Oh btw, here's their client list.

 

Enjoy. I'll leave to others to determine how big and prestigious the firm is. They are after all principal outside counsel for Major League Baseball so I would surmise they know a thing or two about the tax implications of the game. Swift you're going to have to accept when you grow up that other people's opinions (and I'm not talking about myself) have value too. I didn't feel I had to disparage Zimbalist in my post to make a point, why you have to do it all the time I just don't understand.

 

Client List...it's beautiful thing !

And here we are, once again, spinning the point of the debate.

 

NO ONE CARES ABOUT FOLEY AND LARDNER. If anything, they're a biased party because they represent MLB. Would they ever engage in any comments that could harm a client?

 

Hmmm....chew on that one.

 

As for everything else, fantastic rebuttal. Actions speak loud and clear there. I'll let you slither out now. :thumbup

As for Forbes, what say I? Comically hypocritical on your part to cite Forbes. After all, Forbes said the Marlins made $43 million in 2006. It's Good to be a Small Market Team, Marlins turn $43 million profit

 

What's that? All of a sudden, you're back to your initial stance that Forbes is just creating numbers, so that $43 million has to be an error? Oh, wait, wouldn't that discredit your drum-beating about Forbes.

 

If you could spend a little more time reading and less time being insulting you would notice that on the Forbes chart the $43 million figure is their "projected" operating profit for this year, unless this is no longer 2007.

As for Forbes, what say I? Comically hypocritical on your part to cite Forbes. After all, Forbes said the Marlins made $43 million in 2006. It's Good to be a Small Market Team, Marlins turn $43 million profit

 

What's that? All of a sudden, you're back to your initial stance that Forbes is just creating numbers, so that $43 million has to be an error? Oh, wait, wouldn't that discredit your drum-beating about Forbes.

 

If you could spend a little more time reading and less time being insulting you would notice that on the Forbes chart the $43 million figure is their "projected" operating profit for this year, unless this is no longer 2007.

 

You should practice what you preach. Those numbers are for 2006, and every Forbes number is "projected." Since, I hope you're aware, Forbes is not directly privy to MLB finances.

Then you'll have to explain to us why it says 07 under the $43 million column.

 

And for the record you know why I used Forbes as a source - because of you sweetie - because of you.

And here we are, once again, spinning the point of the debate.

 

NO ONE CARES ABOUT FOLEY AND LARDNER. If anything, they're a biased party because they represent MLB. Would they ever engage in any comments that could harm a client?

 

You do know of course that Professor Andrew Zimbalist is a paid consultant to Major League Baseball don't you?

 

You were saying?

 

"Zimbalist said he could not comment on how the data in the SEC filing might

reflect on the Braves' profitability, as he does consulting for Major League Baseball and is privy to confidential data."

 

source :

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Gkel-...;cd=1&gl=us

Maybe your vision is failing you, but there is no mention of 2007 on here:

 

?The latest Forbes Business of Baseball survey has been published

(http://tinyurl.com/2e5fpf). Not surprisingly, the Yankees still top the

list at $1.2bn, but the Mets have slipped by the Red Sox for the

number two slot. Here are a few more observations:

 

1)The Red Sox earned a profit of $19.5mn, versus a 2005 loss of

$18.5mn. Interestingly, the level of profit would have more than

covered the price tag of say Bobby Abreu, lending credence to my

assertion at the deadline that the Red Sox inactivity was more the

result of protecting the bottom line at the expense of the bottom of

the lineup.

 

2)The Florida Marlins earned a profit of $43mn thanks to a robust

margin of about 33%. The Devil Rays, Pirates, Brewers and Reds all

earned over $20mn in profit. It?s good to be a small market team.

 

3)Apparently thanks to a pending new ballpark, the Twins franchise

value jumped 33%, which was tops in the game (retraction anyone?).

The Cubs, Dodgers and Devil Rays followed closely behind.

 

4)According to Forbes, MLB teams collectively lost $57mn in 2003. In

2006, the industry earned a $496mn profit.

 

As a matter of fact, the only 7 on the page is the $57 million lost in 2003.

 

And ONCE AGAIN, here we are, with you spinning in circles.

 

I have, and continue to have one point. YOU MISREPRESENTED ANDREW ZIMBALIST. And, once again, you've yet to say anything to the contrary. This is not, nor has it ever been on my part, a discussion about MLB financing. It all stemmed as a result of you using my name and my source and attributing it incorrectly. And here we are, and continue to be, without you adding anything credible or substantive regarding your claims of Zimbalist. Or, for that matter, making much more than an elaborate opinion of YOURS to be a so-called smoking gun. At no point in there did you attribute anything damning to a source with completely unequivocally factual grounding. Anything involving the nitty gritty of baseball ledgers requires one part hypothetical with two parts clairvoyance. Or in your case, that, plus one part suspension of facts regarding the MLB anti-trust exemption.

Sure looks like it says 07 to me

 

Just picked one page from Forbes - The 2004 Florida Marlins pages shows a loss of 11.6 million which on the chart they have rounded to -12 million

 

Forbes 2004 Florida Marlins page

And here we are, once again, spinning the point of the debate.

 

NO ONE CARES ABOUT FOLEY AND LARDNER. If anything, they're a biased party because they represent MLB. Would they ever engage in any comments that could harm a client?

 

You do know of course that Professor Andrew Zimbalist is a paid consultant to Major League Baseball don't you?

 

You were saying?

 

"Zimbalist said he could not comment on how the data in the SEC filing might

reflect on the Braves' profitability, as he does consulting for Major League Baseball and is privy to confidential data."

 

source :

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Gkel-...;cd=1&gl=us

 

So then that makes Zimbalists stance exponentially more credible.

 

If he is privy to the inner workings of his employer and went on record as saying they were engaging in ambiguously fraudulent business practices, surely he would have to be seen as categorically credible regarding specific statements directed at and about MLB.

 

In the case of your obscure tax source, they make a general statement regarding IRS law that would need to have a complete suspension of MLB economic understanding for it to be applicable.

 

Of course it's difficult to convince the IRS that a 50% amortization is an allowable loop-hole, but it still exists, it's still in practice. Or are you now disputing this too?

 

I'd like to close with one thought for anyone who is still trying to weigh the merits of this:

 

If Marlins2003 is to be believed, that his ambiguous stance (as I understand it at the moment) is that his research is absolute, his sources (one of which is Forbes) is infinitely credible, then he has yet to rebut the essence of this debate. That the Marlins as they stand now are insanely profitable, making money hand over fist. As he constantly changes his theory, I can only assume that this is still his maintained stance: that the Marlins are spending all they can afford and are not making scads of money. Forbes cites a $43 million profit for the 2006 team. Forbes is one of Marlins2003's infallible sources. If Marlins2003 is to then say that Forbes is making money up, that they are not privy to finances of teams (as MLB contends) then his research is moot. The crux of his argument regarding the 2002-2005 timeframe is completely and utterly hypothetical, leaving us back at square one, where the only source of credible consequence is my source, Andrew Zimbalist. He of the intelligent calculated opinion, he of the Harvard education, he of the authority as the preeminent sports economist in the country. His stance is clearly defined, and as of this moment, completely undisputed. Teams have avenues to misrepresent their finances for the worse (or in this case, the team's benefit). How you could then apply that to say that an article for the hardball times is completely rooted in fiction is beyond me.

Sure looks like it says 07 to me

 

Just picked one page from Forbes - The 2004 Florida Marlins pages shows a loss of 11.6 million which on the chart they have rounded to -12 million

 

Forbes 2004 Florida Marlins page

 

 

The link provided does not go to the graph, nor does it reflect anything regarding the 2006 or 2007 team, merely the 2004 one.

 

The link I provided does not reflect a graph of that nature. For all I can gather, you authored that yourself.

 

There has been no mention in any of my sources of a 2007 revenue. The one I provided clearly specifies 2006.

 

My friends, I think we are all aware of what we are now witness to. For shame.

I get it now. If my source is legal counsel to Major League Baseball and one of the top 25 law firms in the country they are not to be believed but they would put their reputations and careers and 160 of practice on the line to lie for MLB.

 

BUT if it's Swift's source, who consults to Major League Baseball, he's exponentially more credible. !

 

Good thinking there Swifty. People are really going to eat that one up.

 

And again, I used Forbes because of YOU. Now you don't like what they say and you are blaming me lolololololol

 

BTW, I'm still laughing at the line "obscure tax source". You are a joke.

Sure looks like it says 07 to me

 

Just picked one page from Forbes - The 2004 Florida Marlins pages shows a loss of 11.6 million which on the chart they have rounded to -12 million

 

Forbes 2004 Florida Marlins page

 

 

The link provided does not go to the graph, nor does it reflect anything regarding the 2006 or 2007 team, merely the 2004 one.

 

The link I provided does not reflect a graph of that nature. For all I can gather, you authored that yourself.

 

There has been no mention in any of my sources of a 2007 revenue. The one I provided clearly specifies 2006.

 

My friends, I think we are all aware of what we are now witness to. For shame.

 

I'm amazed that you would go this far rather than simply admitted you are wrong.

 

1. When I sent Admin the graph as it is displayed, I actually sent him two graphs. Admin, our beloved fearless leader but them together like that I suspect for convenience and sent it back to me like that. Since it showed the two components as one I didn't really care.

 

Please feel free to ask Admin yourself.

 

2. As for the link, I believe it to be correct. It points to the 2004 Forbes page. What's your problem???

Sure looks like it says 07 to me

 

Just picked one page from Forbes - The 2004 Florida Marlins pages shows a loss of 11.6 million which on the chart they have rounded to -12 million

 

Forbes 2004 Florida Marlins page

 

 

The link provided does not go to the graph, nor does it reflect anything regarding the 2006 or 2007 team, merely the 2004 one.

 

The link I provided does not reflect a graph of that nature. For all I can gather, you authored that yourself.

 

There has been no mention in any of my sources of a 2007 revenue. The one I provided clearly specifies 2006.

 

My friends, I think we are all aware of what we are now witness to. For shame.

 

I'm amazed that you would go this far rather than simply admitted you are wrong.

 

1. When I sent Admin the graph as it is displayed, I actually sent him two graphs. Admin, our beloved fearless leader but them together like that I suspect for convenience and sent it back to me like that. Since it showed the two components as one I didn't really care.

 

Please feel free to ask Admin yourself.

 

2. As for the link, I believe it to be correct. It points to the 2004 Forbes page. What's your problem???

 

My problem is there's no graph on the page.

 

usually when you cite sources, they're relevant.

And here is the link to the Forbes 2007 Florida Marlins page where the two graphs can be found.

 

Forbes 2007 Florida Marlins Page with Graphs

 

I'm waiting for your apology.

 

And the link to the 2004 page in fact does not have graphs but what it does have, is financials - the important one being -$11.6 million in Operating Profit which translates on the graph (for Forbes convenience purposes, not mine) to the -$12 mil figure.

 

They rounded the number Swift :banghead

I get it now. If my source is legal counsel to Major League Baseball and one of the top 25 law firms in the country they are not to be believed but they would put their reputations and careers and 160 of practice on the line to lie for MLB.

 

BUT if it's Swift's source, who consults to Major League Baseball, he's exponentially more credible. !

 

Good thinking there Swifty. People are really going to eat that one up.

 

And again, I used Forbes because of YOU. Now you don't like what they say and you are blaming me lolololololol

 

BTW, I'm still laughing at the line "obscure tax source". You are a joke.

 

Well, if your source takes steps to protect his client, it stands as a stark contrast to my source having complete disregard for any agreement between him and employer.

 

Moreover, since my source posted an economic discourse while yours made a tax law generalization, I'd say credibility is lent substantially to the former since he would be privy to information not readily accessible to, oh say, Forbes.

 

And since Zimbalist took copious steps to outline the reprehensible book-keeping practices of MLB, that sure stands as a stark contrast.

And here is the link to the Forbes 2007 Florida Marlins page where the two graphs can be found.

 

Forbes 2007 Florida Marlins Page with Graphs

 

I'm waiting for your apology.

 

See how easy that was. Thank you very much for providing a link that would make sense with what you were attempting to substantiate.

The link for the graphs was of Admin's creation not mine. Please ask him.

BUT I must say this regarding the chart.

 

We are misreading it, or Forbes has the years incorrect. If you allow me to elaborate:

 

Forbes, on the 2006 web-forcast for the Marlins, acknowledge a payroll being slashed below $20 million, stating "Team payroll dropped from $75 million to less than $20 for the 2006 season, by far the lowest in baseball. When season ticket holders wanted a refund on paying major league prices for minor league players, they were rebuffed by the team. "

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/336786.html

(see how that worked? great, anyway, continuing on)

 

Yet, the chart for 2006 curiously reflects a "player expenses" value in the chart for 2006 as the highest, absolute highest, with a value of $91 million. Higher than the 2005 value of $58 million despite an admission of serious cost cutting from '05-'06. Curious oversight on their part. Very curious. Dare I say they mis labeled the x-axis on their graph?

All I ask people to do is go look at the firms client list - Coors beer, GE, the Green Bay Packers, Major League Baseball, Allstate Insurance, Fannnie Mae, Nissan Motor Company, the list is endless.

 

They are in fact expert in sports accounting and taxation law. They wouldn't have the clients they have of they weren't.

 

Swift, because he can't stand being proved wrong at every turn is now figuratively suggesting this firm is the functional equivalent of two guys working out of their car chasing ambulances, something Swift may get to do if and when he passes the bar.

 

This is typical Swift behavior. Destroy everyone you don't agree with. Any source not of his liking have no credibility.

 

It's sad.

The chart is the chart. take it up with Forbes.

 

Forbes is after all, your definitive source. Right?

 

Keep in mind we had to pay towards Delgado, Castillo, Pudge (I believe), Leiter too. I thought the number high but it's your preferred source so I used it. You would think if it was wrong they would have fixed it by now. Tens of thousands if not some multiple of that number have viewed it.

 

There's a reason for everything. In your case there's an excuse for everything. Give it a rest.

All I ask people to do is go look at the firms client list - Coors beer, GE, the Green Bay Packers, Major League Baseball, Allstate Insurance, Fannnie Mae, Nissan Motor Company, the list is endless.

 

They are in fact expert in sports accounting and taxation law. They wouldn't have the clients they have of they weren't.

 

Swift, because he can't stand being proved wrong at every turn is now figuratively suggesting this firm is the functional equivalent of two guys working out of their car chasing ambulances, something Swift may get to do if and when he passes the bar.

 

This is typical Swift behavior. Destroy everyone you don't agree with. Any source not of his liking have no credibility.

 

It's sad.

 

Hmm, and I ask everyone to understand that MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL is unlike any one of those clients in that they have an ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION.

 

To make standard tax law applicable to MLB would require a complete suspension of the anti-trust exemption.

 

Terribly sad that we still cannot get over this simple stumbling block.

 

And, if we're resorting to personal insults, I would also like to point out that Marlins2003 has run this path far more than I, but if the gloves are off, they are off, and that is sad. It is sad that Marlins2003 has to resort to these personal attacks since he is so backed into a corner. I instead choose to take the high-road with him, as I feel sorry that he is such a failure in life that he must talk down the future of others because he so greatly wasted his past.

The chart is the chart. take it up with Forbes.

 

Forbes is after all, your definitive source. Right?

 

Never said that, not once.

 

Zimbalist is and, might I mention, you've yet to provide the damning self admission you so promised.

 

I'd just hope that since you put so great weight in the chart, you'd at least briefly research it's accuracy. Such is the life of you.

Swift you have been touting Forbes' numbers on this website for what seems like an eternity. When you were busy monopolizing this thread in it's first few pages you had no problem posting link after link to Forbes pages you thought would make your case.

 

You can't walk away from them now. You made your bed, sleep in it.

Swift you have been touting Forbes' numbers on this website for what seems like an eternity. When you were busy monopolizing this thread in it's first few pages you had no problem posting link after link to Forbes pages you thought would make your case.

 

You can't walk away from them now. You made your bed, sleep in it.

 

And I never once called them a definitive source.

 

I said

 

Please do understand that any and all financial information from the teams is purely hypothetical, but these are businessmen, no good businessman (as they all are) would stay with an organization that continually hemorrhages cash.

 

And here we are, pages later without your smoking gun Zimbalist rebuttal. Predictable.

All I ask people to do is go look at the firms client list - Coors beer, GE, the Green Bay Packers, Major League Baseball, Allstate Insurance, Fannnie Mae, Nissan Motor Company, the list is endless.

 

They are in fact expert in sports accounting and taxation law. They wouldn't have the clients they have of they weren't.

 

Swift, because he can't stand being proved wrong at every turn is now figuratively suggesting this firm is the functional equivalent of two guys working out of their car chasing ambulances, something Swift may get to do if and when he passes the bar.

 

This is typical Swift behavior. Destroy everyone you don't agree with. Any source not of his liking have no credibility.

 

It's sad.

 

Hmm, and I ask everyone to understand that MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL is unlike any one of those clients in that they have an ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION.

 

To make standard tax law applicable to MLB would require a complete suspension of the anti-trust exemption.

 

Terribly sad that we still cannot get over this simple stumbling block.

 

And, if we're resorting to personal insults, I would also like to point out that Marlins2003 has run this path far more than I, but if the gloves are off, they are off, and that is sad. It is sad that Marlins2003 has to resort to these personal attacks since he is so backed into a corner. I instead choose to take the high-road with him, as I feel sorry that he is such a failure in life that he must talk down the future of others because he so greatly wasted his past.

 

Swift of course is now trying to say (see list of clients) that Major League Baseball is unlike Major League Baseball?????????

 

Huh?

 

And you're wrong about the IRS and anti-trust obviously. That is unless you have more knowledge of our tax code and it's application in this case than several experts I've offered as evidence.

 

I guess you didn't actually bother to read the links I presented. Let me repost one. Clearly you're wong.

 

Begin reading to the left of Loria's pic

 

Oh and as for me being "cornered", hardly, my kid's at his mother and I have all night to prove and reprove what a buffoon and bully boy you really are. I'm having a great time. Maybe I'll order some pizza and make a party out of it. (Actually that's a good idea !!!)