southsider2k5

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) Or the idiot ballplayers who can't think before they f***. Bingo. How stupid do you have to be in this day and age to think you can get away with it? Then again, this is Shaq we are talking about...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) I vote for your salary while sitting on the corporate board of the company you're running, you vote for my salary on the corporate board of the company I'm running. Which of course is very close to something like $300,000,000 for your state...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 07:56 AM) Even in 2012, his first year of arb-eligibility, we're probably not going to be talking about seriously huge $ just yet. I think that would be his second of three.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) I think that pretty much sums up the corporate board pay structure these days. And what are they getting in exchange for it?

I think they are going to wait and see what happens both on the field, and what happens in Alexei's head.

CSN reporting that the Padres are making a run at Jermaine Dye.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 11:33 PM) The money does not leave the organization. One of my parents friends is a shareholder. The owners own equity in the team, the dont get cash from profit, they are not on payroll. The only way a shareholder or owner makes hard cash from their ownership is if they were to sell their stake in the organization. That is where the increased value of the team is important. Being worth 450 Million instead of 300 Mil makes your shares worth more when sold. The actualy money the team makes goes into the organization as a whole. Payroll, player development, spring training facilities, stadium upgrades, front office payroll/benefits, insurance, services, etc. All those things are paid for by the cash they take in. If there is any cash leftover at the end it is simply added to an area of need or held on to (assumably earning interest) until a need is found. Where do you think the money comes from for mid-season acquisitions or to pay for the supposed new bar/restaurant area outside Gate 5. Well there you go. Myth #1 (The Sox ownership group makes tons of cash) dead.

How many businesses are given cash in exchange for a vote?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:30 PM) Sorry, yes New Madrid. I actually looked up the wiki, and they believe that there was actually a strong quake about a month later, that was considered an aftershock.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:43 PM) FlaSoxxJim confirms an utter lack of desire to see the sequel when it comes out 15 years too late. Too late? I was thinking more like 100 years too soon...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) One of the Tennessee TV networks just floated an interesting name of a former UT assistant coach to replace Kiffin: Lovie Smith. Apparently they did contact him last year, very quietly, and he turned them down. It might be different now.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:41 PM) Sure they do - they're both bureaucratic as hell. But whenever you remove a motive for shareholder return and counter it with no accountability what so ever (OMG, the VOTERS, 90% of which have no clue and just want the government to give them what they want... OBAMAMAMA's GOT THAT STASH!!! LOLERZZZ!!!) other then deficit spending and a printing press in the basement of the White House and Capitol Hill, the motive to get things in line (shrink, whatever) just disappeared right out the window, and corruption becomes much more "behind the scenes" because people don't have a clue how it works. In a corporation, you become worthless if corruption is found. Not the government. That's been the point. Bingo.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:38 PM) Where would they get that info? Would they just assume the White Sox throw everything they make back into the team. I'm still trying to figure out how profitability means zero in business valuation. Again and it will be the last time, why would Forbes, if they are using the method you suggest, go on to say they are one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are not? Beleive what you want. JR said they have money to spend. That's really all I care about. Because they are one of the few teams that are showing a profit every year. It's not too complex. I have no idea where they get their info from.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:19 PM) There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill. Previous: San Francisco Giants Next: Atlanta Braves 1-Yr Value Chg. 2% Ann. Value Chg.2 12% Debt/Value3 9% Revenue4 $196 mil Operating Inc.5 $13.8 mil Player Expenses6 $126 mil Gate Receipts7 $71 mil Facility Information U.S. Cellular Field Owner: Illinois Sports Facilities Authority Year Opened: 1991 Capacity: 40,615 Cost To Build: $167 mil Concessionaire: Sportservice Average Ticket Price: $30 Sport: Portion of franchise's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams. Market: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size. Stadium: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium. Brand Management: Portion of franchise's value attributable to the management of its brand. Revenues and operating income are for 2008 season and are net of revenue sharing. NA: Not applicable. Team Logos Courtesy MLB. Rank Team Current Value 1-Yr Value Change Debt/Value Revenues Operating Income 1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt). 2Current team value compared with latest transaction price. 3Includes stadium debt. 4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. 5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 6Includes benefits and bonuses. 7Includes club seats. 8Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average. Photos AP I just noticed the edit you threw in there after the fact, and that still doesn't change anything. Retained earnings for 2007(and all prior years), would still be on the 2008 balance sheet...as retained earnings. You do understand that right? I haven't opened an accounting book since before half of this board was born, and I understand that much.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:19 PM) There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill. Forbes is full of s***. If KW says they break even, they break even. The evidence is pretty damned clear. They listed the things they excluded! If it was excluded, they would have said so, just like they did for interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Whey in the heck would they list four things, but not the rest of them? That is so completely counterintuative. Is it so hard to understand the Sox look profitable because many other owners are willing to lose money on a team every year? Anyway, I think it is pretty clear your basic assumptions are completely exclusionary. You haven't been able to prove otherwise, so now you are trying to nitpick methodology, dispite it still making at least one of the pillars of your faith null and void.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:01 PM) You have given no evidence. You just assume Forbes uses the White Sox profit from the previous year and restates it as revenue the next season. Why does Forbes call the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are your best example of proof they break even? From Forbes: Team Value1$450 mil The Chicago White Sox are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought them in 1981 for $20 mil. 2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio8 87 Valuation Breakdown The skinny During the past few years the Chicago White Sox have gone from being one of the most ineffective franchises in baseball to one of the most effective. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought the Sox in 1981 and is the only current owner to have won a title in two of the four major U.S. team sports (White Sox and the NBA's Bulls), made two crucial decisions that turned his franchise around: hiring Ozzie Guillen to be manager (a .534 winning percentage over five season and World Series title in 2005) prior to the 2004 season and renovating U.S. Cellular Field into a more fan-friendly ballpark (much cleaner and safer and seating with better sightlines). Attendance is up 25% during the past five seasons and the team is among the most profitable in baseball. If that's the best proof of your point they make no money......................................... Um, you are the one who is trying to tell me that retained earnings are excluded with no evidence to actually prove that. If retained earnings are included, like I have contended all along, that means your theory about the Sox earning ridiculous amounts of money, is wrong. If they Sox don't retain earnings and instead pay that money out to shareholders in the form of profits, that means that the Sox don't have any extra money to spend, again meaning you are wrong. Either way, you have backed yourself into a corner, and are wrong at some point.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) Again, what is your evidence they don't make money? Its the 3rd time I have asked? I have given you all kids of evidence. The Forbes numbers you have given are actually the best proof for my point. I have explained, in detail, how those numbers work, and you have yet to be able to actually refute that. Short of actually having their books, there isn't much more I can give you. I can't help it if you don't understand basic accounting for some reason. Though I suspect the sudden shift in debate tactics has more to do with knowing you can't prove both of your points, so you have given that up and tried to change the argument instead.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:28 PM) The New Madrid 1812 quake (just thinking of the one I hear about all the time for 1812), or Haiti in 1812? Sorry, yes New Madrid.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 07:16 PM) I'm not wrong at all. I don't know what they do with the profits but they don't spend them on the baseball team. Maybe they divvy them up, maybe they buy bonds or something else with them. But if every dime is supposedly going in the baseball operation, that money should be available to spend on players. If the money is around to pass out to partners or place in some account somewhere, it certainly could be made available to pay for players.Forbes has the White Sox making a collective $135 million in profit from the 1999 season through the 2008 season. They had one season where Forbes said they lost $4 million and one where Forbes said they made $1 million. According to them, the White Sox have made $87 million in profit, that's after raising payroll and paying all expenses from 2005-2008. The profit Forbes estimates doesn't include the supposed profit they held onto from the year prior. These profits are separate from each other. A $20 million profit one year, than raising the payroll $20 million but a $25 million profit the next year isn't a $5 million total profit, or a $25 million total profit. Its a $45 million total profit. The higher payroll is included in the figures. The franchise value has gone from $315 million right after they won the WS to $450 million estimated on opening day 2009. Doesn't sound like a break even business to me. Again, show one thing, just one, other than a White Sox employee insisting its true, that they truly only break even. So you know, but you don't know what they do with the money, that makes no sense. Either the money goes back into the team, or it leaves the organization never to be seen again, as you stated very clearly prior to this point that you know they never do any capital raises. If the money does leave in the form of profits, as you keep asserting how much money everyone is making off of the team, it is NOT available to the team the next season. You can not have it both ways. It is either reinvested, or it isn't. Also I want to see exactly where Forbes states that reinvested funds are not included in annual profits. I looked again at their statements for each line, and none of them says anything like that. The explanation for operating incomes is this... Nothing is stated about retained earnings. Finally as an accountant you have got to understand that the valuation of a business has zero to do with its profitability, right? Take Ford for example. They are valued at billions of dollars, and they are very clearly not making a dime. That is a complete non sequitor to the statements you are trying to assert here.

And Q LOVES to mix and match the forwards for game situations.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 04:08 PM) Rios has been a better CF the last few years than Jones. One of the best in the game to be honest.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 06:47 PM) All the evidence otherwise? The only evidence is KW spewing the $.50 thing. All evidence indicates JR and his partners do OK. JR's quote that he would never lose money to win games. Forbes calling the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball ,estimating their profits between 10-25 million per season the last 5 or 6 years. Even JR spokesman Hawk saying Bud Selig is great because everybody is making money. Match the quote about not being willing to lose money to win games with the quote in this article and it tells you he pulls a profit. They aren't up against the magical break even budget number they speak of. Show me one neutral source, like Forbes, who says the White Sox break even before you talk about all the evidence that supports that claim. The White Sox have nothing to gain letting the public know they make a lot of money. Its a business, that's what businesses try to do. I don't blame them for making money. I just don't like the crying about it all the time. Saying they break even placates everyone. Because logic says that one of your two assertions is completely wrong. If you believe that the Sox do not put their profits back into the team annually, that means the money goes back to the partners/shareholders as profit. If this is the case, that also means that there isn't any "extra" money around from year to year, because that money is gone out of the organization. If they do reinvest the profits and do have money available when they say they don't, then your assertion that they have made all of this money over the years, asserted by you to be all of the years single profit totals added up together, isn't really true because it would skew by the total of the money added back into the system. For example, starting with what I will call year one, say the Sox make $20 million, which seems to be pretty typical. If they don't pay out that money, and they do reinvest it into the team in the form of a cash infusion, it goes back on to the ledger as cash. If they make $25 million in year two, they actually only made $5 million in actual profit this year, because they still have the first $20 million in cash from year one, and so on down the line. So you tell me, which of your assertions is wrong?

I think they are more asserting the double standard in how these situations are handled, versus actually being offended.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 05:52 PM) That is awesome.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) I don't think I have ever heard that before. Did that happen with Northridge, for example? I guess we're so programmed in to the "first one" or the "big one" that we don't realize that the aftershocks are that numerous. I knew there always were some, but not to that extent. That's mind boggling, actually. In a morbid coincidence the History Channel was just running their story about the 1812 earthquake, and they believe there were actually aftershocks that were bigger than the original. They suffered through about six months of aftershocks, including ones estimated to be in the 6 magnitudes, long after the original event.