I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Where have you read that Loria is planning on using all or any part of the profits that he made last year, and will make this year, to use towards the funding of a new stadium? From what I've read, the FO that you defend claims to be breaking even or losing money.

I haven't. It's my belief. Hence my wording above. It's my conclusion based on Loria's past behavior and the commitments to construction of the new stadium during and since the restructuring. Certainly makes more sense than any other theory. Let's take one: Loria wants to pocket the money. Well, that suggests he wants money. Then Loria's likely to transfer existing profits (profits may not be the right word, as while the MARLINS have been unprofitable, it has often been suggested that revenue sharing has allowed them to stay out of debt) into a high yield project as a new stadium than to his wallet or a collection of players.

 

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit but I find it wrong to cry poverty with your hands out for a new taxpayer funded stadium when your making a huge profit. If I was the city, county or state I would make him open up his books before giving him a penny for a stadium. I think prinmenito's numbers are a bit off but I still think Loria will end up with a profit somewhere in the low $30 millions for the '06 season which makes his justification for the firesale and his refusal to improve the '07 team outright lies. I find that wrong.

I don't, and for a number of reasons. All the reasons why a stadium is needed still exist. If anything the recent events prove them. The team can not be run at a profit and at a level most would find acceptable without it. That profits came only after such a radical restructuring suggests the team's claims were true and their actions right.

And historical practice is that the public (whether that be in form of taxes on individuals and/or businesses and/or users, or leveraged monies through bonds) helps teams, teams with far greater resources than Loria or the Marlins, build stadiums. It's been so that building a stadium has become a requirement of hosting a major league team (see recent expansions, Expos relocation and threats to relocate).

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once did I suggest that there was any causal relationship between not signing Cabrera and the mess we find ourselves in now. I said this situation could have been avoided had the Marlins bought out his arbitration years. That's it. You cannot deny that.

Fine, I won't deny that. In my previous post, I didn't deny it. Obviously had we signed Cabrera long term earlier, there'd be no contract to discuss.

What I said is that it DOESN'T SUPPORT the arguments of signing Cabrera long term as you contend. Yet you said that because the two events are merely related that it supports the argument. They are related in name only. Nothing more. Nothing less. As you say, it proves nothing. I'd argue it suggests nothing either.

And I would argue avoiding the arbitration process has intrinsic value. One of the ways that value can be attained is through buying out all of the arbitration years with one contract. Would doing so not have avoided this situation or any other advesarial situation that arises from arbitration?

If you put it that way, it can because something bad won't happen. However, that's going to be the case no matter what happens. While a long term deal suggests a compromise between two sides, it's really a series of concessions by both sides who accept that the good outweighs the bad. That does not stop them from thinking some clauses are bad or the negotiations were unfair or challenging or their partner too critical or demanding. Basically nothing that's not part of the arbitration process, and then some. You can make the argument that it's worth it because the nature of the contract would limit any grievances from being acted upon until the end of the contract. But we know that's not true. Players in mid contract routinely show their animosity towards their team, managers and own contract by refusing to attend team functions, demanding special accommodations, firing their agents and complaining. Just take a look at Mike Lowell's history.

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Where have you read that Loria is planning on using all or any part of the profits that he made last year, and will make this year, to use towards the funding of a new stadium? From what I've read, the FO that you defend claims to be breaking even or losing money.

I haven't. It's my belief. Hence my wording above. It's my conclusion based on Loria's past behavior and the commitments to construction of the new stadium during and since the restructuring. Certainly makes more sense than any other theory. Let's take one: Loria wants to pocket the money. Well, that suggests he wants money. Then Loria's likely to transfer existing profits (profits may not be the right word, as while the MARLINS have been unprofitable, it has often been suggested that revenue sharing has allowed them to stay out of debt) into a high yield project as a new stadium than to his wallet or a collection of players.

 

So you haven't read anything that says or implies that Loria is planning on using the profit from 2006, 2007, and probably 2008, 2009, and 2010 to help fund a new stadium. Instead you're relying on faith, past performance, and your belief? I'm more realistic when it comes to money matters, and I'll personally take a wait and see approach to what Loria's financial commitment really is. To me, he's proven in the past that he'll spend for talent, but not construction, even if that doesn't make sense for the team.

.

.

I have another theory for you that makes more sense than your blind faith and belief. Loria is expecting a full public handout, like many of the deals in the past in MLB. You've said yourself this is how things work in MLB. But that's the past. Municipalities are more fiscally conservative than they were in the past. Loria is not going to receive a full public handout here in Miami, or anywhere else. His plan is to pocket the profits and wait for the goverment, on a local and state level, to capitulate. He likes to win and he loves the game of baseball perhaps more than any other owner, and he plans on using SOME of the profits to spend on talent once he gets his stadium. But in the end he's going to have to reach into his pocket and find something other than glue if the Marlins are to receive a primarily publicly funded stadium. If he doesn't, then the only way the Marlins will get a new stadium is with another ownership that is willing to come up with some real money. But I do hope that your faiths and beliefs turn out true...things would happen much faster.

It's hardly blind faith. You don't throw money into weak investments. Kenny Lofton and Danys Baez are weak investments. A new stadium is not. Every action from the restructuring on has shown that the Marlins are planning for the future on the field BUT also and especially off the field.

 

Busting your theory: We're well past a public handout. The Marlins' proposed, you know as in already offered, commitment is significant in form of raw, proportion and up front dollars. (But of course some people aren't happy with that. And it seems some like to ignore that.) The only game of chicken is over the remaining amounts. And the county is trying to get the state involved as well. Furthermore your theory would suggest that Loria is holding these profits not nearly to put them in his back pocket or spend them when a publically-funded stadium opens, but to build a new stadium if he loses the game of chicken. While would in fact be my point. So thanks for agreeing with me. We should do it again some time.

First of all, it's really a misnomer to call the proposed stadium plan primarily "taxpayer" or "publically" funded when a) the Marlns will putting in at least half and b) neither the public nor the taxpayers of Miami-Dade county will be footing the bill and c, when most people hear those terms they think of themselves as residents (and local taxpayers) of this county even though for the most part they're immune to it.

 

The only "taxpayers" paying are all the tourists visiting the Magic City when a portion of their bed tax is designated to the Professional Sports Facility Franchise Tax fund. As the name implies the purpose is to finance projects just like this.

 

Pierre, for the life of me I don't understand (and I realize this is just your opinion and a new one at that) that what Loria wants is a totally free stadium deal? I don't think there's a team in baseball with such an arrangement and one would think with MLB a negotiating partner that wouldn't even be a subject of discussion.

 

My belief is since most of the same people are working it, this deal with closely mimic the one in DC.

 

What the problem is the same one that started the brouhaha at the Orange Bowl and that is how the project is bid out. The City wants to pick the contractor and leave the Marlins the responsibility for cost overruns, the Marlins want a design/build RFP that invites the best of the best across the country to bid on the job and at a flat fee without overruns to the Marlins. As long as the first proposal is on the table the Marlins have no choice but to be honest and say we are going to protect the franchise against out of control overrruns (see municipably built Performing Arts Center) and the best/only way to do that is to not expand payroll until either they are far enough into construction to have some comfort it's going to come in as priced or Miami relents and goes with a design/build (which by definition is usually a higher price going in to give the contractor a cushion to work with but protects the parties from overrruns).

 

So history may prove you right but common sense says it won't. I think I can guess at why you've come up with this theory but in a friendly way, I disagree.

First of all, it's really a misnomer to call the proposed stadium plan primarily "taxpayer" or "publically" funded when a) the Marlns will putting in at least half and b) neither the public nor the taxpayers of Miami-Dade county will be footing the bill and c, when most people hear those terms they think of themselves as residents (and local taxpayers) of this county even though for the most part they're immune to it.

 

The only "taxpayers" paying are all the tourists visiting the Magic City when a portion of their bed tax is designated to the Professional Sports Facility Franchise Tax fund. As the name implies the purpose is to finance projects just like this.

 

Last I read the stadium was expected to cost $500 million and the Marlins are putting in $210 million. Where are you getting that the Marlins are contributing at least half? Do you have anything to back this up? I copied a recent article at the bottom.

 

Your second paragraph is obviously not true. The CRA funds and the state rebate do not come from any tourist taxes. You sound like David Samson.

 

=========================================

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...ll/16639693.htm

The Marlins and Miami-Dade County officials remain optimistic about completing a deal for a nearly $500 million stadium, though key steps remain -- including commission approval and the state allocating funds. (Neither is guaranteed.) But even if the stadium materializes, the payroll will remain low during construction years, president David Samson revealed Tuesday.

 

Samson said getting state money ($60 million from a sales tax rebate) remains ''critical.'' The Marlins, who have increased their contribution above $210 million, appear to have a decent chance after five failed attempts in Tallahassee.

 

RFerry, what you fail to understand is that Loria could be making a profit with a payroll in the $40 millions.

Loria could be making a profit with a payroll in the $50 million range. The team lost $11 million in 2005 with a payroll of $65 million.

You don't throw money into weak investments. Kenny Lofton and Danys Baez are weak investments.

 

I'm a fan of the team and not a fan of Loria's wallet. Lofton along with Borowski and R. Soriano could have been had for around $13 million and these additions would have solidified our gaping holes in the bullpen and CF while allowing Loria to still make a nice profit.

I'm a fan of the team that recognizes that the team will only be successful with a new stadium. Therefore I don't care how much the yearly profits are. Just as long as they allow for a stable ownership to exist and move toward building a new stadium.

 

Lofton, Borowski and Soriano don't build stadiums. Neither did Delgado and Leiter.

Loria could be making a profit with a payroll in the $50 million range. The team lost $11 million in 2005 with a payroll of $65 million.

 

"Allegedly."

 

Also, let's not forget that 2006 was the last year that Loria and Co. could use the amortization of their MLB loan to reflect a phanom loss. Now I'm not saying it's not well within his rights to do so, but you have to understand the shady accounting practices that inevitably are being used.

 

I'm a fan of the team that recognizes that the team will only be successful with a new stadium. Therefore I don't care how much the yearly profits are. Just as long as they allow for a stable ownership to exist and move toward building a new stadium.

 

Lofton, Borowski and Soriano don't build stadiums. Neither did Delgado and Leiter.

 

Success begets trust, trust gets a new stadium.

 

While Loria has attempted in the past to build trust, it's never been a completely "balls to the wall" effort. Even during the World Series run there was bellyaching that all he'd be doing with the playoffs was perhaps break even.

 

And in the few attempts he did make to seem like a good guy (Delgado, Lowell, Castillo) he was abou as patient and subtle as a 4 year old child who didn't get a bicycle. All that was missing was holding his breath and twisting his ears.

First of all, it's really a misnomer to call the proposed stadium plan primarily "taxpayer" or "publically" funded when a) the Marlns will putting in at least half and b) neither the public nor the taxpayers of Miami-Dade county will be footing the bill and c, when most people hear those terms they think of themselves as residents (and local taxpayers) of this county even though for the most part they're immune to it.

 

The only "taxpayers" paying are all the tourists visiting the Magic City when a portion of their bed tax is designated to the Professional Sports Facility Franchise Tax fund. As the name implies the purpose is to finance projects just like this.

 

Last I read the stadium was expected to cost $500 million and the Marlins are putting in $210 million. Where are you getting that the Marlins are contributing at least half? Do you have anything to back this up? I copied a recent article at the bottom.

 

Your second paragraph is obviously not true. The CRA funds and the state rebate do not come from any tourist taxes. You sound like David Samson.

 

=========================================

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...ll/16639693.htm

The Marlins and Miami-Dade County officials remain optimistic about completing a deal for a nearly $500 million stadium, though key steps remain -- including commission approval and the state allocating funds. (Neither is guaranteed.) But even if the stadium materializes, the payroll will remain low during construction years, president David Samson revealed Tuesday.

 

Samson said getting state money ($60 million from a sales tax rebate) remains ''critical.'' The Marlins, who have increased their contribution above $210 million, appear to have a decent chance after five failed attempts in Tallahassee.

RFerry, what you fail to understand is that Loria could be making a profit with a payroll in the $40 millions.

It's unfortunate you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about and you're hatred for all things Marlins colors your vision of things. The sales tax rebate only *is collected* IF a stadium is built and let's remember it is a rebate, not taxes collected *a greater sum of money has to be collected first from which this is rebated*, and the rebate is limited *to a fixed amount* and will be cash positive for the state and thus "the people". The majority of the CRA contribution will come from federal and state grant money and the CRA's portion of other pinpointed taxes not collected from the general county population. But of course why let the facts get in the way.

 

And your first point was really dumb. You find fault with me for saying I believe ultimately the Marlins will pay about half (or $250 million) and then go on to say all you've seen is a $210 million figure. THEN you quote a news story that says the Marlins contribution has increased BEYOND the $210 million figure, thereby refuting your own argument. I think it was Burgess who recently pegged their contribution at close to $230 million (in speaking with the county commissioners, I want to say he said $228 million). Sheeesh.

 

*You want to accuse me of sounding like David Samson, all I'm doing is echoing the plan laid out by county manager Burgess.*

TSwft, as you suggest, it's actually humility that begets trust. Promises you can't keep fosters mistrust. However, neither encourages a municipality or fan base to address the stadium issue they've dodged for over a decade.

David, the fact is property taxes fund the CRA but don't let the facts get in the way and the fact is the overwhelming majority of the $2 million in sales taxes rebated would still be collected with or without a stadium as the money spent at the stadium would be spent elsewhere if we don't get the stadium. This may come as news to you but our savings rates are anemic - people spend all their money one way or another. Regarding the Marlins contributing at least half, you still haven't provided any proof. Now you say Burgess said $228 million. How is it that you figure that $228 million is at least half of $500 million? This could be fun.

 

RFerry, if Loria was using the huge profits he is now making to secure a stadium then that would be a good long-term investment but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that's what he's doing.

TSwft, as you suggest, it's actually humility that begets trust. Promises you can't keep fosters mistrust. However, neither encourages a municipality or fan base to address the stadium issue they've dodged for over a decade.

 

And when, please do tell, has the mouth piece of this organization exhibited any form of humility?

TSwift, absolutly true and that's a problem. But like I said you can't expect anything to come out of being passive toward parties that are content with status quo.

 

 

Polo, you merely need to look at the time line of events. Although first you'd have let down your bias and include the reports of the Marlins' contributions.

David, the fact is property taxes fund the CRA but don't let the facts get in the way and the fact is the overwhelming majority of the $2 million in sales taxes rebated would still be collected with or without a stadium as the money spent at the stadium would be spent elsewhere if we don't get the stadium. This may come as news to you but our savings rates are anemic - people spend all their money one way or another. Regarding the Marlins contributing at least half, you still haven't provided any proof. Now you say Burgess said $228 million. How is it that you figure that $228 million is at least half of $500 million? This could be fun.

 

RFerry, if Loria was using the huge profits he is now making to secure a stadium then that would be a good long-term investment but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that's what he's doing.

 

Actually property taxes fund approximately 6.5% of the CRA (it's themoney used for administration of the agency. Most of the $$ flowing through the CRA come from grant money, and even when you look at the entire proposed stadium funding, the CRA portion is the smallest component, less than 10% I believe of the total $500 million.

 

Your sales tax rebate is so fundamentally flawed there is no way to response to it. But let me try for a moment. Here's the difference. You go buy a tv at Circuit City and pay sales tax. You go to the new Marlins Stadium and spend money and that money (actually the service or item you bought with the money) is taxed but it also goes towards paying Bob Smith's salary as well and he goes to Circuit City and buys a tv with it, and pays tax on that. It's the compounding of the dollar you've forgetten in your simplistic little example.

 

I understand you're just over your head. Why don't you go take an accounting course and get back to me.

 

I know you thought you were being just so funny calling me "David" as a way to insult me, but frankly if I had a choice of being associated with David Samson or you, believe I'd take the smart really obnoxious little dweeb to the dumb really obnoxious little dweeb any day.

So Marlins2003 is saying is that, essentially, the tax revenues would be the same with the tax rebate than without it and the Marlins playing elsewhere.

 

Here is what he's saying.

 

Scenario A: Marlins get the rebate. Marlins fans pay $2 million in sales taxes when they go to the games. The Marlins get those $2 million back. They use that money to pay the salaries of 65 employees (making about 30K per year). Those employees go out and buy $2 million worth of stuff. They pay a sales tax on that. Thus, the rebate the Marlins get actually gets regenerated in the form of spending by other people (the employees). At first, the state collects less than it would have collected without the rebate. However, the dollar gets compounded. Because, now, the employees spend 2 million, and those people who get their money spend 1.95 million, and so on and so forth. There is a way to figure out exactly how much this produces, but its too complicated to discuss here (it depends on the spending rate). In the end, the state collects the same amount it would have collected even without the rebate (or maybe even more).

 

Scenario B: The Marlins don't get the rebate. The Marlins move. Marlins fans pay $2 million in sales tax by purchasing other goods and services. The state collects the same revenues it collected in Scenario A (or maybe even less).

 

Here's the difference: we have at least 65 more jobs in Scenario A than Scenario B and we also have a baseball team we can go watch play 81 times per year.

 

Scenario A is better than Scenario B.

Marlins2003, I'm not here to fight so I apologize for taking a shot.

 

Anyways I guess we'll never agree on this as I think at the state level the incremental spending with a new stadium would be negligible meaning the incremental state taxes collected with a new stadium would also be negligible but obvioulsy you see it differently.

 

I also don't agree with you regarding the funding for the CRA. According to their financial statements their primary source of revenue is computed by applying the city's and county's operating tax rate to a base which is derived from the property value of the property located within the CRA. Maybe there's more to it thatn that but this jibes with what I had previously read.

Polo, it's not a matter of agreeing. Marlins2003 stated an economic fact. There's no room to disagree, at least with regard to his rebate claims.

I think there's room to disagree. There are many people on both sides of the fence on this issue.

One side of the fence is right and the other side is unknowledgeable and therefore disagrees with the people that are right.

 

Not trying to be a jerk. But any economist would support Marlins2003's position.

 

About the CRA, I don't know. But about the rebate issue, Marlins2003 is absolutely right.

Polo, no hard feelings. :thumbup

 

Two little things:

 

1. I believe I said money flowing through the CRA because yes they get money from property taxes but most of their money comes because they are constantly in the business of acquiring grant $ from the state and Feds. In recent years their coffers have been filled with revenues from increased property taxes and that is incontrovertible, but again, you pull down a $25-35-55 million fed housing grant or matching $ and that is a big chunk of dough and their primary intended source.

 

2. In the first paragraph of the first comment there is a typo which you picked up on and may have led to some misunderstanding. It was unintentional (and one of these days I have to remember to shut off automatic update on my computer because when I don't I get dropped characters all the time). Anyways the way it came out was "Marlns will putting in at least half" it should have said "Marlins will wind up putting in at least half". I think you can see there's an "i" missing in Marlins and "will putting" is at least fractured grammar. But in any event yeah I think they are so close now to half they'll close the gap to end this dance by doing so once the state commits their piece. I'm not walking away from the intent of that statement.

It's hardly blind faith. You don't throw money into weak investments. Kenny Lofton and Danys Baez are weak investments. A new stadium is not. Every action from the restructuring on has shown that the Marlins are planning for the future on the field BUT also and especially off the field.

 

Busting your theory: We're well past a public handout. The Marlins' proposed, you know as in already offered, commitment is significant in form of raw, proportion and up front dollars. (But of course some people aren't happy with that. And it seems some like to ignore that.) The only game of chicken is over the remaining amounts. And the county is trying to get the state involved as well. Furthermore your theory would suggest that Loria is holding these profits not nearly to put them in his back pocket or spend them when a publically-funded stadium opens, but to build a new stadium if he loses the game of chicken. While would in fact be my point. So thanks for agreeing with me. We should do it again some time.

RFerry....you're what my late grandmother would lovingly refer to as a little pisher. If I am agreeing with you it's only because you talk in circles and I talk in a straight line, and by definition they will intersect at 2 points.

.

.

2003, there's nothing new in my thoughts. I've always felt that Loria wants a stadium that costs him nothing save for rent, but he's not going to get it. I've been saying for awhile that I did not expect a stadium agreement until the Feb. 15-Apr. 1 timeframe at the earliest. It has to do with that loan forgiveness thing. I do hopefully expect that MLB and Loria can come to agreement that ties together the loan forgiveness clause with the organization's contribution towards a stadium that will bridge any gap in funding.

Lolol Pierre, I misunderstood you. When you said free, I took you literally thinking you meant rent-free as well.

Thus, the rebate the Marlins get actually gets regenerated in the form of spending by other people (the employees). At first, the state collects less than it would have collected without the rebate. However, the dollar gets compounded. Because, now, the employees spend 2 million, and those people who get their money spend 1.95 million, and so on and so forth. There is a way to figure out exactly how much this produces, but its too complicated to discuss here (it depends on the spending rate). In the end, the state collects the same amount it would have collected even without the rebate (or maybe even more).

It's not too difficult. If we assume a mere 5% spending rate, that taxable $2M becomes $2.1M.

 

 

Pierre, better a circle than an unreasoned line. A circle brings you back. A line that heads in the wrong direction directs you further and further away from reality.