PDA

View Full Version : Reported Numbers


Lip Man 1
12-25-2004, 07:23 PM
Two interesting items submitted for discussion.

From the Sports Illustrated with Shaq on the cover. Pg. 69 as part of the story called "Shuffling Aces" by Albert Chen:

"and Mark Mulder set to earn six million, the A's were facing a payroll in excess of 70 million. (up from 59.4 million last season)"

Question / comment: I can't recall anyone here at WSI ever saying the A's were anything but a 'small' market team yet many of these same folks say the Sox are a 'medium' market club. Why? Given their payroll was only (approximately) 5.5 million more then the A's.

From The Sporting News print edition with Brett Farve on the cover. Pg. 14 in the article comparing the four major sports leagues:

"Average payroll : 68.1 million (2004)"

If you accept these numbers as factual then once again the Sox team payroll was BELOW the league average last season.

I don't know if the median numbers have come out yet. It would be interesting to see what those show as well.

Lip

munchman33
12-26-2004, 10:45 PM
Two interesting items submitted for discussion.

From the Sports Illustrated with Shaq on the cover. Pg. 69 as part of the story called "Shuffling Aces" by Albert Chen:

"and Mark Mulder set to earn six million, the A's were facing a payroll in excess of 70 million. (up from 59.4 million last season)"

Question / comment: I can't recall anyone here at WSI ever saying the A's were anything but a 'small' market team yet many of these same folks say the Sox are a 'medium' market club. Why? Given their payroll was only (approximately) 5.5 million more then the A's.

From The Sporting News print edition with Brett Farve on the cover. Pg. 14 in the article comparing the four major sports leagues:

"Average payroll : 68.1 million (2004)"

If you accept these numbers as factual then once again the Sox team payroll was BELOW the league average last season.

I don't know if the median numbers have come out yet. It would be interesting to see what those show as well.

Lip
We were just above the median to start the year last season, at 15th in the league in payroll. Trades during the season increased our payroll, moving us up the list.

And you think Oakland still has a small market budget? Tell that to the GM's in Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay. Oakland's payroll has steadily been increasing with increased popularity and attendance, but that is starting to wane. Hence the slight rebuilding project. If they don't compete this year, don't be surprised to see the budget back in the $30-40 million range in 2006.

hi8is
12-26-2004, 11:39 PM
"Average payroll : 68.1 million (2004)"

well, take out the yankees 200 + and the redsox 125 + and that average is going to go down A LOT

FarWestChicago
12-26-2004, 11:47 PM
I'll state the obvious:
http://www.flyingsock.com/daver/deadhorse.gif

Jabroni
12-26-2004, 11:48 PM
I'll state the obvious:
http://www.flyingsock.com/daver/deadhorse.gifLip Man would never beat a dead horse... NEVER!!!

HomeFish
12-27-2004, 01:03 AM
Lip Man would never beat a dead horse... NEVER!!!

All he's trying to do is beat it until everyone smells what he smells. He's trying to do us a favor, folks, because the smell is real.

Jabroni
12-27-2004, 01:07 AM
All he's trying to do is beat it until everyone smells what he smells. He's trying to do us a favor, folks, because the smell is real.http://img142.exs.cx/img142/536/pessimism0vp.jpg

Lip Man 1
12-27-2004, 10:17 AM
Hi8is:

Last I looked the Yankees and Red Sox were still in the major leagues. You can't just 'remove' them in order to try to validate your point. Like PHG said in another thread to an individual who tried to do the same thing it makes you look foolish.

Besides they weren't the only two teams in baseball with payrolls above 95 million last season were they?

HomeFish:

Don't worry about the giddy optimists. Just get ready to change the numbers again at the end of the season. It'll be 46 years since a World Series appearance and 88 years since a World Championship.

But that's O.K. as long as the Sox win the 'Comedy' Central.

Lip

gosox41
12-28-2004, 08:33 AM
Hi8is:


HomeFish:

Don't worry about the giddy optimists. Just get ready to change the numbers again at the end of the season. It'll be 46 years since a World Series appearance and 88 years since a World Championship.

But that's O.K. as long as the Sox win the 'Comedy' Central.

Lip
I love the optimism. :D: :D:

Bob

munchman33
12-28-2004, 09:50 AM
Hi8is:

Last I looked the Yankees and Red Sox were still in the major leagues. You can't just 'remove' them in order to try to validate your point. Like PHG said in another thread to an individual who tried to do the same thing it makes you look foolish.

Besides they weren't the only two teams in baseball with payrolls above 95 million last season were they?

HomeFish:

Don't worry about the giddy optimists. Just get ready to change the numbers again at the end of the season. It'll be 46 years since a World Series appearance and 88 years since a World Championship.

But that's O.K. as long as the Sox win the 'Comedy' Central.

Lip
Lip: I totally respect your opinion on most things, even though I usually don't agree with you. But you should really take it easy on the "there's no chance" outlook. Let's see how the season goes first. Or at least wait until our first loss of the season to proclaim the sky is falling.

Honestly, who cares about payroll. Teams can compete and win with a variety of payrolls (though more money makes it easier). You have to admit, this is the most complete team we've had in some time. Is that reason for giddy optimism? Damn right!!!

Jabroni
12-28-2004, 09:57 AM
Hi8is:

Last I looked the Yankees and Red Sox were still in the major leagues. You can't just 'remove' them in order to try to validate your point. Like PHG said in another thread to an individual who tried to do the same thing it makes you look foolish.

Besides they weren't the only two teams in baseball with payrolls above 95 million last season were they?

HomeFish:

Don't worry about the giddy optimists. Just get ready to change the numbers again at the end of the season. It'll be 46 years since a World Series appearance and 88 years since a World Championship.

But that's O.K. as long as the Sox win the 'Comedy' Central.

LipIf payroll was all that mattered, how have the Florida Marlins win two World Series in their 12 year existence already? Go beat another useless dead horse. :rolleyes:

cornball
12-28-2004, 10:02 AM
We were just above the median to start the year last season, at 15th in the league in payroll. Trades during the season increased our payroll, moving us up the list.

And you think Oakland still has a small market budget? Tell that to the GM's in Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay. Oakland's payroll has steadily been increasing with increased popularity and attendance, but that is starting to wane. Hence the slight rebuilding project. If they don't compete this year, don't be surprised to see the budget back in the $30-40 million range in 2006.
According to the Tribune today (12/28) the Sox payroll for 2004 was 64,615,141, which was 17th in MLB. The A's were just below us in 18th place with a payroll of 60,288,197.

munchman33
12-28-2004, 10:09 AM
According to the Tribune today (12/28) the Sox payroll for 2004 was 64,615,141, which was 17th in MLB. The A's were just below us in 18th place with a payroll of 60,288,197.
Interesting. That must not include deferred monies from previous years.

cornball
12-28-2004, 10:22 AM
Interesting. That must not include deferred monies from previous years.
What it includes per the article is this:termination pay, prorated shares of signing bonuses and earned incentive bonuses, buyouts of 2004 options and cash transactions. Income deferred without interest is discounted.

The numbers are from the commissioner's office.

Hangar18
12-28-2004, 10:39 AM
HomeFish:

Don't worry about the giddy optimists. Just get ready to change the numbers again at the end of the season. It'll be 46 years since a World Series appearance and 88 years since a World Championship.

But that's O.K. as long as the Sox win the 'Comedy' Central.

Lip

Heh heh, nice one Lip. The SOX definitely WONT win the division this year ..... Again.

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 10:55 AM
Seriously, We as Sox Fans do not head out to the park often enough. Yes we are in a major market, #3 to be exact, But It does not matter where our market is if NOONE is at the games. Our Attendance is 21st in the League. Behind the freaking Brewers. The A's actually have a higher attendance then us too. So if anything this article shows The A's are cheaper then us.

Also we are not one of the more popular teams in the world, So we do not sell as much memrobilia as most of the other teams either. Although we are probably higher than 21 just because our stuff "looks cool". Accoding to Attendance we arre paying more to our team then the teams below in attendance and Some of the teams ahead of us. I would say we are just about right.

link http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

And do not give me If we win we will show up S#!T. We are not west coast fans let's not act like it.

Mickster
12-28-2004, 11:23 AM
Seriously, We as Sox Fans do not head out to the park often enough. Yes we are in a major market, #3 to be exact, But It does not matter where our market is if NOONE is at the games. Our Attendance is 21st in the League. Behind the freaking Brewers. The A's actually have a higher attendance then us too. So if anything this article shows The A's are cheaper then us.

Also we are not one of the more popular teams in the world, So we do not sell as much memrobilia as most of the other teams either. Although we are probably higher than 21 just because our stuff "looks cool". Accoding to Attendance we arre paying more to our team then the teams below in attendance and Some of the teams ahead of us. I would say we are just about right.

link http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

And do not give me If we win we will show up S#!T. We are not west coast fans let's not act like it.
So you must be an 81 game full season ticket holder, I assume???

cornball
12-28-2004, 11:40 AM
Seriously, We as Sox Fans do not head out to the park often enough. Yes we are in a major market, #3 to be exact, But It does not matter where our market is if NOONE is at the games. Our Attendance is 21st in the League. Behind the freaking Brewers. The A's actually have a higher attendance then us too. So if anything this article shows The A's are cheaper then us.

Also we are not one of the more popular teams in the world, So we do not sell as much memrobilia as most of the other teams either. Although we are probably higher than 21 just because our stuff "looks cool". Accoding to Attendance we arre paying more to our team then the teams below in attendance and Some of the teams ahead of us. I would say we are just about right.

link http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

And do not give me If we win we will show up S#!T. We are not west coast fans let's not act like it.
The Sox are not popular because we seldom make the playoffs. winning=popular. winning=attendance

While sheer attendance numbers maybe be less than other teams, the Sox do quite well in tv, radio, merchandising, playing in a stadium cheaper than anyone else (paid by us in Illinois)....ect.

Don't you live in California?????????

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 12:01 PM
So you must be an 81 game full season ticket holder, I assume???
I went to Six games this year. I live in Southern California. I went to all 3 Cubs games and to 3 Indians sox games in August. If i lived out there still I would have season tickets. I try to make it to about 10 games a year. last year was a rarity for me.

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 12:07 PM
The Sox are not popular because we seldom make the playoffs. winning=popular. winning=attendance

While sheer attendance numbers maybe be less than other teams, the Sox do quite well in tv, radio, merchandising, playing in a stadium cheaper than anyone else (paid by us in Illinois)....ect.

Don't you live in California?????????
Yes I do live in California. But I still Make quite a few games. I try to make at least 10 a year. I am not at every game obviously, I live 2,300 miles away.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2004, 12:25 PM
Munch:

In all seriousness they have made some solid moves but as Hal pointed out in his latest column they still have an incredible amount of question marks and or holes don't they?

I know, I know ALL teams have holes...however I don't think bona fide championship contenders have as many question mark / holes as the Sox do.

Second base, catcher for example...is Rowand's 2004 season an indication of things to come or a fluke, can Dye / El Duque stay healthy? (recent history would suggest not), they still have Mr. Base on balls (Cotts) and Mr. Gopher ball (Adkins) in the bullpen. Their rotation, while on paper, looks to be the best they have had since 1994, still doesn't have that killer ace at the top, a pitcher who puts the fear of God in other teams, stops losing streaks and shuts down the opposition.

The bottom line is that for the Sox to win not only the Comedy Central but to make a legit run in the playoffs A LOT of things have to go right for them. Given the history of this franchise just since the White Flag Trade for example, I think all those pieces falling into place are a VERY long shot.

That's why every year with this club and organization my 'goal' isn't to win a World Series, hell I know better, the realistic goal is to have a 'winning' season and 'hope' for the best. (Personally I'm getting tired of 'hoping' aren't you?)

Lip

Mickster
12-28-2004, 12:46 PM
Yes I do live in California. But I still Make quite a few games. I try to make at least 10 a year. I am not at every game obviously, I live 2,300 miles away.It is best not to come on to WSI and complain that people do not go to enough games, especially when you are insinuating that it is the fans' fault. People have different incomes, different responsibilities, etc. I manage to make about 30-35 games per year. Others manage more, others less. The LAST thing I would do is blame the fans.....

Attendance was up 12% during the 1st half of the season in 2004. Why? We were winning and very much in the race. Considering that the weather was particularily crappy......tells me a lot about attendance and putting a winning product on the field.

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 01:00 PM
It is best not to come on to WSI and complain that people do not go to enough games, especially when you are insinuating that it is the fans' fault. People have different incomes, different responsibilities, etc. I manage to make about 30-35 games per year. Others manage more, others less. The LAST thing I would do is blame the fans.....

Attendance was up 12% during the 1st half of the season in 2004. Why? We were winning and very much in the race. Considering that the weather was particularily crappy......tells me a lot about attendance and putting a winning product on the field.
You know My point was not that it was the fans fault, My point had to do with our payroll being on par with teams with the same or slightly higher attendance. Out attendance being up 12 % from where it is currently is not very impressive, much less from where it was a year ago. Attendance in baseball overall was up last year, it was not just the Sox. We have one of the Lower attendance averages in baseball, And there are teams that are worse then us ( record wise) that are drawing more fans than we are. With all that said we have a pretty high payroll considering the circumsatances. The people here at WSI are diehards so of course we go to lots of games, We have a problem with casual fans not really wanting to come to our park.

fquaye149
12-28-2004, 01:48 PM
It is best not to come on to WSI and complain that people do not go to enough games, especially when you are insinuating that it is the fans' fault. People have different incomes, different responsibilities, etc. I manage to make about 30-35 games per year. Others manage more, others less. The LAST thing I would do is blame the fans.....

Attendance was up 12% during the 1st half of the season in 2004. Why? We were winning and very much in the race. Considering that the weather was particularily crappy......tells me a lot about attendance and putting a winning product on the field.
I think what he was saying is that despite being a major market team (in Lip and Hangar's eyes at least) Attendance numbers (even when UP 12%) seem to suggest we have a mid- to small-market fanbase.

Now who's fault that is is up for grabs. You could point to the strike and JR, the Cubs recent success (not likely), the Tribune and local media's smear campaign, or the mere fact that we have to split a major market in half, but the fact is that our market size based on attendance seems to be comparable to, say, oakland's.

FWIW.

Mickster
12-28-2004, 02:21 PM
I think what he was saying is that despite being a major market team (in Lip and Hangar's eyes at least) Attendance numbers (even when UP 12%) seem to suggest we have a mid- to small-market fanbase.

Now who's fault that is is up for grabs. You could point to the strike and JR, the Cubs recent success (not likely), the Tribune and local media's smear campaign, or the mere fact that we have to split a major market in half, but the fact is that our market size based on attendance seems to be comparable to, say, oakland's.

FWIW.
What good is it claiming that we are in the 3rd largest market when there are 2 teams sharing the market and the Northsiders currently grab conservatively 60% of the market share? I know that was not always the case but, in a perfect world, we would still only manage 50% of the #3 baseball market. People like LIP constantly forget that point. If you look at Cubs and Sox attendance throughout the last 20 years you will see an interesting trend. Approx. 5M make it to see baseball games in Chicago each summer. At times it is 3M Northside, 2M Southside. Other times it has been 3M Southside, 2M Northside. The 5M yearly attendance value does not change much.... FWIW.

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 02:57 PM
I think what he was saying is that despite being a major market team (in Lip and Hangar's eyes at least) Attendance numbers (even when UP 12%) seem to suggest we have a mid- to small-market fanbase.

Now who's fault that is is up for grabs. You could point to the strike and JR, the Cubs recent success (not likely), the Tribune and local media's smear campaign, or the mere fact that we have to split a major market in half, but the fact is that our market size based on attendance seems to be comparable to, say, oakland's.

FWIW.
That is exactly what I am saying. I guess my choice of words was not the best.

cornball
12-28-2004, 03:36 PM
You know My point was not that it was the fans fault, My point had to do with our payroll being on par with teams with the same or slightly higher attendance. Out attendance being up 12 % from where it is currently is not very impressive, much less from where it was a year ago. Attendance in baseball overall was up last year, it was not just the Sox. We have one of the Lower attendance averages in baseball, And there are teams that are worse then us ( record wise) that are drawing more fans than we are. With all that said we have a pretty high payroll considering the circumsatances. The people here at WSI are diehards so of course we go to lots of games, We have a problem with casual fans not really wanting to come to our park.
Seems like you are calling out the fans. Winning cures all. Understand, this ownership has pissed off much of the "older" fan base. I know several people that will never go to a game until ownership is changed (but I know they watch them on tv). Why? One, because they are stubborn, but also because of the way this ownership has treated the fan. Examples: putting the team on paytv @ 1980 before anyone ever had cable in the area, tearing down Old Comisky(ironically had falling concrete like Wrigley does now and the need to have skyboxes to afford players), promising the return of McCuddy's and OBrien's, the strike, white flag, threatening to move and forcing taxpayers to build a stadium....and so it goes. This is old news but the pain is still there for some.

My point is to draw the casual fan to the stadium, you need marque names ie Randy Johnson, ARod, ect and win... or have a team that wins. The problem with attendance is the # of season tix holders. The names added will not increase the season ticket base. Most of the Sox tix sold last year were walkups, now that is incredible. Baseball fans in the area have many choices now with Kane Co., Thunderbolts and Jackhammers without dealing with traffic and expense. If they want to want a casual game they may choose one of these games. Just food for thought. If the SDox were in position to challenge for something, then it would be different, it would be a destination.

eshunn2001
12-28-2004, 04:34 PM
Seems like you are calling out the fans. Winning cures all. Understand, this ownership has pissed off much of the "older" fan base. I know several people that will never go to a game until ownership is changed (but I know they watch them on tv). Why? One, because they are stubborn, but also because of the way this ownership has treated the fan. Examples: putting the team on paytv @ 1980 before anyone ever had cable in the area, tearing down Old Comisky(ironically had falling concrete like Wrigley does now and the need to have skyboxes to afford players), promising the return of McCuddy's and OBrien's, the strike, white flag, threatening to move and forcing taxpayers to build a stadium....and so it goes. This is old news but the pain is still there for some.

My point is to draw the casual fan to the stadium, you need marque names ie Randy Johnson, ARod, ect and win... or have a team that wins. The problem with attendance is the # of season tix holders. The names added will not increase the season ticket base. Most of the Sox tix sold last year were walkups, now that is incredible. Baseball fans in the area have many choices now with Kane Co., Thunderbolts and Jackhammers without dealing with traffic and expense. If they want to want a casual game they may choose one of these games. Just food for thought. If the SDox were in position to challenge for something, then it would be different, it would be a destination.
Really I am not calling out the fans. The honest truth is there really are not that many Whitesox Fans. And If OLDER people are so upset it is time to get over it. If you are a "White Sox fan" It really should not matter who is running the team. You re cheering for the Players on the team not JR. Even as far as T.V ratings go we still are not one of the top teams in the league. Now my point has to do with our payroll, With all the points I made, a 70 million dollar payroll is pretty damned good.

Now I agree with the point that if we want to win over the casual baseball fan in Chicago we would have to go Big. Like Beltran and Mulder or RJ would definetly sell season tickets. But at best we would only get 50% of the Fans in the city, the Cubs are just alot more popular, Nationwide Yanks BoSox and Cubs are the most popular teams in baseball. Even when we outdraw them there are still more casual Cub fans in the city. They just don't hate us (in general). So if we win the will come to our games. They would rather it be the Cubs but the Sox will do to them. Most of these fans do not even know about JR's involvment in the strike, and could careless about the old park being gone. The prime Demographic for sports are men Between 18-34 most people in this age range do not remember the Sox move to pay T.V. The difference in attendance has to Do with the casual fan. And the Cubs for whatever reason are a more popular team. It just makes it that much sweeter to us die hards when The ChiSox win.

cornball
12-28-2004, 07:26 PM
Really I am not calling out the fans. The honest truth is there really are not that many Whitesox Fans. And If OLDER people are so upset it is time to get over it. If you are a "White Sox fan" It really should not matter who is running the team. You re cheering for the Players on the team not JR. Even as far as T.V ratings go we still are not one of the top teams in the league. Now my point has to do with our payroll, With all the points I made, a 70 million dollar payroll is pretty damned good.

Now I agree with the point that if we want to win over the casual baseball fan in Chicago we would have to go Big. Like Beltran and Mulder or RJ would definetly sell season tickets. But at best we would only get 50% of the Fans in the city, the Cubs are just alot more popular, Nationwide Yanks BoSox and Cubs are the most popular teams in baseball. Even when we outdraw them there are still more casual Cub fans in the city. They just don't hate us (in general). So if we win the will come to our games. They would rather it be the Cubs but the Sox will do to them. Most of these fans do not even know about JR's involvment in the strike, and could careless about the old park being gone. The prime Demographic for sports are men Between 18-34 most people in this age range do not remember the Sox move to pay T.V. The difference in attendance has to Do with the casual fan. And the Cubs for whatever reason are a more popular team. It just makes it that much sweeter to us die hards when The ChiSox win.
With all do respect, looking at history can help you alot with the future.

You must be a young man. First, season ticket holders are mostly corporations and older people. It was JR who said he couldn't compete without skyboxes, that was the reason we couldn't have a top payroll. We have them now and nothing changed. 18-34 is a targeted ad group used for advertising, not to purchase season baseball tickets. Having worked at large corporations with all sport season tickets, the Sox are the least wanted. Why? Because it is just another meaningless game with nothing to do around the stadium to entertain a client. At the Cubs, it is mostly meaningless except you have a nightlife and resturaunts nearby.

70MM will again be in the bottom half of all teams, which regardless of attendance (considering the Sox pay no rent below 1.8 million) is not enough in today's baseball if you are serious of winning.

Another example: this is a Bears town, period. The Bears had 18,000 no shows last week. Why? because they are losing. Same thing happened under Wanny. Win and the support will be there like you never imagined. Thats the bottom line.

munchman33
12-28-2004, 08:38 PM
Munch:

In all seriousness they have made some solid moves but as Hal pointed out in his latest column they still have an incredible amount of question marks and or holes don't they?

I know, I know ALL teams have holes...however I don't think bona fide championship contenders have as many question mark / holes as the Sox do.

Second base, catcher for example...is Rowand's 2004 season an indication of things to come or a fluke, can Dye / El Duque stay healthy? (recent history would suggest not), they still have Mr. Base on balls (Cotts) and Mr. Gopher ball (Adkins) in the bullpen. Their rotation, while on paper, looks to be the best they have had since 1994, still doesn't have that killer ace at the top, a pitcher who puts the fear of God in other teams, stops losing streaks and shuts down the opposition.

The bottom line is that for the Sox to win not only the Comedy Central but to make a legit run in the playoffs A LOT of things have to go right for them. Given the history of this franchise just since the White Flag Trade for example, I think all those pieces falling into place are a VERY long shot.

That's why every year with this club and organization my 'goal' isn't to win a World Series, hell I know better, the realistic goal is to have a 'winning' season and 'hope' for the best. (Personally I'm getting tired of 'hoping' aren't you?)

Lip
Having hope that your team can overcome all odds and win a championship is the dream of any true fan. It's what being a fan is all about. Somewhere along the line, you forgot that.

StillMissOzzie
12-29-2004, 01:45 AM
Another example: this is a Bears town, period. The Bears had 18,000 no shows last week. Why? because they are losing. Same thing happened under Wanny. Win and the support will be there like you never imagined. Thats the bottom line.No shows in the NFL are probably paid for tickets. The Bears couldn't care less if they show up or not, they're already counting the money.
No shows in MLB, at least for the Sox, are probably tickets that were not sold. This is lost revenue for JR and the Sox.




Second base, catcher for example...is Rowand's 2004 season an indication of things to come or a fluke, can Dye / El Duque stay healthy? (recent history would suggest not), they still have Mr. Base on balls (Cotts) and Mr. Gopher ball (Adkins) in the bullpen. .
I believe that the additions of Hermanson and the guy the Sox picked up from Milwaukee whose name escapes me means that neither Cotts or Adkins are guaranteed a spot in the bullpen for 2005.

SMO
:gulp:

munchman33
12-29-2004, 06:43 AM
I believe that the additions of Hermanson and the guy the Sox picked up from Milwaukee whose name escapes me means that neither Cotts or Adkins are guaranteed a spot in the bullpen for 2005.


Close. One of them will not.

eshunn2001
12-29-2004, 11:07 AM
With all do respect, looking at history can help you alot with the future.

You must be a young man. First, season ticket holders are mostly corporations and older people. It was JR who said he couldn't compete without skyboxes, that was the reason we couldn't have a top payroll. We have them now and nothing changed. 18-34 is a targeted ad group used for advertising, not to purchase season baseball tickets. Having worked at large corporations with all sport season tickets, the Sox are the least wanted. Why? Because it is just another meaningless game with nothing to do around the stadium to entertain a client. At the Cubs, it is mostly meaningless except you have a nightlife and resturaunts nearby.

70MM will again be in the bottom half of all teams, which regardless of attendance (considering the Sox pay no rent below 1.8 million) is not enough in today's baseball if you are serious of winning.

Another example: this is a Bears town, period. The Bears had 18,000 no shows last week. Why? because they are losing. Same thing happened under Wanny. Win and the support will be there like you never imagined. Thats the bottom line.
I was agreeing with you as far as season tickets go. I was talking about the Casual fan. The casual fan will not own season tickets. A man in his late 20's in some cases early 30's is begining to hit his financial prime usually peaking in his late 40's and plateuing off into thier 50's and generally has started a family. What better way to get the younger fans than have thier father take them to the game? And yes 70 million is at about the half way point in the MLB and our attendance is in the lower 3rd in the league. That is not too bad. I am 24 I own 60% of a company that does $28,000 GP a day I know a little bit about this, living in a 2 team market (Angels/Dodgers). To sell season tickets to coporations, the team has to be popular amonst the people, You are going to be giving the tickets to your clients and Top producers of your company. My coporate offices are in Dallas and Costa Mesa, CA We own Luxury Boxes in Anahiem and season tickets for the Rangers and Cowboys, Sure I go to some of the games but about 80% of the time I give them to my customers. And if more of the customers were Sox fans more Companies buy Sox Boxes and season tickets.

cornball
12-29-2004, 01:56 PM
I was agreeing with you as far as season tickets go. I was talking about the Casual fan. The casual fan will not own season tickets. A man in his late 20's in some cases early 30's is begining to hit his financial prime usually peaking in his late 40's and plateuing off into thier 50's and generally has started a family. What better way to get the younger fans than have thier father take them to the game? And yes 70 million is at about the half way point in the MLB and our attendance is in the lower 3rd in the league. That is not too bad. I am 24 I own 60% of a company that does $28,000 GP a day I know a little bit about this, living in a 2 team market (Angels/Dodgers). To sell season tickets to coporations, the team has to be popular amonst the people, You are going to be giving the tickets to your clients and Top producers of your company. My coporate offices are in Dallas and Costa Mesa, CA We own Luxury Boxes in Anahiem and season tickets for the Rangers and Cowboys, Sure I go to some of the games but about 80% of the time I give them to my customers. And if more of the customers were Sox fans more Companies buy Sox Boxes and season tickets.
The casual fan will show up in mass if the team wins. That was the point I was making about the Bears, people have tickets purchased but do not want to go see an inferior product. Without a season ticket base, you will have lousy attendance because of weather or several other factors. You can not expect walk up business to drive attendance numbers.

As a business man, you know being having your own biz (as I do) is risky. Sometimes you need to take risks to reap huge benefits. Thats all i am saying, without the risk of spending money to make money it will be status quo.

A person in their 20's, 30's and 40's is too busy having fun and raising kids to count on as a base for season tix, it is corporations that make up the bulk of season tix sales. Just win baby....solves everything.

eshunn2001
12-29-2004, 04:40 PM
The casual fan will show up in mass if the team wins. That was the point I was making about the Bears, people have tickets purchased but do not want to go see an inferior product. Without a season ticket base, you will have lousy attendance because of weather or several other factors. You can not expect walk up business to drive attendance numbers.

As a business man, you know being having your own biz (as I do) is risky. Sometimes you need to take risks to reap huge benefits. Thats all i am saying, without the risk of spending money to make money it will be status quo.

A person in their 20's, 30's and 40's is too busy having fun and raising kids to count on as a base for season tix, it is corporations that make up the bulk of season tix sales. Just win baby....solves everything.
I do agree to a point. If we spent money picked up Beltran. Beltre, and traded for RJ, That would have really boosted season ticket sales. And this year it would have helped out. But what if they Sucked? What if they missed the playoffs? Now we are stuck with these huge contracts for 3 or 4 years. What most people wanna do is pick up 1 big name, One big name will not be worth it ala Albert Belle. If they were going to raise payroll they have to really raise it. I talking a 20 million dollar increase. That would sell season tickets. The only problem with that is if it failed the team would take huge losses in the coming years. With the current CBA the Whitesox are one of the most Pofitable teams in the majors. Would you screw that up? They were showing 12 million in profits last year, That was second as far as profit goes.

cornball
12-30-2004, 03:47 PM
I do agree to a point. If we spent money picked up Beltran. Beltre, and traded for RJ, That would have really boosted season ticket sales. And this year it would have helped out. But what if they Sucked? What if they missed the playoffs? Now we are stuck with these huge contracts for 3 or 4 years. What most people wanna do is pick up 1 big name, One big name will not be worth it ala Albert Belle. If they were going to raise payroll they have to really raise it. I talking a 20 million dollar increase. That would sell season tickets. The only problem with that is if it failed the team would take huge losses in the coming years. With the current CBA the Whitesox are one of the most Pofitable teams in the majors. Would you screw that up? They were showing 12 million in profits last year, That was second as far as profit goes.
As a fan, I don't care about the profit margins of the team. Most owners are in it for a hobby or future earnings when the team is sold. Noone really knows how much money MLB teams make, the books are not public record and when they are...they are cook. Do you think the NYY, Cub, NYM, BoSox fans can about the profit margins of the team? No, just winning. If the the new players do not work out, yet they are productive, they can be moved.

If the Sox had Beltran and RJ on this years team, they would need to hire additional staff to take ticket orders. And they would most likely pay for themselves. BTW, explain to me how with increasing media revenue, increasing ticket prices, increased parking ect.......the payroll has remained basically even since 2003. I understand attendance has been flat during this time frame as well, but revenue should have gone up. (2003, 63.2, 2004, 64.6, 2005, ? payroll)

All I am saying is after 20 years, the plan has not worked, try a new one. There is enough evidence to support it. Give us hope to win the World Series.

I don't mean to lecture, stale thoughts really, just what a winner on the south side.

eshunn2001
12-30-2004, 06:47 PM
As a fan, I don't care about the profit margins of the team. Most owners are in it for a hobby or future earnings when the team is sold. Noone really knows how much money MLB teams make, the books are not public record and when they are...they are cook. Do you think the NYY, Cub, NYM, BoSox fans can about the profit margins of the team? No, just winning. If the the new players do not work out, yet they are productive, they can be moved.

If the Sox had Beltran and RJ on this years team, they would need to hire additional staff to take ticket orders. And they would most likely pay for themselves. BTW, explain to me how with increasing media revenue, increasing ticket prices, increased parking ect.......the payroll has remained basically even since 2003. I understand attendance has been flat during this time frame as well, but revenue should have gone up. (2003, 63.2, 2004, 64.6, 2005, ? payroll)

All I am saying is after 20 years, the plan has not worked, try a new one. There is enough evidence to support it. Give us hope to win the World Series.

I don't mean to lecture, stale thoughts really, just what a winner on the south side. I agree. 100% as a fan. But We spend more money than any other team in the 20 -28,000 attendance level. Which is not bad. Yeah it would be nice to have JR just say" **** it, lets go for broke". but honestly it is to big of a risk to him and his investors. They say all the profits go back into the team, Which may or may not be true, But do you expect them to risk losing money in the future if we got all these studs and it failed? From a buisness stand point? Do not get me wrong I think it would work, But if it were my millions at stake I do not know If I 'd risk it.

Gettin rid of big contracts has not been easy in recent years. I mean any one in baseball could have had Manny for nothing 2 years ago and no one wanted him. Here is to hoping JR sells to Mark Cuban :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: