Per Forbes: White Sox 6th most profitable team by operating income, valued at 1.6B overall

[Thad Bosley]

19 hours ago, maxjusttyped said:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome_sortreverse:true

It would be positively illuminating to see how much of that $76M profit came at the hands of Illinois state taxpayer subsidies.  

When the White Sox suck, and when no one comes to the ballpark to line Reinsdorf’s pockets, who’s left to pay the bill to ensure Jerry maintains his billionaire status?  Answer - the state of Illinois, courtesy of the infamous sweetheart lease deal Reinsdorf employed blackmailing threats against the state to secure, at least as it was reported back when it happened. 

It is that lease deal that allows Reinsdorf to operate the ball club in the careless, nonchalant way he does.  It matters not how well the team fares on the field because his profits are guaranteed.  Meanwhile, we the fans get stuck with going as long as we do without postseason experiences and putting up with losing season after losing season after losing season.  

The fortunes of the franchise have zero chance of improving under this current ownership.  After nearly 40 years of it, we know what to expect and what not to expect.  Our fan experience won’t change until there is a change in ownership, and that change cannot and must not include the name Reinsdorf.  Enough is quite enough with that name at the helm. 

[TaylorStSox]

18 hours ago, MnSoxFan said:

Hookers and blow. For KW anyway.

Sign me up. 

[southsider2k5]

27 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

It would be positively illuminating to see how much of that $76M profit came at the hands of Illinois state taxpayer subsidies.  

When the White Sox suck, and when no one comes to the ballpark to line Reinsdorf’s pockets, who’s left to pay the bill to ensure Jerry maintains his billionaire status?  Answer - the state of Illinois, courtesy of the infamous sweetheart lease deal Reinsdorf employed blackmailing threats against the state to secure, at least as it was reported back when it happened. 

It is that lease deal that allows Reinsdorf to operate the ball club in the careless, nonchalant way he does.  It matters not how well the team fares on the field because his profits are guaranteed.  Meanwhile, we the fans get stuck with going as long as we do without postseason experiences and putting up with losing season after losing season after losing season.  

The fortunes of the franchise have zero chance of improving under this current ownership.  After nearly 40 years of it, we know what to expect and what not to expect.  Our fan experience won’t change until there is a change in ownership, and that change cannot and must not include the name Reinsdorf.  Enough is quite enough with that name at the helm. 

If you really want to know, it would be a FOIA request away.

[raBBit]

23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you really want to know, it would be a FOIA request away.

Pretty sure FOIA does not apply to private entities.

 

. 

[Thad Bosley]

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If you really want to know, it would be a FOIA request away.

So what did you think a couple of years ago, or whenever it was, when the Sox got their new scoreboards installed in the ballpark, which cost all of $7M, that the Sox still reached into the public till to let the State pay for it?  

Here we have an owner who has ascended to billionaire status right before our very eyes, due in large part to nearly 30 years of massive public subsidies, yet he still felt the need to let the cash-strapped state of Illinois pay for something that he could reach into his pocket and pay cash for right on the spot.  

Had the will been there, that $7M could have been redirected to needs of the state far greater than that of those scoreboards.  All it needed was some leadership and a moral compass.  That didn’t happen, of course.  Our favorite billionaire’s bottom line took precedence, as always, and which has been the case the entire time he’s been owner going into Year #39 of this “Great Reinsdorf Experiment”.  

But what do you think, SS2K5?  Should the owner as a gesture of goodwill have footed that $7M for those scoreboards?

[raBBit]

Also, #6 in profit has plenty to do with the Sox being #29 in payroll in 2018.  They're typically profitable, per Forbes,  due to their stadium deal among other things, but 2018 will be an outlier year where the payroll was as low as it will ever be in a given year.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Pretty sure FOIA does not apply to private entities.

 

. 

The ISTA is not a private entity.

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

ISFA is not a private entity.

The poster wasn't asking about ISTA's profits. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by raBBit
EDIT: It's ISFA not ISTA

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, raBBit said:

The poster wasn't asking about ISTA's profits. 

His point was that money on subsidies from the ISFA (was wrong about the acronym) were what was driving the $76 million profit.  Because the ISFA is a governmental agency, that is all public domain and he could FOIA it is he really wanted to know.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

His point was that money on subsidies from the ISFA (was wrong about the acronym) were what was driving the $76 million profit.  Because the ISFA is a governmental agency, that is all public domain and he could FOIA it is he really wanted to know.

As a matter of a fact, they even have a part of their website dedicated to FOIA requests.

 

https://www.isfauthority.com/foia-requests/

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Also, #6 in profit has plenty to do with the Sox being #29 in payroll in 2018.  They're typically profitable, per Forbes,  due to their stadium deal among other things, but 2018 will be an outlier year where the payroll was as low as it will ever be in a given year.

Heard a story from an old Soybean trader who was a part of the White Sox purchase in 1981. The quote from him was about his frustrations with the team, as any fan would be but then:

He explained that it was the greatest investment he had ever made because, "the White Sox never had lost money in a single year from the time he bought in 1981 through around 2009." 

That's just revenue too, he's not counting the fact that they were bought for nothing and are now worth 1.6 Billion.

[southsider2k5]

And to get even deeper into the weeds of conspiracy theory... Coming from their most recent audited financials.

The Authority presents ticket fees as revenue in the combined financial statements net of other payments due to the Chicago White Sox. Tickets sold are subject to the City of Chicago’s Amusement Tax. Under the Management Agreement, the Authority is required to reimburse the Chicago White Sox for a certain portion of taxes on the sale of tickets. As of June 30, 2018 and 2017, $0 was accrued as net estimated receivables under this agreement.

[Dick Allen]

JR has a deal where if he doesn't sell a certain number of full priced tickets, his rent is cheaper.  There was a big to do about this several years ago when they had half priced Mondays and bring a Pepsi can for half priced Tuesdays. I would think the Ballpark Pass would also be an issue, but right now, I think they don't sell many of those, and they are well under the threshold anyways.

[Thad Bosley]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And to get even deeper into the weeds of conspiracy theory... Coming from their most recent audited financials.

 

 

How on god’s green earth did you get access to a footnote of the Sox’ audited financial statements!

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Fan O'Faust said:

How on god’s green earth did you get access to a footnote of the Sox’ audited financial statements!

I figured you wouldn't be able to do a couple of clicks, but the ISFA's audit doc's are on their website.  It is really easy to find if you want to.

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

His point was that money on subsidies from the ISFA (was wrong about the acronym) were what was driving the $76 million profit.  Because the ISFA is a governmental agency, that is all public domain and he could FOIA it is he really wanted to know.

He made his own point and he was pretty clear to that end. He wanted to know how much of the Sox profit is related to the kush deal they have. That would require valuations services on what their stadium would cost in a free market scenario. That would require understanding the financials of the White Sox. None of that is available via FOIA

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

As a matter of a fact, they even have a part of their website dedicated to FOIA requests.

 

https://www.isfauthority.com/foia-requests/

That's great except they are not the Sox. You should put in a FOIA with them to see how much of the Sox profits come from their deal and report back.

[raBBit]

14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Heard a story from an old Soybean trader who was a part of the White Sox purchase in 1981. The quote from him was about his frustrations with the team, as any fan would be but then:

He explained that it was the greatest investment he had ever made because, "the White Sox never had lost money in a single year from the time he bought in 1981 through around 2009." 

 That's just revenue too, he's not counting the fact that they were bought for nothing and are now worth 1.6 Billion.

I am not surprised. Most professional sports teams in America (that aren't ponzi-scheme MLS) have been incredibly profitable since the 80's in terms of operating results and in return on equity.

Edited April 11, 2019 by raBBit

[southsider2k5]

Just now, raBBit said:

He made his own point and he was pretty clear to that end. He wanted to know how much of the Sox profit is related to the kush deal they have. That would require valuations services on what their stadium would cost in a free market scenario. That would require understanding the financials of the White Sox. None of that is available via FOIA

That's great except they are not the Sox. You should put in a FOIA with them to see how much of the Sox profits come from their deal and report back.

So the dollars won't show up on the agency who sent them out, but they will magically show up for the White Sox?  Do you work at Enron?

[raBBit]

18 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So the dollars won't show up on the agency who sent them out, but they will magically show up for the White Sox?  Do you work at Enron?

Re: the financials: It's far more complicated than you're presenting and I get that as you may not have the understanding necessary. Knowing how much ISFA paid for the Sox deal is only one piece of the puzzle. In order to answer Fan O'Faust's question, you would need much more detail. As his question was about the White Sox operating results (not the ISFA financials that you're clinging to in hopes of salvaging your initial inaccurate comment), that additional detail needed would have to come from the Sox. Further than that, assessing what the Sox would be paying in a market scenario would be a daunting task in itself. His question is only answered if the cost of the alternative is understood. 

Butt since you're going to get personal I'll bow out since we both know how you play with the rules. I am not sure of the relevance here. Enron was a fraud based upon bogus special purposes entities, recognizing profits before they'd been realized and conflict of interest creating Independence issues between the executive team and the public accounting firm. The White Sox took advantage of corrupt political environment. Also, Enron was a public entity so their financials and operating results are readily accessible to anyone whereas the White Sox are a private institution. Furthermore, Enron's execs were creating dubious financials to pump the publicly traded stock. Publicly traded stocks created hundreds of thousands of shareholders that the executives screwed over. Where the Sox are only beholden to only their private group of ownership and their creditor(s) (if any).  

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just admit you're wrong on the first point you made rather than moving goal posts to open up another can of worms that you can't intelligibly speak to. 

I should say though, congrats on your recent SoxTalk anniversary. 16 whole years of making 26 posts a day. That's quite an accomplishment. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by raBBit

[southsider2k5]

33 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Re: the financials: It's far more complicated than you're presenting and I get that as you may not have the understanding necessary. Knowing how much ISFA paid for the Sox deal is only one piece of the puzzle. In order to answer Fan O'Faust's question, you would need much more detail. As his question was about the White Sox operating results (not the ISFA financials that you're clinging to in hopes of salvaging your initial inaccurate comment), that additional detail needed would have to come from the Sox. Further than that, assessing what the Sox would be paying in a market scenario would be a daunting task in itself. His question is only answered if the cost of the alternative is understood. 

Butt since you're going to get personal I'll bow out since we both know how you play with the rules. I am not sure of the relevance here. Enron was a fraud based upon bogus special purposes entities, recognizing profits before they'd been realized and conflict of interest creating Independence issues between the executive team and the public accounting firm. The White Sox took advantage of corrupt political environment. Also, Enron was a public entity so their financials and operating results are readily accessible to anyone whereas the White Sox are a private institution. Furthermore, Enron's execs were creating dubious financials to pump the publicly traded stock. Publicly traded stocks created hundreds of thousands of shareholders that the executives screwed over. Where the Sox are only beholden to only their private group of ownership and their creditor(s) (if any).  

Sometimes it's a lot easier to just admit you're wrong on the first point you made rather than moving goal posts to open up another can of worms that you can't intelligibly speak to. 

I should say though, congrats on your recent SoxTalk anniversary. 16 whole years of making 26 posts a day. That's quite an accomplishment. 

It is even easier to delete posts.

[tray]

I'm not sure what the reason or the motivation is/was for criticizing Reinsdorf and the WS for the stadium deal.  Are people suggesting that a private company , even one that receives taxpayer subsidies, should then share profits with the government? Or that the White Sox should spend every bit of profitability on multi-million dollar player contracts?  Or maybe, is it sour grapes that the WS weren't forced to stay in the Old Comiskey, lose money until Bankrupt, and then move to St. Pete?

Looking at the tax incentive game one has to be consistent with their own political and ideological views. 

Consider what  it would have cost NY taxpayers to get Amazon over  there - $3.4 BILLION.

And consider what proponents and opponents of that plan said, for example, Amazon would bring jobs vs the cost of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue.

More on point, perhaps consider how George W, Bush scored big with taxpayers in a similar deal using the threat to move the Rangers as leverage.

How George W Bush and the Arlington Stadium and Land deals

This made millions for W and helped him in his future career endeavors..

At the end of the day, I wonder what the criticism of Reinsdorf concerning the Stadium deal is really all about. Is it about wanting the Sox become less profitable  and then perhaps to be unable to continue having our team in Chicago? Is it ideologically based...a concern about taxpayer funding private corporations through tax incentives (and if so, were you of that same mindset on the proposed Amazon deal in Long Island) ?  Or are you just a frustrated Sox fan who wants Reinsdorf and the WS organization to pump millions into player contracts whenever it is arguable that it would advance the teams chances to win a few games?

 

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, tray said:

I'm not sure what the reason or the motivation is/was for criticizing Reinsdorf and the WS for the stadium deal.  Are people suggesting that a private company , even one that receives taxpayer subsidies, should then share profits with the government? Or that the White Sox should spend every bit of profitability on multi-million dollar player contracts?  Or maybe, is it sour grapes that the WS weren't forced to stay in the Old Comiskey, lose money until Bankrupt, and then move to St. Pete?

Looking at the tax incentive game one has to be consistent with their own political and ideological views. 

Consider what  it would have cost NY taxpayers to get Amazon over  there - $3.4 BILLION.

And consider what proponents and opponents of that plan said, for example, Amazon would bring jobs vs the cost of infrastructure and loss of tax revenue.

More on point, perhaps consider how George W, Bush scored big with taxpayers in a similar deal using the threat to move the Rangers as leverage.

How George W Bush and the Arlington Stadium and Land deals

This made millions for W and helped him in his future career endeavors..

At the end of the day, I wonder what the criticism of Reinsdorf concerning the Stadium deal is really all about. Is it about wanting the Sox become less profitable  and then perhaps to be unable to continue having our team in Chicago? Is it ideologically based...a concern about taxpayer funding private corporations through tax incentives (and if so, were you of that same mindset on the proposed Amazon deal in Long Island) ?  Or are you just a frustrated Sox fan who wants Reinsdorf and the WS organization to pump millions into player contracts whenever it is arguable that it would advance the teams chances to win a few games?

 

We all would have done the same thing if we were him. No question. So I certainly don't blame him for the sweetheart deal. That's something we all look for. 

[raBBit]

49 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is even easier to delete posts.

Woof. You must think that's quite the zinger given your repeated use of it. I guess when you can't speak on the topic at hand you gotta keep it personal.  Stay classy s2k5. 

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

We all would have done the same thing if we were him. No question. So I certainly don't blame him for the sweetheart deal. That's something we all look for. 

And unfortunately it's the playing environment. Most teams have some type of stadium deal. 

[southsider2k5]

Just now, raBBit said:

Woof. You must think that's quite the zinger given your repeated use of it. I guess when you can't speak on the topic at hand you gotta keep it personal.  Stay classy s2k5. 

Sure, OK. You love taking your personal shots, but get hurt feelings when it doesn't go your way.  You want to call me wrong, but when you were wrong you broke every single rule of Soxtalk to destroy the evidence of everything you had ever said, and then tried to pretend it didn't happen.  If you want to talk about rule breaking, but pretend that you've done nothing, you aren't being fully honest here.  That's OK though, I am used to it.  For as much as I have debated people over the years here, no one has quite gone to those lengths to have their cake and eat it too.  I can respect the people who are willing to debate and let it stand on their own merits, and not act like half of the story never happened.  I am sorry you can't do that.