Originally posted by Edskin
Thanks Boss Oh, and check your PM's!
Good article Ed.
I have agreements and disagreements with this position.
I can fully understand someone (such as us "average joe's) making the contention that it wouldn't hurt a billionaire like Lindner to lose several million investing in this team, if it could possibly bring a winner.
To be honest. If I was a billionaire, I'd probably have no problem doing it. But then I'm a baseball-addict (and Carl is not)
But my question is... is it simply "his" money to be able to do this?
Yes, he's the CEO; but does that give him the right to lose money on a yearly basis
(and that's what the trend would be), and then have to justify it to his LTD partners and shareholders of his various investments/company's? Would they stand for that?
I, and most of us, don't know what the situation is when it comes to his "readily available" or liquid assets.
Put yourself in the position of being one of those partners/investors.
Let's say you are an investor/shareholder in UDF, Chiquita, or one of Lindner's other holdings, and he's telling you each quarter/year that your dividends/profits will be alot smaller because he's taking that millions and putting it towards the Reds (and organization that you, as a shareholder, have no part with)?
And again I ask the question (which has been asked many times before; but no one seems to know the answer
)... How much is enough? Does it ever end? Or is Lindner and his partners suppose to be content with that situation year in and year out? Because looking at the economic environment in baseball, it's not a pleasant scenario.
Should we take the risk of say the D'backs owners, who have their team in a very precarious financial situation?
Some say they wish Lindner would sell the team to an owner who would pour millions into this franchise to bring the fans a winner. But teams like the Angels, A's, and Twins have shown that it's not simply about pouring money in, in order to be competitive and win; but having the right personnel, player development, etc.
Look at the payrolls of teams like LA, Boston, Baltimore, etc. When was their last WS? Organizations like the Angels, Twins, and A's embarass these guys IMHO.
And with the exception of owners like King George and the Red Sox, who else is following that philosophy of spend, spend, spend?
Some have held up Dolan as an example. Jacob sold the Indians at just the right time. Look what Dolan is now having to do. Economic losses within his personal investments/holdings, along with the fact that the revenue from the new stadium have finally reached a "saturation point", have forced him to cut payroll, loose key players, and begin to rebuild, after only owning the team a few short years.
My whole point is... regardless if Lindner sold this team. I don't think we'd see anyone come in here and just start pouring money into this franchise. Whether it's this team's geographic location, market size, or the limitations on generating large amounts of revenue... I just don't see that happening.
And if we start the 2003 season with a payroll near 60 Mil, then what is wrong with that? Most, at one point months ago, were saying they'd be ecstatic to see that kind of increase. Now it's not enough?