Originally posted by traderumor
[B]One thing I'm a little confused on is how the Reds end up with $15.8M in revenue sharing when the City Beat article agrees with the Reds' position that they likely would be paying out instead of taking in. I realize that attendance was lower than expected, but that should not result in a postive share to the tune of $16M.
The 2003 revenue sharing payment is based on results from previous years.
As a point of comparison, Pittsburgh got a $10MM revenue sharing check during its first year in PNC Park. The next year the team only got something over $1MM, which suggests the Reds could get $0-6MM in 2004.