August 24, 201015 yr Anyone have a media guide handy? I bet they probably stay somewhere in Manhattan, hence being away from Citi Field. What a travesty that is. However, I think Morrison might be trying to be satirical so it's all good. Hilton New York near Carnegie Hall and Central Park. :lol Thanks for coming through in the clutch. I bet that cab ride feels a lot longer going to the stadium than it does leaving the stadium. Logan was surely joking. Yeah, I was thinking he was joking too. Though, I will say that cab ride is long, I stayed right by there a couple years back.
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09.
August 24, 201015 yr After reviewing these financials, at least two things are clear: 1) the FO did turn $49M worth of profit in the past two years, and 2) the partnership is still $61M in the red even after the two years of profit. Which begs one lingering question: exactly how much in losses did Loria and the partnership carry over from the Montreal days? If a goodly chunk of that 61M was lost while operating as the Marlins, then I can't be too upset by the recent attempts to recoup losses. I agree that Loria and co is entitled to make a profit, and I don't agree that he should spend his own personal fortune just to try to win championships. A baseball team is a business, not a hobby for rich people. If, however, the lion's share was lost operating as Les Expos, then I think we should all be outraged that Loria is using South Florida to recoup his losses incurred in Montreal. MLB was obviously privy to the financials back then, and should never have allowed any ownership group who'd lost so much money in Montreal to take the reins of another team. But who knows? We may never know the truth. I'm going to repeat what "..." said, because it's important and people don't seem to [always] be keeping this in mind: The large amount of money he has invested in this team could, nearly risk-free, yield tremendous elsewhere of at least $5 million ++ per year, possible $7 million+, even with the terrible interest rates we currently have. I think you are missing the point. He's saying that if a large portion of that debt is tied to Loria's failed investment in Montreal, it should be disconcerting to a Marlins fan to see the FO carrying that liability. Any ownership group could have come in and bought the team from Henry and got the shaft with local revenue, but would not have the extra burden of that Montreal debt. He raises a good point and one has to wonder about how much of that red is trying to recover from the losses in Montreal. The Marlins could have fared better if an ownership group bought the franchise without that baggage. Exactly right. Again, I want to believe that MLB, who would have been privy to the extent of the Expos' losses, would never have saddled South Florida with an owner so deep in the red that he'd need to make money hand over fist for years just to get out of the hole. But you never know with those clowns.
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M.
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income?
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income? He's talking about profit, and you're not.
August 24, 201015 yr In evaluating how profitable a business one should look at it's operations and that's measured by operating income.
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income? So you don't pay interest on your house mortgage or your car loans? When you pay these payments doesn't your checking account go down by the interest? Can you go out and buy CDs/DVDs or go to the movies or South Beach or to the Marlins on this interest expense or does it reduce your spendable cash? You can borrow money interest free? In financial presentation interest expense is normally shown below operating income like it is in the Marlins' financials, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate expense or you just ignore it because you want the "profit" larger. Should we also ignore the interest income that the Marlins make which is also in the same area? Can you just ignore interest income on your tax return? Why make it look like this partnership made a lot more money just because of presentation of the financials and where the auditors/accountants/CPA/financial rules place it? Their NET INCOME/what they SPEND later is $35M for TWO years. And last year's profit is 3.9M when the Marlins upped their players' compensation by $13.3M. I don't get why people want to just talk about operating income when the partnership can't spent interest EXPENSE . Is someone saying that ALL OTHER COMPANIES never, ever borrow money? The Marlins are the only one???
August 24, 201015 yr Fishes knows his sh*t Yeah tell me about it. I have enough of a hard time learning computer networking but wow, I can't understand half the things about business and this kind of stuff. Trying to understand it makes me :pullhair All I know is that it's just sad one way or the other for the Marlins and for the fans and I hope that someday things will be better for our team :crossfingers
August 24, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income? So you don't pay interest on your house mortgage or your car loans? When you pay these payments doesn't your checking account go down by the interest? Can you go out and buy CDs/DVDs or go to the movies or South Beach or to the Marlins on this interest expense or does it reduce your spendable cash? You can borrow money interest free? In financial presentation interest expense is normally shown below operating income like it is in the Marlins' financials, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate expense or you just ignore it because you want the "profit" larger. Should we also ignore the interest income that the Marlins make which is also in the same area? Can you just ignore interest income on your tax return? Why make it look like this partnership made a lot more money just because of presentation of the financials and where the auditors/accountants/CPA/financial rules place it? Their NET INCOME/what they SPEND later is $35M for TWO years. And last year's profit is 3.9M when the Marlins upped their players' compensation by $13.3M. I don't get why people want to just talk about operating income when the partnership can't spent interest EXPENSE . Is someone saying that ALL OTHER COMPANIES never, ever borrow money? The Marlins are the only one??? You should look at operating income because the interest expense will depend on how the owner chose to fund the business. If he funded it with cash then the business wont have interest expense. If he funded it with debt then the business will have interest expense. Take a look at this example of two businesses that are exactly alike in terms of sales, cost of sales and administrative expenses but one was funded with cash and the other with debt: Funded with cash - the guy put in $120 to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: 0 Income Before Taxes: 8 Income taxes: (2) Net Income: 6 Funded with debt - the guy took out a $120 loan to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: (10) Income Before Taxes: (2) Income taxes: 0 Net Income: (2) In this example both would have the same operating income but the one funded with cash would have a net income and the one funded with debt would have a net loss.. and this is just because of how the business was funded.. either with cash or debt.
August 25, 201015 yr Isn't it illegal for a business owner to fund the business with cash? Wouldn't he have to sell shares? You can't just put into or take out from Stockholders' Equity, IIRC.
August 25, 201015 yr After reviewing these financials, at least two things are clear: 1) the FO did turn $49M worth of profit in the past two years, and 2) the partnership is still $61M in the red even after the two years of profit. Which begs one lingering question: exactly how much in losses did Loria and the partnership carry over from the Montreal days? If a goodly chunk of that 61M was lost while operating as the Marlins, then I can't be too upset by the recent attempts to recoup losses. I agree that Loria and co is entitled to make a profit, and I don't agree that he should spend his own personal fortune just to try to win championships. A baseball team is a business, not a hobby for rich people. If, however, the lion's share was lost operating as Les Expos, then I think we should all be outraged that Loria is using South Florida to recoup his losses incurred in Montreal. MLB was obviously privy to the financials back then, and should never have allowed any ownership group who'd lost so much money in Montreal to take the reins of another team. But who knows? We may never know the truth. I'm going to repeat what "..." said, because it's important and people don't seem to [always] be keeping this in mind: The large amount of money he has invested in this team could, nearly risk-free, yield tremendous elsewhere of at least $5 million ++ per year, possible $7 million+, even with the terrible interest rates we currently have. I think you are missing the point. He's saying that if a large portion of that debt is tied to Loria's failed investment in Montreal, it should be disconcerting to a Marlins fan to see the FO carrying that liability. Any ownership group could have come in and bought the team from Henry and got the shaft with local revenue, but would not have the extra burden of that Montreal debt. He raises a good point and one has to wonder about how much of that red is trying to recover from the losses in Montreal. The Marlins could have fared better if an ownership group bought the franchise without that baggage. Ah, okay. Yeah, that does suck.
August 25, 201015 yr Exactly right. Again, I want to believe that MLB, who would have been privy to the extent of the Expos' losses, would never have saddled South Florida with an owner so deep in the red that he'd need to make money hand over fist for years just to get out of the hole. But you never know with those clowns. and God knows how much he may still owe. And he can use the excuse of this "old Expo" debt to fail to raise the payroll in the new stadium. If this is what has really happened, Bud Selig is to blame, for screwing us and not Washington. But of course this would now make a lot of sense, because they didn't want to saddle the "new" market in Washington with Loria & his old Expo debt. So just give that team to a new owner who can start fresh, and screw So Fla, because they have been dragging their feet on a new stadium. This was Selig's payback to So Fla, for taking too long to build a stadium. Maybe that is what happened and maybe not, but it does start to make sense as to why Loria came here and not to Washington.
August 25, 201015 yr Isn't it illegal for a business owner to fund the business with cash? Wouldn't he have to sell shares? You can't just put into or take out from Stockholders' Equity, IIRC. No, you don't have stockholder's equity if you have a partnership. Stockholders own a corporation and the most they can lose is the value they pay in. Normally the only ways to get equity out of a corporation are (1) other stockholders buy them out or (2) a buyer is found to buy the stock. A partnership puts an amount in as an investment. Each partner may be the same amount in and be equal partners. They could be different; some of the partnership basis could be given in property, equipment, or a special skill. In a partnership you have general partners who normally run the business or have significant input in the business. Some partnerships have general partners and limited partners where limited partners may be "silent" and only put in money but have very little on how the business runs. In a partnership limited partners normally can only lose their investment, but the general partners can be held accountable for losses that exceed their investment (equity) in the business.
August 25, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income? So you don't pay interest on your house mortgage or your car loans? When you pay these payments doesn't your checking account go down by the interest? Can you go out and buy CDs/DVDs or go to the movies or South Beach or to the Marlins on this interest expense or does it reduce your spendable cash? You can borrow money interest free? In financial presentation interest expense is normally shown below operating income like it is in the Marlins' financials, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate expense or you just ignore it because you want the "profit" larger. Should we also ignore the interest income that the Marlins make which is also in the same area? Can you just ignore interest income on your tax return? Why make it look like this partnership made a lot more money just because of presentation of the financials and where the auditors/accountants/CPA/financial rules place it? Their NET INCOME/what they SPEND later is $35M for TWO years. And last year's profit is 3.9M when the Marlins upped their players' compensation by $13.3M. I don't get why people want to just talk about operating income when the partnership can't spent interest EXPENSE . Is someone saying that ALL OTHER COMPANIES never, ever borrow money? The Marlins are the only one??? You should look at operating income because the interest expense will depend on how the owner chose to fund the business. If he funded it with cash then the business wont have interest expense. If he funded it with debt then the business will have interest expense. Take a look at this example of two businesses that are exactly alike in terms of sales, cost of sales and administrative expenses but one was funded with cash and the other with debt: Funded with cash - the guy put in $120 to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: 0 Income Before Taxes: 8 Income taxes: (2) Net Income: 6 Funded with debt - the guy took out a $120 loan to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: (10) Income Before Taxes: (2) Income taxes: 0 Net Income: (2) In this example both would have the same operating income but the one funded with cash would have a net income and the one funded with debt would have a net loss.. and this is just because of how the business was funded.. either with cash or debt. The question at hand is whether the Marlins are choosing not to spend rather than not spending because they can't. I don't understand how you could possibly look at Operating Income and judge by that. Companies use creditors to fund their operations. It's fairly safe to say that if they wouldn't have had interest expense (meaning, no loans) then they probably wouldn't have that same Operating Income. It'd be lower because you can't expend owners to fund everything exclusively. Not to mention the fact that owners are already losing money here. There is a new ballpark around the corner, full of new revenue opportunities and a higher possiblity of return. Are you telling me you wouldn't take a loan to finance your company if you knew the brighter days were ahead of you and not behind you?
August 25, 201015 yr Isn't it illegal for a business owner to fund the business with cash? Wouldn't he have to sell shares? You can't just put into or take out from Stockholders' Equity, IIRC. There's nothing illegal about funding a business with your own cash.
August 25, 201015 yr After reviewing these financials, at least two things are clear: 1) the FO did turn $49M worth of profit in the past two years, and 2) the partnership is still $61M in the red even after the two years of profit. Which begs one lingering question: exactly how much in losses did Loria and the partnership carry over from the Montreal days? If a goodly chunk of that 61M was lost while operating as the Marlins, then I can't be too upset by the recent attempts to recoup losses. I agree that Loria and co is entitled to make a profit, and I don't agree that he should spend his own personal fortune just to try to win championships. A baseball team is a business, not a hobby for rich people. If, however, the lion's share was lost operating as Les Expos, then I think we should all be outraged that Loria is using South Florida to recoup his losses incurred in Montreal. MLB was obviously privy to the financials back then, and should never have allowed any ownership group who'd lost so much money in Montreal to take the reins of another team. But who knows? We may never know the truth. I'm going to repeat what "..." said, because it's important and people don't seem to [always] be keeping this in mind: The large amount of money he has invested in this team could, nearly risk-free, yield tremendous elsewhere of at least $5 million ++ per year, possible $7 million+, even with the terrible interest rates we currently have. I think you are missing the point. He's saying that if a large portion of that debt is tied to Loria's failed investment in Montreal, it should be disconcerting to a Marlins fan to see the FO carrying that liability. Any ownership group could have come in and bought the team from Henry and got the shaft with local revenue, but would not have the extra burden of that Montreal debt. He raises a good point and one has to wonder about how much of that red is trying to recover from the losses in Montreal. The Marlins could have fared better if an ownership group bought the franchise without that baggage. Ah, okay. Yeah, that does suck. It is a valid point, but is anybody here acquainted with how the Loria group purchase went down? I wasn't a baseball fan let alone a Marlins fan then. Were there other groups lining up to buy it or was Loria's group the only one willing to purchase the Marlins? If there were no other groups vying for the Marlins, the phrase "beggers can't be chosers" comes to mind.
August 25, 201015 yr Isn't it illegal for a business owner to fund the business with cash? Wouldn't he have to sell shares? You can't just put into or take out from Stockholders' Equity, IIRC. No, you don't have stockholder's equity if you have a partnership. Stockholders own a corporation and the most they can lose is the value they pay in. Normally the only ways to get equity out of a corporation are (1) other stockholders buy them out or (2) a buyer is found to buy the stock. A partnership puts an amount in as an investment. Each partner may be the same amount in and be equal partners. They could be different; some of the partnership basis could be given in property, equipment, or a special skill. In a partnership you have general partners who normally run the business or have significant input in the business. Some partnerships have general partners and limited partners where limited partners may be "silent" and only put in money but have very little on how the business runs. In a partnership limited partners normally can only lose their investment, but the general partners can be held accountable for losses that exceed their investment (equity) in the business. Got it, thanks.
August 25, 201015 yr The question at hand is whether the Marlins are choosing not to spend rather than not spending because they can't. I don't understand how you could possibly look at Operating Income and judge by that. Companies use creditors to fund their operations. It's fairly safe to say that if they wouldn't have had interest expense (meaning, no loans) then they probably wouldn't have that same Operating Income. It'd be lower because you can't expend owners to fund everything exclusively. Not to mention the fact that owners are already losing money here. There is a new ballpark around the corner, full of new revenue opportunities and a higher possiblity of return. Are you telling me you wouldn't take a loan to finance your company if you knew the brighter days were ahead of you and not behind you? It depends. Some companies use credit for funding while others use cash and others use a combination of the two. I work for a company with subsidiaries all over Latin America and depending on the country the subs are either funded with capital contributions entirely or almost entirely by debt. In those cases it would be all debt except for token capital requirements some countries have. So you have to judge based on operating income as the interest expense will depend on the cash the owner wanted to invest into the business. Regarding the Marlins and the estimate for profits since Loria bought in '02, okay, lets use Net Income instead of Operatign Income. The estimate is between $80M to $90M while having the lowest payroll in MLB. It's better to use Operating Income but whatever.
August 25, 201015 yr My guess is since they bought the team in '02 they've turned a profit in the $125M to $150M range while having the lowest payroll in MLB. I think they probably about broke even or lost a handful of millions per year from 02 to '04 and then lost between $10M and $15M in '05 and made about $100M in '06 & 07. And then the $49M profit in '08 & '09. From what I understand they didn't make $49M profit in '08-'09, they made $35M. I'm talking about operating income and you may be talking about net income? So you don't pay interest on your house mortgage or your car loans? When you pay these payments doesn't your checking account go down by the interest? Can you go out and buy CDs/DVDs or go to the movies or South Beach or to the Marlins on this interest expense or does it reduce your spendable cash? You can borrow money interest free? In financial presentation interest expense is normally shown below operating income like it is in the Marlins' financials, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate expense or you just ignore it because you want the "profit" larger. Should we also ignore the interest income that the Marlins make which is also in the same area? Can you just ignore interest income on your tax return? Why make it look like this partnership made a lot more money just because of presentation of the financials and where the auditors/accountants/CPA/financial rules place it? Their NET INCOME/what they SPEND later is $35M for TWO years. And last year's profit is 3.9M when the Marlins upped their players' compensation by $13.3M. I don't get why people want to just talk about operating income when the partnership can't spent interest EXPENSE . Is someone saying that ALL OTHER COMPANIES never, ever borrow money? The Marlins are the only one??? You should look at operating income because the interest expense will depend on how the owner chose to fund the business. If he funded it with cash then the business wont have interest expense. If he funded it with debt then the business will have interest expense. Take a look at this example of two businesses that are exactly alike in terms of sales, cost of sales and administrative expenses but one was funded with cash and the other with debt: Funded with cash - the guy put in $120 to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: 0 Income Before Taxes: 8 Income taxes: (2) Net Income: 6 Funded with debt - the guy took out a $120 loan to fund his company Sales: 300 Cost of sales: (200) Gross Profit: 100 Admin Expenses: (92) Operating Income: 8 Interest Expense: (10) Income Before Taxes: (2) Income taxes: 0 Net Income: (2) In this example both would have the same operating income but the one funded with cash would have a net income and the one funded with debt would have a net loss.. and this is just because of how the business was funded.. either with cash or debt. (1)There are not many BRAND NEW businesses which make a profit in the first year or years of operation. And that is the example you are given. You are also showing a corporation because of the income tax so I'll address it in this manner. (2)In a new business it would be the owner, that is, guy in this example, who took the loan it. The loan would be in HIS name and not the business' name. NO BANK/LENDING INSTITUTION is going to loan $ to a NEW BUSINESS without a guarantee by the owner/guy. Thus if the guy borrowed the money and put the money into the business, it would be the guy's investment and it would be HIS interest expense which he COULD NOT deduct on the business' return. It is PERSONAL interest. (3) The guy cannot have the BUSINESS pay the interest if it is a personal loan which in your example it would most likely be because it is illegal. (4) IF you found a bank/lending institution WILLING TO LOAN the business money without any security (which would happen in your example because the company has no equity), in your example there would be very little if no money because the only way to MAKE MONEY in your example is either buy merchandise or make merchandise. As you don't show the balance sheet I don't know what kind of product you are selling/producing. But if you are making something you would have work-in-process inventory as well as a raw materials inventory. ALSO the money invested/loaned would be used to purchase some fixed assets even if it is office furniture but more probably machinery. (5) If the bank/lending institution gave the guy the money, where is investment $? A corporation cannot be set up without some investment from the owner. Let's assume, for example, that it was a go for the first year as you show and you need to expand. Do you really think that when the guy brought in their statement at shown they are going to stop at operating income and loan $ on it? :no , not true OR if the guy decides to sell the business, do you think any protential buyers are just going to stop looking at the above at operating income and not want to know if there is a loan to pay or potential income tax? :no, not true
August 25, 201015 yr The question at hand is whether the Marlins are choosing not to spend rather than not spending because they can't. I don't understand how you could possibly look at Operating Income and judge by that. Companies use creditors to fund their operations. It's fairly safe to say that if they wouldn't have had interest expense (meaning, no loans) then they probably wouldn't have that same Operating Income. It'd be lower because you can't expend owners to fund everything exclusively. Not to mention the fact that owners are already losing money here. There is a new ballpark around the corner, full of new revenue opportunities and a higher possiblity of return. Are you telling me you wouldn't take a loan to finance your company if you knew the brighter days were ahead of you and not behind you? It depends. Some companies use credit for funding while others use cash and others use a combination of the two. I work for a company with subsidiaries all over Latin America and depending on the country the subs are either funded with capital contributions entirely or almost entirely by debt. In those cases it would be all debt except for token capital requirements some countries have. So you have to judge based on operating income as the interest expense will depend on the cash the owner wanted to invest into the business. Regarding the Marlins and the estimate for profits since Loria bought in '02, okay, lets use Net Income instead of Operatign Income. The estimate is between $80M to $90M while having the lowest payroll in MLB. It's better to use Operating Income but whatever. I disagree. Are you saying that you have companies that lose $ after the interest is paid every year and someone would continue to run the companies every year knowing that there will be losses every year? You must look at net income. If they can't make money at that point, there is not a reason to own the business unless it is helping you tax wise or sub wise to run the company. In the example you are discussing above you are talking about companies with subs which may have other companies other than themselves who make up the profit/loss of the others. Are the subs showing a percentage of income/loss from the other subs or are you talking equity method? Yes I have companies with intentional losses to help others. But I believe that is completely different than the Marlins' examples. Their investment in other companies such as MLB Network on the equity method.
August 25, 201015 yr What is worth mentioning also is on page 1 (says page 2 at bottom). It has a related party promissory note for a total of $15.4M. (Current portion and long-term portion.) Somebody has loaned in a substantial amount of money to keep this partnership going. The total cash is $3.4M which means the Marlins have used this money to operate/pay bills on this related party loan
August 25, 201015 yr Well I think it's clear that Fishes is our chief financial expert on these forums
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.