PDA

View Full Version : Philly RUMOR: Comcast wants to buy the Sox?


DumpJerry
11-08-2004, 01:00 AM
On the "Sox TV Through the Years" thread, our buddy Fenway casually mentions that Comcast has reportedly asked Uncle Jerry if he would sell the White Sox to them. Seems that Comcast already owns the Philly Flyers and Sixers.

Is this for real? What has anyone heard? Would this mean that the Sox would be owned by a media company that can outspend the Tribune and we will now get favorable media coverage? Will the Sox get moved to the City of Brotherly Love?

Why am I hyperventilating?
:fans
Come on Comcast!!!!!
:sopranos
If the deal falls through, we have an offer you might not want to refuse.....
:ohno
If we pay our Comcast bills on time this month, will they do it????

jabrch
11-08-2004, 01:14 AM
You'd have to think this would be a good thing. I can't see anyone actually "missing" our current ownership structure.

nitetrain8601
11-08-2004, 01:25 AM
I don't know if this would ever happen. Maybe if the White Sox ever win the WS. I see JR holding on to the Sox until he dies.

Kogs35
11-08-2004, 09:30 AM
if comcast buys them can we kiss wciu games goodbye?

mweflen
11-08-2004, 11:03 AM
I'd gladly kiss both WCIU and WGN games goodbye if it meant a $90mm budget every season, not to mention Hi-Def broadcasts for every game.

Kogs35
11-08-2004, 11:39 AM
I'd gladly kiss both WCIU and WGN games goodbye if it meant a $90mm budget every season, not to mention Hi-Def broadcasts for every game.
u need the wgn games cause u need to broadcast a min of 25 games i think on a over the air channel. plus wgn home games r in hd. and u get wgn games if u dont live in the chicago area

HomeFish
11-08-2004, 11:45 AM
I hope that, if this occurs, Comcast can use its media powers to shove the Sox down the throat of the populace, much as the Tribune Company has done.

Baby Fisk
11-08-2004, 11:51 AM
LET'S GO COMCAST!
clap, clap, clap clap clap

LET'S GO COMCAST!
clap, clap, clap clap clap

LET'S GO COMCAST!
clap, clap, clap clap clap

Flight #24
11-08-2004, 11:54 AM
I hope that, if this occurs, Comcast can use its media powers to shove the Sox down the throat of the populace, much as the Tribune Company has done.
Does Comcast own any print media? If not, the Chubs will still have the print advantage. But replacing ownership would automatically mean a boost in PR. Plus, you'd think that since Comcast benefits directly from increased Sox popularity via ratings, they'd have extra incentive to boost payroll to make that happen.

John Barrett
11-08-2004, 12:01 PM
let's not get our hopes up.... lets wait for facts!

Flight #24
11-08-2004, 12:11 PM
let's not get our hopes up.... lets wait for facts!
Why start now?:tongue:

minastirith67
11-08-2004, 12:31 PM
Ahh...unsubstantiated rumors... :tsk:

mjharrison72
11-08-2004, 12:31 PM
Why start now?:tongue:I agree... I welcome any rumors of a change in ownership with open arms. Though I shudder a little at the thought of a corporate owner, how could anyone else, and I mean ANYONE else, be worse than JR?

koch44
11-08-2004, 12:37 PM
It's also being reported by a sports talk radio station in Philadelphia, so whoever is reporting it might have the same intelligence as this jackass.


:ass

LVSoxFan
11-08-2004, 12:38 PM
The Sox will never be contenders with JR as owner.

Nobody would love to see JR go more than me.

Unfortunately, I agree with nitetrain: I think JR will hold on to the Sox until he dies.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-08-2004, 12:41 PM
Ahh...unsubstantiated rumors... :tsk:The source Fenway cites is a sportsblab radio station in Philadelphia. If we were willing to accept as truth what mediots like the Score's morning dope has to say, WSI would find this a credible source. Fortunately our standards are a bit higher, so it's nothing but a rumor. I've updated the subject header accordingly.
:cool:

If Fenway or anyone else can find a mainstream news source reporting this story online, please link it here.

Yes, it's a tantalizing possibility. Let Jerry take his bundle and go home to Arizona to spend his final days far far away from 35th & Shields. Meanwhile we Sox Fans have more important things to worry about, like championships and that first-class organization we've been promised.

SaltyPretzel
11-08-2004, 12:44 PM
I agree... I welcome any rumors of a change in ownership with open arms. Though I shudder a little at the thought of a corporate owner, how could anyone else, and I mean ANYONE else, be worse than JR?http://www.chicagoblackhawks.com/photos/03wwirtz.jpg "Let me show you"

Ol' No. 2
11-08-2004, 01:07 PM
The source Fenway cites is a sportsblab radio station in Philadelphia. If we were willing to accept as truth what mediots like the Score's morning dope has to say, WSI would find this a credible source. Fortunately our standards are a bit higher, so it's nothing but a rumor. I've updated the subject header accordingly.
:cool:

If Fenway or anyone else can find a mainstream news source reporting this story online, please link it here.

Yes, it's a tantalizing possibility. Let Jerry take his bundle and go home to Arizona to spend his final days far far away from 35th & Shields. Meanwhile we Sox Fans have more important things to worry about, like championships and that first-class organization we've been promised.I'll believe this when I read about it at Rotoworld.

steff
11-08-2004, 01:19 PM
:kneeslap: :roflmao: :bs:

Hangar18
11-08-2004, 01:25 PM
:kneeslap: :roflmao: :bs:

Hehehh hehhh hhhee

Brian26
11-08-2004, 01:26 PM
Didn't JR just say in an interview that he would own the team until he died?

Wealz
11-08-2004, 01:28 PM
Comcast offered Reinsdorf $500M for the Sox, Bulls, and his half of the United Center back in the 90's. Anyway, I don't see Reinsdorf selling these things seperately and since Comcast already owns the Sixers . . .

santo=dorf
11-08-2004, 01:30 PM
Didn't JR just say in an interview that he would own the team until he died?Maybe he'll die of a heart attack after he sees Comcast's offer. :?:

Lip Man 1
11-08-2004, 01:45 PM
Wealz:

Just wondering...do you have any sources confirming that Comcast bid? I don't ever recall seeing or hearing anything about that.

If you have links to stories...so much the better.

Lip

the_valenstache
11-08-2004, 01:47 PM
On the "Sox TV Through the Years" thread, our buddy Fenway casually mentions that Comcast has reportedly asked Uncle Jerry if he would sell the White Sox to them. Seems that Comcast already owns the Philly Flyers and Sixers.


I wonder if Allen Iverson can bunt and play shortstop?

Wealz
11-08-2004, 01:55 PM
Wealz:

Just wondering...do you have any sources confimed that Comcast bid? I don't ever recall seeing or hearing anything about that.

If you have links to stories...so much the better.

Lip
I remember seeing a local TV news report at the time of Reinsdorf testifying to the Comcast offer in the wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital/doctors that treated his longtime assistant Sheri Berto. Reinsdorf promised Berto and her family a percentage of the sale of the Sox, Bulls, and U.C.

jabrch
11-08-2004, 01:59 PM
I wonder what ever happened to the guy who came here last year saying he was (or was representing) some billionaire from NY or something who was interested in buying the team...

Probably just another :dtroll: getting our hopes up.

santo=dorf
11-08-2004, 02:05 PM
I wonder what ever happened to the guy who came here last year saying he was (or was representing) some billionaire from NY or something who was interested in buying the team...

Probably just another :dtroll: getting our hopes up.
He was on Fox last night with his new TV show. :tongue:

illinibk
11-08-2004, 02:17 PM
I wonder if Allen Iverson can bunt and play shortstop?
Probably not, but maybe he can teach guys like Willie Harris how to earn "street cred"

Ol' No. 2
11-08-2004, 04:23 PM
I wonder if Allen Iverson can bunt and play shortstop?Wouldn't work. Whenever anyone hit the ball to him he'd try to make the putout himself instead of throwing it.

jabrch
11-08-2004, 04:32 PM
Wouldn't work. Whenever anyone hit the ball to him he'd try to make the putout himself instead of throwing it.
And you'd never find that out before opening day...cuz we know he wouldn't show up to PRACTICE

Shingotime!!
11-08-2004, 04:40 PM
Who would own the team if J.R. died?

Ol' No. 2
11-08-2004, 04:42 PM
Who would own the team if J.R. died?JR doesn't own the White Sox. He owns a percentage, believed to be less than 20%.

jabrch
11-08-2004, 04:59 PM
JR doesn't own the White Sox. He owns a percentage, believed to be less than 20%.
Isn't it believed to be only 5%? (1mm invested out of a total 20mm estimated purchase price?)

PaleHoseGeorge
11-08-2004, 05:14 PM
Didn't JR just say in an interview that he would own the team until he died?
Reinsdorf was just doing some posturing before entering negotiations to sell. You know... playing hard to get.
:cool:

:reinsy
"I'll razzle dazzle them with my diminished skills clause. They owe me more money if the Sox don't finish in the top-three of MLB clubs for the next 100 years!"

:ohno
"But Jerry, the Sox have never come close to finishing in the top-three any of the 24 seasons you've owned them."

:reinsy
"Shuddup."

ewokpelts
11-08-2004, 05:15 PM
http://www.chicagoblackhawks.com/photos/03wwirtz.jpg "Let me show you":tool

dont forget me...the "owner" of the expos
Gene

Ol' No. 2
11-08-2004, 05:17 PM
Isn't it believed to be only 5%? (1mm invested out of a total 20mm estimated purchase price?)It started at 5%, but he's increased his stake over the years.

LongLiveFisk
11-08-2004, 05:20 PM
Didn't JR just say in an interview that he would own the team until he died?
:sopranos
"Perhaps we can be of assistance?"

nitetrain8601
11-08-2004, 05:26 PM
I wish JR and the other owners would look at a joint venture. Imagine 70 mil of JR's money and the other say 70 mil from Comcast...that lineup and pitching would be sick. I could only dream.:whiner:

Fenway
11-08-2004, 05:49 PM
Checked with a couple of people.

Comcast wants a baseball team and their first choice the Phillies not available.

They have been also rumored to be the only company that could afford the Red Sox given that Comcast pays the Red Sox over $80M a year in license fees for NESN.

What JR decides to do who knows.....I am curious what if any say Einhorn still has

Flight #24
11-08-2004, 05:53 PM
Checked with a couple of people.

Comcast wants a baseball team and their first choice the Phillies not available.

They have been also rumored to be the only company that could afford the Red Sox given that Comcast pays the Red Sox over $80M a year in license fees for NESN.

What JR decides to do who knows.....I am curious what if any say Einhorn still has
Is there a CSN DC? That would seem to be a logical fit. Otherwise, maybe MLB can execute one of it's patented transactions whereby JR & co sell the Sox to Comcast for a bundle, then acquire the DC Nationals....

DumpJerry
11-08-2004, 05:59 PM
Checked with a couple of people.

Comcast wants a baseball team and their first choice the Phillies not available.

They have been also rumored to be the only company that could afford the Red Sox given that Comcast pays the Red Sox over $80M a year in license fees for NESN.

What JR decides to do who knows.....I am curious what if any say Einhorn still hasSo, if the Phillies are "not available," does that mean the Sox are available?:D:

Should we start emailing JR telling him to take up the offer, even if it is non-existant and cc the emails to all local sports writers except The Moron so that the buzz will be loud and clear? Should someone call Mayor Daley to get him involved?

We need to make this a reality!

Nick@Nite
11-08-2004, 06:00 PM
Is there a CSN DC? That would seem to be a logical fit. Otherwise, maybe MLB can execute one of it's patented transactions whereby JR & co sell the Sox to Comcast for a bundle, then acquire the DC Nationals....:tool
"hmmm"

DumpJerry
11-08-2004, 06:01 PM
Is there a CSN DC? That would seem to be a logical fit. Otherwise, maybe MLB can execute one of it's patented transactions whereby JR & co sell the Sox to Comcast for a bundle, then acquire the DC Nationals....I thought the DC franchise was already promised to someone. Maybe JR can take the proceeds of a sale of the White Sox and buy the Flubs from the Tribune.

That would be fun.

Nick@Nite
11-08-2004, 06:02 PM
Is there a CSN DC? That would seem to be a logical fit. Otherwise, maybe MLB can execute one of it's patented transactions whereby JR & co sell the Sox to Comcast for a bundle, then acquire the DC Nationals....
:reinsy
"hmmm" <bling-bling?>

Fenway
11-08-2004, 06:06 PM
There IS a CSN Mid-Atlantic that currently carries the Orioles.

BUT Angeloes has started O's TV which was set to launch in 2006.

Will Comcast be involved in the new joint venture? Well they are the main provider there as well.

Heck they the major provider just about everywhere except New York City.

http://midatlantic.comcastsportsnet.com/

steff
11-08-2004, 06:12 PM
It started at 5%, but he's increased his stake over the years.

He has not invested any more of his $$. His holdings are just at 5%. That's from his mouth earlier this year.

Dub25
11-08-2004, 06:15 PM
He has not invested any more of his $$. His holdings are just at 5%. That's from his mouth earlier this year.
Why would he invest? That would cost him money out of his pocket and not from taxpayers pockets.

LAWSfan
11-08-2004, 06:26 PM
I wonder if Allen Iverson can bunt and play shortstop?
No but he has a great arm. After all he was a QB on his HS football team.

jabrch
11-08-2004, 06:30 PM
Why would he invest? That would cost him money out of his pocket and not from taxpayers pockets.
Cuz JR would never invest his own money...

Daver
11-08-2004, 06:39 PM
Corporate ownership would be worse than having JR and his pack of investors.

flo-B-flo
11-08-2004, 06:50 PM
http://www.chicagoblackhawks.com/photos/03wwirtz.jpg "Let me show you" Not so shockingly true. Thanks for the sudden belly laugh. I scared the sheepdog.:D:

ChiWhiteSox1337
11-08-2004, 07:17 PM
Corporate ownership would be worse than having JR and his pack of investors.
That's what I was thinking too. The Tribune never spent any money on the cubs until they came within 5 outs of the World Series.

LAWSfan
11-08-2004, 07:22 PM
That's what I was thinking too. The Tribune never spent any money on the cubs until they came within 5 outs of the World Series.
Not to take up for the cubs but after the 1984 season, they resigned Sutcliffe, Eck and Trout. Big name free agents that helped them win in 84. They spent the money to keep them but 85 turned out to be a terrible year for them. After that they didn't sign any free agents until the gimmick Andre Dawson signed.

nitetrain8601
11-08-2004, 07:42 PM
No but he has a great arm. After all he was a QB on his HS football team.
Actually he was RB. The QB on his high school football team was Aaron Brooks of the New Orlean Saints. At least we know AI can run over catchers. Hopefully he wouldn't injure Joey Mauer.

ewokpelts
11-08-2004, 07:52 PM
:tool
"hmmm"
:tool

as long as i get to move them to milwaukee....it's a deal!

Gene

ewokpelts
11-08-2004, 07:54 PM
He has not invested any more of his $$. His holdings are just at 5%. That's from his mouth earlier this year.why put more money in when you're making a killing on your investment?

:reinsy
yeah! what he said!

:tool

and dont forget the free stadium he got too! it's helped them become the bestest franchise in all of mlb!

ewokpelts
11-08-2004, 07:55 PM
There IS a CSN Mid-Atlantic that currently carries the Orioles.

BUT Angeloes has started O's TV which was set to launch in 2006.

Will Comcast be involved in the new joint venture? Well they are the main provider there as well.

Heck they the major provider just about everywhere except New York City.

http://midatlantic.comcastsportsnet.com/i think mlb had comcast renegociate with the o's on thier contract as a concession to teh expos moving in
Gene

wassagstdu
11-08-2004, 09:06 PM
I wonder if Allen Iverson can bunt and play shortstop?I once saw an old videotape of Iverson playing football (quarterback and defensive back) in high school. I do believe he could bunt and play shortstop -- and probably pitch too if he wanted to.

FightingBillini
11-08-2004, 09:09 PM
As part of the deal, a regional sport network will be created much like CSN Chicago. It will be a joint venture between the Orioles and the DC team.

Nick@Nite
11-09-2004, 11:39 AM
Corporate ownership would be worse than having JR and his pack of investors.
I always thought that a faceless corporation possessing a bottomless pit of golden ointment, who are willing to rub it on every high priced free agent on the market, was a good thing. :?:

jabrch
11-09-2004, 11:51 AM
I always thought that a faceless corporation possessing a bottomless pit of golden ointment, who are willing to rub it on every high priced free agent on the market, was a good thing. :?:
I am trying to recall how corporate owned Franchise to win a WS? Was Anaheim still a Disney property when they won? I think so. Atlanta in 95 was owned by Turner's Corporate Organization. That's about all I can think of...

Flight #24
11-09-2004, 11:57 AM
Well, I'm sure there are many here who'd say any owner is better than the current group!!

Seriously, one thing that seems to be somewhat consistent is a desire for new ownership to "make a splash". Add to that the debut of CSN Chicago (assuming they buy the Sox this offseason), and I could see CSN making some high profile, big-payroll type moves. Longer term, I'm not sure if that would be a good thing, but I'd bet in years 1-2, it would mean something pretty decent.

If you believe that Sox fans will come out in force upon new ownership and an apparent commitment to winning, then that couple of year stint would enable a corporate owner to operate the franchise at a consistently high payroll level without subsidizing it.

MisterB
11-09-2004, 12:22 PM
I always thought that a faceless corporation possessing a bottomless pit of golden ointment, who are willing to rub it on every high priced free agent on the market, was a good thing. :?:
Corporate ownership is 100% about short term profit. Buy the team, put zero capital into it, write off the purchase price for the next 5 years, then sell it and pocket however much the franchise's value appreciated in the meantime. Take Disney and the Angels for instance. They bought a 25% stake in '95 for about $32M and start writing that off. They purchase the other 75% in '98 for around $100M. They write that off through 2002, and then sell to Moreno at the start of the '03 season for $180M. So they write off $130M and turn a $50M cash profit at the end of it all. The fact they won the World Series in '02 had nothing to do with any 'commitment to winning' on Disney's part (their payroll was $61M that year - 15th in the majors).

DumpJerry
11-09-2004, 03:48 PM
Ok, we can debate all day and night about the pluses and minuses of corporate ownership of a sports team. My thinking is that we cannot generalize what a corporation will do with a team since each corp. has its own personality. Since Comcast makes money selling ad time for its broadcasts of Sox games, it would behoove Comcast to make sure the Sox are a popular team. Hence, if Comcast owns the Sox, they would have a strong incentive to pump money AND talent into the team to ensure a great return not only at the gate, but in TV ad sales and clothing sales.

Some other corporation which may not have a stake in ad dollars may view the sports team as a write-off for the taxes.

Refresh my memory, but didn't Channel 44 threaten to sue the Sox once during the Allyn era because the team was so bad the ratings were barely noticeable and they could not sell ad time?

FightingBillini
11-09-2004, 03:54 PM
I am trying to recall how corporate owned Franchise to win a WS? Was Anaheim still a Disney property when they won? I think so. Atlanta in 95 was owned by Turner's Corporate Organization. That's about all I can think of...
Atlanta's payroll at the start of this year was around $90million. I agree, jabrch, they arent trying to win. Nobody can garantee a championship no matter how much they spend, but at least Turner is trying to win in Atlanta.

JKryl
11-09-2004, 04:26 PM
Beware of what you ask for. What happens when you get the faceless corporate owner? Who do you blame when the team sucks then? Do you really think they're going to out spend Steinbrener just bacause they have money? They still have a bottom line and shareholders to answer to. As long as JR can get away with mid level spending, and annual ticket price raises, he'll never leave. Where is all the yelling over the $44 dollar Sox/Scrub ticket prices, or the Yankee/Red Sox, "premium ticket" prices? He's getting away with murder, and no one raises a voice. This means that he'll never leave. Instead he may just leave the team to his kid. Then we can write about JR Jr.:angry:

Ol' No. 2
11-09-2004, 04:32 PM
Beware of what you ask for. What happens when you get the faceless corporate owner? Who do you blame when the team sucks then? Do you really think they're going to out spend Steinbrener just bacause they have money? They still have a bottom line and shareholders to answer to. As long as JR can get away with mid level spending, and annual ticket price raises, he'll never leave. Where is all the yelling over the $44 dollar Sox/Scrub ticket prices, or the Yankee/Red Sox, "premium ticket" prices? He's getting away with murder, and no one raises a voice. This means that he'll never leave. Instead he may just leave the team to his kid. Then we can write about JR Jr.:angry:The corporate owners on the other side of town didn't start raising payroll until AFTER the park started getting filled game after game. If you think a corporate owner is going to do anything different from JR, you're kidding yourself. JR's approach of not spending more than he takes in IS a corporate philosophy.

mweflen
11-09-2004, 04:44 PM
As long as JR can get away with mid level spending, and annual ticket price raises, he'll never leave. Where is all the yelling over the $44 dollar Sox/Scrub ticket prices, or the Yankee/Red Sox, "premium ticket" prices?
There are a good number of people on this forum, myself included, who refuse to apologize for JR's wretched ticket pricing schemes and lackluster payroll expenditures.

Of course, there are plenty of apologists for him here, too.

But somebody's raising a stink, anyway.

nitetrain8601
11-09-2004, 06:04 PM
The corporate owners on the other side of town didn't start raising payroll until AFTER the park started getting filled game after game. If you think a corporate owner is going to do anything different from JR, you're kidding yourself. JR's approach of not spending more than he takes in IS a corporate philosophy.
Exactly, he runs this orginazation as if he's a corporate owner. He will spend money, but only when the team comes out of nowhere to win. Like the Angels in 2002. Once they won the WS, then JR would increase payroll to repeat because he would only be spending 20 million more than he intended, but he would be raking in way more money from the first championship and if they were to repeat, then watch out!!!! JR's always ran the orginazation like that. He wants to see results before he spends. I don't always agree with it, but I could understand that logic.

Ol' No. 2
11-09-2004, 06:06 PM
Exactly, he runs this orginazation as if he's a corporate owner. He will spend money, but only when the team comes out of nowhere to win. Like the Angels in 2002. Once they won the WS, then JR would increase payroll to repeat because he would only be spending 20 million more than he intended, but he would be raking in way more money from the first championship and if they were to repeat, then watch out!!!! JR's always ran the orginazation like that. He wants to see results before he spends. I don't always agree with it, but I could understand that logic.He is, in effect, a corporate owner. He owns only a small percentage, and has to answer to the rest of the ownership group (stockholders, if you will).

dcb33
11-09-2004, 06:16 PM
Baseball is a business, and all teams are accordingly set up as corporations as that is the most efficient way to operate a busniess. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Sox are already owned and operated by a nameless, faceless corporation (does anyone know who the rest of the ownership group is?). JR is simply the front man of the operation who talks to the public and answers everyone's questions. The problem with the Sox ownership GROUP (and most of baseball's owners) is that they simply don't care to win becuase it would involve too much thought and effort. Most teams, including the Sox, are profitable, so there's really no reason to try to win. There are a rare few, like Steinbrenner, however, that recognize that winning means more money which means higher payroll which means more winning which leads to more profits. Saying we don't want a corporate owner is pretty silly because all owners are of the corporate variety. We simply need an owner who's focus is not only running the business for their own profit, but being dedicated and driven enough to put in the extra effort to field a winner. Considering that both the Flyers and Sixers (with the exception of the Sixers last year) have been relatively successful recently, I have no reason to believe that Comcast would do a worse job than the group we currently have.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-09-2004, 06:20 PM
The corporate owners on the other side of town didn't start raising payroll until AFTER the park started getting filled game after game. If you think a corporate owner is going to do anything different from JR, you're kidding yourself. JR's approach of not spending more than he takes in IS a corporate philosophy.Choking the *organic growth* of an asset is NOT a corporate philosophy of any corporation looking to stay in business. Waiting to realize revenue chokes the growth of the asset. It's perpetually underperforming its competitors who aren't so shortsighted about the REAL value of the asset.

In fact the smartest corporations will demand from all their suppliers a level of support commensurate with where the corporation sees their business being NEXT YEAR precisely to leverage the organic growth they know and expect everyone to share in during the upcoming 12 months.

Walmart would never be able to open 200+ stores annually following a corporate philosophy like the one you and JR believe in. You get buried by the competition following a "pay as you go" philosophy with an asset enjoying organic growth. Now is the time to double-down on your investment and leverage your growth with everyone sharing in the wealth. If you don't do it, your smarter competitors will bury you. Who ever confused the White Sox as being a smart competitor?
:?:

Never assume your competition is dumb enough to let you get away with such a shortsighted strategy as "pay as you go" on an asset experiencing organic growth. Frankly I'm shocked any Sox Fan would need this explained to them. Haven't we been losing long enough for (nearly) all of us to have learned this lesson?

Daver
11-09-2004, 06:32 PM
Corporate ownership is 100% about short term profit. Buy the team, put zero capital into it, write off the purchase price for the next 5 years, then sell it and pocket however much the franchise's value appreciated in the meantime. Take Disney and the Angels for instance. They bought a 25% stake in '95 for about $32M and start writing that off. They purchase the other 75% in '98 for around $100M. They write that off through 2002, and then sell to Moreno at the start of the '03 season for $180M. So they write off $130M and turn a $50M cash profit at the end of it all. The fact they won the World Series in '02 had nothing to do with any 'commitment to winning' on Disney's part (their payroll was $61M that year - 15th in the majors).
You can also factor in the fact that with the way the business of baseball works, it is quite easy to declare the team is losing money, something that a large corporation can do for seven years. Income tax is not paid on a business venture that is losing money, yet the value of the franchise continues to grow, so the corporation is making out well on both ends of the deal, but they have to unload it after six years or face the wrath of the IRS.

Of course, you have to keep in mind that congress granted MLB an exemption from anti trust laws because it is a SPORT, not a business.

Ol' No. 2
11-09-2004, 06:41 PM
Choking the *organic growth* of an asset is NOT a corporate philosophy of any corporation looking to stay in business. Waiting to realize revenue chokes the growth of the asset. It's perpetually underperforming its competitors who aren't so shortsighted about the REAL value of the asset.

In fact the smartest corporations will demand from all their suppliers a level of support commensurate with where the corporation sees their business being NEXT YEAR precisely to leverage the organic growth they know and expect everyone to share in during upcoming 12 months.

Walmart would never be able to open 200+ stores annually following a corporate philosophy like the one you and JR believe in. You get buried by the competition following this philosophy with an asset enjoying organic growth. Now is the time to double-down on your investment and leverage your growth with everyone sharing in the wealth. If you don't do it, your smarter competitors will bury you. Who ever confused the White Sox as being a smart competitor?
:?:

Never assume your competition is dumb enough to let you get away with such a shortsighted strategy as "pay as you go" on an asset experiencing organic growth. Frankly I'm shocked any Sox Fan would need this explained to them. Haven't we been losing long enough for (nearly) all of us to have learned this lesson?The flaw in this argument is that the link between spending on payroll and growth (in the form of increased attendance and revenues) is virtually non-existant. Unless you're willing (and able) to spend really big $$$, the effect of more modest payroll increases of 10, 20 or even 30% on winning is very uncertain, and almost imperceptible. If Wal-Mart opens 200 new stores, they're virtually certain to be bringing in revenues in short order. The risk is minimal, so they can afford to leverage. Even if a few of them fail, there's more than enough revenue from the others to make up for it. If JR doubles the payroll and they still don't win, he's SOL.

Smart businesses don't throw big money around on longshots unless they've got lots of longshots and can let the law of averages work for them (think oil drilling). Slower incremental growth is much more common.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-09-2004, 06:49 PM
....

Smart businesses don't throw big money around on longshots unless they've got lots of longshots and can let the law of averages work for them (think oil drilling). Slower incremental growth is much more common.
Well obviously we have a big difference in opinion about what a "long shot" the Sox represent as a growing asset.

If I bought an asset for $20 million and know its worth 11-times that, I would be inclined to seek ways to grow it faster to 15- or 20-times what I initially invested.

If I had an asset in an industry that has enjoyed nearly unbroken growth in real value the last 35 years, I might consider the continued growth of that asset a bit more than merely a "long shot."

And if I sat back and saw all my closest competitors spending more than me with fewer advantages than I have, and watching the value of their assets grow commensurate with their superior performance in the competitive arena than my own perpetual also-ran status, I might be inclined to think the last 24 years I spent as owner have only proven me an abject failure.

But that's just me. Jerry Reinsdorf is so delusional, he once stated that Sox Fans didn't want to win as much as he did... and he didn't even crack a smile when he said it.
:kukoo:

Mohoney
11-09-2004, 08:49 PM
If I had an asset in an industry that has enjoyed nearly unbroken growth in real value the last 35 years, I might consider the continued growth of that asset a bit more than merely a "long shot."
And to think: some people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that baseball teams don't make money or "break even", or even LOSE MONEY!

You're 100% right. People, say it with me now: BASEBALL IS A BUSINESS!

Until we all realize this, we have no hope of ever succeeding. Reinsdorf's efforts to "win one for the little guy" are futile. Until we all realize that we AREN'T the "little guy", we're going to be destined to more of the same "12th payroll in the league, we spend more than a lot of other clubs" crap that we have been accustomed to while the Yankees, Red Cubs, Diamondbacks, and Braves hang flags and pass out rings.

In this sport, there are no curttails on spending like the NBA or NFL. Front office wizards can't do it all. In baseball, money talks and bull**** walks.

Ol' No. 2
11-10-2004, 12:40 AM
Well obviously we have a big difference in opinion about what a "long shot" the Sox represent as a growing asset.

If I bought an asset for $20 million and know its worth 11-times that, I would be inclined to seek ways to grow it faster to 15- or 20-times what I initially invested.

If I had an asset in an industry that has enjoyed nearly unbroken growth in real value the last 35 years, I might consider the continued growth of that asset a bit more than merely a "long shot."

And if I sat back and saw all my closest competitors spending more than me with fewer advantages than I have, and watching the value of their assets grow commensurate with their superior performance in the competitive arena than my own perpetual also-ran status, I might be inclined to think the last 24 years I spent as owner have only proven me an abject failure.

But that's just me. Jerry Reinsdorf is so delusional, he once stated that Sox Fans didn't want to win as much as he did... and he didn't even crack a smile when he said it.
:kukoo:In what way would spending more money on payroll increase the value of the asset any faster?

poorme
11-10-2004, 08:40 AM
In what way would spending more money on payroll increase the value of the asset any faster?
are you kidding me?

Ol' No. 2
11-10-2004, 10:01 AM
are you kidding me?No. Please enlighten me. But facts carry a lot more weight than opinions.

Flight #24
11-10-2004, 10:32 AM
No. Please enlighten me. But facts carry a lot more weight than opinions.
If you believe that increased payroll = consistent playoff appearances = increased attendance & fan interest then there would be an argument that the investment = a greater increase in asset value.

If you value the asset as the sum of future cashflows, then the question becomes what are the sources and how can you grow them.

Some guesstimated math on attendance: If you assume each customer generates an average of $30 in operating profit between ticket, concessions, parking, etc then increasing attendance from 2mil to 3mil/yr is a $30mil increase in annual profits.

Of course if you achieve that by making a $30mil increase in payroll expense, then you just broke even there (unless you think you can do that for a while, then cut payroll and maintain your attendance levels in the "out" years, which IMO is unlikely unless you convert your fan base to drunken sheep ala 10.6mi north).

In terms of non-attendance cashflows. I don't know the terms of the Sox media deals, but I heard anecdotally that they're favorable. Merchandise sales I believe are shared in MLB so that would probably have a minor impact. IIRC, the increase in asset value is closely linked to the increase in media rights fees. How much those can continue to grow and how the Sox can accelerate that growth is tough to answer.

Hangar18
11-10-2004, 10:51 AM
[QUOTE=DumpJerry]On the "Sox TV Through the Years" thread, our buddy Fenway casually mentions that Comcast has reportedly asked Uncle Jerry if he would sell the White Sox to them.
QUOTE]

:reinsy " You can pry the white sox from my cold, dead fingers, thats when! Muahhhhaa haaaa haaa haaa, Muahhhh haaa haaa haa haaaa "

Ol' No. 2
11-10-2004, 11:01 AM
If you believe that increased payroll = consistent playoff appearances = increased attendance & fan interest then there would be an argument that the investment = a greater increase in asset value.That's the problem. Almost everybody grossly overestimates the effect of increasing payroll on team success. People point to the Yankees and conclude that their success "proves" that money is the dominant factor, frequently quoting Selig's famous statement to Congress. It's just not true. If it were, the Sox would be the 5-time defending AL Central champions. You get a truer picture looking at the NL where you don't have the Yankees skewing the results. Neither the Cards nor the Astros were in the top quarter of the league in payroll. If you want to make the playoffs, you can't be among the bottom spenders, but you don't need to be among the top spenders, either.

I've studied this fairly extensively, and posted the basic results here on a number of occasions. One of these days I'm going to get around to putting it all together in an article. (Mods: Any interest in publishing it on WSI?) Unless you're willing to spend Steinbrenner-type money, the effect of increasing payroll is rather small and highly uncertain. A 10% increase in payroll translates to an expected improvement of a bit less than one extra win in a season and a few percent increase in the chances of winning a division. And even that's pretty uncertain. Of all the variation in winning percentages, only about 20% can be attributed to payroll variations. The remaining 80% is due to other factors. There were a lot of $90M payroll teams watching the playoffs on TV. It's not that money doesn't matter - it does. But other stuff matters a lot more.

And of course, you can't assume that success on the field translates directly to success at the box office. No question it's an important factor, but it's one of many. The Sox have been much more successful than the Cubs on the field over the last 10 years, but that success certainly hasn't translated into the bottom line.

So given a small and highly uncertain return, what smart business is going to highly leverage itself to boost payroll?

mjharrison72
11-10-2004, 12:56 PM
Is there a CSN DC? That would seem to be a logical fit. Otherwise, maybe MLB can execute one of it's patented transactions whereby JR & co sell the Sox to Comcast for a bundle, then acquire the DC Nationals....
As I understand it, the plan, to keep Peter Angelos happy, is ther there is to be a shared CSN for Baltimore/Washington and the teams will split the revenue evenly. Not even sure the network would definitely be owned by Comcast, but DC is a Comcast city, and we currently get a CSN channel.

At the same time, at the rate the DC council is going, the Expos will be staying in Montreal next year. Typical Washington.

Lip Man 1
11-10-2004, 01:29 PM
No. 2:

You don't need to ask permission to get something published. As long as it is not in poor taste or offensive WSI is always looking for baseball related Sox stories and such.

Simply submit it via e-mail to Pale Hose George and he'll take care of it. It's better to send it to him as a Word attachment by the way. that makes it easier for him.

That's george@whitesoxinteractive.com

I may disagree with what you have to say but I think it helps the web site to have all type of stories available.

Lip

Hangar18
11-10-2004, 02:04 PM
That's the problem. Almost everybody grossly overestimates the effect of increasing payroll on team success.

So given a small and highly uncertain return, what smart business is going to highly leverage itself to boost payroll?
If your Team has HOLES in it.
Plan A: You Sign Free Agents to fill your holes
OR
Plan B: You go to your Farm System to fill holes if you dont want to spend.

Our team refuses to RAISE PAYROLL, thereby eliminating Plan A .
So that leaves us with only Plan B to fill our holes.
The Chicago White Sox have been on Plan B for 20 something years now ....
and still No World Series

santo=dorf
11-10-2004, 02:16 PM
If your Team has HOLES in it.
Plan A: You Sign Free Agents to fill your holes
OR
Plan B: You go to your Farm System to fill holes if you dont want to spend.

Our team refuses to RAISE PAYROLL, thereby eliminating Plan A .
So that leaves us with only Plan B to fill our holes.
The Chicago White Sox have been on Plan B for 20 something years now ....
and still No World SeriesAnd don't forget how plan B is also affected by JR's philosophy of waiting to see if something happens before adding a quality player instead of just signing one in the offseason without having to give up our farm. :angry:

Mickster
11-10-2004, 02:24 PM
Our team refuses to RAISE PAYROLL, thereby eliminating Plan A .

Links? Facts to back up your claim? May have been the case in the past but numerous threads have shown payroll increased 20% last year, maybe 10-15% this year. The jury is still out.

Foulke29
11-10-2004, 02:35 PM
If you believe that increased payroll = consistent playoff appearances = increased attendance & fan interest then there would be an argument that the investment = a greater increase in asset value.

If you value the asset as the sum of future cashflows, then the question becomes what are the sources and how can you grow them.

Some guesstimated math on attendance: If you assume each customer generates an average of $30 in operating profit between ticket, concessions, parking, etc then increasing attendance from 2mil to 3mil/yr is a $30mil increase in annual profits.

Of course if you achieve that by making a $30mil increase in payroll expense, then you just broke even there (unless you think you can do that for a while, then cut payroll and maintain your attendance levels in the "out" years, which IMO is unlikely unless you convert your fan base to drunken sheep ala 10.6mi north).

In terms of non-attendance cashflows. I don't know the terms of the Sox media deals, but I heard anecdotally that they're favorable. Merchandise sales I believe are shared in MLB so that would probably have a minor impact. IIRC, the increase in asset value is closely linked to the increase in media rights fees. How much those can continue to grow and how the Sox can accelerate that growth is tough to answer.
Well put Flight. I whole heartedly agree. 'ol #2, if you'd like to see some real life examples of this working, please see the pre '90s Atlanta Braves vs. the post 1990 Braves. Also see Cleveland prior to the late '90s vs. their consistant play-off teams. Also take a look at what the Yankees did in the '80s when the team struggled. Just look at the attendance for the previously mentioned teams through those years.

Ol' No. 2
11-10-2004, 02:48 PM
Well put Flight. I whole heartedly agree. 'ol #2, if you'd like to see some real life examples of this working, please see the pre '90s Atlanta Braves vs. the post 1990 Braves. Also see Cleveland prior to the late '90s vs. their consistant play-off teams. Also take a look at what the Yankees did in the '80s when the team struggled. Just look at the attendance for the previously mentioned teams through those years.You can list all the anecdotes you want, but it doesn't prove anything. There isn't any question that winning teams generally draw better than losing teams, although if you need a counter example, you need look no further than Chicago for the last 10 years. The issue is whether there's a link between spending and winning. And the facts say that the link is not very strong.

jabrch
11-10-2004, 03:16 PM
Links? Facts to back up your claim? May have been the case in the past but numerous threads have shown payroll increased 20% last year, maybe 10-15% this year. The jury is still out.
Cheap and Stupid Mickster...you have been around long enough to know that.

Mickster
11-10-2004, 03:17 PM
Cheap and Stupid Mickster...you have been around long enough to know that.
My bad. :D:

DumpJerry
11-10-2004, 05:56 PM
Wow, 92 posts so far, this is my most successful thread yet! Thank everyone!:D:

I agree with the postings that state that a large payroll does not automatically translate into a World Series-bound team. You can have all the best talent at each position and still not win enough games to get into the playoffs. If that is all it took, there would be no reason to play the games (except to sell beer and hot dogs for the owners to make an additional profit). What works, above all else, is team chemistry. What is needed is about 4 or 5 genuine stars on the team who can lead by example and show the other players how to raise their game to the next level. When a team is loose and the they are in synch with each other, then double plays that would have been otherwise blown get made, the clutch hit for the go-ahead run is made, etc. This was the point of the Konerko team chemistry television ad we saw last summer.

Imagine an outfield with Sammy Sosa, Carl Everett and Milton Bradley. All of these players have the potential to be stars, but the chemistry would destroy any benefits a team would derive from such a combination. All three of these players can be considered head cases. Look what happened to the Flubs last summer. Zambrano, Wood and Hawkins all had mental meltdowns during games which hurt the team.

The Sox have an excellent core of star-quality players to inspire the others (Thomas, Buerhle, C. Lee, Konerko and maybe Vizquel). I think the presence of these stars (well, some of them, Thomas was gone after June), helped Rowand, Uribe, Gload and others improve their game.

If I were the GM of a team, I would make sure I have the star players and a supporting crew of players who are open to learning and capable to using the lessons taught.

Having said that, it would be great to be rid of Uncle Jerry!

steff
11-10-2004, 07:41 PM
Links? Facts to back up your claim? May have been the case in the past but numerous threads have shown payroll increased 20% last year, maybe 10-15% this year. The jury is still out.
Links..? Facts..? From Henry that would state something POSITIVE about the Sox... ?? Did hell just freeze over?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-10-2004, 07:54 PM
Links? Facts to back up your claim? May have been the case in the past but numerous threads have shown payroll increased 20% last year, maybe 10-15% this year. The jury is still out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jabrch
Cheap and Stupid Mickster...you have been around long enough to know that.
Yeah, the jury is still out. It's been out about as long as O.J.'s.

Salaries and payrolls have been increasing on an unbroken line for 35 years.* The Sox had one of the largest payrolls in baseball back in the early-90's but it was smaller than the payroll the Sox have today. You need to raise payroll just to keep even with where salaries are going for the same mediocre piles of **** that won't win a championship for the 88th consecutive season.

The price of flesh is going up. Some people are simply too pigheaded to admit the facts.

* The only exception was 1987-89 when the owners were found guilty of conspiring to not sign free agents. They paid full damages to the players and the new CBA specifies treble damages for any future conspiracy of this type, the award a court would make for any business not enjoying an exemption from anti-trust laws the rest of us live with.

Daver
11-10-2004, 07:59 PM
* The only exception was 1987-89 when the owners were found guilty of conspiring to not sign free agents. They paid full damages to the players and the new CBA specifies treble damages for any future conspiracy of this type, the award a court would make for any business not enjoying an exemption from anti-trust laws the rest of us live with. If they had to pay treble damages then there would have been six new teams instead of just Arizona and Tampa Bay.

But remember, baseball is a SPORT, and is not conducting interstate business.

DumpJerry
11-11-2004, 01:41 AM
All of my Sox fan friends want this rumor about Comcast to be true. We just need some changes on the South Side!

soxstarter
11-12-2004, 11:45 AM
Well, a buyout by Comcast would certainly be a plus for the team but would also open the door to a return to tradition.............

Re-remaning the stadium......"Com" isky??!!!:supernana: :supernana: :supernana:

soxstarter
11-12-2004, 11:49 AM
With Comcast, you'll get a blazing-fast connection, and 100% Pure BroadbandTM features such as click-and-play video and Web-based email and a winning season!!!!:gulp:

soxstarter
11-12-2004, 11:52 AM
Business Planshttp://www.comcast.com/images/dot.gif (from Comcast's website)

"http://www.comcast.com/images/dot.gifhttp://www.comcast.com/images/dot.gifWhether you run a growing business or manage a remote workforce, Comcast has the perfect service for your business."

Sell Jerry Sell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:cool:

soxstarter
11-12-2004, 11:54 AM
Hey DumpJerry

If this thing does happen.....you will have to change your name. Ahhhh, little sacrifices we make for the Sox.

MeanFish
11-12-2004, 11:59 AM
It's tomato time :)

DumpJerry
11-12-2004, 11:59 AM
Thanks!!!!!:D: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

DumpJerry
11-12-2004, 12:09 PM
Hey DumpJerry

If this thing does happen.....you will have to change your name. Ahhhh, little sacrifices we make for the Sox.No, Starter, I'm keeping the name. It'll be a reminder that we must be ever vigilant against JR from happening again.

Also, you can't change your name here, you have to start all over with a new name. :angry:

steff
11-12-2004, 06:33 PM
No, Starter, I'm keeping the name. It'll be a reminder that we must be ever vigilant against JR from happening again.

Also, you can't change your name here, you have to start all over with a new name. :angry:
Yes, you can change your name. Ask the mods. But don't worry.. there will be no need for you to even contemplate it.

Daver
11-12-2004, 06:35 PM
Yes, you can change your name. Ask the mods. But don't worry.. there will be no need for you to even contemplate it.
When we upgraded the forums to the newest version it made changing usernames almost impossible.

DumpJerry
11-12-2004, 07:26 PM
Steff, you might be right. There's been no buzz whatsoever about this rumor.....sigh.......:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: