lostfan Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 If you've ever heard Bulls fans b****ing about the front office/ownership you always hear this complaint especially from the Bulls fans who are Cubs fans or who aren't from Chicago. (Right now it doesn't even make any sense anyway, they are willing to pay Carlos Boozer $17 million to NOT play for the Bulls in 2014-15, and if Carmelo doesn't sign with the Bulls it will be because he wanted money the Bulls couldn't offer because of the CBA and they'll say the Bulls were being "cheap" anyway which is dumb, but that's a separate topic...) Anyway I've always been inclined to believe this is bulls*** and it's something meatballs just say out of their asses mainly for 2 reasons. 1. The Sox don't have much debt to factor into their operating costs combined with a sweet TV deal, so they pull in a lot of revenue. They're not the Yankees but they're far from broke. They can afford high payroll without being subsidized by the Bulls, unlike what they seem to be implying. 2. Reinsdorf or any other investors on the Bulls could theoretically use their profits to invest in the Sox but even if they did it wouldn't affect the operating costs of the Bulls since the Bulls are pretty much sitting on a mint. Reinsdorf could go into the luxury tax and still profit if he wanted to, he just hasn't ever seen a need to until last year. What's the best way to respond to this? Keeping in mind these aren't usually the type of people to listen to facts or logic, but still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 You're definitely right that the Bulls have relatively fixed costs due to salary cap. They profit so much they'd have to have been something like $25-$30 million past tax threshold to fail to turn a profit, in which case they'd probably have a team so good that profits would have gone up. It's also worth mentioning that while this information is technically secret, it's widely believed that Reinsdorf's stake in the Bulls is far more significant than his stake in the Sox. With that said, I believe Jerry has been buying out some of the Sox's investors so that may not be as true as it once was. People need to think of the teams as companies. If you owned two businesses, chances are you wouldn't risk the good fortune of one by pouring its profits into the other. Likewise, if one was failing, you would just let the failing one die knowing your other was on solid ground. There aren't many good reasons for double-dipping like this. You can also mention how unbelievably low our payroll is compared to past years and our low future payroll commitments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I don't think he legally could even do that. It'd be explicitly against the financial interests of the other Bulls shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 "The Blackhawks are still losing money every year." What about the all the liquor sales at the UC that go directly to Wirtz Beverage Corp? Um. Um. Um. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 10:37 PM) You're definitely right that the Bulls have relatively fixed costs due to salary cap. They profit so much they'd have to have been something like $25-$30 million past tax threshold to fail to turn a profit, in which case they'd probably have a team so good that profits would have gone up. It's also worth mentioning that while this information is technically secret, it's widely believed that Reinsdorf's stake in the Bulls is far more significant than his stake in the Sox. With that said, I believe Jerry has been buying out some of the Sox's investors so that may not be as true as it once was. People need to think of the teams as companies. If you owned two businesses, chances are you wouldn't risk the good fortune of one by pouring its profits into the other. Likewise, if one was failing, you would just let the failing one die knowing your other was on solid ground. There aren't many good reasons for double-dipping like this. You can also mention how unbelievably low our payroll is compared to past years and our low future payroll commitments. I mentioned the payroll, they shed a ton of salary last year and the core players are controlled for the next few years so it's not likely to go up anytime soon unless they go on a free-agent spending spree. It's something that doesn't really make that much sense when you think about it for a few minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 10:39 PM) I don't think he legally could even do that. It'd be explicitly against the financial interests of the other Bulls shareholders. He probably could, if he wanted to. The question is why would he want to? It just doesn't seem like a smart way to run a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Whenever I hear about teams like the Sox losing money, I wonder about those articles that list the worth of the franchise and what it would cost if the Sox were for sale. It makes no sense that a team could lose money every year and be worth that kind of jack. I mean, I don't know the latest figure, but the Sox are allegedly, according to Forbes Mag, worth a fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 The Sox seem to be doing fine financially, but they're nowhere close to their maximum potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 09:28 PM) If you've ever heard Bulls fans b****ing about the front office/ownership you always hear this complaint especially from the Bulls fans who are Cubs fans or who aren't from Chicago. (Right now it doesn't even make any sense anyway, they are willing to pay Carlos Boozer $17 million to NOT play for the Bulls in 2014-15, and if Carmelo doesn't sign with the Bulls it will be because he wanted money the Bulls couldn't offer because of the CBA and they'll say the Bulls were being "cheap" anyway which is dumb, but that's a separate topic...) Anyway I've always been inclined to believe this is bulls*** and it's something meatballs just say out of their asses mainly for 2 reasons. 1. The Sox don't have much debt to factor into their operating costs combined with a sweet TV deal, so they pull in a lot of revenue. They're not the Yankees but they're far from broke. They can afford high payroll without being subsidized by the Bulls, unlike what they seem to be implying. 2. Reinsdorf or any other investors on the Bulls could theoretically use their profits to invest in the Sox but even if they did it wouldn't affect the operating costs of the Bulls since the Bulls are pretty much sitting on a mint. Reinsdorf could go into the luxury tax and still profit if he wanted to, he just hasn't ever seen a need to until last year. What's the best way to respond to this? Keeping in mind these aren't usually the type of people to listen to facts or logic, but still. This is about as realistic as saying google funds microsoft. Riensdorf doesn't even own the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 first in the world of investment, there so many loop holes to exploit to keep investors investing, with some much tax breaks. in addition, the tax law are soooo complex you need a great tax acct / lawyer to keep everything smooth. 1. JR with a group of investors own the bulls and sox. 2. is it legal or not to use your money for the investment to invest in another company? 3. there must be some disclosure that make sure these owners are in uppity up. 4. now here is where it gets tricky, if the bulls are make huge cash, take your share and re-invest it in a not so profitable venture or to strengthen your position. you will need to do something with that profit or face stiff taxes. 5. if you re-invest you not only miss the tax levy, but you will get a tax break. 6. the league, whichever league you are talking about will not let you failed unless you are a complete idiot. 7. owning the company for so long, most of the overhead and initial invest is even now and now the worth of the franchise is huge. lastly, is it legal or illegal for an owner to reinvest his own money to strengthen his position? but then again what the hell do I know..... nada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 03:39 AM) I don't think he legally could even do that. It'd be explicitly against the financial interests of the other Bulls shareholders. is that a corgi you have a your pict???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (LDF @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 10:54 PM) is that a corgi you have a your pict???? Wow. Such Doge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 The Bulls and White Sox are 2 separtate businesses, and although many of the names are the same, the ownership groups are different. There is nothing to prevent JR or any of his other partners from taking their Bulls payouts and throwing it at the White Sox, but that would be kind of silly. They both are turning a decent profit over the years. JR's statement that when he goes the family should keep the Bulls and sell the Sox is pretty sound, because the Bulls are pretty much idiot proof now. The Sox, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 08:17 AM) The Bulls and White Sox are 2 separtate businesses, and although many of the names are the same, the ownership groups are different. There is nothing to prevent JR or any of his other partners from taking their Bulls payouts and throwing it at the White Sox, but that would be kind of silly. They both are turning a decent profit over the years. JR's statement that when he goes the family should keep the Bulls and sell the Sox is pretty sound, because the Bulls are pretty much idiot proof now. The Sox, not so much. I'm not a lawyer or a financial guy, but I'm pretty sure his legal fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the Bulls would prevent him from taking revenues and profits from that business and funneling them towards a different one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 8, 2014 -> 08:22 AM) I'm not a lawyer or a financial guy, but I'm pretty sure his legal fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the Bulls would prevent him from taking revenues and profits from that business and funneling them towards a different one. He wouldn't be funneling Bulls money. He would be funneling his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Ah, right, the idea being he takes his own profits out of the Bulls and dumps it into the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Two seperate teams with two seperate ownership groups. The sox fund themselves. And the bulls only pay the bulls bills. Or in other words, bill wirtz has six bulls rings, but zero sox rings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venom4789 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I maybe wrong, but i believe reinsdorf loves the white sox, way more than the bulls, and he is huge into the bulls. I am pretty sure he said something along the lines of how he would trade all the jordan era championships for one sox one. I think it was along the lines of i wouldnt wear another bulls ring if i could get a white sox one. I think he said it after they won the al central in 05. Like i said i maybe wrong but if it is the case i dont see why he would take money that he makes from the bulls to support the team he loves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 all that was said was quite right, the premise is / was how to respond to whomever the JR was continuing to in invest money or something to that effect. the only way JR puts more money into the sox org is to buy out a partner and to strengthen his position. both clubs, as it stands now, without knowing the true financial, are in great shape. can you imagine if JR had let say, the yanks bankroll or the dodgers, would JR still handle the club the same way? 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.