Marty34 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) And the Sox increased payroll this year... Running a business isnt about hoping for best case scenarios every year, if they want to be successful over long periods of time they will need to make profit some years. Do you want them to run negative? According to Forbes the White Sox have been profitable every year since 2003 pulling in $163M in those 8 years. The White Sox are a well run business and I'm happy about that. This "All In" is a marketing gimmick, not their business plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 14, 2011 Author Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) And the Sox increased payroll this year... Running a business isnt about hoping for best case scenarios every year, if they want to be successful over long periods of time they will need to make profit some years. Do you want them to run negative? If they've made $140 million in profits since the World Series, I don't see any reason to believe they'll be losing money now. I certainly don't buy the idea anymore that they need to tear the entire team apart if we're out of the race. It just shows, though, how effective KW and JR have been in their "crying poor" soundbites over the years that it's now become common wisdom to accept at face value. If there was a concern, they never would have added Manny Ramirez last year. And the White Sox have to be spending less money than just about any franchise on the draft and scouting/development. If they are spending a HIGH amount in this area, they consequently have the worst ROI of any MLB team over the last five years, that much is not in doubt. YES, CUE DAVE WILDER JOKES, I KNOW....that scandal was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions. Edited May 14, 2011 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Obviously the website does not let me look at their methodology. Something doesnt seem right but without actually having the data they are using its impossible to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) Obviously the website does not let me look at their methodology. Something doesnt seem right but without actually having the data they are using its impossible to tell. Talking about Forbes' numbers? Maybe they're conservative. The Astros are going to be sold for $680M and they had them valued at $474M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 14, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) Talking about Forbes' numbers? Maybe they're conservative. The Astros are going to be sold for $680M and they had them valued at $474M. Isn't there part of a cable network included in that deal (which Forbes wouldn't include in the team valuation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) There are many different methodologies for valuation, and the extra value of the Astros most likely has to do with scarcity. There are only 30 professional major league teams and most of them are not for sale. So if you actually want to buy a baseball team you generally pay a premium, which is an amount in excess of the actual value of the product. I expect the Sox make money, I just think its more likely in the range of $5-$10mil every year, which really isnt that substantial of a figure. The Sox dont have a stadium they can take loans against, so they have to funds. Edited May 14, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) Isn't there part of a cable network included in that deal (which Forbes wouldn't include in the team valuation). Yes, with the Rockets. Maybe they are undervaluing cable networks as a whole which of course would mean the Sox 25% stake in CSN is undervalued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ May 14, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) plus i bet our marketing costs are pretty high. Whoever they are paying to do their Photoshopping is getting paid too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) There are many different methodologies for valuation, and the extra value of the Astros most likely has to do with scarcity. There are only 30 professional major league teams and most of them are not for sale. So if you actually want to buy a baseball team you generally pay a premium, which is an amount in excess of the actual value of the product. I expect the Sox make money, I just think its more likely in the range of $5-$10mil every year, which really isnt that substantial of a figure. The Sox dont have a stadium they can take loans against, so they have to funds. You're guessing that the Sox make between $5M-$10M a year. No offense, but I'll take Forbes as a more accurate view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Forbes is guessing too, they are just putting it in a prettier package. Even if you use the Forbes numbers it doesnt account for taxes, depreciation, interest, etc (this is the notation that is right on their own numbers), so my $5-10mil range is including those factors they dont add in. /shrugs They dont even indicate how they came up with their figures, did the White Sox give them access to their books? Edited May 14, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Forbes is guessing too, they are just putting it in a prettier package. Even if you use the Forbes numbers it doesnt account for taxes, depreciation, interest, etc (this is the notation that is right on their own numbers), so my $5-10mil range is including those factor they dont add in. /shrugs They dont even indicate how they came up with their figures, did the White Sox give them access to their books? Again, no offense, but I think Forbes has a better handle on this than you. You also said that a profit of $5M-10M a year isn't all that substantial. Considering the value of the business increased an estimated 2.5x in the last eight years, even your $5-$10M profit a year is something I'd bet JR is happy about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Once again Ive used Forbes numbers as a baseline in every statement that Ive made. Just because you guys want to use it as the holy grail does not mean that I can not factually point out that Forbes numbers are merely speculation. I have yet to see any evidence that Forbes actually looked at the White Sox books. So as Ive said multiple times, its only speculation. I dont really see what the point of this thread is, you have people using speculative numbers to argue about something thats purpose is to provoke people. I guess I just am annoyed when people act like they are presenting facts, when its entirely speculation. It may be the best information that we have, but it is still not a fact, its a guess. Edited May 14, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The best argument that the Forbes numbers are right is that using them you could predict exactly what the Sox would do last offseason. Forbes said the Sox made $25 million with a $100 million team payroll last year. Suddenly, the Sox go "All In" and they're paying $125ish million. That's too good of a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Well the premise of the thread was how could the Sox lose money, and I think most were arguing that the Sox spent more money this year and if they make less money than last year, they surely can lose money this year. Anything else ive said is just because this is mere speculation and everyone is entitled to their opinion, just hard to react positively when its presented as a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 14, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) You mean like Exxon, G.E. and Bank of America? With creative accounting and offshore accounts, a lot of Fortune 500 companies don't pay any taxes these days. I'm sure the IRS makes sure the players do, but the teams themselves? I'd like to see the tax returns for the White Sox since Reinsdorf took over. I don't know about BOA, but I know Exxon paid billions in taxes last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2011 -> 05:53 PM) I don't know about BOA, but I know Exxon paid billions in taxes last year. Because they count the $.18/gallon gasoline tax as a tax on them, which is just laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) Because they count the $.18/gallon gasoline tax as a tax on them, which is just laughable. You count subsidies as profits, what is different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2011 -> 06:44 PM) You count subsidies as profits, what is different? If we eliminated the gas tax, Exxon's profits wouldn't change. If we doubled it, Exxon's profits wouldn't change (except in as much as it translated to increased or decreased total consumption as roads deteriorated). If we eliminated the $2 billion in annual subsidies, then oil profits would immediately decline by $2 billion. If we doubled them, then profits would immediately increase by $2 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) If we eliminated the gas tax, Exxon's profits wouldn't change. If we doubled it, Exxon's profits wouldn't change (except in as much as it translated to increased or decreased total consumption as roads deteriorated). If we eliminated the $2 billion in annual subsidies, then oil profits would immediately decline by $2 billion. If we doubled them, then profits would immediately increase by $2 billion. Yes they would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Don't forget the highest parking $23.00 in ALL of baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 15, 2011 Author Share Posted May 15, 2011 QUOTE (Soxfest @ May 14, 2011 -> 09:00 PM) Don't forget the highest parking $23.00 in ALL of baseball. Which is why the overall price for a family of four (tickets, parking, food, souvenirs) averages out to around $260, or $25 per person above the "mean" ticket price of $40.67. Fourth highest in the majors, behind the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 BUMP. I still want to see how we're losing $14 million this season....or $8 million/$10 million, whatever it is after we shed Jackson and Teahen. Indians win in the bottom of the 14th (yet again at home, making it 12 in a row over the Tigers) on a Fukudome based-loaded hit by pitch (off Pauley) to pull within 3 and the White Sox now 4 back. Amazing effort by both bullpens. Game over at almost 2 am CLE time. Indians used their entire pen and had their Sunday starter, Tomlin, ready to go in the 15th. 25,317 in attendance and most stayed until the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Assuming the Sox play 32 WGN games as they did in the regular season last year, 18 WCIU and 112 CSN games I have estimates the total revenue: 32 WGN games (@ ~$350K): $11,200,000 18 WCIU games (@$200K): $ 3,600,000 112 CSN games (@ $450K): $50,400,000 ---------------- $64,800,000 How do CSN games make more than WGN games, when WGN reaches far more households?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 Maybe the club sees it like free advertising and building/extending the fanbase? Like TBS/Turner with the Braves in the 80's and 90's. It's a good question. Logically, you would ASSUME that a superstation's games would net more revenue than a regional broadcasting sports network? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 10, 2011 -> 01:59 AM) 25,317 in attendance and most stayed until the end. The Sox are at 25k on the season, down from 27k last year, and that's before the late-season doldrums, if they happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
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.