PDA

View Full Version : Value of Baseball Franchises...


Tekijawa
04-09-2004, 12:22 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778788

Franchise value for 2004

Franchise value for 2004 with one year change in value and revenue according to Forbes magazine (all dollar figures in millions):

Rk. Team Value Change Revenue
1. New York Yankees $832 -2 $238
2. Boston Red Sox $533 9 $190
3. New York Mets $442 -11 $158
4. Los Angeles Dodgers $399 -11 $154
5. Seattle Mariners $396 3 $169
6. Atlanta Braves $374 -12 $156
7. San Francisco Giants $368 -4 $153
8. Chicago Cubs $358 7 $156
9. Houston Astros $320 -2 $128
10. St Louis Cardinals $314 2 $131
11. Texas Rangers $306 -8 $127
12. Baltimore Orioles $296 -5 $129
13. Cleveland Indians $292 -12 $127
14. Colorado Rockies $285 -6 $124
15. Philadelphia Phillies $281 18 $115
16. Arizona Diamondbacks $276 3 $126
17. San Diego Padres $265 17 $106
18. Chicago White Sox $248 6 $124
19. Cincinnati Reds $245 10 $123
20. Anaheim Angels $241 7 $127
21. Detroit Tigers $235 -1 $117
22. Pittsburgh Pirates $217 -3 $109
23. Oakland Athletics $186 8 $110
24. Milwaukee Brewers $174 -16 $102
25. Florida Marlins $172 27 $101
26. Kansas City Royals $171 12 $98
27. Toronto Blue Jays $169 2 $99
28. Minnesota Twins $168 14 $99
29. Tampa Bay Devil Rays $152 4 $101
30. Montreal Expos $145 29 $81

IlliniSox
04-09-2004, 01:01 PM
I have $89 on me right now, who else wants in?

HomerCoach
04-09-2004, 01:03 PM
$46 from NY

HomeFish
04-09-2004, 01:05 PM
I have $60 in my wallet...

...perhaps we should set our sights on the Expos?

mantis1212
04-09-2004, 01:07 PM
How can they possibily have revenue figures? I thought all the teams kept their books closed, besides the Brewers recently.
If this is true, then Yankee's payroll is 77% of revenues, while the Sox hold tight at 48%.
If the Sox held a payroll 77% of revenues, they would have a $95MM payroll.
Spend Jerry, for crying out loud!

jabrch
04-09-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
How can they possibily have revenue figures? I thought all the teams kept their books closed, besides the Brewers recently.
If this is true, then Yankee's payroll is 77% of revenues, while the Sox hold tight at 48%.
If the Sox held a payroll 77% of revenues, they would have a $95MM payroll.
Spend Jerry, for crying out loud!

Remember Jerry has his rent expense on USCF - no wait a sec - he doesnt. He must have spent money out of his revenues on the renovations - no, I guess not. Well, he doesn't own the parking, so he gets no revenue there, right? Not exactly.

maybe he really is making a ton of cash off the team?

npdempse
04-09-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Remember Jerry has his rent expense on USCF - no wait a sec - he doesnt. He must have spent money out of his revenues on the renovations - no, I guess not. Well, he doesn't own the parking, so he gets no revenue there, right? Not exactly.


IIRC, they did hit the attendance quota and had to pay some rent last year. Not much, mind you, but something.

jabrch
04-09-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by npdempse
IIRC, they did hit the attendance quota and had to pay some rent last year. Not much, mind you, but something.

Very small amounts - if any

CubKilla
04-09-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
maybe he really is making a ton of cash off the team?

Now there's a shock. I always maintained why hold on to an investment if you're losing money on your investment hand over fist? Cause JR is rolling in it with the White Sox and is a freakin' cheapskate unwilling to put forward the capital to field a winner.

After seeing these numbers, I don't feel bad about boycotting USCF until the team gives me reason to do otherwise.

Tekijawa
04-09-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by IlliniSox
I have $89 on me right now, who else wants in?

I have $28 and a few Craig Grebek rookie cards I can sell!

IlliniSox
04-09-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Now there's a shock. I always maintained why hold on to an investment if you're losing money on your investment hand over fist? Cause JR is rolling in it with the White Sox and is a freakin' cheapskate unwilling to put forward the capital to field a winner.

After seeing these numbers, I don't feel bad about boycotting USCF until the team gives me reason to do otherwise.

Oh yeah. JR has said for years that he doesn't care about making a profit, just as long as his team doesn't operate at a loss. BUT his idea of break-even is not ending up in the red AFTER ALL HIS PRECIOUS investors have been paid off WITH RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT. That is why I have never cried for JR or any of his wonks.

kittle42
04-09-2004, 01:58 PM
I'm willing to pitch in $10,000. Now we only need another...um...all of it.

rahulsekhar
04-09-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
How can they possibily have revenue figures? I thought all the teams kept their books closed, besides the Brewers recently.
If this is true, then Yankee's payroll is 77% of revenues, while the Sox hold tight at 48%.
If the Sox held a payroll 77% of revenues, they would have a $95MM payroll.
Spend Jerry, for crying out loud!

These #s seem low to me, especially the Yanks. Are they including all broadcasting revenues, etc? Or is this primarily gate & merchandise sales? Yanks revs are much higher than $238m. My guess is that their payroll closer to the 48% of revs than this would indicate.

Rocky Soprano
04-09-2004, 02:11 PM
I have another 10K in savings. Count me in.

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212

If this is true, then Yankee's payroll is 77% of revenues, while the Sox hold tight at 48%.
If the Sox held a payroll 77% of revenues, they would have a $95MM payroll.
Spend Jerry, for crying out loud!

This is Very Disturbing. Im sure the White Sox and Jerry DONT want us to see that. Now im getting Angry Again..........
They dont want to Spend on the Team for why again ????????

Hangar18
04-09-2004, 02:33 PM
Disturbing Fact #2

"evil regime" Revenue: $156,000,000
"cheap regime" Revenue: $124,000,000

How can EVIL regime make more money, and be in the same city?

somethings wrong here ................

Jerry_Manuel
04-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
They dont want to Spend on the Team for why again ????????

I'm glad you said "they", because the investment group Jerry is with wants to line their pockets.

thepaulbowski
04-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
These #s seem low to me, especially the Yanks. Are they including all broadcasting revenues, etc? Or is this primarily gate & merchandise sales? Yanks revs are much higher than $238m. My guess is that their payroll closer to the 48% of revs than this would indicate.

Unless they are a public company, they are not required to release financial statements showing revenue, income, etc. So i don't know how Forbes came up with these numbers

mantis1212
04-09-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Disturbing Fact #2

"evil regime" Revenue: $156,000,000
"cheap regime" Revenue: $124,000,000

How can EVIL regime make more money, and be in the same city?

somethings wrong here ................

3MM in attendance vs. 2MM in attendance. Additionally, I think these are not all the revenues the team's receive, only revenues at the gate or something similar

MisterB
04-09-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
How can they possibily have revenue figures? I thought all the teams kept their books closed, besides the Brewers recently.
If this is true, then Yankee's payroll is 77% of revenues, while the Sox hold tight at 48%.
If the Sox held a payroll 77% of revenues, they would have a $95MM payroll.
Spend Jerry, for crying out loud!

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. The off-the-field costs of running a team are fairly constant from team to team. The more accurate statement is that both the Yanks and Sox spend about $58M on non-player costs. It's just that those common costs take up a smaller percentage of the Yanks' revenue than the Sox. BTW, I personally think the Yanks revenue is much closer to $300M than the figure that Forbes came up with.

MJL_Sox_Fan
04-09-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by IlliniSox
Oh yeah. JR has said for years that he doesn't care about making a profit, just as long as his team doesn't operate at a loss. BUT his idea of break-even is not ending up in the red AFTER ALL HIS PRECIOUS investors have been paid off WITH RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT. That is why I have never cried for JR or any of his wonks.


How can you get upset that investor demand a return? It is a business, as investors they can invest in a wide range of entities that all pay a return, hopefully comensurate with the risk they are assuming. When you deposit money in your bank it is an investment, don't you seek to receive interest on that money? JR and the ownership group have a right to extract cash flow from the Sox. The question is, are they taking to much out vs. reinvesting in the team? I think that given the Sox relative position in terms of attendence, media revenue, they have an adequate payroll. What bothers me is that JR is unwilling to accept lower returns today (i.e higher payroll) in order to win and in turn have potentially higher returns in the future. He needs to take more risk. But that is problem he caused by alienating his fan base.

Lip Man 1
04-09-2004, 10:19 PM
MJL:

Sox investors are entitled to make a profit, no question. They take the risk, they pay the money...

HOWEVER.....when you own not just a private business but a public trust and that same public has paid for your new stadium, then a different set of standards apply.

The fans and the city/ state deserve a little bit more for their tax money then an average record of 83-79 for the past six seasons don't you think?

You have to spend money to make money. Sox investors obviously haven't learned that basic business rule either. (particularly with the North Side acting like a large market franchise finally, it's going to become an even bigger issue as time goes on...) You want fans filling the park? Start consistently winning something and you'll get all you can handle. (As a reference look what happened between 1990 - 1994 and from 1981 - 1983. Those are the last times the Sox had multiple winning seasons in a row and actually contended for something)

Lip

Hangar18
04-11-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
MJL:

Sox investors are entitled to make a profit, no question. They take the risk, they pay the money...

HOWEVER.....when you own not just a private business but a public trust and that same public has paid for your new stadium, then a different set of standards apply.

The fans and the city/ state deserve a little bit more for their tax money then an average record of 83-79 for the past six seasons don't you think?

You have to spend money to make money. Sox investors obviously haven't learned that basic business rule either. ................................. You want fans filling the park? Start consistently winning something and you'll get all you can handle. (As a reference look what happened between 1990 - 1994 and from 1981 - 1983. Those are the last times the Sox had multiple winning seasons in a row and actually contended for something)

Lip

Excellent Point. And Might I add, that from 1990 thru 1994,
and 1981 to 1983, It was mighty hard to get tickets, the place was always packed

MJL_Sox_Fan
04-12-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
MJL:

Sox investors are entitled to make a profit, no question. They take the risk, they pay the money...

HOWEVER.....when you own not just a private business but a public trust and that same public has paid for your new stadium, then a different set of standards apply.

The fans and the city/ state deserve a little bit more for their tax money then an average record of 83-79 for the past six seasons don't you think?

You have to spend money to make money. Sox investors obviously haven't learned that basic business rule either. (particularly with the North Side acting like a large market franchise finally, it's going to become an even bigger issue as time goes on...) You want fans filling the park? Start consistently winning something and you'll get all you can handle. (As a reference look what happened between 1990 - 1994 and from 1981 - 1983. Those are the last times the Sox had multiple winning seasons in a row and actually contended for something)

Lip


I agree with one point and disagree with another.

Disagree: All the city/state and fans derserve for the tax money is rent. You get real estate built and repay bonds with tax revenues. As a tax payer I want rent, forget about wins. JR usually doesn't pay any rent but I don't think you are arguing that he intentionly keeps attendance down to cut his rent expense.

Agree: You have to spend money to make money. This actually means as I stated you have to take risk to get reward. That was my basic point, JR has to take more risk than the Cubs because he has a more difficult task in convincing people to buy his product. But like I said that his fault. I think we have to keep in mind that success in baseball as a business is not necessarily correlated with success on the playing field. JR is selling entertainment first, not winning baseball. I think we would all agree that a winning baseball team is a lot easier to sell and that a mediocre baseball team in an unpopular stadium is a lot harder to sell that a losing baseball team in a hugely popular stadium/neighborhood.

The Sox have to be a consistant winner in order to draw, I certainly agree.

IlliniSox
04-12-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by MJL_Sox_Fan
How can you get upset that investor demand a return? It is a business, as investors they can invest in a wide range of entities that all pay a return, hopefully comensurate with the risk they are assuming. When you deposit money in your bank it is an investment, don't you seek to receive interest on that money? JR and the ownership group have a right to extract cash flow from the Sox. The question is, are they taking to much out vs. reinvesting in the team? I think that given the Sox relative position in terms of attendence, media revenue, they have an adequate payroll. What bothers me is that JR is unwilling to accept lower returns today (i.e higher payroll) in order to win and in turn have potentially higher returns in the future. He needs to take more risk. But that is problem he caused by alienating his fan base.

Well put, I should have shored my comment up by saying the Sox seem to utilize a business model that looks one year out instead of 15.

Lip Man 1
04-12-2004, 02:28 PM
MJL says: "All the city/state and fans derserve for the tax money is rent. "

You obviously don't know that the Tribune had a story last off season showing that good ole Uncle Jerry only paid rent three times in the last ten years because of his clauses in the stadium deal. The city / state basically isn't even getting any of that! he paid 750,000 in rent for the 2003 season.

and then you have the clause that good ole Uncle Jerry extorted (to his credit) that states that anytime the Sox attendence falls below a certain number not only does he NOT pay rent but the state has to buy up to 300,000 tickets to make sure a certain attendence figure is reached.

Author John Helyar in his book "The Lords Of The Realm," took a close look at good ole Uncle Jerry's lease and said "it deserves immediate induction into the Sweetheart Deal Hall Of Fame."

Lip

MJL_Sox_Fan
04-13-2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
MJL says: "All the city/state and fans derserve for the tax money is rent. "

You obviously don't know that the Tribune had a story last off season showing that good ole Uncle Jerry only paid rent three times in the last ten years because of his clauses in the stadium deal. The city / state basically isn't even getting any of that! he paid 750,000 in rent for the 2003 season.

and then you have the clause that good ole Uncle Jerry extorted (to his credit) that states that anytime the Sox attendence falls below a certain number not only does he NOT pay rent but the state has to buy up to 300,000 tickets to make sure a certain attendence figure is reached.

Author John Helyar in his book "The Lords Of The Realm," took a close look at good ole Uncle Jerry's lease and said "it deserves immediate induction into the Sweetheart Deal Hall Of Fame."

Lip

I did know that. But that fact does not invalidate my point, unless JR is intentionally holding down attendence. This clause actually gives JR that perverse incentive. Since I have no evidence of JR manipulating attendence as to reduce his rent I must conclude as a tax payer that the General Assembly and its agent the ISFA have not acted in my interest. As a taxpayer I should be angry at them not JR. JR got a sweet lease yes. Should i be mad at him or the idoits who are supposed to act in the public interest. (ISFA and the General Assembly). I think you can tell which side of the public funding for sports stadiums debate I stand on.

Rex Hudler
04-13-2004, 01:27 AM
You have to spend money to make money. Sox investors obviously haven't learned that basic business rule either.

That is certainly not an absolute and has even failed as recently as 3 years ago for the Sox.

The Sox payroll in 2000 was $31 million. The team came together, won their division and made the playoffs. They more than doubled their payroll in 2002 to $65 million and it got them squat. Sometimes, a bad trade, injuries, or even bad luck can affect wins and losses as much as or more than increased payroll.

The bottom line is, discussing how much money the Sox make or don't make is pointless until expense figures are shared along with revenues. There are two sides to a balance sheet, expenses and revenues. Player payroll expenses are far from the total expenses a club incurs.