PDA

View Full Version : With the Sox at a break even.....


cornball
02-04-2004, 10:59 AM
each year answer this question: how much is the chairman and the other owners drawing from the organization? I bet it is a huge amount.

Attendance has been consistent the past few years relatively, but the payroll has had major fluctuation.

NO need to even mention the naming rights and all the other things.

CubKilla
02-04-2004, 11:01 AM
Would you buy a product to market and hold onto it for 20+ years if you were losing money or, as the White Sox and KW continually blurt out, "operating in the red"? I didn't think so.

SEALgep
02-04-2004, 11:04 AM
I don't think they're cashing in like you guys think. And the stadium naming rights doesn't go to the franchise. That money is solely for the use of upgrading the stadium.

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by cornball
each year answer this question: how much is the chairman and the other owners drawing from the organization? I bet it is a huge amount.

Attendance has been consistent the past few years relatively, but the payroll has had major fluctuation.

NO need to even mention the naming rights and all the other things.

How do the naming rights have anything to do with how much the owners are making?

soxnut
02-04-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Would you buy a product to market and hold onto it for 20+ years if you were losing money or, as the White Sox and KW continually blurt out, "operating in the red"? I didn't think so.


This is a baseball team you're talking about. How many opportunities do you get to own one of those...even if you are losing money or breaking even??

If I was making money in other areas, but could still hold onto a baseball team without going completely belly up, I'd probably hold on.

doublem23
02-04-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I don't think they're cashing in like you guys think. And the stadium naming rights doesn't go to the franchise. That money is solely for the use of upgrading the stadium.

You mean the stadium they don't own and don't even pay a tax for using unless they hit a certain attendance figure? (I think they have only had to pay once-2000-since the strike).

Boo hoo hoo

CubKilla
02-04-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
How do the naming rights have anything to do with how much the owners are making?

I look at it as money JR and EE don't have to sink into their albatross to make it more fan friendly on their own. The sad part is the renovations are worth more than the '04 team salary.

Maximo
02-04-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
This is a baseball team you're talking about. How many opportunities do you get to own one of those...even if you are losing money or breaking even??

If I was making money in other areas, but could still hold onto a baseball team without going completely belly up, I'd probably hold on.

Soxnut:

With all due respect, I'd presume you would then seek your gratification in some area of sports ownership such as..............winning a championship or two, or earning the respect and admiration of your customers.

Trouble is....I have more faith in you feeling that way than I do Reinsdorf and Einhorn. Plus, I think you're a helluva lot smarter than they are.

CubKilla
02-04-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
This is a baseball team you're talking about. How many opportunities do you get to own one of those...even if you are losing money or breaking even??

If I was making money in other areas, but could still hold onto a baseball team without going completely belly up, I'd probably hold on.

If this is the case, then JR isn't half the businessman people here claim him to be. He's a boob. How many businessmen are in the marketplace if they are consistently losing money? Is JR such a fantastic owner that he is now dipping into his own money just to field a White Sox team at $58 million instead of fielding a team based on the organization's wealth..... ala Milwaukee?

SEALgep
02-04-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
You mean the stadium they don't own and don't even pay a tax for using unless they hit a certain attendance figure? (I think they have only had to pay once-2000-since the strike).

Boo hoo hoo

What does that have to do with the money received by the naming rights?

doublem23
02-04-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
What does that have to do with the money received by the naming rights?

Ah, never mind... I misread what you had said. I thought you said that because the naming rights money doesn't go into JR's pocket, he's not doing so hot.

My bad.

Rex Hudler
02-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Would you buy a product to market and hold onto it for 20+ years if you were losing money or, as the White Sox and KW continually blurt out, "operating in the red"? I didn't think so.

Sure if the franchise value were increasing at the same time, if I liked what I was doing and if I have the money from other businesses, I'd do it in a hearbeat. Don't sell short the privileges and perks of baseball as well as how it feeds the ego.

CubKilla
02-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Sure if the franchise value were increasing at the same time, if I liked what I was doing and if I have the money from other businesses, I'd do it in a hearbeat. Don't sell short the privileges and perks of baseball as well as how it feeds the ego.

How can the "franchise value (be) increasing" if the organization is operating, according to JR, in the red? How can the value of the franchise be going up if profits are decreasing according to JR? It goes against every business model ever created.

I'll agree that JR would get more back for the franchise than what he paid for it 20+ years ago but that is due to, among other things, inflation. It has little to do with JR's incredible marketing strategy.

rahulsekhar
02-04-2004, 12:35 PM
Remember, for guys like JR, this might be seen a a hobby, i.e. something you are willing to invest some, but not a lot into for the sheer pleasure you get from the activity. I would guess that there's tons of guys out there who own teams and view them in this way.

The bottom line of that attitude is that you don't look to get $$$ out of it, but you're also not looking to pump a ton into it. So you operate it at relatively break-even.

I'm not saying that that's what they're doing, but based on Einhorn's comments, it would make sense.

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
How can the "franchise value (be) increasing" if the organization is operating, according to JR, in the red? How can the value of the franchise be going up if profits are decreasing according to JR? It goes against every business model ever created.

I'll agree that JR would get more back for the franchise than what he paid for it 20+ years ago but that is due to, among other things, inflation. It has little to do with JR's incredible marketing strategy.

Considering the team is in the third largest market in the country, the potential to make money is incredible. You just have to look 8 miles north to see that.

It's just sad that the current owners don't/can't/won't realize it...

joecrede
02-04-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by cornball
each year answer this question: how much is the chairman and the other owners drawing from the organization? I bet it is a huge amount.

My guess is Reinsdorf gets his salary from the Bulls and his 50% stake in the United Center.

soxnut
02-04-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Considering the team is in the third largest market in the country, the potential to make money is incredible. You just have to look 8 miles north to see that.

It's just sad that the current owners don't/can't/won't realize it...


But the thing is, that team 8 miles north hasn't been drawing because they've been a successful winning franchise. It's all about the neighborhood atmosphere and the historical ballpark. They are a comletely different animal. What has been accomplished over there makes no sense otherwise in the sports world. Very, very, very few franchises can get away with they've pulled over the last 20 years.

soxnut
02-04-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Remember, for guys like JR, this might be seen a a hobby, i.e. something you are willing to invest some, but not a lot into for the sheer pleasure you get from the activity. I would guess that there's tons of guys out there who own teams and view them in this way.

The bottom line of that attitude is that you don't look to get $$$ out of it, but you're also not looking to pump a ton into it. So you operate it at relatively break-even.

I'm not saying that that's what they're doing, but based on Einhorn's comments, it would make sense.


I think it may be that is what they are doing. Otherwise, why would things really be the way they are? Cheapness, sure, maybe to some point. But, like I said, if I had, and I'm sure if many of you had, just enough money to buy a team you would.

And honeslty, what kind of payroll should they have? And whatever number you suggest, if the team starts off slow, or if there is bad weather in April and May, does it guarantee that the difference will be made up the rest of the season, for whatever the budget is?

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
But the thing is, that team 8 miles north hasn't been drawing because they've been a successful winning franchise. It's all about the neighborhood atmosphere and the historical ballpark. They are a comletely different animal. What has been accomplished over there makes no sense otherwise in the sports world. Very, very, very few franchises can get away with they've pulled over the last 20 years.

I wasn't exactly talking about how they do it, just the fact that it can be done.

A team in the city of Chicago should have no problem drawing an average of 2.5 million+ every year, no matter how they get the fans to show up.

That makes this franchise very valuable IMO...

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
And honeslty, what kind of payroll should they have? And whatever number you suggest, if the team starts off slow, or if there is bad weather in April and May, does it guarantee that the difference will be made up the rest of the season, for whatever the budget is?

That's called "risk". Something the Sox owners do not believe in.

If they spend the money to put a team out there that everyone can look at in spring training and say "That's going to be the team to beat this year", then they go out and back it up by doing what they are supposed to do on the field, I can guarantee that the fans will show up and the owners will have more money than they know what to do with...

soxnut
02-04-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I wasn't exactly talking about how they do it, just the fact that it can be done.

A team in the city of Chicago should have no problem drawing an average of 2.5 million+ every year, no matter how they get the fans to show up.

That makes this franchise very valuable IMO...


Ok I can see that then. Do you think it is possible that the Sox would have drawn that in '03 if they would have gotten off to a better start?

soxnut
02-04-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
That's called "risk". Something the Sox owners do not believe in...


No, you're right, I don;t they they do believe in risk. I'm not a risky fellow myself, so I guess I understand it.

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Ok I can see that then. Do you think it is possible that the Sox would have drawn that in '03 if they would have gotten off to a better start?

I think it's quite possible. The slow start this team got off to in the first half really killed the attendance IMO. Once they aquired Alomar and Everett and started winning in the 2nd half, it really picked up.

Iwritecode
02-04-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
No, you're right, I don;t they they do believe in risk. I'm not a risky fellow myself, so I guess I understand it.

Well, it's either that or that are so stubborn and bull-headed that they are determined to win "their" way or die trying.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
No, you're right, I don;t they they do believe in risk. I'm not a risky fellow myself, so I guess I understand it.

That's fine, but in reality, it would take very little for the Sox to turn the tide right now. I realize they have a constraint on the budget - they've been real real clear about that - but the fanbase is edgy to say the least.

If they were to make one fat outlay of cash right now (go nuts and sign Maddux) the fans would say, okay, you heard us. We respect that and you improved the team. Case closed, problem (to some extent) solved. No, it won't solve all of the animosity between the two well entrenched sides, but it would at least cut down on the sniping. Then if the team gets off to a hot start, who knows what happens.

If not, they trade maggs (and Maddux?) at the deadline anyway and the money comes back to them.

Oh that's right... too risky... :D:

soxnut
02-04-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Well, it's either that or that are so stubborn and bull-headed that they are determined to win "their" way or die trying.

That could be too...as long as they break even, that might be what's going on as well.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
That could be too...as long as they break even, that might be what's going on as well.

Don't forget that what they call Break Even, other people call "Making money hand over fist via increased franchise value".

soxnut
02-04-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That's fine, but in reality, it would take very little for the Sox to turn the tide right now. I realize they have a constraint on the budget - they've been real real clear about that - but the fanbase is edgy to say the least.

If they were to make one fat outlay of cash right now (go nuts and sign Maddux) the fans would say, okay, you heard us. We respect that and you improved the team. Case closed, problem (to some extent) solved. No, it won't solve all of the animosity between the two well entrenched sides, but it would at least cut down on the sniping. Then if the team gets off to a hot start, who knows what happens.

If not, they trade maggs (and Maddux?) at the deadline anyway and the money comes back to them.

Oh that's right... too risky... :D:


Well , I think the risk is in that, Maddux has rarely been injured correct? There's that possibility again, that every time the Sox get someone high-profile, it blows up in their face. Then what happens? They're stuck with a high salaried pitcher that has a bum arm. You know how things go for the Sox.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Well , I think the risk is in that, Maddux has rarely been injured correct? There's that possibility again, that every time the Sox get someone high-profile, it blows up in their face. Then what happens? They're stuck with a high salaried pitcher that has a bum arm. You know how things go for the Sox.

That's a loser mentality. Get burned on a bad signing before, so you won't risk anything again. Maddux would be the Sox 3rd starter dropping Garland to 4 and leaving one slot for Schoenwess, et al to fight over.

Bartolo Colon wasn't exactly a bust now was he?

soxnut
02-04-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I think it's quite possible. The slow start this team got off to in the first half really killed the attendance IMO. Once they aquired Alomar and Everett and started winning in the 2nd half, it really picked up.

I think they would have too. Especially considering the attendance they had during the last weekend of the season against KC, that was something to see.

I really think that they should have at least got one good starter thru FA. Now, if the whole Perez for Knonerko deal does happen, I think that should help fans think this team will do some good this summer. And therefore the Sox attendance will increase and then, by July they will be able to get some other pieces to the puzzle(don't mean to sound like wanny)

soxnut
02-04-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That's a loser mentality. Get burned on a bad signing before, so you won't risk anything again. Maddux would be the Sox 3rd starter dropping Garland to 4 and leaving one slot for Schoenwess, et al to fight over.

Bartolo Colon wasn't exactly a bust now was he?


No he wasn't a bust. but I don't think he was as good as advertised. Don't get me wrong I was still glad to have him, and I wished they would have signed him again. But with the weight that guy is holding, sooner or later his back is going to stat giving him problems. And then would have heard how stupid the Sox were for signing him to the same contract the Angels offered him.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
No he wasn't a bust. but I don't think he was as good as advertised. Don't get me wrong I was still glad to have him, and I wished they would have signed him again. But with the weight that guy is holding, sooner or later his back is going to stat giving him problems. And then would have heard how stupid the Sox were for signing him to the same contract the Angels offered him.

Why, because sometime before the end of his contract his back might start bothering him, or he might slip off the mound and break a leg or he might slip on a patch of ice running for the plane south after the season ends?

I never did get that line of thinking: This guy might be an untradeable financial anchor sometime down the road, so lets not take a chance on him being a major contributor to our team today and every 5th day for the next 2 years because that 4th year he is going to just KILL US and we won't be able to sign anyone.

Um, isn't that where we are right now? I'll take my chances on Bartolo...

soxnut
02-04-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Why, because sometime before the end of his contract his back might start bothering him, or he might slip off the mound and break a leg or he might slip on a patch of ice running for the plane south after the season ends?

I never did get that line of thinking: This guy might be an untradeable financial anchor sometime down the road, so lets not take a chance on him being a major contributor to our team today and every 5th day for the next 2 years because that 4th year he is going to just KILL US and we won't be able to sign anyone.

Um, isn't that where we are right now? I'll take my chances on Bartolo...

Ok, we are, I suppose. But, I guess we'll have to see about that Perez for Konerko trade to get another starter......oh well.......

I'm just gonna go to the games, watch em on tv and be entertained. Because in the end, that's all it is.......

MisterB
02-04-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Don't forget that what they call Break Even, other people call "Making money hand over fist via increased franchise value".

But that isn't realized until the team is sold. Unless used a collateral for a loan, equity does not equal cash flow (and talk to the Rockies about trying that one - they have to defer money on $1M contracts thanks to their 'investment in the team' flopping big-time.) I think the real problem is what was touched on earlier - for JR just owning the team is an ego boost, and he really doesn't care about fielding a championship team if it will cost him (or the other investors) out of pocket.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
But that isn't realized until the team is sold. Unless used a collateral for a loan, equity does not equal cash flow (and talk to the Rockies about trying that one - they have to defer money on $1M contracts thanks to their 'investment in the team' flopping big-time.) I think the real problem is what was touched on earlier - for JR just owning the team is an ego boost, and he really doesn't care about fielding a championship team if it will cost him (or the other investors) out of pocket.

But you are just talking about cash flow. The profit comment stands. If I buy $10K stock and 23 years later it is worth $100K, I've made money. The fact that I haven't sold my stock has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I think there is something else going on. The rumors about JR owning a lot of land around Comiskey (certainly not completely insane given his past history of Real Estate deals) makes me think he is holding on and waiting for a few more years until gentrifcation really takes off. Then the Sox might see a natural attendance boost ala Wrigley and the team could jump in value. Just what my gut tells me. He knows his time is almost up and he is just riding the wave as long as possible...

steff
02-04-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Don't forget that what they call Break Even, other people call "Making money hand over fist via increased franchise value".


Which means nothing until they sell. And holding stock doesn't always mean big $$. The downfall when they (JR, Eddie, etc..) is that they don't own that facility. That could, and likely will, reduce the value of the team. As well, the rest of the system (all minor divisions) will be assessed. Right now this is all moot since they are obviously not going to sell.. but again just because they are valued near $300 million doesn't mean they would sell for that.

steff
02-04-2004, 10:16 PM
Oh.. about the surrounding property. Property tax id's are public information - which shows current ownership. Gotta dig for them, and there might be a fee for commercial property, but they are fairly easy to research.

Rex Hudler
02-04-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by steff
Which means nothing until they sell. And holding stock doesn't always mean big $$. The downfall when they (JR, Eddie, etc..) is that they don't own that facility. That could, and likely will, reduce the value of the team. As well, the rest of the system (all minor divisions) will be assessed. Right now this is all moot since they are obviously not going to sell.. but again just because they are valued near $300 million doesn't mean they would sell for that.

Steff, I would think that most major sports franchises sell for more than what they are "valued at". And I am not sure what you meant by "As well, the rest of the system (all minor divisions) will be assessed."

The bottom line is, that if the Sox make a millon or two in some years and lose a million or two in others, that wouldn't affect the ownership group. I suspect that their true earnings are close to "break even" in most years.

Daver
02-04-2004, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by steff
Which means nothing until they sell. And holding stock doesn't always mean big $$. The downfall when they (JR, Eddie, etc..) is that they don't own that facility. That could, and likely will, reduce the value of the team. As well, the rest of the system (all minor divisions) will be assessed. Right now this is all moot since they are obviously not going to sell.. but again just because they are valued near $300 million doesn't mean they would sell for that.

Forbes includes the the stadia lease in their evaluation of franchise value,and the lease that the Sox franchise has with the state of Illinois would increase,not decrease,the franchise value.

Lip Man 1
02-04-2004, 11:38 PM
Voodoo:

It's very interesting your comment on ownership:

I think there is something else going on. The rumors about JR owning a lot of land around Comiskey (certainly not completely insane given his past history of Real Estate deals) makes me think he is holding on and waiting for a few more years until gentrifcation really takes off. Then the Sox might see a natural attendance boost ala Wrigley and the team could jump in value. Just what my gut tells me. He knows his time is almost up and he is just riding the wave as long as possible

This is from a part of the Sox Fantasy Camp story that I finished tonight for WSI. Ed Herrmann told me this earlier in the day:

ML: Can you recall some of the questions and how Jerry answered them?

EH: “I remember a lot of the comments dealt with the fact that the Sox never seem to go out and get quality players who stay and that a lot of the fans were tired about the Sox always talking about attendance. Jerry said that with the Sox only drawing about two million fans a year it simply wasn’t enough for them to go out and spend. He also said that when the areas surrounding the ballpark are finally finished and revitalized, that he expected more fans to start coming to games because more fans will be living in the area and he thinks they’ll have more money to spend. He thought that the people in the area would want to go see the Sox play”

Lip

steff
02-05-2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Forbes includes the the stadia lease in their evaluation of franchise value,and the lease that the Sox franchise has with the state of Illinois would increase,not decrease,the franchise value.



How can it increase it? It's not an asset, it's a liability.

steff
02-05-2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Steff, I would think that most major sports franchises sell for more than what they are "valued at". And I am not sure what you meant by "As well, the rest of the system (all minor divisions) will be assessed."

The bottom line is, that if the Sox make a millon or two in some years and lose a million or two in others, that wouldn't affect the ownership group. I suspect that their true earnings are close to "break even" in most years.

What I mean is that the OC of the minors - and it's future - would be a factor in the value of the team as a whole. No minor system, no prospect for the future. I would think they sell for more also, but if the Sox are running at even and not making money, as we've been told, were's the incentive for profit?
Just thinking outside the box here Rex..

cornball
02-05-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
How do the naming rights have anything to do with how much the owners are making?

The point is many teams have privately owned stadiums and have to do their own renovations. No team that I know of has a lease tied to attendance. The Sox have few expenditures in regard to the stadium.

On the othe hand for example, if the team had a 30MM surplus after typical expenses they can always claim to be a break even organization with the owners spliting the balance of the surplus.

The fluctuations in salary of the players (largest expense) over the years is too great to consistently be a break even club.

Just a thought.

soxnut
02-05-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
But you are just talking about cash flow. The profit comment stands. If I buy $10K stock and 23 years later it is worth $100K, I've made money. The fact that I haven't sold my stock has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I think there is something else going on. The rumors about JR owning a lot of land around Comiskey (certainly not completely insane given his past history of Real Estate deals) makes me think he is holding on and waiting for a few more years until gentrifcation really takes off. Then the Sox might see a natural attendance boost ala Wrigley and the team could jump in value. Just what my gut tells me. He knows his time is almost up and he is just riding the wave as long as possible...


I have thought that's the case abou the neighborhood as well. That's why it JR doesn't seem too concerned about the Sox current situation.

ode to veeck
02-05-2004, 11:16 AM
It's all about the neighborhood atmosphere and the historical ballpark.


Let's see, JR never had this opportunity!?!?! unfortunately, the current reality is they squandered that one, but that's not to say there aren't other ways to better put together, market, and distribute a successfully more attractive product.

ode to veeck
02-05-2004, 11:25 AM
How can it increase it? It's not an asset, it's a liability.

Because of the lease contract's favorable impact on Sox expenses each year vs other team's stadium situations--how many other don't pay taxes etc.

soxnut
02-05-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Let's see, JR never had this opportunity!?!?! unfortunately, the current reality is they squandered that one, but that's not to say there aren't other ways to better put together, market, and distribute a successfully more attractive product.

The southside neighborhood was never a casual-baseball-fan- friendly neighborhood. Could you expound on what the opportunity was? And whether or not there was, there are oppoprtunities now for that to happen and are more than likely going to happen. And what I was saying is that the Cubs really didn't have to put in any effort. And their teams generally sucked.

ode to veeck
02-05-2004, 11:51 AM
JR squandered the opportunity to keep up the maintenance on the old ballpark and leverage it as a cornerstone of Sox PR & traditions, aka what the Flubs do with Wrigley or what the Yankee did with Yankee Statium (in a similar neighborhood).

Yes, the little bit of neighborhood that JR tore down around the park, was nothing compared to Wrigleyville of last 20 years, but he coulda done much better with what he had, e.g. McCuddy's, O'Brien's & other historical, friendly local esablishments, or more pro-active development of something like Armor Field.

There have been other areas of the near south side that have actually succeeded in totally reversing, going from horrible neighborhoods to gentrified in the same timeframe as JR's Sox tenure, e.g. printer's row & others.

Iwritecode
02-05-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Ok I can see that then. Do you think it is possible that the Sox would have drawn that in '03 if they would have gotten off to a better start?


Originally posted by Iwritecode
I think it's quite possible. The slow start this team got off to in the first half really killed the attendance IMO. Once they aquired Alomar and Everett and started winning in the 2nd half, it really picked up.

I just added up all the attendance numbers because I was curious what the first half looked like compared to the second half.

first half = 911,845
second half = 1,001,660

I knew the attendance picked up in the second half but I'm not sure I realized that more than half the season total was made then. It's amazing what aquiring a couple of players coupled with getting back over .500 can do for a team.

Just think what it could have been if they weren't 8 games under at one point in the first half...

soxnut
02-05-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I just added up all the attendance numbers because I was curious what the first half looked like compared to the second half.

first half = 911,845
second half = 1,001,660

I knew the attendance picked up in the second half but I'm not sure I realized that more than half the season total was made then. It's amazing what aquiring a couple of players coupled with getting back over .500 can do for a team.

Just think what it could have been if they weren't 8 games under at one point in the first half...

yeah, it really could have been a nice year, attendance-wise......

soxnut
02-05-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
JR squandered the opportunity to keep up the maintenance on the old ballpark and leverage it as a cornerstone of Sox PR & traditions, aka what the Flubs do with Wrigley or what the Yankee did with Yankee Statium (in a similar neighborhood).

Yes, the little bit of neighborhood that JR tore down around the park, was nothing compared to Wrigleyville of last 20 years, but he coulda done much better with what he had, e.g. McCuddy's, O'Brien's & other historical, friendly local esablishments, or more pro-active development of something like Armor Field.

There have been other areas of the near south side that have actually succeeded in totally reversing, going from horrible neighborhoods to gentrified in the same timeframe as JR's Sox tenure, e.g. printer's row & others.

I can see some of your points about the neighborhood. But I believe that they did keep up maintanence on the park as soon as they purchased the club. It was all previous ownership who did nothing to maintain the park. The Wrigleys maintained their park every year of their reign. At least that's what I've heard...

steff
02-05-2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Because of the lease contract's favorable impact on Sox expenses each year vs other team's stadium situations--how many other don't pay taxes etc.



HUGE misconseption. What makes you think they don't pay taxes. Also.. and I know I wont be believed.. but they do pay a % of rent each and every year. They do guys... really.

Iwritecode
02-05-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by steff
HUGE misconseption. What makes you think they don't pay taxes. Also.. and I know I wont be believed.. but they do pay a % of rent each and every year. They do guys... really.

How much do they pay in years where they don't meet the specified # in attendance? (# = 1.3 million???)

steff
02-05-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
How much do they pay in years where they don't meet the specified # in attendance? (# = 1.3 million???)


All I know is that it's % based. And unless someone here gets that highly coveted CFO job at Comiskey.. we'll never know. :D:

maurice
02-05-2004, 01:36 PM
The Sox average annual rent payment + Sox operating costs at the Cell surely are significantly less than the Sox property taxes + Sox operating costs at the old park. JR claims that the annual repair costs for the old park were immense. Unlike the Cell stadium "improvements," these expenses were paid out of the pockets of Sox ownership.

Lip Man 1
02-05-2004, 01:44 PM
Steff:

Just FYI, I know I read in one of the Chicago papers in the last six months (I think it was the Tribune) where they showed the amount paid in rent to the state by the Sox since the White Flag Trade. It may have been a story by Bob Vanderberg. Anyway the story showed numbers where the Sox only paid rent three times in the past ten seasons. The story said the Sox will pay a million to the state for this past season.

Don't know how true it is although if Bob did it he's very very good on his work.

Lip

Brian26
02-05-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
JR squandered the opportunity to keep up the maintenance on the old ballpark and leverage it as a cornerstone of Sox PR & traditions, aka what the Flubs do with Wrigley or what the Yankee did with Yankee Statium (in a similar neighborhood).

From everything I've seen and read, Jerry poured tons and tons of money into Old Comiskey to just keep it operational through the 80's. Unfortunately, previous owners (ie the Allyns and Veeck) didn't spend the necessary money to keep the park maintained over the years, and the structural deterioration became so bad that sinking money into it in the 80s was almost like throwing money into a black hole.

steff
02-05-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Steff:

Just FYI, I know I read in one of the Chicago papers in the last six months (I think it was the Tribune) where they showed the amount paid in rent to the state by the Sox since the White Flag Trade. It may have been a story by Bob Vanderberg. Anyway the story showed numbers where the Sox only paid rent three times in the past ten seasons. The story said the Sox will pay a million to the state for this past season.

Don't know how true it is although if Bob did it he's very very good on his work.

Lip

Lip.. I do recall the story vaguely. I've done some digging in the past few months and have come up with some interesting information regarding the finances. Unfortunately I can't prove a darn bit of it, but from what I have been told they do pay a set % every year and once they exceed that # or $ amount they pay "rent". If the $$ is based on the # of fans who come to the park, that makes some sense, and based on the past years attendence would make the $1 million this season plausable. Obviously what's done and is not required to be disclosed to the public is tightly guarded. The public records don't mean a thing since the Sox, being privately owned, are not required to disclose all of their financials. But just in some common sense thinking.. I find it very hard to believe that the Sox pay absolutely positively nothing to the State of Illinois for the use of that facility.

I know it's easy to think that Jerry is wiping his butt with $100's.. and he probably is.. I just don't agree that it's with revenues from the Sox. Just in looking at the revenues we do know about versus the expenses... it's just not possible. Especially with all the other "owners".

dickallen15
02-05-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
From everything I've seen and read, Jerry poured tons and tons of money into Old Comiskey to just keep it operational through the 80's. Unfortunately, previous owners (ie the Allyns and Veeck) didn't spend the necessary money to keep the park maintained over the years, and the structural deterioration became so bad that sinking money into it in the 80s was almost like throwing money into a black hole.

This statement is absolutely correct.

Daver
02-05-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by steff
How can it increase it? It's not an asset, it's a liability.

And when a business is valued it includes assets and liabilities,and a liability that varies based on attendance from 0 $ up is a very favorable liability.

Also from a Tax perspective,the fact that they lease the facilty from the state as opposed to owning it is a huge writeoff,they can deduct every penny paid for the lease as a business expense,as opposed to if they owned the stadium and were forced to list it as an assest,at current markey value.

Liabilties can be turned into assets when approached the right way.

Lip Man 1
02-05-2004, 08:39 PM
Steff:

For what it's worth:

“The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million.” – From the book The Lords of The Realm by John Helyar Pg. 483. (book published in 1995)

Lip

sas1974
02-05-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Steff:

For what it's worth:

“The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million.” – From the book The Lords of The Realm by John Helyar Pg. 483. (book published in 1995)

Lip

I wonder if this is unprecedented. Are there any other teams that are able to wrap the state around their finger like this?

steff
02-06-2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Daver
And when a business is valued it includes assets and liabilities,and a liability that varies based on attendance from 0 $ up is a very favorable liability.

Also from a Tax perspective,the fact that they lease the facilty from the state as opposed to owning it is a huge writeoff,they can deduct every penny paid for the lease as a business expense,as opposed to if they owned the stadium and were forced to list it as an assest,at current markey value.

Liabilties can be turned into assets when approached the right way.


Correct. But if/when the team is sold the state can, and probably will, restructure the agreement to make more $$ from it thus costing the new owners more. And if they don't like the deal, they then have to buy it, or a new facility. Much larger liability than it currently is.

steff
02-06-2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Steff:

For what it's worth:

“The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million.” – From the book The Lords of The Realm by John Helyar Pg. 483. (book published in 1995)

Lip


I'm going to have to end this regarding the ISA agreement. From what I have seen with my own eyes, it's not that "sweet" of a deal.

Lip Man 1
02-06-2004, 11:48 AM
Steff:

I have no idea how Helyar got this specific of information, perhaps the deal is available through the freedom of information act, but I don't understand how if the deal is different then stated to the press that the changes aren't common knowledge?

Surely if Helyar could get this info, he can get the other info, or has the lease been changed since the book was published?

A deal of this magnitude can't be changed on a whim surely someone representing the state would have to give approval and that approval would be picked up at some point by the media.

Lip

joecrede
02-06-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Surely if Helyar could get this info, he can get the other info, or has the lease been changed since the book was published?

IIRC, the $5M maintenance fee the Sox get has been adjusted down or suspended in order to pay for the renovations done before the US Cellular deal.

steff
02-06-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Steff:

I have no idea how Helyar got this specific of information, perhaps the deal is available through the freedom of information act, but I don't understand how if the deal is different then stated to the press that the changes aren't common knowledge?

Surely if Helyar could get this info, he can get the other info, or has the lease been changed since the book was published?

A deal of this magnitude can't be changed on a whim surely someone representing the state would have to give approval and that approval would be picked up at some point by the media.

Lip


All I'm saying is that possibly not ALL of the financial details are outlined in what's public. I have seen the information released via the FIA.. and it's not quite the same as some other information that's roaming around. What that means, honestly, I have no idea.

crector
02-07-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Steff:

I have no idea how Helyar got this specific of information, perhaps the deal is available through the freedom of information act, but I don't understand how if the deal is different then stated to the press that the changes aren't common knowledge?

Surely if Helyar could get this info, he can get the other info, or has the lease been changed since the book was published?

A deal of this magnitude can't be changed on a whim surely someone representing the state would have to give approval and that approval would be picked up at some point by the media.

Lip


What makes you think that Helyar's info is accurate? Perhaps he got his facts wrong.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by crector
What makes you think that Helyar's info is accurate? Perhaps he got his facts wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time a widely-acclaimed NY Times bestselling author has gotten his facts wrong. However I wouldn't bet on it. Now if we were talking about a NY Times reporter ...

:smile:

gosox41
02-07-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by cornball
each year answer this question: how much is the chairman and the other owners drawing from the organization? I bet it is a huge amount.

Attendance has been consistent the past few years relatively, but the payroll has had major fluctuation.

NO need to even mention the naming rights and all the other things.

Not nearly as much as you think.

And for the last time, all the money from the naming rights goes to rebuilding the Cell.

Why don't people understand this? It's been said about 1000 times here and in the papers and at SoxFest and at press conferences over the last year.

Bob

gosox41
02-07-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by steff
Lip.. I do recall the story vaguely. I've done some digging in the past few months and have come up with some interesting information regarding the finances. Unfortunately I can't prove a darn bit of it, but from what I have been told they do pay a set % every year and once they exceed that # or $ amount they pay "rent". If the $$ is based on the # of fans who come to the park, that makes some sense, and based on the past years attendence would make the $1 million this season plausable. Obviously what's done and is not required to be disclosed to the public is tightly guarded. The public records don't mean a thing since the Sox, being privately owned, are not required to disclose all of their financials. But just in some common sense thinking.. I find it very hard to believe that the Sox pay absolutely positively nothing to the State of Illinois for the use of that facility.

I know it's easy to think that Jerry is wiping his butt with $100's.. and he probably is.. I just don't agree that it's with revenues from the Sox. Just in looking at the revenues we do know about versus the expenses... it's just not possible. Especially with all the other "owners".

Steff,
It is kind of ironic that you have connections and no one believes you.

Bob

steff
02-07-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Steff,
It is kind of ironic that you have connections and no one believes you.

Bob



Not at all. And no big deal.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2004, 09:46 PM
Two points just to clear some things up.

1. John Helyar was working for the Wall Street Journal for a number of years as their sports / business reporter. He didn't work for the New York Times. He was working for the Journal when the book came out.

2. He conducted over 400 interviews for the book which ran about 400 pages so I think the odds of his "misinterperting" Reinsdorf's lease are pretty small. By trade he follows business and works for one of the top business papers in the country.

Am I saying Steff is wrong?

Not automatically. Things may have changed in the lease since the book came out in 1995 and this is Chicago politicians as well as the state of Illinois we are talking about. It's been known to happen where they have cut deals under the table in the past haven't they?

Lip

ode to veeck
02-08-2004, 12:28 PM
the old ballpark
You folks are right, Veeck and the Allyns did didly squat here too.

I just don't think JR ever wanted to keep the old ballpark, did supervicial upgrades in his tenure (e.g. Ribbie and Rhubarb) :smile: , while he did all he could to get it replaced as soon as he could. Renovating the old park (a much better historical "landmark" than Wrigley) woulda been much cheaper than building the new one ... unless of course you get the taxpayers to foot the bill.

Even if much more dilapidated than Wrigley due to PM over the years, there were viable options for major redo of the old place; all indications are JR never considered these--thereupon he missed the opportunity of the tremendous marketing value of such---not to say the Cell is a horrible park--I've enjoyed all the games I've seen there

taxes
I was referring to property taxes, since the ISA actually owns the place, though I have not even a ballpark figure on what they'd run

contract
I think Lip's right, given Illinois officials and JR's involved there's really no way to know the current reality, though per the original thread question "franchise value", transferability of the "generously termed contract" would also be a key issue

MisterB
02-08-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
[Renovating the old park (a much better historical "landmark" than Wrigley) woulda been much cheaper than building the new one ...

Not necessarily. The renovation/rebuild of Yankee Stadium cost about $160M. Royals (Kauffman) Stadium in KC, which was built from the ground up less than two years previous, cost only $70M. 15 years after the YS renovation, the New Comiskey was slapped up for only about $10M more.

Lip Man 1
02-08-2004, 08:40 PM
For What It's Worth: (from a future piece entitled Jerry Reinsdorf, In Their Own Words.....

On the ‘new’ Comiskey Park: “In Chicago, the White Sox had the good manners not to say that six-year-old Comiskey Park was nothing more then a gaudier Three Rivers Stadium, but owner Jerry Reinsdorf had begun to “Seligize”- to publicly and loudly ruminate about the park’s future.”– Keith Olbermann. From the book The Big Show, Inside ESPN’s SportsCenter Pg. 192.

“The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million.”– From the book The Lords of The Realm by John Helyar Pg. 483.

“There was so much deterioration (to the original Comiskey Park) the engineers told us the upped deck probably would have collapsed within a year or two.”– Jerry Reinsdorf quoted in the White Sox game program of September 30, 1990.

"We don't have any definitive plans. We built a modern stadium with wide aisles and no obstructed seats, and I think it's a beautiful ballpark. The first year it was acclaimed, and then Camden Yards and Jacobs Field were built, and people came to like the retro look. But those ballparks have a lot of deficiencies, like obstructed seats. But we're sort of in the retail business, and we have to give our customers what they want whenever possible, so we're examining the possibilities." – Jerry Reinsdorf to Terry Savage Chicago Sun Times July 30, 2000.

“I think if we do a renovation in this ballpark it would be with private money, some of which might come from selling naming rights." – Jerry Reinsdorf to Terry Savage Chicago Sun Times July 30, 2000

Lip