PDA

View Full Version : Cubs and Sox finanical info!


GiveMeSox
09-16-2004, 07:00 PM
Here is some information i came across from Forbes.com. Both the cubs and sox seem to be on the positive side in the profit margin. Check it out.

Cubs Financial Info 2003 (http://www.forbes.com/baseball/14.shtml)

Sox Financial Info 2003 (http://www.forbes.com/baseball/17.shtml)

As one would expect we are about middle of the pack in everything. Too bad i dont have a Fobes or Hoovers account. If you are a member you can see all the teams financial disclosures including media contracts, sponserhips, and a break down of profit vs. spending. Does anyone have access to either of those sites, maybe through there company.

http://www.forbes.com/baseball/

batmanZoSo
09-16-2004, 07:15 PM
Here is some information i came across from Forbes.com. Both the cubs and sox seem to be on the positive side in the profit margin. Check it out.

Cubs Financial Info 2003 (http://www.forbes.com/baseball/14.shtml)

Sox Financial Info 2003 (http://www.forbes.com/baseball/17.shtml)

As one would expect we are about middle of the pack in everything. Too bad i dont have a Fobes or Hoovers account. If you are a member you can see all the teams financial disclosures including media contracts, sponserhips, and a break down of profit vs. spending. Does anyone have access to either of those sites, maybe through there company.

http://www.forbes.com/baseball/

JR in public:

:reinsy

"I'm not in this business to make money, at best I break even. I do it for the satisfaction."

JR behind closed doors:

:reinsy

Those are merely our "public" disclosures...our real numbers are hidden in a vault behind the original Boy Blue oil on canvas in my secret laaaaair...muwahahahaha. And NO ONE will know the truth! NO ONE!

HomeFish
09-16-2004, 07:16 PM
That information looks like it is from 2000.

GiveMeSox
09-16-2004, 07:38 PM
That information looks like it is from 2000.
My bad your right, this info is from 2003.

Right Info (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/064tab2.html)

Rex Hudler
09-16-2004, 10:06 PM
The info is from the 2002 season, published in 2003.

I am not sure what your point is, but that info estimates Operating Income at $1.2 million, before taxes, interest and depreciation. I am not an accountant, so I am not sure how those items would affect that number (I would guess taxes and interest on debt would reduce it), but it doesn't seem unreasonably high to me.

gosox41
09-17-2004, 07:23 AM
The info is from the 2002 season, published in 2003.

I am not sure what your point is, but that info estimates Operating Income at $1.2 million, before taxes, interest and depreciation. I am not an accountant, so I am not sure how those items would affect that number (I would guess taxes and interest on debt would reduce it), but it doesn't seem unreasonably high to me.
If those numbers are correct, then it shows the Sox are spending pretty much what they have. Let's start one of thoses threads where we accuse JR of making $15 mill. per year without any proof.


Bob

GiveMeSox
09-17-2004, 01:52 PM
The info is from the 2002 season, published in 2003.

I am not sure what your point is, but that info estimates Operating Income at $1.2 million, before taxes, interest and depreciation. I am not an accountant, so I am not sure how those items would affect that number (I would guess taxes and interest on debt would reduce it), but it doesn't seem unreasonably high to me.
You interpreting the info wrong. That 1.2 million is by factor of 100 mil. So that is really 120 mil net income. The numbers are just scaled down to fit the page.

GiveMeSox
09-17-2004, 01:56 PM
If those numbers are correct, then it shows the Sox are spending pretty much what they have. Let's start one of thoses threads where we accuse JR of making $15 mill. per year without any proof.


Bob
That is basically the decision i have come to as well. After seeing info from forbes and hoovers on the income and expenditures of this team we operate at basically break even, always spending no more than what we can. While that makes for all and good business parctices as it ensures you from not going into debt or bankrupt like arizone, milwaukee, and colorado it really ensures you no risk in winning as well. When you sense weaknesss in the division and league and good buyers market you should spend over your head and the take risk that spending the extra $ now will yield more income later that year. THe sox simply never seem to do this. So our complaints of payroll go only half waranted. They are spending the most they can with the money they have, but they are sitll not spending ALL THEY CAN!!!! The thing i find interesing is that we make about 120 mil a year, 37 mil comes from ticket revenue and a large chunk comes from you media coverage on tv and radio. That being said one would expect a larger out of town fanbase, where are they at?

KingXerxes
09-17-2004, 04:00 PM
You interpreting the info wrong. That 1.2 million is by factor of 100 mil. So that is really 120 mil net income. The numbers are just scaled down to fit the page.
I really hope you're kidding with that post.

LVSoxFan
09-17-2004, 04:11 PM
That information looks like it is from 2000.
Overall Sox record with LVSoxFan in attendence: 6-8

And that's including a disastrous 1-0 loss at Wrigley on July 4th where I paid big bucks for bleacher seats.

At one point they were 3-8 at games I attended; only their sweeping Seattle three in a row brought them back.

If... I ... can... just... break... 500.

gosox41
09-18-2004, 09:27 AM
That is basically the decision i have come to as well. After seeing info from forbes and hoovers on the income and expenditures of this team we operate at basically break even, always spending no more than what we can. While that makes for all and good business parctices as it ensures you from not going into debt or bankrupt like arizone, milwaukee, and colorado it really ensures you no risk in winning as well. When you sense weaknesss in the division and league and good buyers market you should spend over your head and the take risk that spending the extra $ now will yield more income later that year. THe sox simply never seem to do this. So our complaints of payroll go only half waranted. They are spending the most they can with the money they have, but they are sitll not spending ALL THEY CAN!!!! The thing i find interesing is that we make about 120 mil a year, 37 mil comes from ticket revenue and a large chunk comes from you media coverage on tv and radio. That being said one would expect a larger out of town fanbase, where are they at?
Wrigley Field? Seriously, I'd love to see the Sox spend more. Even if it's $5 mill and not $20 mill. It would be nice to go for the kill in a weak division and fill major holes before the season started (ie 5th starter) rather then during the season.

But JR has an obligation to his investors. Maybe it's not to make them a ton, but to keep them out of debt..

Hopefully next year will bring a still higher payroll.


Bob

munchman33
09-18-2004, 08:56 PM
You interpreting the info wrong. That 1.2 million is by factor of 100 mil. So that is really 120 mil net income. The numbers are just scaled down to fit the page.
Yeah, because the Yankees made over a billion dollars last year alone.

Seriously, why do people have such a hard time accepting the financial situation of our team. Our fans don't go to games, causing reductions in payroll. It's that simple. Some argue that they need to put out a winning product first, but that's not the case for any of the big market/winning clubs. Their fans come no matter what.

Its so fashionable to blame Jerry for not spending more. Maybe those people should start looking at themselves. Come to the games. Think of it as an investment in the future.

munchman33
09-19-2004, 06:30 AM
Wow, for a thread on the White Sox financial records, this is getting a relatively low amount of posts. Maybe the fact that it proves Jerry right has turned a lot of people off.

The truly sad part is that when free agent signing time comes around people are gonna forget all about this thread and start complaining that Jerry makes all this money and the White Sox suck every year because he keeps our payroll so low. Well go ahead and cry about it. I know the real truth, and as I've said all along, I blame all of you that let your hatred of that man affect whether or not you support the team. Honestly, I don't know how most of you can consider yourself Sox fans. You'd have the team suffer just to hurt that man a little. Ridiculous.

Now we have empirical evidence that the White Sox spend what revenue they make. Attendance is officially linked to payroll. Anyone who tries to contest that FACT from now on will be linked to this thread, because they are flat out wrong.

gosox41
09-19-2004, 07:48 AM
Wow, for a thread on the White Sox financial records, this is getting a relatively low amount of posts. Maybe the fact that it proves Jerry right has turned a lot of people off.

The truly sad part is that when free agent signing time comes around people are gonna forget all about this thread and start complaining that Jerry makes all this money and the White Sox suck every year because he keeps our payroll so low. Well go ahead and cry about it. I know the real truth, and I as I've said all along, I blame all of you that let your hatred of that man affect whether or not you support the team. Honestly, I don't know how most of you can consider yourself Sox fans. You'd have the team suffer just to hurt that man a little. Ridiculous.

Now we have empirical evidence that the White Sox spend what revenue they make. Attendance is officially linked to payroll. Anyone who tries to contest that FACT from now on will be linked to this thread, because they are flat out wrong.
I've been saying that for yers. It's an obvious correlation. I don't understand why people don't understand it. Instead we get to hear conspiracy theories about how JR is getting paid $15 mill (completely ludicrous) to how there is a conspiracy to keep attendnace down. If people actually looked at the big picture and thought things through, they would see that these (and other outrageous theoreis" are false.

As I've state the last couple of weeks, I fully expect the payroll to go up next season. Attendance was up this year.

Also, muchman, watch how many people complain next season that the Sox payroll isn't going to be $85 mill (I bet it's not going that high though it would be nice). Remember a poster here posted something a few weeks back and said something about how the Sox are have $20 mill. to spend in addition to what's already locked into payroll next season? Immediately, people added $20 mill. on to this years payroll and said they thought it would be an $85 mill. payroll. Well, once again they didn't think. If they bothered to read through the post they would see that it clearly said that an investor told this poster that the Sox are going to spend $20 mill in addition to what is already signed.

The Sox have about $54 mill. locked into payroll next season. That would make the payroll $74 mill. I certainly don't know if this figure holds true or what, but I do know people will complain.



Bob

munchman33
09-19-2004, 09:37 AM
I've been saying that for yers. It's an obvious correlation. I don't understand why people don't understand it. Instead we get to hear conspiracy theories about how JR is getting paid $15 mill (completely ludicrous) to how there is a conspiracy to keep attendnace down. If people actually looked at the big picture and thought things through, they would see that these (and other outrageous theoreis" are false.

As I've state the last couple of weeks, I fully expect the payroll to go up next season. Attendance was up this year.

Also, muchman, watch how many people complain next season that the Sox payroll isn't going to be $85 mill (I bet it's not going that high though it would be nice). Remember a poster here posted something a few weeks back and said something about how the Sox are have $20 mill. to spend in addition to what's already locked into payroll next season? Immediately, people added $20 mill. on to this years payroll and said they thought it would be an $85 mill. payroll. Well, once again they didn't think. If they bothered to read through the post they would see that it clearly said that an investor told this poster that the Sox are going to spend $20 mill in addition to what is already signed.

The Sox have about $54 mill. locked into payroll next season. That would make the payroll $74 mill. I certainly don't know if this figure holds true or what, but I do know people will complain.



Bob
I wouldn't actually expect payroll to rise that much, if at all. Attendance was up, but don't forget all the extra revenue we got last year for hosting the all-star game. Even with that, they basically broke even.

voodoochile
09-19-2004, 09:54 AM
Then there is the unrealized profit from owning the team...

:reinsy
"That is all paper money. I haven't seen a dime of it. No one can say that I won't be belly up and broke the day after tomorrow. It has happened you know. Just ask Carl Pohlad. If not for the Good Old Boy network offering him $300M to tear down his team, he would have had to taken only $100M profit. How the heck can anyone live off of that?"

:selljerry

I can't believe you guys actually believe the owners...

voodoochile
09-19-2004, 10:00 AM
My bad your right, this info is from 2003.

Right Info (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/064tab2.html)
Still wrong, those numbers are from the 2002 season (unless they can have the numbers for the entire year by 4/28). Yep, even with a crappy team and a half assed payroll and limited attendance, the owners still netted a profit.

I wrote an article on this very topic. Here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2518)is a link to the article and these are the 2003 numbers (http://flyingsock.com/Columnists/Laffer/PerceptionsAttendanceTable1.htm) which I got from Forbes earlier this year to use in it.

JR's profit last year was $12M+. It was the second most profitable team in MLB.

munchman33
09-19-2004, 10:05 AM
I can't believe you guys actually believe the owners...This was from Forbes. If I remember correctly, most of the owners have been upset with the Forbes findings, as it make it seem like they make more money then they really do. For instance, they don't include stadium upkeep, stadium rental fees, and state and local taxes. They do, however, include all forms of revenue streams. They're as close to the real numbers as you can get. Probably a bit high.

If you want to continue to beat the conspiracy theory drum, go right ahead. But I won't say it doesn't make you look foolish...

JR's profit last year was $12M+. It was the second most profitable team in MLB.
Three words. All-Star Game. This year attendance was up. But I bet revenue was way down.

voodoochile
09-19-2004, 10:37 AM
This was from Forbes. If I remember correctly, most of the owners have been upset with the Forbes findings, as it make it seem like they make more money then they really do. For instance, they don't include stadium upkeep, stadium rental fees, and state and local taxes. They do, however, include all forms of revenue streams. They're as close to the real numbers as you can get. Probably a bit high.

If you want to continue to beat the conspiracy theory drum, go right ahead. But I won't say it doesn't make you look foolish...


Three words. All-Star Game. This year attendance was up. But I bet revenue was way down.
I'm not the one with a bad link in my signature defending a bunch of billionaires...

bigfoot
09-19-2004, 11:17 AM
Major League Baseball owners and Bud Selig: Perhaps the only group of people that could make a claim of poverty AND make the US Congress laugh at the same time!

munchman33
09-19-2004, 11:28 AM
I'm not the one with a bad link in my signature defending a bunch of billionaires...


2001 season Profit (April 2002 report) $700,000 http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/0415/092add2.html
2002 season Profit (April 2003 report) $1.2 million
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/064tab2.html
2003 season Profit (April 2004 report) $12.8 million
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html

C'mon, you can't honestly expect us to believe that last season wasn't a statistical anomoly that can be explained away by extraordinary circumstances. The All-Star game drastically increased revenues, especially in season ticket sales, which were way down this year. And this figure also included a payment from the stadium naming rights which is designated to get spent next offseason. Using this number against them is simply a manipulation of the statistics. The real trend is obvious, and the anomoly is easily explained away.

Tell you what, next April, when the new figures come out, if the Sox made more than $2 milion in profit, I owe you a case of Ham's. :D:

Rex Hudler
09-19-2004, 02:46 PM
You interpreting the info wrong. That 1.2 million is by factor of 100 mil. So that is really 120 mil net income. The numbers are just scaled down to fit the page.
Sorry you are not even close. If that were the case, then the Player Expenses would be $680 million. Try again.

Rex Hudler
09-19-2004, 02:53 PM
I still would like to know from someone that is more familiar with corporate accounting (a corporate accountant, perhaps?) how real Forbes Operating Income numbers are. I mean more specifically, how is $12.8 million (or $1.2 million in 2002) of Operating Income affected since, as Forbes lists it, it is "Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization." I understand basic accounting, but getting into depreciation and amortization gets a little fuzzy for me.


Obvioulsy, the Sox have to pay taxes and interest on existing debt, so those numbers would decrease the Operating Income. Would amortization and depreciation charges not also do the same? Is that not basically spreading the cost of debt or capital expenditures over the life of the item? If so, then would that not reduce the Operating Income, therefore lessen the net profit???

Rex Hudler
09-19-2004, 03:04 PM
Another thing to note from the Forbes info.....

If it is to believed, then the Sox spent some of their $12.8 million profit during the season in which they earned it. The operating income of $1.2 million in 2002 was less than the additional $5 million paid in palyer expenses (from $68 million to $73 million).

Also, total revenu was up $18 million from 2002 to 2003 ($106 mil to $124 mil), yet income was up only $11.6 million. That tells me that the Sox did indeed put more back into their product. Of course, along with the additional revenues of the All-Star Game (no one knows how much that is) there are additional expenses.

GiveMeSox
09-19-2004, 11:32 PM
2001 season Profit (April 2002 report) $700,000 http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/0415/092add2.html
2002 season Profit (April 2003 report) $1.2 million
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/064tab2.html
2003 season Profit (April 2004 report) $12.8 million
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html

C'mon, you can't honestly expect us to believe that last season wasn't a statistical anomoly that can be explained away by extraordinary circumstances. The All-Star game drastically increased revenues, especially in season ticket sales, which were way down this year. And this figure also included a payment from the stadium naming rights which is designated to get spent next offseason. Using this number against them is simply a manipulation of the statistics. The real trend is obvious, and the anomoly is easily explained away.

Tell you what, next April, when the new figures come out, if the Sox made more than $2 milion in profit, I owe you a case of Ham's. :D:
It looks like the big jump in operating profit from 2002 to 2003 is the extra revunue we saw from the all star game. If we went from making 1.2 mil in 02 to 12.8 mil in 03 then where did the money go. Payroll was set at 58 million coming into this offseason. In 2002 payroll was 54 million i believe. So we increases payroll 4 million coming into the season. Whats interseting is how we kept hearing JR gave approval to increase payroll, make these trades, and sign guys in the middle of the season. This can only lead on to beleive that this is a direct result of the leftover surplus of profit from the 2003 seaons. So an extra 8 mil was given to KW by JR midseason when the sox were still contending and needed to fill some holes. While thats very nice dont expect profit to be near 12 mil this year becuase our budget grew and the team failed miserably. I would expect another standard break even or make a mil or two this year. Which means dont expect what we did this year midseason to be able to do next year mid season, there will be no extra cash reserves.

gosox41
09-20-2004, 09:57 AM
Another thing to note from the Forbes info.....

If it is to believed, then the Sox spent some of their $12.8 million profit during the season in which they earned it. The operating income of $1.2 million in 2002 was less than the additional $5 million paid in palyer expenses (from $68 million to $73 million).

Also, total revenu was up $18 million from 2002 to 2003 ($106 mil to $124 mil), yet income was up only $11.6 million. That tells me that the Sox did indeed put more back into their product. Of course, along with the additional revenues of the All-Star Game (no one knows how much that is) there are additional expenses.
You're right. ANd there are additional expenses.

Hiring mroe security is an expense. Anyone notice there is a private company running the traffic outside of the Cell lately? It's because Daley won't let cops be used for traffic control at sporting events anymore and passed a law on it.

Or how abou health care? Is it getting more or less expensive for business owners to provide healthcare for their employees? Maybe JR decided not to be a pud about it an didn't pass the cost on to his front office employees (damn him, doesn't he know winning comes first).

Last I checked insurance rates in other areas hasn't exactly come down, either. From insuring player contracts to lability insurance around the ballpark, these are all expenses.

Many don't realize that in operating a baseball team (or any other business) that htere are other expenses besides payroll. Payroll is the biggest, but far from the only one.


Bob