PDA

View Full Version : Rick Morrissey / Gallas Gone Tribune Column


Lip Man 1
04-21-2004, 01:15 AM
Rick Morrissey in the Tribune has a column on Gallas' departure and the problems the Sox are facing marketing wise.

I'm not sure what direction he was coming from but to be honest it sounded like he was taking a few shots at the franchise. Anyway I enjoyed these comments:

"Gallas said it was his decision to leave, but even if he was pushed, it doesn't matter. A regime change is only going to matter if the change involves club chairman Jerry Reinsdorf.

Trying to sell Reinsdorf to Sox fans is like trying to sell pork rinds to a group of dietitians. It's hard to find many fans who like Reinsdorf, and many of them have put their hatred of the chairman into serious inaction.

The good news for the Sox is that some of their attendance problems have more to do with perception than reality. The bad news is that the perceptions are so imbedded it would take a pickaxe to pry them loose.

The lower bowl of the ballpark is a fine place to watch a game, but the perception is that the park is a hole in the ground. Gallas' replacement will have to address that head-on first. The upper deck has been gussied up, but the Sox might as well have bought barrettes for a bald man. Nobody sits in the upper deck when there are so many seats available in the lower bowl. The most incriminating thing of all is that even when the Sox have had a good product, they haven't been able to fill their park. All the marketing in the world won't change the disillusionment many Sox fans have felt since the 1994 players' strike wiped out what would have been a chance at a world title for their team."

Lip

ShoelessFred
04-21-2004, 01:18 AM
it's not jerry reinsdorf's fault. it's the FANS fault remember!?!

doublem23
04-21-2004, 01:18 AM
How original. How much do these shmucks get paid?

soxnut
04-21-2004, 01:20 AM
If people are still whining over the '94 strike and are denying themselves of going to a Sox game because of that, then they're just stupid.

Lip Man 1
04-21-2004, 01:39 AM
Soxnut;

I disagree. They are dedicated enough to not go in the slim hope that something good will come of it, (i.e. ownership being forced to change.)

They love the Sox but they are not willing to hand over their hard earned money to an owner who has a serious credibility issue with the fans.

My personal opinion is that after good ole Uncle Jerry has left for that big ballpark in the sky, it'll literally take ten years of aggresive marketing as well as a sizable increase in payroll and some winning on the field (perhaps the most important thing!) to re-kindle the fan base.

Time will tell. What we do know right now is that the Sox unfortunately are on a treadmill with mediocrity at every turn (as evidenced by their average record the past six seasons...)

Lip

ode to veeck
04-21-2004, 01:44 AM
Even worse is the perception problem, ie that Chicago's a Flubs town, a problem that extends all the way to the chairman's office

munchman33
04-21-2004, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxnut;

I disagree. They are dedicated enough to not go in the slim hope that something good will come of it, (i.e. ownership being forced to change.)


After 10 years, I think it's safe to call that experiment a failure Lip.

voodoochile
04-21-2004, 01:56 AM
Maybe Morrissey mised it, but with low carb dieting being all the rage, pork rinds are making a comeback...

Still, this was LONG overdue. Gallas has been part of the problem for so long it is simply boggles the mind how he kept his job...

DSpivack
04-21-2004, 02:18 AM
Do the White Sox not have a valid slander and libel case against most of Chicago media?

The Critic
04-21-2004, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
After 10 years, I think it's safe to call that experiment a failure Lip.

I agree - if someone calls himself a Sox fan but hasn't gone to a game in a decade ( assuming, of course, that he lives close enough to go ) because of some vendetta against the owner, then that fan really should just disassociate himself from the Sox entirely.
If you deny yourself the fun of a live MLB game for 10 years, you must not like the sport all that much, IMO.

SSN721
04-21-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by The Critic
I agree - if someone calls himself a Sox fan but hasn't gone to a game in a decade ( assuming, of course, that he lives close enough to go ) because of some vendetta against the owner, then that fan really should just disassociate himself from the Sox entirely.
If you deny yourself the fun of a live MLB game for 10 years, you must not like the sport all that much, IMO.

I agree with this sentiment completely. I think it has been shown that Reinsdorfs advantage is when he draws less people so he doesnt have to pay rent. So the way I see it, the better chance of making a change is to go to the game, force him to pay rent and cut into his profit margins that way. Hopefully he will either decide it isnt worth it anymore or see the value in a full house every night. I am not holding my breath for either scenario, but I think denying myself going to see my team play is not helping getting rid of Reinsdorf any faster.

gosox41
04-21-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I agree with this sentiment completely. I think it has been shown that Reinsdorfs advantage is when he draws less people so he doesnt have to pay rent. So the way I see it, the better chance of making a change is to go to the game, force him to pay rent and cut into his profit margins that way. Hopefully he will either decide it isnt worth it anymore or see the value in a full house every night. I am not holding my breath for either scenario, but I think denying myself going to see my team play is not helping getting rid of Reinsdorf any faster.


Please not this argument again. This is the most ignorant, thoughtless, way off base argument I've seen here. Prove it. Give me some numbers to show this and then I will be more then happy to dissect this weak argument apart for what seems like the 50th time.


Bob

voodoochile
04-21-2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by DSpivack
Do the White Sox not have a valid slander and libel case against most of Chicago media?

Not until JR sells...

wdelaney72
04-21-2004, 08:56 AM
All of these "problems" go away with a team that wins IT ALL, consistently.

MarqSox
04-21-2004, 09:07 AM
Morrissey's column was really stupid, IMO. It basically absolved Gallas of sucking, on the basis that he had a difficult job.

Guess what if you're in a difficult job, and you can't cut it, you're still a failure.

SSN721
04-21-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Please not this argument again. This is the most ignorant, thoughtless, way off base argument I've seen here. Prove it. Give me some numbers to show this and then I will be more then happy to dissect this weak argument apart for what seems like the 50th time.


Bob

I guess I could have put my argument itself in teal as well, because I have no idea really what is going on with the finances of the team, and honestly, I don't care. When I go to the game I go to watch the team on the field, I don't care about the owner, organization, or anything like that when I am at the park. I just come to watch the game and if that benefits some greedy owner, so be it. If I boycotted everything in life because it benefits some greedy owner or corporation, I pretty much couldn't do anything at all. So I guess what I am saying is I just don't understand what the big deal is about going to a game to support the team we all obviously live and die with on this site.

jackbrohamer
04-21-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
How original. How much do these shmucks get paid?

No kidding. Another article bellyaching about poor Sox attendance and how the park's not pretty. How lazy can Chicago sportswriters get? I picture Morrissey lying on his couch dictating the column into his secretary's voicemail then rolling over & going back to sleep. Beats working for a living.

mdep524
04-21-2004, 01:19 PM
I have to say I am very disappointed with this article. I used to think Morrisey was a pretty decent and even handed writer, one of the best the Cubune had. But that piece of drivel was one of the worst articles I have ever read this side of Mike Downey or Mariotti.

Trying to sell Reinsdorf to Sox fans is like trying to sell pork rinds to a group of dietitians. It's hard to find many fans who like Reinsdorf, and many of them have put their hatred of the chairman into serious inaction.

Why do people keep saying this?? Baseball fans don't go to games because of a team's owner, and for that matter neither do non-fan atendees. Fans go to see baseball, non-fans go to have fun. Do Cubs fans go to Wrigley Field because they love the Tribune Company?

The lower bowl of the ballpark is a fine place to watch a game, but the perception is that the park is a hole in the ground.

Anybody who actually GOES to Comiskey knows this is just plain not true. There must be some journalist's code to perpetuate this grossly slanderous image. There is so much going on at Comiskey that never gets any attention.

The good news for the Sox is that some of their attendance problems have more to do with perception than reality. The bad news is that the perceptions are so imbedded it would take a pickaxe to pry them loose.

You think maybe it's the writers that refuse to change thir impressions? With comments that rely on inaccurate generalizations, it almost seems like its their JOB to keep bad mages of the park and the owner salient in the mind of SOx fans to keep them out of the park.


The most incriminating thing of all is that even when the Sox have had a good product, they haven't been able to fill their park.

What??? You wanna back that up, buddy?


Overall a terrible terrible article. Sad, because this is something I would expect from Mariotti, Downey or Skip Bayless or something. Poorly researched, one-sided, rife with contradictions, perpetuating bad images out of laziness or stubborness. What a shame.

Jerko
04-21-2004, 01:37 PM
I look at the JR thing this way. I don't think he's gonna go broke if Jerko from WSI boycotts the team. I enjoy live baseball, I like the Sox, my buddies do too, so we go to the games. By not going to the games, I would be depriving myself a source of enjoyment that I partake of in my free time. I don't care how much I hate or don't hate the owner, but if I allow him to deprive me of a simple enjoyment of life such as a ballgame, then he is taking something much more valuable from me than my money.

Lip Man 1
04-21-2004, 01:41 PM
A few points:

Munchman says: "After 10 years, I think it's safe to call that experiment a failure Lip."

Then how do you account for who knows how many people still staying away yet they say they are Sox fans? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the previous statement.

I don't think it is a failure at all. Granted us folks refusing to go back hasn't led to a sale (yet) but it also hasn't added to good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account either. to me that's an eminently fair trade.

As far as the 'ballpark experience' comments. With respect I've probably been to more games then many of you because I'm 48 and I certainly enjoy going to a game but I also enjoy the sport just as much, if not more, watching on TV. I get the best seat in the house, don't get hit by the goofy, obnoxious between innings promos and ear splitting music and don't have to put up with drunks and goofballs.

The 'baseball experience' today is a hell of a lot different from what it was in the 60's and 70's, when people enjoyed the game, the action on the field was what was important and Nancy Faust had time enough to play a lot of music.

I don't think the 'ballpark experience' is that much to write home about, at least not today's anyway. (By the way my first Sox game was July 15, 1963)

Lip

maurice
04-21-2004, 02:17 PM
I have two major problems with the article:

1. The underlying assumption that nothing was Gallas' fault. If he were the marketing director of any other type of business bleeding its share of the market, he would have been canned a LONG time ago.

2. The fifth paragraph. It clearly was originally written as another shot at Sox attendance. Then he had to go back and change it (barely) after discovering that 32,034 Sox fans bought tix to watch the Sox play a weekday game in cold weather and monsoon conditions. Try applying the FACTS to the conlusions your reach, Richard. If you do your job as an analyst properly and refrain from writing typical Chicago media articles propounding tired and erroneous conclusions, you won't have to scamble at the last minute to CYA.

joecrede
04-21-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Then how do you account for who knows how many people still staying away yet they say they are Sox fans? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the previous statement.

Who knows how many is right. I know of no one who doesn't go to Sox games because of Reinsdorf.

How do you explain Reinsdorf presiding over the most successful period of attendance in team history if this is the case Lip?

mdep524
04-21-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
I look at the JR thing this way. I don't think he's gonna go broke if Jerko from WSI boycotts the team. I enjoy live baseball, I like the Sox, my buddies do too, so we go to the games. By not going to the games, I would be depriving myself a source of enjoyment that I partake of in my free time. I don't care how much I hate or don't hate the owner, but if I allow him deprive me of a simple enjoyment of life such as a ballgame, then he is taking something much more valuable from me than my money.

Wow Jerko, that is literally exactly the way I feel. No exaggeration, I couldn't have put it better myself. If more baseball fans thought like this, we wouldn't have all the "the billboards in the outfield are too big" or "JR robbed us in '94" or "JR is a tightwad" non-sensical arguements for not going to games.

mdep524
04-21-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
A few points:

Munchman says: "After 10 years, I think it's safe to call that experiment a failure Lip."

Then how do you account for who knows how many people still staying away yet they say they are Sox fans? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the previous statement.

I don't think it is a failure at all. Granted us folks refusing to go back hasn't led to a sale (yet) but it also hasn't added to good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account either. to me that's an eminently fair trade.

As far as the 'ballpark experience' comments. With respect I've probably been to more games then many of you because I'm 48 and I certainly enjoy going to a game but I also enjoy the sport just as much, if not more, watching on TV. I get the best seat in the house, don't get hit by the goofy, obnoxious between innings promos and ear splitting music and don't have to put up with drunks and goofballs.

The 'baseball experience' today is a hell of a lot different from what it was in the 60's and 70's, when people enjoyed the game, the action on the field was what was important and Nancy Faust had time enough to play a lot of music.

I don't think the 'ballpark experience' is that much to write home about, at least not today's anyway. (By the way my first Sox game was July 15, 1963)

Lip

Lip, with all due respect, I respect your baseball opinions and youa re obviously a very intelligent man, but you have to be kidding with some of this stuff. No offense, but you sound like an old crank. If you take more pleasure in not adding to "Uncle Jerry's band account" than in seeing a baseball game... well that is sad.

Iwritecode
04-21-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Who knows how many is right. I know of no one who doesn't go to Sox games because of Reinsdorf.

How do you explain Reinsdorf presiding over the most successful period of attendance in team history if this is the case Lip?

He managed to get a new stadium and the team won the division a few years later. Attendance hasn't been the same since.

Amazingly that also coincides with the strike of 1994 which many people believe JR had a large role in...

SSN721
04-21-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
A few points:

Munchman says: "After 10 years, I think it's safe to call that experiment a failure Lip."

Then how do you account for who knows how many people still staying away yet they say they are Sox fans? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the previous statement.

I don't think it is a failure at all. Granted us folks refusing to go back hasn't led to a sale (yet) but it also hasn't added to good ole Uncle Jerry's bank account either. to me that's an eminently fair trade.

As far as the 'ballpark experience' comments. With respect I've probably been to more games then many of you because I'm 48 and I certainly enjoy going to a game but I also enjoy the sport just as much, if not more, watching on TV. I get the best seat in the house, don't get hit by the goofy, obnoxious between innings promos and ear splitting music and don't have to put up with drunks and goofballs.

The 'baseball experience' today is a hell of a lot different from what it was in the 60's and 70's, when people enjoyed the game, the action on the field was what was important and Nancy Faust had time enough to play a lot of music.

I don't think the 'ballpark experience' is that much to write home about, at least not today's anyway. (By the way my first Sox game was July 15, 1963)

Lip

I don't have a problem at all with the way you feel about JR, I think we all feel relatively the same way, he obviously isn't the best owner we deserve. But I also have to recognize that he isn't the only decision maker in the organization. And I don't want to start arguing the attendance and profit margins to payroll arguments all over again, that has been done to death in many other threads. I think it is unfair to to say the "ballpark experience" is not much to write home about anymore. If this is strictly your opinion I apologize in advance, not trying to change your mind just stating mine. I think it is still quite wonderful, as much as things have changed there is still a mythical, magical quality to this game (at least in my mind) that captures me everytime I watch. Being at the park to me only enhances this quality the game has. I don't thin kI am alone in feeling this way, obviously the love for this team and vast knowledge of the game displayed by a lot of posters here has shown that. I do realize that times are different, and clubs have to do more now to get more then the hard core fans to the park. But with rising costs in payroll to remain competitive at any level I think there isn't much you can do about some of the cheesy aspect of the "ballpark experience." Just because I don't like some of that stuff doesn't mean I can phase it out and focus on the game being played on the field and thoroughly enjoy it. I could keep going on and on being all sappy and sentimental, but I have too many attachments and memories with this club and this park (and old Comiskey) to not go to games just because I am not pleased with the owner. The game and experience is more valuable to me then feeling I might be denting an already wealthy mans bank account.

JRIG
04-21-2004, 03:26 PM
I'm really, really, really, really tired of hearing the '94 strike beaten like a dead horse as a reason Sox fans still "stay away." How many years will this continue to be trotted out? Until 2024? 2044, the 50th anniversary?

People seem to forget the Indians were cloing...fast. Only a game behind us when the strike happened. And in my opinion the Expos alomst certainly had the best team in baseball that season. Does that guarantee they would have won the Series? Of course not. But that Sox team in '94 had no better chance to win it all than the team in '93 or even the team in '00.

A missed chance at the playoffs? Yes, a pretty good bet. But a guaranteed Series win? No way.

voodoochile
04-21-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
I'm really, really, really, really tired of hearing the '94 strike beaten like a dead horse as a reason Sox fans still "stay away." How many years will this continue to be trotted out? Until 2024? 2044, the 50th anniversary?

People seem to forget the Indians were cloing...fast. Only a game behind us when the strike happened. And in my opinion the Expos alomst certainly had the best team in baseball that season. Does that guarantee they would have won the Series? Of course not. But that Sox team in '94 had no better chance to win it all than the team in '93 or even the team in '00.

A missed chance at the playoffs? Yes, a pretty good bet. But a guaranteed Series win? No way.

How about until the person who is being blamed (JR) sells. Anyone who uses it thereafter is an idiot, but there are a bunch of people who are still ticked of at reinsy and won't go to games until he is no longer affiliated with the team.

Earlier in the thread mdep pointed out that people don't go to games because of the owner, of course they completely miss the point that some people refuse to go to games because of the owner which in turn affects attendance, revenue and in the long run talent level.

What has JR done to make the fans feel that he cares about winning over everything? He has paid it lip service and that is all. Until he changes his philosophy (yeah, right) or sells the team, the fans will continue to distrust the direction the Sox are headed.

Prove me wrong, Reinsy or...

:selljerry

jackbrohamer
04-21-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
What has JR done to make the fans feel that he cares about winning over everything? He has paid it lip service and that is all. Until he changes his philosophy (yeah, right) or sells the team, the fans will continue to distrust the direction the Sox are headed.

Prove me wrong, Reinsy or...

:selljerry

He's barely even paid lip service to the concept. It's always obvious through the organization's actions that the bottom $$ line is always the bottom line.

Lip Man 1
04-21-2004, 10:04 PM
A few points...

First Rick Morrissey was nice enough to reply to an e-mail of mine today about his column. He stated that in his opinion, Uncle Jerry is the real problem with the White Sox.

Bob says: "I know of no one who doesn't go to Sox games because of Reinsdorf. "

I do...and more then just myself.

As far as the 'most successful attendence period in history,' the fact is that the stadium was new and the team was good. When the team went south after it was dismantled because of the labor impasse, the fans stayed away, blamed Uncle Jerry and suddenly the stadium didn't seem to matter did it? History shows Sox fans care more about winning then a bad ballpark but when the Sox don't win, the bad ballpark (for its time) becomes more of an issue.

Uncle Jerry got the park built because (to his credit) he extorted the state and city and used his friendship with former Gov. Jim Thompson to get it done. The Allyn's owned the club during a time when cities weren't being exploited by sports owners and Veeck simply didn't have the money needed to even make a dent in getting one off the ground.

Lip

batmanZoSo
04-21-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
If people are still whining over the '94 strike and are denying themselves of going to a Sox game because of that, then they're just stupid.

They are if they really want to go, but are too stubborn in their anti-Reinsdorf stance.

But that's not the case. People really hate him. And really what have the Sox ever done to deserve good attendance? 4 playoff appearances since 1920. I don't see how you can go 10-15 years without making the playoffs, let alone 39.

FWIW, Reinsdorf is the most successful owner (tallest midget) we've had since Comiskey. I don't understand why everyone loved Bill Veeck. What did he ever accomplish? Whacky promotions and a scoreboard, that's about it. Correct me if he ever brought us a championship. I'm not defending Reinsdorf, but to keep things in perspective, we've fell on worse times than this regime. It's not all his fault or all the fans' fault, it's a combination of both.

We could draw 30,000 a night if we had a stretch of playoff appearances, no matter who's running the team. Sox fans are used to one year and done. And that's what we get every time. I thought we'd break that spell after 2000, but the only thing different was the severity of the dropoff.

One thing has to change, either Reinsdorf goes or he starts spending money. This current team would be great with two or three pieces--closer, center fielder, second baseman. But we don't have any because JR won't spend money unless he's assured of a return. Perhaps thats smart financial planning, but it's bad business.

gosox41
04-22-2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I guess I could have put my argument itself in teal as well, because I have no idea really what is going on with the finances of the team, and honestly, I don't care. When I go to the game I go to watch the team on the field, I don't care about the owner, organization, or anything like that when I am at the park. I just come to watch the game and if that benefits some greedy owner, so be it. If I boycotted everything in life because it benefits some greedy owner or corporation, I pretty much couldn't do anything at all. So I guess what I am saying is I just don't understand what the big deal is about going to a game to support the team we all obviously live and die with on this site.

There are some who post here (not you) who think JR is raking it in. Granted they have no proof, but they think it's the case. I did an earlier study on ticket prices when someone posted an article that the Sox took in $50 mill in ticket revenue in 2003. I did the math (figured out 1/2 price night with average attendance) and made some generous assumptions for games (like the most expensive seats sold first) and the number I came in with was about $37 million. Neither one is chump change, but when some people come out and buy into that argument but then say that JR is making $15 mill. per year, I just proved them all wrong by analyzing numbers. An analysis that hasn't come under question.

Now on to your claim about the rent. I didn't mean to jump down anyonoe's throat, but things got heated in here over the winter when it came to people making claims then making fun of us number crunchers. I'll give an example of why it doesn't work.

Let's say I have a party at my house anbd charge $25 to get in. But the city or state comes in and says that when there are more then 10 people at my party at a given night I have to start paying taxes, let's say $5 a head.


So the first 10 people come in and I collect $250. The next 10 come in and I collect $250, but then Mayor Daley's thug is standing next to me to collect the city's portion so I give him $50 ($5 per person times the 10 extra people) I still took in additional revenu of $200 plus the first $250 I took in so now I have $450.

The Sox rent deal is structured the same way, though the numbers are different. When they get above 1.3 mill they have to pay rent. But they're not paying more then what they're taking in in that extra ticket revenue. Assume the Sox average ticket price were $25 (which it's not but that's a different issue). Now I read some where that the Sox pay rent of about $3 mill when attendance gets close to 2 million, so they're paying that $ mill for the 700,000 extra people attending. Multiply $25 times 700,000 and you get $17,500,000. Then the Sox give 3 million of that to the state, leaving them with an additional $14.5 million.

The only claim that can be made about the Sox lease deal is that reveneus don't grow as the same fast rate as attendance goes up, but he is not losing money if more people show.


Bob

gosox41
04-22-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How about until the person who is being blamed (JR) sells. Anyone who uses it thereafter is an idiot, but there are a bunch of people who are still ticked of at reinsy and won't go to games until he is no longer affiliated with the team.

Earlier in the thread mdep pointed out that people don't go to games because of the owner, of course they completely miss the point that some people refuse to go to games because of the owner which in turn affects attendance, revenue and in the long run talent level.

What has JR done to make the fans feel that he cares about winning over everything? He has paid it lip service and that is all. Until he changes his philosophy (yeah, right) or sells the team, the fans will continue to distrust the direction the Sox are headed.

Prove me wrong, Reinsy or...

:selljerry

I find it ironic that people have this hatred of JR and won't support his team because of 1994. But are these the same people that feel as passionately about bigger issues. For example, Japanese cars are pretty popular in the US. Yet look what they did to us with Pearl Harbor.

My point is that sometimes people take the wrong stuff too seriously. Life is short. Baseball is a game.


Bob

gosox41
04-22-2004, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
A few points...

First Rick Morrissey was nice enough to reply to an e-mail of mine today about his column. He stated that in his opinion, Uncle Jerry is the real problem with the White Sox.

Bob says: "I know of no one who doesn't go to Sox games because of Reinsdorf. "

I do...and more then just myself.

As far as the 'most successful attendence period in history,' the fact is that the stadium was new and the team was good. When the team went south after it was dismantled because of the labor impasse, the fans stayed away, blamed Uncle Jerry and suddenly the stadium didn't seem to matter did it? History shows Sox fans care more about winning then a bad ballpark but when the Sox don't win, the bad ballpark (for its time) becomes more of an issue.

Uncle Jerry got the park built because (to his credit) he extorted the state and city and used his friendship with former Gov. Jim Thompson to get it done. The Allyn's owned the club during a time when cities weren't being exploited by sports owners and Veeck simply didn't have the money needed to even make a dent in getting one off the ground.

Lip


I think Rick got his points mixed up. It wasn't Gallas who had to suffer working for the Sox, he chose to be here for 15 years. It's Sox fans that have suffered by his crappy marketing. That's what the article should be about. How about if this team had any clue with marketing the payroll would be higher.


Bob

voodoochile
04-22-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I find it ironic that people have this hatred of JR and won't support his team because of 1994. But are these the same people that feel as passionately about bigger issues. For example, Japanese cars are pretty popular in the US. Yet look what they did to us with Pearl Harbor.

My point is that sometimes people take the wrong stuff too seriously. Life is short. Baseball is a game.


Bob

Yes, but part of the fun of any game is having the chance to win. With JR at the helm, the Sox and the fans are not being consistently given that chance.

You do know that there are still people who refuse to buy Japanese cars because of Pearl Harbor, right? People have long memories and since JR was a leader in the strike he has also white flagged it and blamed the fans repeatedly for the team's failure to sign and keep free agents. IF the strike was all there was, you might have a point (though I can understand the striking fan's POV).

Why should the fans believe JR or trust that he actually does want to win. He has had multiple chances and has failed to free up the payroll to get it done.

Also, JR is sitting on a huge pile of cash in the increased value of the team. Personally, I wish he would cash it in and retire to the Bahamas or wherever and stop holding my favorite team hostage.

At least they finally dumped Gallas...

:reinsy
"If they come then I will build it."

:selljerry

gosox41
04-22-2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but part of the fun of any game is having the chance to win. With JR at the helm, the Sox and the fans are not being consistently given that chance.

You do know that there are still people who refuse to buy Japanese cars because of Pearl Harbor, right? People have long memories and since JR was a leader in the strike he has also white flagged it and blamed the fans repeatedly for the team's failure to sign and keep free agents. IF the strike was all there was, you might have a point (though I can understand the striking fan's POV).

Why should the fans believe JR or trust that he actually does want to win. He has had multiple chances and has failed to free up the payroll to get it done.

Also, JR is sitting on a huge pile of cash in the increased value of the team. Personally, I wish he would cash it in and retire to the Bahamas or wherever and stop holding my favorite team hostage.

At least they finally dumped Gallas...

:reinsy
"If they come then I will build it."

:selljerry

Just to clarify. THe team has gone up in value, but that's only on paper. JR has received no extra cash because the team has increased in value. He'll see that cash when he sells.



Bob

voodoochile
04-22-2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Just to clarify. THe team has gone up in value, but that's only on paper. JR has received no extra cash because the team has increased in value. He'll see that cash when he sells.



Bob

And your point is? You act like the money doesn't exist because it hasn't been liquified yet.

I guess Bill Gates really isn't the richest man on the planet because he just owns shares of Microsoft and isn't actually holding the cash...

Simple solution...

:selljerry

Lip Man 1
04-22-2004, 01:29 PM
Bob says: "An analysis that hasn't come under question."

Perhaps I'm confusing issues but if your talking about your post after Daver did his column on the Sox financial situation, Daver and others did question it in follow up posts and questioned it extremely hard. I recall an issue regarding the Sox radio / TV rights which are no worse then 10th in baseball (I think they are 5th or 6th myself based on what I recall reading.) I don't know if you included that in your analysis of his financial situation. I also recall a great deal of discussion on how much he is making from parking and concessions which may not have been included in a 'final analysis.'

Lip

Clarkdog
04-22-2004, 04:28 PM
There is alot of debate about whether fans stay away from Comiskey and the White Sox because Reinsdorf is owner.

I don't believe that most fans are so in hatred of the man that they are boycotting the franchise. But I do think that Uncle Jerry has turned people away from the White Sox by failing to build the value of the White Sox as a BRAND. Brand is a consumer's gut feeling about an organization. It is not what the organization says it is - but what we say it is. Branding is a concept that is completely foreign to the White Sox.

The market cap value of the White Sox franchise has increased tremendously since JR purchased the team - but value of the brand has not.

Look at it this way, a crazy example but - say a tornado screams through the city and wiped out both Chicago MLB franchises of everything. Ballparks, players, merchansiding, management, etc. So there was absolutely nothing left. To rebuild the franchises the only collateral to borrow against was the value of the brand. Which team would have an easier time securing financing to put the franchise in a position at par with where they were at prior to the tornado?

Say what you will about our neighbors to the north - but they know how to build brand. Elvis night and sleepovers are nice but they are just tactics and gimmicks.

Gallas never fully understood how to build the Sox as a brand.

DSpivack
04-22-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Clarkdog
There is alot of debate about whether fans stay away from Comiskey and the White Sox because Reinsdorf is owner.

I don't believe that most fans are so in hatred of the man that they are boycotting the franchise. But I do think that Uncle Jerry has turned people away from the White Sox by failing to build the value of the White Sox as a BRAND. Brand is a consumer's gut feeling about an organization. It is not what the organization says it is - but what we say it is. Branding is a concept that is completely foreign to the White Sox.

The market cap value of the White Sox franchise has increased tremendously since JR purchased the team - but value of the brand has not.

Look at it this way, a crazy example but - say a tornado screams through the city and wiped out both Chicago MLB franchises of everything. Ballparks, players, merchansiding, management, etc. So there was absolutely nothing left. To rebuild the franchises the only collateral to borrow against was the value of the brand. Which team would have an easier time securing financing to put the franchise in a position at par with where they were at prior to the tornado?

Say what you will about our neighbors to the north - but they know how to build brand. Elvis night and sleepovers are nice but they are just tactics and gimmicks.

Gallas never fully understood how to build the Sox as a brand.

Great post, but let's take it a step further. What is the Sox brand? If you, and I mean anyone reading this, were PR Chair for the White Sox what would you sell? How would you shape the image of the White Sox?

gosox41
04-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob says: "An analysis that hasn't come under question."

Perhaps I'm confusing issues but if your talking about your post after Daver did his column on the Sox financial situation, Daver and others did question it in follow up posts and questioned it extremely hard. I recall an issue regarding the Sox radio / TV rights which are no worse then 10th in baseball (I think they are 5th or 6th myself based on what I recall reading.) I don't know if you included that in your analysis of his financial situation. I also recall a great deal of discussion on how much he is making from parking and concessions which may not have been included in a 'final analysis.'

Lip

Lip,

The whole analysis I did was on ticket prices. I never said anything about media, etc. I didn't write the descrition of what was in the article, b ut the article itself clearly looks at ticket prices, the one aspect that we can put a solid number to.


The point of the article was to show a couple of things:

1. A lot of people were wrong about the amount of revenue the Sox took in from tickets (and for the last time only tickets)

2. Some (notice I said some and not all since I need to make myself clearer) of those very same people here have estimated that JR and his parnters makes about $10-15 mill in profit. Yet I just whittled down that number by looking at one aspect of the team; again the one aspect that can be measured.

3. Assumptions are the mother of all mess ups. So assume what you will about other areas of revenue, but if you can't follow the logic of an anlysis with acutal numbers backing it up (which I tried to reak down as much as possible in the article) then how can you assume anything else without seeing numbers.

Can I assume all people in North Dakota are negative cynical JR bashers because you are. You're the only perosn I know. Can I assume you moved out there to live with like people so you can bash JR at will? Or maybe I should get my facts first. Kind of like those numbers I put up for ticket prices. I wrote the whole article in response to Daver's $50 mill in ticket revenue. I broke down the numbers even further. If I made the ticket revenues up or appear differently, then let's debate it. But right now we're talking apples and oranges. I don't know what the Sox radio deal pays them anymore then anyone else. So who's correct, me or you?


Bob

gosox41
04-23-2004, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
And your point is? You act like the money doesn't exist because it hasn't been liquified yet.

I guess Bill Gates really isn't the richest man on the planet because he just owns shares of Microsoft and isn't actually holding the cash...

Simple solution...

:selljerry

Two differences:

1. Bill Gates has a liquid market in which he can buy (or sell ) shares pretty much whenver he wants. Do you see a lot of guys with $200 mill waiting around ready to drop the money on the Sox in a moments notice.

2. Nothing beats cash. JR (and Gates) btoh have high net worths (obviosly Gates is a ton higher.) But the fact is I don't see too many players wanting to get sign contracts that pays them when JR sells the team and has the cash.


Bob

voodoochile
04-23-2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Two differences:

1. Bill Gates has a liquid market in which he can buy (or sell ) shares pretty much whenver he wants. Do you see a lot of guys with $200 mill waiting around ready to drop the money on the Sox in a moments notice.

2. Nothing beats cash. JR (and Gates) btoh have high net worths (obviosly Gates is a ton higher.) But the fact is I don't see too many players wanting to get sign contracts that pays them when JR sells the team and has the cash.


Bob

1) JR can raise capital anytime he wants to just by pointing at the Sox as collateral, so having it actually puts that money at his disposal - which is probably why he loves having it so much (and the fact that he is the center of attention). But, if the Sox were put up for sale, yes, I do believe there would be lines out the door to buy the team. Heck in Chicago alone there are probably 100+ people who could afford it (or put together a group of people who could afford it).

2) I don't know what you are trying to say here.

gosox41
04-24-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
1) JR can raise capital anytime he wants to just by pointing at the Sox as collateral, so having it actually puts that money at his disposal - which is probably why he loves having it so much (and the fact that he is the center of attention). But, if the Sox were put up for sale, yes, I do believe there would be lines out the door to buy the team. Heck in Chicago alone there are probably 100+ people who could afford it (or put together a group of people who could afford it).

2) I don't know what you are trying to say here.

1. In order for JR to raise capital like that he'd have to take on debt. It's only a good idea to take on debt when you think you have a good chance to make back that money.

This is where we get into the Sox finances. Some think he's making a ton of money, which probably is a good idea since it is a business and not a charity.

Other's (like me) think he's pretty much spending what he has, maybe making a few mill. or in most cases losing a few mill per.

Taking out debt has to be justified. I believe if the Sox increased their payroll to $80-90 mill and still sucked, fans still wouldn't come out and support a loser. So why risk an extra $15-20 mill knowing that if the team draws you may make most of it back and turn a little profit, but if it doesn't then you're stuck paying interest on $15-20 mill.

2. No one is stopping anyone from making JR an offer. There doesn't have to be an official 'For Sale' sign up. If you called me now and made an all cash offer for my home that I thought was an impressive deal for me I'd sell it to you in a second even though I'm not actively looking to move (not looking for buyers and certainly not looking at new places to live.)

If someone wanted in, as always, money talks. Make JR an offer he can't refuse. If you think there'd be 'lines out the door' for this team, then odds are the price will get driven up anyway by simple supply/demand when all these people are bidding against each other.



Bob

voodoochile
04-24-2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
1. In order for JR to raise capital like that he'd have to take on debt. It's only a good idea to take on debt when you think you have a good chance to make back that money.

This is where we get into the Sox finances. Some think he's making a ton of money, which probably is a good idea since it is a business and not a charity.

Other's (like me) think he's pretty much spending what he has, maybe making a few mill. or in most cases losing a few mill per.

Taking out debt has to be justified. I believe if the Sox increased their payroll to $80-90 mill and still sucked, fans still wouldn't come out and support a loser. So why risk an extra $15-20 mill knowing that if the team draws you may make most of it back and turn a little profit, but if it doesn't then you're stuck paying interest on $15-20 mill.

2. No one is stopping anyone from making JR an offer. There doesn't have to be an official 'For Sale' sign up. If you called me now and made an all cash offer for my home that I thought was an impressive deal for me I'd sell it to you in a second even though I'm not actively looking to move (not looking for buyers and certainly not looking at new places to live.)

If someone wanted in, as always, money talks. Make JR an offer he can't refuse. If you think there'd be 'lines out the door' for this team, then odds are the price will get driven up anyway by simple supply/demand when all these people are bidding against each other.



Bob

1)I wasn't suggesting that the Sox use that collateral for payroll, merely pointing out that JR can use the Sox as collateral to raise money for other projects (real estate, etc.)

2)JR would still have to get approval from the rest of the partners before he could sell the team. He is not the majority owner, merely the President of the company that owns the Sox. I imagine people throw offers at him all the time and NONE of it matters until JR (and the rest of them) are ready to sell. Again, a baseball team in Chicago up for sale with a sweetheart lease, their own private TV station and a stadium that is half full and begging for good marketing would draw a big crowd, IMO.