sox are doing any of this, but it doesn't smell right to me, does it to you?

I don't question it and I am not convinced they are rolling in big profits. You seem to feel you have the revenue side licked, yet you still haven't addressed the expense side. Accounting 101 teaches you there are two sides to the business ledger.

You can add up all the concession items you want, but food and beverage is contracted out. Until you know what percentage the Sox get of that money those numbers mean nothing. There are expenses to the food side also. Have you figured out how many tickets are comp or promotional and are given away?

Even if you nail the revenues, to make this a realistic discussion we need to dig up what the Sox pay in payroll taxes, in social security contributions, in benefits, in pension payments, in office expenses, in salaries for ticket sales people, in commisions paid to those sales people, in stadium related expenses, in use taxes, in income taxes, in charitable contributions, in travel expense (make sure you add in the $76.50 per diem the players get on the road, along with single rooms at top hotels and flights for spouses as well as charter flights, for the expenses of the spring training facilities, of Minor League personnel, in bats and balls and uniforms. Should I go on??

voodoochile
01-16-2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I don't question it and I am not convinced they are rolling in big profits. You seem to feel you have the revenue side licked, yet you still haven't addressed the expense side. Accounting 101 teaches you there are two sides to the business ledger.

You can add up all the concession items you want, but food and beverage is contracted out. Until you know what percentage the Sox get of that money those numbers mean nothing. There are expenses to the food side also. Have you figured out how many tickets are comp or promotional and are given away?

Even if you nail the revenues, to make this a realistic discussion we need to dig up what the Sox pay in payroll taxes, in social security contributions, in benefits, in pension payments, in office expenses, in salaries for ticket sales people, in commisions paid to those sales people, in stadium related expenses, in use taxes, in income taxes, in charitable contributions, in travel expense (make sure you add in the $76.50 per diem the players get on the road, along with single rooms at top hotels and flights for spouses as well as charter flights, for the expenses of the spring training facilities, of Minor League personnel, in bats and balls and uniforms. Should I go on??

Nope, you make a very solid case for your side of things. Of course that still assumes there is no way to increase revenues. The simplest way to increse revenue is to put winning team on the field. Money=wins. Winning = more paying customers (fans).

The Sox are playing in the weakest division in baseball where one more solid arm and a starting CF might mean the difference between winning the division and finishing at .500 tied with two other teams 5 games out of first.

Since those players could be had for an extra $10M max, it doesn't seem smart to sit on your hands and whine about low revenue if you are the Sox. This team is very poorly marketed and they have a ton of direct competition.

When the competition is raising the pot, you can either call the bet or pack it up and go home. So far the Sox are choosing the second option and hoping they draw an inside straight flush on the next hand...

Rex Hudler
01-16-2004, 11:55 PM
I understand what you are saying.......

But I also understand that I am not the one sitting in on budget meetings or meeting with shareholders and making decisions based on the numbers that we do not know.

I don't have historical data on how ratios of increased payroll:increased revenues via attendance. I don't know what risks the shareholders are willing to take on their investment. For all we know, the club could have lost $15 million in 2001 after they doubled the payroll. We can't know that.

So I am not going to sing the song that the player payroll should be raised because contracts we have signed are limiting what we can do. If trades have to be made to give us more payroll flexibility, as an owner, I would certainly suggest that be the first option. Just because we are in a tough spot this year, doesn't mean an owner is going to look past the mistakes that got us there.

The bottom line is that the Orioles have outspent the Sox by an average of $26 million per year the last 5 years and have been worse. The Dodgers payroll is double ours and have been no better in recent years. The Marlins won two World Series with a payroll LESS than the Sox payroll each time.

Throwing good money after bad is not the answer from a business perspective. Making the most of what you do with the money you have to spend is what matters most. I shudder to think how many more mistakes could be made if the Sox spent like the Orioles.

Ziffman
01-16-2004, 11:56 PM
What is Jerry Reinsdorf worth?
What are the Chicago White Sox worth?

Rex Hudler
01-17-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Ziffman
What is Jerry Reinsdorf worth?
What are the Chicago White Sox worth?

Forbes estimates the Sox are worth $233 million. How accurate that is anyone can guess.

voodoochili, in the FWIW department......

Forbes estimated the Sox had $17.8 million in operating income before taxes, interest and depreciation based on 2000 numbers. They estimated the Sox had $1.2 million in operating income before taxes, interest and depreciation based n 2002 numbers.

I have no idea if those numbers are accurate or not. I found them the other night from another message board. I went back tonight and could not find the 2002 numbers again.

Lastly, you are correct in that profits can be hidden. It could simply hidden in salaries. For instance JR and every stockholder "could" draw a salary of $1 million. If there are 10 other shareholders, then profits are definitely hidden. I am not saying this is done, because I have no idea. I would doubt it because they each then would subject themselves to an additional $1 million in taxable personal income. But such possibilities are there.

gosox41
01-17-2004, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by WSox8404
Whats up everyone. I heard something interesting the other day. I kind of knew it all along but wasn't exactly sure. At this point however I am pretty sure though. I was speaking to another die hard Sox fan and he was telling me all about the organization and its problems. He said he did some research into this and that he was damn sure of what he was talking about. What he said was that the only reason why the Sox payroll is only 60 or so million was because ownership is just plain cheap.

He said that just from TV deals alone, Reinsdork and his co-owners could pay the salary. Then all of the other money they bring in, i.e. ticket sales, food sales, merchandise, is just extra for them to stick into their pockets. Plain and simple. Reinsdork may care about baseball, but the other investors do not really give a damn. They are screwed businessmen who only want more and more money. Another way that they reap in even more money is by the low attendance. Believe it or not, if the Sox do not get a certain amount of fans a year, they do not have to pay rent for U.S. Cellular field. Rent is a huge amount to pay and if they don't have to pay it, the more money they get. So the only assumption is that they are teetering along the brink of that attendance figure. If they actually put a winner on the field, the increase of attendance would put that figure over the top. Sad but true.

If the people that own a team only care about the money aspect of ownership, then the fans and team suffers. This is the case with the Sox. But there is something that may make you people happy. I mentioned to this fan that it would be a miracle for someone like Donald Trump to buy the team. What he said in return made me smile. Donald Trump has expressed interest to own a sports team from Chicago, preferably a baseball team. So that would either be the Scrubs or the Sox. He also hates Georgie boy over in New York. That would make him lean toward the Sox because they are natural American League rivals. So who knows? Maybe one day Trump will own the Sox and we could have a payroll of close to 200 million bucks. Wouldn't that be nice. But in the meantime keep on being White Sox fans. I know that I will because no matter what, the players want to win. And as long as that desire is there, they could possibly go far.

P.S. My source is a highly respected retired Chicago Police Officer who really does know what he is talking about.

I think we' ve heard a lot of these arguments before, and a lot of them have been rebuffed. Some sounds like pure speculation, like the fact that all Sox owners are money hungry people who want more and more. Did your police friend meet all these people or does he just assume they want more because they already have money and are jealous.

And that attendence argumemt ruins all credibility. Do the math.

Bob

gosox41
01-17-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much yearly income does your friend see from the Sox? Just curious.

You make light of that jump in attendance, but that isn't peanuts. the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 is 1/6 which is 500K fans over a season, or about $15M extra revenue. The next season the number of season ticket holders jumped, but the Sox fell on their faces when Frank and Boomer both got injured. So walk up ticket sales faltered and the Sox didn't do well at the gate. 2002 was a big step backward for this team, but 2003 showed promise and stayed in the race until September which paid off in good second half walk up sales. Now the Sox have let all the recent acquisitions go and are back to home grown talent, are over their own self-induced salary cap, are stuck with big contracts for underprefoming players, took the money destined for Bartolo and sunk it into Buehrle and Lee (who were here for the next 2-3 years regardless) and continue to cry poor.

I'm not asking for a second mortgage to sign some players, but I seriously doubt the Sox have any debt at all. This division is winnable. If your friend truly wants to win, he will actually make a statement about not surrendering to the flubbies who are making a very aggressive move at the remaining neutral fanbase and tell JR to sign some f'n players.

The Sox have little to ne debt for the reason that they don't spend like the Rockies in 2000. So you probably are right there, but I don't think this team is the cash cow some say it is.

I personally think JR should take on some debt and raise the payroll to $70 mill just to see how the fans react. Fans here will probably not believe JR took on such debt and could then raise the payroll to $80 mill because he's obviously covering something up somewhere.

Bob

gosox41
01-17-2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by joeynach
My friend is a very rich man. He owns a large window and glass making company in chicago, a family business. So even without the value of his shares in the sox he is a millionare. But he is a diehard sox fan who always does what he can to help the team and the front office.

Most people don't realize that a lot of Sox owners made their money elsewhere. For some investors getting involved in the Sox was a move for their ego or to fulfill their dream of being involved in MLB (when they obviously weren't good enough to play it.)

But when the first poster to this thread makes those claims about all owners only caring about profits, it obviously is way off base.

Bob

gosox41
01-17-2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I understand what you are saying.......

But I also understand that I am not the one sitting in on budget meetings or meeting with shareholders and making decisions based on the numbers that we do not know.

I don't have historical data on how ratios of increased payroll:increased revenues via attendance. I don't know what risks the shareholders are willing to take on their investment. For all we know, the club could have lost $15 million in 2001 after they doubled the payroll. We can't know that.

So I am not going to sing the song that the player payroll should be raised because contracts we have signed are limiting what we can do. If trades have to be made to give us more payroll flexibility, as an owner, I would certainly suggest that be the first option. Just because we are in a tough spot this year, doesn't mean an owner is going to look past the mistakes that got us there.

The bottom line is that the Orioles have outspent the Sox by an average of $26 million per year the last 5 years and have been worse. The Dodgers payroll is double ours and have been no better in recent years. The Marlins won two World Series with a payroll LESS than the Sox payroll each time.

Throwing good money after bad is not the answer from a business perspective. Making the most of what you do with the money you have to spend is what matters most. I shudder to think how many more mistakes could be made if the Sox spent like the Orioles.

I'm glad there is someone here who finally makes some sense. As much as we all want to believe JR and hsi ownership groups are making money hand over fist, it's probably nto true.

Most want it to be true and spew on and on about it but they don't know the truth nor do they want to try to understand that they may lack the knowledge to make an educated assumption.

On a side note, I always found it funny how some of these people are willing to make derogatory comments about JR without fact, but if you take even a slightly personal shot at them they go on the defensive real quick. Of course that has nothing to do with baseball, but is something I've noticed.

Bob

Rex Hudler
01-17-2004, 11:17 AM
I personally think JR should take on some debt and raise the payroll to $70 mill just to see how the fans react.

The problem is that they already did that in the 2001 season, increasing their payroll from $31 million in 2000 to $65 million in 2001. A couple of injuries, the teams struggles and fans stop coming.

jabrch
01-17-2004, 11:31 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2005 Chicago Trumps!

DirtySouthsider
01-17-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I understand what you are saying.......

But I also understand that I am not the one sitting in on budget meetings or meeting with shareholders and making decisions based on the numbers that we do not know.

I don't have historical data on how ratios of increased payroll:increased revenues via attendance. I don't know what risks the shareholders are willing to take on their investment. For all we know, the club could have lost $15 million in 2001 after they doubled the payroll. We can't know that.

So I am not going to sing the song that the player payroll should be raised because contracts we have signed are limiting what we can do. If trades have to be made to give us more payroll flexibility, as an owner, I would certainly suggest that be the first option. Just because we are in a tough spot this year, doesn't mean an owner is going to look past the mistakes that got us there.

The bottom line is that the Orioles have outspent the Sox by an average of $26 million per year the last 5 years and have been worse. The Dodgers payroll is double ours and have been no better in recent years. The Marlins won two World Series with a payroll LESS than the Sox payroll each time.

Throwing good money after bad is not the answer from a business perspective. Making the most of what you do with the money you have to spend is what matters most. I shudder to think how many more mistakes could be made if the Sox spent like the Orioles.


The comparisons to the Orioles and Dodgers may not work in this situation. The problem with the Sox in the matter is they have a good team last year and let all thier own free agents go. The AL Central would have been very winable if last years roster would have returned.....but instead look at what management has done.

So I don't think the fans wanted us to go out and sign Vlad, I-Rod, Maddux..etc and boost our payroll up to the RedSox and Yanks level.......just keep what we had and do some minor tinkering(sorry to use that word).

DirtySouthsider
01-17-2004, 11:46 AM
Does anyone know if the Sox profited from hosting the All-Star game last year? I know I forked out alot of money to go to all the festivites so where does that money go?

Rex Hudler
01-17-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
The comparisons to the Orioles and Dodgers may not work in this situation. The problem with the Sox in the matter is they have a good team last year and let all thier own free agents go. The AL Central would have been very winable if last years roster would have returned.....but instead look at what management has done.

So I don't think the fans wanted us to go out and sign Vlad, I-Rod, Maddux..etc and boost our payroll up to the RedSox and Yanks level.......just keep what we had and do some minor tinkering(sorry to use that word).

The problem is, it was never planned to keep all of those free agents. They were in essence rental players. They got Alomar and Everett for FREE last year. There is no way they could have kept them and paid for them this year. That was strictly a move to try and do something for the moment, efforts that should be applauded whether you liked the trades or not.

For Sox fans to think that the team that ended the season last year to return is just not realistic.

voodoochile
01-17-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The problem is, it was never planned to keep all of those free agents. They were in essence rental players. They got Alomar and Everett for FREE last year. There is no way they could have kept them and paid for them this year. That was strictly a move to try and do something for the moment, efforts that should be applauded whether you liked the trades or not.

For Sox fans to think that the team that ended the season last year to return is just not realistic.

Well then JR expecting to keep the attendance increase he saw because he acquired those players isn't realistic either.

I mean for people who care about winning baseball, there is a huge success story going on 8 miles north of where our team plays.

I agree that some fans take the "going/not going" argument to an extreme. I would still go to some games this year if I lived here and may go to a couple when I take a vacation here next summer (in theory). But, it isn't like this dismanteling thing is a new phenom. It happens every time the Sox get close and fail.

I guess they will "regroup" and 5 years from now with a lot of luck, the team will struggle back to the playoffs again. :(:

Paulwny
01-17-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The problem is that they already did that in the 2001 season, increasing their payroll from $31 million in 2000 to $65 million in 2001. A couple of injuries, the teams struggles and fans stop coming.

Injuries are part of the game when you own a sports team.
The feelings of sox fans is no different the the views expressed by many met fans this year. They feel that their payroll should be increased by $20-30 mil to make them competative and many have claimed they will not renew their season tickets.
The cry from sox and met fans is , 'You mismanaged this team and your asking us to pay for your mistakes."

DirtySouthsider
01-17-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
The problem is, it was never planned to keep all of those free agents. They were in essence rental players. They got Alomar and Everett for FREE last year. There is no way they could have kept them and paid for them this year. That was strictly a move to try and do something for the moment, efforts that should be applauded whether you liked the trades or not.

For Sox fans to think that the team that ended the season last year to return is just not realistic.


It isn't realistic to Bring back Alomar for the peanuts that he signed for in Arizona? Plus Everett didn't sign for that much in Montreal. I am not expecting them to break the bank but those two were very do-able if you are serious about winning.

I can accept that Colon got away because they made him a good offer. But then where was that money coming from? What would have happened if he did accept? So has that money just disappeared now?

voodoochile
01-17-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
It isn't realistic to Bring back Alomar for the peanuts that he signed for in Arizona? Plus Everett didn't sign for that much in Montreal. I am not expecting them to break the bank but those two were very do-able if you are serious about winning.

I can accept that Colon got away because they made him a good offer. But then where was that money coming from? What would have happened if he did accept? So has that money just disappeared now?

They apparently made better offers to both Everett and Alomar but both of them thought they would do better as FA's didn't happen.

The Colon money ($12M) went to Buehrle and Lee who were RFA's. So the Sox sunk the single big ticket they had available into two players who were their property for the next 2-3 years already.

CubKilla
01-17-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
I can accept that Colon got away because they made him a good offer. But then where was that money coming from? What would have happened if he did accept? So has that money just disappeared now?

IIRC, Colon wanted 4 years. The Sox offered 3 years. The Angels gave Bartolo the money he desired. The Sox reportedly deferred a large portion and incentive based another portion of the reported $36 million offered to Colon.

The Sox made Colon an offer they figured he'd refuse so they can tell the fanbase..... "See! We offered him 3 years $36 million and he didn't accept! Don't blame us! We tried!" Just like with Buehrle the year before, alot of Sox fans will blame Colon and call him greedy without looking at the actual numbers..... not like JR is going to release them anyway. In the case of MB, I got the numbers from the horse's mouth..... so to speak. His bro and parents. The Colon numbers were reported in the Daily SouthTown IIRC.

SoxOnTop
01-17-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
My family is close friends with one of the minority shareholders. He is a great man. We talk about things like this all the time. The whole cheapness thing gets blown way out of porportion. Sure the sox are not spend happy. They all want to win, but it they spend in an economically responsible way. Its not wise to spend spend spend and then just "hope" with a lot of peoples money at stake that attendance and revenue pick up. In 2000 when we won the division we went from 1/3 full to 1/2 full. OOOOOOOOoooooooooo. The point is the budget is agreed upon by economical projections based on histroy and stats. He assures me all the time that if the sox need a few extra players to make a push and are in a close race they would spend. But risking a digging a hole for ourselves like the 2000 rockies is not smart. THey spent like 100 million then saw revenue not match up and are in debt until 2015. No thank you.

In case you didn't notice, going from 1/3 full to 1/2 full represents a 50% increase. I would consider that pretty substantial. Plus this minority shareholder sounds just like JR. If we get in a race, and IF fans come to Comiskey we'll spend.

Besides would keeping the team that was a hair away from the Division title and bein a force in the playoffs cost 100 Mil? I think not:

Gordon
Everett
Alomar
Colon
Sullivan


All gone. All contributors on a contending team. And not a single one retained. Doesn't sound like a ownership interested in winning. Sounds like a cheap ownership that wants to make money and oh, if winning is a result, then that's just gravy.,

Paulwny
01-17-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
IIRC, Colon wanted 4 years. The Sox offered 3 years. The Angels gave Bartolo the money he desired. The Sox reportedly deferred a large portion and incentive based another portion of the reported $36 million offered to Colon.

The Sox made Colon an offer they figured he'd refuse so they can tell the fanbase..... "See! We offered him 3 years $36 million and he didn't accept! Don't blame us! We tried!" Just like with Buehrle the year before, alot of Sox fans will blame Colon and call him greedy without looking at the actual numbers..... not like JR is going to release them anyway. In the case of MB, I got the numbers from the horse's mouth..... so to speak. His bro and parents. The Colon numbers were reported in the Daily SouthTown IIRC.

This is the same scenario as in the met camp. Met fans are laughing at the met claim that they offered Vlad the same amt. of money as the Angels and he decided to sign with them. The met contract was incentive laden, they have questions about Vlad's back condition. The Angels' contract is guaranteed, was there any doubt where he would sign?

DirtySouthsider
01-17-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
In case you didn't notice, going from 1/3 full to 1/2 full represents a 50% increase. I would consider that pretty substantial. Plus this minority shareholder sounds just like JR. If we get in a race, and IF fans come to Comiskey we'll spend.

Besides would keeping the team that was a hair away from the Division title and bein a force in the playoffs cost 100 Mil? I think not:

Gordon
Everett
Alomar
Colon
Sullivan


All gone. All contributors on a contending team. And not a single one retained. Doesn't sound like a ownership interested in winning. Sounds like a cheap ownership that wants to make money and oh, if winning is a result, then that's just gravy.,


What also doesn't make sense is that they fired Jerry Manual because he wasn't able to succeed with this team. So they hire Ozzie but then take away all his players.

Wouldn't you rather bring everybody back and find out whether the manager really was the problem?

They don't want to win....they would rather sit back and hope on a miracle!

gosox41
01-17-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
Does anyone know if the Sox profited from hosting the All-Star game last year? I know I forked out alot of money to go to all the festivites so where does that money go?

MLB contols the All Star game.

Bob

Rex Hudler
01-17-2004, 01:16 PM
It isn't realistic to Bring back Alomar for the peanuts that he signed for in Arizona? Plus Everett didn't sign for that much in Montreal. I am not expecting them to break the bank but those two were very do-able if you are serious about winning.

Alomar was realistic if he would have agreed to a lesser deal and apparently something fell through in those negotiations. Something sounds fishy there and my hunch that KW's smooth personality screwed that up somehow. Just a hunch.

Everett was never an option and I have never seen any indication that they made any offer to him. The Sox made a fair offer to Colon. I know Killa thinks it was a bogus offer, but there is no way in hell I would have given him the kind of money the Angels did.

Keep in mind that unless the players voluntarily agreed to take less money without truly exploring free agency, the Sox were not going to be able to sign them. There is no way they could (nor should) offer Alomar or Everett arbitration, so they only had a limited time to negotiate. That also gives the players limited time to explore other offers.

If they sign Colon, they likely have to trade Konerko or Maggs, and are pressed to take whatever they can get for them, rather than waiting for the right deal.

Rex Hudler
01-17-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
MLB contols the All Star game.

Bob

Sure the Sox made money on the All-Star game, but Bob is correct that it is an MLB Event. The Sox had no control over ticket revenue, fan fest revenues, etc.

My guess is they made most of their money in food sales and non-All-Star Game merchandise sales. I am not sure what the Sox situation is with parking revenue, but that could have been an extra source of revenue as well.

I don't know how MLB splits out revenue from that game, but my guess is that the host team would get a larger portion than other clubs (I am just guessing that some of the revenue is split amongst teams). If not, then I am sure they got some kind of payment for use of the facility, employees, etc. I am sure there is a pretty elaborate contract for an event like the All-Star Game, Playoffs, WS, etc.

CubKilla
01-17-2004, 01:49 PM
An increase in season tickets sales in '03 was attributed to the All-Star Game. That money goes directly to the Sox. So, you'd expect to see an increase in attendance as well as concession and parking revenues over the course of '03 for the Sox to accomodate the additional season ticket holders..... many of whom probably gave some of their tix away to others just because the season ticket holder wanted a guaranteed shot at tickets to the All-Star Game.

Unfortunately, White Sox fans will never know exactly how much more revenue the All-Star Game brought to the '03 White Sox Organization. I'm pretty sure it could have got the Sox one #2 or #3 SP :angry: .

joeynach
01-17-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yeah, I kind of assumed that because of that whole "part ownership in the Sox" thing you mentioned. :D: I have no doubt he is a big Sox fan. I never questioned that.

I didn't expect an answer, but I would love to find out if the owners all make yearly income from the team and if so how much.

I do not beleive they make yearly income from the sox. The deal where the minority shareholders own part of the team and JR and EE own the other part was put in place in 1982. That states that the shareholders cant earn off their shares (ownership) unless they sell their shares. So year to year this is not their source of income. Although they probably do make some sort of dividend on their shares. But what it really was was a buy in into the organazation. If i minority shareholder owns 1% of the team then he gets a say in the day to day operations. Payroll, budget, direction, players, and all the decisions that go along with managing a pro sports team. But i know for a fact that the shareholders make nothing from the chisox unless they sell off their shares.

gosox41
01-17-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
An increase in season tickets sales in '03 was attributed to the All-Star Game. That money goes directly to the Sox. So, you'd expect to see an increase in attendance as well as concession and parking revenues over the course of '03 for the Sox to accomodate the additional season ticket holders..... many of whom probably gave some of their tix away to others just because the season ticket holder wanted a guaranteed shot at tickets to the All-Star Game.



The Sox didn't start drawing well until after the All Star game when they started playing decent ball. The fact is it's nice to have a large seasono ticket holder base for guaranteed attendence and money, but the Sox make more if they sell all their seats day of game. The second half rise in attendence had nothing to do with the All Star game and everything to do with beign in a pennant race.

Bob

doctor30th
01-17-2004, 08:38 PM
The sad thing is I don't think Colon would have taken any deal from us. I just got a feeling from him that he never wanted to be or stay with the sox. On top of that I can't even believe the sox offered him a 3 year deal. I am not sure his health is going to hold up and the angels are going to be paying a 4 year contract to a pitcher that pitchs 2 1/2 years of it (sucking during about 1/2 a year at least) and spends the rest on the DL.

It's Just like Mags, I really think he doesn't want to be here, and after this year I don't think he has any intention of stayin even if they offer him 14 mil a year and a long contract.

The problem with Alomar is that he want 2 years guaranteed. I don't think any one would argue that he shouldn't get that. And if he went to arbitration he would make more than he deserves.

Lip Man 1
01-18-2004, 12:10 AM
I really think he doesn't want to be here

Which begs the question WHY don't these players want to be here? (And you can go back a looonnnggg way with that refrain!)

Follow up question: Why will players take less money and even deferred money from other organizations but not from the Sox.

We all know the answer to that one don't we?

Lip

voodoochile
01-18-2004, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The Sox didn't start drawing well until after the All Star game when they started playing decent ball. The fact is it's nice to have a large seasono ticket holder base for guaranteed attendence and money, but the Sox make more if they sell all their seats day of game. The second half rise in attendence had nothing to do with the All Star game and everything to do with beign in a pennant race.

Bob

That's it in a nutshell. The Sox drew better the second half of the season in 2000 too, but they had not ticket base. Last year the ASG gave them a better base...

doublem23
01-18-2004, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The Sox didn't start drawing well until after the All Star game when they started playing decent ball. The fact is it's nice to have a large seasono ticket holder base for guaranteed attendence and money, but the Sox make more if they sell all their seats day of game. The second half rise in attendence had nothing to do with the All Star game and everything to do with beign in a pennant race.

Bob

Now, when the Sox release attendance, is that paid tickets or actual gameday attendance? I always thought that the Sox attendance was actual paid attendance in the park, not just the number of tickets sold (I know the Cubs only release the tickets sold because I have been to games at Wrigley were there couldn't have been more than 15,000-20,000 people at the stadium and they announced 30,000).

Anyways, if the Sox only go by paid attendance, then a lot more tickets would have been sold than what was announced, so Reinsy's pockets would be lined anyway.

:reinsy
I majored in shady business.

Rex Hudler
01-18-2004, 03:51 AM
I am not positive on this, but I think that both leagues announce attendance as total tickets sold (which does include complimentary and promotional tickets). The leagues used to report attendance differently (one actual attendance, the other tickets sold), but I believe that was changed 10-15 years ago.

I do know that many sporting events also artificially inflate attendance by various amounts in order to better present to their marketing sponsors. It is a practice that is done widely across many sports and events. I do not know if that is done at all at the Major League level, but it is possible.

gosox41
01-18-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
Now, when the Sox release attendance, is that paid tickets or actual gameday attendance? I always thought that the Sox attendance was actual paid attendance in the park, not just the number of tickets sold (I know the Cubs only release the tickets sold because I have been to games at Wrigley were there couldn't have been more than 15,000-20,000 people at the stadium and they announced 30,000).

Anyways, if the Sox only go by paid attendance, then a lot more tickets would have been sold than what was announced, so Reinsy's pockets would be lined anyway.

:reinsy
I majored in shady business.

It's based on paid attendance. And there's no doubt the crowds were larger the second half of the season so I don't know how much overestimating was really going on.

Bob

CubKilla
01-18-2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
Now, when the Sox release attendance, is that paid tickets or actual gameday attendance? I always thought that the Sox attendance was actual paid attendance in the park, not just the number of tickets sold (I know the Cubs only release the tickets sold because I have been to games at Wrigley were there couldn't have been more than 15,000-20,000 people at the stadium and they announced 30,000).

Anyways, if the Sox only go by paid attendance, then a lot more tickets would have been sold than what was announced, so Reinsy's pockets would be lined anyway.

:reinsy
I majored in shady business.

I believe the determining factor is paid attendance. And remember, when it comes to total, yearly attendance for USCF and rent, Mondays, and tix bought on half-price Tuesday, and/or any tickets bought at a discount, do not count towards the numbers which determine whether JR pays rent or not on USCF for that particular year.

Hangar18
01-18-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by pudge
We need to GET ON THIS - where is Hangar when we need him? He should be emailing Trump right now... Trump could turn the southside into a happening place, I'm sure he'd have some "creative" ideas for the area.

This is an interesting thread to say the least, but I hadnt heard Trump was interested in a team, let alone a Chicago team!
Man........Would he change the ideology around here.....
I will personally email him myself .................its time for a
Regime Change ........

WSox8404
01-19-2004, 06:58 PM
Hey hangar. You find out a way to email him and I will gladly send one too.

Randar68
01-19-2004, 07:13 PM
Sounds like you were talking to Lip to me.

Randar68
01-19-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by WSox8404
Whats up everyone. I heard something interesting the other day. I kind of knew it all along but wasn't exactly sure. At this point however I am pretty sure though. I was speaking to another die hard Sox fan and he was telling me all about the organization and its problems. He said he did some research into this and that he was damn sure of what he was talking about. What he said was that the only reason why the Sox payroll is only 60 or so million was because ownership is just plain cheap.


Here's the problems with your(or this guy's) premise: You're assuming all operatin expenses and such are obvious.

Did you know:

1) The Sox actually pay money to market the product
2) The Sox have to pay all the workers within the stadium, sales staff, insurance premiums, benefits, Grounds crew, scouting staff and expenses, medical/training staff, premiums on training facilites in Arizona... etc etc
3) IIRC, The Sox pay half of all minor league salaries. and I believe in the case of major league salaries, an even higher proportion, not including draft day bonuses and such.

Operating costs are PHENOMENALLY HIGHER than what you are assuming. Regardless, I don't doubt they break even or make a slim profit/loss every year, but as business owners, isn't that their right?

Rex Hudler
01-19-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's the problems with your(or this guy's) premise: You're assuming all operatin expenses and such are obvious an there is no fiscality to it.

Did you know:

1) The Sox actually pay money to market the product
2) The Sox have to pay all the workers within the stadium, sales staff, insurance premiums, benefits, Grounds crew, scouting staff and expenses, etc etc
3) IIRC, The Sox pay half of all minor league salaries. and I believe in the case of major league salaries, an even higher proportion, not including draft day bonuses and such.

Operating costs are PHENOMENALLY HIGHER than what you are assuming. Regardless, I don't doubt they break even or make a slim profit/loss every year, but as business owners, isn't that their right?

The Sox pay ALL Minor League salaries, including all signing bonuses and a portion of all baseballs and bats used in Minor League games.

I agree with your general premise..... so much so that I basically already covered all of this several times earlier in this same thread. Skimming, are we? LOL

voodoochile
01-19-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Here's the problems with your(or this guy's) premise: You're assuming all operatin expenses and such are obvious.

Did you know:

1) The Sox actually pay money to market the product
2) The Sox have to pay all the workers within the stadium, sales staff, insurance premiums, benefits, Grounds crew, scouting staff and expenses, medical/training staff, premiums on training facilites in Arizona... etc etc
3) IIRC, The Sox pay half of all minor league salaries. and I believe in the case of major league salaries, an even higher proportion, not including draft day bonuses and such.

Operating costs are PHENOMENALLY HIGHER than what you are assuming. Regardless, I don't doubt they break even or make a slim profit/loss every year, but as business owners, isn't that their right?

The Sox are sitting on profit. They want to realize it?

:selljerry

Is anyone suggesting that an aggressive marketing campaign combined with hiring top notch baseball minds and expanding the payroll to sign enough players to make the team a contender year after year won't pay off in the long run?

I mean is anyone really saying that what the Sox are doing is working? If they cannot afford an average MLB payroll and are scraping by to make 1-2M a year on those kind of revenue numbers then they are doing something really really wrong. It's time to change the philosophy, this one isn't working to do anything other than kill the fan base slowly (but surely).

Which brings us back to my previous point...

:selljerry