It gets harder and harder to find the ruling ***(without having to pay)*** but here's an excerpt of the arbitration panel's findings and the judge dismissing all 14 counts:

 

"[The] claimants find it objectionable that Loria was able to acquire 92 per cent of the club for only $35-40 million, but claimants have themselves to blame," the judgment continues. "The record establishes that claimants would not have met the capital calls under any scenario, there was nothing material undisclosed, and claimants knew the gist of what they say was concealed."

 

Brad Ruskin, Loria's lawyer, characterized the action as "a case about people entering a contract and deciding afterward that they didn't like it."

 

It's not uncommon for panels to sometimes find a way to split up the baby, but in this instance they dismissed all the claims."

 

The limited partners were ordered into arbitration with Loria in November, 2002.

 

This came after U.S. Federal Court Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages stayed the racketeering suit.

 

Oh and btw Spike, the out of court settlement you'll see referred to on some websites and blogs gives the impression that Loria settled with the plaintiffs. That is an incorrect assessment, the plaintiffs (minority partners) were ordered to pay all of the defendent's (Loria, Samson, MLB, Selig) court costs, and Loria agreed to a lesser amount as a sign of good faith.

 

Perhaps now you understand why when I say if there was anything "fishy" going on with the books of the Marlins the minority owners would have a field day with the info.

 

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=11173&page=36

Some very well-written posts 2003. I think I even detected a hint of Shakespeare there. I don't agree with your thoughts overall, but nonetheless you win the debate hands down in my book. In this situation, the "facts" of the past and present are something that we'll never know, so it leaves open the door to any viewpoint. At least your thoughts are well written, as opposed to the knee-jerk and poorly presented thoughts from the other side of the aisle. A few good points were made there, but on the whole it's the usual cast of characters presenting gibberish disguised as argument.

Marlins2003 that was too overlydramatic of a posting for my taste! The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as much as you would love to defend Loria just tell us where he is investing on the team besides standard operations costs. The payroll has not been enhanced nor has scouting or development costs, The budget is already established without the Revenue sharing funds, where does that money go to? Let me know when you find out I am curious to know

 

We have different tastes I guess :mis2

In fact I'm not being supportive of Loria nor calling him a great owner, my contention is only that he isn't the bad owner, nefarious, the lining his pockets with cash owner you and your kind want everyone to believe.

 

Me and my kind? You mean every Marlins fan besides you and rFerry?

 

Anyhow, in Montrel Loria demanded and begged for a new stadium. It didnt happen. He dismantled the team and sold.

 

There are more reasons than just the way he operates the team that hes an awful owner, first and foremost he just doesnt have the financial capability to own one. Its very possible the franchise value is above his actual net worth already.

More Spike BS. Why don't you go check how many players were traded away while Loria was managing General Partner and then come back and apologize.

Its not BS...Loria put alot of $$ into the Expos to try to get them to be a winner in the short term, failed to get a stadium, and dismantled the team.

 

Wow, sound familiar?

 

I just want to know one thing 2003...do you think Jeffrey Loria is a good owner?

The Expos situation is different.

 

MLB wanted to move the team to Washington to begin with.

Spike, tell me the players jettisoned during this so-called dismantling...you're wrong...as usual 100% wrong.

 

But the floor is yours, name names and the years they were traded.

 

As for what happened with the stadium again just like everything else on this subject you are completely in the dark and way off base. I'm not even going to explain it to you it would only go over your head, but let's stick the this dismantling theory of yours.

 

I await your proof. (Psst go to baseballreference.com and compare rosters before during and after Loria. There's even a link to the team executives year by year so you can figure out who was in charge when. Have I made it easy enough for you?)

 

A few more hints, Pedro was gone long before Loria and Vlad was still there after Loria. You can fill in the rest of the pieces yourself.

The stadium thing doesnt go over my head at all. Montreal simply wouldnt put more $$ into it and Loria couldnt put more in it himself.

 

Pretty simple. Cut and dry even.

 

You were right about no firesale in Montreal but you fail to point out that he really did nothing to improve the team either, a few "big money" deals that were wastes.

 

Anyhow, good article from the Hardball times:

Please Stop Hitting The Hot Button

by John Brattain

April 28, 2006

 

Oh the pain. It burns, it burns.

 

I hardly know where to begin.

 

If your wife said she?d been happily married two years?that?s a good thing.

 

If she says that on your 13th anniversary?not so good.

 

Suppose you went to your local paper and said that you?d been to a pizza parlor 13 times and had two terrific pizzas, two decent pizzas, and nine that tasted like they got the toppings out of a litter box, a dumpster outside a proctologist?s office, and the coroner?s office at the local leper colony. You then declared that the local municipality should build the pizza joint the biggest, most opulent restaurant with a state of the art kitchen, solid gold utensils, vintage wine cellar, and best china because of those two terrific pizzas.

 

For that matter suppose you went to your local paper and said that you knew a man whose wife claimed two happy years of marriage over the course of a 13 year abusive relationship and for that he deserves a huge mansion on a large spread with a swimming pool, tennis court, bowling alley, and guest house built at public expense.

 

Would you expect the paper to not only print your suggestion but also to be supportive of it?

 

Of course not. The very idea is so retarded even a lobotomized Irish Setter wouldn?t sniff it yet alone support it.

 

Believe it or not, somebody did.

 

Ouch.

 

I double checked the date of the column praying that it was April 1.

 

Nope. This was a serious column.

 

OK, let?s analyze what?s being said here:

 

"Don't blame owner Jeffrey Loria. He's kept that 2003 juggernaut together for the most part the last two seasons. The New York art dealer who's lost millions and millions finally decided that without a baseball stadium he couldn't continue. Yes, the Lorias of the world can go bankrupt, too."

 

 

As you know the Marlins were purchased by Jeffrey Loria for about $150 million in 2002. Over the first five years after purchase an owner can amortize 50% of that. In other words, the Marlins can make a book entry in the loss column in years 1-5 of ownership for $15 million.

 

They've owned the Marlins for four full seasons?ergo $60 million of their purported "loss" are from that. Furthermore, the value of the franchise has increased over that same span almost $70 million.

 

Loria and David Samson?s salary is also included as an expense?hence in the ?loss? column. So while they're paying themselves money they can also claim they lost that very same money. In other words he could pay himself a $1 million salary and say the Marlins (that he owns) lost $1 million.

 

?I think the baseball fans and politicians of South Florida should be ashamed. They've been treated to two World Series champions, and, frankly, they probably don't deserve them.?

 

Let?s review (again):

 

 

* 1997: Invested in their product and won the World Series after a thrilling seventh game in extra innings against the Cleveland Indians.

 

* 1997-98: You win a World Series and you?ve got momentum in the marketplace. Fans are excited and people are jumping on the bandwagon. There is a buzz: Can the team repeat? You?ve got a whole offseason full of goodwill and anticipation and the warm glow that comes from knowing your team was the best. You?ve got the best marketing for season tickets and advanced sales. What did the Marlins do? They claimed that the club lost over $30 million (they actually enjoyed an almost $14 million profit) and held a fire sale for most of their top talent. So despite having a profitable enterprise the lack of corporate welfare caused them to jettison all that to make a point?no free money, no repeat.

 

* 1999: John Henry purchased the Marlins and initially promised that he would build a park for the team himself. He then did a complete 180 and asked for $300 million in public subsidies for a new stadium. MLB then jumped on the bashwagon and announced that it was taking the 2000 All-Star Game away from Florida in favor of Turner Field in Atlanta. MLB spokesman Rich Levin said: "We think these events should be in new stadiums ? the Marlins have been told they will get an All-Star Game if they get a new stadium." Pro Player, that crumbling ancient ruin was 11 years old at the time (since 1990 the All-Star Game has been held in parks 11 years old and older five times, including Fenway Park and Wrigley Field).

 

* 2000: Rumors leaked out about another "fire sale" of the team's high-priced players following the end of the season if no new stadium deal was approved. Henry addressed questions about a coming fire sale, telling reporters:

 

"Light is a particle and a wave, but logic would tell you it can't be both. The fact is, it is both. In our situation, it's a dilemma. It's a difficult choice; none works. It's not quite as esoteric as it sounds. It's not talking out of both sides of my mouth."

 

 

 

On June 7, Henry went on the record:

 

?[The Marlins are in] a very dark situation. The community has basically given up on the Marlins. The franchise is in jeopardy ? it certainly is an option to sell to someone out of state, but I love this organization. If I start thinking in terms of giving up, it's very hard to do what needs to be done.?

 

 

 

* 2001: Owners voted 28-2 to contract two major league franchises. The Florida Marlins made the short list of contraction candidates. That April, Bud Selig told the Florida state legislature that the stadium plan under consideration represented the ?final opportunity for the Marlins to remain in South Florida.? Unbelievably Florida State Senator Alex Villalobos (the prime sponsor of a bill to help publicly finance a new $385 million stadium), said he'd asked Selig to blackmail the legislature. "A lot of people have said it's a threat. I wanted it in writing. I didn't want it to be subject to interpretation." Wanting to finish the year with a bang, Henry claimed that the Marlins lost $9 million in 2001?$4 million of that from lobbying expenses for a new stadium.

 

* 2002: The Marlins were sold to Jeffrey Loria and co-assassin David Samson, fresh off their successful hit of the Montreal Expos.

 

* 2003: The Marlins won their second World Series, and not wishing to break with tradition, claimed to have lost $20 million. When asked to open their books to prove public subsidies were justified, Samson replied: ?Many private companies ask for public help?in tax abatements, incentives to move firms to new areas and other kinds of government help. And you don't see those companies releasing their figures.? Of course, had the losses been legitimate opening the books would?ve been a no-brainer.

 

* April 2004: The Las Vegas threat was first unveiled. Samson set multiple final deadlines for a stadium deal. They came, they went, and the Marlins didn?t. No matter, Opening Day was nigh, a time for optimism. Birds were singing, everybody was in first, hope abounded. Loria?s mouth commemorated this joyous day by insulting the entire city:

 

?We need a new stadium. Everyone has to get this damn thing done in the next 30 days. Miami is a major city. They got it done in Seattle and San Diego and Cincinnati and Pittsburgh and Colorado and Philadelphia and Milwaukee. They all have new stadiums, and we're not going to consider ourselves a major league city until we get it done.?

 

Samson continued to be short with darned near everyone. The Marlins finished the year with the laughable notion that Huizenga doesn?t like money and will evict the Marlins so that he can host cricket matches.

 

* 2005-06: Another day, another fire sale, more insults for the fan base. David Samson out whoring himself to San Antonio, Las Vegas (which MLB nixed), and Portland, spreading lies about how everybody?s reacting like Paris Hilton just waiting to be screwed out of house and home. By a shocking coincidence Samson declared that the Marlins lost the exact same amount of money that they did in 2003 ($20 million?doubtless this could be explained by understanding that the number came from the exact same source ... the same place yesterday's breakfast most likely emerged). On top of all of this all we heard is that the Marlins couldn?t compete in the current environment and that their stadium was three steps below a cesspool and now they?ve cut their payroll to almost half of what they?ll receive in revenue sharing. To cap it all off Loria and Samson are getting guys like Bodley to state that the fans are the problem.

 

South Florida fans have nothing to be ashamed of?unless of course refusing to be used as MLB's personal urinals is a bad thing. They're acting like any consumer would when a business treats them like that smelly stuff stuck under your shoe (not to be confused with David Samson).

 

Now politicians may have a lot to be ashamed of but this isn?t one of those things.

 

Economist Robert Baade commented that a modern stadium can't pay its own way. He was of the opinion that when you factor in cost, debt service, taxes, maintenance, utilities, and amortization that a new stadium doesn't generate sufficient revenues to cover that and a competitive major league payroll.

 

Of course what Loria and Samson are asking for is a new stadium plus the revenues the stadium generates leaving the cost of the building, plus the amortization, debt service, taxes, maintenance and utilities to the region?in short leaving South Florida without the revenues that would help offset these costs.

 

What Bodley is saying here is that South Florida politicians should be ashamed that they refuse to take money?to the tune of several hundred million dollars?that could be applied to schools, health care, libraries, infrastructure etc. and give it to Jeffrey Loria and David Samson as a reward for winning a sporting event three years ago. He?s saying that all the sleaze that has surrounded the Marlins which includes two fire sales, threats of relocation, the taking away of the All-Star Game, pocketing revenue sharing money that should be spent on the team, the outright lies, and the insults to the city deserves a reward of what would be close to a half a billion dollars.

 

I?d like to take this moment to remind everyone of how major league baseball views its host cities. This was a brief presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court during the contraction fiasco on behalf of Selig and Major League Baseball:

 

?The Minnesota Twins are a private business; they are not owned by the people of Minnesota ... they are not a `community asset' but a business ...?

 

MLB teams are, in the opinion of MLB, a "private business," and that the people in team's host cities have no claim to it?in fact, they?re not even a community asset!

 

Why should a private business that is not a "community asset" be allowed to have several hundred million dollars of the community's money?

 

What makes the whole situation laughable is that Selig thinks that all South Florida needs to revive the market is a publicly financed baseball stadium. In other words he feels a successful extortion of the taxpayers of South Florida will bring the fans back in droves after all the bad faith when a World Series champion failed to do so.

 

That kind of reasoning makes me think that the bar in the commissioner's office includes a well used bong.

 

The reason the fans were leery after 2003 is the direct result of what happened after 1997. Kick somebody in the teeth once and you can bet when you come around again your victim will be somewhat reticent to welcome you with open arms.

 

South Florida simply doesn't trust MLB or the Marlins . Trust is earned, and the fans have been treated to one bad faith betrayal after another. "Build it and they will come" with regards to trust will go a lot further to building enthusiasm for the Marlins as a blackmailed corporate wel-park.

 

Of course one requires effort and why expend effort when you can hold your breath, stamp your feet until you turn blue?

 

Even if Bodley's worst-case scenario were to come true and Jeffrey Loria did go bankrupt, well it's like this: when you factor in the money you get from revenue sharing, merchandising, MLB.com, national television, local television, radio, even before you sell a single ticket or hot dog and you've got a friggin' monopoly on your product plus the mega tax breaks that come with owning a major league sports team and you still go belly-up?then chances are you're too bloody stupid to be in business anyway.

 

Consider it a form of natural selection.

 

It's not South Florida's job to subsidize idiot businessmen who can't make a go of it under the sweetest circumstances available?especially not to the tune of close to a half billion dollars.

 

Bodley is right about this much: South Florida doesn?t deserve Loria and Samson. They deserve a baseball team?not America?s biggest corporate welfare queens.

link

 

That article sums up pretty good just what kind of scum Jeffrey Loria is.

 

Prior to the 2000 season, Loria ended the Expos broadcast agreements, leaving fans unable to watch Expos games on TV or listen to it on English radio. This forced fans to listen to the games on French radio (tough to do if they didn?t know French, plus with a limited Francophone fan base the move can be seen as questionable at best) or over the internet via opposing team?s broadcasts. Potentially more damaging was the alienation that this move brought about upon the local business community, who were now devoid of a major source of broadcasting (not to mention the major revenue the Expos could have gained). Incredulously, there was still a chance of life for the Expos as the plans for the new ballpark were actually about to come to fruition. Of course, Loria was able to kill that by requiring that the city put up more money for the park, even though it was only going to cost in total 100 million dollars between the Expos and the city after sponsorships were accounted for.

link

 

Ill admit I was wrong about the firesale, but will still contend he did more to kill baseball in Montreal than he did to help it, even without a firesale. While its long term viability was questionable before Loria arrived there, his tenure pretty much ensured that baseball wouldnt survive there. The same thing is happening in Florida.

 

He wants a new stadium, he just doesnt want to pay for it. If I am not mistaken, he is putting up very little of his own capital(basically because he doesnt have very much to begin with, defiantly not enough to own a team and for sure not enough to fund a stadium), but paying his portion in the form of rent payments once its opened. Am I wrong there? Someone tell me.

 

Loria might not of been the root cause but he was a facilitator for baseball failing in Montreal. His act hasnt changed. Baseball cant survive in south Florida with him as owner.

John Brattain has made a career out of being a Loria hater and I thought by now everyone knew that.

 

And don't be a fool and let yourself believe him. Do you not read this guy's column and say to yourself, "this man is insane"? If not, you should. He thinks Loria is going to go bankrupt. He's depraved and rude and worse has bizarre notions of how business works. (the old open up your books thing again which won't and can't happen for a number of reason - let me give you one. No doubt Huizenga's lease has a nondisclosure provision in it where he and the stadium entity would prohibit dessemination of it's contents to protect themselves from the ridicule they would receive if the facts were made known about how they are raping this baseball franchise. The Dolphin Stadium people would never allow that to be out in public and the whole economics opf the organization centers on the lease.

 

I'm asking myself, "do I have to really go through this AGAIN?"

 

1. The so-called expert Brattain uses, this character who are so uninformed that he doesn't understand that the money pledged by the city and county come from a taxpayer voter approved tax earmarked only for the construction of professional sport franchise venues, hence the name, The Professional Sports Franchise Tax, collected as a bed tax on tourists. When the good people of Miami-Dade voted this in they knew the money couldn't be used for schools or grandma or roads, healthcare or libraries as this expert Braittain found under some overpass off 595 should have known if he were at least attempting to be intellectually honest.

 

He is for lack of a better word a hired gun.

 

2. Loria takes zero in compensation from the franchise, Samson a league average salary.

 

3. When you find a paragraph like this "Even if Bodley's worst-case scenario were to come true and Jeffrey Loria did go bankrupt, well it's like this: when you factor in the money you get from revenue sharing, merchandising, MLB.com, national television, local television, radio, even before you sell a single ticket or hot dog and you've got a friggin' monopoly on your product plus the mega tax breaks that come with owning a major league sports team and you still go belly-up?then chances are you're too bloody stupid to be in business anyway." you should immediately stop reading because you have to know the author is not playing with a full deck.

 

4. Even Swift's favorite source Prof Zimbalist concurs the tax laws (IRS) regarding amortization no longer apply as quoted here but when you're on a role and you have a man's reputation to destroy, heck why let the facts get in the way.

 

5. Just look at the slurs throughout the piece. I'm embarrassed for you that you'd want to associate yourself with it. Loria is an "idiot businessman" (one the five biggest art dealers in the country), one name-calling diatribe after another, do you not recognize this is a sick individual, a totally corrupt and biased individual who thinks the truth is whatever he says it is.

 

6. As for the stadium issue in Montreal, in fact Loria didn't want more money (that was the previous ownership), he wanted no public funds. He is quoted as saying that with schools and hospitals closing in Montreal (the separatist movement left a decade of economic destruction in Montreal which left the city and the Province penniless, the Olympic Stadoim crumbling and unable to meet its debt service he actually rejected the offer of public funds saying they should go to more important social causes.

 

It was the previous owners who tried to build LaBatt Stadium as a grandiose monument to themselves and when Loria's first act as CEO was to kill that project and replace it with a smaller no-frills project, that's when things started getting ugly.

 

Things became so bad in Montreal at one point in the insanity of forced bi-lingualism and the threat of Quebec seceding from Canada, that what was once thought as one the world's great banks - the Bank of Montreal - a bank of commerce for over two hundred years, relocated to Toronto in fear of being annexed or sacked. That should tell you something about the climate in Montreal.

 

And it was the same bi-lingual obligation (actually it was french first, then english) to the Expos not having english language broadcast, because radio outlets were demanding to be paid to carry the games rather than pay rights fees to carry the games as happens with every other team and their broadcast contracts, so Loria said no.

 

The real story is much more complex and plays out like a great Harvard Business School study.

 

 

So Spike, go find a credible source, in fact try to find a few, you could start with the Globe and Mail archives everything I said (not particularly articulately I'm tired) can be corroborated by real journalists for who truth means something.

 

You can chose to believe the gutter snipes like Passan and Brattain or actually go out and educate yourself about what is in the public record. You may not still like Loria but at least you'll understand what really happened and that's progress.

 

The choice is yours.

6. As for the stadium issue in Montreal, in fact Loria didn't want more money (that was the previous ownership), he wanted no public funds. He is quoted as saying that with schools and hospitals closing in Montreal (the separatist movement left a decade of economic destruction in Montreal which left the city and the Province penniless, the Olympic Stadoim crumbling and unable to meet its debt service he actually rejected the offer of public funds saying they should go to more important social causes.

 

False. Loria wanted $$ for the stadium, it was the head of the Quebec government that said "no" because of hospitals, schools, etc. Not Loria.

 

I know Loria wont go bankrupt. He still has no business owning an MLB team. In relative terms, he is poor compared to other owners. He doesnt have the financial assets to own an MLB team. He has proven this.

 

3. When you find a paragraph like this "Even if Bodley's worst-case scenario were to come true and Jeffrey Loria did go bankrupt, well it's like this: when you factor in the money you get from revenue sharing, merchandising, MLB.com, national television, local television, radio, even before you sell a single ticket or hot dog and you've got a friggin' monopoly on your product plus the mega tax breaks that come with owning a major league sports team and you still go belly-up?then chances are you're too bloody stupid to be in business anyway." you should immediately stop reading because you have to know the author is not playing with a full deck.

I dont really see whats wrong with that assessment at all.

 

Loria could of opened up his books, accounting, etc. without going into the Dolphin Stadium lease at all. Just revenue and net income. All he had to show. He refused.

 

Like I said, there is a reason why Loria has enemies about anywhere he goes, from Miami to Montreal. He is a carpet bagger always looking for the next handout.

 

You still have never told me if you think he is a good owner?

The solution for the Marlins' problem is really very simple.

 

GET THE STADIUM BUILT!!!!!!!! After that everything will fall into place.

 

The attendance will drastically improve, not only because of the novelty of a new stadium, but there will also be competition for good seats in a 38,000 seat stadium causing the demand for season tickets to increase.

 

Money from parking, concessions, luxury suites, advertising, and increased attendance will flow into Loria's pocket and he WILL spend more money to improve the team. That will further improve attendance and we will be on our way toward having an established major league franchise without the fear of relocation, rain delays, or fire sales.

The solution for the Marlins' problem is really very simple.

 

GET THE STADIUM BUILT!!!!!!!! After that everything will fall into place.

 

The attendance will drastically improve, not only because of the novelty of a new stadium, but there will also be competition for good seats in a 38,000 seat stadium causing the demand for season tickets to increase.

 

Money from parking, concessions, luxury suites, advertising, and increased attendance will flow into Loria's pocket and he WILL spend more money to improve the team. That will further improve attendance and we will be on our way toward having an established major league franchise without the fear of relocation, rain delays, or fire sales.

 

Dude, if you think all this franchise needs is a new stadium, you really haven't been following the team. The fanbase down here is deeply scarred. They have been wounded a number of times and its a festering pus pit right now, and not likely to be healed with just a new stadium. It will take an owner who wants to be successful and part of the community.

 

I am convinced that Loria will sell the team within 2 years of any stadium being built. Anyone else agree ?

4. Even Swift's favorite source Prof Zimbalist concurs the tax laws (IRS) regarding amortization no longer apply as quoted here but when you're on a role and you have a man's reputation to destroy, heck why let the facts get in the way.

 

That's not true at all. Absolutely untrue.

I just read an interview with him Swift two or they days ago in which he discussed the changes in the way the IRS is dealing with this and tv rights sales issues as depreciable items.

 

I can dig it up for you if I have to. I can always go back through my history I suppose. I found it looking for something else.

I just read an interview with him Swift two or they days ago in which he discussed the changes in the way the IRS is dealing with this and tv rights sales issues as depreciable items.

 

I can dig it up for you if I have to. I can always go back through my history I suppose. I found it looking for something else.

 

The interview was 2 or 3 days ago?

 

Because he doesn't take that stance in his book.

I didn't look at the date (or remember that I did) but it was not an extract from his book it was an interview (I wasn't saying the interview was 2 or three days ago, although it could have been, that was went I saw it) and I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember who the interviewee was. That why I said if I had to I would plod through the hundreds of web pages in my history if I had to. Funny I can see the format, it may have been a magazine interview or some business journal.

So, yeah, I'm going to need some proof.

 

For reference, here's MY proof that he vehemently disagrees with Marlins2003's representation of his beliefs:

 

The numbers, however, are misldeaing, and 2001 was a year of recession, low advertising expenditures and the devastating September 11 terrorist attack. The first adjustment that needs to be made is that the $519 million represents book, not operating, losses. It includes amortization, depreciation, and interest expense. These items are almost always excluded when analyzing a business' ongoing economic viability. This is because depreciation and amortization do not represent cash expenditures to operate a business, but are accounting conventions to prorate previous investments over their useful life. Interest expense is excluded because it generally relates to how a company is capitalized, not how it is run. Consider two companies, each worth $1 billion. One owner uses his own savings to purchase his company. The second owner uses his savings for half the purchase price and borrows the other half at 10 percent. The fist owner will pay no interest. THe second owner will pay interest of $50 million a year. If each company earns $40 million in profit yearly before interest they are equally viable, even though one will show a $40 million book profit (assuming no depreciation charge) and the other will show a $10 million book loss.

 

There is perhaps even less reason to pay attention to amortization, depreciation, and interest in the case of baseball franchises. Partly as a result of a successful tax case involving Bud Selig and his Milwaukee Brewers in 1984, baseball owners generally may attribute 50 percent of the price they pay for a franchise to the value of player contracts and then amortize that value over five or fewer years. Thus if a team is purchased for $400 million, $200 million of that may be amortized at $40 million annually for each of the first five years of ownership. If this team had operating profits (before amortization, depreciation, and interest) of $30 million, it could then show a book loss of $10 million.

 

This can be found on page 57, chapter 4 of Zimbalist's May the Best Team Win

 

Futhermore:

 

Why would the Cubs (and several other teams) want to reduce their reported revenues? Let me count the ways. First, since 1996 MLB has had a revenue sharing system that levies a tax on a team's net total revenue. In 2001 this tax was 20 percent. Thus for every dollar in local revenue not reported, teh team saves just under 20 cents. Since WGN pays no such tax to the broadcasting industry, it is preferrable for the parent corporation, Tribune, to have the profits appear on WGN's books.

 

Second, baseball teams (and even the Cubs, who were pleading for public permission to erect higher left-field stands in 2002) seek various kinds of public support for their facilities. They believe that the more impecunious they appear, the more likely such support will be forthcoming.

 

Third, every few years the owners negotiate with the players over a new collective bargaining contract. The owners alway sseek new restrictions in the labor market to lower salaries. INvariably, one of the justifications for these restrictions is that the teams are losing money. WHether or not the Players Association is persuaded by such arguments, it appears to be permanently fixed as part of the owners' foreplay.

 

Fourth, MLB is the only professional sport in the United States that has a presumed antitrust exemption. Periodically MLB is called before Congress to justify this special treatment. One of hte arguments that MLB has repeatedly trotted out - most recently by Selig before the U.S. Congress in December 2001 - is that the industry can't possibly be abuising its market power because it is not profitable

That's on page 62

 

And there's hundreds of pages more.

 

And you accuse ME of skewing the truth.

 

I'm not calling you a liar in this case, well, actually, I am. Show me something, because this is taken verbatim from his book, and it'd be a startling reversal on his part.

Some very well-written posts 2003. I think I even detected a hint of Shakespeare there. I don't agree with your thoughts overall, but nonetheless you win the debate hands down in my book. In this situation, the "facts" of the past and present are something that we'll never know, so it leaves open the door to any viewpoint. At least your thoughts are well written, as opposed to the knee-jerk and poorly presented thoughts from the other side of the aisle. A few good points were made there, but on the whole it's the usual cast of characters presenting gibberish disguised as argument.

 

I'm with you except I do agree with most of 2003's thoughts.

 

Keep going man. This has been a pretty fun and informative thread. Most of the basics I knew but you have taken it a bit more indepth.

I agree, please continue because this is the way many of us will actually learn what is going on, and why things happen the way they do between the Marlins and the politicians.

The way Loria handled business in Montreal is very nearly proof enough.

 

If you really want to believe that Loria is barely scraping by, when revenue sharing last year would of netted him at least twice what the team payroll was on top of was made from ticket sales, continue to be naive.

 

I am completely open to hearing what you have to say about Loria being a great owner and doing what he can to get the team to where it needs to be. Sadly, your opinion and whats actually happening really contradict. You say Forbes isnt reliable, well your opinion is even less. And all you have really put forth is your opinion.

You may want to read up on the facts of how Loria handled business in Montreal than accept the opinions of disgruntled minority owners, disappointed fans and shameless business and municipal leaders. By all accounts, including both the original Expos owner and by the actions of the controlling partner previous to Loria, Montreal was unable to support the Expos as MLB developed the new economic model.

Maybe we are judging too hard, but there is one undeniable fact -- who is the common element in both the Montreal fiasco & the Marlins fiasco ? You know that does say a lot.....and probably screams the loudest that Loria just shouldn't be an MLB owner. Its hard enough to ruin one franchise so badly you make them move, but to do it twice takes exratordinary resolve.

 

Loria is some piece of work.

Before I left for the game, and wasn't that a great night (!!!), while I haven't found the interview I alluded to yet, I have found a great abstract on the IRS regulations governing just this subject and a look inside a major league team's finances which was filed with the SEC.

 

If y'all don't mind I'll enjoy the evening and get the stuff posted in the morning. I think people will find it about as definitive as it gets, is not gong to be controversial at all and for those who think the Forbes numbers are right on, you'll be surprised at the results. But honestly I just can't stay up until 2 am organizing this stuff.

 

Stay tuned.

In fact I'm not being supportive of Loria nor calling him a great owner, my contention is only that he isn't the bad owner, nefarious, the lining his pockets with cash owner you and your kind want everyone to believe.

 

Me and my kind? You mean every Marlins fan besides you and rFerry?

 

Anyhow, in Montrel Loria demanded and begged for a new stadium. It didnt happen. He dismantled the team and sold.

 

There are more reasons than just the way he operates the team that hes an awful owner, first and foremost he just doesnt have the financial capability to own one. Its very possible the franchise value is above his actual net worth already.

That's a very interesting telling of events. I've never heard any one tell it like that. Most critics of Loria's actions in Montreal center on his refusal of a stadium based upon his letting a lease on stadium land lapse. However, your story doesn't offer any insights because it doesn't fit along with the following facts: it wasn't Loria that begged for a new stadium, that was in motion before he assumed control. Nor did it necessarily not happen, it was left at a standstill and Loria and the minority owners decided it not worth it. The team was dismantled as a result of Loria's investments as cheap young stars and prospects were shipped out for 30-something millionaire journeymen. He sold the club not for his own interests, but those of MLB, John Henry, Washington, Miami, the other 29 clubs and everyone but the fans of Montreal and the Yawkey trust.

Maybe we are judging too hard, but there is one undeniable fact -- who is the common element in both the Montreal fiasco & the Marlins fiasco ?

It's not who, it's what.

Loria isn't the problem with the Marlins, nor is it Huizenga, it's a combination of whats and we, as fans, form a couple of them. The same formula existed in Montreal. Hopefully we'll avoid their fate.