quickman Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 The document you have is available to any Illinois taxpayer. The Illinois Sports Authority is part of the Illinois government, the State legislature oversees the authority. The White Sox Organization has no connection with the ISA except as renters. They have no rights other than what is in the renter's contract. The renter's contract allows that they can make requests of the landlord, the ISA, but no demands. Reinsdorf negotiated naming rights with Cell One and presented the deal to the ISA to get the rennovations he wanted. They approved it. The attendance clause has the figure for 'no rent' at just under 1.3 million. That's what the renter's contract entails, upkeep and such, which is a different document than what you have. Copies of your document are available for a fee from the State of Illinois. Corg the magic questions. Is it better moneywise if the sox do not pay rent (under 1.3) or if they pay rent (say 2.0 Million fans) Sounds like a potential conflict of interest. What posseses the Sox to want to get fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ncorgbl Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 The lose their butt at 1.3 million. There is no 'incentive' to not draw, that's a fallacy made up by the ones who bash the owners and everything about the Sox, but claim to be Sox fans. How they figure that, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Ncorgbl, do you know if the Sox pay for the cost of running USCF? I am not taking about capital expenditures, but more routine items such as the power, water, gas, basic maintenance, light bulbs, air filters, plumbing repairs, etc....... There are a million different things that can come up, and I don't want to know them all, just a general idea. What about cleaning of the stadium? I would assume that the Sox are responsible for all cleaning, trash removal, pressure washing, etc., but am not sure. Any info on that kind of stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ncorgbl Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Ncorgbl, do you know if the Sox pay for the cost of running USCF? I am not taking about capital expenditures, but more routine items such as the power, water, gas, basic maintenance, light bulbs, air filters, plumbing repairs, etc....... There are a million different things that can come up, and I don't want to know them all, just a general idea. What about cleaning of the stadium? I would assume that the Sox are responsible for all cleaning, trash removal, pressure washing, etc., but am not sure. Any info on that kind of stuff? The Sox do all the maintenance, grounds, cleanup etc. For special events, concerts, non Sox games (charities) and such the Sox do the cleanup and are paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 The document you have is available to any Illinois taxpayer. The Illinois Sports Authority is part of the Illinois government, the State legislature oversees the authority. The White Sox Organization has no connection with the ISA except as renters. They have no rights other than what is in the renter's contract. The renter's contract allows that they can make requests of the landlord, the ISA, but no demands. Reinsdorf negotiated naming rights with Cell One and presented the deal to the ISA to get the rennovations he wanted. They approved it. The attendance clause has the figure for 'no rent' at just under 1.3 million. That's what the renter's contract entails, upkeep and such, which is a different document than what you have. Copies of your document are available for a fee from the State of Illinois. No Corg.. it's not. I have the confidential copies from the offices of Bear, Sterns & Co, Inc, Ramirez & Co, Loop Capital Marketers, LLC, as well as the financial data from the trust held with LaSalle Bank. I have the "public" files you mention. They are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Ncorgbl, do you know if the Sox pay for the cost of running USCF? I am not taking about capital expenditures, but more routine items such as the power, water, gas, basic maintenance, light bulbs, air filters, plumbing repairs, etc....... There are a million different things that can come up, and I don't want to know them all, just a general idea. What about cleaning of the stadium? I would assume that the Sox are responsible for all cleaning, trash removal, pressure washing, etc., but am not sure. Any info on that kind of stuff? Rex.. I have a 5 year P&L summary of the R&E which includes park maintenance, team maintenance, revenue sharing, etc.. It's not detailed by line item, but it gives a good argument to those who think the Sox brass are whiping their butts with $100's.. they sure don't appear to be. I talked to our companies legal rep and he's checking on what I should or should not offer up here to make sure that the site, Jason, and I don't get into any trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I have the confidential copies from the offices of Bear, Sterns & Co, Inc, Ramirez & Co, Loop Capital Marketers, LLC, as well as the financial data from the trust held with LaSalle Bank. I have the "public" files you mention. outside of me, Steff, you are best researcher ever! you may even be better than me! I salute you with pride! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 outside of me, Steff, you are best researcher ever! you may even be better than me! I salute you with pride! I honestly can't take the credit. I just asked around. Someone else risked their butt for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I honestly can't take the credit. I just asked around. Someone else risked their butt for it. good research is knowing who to ask to get what - and being on good terms so that they will do it - it is my stock in trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Rex.. I have a 5 year P&L summary of the R&E which includes park maintenance, team maintenance, revenue sharing, etc.. It's not detailed by line item, but it gives a good argument to those who think the Sox brass are whiping their butts with $100's.. they sure don't appear to be. I talked to our companies legal rep and he's checking on what I should or should not offer up here to make sure that the site, Jason, and I don't get into any trouble. this is by far the most exciting item I have heard this off season. This is incredably awesome, and I fear you will need to shut up or use a discalimer like: From What I understand the sox spend x amount. We will all know the code. I guess the big questions are: Do the sox make out if attendance is down? Ncorg says no. What can the big guys afford? what are the costs of the park and upkeep and so on. Is this low payroll justified? What is needed to sell this club. Before Ncorg jumps on this. If lets say donald trump offered 260 million would these asswipes sell? If so then why not put the team up for sale like the brewers did and find a buyer? I think the reason is they are making cash and a good amount of it. Who designed the ballpark changes? I assume the Whitesox did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Hmmmm ... Trump says he's in the market for a pro sports franchise and Selig announces the Brewers are for sale. I smell a rat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I did see an annual report of the Illinois Sports Authority, they who run USCF. Says they get their revenue from 3 sources, those being lease payment from the White Sox, the hotel tax, and payments from other groups who use USCF (i.e. Rolling Stones, Springsteen). The report says they have received 13.6 million from the White Sox since the agreement started. I found this damn hard to believe. Only 13.6 million? And this agreement has been in effect for 12-13 years?? If I read it correctly, the Sox have not paid out a lot of $$ to the IL Sports Authority for use of the ballpark. Granted, they have to pay for certain maintenance, upkeep, employees, etc. But on average, they've only paid about $1 million per year to the state agency? Wow. They cut a very good deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 this is by far the most exciting item I have heard this off season. This is incredably awesome, and I fear you will need to shut up or use a discalimer like: From What I understand the sox spend x amount. We will all know the code. I guess the big questions are: Do the sox make out if attendance is down? Ncorg says no. What can the big guys afford? what are the costs of the park and upkeep and so on. Is this low payroll justified? What is needed to sell this club. Before Ncorg jumps on this. If lets say donald trump offered 260 million would these asswipes sell? If so then why not put the team up for sale like the brewers did and find a buyer? I think the reason is they are making cash and a good amount of it. Who designed the ballpark changes? I assume the Whitesox did? Woah there quickman... slow down. What I have is a summary P&L. Which means that like revenues and costs are rolled up. There is no mention of salaries specifically on the expense side. Very "generic" terms are used. From what's here.. the Sox are NOT making $$. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 I did see an annual report of the Illinois Sports Authority, they who run USCF. Says they get their revenue from 3 sources, those being lease payment from the White Sox, the hotel tax, and payments from other groups who use USCF (i.e. Rolling Stones, Springsteen). The report says they have received 13.6 million from the White Sox since the agreement started. I found this damn hard to believe. Only 13.6 million? And this agreement has been in effect for 12-13 years?? If I read it correctly, the Sox have not paid out a lot of $$ to the IL Sports Authority for use of the ballpark. Granted, they have to pay for certain maintenance, upkeep, employees, etc. But on average, they've only paid about $1 million per year to the state agency? Wow. They cut a very good deal. That number is completely contridictory to what I'm looking at. In 2002 alone the payment appears to be near $5 million, in 2001 $7.5 million, in 2001 $6.6 million, and in 1999 $6.2 million. (obviously since this was prepared in September of '03 the '03 $$ are not avaliable). That alone is $25.3 million... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I don't think the Sox are making a lot of money, neither are they losing money. Reinsdorf has always said (back when he talked to the media ) he was gonna run it like a business, but that his goal was not to make money ... but he sure as heck was not gonna lose money either. Personally, I think his goal is to be slightly in the black or right at break even. They have spent money, but they've spent it on the wrong players (and management). Just a guess on my part, but I'd speculate that Reinsdorf, Einhorn, Pizer, or ANY stockholder/shareholder isn't counting on the White Sox turning a profit so they can pay the bills. I'd bet they couldn't even take money "out" of the corporation anyway. Their shares may have more intrinsic market value, and I presume they draw a salary (meaning corporate officers). But I really think it's a zero sum situation down there. Their goal is break even or slightly in the black, every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 That number is completely contridictory to what I'm looking at. In 2002 alone the payment appears to be near $5 million, in 2001 $7.5 million, in 2001 $6.6 million, and in 1999 $6.2 million. (obviously since this was prepared in September of '03 the '03 $$ are not avaliable). That alone is $25.3 million... That is WAY contradictory. I was looking at the 2002 Annual Report. That's a document available to the public, anybody can get it. I was surprised by the number too. But let's suppose it's $25 million, over the 12-13 years. Roughly $2 million per year. Still not a bad deal. By the way, the report also says 50% of the revenue goes to the overall state, the other 50% to the city of Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 That is WAY contradictory. I was looking at the 2002 Annual Report. That's a document available to the public, anybody can get it. I was surprised by the number too. But let's suppose it's $25 million, over the 12-13 years. Roughly $2 million per year. Still not a bad deal. By the way, the report also says 50% of the revenue goes to the overall state, the other 50% to the city of Chicago. No Jim.. those are the individual numbers for 1999 to 2002. I have no idea what the payments to date $$ amount is. It's $25 million for just the past 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 By the way, the report also says 50% of the revenue goes to the overall state, the other 50% to the city of Chicago. What I'm looking at is expenses paid back to the state. No details on this P&L regarding the city, although that doesn't mean they aren't one in the same and combined for summary reporting (we do that on our combined company P&L summary here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Maybe there are lease payments and "returns" or rebates of some sort? Meaning, they (the Sox) have to pay a lease payment every month let's say, and then based on certain clauses they are "rebated" at year's end? I don't know, but the annual report said $13.6M has gone into the ISA coffers since lease inception. Perhaps your figure is gross, the one I saw is in effect net profit for ISA. Not sure. Two totally different numbers, that's for sure. I'd be really surprised though if the state set something up with the Sox whereby the Sox could settle their books and make a lump sum payment in accordance with the lease provisions. More likely would be they'd make monthly payments, the state gets to keep the interest on those monies, and a credit or rebate is issued to the Sox when they close their books after each baseball season. That being said, my degree was in HR ... not finance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ncorgbl Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 What I'm looking at is expenses paid back to the state. No details on this P&L regarding the city, although that doesn't mean they aren't one in the same and combined for summary reporting (we do that on our combined company P&L summary here) Steff, initially you said you had a copy of the 'agreement'. Later you say it's a 'P&L'. From what you describe it's the P&L from last year that will be available to the public when completed. It will be presented to the Illinois House, read publically and approved after the usual arguments. Again, the ISA is state run. ALL documents are available to ALL state citizens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Unfortunately I don't have monthly detail... and to be honest most of this is speculation from what I know of P&L's, balance sheets, and income reporting practices. These appear to be actual payments. Payments would not alter from gross to net as "rent" is not a item influenced by tax. I agree with you on the monthly payments. What it looks like from the legal mumbo jumbo is that there is a accrued amount paid regardless. After the "quota" is reached an additional amount goes into effect. Again these are year end $$. No idea of the monthly expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Steff, initially you said you had a copy of the 'agreement'. Later you say it's a 'P&L'. From what you describe it's the P&L from last year that will be available to the public when completed. It will be presented to the Illinois House, read publically and approved after the usual arguments. Again, the ISA is state run. ALL documents are available to ALL state citizens OK Corg.. whatever. Shoot me your fax number and I'll send ya what I got and you tell me it's the same at the public documents (which I also have, and the two - in looking at them side to side - bear no similarities to eachother). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Since I have no idea if myself or the site could get into trouble for this information being posted I have removed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Jim, the first line under "other expendatures" is where the $25 million comes from. It also is pretty clear that the Sox sure aren't making $$ hand over fist like some choose to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Well.. there it is Corg.. perhaps you, or maybe someone else...?... can shed some light on these financial numbers? Being a shareholder, I'm guessing this is something you have seen - at least I would think so, no? 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.