PDA

View Full Version : According to Forbes, Mariners most profitable team


gosox41
04-12-2005, 10:20 AM
According to Forbes (or is it Fortune I seriously can't keep the 2 straight) the Mariners were the most profitably team in baseball in 2004 with profits of $10.5 million.

I skimmed the article at a bookstore and don't have a linky. The article featured the Mariners and specifially mentioned a stadium lease deal that was quote as being the best lease deal ever in professional sports. Mariners also get 100% of revenue from concessions.


Sox made about $8 mill in profits according to Forbes. This is way, way off from what I heard. But if you choose to believe it (and why one would believe this article and then be skeptical of everything else) then it looks like the Sox invest that money (plus more) into the 2005 payroll.



Bob

Ol' No. 2
04-12-2005, 11:00 AM
According to Forbes (or is it Fortune I seriously can't keep the 2 straight) the Mariners were the most profitably team in baseball in 2004 with profits of $10.5 million.

I skimmed the article at a bookstore and don't have a linky. The article featured the Mariners and specifially mentioned a stadium lease deal that was quote as being the best lease deal ever in professional sports. Mariners also get 100% of revenue from concessions.


Sox made about $8 mill in profits according to Forbes. This is way, way off from what I heard. But if you choose to believe it (and why one would believe this article and then be skeptical of everything else) then it looks like the Sox invest that money (plus more) into the 2005 payroll.



BobEh. Baseball teams have enormous revenues and equally enormous costs. The profit or loss is the small difference between these large numbers. It's inherently highly variable. Look at a given team year to year and they're all over the place. The M's may have a sweet stadium deal, but they're still playing in a small market.

ewokpelts
04-12-2005, 11:36 AM
Eh. Baseball teams have enormous revenues and equally enormous costs. The profit or loss is the small difference between these large numbers. It's inherently highly variable. Look at a given team year to year and they're all over the place. The M's may have a sweet stadium deal, but they're still playing in a small market.seattle's considersa major market in mlb's eyes....they draw a ton of people and make a ton of money.....there's nowhere near small market(try minn or milwaukke for small market)
Gene

SaltyPretzel
04-12-2005, 11:47 AM
Even with its huge payroll, I find it hard to believe that the Yankees aren't the most profitable considering their TV revenues.

Mickster
04-12-2005, 11:53 AM
Even with its huge payroll, I find it hard to believe that the Yankees aren't the most profitable considering their TV revenues.

Remember that the Yank's payroll (Approx. $220M) coupled with Luxury Taxes and Revenue Sharing (estimated to be a combined $80M) and the pocket book starts to run pretty dry. Not to mention what it takes to keep the minor leagues running, paying management, etc... George has huge piles of cash but he also spends....

MisterB
04-12-2005, 11:57 AM
It is indeed Forbes.

The Business of Baseball (http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/04/06/05mlbland.html)

gosox41
04-12-2005, 12:59 PM
Remember that the Yank's payroll (Approx. $220M) coupled with Luxury Taxes and Revenue Sharing (estimated to be a combined $80M) and the pocket book starts to run pretty dry. Not to mention what it takes to keep the minor leagues running, paying management, etc... George has huge piles of cash but he also spends....


I believe the Yankees lost $37 mill last season unless I read it wrong.


Bob

gosox41
04-12-2005, 01:00 PM
Eh. Baseball teams have enormous revenues and equally enormous costs. The profit or loss is the small difference between these large numbers. It's inherently highly variable. Look at a given team year to year and they're all over the place. The M's may have a sweet stadium deal, but they're still playing in a small market.


That's true. And I question how Forbes gets these numbers to begin with.


Bob

Ol' No. 2
04-12-2005, 01:14 PM
That's true. And I question how Forbes gets these numbers to begin with.


BobMLB doesn't open its books, but they're pretty smart people over at Forbes, so they can probably make a pretty good educated guess. OTOH, the error in their guesses on revenues and costs is probably pretty close to the net profit, which leads me back to my original post. These profit numbers are all over the place and IMO not very reliable.

ewokpelts
04-12-2005, 01:18 PM
I believe the Yankees lost $37 mill last season unless I read it wrong.


Bobthey have to pay the brewer and devil rays' revenue sharing payments
Gene

Flight #24
04-12-2005, 01:19 PM
MLB doesn't open its books, but they're pretty smart people over at Forbes, so they can probably make a pretty good educated guess. OTOH, the error in their guesses on revenues and costs is probably pretty close to the net profit, which leads me back to my original post. These profit numbers are all over the place and IMO not very reliable.

What these likely miss is "related entities". I.e., they're not really calculating what the value of Yankee TV rights is to YES, just what YES is paying the Yanks. There may abe something similar in concessions &/or parking to the extent that those are owned by various teams.

I know MLB supposedly makes an attempt to calculate "market value" of rights and use that rather than actual value for the purposes of revenue sharing payments, but I'd guess Forbes is not doing that.

Bottom line: there's no way King George is losing money.

Paulwny
04-12-2005, 01:39 PM
What these likely miss is "related entities". I.e., they're not really calculating what the value of Yankee TV rights is to YES, just what YES is paying the Yanks. There may abe something similar in concessions &/or parking to the extent that those are owned by various teams.

I know MLB supposedly makes an attempt to calculate "market value" of rights and use that rather than actual value for the purposes of revenue sharing payments, but I'd guess Forbes is not doing that.

Bottom line: there's no way King George is losing money.

Exactly, it would be interesting to find out what King George pays himself to broadcast yankmee games.

"He who has the gold makes the rules"-- Armand Hammer

Flight #24
04-12-2005, 01:48 PM
Exactly, it would be interesting to find out what King George pays himself to broadcast yankmee games.

"He who has the gold makes the rules"-- Armand Hammer

And as George is fond of trying to tell Selig,

"Cant' touch this"-- MC Hammer

:tongue:

Fenway
04-12-2005, 03:51 PM
I believe the Yankees lost $37 mill last season unless I read it wrong.


Bob

But that doesn't include the numbers of the seperate YES partnership

George doing very nicely

GiveMeSox
04-12-2005, 05:32 PM
According to that website from forbes (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=33&passYear=2005&passListType=Misc&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=30&resultsSortProperties=-numberfield6%2C%2Bnumberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Revenues&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=), the sox were 19th out of 30 teams in terms of income for 2004, $131 mil. We also showed a profit of $8.1 mil. That means the sox spent $122.9 mil on the team last year; payroll, minor leagues, expenses, etc. Two things to note from this are that in terms of revenue the sox are indeed a smaller market team becuase they dont generate the income as large market franchise. We are bottom 1/3 of all teams in generated income. Also, our profit of $8.1 shows that we do ineed put more of our generated income back into the teams expenses. A profit of 8.1 mil puts is right about middle of road in terms of money actually made.

Fenway
04-12-2005, 09:07 PM
What is really sad the last year the Selig's owned the Brewers they 24 million to the good


Red Sox figures don't include NESN so they like NYY are doing fine

Rocklive99
04-12-2005, 09:16 PM
I bet having Ichiro helps