Jump to content

Revenue vs Payroll


Recommended Posts

The Sox were 29th in 2023 revenue !?, holy cow. I had no clue they were that far down the list.  A new owner will move the club out of Chicago in a heartbeat.

Edited by Falstaff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

It's not the city, it's the franchise.

I hear you loud and clear , but someone with no ties to Chicago and spending billions to acquire the club might have a different plan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Falstaff said:

The Sox were 29th in 2023 revenue !?, holy cow. I had no clue they were that far down the list.  A new owner will move the club out of Chicago in a heartbeat.

They were 29th because they  had a 100 loss team.  A new owner would see there is huge potential to the upside waiting to be captured.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the heck did the Sox make almost 300 million last year? Where is all this TV money coming from?? All you hear about is companies struggling in this wretched economy and yet sports teams are not struggling at all cause of TV money. Where is all this money coming from for TV to make so much money? Advertisers?? I kind of find that hard to believe. Jersey sales? Concessions and parking? I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Falstaff said:

The Sox were 29th in 2023 revenue !?, holy cow. I had no clue they were that far down the list.  A new owner will move the club out of Chicago in a heartbeat.

The prospect of the White Sox moving out of Chicago has always titillated Cub fans.

Not going to Happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They were 29th because they  had a 100 loss team.  A new owner would see there is huge potential to the upside waiting to be captured.

They still made almost 300 mill. The new owner will be swimming in dollar bills even tho I don't see how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, greg775 said:

They still made almost 300 mill. The new owner will be swimming in dollar bills even tho I don't see how.

You do see that they lost money last year, right?  According to these tables, they have lost money four years running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cubs owners have much deeper pockets than Reinsdorf and are reaping in tons of cash from the properties they own around the Wrigley .

Reinsy is supposed to be a big time real estate mogul , yeah right, another cheap move of zero investment in the neighborhood.

dang , Edward DeBartollo should have been the man

 

Edited by Falstaff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, greg775 said:

How in the heck did the Sox make almost 300 million last year? Where is all this TV money coming from?? All you hear about is companies struggling in this wretched economy and yet sports teams are not struggling at all cause of TV money. Where is all this money coming from for TV to make so much money? Advertisers?? I kind of find that hard to believe. Jersey sales? Concessions and parking? I guess.

 

Until any team allows an independent accountant to examine their books this is all speculation but Manfred has said MLB is now at least a 10 Billion dollar a year business.

There are more revenue streams both domestically and internationally for MLB than ever before. 

And in the Sox case it is not just revenue from merchandise, parking, concessions and advertising it is the very team-friendly deal they have on the stadium with the ISSA. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Until any team allows an independent accountant to examine their books this is all speculation but Manfred has said MLB is now at least a 10 Billion dollar a year business.

There are more revenue streams both domestically and internationally for MLB than ever before. 

And in the Sox case it is not just revenue from merchandise, parking, concessions and advertising it is the very team-friendly deal they have on the stadium with the ISSA. 

The Stadium deal would be within this shell.  Parking revenue would not because Jerry owns the lots under a separate company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Stadium deal would be within this shell.  Parking revenue would not because Jerry owns the lots under a separate company.

Agreed but that income still goes to him. That's why it is so tricky to get a real accurate read on what a team does or does not make. There are so many ancillary companies and areas to stash revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You do see that they lost money last year, right?  According to these tables, they have lost money four years running.

They didn't lose money. No team is opening their books to the honest figures, not publicly anyways. Lip man detailed it well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

They didn't lose money. No team is opening their books to the honest figures, not publicly anyways. Lip man detailed it well.

The book The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar goes into detail on some of the ways teams were hiding income when MLB agreed (for the only time) to let an independent accountant examine their books. He was from Stanford.

The accountant exploded Bud Selig's myth that 18 teams were losing money at the time of the 1994-95 labor impasse. MLB vowed they'd never open their books again (and they haven't)

One example Helyar went into was the Braves under Ted Turner. Instead of putting up the broadcast rights for the club on the open market in Atlanta, he simply gave them to his own WTBS at a reduced rate. Then claimed that the Braves weren't bringing in as much revenue as they should have and were "losing" money in this area. 

Smart people can make numbers say just about anything you want them to when they are done with all the manipulations.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Until any team allows an independent accountant to examine their books this is all speculation but Manfred has said MLB is now at least a 10 Billion dollar a year business.

There are more revenue streams both domestically and internationally for MLB than ever before. 

And in the Sox case it is not just revenue from merchandise, parking, concessions and advertising it is the very team-friendly deal they have on the stadium with the ISSA. 

Why would a privately owned business need an independent accountant to examine and disclose their books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TaylorStSox said:

Why would a privately owned business need an independent accountant to examine and disclose their books?

Well, the 30 clubs share 48% of all locally driven revenue. Meaning there's incentive for teams to hide what they're making to keep it all, rather than 52%. 

Edited by soxfan18
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, soxfan18 said:

Well, the 30 clubs share 48% of all locally driven. Meaning there's incentive for teams to hide what they're making to keep it all, rather than 52%. 

That also was brought up in The Lords of the Realm. Owners are so dishonest they'll even attempt to screw each other over after supposedly agreeing on something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TaylorStSox said:

Why would a privately owned business need an independent accountant to examine and disclose their books?

If for no other reason to give credence when they claim they are "losing" money which most fans on the surface simply do not believe. 

But you don't have to worry, after the Stanford economist destroyed that claim in 94-95, owners vowed they'd never do it again.

The Braves are the only exception because they are a publicly owned company and have to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

If for no other reason to give credence when they claim they are "losing" money which most fans on the surface simply do not believe. 

But you don't have to worry, after the Stanford economist destroyed that claim in 94-95, owners vowed they'd never do it again.

The Braves are the only exception because they are a publicly owned company and have to do so.

If the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, change the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ptatc said:

If the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, change the data.

The other reason the owners agreed to do it back in 94-95 was to try to move negotiations forward towards a settlement on their terms. Needless to say the result they got wasn't what they wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The other reason the owners agreed to do it back in 94-95 was to try to move negotiations forward towards a settlement on their terms. Needless to say the result they got wasn't what they wanted. 

It works both ways. Either extreme is just tailoring it to their own narratives. Lile most other things the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

If for no other reason to give credence when they claim they are "losing" money which most fans on the surface simply do not believe. 

But you don't have to worry, after the Stanford economist destroyed that claim in 94-95, owners vowed they'd never do it again.

The Braves are the only exception because they are a publicly owned company and have to do so.

No private business is obligated to disclose their books to the public. That's silly. Being a White Sox fan is voluntary. Also, as you know, being an obsessed and scorned White Sox hater is voluntary and doesn't make you privy to their books. It's incredibly weird to even bring it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Falstaff said:

The Sox were 29th in 2023 revenue !?, holy cow. I had no clue they were that far down the list.  A new owner will move the club out of Chicago in a heartbeat.

We're all moving to cul de sacs in Nashville suburbs. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...