rferry

No rebuttal needed. Last I checked team finances and those of its owners were divorced from one another. The conclusion people are making that Loria is siphoning off funds from the Marlins to give to Yale is based on the false conclusion that Loria's personal assets, or any properly managed dividends he IS entitled to, belong to the team. They don't. This isn't the 1950s. Baseball is big business. Teams operate their own finances. Even in pathetic situations like the Marlins at JRS/PPS/DS.

If you're trying to prove that owners cut payroll and worthwhile investments below what they can afford to gain undue profits, then you have a hard argument to make. In operating a professional sport team, owners stand to gain more by expanding their revenue sources than cutting payroll. That's one way of doing it. The other way, the painful one for fans, and the one you refuse to understand, is that an owner can increase his profits by simply slashing payroll to minimum levels as was the case with the '06 Marlins. By Loria slashing payroll by $45 million he improved his bottom line from a loss position to a $43 million profit. That is because revenue from operations (and every thing besides revenue sharing transfers) are scant and the team's ability to expand (likewise, shrink) them is extremely limited. This is not the case under favorable lease terms. In a new proftiable situation, the Marlins sell more tickets, more concessions, more parking, more box suites, more advertising, more broadcasts, more everything when the team garners more attention by winning or signing a player. In that situation, a team that cuts payroll may be cutting expenses, but risk losing even more in revenue. This isn't unique to the Marlins either. A team like the Red Sox, Yankees or Cubs whose revenue sources remain steady or always increasing whether they're World Champs or .500 stand to benefit by implementing cost cutting measures. Cape, I believe when DC and MLB were negotiating, there was talk of MLB or team making up the difference in the amount that was necessary for the city to make its obligations.

That's pure bulls***. They are realizing these revenues. They're not realizing those revenues like the Yankees, Red Sox, or even a middle team like the White Sox. However, there is no doubt in my mind the team is raking in revenues of $100M or more. They're clearly making money. That's pure bulls***. From Forbes' figures (and MLB's released statements from earlier), the Marlins rank dead last in the majors in revenue. According to Forbes, the closest among division peers are the Nationals, playing in a park with scant amenities yet able to realize over $20M more. Those same sources point to the Marlins barely breaking even. $9M profit AFTER revenue sharing over 5 years.

Perhaps I'm missing something in those figures and those of other teams cited, but I see an initial investment that trailed off due to 1. reduced revenue potential by reduced attendance, 2. rebuilding for the sake of winning. The only argument you can make is Pittsburgh, and in their case, they're on the hook for a significant contribution, saw attendance drop very shortly after opening and are in perpetual rebuilding. If you're trying to prove that teams make their most significant investments coinciding with the opening of a new stadium, congratulations. You've won the common sense awatd. A new stadium attracts many new fans that allow for greater investment and is the opportune time to build a fan base. If you're trying to prove that owners cut payroll and worthwhile investments below what they can afford to gain undue profits, then you have a hard argument to make. In operating a professional sport team, owners stand to gain more by expanding their revenue sources than cutting payroll.

Makes me sad that the Marlins can not realize these revenues, and that in attaining the meager amount they do, they assume unnecessary costs from the lease.

I don't think the city / county should do a deal without payroll strings. Other teams have cut payroll after getting new stadiums and given Loria's track record I wouldn't be surprised if he did it as well. Name them. The only ones I can think of were after salary increases and as part of rebuilding plans (Brewers). Frankly, good for teams investing in something besides million dollar 30-something reserves and talentless middle relievers with names. Weeks, Fielder and Hardy are awesome regardless of their pay rate.

Every team signs guys like this. Every forum has threads like this. Despite having 1% of the fan base of other teams, these threads garner many more posts. I don't know what to say about that. Yawn. Blame your boys in the suits and ties for that. The phenomenon goes back years.

Every team signs guys like this. Every forum has threads like this. Despite having 1% of the fan base of other teams, these threads garner many more posts. I don't know what to say about that.

The decision to play in Puerto Rico is to capitalize on an opportunity, not to confirm your nightmares.

Calm down people, it's only one series. The Red Sox are opening the season in Japan, doesn't mean they're in any trouble. Technically, it's the A's. And they're not exactly a model of long-term franchise security. So, now, the A's are considering moving to Japan?

If we build at the Orange Bowl we won't top this. That's for sure. The Marlins should move into Tropicana. Aside from the view... -No AC -Bad parking situation (and people complain about the OB) -Downtown St. Pete is not suited to handle the traffic of 35k people in 7-8k cars -No mass transit access -It's in St. Petersburg Yep. OB can't top that! :thumbup OB site and area is awesome. That area of St Pete, where you can walk a block to all sorts of bars and restaurants sucks compared to what fans will be able to do around the OB site. The middle three are more reasonable. More reason for the city not to go along with the plan. The waterfront site doesn't need to be developed.

Based on what I've been reading and what people from Tampa/St. Pete have told me, it is virtually impossible to compare the Marlins and Rays stadium bids. This is not a "they get one, so do we" scenario. That seems to be true. Merely consider the opportunity costs and development plans of each municipality. State funding is an afterthought next to that. Frankly, the Rays' plan sounds like one of those ideas you and your buddies come up with while drinking that falls apart when soberity allows one to consider certain realities. The city/county is going to destroy a multi-purpose dome in a good location that suits its tenants and other events adequately? Especially a facility in which its tenant have a long lease? Meanwhile, letting waterfront property and Spring Training (hello revenue from visiting vacationers) go? There's no need for change. There's additional costs to make the waterfront site work. And it's not like you can't sell Tropicana later, if anything, a large downtown site should increase exponentially in value.

I am from Puerto Rico and I loved when MLB teams played exhibitions over there but as a Marlin fan, I have to say it really is of no impact financially unless they plan to develop a fan base over there with an intensive scouting program The trend has been to reduce scouting and development in Puerto Rico, because its players are subject to the draft.

I've been wondering why the 2008 final schedule hasn't been released yet. The Japanese series just got sorted out The Nationals have requested to host the first game of the year I'm sure other teams have their requests

The price of pitching is absurd

Probably means they're out of the running for Bedard. Give those 'spects to Florida.

But a temporary facility would not have that many parking spaces available and likely attract fewer fans to park, eat and be subjected to advertisements. 100% of nothing ain't much more than 1% of nothing. A temporary facility would also call for some restructuring to even provide those services, let alone for a baseball team let alone for a major league baseball club. Think of employees, added security and so on. Those costs could eliminate the small profits, if any, of a temporary facility with fair lease terms.

Parking, concessions and advertising revenues would be available in the most minimal sense at a temporary ballpark as to be insignificant if not operating at a loss.

He could move the team and play in a minor league park and still make 10's of millions in revenue sharing and .com revenue. You really have no idea how the business of baseball works do you? Do you think the rest of the owners would let him move into a minor league park because it would take a vote by the executive committee then a vote of all the owners before he can move the team anywhere. Or is it you're blinded by your hatred you're not thinking straight? If you guys want to hate Loria that's fair. You're a fan, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to tell you what to think. But if your belief system is founded on thoughts like this you really ought to take a few minutes to reevaluate your position. Actually, assuming that the lease runs out in 2010 and Huzeinga doesn't want to have the Marlins as tenants anymore, how would the owners prevent Loria from playing his home games at the Marlins' spring traning facility in 2011 (almost like the minor leagues)? Even though Huzeinga received the "tax rebate" for allowing the Marlins to play in DS, I don't think the league or the Marlins can force Huizenga to keep the Marlins as a tenant. So, while I get your point that Loria can't just up and move his team without the consent of MLB (and the owners), in 2011 Loria might be able to get away with that. Did you guys miss the past 10 years or something? In the post-Huizenga era, the Marlins have struggled to meet their many obligations through league subsidies alone. The main reason is because the lease at Dolphins Stadium does not allow the revenue sources available to the other 29 teams in the league. Moving into a temporary or substandard park would not help the Marlins, or their owners' pocket book. It is foolish to think Loria, or any Marlins owner, would do so. They don't stand to benefit at all.

Last I checked, Loria's doing #2 with the MLB player payroll, and #1 with the front office personnel player and stadium financing. Wouldn't it be great if he would do it all and lower ticket prices and buy us all ice cream? Doesn't matter. The team can't afford to.

I disagree with you. No one knows one way or the other how much he's really profitting. MLB is more concerned with the sport's total profits, anyhow. And since only a few teams pay the luxury tax, most teams are not going to really give a sh*t. Maybe the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., but not many more. Luxury tax has nothing to do with this. Luxury tax is the peanlty teams must pay if their payroll goes over a certain amount. You're right, very few pay it and those few dozens millions go to the league. The item in question is revenue sharing, in which all 30 teams pay into from their local revenues at various rates, but only the bottom 15 in local revenues are able to earn net-positive amounts. As the poorest revenue-producing club this side of the Montreal Expos, the Marlins earn a substantial amount from the rest of the league. Even if one were to trust Forbes to estimate a financial situation as unique as the Marlins, their estimates suggest the Marlins have only $9 million unaccounted over the past 5 years. A total that small isn't even worth complaining about let alone explaining. But if you want, question whether Forbes includes the expenditures for stadium planning, increased professional services, financing a team operating at a loss, payment of dividends and so on.

Loyola Ramblers 11/06/07 vs. Robert Morris (IL) {Exhibition} W, 72-54 11/10/07 vs. LeMoyne W, 73-57 11/13/07 at Eastern Illinois 11/16/07 vs. Western Michigan 11/24/07 at Purdue 11/28/07 vs. Bradley 12/01/07 at Northern Iowa 12/06/07 vs. WI - Green Bay 12/08/07 vs. WI - Milwaukee 12/15/07 vs. Northern Illinois 12/19/07 at Saint Louis 12/22/07 at MO - Kansas City 12/29/07 vs. Saint Mary's (MN) 01/03/08 at Cleveland State 01/05/08 at Youngstown State 01/07/08 vs. Butler 01/12/08 at IL - Chicago 01/17/08 vs. Detroit Mercy 01/19/08 vs. Wright State 01/24/08 at Butler 01/26/08 at Valparaiso 01/31/08 vs. Youngstown State 02/02/08 vs. Cleveland State 02/09/08 vs. IL - Chicago 02/14/08 at Wright State 02/16/08 at Detroit Mercy 02/20/08 vs. Valparaiso 02/23/08 BracketBusters 02/28/08 at WI - Milwaukee 03/01/08 at WI - Green Bay

edit: The ability to profit following the opening of a new stadium is immediate and needs little investment. Following that period, when fan investment must be sustained by actions by the owner, would be the ideal to sell the club.. However, if promised the revenue streams materialize and make it possible, the decision to sell, keep at modest profit or invest in the club would be an easy one to make. That would be so for any owner to make, whether the 99% of owners who make no personal financial investment in the operations or the rare one who does. The thing I would be worried about is if the ownership, Loria or another, would trust the market to act on their investments. If that 90-win club will only make a healthy return if they make the playoffs, would the owners take that risk? In baseball, there's a saying that fielding a second-place team is not worth it. In a market like Miami, a well-funded club that misses the playoffs may turn out to be an albatross on the club.

The ability to profit following the opening of a new stadium is immediate and needs little investment. Following that period, when fan investment must be sustained by actions by the owner, would be the ideal time. However, if promised the revenue streams materialize and make it possible, the decision will be an easy one to make. For any owner to make, whether 99% of owners who make no personal financial investment in the operations or the rare one who does. The thing I would be worried about is if the ownership, Loria or another, would trust the market to act on their investments. If that 90-win club will only make a return if they make the playoffs, would the owners risk it?

Again, I'm surprised people look back upon 2003 as the beginning of something awful when in fact it should be remember for sparking stadium talks and reminding Marlins fans of what is possible when ownership is given incentive. In 29 other markets where they stand to benefit, so we do the fans. Winning increases fan investment which increases profit. But if the market wants to sit idly by and ask no one to benefit, you can't blame ownership for watching out for their interests and not ours. This is the culture and stated policy of MLB and would not be any different under any ownership accepted into their ranks.