PDA

View Full Version : Would you pay more if it meant the White Sox could win all the time?


Fenway
10-30-2007, 04:04 PM
KW said the following concerning A-Rod

''For our purposes, we would very quickly run the average fan out of our ballpark ... our economic situation wouldn't allow for something like that.''

The question I ask to you all. Would you be willing to pay ticket prices like the Red Sox so in turn the payroll could increase and the team has a better chance to win?

A Fenway ticket is on average DOUBLE what you pay at The Cell

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ticketing/seating_pricing.jsp

2007 Single Game Ticket Prices
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
Pavilion Box $90
Loge Box $85
Right Field Box $45
Right Field Roof Box $45
Infield Grandstand $45
Outfield Grandstand $27
Conigliaro's Corner $25
Bleachers $23
Upper Bleachers $12
Pavilion Standing Room $25
Standing Room $20http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif

Dugout Box (Infield, D29-D61 )$312
EMC Club $286
Dugout Box (Extended, D9-D16, D72-D80)$260
Home Plate Pavilion Club $205
Pavilion Club $158
Green Monster $140
Dugout Box (Canvas Alley, D3-D7) $130
Right Field Roof Deck $110
Field Box $105
Green Monster Standing Room $30
Right Field Roof Deck Standing Room $30

mrfourni
10-30-2007, 04:06 PM
I would go to less games

chisoxmike
10-30-2007, 04:08 PM
Yes. Some teams charge more than the Sox do and don't win.

Winning isn't guaranteed if the Sox were to sign A-Rod though....

But in general, if it meant consistant playoff appearances and World Series titles, yes, I would pay more. I'd be all for it.

MUsoxfan
10-30-2007, 04:09 PM
No. I wouldn't be able to afford to go. Plus, the Sox aren't in a position to be able to jack up prices that high. Our fanbase isn't like that of Boston, NYY or even the Cubs. Sox fans on a large part refuse to be fleeced. If prices were that high, people simply wouldn't go until playoff time.

getonbckthr
10-30-2007, 04:11 PM
Not only would they be able to raise prices but what about that 2nd deck idea? What about putting a set seats on top of the fan deck?

DumpJerry
10-30-2007, 04:32 PM
Not only would they be able to raise prices but what about that 2nd deck idea? What about putting a set seats on top of the fan deck?
Huh? I think you're thinking about the Home Run porch which has been drawn up for Right Field, not Center.

You can't put another deck on top of the Fan Deck. The Scoreboard would be blocked to everyone in the park.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 04:38 PM
I'd pay more to an extent. I'd pay 25% more if the team increased payroll >35-50%, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay more so Jerry can continue to pocket his XX% profit.

Nellie_Fox
10-30-2007, 04:43 PM
I'd pay more to an extent. I'd pay 25% more if the team increased payroll >35-50%, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay more so Jerry can continue to pocket his XX% profit.Yeah, heaven forbid that a businessman should make a profit. Sports team owners should operate at a loss just out of their love for the fans. :rolleyes:

Fenway
10-30-2007, 04:46 PM
Having been to enough ballparks I come away that some MLB teams consider the off the field antics between innings as important as what happens during the games. I call it the minor league mentality.

Arizona is really guilty of this which I suspect is part of the reason people didn't flock for playoff tickets.

The White Sox seem to fall in the middle of the pack in this regard. The Chevy Pride Crew gets old after awhile.

The Cubs have little off the field antics and they seem to just sell Wrigley Field and the game isn't as important to them either.

The ticket prices in Boston are obscene but being the only game in town we have to pay. At least Boston tries to win as they would have trouble selling tickets at those prices for a 4th place club year in and year out.

getonbckthr
10-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Huh? I think you're thinking about the Home Run porch which has been drawn up for Right Field, not Center.

You can't put another deck on top of the Fan Deck. The Scoreboard would be blocked to everyone in the park.
Ya I was talking about the RF idea. But also an idea for CF. But ya I guess it would cover the scoreboard.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2007, 05:41 PM
Nellie:

The question though in sports as well as in business is 'how much profit is enough?'

I don't think most folks begrudge a business making money, they took the risk, they deserve to get something back for that risk, but again how much is enough?

That's where the real question lies...espcially where you are dealing with a 'business,' that many including Sox co-owner Eddie Einhorn considers a "public trust." (Direct quote from the forward in Rich Lindberg's updated Total White Sox Encyclopedia.)

Lip

DumpJerry
10-30-2007, 05:56 PM
Having been to enough ballparks I come away that some MLB teams consider the off the field antics between innings as important as what happens during the games. I call it the minor league mentality.

...

The White Sox seem to fall in the middle of the pack in this regard. The Chevy Pride Crew gets old after awhile.

The Cubs have little off the field antics and they seem to just sell Wrigley Field and the game isn't as important to them either.
I call those "antics" "ways to distract restless kids between innings so they don't drive mom and dad nuts." This is why Comiskey is much more family-friendly than The Urinal. Also, I tolerate the Chevy Pride Crew, the McDonald's Junk Food Race, etc. because those things keep my tickets affordable.

fquaye149
10-30-2007, 06:03 PM
Yeah, heaven forbid that a businessman should make a profit. Sports team owners should operate at a loss just out of their love for the fans. :rolleyes:

Well, we've heard the same argument time and again, except in regards to why A-Rod's a horrible human being for taking the money teams are willing to give to him

jackbrohamer
10-30-2007, 06:10 PM
It's a false and invalid question. Albert Belle was among the highest paid players in baseball when he was with the Sox, but I was ecstatic when his sorry ass bolted. And I don't want to see a jerk like A-Rod eating up all of the available payroll.

Daver
10-30-2007, 06:16 PM
Nellie:

The question though in sports as well as in business is 'how much profit is enough?'

I don't think most folks begrudge a business making money, they took the risk, they deserve to get something back for that risk, but again how much is enough?

That's where the real question lies...espcially where you are dealing with a 'business,' that many including Sox co-owner Eddie Einhorn considers a "public trust." (Direct quote from the forward in Rich Lindberg's updated Total White Sox Encyclopedia.)

Lip

The fact is, you don't know what that profit, if any, is now, and neither do I, or anyone else that posts here.

LongLiveFisk
10-30-2007, 06:38 PM
And I don't want to see a jerk like A-Rod eating up all of the available payroll.

I feel the same way. Yeah he's a great player but he's only one guy. One guy does not win a championship. If it did, how many rings would he have?

And remind me again: how many rings does he have?

Oh yeah. That's what I thought. :cool:

MarySwiss
10-30-2007, 07:50 PM
Oddly enough, I'd rather NOT win all the time. One of the things I love about the Sox is that they usually contend. I know, 2007 sucked, but they generally don't embarrass us.

Don't get me wrong; I'd appreciate it if they won more than once a century, but I think part of what made 2005 special was the anticipation. That last few weeks with Cleveland breathing down our necks was agony, but even that made the ultimate victory so much sweeter!

dickallen15
10-30-2007, 08:01 PM
Let's put it this way, the White Sox lost 90 games in 2007 and they are expecting you to pay more in 2008. It will be interesting to see how much of a dip season ticket sales take. Kenny's quote was just for show, he knows ARod isn't coming here. If all they cared about was the average fan, why did they move some to less desirable locations and install $250 a game seats where they used to be? Why are they pricing the average fan out of Soxfest, especially the Friday night affair where you have to buy a $250 hotel room? I don't blame them, thats the way sports are going. Much like the corporations taking over ownerships of the teams, corporations will someday probably have the majority of the seats. The most desirable ones anyway.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 08:46 PM
Yeah, heaven forbid that a businessman should make a profit. Sports team owners should operate at a loss just out of their love for the fans. :rolleyes:

I didn't say he couldn't make a profit. He's been making in the ballpark of $20M each season over the past couple of years. Personally, I think that's too much profit.

This doesn't even take into consideration that the real return for an owner is when they sell. Jerry, and his ownership group, have seen the value of their club grow from $20M in 1981 to a conservative estimate of well over $300M today. He can't cry he's not making a killer return on this team during his ownership........

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

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

Sure, you can stick your head in the sand and say Forbes doesn't know **** because some dumbass owner will outbid himself on the purchase price of a club, but the reality is that they're highly respected when it comes to estimating a teams income statement.

FarWestChicago
10-30-2007, 09:02 PM
The fact is, you don't know what that profit, if any, is now, and neither do I, or anyone else that posts here.Lip just assumes the Sox turn at least $100 million in profit each year. That's why he incessantly pleads for a trans $200 million payroll. :D:

FarWestChicago
10-30-2007, 09:03 PM
I'd pay more to an extent. I'd pay 25% more if the team increased payroll >35-50%...Now that's what you call not stepping up.

Brian26
10-30-2007, 09:11 PM
The White Sox seem to fall in the middle of the pack in this regard. The Chevy Pride Crew gets old after awhile.

I call those "antics" "ways to distract restless kids between innings so they don't drive mom and dad nuts." This is why Comiskey is much more family-friendly than The Urinal. Also, I tolerate the Chevy Pride Crew, the McDonald's Junk Food Race, etc. because those things keep my tickets affordable.

The obvious solution to all of this is to double the size of the Pride Crew roster. More Pride chicks= higher ad revenue= bigger payroll= A-Rod 2008.

:duck:

kobo
10-30-2007, 09:12 PM
I didn't say he couldn't make a profit. He's been making in the ballpark of $20M each season over the past couple of years. Personally, I think that's too much profit.


Is there any proof of this?

MrRoboto83
10-30-2007, 09:14 PM
No, I think we are paying too much right now. Higher payrolls do not produce winning baseball all the time like the 2007 Sox.

Grzegorz
10-30-2007, 09:20 PM
Nellie:

The question though in sports as well as in business is 'how much profit is enough?'

I don't think most folks begrudge a business making money, they took the risk, they deserve to get something back for that risk, but again how much is enough?

Lip

In a simple world, businesses deserve to get everything back and more because they take risks.

If you don't like a particular business don't patronize it.

Boondock Saint
10-30-2007, 09:21 PM
I personally wouldn't go to as many games if the tickets cost that much. I'm a bigger Bears fan than I am a Sox fan, but I go to more Sox games because the tickets are cheap. A Bears ticket goes for 65-100 dollars, and that's just too much. If the Sox started charging around that much, I just couldn't justify going to the games as much.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 09:25 PM
Now that's what you call not stepping up.

Tell me about me about it. If the club is going to make that kind of profit and still try to pass all increases in salary along to the ticket buyer they're not stepping up. :wink:

Is there any proof of this?

Did you take a look at the links?:?:

Daver
10-30-2007, 09:34 PM
Tell me about me about it. If the club is going to make that kind of profit and still try to pass all increases in salary along to the ticket buyer they're not stepping up. :wink:



Did you take a look at the links?:?:

Your links are not proof, they are Forbes speculation, no matter how close it is or isn't, speculation is speculation.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 09:34 PM
Ah yes, the same Forbes that claims the Yankees lose money each year. The bottom line is that Forbes does a lot of analysis and estimating, does not explain much of it, and then people blindly accept it.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 11:22 PM
Your links are not proof, they are Forbes speculation, no matter how close it is or isn't, speculation is speculation.

What isn't speculation is that Jerry and his group paid $20M and if he sold today the price would be well in excess of $300M. Mucho profit, IMO.

Ah yes, the same Forbes that claims the Yankees lose money each year. The bottom line is that Forbes does a lot of analysis and estimating, does not explain much of it, and then people blindly accept it.

Well, the Yankees are negative EBITDA because they pay over $100M/year towards revenue sharing and luxury tax penalties. It doesn't take a accountant to realize that when Captain Bud says revenues are approaching NFL levels that profits are also soaring through record levels because expenses aren't increasing nearly as much as revenue.

ilsox7
10-30-2007, 11:47 PM
It doesn't take a accountant to realize that when Captain Bud says revenues are approaching NFL levels that profits are also soaring through record levels because expenses aren't increasing nearly as much as revenue.

That has little to do with the accuracy of the Forbes numbers. The bottom line, the UNDISPUTED LINE, is that what Forbes does is not based off of actual numbers. Rather, it is speculation. It may be somewhat educated speculation, but it is not the Bible when it comes to what baseball teams look like from a financial perspective.

Hitmen77
10-30-2007, 11:48 PM
I voted "yes", but there are limits. I would pay more if it meant wins. However, if we're talking about doubling prices to about Boston's level - then the reality is that I'd find it hard to budget as many games and I'd likely have to cut back.

Unfortunately, we don't have the endless supply of fans like the Red Sox and Cubs. The Cubs play in a park that is surrounded by tens of thousands of young white collar 20-somethings with a bunch of disposable income. The Sox have those kind of fans too, but not in the quanity that is a stone's throw from Wrigley. Therefore, our ability to jack up prices to pay for higher salary would hit a ceiling sooner than some of the other richer teams.

However, I'm not opposed in principal to such an increase if it went to building a solid team and a more moderate increase would be easier for more fans to absorb.

champagne030
10-30-2007, 11:59 PM
That has little to do with the accuracy of the Forbes numbers. The bottom line, the UNDISPUTED LINE, is that what Forbes does is not based off of actual numbers. Rather, it is speculation. It may be somewhat educated speculation, but it is not the Bible when it comes to what baseball teams look like from a financial perspective.

We can go round and round about the income statement (and FWLIW, as an accountant, knowing what I do about the new revenue streams, I believe the numbers are in the ballpark). What is not disputed is that Jerry, and his group, bought the team for $20M in 1981 and in 2007 it is worth, well in excess, of $300M. Assuming you're of sane mind, the Sox didn't have negative income during that period, and the current ownership group has made a killing.

ilsox7
10-31-2007, 02:03 AM
We can go round and round about the income statement (and FWLIW, as an accountant, knowing what I do about the new revenue streams, I believe the numbers are in the ballpark). What is not disputed is that Jerry, and his group, bought the team for $20M in 1981 and in 2007 it is worth, well in excess, of $300M. Assuming you're of sane mind, the Sox didn't have negative income during that period, and the current ownership group has made a killing.

I've never disputed that JR and his group have made a killing on their investment. I am solely contesting the belief (by some, not necessarily you) that the Forbes numbers are the gold standard or reflect reality.

I'm a finance guy turned soon-to-be tax attorney. I don't trust a number unless I can reconcile it. All I am saying is that you cannot reconcile the Forbes reports.

Nellie_Fox
10-31-2007, 02:07 AM
What is not disputed is that Jerry, and his group, bought the team for $20M in 1981 and in 2007 it is worth, well in excess, of $300M. Assuming you're of sane mind, the Sox didn't have negative income during that period, and the current ownership group has made a killing.Paper profit until they sell. Until then, that's not a penny in any of their pockets. My house has gone up in value since I bought it, but unless I want to take out a loan against the equity, it doesn't mean spit to me, since I don't intend to sell it during my lifetime.

It's Dankerific
10-31-2007, 02:18 AM
Yeah, heaven forbid that a businessman should make a profit. Sports team owners should operate at a loss just out of their love for the fans. :rolleyes:

The biggest problem I have with all this profit/loss crap coming out of the whitesox is that its a fallacy. They claim they can only spend what comes into the team via revenue. Its especially crappy if JR and the crew demand a % profit every year because of a little thing called CAPITAL GAIN. They've made a TON of money (via the valuation of the club now versus the buying price.) They don't need to realize the gain by selling because there are things called banks that love to loan out tax free money supported by collateral. BUY, BORROW, DIE. Tax avoidance tip for everyone.

So excuse me if I'm not overwhelmed with the need for them to be making OPERATING profit every year when the value of the team continues to climb.

IlliniSox4Life
10-31-2007, 02:33 AM
Right now or for the next 3-5 years, no I would not pay more. But that's because I'm a broke college student. When I start working than yes, I would pay more. However, I would also have less free time, so instead of paying $15 a ticket and going to maybe 10-15 games a year, I would be willing to pay around $50-100 a ticket and go to 3-6 games a year. Obviously the real numbers depend on what exactly my financial situation is like.

Fenway
10-31-2007, 09:48 AM
The Forbes breakdown shows the Red Sox mindset graphicly.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_Boston-Red-Sox_330700.html
Revenue $234 mil
Operating Inc. $19.5 mil
Player Expenses $146 mil
Gate Receipts $155 mil

Boston will keep their payroll in the same ballpark as ticket revenue knowing all the other revenue will take care of itself. The $234 mil listed as revenue DOES NOT include what the team takes in from NESN it only includes the phantom amount NESN pays the Ped Sox for TV rights ( same as the Cubs and WGN-TV and radio )

Look at the White Sox numbers
Revenue $173 mil
Operating Inc. $19.5 mil
Player Expenses $102 mil
Gate Receipts 7$73 mil

The gate doesn't come close to making the payroll but it certainly looks like JR and Company are doing very nicely. Revenue doesn't include the 20% ownership of CSN ( JR has 40% total with the Bulls )

At the other end of the scale is Kansas City

Revenue $123 mil
Operating Inc. $8.4 mil
Player Expenses $66 mil
Gate Receipts $19 mil

Their owners are just raking in the revenue sharing money. Look how little they spend to operate ( i.e. minor league )

Overall this game is awash in cash.

Fenway
10-31-2007, 04:22 PM
I sent an email out to Andrew Zimbalist who has written many books on the fortunes of baseball.....I asked him if the Forbes numbers were accurate

http://www.smith.edu/economics/fac_azimbalist.html

His response

zimbalist to me

3:55 (18 minutes ago)
No one can afford arod. Forbes is erratic

Daver
10-31-2007, 06:13 PM
What isn't speculation is that Jerry and his group paid $20M and if he sold today the price would be well in excess of $300M. Mucho profit, IMO.



The value of the franchise has no bearing on working revenue from season to season.

Johnny Mostil
10-31-2007, 06:51 PM
I call those "antics" "ways to distract restless kids between innings so they don't drive mom and dad nuts." This is why Comiskey is much more family-friendly than The Urinal.

That's an interesting observation, Dump. This past summer, I took my wife to Yankee Stadium for the second time in her life. The first time we had a three-month-old son with us. This time, we had three kids under 12 years of age. She said she liked the Cel better precisely because it had things like the Fundamentals Deck and all the other "ways to distract restless kids between innings so they don't drive mom and dad nuts." The (then) dozen-straight postseason appearances by the Yanks didn't impress her. (Nor did the bigger price tag for the Yankee tickets.)

So, while I, personally, might "pay more if it meant the White Sox could win all the time" (ignoring the fact that there's no way to guarantee that), it's possible the number of tickets sold to my family would decrease (i.e., I'd be less likely to spend more for the kids to go to the Fundamentals Deck). I've no idea how that demographic tradeoff would play across all the team's fans.

Steelrod
10-31-2007, 07:18 PM
The biggest problem I have with all this profit/loss crap coming out of the whitesox is that its a fallacy. They claim they can only spend what comes into the team via revenue. Its especially crappy if JR and the crew demand a % profit every year because of a little thing called CAPITAL GAIN. They've made a TON of money (via the valuation of the club now versus the buying price.) They don't need to realize the gain by selling because there are things called banks that love to loan out tax free money supported by collateral. BUY, BORROW, DIE. Tax avoidance tip for everyone.

So excuse me if I'm not overwhelmed with the need for them to be making OPERATING profit every year when the value of the team continues to climb.
If you know what you are talking about, I suggest you step up, get some partners, and buy the team. Getting a loan should be no problem for you with your guaranteed profits and increased franchise value.
BTW. Tell your partners that ordinary income is fully taxable, and passive losses are not deductable against anything but passive gains.
You should have little problem finding investors who share your views. Hint; they're the ones who currently own more that one house, with mortgages that exceed their value!

dickallen15
10-31-2007, 08:27 PM
The bottom line is if baseball was a bad business to be in, JR wouldn't be in it. He's a wise man. He's gone through a lot of crap for a guy that's just supposedly looking to break even. It wouldn't be too hard for him and his partners to find someone to take the business off his hands.

FarWestChicago
10-31-2007, 10:04 PM
(and FWLIW, as an accountant, knowing what I do about the new revenue streams, I believe the numbers are in the ballpark).Big deal, you're an accountant. There is nothing in your posting history on this site that would make anybody think you are a competent accountant. So, we basically don't care that you are an accountant. Find a new whining point. Of course, there is no question you are quite the competent whiner. Indeed, you are a master. :thumbsup:

champagne030
10-31-2007, 10:35 PM
Big deal, you're an accountant. There is nothing in your posting history on this site that would make anybody think you are a competent accountant. So, we basically don't care that you are an accountant. Find a new whining point. Of course, there is no question you are quite the competent whiner. Indeed, you are a master. :thumbsup:

I didn't ask you to care (and I specifically stated FWLIW), but you can continue to stick your head in the sand and think everything is great concerning the White Sox. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and leading the Cheerleading squad. :smile:

Daver
10-31-2007, 10:46 PM
I didn't ask you to care (and I specifically stated FWLIW), but you can continue to stick your head in the sand and think everything is great concerning the White Sox. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and leading the Cheerleading squad. :smile:

There is the small basis of truth that cannot be proven by any of us when you make broad statements implying that the White Sox are throwing around nickels like manhole covers, because the simple fact is, you don't know their finances.

What do you and your pals at Forbes know about what they paid the league this year in luxury tax, affiliation fees, etc.?

champagne030
11-01-2007, 06:23 AM
There is the small basis of truth that cannot be proven by any of us when you make broad statements implying that the White Sox are throwing around nickels like manhole covers, because the simple fact is, you don't know their finances.

What do you and your pals at Forbes know about what they paid the league this year in luxury tax, affiliation fees, etc.?

I didn't suggest the Sox are throwing around nickles like manhole covers. A $95M payroll is still $95M. The thread asked if would you pay more for a ticket. I stated to a point because most people understand the Sox are making a tidy profit already and to ask the ticket holder to foot the entire increase in payroll seems out of line. It comes down to would I rather see an owner make obscene amounts of profit and cry that free agents cost too much or do I want the owner to pay market (obscene) amounts for available players? I just want the owner to spend some of their profit rather than saying it's all dependent on me.

The White Sox have never paid a luxury tax.

minutia
11-01-2007, 02:17 PM
Big deal, you're an accountant. There is nothing in your posting history on this site that would make anybody think you are a competent accountant. So, we basically don't care that you are an accountant. Find a new whining point. Of course, there is no question you are quite the competent whiner. Indeed, you are a master. :thumbsup:
Yikes, was this response really necessary? I don't think he is whining at all. He has made very valid points and there is nothing wrong with his notion of needing to tie numbers out. This is a good and intersting thread I don't see any need to get snarky. Just my two cents.

jenn2080
11-01-2007, 02:38 PM
My initial reaction to this question was of course I would pay more, but then I thought about it for a second.

Right now my brother and I pay about $800 a person for our 27 game package. Overall that is not so bad, but I am not sure we could afford much more. If I had to pay a lot more than that to get wins and playoffs all the time, I would probably go less. Baseball is suppose to be Americas past time. Take your family and enjoy a day at the ballpark. It is already hard enough to take a family of four to a game, let's not make it any rougher on families. It should not be about the rich man, it should be about the families. As much as I would love the playoffs every year till the day I die, I also enjoy the excitment of going a game everyday win or lose, the friends you make, the excitment of a homerun, the smell of the park, and being able to sit for 27 + games a year with my brother and enjoy something together that we both love. I love being able to bring my 9 yr old brother to the games and watch him learn the game and love it as much as any of us do. If the ticket prices were sky high I am afraid that kids would not have the experience some of us did in our youth and it is not fair.

So no, as much as I would love to have the A-Rod :puking:, the Santana, and the greatest players on the team, I would much rather have the experience every day I walk in to a park, win or lose.

FarWestChicago
11-01-2007, 08:18 PM
Yikes, was this response really necessary?Yes.

Daver
11-01-2007, 08:32 PM
I didn't suggest the Sox are throwing around nickles like manhole covers. A $95M payroll is still $95M. The thread asked if would you pay more for a ticket. I stated to a point because most people understand the Sox are making a tidy profit already and to ask the ticket holder to foot the entire increase in payroll seems out of line. It comes down to would I rather see an owner make obscene amounts of profit and cry that free agents cost too much or do I want the owner to pay market (obscene) amounts for available players? I just want the owner to spend some of their profit rather than saying it's all dependent on me.

The White Sox have never paid a luxury tax.

You have yet to produce valid numbers that prove the team is making an obscene profit, and we all know why you haven't, because you can't. Speculate all you want, but do not paint with a broad brush unless you can justify it without a doubt, so far you have proven exactly nothing. I can visit this thread two days from now and you will still have proven exactly nothing.

Brian26
11-01-2007, 08:32 PM
Yes.

Just setting up another scorned poster's inevitable meltdown on another message board sometime, somewhere in the future.

Just West being West. :D:

champagne030
11-01-2007, 08:46 PM
You have yet to produce valid numbers that prove the team is making an obscene profit, and we all know why you haven't, because you can't. Speculate all you want, but do not paint with a broad brush unless you can justify it without a doubt, so far you have proven exactly nothing. I can visit this thread two days from now and you will still have proven exactly nothing.

I've given valid numbers proving profit, but if you choose to say Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers then we have nothing to talk about. :gulp:

itsnotrequired
11-01-2007, 08:49 PM
I've given valid numbers proving profit, but if you choose to say Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers then we have nothing to talk about. :gulp:

Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers as they do not have access to the team's balance sheet.

ilsox7
11-01-2007, 09:10 PM
Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers as they do not have access to the team's balance sheet.

And anyone who knows a damn thing about finance knows that unless you can reconcile numbers, they are not even close to reliable.

Brian26
11-01-2007, 09:13 PM
Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers as they do not have access to the team's balance sheet.

I understand Forbes employs a secret network of Bothan spies. They acquired JR's balance sheet around the same time they secured the Death Star plans. :thumbsup:

FarWestChicago
11-01-2007, 10:04 PM
And anyone who knows a damn thing about finance knows that unless you can reconcile numbers, they are not even close to reliable.Champagne is a brilliant accountant. He don't need no stinking numbers to prove his point. Hell, he faked out minutia. :smile:

champagne030
11-01-2007, 10:08 PM
Forbes doesn't produce credible numbers as they do not have access to the team's balance sheet.

And anyone who knows a damn thing about finance knows that unless you can reconcile numbers, they are not even close to reliable.

Can they reconcile to the penny? No. Even to $1M? Who cares. Can they get in the ballpark? Absolutely! The idea that you must have the exact balance sheet or income statement to make your projections credible is, well, bull****.

But, you're right......$6B...it's complete bull****. Uncle Bud is lying, he meant $6M. :rolleyes:

ilsox7
11-01-2007, 10:13 PM
Can they reconcile to the penny? No. Even to $1M? Who cares. Can they get in the ballpark? Absolutely! The idea that you must have the exact balance sheet or income statement to make your projections credible is, well, bull****.

But, you're right......$6B...it's complete bull****. Uncle Bud is lying, he meant $6M. :rolleyes:

As an accountant, if someone gave you a set of financial statements, but refused to tell you the methodology they used to compile the data and admitted that they do not have real information from the entity they are "analyzing," would you accept it at face value? Because that is exactly what Forbes does.

champagne030
11-01-2007, 10:21 PM
Champagne is a brilliant accountant. He don't need no stinking numbers to prove his point. Hell, he faked out minutia. :smile:

I went to a halloween party last night as you. What do think of my costume?

http://www.greattapes.com/pix/products/pollyanna-2.jpg

FarWestChicago
11-01-2007, 10:29 PM
As an accountant, if someone gave you a set of financial statements, but refused to tell you the methodology they used to compile the data and admitted that they do not have real information from the entity they are "analyzing," would you accept it at face value? Because that is exactly what Forbes does.You know Champagne. He doesn't need to let facts interfere with his hating.

FarWestChicago
11-01-2007, 10:29 PM
I went to a halloween party last night as you. What do think of my costume?

I think it looks just like you.

champagne030
11-01-2007, 10:31 PM
As an accountant, if someone gave you a set of financial statements, but refused to tell you the methodology they used to compile the data and admitted that they do not have real information from the entity they are "analyzing," would you accept it at face value? Because that is exactly what Forbes does.

They don't refuse to tell the methodology. They get information from the people providing revenue streams outside of attendance. Sure, if someone told me "I got those revenue numbers from my own ideas" then they're very suspect. They go to the companies paying MLB. It's not difficult to find this stuff out either. Hmmm, 31% of all local revenue, less stadium debt, goes into a fund and 75% of that is distributed equally among all teams. You really think it's that difficult for Forbes to find out from WSCR, or their parent company, what that contract calls for? Come on? You said you came from finance and you think their numbers are insane?

ilsox7
11-01-2007, 10:43 PM
They don't refuse to tell the methodology. They get information from the people providing revenue streams outside of attendance. Sure, if someone told me "I got those revenue numbers from my own ideas" then they're very suspect. They go to the companies paying MLB. It's not difficult to find this stuff out either. Hmmm, 31% of all local revenue, less stadium debt, goes into a fund and 75% of that is distributed equally among all teams. You really think it's that difficult for Forbes to find out from WSCR, or their parent company, what that contract calls for? Come on? You said you came from finance and you think their numbers are insane?

Forbes is notorious for not being clear about their methodology when valuing teams. Here's a good link (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-managing-the-value-of-ballclubs-part-2/)that walks through a lot of issues with Forbes.

As you'll see in that link, the revenue streams are a lot easier to decipher than expenses.

In sum, Forbes seems to do an okay job with its revenue estimates. In all fairness this shouldn’t be too difficult as revenue numbers are easy to sense check. All you need to know is attendance, a bit about the TV deal and the stadium situation.

However, as that link correctly points out, there is little data available to base expenses on.

Here lies a big problem. Forbes calculates values based on adjusted revenue multiples. Forbes’ data are okay but by no means perfect—the fact that the Forbes valuations don't tie with sale prices tell us so!

That last line brings up the issue of how accurate these Forbes numbers really are when comparing their estimated team value versus ACTUAL sales prices.

And finally, a good summation of my position re: Forbes.

I just ask two things. One that the baseball community doesn’t blithely accept the Forbes numbers at face value. We question many other analyses so why not this? And two, that Forbes becomes more open about how it arrives at valuations and what specific factors result in the difference in valuation between two teams.

Daver
11-01-2007, 10:45 PM
They don't refuse to tell the methodology. They get information from the people providing revenue streams outside of attendance. Sure, if someone told me "I got those revenue numbers from my own ideas" then they're very suspect. They go to the companies paying MLB. It's not difficult to find this stuff out either. Hmmm, 31% of all local revenue, less stadium debt, goes into a fund and 75% of that is distributed equally among all teams. You really think it's that difficult for Forbes to find out from WSCR, or their parent company, what that contract calls for? Come on? You said you came from finance and you think their numbers are insane?


I'm a plumber, and I would not expect Forbes to be even close, not within a million dollars, probably more, a lot more.

voodoochile
11-01-2007, 11:06 PM
Not really interested in the revenue stream argument going on, but I did want to point something out...

I don't think either the BoSox or Yankees are having any problems drawing fans even at the much higher prices said fans are paying.

From a personal perspective, most of us might not be happy if box seats behind the Sox dugout suddenly jumped to $100/game, but it's not like it would happen over night anyway.

Most of the fans in question might be forced to buy bleacher tickets or (gawd forbid) upperdeck reserved seats to continue to go and then they would make the decision as to whether that was a worthwhile entertainment return on their investment.

However, once again, the cart is in front of the horse and thus it isn't going anywhere.

Regardless of payroll, the Sox (and all entertainment companies) will only charge what the market will bear. If the Sox were to suddently sign ARod and Schilling and trade for Santana and Crawford and then go on a 5 year rip of making the playoffs every year and winning 4 WS titles over that span of time, the demand for tickets would skyrocket and thus so would the price of those tickets.

Heck, if they managed to acquire all of those players demand would start to zoom up immediately simply based on the prospect of them being great for several years to come. Yet, the team could ill afford to simply try to recoup all of their expenditures in the form of increased seat prices. They certainly couldn't do it this year regardless of who they signed because people are already renewing.

Doubling the cost of every LD box seat next off season wouldn't help them increase revenue because a LOT of people would simply tell them to stick it and doubtful they'd be able to recoup all of those lost seats in one off season, so the increases would be steady and dramatic, but not sudden and mind blowing.

However, if they consistently were pennant contenders and were winning a couple of WS titles every decade, the prices would go up regardless of whether they had a payroll in excess of 150M. That would be because demand would increase and drive prices higher.

So like I said, whether you personally would pay the money, the Sox certainly would have no shortage of people willing to in a town the size of Chicago and they'd grab all the loot they could because that's what businesses do.

FarWestChicago
11-01-2007, 11:12 PM
So like I said, whether you personally would pay the money, the Sox certainly would have no shortage of people willing to in a town the size of Chicago and they'd grab all the loot they could because that's what businesses do.Settle down, Voo. Lip assures us the Sox make over $100 million in profit each year. Champagne is less specific, which is odd for being perhaps the world's foremost expert on accounting, but implies there are several tens of millions of dollars of hidden profit. So, the Sox don't even need to raise prices at all to spend Wrong Sox/Skanks money on payroll. They are already making it! :thumbsup:

Frater Perdurabo
11-02-2007, 07:17 AM
I went to a halloween party last night as you. What do think of my costume?

http://www.greattapes.com/pix/products/pollyanna-2.jpg

Not taking sides in this one, but I love this post. :rolling:

Fenway
11-02-2007, 11:03 AM
I think every baseball fan should read this.

I think one reason I love going to AAA Pawtucket is you are just there for the game. It is not life and death if the team wins.

Most of my life all I wanted from the Red Sox was to be still alive at Labor Day. Now most years it is a given.

My family's tickets were $16 in 1996...now they are $85 ( and I'm sure they will go up again next year )

I'm lucky as I get to work at the games but if I had a real job I wonder how many games I would go to now.

I wish the bandwagon fans would leave but it would take a 60 win season for that to happen and it is doubtful that will ever happen in Boston ever again.

Baseball needs a salary cap or otherwise NYY and Boston will always be in the hunt.





My initial reaction to this question was of course I would pay more, but then I thought about it for a second.

Right now my brother and I pay about $800 a person for our 27 game package. Overall that is not so bad, but I am not sure we could afford much more. If I had to pay a lot more than that to get wins and playoffs all the time, I would probably go less. Baseball is suppose to be Americas past time. Take your family and enjoy a day at the ballpark. It is already hard enough to take a family of four to a game, let's not make it any rougher on families. It should not be about the rich man, it should be about the families. As much as I would love the playoffs every year till the day I die, I also enjoy the excitment of going a game everyday win or lose, the friends you make, the excitment of a homerun, the smell of the park, and being able to sit for 27 + games a year with my brother and enjoy something together that we both love. I love being able to bring my 9 yr old brother to the games and watch him learn the game and love it as much as any of us do. If the ticket prices were sky high I am afraid that kids would not have the experience some of us did in our youth and it is not fair.

So no, as much as I would love to have the A-Rod :puking:, the Santana, and the greatest players on the team, I would much rather have the experience every day I walk in to a park, win or lose.

voodoochile
11-02-2007, 11:23 AM
I think every baseball fan should read this.

I think one reason I love going to AAA Pawtucket is you are just there for the game. It is not life and death if the team wins.

Most of my life all I wanted from the Red Sox was to be still alive at Labor Day. Now most years it is a given.

My family's tickets were $16 in 1996...now they are $85 ( and I'm sure they will go up again next year )

I'm lucky as I get to work at the games but if I had a real job I wonder how many games I would go to now.

I wish the bandwagon fans would leave but it would take a 60 win season for that to happen and it is doubtful that will ever happen in Boston ever again.

Baseball needs a salary cap or otherwise NYY and Boston will always be in the hunt.

See this just sounds like whining to me. "I can't keep my box seat that I love, so I'll just not go to games anymore."

Both you and Jenn could still go to games. Heck, both of you could both still sit in the lower deck if you wanted to, but you'd simply have to move and again, even if the Sox payroll was half of what it is now if they were on the type of tear they have been these seats would still cost exactly what they do now, the owner would simply be putting the money in his pocket instead of the player's pockets.

High end payroll does NOT mean higher prices. Winning means higher prices. Yes, more payroll gives your team a better chance at winning and making the playoffs on a yearly basis, but any team that consistently makes a run at the pennant is going to see higher ticket prices provided they have the population to draw on. Boston is not only a big city, it's got a huge national following and a long storied history - even if that history includes many heart breaking endings.

Now if Minnesota or Kansas City managed to go on a tear like Boston has, they probably wouldn't get the same increases because demand would never climb to the level it has for the BoSox.

That's what it comes down to. That's what it will always come down to. Demand drives prices. Winning championships drives demand. You cannot have one without the other.

It kind of reminds me of the arguments that used to break out about attendance. Everyone wanted higher attendance and people were willing to rag about it. The minute the Sox got hot and won the WS, people started ragging on the lines at concession stands and the bathrooms and the number of bandwagon jumpers.

Everyone wants a winner, but it's not going to allow you all of the same freedom as a loser gives you to stroll around a half filled park on a nice summer day and it's not going to come free regardless of the size of the payroll.

So, in the end the question really becomes, "do you want the Sox to win?"

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Honestly, Fenway, would you really trade your two WS titles in the last 4 years for lower ticket prices? :?:

It's Dankerific
11-02-2007, 03:10 PM
The team isn't for sale. And you're not thinking clearly if you don't think there would be SEVERAL groups trying to buy the team, even if god forbid, a bank had to be involved.

How you misunderstand tax principles, (Taking out a loan is tax free, debt service for a business is tax deductible), and equate that with over valuing real estate, is confusing at best. The fact that a new ownership group would overvalue the team, or that a bank could loan the team/owners more money than the team is worth is an example of you trying to put forth a logical fallacy (by taking the argument to absurd extremes.) Asking that the owners not insist on making a yearly take home profit when they're all rich and are sitting on an already highly appreciated asset does not equal asking them to take out a huge loan for the value of the team and spend it immediately.

PS. Lots of successful people own more than one house/real estate property/stocks, have debt service on that property, and live off of the increased capital appreciation of their property while minimizing their tax liability. Because you'd rather work a job and pay 50% or so to the government on tax of your labor is your own choice. I appreciate you funding the services that the rest of us enjoy.


If you know what you are talking about, I suggest you step up, get some partners, and buy the team. Getting a loan should be no problem for you with your guaranteed profits and increased franchise value.
BTW. Tell your partners that ordinary income is fully taxable, and passive losses are not deductable against anything but passive gains.
You should have little problem finding investors who share your views. Hint; they're the ones who currently own more that one house, with mortgages that exceed their value!

Fenway
11-02-2007, 03:13 PM
Honestly, Fenway, would you really trade your two WS titles in the last 4 years for lower ticket prices? :?:

Of course not
Waited a lifetime for this.

Plus I know they will not go 86 yeras without winning it again.

Daver
11-02-2007, 05:00 PM
The only purpose a salary cap serves is to guarantee the owners profit margin.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2007, 05:13 PM
Agreed.

Lip

Steelrod
11-02-2007, 07:31 PM
The team isn't for sale. And you're not thinking clearly if you don't think there would be SEVERAL groups trying to buy the team, even if god forbid, a bank had to be involved.

How you misunderstand tax principles, (Taking out a loan is tax free, debt service for a business is tax deductible), and equate that with over valuing real estate, is confusing at best. The fact that a new ownership group would overvalue the team, or that a bank could loan the team/owners more money than the team is worth is an example of you trying to put forth a logical fallacy (by taking the argument to absurd extremes.) Asking that the owners not insist on making a yearly take home profit when they're all rich and are sitting on an already highly appreciated asset does not equal asking them to take out a huge loan for the value of the team and spend it immediately.

PS. Lots of successful people own more than one house/real estate property/stocks, have debt service on that property, and live off of the increased capital appreciation of their property while minimizing their tax liability. Because you'd rather work a job and pay 50% or so to the government on tax of your labor is your own choice. I appreciate you funding the services that the rest of us enjoy.
Boy, have you got the wrong guy!