What we all suspected is true

[JUGGERNAUT]

Steff, I'm not sure how they are doing the accounting of it but they do have the total value of the improvements listed in the long-term assets: $35,865,159.

 

I'll open the pdf & see if I can find where it adds up.

[Steff]

I don't know what your referring to put there are at least two references to renovations in the report.  1 is a charge of $1.24M from 2001 to 2007. 

 

The other is up front in the Message from the Chairman.  It doesn't even mention the White Sox.  It mentions 83 new jobs & the project being completed within budget.  It's common knowledge the White Sox are paying for the renovations from the money being paid by US Cellular for naming rights.

 

 

Your right.. it doesn't mention the White Sox.. so why are you saying the Sox are paying for it...??

 

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Nov 11, 2005 -> 04:31 PM)

But I do want to point out something that maybe most people don't know. The ISFA is handling the renovations. The White Sox are paying the costs

 

 

 

Second sentence of the Chairman's letter...

 

In 2004 the Authority accomplished yet another phase of the significant renovations at US Cellular field...

 

Where is it common knowledge that the Sox are paying for renovations to a park they don't own...??? The money is being accounted for on the ISA's financials... so if that's wrong... someone better do some investigating..

[Steff]

Steff, I'm not sure how they are doing the accounting of it but they do have the total value of the improvements listed in the long-term assets: $35,865,159.

 

I'll open the pdf & see if I can find where it adds up.

 

 

 

That's just the improvements line.. that's not the total asset.

 

Page 14 of the PDF.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Page 4

 

The Authority managed $60M in rennovations (financed in large part with funds made available from the renaming of the facility).

[Steff]

Page 4

 

The Authority managed $60M in rennovations (financed in large part with funds made available from the renaming of the facility).

 

 

 

Right.. the Authority did it with the funds from US Cellular.. so.. how did that become the Sox paying for them..?

[Steff]

Wait, wait, wait...

 

 

Do you mean the Sox paid for it because the Sox requested the funds from the ISA, they cut the check.. gave it to the Sox.. then the Sox passed it along to the contractors...??

 

Because if that's what you mean.. then I would guess you're right if that's the proceedure though I would imagine the contractor would deal with the ISA directly.

 

 

Is that what you mean when you say "the Sox are paying for it"..?

[JUGGERNAUT]

 

Right.. the Authority did it with the funds from US Cellular..  so.. how did that become the Sox paying for them..? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a good question & I don't have the answer. US Cellular doesn't show up any where in the ledgers. Nor does this money show up as revenue coming from the White Sox.

 

There is this:

In 2003, the Authority and the Team agreed that the Team could license to United StatesCellular Corporation the naming rights for the New Comiskey Park. In turn, the Authority and the Team reached agreement on certain changes and modifications including the extension of the term of the Management Agreement from 2010 until 2029, a plan and project list for construction, and the method for financing the improvements via a bond issuance and a corresponding maintenance subsidy reduction to cover the debt service.

 

The way I'm reading this is that the licensing revenue is going to the White Sox & the $1.24M the Sox now owe each year has been extended through 2029. That total comes to $34.72M. That's very close to the asset value they are listing for stadium improvements to date. The ledger entries referring to the bond issuance support this. But for 2005 I believe that the corresponding maintenance subsidy is going to show the bulk of the added expenses.

Edited November 11, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[whitesoxin']

Steff- Were you in debate in HS?

Edited November 11, 2005 by whitesoxin'

[JUGGERNAUT]

I have all the details now thanks to Crain's:

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag...003-04-05&rel=1

Under the agreement, ISFA will service the debt on the bonds with money saved on annual maintenance fees it formerly paid the White Sox.

 

So here's how it adds up:

The $1.24M the Sox are paying thru 2007 is paying for the first first phases of the renovations. Those renovations were paid for thru a different bond issuance.

 

Marc Ganis of SportsCorp Ltd., a Chicago consulting firm: "There's no question (ISFA) is a major reason the team is viable. They're also the reason the team isn't in St. Petersburg. That's why (ISFA) exists."

 

The White Sox extended it's stadium lease from 2011 thru 2026 as part of the financing agreement.

 

The 2004 ISFA report states it's 2029.

 

Bringing this up to date to 2005:

It looks like the Bond proceeds came to $42.5M.

It looks like the park maintenance fee came to $3.7M in 2004. It looks like the CWS was responsible for park maintenance all this time.

 

The cost for the latest renovations will probably be in the 2005 report. This expenditure will likely be removed from that report. That fee was worth $2.7M in 2002 so it's probably worth over $4M in 2005.

 

That appears to be how the CWS are paying for the cost of renovations. The ISFA would then recoup the bond cost in 2015-2016. They will have doubled their savings prior to the least expiring in 2029.

Edited November 12, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is also gives both the ISFA & CWS room to renegotiate as the CWS are worth much more now than they were in 2003. The CWS might be willing to pay more rent in exchange for re-couping the maintenance fees. The ISFA might be willing to re-instate that expense in exchange for getting a bigger pc of post-season action.

[aboz56]

Steff- Were you in debate in HS?

She's not losing this one, that's for damn sure.

[Steff]

It's a good question & I don't have the answer.  US Cellular doesn't show up any where in the ledgers.  Nor does this money show up as revenue coming from the White Sox. 

 

There is this:

In 2003, the Authority and the Team agreed that the Team could license to United StatesCellular Corporation the naming rights for the New Comiskey Park. In turn, the Authority and the Team reached agreement on certain changes and modifications including the extension of the term of the Management Agreement from 2010 until 2029, a plan and project list for construction, and the method for financing the improvements via a bond issuance and a corresponding maintenance subsidy reduction to cover the debt service.

 

The way I'm reading this is that the licensing revenue is going to the White Sox & the $1.24M the Sox now owe each year has been extended through 2029.  That total comes to $34.72M.  That's very close to the asset value they are listing for stadium improvements to date.  The ledger entries referring to the bond issuance support this.  But for 2005 I believe that the corresponding maintenance subsidy is going to show the bulk of the added expenses.

 

 

Ok.. so what does licensing revenue have to do with the money paid for the park improvements...?

 

And what does 2005 have to do with anything on these financials.. they are YE June '04 with no projections for the fiscal year '04 to June '05...

 

I've read the bond agreements directly from LaSalle and they don't appear to have anything to do with the $$ from US Cellular - and everything to do with covering the additional years on the extended lease, but if they did.. why for reduction to cover the debt..? There was no debt previous as there were no structural improvements made until after the US Celluar $$ was awarded..?

[Steff]

I have all the details now thanks to Crain's:

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag...003-04-05&rel=1

Under the agreement, ISFA will service the debt on the bonds with money saved on annual maintenance fees it formerly paid the White Sox.

 

So here's how it adds up:

The $1.24M the Sox are paying thru 2007 is paying for the first first phases of the renovations.  Those renovations were paid for thru a different bond issuance.

 

Marc Ganis of SportsCorp Ltd., a Chicago consulting firm: "There's no question (ISFA) is a major reason the team is viable.  They're also the reason the team isn't in St. Petersburg. That's why (ISFA) exists."

 

The White Sox extended it's stadium lease from 2011 thru 2026 as part of the financing agreement.  

 

The 2004 ISFA report states it's 2029.

 

Bringing this up to date to 2005:

It looks like the Bond proceeds came to $42.5M.

It looks like the park maintenance fee came to $3.7M in 2004.  It looks like the CWS was responsible for park maintenance all this time. 

 

The cost for the latest renovations will probably be in the 2005 report.  This expenditure will likely be removed from that report.  That fee was worth $2.7M in 2002 so it's probably worth over $4M in 2005. 

 

That appears to be how the CWS are paying for the cost of renovations.  The ISFA would then recoup the bond cost in 2015-2016.  They will have doubled their savings prior to the least expiring in 2029.

 

 

OK.. big misunderstand here.

 

1. The bonds are insurance. They are in place to pay for things IF the Sox and US Cellular part ways or if the Sox go bankrupt for some reason.

In essence, it's an insurance policy that means that if something goes wrong, the tazpayers don't have to foot the bill anymore. It's clear in the article you posted.

2. I still have no idea what (or why) you are calling that 1.24million both maintainence and licensing revenue.. and I don't see where the Sox are paying it.

3. The Sox have always been responsible for park maintainence.. in 2003 it was 2.7 million. That's quoted in the article you posted. For maintainence... not anything to do with renovations. Furthermore.. that was money paid BACK to the Sox.

4. I still can't see where the Sox are paying for this.. and if they are why didn't they just do it themselves and not sell the naming rights? And why did they, and the state lie to the tax payers telling us specifically that the funds from that sale is paying for the renovations...?

5. And finally... where are you getting the '04 and '05 numbers you are quoting.

[Steff]

This is also gives both the ISFA & CWS room to renegotiate as the CWS are worth much more now than they were in 2003.  The CWS might be willing to pay more rent in exchange for re-couping the maintenance fees.  The ISFA might be willing to re-instate that expense in exchange for getting a bigger pc of post-season action.

 

 

Maintenance fees recouped...? You do realize that those fees pay for things like the cost of heating, air conditioning, water, and electricity...?

[Steff]

Steff- Were you in debate in HS?

 

 

No, I wasn't.

 

Did you have anything to add to the conversation or did you just want to toss some s*** around to see if it would stick...?

[Steff]

She's not losing this one, that's for damn sure.

 

 

Not so much win or lose. I posted the '03 year ending financials to prove Jerry wasn't raping the fans and making bundles of money so I'm familiar with the way they work and from what I can see.. I just don't see where the Sox are paying for anything related to the renovations because mainly they don't have the funds to do so. They've been at the break even point since 2000 (loss in '01) and put back the last 4 years of profit into the teams payroll. It just doesn't make any sense...

[JUGGERNAUT]

Bonds 101:

 

A company issues a bond to raise cash. The bond is a debt service. A promise to pay a rate of return when the maturity rate is reached on each level of the bond. That rate of return is determined by the colladeral backing the bond. Obviously the higher the rate of return the greater the appeal of the bond.

 

The previous bonds for New Comiskey park were backed by new taxes & tax revenues. This new bond is backed by a reduction in expenditures for the ISFA.

 

Originally the White Sox did attempt to raise the money themselves. But the best they could get on the basis of their own & US Cellular's credit rating was $30M. This would not cover the cost of the renovations. So the ISFA stepped in & issued a new bond that raised $42.5M. That more than covered the cost of renovations.

 

No new taxes or sources of tax revenue were used to secure that bond. The promise to pay the rate of return on those bonds as they mature has been backed primarily from the reduction in expenditures for the ISFA by eliminating the fee to the White Sox for park maintenance. The only risk that is involved is if the White Sox should become insolvent & the ISFA can not find a new tenant that would continue to absorb that cost.

 

I do not believe the ISFA will issue yet another bond for any future renovations such as RF porch. With the franchise value of the White Sox now pegged at $300M the credit rating of the team has greatly improved. They should be able to raise the funds themselves.

Edited November 12, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

As merchandise goes I've got to get my hands on that cookie jar. I hope there are dish towels, napkin holders, & other such kitchen amenities available. It would be cool to deck the whole kitchen out in Sox stuff.

[Steff]

Comprehension 101

 

 

 

Even when it proves you wrong...

[JUGGERNAUT]

I know it's my fault for reading what you write but I'm not surprised that you have digressed down to personal attacks.

 

As for proving me wrong, well let's see:

 

1) You have never provided a shred of evidence that a 3rd party company is getting the lion's share of parking revenue.

 

2) If we assume that the White Sox are getting the lion's share then your own math has proven it's an 8 figure revenue stream. Unit wise that represents 10's of millions.

Recall: 1's, 10's, 100's .. etc.

 

3) You are completely befuddled by how ISFA bonds work.

 

Yep. You sure did prove me wrong

Edited November 13, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[3E8]

2) If we assume that the White Sox are getting the lion's share then your own math has proven it's an 8 figure revenue stream.  Unit wise that represents 10's of millions.

Recall: 1's, 10's, 100's .. etc.

It was only in 8 figures when she accidently made an error in her calculation. Even after a correction, she assumed 2 attendees/car, which I think is too low and artificially inflates revenue.

 

If we knew the car capacity/lot, I think we could come up with a more accurate estimation...

[JUGGERNAUT]

Wrong again. She corrected her figure based on her assumption that the White Sox are getting at most 50% of that revenue. That's her belief & she has been able to offer ZERO proof to back it up.

 

In contrast I used reported revenue & attendance figures from both teams to show that the White Sox have a higher per patron revenue figure than the Cubs. This can only be explained with a revenue source the White Sox benefit greatly from that the Cubs do not have. That narrows it down to parking revenue.

Edited November 13, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[worldchampsox05]

I go to school right now and all I see is sox gear. Hell I go anywhere right now and all I see is sox gear. Thats pretty cool but sometimes it kind of ticks me off because then I think "where the hell were you asses when the sox were slumping?"  

 

thats the same thing i was thinking...my school is now filled with ppl wearing sox stuff and im like where were u guys the whole year with ur sox pride!?!

[3E8]

Wrong again.  She corrected her figure based on her assumption that the White Sox are getting at most 50% of that revenue.  That's her belief & she has been able to offer ZERO proof to back it up.

 

In contrast I used reported revenue & attendance figures from both teams to show that the White Sox have a higher per patron revenue figure than the Cubs.  This can only be explained with a revenue source the White Sox benefit greatly from that the Cubs do not have.  That narrows it down to parking revenue.

Then all you have done is shown that the Sox generate more revenue from parking than the Cubs do. You have not proven that nearly 100% of parking revenue goes directly to the Sox.

 

This comes as no surprise to anyone. Parking at Wrigley field is not popular. Parking is very accommodating at the Cell. Here is a disclaimer found on the Cubs website: Cubs fans are strongly encouraged to use public transportation going to and from Cubs games. That doesn't sound like an organization at all anticipating much profit from parking prices.

Edited November 13, 2005 by 3E8

[JUGGERNAUT]

Simply put the White Sox averaged $57.19 in revenue per patron in 2001. The Cub averaged $47.13. If not parking revenue then what else explains that disparity?

 

More evidence there is no 3rd party company. iit.edu/~parking/student.html

If there was a 3rd party involved they would have been mentioned. This is a deal worked between the White Sox & the school.