February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating.
February 27, 201313 yr If the Marlins "overhead" is $90M, then Loria and Samson must be making twenty million each in salaries.
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. sure, can we piggyback that one with a thread about how incompetent they must be to have missed the mark so much and to not have considered all the potential outcomes of spending 100+ million last season? or the apparent lack of foresight he and his baseball guys seem to have? though I guess we have plenty of those already.
February 27, 201313 yr wow so it was cut short, okay, why call one if you're not ready for the heat? hand picked reporters and all. Every local sports reporter basically was there. How is that hand picked? He didn't cut it short, his PR guy did if you watch the footage. He was ready for another question.So, that was not his fault either. Who is the owner-Loria or the PR guy. Sorry, if Loria did not want to cut it short, he could have simply said, "no, let's stay-next question". He didn't.
February 27, 201313 yr I didn't see it. If the PR guy wrapped it up though and Loria was willing to answer another question maybe that's a good sign Loria doesn't usually give people such a wide reign
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. ok, lets go. put together a rough overview of the 90 million in overhead.
February 27, 201313 yr Author wow so it was cut short, okay, why call one if you're not ready for the heat? hand picked reporters and all. Every local sports reporter basically was there. How is that hand picked? He didn't cut it short, his PR guy did if you watch the footage. He was ready for another question.So, that was not his fault either. Who is the owner-Loria or the PR guy. Sorry, if Loria did not want to cut it short, he could have simply said, "no, let's stay-next question". He didn't. If he did that, people would say "What a pompus jerk, he won't stop talking even when a professional says it is time to" He hired a PR firm for a reason. He was clearly waiting for another question until the rep said "Thank you everyone" and shuffled him off. When is the last time that you saw anyone say "No, I'll keep going" when their PR rep says to the media "Thank you everyone" and whisks their client away?
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Seeing as I'm an economist for a large insurance company, I would hardly consider myself financially "illiterate," an "idiot" or a "moron." I'll be honest, I've never worked in Major League baseball, so I don't know exactly how much it costs to run an MLB team. However, unless you work in a team's FO, neither do you. Because clubs do not publicly disclose their finances, all we have to go on are estimates and the leaked documents to deadspin. According to Deadspin's analysis and Forbe's valuation, their expenses were roughly 50-60 million (excluding player payroll) in 2008 and 2009, well short of your mythical 90 million. Sure, you can factor in inflation and increased stadium expenses, but greater than 50% increase over the course of 3 years is not realistic to me. Depending on the estimations and accounting methods, both Forbes and Deadspin are reporting $40-45 M in profit in 2008, w/ roughly the same in 2009 according to Forbes and roughly half that according to Deadspin (since they included the initial stadium construction costs). That's with all revenue (including revenue sharing, MLB media rights and merchandising royalties) and player payroll included. And the roughly $2-3 M he paid himself as mngt fees through Double Play Co. Sure, that's not a lot of profit, my company makes that in net income a quarter. The point is, these records appear to show the Marlins were not losing money at a time when Loria and Samson were repeatedly on record saying they were due to poor attendance and disadvantageous lease @ Dolphins stadium. Flash forward to 2012. Yes, payroll doubled over '11's and quadrupled over '09's. Yes season tickets and attendance lagged their overly-aggressive projections. Based on these facts alone, it would be easy to prescribe to the Marlins' version of events. However, that completely ignores other facts: they sold 700k more tickets than '11 (800k more than '09], receive all gate, suite and concession revenue (unlike the reported lease at Dolphins Stadium), make $10 for every parking space sold (though in aggregate, it is probably less since the Marlins have to lease each space from the city regardless if they're sold or not) and stadium construction outlays in '12 were likely significantly lower w/ its completion than in previous years. Based on 2012 ticket sales and avg ticket prices (29.62) alone, they made roughly $8.5 M more than 2009 (19.06 avg ticket prices). It's possible they truly lost money, but it's also possible they are misleading the public on their finances as they have a track record of doing. Even with the increased payroll, with a 50% increase in ticket prices and tickets sold as well as all the additional revenue the stadium provides, I find it hard to believe they lost all the money they re claiming, if at all. One thing's for sure, the arrogant, condescending and insulting tone of your post is neither warranted or welcomed.
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. ok, lets go. put together a rough overview of the 90 million in overhead. in 2009 Marlins' expenses other than MLB salaries was south of $50m.
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. ok, lets go. put together a rough overview of the 90 million in overhead. in 2009 Marlins' expenses other than MLB salaries was south of $50m. I want ... to show off his thesis though.
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. ok, lets go. put together a rough overview of the 90 million in overhead. in 2009 Marlins' expenses other than MLB salaries was south of $50m. Rubbish. I've been threatening to put the numbers up (they're all estimates, none of us are CPAs who work for the FO,) so I will. It'll take a day or two to put it together.
February 27, 201313 yr The financial illiterati are once again out in force in every thread. Idiots who think that revenue sharing and TV deals covers costs don't have the first clue. The Marlins' general overhead "before you sell a ticket" is in the neighborhood of 90 million. Add player payroll to that. 130+ million is what it will take to run this outfit, or any other MLB outfit, in '13. For the Marlins, that number was about 190 million last year. They lost, according to the Marlins, 40 mill last year. I estimated a little less than that, but I'll take their word for it. Which fully explains the drastic changes and trades. Doesn't matter whether the loss is 20 or 30 or 40 million. Major losses require major action to change what is going on. It may be time for a thread about the actual costs of running a MLB franchise to disabuse the morons of their various delusional financial fantasies -- something that they never seem to tire of propagating. But Mr. Loria has stated the trades were not financially motivated!!!
February 27, 201313 yr http://deadspin.com/5619235/florida-marlins-financial-documents/gallery/1 whoa. since the Florida Marlins, LP is legally the same as the former the Montreal Expos, LP shouldn't Loria & co. not be allowed to take credit for the '97 World Series? and we can all be pissed about 1994 now?
February 27, 201313 yr Didn't think this was serious enough to make a new thread (maybe I'm wrong) but according to these two articles, the Pirates have also been accused over the years of being a low payroll team that uses revenue sharing to turn a profit without significantly investing in the on-field product/payroll. I'm not sure if I'm posting this to show we Marlins fans are not alone, or to question why everyone makes a bigger deal out of it when Loria does it... or just to question the Pittsburgh front office... but I thought it was interesting enough for you all to see... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5484947 http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/pittsburgh-pirates-fans-banned-fined-28000-security-guard-lost-finger-skirmish-022713 ...fyi the second article is a strange read but the first paragraph is what points the figure at them for pocketing profits.
February 28, 201313 yr Pirates have a cool logo, though word on the street is they're changing it, though
February 28, 201313 yr The Pirates were actually doing well last year until they had a dramatic collapse. Yeah, we've heard that story twice the past couple years, but their collapse was in September and not June.
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.