You think Loria is going to raise payroll? He has made a ton of money every year and still refused to put any of it into the team. Why would things change with a new ballpark, when he will have even more money to funnel into his piggybank without the Marlins seeing nary a dime of it?

 

Because he said he would? He also said he was losing money every year when that simply wasnt close to being true.

Prove it. Aside from 2006, and what many expect from 2007, this has never been the case.

 

 

When it suited his interests.

Good luck on that. Think any owner, or any man or woman off the street, would play it any differently?

Besides, the entire point of the stadium was to grant the Marlins a permanent home to grow fan interest and access to revenue generating opportunities. Being able to realize the benefits of fan loyalties, luxury boxes, game day revenues and strong attendance numbers will force the team to assure they're operating at peak efficiency. The days of Marlins owners being able to sit back, helpless to improve attendance while collecting huge revenue sharing checks are over. The Delgados will be signed to win championships to attract fan interest, not politician interest.

Well, in the first 5 years a good chunk of money that went down as a "loss"($50 million) were write offs from the purchase of the team. . Add to that revenue sharing, lets say $25 million every year thats fair, and it is impossible that Loria ever lost a single dime. He made so much money before even selling a ticket that with the low payrolls he has kept it wasnt possible to be losing money.

why do I even do this? because I suppose I suffer fools badly.

 

in order for a team to use this depreciation allowance, for it to have any value, that team would have to have profits of a quarter billion dollars ($50 million a year for 5 yrs) after interest and after all the other deductions for business expense, and then this "depreciation" only can go against that portion of player contracts still in force at the date of purchase of the franchise in 2002. Contracts do not mean Mike Lowell going from $350k in 2003 to X in 2004, Y in 2005, etc. Lowell as were most players signed to one year contracts in 2002 and certainly none of them to long term contracts together worth $50 million per season.

 

What is actually being written off is not the cost of the franchise it's long term player contracts of which the Marlins had few at the time of the purchase. The franchise cannot be depreciated, only the player contracts can. Besides as the IRS says, this is one of the most closely monitored items in sports.

 

Oh, and when you trade away a player who was with the team in 2002 on the day the franchise was purchased, the team loses the remainder of the depreciation allowance created by his contract in the first place.

 

There isn't a sane human being on the face of the earth that a) believes the Marlins after all expenses but before depreciation made $250 million between 2002-2006, or for that matter even made a profit (even the crazy numbers at Forbes suggest otherwise and I'm not using them as a source because they are invalid on their face) and b) that they had a cumulative $250 million in long term contracts against which to write-off at the time of the purchase in the first place.

 

also the value diminishes each year of the first five to zero so there is no carry-forward to later years. if the marlins didn't have a $50 million profit in 2002 and $50 million in long term player contracts that depreciation allowance goes away...forever. Ditto, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

 

what frustrates the sh*t out of me with this stuff is this guy comes by every once in awhile and repeats his ridiculous claims when he knows none of it is true, and shame on me, I take the bait and have to explain every time why neither rules governing MLB, nor generally accepted accounting practices or even the IRS allows for what he puts forth as truth. My fear is that if one person believes even one sentence of his bulls*** I ought to set the record straight because if not, that guy tells another guy...you get the picture.

 

 

my apologies on my typing i'm havong my shoulder scoped on friday and can't type with two hands. there is somewhere in the archives a complete explanation of including league by-laws an irs citations. it's interesting how the whole thing actually works\. it would for example work very well if the yankees were sold, not some for most teams and virtally not at all teams in the catgory of the marlins.

Time to put a lid on this can of worms.