TLAK Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 I was just looked up Ilich in Forbes, according to them: ---------------------------------- He's 75 years old. He bought the tigers in 1992. He was a minor league infielder in the Tigers organization in his youth. Net worth $750 million The Red Wings lost almost $17 million last year. The Tigers made $300,000 in 2003. He holds all his businesses in a single holding company. His son, Christopher, 39, assumed the CEO position this summer. Mike and his Wife, Marian are Chairman and Vice Chairman and remain active. Ilich's holdings exceeded $900 mil in 2003 revenue. He is an active philanthropist and has had a hand in many fine projects. ---------------------------------- I infer the Wings losses offset some profit from Caesars, the Tigers and other ventures, so in a way our tax dollars helped pay all then damn Ruskies. I didn't know he was so old. He's had the Tigers for 12 years now, never finishing above 3rd place in the Central. Is anyone close to the Tigers rumor mill? Is the team's recent agressiveness due to Christopher becoming more involved? What does it bode for the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 While I was there I made a spreadsheet of Forbe's estimate of each teams EBITDA over the past 3 years. I won't comment yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Thats kind of dissapointing since they didn't really re-invest those earnings in 2004, but I'm hoping they will this offseason. Still, I have no problem with the chairman making money, absolutely zero problem. As long as he fields a competitive team. I think all the shareholders deserve the right to make a return on their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 No surprise at all. The 2004 payroll was about $13 million over the 2003 payroll. Hmmm coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My theory is the White Sox budget for a conservative attendance number and then ratchet it up or down during the season if revenue is different. There is a Northwestern U web page about Tim Buzard, their chief bean counter, which describes his claim to fame, the Sox zero based budgeting system. Apparently JR stipulates a base number and all the departments -Stadium, Parking, Baseball- build around it. They include contingencies for things going well and for things not going well. It is updated often in the course of a season. Think back to '02 when things were going poorly. Ray-Ray and Lofton were traded for prospects. When things were going well in '03 Alomar and Everett were brought in at some pretty good money. Last year was pretty flat after the injuries and not much happened (Everett didn't make near the money as in '03, plus it was before Frank went down, Freddy Garcia got the unspent money slotted for Bartolo Colon). So I think KW's line about good attendance letting him bring players in is the truth, it's how they run the team. Sox slogan should be: Come and they will build it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 For the last time!!! Finley will be signing on the West coast. That's all there is to it. His family lives in San Diego and he has gone on record saying that he wants to play close to his family. Around the trade deadline last year, he refused to go to any other team outside California. If he signs anywhere but San Diego, LA, or SF, I'll eat my hat. Finley wants a relatively expensive multi-year deal. Let's look at the 3 teams on the West Coast. Los Angeles - They already have Milton Bradley in center, although if they attempt to trade him they could possibly try to resign him. But I think they want to fill other needs first such as catcher and a first baseman. San Diego - They merely wanted Finley as a 2 month rental for the 2004 season, heading into the playoffs. Now their main focus is resigning David Wells, and they already have Jay Payton in center field. If they could trade Ryan Klesko, which is very unlikely, then they'd become more interested in Finley no doubt, as Payton could move across. More attractive at that time was the short term of his employment. Finley would have been a two-month "rental" with an eye strictly toward October and not necessarily to 2005 and beyond. Less intriguing for the Padres now is the prospect of signing Finley to a relatively expensive multiyear deal. The club does have some interest and has had some preliminary discussions with Finley's agent, Tommy Tanzer, but they are not as hot after Finley as they are interested in seeing David Wells return, which is their No. 1 priority now. San Francisco - The favorite of all the 3 west coast teams in my opinion. Brian Sabean is filling the team with veterans, hoping to make one last run at the World Series with Bonds still around. If Finley wants a multiyear deal, he'll probably get one from the Giants, as seen with the deal they gave 37 year old Omar Vizquel. The outfield could change, especially if Dodgers' free agent center fielder Steve Finley -- negotiations are ongoing -- joins the Giants. Detroit have already shown that they will overpay for free agents this offseason with the signing of Troy Percival so I wouldn't count them out of the race yet. It depends though, does Finley want more money or to play on the West Coast for less and possibly a smaller duration of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Thats kind of dissapointing since they didn't really re-invest those earnings in 2004, but I'm hoping they will this offseason. Still, I have no problem with the chairman making money, absolutely zero problem. As long as he fields a competitive team. I think all the shareholders deserve the right to make a return on their money. Jason.. the Sox payroll was up nearly $13 million from '03. They did invest the $$ into payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Jason.. the Sox payroll was up nearly $13 million from '03. They did invest the $$ into payroll. Then I take that comment back Steff I forgot the mid-season acquisitions which would of definately boosted that payroll up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 While I was there I made a spreadsheet of Forbe's estimate of each teams EBITDA over the past 3 years. I won't comment yet. I realize there is more to it, but as I have contended the Whitesox have made money . Nothing wrong with making money, its may not be alot of money but they are not sinking. by the way they will make more money this year, due to the new TV rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Jason.. the Sox payroll was up nearly $13 million from '03. They did invest the $$ into payroll. not enough, they didn't win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I realize there is more to it, but as I have contended the Whitesox have made money . Nothing wrong with making money, its may not be alot of money but they are not sinking. by the way they will make more money this year, due to the new TV rights. I'd like someone .... anyone .... to show me some link or source that shows the new TV deal is going to 1. be profitable for the Sox this year ... or ... 2. increase revenues enough to make a difference on payroll. People keep saying this, but no one can or will seem to come up with anything beyond pure speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'd like someone .... anyone .... to show me some link or source that shows the new TV deal is going to 1. be profitable for the Sox this year ... or ... 2. increase revenues enough to make a difference on payroll. People keep saying this, but no one can or will seem to come up with anything beyond pure speculation. These are the things I've found on the Comcast deal. It's hard as hell to find figures though, but I guess Steff or Mike would possibly be able to find them. WHO'S AFFECTED? - Sports fans may have to pay for extra channels at an additional cost. - Chicago team owners and Comcast think the deal will mean more revenue for the parties involved. Typical regional sports networks return a profit margin of 30 to 40 percent annually on revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, industry experts said. The Chicago team owners and Comcast like the deal because they say it eliminates a middleman, which frees up more revenue for everyone involved. Comcast can now bypass Rainbow Sports' Fox Sports Net, which lost the rights to the games as part of this deal, and negotiate fees directly with the teams. But skeptics wonder whether it will be impossible for so many owners with sometimes differing agendas to live happily together. And the new channel already is forcing strange bedfellows. At the request of the teams involved, Comcast is negotiating with cable TV's nemesis, satellite providers, so Chicago-area fans who watch on satellite aren't blocked out of the action. Satellite viewers are out of luck in Philadelphia, where Comcast didn't strike a deal with satellite providers. And then you have Kotex Boy's view; the White Sox are making a heftier profit than they'll ever admit. I realize I'm merely a "pissant'' in Reinsdorf's world, recalling how he described me on a TV show. But this pissant nonetheless is launching a campaign demanding that he sell the team to a group with the financial means and commitment -- the Comcast Sports empire, perhaps -- to compete for championships in a big market. Otherwise, the Sox might tumble into total irrelevance while The Ballmall Formerly Known as Comiskey Park becomes a sausage factory. Yet Anna Nicole Smith has a better chance of sobering up before Reinsdorf starts reinvesting more profits into his product. The longer he practices Kansas City economics in the nation's third-largest market, the more secondary and stale the Sox will be in the big-thinking, big-spending era of the Cubs. He and his minions can lampoon the media, but the smart fans aren't listening. All they want to know is how the Sox plan to win a World Series. And more stuff; New York could quickly go the way of Chicago, where the Dolans, unwilling to give up an equity stake to local sports teams, lost out to rival Comcast. The Cubs, White Sox and Blackhawks had deals that expired simultaneously, and they approached Comcast about starting a network in which the teams had a 20 percent stake. Third quarter numbers for Cablevision's regional sports operations in Florida, Ohio, the San Francisco Bay area and Chicago showed revenues of $33.2 million, up from $19.6 million. But Comcast's Chicago steal play suggests "very obvious cracks in the foundation," according to Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Ok DBAH0, thanks. But still, this doesn't ever say what, if any profits, are expected. Typical regional sports networks return a profit margin of 30 to 40 percent annually on revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, industry experts said. That's talking about a "typical" network. Maybe it will have healthy profit margins. But, will they have them in the first year? The second? If you can measure by a "typical" network, what happened to Sportsvision? It didn't quite bring in the $$ they were expecting. Regarding Mariotti's rant, I do remember reading that. But again, it doesn't really say how much and when. It's just a pissant venting. The third quote box talks about quotes revenues, not profits, which is split between 4 networks. That's how many teams. Let's say 4 per network, you are talking an average of $2 million in revenues. Or, about equal to the salary of a 3rd year utility infielder. This hardly seems to be the cash cow everyone expects it to be. Then again, none of these articles ever says anything like "The White Sox expect to see a $10 million profit from their deal with Comcast in 2005." If it did, ok. I'd be convinced. But I still think a lot of people are speculating there will be an influx of cash that JR could apply toward payroll. I don't see nor expect it to happen any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I think they expect to make more money, but until figures start coming in they aren't going to know for sure. I'm sure JR and the other owners have estimates and its giong to be one of those things where they probably make a little less this year while the whole thing grows, but in the end should make the same or a little more while having a lot more freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I think they expect to make more money, but until figures start coming in they aren't going to know for sure. I'm sure JR and the other owners have estimates and its giong to be one of those things where they probably make a little less this year while the whole thing grows, but in the end should make the same or a little more while having a lot more freedom. If that's the case, then we need to stop looking at the Comcast deal as an income source, in relation to payroll, for 2005. 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.