PDA

View Full Version : Season ticket base OVER 20,000


Stoky44
01-17-2006, 10:30 AM
The White Sox just had a press release stating that for the first time in club history the season ticket base will be over 20,000. Also it appears single game ticket sales are now going to be pushed back to Feb. 19.


http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060117&content_id=1296473&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cwshttp://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060117&content_id=1296473&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Hangar18
01-17-2006, 10:32 AM
The White Sox just had a press release stating that for the first time in club history the season ticket base will be over 20,000. Also it appears single game ticket sales are now going to be pushed back to Feb. 19.



I was going to post something about this, but feared Steff saying it was BS
or someone posting the old "who cares" picture

Stoky44
01-17-2006, 10:37 AM
I was going to post something about this, but feared Steff saying it was BS
or someone posting the old "who cares" picture

This is a really big deal, because having this large season ticket base has allowed our budget to go up a lot this year. I also found it interesting that we now have a wait list for season tickets, with post season options. I never thought that would happen. I know we are not the Bears or the Bulls of the 90's but this is kinda cool. Bad news for me who can't put out the cash for a ticket plan and relies on individual tickets. The price of success.

ChiSoxGirl
01-17-2006, 10:42 AM
The White Sox just had a press release stating that for the first time in club history the season ticket base will be over 20,000. Also it appears single game ticket sales are now going to be pushed back to Feb. 19.

This is fantastic news! All of these season tickets already sold, and the individual game tickets that will be sold, allows the Sox so much more flexibility to address both future issues and those that were in existence after the season, such as the signing of Pierzynski to a three year deal, and avoiding arbitration with the likes of Jon Garland, etc.

I was talking to my uncle in SoCal on Sunday night about the World Series and the "State of the Sox," if you will, and I told him that in the 17 years I've been a Sox fan, this is the greatest shape I've ever seen the organization in; he agreed, and he's been a fan for 43 years! There are just all these positive vibes coming from every which way and it's such a pleasure to see. :smile:

Stoky44
01-17-2006, 10:44 AM
I wonder how many individual tickets will be left? Will we sell out every ticket for every game before the season starts? I hope not. I loved being able to show up game day or a week before to get tickets. It will be hard to imagine I have to set up my summer of sox games before spring training.

HomeFish
01-17-2006, 10:47 AM
Does this mean that there are 20,000 seats overall that are sold for some kind of season ticket package (including partial plans), or rather that an average of 20,000 seats each game will be claimed by season ticket holders of some kind?

anewman35
01-17-2006, 10:48 AM
I wonder how many individual tickets will be left? Will we sell out every ticket for every game before the season starts? I hope not. I loved being able to show up game day or a week before to get tickets. It will be hard to imagine I have to set up my summer of sox games before spring training.

I think it's really unlikely that the entire season sells out, although it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the weekends went really quickly.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2006, 10:49 AM
I have to say I'm pleasantly suprised. I (and I think most people) expected it would take at least 2-3 years of sustained success to get to this point. I never dreamed one World Series win would make such a difference. I guess Chicago is hungry for a winner. If things can change so much in one season, imagine what will happen with several more successful seasons. The people in Tribune Tower should be very worried.

Stoky44
01-17-2006, 10:50 AM
Does this mean that there are 20,000 seats overall that are sold for some kind of season ticket package (including partial plans), or rather that an average of 20,000 seats each game will be claimed by season ticket holders of some kind?

The way I am taking it is that on average 20,000 seats will be sold for each game. Which already puts our attendance up to 1.62 Million, before single game tickets are sold, heck 1 month before ST even started.

IronFisk
01-17-2006, 10:53 AM
I wonder how many individual tickets will be left? Will we sell out every ticket for every game before the season starts? I hope not. I loved being able to show up game day or a week before to get tickets. It will be hard to imagine I have to set up my summer of sox games before spring training.

Ah, the price of success!

I'm just pleased that they renovated the UD before they won the title since that's where you're more than likey going to find a seat. At least it's a FAR more decent place to see the game.

Flight #24
01-17-2006, 10:54 AM
My reading of this release is that a combination of full season tickets and 1/3d of the 27-game seasons (3 partials = 1 full) is 20,000. Assume that increases a bit more to say 22,000, and then individual tix go on sale. I think it's safe to say that we could easily have an average attendance in the mid-30s, which translates to about 2.75-3M. And when the team makes another run at a title, we're looking at sellouts not this year, but probably in '07.

Tekijawa
01-17-2006, 10:59 AM
So when will I have to buy my PSL's For '07? Hopefully they'll give me a few months warning and not the typical We're going to have this policy change this year and you have 2 weeks to get your money in for it!

Palehose13
01-17-2006, 11:00 AM
Wow. This is great news. I'm really happy that I got my package in October. :D:

SouthSide_HitMen
01-17-2006, 11:03 AM
I just called the Season Ticket Account reps and they said season ticket holders will still be allowed to purchase tickets online before the February 17 sale to the General Public and that we should be expecting an email explaining the procedure shortly.

Also, is it too early to plan the Core of the Core?

MadetoOrta
01-17-2006, 11:07 AM
We need that homerun deck. This is great news. If it means sitting in the last rown of the bleachers for games, no sweat. Just win baby!

Dan Mega
01-17-2006, 11:09 AM
I just called the Season Ticket Account reps and they said season ticket holders will still be allowed to purchase tickets online before the February 17 sale to the General Public and that we should be expecting an email explaining the procedure shortly.


So those of us that couldn't afford the season ticket packages get stuck with crap. D'oh :rolleyes:

INSox56
01-17-2006, 11:10 AM
Wow. This is great news. I'm really happy that I got my package in October. :D:

HELL yes...whole heartedly agreed

chisoxmike
01-17-2006, 11:17 AM
So those of us that couldn't afford the season ticket packages get stuck with crap. D'oh :rolleyes:

I hear you. Although, I did go with the Hit and Run package, my bank account dones't like me right now...

Flight #24
01-17-2006, 11:21 AM
FWIW - here's another blurb I just got from my ticket rep:


We have had a lot of questions in regards to the date for Season Ticket Holders to purchase individual tickets for the 2006 Season. With the on-sale date for the general public being pushed back, the date for Season Ticket Holders will be delayed as well. The new date for both Full and Split-Season (27-game) Ticket Holders to purchase individual tickets will be either Tuesday February 14th or Wednesday February 15th. Please keep an eye on your email for further details. If you have any specific questions please, as always, feel free to give me a call.

IMO you're going to see significant single-game sales to ST holders, forcing individual tickets to be more for "non-prime" dates.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-17-2006, 11:23 AM
All these ticket sales are awesome news and all, but I see the Sox going into the direction of the Northsiders. Pushing back the sale date for individual game tickets means they just want more people to buy season tickets. I think the true hardcore fans already had season tickets before last season and maybe a few more thousand decided to jump in after they proved themselves as winners. But let's be honest, out of the 25,000 or so season ticket holders we're going to have, 5-10k will be scalpers, brokers, etc.

Just sucks that someone like myself who can't afford season tickets yet will probably not be able to get any tickets this season to some of the key series. I just didn't see the White Sox going in this direction. But business is business, so I don't blame them for doing it.

dcb56
01-17-2006, 11:25 AM
So when will I have to buy my PSL's For '07? Hopefully they'll give me a few months warning and not the typical We're going to have this policy change this year and you have 2 weeks to get your money in for it!

No doubt. I'm not so worried about PSLs or anything like that, but as a split season holder I'm definitely concerned that if the Sox bring home the bacon again and season ticket plans continue to sell briskly, they will pull something cute for 07 like requiring everyone to purchase full season packages in order to guarantee playoff ticket options.

pdimas
01-17-2006, 11:29 AM
Thank God I got mine in June :rolleyes: . We usually do the 27 game plan or have for the past two years. This year because of different goings on we couldn't afford to get them right away. May rolls around and the money situation is a little better so I decide to bite the bullet and get season tix for the remainder of the year (June forward). Boy did my hunch ever pay off or what! :cool: Of course I already have my season tix for next year as well.

ewokpelts
01-17-2006, 11:30 AM
All these ticket sales are awesome news and all, but I see the Sox going into the direction of the Northsiders. Pushing back the sale date for individual game tickets means they just want more people to buy season tickets. I think the true hardcore fans already had season tickets before last season and maybe a few more thousand decided to jump in after they proved themselves as winners. But let's be honest, out of the 25,000 or so season ticket holders we're going to have, 5-10k will be scalpers, brokers, etc.

Just sucks that someone like myself who can't afford season tickets yet will probably not be able to get any tickets this season to some of the key series. I just didn't see the White Sox going in this direction. But business is business, so I don't blame them for doing it.they're focusing on groups now....it's always been a significant part of thier business model, and to let them throw it away seems foolish......in my opinion, making some room for group sales will let more "regular fans" get in...but hat do I know...i've been doing groups for the last 4 years, along with season tickets, and numerous other ticket purchases.....
Gene

Palehose13
01-17-2006, 11:30 AM
No doubt. I'm not so worried about PSLs or anything like that, but as a split season holder I'm definitely concerned that if the Sox bring home the bacon again and season ticket plans continue to sell briskly, they will pull something cute for 07 like requiring everyone to purchase full season packages in order to guarantee playoff ticket options.

If that happens I'm going to be looking for someone to split that with and I am confident that I will find said person on WSI. 27 games is a stretch for me (and will actually probably end up being about 20), but I know for sure I can't do 81.

ewokpelts
01-17-2006, 11:33 AM
If that happens I'm going to be looking for someone to split that with and I am confident that I will find said person on WSI. 27 games is a stretch for me (and will actually probably end up being about 20), but I know for sure I can't do 81.the good thing is that st holders can sell thier tickets directly through www.whitesox.com (http://www.whitesox.com) ..and at a profit too. If done right , you'll be able to finance your playoff tickets, as well as st deposits for 07(since all monies generated do not go back to you,. but to your sox account)
Gene

chisoxmike
01-17-2006, 11:36 AM
No doubt. I'm not so worried about PSLs or anything like that, but as a split season holder I'm definitely concerned that if the Sox bring home the bacon again and season ticket plans continue to sell briskly, they will pull something cute for 07 like requiring everyone to purchase full season packages in order to guarantee playoff ticket options.

I can totally see the Sox doing that.

Fenway
01-17-2006, 11:38 AM
I think you are seeing the shift predicted by many if and when the White Sox won by the the yuppie segment in Chicago that doesn't have a life long tie to either team.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-17-2006, 11:39 AM
Just sucks that someone like myself who can't afford season tickets yet will probably not be able to get any tickets this season to some of the key series. I just didn't see the White Sox going in this direction. But business is business, so I don't blame them for doing it.

You might want to get some people together and split an Ozzie or 27 game plan to lock in some decent seats.

Also, posters offer extras at face for games they can't attend in the Parking Lot. You may end up getting great seats at face without having to buy any ticket plan. There are always people outside the park looking to unload extras as well - just don't expect to buy them at face for the Cubs series or other Premium dates.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-17-2006, 11:41 AM
I can totally see the Sox doing that.

I can see them offering playoff tickets to 27 game plan holders and dropping the Ozzie. When I had tickets at the old park you needed to have at least a weekend plan (27 games) to lock in option to purchase playoff seats (not that they ever made it while I was a season ticket holder :wink: ).
</IMG>

SoxFan78
01-17-2006, 11:42 AM
No doubt. I'm not so worried about PSLs or anything like that, but as a split season holder I'm definitely concerned that if the Sox bring home the bacon again and season ticket plans continue to sell briskly, they will pull something cute for 07 like requiring everyone to purchase full season packages in order to guarantee playoff ticket options.

I can totally see the Sox doing that.

The only thing I cant see about that is the White Sox telling split season holders that have had their tickets for years that they now have lost their right to purchase post season tickets.

I think thats why they have set this deadline and also made a waiting list for post season options.

Now as far as PSL's, I really hope they dont do that.

Fenway
01-17-2006, 11:43 AM
I suspect that in the future partial ticket holders will be allowed to buy one game in each series instead of a full strip, this is what the Yankees and Red Sox have done.

It won't be long before some fans grumble that they took 7,000 seats away in the renovation.

Iwritecode
01-17-2006, 11:45 AM
Just sucks that someone like myself who can't afford season tickets yet will probably not be able to get any tickets this season to some of the key series. I just didn't see the White Sox going in this direction. But business is business, so I don't blame them for doing it.

Yep. Buying single game tickets for the more popular series (Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, opening day) is going to become a thing of the past...

HomeFish
01-17-2006, 11:46 AM
But let's be honest, out of the 25,000 or so season ticket holders we're going to have, 5-10k will be scalpers, brokers, etc

Hey, their money is just as green. (Trust me on that -- some of it used to be my money before the World Series)

In order to stay consistently competitive, the White Sox are going to have to maintain a big-market revenue stream. This kind of stuff helps.

chisoxmike
01-17-2006, 11:46 AM
It won't be long before some fans grumble that they took 7,000 seats away in the renovation.

Anyone that does that needs to find a life. The park has never looked better, where were these people when we had 46,000 seats?

steff
01-17-2006, 12:06 PM
I was going to post something about this, but feared Steff saying it was BS
or someone posting the old "who cares" picture



Naa Henry. Only when you post bull**** like when you said the entire lower bowl was sold out will I call you on it.. :wink:

scottjanssens
01-17-2006, 12:24 PM
I suspect that in the future partial ticket holders will be allowed to buy one game in each series instead of a full strip, this is what the Yankees and Red Sox have done.

It was like this last year with the exception of the Divisional Series.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2006, 12:26 PM
I suspect the Sox may be playing this conservatively. Some of those ST holders who are not guaranteed post-season tickets probably will get opportunities to purchase them, if only for the early rounds. They'd just rather have them pleasantly surprised than pissed off.

Fenway
01-17-2006, 12:29 PM
I suspect the Sox may be playing this conservatively. Some of those ST holders who are not guaranteed post-season tickets probably will get opportunities to purchase them, if only for the early rounds. They'd just rather have them pleasantly surprised than pissed off.

The Division Series they have plenty of tickets to work with but it drops with the LCS and then the World Series. MLB and FOX scoop every ticket in sight so the cast of Prison Break can enjoy the game.

bayzbol44
01-17-2006, 12:35 PM
I am so glad I bought my split-season package early this off season. I am not sure whatever everyone thinks, but I think this is a good problem to have. I know it will be a pain for the fans who can't afford season ticket plans, but it is going to be great that our stadium will look somewhat filled everytime they are at home.

I really couldn't afford to buy a package, but I decided to call everyone in my phone book, to see if someone was interested in splitting a package. Luckily I found someone.

peeonwrigley
01-17-2006, 12:39 PM
Just a hunch; but I think there will be plenty of "fair priced" tickets available in good locations this season. I would imagine quite a few brokers and in general high rollers bought in to the season ticket plan to get series tickets last fall. So say you're looking for a solid seats to not that big a game; a great seat at near or under face should not be a problem from either the whitesox.com option or even something like Stubhub.

NoNeckEra
01-17-2006, 12:40 PM
I suspect the Sox may be playing this conservatively. Some of those ST holders who are not guaranteed post-season tickets probably will get opportunities to purchase them, if only for the early rounds. They'd just rather have them pleasantly surprised than pissed off.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the Sox season tix site is saying, as of today, even if you buy a full 81 game package, this does not include the rights to purchase post season.

Flight #24
01-17-2006, 12:44 PM
I suspect the Sox may be playing this conservatively. Some of those ST holders who are not guaranteed post-season tickets probably will get opportunities to purchase them, if only for the early rounds. They'd just rather have them pleasantly surprised than pissed off.

One interesting thought: Last year, partial season ticket holders were given a midseason option to upgrade to full-season and guarantee full postseason tickets. I'd assume that wouldn't be available this year since they're not going to have capacity.

But it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like say "sign up for a full '07 season and guarantee full '06 postseasons". Sort of like what they did in the playoffs, but applying that to upgrade your partial ST holders to full the following year.

Fenway
01-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Yep. Buying single game tickets for the more popular series (Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, opening day) is going to become a thing of the past...

I can see the prices climbing on the Boston scalper network for the Boston games in Chicago. Looking at this season ticket holders should be getting tickets in early March as they say they will ship by March 15th

http://www.aceticket.com/LiveTicketDetail.asp?EventID=417244

itsnotrequired
01-17-2006, 12:46 PM
The Division Series they have plenty of tickets to work with but it drops with the LCS and then the World Series. MLB and FOX scoop every ticket in sight so the cast of Prison Break can enjoy the game.

Exactly. That's why split-season got the full ALDS and Ozzie holders got at least one ALDS game.

The price of success...

voodoochile
01-17-2006, 12:48 PM
I suspect that in the future partial ticket holders will be allowed to buy one game in each series instead of a full strip, this is what the Yankees and Red Sox have done.

It won't be long before some fans grumble that they took 7,000 seats away in the renovation.

Right, but the plan is in place to put them back eventually. It is an excellent economic policy actually. They are going to create a ticket scarcity this season which will drive up the price and allow them to make the team seem like a hotter item. That will in turn feed the ST wait list and drive the economic success for years to come. If they can sustain the on-field success they will be able to add the UD in the RF bleachers they have been talking about and still not have too many seats.

:giangreco:
"Oh crap... looks like I am going to need a new shtick..."

roylestillman
01-17-2006, 01:00 PM
A few things:

A. There are currently two 27 game plans why can't they open up another one for the other third of the season.

B. I have a feeling that a lot of single game seats will surface on the ebay and Stub Hubs of the world to allow for last minute takers

C. I am asuming that renewals of group orders were filled before opening up to new groups, right?

ewokpelts
01-17-2006, 01:09 PM
A few things:

A. There are currently two 27 game plans why can't they open up another one for the other third of the season.

B. I have a feeling that a lot of single game seats will surface on the ebay and Stub Hubs of the world to allow for last minute takers

C. I am asuming that renewals of group orders were filled before opening up to new groups, right?I guess they wanted to snare more 27 game packages back in 05(the first year of only 2 27 game packages). If you notice, the "weekday" package is heavy on big games. The weekend package is only weekend games(in addition to the ring game).
Neither one is a dud(or contains monday games, which st holders have to pay FULL PRICE ON) More monday tickets for the casual fan and groups.

Gene

1951Campbell
01-17-2006, 01:09 PM
I can see the prices climbing on the Boston scalper network for the Boston games in Chicago.

Of course! According to Tim Wakefield, the Red Sox are the better team, and revenge will be so sweet! Gotta see that in person!

thomas35forever
01-17-2006, 02:57 PM
If anyone of those new season ticket holders are bandwagon jumpers, may God have mercy on them.

Fenway
01-17-2006, 02:59 PM
Of course! According to Tim Wakefield, the Red Sox are the better team, and revenge will be so sweet! Gotta see that in person!

actually flying into Midway, 2 nights in a hotel and paying a broker for tickets a family from New England probably gets to see the Red Sox cheaper than going to Fenway. Southwest promotes that heavily during Boston telecasts.

Palehose13
01-17-2006, 03:01 PM
If anyone of those new season ticket holders are bandwagon jumpers, may God have mercy on them.

****! I guess I better steer clear of you this season. :tongue:

spiffie
01-17-2006, 03:03 PM
If anyone of those new season ticket holders are bandwagon jumpers, may God have mercy on them.
We all jumped on at some point, whether we were 2, 12, 22, or 52.

Now those folks who go flying right off the second we lose 3 straight...

thomas35forever
01-17-2006, 03:03 PM
****! I guess I better steer clear of you this season. :tongue:

You don't need to worry. I wouldn't even think of hurting a fellow Sox fan.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2006, 03:04 PM
I guess they wanted to snare more 27 game packages back in 05(the first year of only 2 27 game packages). If you notice, the "weekday" package is heavy on big games. The weekend package is only weekend games(in addition to the ring game).
Neither one is a dud(or contains monday games, which st holders have to pay FULL PRICE ON) More monday tickets for the casual fan and groups.

Gene

I imagine part of it had to do with the quandary of promising a WS and ALCS game to each split-seaon holder. If three plans shared the same seat, how would they determine which holder got to see which games? If the series went as they did this year, there would only be two games to choose from. Someone would be left out or be forced into the upper deck.

Hitmen77
01-18-2006, 08:15 AM
I have to say I'm pleasantly suprised. I (and I think most people) expected it would take at least 2-3 years of sustained success to get to this point. I never dreamed one World Series win would make such a difference. I guess Chicago is hungry for a winner. If things can change so much in one season, imagine what will happen with several more successful seasons. The people in Tribune Tower should be very worried.

I'm pleasantly surprised too.

I think we should also give the Sox some credit for laying the groundwork for this quick boost in ticket sales by being more competitive on the field in recent years (2000 division champs, in 1st as last as mid-Sept. in '03), hiring Brooks Boyer to better market the team, and of course the highly successful renovation of the ballpark.

johnnyg83
01-18-2006, 08:34 AM
This is a great sign. Granted, you would expect season tickets to bump after a WS win, but when the Cell is packed the game experience is unbelievable: the noise, the energy, etc. Anyone who went to a postseason game last year can attest to what a crazy time it was. I hope the Sox can carry it through next year on the field and make the whole Cell experience one that keeps the seats packed and gives us more cash to stay competitive.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-18-2006, 09:16 AM
Does anyone know about how many season tickets they had sold last year?

Iwritecode
01-18-2006, 09:38 AM
Does anyone know about how many season tickets they had sold last year?

I think it was around 12,000.

The Dude
01-18-2006, 10:51 AM
Everytime i see these threads, I'm scared to post because they usually mention the A-word. But it's nice to see people are being optimistic about the A now and we wont have to worry about the *******s bitching about empty blue/green seats this season!:redneck I'm just glad I locked my tix up early.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-18-2006, 11:02 AM
I think it was around 12,000.

Thanks. This is huge. That is why they could sign Garland to such a large contract after having paid Konerko, et al., increasing their payroll to $88-million. 8,000 more season tickets per year translates into $16-million more than last year if each ticket is worth $2,000. Looks like they have put all their season ticket dollars back into the team.

chisoxmike
01-18-2006, 11:14 AM
:giangreco
"Lies all lies I tell you, just wait... I'll have my camera man shoot some empty seats on opening day. I'll just shoot some seats before the game starts. I can see it now, "Empty Green Seats:South Side Champs still can't fill their park."

itsnotrequired
01-18-2006, 11:19 AM
Looks like they have put all their season ticket dollars back into the team.

you know it. The White Sox said as much in their recent press release:

This level of devotion reached new heights on Tuesday, when the team announced that the 2006 season ticket base has been pushed over 20,000 for the first time in club history. This increase works hand-and-hand with the offseason improvement of the team, allowing general manager Ken Williams to raise the payroll to $95 million.

Palehose13
01-18-2006, 11:25 AM
Thanks. This is huge. That is why they could sign Garland to such a large contract after having paid Konerko, et al., increasing their payroll to $88-million. 8,000 more season tickets per year translates into $16-million more than last year if each ticket is worth $2,000. Looks like they have put all their season ticket dollars back into the team.

For years, the "attendance" vs. "payroll" has been the chicken-egg argument between the Sox front office and the fans. Fans for years have wanted an increased payroll. The front office has said, "If attendance increases, so will the payroll." Sox fans then respond, "Give us a winner and we will come."

It is nice to see both sides living up to the "agreement". :wink:

salty99
01-18-2006, 11:28 AM
Now we can buy a championship like the Yankees!

sox1970
01-18-2006, 11:35 AM
Now we can buy a championship like the Yankees!
You can't buy a championship, but you can buy a consistent contender-unless you're the Orioles, Mets, or Cubs.

Palehose13
01-18-2006, 11:35 AM
Now we can buy a championship like the Yankees!

No. Now we can keep guys like Buehrle, Garland, Konerko, etc. instead of them leaving when they are free agents as well as attract top name free agents. Something that teams like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Tampa, and Mineesota have a hard time doing.

WSox8404
01-18-2006, 12:07 PM
For years, the "attendance" vs. "payroll" has been the chicken-egg argument between the Sox front office and the fans. Fans for years have wanted an increased payroll. The front office has said, "If attendance increases, so will the payroll." Sox fans then respond, "Give us a winner and we will come."

It is nice to see both sides living up to the "agreement". :wink:


I have always believed that Reinsdorf was not in this to make tons of money. I mean I am sure he isn't losing anything, but I always knew that if he were to get the money somehow, then he would spend it right away. I am grateful that I was right.

chisoxmike
01-18-2006, 12:22 PM
I have always believed that Reinsdorf was not in this to make tons of money. I mean I am sure he isn't losing anything, but I always knew that if he were to get the money somehow, then he would spend it right away. I am grateful that I was right.

Anyone that owns any team is not in it for money, it would be a stupid investment. They are in it becuase they

A) Love the game
B) Want to show off to friends

steff
01-18-2006, 12:24 PM
I have always believed that Reinsdorf was not in this to make tons of money. I mean I am sure he isn't losing anything, but I always knew that if he were to get the money somehow, then he would spend it right away. I am grateful that I was right.


Jerry & Co have always put back the profits into the team. It's just not been so significant in past years.

steff
01-18-2006, 12:25 PM
Anyone that owns any team is not in it for money, it would be a stupid investment. They are in it becuase they

A) Love the game
B) Want to show off to friends


B is pretty stupid also, IMO.

It's common sense to know that most don't make $$ until you sell in sports ownership ventures.

Scotty Love
01-18-2006, 12:28 PM
I was wondering, since I'm new to this site, if there is a message board of season tickets holders who want to sell tickets to games they are not using during the season. I'm going through a divorce and needless to say I don't have the money for season tickets and I'm afraid that single game tickes will be gone pretty quick. I also don't want to pay the price ticket brokers will charge. I dont mind giving something a little extra ....

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 12:29 PM
Thanks. This is huge. That is why they could sign Garland to such a large contract after having paid Konerko, et al., increasing their payroll to $88-million. 8,000 more season tickets per year translates into $16-million more than last year if each ticket is worth $2,000. Looks like they have put all their season ticket dollars back into the team.

That's simply based on ticket price too. They will reap more from parking from concession sales and many other revenue sources. It allows a HUGE upgrade in money for players.

My guess is they could easily afford a $100M payroll at this stage in the game because the park is going to be mostly sold out all season long. More people means more activity which makes the place more fun to hang out at also. That in turn attracts the walkups for games against celler dwellers and less interesting teams.

The Sox are on fire right now and everyone wants a piece of the action...

spiffie
01-18-2006, 12:33 PM
I was wondering, since I'm new to this site, if there is a message board of season tickets holders who want to sell tickets to games they are not using during the season. I'm going through a divorce and needless to say I don't have the money for season tickets and I'm afraid that single game tickes will be gone pretty quick. I also don't want to pay the price ticket brokers will charge. I dont mind giving something a little extra ....
Once the season gets closer use the White Sox Ticket Exchange on whitesox.com. Season ticket holders sell seats through there for whatever price they decide to set.

itsnotrequired
01-18-2006, 12:33 PM
I was wondering, since I'm new to this site, if there is a message board of season tickets holders who want to sell tickets to games they are not using during the season. I'm going through a divorce and needless to say I don't have the money for season tickets and I'm afraid that single game tickes will be gone pretty quick. I also don't want to pay the price ticket brokers will charge. I dont mind giving something a little extra ....

Try the ticket exchange.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/ticket_exchange.jsp

Tickets are sometimes available here in the Parking Lot forum, face or below.

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 12:36 PM
I have always believed that Reinsdorf was not in this to make tons of money. I mean I am sure he isn't losing anything, but I always knew that if he were to get the money somehow, then he would spend it right away. I am grateful that I was right.
You should go back and check the profit figures from the early 90's. JR and crew made a fortune off this team before even starting to consider increased franchise value. In addition, they made a fortune last year and has been making steady profits all along.

Here's how it works:

The team makes $10M this year.

JR plows that money back into next years payroll.

If the increased revenue is sustained, then the increased payroll pays for itself the following season.

That means the $10M they made this year is still profit.

The system is based on sustaining the revenue - something they have been doing for several years now (roughly since the flubbies playoff run when Wrigley started selling out every season). Thus they aren't spending the money that was earned, but the same money when it comes in the following season. If the Sox made $30M last year the owners were able to pocket a large chunk of it.

I'm not complaining. I want to see the team do well financially because I want them to have money to spend on good players. If they can afford to put a serious playoff contender on the field AND make money, more power to them, but the first part of the equation is the most important to me.

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 12:38 PM
Anyone that owns any team is not in it for money, it would be a stupid investment. They are in it becuase they

A) Love the game
B) Want to show off to friends

Yeah... right... :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 01:00 PM
You should go back and check the profit figures from the early 90's. JR and crew made a fortune off this team before even starting to consider increased franchise value. In addition, they made a fortune last year and has been making steady profits all along.

Here's how it works:

The team makes $10M this year.

JR plows that money back into next years payroll.

If the increased revenue is sustained, then the increased payroll pays for itself the following season.

That means the $10M they made this year is still profit.

The system is based on sustaining the revenue - something they have been doing for several years now (roughly since the flubbies playoff run when Wrigley started selling out every season). Thus they aren't spending the money that was earned, but the same money when it comes in the following season. If the Sox made $30M last year the owners were able to pocket a large chunk of it.

I'm not complaining. I want to see the team do well financially because I want them to have money to spend on good players. If they can afford to put a serious playoff contender on the field AND make money, more power to them, but the first part of the equation is the most important to me.The Forbes numbers are probably the best estimates available and they generally show the Sox averaging a few million dollars a year in profit. (Last year was a notable exception because of playoff revenues.) Based on team value, that's a net return of a few percent. Corporate CEO's would be summarily fired for returns this low. The franchise value has increased, but on a percentage per year basis it's not a particularly high growth rate. It's approximately the same as the S&P500 over the same period. The Sox ownership group are all wealthy men who made their money in businesses that had much better returns than what they're getting by owning a baseball team. If profit was their motivation, they all would have done better putting their money back into their original businesses.

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 01:06 PM
The Forbes numbers are probably the best estimates available and they generally show the Sox averaging a few million dollars a year in profit. (Last year was a notable exception because of playoff revenues.) Based on team value, that's a net return of a few percent. Corporate CEO's would be summarily fired for returns this low. The franchise value has increased, but on a percentage per year basis it's not a particularly high growth rate. It's approximately the same as the S&P500 over the same period. The Sox ownership group are all wealthy men who made their money in businesses that had much better returns than what they're getting by owning a baseball team. If profit was their motivation, they all would have done better putting their money back into their original businesses.

Their initial investment was only $20M.

If they are netting $2M/year they are returning 10%.

Anything over that is a fine return.

In the early 90's profits were running closer to $10M and higher per season. I think one year they made $16M profit in a single season.

You dismiss the unrealized return on the capital investment, but take the 10% and add it to that return and ALL of these guys are more than happy with the investment. Considering JR is the only known person from the ownership group, there has to be a valid reason for the rest to have gotten involved. Fame has eluded them, so what's left? (cue Pink Floyd...)

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 01:16 PM
Their initial investment was only $20M.

If they are netting $2M/year they are returning 10%.

Anything over that is a fine return.

In the early 90's profits were running closer to $10M and higher per season. I think one year they made $16M profit in a single season.

You dismiss the unrealized return on the capital investment, but take the 10% and add it to that return and ALL of these guys are more than happy with the investment. Considering JR is the only known person from the ownership group, there has to be a valid reason for the rest to have gotten involved. Fame has eluded them, so what's left? (cue Pink Floyd...)You can't count profits today as a percentage of money invested 20 years ago. In effect, you're taking all the credit in one year for value accrued over 20 years. By that logic I'm getting enormous returns on a CD I've had for 20 years. (Of course, that means I made NOTHING for the previous 19 years.)

It sounds like a great return because it's compounded over 20+ years, but it's actually only a net return of about 10%/year. The bottom line is that their net return is less than if they'd invested the same amount of money in a S&P500 index fund. If they're thrilled with their returns, one has to wonder how they got to be wealthy in the first place. These guys do it for the perks. They like sitting in the owners' box and being associated with a major league team.

Lip Man 1
01-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Voodoo:

You may be referring to 1991. In the book The Lords Of The Realm, Helyar says the White Sox were the second most profitable team in MLB with a profit of over 25 million dollars.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 01:31 PM
Voodoo:

You may be referring to 1991. In the book The Lords Of The Realm, Helyar says the White Sox were the second most profitable team in MLB with a profit of over 25 million dollars.

Lip1991 wouldn't have been an unusual year for any reason, would it?

Fenway
01-18-2006, 01:45 PM
1991 wouldn't have been an unusual year for any reason, would it?

first year of the new ballpark

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 02:33 PM
Their initial investment was only $20M.

If they are netting $2M/year they are returning 10%.

Anything over that is a fine return.

In the early 90's profits were running closer to $10M and higher per season. I think one year they made $16M profit in a single season.

You dismiss the unrealized return on the capital investment, but take the 10% and add it to that return and ALL of these guys are more than happy with the investment. Considering JR is the only known person from the ownership group, there has to be a valid reason for the rest to have gotten involved. Fame has eluded them, so what's left? (cue Pink Floyd...)

Here is some info:

The Forbes 2004 Team Net Worth Info (they do this annually):

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html)

White Sox - (2003 Season) -
4/04 Net Worth $248 mil
2003 Revenue $128 mil
2003 Net Income $12.8 mil (About Albert Belle's average salary - Inflation adjusted).

Cubs -
4/04 Net Worth $358 mil
2003 Revenue $156 mil
2003 Net Income $8.3 mil

Net Income figures are EBITDA =
EB = Earnings before
I = Interest (In 2001 the last numbers I was able to find, both the Cubs and White Sox are 7 of the 30 teams that have a net POSITIVE interest - they have little to no debt as their stadiums (and purchase price) are Paid in Full. Cubs earned $4.6 mil in interest, Sox $2.2 mil in interest in 2001. I would assume the cases are similar today (though less due to falling interest rates).
T = Taxes (article doesn't disclose info - my assumptions were pre tax).
DA = Depreciation & Amortization - Both teams should be fully depreciated / amortized (purchased in 1981 for $20 mil (Sox) $20.5 mil (Cubs) or about $43 million in today's $s).

2001 Team Net worth:

White Sox = $219 mil
Cubs = $253 mil

Cubs were purchased for $20.5 million by the Tribune in 1981 (around $41 mil in today's $s)

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/m...ory/owners.jsp (http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/history/owners.jsp)

White Sox were purchased by the Sunshine Boys for $20 million (around $40 mil intodays inflation adjusted dollars).

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseb...dorf_Jerry.stm (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/R/Reinsdorf_Jerry.stm)


Profit Calculations:

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/data/MLBRevProf.xls


White Sox Pure Profit:
1990 $8.8 mil
1991 $18.0 mil
1992 $16.7 mil
1993 $10.7 mil
1994 ($5.8) mil (loss - due to the strike)
1995 ($8.0) mil (loss Post Strike Year 1)
1996 ($5.2) mil (loss)
1997 ($4.2) mil (loss) (Final year the CWS are worth MORE than Cubs)
1998 $0.2 mil
1999 $11.7 mil
2000 $17.8 mil
2001 ($3.8) mil (Loss)
2002 $1.2 mil
2003 $12.8 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $70.7 mil

Chicago Cubs
1990 $9.2 mil
1991 $6.5 mil
1992 $5.1 mil
1993 $7.4 mil
1994 $3.7 mil
1995 $4.8 mil
1996 $18.3 mil
1997 $8.1 mil
1998 ($7.9) mil (Loss)
1999 ($1.6) mil (Loss)
2000 $9.1 mil
2001 $7.9 mil
2002 $11.9 mil
2003 $8.3 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $90.8 million (or about $6.5 million per year).

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 02:47 PM
Here is some info:

The Forbes 2004 Team Net Worth Info (they do this annually):

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html)

White Sox - (2003 Season) -
4/04 Net Worth $248 mil
2003 Revenue $128 mil
2003 Net Income $12.8 mil (About Albert Belle's average salary - Inflation adjusted).

Cubs -
4/04 Net Worth $358 mil
2003 Revenue $156 mil
2003 Net Income $8.3 mil

Net Income figures are EBITDA =
EB = Earnings before
I = Interest (In 2001 the last numbers I was able to find, both the Cubs and White Sox are 7 of the 30 teams that have a net POSITIVE interest - they have little to no debt as their stadiums (and purchase price) are Paid in Full. Cubs earned $4.6 mil in interest, Sox $2.2 mil in interest in 2001. I would assume the cases are similar today (though less due to falling interest rates).
T = Taxes (article doesn't disclose info - my assumptions were pre tax).
DA = Depreciation & Amortization - Both teams should be fully depreciated / amortized (purchased in 1981 for $20 mil (Sox) $20.5 mil (Cubs) or about $43 million in today's $s).

2001 Team Net worth:

White Sox = $219 mil
Cubs = $253 mil

Cubs were purchased for $20.5 million by the Tribune in 1981 (around $41 mil in today's $s)

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/m...ory/owners.jsp (http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/history/owners.jsp)

White Sox were purchased by the Sunshine Boys for $20 million (around $40 mil intodays inflation adjusted dollars).

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseb...dorf_Jerry.stm (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/R/Reinsdorf_Jerry.stm)


Profit Calculations:

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/data/MLBRevProf.xls


White Sox Pure Profit:
1990 $8.8 mil
1991 $18.0 mil
1992 $16.7 mil
1993 $10.7 mil
1994 ($5.8) mil (loss - due to the strike)
1995 ($8.0) mil (loss Post Strike Year 1)
1996 ($5.2) mil (loss)
1997 ($4.2) mil (loss) (Final year the CWS are worth MORE than Cubs)
1998 $0.2 mil
1999 $11.7 mil
2000 $17.8 mil
2001 ($3.8) mil (Loss)
2002 $1.2 mil
2003 $12.8 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $70.7 mil

Chicago Cubs
1990 $9.2 mil
1991 $6.5 mil
1992 $5.1 mil
1993 $7.4 mil
1994 $3.7 mil
1995 $4.8 mil
1996 $18.3 mil
1997 $8.1 mil
1998 ($7.9) mil (Loss)
1999 ($1.6) mil (Loss)
2000 $9.1 mil
2001 $7.9 mil
2002 $11.9 mil
2003 $8.3 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $90.8 million (or about $6.5 million per year).Here's a bit of relevant comparison: If the Sunshine Boys had invested the same $20M in the S&P500 in 1981, it would be worth $236M today. And the dividends would have been a lot higher than the meager profits you've listed.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 03:03 PM
Here's a bit of relevant comparison: If the Sunshine Boys had invested the same $20M in the S&P500 in 1981, it would be worth $236M today. And the dividends would have been a lot higher than the meager profits you've listed.

Not counting the tens of millions Jerry took in for running the team, and to have a fair comparison to the S & P 500 as you noted:

1. You will have to deduct the amount borrowed at the time of purchase. I don't know if they put down ten or twenty percent but I know they didn't buy the team in cash. Therefore, they could not have invested $20 MM in 1981. Even if they used full 50% margin at the time, they would have less than half the $236 M figure you quoted. The last quote I read was the White Sox are worth about $350 M after the World Series so the Sunshine Boys are up about $200 M more than they would have been if they invested in an S & P Index fund with the several million they put up in 1981.

2. They earned $70 mil from 1990 - 2003. This does not include profits from the first ten seasons or the last two (including the highly successful 2005 campaign). They have earned well over $100 mil since owning the club. The S & P 500 averaged about 3% dividends per year (currently 1.72%). The rule of 72 says that their investment would have doubled at this rate. At $100 m the Sunshine Boys averaged about $5 mil per year - about 60% of the cash they put up and 20 Xs the S & P dividend rate.

Any way you look at it, White Sox ownership made a return far above the typical stock market investor. On top of it taxpayers built them a stadium to play in. Anyone who thinks they would have made more money in any other investment other than say Microsoft or Google is not considering the facts.

http://investmenttools.com/equities/fundamentals/s___p__500_dividend_yield.htm

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 03:20 PM
Not counting the tens of millions Jerry took in for running the team, and to have a fair comparison to the S & P 500 as you noted:

1. You will have to deduct the amount borrowed at the time of purchase. I don't know if they put down ten or twenty percent but I know they didn't buy the team in cash. Therefore, they could not have invested $20 MM in 1981. Even if they used full 50% margin at the time, they would have less than half the $236 M figure you quoted. The last quote I read was the White Sox are worth about $350 M after the World Series so the Sunshine Boys are up about $200 M more than they would have been if they invested in an S & P Index fund with the several million they put up in 1981.

2. They earned $70 mil from 1990 - 2003. This does not include profits from the first ten seasons or the last two (including the highly successful 2005 campaign). They have earned well over $100 mil since owning the club. The S & P 500 averaged about 3% dividends per year (currently 1.72%). The rule of 72 says that their investment would have doubled at this rate. At $100 m the Sunshine Boys averaged about $5 mil per year - about 60% of the cash they put up and 20 Xs the S & P dividend rate.

Any way you look at it, White Sox ownership made a return far above the typical stock market investor. On top of it taxpayers built them a stadium to play in. Anyone who thinks they would have made more money in any other investment other than say Microsoft or Google is not considering the facts.

http://investmenttools.com/equities/fundamentals/s___p__500_dividend_yield.htm1. If the ownership group leveraged their purchase of the Sox, they could have done the same with any securities purchase, so that's a wash. I don't know where that $350M figure comes from, but it's way higher than anything I've ever read from any reliable source.

2. A profit of $70M over 14 years works out to $5M per year. Using a middle value of the team of $150M during that period, that works out to a 3.3% of the team value. Remember, those years were a time of the longest sustained growth in the country's history. Dividends in those years were significantly above 3%. A 3.3% rate is nothing to write home about.

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 03:34 PM
Here's a bit of relevant comparison: If the Sunshine Boys had invested the same $20M in the S&P500 in 1981, it would be worth $236M today. And the dividends would have been a lot higher than the meager profits you've listed.

Right, but those are strictly operationg profits. The value of the franchise is in the area of 260M right now (maybe higher because of the recent WS victory and the increases in popularity/revenue that has entailed.

That's the whole point. The Sox are making money BOTH from operations AND from increase in capital (unrealized).

The Sox are a money making machine pure and simple and since parking isn't even "officially" owned by the team, it doesn't calculate into those figures. Of course JR and co. own the lots and are making the money one way or another possibly adding as much as $50M to the bottom line last year alone.

Why you are claiming the team isn't a profitable business is beyond me...

voodoochile
01-18-2006, 03:37 PM
1. If the ownership group leveraged their purchase of the Sox, they could have done the same with any securities purchase, so that's a wash. I don't know where that $350M figure comes from, but it's way higher than anything I've ever read from any reliable source.

2. A profit of $70M over 14 years works out to $5M per year. Using a middle value of the team of $150M during that period, that works out to a 3.3% of the team value. Remember, those years were a time of the longest sustained growth in the country's history. Dividends in those years were significantly above 3%. A 3.3% rate is nothing to write home about.

Again, not even factoring in the unrealized profit from the capital increase.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 03:38 PM
1. If the ownership group leveraged their purchase of the Sox, they could have done the same with any securities purchase, so that's a wash. I don't know where that $350M figure comes from, but it's way higher than anything I've ever read from any reliable source.

2. A profit of $70M over 14 years works out to $5M per year. Using a middle value of the team of $150M during that period, that works out to a 3.3% of the team value. Remember, those years were a time of the longest sustained growth in the country's history. Dividends in those years were significantly above 3%. A 3.3% rate is nothing to write home about.

1. I read the $350 mil in one of the local papers after the World Series. Forbes will have their number in April. The maximum leverage allowed on a stock transaction is 50% not 80%. The Nationals, a vagabond team which owns 1/3 of their own TV rights (The Orioles own the remainder) are worth over $450 mil. The White Sox, in a larger market and coming off of a World Series Championship are worth far more than 1/2 ($250 mil as quoted April 2004) of the Nationals. Add the increased ticket / concession revenue expected in 2006 and beyond, the fact that the White Sox are entitled to $15 mil when the Nationals are finally sold as well as the fact they own 1/30 of MLB.com which was recently valued at $2.5 billion (White Sox's share about $84 mil) and they are probably closer to $400 million.

2. They owned the team for 25 years. I only had figures for 1/2 those years. We will see what they made in 2005. They have made well over $100 mil in the 23 year span or 5 times their purchase price.

Did you click on the link I provided? Dividends were above 4% for the first few years (at a time when inflation ran in the double digits - I am sure you can remember that time frame) and have been in the 1.5 - 3.5% range since (with the exception of a few brief market corrections after the 1987 crash and the first Gulf War).

In both cases, their investment in the White Sox exceeded what they would have earned with the same money in the stock market.

slavko
01-18-2006, 03:40 PM
Didn't I read somewhere that therre's never been a cash distribution to the partners? Not that there's never been a profit; I don't doubt that there has, but they're two different things.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 03:45 PM
Right, but those are strictly operationg profits. The value of the franchise is in the area of 260M right now (maybe higher because of the recent WS victory and the increases in popularity/revenue that has entailed.

That's the whole point. The Sox are making money BOTH from operations AND from increase in capital (unrealized).

The Sox are a money making machine pure and simple and since parking isn't even "officially" owned by the team, it doesn't calculate into those figures. Of course JR and co. own the lots and are making the money one way or another possibly adding as much as $50M to the bottom line last year alone.

Why you are claiming the team isn't a profitable business is beyond me...No, that's simple appreciation in value. Operating profits (dividends) are separate, and average about 3% - pretty comparable with S&P500 businesses. I never claimed they're not making money. But the profits they're making are no more lucrative than ordinary investments available to you and me. Wanna make the same kind of "huge profits"? Buy a S&P500 index fund on ETrade. And it's a cinch that JR made a much bigger profit margin than that in his real estate business. If profits are all he's after, he'd just put the money back in his real estate business instead of the Sox.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 03:54 PM
Again, not even factoring in the unrealized profit from the capital increase.

I think No 2 did when he said the unrealized gain if they invested in the S & P 500 was $236 mil (though since they only put up 20% of the cash, they could have leveraged up to $8 mil in the market meaning they would have 40% of $236 mil or about $65 mil - far short of the $350 mil - $400 mil they are worth today). Even if they somehow were magically allowed to be 80% leveraged in the market, they would be worth over $100 mil less in the stock market than if they bought the White Sox.

The dividends are close - S & P Dividends vs. Operating profit. I still say they made more in Operating Profit, especially since dividends in the stock market have been squat during most of this time frame.

Of course the capital gains should also include ventures outside of the club which include:

Parking Lots as you mentioned
SportsVision / Comcast Sports Net
White Sox share of ownership (1/30) in MLB.com, Washington Nationals and other ventures owned by MLB as a whole.

I don't know how / if Forbes accounts for this in the net worth of the franchise. I do know Forbes tries to account for the revenue cleaning up the bull**** numbers MLB provides. For example, the Cubs grossly understate their media revenue (WGN TV, WGN AM) on their baseball books.

Nobody here is attacking White Sox ownership with these numbers. They put up the cash and were lucky enough to own a MLB franchise during the 25 years it was most profitable to own one. But to say baseball owners make no money until they sell a club or buy a team not to make a profit but merely as a status symbol and to get tickets in an ownership box has no basis in reality. There is a reason the clubs market value is growing faster than the stock market - it is because these businesses continue to make profits above what a normal business makes today and projected into the future - no matter how much Bud Selig lies to the contrary (Bud lied to congress stating baseball lost $519 million in 2001 alone). Bud's lies were far worse than Palmeiro or the other players during their steroid testimony.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 04:08 PM
I think No 2 did when he said the unrealized gain if they invested in the S & P 500 was $236 mil (though since they only put up 20% of the cash, they could have leveraged up to $8 mil in the market meaning they would have 40% of $236 mil or about $65 mil - far short of the $350 mil - $400 mil they are worth today). Even if they somehow were magically allowed to be 80% leveraged in the market, they would be worth over $100 mil less in the stock market than if they bought the White Sox.

The dividends are close - S & P Dividends vs. Operating profit. I still say they made more in Operating Profit, especially since dividends in the stock market have been squat during most of this time frame.

Of course the capital gains should also include ventures outside of the club which include:

Parking Lots as you mentioned
SportsVision / Comcast Sports Net
White Sox share of ownership (1/30) in MLB.com, Washington Nationals and other ventures owned by MLB as a whole.

I don't know how / if Forbes accounts for this in the net worth of the franchise. I do know Forbes tries to account for the revenue cleaning up the bull**** numbers MLB provides. For example, the Cubs grossly understate their media revenue (WGN TV, WGN AM) on their baseball books.

Nobody here is attacking White Sox ownership with these numbers. They put up the cash and were lucky enough to own a MLB franchise during the 25 years it was most profitable to own one. But to say baseball owners make no money until they sell a club or buy a team not to make a profit but merely as a status symbol and to get tickets in an ownership box has no basis in reality. There is a reason the clubs market value is growing faster than the stock market - it is because these businesses continue to make profits above what a normal business makes today and projected into the future - no matter how much Bud Selig lies to the contrary (Bud lied to congress stating baseball lost $519 million in 2001 alone). Bud's lies were far worse than Palmeiro or the other players during their steroid testimony.A value of $350M seems rather inflated. I don't put a lot of stock in valuations quoted in newspapers. A $100M increase in one year is 40% - a truly remarkable amount, even with a WS win. I have a lot more confidence in Forbes' numbers, and we'll see what they say in their report in April.

If you look at the S&P500 dividend yield graph you see something very peculiar. The dividend yields drop precipitously during the longest economic expansion in our country's history. If this seems counterintuitive, it's for a good reason - it makes no sense. It's an artifact of the stock market bubble that led to ridiculously overvalued stocks during that period. P/E ratios of 30 and higher were commonplace. Using more rational valuations, you get dividend yields around 4%, which is, within the error with which we can estimate these things, about what the Sox ownership group has seen.

But the comparison with the S&P500 was just to show that their profits aren't significantly larger than what's available to anyone else through a commonplace investment. All these guys made bigger profit margins in their regular businesses. I'm certain Jerry Reinsdorf didn't become wealthy running a business making a 5% profit. His real estate business did a lot better than that. If these guys were just interested in making a profit, they'd have been better off investing their money in their regular businesses than in buying the Sox. They actually lost money relative to what they'd have made by reinvesting their money in their regular businesses. They do it because they like the perks.

steff
01-18-2006, 04:34 PM
Didn't I read somewhere that therre's never been a cash distribution to the partners? Not that there's never been a profit; I don't doubt that there has, but they're two different things.


3 times in 20+ years.

JohnBasedowYoda
01-18-2006, 04:41 PM
I was going to post something about this, but feared Steff saying it was BS
or someone posting the old "who cares" picture

Hangar don't let those guys get you down, I love your posts.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 04:41 PM
(1) A value of $350M seems rather inflated. I don't put a lot of stock in valuations quoted in newspapers. A $100M increase in one year is 40% - a truly remarkable amount, even with a WS win. I have a lot more confidence in Forbes' numbers, and we'll see what they say in their report in April.

(2) If you look at the S&P500 dividend yield graph you see something very peculiar. The dividend yields drop precipitously during the longest economic expansion in our country's history. If this seems counterintuitive, it's for a good reason - it makes no sense. It's an artifact of the stock market bubble that led to ridiculously overvalued stocks during that period. P/E ratios of 30 and higher were commonplace. Using more rational valuations, you get dividend yields around 4%, which is, within the error with which we can estimate these things, about what the Sox ownership group has seen.

(3) But the comparison with the S&P500 was just to show that their profits aren't significantly larger than what's available to anyone else through a commonplace investment. All these guys made bigger profit margins in their regular businesses. I'm certain Jerry Reinsdorf didn't become wealthy running a business making a 5% profit. His real estate business did a lot better than that. If these guys were just interested in making a profit, they'd have been better off investing their money in their regular businesses than in buying the Sox. They actually lost money relative to what they'd have made by reinvesting their money in their regular businesses. They do it because they like the perks.

1. The $240 mil Forbes number is from April 2004 or two seasons ago. I'd be willing to bet the World Series was worth conservatively $50 mil for expected future revenues above and beyond what they would have earned otherwise considering the time value of $.

2. Dividend yields dropped over the period for 2 reasons.

A. Interest rates and inflation went from double digits to the low levels we have today.

B. The point you addressed - the high P/E ratios. However, stocks are valued at just over 20 P/E today. Stocks are still overvalued and I expect the bear market to resume shortly - within a year or two during the next recession. For stocks to return 4% they would either have to drop in value or increase profits. It will take both to more than double the current 4% rate.

Meanwhile the White Sox continues to produce income well above the paltry 1.72% dividend yield and their net worth has far eclipsed that of stocks over the past 5 or 10 years. A record stock market could not keep pace with the record increase in MLB franchise net worth.

C. I don't know where you come up with 5% (unless you are solely discussing net revenue without capital gains which I still think is understating the team's profit). Show us the books on real estate or provide links as to facts regarding JR's outside interests. Unfortunately we have only good faith estimates (Forbes) on the White Sox since MLB continues to lie about their profits by billions of dollars.

You may think they own the team as a hobby and to get "perks" such as a owners box but that is a delusional position to take. Jerry is a smart businessman and he is not going to throw away significant amounts of money to sit in an owners box - he can just lease one with profits from his "vastly" more profitable real estate business. Team values are increasing greater than the stock market over the past 10 years - even before the market correction. This is because expected future revenues (TV, tickets, internet, merchandise as well as the tens of billions of dollars MLB sucks out of taxpayers (or as Potter calls them "The suckers" who build the one major capital outlay for owners - the ballpark and related infrastructure improvements)) exceed what they would get from stock market investments.

Sure there are businesses which exceed the average stock market investment but they are far from risk free and few have the 25 year track record of that of the White Sox (well unless you had the numerous government contracts in this state over the same time frame).

There is no point debating this further. While I respect your opinion in most issues I think you are wrong on this one. We can revisit this in April when updated team values are released by Forbes.

steff
01-18-2006, 04:45 PM
Hangar don't let those guys get you down, I love your posts.


We ALL love his posts. Lord I can't even tell you how much less I would have laughed over the past 6 years if I didn't have Henry's posts to read... :D:

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 04:49 PM
3 times in 20+ years.

I am sure they have an quarterly or annual distribution for partners to pay for their share in taxes each year. Partnerships are required to issue a K-1 tax form detailing the income and expenses and net income which is payable by each partner according to their % share of ownership. Say the White Sox made $10 mil and JR owns 10%. He owes tax on $1 mil and has to come up with say 40% of that or $400,000. Most partnerships will distribute the 40% to partners (which they in turn pay to the IRS) and the business keeps the remaining 60% as retained earnings (if they wanted to keep the remaining profit in the business).

There could have been only 3 distributions above and beyond the annual (or quarterly) tax distributions which could be the case. I know the team paid off their purchase debt (including debt on the original Comiskey Park). The team is fully depreciated at this point. The team also requires no futher reinvestment from the partners as they have more than enough cash to operate at this point. As a CPA I would love to peruse their real books for curiosity sake.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 05:01 PM
1. The $240 mil Forbes number is from April 2004 or two seasons ago. I'd be willing to bet the World Series was worth conservatively $50 mil for expected future revenues above and beyond what they would have earned otherwise considering the time value of $.

2. Dividend yields dropped over the period for 2 reasons.

A. Interest rates and inflation went from double digits to the low levels we have today.

B. The point you addressed - the high P/E ratios. However, stocks are valued at just over 20 P/E today. Stocks are still overvalued and I expect the bear market to resume shortly - within a year or two during the next recession. For stocks to return 4% they would either have to drop in value or increase profits. It will take both to more than double the current 4% rate.

Meanwhile the White Sox continues to produce income well above the paltry 1.72% dividend yield and their net worth has far eclipsed that of stocks over the past 5 or 10 years. A record stock market could not keep pace with the record increase in MLB franchise net worth.

C. I don't know where you come up with 5% (unless you are solely discussing net revenue without capital gains which I still think is understating the team's profit). Show us the books on real estate or provide links as to facts regarding JR's outside interests. Unfortunately we have only good faith estimates (Forbes) on the White Sox since MLB continues to lie about their profits by billions of dollars.

You may think they own the team as a hobby and to get "perks" such as a owners box but that is a delusional position to take. Jerry is a smart businessman and he is not going to throw away significant amounts of money to sit in an owners box - he can just lease one with profits from his "vastly" more profitable real estate business. Team values are increasing greater than the stock market over the past 10 years - even before the market correction. This is because expected future revenues (TV, tickets, internet, merchandise as well as the tens of billions of dollars MLB sucks out of taxpayers (or as Potter calls them "The suckers" who build the one major capital outlay for owners - the ballpark and related infrastructure improvements)) exceed what they would get from stock market investments.

Sure there are businesses which exceed the average stock market investment but they are far from risk free and few have the 25 year track record of that of the White Sox (well unless you had the numerous government contracts in this state over the same time frame).

There is no point debating this further. While I respect your opinion in most issues I think you are wrong on this one. We can revisit this in April when updated team values are released by Forbes.Here's what I was getting at. Generally speaking, you can't become wealthy with 10%/year returns on your investment unless you start out pretty well off to begin with. At 10%/year you're doubling your money every 7 years. In a working life of, say 35 years, you double your money 5 times for a 32X overall increase. To have ONE million today you'd have had to start out with $30K 35 years ago. And these guys have MANY millions. Generating $50M in a lifetime is almost impossible at that rate of return. Generally, people who become wealthy (as opposed to inheriting it) do so by generating much higher profit margins - usually 20% or more. At that rate, you're doubling your money every 3.5 years for a 1000X overall increase in 35 years. Now $50M becomes reachable. Certainly not all businesses are able to sustain these kind of returns. Only a few do. These few are the people who become wealthy and buy baseball teams.

These figures are just for illustration, but the point remains that the owners certainly enjoyed returns of 20% or more in their regular businesses or they wouldn't be where they are today. I don't think you would suggest they're getting anywhere close to that from owning the White Sox.

ChiSoxLifer
01-18-2006, 05:22 PM
..and all this has to do with the 20,000 season tickets sold in what way?

itsnotrequired
01-18-2006, 05:44 PM
:tomatoaward

Wheeee!!!

SouthSide_HitMen
01-18-2006, 05:49 PM
Here's what I was getting at. Generally speaking, you can't become wealthy with 10%/year returns on your investment unless you start out pretty well off to begin with. At 10%/year you're doubling your money every 7 years. In a working life of, say 35 years, you double your money 5 times for a 32X overall increase. To have ONE million today you'd have had to start out with $30K 35 years ago. And these guys have MANY millions. Generating $50M in a lifetime is almost impossible at that rate of return. Generally, people who become wealthy (as opposed to inheriting it) do so by generating much higher profit margins - usually 20% or more. At that rate, you're doubling your money every 3.5 years for a 1000X overall increase in 35 years. Now $50M becomes reachable. Certainly not all businesses are able to sustain these kind of returns. Only a few do. These few are the people who become wealthy and buy baseball teams.

These figures are just for illustration, but the point remains that the owners certainly enjoyed returns of 20% or more in their regular businesses or they wouldn't be where they are today. I don't think you would suggest they're getting anywhere close to that from owning the White Sox.

Now this is a post I can agree with. Most of the partners had a far greater interest in other businesses before purchasing the White Sox. IIRC Jerry Reinsdorf has sold his initial business during the 1980s to spend his time running the team and to work for MLB in general (TV, the Nationals, CBAs, etc.) which he is highly compensated for as he should be (or as any other CEO would be paid). $20 mil in 1981 is worth just under $45 mil today. Reinsdorf put down several hundred thousand at the time he purchased the team (the rest was financed) which is more than most people had in 1981 and he earned it via real estate.

Some partners only have 1 or 2% of the team. Some partners have more of their net worth tied up in the team as others. I would agree there are some owners (throughout sports) who own 1 or 2% to get the fringe benefits discussed earlier in the thread. Reinsdorf has added to his share initial ownership share as a result of his work as managing partner (and he may have bought additional shares - I have not followed this day to day nor do I know particulars - only what I have read) and to him this is more than just a profitable hobby but instead a larger part of his net worth than it was initially (same with his role with the Bulls). If it wasn't a serious business venture for him he wouldn't have sold his first business and he wouldn't devote the time that he does to the White Sox and MLB.

Reinsdorf increased the team's value in two ways - his work on the team itself and his work on behalf of MLB which has also grown more in these 25 years than during any 25 year span prior (with the possible exception of the initial years). I agree Reinsdorf did not arrive with nothing in his pockets and now 100% of his worth is tied up in the team. Where we differ is the valuation of profit over the 2 1/2 decades (I say 7-8 % you say closer to 3 or 4% per annum) and unrealized capital gain (I say $300 mil inflation adjusted you say closer to $200 mil - $100 mil is a lot of money to even people like Reinsdorf) with the White Sox. I would agree he did achieve a higher rate of annual profit on his previous real estate company prior to being involved with the team.

Where we also differ is whether he could have continued to grow his real estate business at that high rate year after year. He probably sold out to AMEX in the 1980s when he felt he could no longer sustain that level of growth or he had better options elsewhere (Sox & Bulls). I don't think he did this for altruistic reasons.

I hope JR & his partners continue to make record profits and increase the value of their team as this would be the result of continued success on the field - something we can all agree on.

Fans do not have many sources to examine what sports ownership is worth. Usually they will get two extreme sides - The owners portraying themselves as altruistic George Bailey types and columnists like Moronotti saying they are all Mr. Potters (or brain dead versions of Mr. Potter). The truth is they are usually somewhere in the middle. Reinsdorf is probably the best business person of Chicago's owners. The Tribune is great at profits with poor management (except for managing their team and media related profit). McCaskey is a boob who is lucky to have inherited the team at a time when the NFL has grown even more than MLB. Wirtz is like the Tribune - just give me the money - except he cares even less about the team's performance and even less of his worth is tied up in the Blackhawks.

As a White Sox fan, I hope he continues building the ballclub. As a Blackhawks fan (the only other pro team in town I care about) I wish he would have bought a portion of them instead of the Bulls :(: .
</IMG>

WSox8404
01-18-2006, 06:00 PM
Okay here is a question that I have always pondered. How much does a team make on merchandise? Lets say, for the sake of making this easier, a $100 jersey is sold. What is the breakdown of where the money goes? You have, from the bottom up, the cost of the material to make it, the cost of production, the cost of shipping, the cost of marketing, and then the store markup. Let's say all that combined is $80. That leaves $20. How much would the Sox get and how much would MLB get? I know there must be a certain percentage, but what is it? I am just trying to gauge how much a team can make with the sale of merchandise.

Lip Man 1
01-18-2006, 06:09 PM
Concerning the question of profits / dividends ect. here is what I could find and this is not the entire column:

"I read the papers, I see people say you shouldn't have a budget, we should sell the team and all that," Einhorn said. "I don't believe in that. I believe you should do what we've tried to do."

And will continue to try to do, as far as Einhorn and team chairman Jerry Reinsdorf are concerned. "He's never talked to me about getting out for any reason," Einhorn said of Reinsdorf. "If you like something, stay with it. I don't want to get out, either 覧 even though I have a more limited role, I like doing it."

"I don't think we have an obligation to get out if we want to run it the way we want to run it," said Einhorn, who heard suggestions to the contrary from fans during SoxFest. "I don't think the fans have suffered, because there's no guarantee that you're going to win by spending money.

"We've been competitive. Sometimes we're not as competitive as we want to be, but we've been competitive over the years.

"When you're in it this long 覧 we're like the third-oldest ownership in baseball 覧 you're going to take a lot of hits along the way because it's hard to win."

Harder, some might argue, when you're spending less than half of what the Yankees and Red Sox are spending, or a little more than two-thirds of what the Cubs are spending.

"You're relating that to something that I don't know is true anymore," Einhorn said. "It helps to have more. But I don't know that just having it guarantees you're going to win. I think that's what people need to understand.

"The Mets are the best example, because they finished dead last and had to redo their whole team."

The Sox aren't about to redo their approach. They will work within a budget, not worry about making money but try not to lose much.

"We have a philosophy to try to run it at even," Einhorn said. "We haven't paid a dividend in 24 years.

"Our group isn't in business to lose the kind of money that Arizona loses and the Dodgers lose 覧 $40 (million) to $50 million a year. We're not in that business. The Cubs aren't in that business.

"Jerry's philosophy is we try to run it, most of the time, on an even basis.

"I feel the same way. As much as I want to win, I wouldn't have any fun being in this business if I ran a team to lose money just to win 覧 or with the hope of winning. I don't think that's a good way to run a team."

"I think we'll be competitive this year," he said. "I'd like to have a little more flexibility, and I think we'll get it. You know we're going to make some moves later."

Moves that risk big money? Probably not.

"It's the philosophy, and I think it's a good one," Einhorn said. "If we lose, we're not going to lose a lot." Phil Arvia, sports columnist, Chicago Daily Southtown, February 4, 2004.

Lip

Blueprint1
01-18-2006, 06:36 PM
I just wanted to talk about season tickets :?:

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 08:04 PM
Now this is a post I can agree with. Most of the partners had a far greater interest in other businesses before purchasing the White Sox. IIRC Jerry Reinsdorf has sold his initial business during the 1980s to spend his time running the team and to work for MLB in general (TV, the Nationals, CBAs, etc.) which he is highly compensated for as he should be (or as any other CEO would be paid). $20 mil in 1981 is worth just under $45 mil today. Reinsdorf put down several hundred thousand at the time he purchased the team (the rest was financed) which is more than most people had in 1981 and he earned it via real estate.

Some partners only have 1 or 2% of the team. Some partners have more of their net worth tied up in the team as others. I would agree there are some owners (throughout sports) who own 1 or 2% to get the fringe benefits discussed earlier in the thread. Reinsdorf has added to his share initial ownership share as a result of his work as managing partner (and he may have bought additional shares - I have not followed this day to day nor do I know particulars - only what I have read) and to him this is more than just a profitable hobby but instead a larger part of his net worth than it was initially (same with his role with the Bulls). If it wasn't a serious business venture for him he wouldn't have sold his first business and he wouldn't devote the time that he does to the White Sox and MLB.

Reinsdorf increased the team's value in two ways - his work on the team itself and his work on behalf of MLB which has also grown more in these 25 years than during any 25 year span prior (with the possible exception of the initial years). I agree Reinsdorf did not arrive with nothing in his pockets and now 100% of his worth is tied up in the team. Where we differ is the valuation of profit over the 2 1/2 decades (I say 7-8 % you say closer to 3 or 4% per annum) and unrealized capital gain (I say $300 mil inflation adjusted you say closer to $200 mil - $100 mil is a lot of money to even people like Reinsdorf) with the White Sox. I would agree he did achieve a higher rate of annual profit on his previous real estate company prior to being involved with the team.

Where we also differ is whether he could have continued to grow his real estate business at that high rate year after year. He probably sold out to AMEX in the 1980s when he felt he could no longer sustain that level of growth or he had better options elsewhere (Sox & Bulls). I don't think he did this for altruistic reasons.

I hope JR & his partners continue to make record profits and increase the value of their team as this would be the result of continued success on the field - something we can all agree on.

Fans do not have many sources to examine what sports ownership is worth. Usually they will get two extreme sides - The owners portraying themselves as altruistic George Bailey types and columnists like Moronotti saying they are all Mr. Potters (or brain dead versions of Mr. Potter). The truth is they are usually somewhere in the middle. Reinsdorf is probably the best business person of Chicago's owners. The Tribune is great at profits with poor management (except for managing their team and media related profit). McCaskey is a boob who is lucky to have inherited the team at a time when the NFL has grown even more than MLB. Wirtz is like the Tribune - just give me the money - except he cares even less about the team's performance and even less of his worth is tied up in the Blackhawks.

As a White Sox fan, I hope he continues building the ballclub. As a Blackhawks fan (the only other pro team in town I care about) I wish he would have bought a portion of them instead of the Bulls :(: .
</IMG>I don't think they look at it primarily as a business venture. Wouldn't you jump at the chance to own a baseball team even if you didn't make a dime? I sure as hell would. These guys all have enough money that they don't need to make money off the team. If they make a little money, so much the better, but it's not their primary motivation. If it was, they all have better investment opportunities available to them. The quotes Lip posted all seem to show that they just want to produce a winning team. They're not willing to lose money to do it, but profit isn't the primary motivation.

Reinsdorf seems to genuinely love the game and love owning a team. I suspect all or most of the other owners feel similarly.

Think we're done hijacking this thread now?:redface:

Scotty Love
01-23-2006, 02:17 PM
Try the ticket exchange.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/ticket_exchange.jsp

Tickets are sometimes available here in the Parking Lot forum, face or below.


Thanks for the info this helps a great deal. :D: