Well I think it's clear that Fishes is our chief financial expert on these forums

 

 

The CFE designation and all of its trademarks are explicitly licensed to MarlinsBaseball.com and Admin.

Admin reserves the sole right to grant the CFE designation.

 

(I'd do better but tomorrow is only going to be my 3rd day of Contracts Law.)

Well I think it's clear that Fishes is our chief financial expert on these forums

 

 

The CFE designation and all of its trademarks are explicitly licensed to MarlinsBaseball.com and Admin.

Admin reserves the sole right to grant the CFE designation.

 

(I'd do better but tomorrow is only going to be my 3rd day of Contracts Law.)

 

Oh great..first business and investments and now law... can someone please speak to me in english, I think I forgot what that sounds like...lol just playing

I just started law school so I gather at some point Ill be hearing about all this.

 

But just based on the statements and the general idea ive got from this thread that they did make money around 50 million the last two years and yet are still in the red (61 million) i think that much of the debt they have was from the Expo days. if that wasnt the case ud hear Samson all over the radio telling us how they are still in the red as an organization and what not. The only thing Ive heard from him is that they were saving the money to put towards the stadium. If he hasnt made that argument yet (and maybe I havent heard it) then judged by their actions much of this debt was carryover from the Expo days. and they fear other documents proving this might come out and theyd look even worse for using the aforementioned argument.

 

But again I trust in the CPAs and the accounting majors on here who know what they are doing. Id LOVE to see the report for the year we had an 18 or whatever million dollar payroll.

 

And the whole thing also makes baseball look bad if they dumped an ownership saddled in debt on us because we didnt give them a new stadium.

 

Plus Id love to see this taken to court. If youre gonna take 500 million dollars in public money, the public has a right to know what ur finances look like.

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.

 

What happened was this:

 

John Henry, our former owner, was fed up with his failed efforts to get the politicians to build him a new stadium. The former minority Yankee owner jumped at the chance to buy the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. But he couldn't own two teams. So MLB's solution was to have Henry sell to Loria, who had driven the Expos into the ground, then buy the Expos from Loria for MLB. A few years later (after all 29 teams operated the Expos), MLB sold the Expos franchise to an ownership group in Washington, DC.

I just started law school so I gather at some point Ill be hearing about all this.

 

But just based on the statements and the general idea ive got from this thread that they did make money around 50 million the last two years and yet are still in the red (61 million) i think that much of the debt they have was from the Expo days. if that wasnt the case ud hear Samson all over the radio telling us how they are still in the red as an organization and what not. The only thing Ive heard from him is that they were saving the money to put towards the stadium. If he hasnt made that argument yet (and maybe I havent heard it) then judged by their actions much of this debt was carryover from the Expo days. and they fear other documents proving this might come out and theyd look even worse for using the aforementioned argument.

 

But again I trust in the CPAs and the accounting majors on here who know what they are doing. Id LOVE to see the report for the year we had an 18 or whatever million dollar payroll.

 

And the whole thing also makes baseball look bad if they dumped an ownership saddled in debt on us because we didnt give them a new stadium.

 

Plus Id love to see this taken to court. If youre gonna take 500 million dollars in public money, the public has a right to know what ur finances look like.

 

 

I think that's a ridiculous statement. The statements suggest that the Marlins wouldn't have turned a profit throughout their history. The same poor attendance, below-average prices, below-average media rights contracts existed, but with larger payrolls and seemingly lower revenue sharing receipts. To somehow suggest that 2002-2007 were profitable as well would be an unreasonable deduction to make, and that is essentially what you're suggesting by saying that the debt belongs to the Expos years.

 

Also, MLB saddling us with an owner in debt because our stadium problems? That's rich. Rather, it was Loria that was saddled with a profit-sucking franchise. Same with MLB, they weren't saddled with Loria, they were saddled with a franchise so poor that its revenue sharing made up 33-34% of their entire revenues. It's not a coincidence that the Marlins were among the rumored contraction franchises or that pundits had proposed we become the Expos II.

What happened was this:

John Henry, our former owner, was fed up with his failed efforts to get the politicians to build him a new stadium. The former minority Yankee owner jumped at the chance to buy the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. But he couldn't own two teams. So MLB's solution was to have Henry sell to Loria, who had driven the Expos into the ground, then buy the Expos from Loria for MLB. A few years later (after all 29 teams operated the Expos), MLB sold the Expos franchise to an ownership group in Washington, DC.

 

That's a little harsh. Loria was brought in in 2000. After the 1994 strike. After the fire sale. After the Olympic Stadium's roof falling apart. After the government rebuffed requests for a new stadium. After attendance and local support had tanked. After the former owners had discussed moving to DC. After an showcase exhibition game in DC.

 

By all accounts Loria was brought in to save the team. An owner willingly to invest in a franchise whose city, fans and even owners had given up on. He then proceeded to make investments in the franchise that were not met by the minority owners (like I said, they had given up on the franchise). Through a series of cash calls to reclaim his investments he won overwhelming control of the franchise. However, it would appear that the minority owners had no intent to bring him as a savior, but only as the fall guy for their own disinterest in the team.

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.

 

Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement.

 

Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale.

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.

 

Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement.

 

Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale.

Where'd you find the Baseball Stadium Agreement? I couldn't find the up to date version anywhere, just the original.

This should clear everything up:

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-08-23/sports/fl-florida-marlins-financial-document20100823_1_payroll-profit-marlins-president-david-samson

 

The Marlins have been making money! One more thing to remember from what I have seen the individual salaries are not on here. We have no idea how much Samson and Loria have been making.

This should clear everything up:

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-08-23/sports/fl-florida-marlins-financial-document20100823_1_payroll-profit-marlins-president-david-samson

 

The Marlins have been making money! One more thing to remember from what I have seen the individual salaries are not on here. We have no idea how much Samson and Loria have been making.

 

No, it super doesn't. Clearing things up isn't looking at 2 years and ignoring 8.

It's not about how much money they spend; it's about how they're spending the money imo.

 

I don't know the situation, so I won't pretend to be a know-it-all. However, for a team trying to save up on money, you don't give a non-big league caliber player $1 million dollars for next year becaise he "leads." That's just stupid business. If you're going to have a budget, you can't be making dumbass decisions like that. That's a waste of $1 million.

 

There aren't many cases of overpayment really (I guess Andrew Miller would fit as well, but that's not really the organization's fault). All I'm saying is this better not be the beginning of a trend.

After reading the Sun-senital this morning i'm very glad i cancel my season tickets this season, i know their will be folks making all kind of excuses for the owners, don't want to read how this team can't afford to keep a good player for just a million dollars and we wonder why no one want to attend games, every time you talk about getting a player someone would post we can't afford him, well it seem otherwise, if only the FO would stop stuffing their pockets we can get good players, ok, start the piling on and i know who will be first.

 

 

It's a million for the rest of the year, and then Cody is arbitration eligible, and will probably make 10 million. Is he worth that? Would you rather have Cody than sign Dan Uggla? No right? So basically we would be paying him an extra million, and then at the beginning of the season we would be right back in the same place we are now, except the games count more, and we will be determining whether or not Maybin is good enough to be our day to day guy. At least this way they play Maybin for the last month and a half, and can look around in the off season if he doesn't pan out. They only complaint I have with the FO on this one is why didn't they move him at the deadline and try to get something for him.

 

I'm not talking about Ross, didn't we let Goad go because of a different of a million, i may be wrong, the stats experts straighten that out, didn't the FO only give Oggla money after MLB and the players union expose the money their were receiving from revenue sharing, we can make all the excuses we want for the FO.

 

 

Go back and read the articles. The FO, the players union, and MLB all stated that the Marlins had been doing nothing wrong up to that point. The players union and MLB also stated this was more of a warning shot to all small market/low payroll teams that they are now being scrutinized.

 

But the entire media jumped on it, twisted it, and blew it completely out of proportion to the point they were fabricating their own "facts". And of course the anti-Loria group went with that.

It's not about how much money they spend; it's about how they're spending the money imo.

 

I don't know the situation, so I won't pretend to be a know-it-all. However, for a team trying to save up on money, you don't give a non-big league caliber player $1 million dollars for next year becaise he "leads." That's just stupid business. If you're going to have a budget, you can't be making dumbass decisions like that. That's a waste of $1 million.

 

There aren't many cases of overpayment really (I guess Andrew Miller would fit as well, but that's not really the organization's fault). All I'm saying is this better not be the beginning of a trend.

 

Defending Loria against stupid accusations doesn't mean that one supports Loria.

 

Frankly, I can't wait for the Loria to regime to end. It's not that I think he's "cheap" or lining his pockets; I just don't like how the organization is being run. I don't like David Samson and I don't like many of the marketing antics that have made this team become somewhat bush league. I don't like a lot of the baseball/talent decisions made, despite my recognition of Beinfest as an above average GM.

 

I credit this front office for finally securing a stadium that will ensure the survival of the franchise, but after nearly eight years, I would really like to see some new blood soon. Loria is almost 70, so it will be interesting to see where the franchise stands over the next decade in terms of ownership.

What happened was this:

John Henry, our former owner, was fed up with his failed efforts to get the politicians to build him a new stadium. The former minority Yankee owner jumped at the chance to buy the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. But he couldn't own two teams. So MLB's solution was to have Henry sell to Loria, who had driven the Expos into the ground, then buy the Expos from Loria for MLB. A few years later (after all 29 teams operated the Expos), MLB sold the Expos franchise to an ownership group in Washington, DC.

 

That's a little harsh. Loria was brought in in 2000. After the 1994 strike. After the fire sale. After the Olympic Stadium's roof falling apart. After the government rebuffed requests for a new stadium. After attendance and local support had tanked. After the former owners had discussed moving to DC. After an showcase exhibition game in DC.

 

By all accounts Loria was brought in to save the team. An owner willingly to invest in a franchise whose city, fans and even owners had given up on. He then proceeded to make investments in the franchise that were not met by the minority owners (like I said, they had given up on the franchise). Through a series of cash calls to reclaim his investments he won overwhelming control of the franchise. However, it would appear that the minority owners had no intent to bring him as a savior, but only as the fall guy for their own disinterest in the team.

 

I believe I'm getting from this that Loria's group was the only one willing to take over the Marlins; there weren't a lot of people knocking on MLB saying "let me buy the Marlins".

Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement.

 

Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale.

 

Where'd you find the Baseball Stadium Agreement? I couldn't find the up to date version anywhere, just the original.

 

That information, and more details of the agreement, are in the financial statements starting around Page 40 or so under note AB.

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.

 

They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos.

Proof?

They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos.

 

 

Your charge was the same as the minority owners who took Loria to court. Loria won the case and the judge ripped into the claims of the minority owners. For you to continue with that charge shows you have no respect for truth and facts, only malice.

forgive me if it has already been posted in here, but yahoo has this article up now : http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410

They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos.

 

 

Your charge was the same as the minority owners who took Loria to court. Loria won the case and the judge ripped into the claims of the minority owners. For you to continue with that charge shows you have no respect for truth and facts, only malice.

 

Once a swindler, always a swindler, as the financial sheets show.

That Yahoo article is ridiculous. It was on their front page earlier. Here are some excerpts in case you don't want to read the whole thing (it's long):

 

The swindlers who run the Florida Marlins got exposed Monday. They are as bad as anyone on Wall Street, scheming, misleading and ultimately sticking taxpayers with a multibillion-dollar tab. Corporate fraud is alive and well in Major League Baseball.

 

A look at the leak of the Marlins’ financial information to Deadspin confirmed the long-held belief that the team takes a healthy chunk of MLB-distributed money for profit. Owner Jeffrey Loria and president David Samson for years have contended the Marlins break even financially, the centerpiece fiscal argument that resulted in local governments gifting them a new stadium that will cost generations of taxpayers an estimated $2.4 billion. They said they had no money to do it alone and intimated they would have to move the team without public assistance.

They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos.

 

 

Your charge was the same as the minority owners who took Loria to court. Loria won the case and the judge ripped into the claims of the minority owners. For you to continue with that charge shows you have no respect for truth and facts, only malice.

 

Once a swindler, always a swindler, as the financial sheets show.

 

I guess I missed that page. Where does it show it?

Seriously, I've lost a shocking amount of respect for the media over this whole thing. I used to think it was about getting the facts out that but I've learned it's about what the most scandalous story.

Your google-fu is weak.

Seriously, I've lost a shocking amount of respect for the media over this whole thing. I used to think it was about getting the facts out that but I've learned it's about what the most scandalous story.

 

Welcome to the mainstream media.