PDA

View Full Version : Marlins profit at taxpayers' expense



Chip R
08-25-2010, 10:50 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410

KronoRed
08-25-2010, 10:58 PM
Big deal, every local city except maybe San Francisco has been hosed in this round of stadium building, even the big bad New York teams extorted money from the city.

Brutus
08-25-2010, 10:58 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-marlinsfinancials082410

Two leaks in a week? Seems the MLBPA has friends in high (read: low) places. Trying to get out ahead of the labor table for the 2012 CBA, I see.

IslandRed
08-25-2010, 11:30 PM
Two leaks in a week? Seems the MLBPA has friends in high (read: low) places. Trying to get out ahead of the labor table for the 2012 CBA, I see.

That, or a big-market team making an opening argument against increasing revenue sharing: "See? They're not even spending the money they already get."

IslandRed
08-25-2010, 11:40 PM
Actually, now that I've checked the Deadspin series, they have info on six teams -- at least, so far as they're saying.

blumj
08-25-2010, 11:43 PM
Two leaks in a week? Seems the MLBPA has friends in high (read: low) places. Trying to get out ahead of the labor table for the 2012 CBA, I see.

Looks like they have a bunch of them, Pirates, Marlins, Rays, Rangers, Mariners, and Angels?

http://deadspin.com/5620880/download-those-mlb-financial-statements-for-your-own-enjoyment

Brutus
08-25-2010, 11:50 PM
Looks like they have a bunch of them, Pirates, Marlins, Rays, Rangers, Mariners, and Angels?

http://deadspin.com/5620880/download-those-mlb-financial-statements-for-your-own-enjoyment

Well, if these are the real deal, it seems this is definitely the work of someone posturing for the next labor negotiation, which if memory serves me, is set to begin this November.

KronoRed
08-25-2010, 11:50 PM
That, or a big-market team making an opening argument against increasing revenue sharing: "See? They're not even spending the money they already get."

That was my first train of thought, lowering or abolishing revenue sharing will help both the big money players, the only ones the union gives a crap about and the big money owners.

kpresidente
08-26-2010, 12:18 AM
Wait, don't the cities generate new revenues from the new stadiums? Isn't that the whole point, from the city's perspective?

Why didn't the author state how much Miami/Dade expects to net from the deal? If they're in the black, who the hell cares what the Marlins did or didn't do? The taxpayers are profiting.

If they're in the red, then point blank they never should have built the stadium. Again, doesn't matter what the Marlins claimed about their revenues.

So what's the bottom line?

oregonred
08-26-2010, 12:25 AM
Not to defend Loria or the Marlins, but they are contributing $154M (6th highest in baseball) to the stadium project.

They needed to be strongly cash flow positive in the 2007-2009 negotiating period to get any banks/creditors to finance the deal, especially given the unproven long term viability of MLB in South Florida. The terms Miami-Dade agreed to were bad, but what else would you expect from one of the most corrupt and poorly managed counties in the nation.

That was the jist I got from the Marlins flagship station on the way home tonight.

This stadium won't work in it location in Dtown Miami as it splits the market into Miami-Dade and the very southern part of Broward. In effect, the Marlins will soon become the only non-English speaking franchise at least from a gate revenue standpoint.

IslandRed
08-26-2010, 11:17 AM
This stadium won't work in it location in Dtown Miami as it splits the market into Miami-Dade and the very southern part of Broward. In effect, the Marlins will soon become the only non-English speaking franchise at least from a gate revenue standpoint.

They already have the in-between stadium location and it doesn't work. While theoretically more accessible to both Dade and Broward, the county-line location just makes it a pain in the rear for practically everyone to get to a ballgame, South Florida traffic being what it is. For an everyday sport like baseball, giving themselves maximum accessibility to the largest market is a smarter play in my opinion than worrying about the largely-mythical ability to draw from all over South Florida on a weeknight.

WebScorpion
08-26-2010, 11:34 AM
I was reading something the other day about revenue sharing and they proposed some convoluted set of rules involving the size of the market and the salary of the team, etc. It was just so overly complicated, it seemed ridiculous to me...like thet were trying to emulate our government. So here is Scorp's simple efficient revenue sharing plan:

All broadcast rights are the sole property of Major League Baseball. Revenues from the sale of any broadcast are to be divided up evenly between the 30 teams. :thumbup:

Sea Ray
08-26-2010, 11:37 AM
I was reading something the other day about revenue sharing and they proposed some convoluted set of rules involving the size of the market and the salary of the team, etc. It was just so overly complicated, it seemed ridiculous to me...like thet were trying to emulate our government. So here is Scorp's simple efficient revenue sharing plan:

All broadcast rights are the sole property of Major League Baseball. Revenues from the sale of any broadcast are to be divided up evenly between the 30 teams. :thumbup:

Great idea but the horse is out of the barn on that. Baseball teams now own networks. They can't put the genie back in the bottle on that one. Pete Rozelle was able to convince the owners to do this once upon a time and thank the good Lord he did.

That's why baseball's solutions are so complicated

oneupper
08-26-2010, 11:50 AM
Great idea but the horse is out of the barn on that. Baseball teams now own networks. They can't put the genie back in the bottle on that one. Pete Rozelle was able to convince the owners to do this once upon a time and thank the good Lord he did.

That's why baseball's solutions are so complicated

True. However, looking forward, is broadcast/cable TV going to the medium of transmission and reception for the future? How are the digital rights owned/distributed?

That could be the way it all evens out or on the contrary, become even more skewed to the large market teams.

I'm asking because I have no clue and still remember when the radio was all we had. :)

RedsManRick
08-26-2010, 11:51 AM
All broadcast rights are the sole property of Major League Baseball. Revenues from the sale of any broadcast are to be divided up evenly between the 30 teams. :thumbup:

I'm sure there are reasons why people might not like this, but this is the plan I'd support.

Roy Tucker
08-26-2010, 12:08 PM
some numbers...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html

Interestingly, the Marlins had the lowest revenue but the highest operating profit.

REDREAD
08-26-2010, 12:32 PM
Interestingly, the Marlins had the lowest revenue but the highest operating profit.

John Allen would be proud.

Roy Tucker
08-26-2010, 12:44 PM
The problem is, you win about the same amount of games with a $40M payroll as you do with a $75M payroll. So why not put that $35M in your pocket? From a businessman's perspective, I can't blame the owners.

Chip R
08-26-2010, 12:49 PM
The problem is, you win about the same amount of games with a $40M payroll as you do with a $75M payroll. So why not put that $35M in your pocket? From a businessman's perspective, I can't blame the owners.

Well, the problem is that teams are crying poverty, claiming to lose money and accepting money from other teams who have much higher revenues that may have nothing to do with those teams. Let's face it, the Yankees aren't getting all that TV money because the Marlins are in existance. Then those teams will ask the city/county/state for money to build a new stadium putting the taxpayers on the hook when they have enough money from operating revenues to finance it themselves. I think the goal is to win and making a profit is secondary.

REDREAD
08-26-2010, 12:55 PM
The problem is, you win about the same amount of games with a $40M payroll as you do with a $75M payroll. So why not put that $35M in your pocket? From a businessman's perspective, I can't blame the owners.

I am not sure you are phrasing that correctly.
A team with a 40 million dollar payroll will have greater net profit under the current system, but not win the same amount of games.

Even an incompetent GM can have more wins with a 75 million dollar payroll.

Roy Tucker
08-26-2010, 12:56 PM
Well, the problem is that teams are crying poverty, claiming to lose money and accepting money from other teams who have much higher revenues that may have nothing to do with those teams. Let's face it, the Yankees aren't getting all that TV money because the Marlins are in existance. Then those teams will ask the city/county/state for money to build a new stadium putting the taxpayers on the hook when they have enough money from operating revenues to finance it themselves. I think the goal is to win and making a profit is secondary.

Some teams are either badly-managed or in a tough market and I can understand revenue sharing there to bridge them into better times.

But to pull off what the Marlins owners are doing is crap. For teams to plead poverty and extract hard-earned taxpayers dollars by not-completely-honest means is garbage.

Roy Tucker
08-26-2010, 01:02 PM
I am not sure you are phrasing that correctly.
A team with a 40 million dollar payroll will have greater net profit under the current system, but not win the same amount of games.

Even an incompetent GM can have more wins with a 75 million dollar payroll.

I was just going from a Billy Beane quote from a Gammons column some months back...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100118&content_id=7934432&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb



"The way the system is right now, there really is no difference between a $75 million and $40 million payroll," said Oakland GM Billy Beane. "I think a lot of small-market clubs look at that and ask, 'Why pay $75 million when $40 million will buy me as many wins?' "

bucksfan2
08-26-2010, 01:34 PM
Well, the problem is that teams are crying poverty, claiming to lose money and accepting money from other teams who have much higher revenues that may have nothing to do with those teams. Let's face it, the Yankees aren't getting all that TV money because the Marlins are in existance. Then those teams will ask the city/county/state for money to build a new stadium putting the taxpayers on the hook when they have enough money from operating revenues to finance it themselves. I think the goal is to win and making a profit is secondary.


Theoretically the Yankees are getting all that TV money because there are 13 other teams in their league that are willing to play them. If you think about the YES network is able to charge advertisers money based upon a 162 game schedule. If you look at it the Yankees player a larger percentage of games against less competitive teams than they do competitive teams.

Chip R
08-26-2010, 01:54 PM
Theoretically the Yankees are getting all that TV money because there are 13 other teams in their league that are willing to play them. If you think about the YES network is able to charge advertisers money based upon a 162 game schedule. If you look at it the Yankees player a larger percentage of games against less competitive teams than they do competitive teams.

True but they aren't tuning in to see Billy Butler play. They would be just as happy watching them play a minor league team or have an intrasquad game.

They do play a larger percentage of their games against less competitive teams but they are a main reason those teams are less competitive. When you are in a division with BOS and NY, if you aren't close to their level, you're going to lose the majority of those games.

15fan
08-26-2010, 01:58 PM
John Allen would be proud.

As would any other capitalist.

For the record, the Marlins have won 2 WS in the last 13 years. That's 2 more than the big market Dodgers, Cubs and Mets have combined to win over the same time frame. Maybe they do actually know what they are doing in South Florida.

If you don't have the resources to compete every year, why put up the charade and flush more money if all it means is that you finish 4th instead of 5th or 3rd instead of 4th? Minimize player costs, finish at the bottom and secure high picks in the draft. Nothing wrong with that.

Rojo
08-26-2010, 03:21 PM
Theoretically the Yankees are getting all that TV money because there are 13 other teams in their league that are willing to play them. If you think about the YES network is able to charge advertisers money based upon a 162 game schedule. If you look at it the Yankees player a larger percentage of games against less competitive teams than they do competitive teams.

Bill James had a suggestion that a percentage of local media money be divided with visiting teams, just like gate money is.

Rojo
08-26-2010, 03:26 PM
Wait, don't the cities generate new revenues from the new stadiums? Isn't that the whole point, from the city's perspective?

There's some studies that refute this conventional wisdom. People might just spend there money somewhere else.

My guess is that a city gets the best leverage by putting a ballpark in an area that needs to be redeveloped, particularly if that's a downtown area.

The A's were planning to move to suburban Fremont which I thought pretty stupid. Downtown Oakland could use some gentrification and ballpark would help a lot.

Sea Ray
08-26-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't really have a problem with the Marlins making $50 mill in two yrs. If it was KC or Pitt that'd be different. The Marlins are at least competitive. I don't begrudge a business making money. It's obvious owners priorities are different than ours. We're lucky here in Cincinnati that we have an owner who makes or made his living in other businesses so his priority is winning, not getting rich. He's already made his fortune

15fan
08-26-2010, 03:38 PM
Bill James had a suggestion that a percentage of local media money be divided with visiting teams, just like gate money is.

Joey Votto and Brandon Phillips don't want any part of any system that requires the Reds to give anything to the Cubs or Cards.

Neither do I.

Rojo
08-26-2010, 04:01 PM
Joey Votto and Brandon Phillips don't want any part of any system that requires the Reds to give anything to the Cubs or Cards.

Neither do I.

Too late.

IslandRed
08-26-2010, 04:32 PM
True. However, looking forward, is broadcast/cable TV going to the medium of transmission and reception for the future? How are the digital rights owned/distributed?

That could be the way it all evens out or on the contrary, become even more skewed to the large market teams.

I'm asking because I have no clue and still remember when the radio was all we had. :)

That's going to be the battleground of the future. MLB owns all online rights, not the individual clubs. There will come a day when more people get their TV from their Internet provider than their Internet from their TV provider, to the extent anyone will be able to make the distinction by then. MLB and the clubs are going to be in a major adversarial position at that point, and since MLB is ultimately the clubs themselves, that's going to be awfully interesting to watch play out.

Brutus
08-26-2010, 04:36 PM
That's going to be the battleground of the future. MLB owns all online rights, not the individual clubs. There will come a day when more people get their TV from their Internet provider than their Internet from their TV provider, to the extent anyone will be able to make the distinction by then. MLB and the clubs are going to be in a major adversarial position at that point, and since MLB is ultimately the clubs themselves, that's going to be awfully interesting to watch play out.

The Clubs have equal equity in MLB Advanced Properties. It won't be a major issue because the Clubs share in the ownership. It's actually a good long-term sign for baseball's overall health, as the disparity in revenue from club to club might actually go away once the transition is made from local broadcast revenue to online.

KronoRed
08-26-2010, 04:45 PM
Even owners who say "the losing stop now" are making a nice tidy profit and will take losses over losing money, you don't buy a baseball team to flush cash down the toilet.:D

The unfortunate thing from this is that MLB will likely force clubs to spend all their revenue sharing money on crappy players. Boo.

Chip R
08-26-2010, 04:47 PM
Jason Stark thinks the leaking of these documents could be a big problem in negotiating the next labor agreement.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings100826

Reds4Life
08-26-2010, 06:05 PM
The unfortunate thing from this is that MLB will likely force clubs to spend all their revenue sharing money on crappy players. Boo.

I think it should be a requirement that revenue sharing money be used on player payroll. The entire purpose of revenue sharing is to help "less fortunate" teams be competitive. If they are going to use that money to go buy another ocean front house or a couple more Rolls-Royce's, then forget it. At that point, it's nothing more than MLB welfare and I'd be ticked off to if I was running a big market club.

KronoRed
08-26-2010, 06:13 PM
I think it should be a requirement that revenue sharing money be used on player payroll. The entire purpose of revenue sharing is to help "less fortunate" teams be competitive. If they are going to use that money to go buy another ocean front house or a couple more Rolls-Royce's, then forget it. At that point, it's nothing more than MLB welfare and I'd be ticked off to if I was running a big market club.

What if there is nobody to sign? if that money can be put back into a farm system without the union or big market teams throwing a tantrum then that's a good idea, but I think making teams sign a bunch of Eric Milton's is a big waste of time.

Brutus
08-26-2010, 06:27 PM
I think it should be a requirement that revenue sharing money be used on player payroll. The entire purpose of revenue sharing is to help "less fortunate" teams be competitive. If they are going to use that money to go buy another ocean front house or a couple more Rolls-Royce's, then forget it. At that point, it's nothing more than MLB welfare and I'd be ticked off to if I was running a big market club.

That's a slippery slope, though. Spending money just to spend money can result in some adverse conditions. It's the law of unintended consequences.

For instance, if the Pirates had gone out in 2006 and signed Eric Milton, would they have gotten better? I think we saw the answer to that question.

The Pirates have shown they are reinvesting their revenues into scouting, development, draft budgets, etc. That's helping them become more competitive, even if the results may not show up immediately.

The Marlins seem to be a bit more of an egregious case. They've always invested money into their scouting and development, but they clearly are getting a much bigger piece of the pie and are working with extraordinarily low payrolls. Plus, they are a worse offender because they may have fooled some people with regards to getting their ballpark.

Still, I don't necessarily like the idea of saying they have to spend just to spend. But unfortunately I do agree these teams need better oversight, and some sort of salary floor in the way of a severe tax threshold, with stiff tax penalties at the top of the peak (the Yankees, Boston, etc.) would probably go a long way.

IslandRed
08-26-2010, 06:37 PM
The Clubs have equal equity in MLB Advanced Properties. It won't be a major issue because the Clubs share in the ownership. It's actually a good long-term sign for baseball's overall health, as the disparity in revenue from club to club might actually go away once the transition is made from local broadcast revenue to online.

It'll be a major issue as long as certain teams know that 1/30th of MLB online revenue (including all broadcasts) is a lot less than 100% of what their local contracts are. When or if the economics eventually change to where the transition can be made and the disparity evened out without a sizable block of teams taking a roundhouse right in the nose, then great. Until then, it's not happening without a fight.

Brutus
08-26-2010, 06:40 PM
It'll be a major issue as long as certain teams know that 1/30th of MLB online revenue (including all broadcasts) is a lot less than 100% of what their local contracts are. When or if the economics eventually change to where the transition can be made and the disparity evened out without a sizable block of teams taking a roundhouse right in the nose, then great. Until then, it's not happening without a fight.

But that's the thing: it's not 100% of their current local contracts. The revenue sharing takes a large percent of the local revenue, including the broadcasting, gate, etc. and redistributes it evenly. That's really no different than the MLB Advanced Properties, which just distributes it evenly. Most teams, given the economic disparity between the large market teams and everyone else, are not going to complain about an equal share.

IslandRed
08-26-2010, 07:21 PM
But that's the thing: it's not 100% of their current local contracts. The revenue sharing takes a large percent of the local revenue, including the broadcasting, gate, etc. and redistributes it evenly. That's really no different than the MLB Advanced Properties, which just distributes it evenly. Most teams, given the economic disparity between the large market teams and everyone else, are not going to complain about an equal share.

I'm saying it's the large market teams that are going to complain, and there are enough of them to start a war.

Now, I'm talking about the (distant) future day when changes in content delivery make it possible for MLB to have a leg to stand on in asserting itself as the domain holder of televised games. ALL televised games. In which case, the Yankees don't have local TV deals, they're taking 1/30th of the MLB deal. They get hammered in revenue sharing today, but not nearly to the extent they'd get hammered by giving up their TV advantage.

And then you have the owners that simultaneously bought the team and the regional sports network that carries the team. They're not going to play dead while the other clubs pull the net worth of their TV holdings out from under them.

It may well eventually happen anyway. I'm just saying it's not going to happen easily.

Brutus
08-26-2010, 07:35 PM
I'm saying it's the large market teams that are going to complain, and there are enough of them to start a war.

Now, I'm talking about the (distant) future day when changes in content delivery make it possible for MLB to have a leg to stand on in asserting itself as the domain holder of televised games. ALL televised games. In which case, the Yankees don't have local TV deals, they're taking 1/30th of the MLB deal. They get hammered in revenue sharing today, but not nearly to the extent they'd get hammered by giving up their TV advantage.

And then you have the owners that simultaneously bought the team and the regional sports network that carries the team. They're not going to play dead while the other clubs pull the net worth of their TV holdings out from under them.

It may well eventually happen anyway. I'm just saying it's not going to happen easily.

I think you're overstating the impact.

To begin with, it's not going to happen overnight. These guys are business savvy, so this will be something that they'll have the foresight to see coming ahead of time, and will be adjusted accordingly within the basic agreement. Though you didn't specifically say it, you're making it sound like all of the sudden they're all going to realize that MLB's entity has control of the television market.

Second, the reason these teams purchased control of some of their own media entities is to do exactly what MLBAP gives them: equity and control over advertising as well as discounted rights fees. A socialized online media distribution system with equal equity might not sit well with all teams, but you're still going to have diversity in earnings from attendance, advertising, concessions, etc. That will mean that teams are still not getting equal revenue. Perhaps what will happen is the distribution from the suddenly converged national media will be equal, but the revenue sharing from local revenue will be scrapped altogether.

To be honest, I think it will be a smooth transition. I think the revenue generated from online rights fees, once television becomes an online event, will be split evenly. Advertising revenue might be distributed on a CPM basis, thereby rewarding teams that are more heavily watched. Local revenues will stay intact, likely minus broadcasting, and may not necessitate a sharing model.

What you say could happen. It's not out of the question. However, I really don't think it will. And quite honestly, it's possibly the most viable solution for long term health and parity within the game.

IslandRed
08-26-2010, 07:56 PM
What you say could happen. It's not out of the question. However, I really don't think it will. And quite honestly, it's possibly the most viable solution for long term health and parity within the game.

You make good points, but you clearly have a higher opinion of baseball owners and their ability to work together for the common good than I do. :cool:

Brutus
08-26-2010, 08:10 PM
You make good points, but you clearly have a higher opinion of baseball owners and their ability to work together for the common good than I do. :cool:

LOL, well I'm not saying there won't be some squabbling. There most definitely won't be many unanimous votes. But I think the foundation is good for baseball, and most (though not all) owners will likely see that.

mth123
08-26-2010, 08:20 PM
Well, the problem is that teams are crying poverty, claiming to lose money and accepting money from other teams who have much higher revenues that may have nothing to do with those teams. Let's face it, the Yankees aren't getting all that TV money because the Marlins are in existance. Then those teams will ask the city/county/state for money to build a new stadium putting the taxpayers on the hook when they have enough money from operating revenues to finance it themselves. I think the goal is to win and making a profit is secondary.

I have to disagree with this basic premise. Baseball is a business and/or a profession. The goal for everyone involved is to make profits. Winning is a very important means to that end. Think of Winning like a Mission statement. In the case of GM say, the Mission may be to build quality cars, but the purpose of it all is to make money. Baseball is the same way. Winning may be the misson, but the purpose of that mission is profits.

Cash is king (still).

Reds4Life
08-26-2010, 08:25 PM
What if there is nobody to sign? if that money can be put back into a farm system without the union or big market teams throwing a tantrum then that's a good idea, but I think making teams sign a bunch of Eric Milton's is a big waste of time.

I would agree the money should be allowed to be used to sign draft picks, etc. But the owner just using it as a free check isn't acceptable, IMO. It wasn't the intended purpose of revenue sharing to start with, and shouldn't be tolerated by MLB.

But in reality, MLB isn't going to do anything about it.

oregonred
08-27-2010, 12:14 AM
They already have the in-between stadium location and it doesn't work. While theoretically more accessible to both Dade and Broward, the county-line location just makes it a pain in the rear for practically everyone to get to a ballgame, South Florida traffic being what it is. For an everyday sport like baseball, giving themselves maximum accessibility to the largest market is a smarter play in my opinion than worrying about the largely-mythical ability to draw from all over South Florida on a weeknight.


Not really, the current location right off the Turnpike is very accessible to the wealthier, full-time areas of Dade, Broward and Southern Palm Beach County. The problems are many with the current stadium, most of these are solved by the new stadium complex except it is much more inconvenient to access from the northern counties and the area around much of the old Orange Bowl is a war-zone.

- Summer day games are a miserable experience in Florida. I mean miserable. Controlled climate is a must for baseball to have a chance June-Sept.

- The current stadium, let's call it Joe Robbie since it changes every month is a football cavern and souless for baseball

- The current stadium is surrounding by nothing but a highway and parking lots. Nothing to do around the stadium area

- Fairly incovenient for the wealthier southern parts of Miami (Coral Gables and Pinecrest)

And the local area presents unique problems

- Odd geographic setup (landlocked by Everglades) makes traffic a nighmare and everybody is crunched into a 10mile wide 80 mile long rectangle

- No one in PBC and much of Broward cares about the Fish unless playing the Mets or Yankees

- Large local population groups from Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica, Europe and Colombia couldn't care less about baseball

- Seasonal population base and what is left are transplants from the NorthEast with little loyalty to South Florida sports teams

kpresidente
08-27-2010, 01:03 AM
Well, the problem is that teams are crying poverty, claiming to lose money and accepting money from other teams who have much higher revenues that may have nothing to do with those teams. Let's face it, the Yankees aren't getting all that TV money because the Marlins are in existance. Then those teams will ask the city/county/state for money to build a new stadium putting the taxpayers on the hook when they have enough money from operating revenues to finance it themselves.

You're missing the point. When a city pays for a baseball stadium, they're buying a product for the citizens of that city. That product has entertainment value, just like an individual who buys a big-screen TV is buying a product for it's entertainment value.

When you go buy a TV, do you care which company, Sony or LG or Zenith, has the highest or lowest profit margin? Of course not, you don't even think about it. All you care about is whether the entertainment value of the TV is worth the price. If it is, you buy it. If its not, you pass.

So why should a city like Miami (and by extension, it's taxpayers) give a hoot how much profit the Marlins are making? What they should have done is come up with a number they were willing to pay in order to buy the product, and make the Marlins chip in the rest. If the Marlins were unwilling or unable (it doesn't matter which) to do that, then great, let them find another city to play in.

It seems to me that everybody's all up-in-arms because the Marlins claimed they were "unable", when in fact they were merely "unwilling". But so what? The city never should have been concerned with that aspect anyway. That's not their problem.



I think the goal is to win and making a profit is secondary.

See, this is all wrong. If everybody took that stance, then the over time investment money will flow away from baseball and into something that shows better returns. Then you'll have less operating revenue all around, and all you'll end up with is a whole lot of crappy baseball. And the thing is, even more than winning, fans pay to see top-quality professional baseball. If all you cared about was being a fan of winning team, you can go be a front-runner at the local little league park. But who's going to pay to see little kids play bad baseball? I mean, it has it charms, but that's not what we're going for here.

REDREAD
08-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Nothing wrong with that.

Unless you want to actually have a fun team to watch.
The Marlins got the once in a generation miracle with Jack McKeon.
For every year like that, there's a 100 other years by teams like Pittsburg, etc perpetually trying to strike gold with a low payroll.

Their other WS was the one that they went out and spent a ton of money.

After the A's lost a lot of their roid aided players, they've pretty much become irrelevant too.

REDREAD
08-27-2010, 10:13 AM
The unfortunate thing from this is that MLB will likely force clubs to spend all their revenue sharing money on crappy players. Boo.

Who says they have to sign a Milton with that money?

I think that there should be a minimum payroll required to get revenue sharing. If you get 40 million in revenue sharing, maybe your minimum payroll should be 70 million, and if it isn't, you have to forfeit revenue sharing equal to the difference. . You spend only 68 million, you give back 2 million of revenue sharing.

The whole point of revenue sharing was to level the playing field. The Yanks had a legitimate complaint when John Allen was using revenue sharing to pay for the Reds' cost of the new stadium instead of buying players. Why should the Yankees pay for the Reds stadium (esp when Allen did not use the new stadium money to up payroll).

westofyou
08-27-2010, 10:27 AM
The Marlins got the once in a generation miracle with Jack McKeon.


Jim Leyland might dispute that.

gonelong
08-27-2010, 10:39 AM
That's going to be the battleground of the future.

Agreed.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=872156&postcount=5 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=872156&postcount=5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unassisted
While looking for a table like this, I saw some speculation that MLB's hidden agenda in centralizing its Internet streaming sales is to eventually share the revenue from that centralized operation. It could move away from broadcasting altogether, in favor of selling game audio and video directly to consumers.

I speculated, on Redszone, from day 1 that would (or at least should) be the plan, I hope it is. I was suprised at the "so what" reaction on Redszone.

GL

/Still suprised that few seem to care. This has the chance to radically re-shift the game.

westofyou
08-27-2010, 11:29 AM
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4665:leaked-tampa-bay-rays-docs-make-case-for-revenue-sharing-new-ballpark&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39



But, in looking at the financials of the Tampa Bay Rays show that while modest profits have taken place, without revenue-sharing (and the good fortune of making a run in the postseason in 2008), Tampa Bay would have shown a loss, not profit.

Slyder
08-27-2010, 01:33 PM
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4665:leaked-tampa-bay-rays-docs-make-case-for-revenue-sharing-new-ballpark&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

Baseball is almost strictly cash business, and being such you have plenty of accounting tricks at your disposal to show your numbers however you wish. Example: Enron

Its why baseball teams dont sale often, theyre cash cows all of them. And the additional revenues to local business is unmeasurable. I dont have exact numbers other than I what I see. And on an average night only 5% of all sales go onto a credit card.

Example West Virginia Power Park.

Other events: High School Playoffs.
12 teams of 15ish people each.
ave family 3-4 people
Hotel rooms for 80% of them
Food
Shopping
Gas
Renting the buses
Suveniors

Thats not including if anyone from the school comes down with the team.

The high school basketball tournament is here in Charleston and you cannot walk around the mall without seeing dozens of students who make that trip from all points in the state to watch the team (and get out of school).

Brutus
08-27-2010, 03:02 PM
Agreed.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=872156&postcount=5 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=872156&postcount=5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unassisted
While looking for a table like this, I saw some speculation that MLB's hidden agenda in centralizing its Internet streaming sales is to eventually share the revenue from that centralized operation. It could move away from broadcasting altogether, in favor of selling game audio and video directly to consumers.

I speculated, on Redszone, from day 1 that would (or at least should) be the plan, I hope it is. I was suprised at the "so what" reaction on Redszone.

GL

/Still suprised that few seem to care. This has the chance to radically re-shift the game.

It would absolutely shift the game. It would bring revenues to within a modest differential and give the game a chance at true competitive balance.

KronoRed
08-27-2010, 04:11 PM
That's probably at least 20 years away from being where most people watch their team and I'm betting before then the big boys will throw a temper tantrum about having it shared equally.

KronoRed
08-27-2010, 04:12 PM
Why should the Yankees pay for the Reds stadium (esp when Allen did not use the new stadium money to up payroll).

Why not? the yankees payed LESS money into revenue sharing, hence teams like the Reds got less cash, when they got their new stadium.

Brutus
08-27-2010, 04:25 PM
That's probably at least 20 years away from being where most people watch their team and I'm betting before then the big boys will throw a temper tantrum about having it shared equally.

I dunno. I've read things that indicate in the next 5-10 years you'll see a significant shift to A) a la carte programming, B) the diminishment of over the air programming and C) a transition to internet television, i.e. either stations putting their programming on their own site and chargning individually or cable operators becoming 'virtual' services with an internet log-in and passcode.

I think it's coming sooner than 20 years though. Just in the past 5 years, internet streaming has grown many times over.

KronoRed
08-27-2010, 04:58 PM
It'll depend on internet speeds, and in rural areas (like where I am :D ) they are still pretty darn bad.

Roy Tucker
08-27-2010, 05:09 PM
It'll depend on internet speeds, and in rural areas (like where I am :D ) they are still pretty darn bad.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1238611/2/istockphoto_1238611-rabbit-ears.jpg

westofyou
08-27-2010, 05:11 PM
It'll depend on internet speeds, and in rural areas (like where I am :D ) they are still pretty darn bad.

Yep, we user tested in southeren oregon and there are still a lot of dial up connections out there, not to mention slower high speed networks

Brutus
08-27-2010, 06:01 PM
Yep, we user tested in southeren oregon and there are still a lot of dial up connections out there, not to mention slower high speed networks

So I guess it's a good thing our government used billions from the stimulus bill to improve rural broadband.

Stimulus bill includes $7.2 billion for broadband (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10165726-38.html)

:D