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

 

 

That's what it is showing. They have negativity equity.

A few things that sort of irk me. I don't know jack about the way baseball works as a business, so I'm looking at this as an accounting student with quite limited knowledge of the implications of these numbers.

 

They have a positive current ratio, as Fishes said, but an incredibly large chunk of it are in receivable. It's net receivables, so that means it's discounting potential bad debt, but they didn't publish the estimate on the balance sheet and I don't really want to go fishing for it so we'll just have to take the accountants word that they haven't underestimated what they're expecting to lose. Since this seems to include subsidiaries, which I assume are things belonging to Loria other than the Marlins, We don't know exactly how much of what belongs to the Marlins. But back to the current ratio: The point of the current ratio is to illustrate a firm's ability to pay off what they owe now (current liabilities) with what they have now (current assets.) Accounts receivable aren't the most liquid asset to have because it signifies money that one is owed (albeit it is labeled as current, so it is owed within one year or one business cycle, whichever comes last) so depending on what the estimate of bad debt is (which is subtracted from Accounts Receivable to obtain net A/R) the ratio could be misleading.

 

A few other things I saw: Season ticket base seemed to have improved by about $10,000 from the 2008 season to the 2009 season. In general, image 2 gives you a nice read on how much change in revenues/expenses occured from 2008 to 2009 - and the best part of it is that it has nothing to do with what's already been bought or owed for 2010 because expenses and revenues are acknowledge when they are incurred and those expenses and revenues won't be incurred until 2010.

 

 

I'm sure Fishes could tell us more, but comparing this to the Pirates', you realize who the villains really are :thumbdown

 

 

(Sorry if I babbled on about stuff no one is interested in, I'm just so excited that I saw all of this in real-life context that I just picked something and wrote on it.)

My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking?

My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking?

 

Yes. But there's provisions that say if Loria sells the team in the first 7 years the City and County get a large portion of the profits. I don't exactly remember what the numbers are but the point is that it's not in Loria's best financial interest to sell the team once they build the stadium.

A few things that sort of irk me. I don't know jack about the way baseball works as a business, so I'm looking at this as an accounting student with quite limited knowledge of the implications of these numbers.

 

They have a positive current ratio, as Fishes said, but an incredibly large chunk of it are in receivable. It's net receivables, so that means it's discounting potential bad debt, but they didn't publish the estimate on the balance sheet and I don't really want to go fishing for it so we'll just have to take the accountants word that they haven't underestimated what they're expecting to lose. Since this seems to include subsidiaries, which I assume are things belonging to Loria other than the Marlins, We don't know exactly how much of what belongs to the Marlins. But back to the current ratio: The point of the current ratio is to illustrate a firm's ability to pay off what they owe now (current liabilities) with what they have now (current assets.) Accounts receivable aren't the most liquid asset to have because it signifies money that one is owed (albeit it is labeled as current, so it is owed within one year or one business cycle, whichever comes last) so depending on what the estimate of bad debt is (which is subtracted from Accounts Receivable to obtain net A/R) the ratio could be misleading.

 

A few other things I saw: Season ticket base seemed to have improved by about $10,000 from the 2008 season to the 2009 season. In general, image 2 gives you a nice read on how much change in revenues/expenses occured from 2008 to 2009 - and the best part of it is that it has nothing to do with what's already been bought or owed for 2010 because expenses and revenues are acknowledge when they are incurred and those expenses and revenues won't be incurred until 2010.

 

 

I'm sure Fishes could tell us more, but comparing this to the Pirates', you realize who the villains really are :thumbdown

 

 

(Sorry if I babbled on about stuff no one is interested in, I'm just so excited that I saw all of this in real-life context that I just picked something and wrote on it.)

 

Explain more about villains? I'm absolutely interested and a large amount of what you said ran way past my head.

My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking?

 

Yes. But there's provisions that say if Loria sells the team in the first 7 years the City and County get a large portion of the profits. I don't exactly remember what the numbers are but the point is that it's not in Loria's best financial interest to sell the team once they build the stadium.

 

 

I thought that was one of the issues on which Loria would not bend, and that the city eventually conceded and took it out of the contract.

My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking?

 

Yes. But there's provisions that say if Loria sells the team in the first 7 years the City and County get a large portion of the profits. I don't exactly remember what the numbers are but the point is that it's not in Loria's best financial interest to sell the team once they build the stadium.

 

 

I thought that was one of the issues on which Loria would not bend, and that the city eventually conceded and took it out of the contract.

What I found said they agreed to it, what got dropped was that the City and County wanted money from the naming rights.

A few things that sort of irk me. I don't know jack about the way baseball works as a business, so I'm looking at this as an accounting student with quite limited knowledge of the implications of these numbers.

 

They have a positive current ratio, as Fishes said, but an incredibly large chunk of it are in receivable. It's net receivables, so that means it's discounting potential bad debt, but they didn't publish the estimate on the balance sheet and I don't really want to go fishing for it so we'll just have to take the accountants word that they haven't underestimated what they're expecting to lose. Since this seems to include subsidiaries, which I assume are things belonging to Loria other than the Marlins, We don't know exactly how much of what belongs to the Marlins. But back to the current ratio: The point of the current ratio is to illustrate a firm's ability to pay off what they owe now (current liabilities) with what they have now (current assets.) Accounts receivable aren't the most liquid asset to have because it signifies money that one is owed (albeit it is labeled as current, so it is owed within one year or one business cycle, whichever comes last) so depending on what the estimate of bad debt is (which is subtracted from Accounts Receivable to obtain net A/R) the ratio could be misleading.

 

A few other things I saw: Season ticket base seemed to have improved by about $10,000 from the 2008 season to the 2009 season. In general, image 2 gives you a nice read on how much change in revenues/expenses occured from 2008 to 2009 - and the best part of it is that it has nothing to do with what's already been bought or owed for 2010 because expenses and revenues are acknowledge when they are incurred and those expenses and revenues won't be incurred until 2010.

 

 

I'm sure Fishes could tell us more, but comparing this to the Pirates', you realize who the villains really are :thumbdown

 

 

(Sorry if I babbled on about stuff no one is interested in, I'm just so excited that I saw all of this in real-life context that I just picked something and wrote on it.)

 

Explain more about villains? I'm absolutely interested and a large amount of what you said ran way past my head.

 

I mean the Pirates. There's a good article floating around FOXSports about how they're making an actual profit while losing - but just buy quickly comparing it to the Marlins:

 

The Marlins owners and partners are taking a loss of $61,446,000 in 2009 and about the same in 2008. The Pirates made 83 million in 2008 and 91 million in 2007 and distributed 20 million of that.

 

It seems like the Marlins have more cash on hand than the Pirates, but quickly glancing through the Rays statements it looks like the Marlins are the normal case here and the Pirates are an anomaly. It kind of makes you wonder why a team that makes tons off merchandise with seemingly very little investments (no investment gains in 2007 or 2008, but rather losses) has no cash.

 

The Pirates have WAAY more assets than the Marlins do. They have 236 million in assets and 153 million in liabilities. Also take into account the fact that the Pirates have the luxury to keep their current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilites) at 2.107, which is unheard of from o what I've seen in my limited time studying accounting. Comparing this to the Marlins (around 1.6) and Rays (1.23,) it seems like they're doing something totally different. Also note that about 85% of the Pirates current assets come from MLB (I assume it's revenue sharing.)

 

To break it down a bit: In the accounting equation there are 3 variables - Assets (what you own,) Liabilities (what you owe) and owners equity (the money put up by the owners of the corporation/company, meaning anyone who has stock or ownership of the business.) The equation is as follows:

 

Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity

 

The rationale behind it is that anything your company owns needs to be funded by either money you owe to creditors (Liabilities) or money put forth by investors or made by the company, which belong to the owners anyway (owners equity) That should help you look at the balance sheet with some idea of what you're looking at.

 

Again, Fishes would probably be able to give you a better explanation but it seems to me that the Pirates are doing things differently than the Marlins and Rays, have made an enormous amount of money, but their team is pretty terrible. It's not even about making a profit; if they can distribute 20 million dollars worth of profit to owners/stakeholders then they've got f***tons of money. Realistically, it's an age-old baseball franchise, they aren't doing this because they're planning on going bankrupt soon.

 

Also, the Pirates and Rays seem to include player contracts as assets, so there's no expense until after the year is over. The Marlins don't have it visible on their balance sheet, so it seems like they expense player salaries as the player plays and the salary is earned (much like regular firms pay salaries to workers, although I don't really understand why there is no liability detailing money they owe players if the contract isn't considered an asset). I don't know what to make of that, but it's something I found weird. It's probably just an option teams have (pay taxes now, or pay taxes later type of thing)

 

I took a look at the Pirates' statement of cash flows to see if they made any money off investments not pertinent to MLB, but it doesn't seem like it. They lost 8 million due to leaseholds and equipments, which is probably just equipment depreciation. I won't go into that but depreciation is used to devalue equipment as time goes on

 

On the Pirates' income statement, They made 15 million in 2007 and paid 21,000 worth of taxes, but made 14.5 million in 2008 and paid 57 million in taxes. It seems like they recently changed the way they record expenses and revenues. Tjhat's legal as long as you don't do it often as a way to 'cook the books' and basically make it seem like you're making tons of money so investors invest in you and creditors lend you money. Either that, or they're cheating on their taxes in plain daylight and I just caught them :mischief

 

Also, the Rays include their allowance for bad debt on their balance sheet (basically, accounts receivables - allowance for bad debt = net A/R, which is what the Marlins show.) It seems like they're given an option to include it. The Marlins didn't so it makes it difficult to gauge if the number is unrealistic or not. It has a lot of impact on the current ratio and generally any ratio that uses assets.)

Let me preface this to say that what we have seen are audited financial statements done by a CPA firm--most likely a fairly large firm. I would bet my life on it. I say this because NO ONE would accept anything different. Not the (1) MLB, (2) creditors, (3) other partners (minority owners), (4) city, (5) county, (6) loan holders, (7) potential partners--just off the top of my head. Audited financials are done to give anyone looking at it a high degree of confidence that nothing is distorted or missing.

 

So the estimate question of bad debts and the amount would have to be accepted by the CPA firm and would have to be realistic (within a range) of what management (the

Florida Marlins) has given them. Otherwise the CPA would NOT put their stamp of approval on the financials. That is true for any number presented.

 

Now I have found a blog on the Sun-Sentinel supposedly written and reviewed by a CPA Jorge Castoles. He has compared the Forbes numbers with the deadspin number. He states the financials have been misstated for 3 items: (1) ownership payments of $10M under an account entitled Administration (which I don't find) (2) Management Fees--Related Party of $2.8M (which I do find) and (3) stadium improvements of $11M which I somewhat find. So if anybody finds any of this stuff do let me know.

 

I can't comment on (1) because I don't find it. Anywhere. In a partnership an "owner" or partner does not draw a "salary" UNLESS they actually operate the business 100% of the time. This isn't the case with the Marlins and at least Loria. I don't know the other partners so I can't comment on them. Ownership "draws" come out of the partnership equity which there isn't any.

 

(2) Management Fee - Related Party. Yes there is such a line. It could be a payment paid for services rendered to someone in (1) who is working 100% of the time in the business. It could be a brother, sister, mother, daughter, etc., spouse. I don't know about ex-spouse or ex-children (Samson). It also could be a payment to another entity which we know this partnership own the Jupiter Hammerheads. So it could be a related party through ownership. Hard to tell when you don't know who the partners are and the ownership of the other entites.

 

(3) stadium improvements of $11M which the Sun-Sentinel shows as ballpark expenses. Well, the question is which ballpark. According to the financials we see there are a couple lines listed as depreciation/amortization of intangibles and stadium improvements and other assets. This is the only number that equals $11 M. The amortization of intangibles may be the benefit of having a baseball franchise. That is, the value of the name of Florida Marlins that Huizenga/Henry "built up". Yes, we could say as fans, WHAT VALUE? But it was a viable baseball team who had one 1 WS within, what 4 years of the franchise founding???? So once you buy a going business, the "value" of Huizenga/Henry go down which we recognize as amortization (don't laugh) as the positive value of the name as the new owners, Loria's group builds. (Be careful, don't swallow your tongue.)

 

So I am not sure where this guy is coming from unless he has more information then what is shown.

 

Now the financials do say that there is a possibility that the entity will decrease in value due to the downturn in the economy which South Florida is under. This is a note to whoever is reading saying there could be a downturn. Again this is also something you only find in audited financial statements. Also on the last page it comments about subsequent events--anything that has happened prior to the printing of the financials which would significantly effect your reading of the financials. This date is February 10, 2010. AGAIN another footenote which indicates a certified audit.

 

Let me give you an example of a subsequent event. Two events have occurred in ABC Company prior to issuing the financial statements. (1) A fire in the men's bathroom e trash basket which required a repainting of the bathroom. (2) The head engineer of the research & development division left his wife, ran away with the CEO's secretary taking the new lumbumbuckeroo device worth millions and on which the patent has not been filed. Now which one is important to the financials? I assume I don't have to answer that. What happens then is the invention theft is disclosed on the financials along with the potential loss of earnings, etc.

 

 

Now Entendu mentioned about the equation Assets = Liabilities + Owners' Equity. On page 1 of the financials (shows 2 at bottom of page) the assets are $146.7M, the liabilities are $208.1M and owners' equity NEGATIVE $61.4M. OR in the equation

 

$146.7M = $208.1M - $61.4M SO the equation does balance

 

$146.7M (assets) = $146.7M which means for the Marlins the creditors (vendors, loans holders, etc. of $208.1M) are owed more than the assets are worth (at this point in time)

 

Entendu, sorry I haven't had a chance to look at the other financials. But your comment about the Pirates have more assets could be true. It could be the baseball team and the ballpark are owned by the same group. The Marlins rent a facility so some of the assets the Marlins use may be shared with the Dolphins. Like lawn equipment. The Marlins don't have their own ticket offices so that equipment most likely is shared. With the Pirates are an older franchise they probably own a lot more stuff.

 

In a partnership the taxes paid by a partner is on whatever net income is their portion from the partnership. And it doesn't necessarily have to equal the partnership interest. I know this sounds strange but it all depends on the partnership agreement and how old the partnership is.

 

I'll give you an example. OLD partnership (I can't remember when the date changed but some time since the 70's if I remember the tax law) some were family owned. Mother, father and 3 kids if I remember correctly. At that time the kids paid income tax just on their own income and not based on their parents' income tax rates. So in this partnership it was written that the mother and father only shared in the net losses and/or depreciation, and the three kids shared in the net income. An "allowable deduction"/expense were BIRTHDAY PRESENTS and COLLEGE TUITION!! Another where some partners were Canadian and some were US citizens (family members). The net losses went to the Canadian partners because the tax rates in Canada were much higher, and the net income went to the US citizens because the tax rates were lower. Obviously the IRS changed the rules. So what I'm saying I don't know what ANY of these partnership agreements say, what tax laws are governing them, etc. Unfortunately when you practice tax accounting you have to know ALL THE RULES no matter when they were enacted.

TAXES--Entendu your comment about how strange the taxes are could also be a timing difference. It is possible to do the financials on the accrual basis and the tax return on the cash basis. In the life of the business it all evens out like a roller coaster. But if you have two roller coasters running side by side one could be higher at one time and the other another time. But at the end they end at the same point. So if the basis is different the taxes per tax return can be different than financials.

 

I had a client who did the financials on accrual basis because he wanted to see how much he actually made as a business. BUT there were times when the business making money and actually collecting that money were quite a bit different. Such as now in recession and this was in Michigan. So his tax return was done on cash--actual cash collected. If he collected his "sales"--money--he could afford paying the tax. This topic of difference between taxes per tax return and financials are discussed in cost accounting but I don't remember what level.

TAXES--Entendu your comment about how strange the taxes are could also be a timing difference. It is possible to do the financials on the accrual basis and the tax return on the cash basis. In the life of the business it all evens out like a roller coaster. But if you have two running side by side one could be higher at one time and the other another time. But at the end they end at the same point. So if the basis is different the taxes per tax return can be different than financials.

 

I had a client who did the financials on accrual basis because he wanted to see how much he actually made as a business. BUT there were times when the business making money and actually collecting that money were quite a bit different. Such as now in recession and this was in Michigan. So his tax return was done on cash--actual cash collected. If he collected his "sales"--money--he could afford paying the tax. This topic of difference between taxes per tax return and financials are discussed in cost accounting but I don't remember what level.

 

 

Yea, I had assumed that much. It was just me thinking out loud and putting all that I saw onto a post. Looking back at it, it really serves no purpose to bring up what I did

Both you guys are awesome.

I've written a response about the Rays and Pirates 3 TIMES and it disappeared e TIMES :mad . I don't want to do it again tonight. Will right more on Pirates and Rays tomorrow.

I've written a response about the Rays and Pirates 3 TIMES and it disappeared e TIMES :mad . I don't want to do it again tonight. Will right more on Pirates and Rays tomorrow.

 

 

Make sure to save it on wordpad before you post it here. I'd go crazy if that happened to me.

Leaked documents turn Marlins from stingy to greedy: http://bit.ly/9xeXsy

I've written a response about the Rays and Pirates 3 TIMES and it disappeared e TIMES :mad . I don't want to do it again tonight. Will right more on Pirates and Rays tomorrow.

 

 

Copy before you hit post, that way you dont go crazy. Especially on MarlinsBaseball.com, sometimes it acts funny and goes haywire.

 

Both you guys are awesome.

 

 

Dont you wish our arguments could be more like these?

Leaked documents turn Marlins from stingy to greedy: http://bit.ly/9xeXsy

 

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to ignore the timeperiod where they were losing money and only point at the market correction, where they were trying to make their money back?

Leaked documents turn Marlins from stingy to greedy: http://bit.ly/9xeXsy

 

 

This hate-filled article starts by scoffing at Loria's and Sampson's excuse for making so much money in 2006 due to a desire to stay in the black as a means of acquiring confidence and financing for a new stadium (which worked), and then follows by stating that if Loria couldn't afford to finance the team (which he did) he should have sold it to a city so they could sell overpriced tickets. Because real businesses grow money on trees.

 

The entire blog exists off the basis of trolling and just, in general, being angry and negative.

 

It also ignores that, for the most part, the Marlins retaining most of their players since 2006 has made it very difficult to make any amount of money without committing financial suicide. This article pretty much says that the Marlins should just, in the words of Michael Dell, "...shut it down and give the money back..."

 

Keep in mind this is after attacking the team for their actions in 2006 in an article written a few hours ago. With this train of thought, the Heat should immediately be disbanded right now for their horrible 2007-2008 record regardless of their current situation as it stands now. Girardi should also be fired from the Yankees.

Leaked documents turn Marlins from stingy to greedy: http://bit.ly/9xeXsy

 

 

This hate-filled article starts by scoffing at Loria's and Sampson's excuse for making so much money in 2006 due to a desire to stay in the black as a means of acquiring confidence and financing for a new stadium (which worked), and then follows by stating that if Loria couldn't afford to finance the team (which he did) he should have sold it to a city so they could sell overpriced tickets. Because real businesses grow money on trees.

 

The entire blog exists off the basis of trolling and just, in general, being angry and negative.

 

It also ignores that, for the most part, the Marlins retaining most of their players since 2006 has made it very difficult to make any amount of money without committing financial suicide. This article pretty much says that the Marlins should just, in the words of Michael Dell, "...shut it down and give the money back..."

 

Keep in mind this is after attacking the team for their actions in 2006 in an article written a few hours ago. With this train of thought, the Heat should immediately be disbanded right now for their horrible 2007-2008 record regardless of their current situation as it stands now. Girardi should also be fired from the Yankees.

 

If the only way you can afford a stadium is by giving the fans the worst product (at least financially) in baseball and earning the entire payroll in profit, then you can't really afford a stadium. Look, it worked, and Loria and Samson might have been smart to do it, but I don't believe baseball should allow their teams to operate like that. Hopefully when the new stadium opens they will legitimately spend and the fans will come and it all will have worked. We'll see.

You paint Marlins LP as just greasing their pockets without pointing to the fact that they have actually spent more money than they've earned. That journalism seems a little yellow. You're only looking at the last 5 seasons and ignoring the seasons before that which were their reasons for their market correction. They earned $3.9M last year, they didn't exactly made a good profit, which every business should be allowed to do.

 

You don't see the Palm Beach Post giving their papers away without trying to turn a profit, so why should they expect the Loria to do that?

Then there's this analysis, courtesy of ESPN and the AP:

 

MIAMI -- The Florida Marlins made big profits with baseball's smallest player payroll in 2008-09, and team president David Samson says the income was needed to ensure being able to borrow money for a new ballpark.

 

Team financial statements acquired by Deadspin.com show the Marlins netted $49 million during the two seasons, with operating income of $37.8 million in 2008 and $11.1 million in 2009. Samson didn't dispute the figures during a conference call Monday.

 

"It was critical for us as a team to make sure we had enough money to put into the ballpark," he said.

 

The Marlins had the lowest player payroll in the major leagues both seasons -- $22 million in 2008 and $37 million in 2009. Last winter they reached an agreement with the players' union to increase spending in the wake of complaints team payroll had been so small as to violate baseball's revenue sharing provisions.

 

Under owner Jeffrey Loria, the franchise has always claimed payroll matches revenue. In explaining the 2008-09 profits, Samson said there was another part of the equation: the need to borrow money for ballpark financing.

 

"We had to show that we were a healthy company that was not overleveraged, having too much debt," he said.

 

"The information that is now public basically confirms everything that we have said over the years in terms of how we have operated the team with an eye toward one thing, and that was making sure that baseball would be secure in South Florida, and we would be able to contribute what was required in order to consummate a stadium transaction."

 

The Marlins' profits in 2008 came after they traded All-Star slugger Miguel Cabrera following the 2007 season, one of many cost-cutting moves under Loria.

 

"We could have had Cabrera and no ballpark," Samson said.

 

Florida's new home is expected to open in 2012. Total cost of the project is estimated at $609 million, with the Marlins paying more than $120 million.

 

While Samson said the financial statements support what he has said in the past, he said he was disappointed the numbers had been made public. When asked why, he said: "It's just that we're a private company. ... 'Disappointed' is the exact word. Not angry. Not putting our head in the sand. Not denying it. Not kicking and screaming like petulant children. Disappointed."

 

Samson said the leaking of the documents was a crime.

 

"It will be followed up intensely by Major League Baseball and its member clubs," he said.

 

The Marlins' financial statements became public one day after The Associated Press reported that the cellar-dwelling Pittsburgh Pirates made nearly $29.4 million in 2007 and 2008, according to team documents.

 

 

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

 

This really ticks me off. They basically couldn't even put down the contribution on the new stadium without ripping off the fans for two years. Hope that they make up for it by increasing salaries beyond expected revenue for the next couple of years.

 

What a bunch of jokers these guys are.

But but but they're still $61 million in the red!

 

The worst part is that today I heard Lebatard say that they should spend money and allow themselves to go into the red because they'll make it back in a few years. But it seems that's not true, because you're never allowed to make any money back without the media lambasting you.

But but but they're still $61 million in the red!

 

The worst part is that today I heard Lebatard say that they should spend money and allow themselves to go into the red because they'll make it back in a few years. But it seems that's not true, because you're never allowed to make any money back without the media lambasting you.

 

 

The media hates the Marlins for the most part as it is, the team is treated like the pirates and royals on all the major sports outlets. That is, of course, if the outlets aren't busy pointing out we have "15 fans". Hell, would it kill for increased coverage of the small market teams on the national scale? I'm obviously being a little extreme here, but as much attention as the Yankees and Red Sox get it's really no wonder they have as many "fans" as they do. Though, I digress...

 

The explanation of these numbers actually had me respect the FO a tiny bit more, as I can tangibly see what is going on in the pilots seat and at least be able to come to grips with some of the moves made in the past. I've always known money was tight around here, but if Loria is pushing this team forward while operating at a loss (how much is the Marlins' fault could be determined later), he will have in my book move closer to a respectable guy. Cheapskate or not, somebody who pulls that kind of stunt must really care, or at least can make a convincing argument that they care.

I just don't get it, did these writers like Andrew Abramson of the Palm Beach Post (posting above as SouthFLASports.com) not realize that Florida Marlins LP has negative $61M equity or do they believe that Florida Marlins LP should just always be in debt forever and ever?

 

If it's the first reason then fine, it's 42 pages, they're not financial experts, though what they are writing is a bit wreckless.

 

If it's the second, the I just don't know.

I find it amusing that these documents pretty much validate everything many of us have been saying on this forum for years, and yet there are still a few clowns claiming that the Marlins are being greedy and up to unethical behavior.