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.

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.

I think you may be forgetting that teams with new stadiums are among the bigger recipienst of revenue sharing.

 

I think the Loria business model will continue to apply as long as teams can partially replace the reduction in local revenues (due to firesale like tactics) with increases in revenue sharing revenues. Not that there's anything wrong with that from the owner's perspective. Making money is a good thing. It just sucks for the fans.

I think you may have lost your head if you believe teams earn greater shares of revenue sharing by opening a new stadium. Even if that correlation were correct (it may, teams in major media markets need not the expanded suites and stadium advertising, they hold sufficient revenues), it would not pass the logic test to suggest causation. Revenue sharing is a system in which all 30 teams pay in their locally-earned revenues at similar rates. The collection is then divided among the teams, ranked 1-30 with the top paying in and the bottom receiving the most and only the bottom 15 revenue earners receiving net-positive amounts. Revenues from a new stadium would bump them higher on the list and would cause them to be less reliant on revenue sharing.

 

 

I think you're forgetting that price elasticity works both ways. The reasons why local revenues drop are similarly the reasons why revenues increase. In the extreme case ($30-50 million dropped from payroll), your model may make sense. But that's just one year. The necessary costs, including the lost opportunity costs, to rebuild the club and its revenue potential would continue on for years down the road.

any new update??? or did marlins and city miami gone into cave????

any new update??? or did marlins and city miami gone into cave????

 

"any new updates? or did the marlins and the city of miami go into a cave??"

 

couldnt resist anymore, sorry.

I dont think anyone on this forum has any real insight into the stadium but I will throw in my speculation if we dont hear some progress soon than I would assume it probably isnt going to get done at the orange bowl site . I saw Jayson Stark on espn he stated that ownership wanted to move to san antonio last year but mlb WANTS a team in south florida and will not let the Marlins move . Sadly I think we are in for many more years of low payroll , threats of relocation , and no stadium deal in sight ....I really hope I am wrong

I dont think anyone on this forum has any real insight into the stadium but I will throw in my speculation if we dont hear some progress soon than I would assume it probably isnt going to get done at the orange bowl site . I saw Jayson Stark on espn he stated that ownership wanted to move to san antonio last year but mlb WANTS a team in south florida and will not let the Marlins move . Sadly I think we are in for many more years of low payroll , threats of relocation , and no stadium deal in sight ....I really hope I am wrong

 

If that is the case, then MLB should buy out Loria, negotiate a stadium with the city, and resell everything to a legit owner who is committed to South Florida as a package. There is plenty of $$$ in South Beach, Star Island, the Grove, and PBC. There has to be an ownership group that would immediately step up.

There have been numerous suiters to buy the marlins, most notibly Cisneros, who is a billionaire from Venezuela. They would not have a hard time finding an owner down here with the means and political connections to make this happen.

The Marlins would be playing at Bicentennial Park if an owner with connections like Cisneros and Mickey Arrison had bought the club.

I dont think anyone on this forum has any real insight into the stadium but I will throw in my speculation if we dont hear some progress soon than I would assume it probably isnt going to get done at the orange bowl site . I saw Jayson Stark on espn he stated that ownership wanted to move to san antonio last year but mlb WANTS a team in south florida and will not let the Marlins move . Sadly I think we are in for many more years of low payroll , threats of relocation , and no stadium deal in sight ....I really hope I am wrong

 

If that is the case, then MLB should buy out Loria, negotiate a stadium with the city, and resell everything to a legit owner who is committed to South Florida as a package. There is plenty of $$$ in South Beach, Star Island, the Grove, and PBC. There has to be an ownership group that would immediately step up.

Buy out the franchise from Loria? I guess you mean foreclose on the loan MLB gave them originally...Has he even paid any of that at all yet?

any new update??? or did marlins and city miami gone into cave????

 

"any new updates? or did the marlins and the city of miami go into a cave??"

 

couldnt resist anymore, sorry.

 

"Are there any new updates, or did the Marlins and the City of Miami go into a cave?"

 

If you are going to correct someone, do it right. Better yet, leave the guy alone. He should not be ridiculed for trying to communicate in a language that is foreign to him.

The Marlins would be playing at Bicentennial Park if an owner with connections like Cisneros and Mickey Arrison had bought the club.

 

We can only dream they will play on the bay, that would rival SF for nicest views.

The managers of the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County appeared together on a Spanish language radio show this morning. They spoke mainly about the planned tunnel for the Port of Miami, but they also mentioned the stadium issue.

 

They said that they were disappointed that the Marlins were not contributing as much as they had promised earlier, but they realize the Orange Bowl site may not be as profitable for the Marlins as a downtown site would have been. Still they say that the Orange Bowl site is a good site that will benefit the area around the stadium.

 

The city manager said something to the effect that perhaps there may be good news in the December 13th City Commission meeting and also in the County Commission meeting of December 18th, "so that everyone involved could have a good holiday season". There were no follow up questions.

 

We'll have to wait until Thursday to find out.