Steff

GD it... 4/13, 14, and 15 ALL day games?? s***.. that's TAX time!!!

It wont let me copy the pdf pages and paste them.. anyone know how to do that? I'm just trying to right click, highlight, and copy and it's not working.

That's just it.. I don't see these ##'s on the info PM'd to me yesterday or their site..

Jim, upnorth.. thoughts?

I'm not sure... legal here said that technically since who I got it from was not required to sign a non-disclosure then no.. but at the same time, they also aren't someone who would need a copy of that information... Is it obvious that this is not the same info offered to the public..? If so then maybe it should be removed..?

If so, that makes sense. Thanks upnorth.

OK Jim.. I think I finally got it In looking at this P&L that came from, as I stated earlier in this thread, LASALLE BANK - not an attorney's office .. I assumed that this was Sox revenue, not ISA revenue. Since the $$'s from the bond paperwork and $$'s from the bank paperwork were so far off.. (and by millions, and millions to boot) It didn't even dawn on me that they were partly from the same source, just not a complete rollup. Crap.. probably shouldn't have posted that data.

Hu...?? $1,140,740 INCOME (revenue) for the Sox.. and $7,296,722 and $2,642,050 COST (expense) of the Sox.. and that's good..?? That's a $8,798,032 LOSS for the Sox on park operations alone...

Jim.. you're thinking that the revenues are expenses from the Sox and not the Sox revenues..? That the "team revenue sharing" line is what the Sox pay to the ISA..? This is why I think that the revenue is to the Sox.. in the '01 - '02 offseason is when the renovations to the LD were started. There is a $21 million $$ revenue for "renovation revenue", and another $765K in '03 (could those be the funds that were given the the Sox at the start of the year for the cosmetic AS Game graphics..?) And on the expense side.. things like park maintenance, team maintenance.. why would the ISA be paying those things (if the revenue is the ISA's then the expense has to be theirs as well)..? Perhaps the annual report simply does not have all the financial detail? Perhaps they only report to the ISA what they need to?

Well.. there it is Corg.. perhaps you, or maybe someone else...?... can shed some light on these financial numbers? Being a shareholder, I'm guessing this is something you have seen - at least I would think so, no?

LOL... you're a Grobber fan. Grobber has special knee pads just for his visits with Sammy... interesting coincidence.

And how the hell was he supposed to answer that question since he ADMITTED not talking to him for SIX f***ING YEARS?? Are you really this thick on this matter of just being an ass on purpose? Did you read the posts by TLAK, Jim, Brando, Dick, and Yas... or are you so wrapped up in YOUR assesment of the situation that you can't get Ozzie's dick out of your mouth long enough to at least TRY to comprehend that a new boss should keep their mouth shut UNTIL they at the very least get the opportunity to talk to their new empolyees...! :dips***

Good for him. He deserves it.

Actually the title of the email that accompanied these was.. "Why father's should NEVER babysit.."

Sox fan in training...?

He's not..

You can lead a horse to water....

Just playing off Michelle's breaking news about Koch last year. She's got the goods on closer trades

Ask Michelle...

Jim, the first line under "other expendatures" is where the $25 million comes from. It also is pretty clear that the Sox sure aren't making $$ hand over fist like some choose to believe.

Since I have no idea if myself or the site could get into trouble for this information being posted I have removed it.

OK Corg.. whatever. Shoot me your fax number and I'll send ya what I got and you tell me it's the same at the public documents (which I also have, and the two - in looking at them side to side - bear no similarities to eachother).

Unfortunately I don't have monthly detail... and to be honest most of this is speculation from what I know of P&L's, balance sheets, and income reporting practices. These appear to be actual payments. Payments would not alter from gross to net as "rent" is not a item influenced by tax. I agree with you on the monthly payments. What it looks like from the legal mumbo jumbo is that there is a accrued amount paid regardless. After the "quota" is reached an additional amount goes into effect. Again these are year end $$. No idea of the monthly expense.