southsider2k5

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.

They are saying there could be as many people dead as were killed in the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/...uake/index.html

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) I do. He played 17 games in the OF last year, and not a single inning in CF. It doesn't look good.

I am going with Thome. It all fits too well. Sox need a lefty powerbat, and want a guy who won't quit or screw up the clubhouse. They already know he is one of the greatest guys ever.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) Khabby out 12 weeks for back surgery: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/hock...tml?eref=sircrc Wow. How huge could that have been if we could have traded Huet and signed Khabi like we were trying to do?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) His statement was quite clear. He made a statement saying that there is more accountability in the private sector than the public sector, and as such you see less sweetheart deals. I found that surprising because I feel I've seen a whole lot of corrupt backroom deals come from the private sector regardless of this so-called accountability, so I questioned on it, and you'll note I have gotten zero specifics or examples or details as a response. I'm supposed to accept the platitude that the private sector works better at imposing accountability without evidence. When I ask for that evidence, it pisses people off, rather than eliciting an educated response. If you're not willing to back up your own statements, then you're going to have a rough time in here because that's how you effectively debate an issue. Jesus H Christ . Get off of your high horse for about two seconds and think about this logically. The biggest reason that the government is more involved in this than anyone, or anything, is completely obvious. Who is out there to give a corporation a sweetheart deal, and who is out there to give on to the government? The only organizations out there looking to give stuff to corporations are government entities. Who is looking to get stuff out of the government in exchange for those same sweetheart deals? EVERYONE. Hell one of your biggest b****es all of the time is the lobbying groups in America. Stop for a nano-second and tell me exactly why they are flowing billions of dollars into individual members of our governments pockets? To gain influence. You see it all of the time. Look no further than the precious health care bill. How many sweetheart deals were handed out in that to bribe governmental officials into voting for that bill? How many billions of dollars were in there? But the government doesn't have a problem with this right? THE WHOLE DAMNED SYSTEM IS BASED ON SWEETHEART DEALS. If you don't, you don't get what you want. Now explain to me how the corporate side is worse than primarily existing on a system of bribes? Heck even the bribing of corporations is done by officials so that these same people can continue to get re-elected by going in front of people and bragging about how they bribed companies to come to their areas. They are complicit on both ends of it. And as for the pissing me off part of that, the whole point is that the same stupid argument gets trite after a while. Questioning people's statements until you can push the conversation towards a liberal blog that says something you agree with isn't debate. I can read any of the left wing stuff if I wanted to "debate" like that. I'd actually like to see some indepentant thought and logic, hence the frustration and anger.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) I like the 2010 pitching staff, but to say this team has "better pitching all around" is a huge stretch. If they all pitch up to career averages, they still won't be as good as the 2005 team. That's just it, the 2005 team didn't pitch to their averages either. They pitched way better than them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) Balta, if you are reading this thread... I may need to work with the mission down there on a disaster readiness plan. I had previously been concerned mostly with hurricanes, and hadn't even realized that the area was seismically active. Do you know where I might find a seismic risk map for Haiti? Or a faulting map, something like that, that shows me what kind of danger the area might be in for quakes? Thanks. http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_rja6_w.html

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 07:09 AM) No, the company line would be there is no money available. JR and KW have some brainwashed they always spend every penny they ever get. Damon makes the White Sox a lot better. I think he would be perfect. The only problem I see is Boras which presents a couple of problems. He drags things out, like JR said, and the Sox win bidding wars about as often as the Cubs win the WS, if there even is one here, and Boras also reps Jones. The White Sox acquiring Damon probably cuts into Jones potential playing time. As opposed to those who despite all of the evidence otherwise, still swear that they don't?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) So, is your argument that we're going to be 100% out of the hole we've dug by the end of 2011 such that the continuing dollars won't be needed, that the projects that money is being spent on (mainly energy and construction at that point) is unimportant, or that we should have made the stimulus bigger and more focused on job growth in the first place? Like I said in the other thread, I quit. There is no point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) So there's more accountability for sweetheart deals in the corporate sector, but they happen with an equal frequency as the public sector? Ok, if you say so. Oh good god. Nevermind. I quit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) And it's also what you do to prevent 25% unemployment, which is why fiscal policy has come in. I can see how spending in a few years saves jobs now...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) In that case, I have absolutely no idea what this means. It means that there is more accountability for these things in the private sector, because if they don't work out, people lose their jobs. In the government they get re-elected because they are providing for their district.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Um, throwing around trillions of dollars is exactly what you'd do to prevent deflation. It is what you do to prevent the collapse of the banking industry, when they are going into that sector of economy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:29 AM) And if you don't understand why the Fed is artificially keeping interest rates down, well, actually, considering your side wants a balanced budget during a time when the actual interest rate should be like -7%, I'm really not that surprised. I never said I didn't understand it. My point is you can't say that rates are low and that is proof that there isn't inflation, when in fact the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars to make sure that isn't happening. It doesn't prove anything, except that they are obviously scared of something, and it isn't deflation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:31 AM) Read post 72. I think they happen all the time in both cases. You argued that they're uncommon in the business world and common in politics, I think they're common in both. I feel I see it all the time in the corporate world, from the types of deals/contracts that companies sign to the type of hiring decisions they make to these bonus payouts. Actually I never said that.