Jump to content

rferry

Members
  • Content Count

    13,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rferry

  • Rank
    Marlin
  • Birthday 06/02/1982
  1. It's kind of pointless to draw too much of a conclusion from these financials - at a baseline I have trouble how anyone can state that they are doing well financially Also, one thing I noticed above that definitely needs to be restated is that accumulated deficit =/= total debt Deficits do go into total debt though
  2. Isnt there still some contention that a large portion, if not most(and if not all) of the debt is from the previous ownership of Montreal? That would seem unlikely. Only way to know is to see past year's statements. We can attempt to estimate the P/L figures. Forbes has already made their own estimates and show significant losses from the 2002-07 Marlins. An easy to back into the profit/loss figures is to pick a few variables to change and assume everything else has remained equal. In 2009 and 2008 the net income was $3.9 and $29.4 million. Average that out to $16.7 million. Let's c
  3. The idea that Revenue sharing cannot be used to pay down debt is asinine. Money is fungible, if the team pays down debt at all, the argument could be made that revenue sharing money is used for it. This is a problem in non-profit and government contracting. It's solved by applying necessary matching funds. States and municipalities call them by another term: un(der)funded mandates.
  4. Meh, don't read much into this statement. The team has always twisted things around to make themselves sound better rather than admit some misdeeds, as they should. Loria likes to make a profit, and sometimes I believe, like many other have speculated for years, that Loria pockets some of the money made. The financial records in no way shows that Loria actually pocketed the money, but it can somewhat be assumed based on Loria's character and history. I don't claim to be an expert on this matter, this is simply an opinion of mine. You understand the financial reports would have been
  5. Some pitchers come back from Tommy John with even more speed on their fastballs. Can you even imagine if that happened with Strasburg?
  6. You may have heard that the Marlins dug up the home plate and sent it to Roy Halladay to commemorate his perfect game. You may have also heard that the home plate has just been lying around in a box in his Philadelphia residence. Three months and many opportunities to have it framed or sent to his main home in Florida, he let it languish in a box. Finally the home plate receives a proper home. Roy Halladay regifted it to his catcher Carlos Ruiz. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100826&content_id=13950574&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb First, Halladay was pre
  7. They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos. Your charge was the same as the minority owners who took Loria to court. Loria won the case and the judge ripped into the claims of the minority owners. For you to continue with that charge shows you have no respect for truth and facts, only malice.
  8. Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement. Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale. Where'd you find the Baseball Stadium Agreement? I couldn't find the up to date version anywhere, just the original. That information, and more details of the agreement, are in the financial statements starting around Page 40 or so under note AB.
  9. My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking? Yes. But there's provisions that say if Loria sells the team in the first 7 years the City and County get a large portion of the profits. I don't exactly remember what the numbers are but the point is that it's not in Loria's best financial interest to sell the team once they build the stadium. I thought that was one of the issues on which Loria would not bend,
  10. What happened was this: John Henry, our former owner, was fed up with his failed efforts to get the politicians to build him a new stadium. The former minority Yankee owner jumped at the chance to buy the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. But he couldn't own two teams. So MLB's solution was to have Henry sell to Loria, who had driven the Expos into the ground, then buy the Expos from Loria for MLB. A few years later (after all 29 teams operated the Expos), MLB sold the Expos franchise to an ownership group in Washington, DC. That's a little harsh. Loria was brought in in 2000. After the
  11. I just started law school so I gather at some point Ill be hearing about all this. But just based on the statements and the general idea ive got from this thread that they did make money around 50 million the last two years and yet are still in the red (61 million) i think that much of the debt they have was from the Expo days. if that wasnt the case ud hear Samson all over the radio telling us how they are still in the red as an organization and what not. The only thing Ive heard from him is that they were saving the money to put towards the stadium. If he hasnt made that argument yet (
  12. Since financials are so hard to understand even with a degree in the field, how one interprets a report like this is going to be heavily influenced by any bias coming in Actually financial statements like these are designed to be understood by the common person that invests the appropriate time to read, understand and compare them. And when a CPA validates them you can be certain that they're prepared in respect to the industry guidelines. Sure you gain better insight with the more information you have (which is why insider trading is frowned upon.) However, it should be little problem for
  13. I can't help but say we've had this conversation before when the Forbes' *estimates* came out showing a similar trend: losses every year going back in 2001 and earlier followed by a huge profits recently. Many posters and bloggers ran with the latter, forgetting the former (even when they summed up to nearly 0) to characterize the ownership, franchise and market in a bad light. Now we see the real numbers, and some of the same people doing the same stupid thing. Nonetheless I'll give them credit somewhere: the market appears much worse than expected. Concessions, parking are terrible - we know
  14. New York Mets - Johan Santana Does not count. He was acquired in a pre-arranged deal to trade him elsewhere all within a day's worth of transactions. We wanted and got Camp, who was considered a better prospect. It's like saying Anfernee Hardaway is a former Golden State Warrior. Now maybe I could hear an argument for Camp's significance on the Twins' organization or Chris Webber on the Magic. But the same argument can not be made for the Marlins and Santana or Warriors and Hardaway.
  15. You dont bunt with your biggest run producer in that situation,,,as much I believe Fredi is a subpar manager i believe he had to let Ramirez hit away but do you understand my point? Chances of manufacturing a run helped by a Ramirez bunt are about equal to the chance Hanley could have won the game right then.
×
×
  • Create New...