Marty34

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Fans who don't show up at the ballpark and support the team are advocating for franchise relocation. We're both right.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) Yea, please move my favorite team far away from me!! That's exactly what they are saying.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) And people who search for crap to rag about need to find a new hobby. Dick Allen, lets meet at a Sox game this year and bury the hatchet.

People who rag on the fans for their support are really advocating franchise relocation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 05:38 PM) You haven't explained how a group of owners could turn that equity into liquid cash. Do they all sell some portion of their stake to generate cash? If so, what if the new ownership group opposes that spending because they aren't as charitable as you want them to be? Does one owner do so and then give the cash to the team as a gift? Why? Do they take out a loan against the value of the team, effectively giving a financial institution a portion of the control over the team? (Because the bank, in that case, would be very unlikely to allow the team to operate at a revenue deficit for even a short time). You're on the right track.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 05:24 PM) Franchise value cash flow, you don't seem to get this. The Sox owners don't want to finance their losses by selling their stakes in the team. Worse case scenario they take on some debt. When the asset has gone up by 2900% it's a very small risk.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 05:08 PM) The gamble is if the Sox spend more, will they win more? Because winning brings in more revenue (tickets, food, etc). The risk is, spending doesn't equate more winning necessarily. Given the recent data on how a variety of teams with large payrolls and small payrolls have similar success pretty much debunks the theory that spending more means we will win (hello 2011 as well). The Sox need to invest wisely, meaning more behind the scenes investments (staff, scouting, development), that can pay off in higher dividends rather than the usually poor ROI seen from FAs, especially in an under supplied FA market. Just because the Sox payroll isn't going higher, doesn't mean they aren't spending more. There is still a risk with this strategy, but a lot less and a lot more sustainable. The thing is why not use use the enormous equity they have built up to bankroll a 4 year payroll of year 1 $130M, y2: $140M, y3: $150M, and $160M? Maybe they'll do something like that after this group rolls off and the farm starts producing, but like I wrote in an earlier post I don't think Chairman Reinsdorf would ever escalate salaries that way because of his past history.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) How many other teams could we say this about? Probably almost all of them. Are you mad that businessmen want some immediete return on their investment? I get it, we'd all love an owner that spends beyond the organization's means, but that is the exception not the rule. At the end of the day, the Sox are a business and are going to be run like one to some extent. If you don't like ownership's business model and corresponding product, then simply stop supporting it. I'm not mad at all. In my opinion, it shows that it's small risk/small reward outfit. The value of the asset has gone up 2900% If the Sox decided to take a $60-70M loss over some future three year period my guess is as a worse case scenario they'd make it up in franchise value. One of the reasons that isn't going to happen is because Chairman Reinsdorf has always been at the forefront of holding the line on player salaries.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) Therein lies the disconnect. If someone a little less biased and with a solid understanding of business can analyze your resources (Scott Boras' opinions aside) and determine that they are, in fact, making profit that could not possibly be re-entering the business, then I will concede your point. Forbes magazine is a reliable source.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:47 PM) You've shown nothing that says they don't put every "profit" back into the team. The only number you've stated that shows what they have for a profit is the 175 million. If that is the case a 100 mil team payroll is very reasonable, considering that means only 75 mil for running the rest of the organization. You're mixing up revenue and profit or rather operating income.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) Yeah, I don't even get Marty's point anymore. This is starting to sound like a baseless grudge against Reinsdorf. The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:22 PM) If they choose to put the money back in, then what are you b****ing about? The Sox have very little debt to no debt. I don't know what they would "put the money back in" for (where does it show?). My guess is they take it as a dividend.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:21 PM) It's only profit for the investors if it is not put back into the team. It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) You chose to ignore the most important thing in that the Sox investors don't take profits, they invest them, so they sit on the books. That means you can't add annual profits up, because none of them ever become realized. Profits are reinvested backl into the organization. The Sox didn't actually make $175 million over 10 years. Sox investors don't take profits? Where is that written.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) The 175 is operating income not profit. The franchise value and asset value has absolutely nothing to do with the liquid budget. You cannot spend an asset unless you sell it. If they sell the team they would realize this increased in asset value but then they couldn't spend it on what they don't own. Operating income is defined as: "The amount of profit realized from a business's operations after taking out operating expenses - such as cost of goods sold (COGS) or wages - and depreciation."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Also want to throw out there that if they averaged $17.5 million a year profit, on a team worth $600 million, that is a less than 3% rate of return. That's a dividend and not rate of return. The business went from being valued an an est. $233M in 2003 to an est. $600M in 2012 for an est. 157% rate of return.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) And there you go. Where did that $175M profit go? Asset is up 2900% AND you need $175M profit?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) According to baseball cube (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/teams/stats.asp?Y=2000&T=7) the sox payroll in 2000 was 31.1 million. With the 200% increase you were referring to the payroll should be 93.3 million. I think the Sox have out performed what you should expect from those calculations. Using Forbes numbers since 2003 Sox revenue is uo 101.8%, their payroll is up 102.9%, and their franchise value is up 157%. Moreover during this time the Sox have made $175M. When the value of the asset goes from $20M to $600M, more of that profit should be spent on payroll.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) How many teams are actually up 200% or anywhere close that number though? I'd be willing to guess that number is highly skewed by some major TV deals for a couple premier franchises. Chairman Reinsdorf ownership group bought the team for roughly $20M. A conservative estimate (the Padres sold for $800M) from Forbes shows the Sox are worth $600M. According to Forbes over the last 10 years the Sox operating income is roughly $175M. They could easily afford an extra $25M in payroll.

QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Pitchers & Catcher report in 40 days.... When do we start worrying that this is the team we're gonna have? I wasn't. I thought for sure Thornton or Floyd would be moved by now, but s***... Looking like they might be with the team in Arizona It depends on what your expectations are for this team. I think 77 wins is a reasonable expectation. I posted an article where Scott Boras gave a pretty good argument that team's should be at their historical high for payroll given that revenues are up 200% since 2000 and franchise values have skyrocketed. No reason to believe the Sox couldn't add $25M to their payroll with ease.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) lol, yeah, that's what I expected. I am still waiting for some proof on any of the following... -attendance drops from a gradual rebuild are less than a full rebuild -full rebuilds that were actually successful in a five year period -the team would have lost fewer fans in a full rebuild after the 2008 season than they did as history currently holds -Sox fans respond to "sustained success" even though after winning 2 division titles and a World Series within 4 years of each other, attendance fell almost 500,000 fans from 2006 to 2008, and 700,000 if you include 2009. -How far would attendance fall if the team were to sell off this winter To quote someone... "I doubt it." Fan bases get decimated by repeatedly missing the postseason. That's a true statement.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) We lost 500,000 in one year for a team that sold off when they were 3.5 games out of first on July 31. What do you think the attendance drop would look like for a team that won a division title and sold off Marlins style? Also, nice deflection. The numbers proved you wrong, which is why you never offered any proof, as usual. You get personal after you were called out on "proof" you were offered that was no worse than yours.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) So your argument is that you would have sold off everyone after winning the division title in 2008? Because for this argument to be even valid, you are choosing that for your starting point. If that was the case, we would have lost WAY more than 500,000 fans in five years. I would bet we'd be talking a million AT LEAST for selling off a team after a division winning season. I doubt it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) Even when you try to re-frame the argument for yourself, you make my point for me. Thanks. Instead bringing in a bunch of bad will and press while emptying the ballpark, the hit to the fanbase is much quieter, gradual, and returns much more quickly. The last time the Sox had a massive, public sell-off they lost 500,000 fans in one year. Even without winning a division since 2008, the franchise took five seasons to lose that many. It is also worth noting that despite winning a division in 2008, their attendance was down almost 200,000 people from 2007, which blows another hole in the "sustained success" (remember that was their 2nd playoff appearance in 4 seasons, including a World Series title, and 3 seasons of 89 or more wins). They didn't show up the year after that either, so argument is also DOA. The problem is the team lost 500,000 in attendance AND the they still have to rebuild.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) Here is the proof you are wrong. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml Note the difference in the drops between the White Flag years where they lost over 500,000 fans in one year's time, and 2011 and 2012 when we entered the current retooling phase and lost 35,000 fans, YOY. 2.5M the last time they made the playoffs. 1.96M last year.