rferry

man im gonna miss those miguel olivo 9th inning homers.. cmon guys with less strikouts u know that hes a pretty decent player, that is assigned to the catcher position, with the bat Fixed your post

If it was after the World Series he could have used that money to bridge the funding gap. This fact doesn't really change much. WHAT FACT?!?!?! YOU SLAY ME. Really. The fact that you have some little thing that through 500 turns you an twist around to attack ownership? Here's I'll give you fact, or rumor, or statement by some nutjob or irresponsible reporting for you to run with: Samson eats babies. That should keep you busy for a few weeks. Then maybe you can move onto this fact: Owners are entitled to the profits of a business.

The whole Vegas (gambling) v. Porn discussion is really pointless. The only way this issue becomes even remotely relevant is if 4 purely speculative outcomes all come true: 1) The rumor posted is true 2) Conditional on the rumor being true, Loria's penalty is more significant than a mere slap on the wrist 3) Conditional on 1 and 2, Loria decides/is forced to sell the team 4) Condtional on 1, 2, and 3, Bell expresses a real interest and is the highest bidder. That's like arguing over the Hall of Fame's guidelines regarding what team a player goes into the Hall under in the context of a discussion about whether Cameron Maybin will go into the Hall of Fame as a Florida Marlin, which was initiated by someone citing a single scout's opinion that Maybin has the requisite skills to be a special/Hall of Fame caliber talent. Messageboards are made for pointless discussions. So, what do people think Maybin should have for his song as he steps to the plate?

I believe the Marlins were losing money prior to 2006, but they did not lose as much money as they claim. I think their day to day operations now end up earning them a nice profit ($10-15 million), but revenue sharing and the $25 million they received from MLB.com really brought up their profits. I think their profits are probably closer to $45-50 million now. And try as you might, rferry, the truth of the matter is that revenue sharing and the money from mlb.com are part of the business. The Marlins are a part of a larger business enterprise which allows them to collect revenues that come from sources outside the franchise's day to day activities. You simply cannot ignore money that consistenly comes in from other sources. They receive a lot of money that does not originate from their day to day operations. I am not sure how you can say otherwise or claim that that money means nothing. In addition, the revenue sharing money and money from mlb.com is intended to benefit the entire sport. In turn, the Marlins should be required to invest in the product they field, as well as their own stadium, so that the overal MLB pie continues to grow and be profitable. How exactly are the Marlins benefitting MLB as an enterprise by not investing in its players and on a stadium? The sport would be better off if the Marlins made an actual commitment to its players, the city, and its fans. If they did that, the fans would increase their support over time. If you want interest in your product you make it better. You don't tell your fans that the produce sucks because they don't go to games. Do you ever hear Ford saying, "our cars are not as good as other cars because you don't buy our cars!" Or some shampoo company railing on consumers for not buying their shampoo. Conceptually, and in practice, that's no way to do business. A well run Marlins franchise is better for MLB: more competitive races, higher ratings for the sport, excitement in many cities, etc. So, rather than contributing to the sports' success, the Marlins are leeching off the hard work and commitment of other franchises. That is sad. If I were an owner I would be appalled. Of course the Marlins would be substantially better off if their day to day operations were very profitable (say, to the tune of $30 million). No one is going to argue otherwise. But to ignore revenue sharing and profits from mlb.com is completely assinine. BS is BS, whether it's coming from Samson's mouth or that of his distractors. Each need to be questioned. So you're telling me that the Marlins should be content that all their revenue streams aside from revenue sharing are underperforming? To even get MLB welfare, a team must be producing low revenues. I don't see how their before revenue-sharing profit suddnely because meaningless. It says EVERYTHING about its operations, the market and the profitability of the Marlins' local operations! The only people who shouldn't care about that difference are those just happy to have MLB in South Florida. Those include some fans, and to a point, the majority of MLB's owners who support Loria's use of revenue sharing to keep the 30th team solvent. But that is not Loria (OR ANY OWNERSHIP OF THE FRANCHISE)'s interests. Nor is it some from MLB's offices. The Marlins need to be profitable before revenue sharing, otherwise there's no point of operating it. If signing Delgado or a World Series results in a loss before, what's the difference between that and a $10M wreck? Not much. I don't know about you, but I'm not in love with the Florida part of the Florida Marlins to love a perpetual $10M wreck because it exists here. I want something more. Seems like you do too. Your qualms are who should give more. That's why the club and county and city are NEGOTIATING. That's why MLB's central office is involved. What you're arguing is that the Marlins should give up any leverage they have to accept a deal that may not be in their interests. Like what was said in the other thread ( http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...showtopic=78747 ), you are not putting yourselves in the shoes of the Marlins. Corporate welfare has a well-established history in baseball and is the basis of all recent ballpark construction. Even in cases of the Giants and Yankees, huge tracts of land or services were gifted to them by municipality. The Marlins would be fools to request anything less. And by doing so, would be merely screwing themselves in the foot.

The critics have merely pointed to 2006, and at times 2003-2004 receipts, as examples of the Marlins earning substantial profits. However, by the Marlins and MLB's own admission, the Marlins lost $20M in 2003 however other reports say that revenue sharing covered that gap. Forbes' estimates back that up. By the Marlins' own admission, the 2005-6 restructuring was a market correction. Once again, Forbes' estimates back that up. You can point out any year and make any statement you want. I could twist this whole discussion around and claim the Marlins lost X amount in year X, but that means nothing as to what they have done or will do. That's as faulty of an analysis as saying player sucks for going 0/4 in one game. (So, I guess that makes Loria's a league-average hitter, maybe earned more runs than he should because of batting order he plays in. Although he's got a World Series ring, he hasn't really established himself, but the team is supportive of his cause and likes his dedication to the team's goals.)

Probably better than the Guillen trade, although not by much unless Andruw bounces back big time.

Well, there's the Marlins. And MLB. You can look at their numbers from 2001. And if you don't believe them, you can make an genuine effort to read and understand Forbes' estimates. And if you want even more, you can start reading news reports, Zimbalist, Pappas, Maury Brown and so on. Minor league baseball economics I'm not quite up on, but each minor league team has its owners and they assume all local and league revenues and operating expenses. MLB teams cover all of the coaches and players' salaries though. From numbers I've seen quoted on the Reds' board, player development expenses can stretch into the dozens of millions of dollars FWIW. But no revenues? Don't the Marlins own the Jupiter club? Sure, the Gulf Coast club probably sucks money, but the FSL sells tickets and hot dogs (although probably not $60M of them).

To hide revenue, you must first have revenue. It is also widely known that the lease terms restrict the Marlins' stadium revenue. Whatever revenue they could hide would have to involve arrangements too complex to not show up in Forbes' simple estimation. There's no way of knowing exactly what the Yankees or Red Sox or Marlins get for their broadcast rights (one of the largest sources of local revenue sources) except the public information. The Marlins can not hide their broadcast revenues like the Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox can. Nor can they hide any national revenues (the only other significant source of revenue relevant to the Marlins), or atleast that wouldn't also affect the rest of the league, coincidentially that they rank dead last in revenue. IrishHarrington, you were done with me before you even started. For the last couple of years, you've ignored the overwhelming evidence and chosen to believe your simple analysis of "look at all the revenues". You have never sought out to answer where it's all going (or, if it's even coming in). And when confronted with the facts, you deny, deny, deny. I admire your faith. In what, I don't know and may never know, because by all accounts, whatever you believe is not supported by the testimony of involved parties or observations of objective parties. Unicorns and leprechuans have more evidence behind them than your belief the Marlins' owners have profited substantial sums since acquiring ownership. IFesta, I'm well aware of the purposes of reveue sharing. I could argue that it's within the spirit of the rule to dedicate one year's receipts to other years. The classic example of that is the Jim Thome contract the Phillies signed. Yet MLB seems perfectly content for the owner of the Marlins to redirect revenue sharing transfers to keep the franchise solvent. It's a simple compromise. Do you think MLB could find an owner to stake any financial interest in the Marlins if it meant he'd lose money out of pocket each year?

Yet you seem perfectly content to sit back and throw greandes at the Marlins by suggesting they are profiting. How do you know? Like I said, all evidence suggests otherwise. BTW, The Yankees don't need any help. It is widely assumed they're hiding revenue with the YES Network. And if that weren't enough, they'll be able to reduce their revenue sharing contributions (and thus hurting the Marlins, or its owners' bottom line) by investing in a new ballpark, which will (surprise) allow them to earn more revenue.

I thought I just did. What exactly was your question? If you want, you can look at Forbes' estimates yourself and do the math. The historical snapshot to the bottom shows you the operating income, net of revenue sharing. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_...ins_336786.html It clearly shows that while 2006 was profitable (NET OF REVENUE SHARING), the team has posted insignificant profits (NET OF REVENUE SHARING) over Loria's tenure. The only explanation for why 2006 bucked the trend is because of the radical restructuring. And that, however you slice it, is a sad statement on the Marlins, not its ownership. This picture that is provided is incomplete because it does not give the NET Income aka the bottom line , the revenues listed dont appear to include all sources of revenue as their defintion suggests 4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. Non operating revenues are not included in these calculations and those revenue sources are significant. BTW if you use operating expense the Yankees have lost 138 million dollars over the last 4 year if that is true they would not be in business Reading comprehension, much? Revenues include stadium revenues net of debt payments along with other revenue streams like broadcast rights contracts and so on. Need more proof? Look at the Expos/Nationals' numbers. A $60M jump can not be explained if you knew a damn thing about RFK Stadium. There's no luxury suites at RFK, scant advertising space, nothing at all. $60M can not be from hot dogs. Do the Marlins have any stadium debt? Wait, the Marlins don't even have a stadium they have ANY financial stake in so how can they have stadium debt? Exactly, they don't. Which means no stadium revenues (which were already restrained by lease terms) were deducted by debt payments. Forbes' operating income is essentially cash-basis net income before taxes and interest and without regard to accrual practices for depreciation and amortization. It is the same exact category that critics of Loria have pointed to say that the Marlins are profitable (NOT without revenue sharing) and that Loria is making money. Never was had you before questioned the figure in debates despite being an active participant and proponent of arguments based on the figure. While Forbes may have its critics (myself included), it is an objective opinion. It beats your assessments of "look at all the revenues, look at player payroll, they must be making ridiculous profits." The only thing ridiculous is how you came to and support your conclusions. Like I said in the other thread, it kills me how people refuse to believe the Marlins can not operate like a MLB team when the reports of 2 owners, MLB and Forbes all suggest otherwise. When people are asked to answer the anecdotal evidence, they act in denial and suggest the Marlins would be able to operate like a real MLB team if not for their owner. The Marlins don't operate like a MLB team, because they can't. They make drastic moves like this, because they have to.

If it's there for the taking, you'd be stupid to pass it up.

Spoken like the true Florida fan you are. The facts tell the story. The Marlins are unprofitable without MLB welfare and their local revenues (from their lease to pathetic broadcast rights contracts) are disappointing. There's a reason why the franchise was rumored to be contracted. You think this team demands ownership or the market a franchise? If not for the promise of profitable future, there would be no Florida team for you to root for. Thankfully that promise still exists. And when it does, the Marlins will be able to operate like the MLB team we all hope they can be.

What does it take to get this piece of garbage out of here. It is so obvious what he's doing. How can Selig sit there and let this happen. I'm so heated. I can't take it anymore. PLEASE LET LORIA GET HIT BY A BUS PLEASE. It doesn't deserve this team If anything, the Marlins don't deserve an owner and South Florida doesn't deserve a franchise. But what are you going to do? To fill out the schedule and any semblance of objectivity on the part of the league, you got to have both.

Protecting the herd as it may. You know what slays me though. People read articles like this. And ALL they get from it is that Loria and MLB is deceitful. It's like they're in perpetual disbelief that a MLB team's finances can be that screwed up. All we hear every year is MLB signing this and that contract, this or that team selling for this much, earning that much, paying that much. They dream that the Marlins can be that, so glad that MLB actually exists in South Florida that they can't fathom that the Marlins can not operate like a MLB team.

And yet MLB hasn't complained.

I thought I just did. What exactly was your question? If you want, you can look at Forbes' estimates yourself and do the math. The historical snapshot to the bottom shows you the operating income, net of revenue sharing. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_...ins_336786.html It clearly shows that while 2006 was profitable (NET OF REVENUE SHARING), the team has posted insignificant profits (NET OF REVENUE SHARING) over Loria's tenure. The only explanation for why 2006 bucked the trend is because of the radical restructuring. And that, however you slice it, is a sad statement on the Marlins, not its ownership.

Well, congratulations. I expect MLB believes the city and county will cave in to a better deal.

Then they shouldn't complain about reducing his losses to 0 either. In today's game, teams are expected to operate themselves, not leech off the owner's bank account.

Revenue sharing that season was approximately $30 million. That means their operating income (excluding revenue sharing) that season was about $13 million. They made a profit that season without revenue sharing. You stated they operate at a loss. That's false. Revenue sharing is also part of the business model. Just like revenue sharing is part of the Yankees' model, Red Sox, etc., and they plan accordingly. Damn shame. The team has cut player expenses $60M just to be profitable. That tells me that the club was operating poorly in previous years. So, let's look back at other years, shall we? Oh losses of $12, $12 and $14 million and profits of $3 million, once again all net of revenue sharing, in the preceding 4 years. Wait, I'm sorry. How dare I justify such a radical restructuring. I forgot MLB owners weren't allowed to profit. Heck, they're not even allowed to reduce their overall losses to 0. Loria is a saint for losing dozens of millions of dollars in those 3 years. And is evil for profiting in that single year. It all makes sense now.

Who me? Try you. From that very same site: "Revenues and operating income are for 2006 season and are net of revenue sharing." Count it up and that's $9M of profits, net of revenue sharing, during the entire 5-year period Loria has owned the Marlins. Therefore Forbes is saying that: -The Marlins operate at a loss before revenue sharing. - Revenue sharing is necessary to keep them solvent. - Other revenue streams (such as stadium revenues) are scant. - Loria has neither gained or lost substantial amounts of money from his pocket. Now what did I say above that you find dishonest?

MLB and its owners wouldn't have it any other way. Loia is just one of those 30 right now. And any one who would replace him would have to be accepted into their ranks. Honestly, if you were in their position, would you do it any differently? Look at the press they're receiving around the league. The Marlins' situation doesn't even register a blip. Even when it or the Royals or Pirates does, MLB receives a fraction of the blame. And when your investments are growing and growing, why even stop to consider the thoughts of us, fans of the Marlins or anything but their bottomline and keeping the boys' club intact?

if the taxpayers are dumb enough to buy this guy a brand spanking new stadium, why on earth would he agree to sell the team? giving this cheapskate a stadium would be the death of baseball in south florida, because it would ensure that Loria would be able to maintain ownership forever. He could now anyways thanks to revenue sharing keeping them solvent. His initial investment means absolutely nothing. All that matters now is the franchise value. With a new profitable ballpark, it goes through te roof. Maybe keep the team and the incredibly profitable first years of the park. But there's not much incentive for Loria (or any owner in a similar situation) at any point thereafter.

It can't be any worse than the situation the team is in right now. It would be an upgrade, regardless. An upgrade will eventually come anyways. A marginally better situation for the next 30 years may not be worth losing out on a significantly better situation for 30 years 2 years from now. BTW, that goes for the city and county as well as the team.

Spike, if you had been following along for, oh, say, the past 5 years (we know you were too busy with other enemies before launching this recent effort), or had done any objective research at all, you might just be able to make a valuable contribution to the boards. But as it is, you rely on your misguided understanding of the economics of the sport, a series half-truths culled from other posters and columnists and personal attacks to fan the flames. Your desperate attempts to provide an answer the Marlins' plight and relate their circumstances to other teams and Hollywood movies clearly shows your ignorance on the issue. As the Marlins (under Loria and Henry), MLB and Forbes all claim. The Marlins operate at a loss. Revenue sharing is necessary to keep them solvent. The ballpark brings in scant revenue. Loria has neither gained or lost substantial amounts of money from his pocket. Miami is still a largely untapped market. A profitable ballpark, greater broadcast rights contract and interest in the team would increase their yearly revenues and overall franchise value. My suggestion to you is to start your research. You'll find it goes well beyond your 3rd grade math.

While that sounds perfect, I'd be concerned hampening future profits and resale value by increasing their contribution. Especially if fears that the Orange Bowl location will not generate expected revenues. A quick fix that isn't a fix at all is a waste of money, worse - it may bite you in the ass later.