Deadspin.com just leaked all the Marlins financial documents for 2008

[Anonymous]

http://deadspin.com/5619235/florida-marlins-financial-documents/gallery/

[Something_Fishy]

I wish I had a better understanding of what this all meant...

[Anonymous]

Same. To be honest, I found it on another website. But, it sounded really interesting.

[Fishes on the Pond]

Quickly looking over it, here is some information:

 

On accrual basis the partnership made 3.9M for the year ended October 31, 2009 and 29.5M for the year ended October 31, 2008. Accrual basis means the expenses are recorded when the occur (when you receive the bill) and not when paid and the income is recorded when it was earned and not when it is paid. For example, if you work the last week of December 2009, the paycheck came in January 2010 and the monies show on your 2010 W-2 and not when it was earned (W-2 of 2009). The parnership would record their income in 2009.

 

The investors put in probably more than 89.5 M prior to 10/31/07 and now have negative equity of 61.5 M (10/31/09) which means the partnership has suffered 151M in losses which may go back to the Expos. The losses are taken on the partners' tax returns up to whatever monies they put in. So Loria's share of the losses went against any other income he may have made from his art gallery, for example, on his tax return and he paid less taxes to the IRS.

 

The financials not only include the baseball club, but the Jupiter Hammerheads (Inc) and the new stadium (Marlins Stadium Operators, LLC and Marlins Stadium Developers, LLC)

[gizmo]

So..............umm........in plain English this means?

[Entendu]

I can digest most of this for you all if someone hasn't already once i get home because it's not showing up fully on my iPhone.

[Something_Fishy]

I also can't see the thing too clearly bwcUae I'm on iPhone at the current time as well, but is there a way to differentiate between expo monies and marlins monies? That's a hefty amount of red to take in.

[Fishes on the Pond]

So..............umm........in plain English this means?

 

 

 

This has been a losing proposition for the partners so far. Whatever cash they have put in (like buying GM stock), they have lost. So if Loria invested $1M in the Expos/Marlins, he has lost all that money and then some. So every $1 he put in, the Expos/Marlins have lost $2 so far--roughly speaking.

 

But what we can't tell is what the Marlins are actually worth on the market. For example, George Steinbrenner and his group bought the Yankees for $10M in 1973. It is worth nearly $3.4B now. I don't think the Marlins have jumped anywhere that kind of value (33,900%), but with the new stadium and a team that can contend the partnership will probably make money.

 

From November 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009: The Marlins brought in 16.7M from tv/radio broadcasting. Also 89.9M from MLB related income. Total revenue was $135.5M

[dom2613]

They were harping on this on 790 this morning. They were saying that the reason we didn't add any pieces to this years team was because the ownership didn't profit enough in 09.

[Rabbethan]

Here's a decent breakdown by Biz of Baseball:

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4654:detailed-financial-info-from-pirates-rays-marlins-angels-and-mariners-released&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42

 

The article says they'll be doing a detailed one of all the teams in the next few days.

[Fishes on the Pond]

I also can't see the thing too clearly bwcUae I'm on iPhone at the current time as well, but is there a way to differentiate between expo monies and marlins monies? That's a hefty amount of red to take in.

 

 

 

I haven't found anything to differentiate between the two. I'm at work so I haven't had much time to look at it and you can't print it so you can study it. The copies are too faint. And it goes 42 pages!!

 

There are a lot of deferrals, prepaids, payables and accruals so it is a little hard to decipher. It would be great to get a copy and convert to cash basis and see how much of the profit/loss has to do with the accrual basis. Obviously some of the profit/loss is paper such as depreciation.

 

Obviously they are deferring salaries, loan interest on the stadium. And their financials are a little different because they don't own the stadium. So other than 4M in leasehold improvements which have a zero value in less than 2 years, their biggest equipment investment is the motorcoach (1.1M). The stadium--construction in progress is 49.6M at October 31, 2009 and franchise rights are shown at 31.7M

 

I sure wish I could get a copy!!!

[Rabbethan]

They were harping on this on 790 this morning. They were saying that the reason we didn't add any pieces to this years team was because the ownership didn't profit enough in 09.

 

That might be true, the ownership made nothing in 2009, $3M. They made a nice profit in 2008 though.

 

 

Also, the 2008 Seattle Mariners who won 61 games lost $4.5M in 2008.

[Fishes on the Pond]

They were harping on this on 790 this morning. They were saying that the reason we didn't add any pieces to this years team was because the ownership didn't profit enough in 09.

 

 

$3.9M income isn't a lot on revenue of $135.5M. It is 2.87%. So for every $1 brought in that's less than 3 cents of profit.

[Fishes on the Pond]

They were harping on this on 790 this morning. They were saying that the reason we didn't add any pieces to this years team was because the ownership didn't profit enough in 09.

 

That might be true, the ownership made nothing in 2009, $3M. They made a nice profit in 2008 though.

 

 

Also, the 2008 Seattle Mariners who won 61 games lost $4.5M in 2008.

 

True 2008 was a better year for the Marlins. they made 21.06% on $139.6M. They actually took in more gross income in 2008.

[Fishes on the Pond]

Here's a decent breakdown by Biz of Baseball:

http://bizofbaseball...-news&Itemid=42

 

The article says they'll be doing a detailed one of all the teams in the next few days.

 

 

Can't wait to see it.

[Dr Beinfest]

Im not 100% sharp on this stuff but page 5 has a semi-detailed report of the Marlins money on 2008 and 2009.

 

Listed the Marlins as a net income for 2009 as 3.9 million, and in 2008 as 29.462 million (the sharp decrease as a result of the new Stadium).

 

From what I understand of reading this, and take what I write with a grain of salt, but revenue sharing really is not as big as (at least I) once understood.

 

I also know brackets = negative cash flow, look at me Im so smart. Listed as negative cash flow from investing (duh) at 34 million, and 36.5 million financed.

 

I cant tell you what it all means... but I would judge this as... operations = minimal but still profitable. Debt = huge.

 

But yeah I have no idea what Im talking about.

[MillerTime]

Aww shucks. It would be such a shame if they had to sell the team. :mischief

[fishfan46]

I doubt new ownership would change things much. Nobody is in business to lose money. Unfortunately until more people show up, they aren't going to spend the money. Hopefully it will turn around with the new stadium.

[Fishes on the Pond]

Im not 100% sharp on this stuff but page 5 has a semi-detailed report of the Marlins money on 2008 and 2009.

 

Listed the Marlins as a net income for 2009 as 3.9 million, and in 2008 as 29.462 million (the sharp decrease as a result of the new Stadium).

 

From what I understand of reading this, and take what I write with a grain of salt, but revenue sharing really is not as big as (at least I) once understood.

 

I also know brackets = negative cash flow, look at me Im so smart. Listed as negative cash flow from investing (duh) at 34 million, and 36.5 million financed.

 

I cant tell you what it all means... but I would judge this as... operations = minimal but still profitable. Debt = huge.

 

But yeah I have no idea what Im talking about.

 

 

Yes, there are 3 sources of cash shown on page 5. (1) from operating the team which is basically 3.9M + or - the changes in current assets/current liabilities which in this case was negative (2) from investing which is basically buying/selling fixed assets (equipment, stadium) and equities (like stock ownership) in other entities (MLB Netwwork) which in this case was negative, and (3) from financing which in this case is borrowing/paying back loans but mainly borrowing in this case which was more positive (MORE borrowing) than (1) and (2). SO it boils down to they are borrowing more money to operate and building. Just what we know--the stadium.

 

One of the items you look at is the ratio of current assets to current liabilities which in 2009 is 36.9M to 28.9M (page 2). Know as the quick ratio. You want the current assets to be greater because it means you have more cash than you have bills. The Marlins ratio is 1.28 to 1 meaning for every $1 you have in bills you have $1.28 to pay those bills. Obviously for 12 months they are doing fine.

 

Now the second item is you look at the ratio of long-term assets (property and other investments such as Jupiter Hammerheads) to long-term liabilities (loans and deferred compensation--JJ, Hanley). Again you want the assets greater than the liabilities. But in the Marlins case it is opposite. That is long-term assets is $109.7M ($146.7M- 36.9M) and long-term liabilities is $179.2 and the ratio is $109.7/$179.2 which is .612. This means for every $1 the Marlins owe to others the Marlins have only 61.2 cents to pay that off. Now that doesn't look too good, BUT.....the long-term liability mainly is the stadium which will bring in more $ and signed players which should bring more butts in the stands--more competitive team. And a company who is heavy building, that is, the Marlins you would anticipate or not be surprised for their debt to be high.

 

Basically it is the long-term assets (property, other investments--stadium, Jupiter, etc.) which generate the income BESIDE the team--(1) operating the team.

[Fishes on the Pond]

Im not 100% sharp on this stuff but page 5 has a semi-detailed report of the Marlins money on 2008 and 2009.

 

Listed the Marlins as a net income for 2009 as 3.9 million, and in 2008 as 29.462 million (the sharp decrease as a result of the new Stadium).

 

From what I understand of reading this, and take what I write with a grain of salt, but revenue sharing really is not as big as (at least I) once understood.

 

I also know brackets = negative cash flow, look at me Im so smart. Listed as negative cash flow from investing (duh) at 34 million, and 36.5 million financed.

 

I cant tell you what it all means... but I would judge this as... operations = minimal but still profitable. Debt = huge.

 

But yeah I have no idea what Im talking about.

 

 

The stadium doesn't have much to do with the difference. The difference has to do with operations, that is, running the ball team. Net income or loss is derived from the operation of the business--baseball and related fringes. Building/buying/borrowing a stadium don't have to do with the game itself--what's on the field--so it is not a $1 to $1 impact on what the teams makes or losses. These interest on the borrowing, yes affects net income and depreciation--but you can't take depreciation on something not built yet--unless there is new tax law that might change that. Yet tax law shows up on tax returns and not always on financials.

[Dr Beinfest]

Im not 100% sharp on this stuff but page 5 has a semi-detailed report of the Marlins money on 2008 and 2009.

 

Listed the Marlins as a net income for 2009 as 3.9 million, and in 2008 as 29.462 million (the sharp decrease as a result of the new Stadium).

 

From what I understand of reading this, and take what I write with a grain of salt, but revenue sharing really is not as big as (at least I) once understood.

 

I also know brackets = negative cash flow, look at me Im so smart. Listed as negative cash flow from investing (duh) at 34 million, and 36.5 million financed.

 

I cant tell you what it all means... but I would judge this as... operations = minimal but still profitable. Debt = huge.

 

But yeah I have no idea what Im talking about.

 

 

Yes, there are 3 sources of cash shown on page 5. (1) from operating the team which is basically 3.9M + or - the changes in current assets/current liabilities which in this case was negative (2) from investing which is basically buying/selling fixed assets (equipment, stadium) and equities (like stock ownership) in other entities (MLB Netwwork) which in this case was negative, and (3) from financing which in this case is borrowing/paying back loans but mainly borrowing in this case which was more positive (MORE borrowing) than (1) and (2). SO it boils down to they are borrowing more money to operate and building. Just what we know--the stadium.

 

One of the items you look at is the ratio of current assets to current liabilities which in 2009 is 36.9M to 28.9M (page 2). Know as the quick ratio. You want the current assets to be greater because it means you have more cash than you have bills. The Marlins ratio is 1.28 to 1 meaning for every $1 you have in bills you have $1.28 to pay those bills. Obviously for 12 months they are doing fine.

 

Now the second item is you look at the ratio of long-term assets (property and other investments such as Jupiter Hammerheads) to long-term liabilities (loans and deferred compensation--JJ, Hanley). Again you want the assets greater than the liabilities. But in the Marlins case it is opposite. That is long-term assets is $109.7M ($146.7M- 36.9M) and long-term liabilities is $179.2 and the ratio is $109.7/$179.2 which is .612. This means for every $1 the Marlins owe to others the Marlins have only 61.2 cents to pay that off. Now that doesn't look too good, BUT.....the long-term liability mainly is the stadium which will bring in more $ and signed players which should bring more butts in the stands--more competitive team. And a company who is heavy building, that is, the Marlins you would anticipate or not be surprised for their debt to be high.

 

Basically it is the long-term assets (property, other investments--stadium, Jupiter, etc.) which generate the income BESIDE the team--(1) operating the team.

 

Yeah, finance is definitely my not my favorite subject lol. But... what I'd written... considering I barely understand what you are saying... to the dummy down point... what is right and what is wrong?

[Fishes on the Pond]

Im not 100% sharp on this stuff but page 5 has a semi-detailed report of the Marlins money on 2008 and 2009.

 

Listed the Marlins as a net income for 2009 as 3.9 million, and in 2008 as 29.462 million (the sharp decrease as a result of the new Stadium).

 

From what I understand of reading this, and take what I write with a grain of salt, but revenue sharing really is not as big as (at least I) once understood.

 

I also know brackets = negative cash flow, look at me Im so smart. Listed as negative cash flow from investing (duh) at 34 million, and 36.5 million financed.

 

I cant tell you what it all means... but I would judge this as... operations = minimal but still profitable. Debt = huge.

 

But yeah I have no idea what Im talking about.

 

 

Yes, there are 3 sources of cash shown on page 5. (1) from operating the team which is basically 3.9M + or - the changes in current assets/current liabilities which in this case was negative (2) from investing which is basically buying/selling fixed assets (equipment, stadium) and equities (like stock ownership) in other entities (MLB Netwwork) which in this case was negative, and (3) from financing which in this case is borrowing/paying back loans but mainly borrowing in this case which was more positive (MORE borrowing) than (1) and (2). SO it boils down to they are borrowing more money to operate and building. Just what we know--the stadium.

 

One of the items you look at is the ratio of current assets to current liabilities which in 2009 is 36.9M to 28.9M (page 2). Know as the quick ratio. You want the current assets to be greater because it means you have more cash than you have bills. The Marlins ratio is 1.28 to 1 meaning for every $1 you have in bills you have $1.28 to pay those bills. Obviously for 12 months they are doing fine.

 

Now the second item is you look at the ratio of long-term assets (property and other investments such as Jupiter Hammerheads) to long-term liabilities (loans and deferred compensation--JJ, Hanley). Again you want the assets greater than the liabilities. But in the Marlins case it is opposite. That is long-term assets is $109.7M ($146.7M- 36.9M) and long-term liabilities is $179.2 and the ratio is $109.7/$179.2 which is .612. This means for every $1 the Marlins owe to others the Marlins have only 61.2 cents to pay that off. Now that doesn't look too good, BUT.....the long-term liability mainly is the stadium which will bring in more $ and signed players which should bring more butts in the stands--more competitive team. And a company who is heavy building, that is, the Marlins you would anticipate or not be surprised for their debt to be high.

 

Basically it is the long-term assets (property, other investments--stadium, Jupiter, etc.) which generate the income BESIDE the team--(1) operating the team.

 

Yeah, finance is definitely my not my favorite subject lol. But... what I'd written... considering I barely understand what you are saying... to the dummy down point... what is right and what is wrong?

 

Other than the point that net income is down significantly in 2009 because of the stadium, you were right on. And from what I see, and there's a lot there I haven't studied, the powers-to-be have been saying all along they have been losing money. And they have.

 

What I don't know is how to or where to find out the real net worth (not paper net worth which is negative here) so in the long run this may be a good investment. Obviously not any where as good as Steinbrenner's group did!!

 

Actually finance is not my cup of tea either. I'm in accounting, done financial and tax accounting and I've taught college accounting.

[Dr Beinfest]

Okay sounds good, I want to get a better grasp on this stuff eventually. But yeah, lets hope for interest in the Marlins to raise as the new stadium comes around.

[Schnellders]

All these leaked reports may well hvae given me an idea for what to do my 4th year Accounting dissertation on at university in the upcoming year :thumbup

[Rabbethan]

So, what you are saying, is that the ownership has actually lost money on the whole?