Guest JimH Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Steff, yes, could be. To my untrained financial statement eye though ... I sorta put two and two together from the annual report. It clearly says the ISFA derives income from three sources: hotel tax, White Sox, and groups using USCF. So whatever they get from the Sox would have to show up in the income section vs. the expenditures section (again, using my own logic). "Team Revenue" appears to be the line item. $1.3 million roughly for the last two years, with no payments listed for other years. Those would be the years when attendance was lower. The annual report shows the ISFA was well into the red the last two years ... lakefront improvement project being the biggest expenditure (Soldier Field). Maybe someone can clarify if I'm misunderstanding, but here's my take: The Sox cut one hell of a deal, and they're only paying $1.3 million on rent, using last year as an example. They are absolutely entitled to have cut that deal, it is good business. This all assumes, of course, there are no funny baseball economics going on. It's long been suggested that baseball economics are "different" than real world economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Jim.. you're thinking that the revenues are expenses from the Sox and not the Sox revenues..? That the "team revenue sharing" line is what the Sox pay to the ISA..? This is why I think that the revenue is to the Sox.. in the '01 - '02 offseason is when the renovations to the LD were started. There is a $21 million $$ revenue for "renovation revenue", and another $765K in '03 (could those be the funds that were given the the Sox at the start of the year for the cosmetic AS Game graphics..?) And on the expense side.. things like park maintenance, team maintenance.. why would the ISA be paying those things (if the revenue is the ISA's then the expense has to be theirs as well)..? Perhaps the annual report simply does not have all the financial detail? Perhaps they only report to the ISA what they need to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Well in looking at that Steff I'm seeing for 2003 revenue from Team share as 1,340,740. I'm also seeing Park Maintenance Expenditures of 7,296,772 and Team Mainenance Subsidy of 2,641,050 or 9,937,822 for park and team maintenance. Now to be fair it is up 5 mil in '03 probably do to all the painting and AS prep falling under Park Maintenance but I'd say JR did quite well with the state not only paying for park maintenance but also reimbursing him for clubhouse(and most likely field) maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Well in looking at that Steff I'm seeing for 2003 revenue from Team share as 1,340,740. I'm also seeing Park Maintenance Expenditures of 7,296,772 and Team Mainenance Subsidy of 2,641,050 or 9,937,822 for park and team maintenance. Now to be fair it is up 5 mil in '03 probably do to all the painting and AS prep falling under Park Maintenance but I'd say JR did quite well with the state not only paying for park maintenance but also reimbursing him for clubhouse(and most likely field) maintenance. Hu...?? $1,140,740 INCOME (revenue) for the Sox.. and $7,296,722 and $2,642,050 COST (expense) of the Sox.. and that's good..?? That's a $8,798,032 LOSS for the Sox on park operations alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Jim.. you're thinking that the revenues are expenses from the Sox and not the Sox revenues..? That the "team revenue sharing" line is what the Sox pay to the ISA..? This is why I think that the revenue is to the Sox.. in the '01 - '02 offseason is when the renovations to the LD were started. There is a $21 million $$ revenue for "renovation revenue", and another $765K in '03 (could those be the funds that were given the the Sox at the start of the year for the cosmetic AS Game graphics..?) And on the expense side.. things like park maintenance, team maintenance.. why would the ISA be paying those things (if the revenue is the ISA's then the expense has to be theirs as well)..? Perhaps the annual report simply does not have all the financial detail? Perhaps they only report to the ISA what they need to? Yes, I'm thinking the $1.3M is what the Sox paid the ISA. On the annual report, the line item is even clearer, it says payment from Chicago White Sox. As for the $21M renovation payment, yes, it shows as "incoming" for the ISA, i.e. a revenue item. That begs the question, who paid for those renovations? The White Sox? That was the deck in CF on the concourse, etc. as you stated, lower deck renovations. And that was before US Cellular involvement, yes? So it couldn't have been a payment from US Cellular to the ISA. Is it the Sox who paid for the lower deck renovations? Or were the funds from elsewhere? The only way it would make sense to me is if the $21 million showing as revenue for the ISA was a payment from US Cellular. The 756K, your All Star Game scenario makes sense. That could have come from MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Hu...?? $1,140,740 INCOME (revenue) for the Sox.. and $7,296,722 and $2,642,050 COST (expense) of the Sox.. and that's good..?? That's a $8,798,032 LOSS for the Sox on park operations alone... The way I see this one is, the ISA pays for overall maintenance of the park (the 7.2M figure) and the Sox reimburse the ISA for game day expenses (the 2.6M figure). Net expense to ISA about 4.6M for maintenance of their facility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 OK Jim.. I think I finally got it In looking at this P&L that came from, as I stated earlier in this thread, LASALLE BANK - not an attorney's office .. I assumed that this was Sox revenue, not ISA revenue. Since the $$'s from the bond paperwork and $$'s from the bank paperwork were so far off.. (and by millions, and millions to boot) It didn't even dawn on me that they were partly from the same source, just not a complete rollup. Crap.. probably shouldn't have posted that data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Hu...?? $1,140,740 INCOME (revenue) for the Sox.. and $7,296,722 and $2,642,050 COST (expense) of the Sox.. and that's good..?? That's a $8,798,032 LOSS for the Sox on park operations alone... No!! These are ISA numbers, so revenue is what ISA brings in and expenditures is what ISA pays out. Thus, The Sox payed 1,340,740 to the ISA for park but received 2,641,050 in team expense subsidies so the Sox got back 1,300,310 more than they payed out. Plus the ISA picked up the park maintenance expenses. I'd call that a pretty sweet deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 No!! These are ISA numbers, so revenue is what ISA brings in and expenditures is what ISA pays out. Thus, The Sox payed 1,340,740 to the ISA for park but received 2,641,050 in team expense subsidies so the Sox got back 1,300,310 more than they payed out. Plus the ISA picked up the park maintenance expenses. I'd call that a pretty sweet deal. If so, that makes sense. Thanks upnorth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 OK Jim.. I think I finally got it In looking at this P&L that came from, as I stated earlier in this thread, LASALLE BANK - not an attorney's office .. I assumed that this was Sox revenue, not ISA revenue. Since the $$'s from the bond paperwork and $$'s from the bank paperwork were so far off.. (and by millions, and millions to boot) It didn't even dawn on me that they were partly from the same source, just not a complete rollup. Crap.. probably shouldn't have posted that data. Is that something you could get in trouble for? You need me to delete all of that stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Woah there quickman... slow down. What I have is a summary P&L. Which means that like revenues and costs are rolled up. There is no mention of salaries specifically on the expense side. Very "generic" terms are used. From what's here.. the Sox are NOT making $$. With no other parks to compare it to.. I can't tell you if the operating costs are justified. I can't even calculate it based on my companies costs... (for example.. how in the heck do you determine if.. say.. $8 million is "right" for park maintenance..?). Is the payroll justified... again, things are not listed by line item. I doubt the detail needed to answer that is avaliable to anyone outside the Sox brass and their accounting firm - and no.. I'm not going to try to get that info. Anyday now I expect a knock at the door questioning why and how I got what I did get.. I have no idea what it would take to buy the Sox. From what I can see they are NOT rolling in dough, and maybe.. just maybe.. they are doing it because they love the sport..? The renovations are not credited to anyone. But I assume it was the Sox who went to the commission for approval and not vice versa. Don't take me so seriously, I think what you have is great, and gives us a terrific perspective. Thanks very much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Is that something you could get in trouble for? You need me to delete all of that stuff? I'm not sure... legal here said that technically since who I got it from was not required to sign a non-disclosure then no.. but at the same time, they also aren't someone who would need a copy of that information... Is it obvious that this is not the same info offered to the public..? If so then maybe it should be removed..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I'm not sure... legal here said that technically since who I got it from was not required to sign a non-disclosure then no.. but at the same time, they also aren't someone who would need a copy of that information... Is it obvious that this is not the same info offered to the public..? If so then maybe it should be removed..? I have no idea honestly Say the word and it is gone. Just let me know whenever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 I have no idea honestly Say the word and it is gone. Just let me know whenever. Jim, upnorth.. thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I'm not sure... legal here said that technically since who I got it from was not required to sign a non-disclosure then no.. but at the same time, they also aren't someone who would need a copy of that information... Is it obvious that this is not the same info offered to the public..? If so then maybe it should be removed..? Even if this is the "rawer" data than the ISA puts out volunteerily on it's web site this would still be available thru the FOIA so I wouldn't sweat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Even if this is the "rawer" data than the ISA puts out volunteerily on it's web site this would still be available thru the FOIA so I wouldn't sweat it. That's just it.. I don't see these ##'s on the info PM'd to me yesterday or their site.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What is Lakefront improvement payments? $128 million in expenditures in 2002 $229 million in expenditures in 2003 SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What is Lakefront improvement payments? $128 million in expenditures in 2002 $229 million in expenditures in 2003 SB The ISA is also in charge of Soldier Field and the surrounding future (not sports)park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 What is Lakefront improvement payments? $128 million in expenditures in 2002 $229 million in expenditures in 2003 SB The Lakefront improvement stuff would be the new Soldier Field. Steff, my motto with stuff like this is, better safe than sorry. While it's interesting to be in the know on some of these issues, we won't ever know the full and complete story anyway. When big business and politics mix, strange things can and often do happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 The Lakefront improvement stuff would be the new Soldier Field. Steff, my motto with stuff like this is, better safe than sorry. While it's interesting to be in the know on some of these issues, we won't ever know the full and complete story anyway. When big business and politics mix, strange things can and often do happen. Agree. I'm going to take it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Okay so this contains all of ISA's expenditures, and does not explicitly state where the Sox come in, or any other part about the White Sox really. And it just seems strange that the ISA went from making a consistent profit to huge losses in the last 2 years, in excess of 100's of millions for a redevelopment program. I dont know, from my perspective its just so much money. I wish I knew what the little number 10 was a footnote for, I bet it explains it. [i would also suggest you take it down, I doubt that you would get in trouble, but there is a possibility especially with it stating who the accountants are that they could get in trouble.] SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Okay so this contains all of ISA's expenditures, and does not explicitly state where the Sox come in, or any other part about the White Sox really. And it just seems strange that the ISA went from making a consistent profit to huge losses in the last 2 years, in excess of 100's of millions for a redevelopment program. I dont know, from my perspective its just so much money. I wish I knew what the little number 10 was a footnote for, I bet it explains it. SB #10.. there's only 7 footnotes.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 My bad it is footnote 1, its hard to read the print. Some of the numbers are harder to read then others i thought it was 10, not 1 in brackets. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Soxbadger ... It doesn't surprise me, all the huge layouts of $$ the past two years, that's all the Soldier Field stuff. They'll get that money back over time in bond proceeds, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 My bad it is footnote 1, its hard to read the print. Some of the numbers are harder to read then others i thought it was 10, not 1 in brackets. SB Ahhh... The explination is this: "Derived from Authority's audited financial statements for the fiscal years 1999-2002 and the prelim unaudited statements for fiscal year 2003" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.