PDA

View Full Version : White Sox article in Crain's


salty99
08-20-2007, 02:44 PM
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26069&seenIt=1

hi im skot
08-20-2007, 03:37 PM
I look forward to the ticket prices increasing.

GlassSox
08-20-2007, 03:47 PM
Me too!

salty99
08-20-2007, 04:07 PM
Gotta love the price of declining attendance!

WhiteSox5187
08-20-2007, 04:30 PM
We're still drawing over 30k a game, that's not awful. In fact, I think a lot of teams would KILL for that attendance. If 2008 is like 2007 though we'll be lucky to get 23k a game. So long as we win, people will come to the ballpark and watch us on TV.

SouthSideSoxFan
08-20-2007, 04:49 PM
So, the Sox are trying to fend off a last place finish, attendance is down 9% and TV ratings are down 37%-50% this year from last, and they're planning a $1-$3 price increase in tickets next year? That's after hiking them over 9% this year from last?

I guess I'll look on the bright side. Maybe it'll be the first year in a while where season ticket holders can improve their seats? :)

jabrch
08-20-2007, 04:59 PM
So, the Sox are trying to fend off a last place finish, attendance is down 9% and TV ratings are down 37%-50% this year from last, and they're planning a $1-$3 price increase in tickets next year? That's after hiking them over 9% this year from last?

I guess I'll look on the bright side. Maybe it'll be the first year in a while where season ticket holders can improve their seats? :)

If you haven't been able to improve your seats in the past 10 years leading up to 2005, I doubt you will be able to now. Other than last season, you could usually have gotten better seats.

chisoxmike
08-20-2007, 11:23 PM
What a joke.

champagne030
08-20-2007, 11:33 PM
So, the Sox are trying to fend off a last place finish, attendance is down 9% and TV ratings are down 37%-50% this year from last, and they're planning a $1-$3 price increase in tickets next year? That's after hiking them over 9% this year from last?

I guess I'll look on the bright side. Maybe it'll be the first year in a while where season ticket holders can improve their seats? :)

Well, Jerry did make $40M+ profit during 2005-2006. Who knows how much this season. I guess he still wins when the Sox do not. :cool:

ilsox7
08-20-2007, 11:36 PM
Well, Jerry did make $40M+ profit during 2005-2006. Who knows how much this season. I guess he still wins when the Sox do not. :cool:

Care to post scans of the Sox's books or a link to them on the internet?

StillMissOzzie
08-20-2007, 11:43 PM
:reinsy
"Just imagine next year's increase if we were winning, SUCKAHS!"


SMO
:o:

champagne030
08-20-2007, 11:52 PM
Care to post scans of the Sox's books or a link to them on the internet?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/334758.html

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_Chicago-White-Sox_334758.html

chisoxmike
08-20-2007, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry. Call me stupid, whatever... Raising ticket prices for a last place team is beyond insane. Look at the crowd tonight. Last place, against the Royals, and they draw 35,000. They've had pretty damn good attendance this year for a ****ty team.

If they were even in contention, I wouldn't care if they raised ticket prices a bit. But for a **** team, that's pretty ballsy. And I know they're going to say "Well to stay competitive, blah blah blah." The team had a payroll neat $100 million and weren't even close to being competitive this year.

The thing is, they know, we the fans, will still flock to the stadium and renew ST plans.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 12:08 AM
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/334758.html

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_Chicago-White-Sox_334758.html

First, those are not the Sox's books. Second, unless they have changed their methodology, Forbes simply estimates to come up with many of those numbers. In fact, they do not even publish their methodology, which makes every assumption they make rather suspicious. Third, Forbes only calculates a faux operating income and not a faux net income.

Again, can you point any of us in the direction of the Sox's books?

DrewSox56
08-21-2007, 12:19 AM
First, those are not the Sox's books. Second, unless they have changed their methodology, Forbes simply estimates to come up with many of those numbers. In fact, they do not even publish their methodology, which makes every assumption they make rather suspicious. Third, Forbes only calculates a faux operating income and not a faux net income.

Again, can you point any of us in the direction of the Sox's books?

Can you?

The Forbes magazine and family has a track record of analyzing the market, investing, procuring, and enormous success, and - in the process - being recognized, as an authority on the subject.

Then there's ilsox7.

If you want the ****ing balance sheet, go ask Kenny and JR for it yourself, if that's all you'll accept.

The guy gave you something - Get off your box, man.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 12:28 AM
Can you?

The Forbes magazine and family has a track record of analyzing the market, investing, procuring, and enormous success, and - in the process - being recognized, as an authority on the subject.

Then there's ilsox7.

If you want the ****ing balance sheet, go ask Kenny and JR for it yourself, if that's all you'll accept.

The guy gave you something - Get off your box, man.

You may want to get a clue. I never said what the Sox did nor did not make. I simply asked for evidence. Anyone who follows the Forbes valuations knows that they do not have any look at actual books. They do not even know revenues, as they simply use a multiplier based on historical transactions. Additionally, Forbes has been horribly wrong in many of their valuations, as evidenced by sales prices.

See, when someone buys a business, they get access to the complete books of the business they are buying. Therefore, an informed buyer has the vast information needed to correctly value a franchise. Two such examples of Forbes being horribly wrong in their valuations were with the Red Sox and Angels. According to Forbes, the buyer for the Red Sox overpaid by $300MM. And the buyer of the Angles underpaid by $60MM. Such evidence strongly suggests that Forbes is fairly inaccurate. That, of course, is no surprise b/c they are not allowed to examine each team's books.

As for Forbes, they may have at rack record of analyzing and investing, but they generally do so with public companies who are required to publish their books. That is a big difference. I am simply posing the query as to why people blindly follow valuations that have, at minimum, been shown to be quite shaky when real events (like sales of teams) actually happen.

DrewSox56
08-21-2007, 12:38 AM
You may want to get a clue. I never said what the Sox did nor did not make. I simply asked for evidence. Anyone who follows the Forbes valuations knows that they do not have any look at actual books. They do not even know revenues, as they simply use a multiplier based on historical transactions. Additionally, Forbes has been horribly wrong in many of their valuations, as evidenced by sales prices.

See, when someone buys a business, they get access to the complete books of the business they are buying. Therefore, an informed buyer has the vast information needed to correctly value a franchise. Two such examples of Forbes being horribly wrong in their valuations were with the Red Sox and Angels. According to Forbes, the buyer for the Red Sox overpaid by $300MM. And the buyer of the Angles underpaid by $60MM. Such evidence strongly suggests that Forbes is fairly inaccurate. That, of course, is no surprise b/c they are not allowed to examine each team's books.

As for Forbes, they may have at rack record of analyzing and investing, but they generally do so with public companies who are required to publish their books. That is a big difference. I am simply posing the query as to why people blindly follow valuations that have, at minimum, been shown to be quite shaky when real events (like sales of teams) actually happen.

Nobody is blindly following anything.

People read Forbes Magazine- Not ilsox7 magainze. Know why?

Yeah, you do.

Apparently this weeks' lesson in school was buying a company - good stuff. Let us know when you own one.

And especially a major league team.

itsnotrequired
08-21-2007, 12:49 AM
Nobody is blindly following anything.

People read Forbes Magazine- Not ilsox7 magainze. Know why?

Yeah, you do.

Apparently this weeks' lesson in school was buying a company - good stuff. Let us know when you own one.

And especially a major league team.

ilsox7 magazine is okay but I prefer Cracked.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 12:54 AM
ilsox7 magazine is okay but I prefer Cracked.

I prefer folks refer to it by its proper name: ilsox7 Weekly.

itsnotrequired
08-21-2007, 12:56 AM
I prefer folks refer to it by its proper name: ilsox7 Weekly.

Lot of work to pull off a weekly. Are you up to the challenge?

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 12:59 AM
Lot of work to pull off a weekly. Are you up to the challenge?

I'm good like that. :cool:

DrewSox56
08-21-2007, 12:59 AM
ilsox7 magazine is okay but I prefer Cracked.

Gold.

champagne030
08-21-2007, 10:10 AM
You may want to get a clue. I never said what the Sox did nor did not make. I simply asked for evidence. Anyone who follows the Forbes valuations knows that they do not have any look at actual books. They do not even know revenues, as they simply use a multiplier based on historical transactions. Additionally, Forbes has been horribly wrong in many of their valuations, as evidenced by sales prices.

They do not use a multiplier to come up with revenues when calculating an income statement. Most people, outside of MLB owners, accept the Forbes income and expenses to be fairly accurate. It's not difficult to piecemeal together an income statement for a MLB team.

See, when someone buys a business, they get access to the complete books of the business they are buying. Therefore, an informed buyer has the vast information needed to correctly value a franchise. Two such examples of Forbes being horribly wrong in their valuations were with the Red Sox and Angels. According to Forbes, the buyer for the Red Sox overpaid by $300MM. And the buyer of the Angles underpaid by $60MM. Such evidence strongly suggests that Forbes is fairly inaccurate. That, of course, is no surprise b/c they are not allowed to examine each team's books.

On the other hand it's very difficult to place a valuation on a MLB team. A large part of what determines a sale price for a sports franchise is asset appreciation. It's very difficult to estimate what that number is going to be. Who knows what the next media contract will produce? Who knows if there's another Henry around to compete against himself and pay significantly more than anyone else.

As for Forbes, they may have at rack record of analyzing and investing, but they generally do so with public companies who are required to publish their books. That is a big difference. I am simply posing the query as to why people blindly follow valuations that have, at minimum, been shown to be quite shaky when real events (like sales of teams) actually happen.

Again, I haven't said the Sox are worth $400M. I've stated that the White Sox have made $40M+ over the prior two seasons.

nsolo
08-21-2007, 10:20 AM
I prefer folks refer to it by its proper name: ilsox7 Weekly.

According to Forbes magazine, ilsox7 Weekly is da bomb! (its a joke son, pay attention):D::D:

voodoochile
08-21-2007, 10:27 AM
Actually, the Forbes numbers seem pretty accurate. They seem to show a profit of 25M for 2006 which was pretty close to the money the team increased payroll by that year.

That may mean the Sox have an additional $20M to spend this off season if the profit figure for this year hold up. With big contracts coming off the books by the end of 2008 they can certainly afford to spend those profits now and cut it if next season doesn't go well.

The window remains open from both talent and financial aspects. If the Sox can indeed raise payroll to $115M next year than KW is not as hamstrung financially as some might believe.

Edit: That seems to tie in with JR's stated philosophy of spending operating profits on payroll.

Hitmen77
08-21-2007, 10:53 AM
I'm not sure why people are surprised that ticket prices are going up $1-3 for next year. Yeah, I'd rather not have any increase, but I wasn't seriously expecting them to freeze ticket prices.

Let's see what they do this offseason. If this were a situation where the team was cutting payroll and raising ticket prices, then I'd see a reason to gripe. However, the Sox have already committed to keeping Buehrle and Dye and seem to be hinting that they have room to spend some more in the upcoming free agent market.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 11:06 AM
Actually, the Forbes numbers seem pretty accurate. They seem to show a profit of 25M for 2006 which was pretty close to the money the team increased payroll by that year.

That may mean the Sox have an additional $20M to spend this off season if the profit figure for this year hold up. With big contracts coming off the books by the end of 2008 they can certainly afford to spend those profits now and cut it if next season doesn't go well.

The window remains open from both talent and financial aspects. If the Sox can indeed raise payroll to $115M next year than KW is not as hamstrung financially as some might believe.

Edit: That seems to tie in with JR's stated philosophy of spending operating profits on payroll.

I would not be surprised one bit if the Sox made $25MM in 2005. With an increase over expected attendance and the playoff run, it is very easy to believe. I am simply stating that Forbes puts in a LOT of guess work when they calculate team values and profits. As much as things may look right, the last couple sales of teams have shown Forbes to woefully mistake team values. The Red Sox were sold for WAY above their Forbes Value and the Angels for way below. While you can certainly argue that their is an intrinsic value with the Red Sox and the new owner saw many revenue streams untapped and therefore was willing to pay more, how do you explain an Angels owner selling the team for $60MM less than what it was worth? If it truly was worth more, wouldn't another buyer have stepped in (with full access to the books) and bid more? It doesn't make any sense.

soxfan80
08-21-2007, 03:58 PM
Actually, the Forbes numbers seem pretty accurate. They seem to show a profit of 25M for 2006 which was pretty close to the money the team increased payroll by that year.

That may mean the Sox have an additional $20M to spend this off season if the profit figure for this year hold up. With big contracts coming off the books by the end of 2008 they can certainly afford to spend those profits now and cut it if next season doesn't go well.

The window remains open from both talent and financial aspects. If the Sox can indeed raise payroll to $115M next year than KW is not as hamstrung financially as some might believe.

Edit: That seems to tie in with JR's stated philosophy of spending operating profits on payroll.Kenny, in all his idiotic glory, reduced payroll even though Jerry said it's OK to spend.

soxfan80
08-21-2007, 03:59 PM
Oh, by the way, the Crain's article DOES mention that the Sox are making profit this year, despite what some posters think.
Read the damm article people.

salty99
08-21-2007, 04:13 PM
Yup just not as much as last year. I got a survey about a month ago from the Sox and they asked about prices raising to account for inflation, so the prices going up didn't surprise me.

In an SI article they mentioned when the current Angels owner took over he slashed beer prices and introduced cheaper priced hats. The prices have stayed the same ever since. Now there's an owner who thinks like a fan.

russ99
08-21-2007, 05:02 PM
Yup just not as much as last year. I got a survey about a month ago from the Sox and they asked about prices raising to account for inflation, so the prices going up didn't surprise me.

In an SI article they mentioned when the current Angels owner took over he slashed beer prices and introduced cheaper priced hats. The prices have stayed the same ever since. Now there's an owner who thinks like a fan.

Inflation? That's a good one.

I for one think Sox ticket prices are too high already, especially with this Prime and Premium games system. I wouldn't mind (too much) if they raised prices on the lower-end games but kept all home games prices the same.

schmitty9800
08-21-2007, 07:17 PM
Yup just not as much as last year.
Debatable; the article did say that 2007 will be the highest ever in revenue.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 07:32 PM
Kenny, in all his idiotic glory, reduced payroll even though Jerry said it's OK to spend.

Serious question: where would you have spent more money going into this year?

HotelWhiteSox
08-21-2007, 07:36 PM
Don't have a problem with the ticket prices, still some of the most affordable sports in the city, depending on where you sit.


I like Brooks and his interaction, but I would worry more about changing some marketing aspects. The lame ass radio commercials and promotions like Mullet Night :\ . Some of the crap in between innings. All the requests for more organ music. These things seem a lot worse with ticket prices going up and horrible baseball.


Ratings just confirm the large part of the city that are just band wagoners who don't follow sports that closely but act like they do for social situations

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 07:37 PM
Ratings just confirm the large part of the city that are just band wagoners who don't follow sports that closely but act like they do for social situations

This is true about pretty much every team.

champagne030
08-21-2007, 09:29 PM
Serious question: where would you have spent more money going into this year?

The bullpen and that's not second guessing. I wanted it before ST.

ilsox7
08-21-2007, 09:51 PM
The bullpen and that's not second guessing. I wanted it before ST.

Take it further. Which arms? Asking this very seriously. I have a poor memory for who was available.

thepaulbowski
08-22-2007, 09:16 AM
Ratings just confirm the large part of the city that are just band wagoners who don't follow sports that closely but act like they do for social situations

I don't watch the Sox as much now as I do when they are winning, does that mean I am a band wagon fan? No, it means I have better things to do than watch a crappy baseball team everynight.

Winning=Ratings for every team

A.T. Money
08-22-2007, 11:44 AM
The White Sox would be worth a ton more money if they owned their stadium.

soxfan80
08-22-2007, 11:50 AM
The White Sox would be worth a ton more money if they owned their stadium.well, they dont, like 90% of sports teams.
the bears dont own thier own stadium, yet are one of the most valuable teams out there.
the 1 billion dollar redskins dont own thier stadium.

in the us, most teams have public financed stadiums.

the cubs, red sox, yankees, mets, cardinals, and giants are the exception to the rule in mlb. that's only 20%.
football? even lambeau field is state owned.
the united center and the palace are the only private facilities in the nba.

soxfan80
08-22-2007, 11:53 AM
Serious question: where would you have spent more money going into this year?if you're going to reduce payroll, do it smart. dont just hack away payroll to get "young fireballers".
look at the direction of your team, and then make the moves that will help that direction.
always put decent cash at quality starters, and get solid defenders(like maybe at shortstop)

it's NOT that hard.

soxfan80
08-22-2007, 11:54 AM
Inflation? That's a good one.

I for one think Sox ticket prices are too high already, especially with this Prime and Premium games system. I wouldn't mind (too much) if they raised prices on the lower-end games but kept all home games prices the same.so you're ok with $30 upper deck tickets(the "cheapest" ticket for the cubs series)?

soxfan80
08-22-2007, 11:55 AM
Yup just not as much as last year. I got a survey about a month ago from the Sox and they asked about prices raising to account for inflation, so the prices going up didn't surprise me.

In an SI article they mentioned when the current Angels owner took over he slashed beer prices and introduced cheaper priced hats. The prices have stayed the same ever since. Now there's an owner who thinks like a fan.the beer went from 9 bucks to 7 bucks.

voodoochile
08-22-2007, 12:06 PM
so you're ok with $30 upper deck tickets(the "cheapest" ticket for the cubs series)?

Well, they are the most popular series of the year so, why shouldn't the team maximize revenue by charging as much as the market will bear?

If it's too much for you to afford then go to another game which you can afford...

champagne030
08-22-2007, 12:11 PM
Take it further. Which arms? Asking this very seriously. I have a poor memory for who was available.

In no particular order, I was interested in the following arms:

Sosa
Pineiro
Franklin (that would be in hindsight)
Bradford
Dotel
Embree
Weathers
Riske

jdm2662
08-22-2007, 12:21 PM
well, they dont, like 90% of sports teams.
the bears dont own thier own stadium, yet are one of the most valuable teams out there.
the 1 billion dollar redskins dont own thier stadium.

in the us, most teams have public financed stadiums.

the cubs, red sox, yankees, mets, cardinals, and giants are the exception to the rule in mlb. that's only 20%.
football? even lambeau field is state owned.
the united center and the palace are the only private facilities in the nba.

You would be incorrect. The reason why the sale for the Skins were so high because Synder bought the stadium:

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/WashingtonRedskins/index.htm

You are correct that the Park District owns Solider Field.

Anyone can look to see who owns what stadium:

http://www.ballparks.com

ilsox7
08-22-2007, 04:32 PM
if you're going to reduce payroll, do it smart. dont just hack away payroll to get "young fireballers".
look at the direction of your team, and then make the moves that will help that direction.
always put decent cash at quality starters, and get solid defenders(like maybe at shortstop)

it's NOT that hard.

You have not mentioned one name. In fact, many would say that the bullpen arms KW added were not added based on salary. I think he had a plan to get a certain type of arm in the bullpen and went with it. Unfortunately, it imploded for most of the year.

Shortstop is a whole other story. It's not like we could throw a bunch of money at the problem and solve it. That's just not the case.

SBSoxFan
08-22-2007, 05:01 PM
You have not mentioned one name. In fact, many would say that the bullpen arms KW added were not added based on salary. I think he had a plan to get a certain type of arm in the bullpen and went with it. Unfortunately, it imploded for most of the year.

Shortstop is a whole other story. It's not like we could throw a bunch of money at the problem and solve it. That's just not the case.


While that approach seemed to be a boon for Seattle this season. Some guy from SI was on ESPN1000 yesterday afternoon raving about Seattle's bullpen and how they come after you with nothing but power arms.

champagne030
08-22-2007, 08:09 PM
While that approach seemed to be a boon for Seattle this season. Some guy from SI was on ESPN1000 yesterday afternoon raving about Seattle's bullpen and how they come after you with nothing but power arms.

There's nothing wrong with having a bullpen full of power arms. It is a problem when 3 of those power arms have never shown the ability to hit the side of a barn.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 11:14 PM
First, those are not the Sox's books. Second, unless they have changed their methodology, Forbes simply estimates to come up with many of those numbers. In fact, they do not even publish their methodology, which makes every assumption they make rather suspicious. Third, Forbes only calculates a faux operating income and not a faux net income.

Again, can you point any of us in the direction of the Sox's books?

Only a fly on the wall and the IRS would really know. I don't think any pro sports franchise reveals their earnings. If they did I still would take it with a grain of salt.

ilsox7
08-23-2007, 11:18 PM
Only a fly on the wall and the IRS would really know. I don't think any pro sports franchise reveals their earnings. If they did I still would take it with a grain of salt.

Hence my point. Very few people actually know, so all everyone else is doing is guessing.

kitekrazy
08-23-2007, 11:23 PM
The White Sox would be worth a ton more money if they owned their stadium.

Only in a accountant's book. Every year a stadium depreciates in value. Every owner does not want to own a stadium that's why it always get's passed on to the tax payers.

voodoochile
08-23-2007, 11:27 PM
Only in a accountant's book. Every year a stadium depreciates in value. Every owner does not want to own a stadium that's why it always get's passed on to the tax payers.

It only depreciates in value in an accountant's books too. I mean Wrigley has stood since 1920-something and was written off in the first decade or so of use, yet if it's repairable, it's worth WAY more money today than it was when it was built even in comparable year dollars. Now obviously the antique nature of the field matters, but USCF could be sold for as much as it cost to build it easily if you have a team to play in it that is.

The reasons owners don't want to own stadiums is they don't want to outlay the cash to build them plain and simple...