Wow even Parkins and Spiegal can see this as the pile of crap propaganda article that it is.  

3 hours ago, CeaseAndExist said:

Are people delusional enough to not see coronavirus has crushed revenues across all sports/entertainment industries? I don't see the controversy here, but people love to bash pro sports owners, then say nothing about the wealthy owners of corporations who are laying off millions of employees and crying for bailouts. 

MLB owners will take big losses this year, and with no fans likely in 2021, the losses will likely be higher if they play a full season. And I'm sure a lot of owners would love to sell, but the Mets bidding shows franchise values are already down 50%, and that will continue to go down. Sure people want to buy the Mets, because the Wilpons will sell even for pennies on the dollar.

 Nobody is saying feel bad for the owners, they'll be fine. But the economic reality of covid-19 and the US economy, which includes sports, can't be ignored. Sports aren't immune and there are zero other businesses in this country where owners would take tens of millions in losses just to pay millionaire employees more. MLB is a business and in a capitalist society businesses that don't make profits usually don't last very long.

And it's weird people feel bad for MLB players. These guys are on such a pedestal and are in the 1% already. Feel bad for minor leaguers, team employees, and the millions of Americans going through actual financial hardship

I spend most of my day bashing other wealthy owners and CEOs of corporations, as well as other officials that keep our society marching towards a dystopian capitalist hellscape. However, since this is a White Sox board, I constrain my criticisms here to the single wealthy owner of the White Sox, and occasionally other wealthy sports teams owners. You can say I'm wrong, but never say I'm inconsistent! 

And I would say it is weird to use MiLB as a reason to demonize MLB players when MLB owners are the ones refusing to pay MiLB players (or other MiLB staff/employees) a reasonable wage, and when its the MLB owners who have been suppressing MiLB unionization attempts for years, perhaps even decades at this point.

I can appreciate that JR is concerned about the 2021 season.  I am concerned too.  Loss of revenue is real and it's a real challenge for the business bottom line.  

I'm also concerned about paying my bills, and keeping my apartment, and my bank account, and my long term employment prospects after the decimation of my entire industry.  But only one of us will be gainfully employed today, tomorrow, and in the coming year before a vaccine is readily available.  So forgive me if I find the timing of these articles/interviews rather distasteful and unsavory while so many of us are trying to figure out our livelihoods in the now and the immediate future...

53 minutes ago, SouthWallace said:

I can appreciate that JR is concerned about the 2021 season.  I am concerned too.  Loss of revenue is real and it's a real challenge for the business bottom line.  

I'm also concerned about paying my bills, and keeping my apartment, and my bank account, and my long term employment prospects after the decimation of my entire industry.  But only one of us will be gainfully employed today, tomorrow, and in the coming year before a vaccine is readily available.  So forgive me if I find the timing of these articles/interviews rather distasteful and unsavory while so many of us are trying to figure out our livelihoods in the now and the immediate future...

Eh.  Everyone is affected.  It’s okay for the world to take stock of how it hurts different groups.  Nobody needs to win at getting hurt the most or be shamed for being hurt less.  It’s okay for people of baseball to point out that near-zero revenues will have adverse effects for the following seasons.  

The NFL owners want to hold back 35% of the players salary going into the season because they aren't sure if there will be fans in the stands.

This sounds somewhat familiar  hmmm.

18 hours ago, CeaseAndExist said:

No. The Royals were sold BEFORE the pandemic. The Mets bids are said to be 50% at best the franchise's pre-covid value.

The "spin" is coming from people like you who ignore that we are in another Great Depression-level economy. Baseball WAS lucrative. It isn't anymore, at least not in a pandemic, and the only people who want in do so because teams like the Mets are going for clearance prices.

Clearance prices, you mean like $19mm, the purchase price by Reinsdorf less than 30 years ago?

Let's say he sells the Sox for $1.8B. His annualized return is 17% and he's made a 9400% return. 

 

Also thanks for putting words in my mouth about what I think about the economy. You don't know me, and if you'd like to talk about the economy head over to the Financial discussion page in the Slam forum. You can read what I've said about the Fed, the economy, etc. My literal job is credit underwriting - I live in this stuff all day & believe we are still in like inning 3 in terms of the true reality to come from this situation. It's all propped up right now, the true fall out is still to come. That is unless it gets propped up again (it will). It's just kicking the can down the road which is really only possible because of our reserve currency status. 

18 hours ago, CeaseAndExist said:

No. The Royals were sold BEFORE the pandemic. The Mets bids are said to be 50% at best the franchise's pre-covid value.

The "spin" is coming from people like you who ignore that we are in another Great Depression-level economy. Baseball WAS lucrative. It isn't anymore, at least not in a pandemic, and the only people who want in do so because teams like the Mets are going for clearance prices.

Also you didn't read my post very well. In a nutshell I said jerry didn't say anything that bad, but regardless he should shut up because he should be smart enough to know how the article would be perceived. 

 

19 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Also you didn't read my post very well. In a nutshell I said jerry didn't say anything that bad, but regardless he should shut up because he should be smart enough to know how the article would be perceived. 

 

This is the problem with talking to reporters. Would it be better if he just answered no comment. People would rip him for not talking to the public then.

18 minutes ago, ptatc said:

This is the problem with talking to reporters. Would it be better if he just answered no comment. People would rip him for not talking to the public then.

yep agree with your point - no upside to talking to the media. they have a job to do and that is to get clicks. he's been in the game long enough to know this - and should be aware enough to not take the bait. a billionaire, even stating the facts, doesn't do him any good. As someone else said in this thread - we're worried about the next bill, having our kids educated safely, about our parents and the elderly, about our pensions, etc. Baseball is supposed to be a pause from that and when a guy who is going to make over a billion in profits someday (off the backs of all the regular people) says anything about his situation (regardless if it wasn't bad) it's never going to come off well. 

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

yep agree with your point - no upside to talking to the media. they have a job to do and that is to get clicks. he's been in the game long enough to know this - and should be aware enough to not take the bait. a billionaire, even stating the facts, doesn't do him any good. As someone else said in this thread - we're worried about the next bill, having our kids educated safely, about our parents and the elderly, about our pensions, etc. Baseball is supposed to be a pause from that and when a guy who is going to make over a billion in profits someday (off the backs of all the regular people) says anything about his situation (regardless if it wasn't bad) it's never going to come off well. 

Agreed that there is no upside to talking to the media. However, the problem is that people will get on him for not talking then so there really is no way to win in the current pandemic situation.

On 7/15/2020 at 5:41 PM, southsider2k5 said:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2020/7/15/21326211/white-sox-jerry-reinsdorf-financial-losses-2021-coronavirus-mlb

Well, who knows, right?  Maybe the honorable Chairman is just disappointed that something of the magnitude of a pandemic has overshadowed what would have been a magnificent celebration this year throughout Chicagoland of his 40th anniversary as owner of our Sox. 

With the cult-like following he's built with the fan base over the past four decades through his tireless dedication to the fan experience, there undoubtedly would have been ticker tape parades held down Michigan Avenue in his honor, a "Jerry Reinsdorf Appreciation Day" dedicated by the governor, Jerry Reinsdorf t-shirts and coffee mugs distributed throughout - it would have been a whole year of one exciting event after another to gratefully thank this man for all he has done for and brought to this franchise these past 40 years.  

Maybe Year 41 is when we can all get around to doing just that.  

5 minutes ago, Thad Bosley said:

Well, who knows, right?  Maybe the honorable Chairman is just disappointed that something of the magnitude of a pandemic has overshadowed what would have been a magnificent celebration this year throughout Chicagoland of his 40th anniversary as owner of our Sox. 

With the cult-like following he's built with the fan base over the past four decades through his tireless dedication to the fan experience, there undoubtedly would have been ticker tape parades held down Michigan Avenue in his honor, a "Jerry Reinsdorf Appreciation Day" dedicated by the governor, Jerry Reinsdorf t-shirts and coffee mugs distributed throughout - it would have been a whole year of one exciting event after another to gratefully thank this man for all he has done for and brought to this franchise these past 40 years.  

Maybe Year 41 is when we can all get around to doing just that.  

"40 years of anger" has a ring to it.

This is easier done with the Forbes numbers.

Last year's revenue at the gate estimated by Forbes was $46 million. That all goes away clearly.

Last year's player salaries $120 million. Cut that by 60% since they get 2/3 of a season and that's $70 million in savings. 

Obviously revenue down substantially from advertising and from people buying stuff at the ballpark, but costs down by a nearly comparable amount since they never hired the seasonal staff at the ballpark. The expenses on "everything other than the players" estimated by Forbes for this franchise were $99 million. Without having to open the ballpark to the public, let's just conservatively estimate that costs are down 50% - still leaves $49 million to pay all the rest of the staff.

TV Revenues down, but playoff revenue still expected.

So if the owner is claiming $100 million in losses, and payroll is down by $70 million, and opening the ballpark costs are down by $50 million, and last year their total costs were $220 million, the only way to square that equation is to have total revenue this season be $0.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/chicago-white-sox/#67492a476e87

 

Am I the only one that feels like at most $999,999,999 lost across two pro franchises isn't that much considering their traditional (expected) annual profit?

If the owners hadn't been so adamant on the players waiving the right to argue that the owners negotiated in bad faith, they could have gotten extra playoff money.

29 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This is easier done with the Forbes numbers.

Last year's revenue at the gate estimated by Forbes was $46 million. That all goes away clearly.

Last year's player salaries $120 million. Cut that by 60% since they get 2/3 of a season and that's $70 million in savings. 

Obviously revenue down substantially from advertising and from people buying stuff at the ballpark, but costs down by a nearly comparable amount since they never hired the seasonal staff at the ballpark. The expenses on "everything other than the players" estimated by Forbes for this franchise were $99 million. Without having to open the ballpark to the public, let's just conservatively estimate that costs are down 50% - still leaves $49 million to pay all the rest of the staff.

TV Revenues down, but playoff revenue still expected.

So if the owner is claiming $100 million in losses, and payroll is down by $70 million, and opening the ballpark costs are down by $50 million, and last year their total costs were $220 million, the only way to square that equation is to have total revenue this season be $0.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/chicago-white-sox/#67492a476e87

 

My guess?  This is one of those situations where it is the second set of books talking.  Most team groups have a ton of money they make outside of things that fall under the "baseball" operations.  Their local TV ownership, parking lots they own, etc.  He is probably getting to "9 figures" by including everything they aren't making, instead of just the baseball stuff that Forbes reports.

 

EDIT: And also remember that number wasn't supposed to reflect just the White Sox either, is was for the Sox and Bulls.

18 minutes ago, Quin said:

Am I the only one that feels like at most $999,999,999 lost across two pro franchises isn't that much considering their traditional (expected) annual profit?

If the owners hadn't been so adamant on the players waiving the right to argue that the owners negotiated in bad faith, they could have gotten extra playoff money.

You don’t think a billion loss would be a gigantic deal?  I’m assuming that’s a typo

I have an issue with the money being categorized as a "loss". It was expected revenue that he didn't earn, sure, but it's not as if MLB/NBA owners are guaranteed an annual profit. Everyone loves to bring up how risky investing in a sports team is; well, here's one of the rare examples of actual risk playing out. 

I read a great thread on the topic that I don't think was shared:

 

 

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

My guess?  This is one of those situations where it is the second set of books talking.  Most team groups have a ton of money they make outside of things that fall under the "baseball" operations.  Their local TV ownership, parking lots they own, etc.  He is probably getting to "9 figures" by including everything they aren't making, instead of just the baseball stuff that Forbes reports.

 

EDIT: And also remember that number wasn't supposed to reflect just the White Sox either, is was for the Sox and Bulls.

Given that they're not paying much in taxes on the parking lots, that's not an expense though right? A loss of revenue isn't a loss of money if there's no expense associated with it? Yes they have less revenue to the TV network they own, but if they're not running in the red on the team, that's just "Less profit", not "loss of money", you need to be spending money on something to actually be in the red.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Given that they're not paying much in taxes on the parking lots, that's not an expense though right? A loss of revenue isn't a loss of money if there's no expense associated with it? Yes they have less revenue to the TV network they own, but if they're not running in the red on the team, that's just "Less profit", not "loss of money", you need to be spending money on something to actually be in the red.

It is a loss of revenue, which is probably what he is thinking of when he made that statement.

10 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I read a great thread on the topic that I don't think was shared:

 

 

It's almost impossible for me to believe anyone would believe a single word of that hot garbage.  Nightengale is a joke.  

The whole thing is an embarrassment. Reporting is not supposed to be giving someone a platform to just say what they want and publish it. Someone has to provide context, to factcheck. There are some who will do that. Bob Nightingale is not that person. He is not a reporter. He is a stenographer.

Boom!

Edited July 17, 20205 yr by Harold's Leg Lift

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is a loss of revenue, which is probably what he is thinking of when he made that statement.

Nope, he specifically says losses due to "Stadium expenses".

Quote

“The two teams and the stadium all have expenses,’’ Reinsdorf said. “None have income. That’s a bad business model. The Bulls played 75% of the season, so the losses aren’t bad. We had a lousy season [22-43], so we weren’t going to be in the playoffs. But the baseball losses are tremendous.’’

There's no way I can possibly get to $100 million in losses based on the Forbes numbers without basically 0 revenue whatsoever. $220 million in expenses for a full year last year, $80 million in MLB payroll reduced by the shortened season, leaves $140 million to pay all the other costs. They'd have to still be paying every beer vendor and everyone else who normally works there seasonally a full salary and all the police overtime and everything else to get losses that high, and that's still assuming 0 revenue, which will not be true if they offer an MLB.tv package because I'm gonna go ahead and buy it so revenue will be nonzero.

 

Operating for two years without any real revenue would be harmful for ownership; I'm not sure how anyone can argue that. The Sox have been one of the last teams to cry poor as I imagine their cashflow situation is better than most. Jerry has no debt, the team barely spent money years prior, and the expenses for this year weren't even that much. Jerry is still a leader of the shady owners trying to PR the players to death though. 

That said, stories like this, by Rosenthal, are ridiculous  

 

Maybe Dave Yoakum's not being retained because he didn't fit the direction of the team. Maybe advanced MLB scouts are being let go because you can't actually send a scout to another ball park this year.

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Operating for two years without any real revenue would be harmful for ownership; I'm not sure how anyone can argue that. The Sox have been one of the last teams to cry poor as I imagine their cashflow situation is better than most. Jerry has no debt, the team barely spent money years prior, and the expenses for this year weren't even that much. Jerry is still a leader of the shady owners trying to PR the players to death though. 

That said, stories like this, by Rosenthal, are ridiculous  

 

Maybe Dave Yoakum's not being retained because he didn't fit the direction of the team. Maybe advanced MLB scouts are being let go because you can't actually send a scout to another ball park this year.

The 3 of them combine to make less money than probably 1 minimum guy over the course of a full season.

I do agree there should be some worry for next year. Who knows what that will bring. I doubt anyone, even the most pessimistic would have thought we would be where we are at now three months ago. The CDC said it could be worse in the fall and winter.

And it could be their time with the team was coming to an end anyway, I will agree there, but the fact is, except for the names we know at least fairly well, most of these employees get paid hardly anything. Thinking they are saving money letting them go, puts blowing $13 million on Manny Machado's friends into perspective.

Edited July 17, 20205 yr by Dick Allen